Internal Mode Control for power system load
frequency regulation assessment and Real Time
Simulation
Angel A. Recalde L., Member, IEEE, Diana Cervantes, Sixifo Falcones, Member, IEEE.
Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral
Facultad de Ingeniería en Electricidad y Computación
Guayaquil, Ecuador
arecalde@fiec.espol.edu.ec, sixifo@espol.edu.ec, dicervan@espol.edu.ec
Abstract—Electrical power systems must balance demand and
generation almost instantly to maintain frequency. This task is
performed at each power station with the load frequency
controller. On wider areas, the energy management systems
supervise generation control automatically to preserve stability
and reliability. Due to the unpredictability of the demand, the
control response must be as fast as possible to prevent larger
deviations that could lead to cascading failures and outages. In
order to understand the dynamic behavior and capabilities of the
controllers, real time simulation offers a great advantage over its
offline predecessors, not only for operational training but also for
prototyping. This paper studies the effectiveness of the real time
simulator in the analysis of a power system load frequency control.
Keywords—Real time simulation, load frequency control,
automatic generation control, PID control, power plant modeling.
I. INTRODUCTION
The power system stability and control is of paramount
importance in wide area systems. There have been a number of
important blackouts experienced in recent years. Brazil 3/3/99,
Iran spring/02, USA-Canada 8/03, Russia 5/05 [1] are a few
examples that have encouraged the assessment of robust
controllers for improved power system performance under
stressful dynamic operating conditions. There has been
extensive research on the control tuning problem and much of
the effort has been made upon solving simplified problems and
justify several proposals [5] to [11]. Load Frequency Control
(LFC) balances active power mismatches. However, once an
area of the network reached an unstable state, power imbalances
derive in a combination of voltage and frequency problems [2].
It is possible to analyze the problem in different time frames and
responses separately in order to propose a control structure
covering from the wide area to the power plant. Due to the fact
that frequency is directly related to the active power production,
it is compulsory for the control engineer to configure an
automatic regulator to adjust it as fast and smooth as possible to
return to stability. The frequency control requires the
participation of a selected group of power stations that could
respond appropriately under the economical and efficiency
constraints.
The power system models commonly used for dynamic
analysis utilize Laplace transformations of differential equations
987-1-5090-1629-7/16/$31.00©2016 IEEE
and includes the influence of mechanical speed, field current and
voltage, amortisseurs winding effect, and higher order models
add more detailed description of each component of the
synchronous generator. In LFC assessment, it is of common
practice to simplify the complexity of the governor and turbine
with first or second order transfer functions. Such systems will
be modelled and simulated in the RT-LAB environment with the
OPAL-RT Real Time Simulator of the Escuela Superior
Politécnica del Litoral. In section 2, the literature review of load
frequency control methods and Real Time Simulation
application is revised, while in sections 3 and 4 the control
assessment and analysis on several types of power systems are
performed. In the fifth section, conclusions and
recommendations will be drawn.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Load Frequency Control has been widely studied in the last
two decades and many optimization techniques have been
introduced within the tuning criteria for gaining better
performance, stabilization and robustness. In [5] the authors
propose a solution for a single machine infinite bus (SMIB) LFC
utilizing the Ziegler-Nichols method with maximum peak
resonance specification (MPRS). The work also compares the
solution with an extended integral control (EIC), which adds a
decaying factor to the proportional-integral section to reduce the
steady state error. The system model considers the limiting and
hysteresis characteristic of the governor as well as the generator
droop characteristic. Although time responses are reasonable for
single machine –infinite bus studies (10–15s), they could be
longer for multi-area simulations. In [1] the generation rate
constant (GRC) and speed governor dead band are described as
the most important physical constraints in the system modeling.
Thus, the LFC controller designer should understand the impact
of the solution when GRC and governor dead band are included.
A robust proportional-integral-derivative (PID) LFC [6] is
analyzed using decentralized techniques and the tuning method
is based on the contours of the Nichols Chart.
The robustness of a solution is evaluated when changes in
the system parameters occurs. An extended robust solution for
multi-area power system is used in [8]; as many control areas are
modeled, the system dynamics is solved with Ricatti equations.
