XXXII NATIONAL SYSTEMS CONFERENCE, NSC 2008, December 17-19, 2008

DESIGN OF OPTIMAL AND INTEGRAL CONTROLLERS FOR AGC OF TWO AREA INTERCONNECTED POWER SYSTEM
S.K. Sinha1, Dr. R Prasad2 and Dr. R. N. Patel3
Abstract- In this work Automatic Generation Control (AGC) of two-area interconnected power system has been studied. As a consequence of continually load variation the frequency and tieline power deviate over time and these transients are to be minimized using different controllers. An optimal controller has been designed to ascertain zero steady state frequency deviation and tie-line power flow deviation under all operating conditions. For the same two-area system an integral controller has also been designed and the performance of the two types of controllers has been compared. The simulation results indicate that better control performance in terms of overshoot and settling time can be obtained by optimal controller. Keywords- Automatic generation control, Tie line power deviation, Frequency deviation, Optimal controller, Integral controller.

NOMENCLATURE
f = Nominal frequency f1 , f 2 = Deviation in frequency of area 1 & 2

of changing speed changer position of the governor by a controller. This automatic control of frequency deviation and tie-line deviation is called automatic generation control (AGC). AGC tries to achieve this balance by maintaining the system frequency and the tie line flows at their scheduled values. The AGC action is guided by the area control error (ACE), which is a function of system frequency and tie line flows. The ACE represents a mismatch between area load and generation taking into account any interchange agreement with the neighboring areas[1], [2].In the load frequency control problem, frequency and tie-line power should be kept as near scheduled value as possible which is difficult to achieve due to fluctuating nature of load[3],[4]. This paper presents the AGC for a two area thermal system. A simulation model for AGC studies of such a system has been proposed here. The AGC performance of a two area test system has been studied with two types of controllers viz. optimal controller and integral controller. The performance comparison of the two controllers has been done in which the optimal controller performs much better as compared to the conventional integral controller.

Tie-line power deviation b1 , b2 = Frequency bias constants of area 1 & 2 R1 , R2 = Governor speed regulation parameters of area 1 & 2 Tsg1 , Tsg 2 = Governor time constants of area 1 & 2
Tt1 , Tt 2 = Turbine time constants of area 1 & 2 Tps1 , Tps 2 = Power system time constants of area 1 & 2 K ps1 , K ps 2 = Power system gains of area 1 & 2 K1 , K 2 = Optimal controller gains of area 1 & 2 K I 1 , K I 2 = Integral controller gains of area 1 & 2 PG 1 , PG 2 = Turbine power output in area 1 & 2
PD1 , PD 2 = Change in load in area 1 & 2

Ptie =

II. DESIGN OF OPTIMAL CONTROLLER FOR TWO AREA SYSTEM

In order to design an optimal controller for a two area thermal-thermal system, u1 and u2 control inputs are created by a linear combination of all the system states. The outputs of all the blocks having either an integrator or a time constant are defined as state variables. There are nine state variables for the considered system[2],[5].The state model is formulated by writing the differential equation representing each individual block of figure in terms of state variable. In the block diagram (Fig.1), following are defined; x1 = f1 ; x2 = PG1 ; x4 = f 2 ; x5 = PG 2 ;
x8 = ACE1 dt ; x9 = ACE2 dt u1 = Pc1 ; u2 = Pc 2 ; w1 = PD1 ; w2 = PD 2 From the block diagram, & x1 + Tps1 x1 = K ps1 ( x2 x7 w1 )

PC1, PC 2 = Commanded change in power in area 1

&2
ACE = Area control error

I. INTRODUCTION
The normal operation of an interconnected multi-area power system requires that each area maintains the load and generation balance. These systems experience deviations in nominal system frequency and scheduled power exchanges to other areas with change in load. This is normally achieved by means
1 2

Hence,
& x1 = K ps1 K ps1 K ps1 1 x1 + x2 x7 w1 (1) Tps1 Tps1 Tps1 Tps1 1 1 x2 + x3 Tt1 Tt1

& Similarly, x2 =

(2)

Assistant Professor, College of Engineering, Roorkee (Uttarakhand) 247 667 Associate Professor, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee (Uttarakhand) 247 667 3 Reader, Shri Shankaracharya College of Engineering & Technology, Bhilai

236

Figure 1: Block Diagram of Two Area power system with optimal controller

& x3 =

1 1 1 x1 x3 + u1 R1Tsg1 Tsg1 Tsg1

(3)

K ps1 Tps1 FT = 0

0 0

0 0 K ps 2 Tps 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

& x4 =
& x5 =

K ps 2 a12 K ps 2 K ps 2 1 x4 + x5 + x7 w2 (4) Tps 2 Tps 2 T ps 2 Tps 2

1 1 x5 + x6 Tt 2 Tt 2

(5) (6)

