~

14 IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 3, No. 1 , March 1988

A FREQUENCY DOMAIN PIETHOD

FOR TUNING HYDRO GOVERNORS

C . K. Sanathanan, Member, I E E E
U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s a t Chicago
Chicago, I l l i n o i s 60680

A b s t r a c t - A f r e q u e n c y domain method t o d e t e r - 1
mine t h e optimum v a l u e s f o r t h e p a r a m e t e r s of a PID
g o v e r n o r i s p r e s e n t e d . The method r e a d i l y h a n d l e s de-
P(s) = -
8s
(2)

t a i l e d models of t u r b i n e - p e n s t o c k , g a t e dynamics and

o t h e r system componects. The main a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e
method are t h a t i t i s c o m p u t a t i o n a l l y s i m p l e , d o e s n o t
i n v o l v e any i t e r a t i o n s and t h a t t h e d e s i g n e r can pre-
s p e c i f y a speed response f o r load r e j e c t i o n .
INTRODUCTION
The s y s t e m i n F i g . 1 h a s been s i m u l a t e d f o r a 10% s t e p
l o a d r e j e c t i o n u s i n g t h e above c o n t r o l l e r p a r a m e t e r s
and t h e s i m p l i f i e d component t r a n s f e r f u n c t i o n , T and
V. The c o r r e s p o n d i n g s p e e d r e s p o n s e , as g i v e n by t h e
s o l i d c u r v e i n F i g . 2 , does a p p e a r t o b e s a t i s f a c t o r y .

Optimum a d j u s t m e n t of t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l , i n t e g r a l ,
and t h e d e r i v a t i v e g a i n s of a PID governor i s c r u c i a l
f o r t h e s t a b i l i t y and s a t i s f a c t o r y t r a n s i e n t b e h a v i o r
of h y d r o t u r b i n e u n i t s . Simple e m p i r i c a l r u l e s u s u a l l y
e v o l v e f o r s p e c i f i c u n i t s as a r e s u l t of numerous simu-
l a t i o n s t u d i e s and o p e r a t i n g e x p e r i e n c e . These r u l e s ,
however, c a n n o t b e extended r e a d i l y t o o t h e r u n i t s which
h a v e c o n s i d e r a b l y d i f f e r e n t v a l u e s f o r t h e b a s i c para-
meters, such a s , water s t a r t i n g t i m e , TW, wave t i m e , Te,
and mechanical s t a r t i n g t i m e , TM. A g e n e r a l , stream- F i g . 1 BLOCK DIAGRAM OF A HYDRO UNIT
l i n e d method t o d e t e r m i n e optimum governor p a r a m e t e r s i s
therefore highly desirable.
0.06
Attempts h a v e b e e n made 11-41 t o e s t a b l i s h g e n e r a l -
ized s t a b i l i t y boundaries f o r t h e PID parameters.
Hagihara, e t a1 [ 3 ] , i n f a c t , p r o v i d e a s i m p l e g e n e r a l
r e c i p e f o r o b t a i n i n g p a r a m e t e r v a l u e s f o r t h e governor. 0.04
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the above i n v e s t i g a t o r s have used simp-
l i f i e d models f o r t h e t u r b i n e - p e n s t o c k . Furthermore,
g a t e dynamics h a v e been n e g l e c t e d . The c o n t e n t i o n h a s
been t h a t t h e p a r a m e t e r v a l u e s from t h e s e s t u d i e s can ;0.02
s e r v e as a s t a r t i n g p o i n t . z
0
a
The f o l l o w i n g example i l l u s t r a t e s how u n s a t i s f a c t - v)
W
[r
o r y t h e p a r a m e t e r v a l u e s as g i v e n by t h e r e c i p e i n
n
Ref. [ 3 ] can be. The hydro u n i t i s r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e w
W
b l o c k diagram i n F i g . 1. I n t h i s f i g u r e , V ( s ) r e p r e s - a
v)
e n t s t h e g a t e and T ( s ) r e p r e s e n t s t h e t u r b i n e - p e n s t o c k
t r a n s f e r f u n c t i o n . The b a s i c p a r a m e t e r s , Tw, Te, and -0.02
TM are assumed t o b e 2 , 1, and 8 s e c o n d s r e s p e c t i v e l y .
For t h e s e v a l u e s , t h e formula i n Ref. [ 3 ] g i v e s :

