IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No.
6 June 1981
APPLYING POWER SYSTEM STABILIZERS
PART I: GENERAL CONCEPTS
E.V. Larsen (Member)
General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York
ABSTRACT
The general concepts associated with applying power sys-
tem stabilizers utilizing shaft speed, ac bus frequency,
and electrical power inputs are developed in this first
part of a three-part paper. This lays the foundation
for discussion of the tuning concepts and practical
aspects of stabilizer application in Parts II and III.
The characteristics of the "plant" through which the
power system stabilizer must operate are discussed and
the implications upon stabilizer tuning and performance
are noted. A general approach for analyzing stabilizers
utilizing an arbitrary input signal is described and
applied to the frequency and electrical power input
signals.
INTRODUCTION
Beginning in the late 1950's and early 1960's most
of the new generating units added to electric utility
systems were equipped with continuously-acting voltage
regulators. As these units became a larger percentage
of the generating capacity, it became apparent that the
voltage regulator action had a detrimental impact upon
the dynamic stability (or perhaps more properly steady-
state stability) of the power system. Oscillations of
small magnitude and low frequency often persisted for
long periods of time and in some cases presented limita-
tions on power transfer capability. Power system stabi-
lizers were developed to aid in damping these oscilla-
tions via modulation of the generator excitation [1,2].
The art and science of applying power system stabilizers
has developed considerably over the past ten to fifteen
years since the first widespread application to the
Western Systems of the United States. This development
has involved the use of various tuning techniques and
input signals, and learning to deal with practical
problems such as noise and interaction with turbine-
generator shaft torsional modes of vibration.
The desire on the part of the authors' Company to
provide stabilizing equipment which allows adjustment
for good power system performance while overcoming the
potential problems associated with noise and torsional
destabilization has led to considerable research in this
area in recent years, involving both analytical studies
and field tests. In 1975, a torsional protective pack-
age was developed for application to stabilizers on
large two-pole units [3]. The development of similar
protection for four-pole units, with their inherently
low torsional frequencies, has required much closer
scrutiny of power system stabilizer applications. This
paper describes the results of this research, with
emphasis on the power system performance attainable with
stabilizers utilizing each of the three input signals
considered most feasible: shaft speed, ac bus fre-
quency, and a combination of power and speed. These
results are presented in three parts: the first part
80 SM 558-7 A paper recommended and approved by the
IEEE Power Generation Committee of the IEEE Power
Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE PES
Summer Meeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota, July 13-18,
1980.Mianuscript submitted March 14, 1980; made
available for printing May 7, 1980.
-1-
3017
D.A. Swann (Member)
deals with the fundamental aspects of applying stabi-
lizers with the alternative input signals, and repre-
sents an extension of the concepts presented in the
paper by Concordia and deMello [2]. The second part of
this paper discusses system performance criteria, devel-
ops tuning concepts which enable attainment of these
criteria, and the relative performance attainable with
practical stabilizer equipment utilizing the three basic
input signals. The third part discusses the practical
considerations of tuning equipment in the field and
equipment design, including minimizing the effects of
torsional destabilization, power system noise, and, when
using electrical power as an input signal, mechanical
power variations.
BASIC CONCEPTS
The basic function of a power system stabilizer is
to extend stability limits by modulating generator
excitation to provide damping to the oscillations of
synchronous machine rotors relative to one another.
These oscillations of concern typically occur in the
frequency range of approximately 0.2 to 2.5 Hz, and
insufficient damping of these oscillations may limit the
ability to transmit power. To provide damping, the
stabilizer must produce a component of electrical torque
on the rotor which is in phase with speed variations.
The implementation details differ, depending upon the
stabilizer input signal employed. However, for any
input signal the transfer function of the stabilizer
must compensate for the gain and phase characteristics
of the excitation system, the generator, and the power
system, which collectively determine the transfer func-
tion from the stabilizer output to the component of
electrical torque which can be modulated via excitation
control. This transfer function, denoted GEP(s) in this
paper, is strongly influenced by voltage regulator gain,
generator power level, and ac system strength. This
section discusses the general relationship of these
parameters to GEP(s) and hence to stabilizer perform-
ance.
The block diagram in Figure 1 illustrates, in terms
of a few basic small-signal transfer functions, the
relationship between the applied torques on the tur-
bine-generator shaft and the resulting generator rotor
