IEEE Transactionson Energy Conversion, Vol. 7,No.3, September 1992.
453
OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUE FOR THE DESIGN
OF A LINEAR OPTIMAL POWER SYSTEM STABILIZER
G.P. Chen O.P.Malik
- of- Electrical & Computer Engineering
Dept.
The university of Calgary-
Calgary, Alberta
Canada n N I N 4
ABSTRACT
A systematic optimization method of choosing the
weighting matrix in linear optimal control system design, under
the conditions of prespecified closed-loop dominant eigenvalue
locations and feedback gain limit constraints, is presented in this
paper. Studies show that with the proposed method one can
obtain the desired weighting matrix very quickly and
conveniently without the heavy burden of choosing a suitable
weighting matrix by trial and error. This method can also easily
achieve a reduced-order feedback control system. The linear
optimal power system stabilizer designed by using the proposed
method produces very good performance.
1. INTRODUCTION
Supplementary control is very effective in producing
damping in power systems. Various power system stabilizers
based on different control theories have been proposed['-'".
One of the stabilizers that has attracted a great deal of
attention in recent decades is the linear optimal power system
stabilizer. This stabilizer uses the linear optimal control theory to
design a linear state feedback control loop. There are two
important steps in the successful design of such a controller. One
is to have a precise mathematical model of the controlled system.
Another is to select a suitable weighting matrix in the
performance index. The former can be considered solved because
the models of all units in power systems have been studied
extensively and standard models for these units have been
prop~sed[~*~l.But the latter remains unsolved.
To design a linear optimal controller, the power system
model is first linearized around an operating point. The linear
model of the system in the state space form is described as:
~ = A X + B U XE R"', UE R"' (1)
where A and B are system matrices, x and U are the state
variable vector and control signal vector respectively, and n , and
nu are the number of state and control variables, respectively.
For the linear system described by eqn.(l), the optimal
control signal U f71 that minimizes the performance index
is a linear function in terms of the system state variable x as
U = K X = - R-I B~ P X
92 WM 017-4 EC A.paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Energy Development and Power Generation
Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for
presentation at the IEEE/PES 1992 Winter Meeting,
New York, New York, January 26 - 30, 1992. Manuscript
submitted August 28, 1991; made available for
printing December 31, 1991.
0885-8969/(n$03.000 1992IEEE
Y.H. Qin G.Y. Xu
Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Chongqing University
Chongqing, Sichuan
P.R. China 630044
where Q and R are the weighting matrices, K is the feedback
gain matrix and P is the solution of the linear matrix Riccati
equation
A ~ P P+ A - P B R - ' B ~ P +Q = O (4)
Riccati equation is the key to the design of the linear
optimal control systems. Once the matrices Q and R are known,
the matrix P can be obtained by solving eqn.(4) and then the
optimal control signal U is calculated by eqn.(3).
It can be seen that the design theory for the linear optimal
control system is very simple. However, a very important and
difficult problem that perplexes the designer is how to select the
weighting matrices Q and R. Different matrices pair (a.,Ri)
determine different feedback gain Ki, which results in different
dynamic performance for the closed-loop system.
The traditional way to select (Q, R) is to use trial and error
method. Many simulation studies have to be done in time
domain with different weighting matrices to choose the ones that
provide desired performance. This method is blind and time-
consuming. Because of the complexity, the matrices Q and R are
commonly chosen as diagonal matrices. This simplistic treatment
discounts the effect of the weighting matrices on the control
system. Further, the trial and error method can not satisfy the
specific demands of desired feedback gain limits and damping
ratio of the dominant eigenvalues, which are very likely in
practical situations.
The ultimate goal is to find a systematic method to
automatically seek the desired weighting matrix pair (Q, R)
which satisfies all the prespecified conditions. With the given
feedback gain limits and damping ratio of the dominant
eigenvalues, the optimization technique proposed in this paper
can automatically optimize the weighting matrix Q in full-matrix
form to move the dominant eigenvalues as far as possible from
the imaginary axis under the given conditions until the desired
damping ratio is reached.
Another potential application of this method is to design a
reduced-order control system which has better performance than
the one designed by the commonly used method, such as
minimum-error-excitation method ['.*). Successful application of
this method in the design of reduced-order systems extends the
significance of the weighting matrix. That is to say, the use of
the weighting matrix in linear optimal control theory is, not only
to weight the state variables to get satisfactory dynamic
(3) performance, but also to be able to change the structure of the
control system to realize reduced-order control system if the
elements of the weighting matrix are properly selected.
Simulation studies of the linear optimal power system
stabilizer designed by the proposed optimization technique are
also given in the paper. The results show the correctness and
effectiveness of the proposed method.
2. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
In this paper, without loss of generality, the weighting
454

