IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 21, NO.

1, MARCH 2006

187

Some New Findings on Automatic Generation Control of an Interconnected Hydrothermal System With Conventional Controllers
Janardan Nanda, Senior Member, IEEE, Ashish Mangla, and Sanjay Suri
AbstractThis paper deals with automatic generation control of an interconnected hydrothermal system in continuous-discrete mode using conventional integral and proportional-integral controllers. Appropriate generation rate constraint has been considered for the thermal and hydro plants. The hydro area is considered with either mechanical or electric governor and thermal area is considered with either single or double reheat turbine. Performances of mechanical governor, electric governor, and single stage reheat turbine and two stage reheat turbine on dynamic responses have been explored. Further, selection of suitable value of speed regulation parameter R and sampling period has been investigated. System performance is examined considering 1% step load perturbation in either thermal or hydro area. Index TermsAutomatic generation control, conventional controllers, reheat turbine, sampling time period.

KP Proportional gain. Kd , Kp , Ki Electric governor derivative, proportional, and integral gains, respectively. (Di + 1/Ri ); area frequency response characi teristics. Water starting time. Tw Area control error of area i. ACEi Pr1 /Pr2 . a12 J Cost index. T Sampling time period.

I. INTRODUCTION ENERATION in large interconnected power system comprises of thermal, hydro, nuclear, and gas power generation. Nuclear units owing to their high efciency are usually kept at base load close to their maximum output with no participation in system automatic generation control (AGC). Gas power generation is ideal for meeting varying load demand. However, such plants do not play very signicant role in AGC of a large power system, since these plants form a very small percentage of total system generation. Gas plants are used to meet peak demands only. Thus the natural choice for AGC falls on either thermal or hydro units. The characteristics of hydro turbine differ from steam turbine in many respects [1][3]. 1) The transfer function of the hydro turbine represents a nonminimum phase system. 2) In a hydro-turbine, relatively large inertia of water, used as the source of energy, causes a greater time lag in the response of the change in prime mover torque to a change in gate position. Moreover, there is an initial tendency for the torque to change in a direction opposite to that nally produced. In addition, the response may contain oscillating components caused by compressibility of water or surge tank. 3) The hydro governor is provided with a relatively large temporary droop and long washout time. 4) The typical value of permissible rate of generation for hydro plant is relatively much higher (a typical value of generation rate constraints (GRC) being 270%/min for raising generation and 360%/min for lowering generation), as compared to that for reheat type thermal units having GRC of the order of 3%/min [4]. A literature survey shows that most of the earlier works in the area of AGC pertain to interconnected thermal systems and relatively lesser attention has been devoted to the AGC of

NOMENCLATURE f I Pri Hi PDi Pgi Di T12 Ri Tg TG TR Kr Tr Tt Bi Tpi Kpi KI Nominal System Frequency. Subscript referred to area i (1, 2). Superscript denotes optimum value. Area Rated Power. inertia constant. Incremental load change in area i. Incremental generation change in area i. PDi /fi . Synchronizing coefcient. Governor speed regulation parameter. Steam governor time constant, second. Mechanical governor response time, second. Mechanical governor reset time constant, second. Mechanical governor permanent droop, per unit. (R = f). Mechanical Governor Temporary Droop, per unit. Steam turbine reheat constant. Steam turbine reheat time constant. Steam turbine time constant. Frequency bias constant. 2Hi /f Di . 1/Di . Integral gain.

Manuscript received June 9, 2004. Paper no. TEC-00170-2004. The authors are with Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India (e-mail: janardan nanda@yahoo.com; mangla ashish@rediffmail.com; sanjaymridula@rediffmail.com). Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TEC.2005.853757