speed, w and rotor angular displacement, 6. The
electricay torque may be considered to have two compo-
nents, viz. (a) that which is produced by the power
system stabilizer solely by modulation of generator
flux, T ep and (b) that which results from all other
A8
ATm
I
AE
FIGURE STABILIZER WITH SPEED INPUT -
SYSTEM BLOCK DIAGRAM
3018
I rI
GEP (s) /
FIGURE 2 SIMPLIFIED MODEL OF SINGLE MACHINE TO INFINITE
sources, including shaft motion, T The functional
relationship between speed and torque is shown for a
stabilizer employing generator speed as an input signal.
The contribution of torque due to the stabilizer path is
given by:
AT
PSS (s) GEP(s)
A
= P(s)
G strongest ac system.
(In this case speed input is used for clarity; extension
to other input signals will be discussed subsequently.)
The transfer function GEP(s) represents the characteris-
tics of the generator, the excitation system, and the
power system. This transfer function can be approxi-
mated with the aid of Figure 2, representing a simpli-
fied model of a machine connected to a large power
system through a transmission line as derived in Refer-
ence 2. Study of this figure reveals that the dynamic
characteristics of GEP(s) are proportional to those of
the closed loop voltage regulator when the generator
speed is constant (AWG = 0), i.e.:
K aEt
GEP(s) - -
K6 3E
ref
This relationship forms the basis of stabilizer tuning
procedures which involve measurement of the closed-loop
voltage regulator characteristic to determine the phase
compensation required of the stabilizer.
The variation of GEP(s) with exciter gain, gener-
ator loading, and ac system strength plays a dominant
role in power system stabilizer tuning requirements and
performance. The closed-loop voltage regulator response
is primarily a function of the exciter characteristics
and the ac system strength. Modern turbine-generators
typically have a voltage regulator transient gain (i.e.,
the gain in the frequency range of intermachine oscilla-
tions, viz, 0.2 to 2.5 Hz) of approximately 20 pu
Efd/pu 't, which results in a voltage regulator loop
crossover at approximately 1 rad/sec with a nominal ac
system [2]. Experience has indicated that this gain
results in satisfactory operation over a fairly wide
range of system conditions. However, to obtain full
benefit from high ceiling exciters for stability follow-
ing a large disturbance, higher gains may be required.
Some utilities [4] set their voltage regulators with
much higher transient gains, on the order of 200 pu
Efd/pu et, to ensure maximum performance. With an
excitation system having relatively little phase lag,
such high gains will result in satisfactory voltage
regulation at light generator loads, but will signifi-
cantly decrease damping of rotor oscillations and may
cause an instability which prevents full load operation
even for relatively strong transmission systems. The
remainder of this paper deals primarily with the more
typical regulator transient gains in the neighborhood of
20 pu Efd/pu Et, although many of the conclusions also
apply when employing high gain exciters.
+
For situations where the voltage regulator loop
crossover frequency is lower than the oscillation fre-
quency of concern, the gain of GEP(s) at the oscillation
frequency can be approximated by its forward path, i.e.:
GEP (j )w
- K EXC(ijw )II/W T (2b)
It is also assumed that 1/K T' is less than the cross-
over 3 do behind equation 2b are
frequency. The assumptions
usually valid for typical modern units. The gain is
therefore proportional to the exciter gain and inversely
proportional to the main generator open-circuit field
time constant and the oscillation frequency. The gain
BUS
is also proportional to the parameter K which repre-
sents the effect of a change in generator2 flux (E') on
torque, and: q
1. Increases with generator loading.
2. Increases as the ac system becomes stronger.
(1)
Hence, the gain in this portion of the loop is highest
with the generator at full load and operating into the
For situations where the voltage regulator loop
crossover frequency is higher than the oscillation fre-
quency of concern, as it is in the case of very high
regulator gain, the gain of GEP(s) is no longer pro-
portional to regulator gain but is inversely propor-
tional to the parameter K5
as indicated by equation 2a.
K represents the effect of E' on terminal voltage,
which decreases as the ac systea becomes stronger and
hence causes the gain of GEP(s) to further increase as
the system strength increases.
Since the voltage regulator open-loop gain is
proportional to K6, the crossover frequency decreases as
the ac system becomes stronger. This influences stabi-
lizer performance, as there will be more phase lag to
overcome with a strong ac system than with a weak ac
system. This effect is most pronounced with high volt-
age regulator gain since the crossover frequency is in
the same range as the intermachine oscillations of
concern.
In summary, the power system stabilizer must oper-
ate through the "plant" GEP(s) which is dependent upon
the generator, the excitation system, and the power
system. The basic characteristics of this plant which
are significant to stabilizer applications are as fol-
lows:
1. The phase characteristics of GEP(s) are nearly
identical to the phase characteristics of the
closed loop voltage regulator.
2. The gain of GEP(s) increases with generator load.
3. The gain of GEP(s) increases as the ac system
becomes stronger. This effect is amplified with
high gain voltage regulators.

