Accelerating-Power Based Power System Stabilizers

G.R. Bérubé, L.M. Hajagos, Members

Kestrel Power Engineering Ltd.
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Abstract: This paper provides an overview of the key features of design. This design is then described along with a detailed
the accelerating power-based power system stabilizer (PSS). This review of the role of the “ramp-tracking” mechanical filter and
design of PSS has been adopted by most major manufacturers and is the basis for the present structure that is in wide use by many
integrated as an option in many digital excitation systems. The
manufacturers.
structure has been the topic of numerous published papers
discussing the choice of input signals, parameter selection and
advantages over other conventional PSS structures. This paper II. OVERVIEW OF PSS STRUCTURES
reviews the key design principles and application issues.
Shaft speed, electrical power and terminal frequency are among
Keywords: Excitation Control, Power System Stability, Stabilizers, the commonly used input signals to the PSS. Alternative forms
Ramp-Tracking Filters. of PSS have been developed using these signals. This section
describes the practical considerations that have influenced the
I. INTRODUCTION development of each type of PSS as well as its advantages and
limitations.
Despite their relative simplicity, power system stabilizers may
be one of the most misunderstood and misused pieces of A. Speed-Based (Δω) Stabilizer
generator control equipment. The ability to control
synchronous machine angular stability through the excitation Stabilizers employing a direct measurement of shaft speed have
system was identified with the advent of high-speed exciters been used successfully on hydraulic units since the mid-1960s.
and continuously acting voltage regulators. By the mid-1960’s Reference [1] describes the techniques developed to derive a
several authors had reported successful experience with the stabilizing signal from measurement of shaft speed of a
addition of supplementary feedback to enhance damping of hydraulic unit.
rotor oscillations [1].
In early designs on vertical units, the stabilizer’s input signal
The function of a PSS is to add damping to the unit’s was obtained using a transducer consisting of a toothed-wheel
characteristic electromechanical oscillations. This is achieved and magnetic speed probe supplying a frequency-to-voltage
by modulating the generator excitation so as to develop converter. Among the important considerations in the design of
components of electrical torque in phase with rotor speed equipment for the measurement of speed deviation is the
deviations. The PSS thus contributes to the enhancement of minimization of noise caused by shaft run-out (lateral
small-signal stability of power systems. Many excellent movement) and other causes [1,6]. Conventional filters could
references are available with guidance on the selection of PSS not remove such low-frequency noise without affecting the
settings once the required speed signal is provided as an input to electromechanical components that were being measured. Run-
the PSS [2,3,4,5]. out compensation must be inherent to the method of measuring
the speed signal. In some early applications, this was achieved
Early PSS installations were based on a variety of methods to by summing the outputs from several pick-ups around the shaft,
derive an input signal that was proportional to the small speed a technique that was expensive and lacking in long-term
deviations characteristic of electromechanical oscillations reliability.
[1,6,7]. After years of experimentation the first practical
integral-of-accelerating-power based PSS units were placed in The original application of speed-based stabilizers to horizontal
service [8,9,10]. This design provided numerous advantages shaft units (e.g. multi-stage 1800 RPM and 3600 RPM turbo-
over earlier speed-based units and forms the basis for the PSS generators) required a careful consideration of the impact on
implementation that is used in most units installed in North torsional oscillations. The stabilizer, while damping the rotor
America. This design is now a requirement in many Reliability oscillations, could reduce the damping of the lower-frequency
Regions within North America and has been modelled in the torsional modes if adequate filtering measures were not taken.
IEEE standards as the PSS2A and PSS2B structures [11]. For In addition to careful pickup placement at a location along the
simplicity, the term PSS2A stabilizer will be used to refer to the shaft where low-frequency shaft torsionals were at a minimum,
integral-of-accelerating power based design in general electronic filters were also required in the early applications [7].
throughout this paper.
While stabilizers based on direct measurement of shaft speed
This paper briefly describes some of the earlier structures in have been used on many thermal units, this type of stabilizer
order to explain the advantages of the accelerating-power has several limitations. The primary disadvantage is the need to