0885-8969/$20.00 2006 IEEE

188

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 21, NO. 1, MARCH 2006

interconnected hydrothermal system. Concordia and Kirchmayer [1] and Kirchmayer [2] have studied the AGC of a hydrothermal system considering nonreheat turbine and mechanical governor in hydro system, neglecting generation rate constraints. Kothari et al. [5] are possibly the rst to consider GRC to investigate the AGC problem of a hydrothermal system with conventional integral controllers. They have discussed about nding the optimum integral controller settings and their sensitivity to GRC, speed regulation parameter, water starting time constant, base load condition etc. Kothari et al. [6] have also studied the AGC problem of hydrothermal system, considering GRC where their main contribution is to explore the best value of speed regulation parameter (R). All the above research works discussed consider the system & controllers in the continuous mode strategy. Nanda, Kothari, and Satsangi [7] have discussed the AGC problem in both continuous and discrete mode with classical integral controllers and compared the responses. Their main nding shows that the optimum integral controller gains achieved in the continuous mode are totally unacceptable in the discrete mode for sampling time period used in practice. In the interconnected hydrothermal system used by them, the thermal system uses reheat turbine and the hydro system uses a mechanical governor. Many of the existing hydro power stations are equipped with mechanical governors. Modern hydro units are normally equipped with electric governors in which the electronic apparatus is used to perform low power functions associated with speed sensing and droop compensation [12]. A literature survey shows that no comparison has been made for the performances of mechanical and electric governor to critically appreciate their operation. It would be of practical signicance to explore the system performance if a mechanical governor is replaced by an electric governor. Kothari et al. [8] have investigated the effect of variation in sampling period on the performance of AGC of an interconnected two area thermal system considering GRC and reheat turbines. Their investigations reveal that a relatively large sampling time period to a tune of 20 s is permissible to provide more or less best system performance instead of small sampling period of 2 to 4 s used in practice. Such nding about sampling period in a thermal-thermal system may not hold good in a hydrothermal system which needs further investigations. Hari et al. [14] investigate proper selection R for interconnected reheat thermal-thermal system in continuous-discrete mode considering appropriate GRC. Their ndings reveal that there is no necessity for going for a low value of R, since a large value R with corresponding optimum integral controller gain settings can be preferred to provide better dynamic response of AGC. They advocate very strongly that for the governor design consideration, it is better to adopt as large value of R as permissible without jeopardizing the dynamic responses. Higher value of R makes the realization of the governor simpler and reduces its cost [15] such nding about R in a thermal-thermal system may not hold good in a hydrothermal system which needs further investigations. In reheat turbines, the reheating may be in a single stage or in multistage [11]. A transfer function model for single stage reheat

turbine has been given by Kundur [11]. What would be the model for a two stage reheat turbine? How would the performance of a two stage reheat turbine compare to performance of a single stage reheat turbine? Literature survey does not provide any answer to these questions. In a realistic situation, the system works in the continuous mode whereas the controllers work in the discrete mode. Therefore, it is of practical signicance to consider the realistic continuous-discrete model for the system for any further investigations to avail more meaningful results. To the best of the authors knowledge, no work has been reported in the literature for AGC of a hydrothermal system in the continuousdiscrete mode. In view of the above discussion, the following are the main objectives of the present work. i) To compare the performances of an optimum integral and proportional-integral (PI) controllers for AGC of a hydrothermal system in continuous-discrete mode considering GRC, electric governor in the hydro area and reheat turbine in the thermal area. ii) To study the performance of mechanical governor and selection of suitable value of temporary droop ( ) for a given permanent droop ( ), considering perturbation in either area. iii) To compare the performances of mechanical and electric governors. iv) To develop a model for two stage reheat turbine and hence to compare its responses with that of a single stage reheat turbine considering GRC, electric governor in hydro area and optimum integral controllers in both hydro and thermal areas. v) To examine maximum permissible value of speed regulation parameter R without practically affecting dynamic responses. vi) To examine the effect of change in sampling time period on system performance and hence to decide appropriate sampling period. All investigations have been carried out for hydrothermal system in continuous-discrete mode. II. SYSTEM INVESTIGATED The AGC system investigated consists of two generating areas of equal size, area 1 comprising a reheat thermal system and area 2 comprising a hydro system. GRC of the order of 3%/min for thermal area and 270% per minute for raising and 360% per minute for lowering generation in hydro area has been considered. Fig. 1 shows the AGC model with single stage reheat turbine in thermal area and electric governor in hydro area. A bias setting of Bi = i is considered in both hydro and thermal areas. Matlab version 6.1 has been used, to obtain dynamic responses for f1 , f2 , Ptie for 1% step load perturbation in either area. The system data has been taken from [9] and [10] and given in Appendix. The optimum values of derivative, proportional and integral gains for the electric governor have been taken from the work of Nanda et al. [5] and given in the Appendix. For the system analysis, 1% step load perturbation has been considered either in thermal or hydro area. Controllers in

NANDA et al.: INTERCONNECTED HYDROTHERMAL SYSTEM WITH CONVENTIONAL CONTROLLERS

189

Fig. 1. Transfer function model of an interconnected two-area hydrothermal system.

Fig. 3. Comparison of integral and PI controller responses with 1% step load perturbation in thermal area. (a) f1 = f(t). (b) Ptie = f(t). (c) Pg1 = f(t).

