Small-Signal Stability Enhancement of Multimachine
Power System using Bio-inspired Algorithms
Dhanraj Chitara*, K. R. Niazi*, Anil Swarnkar*, Nikhil Gupta*
*Department of Electrical Engineering, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, India
e-mail: dhanraj.chitara@gmail.com, niazikr@gmail.com, mnit.anil@gmail.com, nikhil2007mnit@yahoo.com
Abstract— In this paper small signal stability improvement of
two-area, four-machine Kundur power system stabilizer is
presented using Cuckoo Search Algorithm (CSA), Particle
Swarm Optimization Algorithm (PSOA) and Genetic Algorithm
(GA). For this the propose, the problem is formulated using an
eigenvalue based multiobjective function that shift unstable or
poorly damped modes to specific D-shape region in the left-half
of the s-plane by controlling the damping ratio and damping
factor. To show the effectiveness and superiority of the proposed
CSA based PSS (CSAPSS), the non-linear time domain
simulations are compared with GA based PSS (GAPSS), PSO
based PSS (PSOAPSS) for different line outages and different
scenarios of severe disturbances. The robustness of proposed
CSAPSS is evaluated by performances indices for wide range of
loading conditions with severe faults. Moreover, the lower value
of performances indices for proposed CSAPSS than to GAPSS,
PSOAPSS exhibit its relative stability.
Keywords—cuckoo search algorithm; genetic algorithm; particle
swarm optimization algorithm; power system stabilizer; small signal
stability1
I. INTRODUCTION
The problem of low frequency oscillations due to small
disturbances is observed when two areas are coupled by weak
tie-line [1]. Small magnitude low frequency oscillations are
continuously grow and causing system separation if no
sufficient damping is provided. For providing fast damping
and improve the damping characteristics of the system, the
Power System Stabilizer (PSS) is commonly used to mitigate
these low frequency oscillations by injecting additional control
signal in the excitation system [2]. Conventional Power
System Stabilizer (CPSS) are widely used from past four
decades due to its simple structure. CPSS are normally tuned
for specific operating conation by linearizing the system.
However, as the system loading or operating conditions are
varied under wide range, the CPSS is not capable for
providing satisfactory damping to the system for entire range
of loading conditions [3].
The conventional classical control [4] and modern control
technique [5] are presented in literature for tuning process by
using linear techniques. Non-linear control technique [6],
adaptive control technique [7], robust control technique [8]
and artificial intelligence techniques [9]-[11] are illustrated for
designing the parameters of multimachine PSS under wide
range of operating conditions. Recently global meta-heuristic
technique such as Genetic Algorithm (GA) is implemented in
[12]. However, it requires a very long execution time. Another
978-1-4799-5141-3/14/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
optimization techniques like tabu search, simulated annealing
are also developed in [13]-[14] to optimal design of PSS
parameters for multimachine system. Furthermore, both are
also time consuming, long annealing time and getting trapped
in local minima. Based on swarm intelligences, the Particle
Swarm Optimization Algorithm (PSOA) is introduced in [15]
for designing the multiple PSS. However, PSOA also suffers
from the partial minima and slow convergence.
A relatively new meta-heuristic algorithm Bacteria
Foraging (BF) due to has less computational burden is
illustrated in [16]. Other algorithms like Bat search algorithm
[17], ant colony optimization [18], chaotic optimization [19],
Cuckoo Search Algorithm (CSA) [20] are further developed
recently in literature for designing the robust parameters of
PSS for single machine infinite bus system (SMIB) and
multimachine systems. In these techniques, eigenvalue based
objective function is employed for tuning the parameters of
SMIB and multimachine PSS.
In this paper, the robust tuning of PSS for two-area, four-
machine Kundur power system is presented using three bio-
inspired optimization techniques CSA, PSOA and GA for
comparison study. The design problem of proposed CSA based
PSS (CSAPSS) controller is formulated as eigenvalue based
multiobjective function for reflecting the maximization of
damping ratio and damping factor for specified range of
operating conditions. The effectiveness and superiority of
CSAPSS is observed by non-linear simulations in comparison
with GA based PSS (GAPSS), PSOA based PSS (PSOAPSS)
under different line outages and different scenarios of severe
disturbances. The simulations are carried out in Power System
Analysis Toolbox (PSAT) [21] using the MATLAB platform.
The robustness of proposed CSAPSS is observed by
performance indices for wide range of loading conditions and
severe faults.
II. CUCKOO SEARCH ALGORITHM: AN OVERVIEW
The CSA is an evolutionary metaheuristic optimization
algorithm which is inspired by the obligate brood parasitism of
some cuckoo species and was proposed by Yang and Deb
recently [22]. The cuckoo is pretty bird, not only due to
attractive sounds they can create but also due forceful
reproduction strategy by which adult cuckoos lay their eggs in
the nests of other host birds or species.
Initially, each egg in nest represents a result and a cuckoo
egg represents a new result. The algorithm is subjective by
breeding strategy of some cuckoo species in conjunction with
Lévy flight behaviour of a few birds. In this study, if a host
bird searches the eggs are not its own, they either throw these
foreign eggs away or just abandon its nest and construct a new
nest at other place [23].
• Each cuckoo lays one egg at a time and dumps its egg in
arbitrarily selected nest.
• The best nest with high excellence fitness or egg will be
carry forward to the next generation.