matrix R is chosen as an identity matrix. Thus the key problem functions,

is to select the weighting matrix Q. Because of the symmetrical
property of the Q matrix, there are only n,(nx+1)/2 elements qlJ
( i = 1 , 2 , . . . n,, i S j S n,) that need to be determined. For
convenience of expression, the elements qrJ are re-queued as: i = 1 , 2 , . . . ,n , ; i S j S n,; k = 1.2; 9 . . nx
Q = [ ~ I q12
I '.. qln, q22 423 ''. q b , ' . . qnfiF.lT (5) where EL.,,(X) denotes the element x, of the matrix X.
Sometimes Q is used to express the square weighting matrix and Now the sensitivity matrix S i of eigenvalue vector A of the
sometimes to express the vector in eqn.(5). The reader can easily closed-loop system matrix to the weighting matrix Q can be
distinguish them from the text. formed as below:
The dominant eigenvalues of the closed-loop system, as a r
quantitative expression of the dynamic performance, have very
important significance for the proposed method. This is because
the key point of the proposed method is to optimize the where
weighting matrix under a set of given constraints to move the
ax.
dominant eigenvalues of the closed-loop system to the
prespecified locations in the left side of the complex plane. The
optimization procedure is based on the sensitivity of the closed-
loop system eigenvalues to the weighting matrix. Thus the first
aa. I..
1 . - _ _ . ahi . .
3911 3912
aa,
aqlnx aq22
- axj
...
aqb,
-
aqnfi.

i = 1 , 2 , . . . , n,
1
step to establish the weighting matrix optimization model is to
obtain the sensitivity values of the closed-loop system Since S': has been obtained from eqn.(6), the sensitivity
eigenvalues A, the feedback gain K and the eigenvalues p of the matrix S4", of the feedback gain matrix K to qij can be calculated
weighting matrix Q to the elements qlJ of the weighting matrix directly from eqn.(3):
Q. They are denoted by S& S E and Sg respectively.
S4",= - R-I BT SqUp (12)
Suppose S': is the sensitivity matrix of the solution matrix
P of the Riccati equation to the elements qlJ of the weighting The sensitivity matrix St can be re-arranged in the
matrix Q. From eqn.(4) it can be derived that S': satisfies the following form:
following Liapunov

( A -B R-I BT P)TS': + Slj ( A - B R-I BT P ) + i!Q = 0 (6)

S$. . . S:unK 1' (13)

aqij where
i = 1,2;. . , n,;
1
i Ij 5 n, ak.. ak.. . . . L
ak.. L
ak.. ...L
ak- . . . - akjj
22
If A F is used to represent the system matrix of the closed- 3411 3412 aqln, 3422 aqb, aqn,n.,
loop system
i = 1.2;. . , n,; j = 1,2;. . , n ,
AF = A - B R-' B ~ P (7)
according to Hellman-Feynman Theorem, the sensitivity value Supposing j3 is the eigenvalue vector of the weighting
akk/apjj of the eigenvalue & of AF to pij is given in the matrix Q, from Hellman-Feynman Theorem the sensitivity value
following form [lo]: apk/aqij of the eigenvalue p, to qij is

where 4 and 2, are the eigenvectors of the eigenvalue kk
corresponding to A: and A, respectively. For every eigenvalue
a k ( k = 1, 2 , . . . , n , 1, from eqn.(8) the sensitivity matrix S)
can be formed as:
where f?k and Vk are the eigenvectors of the eigenvalue p k
Corresponding to QT and Q respectively. Similar to eqn.(lO), the
sensitivity matrix SQ of j3 to Q has the following form:
r 1T

a& -ali,
- . . . - where
apIl aP12 a~ I n ,
ah, -a&
- . . . -
ap21 JP22 aPh,
. . . . . (9)
i = 1.2, . . . , n ,