Another common method to obtain a unified tuning of PID is the
internal mode control (IMC) method. In [9] the SMIB problem
is studied considering three different types of generators in
multi-area configuration. It is interesting to outline that the
problem could also address load disturbance rejection, i.e. a
complimentary controller with a two-degree-of-freedom (TDF).
Much interest has been put in the self-tuning or adaptive type for
the robustness of the controller. On [11] a LFC with fuzzy logic
is proposed and new performance indices are evaluated to
highlight the reliability of the solution. The performance indices
assess comparison of the on-line self-tuning fuzzy type
controller and the off-line optimal control. Indeed, the current
trend in the control system field is to provide adaptability,
reliability and robustness of the solution.
Testing and validation of complex controllers has become
crucial in the design process [12]. Real time simulation offers
progressive and complete approach in system design because the
advancements in processor and software technology have
reduced the time-to-market and the cost of projects [13]. RT-
LAB and MATLAB-Simulinkâ has been used in several
prototyping applications as testing high-bandwidth controllers
for permanent magnet motor drives [14], simulation of PSMS
drives [13], power grid simulation [15], modeling of a doubly-
fed induction generator driven by a wind turbine [16] and others.
While OPAL-RT Hypersimâ package has been used to simulate
electromagnetic transients in power systems [16], eMEGAsimâ
is mainly adopted to study electromagnetic transients in power
electronic systems under microseconds time steps because it
takes full advantage of distributed parallel supercomputer
technologies based on INTELâ and FPGA hardware [15].
eMEGAsimâ also enables high-speed low-latency direct
connection to external equipment for hard time simulation [15].
Applications with Automatic Generation Control (AGC) has
been simulated in real-time environments with discrete
controllers [17]. In [18], tie-line bias control compensated AGC
was studied with a PMU network on a real-time digital
simulator. Not only interconnected power systems have been
assessed, but voltage control for distribution network [19],
power system control on smart grids [20], and energy storage
systems in autonomous microgrids [21] with distributed
generation. Real-Time simulation provides the best economical
way to test complex system solutions in fast-evolving areas of
power system development [22]. In this paper, eMEGAsimâ
package will be used to assess and analyze the performance of
an Internal Mode Control for power system load frequency
regulation.
III. CONTROL ASSESSMENT
The heuristic approach for designing feedback system
controllers has proved to be consistent for power systems with
several inputs and complex dynamic behavior. Although the
optimal parameters obtained for a specific type of disturbance
could be convenient for such inputs, they could not be adequate
for other disturbances. Then it is compulsory to program a
decentralized controller for an overall stable operation. In the
next sections, different types of turbines will be analyzed in
single area configurations and inter-area power systems.
A. Controller principles
The TDF-IMC method is extensively used for controller
design [4]. The controller is approximated to a PID scheme and
its robustness can be enhanced with structured singular value
techniques. Thus, the external controller is added to the plant
process and requires set-point and the filtered output feedback.
One of the advantages is that it needs no re-arrangements or
adjustments of internal parameters. On the other hand, self-
tuning is possible but it is outside of the scope of this paper. In
most of the cases, the experience of the control plant engineer
plays an important role in parameter tuning so that both
analytical and intuitive criteria combination get the best result.
The equivalent diagram of a single area power system with
isochronous control is shown in Fig. 1. The power plant is
regulated with a PID-type controller. It is important to outline
that the droop characteristic corresponds to a load-sharing
feature inherent to the turbine governor.
Fig. 1. Single area power system on isochronous mode.
B. TDF-IMC-PID approach
The design of the TDF-IMC can be summarized in few steps
adapted for the power system problem.
1. Define the dynamic model of the power system. Perform
linearization around the full-load operation point. This
procedure will enhance the response for set-point changes
and load disturbances as well. Consider GG for governor,
GT for turbine, GP for load-machine group, and R for the
droop characteristic.
2. Obtain the closed loop power plant equivalent. Although
some references work with the open loop equivalent [9],
the proposed controller will include the droop
characteristic. Hence the power station is Eq. 1.
𝐺% 𝐺& 𝐺'
𝑃 𝑠 = (1)
1
1 + 𝐺% 𝐺& 𝐺'
𝑅
3. Define an IMC controller with set-point tracking feature as
in Eq. 2 [9]. PM is the invertible section of minimum-phase
P(s); r is the degree of freedom of P(s) and λ is the first
tuning parameter for set-point tracking improvement.
