M. A. Abido and Y. L. Abdel-Magid

‫‪M. A. Abido and Y. L.
Abdel-Magid‬‬
‫‪DYNAMIC STABILITY ENHANCEMENT OF EAST-CENTRAL‬‬

‫‪SYSTEM IN SAUDI ARABIA VIA PSS TUNING‬‬
‫* ‪M. A. Abido‬‬
‫‪Electrical Engineering Department‬‬
‫‪King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals‬‬
‫‪and Y. L. Abdel-Magid‬‬
‫‪Electrical Engineering Program‬‬
‫‪The Petroleum Institute‬‬
‫‪Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates‬‬
‫اﻟﺨﻼﺻــﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﺪم هﺬا اﻟﺒﺤﺚ دراﺳﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻔﻴﻀﺔ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻘﺮاراﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻲ ﻟﻨﻈﺎم اﻟﻘ ﻮى اﻟﻜﻬﺮﺑﻴ ﺔ اﻟ ﺬي ﻳ ﺮﺑﻂ اﻟﻘﻄ ﺎع‬
‫اﻟ ﺸﺮﻗﻲ و اﻟﻘﻄ ﺎع اﻷوﺳ ﻂ ﻣ ﻦ ﺷ ﺮآﺔ آﻬﺮﺑ ﺎء اﻟ ﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ و ﺗ ﺄﺛﻴﺮ ذﻟ ﻚ ﻋﻠ ﻰ زﻳ ﺎدة اﻟﻘ ﺪرة اﻟﻤﻨﻘﻮﻟ ﺔ ﺑ ﻴﻦ‬
‫اﻟﻘﻄﺎﻋﻴﻦ‪ ،‬وذﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﺿﺒﻂ ﻣﺜﺒﺘﺎت ﻧﻈﻢ اﻟﻘﻮى ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺿﺒﻂ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺜﺒﺘﺎت ﻓﻰ ﺻ ﻮرة‬
‫ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ أﻣﺜﻠﺔ‪ .‬وﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﻢ اﻗﺘﺮاح داﻟﺘﻲ هﺪف ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪان ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻢ اﻟﻨﻈﺎم اﻟﻤﻨﻔ ﺮدة وذﻟ ﻚ ﻟﺘﺤ ﺴﻴﻦ أداء اﻟﻨﻈ ﺎم‪ .‬وﻟﻘ ﺪ‬
‫ﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺧﻮارزﻣﻴﺎت اﻟﺠﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ اﻷﻣﺜﻞ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺜﺒﺘ ﺎت‪ .‬وﺗ ﻢ ﺗﻄﺒﻴ ﻖ اﻟﻤﺜﺒﺘ ﺎت اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣ ﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻨﻈﺎم ﺗﺤﺖ ﻇ ﺮوف اﻟﺘ ﺸﻐﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔ ﺔ ﻣ ﻊ ﺗﻌﺮﺿ ﻪ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﻳ ﺪ ﻣ ﻦ اﻟﻌ ﻮارض‪ .‬وأﺛﺒﺘ ﺖ ﻧﺘ ﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴ ﻞ ﻏﻴ ﺮ‬
‫اﻟﺨﻄﻲ وﺗﺤﻠﻴﻼت اﻟﻘﻴﻢ اﻟﻤﻨﻔﺮدة ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ اﻷﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻄﺎق واﺳﻊ ﻣﻦ ﻇﺮوف اﻟﺘﺸﻐﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪* Address for corespondence‬‬

‫‪P. O. Box 183‬‬
‫‪King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals‬‬
‫‪Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia‬‬
‫‪Paper Received 1 January 2005; Revised 7 February 2006; Accepted 17 May 2006.‬‬
‫‪April 2007‬‬ ‫‪The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 32, Number 1B‬‬ ‫‪85‬‬
M. A. Abido and Y. L. Abdel-Magid
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a practical case study on the dynamic stability of the Saudi
Electricity Company (SEC) power system and its effect on increasing the power
transfer limit of the interconnection between Eastern Operating Area (SEC–EOA)
and Central Operating Area (SEC–COA). The problem of optimal tuning of the
power system stabilizer parameters was converted into an optimization problem with
eigenvalue-based objective functions, which was then solved by genetic algorithms.
In this regard, two eigenvalue–based objective functions were considered and the
problem is solved using real-coded genetic algorithms (RCGA). The effectiveness of
the suggested technique to enhance the power system dynamic stability and to extend
the power transfer capability limit of the SEC-EOA and the SEC–EOA power system
was verified through a comprehensive eigenvalue analysis and time-domain nonlinear
simulation. The results also indicated that the proposed tuning schemes of the
existing stabilizers in the system have led to an improvement in the system damping
compared with the existing stabilizer settings. In addition to the generally improved
results realized using the suggested technique, an important issue has emerged which
is the availability of a systematic procedure for tuning the power system stabilizers.
In the future, when new plants are added to the system or new machines are equipped
with stabilizers, the procedure will prove invaluable.
Key words: Power system stabilizer, PSS, low frequency oscillations, dynamic
stability, genetic algorithms.
86 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 32, Number 1B. April 2007
DYNAMIC STABILITY ENHANCEMENT OF EAST-CENTRAL SYSTEM IN SAUDI