--...-
. ... I . ..

apnfil.
1I
Once the sensitivity matrices S$ and S,: are obtained, the
sensitivity value a)ik/aqij of the eigenvalue lit to qij can be
calculated by using the derivative principle of compound
3. OPTIMIZATION MODEL AND PROCEDURE
Real parts of the dominant eigenvalues of the closed-loop
system determine the decreasing rate of the dynamic oscillations,
and the imaginary parts determine the frequency of the dynamic
oscillations. In general, the dynamic performance of the control
system mainly depends on the real parts of the dominant

eigenvalues. Thus in this paper, the optimization objective
function and the constraint consideration are based on the real
parts. However, the optimization model can be easily modified to
consider the effects of the imaginary parts.
Mathematically, the objective of introducing an optimal
control system is to improve the eigenvalue locations of the
closed-loop system in the complex plane["'. The objective of
optimizing the weighting matrix Q is to move the dominant
eigenvalues of the closed-loop system towards the left side in the
complex plane as far as possible without violating the given
constraints. Without loss of generality, suppose ,.A is the real part
of the dominant eigenvalues of the closed-loop system. The
objective function of the optimization model can be chosen as
Min M l = S $ A Q (16)
AQ
where MI is the amount of movement of the dominant
eigenvalue with respect to the change AQ of the matrix Q.
For the sub-dominant eigenvalues, they may be moving
towards the right side in the complex plane while the dominant
eigenvalues are moving towards the left in the optimization
procedure. In order to avoid this undesired phenomenon, the
following constraints are added in the optimization procedure
S ~ A Q I O (17)
where AI is the sub-dominant eigenvalue set. The significance of
eqn.(l7) is to constrain the right moving amount of the sub-
dominant eigenvalues no larger than zero at each iteration in the
optimization process.
For the general case, the constraints on the real parts of
complex eigenvalues among the sub-dominant eigenvalue set can
be replaced by the constraints for their corresponding damping
ratio. However, the low frequency oscillations of the power
system are the main concern in this paper. These frequencies are
not so high and do not change too much during the optimization
procedure. If the real parts of the roots move in the correct
direction, the corresponding damping ratio will also be improved.
Thus for simplicity, only the constraints on real parts of the roots
are considered in eqn.( 17).
The existing methods of choosing the weighting matrix
have the disadvantage of being unable to consider the constraints
for the feedback gain matrix K. It often happens that in order to
get the satisfactory dominant eigenvalue locations the feedback
gain is very large. This makes the control system more difficult
to realize. This problem can be easily solved in the proposed
method by using the sensitivity matrix Stcalculated in eqn.(l3).
If e and 3 are the lower and upper limits for the K constraints
respectively, the following inequality constraints can be
introduced in the optimization model to consider the feedback
gain constraints.
KO I K + ~6AQ I 9
& (18)
It should be pointed out that the proposed method has
another unique characteristic of optimizing the weighting matrix
Q in the full-matrix form. The linear optimal control theory
requires that the weighting matrix Q must be definite or semi-
definite. This requirement must be considered in the optimization
model. According to the matrix theory, the condition for a square
symmetrical matrix to be definite or semi-definite is that its
eigenvalues be not less than The following constraints
are added to the optimization model to guarantee that the
weighting matrix Q is definite or semi-definite.
p + SQ AQ 2 o (19)
455
For linear optimal control systems, the weighting matrix has
its specific significance. It is used to constrain some state
variables. Thus it may be necessary to demand that some
elements qr, of the weighting matrix have some specific values.
Simultaneously, in order to enhance the flexibility of the
proposed method to be able to optimize the weighting matrix not
only in the full- matrix form but also in the diagonal form, the
following constraints are needed :
@ I Q + AQ I @ (20)
As a matter of fact, these constraints are not absolutely necessary
for the weighting matrix optimization in the full-matrix form. It
provides an option for the designer to decide whether to use
them or not, and makes this method more flexible.
The relation between the eigenvalues A of the closed-loop
system and the weighting matrix Q is nonlinear. But for
simplicity, a linear model is used in the proposed optimization
technique. To guarantee that the linear optimization model is
applicable to solve the nonlinear problem, the optimizing step
AQ must be constrained so that in each optimization iteration the
proposed method works within a linear region.
AQ 5 L\Qo (21)
There is a problem in the above optimization model.
Because the simplex method has an implicit constraint for the
variables ( AQ 2 0 ), the elements of the weighting matrix can
only be increased during the optimization procedure. This
problem not only lowers the efficiency of the optimization
technique but also makes it unsuitable in practice. This problem
can be solved with a variable substitution AQ=AQl -AQ2
(AQl 2 0, AQ2 2 0). So eqn.(21) can be modified as follows:
'&A I A Q ~- A Q I~ 8Qo (21a)
The following method is recommended to determine the
optimization step length e, S O . Because of the symmetrical
property of optimization, @ can be chosen as -@. In order to
enhance the optimization speed, varying optimization step length
is preferred. From the authors' experience, 10% to 20% of the
current value of the -weighting matrix Qs, can be used as the
optimization step AQo for the next iteration, that is,
AQ$+,) = (10%-20%)Qg). In this way, the proposed method is
guaranteed to work within a linear region and the optimization
speed is also improved.
From the discussions above, the following optimization
model can be formed:
Equation (22) is the main optimization model. Although
constraints in eqn.(l9) are considered in the main optimization
model to secure the matrix Q to be definite or semi-definite, the
nonlinearity of the original problem and the calculation error
may still cause the constraints in eqn.(l9) to be violated
occasionally. Thus a sub optimization model, the Q definiteness
optimization model, is introduced to guarantee that the main
mrl -
456