• The number of present host nest is fixed and the egg laid
by a cuckoo is searched by the host bird with a probability pa ϵ
(0, 1).
The new solution (cuckoo) xi(t +1) is generated by
application of Lévy flight as:
xi(t +1) = xi(t ) + ε ⊕ Levy (λ )
where ε > 0 is the step size that should be related to scale
problem of interest. Mostly, the value of step size ε = 1 is
chosen. The product ⊕ means entry wise walk during
multiplication.
A Lévy flight is a arbitrary walk in which the steps are
defined in terms of step-length, which have a definite
probability distribution, with the directions of the steps being
isotropic and random as:
Lévy ~ u = t–λ, (1 < λ ≤ 3)
This equation (2) has infinite mean with infinite variance.
The CSA algorithm is illustrated in literature [20] [22].
III. PROBLEM FORMULATION
A. Power System Model
In general a power system model is formalized by a set of
nonlinear differential equations as:
• [21]. For simulations four various operating conditions are
X = f ( X ,U )
where X = [δ , w, Eq' , E fd ]T is state variables vector and U is
the input variables vector respectively. Here δ and w are the
rotor angle and the rotor speed respectively. Also, Eq' and Efd
are the internal voltage and the filed voltage respectively.
The conventional PSS is designed by linearizing
incremental models for a specific operating condition [2].
B. Structutre of PSS
Now a day, power system still uses the CPSS due to easy
work of operation. The structure of ith PSS block diagram is
given by:
 sTw   (1 + sT1i ) (1 + sT3i ) 
ΔU i = Ki    Δwi
 1 + sTw   (1 + sT2i ) (1 + sT4i ) 
The main objective of PSS is to compensate the phase lag
error between the exciter input and the electrical torque, and
generate torque component on the rotor. This structure
consists of a dynamic gain, washout filter and a lag-lead phase
compensator. The input signal Δwi is the rotor speed deviation
from synchronous speed of ith machine in pu. The output
signal ΔUi is fed an auxiliary signal to the excitation system.
The dynamic gain is used for controlling the damping,
washout block work as high-pass filter to reduce the terminal
voltage error in steady state and the phase compensator block
consist of two lead-lag blocks for reducing error between
excitation and electrical torque. In this paper, the value of time
constant Tw, T2, and T4 are chosen as specific value while
dynamic gain Ki, and other time constants T1i and T3i values are
to be determined.
(1)
C. Two-Area For-Machine Kundur Power System
In this section, the CSO algorithm is compared for
designing the PSS parameters with using GA and PSOA.
Therefore, the two-area four-machine Kundur power system
data is illustrated in [2] and single line diagram is shown in
Fig. 1.
(2)
Fig. 1. Two-area four machine power system
In this case all generators are equipped with PSS except
swing generator G3. For computing optimum values of PSS
parameters the eigenvalues are determined by using PSAT
(3) listed in Table I.
TABLE I. SYSTEM OPERATING CONDITIONS
Case No. Description
Case 1 Base case (all lines in service)
Case 2 Single line between 7 and 8 and other is out of service
Case 3 Single line between 8 and 9 and other is out of service
Case 4 Single line between 7 and 9 and others are out of service
IV. OBJECTIVE FUNCTION
For guarantee stability and to assure the relative stability of
the multimachine power system to damp out low frequency
oscillations, the parameters of the PSS are designed so as to
minimize the following eigenvalue based multi-objective
function that control simultaneously damping ratio and
damping factor:
(4)
 np np Scenario 1: A 12-cycle three phase ground fault at bus 8 at the
J=  σ σ
j =1
(σ 0 − σ i , j ) 2 +  ξ ξ (ξ0 − ξi , j ) 2 (5) end of the line 7-8 without tripping it. The generators speed
deviations Δw2 and Δw4 under case 2 operating conditions are
i, j ≥ 0 j =1 i, j ≤ 0
shown in Figs 3.
This will place the unstable or poorly damped eigenvalues Scenario 2: A 12-cycle three phase ground fault at bus 9 at the
of all operating conditions to a D-shape region characterized end of the line 8-9 without tripping it. The generators speed
by σi,j ≤ σ0 and ξi,j > ξ0 as shown in Fig. 2. deviations Δw1 and Δw3 under case 3 operating conditions are
shown in Figs 4.
Scenario 3: A 6-cycle three phase ground fault at bus 1. The
generators speed deviations Δw1 and Δw4 under case 4
operating conditions are shown in Figs 5.
Scenario 4: A 5-cycle three phase ground fault at bus 2. The
generators speed deviations Δw2 and Δw3 under case 4
operating conditions are shown in Figs 6.
Scenario 5: A 6-cycle three phase ground fault at bus 3. The
generators speed deviations Δw1 and Δw3 under case 1
operating conditions are shown in Figs 7.
Fig. 2. A D-shape region in left half of the s-plane where σi,j ≤ σ0 and ξi,j > ξ0
Scenario 6: A 6-cycle three phase ground fault at bus 4. The
generators speed deviations Δw2 and Δw4 under case 1
where np is the number of operating points to be selected in
operating conditions are shown in Figs 8.
the design problem, σi,j and ξi,j is the real part and the damping
ratio of the ith eigenvalue of the jth operating point. In this
paper, the value of σ0 and ξ0 are selected as -1.0 and 0.2 TABLE II. THE OPTIMAL VALUES OF THE GAPSS, PSOAPSS AND CSAPSS
respectively. The value of washout time constant is chosen as S. No. Generators K T1 T3
10 s, T2i and T4i are kept constant at numerical values of 0.01 s. G1 28.008 0.010 0.340
The values of designed parameters Ki, T1i and T3i are set in the With G2 69.813 0.033 0.193
range of [0.1-100] and [0.01–1] respectively. GAPSS
G4 30.053 0.049 0.090
The multiobjective function is formulated with the G1 40.865 0.010 0.010
following constrained of PSS parameters bounds: With G2 100.000 0.185 0.037
PSOAPSS
G4 31.610 0.113 0.067
Minimize J subject to:
G1 100.000 0.040 0.010
With G2 85.295 0.114 0.010
CSAPSS
K imin ≤ K i ≤ K imax (6) G4 27.841 0.010 0.138