1
use a torsional filter. In attenuating the torsional components of H = inertia constant
the stabilizing signal, the filter also introduces a phase lag at ΔPm = change in mechanical power input
lower frequencies. This has a destabilizing effect on the ΔPe = change in electric power output
"exciter mode", thus imposing a maximum limit on the
Δω = speed deviation
allowable stabilizer gain [3]. In many cases, this is too
restrictive and limits the overall effectiveness of the stabilizer in
If mechanical power variations are ignored, this equation
damping system oscillations. In addition, the stabilizer has to
implies that a signal proportional to shaft acceleration (i.e. one
be custom-designed for each type of generating unit depending
that leads speed changes by 90°) is available from a scaled
on its torsional characteristics. The integral-of-accelerating
measurement of electrical power. This principle was used as
power-based stabilizer, referred to as the Delta-P-Omega (ΔPω)
the basis for may early stabilizer designs. In combination with
stabilizer throughout this section, was developed to overcome
both high-pass and low-pass filtering, the stabilizing signal
these limitations.
derived in this manner could provide pure damping torque at
exactly one electromechanical frequency.
B. Frequency-Based (Δf) Stabilizer
This design suffers from two major disadvantages. First, it
Historically terminal frequency was used as the input signal for cannot be set to provide a pure damping contribution at more
PSS applications at many locations in North America. than one frequency and therefore for units affected by both local
Normally, the terminal frequency signal was used directly. In and inter-area modes a compromise is required. The second
some cases, terminal voltage and current inputs were combined limitation is that an un-wanted stabilizer output is produced
to generate a signal that approximates the machine’s rotor whenever mechanical power changes occur. This severely
speed, often referred to as “compensated” frequency. limits the gain and output limits that can be used with these
units. Even modest loading and unloading rates produce large
One of the advantages of the frequency signal is that it is more terminal voltage and reactive power variations unless stabilizer
sensitive to modes of oscillation between large areas than to gain is severely limited.
modes involving only individual units, including those between
units within a power plant. Thus it seems possible to obtain Many power-based stabilizers are still in operation although
greater damping contributions to these “interarea” modes of they are rapidly being replaced by units based on the integral-
oscillation than would be obtainable with the speed input signal of-accelerating power design.
[4].
D. Integral-of-Accelerating Power (ΔPω) Stabilizer
Frequency signals measured at the terminals of thermal units
contain torsional components. Hence, it is necessary to filter
The limitations inherent in the other stabilizer designs led to
torsional modes when used with steam turbine units. In this
the development of stabilizers that measure the accelerating
respect frequency-based stabilizers have the same limitations
power of the generator [11,8,9]. The earliest systems
as the speed-based units. Phase shifts in the ac voltage,
combined an electrical power measurement with a derived
resulting from changes in power system configuration,
mechanical power measurement to produce the required
produce large frequency transients that are then transferred to
quantity. On hydroelectric units this involved processing a
the generator’s field voltage and output quantities. In
gate position measurement through a simulator that
addition, the frequency signal often contains power system
represented turbine and water column dynamics [6]. For
noise caused by large industrial loads such as arc furnaces
thermal units a complex system that measured the
[12].
contribution of the various turbine sections was necessary
[10].
C. Power-Based (ΔP) Stabilizer
Due to the complexity of the design, and the need for
Due to the simplicity of measuring electrical power and its customization at each location, a new method of indirectly
relationship to shaft speed, it was considered to be a natural deriving the accelerating power was developed. The
candidate as an input signal to early stabilizers. The equation of operation of this design of stabilizer is described in references
motion for the rotor can be written as follows: [9,8]. The IEEE standard PSS2A model used to represent this
design is shown as Figure 1 [11].
∂ 1
Δω = ( ΔPm − ΔPe ) (1)
∂t 2H
where

2
 Ramp-Tracking Stabilizer Gain & Phase Lead Limits
High-Pass Filters Filter
Vstmax
C D E G H
s Tw1 s Tw2 1 + (1+s T8)
N
+ 1 + s T1 1 + s T3
I

M
Speed Ks1

M
1 + s Tw1 1 + s Tw2 1 + s T6 M Output
1 + s T2 1 + s T4
A +
(1+s T9)
-

Vstmin

Ks3

High-Pass Filters

s Tw3 s Tw4 Ks2

Power 1 + s Tw3 1 + s Tw4 1 + s T7
F
B
Fig 1. Accelerating Power PSS Model (PSS2A)