4. For typical voltage regulator transient gains of
the order of 20 pu Efd/pu &t' the gain of GEP(s) at
the oscillation frequencies of concern is propor-
tional to the regulator gain and inversely pro-
portional to the main generator open-circuit time
constant and the oscillation frequency.
5. The phase lag of GEP(s) increases as the ac system
becomes stronger. This has the greatest influence
with high gain exciters, since the voltage regu-
lator loop crossover frequency approaches that of
the oscillation of concern.
CHARACTERISTICS OF ALTERNATIVE INPUT SIGNALS-
The general frequency response characteristics of
stabilizers utilizing alternative input signals are
discussed in this section, together with the basic
concepts governing the tuning aspects and performance
capabilities. Speed input stabilizers are discussed
first, followed by an extension to frequency and power
input stabilizers.
Speed Input
A power system stabilizer utilizing shaft speed as
an input must compensate for the lags in GEP(s) to pro-
duce a component of torque in phase with speed changes
so as to increase damping of the rotor oscillations, as
detailed in Appendix A. An ideal stabilizer character-
istic would therefore be inversely proportional to
GEP(s), i.e.:
Ideal PSS (s) = Dp55/GEP(s)
where DPS represents the desired damping contribution
of the stabilizer (detailed in Appendix A). Such a
stabilizer characteristic is impractical since perfect
compensation for the lags of GEP(s) requires pure dif-
ferentiation with its associated high gain at high
frequencies. A practical speed stabilizer must utilize
lead/lag stages set to compensate for phase lags in
GEP(s) over the frequency range of interest. The gain
must be attenuated at high frequencies to limit the
impact of noise and minimize torsional interaction, and
consequently low-pass and possibly band-reject [1]
filters are required. A washout stage is included to
prevent steady-state voltage offsets as system frequency
changes.
T s (l+sT1)(l+sT3)
Practical PSS (s) = K w
s(l+Tws) (l+sT2)(l+sT4)
As discussed in the previous section the stabilizer
must operate through GEP(s), the characteristics of
which vary significantly with operating conditions. The
gain increases as generator load increases, which is
desirable since the stability problems for which the
stabilizer is applied also increase with generator load.
However, the gain is very high for strong ac systems
where the stability problem is minimal, and decreases as
the ac system becomes weaker. The latter effect causes
the influence of a speed input stabilizer to decrease
when the power system requires it most. In addition to
the fact that gain increases as the system becomes
stronger, the phase lag also increases. As a conse-
quence, the stabilizer loop of Figure 1 is least stable
under strong ac system conditions, and therefore these
conditions establish the maximum permissible gain of the
speed input stabilizer. Without adaptive gain control,
the stabilizer gain can not be as high as desired under
weak ac system conditions when the stabilizer contribu-
tion is needed most.
3019
Frequency Input
The use of ac bus frequency as a stabilizer input
results in tuning procedures and performance character-
istics somewhat different from those associated with
speed input stabilizers. The primary difference is that
the sensitivity of the frequency signal to rotor oscil-
lations increases as the external transmission system
becomes weaker, which tends to offset the reduction in
gain from stabilizer output to electrical torque,
GEP(s), resulting with weaker transmission systems.
This effect can be understood by utilizing the input
signal sensitivity factor concept developed in Appendix
B. This factor represents the transfer function from
speed to the stabilizer input signal, in this case ac
bus frequency:
sF (s) =
af/awG (4)
S (s) ranges from zero in the extreme case of a unit
connected to an infinitely stiff system, to unity with
the unit under open circuit conditions. Between these
extremes, one approximation of S (s) would be to equate
it to a voltage division between Fhe internal voltage of
the machine and the voltage of the infinite bus, i.e.:
1\1
s X /[X + XGEN (s)] (5)
This approximation is valid only for manual control,
since, as described in Appendix B, there exists an
additional path from speed to the input signal via the
(3a) voltage regulator. This effect can be included by
calculating the effective internal impedance of the
generator with the voltage regulator and including this
in equation 5. For typical voltage regulator gains, the
effective impedance of the machine is approximately
equal to the subtransient reactance over the frequency
range of interest to stabilizer application.
The off-setting effect of this characteristic is
illustrated in Figure 3, which shows the change in SF O
Hz) calculated for a large fossil unit versus external
system impedance, and the compound effect of the in-
crease in sensitivity with decrease in gain through
GEP(s) (the latter being proportional to the parameter
K2 as previously indicated). The gain changes of K2 and
S with external system reactance tend to off-set each
other with the result that the net gain from generator
speed (wG) to electrical torque (T ep) is reasonably
constant for a wide range of system reactances. For
very low values of system reactance, the gain is re-
FILT(s)
duced. Hence, this analysis suggests that the gain of
(3b) the stabilizer may be adjusted to obtain the best possi-