T1min
i ≤ T1i ≤ T1max
i (7)
T3min ≤ T3i ≤ T3max (8) In addition to simulation, two performance indices:
i i Integral of Time Multiplied Absolute Error (ITAE) and
Integral of Absolute Error (IAE) and are calculated for all
scenarios at all operating conditions. These performance
V. PSS DESIGN & SIMULATION RESULTS
indices are given as:
A. PSS Design
To assess the robustness of proposed CSAPSS for four t n
different operating conditions are developed for tuning the
nine PSS parameters of Kundur test system and results are
IAE =   Δw dt
0 i =1
i (9)

compared with GAPSS and PSOAPSS. The value of objective t n

  t Δw dt
function J deceases with iterations and finally set to zero value ITAE = (10)
i
which indicates the all unstable or poorly damped eigenvalues
0 i =1
are shifted to a particular D-shape region in the left half of the
s-plane for all operating conditions simultaneously. The robust
nine parameters of PSS using these methods are listed in Table The performance indices IAE and ITAE values for all
II. operating conditions with different scenarios are listed in
Table III. Both indices are calculated for proposed CSAPSS,
B. Simulations Results PSOAPSS and GAPSS, confirm that the superiority
performance of CSA in which the values of indices are lower
The promising effectiveness of the CSAPSS as compare to indicating better relative stability for small signal stability
GAPSS and PSOAPSS over a wide range of operating enhancement.
conditions under six scenarios (S) is considered as follows:
 -3 -3 -4
x 10 x 10 x 10
6 6 15
Speed deviation (Δ w 2 )

