Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Examensarbete 30 hp
Januari 2013
Axel Andersson
Abstract
Optimized Tuning of Parameters for HVDC Dynamic
Performance Studies
Axel Andersson
It was found that the results of the optimization were comparable with the manually
tuned parameters for many of the cases tested. The biggest issue encountered was
that the optimization algorithm often finds a local minimum in the objective function,
leading to a suboptimal solution. This issue could be solved by running the
optimization several times, using different initial values.
It is concluded that using optimization algorithms could be a useful tool for tuning of
the HVDC control system.
i
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Hector Avila and Prerna Bihani at ABB HVDC for
their support and feedback during the course of writing this thesis.
ii
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Purpose and goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Scope of the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Background 2
2.1 The HVDC system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1.1 AC conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1.2 Control system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.3 Current Control Amplifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.4 Voltage Dependent Current Order Limiter . . . . . . . 6
2.1.5 Rectifier Alpha Minimum Limiter . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Dynamic Performance Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1 CCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2 VDCOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.3 RAML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Nelder-Mead Simplex Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.1 Ordering of vertices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.2 Calculation of centroid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.3 Simplex transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.4 Termination test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 Method 13
3.1 Finding an objective function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.1 CCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.2 VDCOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.3 RAML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2 Testing the objective function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4 Simulation setup 19
4.1 PSCAD’s Optimum Run . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1.1 Initial step size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1.2 Normalization of parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1.3 Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2 HVDC test system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
iii
5.2.1 Initial objective functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2.2 Modification of the objective function . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2.3 Testing the objective function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3 RAML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.3.1 Initial objective function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.3.2 Objective function modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.3.3 Testing the objective function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6 Conclusions 42
References 44
Appendix 45
A VDCOL Comparisons 45
B RAML Comparisons 63
iv
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Today, using HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current) is the most efficient way
of transporting large quantities of electric power over long distances. Two
reasons for this are that direct current does not suffer from reactive losses
and that transmission line costs are lower. HVDC systems are also used for
connecting asynchronous AC networks and upholding stability in grids.
The downside to using HVDC are the large converter stations needed to
convert the AC into DC. These stations contain a large number of compo-
nents and are very costly. The procedure of converting AC into DC also puts
great demand on the control system of the stations. These control systems
need to be tuned properly to give the HVDC system the correct dynamics
to handle variations in the network load and disturbances.
Before implementing the real HVDC system, a software model of the
system is built. On this model, extensive tests are carried out to ensure
the proper performance and robustness of the system during transient con-
ditions. These tests are called dynamic performance studies (DPS) and are
an essential part of the development of the HVDC system.
In the DPS, several different cases and configurations are tested to ensure
the system complies to specifications. These tests range from minor voltage
drops to cable breaks. Several variables need to be taken into account when
rating these tests, including recovery time, phase margin and overshoot. The
parameters of the control system are tuned until the system characteristics
satisfy the specification.
The parameters of the control system have up to this time been tuned
by hand, using trial and error. The amount of tests and parameters that
need to be taken into account has made the DPS a very time consuming
process.
1
1.3 Scope of the thesis
The HVDC control system contain a huge number of different controllers and
functions with corresponding parameters to be tuned. This thesis focuses
on the tuning of three core components of the HVDC control system, the
Current Control Amplifier (CCA), Voltage Dependent Current Order Lim-
iter (VDCOL) and Rectifier Alpha Minimum Limiter (RAML), all essential
for the performance and stability of the system.
2 Background
The goal of this chapter is to explain the necessary concepts needed to
understand the problems, methods and results of this thesis.
2.1.1 AC conversion
The principle used to convert AC into DC in an HVDC system is the same
principle used in electronics. In electronics, diodes are used for rectifying
the AC voltage. In HVDC systems, thyristors are used. Thyristors are es-
sentially diodes, which conduct in the forward direction but block in the
backward direction. However, they have one important feature diodes lack.
Thyristors have an input that controls when the thyristor conducts. How-
ever, when the thyristor has switched on and is conducting, it is not possible
to switch it off, it will conduct until the voltage across it crosses zero.
2
Figure 2.1 shows a three phase rectifier bridge using thyristors. It is
similar to the classic rectifier bridge used in electronics where diodes are
used.
Assume the thyristors conduct at all times in the positive region, effec-
tively making them behave like diodes. The output will be a direct voltage
as shown in figure 2.2.
Figure 2.3: Voltage output from rectifier bridge using firing angle α
This delay is called α or the firing angle. It can be seen that the DC
voltage is reduced compared to the case where α = 0.
It can be shown [1] that the DC-voltage is given by
√
3 2
Udc = Uac cos(α) (2.1)
π
where Uac is the phase-to-phase RMS voltage. It can be seen that the DC
voltage can be controlled by α which can be varied between 0 √and 180
degrees. This corresponds to a change in the DC voltage from 3 π 2 Uac to
√
− 3 π 2 Uac
3
Figure 2.4: Voltage output from rectifier bridge using firing angle α, showing
the overlap angle µ
In reality, the thyristors are not ideal. There will be some overlap be-
tween the already conducting thyristor and the triggered thyristor, leading
to the case in figure 2.4. This is called the overlap angle µ.
