Journal of Electrical Engineering

The Institution of Engineers, Bangladesh

Vol. EE 39, No. I & II, June & December, 2013

Optimal Design of Power System Stabilizer for Multimachine Power System Using Differential Evolution
Algorithm
Ashik Ahmed1, B. M. Ruhul Amin2, Khandaker Ziaul Islam2, and Shah Md. Aminul Islam3
Dept. of EEE, IUT, Bangladesh, 2Dept. EEE, BUBT, Bangladesh, 3IMCT Division, UGC of Bangladesh
Email: ashikhmd@yahoo.com

PSS is widely used by the utilities for its effectiveness and

economic advantages. For the optimal design of PSS different
modern control theory based approaches have been applied.
These include optimal control, fuzzy & neuro-fuzzy control,
variable structure control and adaptive control [4]-[7].
Appropriate selection of conventional PSS parameters results
in satisfactory performance under system disturbances [8].
Sequential tuning and simultaneous tuning are two basic
approaches adopted for the design purpose of PSS. In
sequential design of PSS One electromechanical mode is
considered for damping at a time among many available
modes [9]. The optimal parameters designed for a certain
mode can create adverse effect on some other modes of the
system. The overall performance may not be optimal.

AbstractPower system stabilizer (PSS) is used in order to

damp out the low frequency oscillations among the
interconnected group of generators of a large power
system. Differential Evolution (DE) is one of the modern
approaches for the appropriate design of PSS for multimachine power system. This paper presents DE based PSS
design and analyses its performance. DE is a parallel
direct search method which belongs to the class of genetic
algorithms and it uses biology inspired operator as
crossover, mutation and selection. Eigen value based
objective function has been used to enhance system
damping of the overall system under study. The
performance of proposed DE-based PSS has been tested
under different loading for a four machine example power
system. The eigen value analysis and time domain
simulation results show the effectiveness and robustness of
the DE-based PSS under varying load conditions.

n this modern era most of the power plants are located far
from the consumer units. Large numbers of generating units
are interconnected in order to supply ceaseless power to the
consumers at the far end. So the power industry is trying to
implement newer approaches in order to maximize power
transfer among different areas in a stable manner. The
transmission networks are usually overdesigned to keep the
operation of the overall system within safe limit considering
the constraints of thermal limit, rotor angle stability limit and
voltage stability limit [1].

The simultaneous tuning of PSS problem is devised as nonlinear non differentiable optimization problem [10] which is
very hard to solve using traditionally differentiable
optimization algorithms. Different random exploration
techniques like Tabu Search (TS), Simulated Annealing (SA),
Genetic Algorithm (GA), Evolutionary Programming (EP)
has been used [11]-[15] to optimize the PSS parameters.
These techniques have gained acceptance for searching an
optimal solution in a problem space. GA is found to be very
satisfactory in searching global or near global optimal result
of the problem. But long run-time constraint limits the use of
GA in PSS design. Invasive Weed Optimization (IWO) and
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) were used to optimize the
PSS parameters [16]-[17]. Both algorithms have shown
satisfactory results but there are scopes to improve the
convergence time and the shifting of the critical mode to the
left of the s-plane. Newer algorithm can be used to obtain
better result.

Sustained low frequency oscillation among the interconnected

group of generators is highly undesirable to the safe operation
of power system. Oscillations residing within a plant are
termed as local or plant mode of oscillations which have a
frequency range of 0.7 - 2.0 Hz. And the oscillations among
the interconnected systems are named as inter-area mode of
oscillations having a frequency range of 0.1 - 0.8 Hz [2].
Generous effort has been made to clarify the impact of Power
System Stabilizer (PSS) in damping low frequency oscillation
in power system. The damping of the low frequency
oscillations improves the small signal stability of power
system [3].

In this paper Differential Evolution (DE) is used for designing

PSSs with optimized performance in multi-machine power
system. DE is a versatile and robust optimization tool in
todays world. The PSS design problem is formulated as
optimization problem with constraints and an Eigen-value
based objective function. The constrained optimization
problem is then solved by utilizing DE algorithm. To
investigate effectiveness of the proposed method a four
machine power system [1] has been considered. Eigen-value
analysis and time domain simulations have been performed to
justify the effectiveness and the ability of the proposed PSSs
under different loading conditions.