ble performance under weak ac transmission system condi-
tions, where the contribution of the stabilizer is
required most, without concern that the gain will be
excessive and cause the stabilizer to become unstable
under strong system conditions.
In addition, the frequency signal is more sensitive
to modes of oscillation between power plants or large
areas than to modes involving only individual units,
including those between units within a power plant.
This follows since the frequency at an ac bus between
units is near a node for the latter modes of oscilla-
tion, whereas it is largely responsive to modes wherein
the units swing coherently. As a consequence, it ap-
pears to be possible to obtain greater damping contribu-
tion for modes of oscillation between plants or areas
than would be obtainable with the speed input.
Power Input
The use of accelerating power as an input signal to
the power system stabilizer has recently received con-
 3020
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
.8
-
z
.6
(D
BUS
4
INPUT
ACTOR SF
.2
0 be utilized with the power input stabilizer, i.e., a lag
0 .2 .4 .6 .8
TOTAL XE (P.U.)
FIGURE 3 COMPENSATION OF GAIN BY FREQUE :NCY INPUT
SENSITIVITY FACTOR
siderable attention due to its inherent low level of
torsional interaction [5]. Practical di fficulties of
eliminating, or at least minimizing, t]he effect of
mechanical power changes appear to have bee.n overcome by
utilizing a heavily filtered speed signLal [6] which
approximately corrects for mechanical powe.r variations.
The following analysis applies only to thLe closed loop
characteristics of electrical power feedb ack; however,
it must be recognized that a practical pouwer stabilizer
requires some compensating device for mec hanical power
variations.
The most common approach to analyziing the power
input stabilizer is to treat its input as tthe derivative
of speed and apply the same concepts utili2zed in analyz-
ing the speed input stabilizer. This appiroach leads to
the conclusion that the performance charactteristics of a
power input stabilizer are identical to th( Dse of a speed
input stabilizer. This conclusion is vralid for the
var: .jus power system modes of oscillatiLon where the
shaft behaves as a rigid body (provided t-he mechanical
power changes are compensated for so that tthe stabilizer
input is a true measure of average acceleraiting power on
the turbine-generator). For shaft torsiconal modes of
vibration, however, the accelerating power on the gener-
ator rotor alone is considerably differ ent than the
average accelerating power across the entiire shaft, and
hence treating the stabilizer input signal as the deriv-
ative of generator speed is invalid. Ain alternative
approach is to utilize the input signal sensitivity
factor concept, i.e., treat electrical power changes as
resulting from speed changes via the electric power
system, rather than causing speed changes. This ap-
proach yields insight into the generic differences
between power input and speed input stabilizers, partic-
ularly with regard to torsional interaction, as outlined
in the following discussion.
The input signal sensitivity factor for power is:
aP a(TewG) aTe
S (s) = e = (6a)
P
wG
w
eWG aw
wb Kle(s) + p
s eo (6b)
- wb Kle(s (1 + S/W))
POw (6c)
where T,eX Pe, and wG are all in per unit on a con-
sistent base.
This input signal sensitivity factor is dominated by the
first term of equation 6 for the low frequencies of
concern, since the lowest value of Kle is approximately
0.5 p.u./radian (for weak transmission systems) and with
Peo maximum at 1.0 p.u. the break from the integral term
to the proporational term (w ) occurs at approximately
one-half synchronous frequency, i.e., near 30 Hz. This
implies that electrical power and torque are equivalent
with respect to stabilizer performance for most subsyn-
chronous modes of oscillation. Since the input signal
sensitivity factor for power has primarily an integral
characteristic, with approximately 900 of phase lag in
the frequency range of interest, it would appear that an
additional 90 of phase lead would be required in the
stabilizer. However, a non-minimum phase approach can
1.0 characteristic having 270° of phase shift can be used
rather than a lead characteristic having 900 of phase
shift. The advantage of this approach is that the lag
characteristic yields a closed-loop interaction with
shaft oscillations which exhibits a decreasing gain with
frequency, as opposed to the increasing gain with fre-
quency associated with the minimum-phase approach uti-
lizing a lead characteristic. Thus, the torsional
interaction characteristics of ideal minimum versus
non-minimum phase stabilizers diverge at a rate of 40
db/decade as the torsional frequency increases, with
equal interaction at the local mode of oscillation
(assuming gains set for equal local mode performance).
A discussion of non-minimum phase stabilizers is in-
cluded in Appendix C.
The phase lag of 270 can be obtained by inverting
the electrical power signal and designing the stabilizer
such that the net contribution of the stabilizer and
GEP(s) produces 90Y of phase lag by an integral charac-
teristic. With this criteria, an ideal stabilizer for
power is defined by:
Ideal PSSp(s) = - GEPSS (7)
P sGEP (s)
Note that this result is the same as would be obtained
by treating power as the derivative of speed, since
inverting P and integrating would yield speed, and
multiplying %y the ideal PSSw(s) from equation 3 would
give equation 7.