01
1
𝑄 𝑠 = 𝑃/ 𝑠 (2)
𝜆𝑠 + 1 3
4. With the root locus of P(s), identify oscillatory or unstable
poles. The unstable m poles will be compensated with
another IMC controller with disturbance rejecting
characteristic as shown in Eq. 3. λd is the second tuning
parameter for disturbance rejection improvement.
8 7
791 𝛼7 𝑠 +1
𝑄5 𝑠 = (3)
(𝜆5 𝑠 + 1)8
5. Find the unknown α coefficients of Qd(s) solving the
equation or system of equations that satisfy Eq. 4. p1 to pm
are the problematic poles found in the previous step.
 1 − 𝑃 𝑠 𝑄(𝑠)𝑄5 (𝑠) <9=> ?@ =A (4)
The closed-loop power plant equivalent is:
6. The system controller is shown in Eq. 5. This high order
controller will be approximated to a PID form. 250
𝑃KLM 𝑠 = (8)
𝑄(𝑠)𝑄5 (𝑠) (𝑠 + 13.29)(𝑠 Q + 2.59𝑠 + 7.99)
𝐾= (5)
1 − 𝑃 𝑠 𝑄(𝑠)𝑄5 (𝑠) From Eq. 8, (𝑠 Q + 2.59𝑠 + 7.99) has two oscillatory poles:
7. With the frequency response plots of the controller in Eq. a1,2=-1.3±j2.51. Then, the set-point (SP) tracking IMC
5, select a frequency ωKmin such that K is at its minimum. controller is a third order function. With λ = 0.1, Q(s) is:
Pick a low frequency ωlow, usually 0.001 rad/s. (𝑠 + 13.29)(𝑠 Q + 2.59𝑠 + 7.99)
𝑄 𝑠 =4 (9)
8. The PID coefficients are obtained: 𝑠 + 10 S
KP = real(K(ωKmin) The disturbance rejection (DR) IMC controller is a second order
KI = |K(ωlow)|ωlow function because a1, a2 poles must be cancelled. Applying Eq.
KD = K(ωKmin) – KI/ ωKmin 4, a 2-equations system solves for 2 unknown α coefficients.
Then the PID controller is written as in Eq. 6.
𝛼Q 𝑎1Q + 𝛼1 𝑎1 + 1 − 𝜆𝑎1 + 1 S
𝜆5 𝑎1 + 1 Q
=0
𝐾E (10)
𝐾' 𝑠 = 𝐾' + + 𝐾F 𝑠 (6) 𝛼Q 𝑎QQ + 𝛼1 𝑎Q + 1 − 𝜆𝑎Q + 1 S
𝜆5 𝑎Q + 1 Q
=0
𝑠
Solving Eq. 10, α1=0.6362 and α2=0.3003. Then, with λd = 0.5,
It is important to select the set-point tracking parameter λ and the Qd(s) function for disturbance rejection is:
the disturbance rejection parameter λd appropriately because the
overall response will heavily depend on them. Indeed, two 0.6362𝑠 Q + 0.3003𝑠 + 1
𝑄5 𝑠 = (11)
methods are mainly performed for their selection: robustness test 0.25𝑠 Q + 𝑠 + 1
for plant parameter variation and general uncertainty [9]. These
tests ensure that the desired response of the controller is The final controller is:
maintained inside allowable boundaries within an acceptable (𝑠 + 13.3)(𝑠 Q + 0.47𝑠 + 1.57)(𝑠 Q + 2.6𝑠 + 8)
marginal error. As a general rule of thumb, λ and λd should not 𝐾 = 10.2 (12)
𝑠(𝑠 Q − 1.2𝑠 + 8.8)(𝑠 Q + 35.2𝑠 + 456.3)
be too large (slow stabilization with good robustness) or too
small (fast response but poor robustness) [9]. Then a Approximating this controller to a PID form, ωKmin=1.21rad/s
compromise is made in order to achieve a good response with and ωlow = 0.001rad/s, thus the PID is on Eq. 13.
relatively good robustness. The robustness characteristic is
important as the parameters inherent to the power plant degrade 0.4251
𝐾' KLM = 0.1253 + + 0.4306𝑠 (13)
with time depending on the duty cycle and its operating 𝑠
conditions [4]. In the following section, selected values for λ and The frequency deviation response (Df) is shown in Fig. 2.