Fig. 2. Tandem-compound double reheat turbine. (a) Schematic diagram. (b) Approximate linear transfer function.

both the areas have been optimized using integral square error (ISE) criterion. For ISE technique, the objective function used is
2000

sure VHP, high pressure HP, intermediate pressure IP and low pressure LP having the p.u. Mw ratings of , , , and , respectively. It may be noted that + + + = 1.0. For a change in control valve position Pv , the VHP turbine shall contribute the power component PT (VHP) = XE 1 Mw 1 + sTt

J=
n=0

2 2 P2 tie + f1 + f2 T

where T = small time interval during sample (0.1 sec), n = iteration count, Ptie = incremental change in tie power, f = incremental change in frequency. The sampling time period used for all investigations is 2 s otherwise stated. III. TRANSFER FUNCTION MODEL FOR TWO-STAGE REHEAT TURBINE The transfer function model for a two stage reheat turbine is developed and discussed here. Fig. 2(a) shows the schematic diagram of a two-stage tandem-compound reheat turbine [11]. This two stage reheat turbine has four cylinders very high pres-

where Tt represents time delay due to steam chest and inlet piping. The HP turbine shall contribute the power component as 1 1 Mw PT (HP) = XE 1 + sTt 1 + sTr 1 where Tr j represents the time delay due to reheater j (j = 1, 2). The time constant due to crossover, Tc is very small as compared to other time constants. So, total power contributed by IP and LP sections will be PT (IP + LP) = (1 ) XE 1 1 1 M w. 1 + sTt 1 + sTr 1 1 + sTr 2

190

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 21, NO. 1, MARCH 2006

Fig. 4. Comparison of integral and PI controller responses with 1% step load perturbation in hydro area. (a) f2 = f(t). (b) Ptie = f(t). (c) Pg2 = f(t).

Fig. 6. Comparison of mechanical and electrical governor performances with 1% step load perturbation in thermal area. (a) f1 = f(t). (b) f2 = f(t). (c) Ptie = f(t).

Fig. 5.

Transfer function model of mechanical governor.

The total power is obtained by adding the above three components. Fig. 2(b) shows the approximate linear transfer function model of the tandem compound two stage reheat steam turbine. The overall turbine transfer function for a double reheat turbine is given by GT (s) = i.e., GT (s) = 1 1 + + . 1 + sT 1 + sTr 1 (1 + sTr 1 )(1 + Tr 2 ) PT (VHP) + PT (HP) + PT (IP + LP) XE (s)

where Kr 1 = and Kr 2 = . and are reheat coefcients i.e., fraction of the power generated for very high pressure and high pressure cylinders. The transfer function models for electric governor and hydro turbine penstock are given in [3] and [12]. IV. RESULT AND ANALYSIS The optimum value of integral controller gains for the ther mal area 1 and the hydro area 2 are found to be KI 1 = 0.048 and KI 2 = 0.012, respectively, using ISE Criterion. Using the ISE technique for PI controller, the optimum value of gains for thermal area are found to be KP 1 = 0.2040, KI 1 = 0.0484 and for the hydro area, the optimum value of the gains are found to be KP 2 = 0.001 and KI 2 = 0.0108, respectively. Fig. 3(a)(c) shows the responses for f1 , Ptie , and Pg 1 for 1% step load perturbation in thermal area and Fig. 4(a)(c) shows the responses for f2 , Ptie and Pg 2 for the same perturbation in the hydro area. Examining the responses it is seen that they take more settling time when same perturbation occurs in the hydro area than in the thermal area. Also, irrespective

More simply GT (s) = 1 + s{Kr 1 (Tr 1 + Tr 2 ) + Kr 2 Tr 2 } + s2 Tr 1 Tr 2 (1 + sTt )(1 + sTr 1 )(1 + sTr 2 )

NANDA et al.: INTERCONNECTED HYDROTHERMAL SYSTEM WITH CONVENTIONAL CONTROLLERS

191

Fig. 8. Comparison of single and double reheat turbine performances with 1% step load perturbation in thermal area. (a) f1 = f (t). (b) f2 = f (t).

Fig. 7. Comparison of mechanical and electrical governor performances with 1% step load perturbation in hydro area. (a) f1 = f(t). (b) f2 = f(t). (c) Ptie = f(t).

of controller, whether conventional integral controller or PI controller, maximum peak deviation and settling time are practically same. Thus, no distinct advantage is seen for a PI controller over an integral controller. All further studies are carried out with an integral controller. Fig. 5 shows the transfer function model of mechanical governor [13]. The governor speed regulation parameter (R) for both the areas is taken as 2.4 Hz/p.u. Mw. The temporary droop ( ) in mechanical governor plays a very important role in the stability of the system. An improper selection of will make the system unstable. The approach for nding out the suitable value of from stability consideration is as follows. i) Consider both the areas uncontrolled, it is seen that any value of less than 0.7 and greater than 1.1 makes the system unstable. When is increased beyond 0.7, the system become stable and more or less the best response is obtained at = 0.95. ii) In the presence of optimum integral controller in both areas, this is varied around 0.95. Responses reveal that = 0.95 again provides more or less the best response.