Speed deviation (Δ w 1 )

Speed deviation (Δ w 1 )
GAPSS GAPSS GAPSS
4 PSOAPSS PSOAPSS 10 PSOAPSS
4
CSAPSS CSAPSS CSAPSS
2 5
2
0 0
0
-2 -5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time in second Time in second Time in second
-3 -4 -3
x 10 x 10 x 10
6 20
Speed deviation (Δ w 4 )

Speed deviation (Δ w 3 )
Speed deviation (Δ w 4 )
GAPSS GAPSS 6 GAPSS
4 PSOAPSS 15 PSOAPSS
PSOAPSS
4
CSAPSS CSAPSS CSAPSS
10
2 2
5
0 0
0
-2
-2 -5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time in second Time in second Time in second

Fig. 3. Speed deviation Δw2 and Δw4 for case 2

Fig. 5. Speed deviation Δw1 and Δw4 for case 4 Fig. 7. Speed deviation Δw1 and Δw3 for case 1
-3
x 10 -3 -3
x 10 x 10
Speed deviation (Δ w 1 )

6 5 2.5
Speed deviation (Δ w 2 )

Speed deviation (Δ w 2 )
GAPSS
GAPSS GAPSS
PSOAPSS 4 2
PSOAPSS PSOAPSS
4 CSAPSS 3 1.5
CSAPSS CSAPSS

2 2 1
1 0.5
0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -1 -0.5
Time in second 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-3 Time in second Time in second
x 10 -3 -3
6
Speed deviuation (Δ w 3 )

x 10 x 10
2.5

Speed deviation (Δ w 4 )
Speed deviation (Δ w 3 )

GAPSS
GAPSS 6 GAPSS
4 PSOAPSS 2
CSAPSS PSOAPSS PSOAPSS
1.5 CSAPSS 4 CSAPSS
2
1
2
0 0.5
0 0
-2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -0.5
Time in second 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time in second Time in second

Fig. 4. Speed deviation Δw1 and Δw3 for case 3

Fig. 6. Speed deviation Δw2 and Δw3 for case 4 Fig. 8. Speed deviation Δw2 and Δw4 for case 1