The frequency response of such a stabilizer is
shown in Figure 4. At low frequencies, lag must be
introduced to compensate for the low phase lag of
GEP(s), while at higher frequencies the stabilizer must
add phase lead to compensate for the secondary lags of
both GEP(s) and the stabilizer. Extending the lag at
low frequencies and the lead at high frequencies is
impractical, because of noise at the high frequencies
and because of potentially excessive voltage offsets for
low frequency phenomena on the power system, including
changes in mechanical power if it is not perfectly
compensated to provide a pure accelerating power signal
for the stabilizer. The low frequency gain is reduced
by using a time constant rather than a pure integral,
equivalent to the washout stage of speed input stabi-
lizer. The combination of a small lead/lag stage and a
lag at high frequencies provides a desirable declining
gain with frequency while maintaining adequate phase
near the highest local mode frequency. A practical
power input stabilizer would therefore have the fre-
quency response shown by the dashed line in Figure 4.
100
I0
-c
LJ
cr-
0.1
0.1 I0
w4 RAD/SEC)
FIGURE 4 POWER INPUT STABILIZER. IDEAL AND PRACTICAL
It should be noted that imperfect steady-state
compensation for power changes would necessitate adding
a washout stage, which is equivalent to a second washout
stage in a speed input stabilizer. The resulting phase
lead would be detrimental to the stabilizer performance
since, as described in Appendix A, it introduces a
desynchronizing component of torque. Interarea modes
often have very little synchronizing torque due to
relatively weak, heavily loaded ties, and adding a
desynchronizing effect via a power system stabilizer can
cause areas to lose synchronism following a relatively
minor system disturbance under such conditions.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The general concepts associated with applying power
system stabilizers utilizing speed, frequency, or power
input signals have been described in this part of a
three-part paper, laying the foundation for discussion
of the tuning concepts and practical aspects of stabi-
3021
lizer application which follow. The characteristics of
the "plant" through which the power system stabilizer
must operate i.e., the generator, exciter, and power
system, denoted GEP(s), are such that the gain increases
with generator loading and ac system strength. Also,
the phase lag of the "plant" increases as the ac system
becomes stronger. For stabilizers utilizing speed and
power as inputs, these characteristics imply that the
stabilizer must be tuned for the case of the strong ac
system, and that the performance will decrease as the ac
system becomes weaker. Utilizing ac bus frequency as an
input, however, results in characteristics which dimin-
ish the effect of ac transmission strength on the stabi-
lizer performance, and thereby allow tuning for the weak
ac system condition. In addition, a frequency input
stabilizer is less sensitive to modes of oscillation
associated with individual units, and more sensitive to
power swings between areas than either the speed or
power input stabilizers.
Stabilizers utilizing power as an input can be
designed with a non-minimum phase characteristic, effec-
tively utilizing lag networks rather than the lead
networks associated with the minimum phase characteris-
tic utilized with speed or frequency input. This allows
damping performance equivalent to a speed input stabi-
lizer but with lower gain at high frequencies. In
particular, the interaction with torsional modes of
shaft vibration exhibits a declining gain versus fre-
quency characteristic as opposed to the increasing gain
with frequency associated with speed or frequency input
stabilizers. While this non-minimum phase characteris-
tic is less sensitive to high frequency noise and tor-
sional interaction, it is sensitive to low frequency
phenomena, such as changes in mechanical power, and
power input stabilizers must therefore be provided with
compensation for these variations. If this is done with
washout stages, phase lead is introduced at low fre-
quencies which is detrimental to stability of interarea
swings.
REFERENCES
1) F.R. Schleif, H.D. Hunkins, G.E. Martin, E.E.
Hattan, "Excitation Control to Improve Powerline
Stability", IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-87, June, 1968,
pp. 1426-1434.
2) C. Concordia, F.P. deMello, "Concepts of Synchro-
nous Machine Stability as Affected by Excitation
Control", IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-88, April 1969, pp.
316-329.
3) R.A. Lawson, D.A. Swann, G.F. Wright,, "Minimization
of Power System Stabilizer Torsional Interaction on
Large Turbine-Generator", IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-97,
January/February 1978, pp. 183-190.
4) P. Kundur, D.C. Lee, H.M. Zein El-Din, "Power
System Stabilizers for Thermal Units: Analytical
Techniques and On-Site Validation", Paper F80-227-9
presented at IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York,
February 1980.
5) J.P. Bayne, D.C. Lee, W. Watson, "A Power System
Stabilizer Stabilizing Signal for Thermal Units
Based on Derivation of Accelerating Power", IEEE
Trans. Vol PAS-96, November/December 1977, pp.
1777-1783.
6) F.P. deMello, L.N. Mannett, J.M. Undrill, "Prac-
tical Approaches to Supplementary Stabilizing from
Accelerating Power", IEEE Trans. Vol PAS-97, Sep-
tember/October 1978, pp. 1515-1522.
3022
APPENDIX A APPENDIX B
Initial Impact of PSS Upon Analysis of Power System Stabilizer Application
Rotor Oscillation Eigenvalues With an Arbitrary Input Signal