Fig. 9. Comparison of single and double reheat turbine performances with 1% step load perturbation in hydro area. (a) f1 = f(t). (b) f2 = f(t).

From the investigations, it is construed that the optimum value of obtained in uncontrolled mode (absence of supplementary controllers) works well in the controller mode (presence of supplementary controllers). The dynamic responses obtained with mechanical governor using = 0.95 is compared with that obtained with electric governors, considering the optimum integral controller for the areas. Fig. 6(a)(c) shows the responses for f1 , f2 , and Ptie , respectively, for 1% step load perturbation in thermal

192

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 21, NO. 1, MARCH 2006

Fig. 12. Comparison of sampling time periods with 1% step load perturbation in thermal area. (a) f1 = f(t). (b) f2 = f(t). Fig. 10. Comparison of R Parameters 1% step load perturbation in thermal area. (a) f1 = f(t). (b)(c) Ptie = f(t).

Fig. 13. Comparison of sampling time periods with 1% step load perturbation in hydro area. (a) f1 = f(t). (b) f2 = f(t).

Fig. 11. Comparison of R Parameters 1% step load perturbation in hydro area. (a) f1 = f(t). (b)(c) Ptie = f(t).

area and Fig. 7(a)(c) shows the same responses when same perturbation occurs in the hydro area. It is clearly seen that electric governor provides much better response compared to a mechanical governor, although both the governors are taking same settling time. Mechanical governor gives very fast oscillations which is the absent with electric governor. In Section III-A, the transfer function for two-stage reheat turbine is discussed, which is now used in the block diagram

NANDA et al.: INTERCONNECTED HYDROTHERMAL SYSTEM WITH CONVENTIONAL CONTROLLERS

193

of Fig. 1 for the thermal system to obtain responses. Fig. 8(a) and (b) shows dynamic responses f1 , f2 with 1% step load perturbation in thermal area and Fig. 9(a) and (b) shows dynamic responses f1 , f2 with 1% step load perturbation in hydro area. Comparing these responses, they are seen to be more or less the same from the view point of maximum peak deviation and settling time. Thus, in large modern turbines, where a two stage reheat is used, for all practical purposes, it can be modeled as a single-stage reheat. Fig. 10(a) and (b) shows the dynamic responses for f1 , Ptie for 1% step load perturbation in thermal area, with R varying from 4% to 8%, Fig. 10(c) shows the dynamic response for Ptie for R=10%. Fig. 11(a) and (b) shows the dynamic responses for f2 and Ptie for 1% step load perturbation in hydro area with R varying from 4% to 8% while Fig. 11(c) shows the dynamic response for Ptie for R = 10%. Examinining these responses, it is clearly seen that R = 8% provides better dynamic responses in terms of peak deviations and settling time than R = 4% used in practice. The value greater than R = 8% provides fast oscillations in the system dynamic responses, and hence undesirable. Also, a value greater than R = 12% makes the system unstable. Hence, it is construed that for realistic continuous discrete-mode, one can go for as a large value of R as is permissible in continuous or discrete mode with conventional integral controllers. Fig. 12(a) and (b) shows the responses for 1% step load perturbation in thermal area for sampling period (T ) in the range of 2 s to 25 s. It is interesting to note that higher values of sampling period (T ) provide better responses than T = 2 s used in practice. A sampling period (T ) of the order of 10 s seems to work satisfactorily. Sampling period greater than 20 s increases the settling time. It may be noted that the amplitudes of oscillations for T = 10 s are smaller as compared to those for T = 2 s. Fig. 13(a) and (b) shows the dynamic responses for different sampling period with 1% step load perturbation in hydro area. It is again seen that T = 2 s does not provide the best dynamic responses. The sampling period of T = 10 second provides best frequency responses. Thus considering perturbation in either thermal or hydro area, the more or less best sampling period is found to be 10 s. A higher sampling period reduces effort on the sampler and improves its longevity. V. CONCLUSION The following are the signicant contributions. i) In continuous-discrete mode strategy for a hydrothermal system, considering electric governor in hydro area, reheat turbine in thermal area and appropriate GRC in both areas, the dynamic responses with integral and proportionalintegral controller are more or less the same from the view point of peak deviation and settling time. ii) The optimum value of temporary droop for a mechanical governor in hydro area evaluated in the uncontrolled mode works well in the controlled mode. iii) The performance of electric governor is found to be quite superior to a mechanical governor, although both take more or less same settling time. Mechanical governor pro-