ARABIA VIA PSS TUNING
1. INTRODUCTION
Inadequate or negative damping of low frequency oscillations has, in many cases, imposed undesired limitations on
the operation of power systems. In some cases, these oscillations continue to grow, causing system separation if the
system is exposed to a severe disturbance. In the past two decades, the utilization of supplementary excitation control
signals for improving the dynamic stability of power systems has received much attention [1–24]. DeMello and
Concordia in 1969 [1] presented the concept of synchronous machine stability as affected by excitation control. They
established an understanding of the stabilizing requirements for static excitation systems. Nowadays, the conventional
lead–lag power system stabilizer (CPSS) is widely used by power system utilities [2,3]. Other types of PSS such as
proportional–integral power system stabilizer (PI PSS) and proportional–integral–derivative power system stabilizer
(PID PSS) have also been proposed [4,5]. In recent years, several approaches based on modern control theory have been
applied to PSS design problem. These include optimal control, adaptive control, variable structure control, and intelligent
control [6–11].
Despite the potential of modern control techniques with different structures, power system utilities still prefer a
conventional lead–lag power system stabilizer (CPSS) structure [12,13]. The reasons behind that choice might be the
decentralized nature and the ease of on-line tuning of CPSS and the lack of assurance of the stability related to adaptive
or variable structure techniques.
Kundur et al. [12] have presented a comprehensive analysis of the effects of the different CPSS parameters on the
overall dynamic performance of the power system. It is shown that the appropriate selection of CPSS parameters results
in satisfactory performance during system upsets. In addition, Gibbard [13] demonstrated that the CPSS provides
satisfactory damping performance over a wide range of system loading conditions. The robustness nature of the CPSS is
due to the fact that the torque-reference voltage transfer function remains more or less invariant over a wide range of
operating conditions.
Many different techniques have been reported in the literature pertaining to the optimum location and coordinated
design problems of CPSSs. Generally, most of these techniques are based on phase compensation and eigenvalue
assignment [14–24]. Different techniques for sequential design of PSSs are presented [14–17] to damp out one of the
electromechanical modes at a time. Generally, the dynamic interaction effects among various modes of the machines are
found to have a significant influence on the stabilizer settings. Therefore, considering the application of the stabilizer to
one machine at a time may not finally lead to an overall optimal choice of PSS parameters. Moreover, stabilizers
designed to damp one mode can produce adverse effects in other modes. In addition, the optimal sequence of design is a
very involved question. The sequential design of PSSs is avoided in [18–22] where various methods for simultaneous
tuning of PSSs in multimachine power systems are proposed. Unfortunately, the proposed techniques are iterative and
require a heavy computation burden due to the system reduction procedure. This gives rise to time-consuming computer
codes. In addition, the initialization step of these algorithms is crucial and affects the final dynamic response of the
controlled system. Hence, different designs assigning the same set of eigenvalues were simply obtained by using
different initializations. Therefore, a final selection criterion is required to avoid long runs of validation tests on the
nonlinear model. Several heuristic search and artificial intelligent techniques have been successfully proposed and
implemented to enhance power systems dynamic stability [23,24].
Generally speaking, PSSs can extend the power system stability limit by enhancing the system damping. The
encouraging success achieved in this study, will open the door to further scrutiny of ways and means to further
improving the dynamic stability of the SEC–EOA and SEC–EOA power systems.
2. THE SYSTEM CONSIDERED
2.1. Reduced SEC–EOA/SEC–EOA Power System
In this work, the single-line diagram and the pertinent data of the SEC–EOA and the tie-line to SEC–EOA power
system for the year 2003 were considered. It was observed that the size of the network is very large and that it comprises
several voltage levels (380, 230, 115, 69, and 34.5 kV). It was decided, for the purpose of dynamic stability studies, to
reduce the network by retaining only the 380 and the 230 kV levels. A reduction of the SEC–EOA network and the
relevant part of the SEC–EOA network including the tie-lines was made using the PSS/E software.
The overall network is schematically represented by the schematic diagram shown in Figure 1, which consists of the
SEC–EOA 230 kV DAMMAM AREA network, the SEC-EOA 230 kV SOUTH AREA network, the SEC-EOA 230 kV
NORTH AREA network, the 380 kV SEC–EOA network, and the SEC–EOA / SEC–EOA interconnection.
April 2007 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 32, Number 1B 87
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the reduced network
2.2. Features of the Reduced System