The principle of this stabilizer is illustrated by re-writing

equation (1) in terms of the integral of power. III Practical Application Issues
∫ ( ΔPm − ΔPe ) ∂t
1
Δω = (2) Many excellent papers have been written dealing with the
2H tuning of PSS [4,5]. These authors dealt with the selection of
phase compensation, gain and output limit settings and their
The integral of mechanical power is related to shaft speed effect on the overall performance of the PSS. This will not be
and electrical power as follows: repeated here. Instead, this section will focus on the derivation
of the accelerating-power signal and its use in deriving an
∫ ΔPm∂t = 2HΔω + ∫ ΔPe∂t (3) equivalent speed signal. Specifically, this section will describe
the impact of speed measurement issues and mechanical power
variations on the operation of units equipped with this style of
The ΔPω stabilizer makes use of the above relationship to
PSS and how this has influenced the design of PSS2A
simulate a signal proportional to the integral of mechanical
stabilizers.
power change by adding signals proportional to shaft-speed
change and integral of electrical power change. On horizontal-
With a large base of installed units, and long history of usage,
shaft units, this signal will contain torsional oscillations unless
experience has been acquired with many different vintages of
a filter is used. Because mechanical power changes are
hardware. Early designs suffered from failures due to
relatively slow, the derived integral of mechanical power signal
mechanical components such as speed pickups. Replacement of
can be conditioned with a low-pass filter to attenuate torsional
the measured speed signal with a derived frequency signal has
frequencies.
greatly improved reliability at many facilities. The early
analog-electronic designs also suffered from reliability
The overall transfer function for deriving the integral-of-
problems due to failures of components used to implement the
accelerating power signal from shaft speed and electrical power
adjustable settings (e.g. switches, potentiometers). Digital
measurements is given by:
designs have eliminated these components and improved
reliability and ease of use. Further gains in reliability are
ΔPa ΔP (s) ⎡ ΔPe (s) ⎤ achieved when the PSS is implemented as additional software
∫ ∂t → − e + G(s) + Δω (s)
2H 2Hs ⎢
⎣ 2Hs ⎥⎦ (4)
code in a complete digital excitation system, since this
eliminates any additional hardware.
where G(s) is the transfer function of the low-pass filter. A. Signal Mixing
The major advantage of a ΔPω stabilizer is that there is no need Referring to the block diagram of Figure 1, the two input
for a torsional filter in the main stabilizing path involving the signals to the ΔPω stabilizer are speed (A) and active power
ΔPe signal. This alleviates the exciter mode stability problem, (B). Although the ΔPω design has many advantages over
thereby permitting a higher stabilizer gain that results in better stabilizers that employ only one of these inputs it is sensitive to
damping of system oscillations. A conventional end-of-shaft the relationship between these two inputs. For optimum
speed measurement or compensated frequency signal can be performance it is critical that the two signal paths (A-C and B-
used with this design. F) are matched in terms of gain and filter time constants.

3
The power path employs two high-pass filter stages and an power ramp-rates in excess of 10%/s were achieved under gate
integration to derive the integral-of-electrical power change limit control.
signal, ΔPe:
2 The introduction of long high-pass filter time constants
ΔP ⎛ sT ⎞ 1
∫ 2He → ⎜⎝ 1 + sTW W ⎟⎠ s2H Pe produced excessive terminal voltage and reactive power
deviations. In response to this problem, researchers identified
(5)
the root cause of the variations and modified the designs
⎛ sTW3 ⎞ ⎛ K S2 ⎞
→⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ Pe accordingly.
⎝ 1 + sTW3 ⎠ ⎝ 1 + sT7 ⎠
When mechanical power is changed rapidly, electrical power
The second part of Equation 5 is based on the notation of follows quickly but there is a limited change in the rotor speed.
Figure 1 and the following settings: Although this depends on the strength of the system
interconnection, the speed changes will always be relatively
TW3 = T7 = TW small and are considered to be negligible in the following
TW4 = 0 (i.e. this block is bypassed) analysis.
KS2 = TW / (2H)
KS3 = 1 Referring to Figure 1, when electrical power (B) is ramped, the
integral-of-electrical power signal (F) will change with a rate
In order for the speed signal path to match the power path it and magnitude determined by the selected washout time
must employ two stages of high-pass filtering as well, and its constants and unit inertia. From this point forward, the signal
equivalent filter time constant must be kept as small as follows two paths to the output. The lower path is a direct
possible: connection to the derivation of the equivalent speed signal at
point G. The signal produced at point F also travels through the
TW1 = TW2 = TW mechanical power low-pass filter (E) before appearing at the
T6 ≈ 0 output. Ideally these signals would exactly cancel each other,
since the PSS was not intended to produce an output for this
With these settings the signal appearing at point D is condition. With long washouts and high ramp rates, this is not
proportional to changes in the integral-of-mechanical power, the case and a large error signal can propagate to the PSS
ΔPm. When re-combined with the ΔPe signal at point G, the output, thereby changing terminal voltage and reactive power
integral-of-accelerating power, ΔPa, is formed. This signal is on the unit. This problem forced the selection of low PSS gains
then treated as equivalent speed and the phase lead blocks that or output limits, severely limiting the effectiveness of the PSS.
follow are set to compensate in order to maximize the
contribution of the stabilizer to damping torque. The transfer function between the power input, PE, and the
integral-of-accelerating power signal, PA, (points B and G in
B. Mechanical Power Variations Figure 1) may be written as follows:

Although the original requirement for the PSS units was based PA (s) ⎛ sTW3 ⎞ K S2
on a need to provide damping for the local plant modes of =⎜ ⎟ ( G(s) − 1) (6)
PE (s) ⎝ 1 + sTW3 ⎠ 1 + sT7
oscillation, many new installations and retrofits have been
applied to improve damping of inter-area modes of oscillation
[5] as is common in western U.S. utilities. In order to be The original design of mechanical power low-pass filter
effective at damping these modes of oscillation, the high-pass consisted of a simple multi-pole filter of the form:
filters, parameters Tw1 to Tw4 in Figure 1, must be set to admit
frequencies as low as 0.1 Hz without significant attenuation or 1
G(s) = (7)
the addition of excessive phase lead. (1 + sT9 ) M
Early attempts at re-tuning PSS for these frequencies identified
some side effects related to mechanical power variations on the which is achieved in the model by setting the following values:
units. Tests on the original ΔPω design on thermal units
T8 = 0
included fast intercept valve closures that produced a step
change in power of approximately 5%, followed by a ramp of N=1
0.55%/s [7]. The maximum generator terminal voltage change
The filter order, M, and time constant, T9, can be selected to
produced by a PSS configured with short washout time
constants was below 2%, for the normal in-service gain. On provide adequate attenuation of the lowest torsional frequency
the first tests of this design on hydraulic units, mechanical for horizontal-shaft applications.

4
Researchers [13] discovered that they could reduce the
sensitivity to mechanical power variations by re-designing the The steady-state PA signal for each of these inputs can be
mechanical power low-pass filter to utilize a transfer function calculated using the final value theorem by evaluating the
of the form: following:

⎛ 2ξ ⎞
M
lim t →∞ p A (t) = lim s→0 (s * Input *(G(s) − 1)) (10)
⎜ 1+ s ⎟
ωo
G(s) = ⎜ 2 ⎟ (8) Appendix A provides details of the evaluation of equation (10)
⎜s 2ξ ⎟ for a conventional low-pass filter (eqn.7) and the ramp-tracking
⎜ ω2 + ω s+1 ⎟
⎝ o o ⎠ filter (eqn.9). The result for each type of input is summarized
in Table 1.
Further analysis and tests on actual hardware implementations
confirmed that the complex-pole implementation was not Table 1: Steady State Response to Power Variations
optimal and that the following transfer function could be used Input Steady-State Output
to reduce mechanical power effects on the PSS output. Low-Pass Ramp-Tracking
step input 0 0
N ramp input -B*M*T9 0
⎡ (1 + sT8 ) ⎤ parabolic input infinite -C*F(M,T9)
G(s) = ⎢ M⎥
(9)
⎣ (1 + sT9 ) ⎦ The key result in this table is that the ramp-tracking filter
produces a zero steady-state output for a ramp input and a
The filter of equation 9 is frequently identified as a “ramp- bounded output for a parabolic input. This is only true if the
tracking” filter based on its properties when the coefficients, T8, coefficients are selected to satisfy
T9, M and N are selected correctly.
T8 = M *T9 (11)
The criteria used to analyze the merits of different mechanical
power filter designs are the following:
The derivation of the results provided in Table 1, including the
o Attenuate high-frequency components in the input relationship of Eqn(11) is included as Appendix A.
signal.
o Allow low-frequency mechanical power changes to The most commonly used ramp-tracking filter coefficients are
pass through with negligible attenuation. N=1 and M=5 since this provides four net poles with the
o Minimize the PSS output deviation that occurs minimum number of numerator and denominator terms. To
when the mechanical power is changing rapidly. obtain 40 dB of attenuation at 7 Hz, the denominator time
constants are set to 0.1 s, resulting a numerator time constant of
Based on torsional frequencies as low as 7 Hz, the first two 0.5 s.
criteria dictated the selection of filters with four poles (M=4)
and time constants (T9) of 0.08 seconds. These filters were With this design, the filtered integral-of-mechanical power
used on numerous large horizontal units but did not meet the signal can track rapid rates-of-change in the measured electrical
third criteria, especially when applied to hydroelectric units power signal, greatly reducing the terminal voltage modulation
with their rapid ramp rates. produced by the PSS. Figure 2 displays the simulated output of
stabilizers equipped with a conventional and ramp-tracking
To understand the advantages of the “ramp-tracking” filter and low-pass filter to a power ramp on a hydraulic turbine. Clearly
the required selection of coefficients it is instructive to compute the ramp-tracking filter greatly reduces the PSS output
the accelerating power signal that is generated when deviation for this condition.
mechanical power changes rapidly. For this purpose, the
integral-of mechanical power changes are characterized as Different coefficients and time constants can be used to
combinations of the following time-domain inputs: improve the tracking of power ramps or to provide greater
attenuation of low-frequency torsional components. Increasing
o step, A*u(t) the denominator order or the denominator time constant is a
o ramp, B*t viable alternative to introducing notch filters at torsional
o parabola, C*t2 frequencies since it does not interfere with the selected phase
compensation of the resulting accelerating power signal. This
where t is time in units of seconds and A, B and C are the will increase the sensitivity of the stabilizer to power changes
magnitudes of the associated components in per unit. however this is normally acceptable on large horizontal shaft
units with their slow loading rates.