The rest of the period is called the extinction angle or commutation
margin, γ. This leads to the following well known HVDC expression:
α + µ + γ = 180 (2.2)
4
where UdcR and UdcI are the DC-voltages at the rectifier and the inverter
respectively. The power at the inverter is calculated in the same manner. It
is clear that the power transmitted depends on the voltage in the rectifier
and the inverter, which is controlled by varying α.
The requested DC power is compared to the actual DC voltage Udc and
the required current order Iorder is calculated. This current order is sent to
the current control amplifier (CCA) which can be seen in figure 2.6.
1 + Kp Ti s
GCCA (s) = G . (2.5)
Ti s
G is called the gain, Kp is called the proportional factor and Ti is the time
constant. These are design variables and are tuned to give the system the
proper characteristics.
5
2.1.4 Voltage Dependent Current Order Limiter
The Voltage Dependent Current Order Limiter (VDCOL) is a protective
function located before the CCA. Its objective is to limit the current order
when the DC voltage decreases. This is to avoid instability during AC
disturbances in the inverter network. It also provides safe restarts after
fault clearances. The characteristics for the VDCOL can be seen in figure
2.7.
IO ABS MIN and IO ABS MAX set the global minimum and maximum
for the current order respectively. UD LOW , UD HIGH and IO LIM de-
cides the location and steepness of the slope.
6
2.2 Dynamic Performance Studies
The Dynamic Performance Studies (DPS) are carried out to ensure that the
HVDC system meets the system specifications with regard to performance
and stability during transient conditions. The parameters of the different
functions of the control system are tuned until these specifications are met.
This section explains how the DPS are carried out for the CCA, VDCOL
and RAML.
2.2.1 CCA
The CCA is tuned by step responses. The parameters tuned are G and Kp .
The time constant Ti is normally not changed [3].
A value ∆I is added or subtracted to the current order of the rectifier.
The value of ∆I is usually in the magnitude of 0.1 p.u. This change in
the current order causes a step in the direct current. When the current
has settled, the step ∆I is removed and the current returns to its normal
operating point. Figure 2.8 shows a typical current step used when tuning
the CCA.
7
2.2.2 VDCOL
The VDCOL is tuned by performing voltage drops in the inverter AC net-
work. The drops can vary in magnitude and time. Both single phase and
three phase faults are tested. Figure 2.9 shows a typical case for tuning of
the VDCOL. Shown is the recovery of the DC power after a three phase
fault in the inverter AC network. The fault occurs at 0.1 s and is cleared at
0.2 s.
Figure 2.9: DC power recovery after a three phase fault in the inverter AC
network
Figure 2.10: DC voltage recovery after a single phase fault in the inverter
AC network
8
If γ drops too low, commutation failures could occur. This is because of
the physical properties of the thyristors. When commutation failures occur,
the ability to control the firing of the thyristors is lost for a short period of
time.
Figure 2.11: Extinction angle during recovery after single phase fault in the
inverter AC network
Figure 2.11 shows the extinction angle after a single phase AC fault.
After the fault is cleared at 0.2 s, γ decreases in a slow and stable manner
which is what is aimed for.
For tuning of the VDCOL, the parameters UD HIGH, UD LOW,
TC UP REC and TC UP INV are used. UD HIGH and UD LOW are ex-
plained in section 2.1.4. The TC UP REC and TC UP INV parameters are
part of a low pass filter acting on Ud prior to the VDCOL function for the
rectifier and inverter, respectively.
2.2.3 RAML
The RAML function is tuned by applying voltage drops in the rectifier AC
network. Faults of different magnitudes and durations are tested. Both
single phase and three phase faults are tested.
The performance and stability is measured in the same way as for the
VDCOL, with the exception of the extinction angle, which is not monitored
for the RAML.
The parameters tuned in the RAML function are RAML DECR,
CRAML REF, RAML REF, CDL LEVEL and DL LEVEL.
9
An n-simplex is defined as an n-dimensional polytope, which is the con-
vex hull of n + 1 vertices. For example, a simplex in 1 dimension is a line
segment, a simplex in 2 dimensions is a triangle and so on. For each iteration
the algorithm replaces the vertex with the highest OF value with a vertex
of lower OF value. This is performed until a minimum of the OF is found.
The algorithm starts with a user defined simplex of any size. Each
iteration of the algorithm include the following steps:
• Ordering of vertices
• Calculation of centroid
• Simplex transformation
• Termination test
The algorithm will continue this loop until the termination criteria have
been fulfilled
1∑
n+1
c= xi
n
i=2
10
2.3.3 Simplex transformation
This step contain different operations, depending on the OF value at the
specific points. It starts with the reflection operation.
xr = c + α(c − x1 )
• OF (xr ) > OF (x2 ): Here, the reflection point is worse than the second
worst vertex. If this is the case, contraction is performed.
• OF (xn+1 ) > OF (xr ): Here, the reflection point is better than the
best vertex, i e. a new objective function minimum is found. If this
happens, expansion is performed.