& x6 =

1 1 1 x4 x6 + u2 R2 Tsg 2 Tsg 2 Tsg 2

& x7 = 2T12 x1 2T12 x4 (7) & x8 = b1 x1 + x7 (8) & x9 = b2 x4 a12 x7 (9) The above nine equations can be organized in the following vector matrix form as: & x = Ax + Bu + Fw Where x is state vector, u is control vector and w is disturbance vector [6]. The matrices A, B & F are obtained as below:
1 K ps1 K ps1 0 0 0 0 Tps1 Tps1 T ps1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tt1 Tt1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tsg1 R1Tsg1 K ps 2 a12 K ps 2 1 0 0 0 A= 0 Tps 2 Tps 2 Tps 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tt 2 Tt 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 R T Tsg 2 2 sg 2 0 0 2T 0 0 0 2T12 12 b 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 b 0 0 0 0 a12 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

In the optimal control scheme the control inputs u1 and u2 are generated by means of feedback from all the nine states with feedback constants to be determined in accordance with an optimal criterion. The standard form in optimal control theory is & x = Ax + Bu which does not contain the disturbance term Fw present in the equation. Further, a constant disturbance vector w would drive some of the system states and the control vector u to constant steady values; while cost function employed in optimal control requires that the system state and control vectors have zero steady state value for the cost function to have a minimum. For full state feedback, the control vector u is constructed by a linear combination of all states, i.e. u = Kx where K is the feedback matrix. The feedback matrix K is to be determined so that a certain performance index J is minimized In MATLAB, this can be obtained by LQR (Linear Quadratic Regulator) by the following function K = lqr ( A, B, Q, R) The state-feedback law u = Kx minimizes the cost function ( J )
J = 1 / 2( x' T Q x' + u' T R u' )dt
0

(10)

Where, x ' and u ' are transient state terms. From J , Q & R can be obtained through the following design considerations. (i) Excursions of ACEs about the steady values are minimized. Excursions of ACE dt about the steady (ii) values are minimized. Excursions of control vector about the (iii)
237

0 0 0 1 Tsg1 0 0 BT = 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tsg 2

0 0 0 0 0 0

steady values are minimized. With the help of Fig.1 J can be written as
J= 1 ' ' ' [( x7 + b1 x1 )2 + ( a12 x7 + b2 x'4 )2 2 0
' ' ' + ( x82 + x92 ) + k(u12 + u'22 )] dt

IV. NUMERICAL EXAMPLE

(11) For two area thermal-thermal system the following data are taken [9], [10] f = 60 Hz Tsg1 = Tsg 2 = 0.08 sec
Tt1 = Tt 2 = 0.3sec H1 = H 2 = 5 sec

From the expression of J, obtained as follows. b12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 b2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 a b 0 12 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R = KI = symmetric matrix

Q and R can be
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

0 0 a12 b2 0 0 2 0 1 + a12 0 0

D1 = D2 = 8.33 x103 puMW / Hz R1 = R2 = 2.4 Hz / puMW Pr1 = Pr 2 = 2000 MW Ptie ,max = 200 MW
1 = 0.425 R From the above we can calculate K ps and Tps by b1 = b2 = D +

III. INTEGRAL CONTROLLER DESIGN

The optimal controllers are now replaced with integral controllers in both the areas as shown in Fig. 2. The optimization of gain of integral controller has been done using ISE technique [7], [8].1% step perturbation is considered in area 1 while keeping

the following relations 1 K ps = ; hence K ps1 = K ps 2 = 120 D 2H Tps = ; hence Tps1 = Tps 2 = 20 sec Df MATLAB is used to find the values of A, B, Q and R.

Figure 2: Block diagram of two area power system with integral controller

area 2 uncontrolled. For different values of gain, the 2 cost function J given as (f12 + f 22 + ptie )dt is calculated. The value of integral controller gain K I 1 for which J has minimum value is the optimum value of integral controller gain for area 1. The controller gain of area 2 is found in similar manner which is same as that of area 1 because the two areas are similar. 238

0 0.0500 6.0000 0 3.3333 3.3333 5.2083 12.5000 0 0 0 0 A= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5250 0 0 0 0 0.4250 0 0 0

6.0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0500 6.0000 0 6.0000 0 0 3.3333 3.3333 0 0 0 0 5.2083 12.5000 0 0 0 0 0.5250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0000 0 0 1.0000 0 0 0.4250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 BT = 0 0 0 0 0 12.5 0 0 0
0.1806 0 0 0 Q= 0 0 0.4250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1806 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
del f1(Hz)

0.1
0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0.4250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4250 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0000 0 0 0 1.0000 0 0 0 1.0000 0.4250

0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3

f1integral f1optimal

10
Time (sec.)

15

20

Figure 4: Change in frequency of Area 1

0.2 0.1

for

feedback

matrix

del f2(Hz)

1 0 R= 0 1 Computer solution K obtained is obtained as

0 -0.1 -0.2 0 5 10
Time (sec) f2integral f2optimal

0.4223 0.6579 0.1620 0.0.766 0.1122 0.0255 0.168 1.00 0.00 K= 0.0766 0.1112 0.0255 0.4223 0.6579 0.1620 0.168 0.00 1.00

I.