Kp = 3 . 2 , KI = 0 . 4 8 , and KD = 2.16 -0.04

I n a r r i v i n g a t t h e s e v a l u e s , i t i s assumed t h a t V ( s j =
1.0 and t h a t t h e t u r b i n e i s i d e a l , l o s s l e s s , and a t f u l l
load with the f i r s t order t r a n s f e r function: -0.06

1 - 2s
Fig. 2 COMPARISON OF SPEED RESPONSES
T ( s ) =-
l + s

Neglecting t h e load s e l f r e g u l a t i o n f a c t o r ,
Now c o n s i d e r a more a c c u r a t e a p p r o x i m a t i o n of T ( s )
as g i v e n i n [5] :

1 - 1.986s + 0.3606~~
37 FTM 239-7 A paper reconmended and approved T(s) = (3)
by t h e I E E E Power G e n e r a t i o n Committee of t h e I E E E 1 + 0.9932s + 0.3606~~
Power E n g i n e e r i n g S o c i e t y f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n a t t h e
IEEE/PES 1987 Winter Meeting, New O r l e a n s , L o u i s i a n a , and a r e a l i s t i c g a t e t r a n s f e r f u n c t i o n [ 1 2 ] :
February 1 - 6, 1987. ? l a n u s c r i p t s u b m i t t e d
August 2 2 , 1986; made a v a i l a b l e f o r p r i n t i n g 1
November 26, 1986. V(S) = (4)
(1 + O.ls)(l + 0 . 1 5 ~ ) ~
0885-8969/88/03OO-OO14$01.OO01988 IEEE

Using these transfer functions, the system in Fig. 1
is again simulated for a 10% load rejection. The resul-
ting speed response is given by the dotted curve in Fig.
2. It is obvious that the governor parameters are un-
satisfactory.
Simultaneous optimization of the three parameters
for a realistic system model can be accomplished via
the well known gradient method [6], direct search
methods [ 7 ] , or via the age old trial and error method.
When the initial guess is poor, however, all of these
methods will require a large number of iterations invol-
ving model simulation at each iteration.
The method presented in the following section
allows the designer to prespecify a satisfactory refer-
ence response, similar to the solid curve in Fig. 2.
The controller parameters are then determined (without
any trial and error) such that the closed loop system
response matches the chosen reference response. The
method readily accommodates detailed transfer functions
for the various components.
TUNING METHOD
The block diagram in Fig. 1 may be represented
more generally as shown in Fig. 3 , where the plant
component transfer functions, G1 and G2, are known and
the controller transfer function, Gc(s), is to be det-
ermined. Let a reference model A(s) be specified as in
Fig. 4 .
Fig. 3 GENERALIZED BLOCK DIAGRAM
Fig. 4 REFERENCE MODEL
The central idea involved in the method consists
of finding Gc(s) such that the frequency response of
the closed l o o p transfer function, C/R, matches that
of A(s). For this the required Gc(s) must satisfy:
A(s)
.Gc(s) = (5)
11 - A(s)lGl(s)G2(s)
E4. (5) is generally known as the synthesis equation.
Its use in controller design dates back several decades
[8,9]. The main problem with the technique is that
when the plant component transfer functions are of high
order, the resulting expression for the "ideal" Gc(s)
in eq. (5) will be unsuitable for practical implement-
ation.
For controller design purposes, it is found that
a low order approximation of the ideal Gc(s) which is
accurate in the critical low frequency band, is suffi-
cient. The frequency response of Gc(s) can be genera-
ted readily from eq. (5) for any elaborate expression
for G1(s) and G2(s). From the frequency response
information a low order transfer function Gc(s) is syn-
15
thesized.
Since for a step change in ML, (see Fig. 1) the
steady state value of E must be zero, it is clear that
Gc(s) must contain a pole at the origin. Therefore,
the frequency response of:
K(s) = sGc(s) (6)
is used for controller parameter optimization. This
isolates the enormous effect of the pole (at the origin)
at low frequencies and thereby, a considerable enhance-
ment in the accuracy of the reduced order controller is
realized.
SELECTION OF THE REFERENCE MODEL
Selection procedure is illustrated for the system
considered earlier. It is clear from eq. ( 3 ) that T(s)
is a nonminimum phase transfer function. Therefore, it
is necessary that A(s) must retain exactly the same RHP
zeros as those of T ( s ) . If,not, Gc(s) will turn out to
be unstable. This is explained further in [lo].
The pole locations for A(s) are somewhat arbitrary.
However, A(s) must have at least four poles. This will
become clear soon. Let two pole pairs be chosen such
that they each have a damping factor of 0 . 7 0 7 :
CASE - 1: s = -0.3 f j 0.3; -1.0 j 1.0
This leads to the following reference model:
(1 - 1.986s + 0.3606s2)(1 + as)
A(s) = (7)
(1 + 4.333s + 9.389s' + 7 . 2 2 2 ~+ ~2 . 7 7 8 ~ ~ )
The additional term, (1 + as), in eq. (7) is chosen
with an appropriate value for 'a' such that the coeffi-
cients of s o and s1 are the same for the numerator and
the denominator of A ( s ) . This is to ensure that the
'implied' closed loop system corresponding to A(s) will
have two poles at the origin (one for P ( s ) and the other
for the controller). Hence, (a - 1.986) = 4 . 3 3 3 and
therefore, a = 6.319. Note that if a load regulation
factor is included in P ( s ) , the additional term will not
be necessary.
Thus, the numerator of A ( s ) must be at least of
degree 3 . Therefore, the denominator of A(s) must at
least be of degree 4 , to make A(s) a proper transfer
function.
Before accepting the above reference model, it must
be ascertained that its load rejection behavior is sat-
isfactory. To simulate load rejection, Fig. 4 is trans-
formed to Fig. 5 in which:
I ML
I
I
Fig. 5 MODIFIED REFERENCE MODEL
16