λd range from 0.05 to 4 with good performance achievement.
IV. CASE STUDIES
The following examples correspond to a load frequency
controller tuning for a single area power system on isochronous
operation mode. The TDF-IMC PID approach will be applied to
systems with first order models for governor, turbine, and load-
machine group. Then a test case LFC power system with inverter
will be assessed on-line comparing to off-line results.
A. Non-reheat power plant (NRH)
The dynamics of each component (turbine governor, turbine,
load-machine group, and droop compensation if needed) can be Fig. 2. Df response of NRH on isochronous mode, load change of -0.01pu at
written as in Eq. 7 and a list of typical values for parameters is time t = 1s and set-point change of -0.01pu at t =20s
shown in Table 1.
On the isochronous mode, a -0.01pu load disturbance causes
TABLE I. TYPICAL PARAMETERS OF NON-REHEAT TURBINE [8] a rise in frequency of less than 0.012pu (±0.72Hz with average
PARAMETER DESCRIPTION TYPICAL VALUE
of 0.22Hz/s for 60Hz) and it returns to 0 steady state error
TG GOVERNOR CONSTANT 0.08S within 10 seconds.
TT TURBINE CONSTANT 0.30S
TP LOAD/MACHINE CONSTANT 20.0S B. Reheat power plant (RH)
KP LOAD/MACHINE GAIN 120.0 The power plant model adds a second reheat delay TT with a
R DROOP CHARACTERISTIC 2.40 percentage c% of additional power. The turbine model is
written in Eq. 14 and typical values are shown in Table 2.
1 1 𝐾'
𝐺% 𝑠 = ; 𝐺 𝑠 = ; 𝐺 𝑠 = (7)
𝑇% 𝑠 + 1 & 𝑇& 𝑠 + 1 ' 𝑇' 𝑠 + 1
 𝑐𝑇L 𝑠 + 1 due to its flexibility and stability. The results have shown that
𝐺& 𝑠 = (14) they have very good set-point tracking (ideal for peak
(𝑇L 𝑠 + 1)(𝑇& 𝑠 + 1)
generation) and very good load disturbance rejection, desirable
TABLE II. TYPICAL PARAMETERS OF REHEAT TURBINE [8] for protection coordination. On the other hand, non-reheat
power plants have a very good set-point tracking characteristic
PARAMETER DESCRIPTION TYPICAL VALUE
TG GOVERNOR CONSTANT 0.08S but its load disturbance rejection is poor.
TT TURBINE CONSTANT 0.3S
TP LOAD/MACHINE CONSTANT 20S
C. Hydro power plant (HYDRO)
KP LOAD/MACHINE GAIN 120 The governor and turbine dynamics of the hydro station are
R DROOP CHARACTERISTIC 2.4 completely different due to the energy conversion nature. On
TR REHEAT CONSTANT 4.2S
C % OF ADDITIONAL POWER 0.35
hydraulic units, the governor requires transient droop
compensation to achieve speed stability [2]. Hydraulic turbines
The closed-loop power plant equivalent is shown in Eq. 15. have large transient droops because there is an inverse relation
between the set-point and the mechanical power, hence the
87.5(𝑠 + 0.68) response of these units is relatively slow [2]. The governor with
𝑃LM 𝑠 = (15)
(𝑠 + 12.8)(𝑠 + 2)(𝑠 Q + 1.33𝑠 + 0.99) transient droop compensation and the turbine functions are
From Eq. 15, (𝑠 Q + 1.33𝑠 + 0.99), and a1,2=-0.665±j0.739. defined in Eq. 20. A list of typical parameter values for the
The SP tracking IMC controller is a third order function. With hydro case is show in Table 3.