Figure 2.13: Simplex using reflection point xr , dashed line showing the orig-
inal simplex
xe = c + γ(xr − c)
11
Figure 2.14: Simplex showing expansion point xe , dashed line showing the
original and reflected simplex
Figure 2.14 shows the simplex after expansion. If OF (xn+1 ) > OF (xe ),
i.e. the expansion point is better than the current best point, x1 is replaced
with xe and the transformation is complete. Otherwise, x1 is replaced by
xr and the transformation is complete.
(a) (b)
Figure 2.15: Simplex, performing the contraction operation using (a) xr and
(b) x1 with the dashed line showing the original simplex
12
Reduction During the reduction operation, n new vertices are calculated
as
xi = xn+1 + δ(xi − xn+1 )
for i = 1 . . . n. This simplex is then accepted and transformation is com-
pleted. Figure 2.16 shows the reduction operation.
3 Method
This section describes the methodology used for this thesis. The methodol-
ogy can be divided into two steps:
• Finding an objective function
• Testing the objective function
13
performed on this function. The minimum of the objective function corre-
sponds to what the user has defined as the optimal system.
The most important feature of the objective function is that its minimum
corresponds to what normally is considered optimal for an HVDC system.
To verify that this is the case, the solution found by the algorithm is com-
pared to what an expert HVDC designer would consider optimal. These
criteria can be found in section 2.2.
It is also important that the objective function is smooth and contain
few local minima, as otherwise the algorithm could converge to non-optimal
solutions. To evaluate the smoothness, several different start values are
tested. If the objective function converges to the same minimum, using
several different start values, the likelihood increases that it is the global
minimum.
The process of finding a good objective function takes an evolutionary
path. A similar approach is taken in [9]. The idea is to start with an
objective function and evaluate how it performs. The objective function is
then modified if needed.
For evaluating the different objective functions, the Nelder-Mead Sim-
plex algorithm is used. It has been used previously for similar problems with
success [9] [10]. It also seems to be the best alternative for multi-variable
optimization in PSCAD. The alternative in PSCAD is the Hooke-Jeeves al-
gorithm, proposed by R. Hooke and T. A. Jeeves in 1961 [11]. However,
the Hooke-Jeeves algorithm tend to converge more slowly than the Nelder-
Mead Simplex algorithm, due to its need to evaluate more objective function
values per iteration.
An alternative approach is to use some external application, such as
MATLAB for example, for the actual optimization. The application would
then receive the objective function value from PSCAD, evaluate the new
parameter values, and send these values back to PSCAD each run.
Another approach is to write a new optimization module in PSCAD.
This makes it possible for the user to choose algorithm freely.
Given the time span and scope of this thesis, it was decided to go with
the PSCAD built-in optimization module.
3.1.1 CCA
The CCA is one of the most important functions to design to get the proper
dynamics for the system. It is also the function that is most often described
in papers on HVDC optimization.
Objective functions widely used for similar problems is the Integral
Square Error (ISE) ∫
OF (Id ) = (Iord − Id )2 dt
14
and the Integral Absolute Error (IAE)
∫
OF (Id ) = |Iord − Id |dt
Both these functions integrate the error between the reference and actual
value of the direct current. It is easy to understand why such functions can
be used to tune a step response. Slow step responses would render a big
error in the early part of the step, too quick step responses will have a big
overshoot. Both these scenarios will render a big integral value. Hence, the
minima of the functions will be at some trade-off between slow solutions and
quick solutions with much overshoot.
Another objective function that has been tested is a very intuitive func-
tion consisting of only the recovery time and overshoot. They are simply
added together to form the objective function. The idea is that minimiz-
ing this will also optimize the system. This will also lead to some form of
trade-off between the two parameters.
Along with performance, stability needs to be taken into account. As
described in section 2.2.1, when tuning the CCA, the phase margin has to
be taken into account. The way this is handled in this thesis is by limiting
G · Kp and Kp as per the rule of thumb.
The need of limiting G · Kp and Kp brings a problem, The Nelder-Mead
Simplex algorithm has no formal way of handling constraints. A way to
solve this problem is to punish solutions where the limits are violated. This
can be done by adding a piecewise function to the objective function. This
function adds a weight whenever the limits are violated. In the case of
the CCA, it adds a weight whenever G · Kp or Kp are greater than their
maximum values as specified by the user. An equation for such a function
is
C if G · Kp > (G · Kp)max
OFconstraints (G, Kp) = or Kp > Kpmax
0 otherwise
where C is a constant. For this function to have the needed effect, C has to
be significantly larger than the objective function. This creates a big step
in the objective function when the parameters are outside of their limits,
making sure the minimum of the objective function lies inside of the limits.
Adding the constraints for stability, the complete expressions for the
initial objective functions for tuning of the CCA are the following:
15
where
C if G · Kp > (G · Kp)max
OFconstraints (G, Kp) = or Kp > Kpmax
0 otherwise
where
C if G · Kp > (G · Kp)max
OFconstraints (G, Kp) = or Kp > Kpmax
0 otherwise
where
C if G · Kp > (G · Kp)max
OFconstraints (G, Kp) = or Kp > Kpmax
0 otherwise
The functions Tf (Id ) and Tr (Id ) represent the time it takes for the current
to reach 90 % of the negative and positive step respectively. The functions
Yu (Id ) and Yo (Id ) represent the undershoot and overshoot of the negative
and positive step, respectively. Wrecovery and Wovershoot are weights. The ra-
tio of the weights decide how much the two terms contribute to the objective
function.