Using eq. (7) and ( 8 ) : RESULTS

(1 - 1.986s + 0.3605s2)(1 + 6.319s) The frequency responses of K(s) of t h e i d e a l con-

B(s) = (9) t r o l l e r s f o r Cases 1 and 2 have been determined by means
s(2.697 + 0.5553 + 0 . 3 4 7 3 ~ ~ ) of eqs. (5) and (6). They a r e shown i n Fig. 8. These
frequency responses have been matched u s i n g a simple
Fig. 6 g i v e s t h e speed response of t h e r e f e r e n c e model expression:
f o r a 10%load r e j e c t i o n .
?(s) = K~ + ~~s + K ~ S ~ (12)
S i m i l a r l y , f o r t h e s a k e of comparison, a second,
more s l u g g i s h r e f e r e n c e model h a s a l s o been s e l e c t e d Note t h a t KI i s t h e l i m i t of K(jw) a s w + 0 , and i t
with its poles at: is e v a l u a t e d r e a d i l y u s i n g eqs. (5) and ( 6 ) . Therefore,
KI i s c o n s t r a i n e d t o t h i s v a l u e w h i l e obtaining the
CASE - 2: s = -0.2 f j 0.2; -0.75 j 0.75 optimum v a l u e s of Kp and KD. Optimization i s c a r r i e d
o u t Py minimizing t h e mean s q u a r e e r r o r between K(jw)
The corresponding A(s) and B ( s ) are given i n eqs. (IO) and K(jw) using t h e a l g o r i t h m i n [ U ] .
and (11):
For t h e two c a s e s c i t e d above, t h e optimum governor
(1 - 1.986s + 0.3605s2)(1 + 9.653s) parameters are:
A(s) = (10)
(1 + 7.667s + 2 7 . 6 1 1 ~+~ 4 2 . 2 2 3 ~ +
~ 22.223~~ CASE - 1: KI = 0.37, Kp = 2.7, KD = 2.916

(1 - 1.986s 4- 0.3605s2)(1 + 9.653s) CASE - 2: KI = 0.1723, Kp = 1.776, KD = 0.8985

B (.s ), = (11)
~(5.8026 + 4.8428s + 2.778~2)

The speed response f o r a 10% load r e j e c t i o n f o r Case-2

i s shown i n F i g . 7.