5
 Figure 2 Simulated Ramp Response Although there is a long history of speed measurement in
excitation control, it introduces several complications to the
1.2
application of the stabilizer. Since it requires the only moving
parts in the entire device, it is the least reliable element of the
1.0 design. Numerous stabilizers have been temporarily disabled
Active Power

0.8 or have failed during operation due to improper gapping of

(pu)

0.6 speed measurement probes or failure of physical or electrical

connections. On vertical shaft hydraulic units, there was the
0.4
significant additional complication of dealing with shaft runout.
0.2 On these units there can be a significant lateral movement of
0 the shaft that varies with load level. Regardless of the location
0 5 10 15 20 of the pickups, once-per-revolution noise appears at some level.
ramp-tracking On units with speed in the range of 100 rpm this is very
0.20 low-pass significant since the noise component may coincide with the
0.15 local mode electromechanical frequency of the unit. Early
PSS Output

speed based stabilizers coped with this problem through an

0.10
(pu)

ingenious mechanical arrangement that made use of up to 5

0.05 speed probes mounted equidistant around the circumference of
the shaft to eliminate the runout component [5]. Although this
0
worked and formed the basis for many successful stabilizer
-0.05 installations it was costly due to the need for customization at
0 5 10 15 20 each location. It was also relatively unreliable due to the
Time (seconds requirement to have all probes in operation for the cancellation
effect to function properly.
The performance of this filter may also be critical to the
behaviour of the unit, in the event of inadvertent islanded For these reasons, direct speed measurement was gradually
operation resulting in large frequency and mechanical power phased out in favour of compensated frequency, which can be
variations. measured using the same PT and CT inputs that are already
available for measurement of electrical power.
C. Input Signals
C.1 Compensated Frequency
Electrical power is readily available as an input. In analog
implementations it can be measured using a three-phase Hall- Direct terminal frequency, measured from the generator PTs,
effect watt transducer or equivalent device that produces an has been used as an input signal in many stabilizers in the past.
instantaneous output proportional to the generator active power. Its advantages and disadvantages were discussed earlier. It
Selective filtering is required to remove the characteristic cannot be used directly in a ΔPω stabilizer configuration.
harmonics present in the output measurement. In digital Referring to the signal nomenclature of Figure 1, it is a
implementations a variety of techniques are available to requirement that the “speed” signal at point A match the power
calculate power from the sampled ac voltage and current signal at point B so that the derived integral-of-mechanical
measurements. In either case the key is to not add unnecessary power signal at point D represents equation 3 accurately. Any
filtering and phase lag that will affect the phase compensation error in the derivation of the signal at point D due to signal
in this signal path. This has been achieved with good success mismatch will pass through the filter to point E and will result
in various manufacturers’ implementations for many years. in an error in the stabilizer output.
The original ΔPω stabilizers employed a physical measurement The extent to which the electromechanical components appear
of shaft speed using magnetic speed pickups as the source. A in terminal frequency is dependent on the component and the
frequency-to-voltage converter was then used to generate the system strength. For example inter-machine modes between
required direct measurement of speed. This necessitated the two units connected together at their low-voltage bus will be
use of filtering and as a result, the input speed probe signals had completely absent in a frequency signal measured from the
to be relatively high frequency, necessitating multiple probes generator PTs. Inter-area modes involving large groups of
and toothed wheel or milled slot. Once again careful selection units will be visible in the terminal frequency but local machine
of the filtering was necessary to avoid the introduction of phase modes will be greatly attenuated in for strong system
lag in this path. In applications where excessive filtering is connections.
used, the time constant, T6, can be used in the model of Figure
1 to simulate the effect on overall stabilizer performance. Based on the above, frequency measurement can only be used
if the ac source can simulate a voltage that is coupled directly to