3.1.2 VDCOL
The focus when tuning the VDCOL is a bit different compared to that of
the CCA. The point of the VDCOL is to provide stability. An objective
function focusing mainly on performance would not be appropriate.
A way of optimizing the VDCOL is described in paper [9]. The way it is
done in this paper is by using ISE to optimize the DC current recovery. The
reference is a user-defined ramp function. This solution has problems with
instability. The way the instabilities are handled in this paper is by adding
a piecewise function to the objective function that adds a weight when these
instabilities occur.
16
The approach taken in this thesis is to put stability first, to make sure
instabilities do not happen in the first place. Stability is handled by mini-
mizing the overshoot in Ud and undershoot in γ as described in section 2.2.2.
To perform this, modified ISE functions are used. For the Ud function
∫
OFUd (Ud ) = Yo (Ud )dt (3.4)
where {
(Udlimit − Ud )2 if Ud ≥ Udlimit
Yo (Ud ) =
0 if Ud < Udlimit
and for the γ function ∫
OFγ (γ) = Yu (γ)dt
where {
0 if γ ≥ γlimit
Yu (γ) =
(γlimit − γ)2 if γ < γlimit
γlimit and Udlimit are user defined constants.
In this thesis the performance of the VDCOL is measured by the DC
power recovery, see section 2.2.2. To optimize the power recovery, integral
errors are used. By using integral errors, a quick recovery is ensured while
punishing overshoot. Both ISE and IAE are tested. For power reference,
a normal reference step is used. By minimizing the overshoot in Ud and
undershoot in γ, stability is upheld during the step.
Adding both performance and stability to the objective function, the
expressions for the initial objective functions used for tuning of the VDCOL
are the following:
where {
(Udlimit − Ud )2 if Ud ≥ Udlimit
Yo (Ud ) =
0 if Ud < Udlimit
and {
0 if γ ≥ γlimit
Yu (γ) =
(γlimit − γ)2 if γ < γlimit
17
WP , WU and Wγ are weights that decide how much the corresponding terms
contribute to the objective function.
where {
(Udlimit − Ud )2 if Ud ≥ Udlimit
Yo (Ud ) =
0 if Ud < Udlimit
and {
0 if γ ≥ γlimit
Yu (γ) =
(γlimit − γ)2 if γ < γlimit
WP , WU and Wγ are weights that decide how much the corresponding terms
contribute to the objective function.
3.1.3 RAML
Due to the similarities between the tuning of the VDCOL and the RAML,
see section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, the same discussion for optimizing it can be
made.
For performance, ISE and IAE are used on the DC power, with a step
function as reference. For keeping stability during the recovery, the over-
shoot in UDC will be monitored the same way as for the VDCOL.
For tuning of the RAML, the following objective functions are tested:
where {
(Udlimit − Ud )2 if Ud ≥ Udlimit
Yo (Ud ) =
0 if Ud < Udlimit
WP and WU are weights that decide how much the corresponding terms
contribute to the objective function.
18
Integral absolute error
∫
OF (Pd , Ud ) = WP |Pref − Pd |dt
∫
+ WU Yo (Ud )dt (3.8)
where {
(Udlimit − Ud )2 if Ud ≥ Udlimit
Yo (Ud ) =
0 if Ud < Udlimit
WP and WU are weights that decide how much the corresponding terms
contribute to the objective function.
4 Simulation setup
4.1 PSCAD’s Optimum Run
Optimum Run is a module available in PSCAD which gives the user the
possibility to use optimization algorithms to optimize a set of parameters.
19
PSCAD 4.2.1 Professional, which was used for this paper, includes two algo-
rithms for multi-variable optimization: the Nelder-Mead Simplex algorithm
and Hooke-Jeeve’s algorithm.
4.1.3 Tolerance
The termination criterion for the optimization algorithm is set via the tol-
erance variable. The objective function value is compared to the objective
function value of the previous iteration. If the difference between these
values becomes less than the tolerance, the algorithm terminates [8].
Using a large tolerance can lead to the optimization terminating pre-
maturely, even when it hasn’t found a minimum. Using a small Tolerance
can lead to unnecessary fine tuning of the parameters, which increases the
number of iterations. It was found experimentally that a tolerance of about
10−4 times the expected value of the objective function provided a good
trade off.
20
5 Results and discussion
5.1 CCA
5.1.1 Initial objective functions
Integral Square Error Figure 5.1 shows the step response of the op-
timized CCA using the Integral Square Error objective function, equation
3.1. Here, G = 128.5 and Kp = 0.7. The optimized system is very quick
with recovery times for the negative and positive step being 8ms and 10ms
respectively. The optimal solution possesses a bit of overshoot. The max-
imum overshoot was measured to be 0.0216 p.u. or 27 % which is above
what normally is acceptable (15-20 %)
Figure 5.1: Step response with CCA tuned using the ISE objective function
Table 5.1 shows the different test runs used when evaluating the perfor-
mance of the ISE objective function. Given that 3 runs with starting values
far apart converged to practically the same minimum, it can be concluded
that it likely is the global minimum. The number of runs until convergence
varied from 62 to 219. Some runs converged to a local minimum very close
to the initial guess while some runs converged very far from the initial guess.