In the reduced network, the available generating units have been grouped into equivalent 17 generators, of which 13
generators are in the SEC–EOA network, and the remaining 4 generators are in the relevant SEC–EOA network. The
reduced network contains a total of 167 lines, 87 buses, 33 transformers, and 4 static VAR compensators. Load flow
analysis of the reduced network validated the approach taken in reducing the overall SEC–EOA / SEC–EOA system. The
main results of the load flow analysis are included in Table 1. The results obtained agree with the load flow results
performed on the overall system. It is worth mentioning that the maximum deviation observed in voltage magnitude
between the reduced and the overall systems for the buses retained is 0.0002 pu.
Table 1. Summary of Load Flow Study on Reduced System

Total MW Transfer from SEC-EOA to SEC–EOA 1230
Total MW Generation in SEC-EOA 10102
Total MW Load in SEC-EOA 8751
Total MVAR Generation in SEC-EOA 3161
Total MVAR Load in SEC-EOA 3626
Total MW Generation in SEC-COA 2197
Total MW Load in SEC-COA 3410
Total MVAR Generation in SEC-COA 292
Total MVAR Load in SEC-COA 1565
Total MW Generation 12299
Total MVAR Generation 3454
Total MW Load 12161
Total MVAR Load 5191
Total MW Loss 138
Total MVAR Loss -1737
2.3. Generator Model

In this work, the two-axis model of the machine is suitable for low frequency oscillation study [1–4]. The i-th
machine model is given as follows.
•
δ i = ω b (ω i − 1) (1)
•
ω i = (T mi − T ei − D i (ω i − 1)) / M i (2)
•
E q' i
= (E fdi − ( x di − x di' ) i di − E qi' ) / T doi
'
(3)
•
E d' i = ( − ( x qi − x qi' )i qi − E di' ) / T qoi
'
(4)
T ei = E di' i di + E qi' i qi − ( x qi' − x di' ) i di i qi (5)
,
where d and q refer to the direct and quadrature axes respectively; δ is the rotor angle; ω is rotor speed; Te is the electric
torque; M is the inertia constant; D is the damping coefficient; x d and x d' are d-axis reactance and d-axis transient
reactance of the generator respectively; x d and x d' are q-axis reactance and q-axis transient reactance of the generator
respectively; id and iq are the d-axis and q-axis components of the armature current respectively; E q' and E d' are the
internal voltages behind x q' and x d' respectively; Efd is the equivalent excitation voltage; T do' and T qo' are open-circuit
time constants of excitation circuit.
2.4. Exciters and Power System Stabilizers
Each generator in the overall SEC-EOA / SEC–EOA is equipped with a static exciter. Table 2 lists the models of the
existing exciters in the system. It is worth mentioning that a FORTRAN source code has been developed to simulate
these exciters.
Table 2. Excitation System Models
ESST4B IEEE Type ST4B Potential or Compounded Source-Controlled Rectifier Exciter
EXAC1 IEEE Type AC1 Excitation System
EXPIC1 Proportional / Integral Excitation System
EXST1 IEEE Type ST1 Excitation System
EXST2 IEEE Type ST2 Excitation System
The generator connected to bus 737 in the SEC–EOA network is equipped with a power-based power system
stabilizer of Type IEE2ST. The generators connected to busses 188 in the SEC–EOA network and 1305 and 1307 in the
relevant SEC–EOA network are equipped with Type PSS2A power system stabilizers. The PSS on bus 188 is power-
based stabilizer, while the PSSs on busses 1305 and 1307 are speed-based stabilizers. The power system stabilizer
models are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The models of exciters and power system stabilizers have been integrated with the
generator models to complete the dynamic stability model used in this study.
In this work, the problem of PSS design is formulated as an optimization problem using some eigenvalue-based
objective functions. A genetic algorithm is then employed to solve this problem. The PSS designed in this manner will
be optimal and the stability of the system guaranteed.
K1
1 + sT1
sTw3 1 + sT5 1 + sT7 1 + sT9