6
shaft position changes. Both the generator terminal voltage and
a voltage proportional to the generator's terminal current are The requirement for high reliability and maintainability of PSS
used in deriving the “internal voltage”. A voltage behind and other elements of the excitation system may be in part
quadrature axis reactance is used for this purpose: satisfied by component redundancy. Duplicate voltage
regulators and PSS [3,9] have been used on critical generating
E i = E t + jX q I t (12) units. One voltage regulator with its PSS would be in service at
any one time with the other tracking it. In the event of a PSS
malfunction, various protective features would initiate transfer
where Xq has been used to denote an impedance proportional to the alternate regulator and PSS. In addition to improving the
to the generator’s quadrature axis impedance. detection of PSS failures, this feature limits the adverse
consequences of such failures. The improved reliability and
Figure 3 Compensated Phasor reduced parts count of newer digital exciters, with built-in PSS,
have mitigated the need for such complex systems.
Ei Q-AXIS
Another feature worth incorporating in a PSS is built-in
facility for dynamic tests. This allows routine testing of PSS
It jXqIt periodically by station personnel in order to detect latent
failures [9]. A convenient way to test the performance of a
Et PSS is to inject a small (1 to 2%) change in the PSS output
(AVR terminal voltage reference) signal and monitor the
responses of key variables such as generator terminal
voltage, field voltage, power output, frequency, and PSS
output. Such a test facility is also very useful during PSS
commissioning.

V. PSS COMMISSIONING AND FIELD VERIFICATION

D-AXIS During field commissioning, the actual response of the

generating unit with the PSS is measured and used to verify
some of the analytical results. Typical tests performed during
For steady-state conditions the phasor derived from the commissioning include:
synchronous q-axis reactance will be aligned with the
quadrature axis is depicted in Figure 3. As the rotor moves, • measurement of the on-line closed-loop excitation
the phasor derived in this manner will maintain its position system phase compensation requirements (Fig. 4),
where the frequency derived from the compensated phasor
• step response tests to measure damping improvement at
will contain the desired electromechanical components.
local mode frequencies (Fig. 5),
Since the rotor is in motion, the compensating reactance
• load-ramping tests to ensure that the PSS does not
should represent the quadrature reactance that applies to the
produce undesirable modulation of the unit’s terminal
frequency range of interest. For round-rotor machines this
voltage under normal or emergency operating conditions
normally requires an impedance value close to the transient
(Fig. 6)
quadrature reactance. Each generator will be somewhat
different, and the compensating reactance should be selected
As noted in the previous section, the tests usually consist of
based on knowledge of the machine reactances and time
injecting small step changes to the voltage regulator terminal
constants.
voltage reference and monitoring a number of generator
variables. If there are discrepancies between computed and
IV. HARDWARE CONSIDERATIONS
measured responses, the models are appropriately modified; if
necessary, revised PSS settings are determined and
The hardware should be designed so as to allow setting of the
implemented. This "closed loop" design and commissioning
PSS parameters over a sufficiently wide range. The design
process is very effective [14].
should also ensure a high degree of functional reliability and
allow sufficient flexibility for maintenance. These requirements
are often overlooked, resulting in unreliable and unsatisfactory
performance of the PSS, much to the frustration of operators.
There have been many instances of operators turning off the
PSS because of poor performance resulting from inadequate
hardware design and improper selection of control parameters.