0.06 -I

CASE 1
2
0.04- - REFERENCE MODEL
a
0 DETAILED MODEL
W
v)
a
e
W
0.02-
a
v)

-0.02 1 TIME (sec)

REAL
Fig. 6 COMPARISON OF SPEED RESPONSES - CASE 1
Fig. 8 FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF K(s)

CASE 2 Using t h e above parameters f o r t h e PID c o n t r o l l e r , t h e

h y d r o t u r b i n e u n i t has been simulated w i t h P ( s ) , T(s),
REFERENCE MODEL
AND DETAILED MODEL and V ( s ) as given by e q u a t i o n s 2, 3, and 4 r e s p e c t i v e l y .
0 The speed responses f o r 10%s t e p r e d u c t i o n i n load are
5W 0.04
shown i n Figs. 6 and 7 r e s p e c t i v e l y . The responses do
a match t h e p r e s p e c i f i e d r e f e r e n c e responses q u i t e w e l l .

SUMMARY OF COMPUTATIONAL STEPS

The computational procedure d e s c r i b e d above g i v e s

an e f f e c t i v e l y s t r e a m l i n e d approach t o o b t a i n optimum
governor s e t t i n g s . The s t e p s involved a r e :

(1) E s t i m a t e t h e b a s i c p l a n t parameters (Tw ,

TIME (sac) Tv, e t c . ) , t h e t u r b i n e p a r t i a l s , and t h e
time c o n s t a n t s f o r g a t e dynamics.

Fig. 7 COMPARISON OF SPEED RESPONSES - CASE 2 (2) Derive a d e t a i l e d t r a n s f e r f u n c t i o n f o r