1 + sTw4 1 + sT6 1 + sT8 1 + sT10
K2
1 + sT2
Figure 2. PSS model: IEE2ST (on G1 at bus # 737)
N
1  1 + sT  1 + sT1 1 + sT3
sTw1 sTw2  8  K S1 1 + sT2
1 + sTw1 1 + sTw2 1 + sT6  (1 + sT9 ) M  1 + sT4
K S3
sTw3 sTw4 K S2
1 + sTw3 1 + sTw4 1 + sT7
Figure 3. PSS model: PSS2A (on G3, G9, and G10 at buses # 188, 1305, and 1307 respectively)
3. GENETIC ALGORITHMS
3.1. GA Overview
Genetic algorithms (GA) are search algorithms based on the mechanics of natural selection and survival-of-the-fittest
[25–26]. One of the most important features of the GA as a method of control system design is the fact that minimal
knowledge of the plant under investigation is required. Since the GA optimize a performance index based on
input/output relationships only, far less information than other design techniques is needed. Further, because the GA
search is directed towards increasing a specified performance, the net result is a controller which ultimately meets the
performance criteria. In addition, because derivative information is not needed in the execution of the algorithm, many
pitfalls that gradient search methods suffer can be overcome. Finally, because the GA do not need an explicit
mathematical relationship between the performance of the system and the search update, the GA offer a more general
optimization methodology than conventional analytical techniques.
GA are distinguished from other optimization techniques by the use of these principles to guide the search. Unlike
other optimization techniques, GA work with a population of individuals represented by bit strings and modify the
population with random search and competition. The advantages of GA over other traditional optimization techniques
can be summarized as follows.
• GA work on a coding of the parameters to be optimized, rather than the parameters themselves.
• GA search the problem space using a population of trials representing possible solutions to the problem, not a single
point, i.e., GA have implicit parallelism. This property ensures GA to be less susceptible to getting trapped on local
minima.
• GA use an objective function assessment to guide the search in the problem space.
• GA use probabilistic rules to make decisions.
The basic concepts of GA are given in the following section.
3.2. GA Implementation
Due to difficulties in binary representation when dealing with continuous search space, the real-coded genetic
algorithm (RCGA) [27] has been implemented in this study. A decision variable xi is represented by a real number within
its lower limit ai and upper limit bi, i.e. xi ∈ [ai,bi]. The RCGA crossover and mutation operators are described as follows.
3.2.1. Crossover
A blend crossover operator (BLX-α) has been employed in this study. This operator starts by choosing randomly a
number from the interval [ xi − α ( y i − xi ), y i + α ( y i − xi )] , where xi and yi are the ith parameter values of the parent
solutions and xi < yi. To ensure the balance between exploitation and exploration of the search space, α = 0.5 is selected.
This operator is depicted in Figure 4.
exploitation
ai xi yi bi
xi − α ( yi − xi ) yi + α ( yi − xi )
N N
exploration
Figure 4. Blend crossover operator (BLX-α)
3.2.2. Mutation
The non-uniform mutation operator has been employed in this study. In this operator, the new value x i' of the
parameter xi after mutation at generation t is given as:
 xi + ∆ (t , bi − xi ) if τ = 0 , (6)
xi' = 
 xi − ∆ (t , xi − ai ) if τ = 1
t β
(1− )
∆(t , y ) = y (1 − r g max
) , (7)
where τ is a binary random number, r is a random number r ∈ [0,1], gmax is the maximum number of generations, and β
'
is a positive constant chosen arbitrarily. In this study, β = 5 was selected. This operator gives a value xi ∈ [ai,bi] such
that the probability of returning a value close to xi increases as the algorithm advances. This makes uniform search in the
initial stages where t is small and very locally at the later stages.
4. PROBLEM FORMULATION
4.1. Power System Model
A power system can be modeled by a set of nonlinear differential equations as:
•
X = f ( X ,U ) , (8)
where X is the vector of the state variables and U is the vector of input variables.
In the design of PSSs, the linearized incremental models around an equilibrium point are usually employed.
Therefore, the state equation of a power system can be written as:
•
X = A X + BU (9)
where A is the open-loop system matrix and equals ∂f / ∂X while B is control matrix and equals ∂f / ∂U . Both A and B
are evaluated at a certain operating point. X is the state vector while U is the input vector.
4.2 PSS Optimized Parameters
In this study, there are 16 optimized parameters specified as follows. The power-based IEE2ST power system
stabilizer of generator connected to bus 737 in the SEC–EOA network has 5 optimized parameters. These parameters are
K1, T5, T6, T7, and T8 as shown in Figure 2. The power-based PSS2A power system stabilizer of generator connected to
bus 188 in the SEC-EOA network has 5 optimized parameters. These parameters are KS1, T1, T2, T3, and T4 as shown in
Figure 3. The speed-based PSS2A of generators connected to buses 1305 and 1307 in the relevant SEC–EOA network
has 3 optimized parameters for each since the existing stabilizers utilize only one lead-lag block. These parameters are
KS1, T1, and T2 as shown in Figure 3. This gives rise to 16 optimized parameters.
Table 3 gives the existing settings of the power system stabilizers. The tuned parameters are highlighted in the table.
Table 3. Existing PSS Parameters
PSS on Generator
Parameter SEC-EOA SEC-COA
737 188 1305 1307
PSS Type IEE2ST PSS2A PSS2A PSS2A
Input Signal # 1 Power Disabled Speed Speed
Input Signal # 2 Disabled Power Disabled Disabled
T1 0.0 0.150 0.15 0.15
T2 0.0 0.016 0.02 0.02
T3 1.5 0.150 0.0 0.0
T4 1.5 0.033 0.0 0.0
T5 0.20 -------- ------- -------
T6 0.05 0.01 0.0 0.0
T7 0.20 99.0 0.0 0.0
T8 0.05 0.15 0.5 0.5
K1 – 0.367 -------- -------- --------
KS1 -------- – 1.0 15.0 15.0
4.3. Objective Functions