Index TermsDifferential evolution, Dynamic stability,

and PSS design.

I. INTRODUCTION

36

Ahmed, A., et al.: Elec. Engg., Instn. Engrs., Bangladesh, 39 (I&II), June & December 2013

lag generated between input and the output signals. The four
time constants T1to T4and the gain Kpss need to be chosen in an
optimal fashion for each generator to ensure optimal system
performance under various system loadings to ensure the
robustness of the technique.

II. PROBLEM STATEMENT

A. System Model and PSS Structure
Nonlinear dynamic model of a multi-machine power system
can be represented as:

X& = f ( X ,U )

(1)

B. Objective Function
For the design of optimal parameters for the PSSs, an Eigenvalue based objective function is considered as given in Eq.
(4).

where X and U corresponds to vector of system states and

input variables, respectively. The two axis synchronous
generator model is used for the simulation purpose in this
work[18]. Detail of the model is provided in the Appendix.
The PSS design problem is formulated based on the linearized
model of the power system of (1). The linearization is done
around an operating point and Taylor series expansion is
employed to perform the linearization process. If the multimachine power system consists of mnumber of machines with
npss number of stabilizers, the linearized model of the power
system of Eq. (1) becomes

X& = AX + B U

J =-min(real(Eigen-values)/abs(Eigen-values))

Damping ratio is utilized here as a performance enhancement

criteria. The target is to maximize the minimum of the
damping ratio for a certain case study. Overall system
damping will certainly be improved if the minimum of the
damping ratio is maximized. For physical realization of the
PSSs, it is necessary to keep the value of the stabilizer gain
values within a certain range. Therefore, the design problem is
formulated as the following optimization problem:
Maximize J
(5)

(2)

Here A is the system statematrix with 4 m 4 m dimension,

X is 4 m X 1 state vector, B is 4m X npss input matrix

and U is npss X 1 input vector. Matrix A and B can be
f
f
and
respectively. PSS is
evaluated by calculating
u x0
x x0
primarily used to compensate the phase lag between the
exciter input and the machine electrical torque by generating
appropriate damping torque on the rotor of the machine.
Speed-input based PSS design is considered in this work
where the stabilizing signal is supposed to be proportional to
the rotor speed deviation, . The structure of PSS is
presented in Fig. 1which consists of a gain block with gain
Kpssi, a signal washout block and two-stage phase
compensation blocks. The transfer function of the ith PSS can
be represented as:

U pss ,i = K pss ,i
i

K pss ,i

sTwi (1 + sT1i )(1 + sT3i )

i
1 + sTwi (1 + sT2 i )(1 + sT4i )

sTwi
1 + sTwi

1 + sT1i
1 + sT3i

1 + sT2i
1 + sT4i

(4)

subject to,

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

where i is the number of stabilizers considered and J is the

objective function defined in (4). The proposed approach will
employ Differential Evolution (DE) optimization technique to
search for the optimum controller parameter settings of the
stabilizers.
III. DIFFERENTIAL EVOLUTION

(3)

Differential Evolution is a parallel direct search method that

uses a population of points to search for a global minimum of
a function over wide search space [19]. DE belongs to the
class of genetic algorithms which uses similar biologyinspired operators; crossover, mutation and selection. The
contrasting features of DE compared to Genetic Algorithm
(GA) are the use of floating-point instead of bit-string
encoding for defining population set and arithmetic operations
instead of logical operations in mutation operation [20].

U pss ,i

Fig. 1 Power system stabilizer structure.

Here i and Upssi are the rotor speed deviation from the
synchronous speed and the power system stabilizer control
signal which is supplemented to the generator excitation
system. The washout block works as a high pass filter which
allows transient inputs and blocks the steady ones. From the
view of the washout function, the value of the time constant
Tw is generally not critical and may be in the range of 0.5 to
20 seconds [18]. In this work it is fixed at 10s. The phase
compensation block with time constants T1, T2, T3 and T4
supplies the required phase-lead to compensate for the phase

C. Population Structure
DE starts with a population of Np vectors of D dimensional
single-valued parameters as represented in Eq. (11).

xi , g , i = 1, 2,...NP and g = 1, 2.....g max

(11)

The population is constituted by NP vectors denoted by

37

xi , g

Ahmed, A.., et al.: Elec. En

ngg., Instn. Eng
grs., Bangladesh
h, 39 (I&II), Jun
ne & Decemberr 2013

whhere the index i refer to the vector within th

he population and
a
g rrefers to the gen
neration number.
D. Initialization
Thhe population in
i DE is initiaalized by speciifying the Upp
per
andd Lower boun
nd for each paarameter of a vector. Equatiion
(122) is used to
o generate th
he vector parrameter so th
hat
Z LjL Z j i , g ZUj condition iss satisfied.

