E
is the excitation phase angle, and
B
is the boosting phase angle.
Fig. 1. SMIB power system equipped with UPFC
In stability and control studies of power system oscillations,
the linearized model can be used. In this paper dynamic model
of the system for small signal stability improvement is used.
Nominal parameters used for system modeling are given in
Appendix-I.
The nonlinear model of the SMIB system of Fig 1 can be
expressed by the following differential equations (1-4) [12]:
( 1)
base
=
(1)
1
[ ( 1)]
2
m e
P P D
H
= (2)
' ' '
'
1
[ ( ) ]
q fd q d d d
do
E E E x x i
T
=
(3)
1
(( ) )
fd A ref pss fd
A
E K V v U E
T
A = +
(4)
Where Pm and Peare the input and output power, respectively.
e d d q q
P v i v i = + ,
( )
2 2
t d q
v v v = + ,
( )
d q q q iq lq
v x i x i i = = + , ' '
q q d d
v E x i = ,
,
d Ed Bd q Eq Bq
i i i i i i = + = +
Where M and D the inertia constant and damping coefficient,
respectively;
base
the synchronousspeed; and the rotor
angle and speed, respectively; E
q
,E
fd
, and v the generator
internal, field and terminal voltages, respectively; T
do
the
open circuit field time constant; x
d
andx
d
the d-axis reactance,
d-axis transient reactance respectively; K
A
and T
A
the exciter
gain and time constant, respectively; V
ref
the reference voltage;
and u
PSS
the PSS control signal.
By applying Parks transformation and neglecting the
resistance and transients of the ET and BT transformers, the
UPFC can be modeled by the following equations (5-7):
Etd
Etq
v
v
(
=
(
[
0
]
Ed
Eq
i
i
(
(
+
cos
2
s
2
E E dc
E E dc
m v
m in v
(
(
(
(
(
(5)
Btd
Btq
v
v
(
=
(
[
0
]
Bd
Bq
i
i
(
(
+
cos
2
s
2
B B dc
B B dc
m v
m in v
(
(
(
(
(
(6)
3 3
(cos sin ) (cos sin )
4 4
E B
dc E Ed E Eq B Bd B Bq
dc dc
m m
v i i i i
C C
= + + +
(7)
Where, v
Et
, i
E
, v
Bt
, andi
B
are the excitation voltage, excitation
current, boosting voltage, and boosting current, respectively;
C
dc
and v
dc
are the DC link capacitance and voltage.The
relations of excitation and boosting transformers parameters
and line currents can be written as:
' ( )
2 2
m Sin v x x m Sin v x
E E dc Bd dE B B dc BB
i E v Cos
Ed q b
x x x
d d d
= + +
- ( )
2 2
q q
m Cos v x x
m Sin v
E E dc Bq qE
B B dc
i v Sin
Eq b
x x
= +
' ( )
2 2
m Sin v x x m Sin v x
E E dc dE dt B B dc E
i E v Cos
Bd q b
x x x
d d d
= + +
( )
2 2
q q
m Cos v x x
m Cos v
E E dc qE qt
B B dc
i v Sin
Bq b
x x
= + +
Where, X
E
and X
B
are the ET and BT reactance, respectively.
By combining and linearizing the equations (1-7) state space
equations of system will be obtained which are present in state
space represented equation (8). In this process there are 28
constants denoted by k are being used.
E
m
B
B
]
T
International Journal of Electrical & Computer Sciences IJECS-IJENS Vol:12 No:04 34
128704-6565-IJECS-IJENS August 2012 IJENS
I J E N S
Where
1 2
3 4
0 0 0 0
5 6
7 8 9
0 0 0 0
0
1
0
' ' ' '
1
0
0 0
b
pd
qd
d d d d
A A A vd
A A A A
K
K K D
M M M M
K
K K
A
T T T T
K K K K K K
T T T T
K K K
(
(
(
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
(
(
And
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
' ' ' '
0
pe pde pb pdb
qe qde qb qdb
d d d d
A ve A vde A vb A vdb A
A A A A A
ce cde cb cdb
K K K K
M M M M
K K K K
B
T T T T
K K K K K K K K K
T T T T T
K K K K
(
(
(
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
(
(
III. DAMPING CONTROL
The unique feature of MPC which has made it different from
other controllers is the ability to predict the future response of
the plant.At each control interval an MPC algorithm attempts
to optimize future plant behavior by computing a sequence of
future manipulated variable adjustments [13]. Figure 2 shows
the basic principle of MPC.