To tune the parameters of the PSSs and enhance the system damping, two eigenvalue-based objective functions
defined below were considered.
J1 = ∑( ζ0 − ζi )2 (10)
ζ i ≤ζ 0
J2 = ∑
σ σ
(σ
≥
0 − σi )2 (11)
i 0
where σi and ζi are the real part and the damping ratio of the ith eigenvalue respectively. Also, σ0 and ζ0 are chosen
thresholds. It is aimed to improve the damping ratio and the settling time by minimizing J1 and J2 respectively. The value
of σ0 represents the desirable level of system damping. This level can be achieved by shifting the dominant eigenvalues
to the left of the s=σ0 line in the s-plane. This insures some degree of relative stability. Also, the value of ζ 0 represents
ζ = ζ 0 line in the
the desirable damping ratio which can be achieved by shifting the dominant eigenvalues to the left of
s-plane. This insures a good time-domain response in terms of overshoots and settling time. The conditions σ i ≥ σ0 and
ζ i ≤ ζ 0 are imposed to consider only the unstable or poorly damped modes which mainly belong to the
electromechanical ones. The problem constraints are the PSS parameter bounds. In general, the design problem can be
formulated as the following optimization problem.
Minimize J (12)
Subject to
Kimin ≤ Ki ≤ Kimax (13)
T1imin ≤ T1i ≤ T1imax (14)
It is worth mentioning that the PSS parameter indices in Equations (13)-(17) are adapted according to the PSS
structures shown in Figures. 2 and 3. The PSS parameter indices are also highlighted in Table 3.
4.4. Settings of GA to PSS Tuning Problem
The proposed approach employs GA to solve this optimization problem and search for optimal or near optimal set of
PSS tuned parameters. The computational flow of the solution methodology can be shown in Figure 5.
The following GA parameters were used in the search:
Population size = 200
Maximum number of GA generations = 500
Crossover probability = 0.9
Mutation probability = 0.01
Number of parameters = 16.
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
To tune the parameters of the power system stabilizers available on the equivalent SEC–EOA and SEC–EOA system,
the approach described in Section 4 was used. Because the objective functions suggested are based on eigenvalue
analysis, the equivalent SEC–EOA and SEC–EOA system was first linearized. The reduced system is a 17-machine 87-
bus, system. In the linearized system, each machine is represented by a fourth-order model. As indicated earlier, only
four machines are equipped with power system stabilizers. These are machines # 1, 3, 9, and 10 connected to busses 188,
737, 1305, and 1307. The existing situation is such that the PSSs installed on the SEC–EOA machines are power-based
(machines 1 and 3), while the PSSs installed on the SEC–EOA machines are speed-based (machines 9, and 10).
Initialization
Linearization and Eigenvalue

C l l i
Electromechanical Mode Identification
Objective Function Evaluation
GA Operators
Generation =
Generation + 1 Yes
Converged?
No Stop
Generation<Maximum Generation?
Yes No
Figure 5. Flow chart of the proposed design approach