Z j i , g = rand j (0,1) *( ZUj Z Lj ) + Z Lj

(12
2)

E. Mutation
on, DE mutatees the populatiion to producee a
Affter initializatio
poppulation of fou
ur trial vectorss. These four vectors from the
t
iniitial population
n are randomly
y sampled wheere one is chossen
as the target vector mentioned in the next sttage, and anoth
her
as the base vecctor. The diffference of thee remaining tw
wo
vecctors scaled by
y a factor is ad
dded to the basse vector to forrm
thee trial vector. Eq.
E 13 shows how
h
the processs of creating the
t
inttermediate vecttor is achieved.

Vi , g = xr 0, g + F . ( xr1, g xr 2,g
2 )

3)
(13

Thhe scale factor, F, is a positiv

ve real number that controls the
t
ratte at which the population evolves
e
[20]. The
T base vecttor,
dennoted by r0, is randomly chosen in such a way
w that r0 r1
1
r2 where r1 & r2
r are also ran
ndomly chosen
n, Vi,g is the trrial
vecctor.
Ass previously mentioned,
m
DE relies on thee mutation stag
ge,
alsso called differrential mutatio
on, to expand the
t search spacce.
It is worth highlighting thatt this operatio
on is perform
med
diffferently than in the conven
ntional GAs where
w
an allele is
repplaced.

Fig. 2 Differenntial Evolution aalgorithm flowchhart.

u (i, g ) if f (u (i, g )) f ( x(i, g ))

X i,g +1 =
(15)
x(i, g ) otherwise

F. Crossover
In this stage, DE
E crosses each vector with a mutant vector to
forrm a second inttermediate pop
pulation as show
wn by Eq.(14).

The floowchart of Figg. 2 shows the detail flowchaart of the DE

algorithhm.

0,1) Cr or j = jrand ]
Vj, i, g if [rand j(0
(14
4)
Ui,g =
Z j ,i, g otherwise

MULATION RE
ESULT
IV. SIM

n and case stu

udy
H. Systtem description
Fig. 3 sshows the singgle-line diagram
m of a two-areaa, 4-machine
test sysstem which is uused in this woork as an exam
mple to show
the effeectiveness of thhe proposed m
method. The sysstem consists
of fourr generators, G
G1 and G2 for area 1 and G33 and G4 for
area 2. The system looads L7 and L99 are present att buses 7 and
9 respeectively. Detaill of the system
m data can be obbtained from
[1].

Crr [0,1] is thhe crossover probability defiined by the usser

witthin the specifi
fied range, whicch control the parameter
p
valu
ues
thaat are copied frrom the mutantts. Therefore, if
i rand j is high
her
thaan Cr, the paraameter will beccome Z j ,i , g , the
t target vecttor.
DE
E can also ap
pply different type of crosssovers: uniforrm
croossover, one-p
point cross-ov
ver, N- poin
nt crossover or
expponential crosssover as detaileed in [20].

As the location of PS
SSs in the netw
work is not amoong the focus
of the ppaper, generatoor and PSS nuumber are conssidered to be
equal hhere. Four tim
me constants foor each of the PSS having
two leaad-lag blocks aand a gain bloock will be tunned to attain
the opptimum value. So the num
mber of param
meters to be
optimizzed for this woork is 20.