Integral Absolute Error Figure 5.2 shows the step response of the opti-
mized CCA using the Integral Absolute Error objective function (equation
3.1). The values of G and Kp were found to be 300.1 and 0.3 respectively.
The solution found is very quick where the recovery times are about 6 and
21
9 ms. However, the solution has even worse overshoot than the ISE solu-
tion. It also has some oscillations after the negative step. The maximum
overshoot was measured to 0.046 p.u or 57.5 % of the total step.
Figure 5.2: Step response with CCA tuned using the IAE objective function
Table 5.2 shows the test runs used to evaluate the IAE objective function.
It had problems with local minima, even more so than the ISE case, with only
one start guess converging to the minimum objective function value. The
runs often converged to solutions very near the initial guess. The number
of runs until convergence ranged from 48 to 180.
Recovery time and overshoot Figure 5.3 shows the step response of
the optimized CCA using the objective function consisting of the sum of
the recovery time and overshoot, equation 3.3. The algorithm found the
objective functions minimum to be at G = 144.2 and Kp = 0.62. The
resulting step response has recovery times of 7 and 9 ms and a maximum
overshoot of 0.022 p.u or 27.5 % of the total step which is comparable to
the ISE case but a lot lower than the IAE case.
Table 5.3 shows the test runs used to evaluate the recovery time and
overshoot objective function. All runs converged to different minima. The
number of runs until convergence ranged from 35 to 119.
22
Figure 5.3: Step response with CCA tuned using the recovery time and over-
shoot objective function
Table 5.3: Test runs using recovery time and overshoot objective function
23
amount of overshoot. To test this, the overshoot was set to be under an
arbitrary value, in this case 0.016 p.u or 20 % of the total step, and the
recovery time was optimized. Figure 5.4 and Table 5.4 show the results of
this test.
Figure 5.4: Step response with CCA tuned using recovery time, overshoot
constrained to 20% of step
Table 5.4: Test runs using recovery time objective function, overshoot con-
strained to 20% of step
Using this setup, all the initial guesses found the same minimum which
makes it very likely it is the global minimum. This minimum corresponds
to a recovery time of 0.03165 s for the positive and negative step combined.
Some runs converged to 0.0317 s, which is a difference of 50 microseconds
which also is the time step of the simulated system. This difference is so
small it is regarded as negligible. The value of G ranges from 49.8 to 50.2
and Kp ranges from 1.5 to 1.72 which has to be regarded as fairly narrow.
The amount of runs until convergence showed consistency and averaged
around 40 runs. The initial guess does not seem to have much influence on
the convergence speed, with the starting guess furthest from the final value
being the quickest with 34 runs.
The obvious downside to this approach with limiting the overshoot is
that the user must know what value to set it to. Because of the different
characteristics of systems, this could be difficult. Usually however, the de-
signer performing the DPS has a good idea what this value should be. If the
system is totally unknown, it would be possible to try different values of the
overshoot, and see how the recovery time changes. At some point, a small
24
decrease in overshoot will lead to a big increase in recovery time and vice
versa. Between these points there is a range where the trade-off between
recovery time and overshoot is good, and the designer could use this range
for the CCA.
It can be seen that the recovery time decreases fairly linearly in the
interval of about 10 % to 17 % overshoot. From 17 % and up it flattens out
some and then declines quickly again. There is no obvious range where the
trade-off between recovery and overshoot stands out as being particularly
good. Because of the linear characteristics, it is difficult from this test, to
make any intelligent choice of G and Kp. The reference solution (tuned
manually by experts) has G = 28 and Kp = 2, which according to the table,
has an overshoot of around 16 %.
25
Table 5.5: Test runs using recovery time objective function, overshoot con-
strained
5.2 VDCOL
It was found experimentally that weights of WP = 1, WU = 10−4 and
Wγ = 1 provided a good trade-off between performance and stability and
was used along with Udlimit = 1.1 and γlimit = 16 throughout this section.
26
Figure 5.6: AC fault recovery with VDCOL tuned using ISE objective func-
tion
Integral absolue error Figure 5.7 shows the recovery after an AC voltage
drop in the inverter network using the VDCOL parameters obtained using
the Integral Absolute Error objective function (equation 3.6). The DC power
recovery time is about 80 ms and holds steady above 90 % with only a minor
dip. Ud and γ stay within their limits during the recovery, which is essential.
Table 5.7 shows the different runs used to evaluate performance of the
IAE objective function for tuning of the VDCOL. The number of runs ranged
from 74 to 216 which is rather wide compared to the ISE range.
27
Figure 5.7: AC fault recovery with VDCOL tuned using IAE objective func-
tion
28
is controlled via the lower bound of the integral. Changing this value was
tested and it appeared to delay the restart.