optimization procedure can proceed smoothly.

Use f3' to represent the positive and zero eigenvalues and f3-
the negative eigenvalues of the weighting matrix Q obtained
from the main optimization procedure. If f3- = (t$) (empty set),
the weighting matrix is definite or semi-definite and the sub
optimization procedure is skipped. Otherwise, the sub
optimization procedure is called to assure that Q is definite.
During this process, the optimization information of the main
program should be retained as much as possible so that in the
next step of the main optimization procedure the dominant
eigenvalues can be further optimized.
Suppose p, is the minimum eigenvalue of the matrix Q. If
Q is not definite or semi-definite, then p1 is negative. To assure
that the matrix Q is definite, the following sub optimization 18.00 2.41 -1 3 3
model can be obtained based on the above idea 2.41 7.58 -3 1.14 -0.82
Q = -1 -3 2663.96 -3 -3
3 1.14 -3 18.4 3
subject to : S$ (AQ1 - AQ2) = 0 3 -0.82 -3 3 10.5

-kc- --0.215 0.691 -0.125 0 0 - 'Me-

Ab -39.3 -0.625 0 39.3 0 Am
AV, = -0.134 -0.0015 -0.078 0 0 AVt
k m
0 0 0 -5 5 wm
0 0 0 0 -6.67
-Ab- - - -AF-

0.081 0

+ 0.051
0

0
0
0
0
[AvjAE,
(24)