Prediction horizon (TP) is the time range which, future system
outputs are predicted in it. Control horizon (Tc) is the time
steps number that input control sequence calculations for the
prediction horizon are done [13].In this plant model, value of
prediction horizon is taken 10 and control horizon is 2.
Fig. 2. Principle of model predictive control
Based on measurements obtained at time t, the controller
predicts the future dynamic behavior of the system over a
prediction horizon Tpand determines the input over a control
horizon Tc such that a predetermined open-loop performance
can be achieved. Ifthere were no disturbances and no model-
plant mismatch, and ifthe optimization problem could be
solved for infinite horizons, then one could apply the input
function found at time t=0 to the system for all times t0.
However, this is not possible in general. Due to disturbances
and model-plant mismatch, the true system behavior is
different from the predicted behavior. In order to incorporate
some feedback mechanism, the open-loop manipulated input
function obtained will be implemented only until the next
measurement becomes available. Using the new measurement
at time t+o, the whole procedure will be repeated to find a
new input function with the control and prediction horizons
moving forward [14].
MPC approach can be expressed considering the
following finite horizon cost function [15]
1
0 1
1
( ,[ ( ),..., ( )]) ( ( ), ( )) ( ( ))
H
rh
t H T
t H t i i T
i
J x u t u t h x u u t g x u
+ A
+ A
=
= +
E
, m
B
and
B
on system states are observed first in figure (4-
7)
Fig. 4. Responses for control signal mEfor states (i) , (ii)
Fig. 5. Responses for control signal mBfor states (i) , (ii)
Fig. 6.Responses for control signal Efor states (i) , (ii)
Fig. 7. Responses for control signal Bfor states (i) , (ii)
International Journal of Electrical & Computer Sciences IJECS-IJENS Vol:12 No:04 36
128704-6565-IJECS-IJENS August 2012 IJENS
I J E N S
It has been seen that
E
(Fig. 6) and
B
(Fig. 7) give the worse
response. They can bring stability only in state , but takes a
long time which is not desired. Control signal m
E
(Fig. 4) also
doesnt have a good response characteristics. It can stable state
at a time of around 5 seconds but cant stable state .
Among the four signals, m
B
gives the best output making both
the states stable at a reasonable time of below 6 seconds (Fig.
5). As, MPC is a MIMO supported controller, so responses
will be observed now for control signals two at a time. Five
different combinations of two control signals are observed in
this paper in fig (8-12).
Fig. 8. Responses for control signal mB and mE together for states (i) , (ii)
Fig. 9. Responses for control signal B and E together for states (i) , (ii)
Fig. 10. Responses for control signal mE and E together for states (i) , (ii)
Fig. 11. Responses for control signal mB and B together for states (i) , (ii)
International Journal of Electrical & Computer Sciences IJECS-IJENS Vol:12 No:04 37
128704-6565-IJECS-IJENS August 2012 IJENS
I J E N S
Fig. 12. Responses for control signal mB and E together for states (i) , (ii)
Observing the combined effect of two different control
signals, it has been found that the responses are significantly
improved for every cases than applying them individually.
Among the 5 combinations, combination of m
E
and
E
provides
the worst response (Fig. 10). It cant make any of the states
stable.
B
-
E
combination brings stability in every states but
takes a long period of time (10 secs.) to bring stability in
(Fig. 9). Combination of m
B
-
B
(Fig. 11)
,
m
E
-m
B
(Fig. 8)and
m
B
-
E
(Fig. 12) show the best responses here making both the
states stable within a short time of 3.5 seconds.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, by linearizing and combining the equations of
SMIB power system and UPFC, a complete state space model
was presented to study the oscillations. Effect for model
predictive controller for stability analysis is observed then for
different states of the system model. Different combinations
and individual impacts of four different control signals of
UPFC are analyzed. It has been found that the best solution of
stability analysis for the proposed model is the use of MPC
with multiple control signals of UPFC at a time.