Figure 5.8: AC fault recovery with VDCOL tuned using ISE objective func-
tion, lower integral bound 0.3 s
Figure 5.8 shows the same fault case as earlier, but with the integral
calculated from time 0.3 s and onwards. The ISE objective function was
used. Compared to the other case (figure 5.6) where the lower bound was at
0.2 s, just at the fault clearing, it can be seen that the recovery is delayed,
and the dip is essentially gone.
Because the integral is calculated from 0.3 s and onwards, the algorithm
will search for solutions that have a small error in this range. It is obvious
that solutions with a slow recovery will have a large error in this range
because they have not recovered at 0.3 s. According to the test earlier,
solutions with a quick recovery will have a dip (or possible overshoot) in
this range, and will be prevented as well.
Figure 5.9 shows the same fault case using IAE, here the lower bound is
also 0.3 s. The results are almost identical to the ISE case which suggests
that there is not much difference between them when using the lower integral
bound modification. Because of this, only the ISE solution is investigated
from here on.
From these tests, it appears that the user can essentially choose the re-
covery speed of the system by changing the lower integral bound. Obviously,
setting it too low would lead to the unwanted case of too quick solutions,
as described earlier. Setting it too high could lead to several different sce-
29
Figure 5.9: AC fault recovery with VDCOL tuned using IAE objective func-
tion, lower integral bound 0.3 s
narios because too many solutions would be considered optimal, i.e. have a
zero error within the integral range. The limits of Ud and γ also affect the
recovery time. Tightening these limits would reduce the possible recovery
time, but increasing stability.
When tuning the VDCOL, several different test cases have to be tested.
Optimizing only one fault case and using these parameters on a different
case, it is very unlikely that it would provide the same optimal result. Opti-
mizing with regard to all necessary cases is therefore necessary to properly
optimize the system as a whole.
A way to run several faults is to simply place them one after another.
Figure 5.10 shows such a case consisting of two faults run in succession.
Figure 5.10: Two faults run in succession, single phase and three phase
The first fault is a single phase fault, the same that has been used so
30
far. The second is a three phase fault in the inverter AC network with 10 %
remaining voltage and duration 0.1 s. The two faults are similar in the sense
that the tuning is performed the same way. This makes it probable that the
objective function obtained thus far translates well to a three phase fault
case. To optimize both fault cases at the same time, the objective function is
calculated for both cases individually. After each run, the objective functions
of the two cases are added together and this combined objective function is
subject to minimization.
Figure 5.11: Single phase fault recovery with VDCOL tuned using two faults,
objective function ISE with lower integral bound 0.3 s
Figure 5.11 shows the single phase fault recovery using the parameters
obtained after performing optimization on two faults. It can be seen that
the recovery time is slightly reduced compared to tuning only the single fault
case, which is expected. However, the reduction is not that big. There is
no dip in the DC power but there is a slight halt in the recovery just after
it reaches 90 %. Since it does not dip below the 90 % mark, the recovery
time is still kept low at just over 100 ms. Ud and γ are a bit more damped
than the single fault case which is expected with the recovery time being a
bit slower.
Figure 5.12 shows the three phase fault using the same set of parameters.
The recovery of the DC power is very smooth and does not dip below 90 %
after it reaches it. The recovery time is about 130 ms. Ud and γ both reach
their limits during recovery.
Table 5.8 shows the simulations used to evaluate the two-fault test case.
31
Figure 5.12: Three phase fault recovery with VDCOL tuned using two faults,
objective function ISE with lower integral bound 2.3 s
Table 5.8: Test runs using two faults, ISE objective function with increased
lower integral bound
Two starting guesses converged to the same set of parameters. The number
of runs ranged from 67 to 85 which shows good consistency.
32
• Three phase fault inverter AC network, 10% remaining voltage, 100ms
Parameters
Start 0.05 0.06 0.8 0.25
Final 0.0372 0.0648 0.862 0.260
Reference 0.034 0.049 0.91 0.35
Table 5.9 shows the VDCOL parameters before and after the optimiza-
tion, it also includes the reference parameters which were obtained by ex-
perts.
The optimization completed in 139 runs. The objective function value
using the initial parameters was 0.884 · 10−2 compared to 0.324 · 10−2 for
the optimized parameters.
33
It can be seen that all solutions have problems with this fault. None of
the solutions recover within 120 ms, although the optimized solution is the
quickest at about 150 with the other two being slightly slower. All solutions
have overshoot in Ud . The reference solution has the least initial spike in Ud
but possesses some oscillations. The extinction angle dips dangerously low,
in both the optimized and the reference case.
5.3 RAML
It was found experimentally that weights of WP = 1 and WU = 10−4 pro-
vided a good trade-off between performance and stability and was used along
with Udlimit = 1.1 throughout this section.
34
flattens out. The recovery time is about 130 ms which is slower than the
120 ms required.
Figure 5.13: AC fault recovery with RAML tuned using ISE objective func-
tion
Table 5.10 shows the simulations used for evaluating the integral square
error objective function). It can be seen that the CDL LEVEL parameter
converges to nearly the same value in every run, but CRAML REF barely
changes from its starting value, which likely means that CDL LEVEL is
more crucial for the end result than CRAML REF. The rate of convergence
is good with the number of runs ranging from 25-45.