5.1. Cases Considered
The effectiveness of the suggested technique to enhance the power system dynamic stability and to extend the power
transfer capability limit of the SEC–EOA and the SEC–CER power system was verified through a comprehensive
eigenvalue analysis and time-domain nonlinear simulation. The work in this study was divided in two different cases.
In the first case, the first objective function J1 was used to obtain the optimal value of the power system stabilizers’
parameters. Moreover, the existing situation concerning the stabilizers’ input was mimicked, i.e. the PSSs in the SEC–
EOA system were power-based, while those in SEC–EOA system were speed-based. The system response is examined
in nominal (100%) and heavy loading (120%) conditions.
In the second case, the second objective function J2 was used to obtain the optimal value of the power system
stabilizers’ parameters, keeping the stabilizers’ input as in the first part.
Due to space limitation, a portion of the simulation results carried out in the study is given in Table 4.
Table 4. List of Study Cases Considered
Case # Loading % Objective
1-1 100 J1
1-2 120
2-1 100 J2
2-2 120
In all cases, the system response has been examined under a fault at one tie line connecting bus 1220 in SEC–EOA to
the bus 9001 in SEC–EOA for 0.1 s. The fault is cleared by tripping the line.
5.2. Tuning of Existing PSSs with J1
In this part of the work, the objective function J1 is considered. The condition ζ i ≤ ζ 0 is imposed to consider
unstable or poorly damped modes. A value of ζ 0 = 0.1 was adopted to improve the damping ratio of all the
electromechanical modes.
The optimum values of the PSSs’ parameters [highlighted for clearness], when the objective function is J1, are given
in Table 5 for the four PSSs used.
The system response for Case 1-1 and Case 1-2 are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 respectively. The nonlinear time-
domain simulations have been carried out using the PSS/E software. For comparison purposes, the responses with
existing PSS settings are also included.
Table 5. PSS Parameters [with J1]
PSS on Generator
Parameter SEC–EOA SEC–COA
737 188 1305 1307
Input Power Power Speed Speed
T1 0.0 0.30200 0.90200 0.46370
T2 0.0 0.11970 0.01020 0.01040
T3 1.5 0.36180 0.0 0.0
T4 1.5 0.26070 0.0 0.0
T5 0.33980 -------- ------- -------
T6 0.20320 0.01 0.0 0.0
T7 0.38820 99.0 0.0 0.0
T8 0.18750 0.15 0.5 0.5
K1 – 0.7381 -------- -------- --------
KS1 -------- – 3.7230 33.214 14.185
12 5.00
4.50
10
4.00
P9 (pu)
P10 (pu)
8
3.50
Existing PSSs
Existing PSSs
Proposed PSSs 3.00
6 Proposed PSSs
2.50
4
1 3 5 7 9 2.00
0 2 4 6 8 10
1 3 5 7 9
Time (s) 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Electrical power response of Case 1-1. (a) G9 [bus 1305]; (b) G10 [bus 1307]
14 5.5
Existing PSSs Existing PSSs
Proposed PSSs Proposed PSSs

12
4.5
P10 (pu)
P9 (pu)
10
3.5
2.5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 3 5 7 9
0 2 4 6 8 10 Time (s)
Time (s)
(a) (b)
Figure 7. Electrical power response of Case 1-2. (a) G9 [bus 1305] (b) G10 [bus 1307]
It is clear that the results with the tuned PSSs show a noticeable improvement in the damping of the system
oscillations. Both the amplitude and the settling time of the oscillations have decreased.
It can be seen that the electrical power responses of the machines are greatly improved in terms of overshoots and
settling time. Generally speaking, the results have indicated that the improvement was more pronounced in the SEC–
EOA system.
5.3. Tuning of Existing PSSs with J2
In this part of the work, the objective function J2 is considered. The condition σ i ≥ σ 0 is imposed to consider
unstable or poorly damped modes. A value of σ 0 = 1.0 was adopted to improve the settling time of the
electromechanical modes.
The optimum values of the PSSs’ parameters [highlighted for clearness], when the objective function is J2, are given
in Table 6 for the four PSSs considered in this study.
Table 6. PSS Parameters [with J2]
PSS on Generator
Parameter SEC–EOA SEC–COA
737 188 1305 1307
Input Power Power Speed Speed
T1 0.0 0.48210 0.95270 0.99790
T2 0.0 0.24900 0.01100 0.01260
T3 1.5 0.28050 0.0 0.0
T4 1.5 0.27100 0.0 0.0
T5 0.15670 -------- ------- -------
T6 0.20120 0.01 0.0 0.0
T7 0.43200 99.0 0.0 0.0
T8 0.11480 0.15 0.5 0.5
K1 – 0.9028 -------- -------- --------
KS1 -------- – 5.2483 49.9185 45.590
To demonstrate the effectiveness of the suggested technique, the nonlinear model of the equivalent SEC–EOA and
SEC–EOA system was simulated using the PSS/E software. For comparison purposes, the responses with existing PSS
settings are also included. The system response for Case 2-1 and Case 2-2 are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9
respectively.
12 5.0
4.5
10
4.0
P10 (pu)
P9 (pu)
8 3.5
Existing PSSs Existing PSSs

3.0
Proposed PSSs Proposed PSSs
6
2.5
4 2.0
1 3 5 7 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
8 2.5
Existing PSSs
7 (a) Proposed PSSs 2.0
(b)
P12 (pu)
P11 (pu)
1.5
5 Existing PSSs
1.0
Proposed PSSs
4
3 0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 3 5 7 9
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) (d)
Figure 8. Electrical power response of Case 2-1.
(a) G9 [bus 1305]; (b) G10 [bus 1307]; (c) G11 [bus 1363]; (d) G12 [bus 1364]
13 5.5
Existing PSSs
Proposed PSSs
11 4.5
P10 (pu)
P9 (pu)
9 Existing PSSs 3.5

Proposed PSSs
7
1 3 5 7 9 2.5
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8
Time (s)
3.0
(a) 2.5 (b)