APPENDIX
The parameters used in system model:
Generator: M =8 MJ/MVA, T
d0
=5.044 s,D =0 ,X
q
=
0.6 pu, X
d
=1.0 pu, X
d
=0.3 pu
Transformers: X
T
=0.1 pu, X
E
=0.1 pu, X
B
=0.1 pu
Transmission line : XL =0.1 pu
Operating condition: Pe =0.8 pu,Q=.1670pu , Vb =1 pu, Vt =
1 pu
DC link parameter: V
DC
=2 pu, C
DC
=1.2 pu
REFERENCE
1. Shayeghi H. - J alilizadeh S. - Shayanfar H. - Safari A. : Simultaneous
coordinated designing of UPFC and PSS output feedback controllers
using PSO, J ournal of ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 60, NO.
4, 2009, 177184
2. Anderson P. M. - Fouad A.A., Power SystemControl and Stability :
Ames, IA: Iowa State Univ.Press, 1977.
3. Keri A. J . F. Lombard X. Edris A. A. : Unified power flow
controller: modeling and analysis, IEEE Transaction on Power Delivery
14 No. 2 (1999), 648-654.[4] Hingorani N. G. Gyugyi L. :
Understanding FACTS: concepts andtechnology of flexible AC
transmission systems, Wiley-IEEE Press, 1999.
4. Hingorani N. G. Gyugyi L. : Understanding FACTS: concepts and
technology of flexible AC transmission systems, Wiley-IEEE Press,
1999.
5. Tambey N. - Kothari M.L. : Unified power flow controller based
damping controllers for damping low frequency oscillations in a power
system, IEE Proc. on Generation, Transmission and Distribution, Vol.
150, No. 2 (2003), 129-140.
6. Huang Z. Nil Y, et al. : Control strategy and case study, IEEE trans
Power System2000;15(2):817-24.
7. Wang H.F. Swift F.J . : An unified model for the analysis of FACTS
devices in damping power systemoscillations part I: Single machine
infinite bus power systems, IEEE Trans Power Deliver 1997; 12:941-6.
8. Chen X.R Pahalawaththa. N.C Annakkage U. D - Cumble C. S :
Design of decentralized output feedback TCSC damping controllers by
using simulated annealing, IEE Proc. on Generation, Transmission and
Distribution 145 No. 5 (1998), 553-558.
9. T. K. Mok, Y. Ni, and F. F. Wu, Design of fuzzy damping controller of
UPFC through genetic
10. algorithm, IEEE Power Eng. Society Summer Meeting, vol. 3, pp.
18891894, J uly 1620, 2000.
11. Dash P. K. - Mishra S. Panda G : A radial basis function neural
network controller for UPFC, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 15, no.
4, pp. 12931299, November 2000.
12. Qin S.J . and Badgwell T.A. An overview of industrial model predictive
control technology, In F. Allgower and A. Zheng, editors, Fifth
International Conference on Chemical Process Control CPC V, pages
232256. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1996.
13. Al-Awami A. T. - Abdel-Magid Y. L. - Abido M. A. : Simultaneous
Stabilization of Power System
14. Using UPFC-Based Controllers, Electric Power Components and
Systems, 34:941959, 2006.
15. Ahmadzade B. Shahgholian G. - MogharrabTehrani F. Mahdavian
M. : Model Predictive control to improve power systemoscillations of
SMIB with Fuzzy logic controller.
16. Allgower F, Badgwell T.A, Qin J .S, Rawlings J .B and Wright S. J .
Nonlinear predictive control and moving horizon estimation An
introductory overview, In P. M. Frank, editor, Advances in Control,
Highlightsof ECC99, pages 391449. Springer, 1999.
17. Ford J .J . - Ledwich G. - Dong Z.Y : Efficient and robust model
predictive control for first swing transient stability of power systems
using flexible AC transmission systems devices, IET Generation,
Transmission & Distribution Received on 26th September 2007.