IV. INTEGRAL CONTROLLER GAIN

The optimum values of gain of integral controllers found by ISE technique for both the areas are calculated as 0.64 which is also evident from the plot of K I 1 and J as given in Fig.3

15

20

Figure 5: Change in frequency of Area 2

0.02 del Ptie(pu MW) 0 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06

TieIntegral TieOpt 0 5 10 Time(sec) 15 20

Figure 6: Change in Tie Line Power

(b) 1% Step Load Perturbation in Area 2

0.05 0 del f1(Hz)

Figure 3: Plot of K I 1 vs. J

-0.05 -0.1 -0.15 -0.2 F1Opt F1intgral 0 5 10 Time(sec) 15 20

V. COMPARISON OF OPTIMAL AND INTEGRAL

CONTROLLERS

Comparison of performance of Integral and Optimal controllers have been shown in the form of graphs in Fig. 4, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 for 1% step load perturbation in area 1 and Fig. 7, Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 for 1% step load perturbation in area 2. Comparison of magnitude of frequency deviation and the time taken to damp out oscillations for the two controllers clearly reveal that optimal controller provides better dynamic responses over the conventional integral controller. The settling time of the system is very less in case of optimal controller as compared to that in case of integral controller.
(a) 1% Step Load Perturbation in Area1

Figure 7: Change in frequency of Area 1

0.1 0 del f2(Hz) -0.1 -0.2 -0.3

F2Opt F2intgral 0 5 10 Time(sec) 15 20

Figure 8: Change in frequency of Area 2

239

0.06 0.04 del Ptie 0.02 0 -0.02 TieIntegral TieOpt

REFERENCES
[1] Ibraheem, Prabhat Kumar and D. P. Kothari Recent Philosophies of Automatic Generation Control Strategies in Power Systems, IEEE Trans. on Power System, Vol. 20, No.1, pp. 346-357, Feb 2005. [2] D. P. Kothari and I. J. Nagrath, Power System Engineering, 2nd ed. McGraw Hill, Year 2007. [3] O. I. Elgerd, Electric Energy Systems Theory: An Introduction, TMH Publishing Co. Ltd, Year 1983. [4] O.I.Elgerd and C.E.Fosha,Optimum megawattfrequency control of multiarea electric energy systems IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol.PAS 89, No.4, April 1970, pp. 556-563 [5] C.E.Fosha and O.I.Elgerd,The megawatt-frequency control problem: a new approach via optimal control theory IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol.PAS 89, No.4, April 1970,pp. 563-577 [6] M.l.kothari and J.Nanda, Application of optimal control strategy to automatic generation control of a hydrothermal system, IEE proc., vol.135, No.4, July 1988, pp. 268-274. [7] G. G. Bhise, M. L. Kothari and J. Nanda, Optimum Selection of Hydro governor parameters for Automatic Generation Control of a Hydrothermal System. IEE 2nd International Conference on Advances in Power System Control, Operation and Management, Hong Kong, pp.910-915, Dec. 1993 [8] K. C. Divya and P. S. N. Rao, A Simulation Model for AGC Studies of Hydro-Hydro Systems Electrical Power and Energy Systems 27, pp. 335-342, 2005 [9] C. T. Pan and C. M. Liaw, An adaptive controller for power system load-frequency control, IEEE Trans. on Power System, Vol. 4, No.1, pp.122-128, Feb 1989 [10] J. Nanda and A. Mangla, Automatic Generation Control of an interconnected Hydro-Thermal System Using Conventional Integral and Fuzzy logic Controller IEEE International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation and Power Technologies, pp. 372-377, April 2004.

10 Time(sec)

15

20

Figure 9: Change in Tie Line Power

The summary of observations from the results in Fig. 4 to Fig. 9 is as follows: 1. For 1% step load perturbation in area 1, Fig.4 shows, the settling is 13.82 seconds when integral controllers are used in both the areas whereas it reduces to 5.34 seconds when both the controllers are replaced by optimal controllers. From Fig.5, frequency deviation and settling time in area 2 can be observed. Again the deviation in frequency and settling time are less when optimal controllers are used in both the areas. The system settles in 14.38 seconds when the controllers used are of integral type and it reduces to 6.83 seconds when the controllers are replaced by optimal type. The tie line power deviation also stabilizes fast in case when optimal controllers are used in both the areas (7.85 seconds) than when controllers are replaced by integral type (14.60 seconds). Except for the magnitude of frequency deviations, tie-line power deviations and settling time, the conclusions obtained for 1% step load perturbation in area 2 are same as found above for area 1.

2.

VI. CONCLUSIONS
In the present work a two area thermal- thermal system has been studied with a view to design an optimal controller, to study the dynamic performance of the system and to compare its performance with that of conventional integral controller. Instead of using explicit parameter identification, the optimal controller uses only the available information of the model states and output. The computer simulation on two area thermal system show better control performance in terms of overshoot and settling time by optimal controller as compared to conventional integral controller.

240