λ = 0.05, Q(s) is:
1 𝑇L 𝑠 + 1 −𝑇V 𝑠 + 1
(𝑠 + 12.8)(𝑠 + 2)(𝑠 Q + 1.33𝑠 + 0.99) 𝐺% = ; 𝐺& = (20)
𝑇% 𝑠 + 1 𝑅& 0.5𝑇V𝑠 + 1
𝑄 𝑠 = 91.4 (16) 𝑇L 𝑠+1
(𝑠 + 0.68) 𝑠 + 20 S 𝑅

The DR IMC controller is a second order function. Solving Eq. TABLE III. TYPICAL PARAMETERS OF HYDRO TURBINE [2]
4, α1=2.8165 and α2=2.2421. Then, with λd = 1.5, Qd(s) is: PARAMETER DESCRIPTION TYPICAL VALUE
Q TG GOVERNOR CONSTANT 0.20S
2.242𝑠 + 2.817𝑠 + 1
𝑄5 𝑠 = (17) TW TURBINE CONSTANT 1.00S
2.25𝑠 Q + 3𝑠 + 1 TP LOAD/MACHINE CONSTANT 6.00S
KP LOAD/MACHINE GAIN 1
Hence, the final controller is:
R DROOP CHARACTERISTIC 0.05
(𝑠 + 2)(𝑠 + 12.8)(𝑠 Q + 1.2𝑠 + 0.45)(𝑠 Q + 1.3𝑠 + 0.9) TR RESET TIME (COMPENS.) 5.00S
𝐾 = 91 (18) RT TEMPORARY DROOP 0.38
𝑠(𝑠 + 0.68)(𝑠 Q + 1.3𝑠 + 0.98)(𝑠 Q + 60𝑠 + 1200)

Approximating this controller to a PID form, ωKmin=0.971rad/s The closed-loop power plant equivalent is:
and ωlow = 0.001rad/s, thus the PID is on Eq. 19.
−0.22(𝑠 − 1)(𝑠 + 0.2)
1.274 𝑃MWF 𝑠 = (21)
𝐾' KLM = 2.466 + + 2.692𝑠 (19) (𝑠 + 6.2)(𝑠 + 0.22)(𝑠 Q + 0.77𝑠 + 0.69)
𝑠
From Eq. 21, (𝑠 Q + 0.77𝑠 + 0.69) has 2 poles: a1,2=-
The Df response is shown in Fig. 3.
0.385±j0.737. There is a zero in the positive half plane z1 = 1.
The SP tracking IMC controller is a second order function. With
λ = 0.1, Q(s) is:
(𝑠 + 6.2)(𝑠 + 0.2)(𝑠 Q + 0.77𝑠 + 0.69)
𝑄 𝑠 = −45.6 (22)
(𝑠 − 1)(𝑠 + 0.2) 𝑠 + 10 Q
The DR IMC controller is a second order function too. Solving
Eq. 4, α1=6.0174 and α2=15.07. Then, with λd = 4, Qd(s) is:
15.07𝑠 Q + 6.017𝑠 + 1
𝑄5 𝑠 = (23)
16𝑠 Q + 8𝑠 + 1
Fig. 3. Df response of RH on isochronous mode, load disturbance of +0.01pu
at t = 1s and set-point change of +0.01pu at t =18s. The final controller is shown in Eq. 24.:
𝑠 Q + 0.39𝑠 + 0.066 𝑠 Q + 0.77𝑠 + 0.69 𝑠 + 0.21 𝑠 + 6.208
𝐾 = −42.9 (24)
A +0.01pu load disturbance causes frequency drop less than 𝑠 + 0.2 𝑠 Q + 0.7𝑠 + 0.691 𝑠 𝑠 + 19.73 𝑠 − 1
0.005pu (±0.3Hz with average of 0.06Hz/s for 50Hz and
Approximating this controller to a PID form, ωKmin=0.296
±0.36Hz with average of 0.072Hz/s for 60Hz). The desired
rad/s and ωlow = 0.001rad/s, thus the PID is shown in Eq. 25.
response is achieved within 10 seconds. The reheat power plant
is the best option for load-following applications. In fact, reheat 0.9622
𝐾' MWF = 4.816 + + 7.438𝑠 (25)
power plants are commonly used as peak and reserve generation 𝑠
If the proportional gain of the controller is doubled KP=9.63,
the results are improved and the response is quicker. The
frequency deviation response is shown in Fig. 4.