G. Selection
Thhe selection off vectors to po
opulate the neext generation is
acccomplished by
y comparing each
e
vector ui,g
of the seco
ond
i
inttermediate pop
pulation Ug to its
i target vector xi,g from whiich
it iinherits parameters. The valu
ues of the vecttors are obtain
ned
usiing the function
n as illustrated
d in Eq. (15).
38

Ahmed, A.., et al.: Elec. En

ngg., Instn. Eng
grs., Bangladesh
h, 39 (I&II), Jun
ne & Decemberr 2013

Table IV: Eiggen values andd Damping ratioos with

DE-based PSS
Light
-78.03 06.64i,11.75
-17.61 33.05i,0.532
-33.13 23.92i,1.385
-09.28 15.13i,0.613
-07.50 13.72i,0.546
-02.53 02.52i,1.003
-02.53 00.15i,16.87

Tablee I: Loading Conditions (in per

p unit)

L7

Light
P
Q
17.67
-2.50

Nominal
N
P
Q
19..00
-3.00

Heavy
P
Q
20.00
-3.50

L9

9.67

9.6
67

10.50

-1.00

-1.25

-1.50

In Tabble I, P and Q represent thee real and reaactive power

demandd at a certain bus, respectivvely. It is eviddent that any
increasse in either thee real or the rreactive poweer demand is
consideered as a differrent loading sceenario in this w
work.

Table II:
I Optimal DE
E-Based PSS Paarameters
with objecctive function
Load
Gen

K
T1
T2
G1 32.3656
6 0.4114 0.4113
G2
50
1
0.010
00
G3 45.5009
9 0.6040
1
G4
50
0.0100
1

T3
0.0100
0.1655
0.3006
0.9025

T4
0.010
00
0.975
58
0.045
59
0.010
00

G1 32.3656
6 0.4114 0.4113
G2
50
1
0.010
00
G3 45.5009
9 0.6040
1
G4
50
0.0100
1

0.0100
0.1655
0.3006
0.9025

0.010
00
0.975
58
0.045
59 Nominal
0.010
00

G1
G2
G3
G4

0.4195
0.2065
0.6683
0.8092

0.446
62
0.658
89
0.692
24
0.015
51

33.3076
6
28.0287
7
37.5958
8
34.5677
7

0.4895
0.6746
0.5494
0.2440

0.6310
0.050
02
0.993
37
0.993
37

From T
Table II, it is seen that in ccase of light aand nominal
loadingg the parametters are identtical whereas for heavier
loadingg the optimizerr finds a differeent set of solutiion.

Light

It is allso identified ffrom the tablee that in case of light and

nominaal loading certtain parameterrs are set at tthe upper or
lower bboundary of thhe solution spaace whereas for heavy load
conditioon there is no such occurrennce. The param
meters which
hit the llimit are presennted in boldedd case.
gen value Analy
lysis
I. Eige
Table IIII shows the eigen values of different m
modes of the
study system withoout PSS for three differrent loading
scenariios.

Heavy

It is evvident that one complex set oof eigen value in each case
has possitive real part which would m
make the systeem dynamics
unstablle with oscillations of groowing magnituude. This is
becausee the positive real part introdduces negativee damping to
the sysstem and the ooverall system damping thuss gets worse.
The unnstable modes aare shown in boolded case in thhe table.

Table III: Eigen valu

ues and Damping ratios
witho
out PSS
Light
-90.1407
-89.8902
-77.3211
-65.9126
-34.2706
-23.1342
-9.1436
-9.5116
98i
-0.5935 7.459
-0.5292 7.279
98i
0.1073 4.0712i

Nom
minal
0469
-90.0
-89.8
8503
-77.6
6029
-66.3
3374
-33.8
8824
-22.9
9197
-9.3
3958
-9.6
6185
-0.4582 7.5750i
-0.5139 7.3007i
0.1165 4.0628i

H
Heavy
-26.05 34.50i,0.755
-12.54 20.77i,0.603
-05.16 08.60i,0.600
-03.62 06.04i,0.599
-01.78 02.94i,0.605
-01.45 00.10i,14.50
-00.10 00.00i, 0.00

The m
maximum and minimum raanges for thee gains and
differennt time constannts for optimizzation purpose are set at [0
- 50] aand [0.01 - 11.0] respectiveely. The DE algorithm is
appliedd to find ouut the optimizzed value off the target
parameeters which meeet the objectiive in (4). Thhree different
loadingg conditions arre considered for L7 and L99 to examine
the apppropriateness oof the DE in finding an opptimal set of
parameeter. The loadinng scenario is provided in T
Table I. Final
values of the DE opttimized parameeters are providded in Table
II.

Fig. 3 Four-Machinee, Two Area Sysstem.