0 6.67 12.23 3.15 -0.12 2.39 3.01

3.15 8.15 -3.00 1.07 0.97
Q = -0.12 -3.00 2000.00 -2.58 -4.21
2.39 1.07 -2.58 28.73 3.29
3.01 0.97 -4.21 3.29 5.24

4. REDUCED-ORDER CONTROL SYSTEMS

To design a linear optimal control system for a practical
controlled system, it is necessary to consider the possibility and
simplicity of the control system realization. The first problem
met in the realization of the control system is how to measure all
the state variables needed to constitute the full-state feedback
control system. Although the measurement technique is
 457

becoming more and more advanced, in many cases some state

0
variables are still difficult to be measured because of the A& 0 314.159 0 0 --A6-
technology and economic reasons. This makes the realization of 0
- -0.1857 -0.5426 -0.2129 0
o u
the full-state linear optimal control system very complicated and
difficult. To solve this problem, some methods of designing
& - -0.2987 0 -0.5024 0.17668 +

hf -5.7619 0 -2472.83 -50.0 AEf

5ooo
reduced-order feedback control systems have been proposed.
These methods use only a part of the state variables to form the
feedback control system and thus avoid the requirement of (35)
measuring all the state variables. Among these, the minimum-
Suppose the state variable 6 is difficult to measure and a
error-excitation (MEE) method is commonly used [7*81.
reduced-order feedback control system is preferred. For
Use f to represent the reduced set of state feedback comparison, the minimum-error-excitation method and the
variables such that f has the following relation with the full-state proposed weighting matrix optimization technique are used to
variable set x: design the reduced-order control system and their results are
f=Mx (31) compared.
thus the control U can be expressed in terms of f as follows: Normally, to design a reduced-order control system by the
MEE method, the weighting matrix is chosen by trial and error.
U=-Rf (32) Since the program for the proposed technique was available, the
where K is the reduced-order state feedback gain matrix. weighting matrix in the diagonal form was obtained by this
program instead of by trial and error. The full-state optimal
The following steps are recommended in the minimum-
feedback gain matrix K and its corresponding closed-loop
error-excitation method to calculate the reduced-order gain
eigenvalues A for the given matrix Q are calculated as:
matrix K:
Q = diug [ 188.549 253.984 3.07832 0.220682 ]
(i) With the known system state equations, calculate the
optimal full-state feedback gain matrix K by using the K = [ -4.92916 436.782 -20.5758 -0.461419 ] (36)
linear optimal control theory, i.e. solve the Riccati equation
(4). It should be noted that a suitable weighting matrix Q
must be prespecified by trial and error.
(ii) Obtain the Lagrange multiplier matrix V by solving the
following Liapunov matrix equation:
(A-BKIV + V ( A - B K ) ~+ I = o (33)
(iii) The reduced-order state feedback gain matrix & can be
obtained
K=KVM~(MVM~)-~ (34)
It should be pointed out that as with the MEE method other
methods for the design of reduced-order feedback control
systems can only get a suboptimal control system. Unfortunately,
there is no guarantee for the suboptimality of the control system 311.524 -0.02 1.0 1.0
and sometimes an unstable control system may result. That is -0.02 322.195 -1.0 1.0
why, for a reduced-order feedback control system, a lot of Q= 1.0 -1.0 134.783 0.59
simulation studies must be conducted before it can be applied to 1.0 1.0 0.59 0.06563
practical situations.
The studies of this paper reveal that a reduced-order
feedback control system can be constructed by selecting the
elements of the weighting matrix in an optimal and coordinated
manner. This method also gets rid of the possibility of resulting
in an unstable control system. Furthermore, the dynamic
performance of the reduced-order control system designed by the
proposed weighting matrix optimization method is very close to
that of the full-state feedback control system.
In the optimization model discussed in the previous section,
set the feedback gain limits corresponding to the state variables
not fed back to be zero, and follow the ordinary optimization
procedure. In this way, the reduced-order feedback gain matrix
and its corresponding weighting matrix can be obtained. The
dynamic performance of the reduced-order control system is
determined by the positions of the closed-loop dominant
eigenvalues in the complex plane.
As an example, consider the following system described by
the linearized state equation:
458

handled by the proposed method in the same manner. If a
solution is obtained, the proposed method will give the best
closed-loop eigenvalue locations which satisfy the constraints.
Otherwise, a state observer must be used to get the estimates for
the missing state variable(s).
Closed-loop dynamic response to an impulse disturbance on
the state variable m at 1 s with different controllers is shown in
Fig.1. This figure clearly shows the effectiveness of the proposed
weighting matrix optimization technique.
point the dominant closed-loop eigenvalue may increase in the
process of making the weighting matrix definite as seen in
Fig.2(a). The damping ratio of the closed-loop system also
decreases corresponding to the dominant closed-loop system
eigenvalues as shown in Fig.2(b). These results show that with
the proposed optimization technique, a proper weighting matrix
can be easily obtained to meet the demand of the desired
locations of the closed-loop system eigenvalues in the complex
plane.