P11 (pu)
6
P12 (pu)
Existing PSSs 2.0
Proposed PSSs Existing PSSs

5
Proposed PSSs
1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.0
Time (s)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)
(c) (d)
Figure 9. Electrical power response of Case 2-2 .
(a) G9 [bus 1305]; (b) G10 [bus 1307]; (c) G11 [bus 1363]; (d) G12 [bus 1364]
It can be concluded that the results with the tuned PSSs exhibit better damping characteristics of the system
oscillations. The results also indicated that the improvement was more pronounced in the SEC–COA.
It was also observed that generally speaking the use of the objective function J2 resulted in slightly better
performance than the objective function J1 in terms of the settling time.
5. 4. Eigenvalue Analysis
For completeness, the eigenvalues λ and damping ratios ζ of the system electromechanical modes are listed in Table 8
in ascending order of the real part of the eigenvalues. It is clear that the damping characteristics are greatly improved
with the tuned stabilizers. It can be also concluded that the damping profile is significantly improved with the proposed
stabilizers.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this work, a practical case study of the dynamic stability of the SEC–EOA and SEC–EOA power system has been
analyzed. In particular, the existing power system stabilizers installed in both SEC–EOA and SEC–EOA systems were
investigated. For this purpose, the SEC–EOA and SEC–EOA power system was reduced to retain only the 380 and the
230 kV voltage levels. Load flow analysis of the reduced network validated the approach taken in reducing the overall
SEC–EOA / SEC–EOA system.
The effectiveness of the suggested technique in enhancing the power system dynamic stability and extend the power
transfer capability limit of the SEC-EOA and the SEC-CER power system was verified through a comprehensive
eigenvalue analysis and time-domain nonlinear simulation.
It was observed that in all cases considered, the eigenvalue analysis performed clearly demonstrated a noticeable
improvement in the dynamic stability when the relevant tuned power system stabilizers’ parameters were used.
Moreover, the nonlinear simulation results, with the PSSs tuned using the GA and under severe fault conditions, show a
noticeable improvement in the damping of the system oscillations. Both the amplitude and the settling time of the
oscillations have decreased. The results also indicated that the improvement was more pronounced in the SEC–EOA
system.
In addition to the generally improved results realized using the suggested technique, an important issue has emerged
which is the availability of a systematic procedure for tuning the power system stabilizers. In the future, when new plants
are added to the system or new machines are equipped with stabilizers, the procedure will prove invaluable.
The encouraging success achieved in this study, will open the door to further scrutiny of ways and means to further
improving the dynamic stability of the SEC–EOA and SEC–EOA power system. Efforts may be directed toward issues
like considering the installation of PSSs on more machines in either SEC–EOA, SEC–COA, or both, simultaneous and
coordinated used of various supplementary signals, installation of FACTS based stabilizers, and the robust tuning of
PSSs.
Table 8. Eigenvalues and Damping Ratios of Electromechanical Modes
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support of King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Saudi Arabia.
The second author also acknowledges the support of the Petroleum Institute, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
8. REFERENCES
[1] F. deMello and C. Concordia, “Concepts of Synchronous Machine Stability as Affected by Excitation Control,” IEEE
Trans. PAS, 88 (1969), pp. 316–329.
[2] E. Larsen and D. Swann, “Applying Power System Stabilizers,” IEEE Trans. PAS, 100(6) (1981), pp. 3017–3046.
[3] G. T. Tse and S. K. Tso, "Refinement of Conventional PSS Design in Multimachine System by Modal Analysis," IEEE
Trans. PWRS, 8(2) (1993), pp. 598–605.
[4] Y.Y. Hsu and C.Y. Hsu, “Design of a Proportional–Integral Power System Stabilizer,” IEEE Trans. PWRS, 1(2) (1986),
pp. 46–53.
[5] D. Xia and G. T. Heydt, “Self–Tuning Controller for Generator Excitation Control,” IEEE Trans. PAS, 102(1983), pp.
1877–1885.
[6] V. Samarasinghe and N. Pahalawaththa, "Damping of Multimodal Oscillations in Power Systems Using Variable
Structure Control Techniques," IEE Proc. Genet. Transm. Distrib., 144(3) (1997), pp. 323–331.