Integral Absolute Error Figure 5.14 shows the fault recovery using the
parameters obtained by using the integral absolute error objective function
(equation 3.8). It is nearly identical to the ISE case. The recovery time is
the same, around 150 ms, which does not meet the desired recovery time.
Table 5.11 shows the simulations used to evaluate the IAE objective func-
tion. As evident by the little difference in the objective function, all simula-
tions give roughly the same performance. Like the ISE case, CDL LEVEL
converges to a tight range of values, while CRAML REF does not, this im-
plies that the result does not depend heavily on the value of CRAML REF.
35
Figure 5.14: AC fault recovery with RAML tuned using IAE objective func-
tion
36
Figure 5.15: AC fault recovery with RAML tuned using ISE, lower integral
bound 0.3 s
Table 5.12: Test runs using ISE objective function, lower integral bound 0.3
s
final values most likely depend on the oscillation of the DC power during
recovery which creates local minima in the objective function. What stands
out the most is the quick and consistent convergence. The number of runs
varies from 23 to 27 runs.
This test shows the efficiency of increasing the lower bound of the inte-
gral calculating the error in the DC power. It is even more evident in the
RAML than the VDCOL. The test also shows that an optimization using
this objective function gives a result very close to what is desired, for this
type of fault.
When tuning the RAML, both single phase and three phase faults are
tested. The objective function developed so far was tested using single
phase faults. Three phase faults are tuned similarly, so the same objective
function that worked for the single phase case was tested to start with.
The parameters used to tune the three phase faults were RAML DECR and
DL LEVEL.
Figure 5.16 shows the recovery of a three phase fault in the rectifier
AC network. The parameters used were obtained using the ISE objective
function with lower integration bound 0.3 s. The DC power recovers in a
reliable manner with a recovery time of 140 ms, which is 20 ms above the
37
desired time.
Figure 5.16: AC fault recovery with RAML tuned using ISE objective func-
tion, lower integral bound 0.3 s
Table 5.13: Test runs using ISE objective function, lower integral bound 0.3
s
Table 5.13 shows the simulation used to evaluate the ISE objective func-
tion with lower integral bound 0.3 s using a three phase fault. One of the
simulations found a solution with very poor performance with an objec-
tive function three times as big as the other two which ended up roughly
the same. For these two solutions the DL LEVEL values are close but not
RAML REF which is similar to the single phase case.
This test shows that the objective function that gives good results in the
single phase case also gives a good result in the three phase case.
Just like for the VDCOL, it is essential that the RAML is tuned so that
it works for all the necessary fault cases. Optimization with regard to all
these cases is therefore necessary. The same approach as in the VDCOL
case was tested. A three phase and a single phase fault were placed in
succession. Close enough for a quick run time, but far enough to reach
steady state before the other fault goes active, see figure 5.17. The objective
function of the two faults were calculated individually and added together
for optimization. For this test, RAML DECR, RAML REF, CRAML REF,
DL LEVEL and CDL LEVEL were tuned simultaneously.
38
Figure 5.17: Two faults in succession, three phase and single phase
Table 5.14: Test runs using two faults, ISE objective function, increased
lower integral bound
Table 5.14 shows the simulation used to evaluate the case using two
faults using the ISE objective function with lower integral bound at 0.1
seconds after fault clearing. Parameters presented in order RAML DECR,
RAML REF, CRAML REF, DL LEVEL, CDL LEVEL. It can be seen that
just like the earlier cases, RAML REF and CRAML REF does not change
much from the initial values. RAML DECR follows the same behavior. The
more important parameters, DL LEVEL and CDL LEVEL vary a lot each
run, with all runs converging to different solutions. The performance of
these solutions vary a lot as well, as can be seen by the big difference in the
objective function.
Figure 5.18 shows the three phase fault with parameters obtained using
the two fault case. It can be seen that the DC power recovers quickly and
in a stable manner in about 130 ms.
Figure 5.19 shows the single phase fault with parameters obtained using
the two fault case. The DC power recovers quickly in about 110 ms. These
tests suggest that using the ISE objective function, with lower bound set
to a value near the desired recovery time, it is possible to tune the RAML
parameters so that it gives desirable results for different fault cases.
39
Figure 5.18: Three phase fault recovery with RAML tuned using two faults
Figure 5.19: Single phase fault recovery with RAML tuned using two faults
40
• Three phase fault to ground, rectifier side, 10 % remaining voltage,
duration 100 ms
Parameters
Start 0.7 0.9 0.8 55 60
Final 0.742 0.923 0.847 40.3 59.0
Reference 0.75 0.9 0.6 50 55
Table 5.15 shows the initial and the optimized RAML parameters
RAML DECR, RAML REF, CRAML REF, DL LEVEL and CDL LEVEL.
Also shown are the reference parameters obtained manually by experts using
the trial and error technique.
The optimization completed in 79 runs. The objective function value
using the initial parameters was 0.611 · 10−2 compared to 0.372 · 10−2 for
the optimized parameters.