_.
.. U
a i 2 4 s 6 (a) Convergence of the closed-loop eigenvalues
- with reduced-ordersystem designed by the proposed method
---- with full-statefeedback control system
-- with reduced-ordersystem designed by the MEE method
Fig.1 Impulse responses with different controllers

5. LINEAR OPTIMAL POWER SYSTEM STABILIZER

A single machine connected to a constant voltage bus
through two parallel transmission lines is used to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the supplementary controller on its dynamic
performance and stability enhancement. Model and parameters
for this power system are given in the Appendix.
With the power system operating at a power of 0.8 pu and
(b) Convergence of the damping ratio
power factor 0.85 lag, a linearized model in state variable form
suitable for the design of the optimal supplementary controller Fig2 Convergence properly of the optimization process

A simulation study is conducted at the design operating

A6 - 0 376.991 0 0 A5
r -
0 point and the results are compared to those with the conventional
- -0.263 0 -0.248 0 Am 0 PSS and with no stabilizer. A 10% step increase on the torque
Gi - -0.297 0 -0.604 0.193 LIE; 0 ut is applied as 1 s . The performance of the system with the
proposed supplementary stabilizer is improved to a large extent
+

A,$ -537.412 0 -3390.53 -100.0 -l-

I - Mf. as shown in Fig.3. To illustrate that the proposed stabilizer can
be used at other quite different operating points, results of a
(39) studies at the operating point of 0.5 pu power, and 0.9 p.f. lead
are given in Fig.4 with the same feedback gain as before. The
proposed controller exhibits better damping than the conventional
PSS does in both cases.

-with proposed PSS

---- with conventional PSS
-- without stabilizer
0 . 3 3 0 ~ 1 00.100x103
~ 0 . 2 4 5 ~ 1 0 ~0 . 2 7 0 ~ 1 0 ~
0.100x103 0.lOOxld 0 . 5 0 0 ~ 1 0 ~0 . 1 3 7 ~ 1 0 ~
=
0 . 2 4 5 ~ 1 0O.5OOxlO3
~ 0 . 5 9 1 ~ 1 0 ~-0.348~103
0 . 2 7 0 ~ 1 00~. 1 3 7 ~ 1 0-0.348~10~
~ 0.829~10~

e 1 2 3 4 5 6

Fig.3 Step response with lagging power factor operation

E
 459

York, 1977
- with
- -- - with
proposed PSS
conventional PSS [ 131 Murtagh, B.A., 'Advanced linear programming', McCraw-
-- without stabilizer Hill International Book Co., New York, 1981

8. APPENDIX
8.1 System model
6=co&l
Mb=T,,, -KdO-T,
T ; o . k i = E ~ f- ( x d - x & ) i d -Ed
TA = KA ( V,q - V, + U ) - Er
Time s
- : : - : - - - : : : : : . : : : - . + . . - - : : : : . k 0 = v d + r, id - xq i,
a 1 2
Fig.4 Step response with leading power factor operation Eq = Vq + ra iq + xd id
T, = E d i q - ( x i - x q ) i d i q
6. CONCLUSIONS :v = vd' + v;
With the proposed weighting matrix optimization technique, vd = V, sin6 + re id - x, i,
one can easily get a suitable weighting matrix to ensure that the V, = V, cos 6 + re iq + x, id
desired closed-loop eigenvalues to be achieved. Also, this
optimization technique can consider many kinds of constraint. 8.2 Conventional PSS model
The studies described in this paper show that a reduced-order
feedback controller can be designed with the elements of the
weighting matrix chosen in an optimal and coordinated manner. 8.3 System and CPSS parameters
This gives the weighting matrix a new significance.
r, = 0.0031, xd = 1.6, X& = 0.17, X, = 1.53
7. REFERENCES Tdo = 5.18, M = 5.0, Kd = 0.0