7
Figure 4 Closed-Loop Exciter Phase Compensation Tests and simulations performed on all types of utility-scale
generators, including large and small hydro, large fossil-fired
and nuclear units and combustion turbines, have consistently
120
stabilizer phase compensation demonstrated that a conventional PSS tuned and tested in this
closed-loop exciter phase lag manner, will improve stability for any reasonable operating
100 scenario.
Phase (degrees)

80 Figure 6. Fast Load Ramp

0.20

Reactive Power
washout& 0.15
lag-lead selection 0.10

(pu)
60 0.05
0
-0.05

40 0.03

PSS Output
lead-lag 0.02

(pu)
selection 0.01
20 0
-0.01

1.0
0

Active Power
0.8
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5

(pu)
0.6
0.4
Frequency (Hz) 0.2

0.0006
Initially, the PSS gain should be increased slowly, with delta speed
(pu) 0.0002
transient testing at each setting. To insure sufficient stability -0.0002
-0.0006
margin, a good practice is to check the performance of the PSS
-0.0010
with the gain increased up to twice the normal in-service
450
setting. The objective is to ensure that the PSS gain is set at a 300
value well below the limit at which either the exciter mode is
(Vdc)
Field

150
0
unstable or there is excessive amplification of input signal -150
noise. -300
filter mech power

0.15
0
Figure 5. Stabilizer On-Line Step Response -0.15
(pu)

-0.30
Active Power

1.00 -0.45
-0.60
0 5 10 15 20
(pu)

0.95
Time (seconds)

0.90

1.04
Terminal V
(pu)

1.03
PSS ON
PSS OFF
1.02
0.0010
delta speed

0.0005
(pu)

0
-0.0005
-0.0010
0.005
PSS Output

0
(pu)

-0.005
-0.010
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (seconds)

8
 ⎛ M
⎞
Appendix A - Derivation of Filter Responses
⎜ A sT9 ∑ a i (sT9 )i −1 ⎟
A.1 Background lim y(t) = lim s ⎜ − i =1
⎟
⎜ s 1 + a (sT )i ⎟
t →∞ s→0 M

∑
(A.5)
⎜ i 9 ⎟
The conventional low-pass filter and ramp-tracking filter are ⎝ i =1 ⎠
both based on the general form of a filter:
=0
(1 + sT8 )
G(s) = (A.1) Ramp input: U(s)=B/s2
(1 + sT9 ) M ⎛ M
i −1 ⎞
⎜ B 9 ∑ a i (sT9 ) ⎟
sT
The steady-state response of the output, y, to various inputs, u, lim y(t) = lim s ⎜ − 2 i =1
⎟
⎜ i ⎟
t →∞ s→0 M
1 + ∑ a i (sT9 ) ⎟
is calculated from the final value theorem. s
⎜
⎝ i =1 ⎠
lim y(t) = lim(s * U(s) *(G(s) − 1)) (A.2)
t →∞ s→0 ⎛ ⎛ M
⎞⎞
⎜ BT9⎜ 1
⎝
a + ∑ a i (sT9 )i −1 ⎟ ⎟
⎠⎟
A.2 Conventional Low Pass Filter = lim ⎜ − i=2
(A.6)
s →0 ⎜ M
⎟
⎜ 1 + ∑ a i (sT9 )i ⎟
The conventional low-pass filter is obtained from A.1 by
setting T8 = 0. The denominator of A.1 can be expanded as ⎝ i =1 ⎠
follows: = −B*T9 * M
M
(1 + sT9 ) M = ∑ a i (sT9 )i (A.3) Parabolic input: C/s3
i =0
Some of the coefficients may be written by inspection as lim y(t) = ∞
t →∞
follows:
A.3 Ramp-Tracking Filter
a0 = aM = 1
a1 = aM-1 = M
1 + sT8
G(s) − 1 = M
−1
The other coefficients are not critical to the analysis of the
steady-state response. Substituting A.3 into A.1 yields: ∑ a (sT )
i=0
i 9
i

M (A.7)
G(s) − 1 =
1
−1 s(T8 − MT9 ) − ∑ a i (sT9 )i
M
=
∑ a (sT ) i i=2
M

∑ a (sT )
i 9
i
i=0
i 9
M (A.4) i =0
sT9 ∑ a i (sT9 )i −1
=− i =1
M
Step input: U(s) = A/s (A.8)
1 + ∑ a i (sT9 )i
⎛ M
⎞
i =1
where the fact that a0=1 has been used to reduce the numerator ⎜ A s(T8 − MT 9 ) − ∑ a i (sT9 )i ⎟
and expand the denominator. lim y(t) = lim s ⎜ − i=2
⎟
⎜ ⎟
t →∞ s→0 M