41
Single phase fault to ground, rectifier side, 70% remaining voltage,
duration 300ms The results from this fault case can be seen in appendix
B.4. It can be seen that the optimization has reduced the recovery time
from about 130 ms to about 110 ms. The reference has a recovery time of
about 120 ms.
6 Conclusions
The goal of this thesis was to find a way to tune the HVDC control system
parameters by using optimization algorithms instead of manual trial and
error. The Nelder-Mead Simplex algorithm and PSCAD software was used.
The focus was on three essential parts of the control system, the CCA,
VDCOL and RAML.
For the CCA, all three initial objective functions tested had problems
with having too much overshoot. Modifying one of the objective functions,
by optimizing recovery time and limiting the overshoot produced desirable
step responses for the current. It also had excellent convergence properties.
However, this approach assumes the user knows what overshoot the system
should have. The method proposed to use different values of the overshoot
to find a good trade-off between overshoot and recovery time failed to find
a good trade-off for the test system used. It is concluded that due to the
excellent convergence properties of the chosen objective function, using this
objective function could help the designer tune the CCA. However, it re-
quires that the user knows what overshoot to aim for.
For the VDCOL, it is clear by looking at the results that using the
method proposed, the VDCOL can be tuned with good results. The recovery
speeds were near equal or better compared to the reference solution for all
fault cases, while limiting Ud and γ makes sure that stability is upheld. The
biggest issue that was seen throughout the section was that the objective
42
functions had problems with convergence. The start guesses converged to
very different solutions for almost all cases. This suggests that the user will
need to try several initial values for the parameters to increase the chance
of finding the global minimum.
Optimizing the RAML produced similar results to the VDCOL, with the
optimized solution being comparable to the reference solution for most cases.
Besides the convergence issue, another critical issue arose. For one three
phase fault, the RAML detected it as a single phase fault. This has to do
with the DL LEVEL and CDL LEVEL parameters. It is likely better to tune
them manually, and only optimize the remaining three RAML-parameters.
Another approach worth investigating is whether tuning three phase and
single phase faults separately, yields better results.
A subject only briefly touched on in this thesis is that of the initial step
size and termination criteria for the algorithm. An idea for future work is to
more thoroughly investigate the effect that changing these parameters have.
43
References
[1] Åke Ekström, High Power Electronics HVDC and SVC. The Royal
Institute of Technology, 1990.
[3] ABB, Guidelines: Dynamic Performance Study (DPS) for HVDC Clas-
sic in PSCAD, February 2009. 1JNL000424.
44
1
A VDCOL Comparisons
A.1 Single phase fault to ground, inverter side, 10% remain-
ing voltage, duration 100ms
A.1.1 Initial parameters
1
Discussion regarding these results can be found in section 5.2.3
45
A.1.2 Optimized parameters
46
A.1.3 Reference parameters
47
A.2 Single phase fault to ground, inverter side, 70% remain-
ing voltage, duration 100ms
A.2.1 Initial parameters
48
A.2.2 Optimized parameters
49
A.2.3 Reference parameters
50
A.3 Single phase fault to ground, inverter side, 10% remain-
ing voltage, duration 300ms
A.3.1 Initial parameters
51
A.3.2 Optimized parameters
52
A.3.3 Reference parameters
53
A.4 Single phase fault to ground, inverter side, 70% remain-
ing voltage, duration 300ms
A.4.1 Initial parameters
54
A.4.2 Optimized parameters
55
A.4.3 Reference parameters
56
A.5 Three phase fault to ground, inverter side, 10% remain-
ing voltage, duration 100ms
A.5.1 Initial parameters
57
A.5.2 Optimized parameters
58
A.5.3 Reference parameters
59
A.6 Three phase fault to ground, inverter side, 70% remain-
ing voltage, duration 100ms
A.6.1 Initial parameters
60
A.6.2 Optimized parameters
61
A.6.3 Reference parameters
62
2
B RAML Comparisons
B.1 Single phase fault to ground, rectifier side, 10% remain-
ing voltage, duration 100ms
B.1.1 Initial parameters
2
Discussion regarding these results can be found in section 5.3.3
63
B.1.2 Optimized parameters
64
B.1.3 Reference parameters
65
B.2 Single phase fault to ground, rectifier side, 70% remain-
ing voltage, duration 100ms
B.2.1 Initial parameters
66
B.2.2 Optimized parameters
67
B.2.3 Reference parameters
68
B.3 Single phase fault to ground, rectifier side, 10% remain-
ing voltage, duration 300ms
B.3.1 Initial parameters
69
B.3.2 Optimized parameters
70
B.3.3 Reference parameters
71
B.4 Single phase fault to ground, rectifier side, 70% remain-
ing voltage, duration 300ms
B.4.1 Initial parameters
72
B.4.2 Optimized parameters
73
B.4.3 Reference parameters
74
B.5 Three phase fault to ground, rectifier side, 10% remain-
ing voltage, duration 100ms
B.5.1 Initial parameters
75
B.5.2 Optimized parameters
76
B.5.3 Reference parameters
77
B.6 Three phase fault to ground, rectifier side, 70% remain-
ing voltage, duration 100ms
B.6.1 Initial parameters
78
B.6.2 Optimized parameters
79
B.6.3 Reference parameters
80