t h e turbine-penstock ( i n v o l v i n g t h e tanh
f u n c t i o n ) and o b t a i n an a c c u r a t e reduced
o r d e r model employing t h e method d e s c r i b e d
i n [5].
 ~
C o n s t r u c t a r e f e r e n c e model similar t o t h a t
i n eq. (7) and s i m u l a t e i t s load r e j e c t i o n
behavior u s i n g t h e b l o c k diagram i n F i g . 5.
Choose a s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e model w i t h s a t -
i s f a c t o r y response.
Obtain t h e frequency response K(s) of t h e
" i d e a l " c o n t r o l l e r g i v e n by e q s . (5) and
( 6 ) . See Fig. 8 .
Approximate K(s) i n t h e form of E(s) as
g i v e n by eq. ( 1 2 ) . Determine t h e optimum
v a l u e of KI a s t h e v a l u e of Kijw) as w + O .
F r e e z i n g t h e v a l u e of KI t o t h e one ob-
t a i n e d above, determine t h e optimum v a l u e s
of Kp and,KD by matching t h e frequency r e s -
ponse of K(s) w i t h t h a t of K ( s ) . For t h i s ,
t h e method i n [ l l ] o r any o t h e r complex
c u r v e f i t t i n g method may b e employed.
Simulate t h e c l o s e d loop hydro-turbine model
t o compare i t s response w i t h t h a t of t h e r e f -
e r e n c e model.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The a u t h o r wishes t o thank M r . P a u l P e t e r s o n of
t h e Woodward Governor Company, Rockford, I l l i n o i s f o r
t h e many h e l p f u l d i s c u s s i o n s and u s e f u l s u g g e s t i o n s .
NOMENCLATURE
T.F. of t h e r e f e r e n c e model
T.F. a s s o c i a t e d w i t h A as d e f i n e d i n eq. (7)
System response
Product of g a t e and turbine-penstock T.F.'s
Same as P
C o n t r o l l e r (governor) T.F.
D e r i v a t i v e g a i n of t h e governor
I n t e g r a l g a i n of t h e governor
P r o p o r t i o n a l g a i n of t h e governor
Defined a s sGc(s)
Load t o r q u e
Developed t o r q u e i n t h e t u r b i n e
Reference speed i n p u t
Turbine speed
Turbo-generator T.F.
Laplace t r a n s f o r m v a r i a b l e
T.F. of turbine-penstock
Wave t i m e
Mechanical s t a r t i n g t i m e
Water s t a r t i n g t i m e
Gate T.F.
17
REFERENCES
1. M. H. Chaudhry, "Governing s t a b i l i t y of a hydro-
e l e c t r i c power p l a n t , " Water Power and Dam Const.,
pp. 131-136, A p r i l 1970.
2. Masanobu Araki and Takao Kuwabara, "Water column
e f f e c t on speed c o n t r o l of h y d r a u l i c t u r b i n e s and
governor improvement," H i t a c h i Review, Vol. 22,No.
2, pp. 50-55.
3. S. Hagihara, H. Yokota, K. Goda, K. I s o b e , "Stabi-
l i t y of a h y d r a u l i c t u r b i n e g e n e r a t i n g u n i t control-
l e d by PID governor," IEEE Trans. on Power App. and
Systems, Vol. PAS-98, No. 6 , Nov/Dec. 1979, pp. 2294
t o 2298.
4. M. S. R. Murthy and M. V. Hariharan, "Analysis and
improvement of t h e s t a b i l i t y of a hydro-turbine
g e n e r a t i n g u n i t w i t h long penstock," IEEE Trans. on
Power App. and Systems, Vol. PAS-102, March 1983.
5. C. K. Sanathanan, "Accurate low o r d e r model f o r
h y d r a u l i c turbine-penstock," No. 86 SM 461-8, IEEE-
PES Summer Meeting, Mexico C i t y , J u l y 1986.
6. D. W. Marquardt, J. Soc. Ind. Appld. Math, Vol. 11,
pp. 431, 1963.
7. J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, Compt. J . , Vol. 7, pp.308,
1965.
8. H. Freeman, "A s y n t h e s i s method f o r m u l t i p l e cont-
r o l systems," AIEE Trans. on Appl. and Ind., Vo1.76,
P t . 11, pp. 28-31, March 1957.
9. J . G. T r u x a l , "Automatic feedback c o n t r o l system
s y n t h e s i s , " New York, McGraw-Hill, 1955.
10. J. L. Peczkowski and M. K. S a i n , "Linear m u l t i v a r i -
a b l e s y n t h e s i s with t r a n s f e r function," Internat-
i o n a l Forum on A l t e r n a t i v e s f o r M u l t i v a r i a b l e Con.,
ed. by J. L. Peczkowski, 1977 proceedings, pp.111-
127.
11. H. S t a h l , "Transfer f u n c t i o n s y n t h e s i s u s i n g f r e -
quency response d a t a , " I n t . J. Cont. Vol. 39, No.3,
pp. 541-550, 1984.
12. P. P e t e r s o n , P r i v a t e Communication, Woodward Gov-
e r n o r Company, Rockford, I l l i n o i s , 1986.
C. K. Sanathanan r e c e i v e d h i s Ph.D d e g r e e i n E l e c t r i -
c a l Engineering from Case-Western U n i v e r s i t y i n 1964.
Upon g r a d u a t i o n , h e j o i n e d t h e s c i e n t i f i c s t a f f of t h e
Argonne N a t i o n a l Laboratory.
I n 1968, D r . Sanathanan j o i n e d t h e U n i v e r s i t y of
I l l i n o i s a t Chicago where h e was promoted t o t h e rank
of f u l l p r o f e s s o r i n 1972 i n t h e Department of E l e c t r i -
c a l Engineering and Computer Science. H i s r e s e a r c h h a s
encompassed a v a r i e t y of d i s c i p l i n e s , such as, power
p l a n t c o n t r o l , o i l r e s e r v o i r modeling and p r o d u c t i o n
p o l i c y assessment, computer automation of i n d u s t r i a l
p l a n t s / p r o c e s s e s , and a d a p t i v e c o n t r o l of m u l t i v a r i a b l e
systems. D r . Sanathanan h a s o v e r f i f t y major publica-
tions.