∑
s i
⎜ a i (sT9 ) ⎟
Step input: U(s) = A/s ⎝ i =0 ⎠
=0

9
Ramp input: U(s) = B/s2 (A.9)
[5] M. Klein, G.J. Rogers, S. Moorty, and P. Kundur, "Analytical
Investigation of Factors Influencing Power System Stabilizers
⎛ M
⎞
⎜ B s(T8 − MT9 ) − ∑ a i (sT9 )
i Performance," IEEE Trans. on Energy Conversion, Vol. 7,
⎟ pp. 382-390, September 1992.
lim y(t) = lim s ⎜ − 2 i=2
⎟
⎜ s ⎟
t →∞ s→0 M

⎜
⎝
∑
i =0
a i (sT9 )i ⎟
⎠
[6] W. Watson and G. Manchur, "Experience with
Supplementary Damping Signals for Generator Static
Excitation Systems," IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-92, pp. 199-203,
= T8 − MT9 January/February 1973.

[7] W. Watson and M.E. Coultes, "Static Exciter Stabilizing

A.9 equates to zero as long as T8=M*T9 Signals on Large Generators – Mechanical Problems," IEEE
Trans., PAS-92, pp. 204-211, January/ February 1973.

Ramp input: U(s) = C/s3 (A.10) [8] F.P. deMello, L.N. Hannett, and J.M. Undrill, Practical
Approaches to Supplementary Stabilizing from Accelerating
Power," IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-97, pp. 1515-1522,
⎛ M
i ⎞
⎜ C ∑ a i (sT9 ) ⎟
September/October 1978.

lim y(t) = lim s ⎜ − 3 iM= 2 ⎟ [9] D.C. Lee, R.E., Beaulieu, and J.R.R. Service, "A Power
t →∞ s→0
⎜ s i ⎟
⎜
⎝
∑
i =0
a i (sT9 ) ⎟
⎠
System Stabilizer Using Speed and Electrical Power Inputs –
Design and Field Experience," IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-100,
pp. 4151-4167, September 1981.
⎛ M
i ⎞
⎜ a 2 T9 + ∑ a isi − 2 T9 ⎟ [10] J.P. Bayne, D.C. Lee, W. Watson, “A Power System Stabilizer
= lim ⎜ −C ⎟
i =3 for Thermal Units Based on Derivation of Accelerating Power”,
IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-96, Nov/Dec 1977, pp 1777-1783.
⎜ 1 + ∑ a i (sT9 ) ⎟⎟
s →0 M
i
⎜
⎝ i =1 ⎠ [11] IEEE Recommended Practice for Excitation System Models
for Power System Stability Studies, IEEE Standard 421.5-
M −1
= −CT9 ∑ i
2005, April 2006.

i =0 [12] F.W. Keay, W.H. South, “Design of a Power System Stabilizer

Sensing Frequency Deviation”, IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-90,
The reduction is based on the assumption that the coefficient Mar/Apr 1971, pp 707-713.
relationship, T8=M*T9, has been used. In this case the response
to a parabolic input will be bounded and will increase with the [13] J.M.C. Soares, F.H. Pons, F.Reichert, D.O. Reis, Modelling
number of poles and time constant as expected. and Field Tests of a Supplementary Stabilizing Signal for
General Use, National Seminar on the Generation and
Transmission of Electrical Energy, Brazil, 1987.

References [14] P. Kundur, G.R. Berube, L.M. Hajagos, R.E. Beaulieu,

“Practical Utility Experience with and Effective Use of Power
[1] P.L. Dandeno, A.N. Karas, K.R. McClymont, and W. System Stabilizers,” IEEE PES Meeting July 2003, Vol 3, pp
Watson, "Effect of High-Speed Rectifier Excitation Systems 1777- 1785.
on Generator Stability Limits," IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-87,
pp. 190-201, January 1968.

[2] P. Kundur, M. Klein, G.J. Rogers, and M.S. Zywno,

"Application of Power System Stabilizers for Enhancement of
Overall System Stability," IEEE Trans., Vol. PWRS-4, pp.
614-626, May 1989.

[3] P. Kundur, D.C. Lee, and H.M. Zein El-Din, "Power System
Stabilizers for Thermal Units: Analytical Techniques and
On-site Validation," IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-100, pp. 81-95,
January 1981.

[4] E.V. Larsen and D.A. Swann, "Applying Power System

Stabilizers, Parts I, II, and III," IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-100,
pp. 3017-3046, June 1981.

10