vides very fast oscillations which are absent in electric governor. iv) The dynamic responses for double reheat & single reheat turbines are close to each other. Thus for all practical purposes, a double reheat turbine can be modeled as a single reheat one. v) Investigations reveal that in a hydrothermal system, irrespective of small perturbation in either area, it is permissible to chose a much higher sampling period than used in practice that provides better system performances. vi) Investigations reveal that in a hydrothermal system, it is permissible to choose a much higher sampling period than used in practice. APPENDIX Nominal parameter pf hydrothermal system investigated: f = 60 Hz Tg = 0.08 s Tr = 10.0 s R1 = R2 = 2.4 Hz/per unit MW Ptie, max = 200 MW Kr = 0.5

H1 = H2 = 5 s Pr1 = Pr2 = 2000 MW Tt = 0.3 s Kp = 1.0 Kd = 4.0 Ki = 5.0 Tw = 1.0 s D1 = D2 = 8.33 103 p.u. MW/Hz a12 = 1 T12 = 0.086 p.u. Mw/rad TR = 5 s Kp1 = Kp2 = 120 Hz/p.u.Mw Tp1 = Tp2 = 20 s T1 = 48.75 s, T2 = 0.513 s. REFERENCES
[1] C. Concordia and L. K. Kirchmayer, Tie-line power & frequency control of electric power system: Part II, AISE Trans, III-A, vol. 73, pp. 133146, Apr. 1954. [2] L. K. Kirchmayer, Economic Control of Interconnected Systems. New York: Wiley, 1959. [3] D. G. Ramey and J. W. Skooglund, Detailed hydro governor representation for system stability studies, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-89, no. 1, pp. 106112, Jan. 1970. [4] IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., IEEE Committee Rep., vol. PAS-86, pp. 384395, 1966. [5] M. L. Kothari, B. L. Kaul, and J. Nanda, Automatic generation control of hydrothermal system, J. Inst. Eng. India, pt. EL2, vol. 61, pp. 8591, Oct. 1980. [6] M. L. Kothari, J. Nanda, and P. S. Satsangi, Automatic generation control of hydrothermal system considering generation rate constraint, J. Inst. Eng. India, vol. 63, pp. 289297, Jun. 1983. [7] J. Nanda, M. L. Kothari, and P. S. Satsangi, Automatic generation control of an interconnected hydrothermal system in continuous and discrete modes considering generation rate constraints, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., pt. D, vol. 130, no. 1, pp. 1727, Jan. 1983. [8] M. L. Kothari, J. Nanda, and L. Hari, Selection of sampling period for automatic generation control, Int. J. Elect. Mach. Power Syst., vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 10631077, Dec. 1997. [9] O. I. Elgerd and C. E. Fosha, Optimum megawatt-frequency control of multiarea electric energy systems, IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-89, no. 4, pp. 556563, Apr. 1970. [10] O. I. Elgerd, Electric Energy Systems Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971, pp. 315389. [11] P. Kundur, Power System Stability & Control. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994, pp. 418448.

194

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 21, NO. 1, MARCH 2006

[12] M. Leum, The development and eld experience of a transistor electric governor for hydro turbines, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-85, pp. 393402, Apr. 1966. [13] F. R. Schleif and A. B. Wilbor, The co-ordination of hydraulic turbine governors for power system operation, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-85, no. 7, pp. 750758, Jul. 1966. [14] L. Hari, M. L. Kothari, and J. Nanda, Optimum selection of speed regularization parameter for automatic generation control in discrete mode considering generation rates constraint, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 138, no. 5, pp. 401406, Sep. 1991. [15] J. Nanda and B. L. Kaul, Automatic generation control of an interconected power system, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 125, no. 5, pp. 3854391, May 1978.

Ashish Mangla was born on May 4, 1981. He graduated from Kurukshetra University, India, in 2002. Currently, he is graduate student in the Electrical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi, India.

Janardan Nanda (SM90) has been a Professor with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi, India, since 1973. He was Head of Electrical Engineering Department and Dean (UGS) at IIT Delhi from 1984 to 1990. Dr. Nanda is a Fellow of Indian National Academy of Engineering and a Fellow of Indian National Science Academy. His eld of interest comprises power system analysis, dynamics, control, optimization, and application of computational intelligence to power system problems.

Sanjay Suri was born on November 17, 1967. He received the B.Sc. and B.E. degrees in 1988 and 1995, respectively. Currently, he is pursuing the M.S. degree at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi, India.