Each figure contain three plots for GAPSS (dotted blue

TABLE III. VALUES OF PERFORMANCE INDICES IAE AND ITAE WITH line), PSOAPSS (dashed green line) and CSAPSS (red solid
DIFFERENT SCENARIOS
line). The simulations results show that CSAPSS exhibits
S Performance Index IAE (× 10-3) Performance Index ITAE (× 10-3) better damping than other stabilizers. With changing operating
GAPSS PSOAPS CSAPSS GAPSS PSOAPSS CSAPSS
condtions, the performance of CSAPSS is superier to GAPSS
15.5 14.8 13.2 24.5 23.4 21.1
1 10.8 9.4 7.8 17.2 14.2 11.5 and PSOAPSS to show effectivness of controller.
15.9 12.6 10.9 27.9 20.7 17.4
21.6 19.4 17.8 37.9 32.0 29.2
2 18.8 17.1 15.6 32.8 27.8 25.3 C. Robustness of PSS
18.3 16.6 15.2 31.6 26.8 24.4 After the optimal controllers designing for specified
7.2 5.6 5.4 12.0 8.9 8.6
3 7.9 5.7 5.4 13.5 9.0 8.4 operating conditions, some other tests of different loading
8.0 5.7 5.4 13.6 9.0 8.4 conditions are performed to verify the robustness of closed
16.0 10.3 7.6 30.3 21.2 13.8
8.0 7.0 6.3 13.4 11.5 10.3
loop system damping characteristics and relative stability.
4 9.2 7.2 6.3 16.0 12.0 10.2 These additional loading conditions are given in Table IV.
9.2 7.2 6.3 16.0 12.0 10.2
22.5 12.9 9.1 61.2 28.2 17.5
6.1 5.2 4.9 10.3 8.0 7.6 TABLE IV. SYSTEM NEW LOADING CONDITIONS
5 5.0 4.4 4.2 8.1 6.3 6.2
5.0 4.3 4.2 8.1 6.3 6.2 Case 5 Case 6
3.7 3.6 3.5 4.8 4.6 4.5
9.3 8.2 7.5 16.0 13.3 12.3 Total active power Total active power
6 7.9 7.1 6.6 13.3 11.1 10.3 decreasing by 20% increasing by 20%
7.9 7.1 6.5 13.3 11.1 10.3 Total reactive power Total reactive power
5.1 5.0 4.9 6.8 6.7 6.6 decreasing by 15% increasing by 15%
 Moreover, to show the the robutness of the CSOPSS is Scenario 5: A 5-cycle three phase ground fault at bus 3. The
tested on two varying loading conditions (light and heavy) and generators speed deviations Δw1 and Δw3 under case 5
non-linear simulations, peroformance indices are evaluated operating conditions are shown in Figs 13.
and compared with GAPSS and PSOAPSS. Therfore, the Scenario 6: A 6-cycle three phase ground fault at bus 4. The
following six different scenarios are considered for severe generators speed deviations Δw1 and Δw4 under case 6
disturbances. operating conditions are shown in Figs 14.
Scenario 1: A 6-cycle three phase ground fault at bus 8 at the
end of the line 7-8 without tripping it. The generators speed TABLE V. VALUES OF PERFORMANCE INDICES IAE AND ITAE WITH
DIFFERENT SCENARIOS
deviations Δw2 and Δw3 under case 5 loading conditions are
shown in Figs 9. Performance Index IAE (× 10-3) Performance Index ITAE (× 10-3)
GAPSS PSOAPSS CSAPSS GAPSS PSOAPSS CSAPSS
Scenario 2: A 6-cycle three phase ground fault at bus 9 at the 1 9.1 7.6 6.2 16.0 12.8 10.4
end of the line 8-9 without tripping it. The generators speed 7.9 7.7 6.1 12.8 12.6 9.6
deviations Δw1 and Δw4 under case 6 loading conditions are 2 7.6 7.4 6.2 11.9 11.7 10.0
shown in Figs 10. 13.7 12.6 10.9 23.6 21.3 17.6
3 8.6 6.3 6.1 15.8 10.6 10.2
Scenario 3: A 6-cycle three phase ground fault at bus 1. The 6.0 5.1 4.9 9.6 8.2 7.5
4 12.6 10.2 9.5 23.1 17.9 16.4
generators speed deviations Δw1 and Δw4 under case 5 loading 8.3 7.8 6.7 12.9 12.7 10.4
conditions are shown in Figs 11. 5 3.6 3.5 2.9 6.1 5.8 4.8
9.1 9.0 7.5 16.0 15.1 11.6
Scenario 4: A 6-cycle three phase ground fault at bus 2. The 6 7.1 6.8 5.9 12.1 11.3 10.0
generators speed deviations Δw2 and Δw3 under case 5 loading 12.3 10.8 9.7 20.7 17.8 15.2
conditions are shown in Figs 12.
-3 -3 -3
x 10 x 10 x 10
3 6
Speed deviation (Δ w 2 )

Speed deviation (Δ w 1 )

Speed deviation (Δ w 1 )
4 GAPSS GAPSS GAPSS
PSOAPSS 2 PSOAPSS 4 PSOAPSS
3
CSAPSS CSAPSS CSAPSS
2 1 2

1
0 0
0
-1 -2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time in second Time in second Time in second
-3 -3 -3
x 10 x 10 x 10
8 2
Speed deviation (Δ w 3 )

Speed deviation (Δ w 4 )

3 GAPSS GAPSS Speed deviation (Δ w 4 ) GAPSS

6
PSOAPSS PSOAPSS PSOAPSS
2 4 1
CSAPSS CSAPSS CSAPSS
1 2

0 0 0
-2
-1
-4 -1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time in second Time in second Time in second

Fig. 9. Speed deviation Δw2 and Δw3 for case 5 Fig. 10. Speed deviation Δw1 and Δw4 for case 6 Fig. 11. Speed deviation Δw1 and Δw4 for case 5
-3 -4 -3
x 10 x 10 x 10
6 3
Speed deviation (Δ w 1 )
Speed deviation (Δ w 2 )

Speed deviation (Δ w 1 )

GAPSS 10 GAPSS GAPSS

4 PSOAPSS PSOAPSS 2 PSOAPSS
8
CSAPSS CSAPSS CSAPSS
6 1
2 4
2 0
0
0
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time in second Time in second Time in second
-3 -3 -3
x 10 x 10 x 10
2
Speed deviation (Δ w 4 )
Speed deviation (Δ w 3 )

Speed deviation (Δ w 3 )