E. Real-Time Digital Simulation (RTDS)
A test case power system with load-frequency control and a
highly non-linear inverter load will be assessed for on-line and
off-line comparison. The SIMULINKâ equivalent for real time
simulation will have the block structure shown in Fig. 7. The
diagram will contain a System and Console blocks, the former
loads the system in the Real-Time Simulator and the latter
provides the input-output interface, i.e. set-points, disturbances,
scopes and other programmable results.

Fig. 4. Df response of HYDRO on isochronous mode, load disturbance of

+0.01pu at t = 1s and set-point change of +0.01pu at t =60s.

On the isochronous mode, a +0.01pu load disturbance

causes a frequency drop less than 0.0025pu (±0.156Hz with
average of 0.074Hz/s for 60Hz). The desired response is
achieved within 17 seconds, however, the set-point tracking is
very poor because it takes more than 2 minutes to stabilize.
Hydro power plants are the best option for base-load
applications. In fact, their response to load changes is very slow,
adding stability and damping, and it provides the lowest
frequency rate change. Large-scale hydro power plants could
contribute to the secondary frequency controller as well.
D. Interconnection of two systems Fig. 7. SIMULINKâ block structure for RTDS in OPAL-RTâ
When wide area systems are considered, as the one
represented in Fig 5, it is compulsory to coordinate power flow OPAL-RTâ MATLAB built-in functions for 3-ph inverter
through interconnections, i.e. transmission lines to prevent and 6-pulse PWM generator were used. The synchronous
small signal stability problems. A typical frequency change generator feeds 3 3-ph RLC loads, one of them through an
response for one area is shown in Fig. 6. IGBT inverter. Fig. 8 shows the three-line diagram of the single
area isolated system.

Fig. 5. Two area system system with automatic generation control (AGC).

Fig. 6. Df response of 2-area system with AGC. Fig. 8. Three-line diagrams for RTDS simulation in SIMULINKâ
 The system outcomes the results shown in Fig. 9. [3] J. Glover, M. Sarma, T. Overbye, Power System Analysis and Design, 5th
Edition SI, Stamford, USA, Cengage Learning, Nelson Education, Canada,
Fundamental voltage has a smoother response in real-time
2012.
simulation. Although LFC determines the frequency deviation [4] Manfred Morari and Evanghelos Zafiriou, Robust Process Control,
response, its action is indirectly related to the electrical load, in Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1989
this case RLC loads and a 3-ph inverter, so that voltage is [5] A. Khodabakhshian, N. Golbon, "Unified PID design for Load Frequency
Control" in Proc. 2004 IEEE International Conference on Control
maintained throughout the system for any load condition. In this
Applications, Taipei, Taiwan, September 2004.
case, the advantage of the real-time approach relies on the [6] A. Khodabakhshian, M. Edrisi, “A new robust PID load frequency
economical design and prototyping tools for demanding controller” in Control Engineering Practice 16, Isfahan, Iran, 2007
requirements in the analysis of complex power systems, and the [7] Wen Tan, Hongxia Zhang, Mei Yu, “Decentralized load frequency control
capability to integrate systems in off-line or real-time co- in deregulated environments” on International Journal of Electrical Power
and Energy Systems 41, Beijing, China, 2012
simulation modes [22]. [8] K. Y. Lim, Y. Wang, R. Zhou, “Robust decentralized load frequency
Load Voltage (fundamental) control of multi-area power systems” on IEEE Conference Proceedings on
125 Generation, Transmission and Distribution, Vol. 143, No. 5, Nanyang,
120 September 1996
[9] Wen Tan, “Unified Tuning of PID Load Frequency Controller for Power
115
Voltage (V RMS)

Systems via IMC” on IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 25, No.