It is shown here that the eigenvalue nominally When using an input signal other than shaft speed
associated with the rotor oscillation mode of interest for the power system stabilizer, two additional factors
initially moves an amount proportional to stabilizer must be considered in the analysis. The first is the
gain as the gain is increased from zero, and in a direc- "input signal sensitivity factor" which represents the
tion determined by the net phase of the stabilizer, transfer function from shaft speed to the signal being
excitation system, generator and power system. This used as a stabilizer input. This transfer function is
concept is useful in understanding the relationship in series with the stabilizer loop and thereby directly
between the phase characteristics of the stabilizer path influences the performance. The second factor is the
from speed to torque and performance of the power system "stabilizer inner loop" which is formed by virtue of the
with the stabilizer loop closed. We start with the stabilizer output having an effect upon its input signal
eigenvalue expressed approximately as per equation Al, independent of shaft speed, via flux changes in the
where it is assumed that the damping is light. generator. This is illustrated in Figure B1 which shows
the stabilizer path from shaft speed to electrical
Dv torque with an arbitrary input signal X. This can be
1
-
+
-
J MM =
_
i- jw i
i+ (Al) expressed mathematically as:
AX = SX(S) AWG + FBX(s) AEpss (Bla)
Adding the power system stabilizer results in effective
damping and synchronizing component contributions: = ) AwG + FBx(s) PSX(s) AX (Blb)
aT
P(s) = ep due to adding PSS (A2a) X = stabilizer input signal
aWG w generator shaft speed
EGpss stabilizer output signal