Load

Nominal
-27.25 48.81i,,0.558
-15.16 17.53i,0.864
-05.66 13.11i,0.431
-07.54 12.34i,0.611
-01.44 03.22i,0.447
-02.45 01.09i,2.247
-01.59 01.10i,1.445

Heavy
-90.0855
-89.8464
-78.4163
-66.6141
-33.6686
-22.2615
-9.8979
-9.2374
0.1549 4.1758i
-0..2629 7.7054i
-0..5634 7.2620i

The eiggen values annd the dampingg ratio of diffferent modes

E-based PSS aare given in Taable IV. It is obbserved from
with DE
Table IIV that all the E
Eigen values aare shifted to thhe left half splane w
with negative real parts andd the system ddamping has
been eenhanced withh the proposed DE basedd PSS. The
compleex pair of eigenn value which iis the nearest to the s-plane
has a reeal part of -2.5 3, -1.59 and -11.45 respectively.

39

Ahmed, A., et al.: Elec. Engg., Instn. Engrs., Bangladesh, 39 (I&II), June & December 2013
rotor angle variation (t)

-0.2

-0.3

delta(degree)

objective function, J-D E

Light loading
Nominal loading
Heavy loading

-0.4
-0.5

-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0

-0.6
0

50

100

150

200

Without PSS
DE based PSS

-0.2

rotor angle variation (t)

0
delta(degree)

rotor angle variation (t)

Without PSS
DE based PSS

d e lta (d e g re e )

Fig. 6 Rotor angle response in nominal loading for Gen2.

Fig. 4 Variation of objective functions, J for DE-based PSS.

-0.2
-0.3

Without PSS
DE based PSS

-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0

3
4
5
6
Time (sec)
Fig. 7 Rotor angle response in heavy loading for Gen2.

-0.4
-0.5
0

3
Time (sec)

250

iteration

-0.1

3
4
Time (sec)

angular speed variation (t)

1.015
omega(rad/sec)

Fig. 5 Rotor angle response in light loading for Gen2.

Compared to the case of Table III where there are no PSSs

installed, these results give superior performance in terms of
system stability and damping scenario. Fig. 4 presents the
convergence scenario of the DE for different loading
condition. It is found that the as the parameters found for light
and nominal loading conditions are the same, the convergence
of the parameters are also overlapping each other. Number of
iterations taken to attain convergence in the case of heavy
loading is greater than that for light or nominal loading. This
can be explained by the fact that as in the case of heavy
loading the parameters do not hit the upper or lower limit of
the search space the optimizer requires more time to reach at
an optimal solution.

Without PSS
DE based PSS

1.01
1.005
1
0.995
0

3
4
5
6
Time (sec)
Fig. 8 Rotor speed response in light loading for Gen2.
angular speed variation (t)

omega(rad/sec)

1.015

J. Time domain Simulation

For illustrating the effectiveness of the designed PSSs in the
case of severe disturbance a three-phase bolted fault at bus 7
is considered for the time domain simulation. Different
loading cases considered here are the same as in Table I. The
fault is applied at 0.1 sec and is cleared after another 0.1 sec.
Variations in the rotor angle; rotor angular speeds and active
power for nominal, heavy and light loading for Gen 2 are
shown in Figs. 5-13. The reason for choosing the variables of
Gen 2 for demonstration is because the fault is located nearest
to that generator and it is evident that the most severe impact
of the fault would be seen for that machine. If the variables
related to this generator are found to be stable then it would
be concluded that the other generators of the system have the
same stability scenario. The stabilizer output signals for the
above cases are shown in Figs. 14-16.

Without PSS
DE based PSS

1.01
1.005
1
0.995
0

3
Time (sec)

Fig. 9 Rotor speed response in nominal loading for Gen2.

angular speed variation (t)
omega(rad/sec)

1.015

Without PSS
DE based PSS

1.01
1.005
1
0.995
0

3
Time (sec)

Fig. 10 Rotor speed response in heavy loading for Gen2.

40

Ahmed, A., et al.: Elec. Engg., Instn. Engrs., Bangladesh, 39 (I&II), June & December 2013
for Gen 2.
stabilizer control signal

active power variation Pe

0
-20
0

2
3
Time (sec)

power(pu)

0
1

2
3
Time (sec)

active power variation Pe

Without PSS
DE based PSS

20

0
1

2
3
Time (sec)

Fig. 13 Active power output in heavy loading for Gen2.

