IEEE PSS2B versus PSS4B: The limits of performance of modern power system stabilizers

Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Que., Canada
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems (Impact Factor: 2.81). 06/2005; 20(2):903 - 915. DOI: 10.1109/TPWRS.2005.846197
Source: IEEE Xplore


IEEE Std 421.5 as revised by the IEEE excitation system subcommittee will introduce a new type of power system stabilizer model, the multiband power system stabilizers (PSSs). Although it requires two inputs, like the widely used IEEE PSS2B, an integral of accelerating power PSS introduced at the beginning of the nineties as the first practical implementation of a digital PSS, the underlying principle of the new IEEE PSS4B makes it sharply different. The present paper aims at assessing the two families of PSS's from the point of view of their relative performance in tackling a wide range of system problems, using a single set of so-called robust/universal settings. Conclusions are drawn from a large number of small- and large-signal analyzes performed on several test systems and on an actual Hydro-Que´bec system, paying due account to the load models and governor response. Since either of the candidate PSSs can easily be tuned to perform acceptably in a standard local and/or inter-area oscillation scenario, emphasis will be put on comparing them at the inherent limits of the PSS concept, i.e., considering excessive VAR modulation during large generation rejection, fast load pickup on hydro units, and excessive torsional interactions during faults on large turbine-generators.

Download full-text


Available from: Innocent Kamwa, Nov 17, 2012
  • Source
    • "IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS the Hydro-Québec system [16] to provide adequate damping capabilities in the low frequency range. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper proposes a quasi-steady-state modeling approach for an approximation of long-term frequency dynamics in power systems. A specific phenomenon of concern is an onset of frequency swings during load/generation imbalance scenarios. The effects of system voltage characteristics, system inertia, and, more importantly, damping controllers are explained and quantified using the described quasi-steady-state models. Application of the methodology to a 14-generator benchmark system demonstrates that described models are suitable for simulation of different disturbance scenarios that can trigger frequency instability. Moreover , linearization of the proposed models can provide convenient means for impact assessment and coordinated design of damping controllers. To demonstrate this, coordinated tuning of multiband power system stabilizers to improve frequency dynamics has been performed and validated through nonlinear simulations using a commercial transient stability software.
    Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on 09/2015; 1. DOI:10.1109/TPWRS.2015.2477512 · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The possibility of adding a tunable notch for within-band interference rejection is suggested. Another source of information for control system filtering requirements is the MB-PSS, widely used at Hydro-Québec, which is also known as IEEE PSS4B [29]. Fig. 2 shows that the 3-dB bandwidth of the frequency PMU embedded in the MBPSS is 12 Hz, with an attenuation of only dB at 35 Hz. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For the first time, IEEE Std. C37.118.1-2011 now provides metrics for PMU dynamic performance in terms of classes P and M filter designs. This paper attempts to determine whether fulfilling these requirements makes the PMU inherently well suited for stability control applications such as wide-area power system stabilizers (PSSs). In this aim, we considered two different frequency-adaptive approaches for class-P and -M compliance to ensure operation over a wide frequency range. The first is based on a finite-impulse response (FIR) with no overshoot in either the phase or the amplitude step responses, while the second is Kalman filter-based (EKF), which allows for a more refined out-of-band interference rejection at the cost of a phase step response with overshoot. These two approaches are benchmarked against Hydro-Québec`s existing PSS requirements and the conclusion is that the total vector error-based response time is not indicative of the phase lag within the frequency band of interest, nor of the 3-dB bandwidth under sinusoidal amplitude/frequency modulation phenomena, which are key criteria when specifying PSS PMUs. Using simulated and field-recorded network fault responses, we also show that a class-M PMU is unsatisfactory for wide-area stabilizing control, unless its performance is improved during the fault period, which is not covered by Std. C37.118.1-2011.
    IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 05/2013; 28(2). DOI:10.1109/TPWRS.2012.2221168 · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Today's AVRs commonly include the so-called conventional PSSs (CPSS), where the term conventional in this context means nonadaptive. Although modern types of CPSS like IEEE PSS2B and PSS4B, [6], can be very effective in damping both local and system power oscillations, the tuning of these two types of PSS can be time consuming and requires expert knowledge during commissioning. Additionally, problems with CPSS may occur when a CPSS that has been properly tuned for one operating regime has to operate in another very different regime. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The paper presents a newly proposed autotuning power system stabilizer (PSS) based on a Takagi-Sugeno (TS) fuzzy model. The main advantage of the proposed PSS is in a stable regulation structure without the critical parts such as on-line identification and feedback gain calculations in real-time. Additionally, the proposed algorithm can be implemented both in floating-point and in fixed-point microprocessor platforms. The simulation results presented in the paper show that the proposed PSS effectively damps active power oscillations and that the commissioning process can be performed with no need for expert knowledge from the commissioning staff
    International Review of Electrical Engineering 08/2012; 7(4):5068-5079. · 1.36 Impact Factor
Show more