=
DpSS(wi) -
iW.1 KpSS(Wi) (A2b)
SX(S) =
axG
aM,

= "input signal sensitivity factor"

Including this contribution in the expression for the FB (s) = ax
eigenvalue results in equation A3, and A4 represents the BE pss
change expressed in terms of the damping and synchroniz-
ing contributions of the stabilizer. ="input signal feedback factor"

1L
+ aI = - °(D+D
214
PSS) + j
wb
(Ko+KPSS)
14 (A3)
The resulting contribution of the stabilizer path is
therefore:

Au. =
1
Dp55(Wj) (A4a)
P(S) =
A\Tep/ G
= Sx(s) PSSx(s) GEP(s)/[l - FBx(s) PSSx(s)] (B2)
AWi 2M KpSS(Wi) W (A4b)

From equation A4, it is seen that the change in the real

and imaginary components of the eigenvalue are propor-
tional to the real and imaginary components of the'
contribution of the stabilizer path, and hence the
change in eigenvalue is related to this stabilizer
contribution:
A.1 = -
2iF P(jw
Piw~ (A5)
AWG
Note that a zero phase characteristic for Pjw.)
will cause the real part of the eigenvalue to increase
in a negative direction, which implies positive damping. FIGURE BI STABILIZER LOOPS WITH ARBITRARY INPUT X
Phase lag in P(jw.) results in a positive synchronizing
component (as per equation A2c) and an increase in fre-
quency. Conversely, phase lead yields a negative syn- The impact of the stabilizer inner loop, which appears
chronizing contribution and a decrease in frequency. in the denominator term of equation B2, is a function of
the input signal chosen. For the case of shaft speed
input, the feedback term is zero and hence the inner
loop has no effect. As an opposite extreme, utilizing
terminal voltage for stabilization would result in a
very large feedback term and a low sensitivity factor.
For ac bus frequency as a stabilizer input, the feedback
term is sufficiently small and, at least for analyzing
the inpact of the stabilizer as its gain is increased
from zero, the feedback term can be neglected, resulting
in the approximation of equation B3.
 3023

P(s) ~ P'(s) = Sx(s) PSSx(s) GEP(s) (C3) Note that an additional zero at the origin is introduced
into the loop when using power as opposed to speed
input.
where P'(s) represents the forward part of the stabi-
lizer path. APPENDIX C
It should be noted that the input signal sensitiv- Non-Minimum Phase Stabilizers
ity factor is a function of the voltage regulator as
well as power system conditions such as transmission
line strength. This follows since the stabilizer input The objective of a power system stabilizer is to
signal is sensitive to changes in the voltage error add damping to rotor oscillations, which is accomplished
signal (in the same manner it is affected by stabilizer by modulating voltage regulator setpoint such that
output signal), and the voltage is affected by shaft resulting torque changes are in phase with shaft speed.
speed. This can be expressed mathematically as follows: In conventional stabilizers lead networks are provided
to compensate for the phase lags associated with the
Ae t =AE ref +tE pss -AE t (B4) generator and excitation system (GEP(s) of Figure 1),
resulting in a "minimum phase" control loop.
B8t/BWG = - S (B5)
An alternative approach is to add appropriate lag
Sx(s) = S (s) - SEM (s) FB(s) (B6) networks such that the net phase is -360 at the fre-
quency of concern, resulting in a "non-minimum phase"
where SM, SEM = input signal sensitivity factors for X control loop. Figure Cl gives an example where the 3600
and Et, respectively, under manual control (i.e., volt- phase lag is accomplished by:
age regulator gain = 0).
P(s) = GEP(s) PSS w(s) = - Kw/s (C1)
The input signal feedback factor (FBx(s)) repre-
sents the effect of a change in stabilizer output upon
the input signal via flux changes in the generator, and In this figure, all other contributions to torque have
hence includes the closed-loop voltage regulator charac- been lumped into the effective synchronizing constant
teristics. K (s) defined in equati-on 6.
To analyze the closed-loop performance of the power
system with a stabilizer, it is useful to consider the
stabilizer as closing a loop around a system which
includes both the input signal feedback factor and the
A8
rotor. Based on Figure Bl, this can be expressed as: ATn
Gx(s) = FBx(s) + GEP(s) R(s) SX(S) (B7)
where
R(s) = -s/(MS + Kle(s) wb) (B8a)
=- -
"
2 2
S/M(s _2a.s
3
+ W.)
IL
(B8b)
FIGURE Cl NON-MINIMUM PHASE SPEED INPUT STABILIZER
The open-loop transfer function of the system is With a speed input stabilizer yielding a pure
then double-integral characteristic, as per equation Cl, an
instability will result as soon as the gain is increased
from zero. This can be understood by examining the
GHX(s) = Gx(s) PSSX(S) (B9a) nature of the control loop. From Figure Cl, the forward
path can be defined as R(s) as per equation B8, with the
= GxCs) P'(s)/S xs) GEP(s) (B9b) feedback path P(s) as per equation Cl. The system has a
net of one open-loop pole at the origin, since one of
For speed input, the poles of the stabilizer path is cancelled by the
FBw is zero and S w is unity, zero of R(s). In addition, there exists a complex pair
hence: associated with rotor oscillations. Since the open loop
gain is inverted in sign, when K is increased the
Gw (s) = GEP(s) R(s) (B1O) complex poles will move further into the left-half plane
and become more stable, but the pole at the origin will
For power input, FB can be determined by realizing that move towards the right-half plane and become unstable
it represents the Peffect of stabilizer output signal immediately. This is illustrated in Figure C2a.
upon power independent of shaft motion. Hence power and
torque are equivalent and the feedback factor becomes: Thus, to successfully implement a non-minimum phase
stabilizer with speed input it is necessary to use a
BP time constant at a low frequency rather than a pure
aT integral characteristic, i.e.:
FB (s) BE e
= =
= GEP(s) (Bll)
p -pss Epss P(s) = GEP(s) PSSw (s) ~= - K /s(w + s) (C3)
w s
Using the power input signal sensitivity factoir from
equation 5, together with equations B7, B8, an.d Ri1, The pole at the origin has now been shifted into the
results in: left-half plane by w . This pole will still move
towards the right-halt plane and eventually become
G (s) = s GEP(s) R(s) (B12) unstable, but will permit some damping contribution to
rotor oscillations as shown in Figure C2b.
 3024

4 wtG = generator shaft speed.