Upss

DE based PSS

0
-1
-2
0

3
4
5
6
Time (sec)
Fig. 14 Stabilizer control signal (Upss) in light loading
for Gen 2.
stabilizer control signal

Upss

DE based PSS

Table V reveals that considering the maximization of

minimum damping ratio the DE algorithm shows better
performance in case of light and heavy loading whereas the
PSO used in [17] shows better results for nominal loading
case. In case of DE for light and nominal loading the number
of iterations required to reach an optimal point is much less
and for heavy loading it is high.

0
-1
-2
0

K. Comparative analysis
To have an understanding of the level of usefulness of DE based
tuning approach of the PSSs, a comparative analysis is performed
between this work and [17]. The comparisons related to the eigen
value based analysis is presented in Table V and that related to
the time domain based ones are shown in Table VI.

A close observation of stabilizer output signal in Figs. 14-16

shows that PSS works only during the transient period while
there is imbalance between the real power output and
generation because of the fault in the system. Once the
transient period is over and the balance between input and
output power of the generator is regained, there is no need of
stabilizer output. It is also seen that the control effort required
for heavy loading is less compared to the other two cases.

stabilizer control signal

1

From Figs. 11-13 it is found that at the instant of fault the

active power output of Gen 2 for different loading scenario
goes to zero but quickly gets back to its original value without
any oscillation whenever the DE based PSS are in action.
Without the PSS little oscillations are found in the active
power dynamics.

10

-10
0

3
Time (sec)

The angular speed responses of the rotor in Figs. 8-10 show a

considerable improvement in the system dynamics with the
inclusion of DE optimized PSS in the system. Without PSSs
the angular speed keeps on increasing which is an indication
of the system instability. However, with tuned PSSs the rotor
of each generator returns to its synchronous speed within a
very short period.

Fig. 12 Active power output in nominal loading for Gen2.

30

Inspection of Figs. 4-7 reveals that the introduction of PSSs

certainly reduces the peak undershoot, peak time, settling time
and completely eliminates the steady state error of the rotor
angle dynamics following the fault which are the basic
performance determining criteria of a good control system.

20

-20
0

Fig. 16 Stabilizer control signal (Upss) in heavy

loading for Gen 2.

Without PSS
DE based PSS

40

0
-0.5
0

active power variation Pe

60

0.5

Fig. 11 Active power output in light loading for Gen2.

power(pu)

DE based PSS

20

Upss

power(pu)

40

3
Time (sec)

Fig. 15 Stabilizer control signal (Upss) in nominal loading

41

Ahmed, A., et al.: Elec. Engg., Instn. Engrs., Bangladesh, 39 (I&II), June & December 2013

system, Fuzzy Sets Systems, vol. 39, pp. 181194, 1991.

Table V: Eigen value based Comparative Study

Loading
Minimum
damping ratio
No. of
iterations
required for
convergence
(approx.)

Light
Ref.
This
[17]
work
0.443
0.532
PSO

Nominal
Ref.
This
[17]
work
0.485
0.431
IWO

45
PSO

50
PSO

10

10

[6] M. A. Abido and Y. L. Abdel-Magid, A hybrid neurofuzzy power system stabilizer for multi-machine power
systems, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 13, pp.1323
1330, 1998.

Heavy
Ref.
This
[17]
work
0.5967
0.599
PSO
40
IWO

[7] D. Xia and G. T. Heydt, Self-tuning controller for

generator excitation control, IEEE Trans. Power App.
Systems, pp. 18771885, 1983.

110

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

Application of power system stabilizers for
enhancement of overall system stability, IEEE Trans. on
Power Systems. vol. PAS-108, pp. 614-626, 1989.

Table VI results indicate that considering the time domain

based simulation undershoot and settling time for the rotor
angle dynamics are comparable for this work and [17].

[9] R. J. Fleming, M. A. Mohan, K Parvatism, Selection of

parameters of stabilizers in multi-machine power
systems, IEEE Trans, PAS, vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 23292333, 1981.