110
RT Simulation 1, Beijing, China, 2010
Off-Line Simulation
[10] Adil Usman, B.P. Divakar, “Simulation Study of Load Frequency Control
105
of Single and Two Area Systems” on IEEE Global Humanitarian
100 Technology Conference, Reva Institute of Technology and Management,
2012
95
[11] E. Yesil, M. Guzelkaya, I. Eksin, “Self-tuning fuzzy PID type load and
90 frequency controller” on Energy Conversion and Management 45, Istanbul,
0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Time (s) Turkey, 2003
Load Voltage (RT Simulation) Load Voltage (Off-line Simulation) [12] Dufour, C., Bélanger, J., Abourida, S., & Lapointe, V., “FPGA-based real-
200 200
time simulation of finite-element analysis permanent magnet synchronous
150 150 machine drives”, in IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference (pp.
100 100 909-915), June 2007
[13] Harakawa, M., Yamasaki, H., Nagano, T., Abourida, S., Dufour, C., &
Voltage (V)

Voltage (V)

50
0 0
-50
-100
-150
-200
0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Time (s)
Fig. 9. Real-time and off-lin voltage response for LFC isolated system.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An application of the TDF-IMC controller methodology to an
isolated power system has been assessed. The higher order
controller was approximated to an easy-to-handle PID regulator
that can be externally plugged to the power plant. These
controllers have improved greatly the frequency response; hence
the tuning methodology has shown advantages. The results have
demonstrated the benefit of committing reheat plants as load-
following peak generation, and hydropower stations as base-
generation. The best result was achieved in the reheat turbine
case while a compromise between load-rejection and set-point
tracking effectiveness must be made when working with
hydropower plants. Real-time simulations were considered as
powerful tools for the design and evaluation of control proposals
for complex power systems. Further research in the voltage
stability field for isolated and multi-area power systems is
recommended.
REFERENCES
[1] Hassan Bevrani, Robust Power System Frequency Control, QUT Brisbane
QLD, Springer – Verlag, 2009.
[2] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill, 1994.
50
Bélanger, J., “Real-Time Simulation of a Complete PMSM Drive at 10 µs
Time Step”, in the 2005 International Power Electronics Conference-
-50 Niigata IPEC-Niigata, April 2005
-100
[14] Dufour, C., Abourida, S., Bélanger, J., & Lapointe, V., “Real-time
simulation of permanent magnet motor drive on FPGA chip for high-
-150
bandwidth controller tests and validation”, in IECON 2006-32nd Annual
-200 Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics (pp. 4581-4586), November
0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Time (s) 2006.
[15] Bélanger, J., Lapointe, V., Dufour, C., & Schoen, L., “eMEGAsim: an open
high-performance distributed real-time power grid simulator. Architecture
and specification”, in Proceedings of the International Conference on
Power Systems ICPS, (pp. 12-24), December 2007.
[16] Gagnon, R., Sybille, G., Bernard, S., Paré, D., Casoria, S., & Larose, C.,
“Modeling and real-time simulation of a doubly-fed induction generator
driven by a wind turbine”, in Proceedings of the International Conference
on Power Systems Transients IPST, (pp. 19-23), June 2005.
[17] Hasan, N., & Ibraheem, S.F., “Real time simulation of Automatic
Generation Control for Interconnected Power System”, on International
Journal on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, (pp. 40-51), 2012
[18] Venayagamoorthy, G. K., “Tie-Line Bias Control of a Power System with
Large PV plants Using PMU Information”, in XIII Symposium of
Specialists in Electric Operational and Expansion Planning, (pp. 18-21),
May 2014
[19] Kulmala, A., Mutanen, A., Koto A., Repo, S., & Järventausta, P., “RTDS
verification of a coordinated voltage control implementation for
distribution networks with distributed generation”, in 2010 IEEE PES
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT Europe),
(pp. 1-8), October 2010
[20] Järventausta, P., Repo, S., Rautiainen, A., & Partanen, J., “Smart Grid
Power System Control in Distributed Generation Environment”, in Annual
Reviews in Control, Vol. 34, Issue 2, (pp. 277-286), December 2010
[21] Serban, I., Teodorescu, R., & Marinescu, C., “Energy Storage Systems
Impact on the Short-Term Frequency Stability of Distributed Autonomous
Microgrids, an analysis using aggregate models”, in IET Renewable Power
Generation, Vol. 7, Issue 5, (pp, 531-539), 2013
[22] Belanger, J., Venne, P., & Paquin, J. N., “The What, Where and Why of
Real-Time Simulation”, in Planet RT, 2010