-Kw -KW
6 = generator shaft angular displace-
S2 (s )S El - generator internal voltage.
q
Efd = generator field voltage.
Kinst :Q Kinst >0
Et = generator terminal voltage.
-ws
Ef = voltage reference signal.
(a) (b) Eref
£t
----- error signal.
FIGURE C2 ROOT LOCt WITH NON-MINIMUM - PHASE SPEED INPUT STABILIZER

To analyze the characteristics of the power input PSSX(S) = stabilizer with input X.
stabilizer, the concepts developed in Appendix B for an
arbitrary input signal are utilized. First, a develop- EXC (s) = excitation system =
AEfd/A&t-
ment parallel to that used above for speed input is
followed. Utilizing equations B2, Bll, and B3 yields Wub system base frequency (377 rad/sec @
the following for the stabilizer path with power input: 60 Hz).
stabilizer gain.
P(s) = Sp(s) PSSp (s) GEP(s)/[l - GEP(s) PSSp (s)] (C4a) KS
= P'(s)/[l - P'(s)/Sp(s)] (C4b) Tw washout time constant.

T1T 2T3sT4 lead/lag time constants.

To provide a non-minimum phase characteristic for low
values of stabilizer gain, the forward part of the FILT(s) filtering in stabilizer.
stabilizer path, P(s), is set to the double-integral
characteristic of equation Cl, with S (s) from equation x- -reactance external to generator.
e
6c assuming w = . Including the effect of the stabi- effective reactance of generator.
lizer inner 1Toop by substituting into equation C4b GEN
yields the following for the stabilizer contribution: pe electrical power.
P(s) = - K/s[(K/K le(s) tu) + s)] (C5) p eo steady-state power level.
K1 (s) effective synchronizing coefficient,
Note that including the stabilizer inner loop has re- AT /36, including all sources other
sulted in a stabilizer contribution which is actually an than stabilizer path.
integral plus a time constant similar to equation C3.
Unlike the breakpoint w introduced into the stabilizer
with speed input, however, the breakpoint in equation C5
w
-po
wb Kle(S)/Peo
is inherently proportional to the gain of the stabilizer th
A. eigenvalue associated with i- mode
forward path, K, and hence suggests that the pole asso- 1
of rotor oscillation.
ciated with this breakpoint will not become unstable as th
the gain is increased. This can be verified by deter-
W. rotor oscillation frequency of i-
mining the open-loop transfer function as per equation mode.
B9b with the ideal characteristic of equation Cl for
P'(s), equation B12 for the system, and equation 6 for ci. " ----- damping ------
the input siganl sensitivity factor:
GH (s) = R(s)K/w% Kl(s) (1 + s/wtu) (C6) Dp55,Kp55 effective damping and synchronizing
coefficients resulting from stabi-
lizer path.
This ideal open-loop transfer function has less than D ,K damping and synchronizing coeffi-
1800 of phase lag at low frequency, and hence the non- 0o 0 cients.
minimum phase characteristic can be implemented with
power input without having the low frequency instability M inertia of turbine-generator shaft.
which is associated with a speed input non-minimum phase
stabilizer. feedback =
LIST OF SYMBOLS
FBX (s) input
8X/8Ep55.
signal factor

P (s) ATTpl/wG neglecting FBX(s).

GEP.(s) = T /AE PSS = 'plant"
through which
stanilizer must operate. Gx(s) AX/E PSS including rotor motion.
T
e
= generator electrical torque. R(s) = WG/ATep
of
T
ep
= component of T due solely to flux
changes caused Cy Ep55.
GHX(s) = open-loop
stabilizer control loop.
transfer function

T eo = component of T due to all other The following are defined in [2]:

sources (= T e - fep ).
K3 ZE /REfd
K1 = T
e/m6 K
2
=
3T /WE
e q
=

stabilizer output signal.

EPSS =

K5 =
3Et/36 K
6
=
aE /aEE
t q
Tm = mechanical torque.
For Combined discussion see page 3024