Gibbard, M.J., "Co-ordinated design of multimachine power
system stabilizers based on damping torque concepts", IEE
proceedings, V01.135, ptC, No.4, 1988, pp.276-284
Raghavendra, K.R. and L. Jenkins, "Design of a near
optimum regulator for a power plant", Electric Machines
and Power Systems, Vol.10, 1985, pp.1-13
Chan, W.C. and Y.Y. Hsu, "Optimal control of electric
power generation using variable structure controllers",
Electric Power Systems Research, V01.6, 1983, pp.269-278
Cheng, S.J., O.P. Malik and G.S. Hope, "Damping of
multi-modal oscillations in power systems using a dual-rate
adaptive stabilizers", IEEE Trans. on Power System, V01.3,
No.1, 1988, pp.101-108
IEEE Committee Report, "Dynamic models for steam and
hydro turbines in power system studies", IEEE Trans. on
PAS, Vol.PAS-92, No.6, 1973, pp.1904-1915
IEEE Committee Report, "Excitation system models for
power system stability studies", IEEE Trans. on PAS,
Vol.PAS-100, N0.2, 1981, pp.494-509
Anderson, B.D.O. and J.B. Moore, 'Linear optimal control',
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1971
Lu, Q., Z.H. Wang and Y.D. Han, 'Optimal control for
power transmission systems', Qinhua University Press,
Beijing, 1984 (in Chinese)
Chen, G.P. and Y.H. Qin, "A sensitivity method for the
weighting matrix selection of linear optimal control
systems", The Journal of Chongqing University, Vol. 11,
NO.3, 1988, pp.67-73
[ 101 Stephen, B.H., "The generalized eigenproblem: pole-zero
computation", Proceedings of the IEEE, Vo1.76, No.2. 1988,
pp. 103-120
[ 111 Yu, Y.N., 'Electric power system dynamics', Academic
Press, INC. U.S.A., 1983
[ 1 21 Jacobson, D.H., 'Extensions of linear-quadratic control,
optimization and matrix theory', Academic Press, New
re = 0.05, x, = 0.5, K, = 50.0, T, = 0.01
Kg=0.8, T ~ = 2 . 5 , T,=0.15, T2=0.05
All resistances and reactances are in pu and time-constants
in sec.
9. BIOGRAPHY
Chen, Gan-Ping (S'91) was born in Sichuan, P.R.China, on
January 12. 1964. He received his B.Sc. degree from Chengdu
University of Science and Technology, Sichuan, P.R.China in
1984 and his M.Sc. degree from Chongqing University, Sichuan,
P.R.China in 1987. both in electrical engineering. Presently, he is
working towards his Ph.D degree in the Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, the University of Calgary, Canada. His
fields of interest are power system stability control with optimal
and adaptive excitation controllers, and their real-time
implementation; power system operation, analysis, and planning.
Malik, O.P. (M'66 - SM'69 - F'87) graduated in electrical
engineering from Delhi Polytechnic, India, in 1952 and obtained
the M.E. degree from the University of Roorkee in 1962. In
1965 he received the Ph.D degree from the University of London
and D.1.C from the Imperial College, London, England. From
1952 to 1961, he worked with electric utilities in India. In 1965
he worked with the English Electric Company in England. He
moved to Canada in 1966. He taught for two years at the
University of Windsors and is at present a Professor at the
University of Calgary.
Qin, Yi-Hong was born in Wuxi, Jiangsu, the People's
Republic of China, on May 18, 1927. He received his Diploma
in electrical engineering from Chongqing University, 1952.
Presently, he is at Chongqing University and holds the rank of
Professor. His research interest is in the field of power system
stability analysis and control.
Xu, Guo-Yu is at present a Professor at Chongqing
University. His research interest is in the field of power system
analysis and economic load dispatch.