Table VI: Time Domain Simulation based

Comparative Study
Parameter
Rotor Angle
(undershoot)
Rotor Angle
dynamics Settling
Time (seconds)

Light
Ref.
This
[17]
work

Nominal
Ref.
This
[17] work

Heavy
Ref.
This
[17]
work

0.12

0.11

0.1

0.1

0.08

0.15

1.2
IWO

1.2

2
PSO

1.2

1.1
IWO

1.0

[10] M. Eslami, H. Shareef and A. Mohamed, Optimal tuning

of power system stabilizers using modified particle
swarm optimization, Proceedings of the 14th
International Middle East Power Systems Conference
(MEPCON10), Cairo University, Egypt, December 1921, 2010.
[11] M. A. Abido, "A novel approach to conventional power
system stabilizer design using tabu search", Int. J. Electr.
Power Energy Systems, vol. 21, pp. 443-454, 1999.

V. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper the performance of the Differential Evolution
technique has been investigated for the design of Power System
Stabilizers in a multi-machine power system. An eigenvalue
value objective function is proposed for optimizing the PSS
performance. Eigenvalues and time domain basedanalyses are
carried out for three different loading conditions. The result
shows that DE can successfully optimize the PSS performance
for variable loading scenarios. Finally, a comparative analysis
reveals that there is no clear choice among the PSO, IWO or DE
based optimization technique for tuning the PSSs of the example
system. Use of hybrid optimization involving these three can be a
subject of future work.

[12] Y. L. Abdel-Magid and M. A. Abido, "Optimal multi

objective design of robust power system stabilizers using
genetic algorithms", IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 18, pp. 1125-1132, 2003.
[13] A. L. B. Do Bomfim, et al., "Simultaneous tuning of
power system damping controllers using genetic
algorithms," IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 15, pp.
163-169, 2000.
[14] M. A. Abido, Robust design of multi-machine power
system stabilizers using simulated annealing, IEEE
Trans. on Energy Conversion, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 297-304,
2003.

REFERENCES

[15] M. A. Abido, Y. L. Abdel-Magid, Optimal design of

power
system
stabilizers
using
evolutionary
programming, IEEE Trans. on Energy Conversion, vol.
17, no. 4, pp. 429-436, 2002.

[1] P. Kundur, Power System Stability And Control,

McGraw-Hill Press, 1994.
[2] P. M. Anderson, and A. A. Fouad, Power System
Control and
Stability, IEEE series on power
engineering, 2nd edition.

[16] A. Ahmed, and B. M. R. Amin, Optimization of power

system stabilizer for multi-machine power system using
Invasive Weed Optimization algorithm, International
Journal of Computer Applications (0975-8887), vol. 39,
no. 7, 2012.

[3] E. Larsen and D. Swann,Applying power system

stabilizers, IEEE Trans. Power App. Systems, vol. PAS100, pp. 3017-3046, 1981.
[4] Y. Cao, L. Jiang, S. Cheng, D. Chen, O.P. Malik and G.S.
Hope,A nonlinear variable structure stabilizer for power
system stability, IEEE Trans. Energy Conversion, vol. 9,
pp. 489495, 1994.

[17] A. Ahmed, and B. M. R. Amin, Performance

comparison of Invasive Weed Optimization and Particle
Swarm Optimization algorithm for the tuning of power
system stabilizer in multi-machine power system,
International Journal of Computer Applications (09758887), vol. 41, no. 16, 2012.

[5] T. Hiyama and T. Sameshima, Fuzzy logic control

scheme for on-line stabilization of multimachine power
42

Ahmed, A., et al.: Elec. Engg., Instn. Engrs., Bangladesh, 39 (I&II), June & December 2013

[18] P. W. Sauer and M. A. Pai, Power System Dynamics

and Stability, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall,
1998.

= (Pm- Pei Di (i -1))/Mi

qi = ( Efdi - (xdi xdi )idi Eqi ) / Tdoi

di = (( xqi xdi )iqi Edi ) / Tqoi

Tei =Eqiiqi (xqi xdi)idiiqi

rotor angle

rotor speed
Pm
mechanical input power
Pe
electrical output power
Eq
internal voltage behind xdi
Efd
equivalent excitation voltage
Te
electric torque
Tdo
time constant of excitation circuit
Tqo
regulator time constant
vref
reference voltage
v
terminal voltage

[19] R. Storn and K. Price, Differential evolution a simple

and efficient heuristic for global optimization over
continuous spaces, Journal of global optimization, vol.
11, pp. 341-359, 1997.
[20] K.V. Price, R.M. Storn, and J.A. Lampinen, Differential
Evolution: A practical approach to global optimization,
Springer Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005.

APPENDIX
Machine Model
= b(i- 1)

43