[7] Q. Lu and Y.Z. Sun, “Nonlinear Stabilizing Control of Multimachine Power Systems,” IEEE Trans. PWRS, 4(1) (1989),
pp. 236–241.
[8] A. Ghandra, O. P. Malik, and G.S. Hope, “A Self–Tuning Controller for the Control of Multimachine Power Systems,”
IEEE Trans. PWRS, 3(3) (1988), pp. 1065–1071.
[9] Y.Y. Hsu and C.R. Chen, “Tuning of Power System Stabilizers Using an Artificial Neural Network,” IEEE Trans. on
Energy Conversion, 6(4) (1991), pp. 612–619.
[10] M. A. Abido and Y. L. Abdel–Magid, “A Hybrid Neuro–Fuzzy Power System Stabilizer for Multimachine Power
Systems,” IEEE Trans. on PWRS, 13(4) (1998), pp. 1323–1230.
[11] M. A. Abido and Y. L. Abdel–Magid, “Hybridizing Rule–Based Power System Stabilizers with Genetic Algorithms,”
IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, 14(2) (1999), pp. 600–607.
[12] P. Kundur, M. Klein, G. J. Rogers, and M. S. Zywno, "Application of Power System Stabilizers for Enhancement of
Overall System Stability," IEEE Trans. PWRS, 4(2) (1989), pp. 614–626.
[13] M. J. Gibbard, "Robust Design of Fixed–Parameter Power System Stabilizers over a Wide Range of Operating
Conditions," IEEE Trans. PWRS, 6(2) (1991), pp. 794–800.
[14] R. J. Fleming, M. A. Mohan, and K. Parvatism, "Selection of Parameters of Stabilizers in Multimachine Power Systems,"
IEEE Trans. PAS, 100(5) (1981), pp. 2329–2333.
[15] S. Abe and A. Doi, "A New Power System Stabilizer Synthesis in Multimachine Power Systems," IEEE Trans. PAS,
102(12) (1983), pp. 3910–3918.
[16] H. B. Gooi, E. F. Hill, M. A. Mobarak, D. H. Throne, and T. H. Lee, "Coordinated Multimachine Stabilizer Settings
Without Eigenvalue Drift," IEEE Trans. PAS, 100(8) (1981), pp. 3879–3887.
[17] S. Lefebvre, “Tuning of Stabilizers in Multimachine Power Systems,” IEEE Trans. PAS, 102(2) (1983), pp. 290–299.
[18] C. M. Lim and S. Elangovan, “Design of Stabilizers in Multimachine Power Systems,” IEE Proc., 132(3) (1985), pp.
146–153.
[19] C. L. Chen and Y. Y. Hsu, "Coordinated Synthesis of Multimachine Power System Stabilizer using an Efficient
Decentralized Modal Control(DMC) Algorithm," IEEE Trans. PWRS, 2(3) (1987), pp. 543–551.
[20] Y. N. Yu and Q. Li, "Pole–Placement Power System Stabilizers Design of an Unstable Nine–Machine System," IEEE
Trans. PWRS, 5(2) (1990), pp. 353–358.
[21] E.Z. Zhou, O. P. Malik, and G.S. Hope, ”Design of Stabilizer for a Multimachine Power System Based on the Sensitivity
of PSS Effect,” IEEE Trans. on Energy Conversion, 7(3) (1992), pp. 606–613.
[22] Y.Y. Hsu and C. L. Chen, “Identification of Optimum Location for Stabilizer Applications Using Participation Factors,”
IEE Proc., C., 134(3) (1987), pp. 238–244.
[23] M. A. Abido, “A Novel Approach to Conventional Power System Stabilizer Design using Tabu Search,” International
Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 21(6) (1999), pp. 443–454.
[24] Y. L. Abdel–Magid, M. A. Abido, S. A. Al–Baiyat, and A. H. Mantawy, “Simultaneous Stabilization of Multimachine
Power Systems via Genetic Algorithms,” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, 14(4) (1999), pp. 1428–1439.
[25] J.H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. New York: Addison–Wesley, 1975.
[26] D. E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. New York: Addison–Wesley,
1989.
[27] F. Herrera, M. Lozano, and J. L. Verdegay, “Tackling Real–Coded Genetic Algorithms: Operators and Tools for
Behavioral Analysis,” Artificial Intelligence Review, 12(4) (1998), pp. 265–319.

M. A. Abido and Y. L. Abdel-Magid

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

M. A. Abido and Y. L. Abdel-Magid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

‫‪M. A. Abido and Y. L.

‫‪DYNAMIC STABILITY ENHANCEMENT OF EAST-CENTRAL‬‬

‫‪* Address for corespondence‬‬

DYNAMIC STABILITY ENHANCEMENT OF EAST-CENTRAL SYSTEM IN SAUDI

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the reduced network

2.2. Features of the Reduced System

Table 1. Summary of Load Flow Study on Reduced System

2.3. Generator Model

sTw3 1 + sT5 1 + sT7 1 + sT9

Figure 2. PSS model: IEE2ST (on G1 at bus # 737)

Figure 4. Blend crossover operator (BLX-α)

4.3. Objective Functions

Linearization and Eigenvalue

Electromechanical Mode Identification

Objective Function Evaluation

Figure 5. Flow chart of the proposed design approach

5.2. Tuning of Existing PSSs with J1

Existing PSSs Existing PSSs

Proposed PSSs Proposed PSSs

Existing PSSs Existing PSSs

9 Existing PSSs 3.5

(a) 2.5 (b)

Existing PSSs 2.0

Proposed PSSs Existing PSSs

You might also like