6
4 GAPSS GAPSS GAPSS
PSOAPSS 1 PSOAPSS 4 PSOAPSS
CSAPSS CSAPSS CSAPSS
2
2
0
0 0
-1 -2
-2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time in second Time in second Time in second

Fig. 12. Speed deviation Δw2 and Δw3 for case 5 Fig. 13. Speed deviation Δw1 and Δw3 for case 5 Fig. 14. Speed deviation Δw1 and Δw4 for case 6
 Again simulation results are shown in Figs 9-14, each [11] R. You, H. J. Eghbali and M. H. Nehrir, “An Online Adaptive
Neurofuzzy Power System Stabilizer For Multimachine Systems,” IEEE
figure contain three plots for GAPSS (dotted blue line), Transactions on Power System,vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 128–135, Feb. 2003.
PSOAPSS (dashed green line) and CSAPSS (red solid line). [12] Y. L. Abdel-Magid and M. A. Abido, “Optimal Multi-Objective Design
The results show that superier robustness of CSAPSS as Of Robust Power System Stabilizers Using Genetic Algorithms,” IEEE
compared to GAPSS and PSOAPSS for additional loading Transactions on Power System, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1125–1132, Aug.
2003.
condtions in additions to given operating conditions.
[13] M. A. Abido, “A Novel Approach To Conventional Power System
Table V illustrated the values of performance indices IAE Stabilizer Design Using Tabu Search,” Int. Journal on Electrical Power
Energy System, vol. 21, pp. 443–454, June 1999.
and ITAE for chosen loading conditions with different
[14] M. A. Abido, “Robust Design Of Multimachine Power System
scenarios. The small value of both indices for CSAPSS Stabilizers Using Simulated Annealing,” IEEE Transactions on Energy
compared to PSOAPSS and GAPSS indicate the robustness of Conversions, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 297–304, Sep. 2000.
the proposed controller for reducing both local and inter-area [15] M. A. Abido, “Optimal Design Of Power System Stabilizers Using
model oscillations. Particle Swarm Optimization,” IEEE Trans. Energy Conversions, vol.
17, no. 3, pp. 406–413, Sep. 2002.
VI. CONCLUSIONS [16] S. Mishra, M. Tripathy, J. Nanda, “Multimachine power system
stabilizer design by rule based bacteria foragin,” Int J Electr Power Syst
In this paper, three bio-inspired metaheuristic techniques: Res 2007;77(12):1595–607.
CSA, PSOA and GA are tested on two-area, four-machine [17] E. S. Ali, “Optimization Of Power System Stabilizers Using BAT
Kundur power system for robust tuning of PSS parameters. Search Algorithm,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy
The design approach includes an eigenvalue based multi- System, vol. 61, pp. 683-690, May 2014.
objective function that simultaneously control the damping [18] Wesley Peres, Edimar José de Oliveira, João Alberto Passos Filho, Ivo
Chaves da Silva Junior, “Coordinated tuning of power system stabilizers
ratio and damping factor. The effectiveness of CSAPSS is using bio-inspired algorithms,” International Journal of Electrical Power
observed by nonlinear time-domain simulations for severe line & Energy System, vol. 64, pp. 419-428, 2015.
outages, varying loading conditions and different scenarios of [19] H, Shayeghi, H.A. Shayanfar, S. Jalilzadeh and A. Safari, “Multi-
severe disturbances. The performances indices are evaluated Machine Power System Stabilizers Design Using Chaotic Optimization
to show the robustness of CSAPSS for all scenarios to Algorithm,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 51, pp. 1572-
mitigate small magnitude low frequency oscillation. 1580, March 2010.
Moreover, the CSAPSS shows better damping characteristics [20] S. M. Abd-Elazim, E. S. Ali, “Optimization Of Power System Stabilizer
Design via Cuckoo Search Algorithm,” International Journal of
than GAPSS and PSOAPSS. Electrical Power & Energy System, vol. 75, pp. 99-107, 2016.
[21] F. Milano, Power System Analysis Toolbox. Version 2.1.6, 2010.
REFERENCES [22] Xin-She Y, Deb S., “Cuckoo search via levy flights, “World congress on
[1] P. M. Anderson and A. A. Fouad, “Power System Control and Stability,” nature & biologically inspired computing,” 2009 NaBIC 2009. p. 210–
Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 2003. 14.
[2] Kundur P., Power system stability and control. Twelfth reprint. New [23] Walton S., Hassan O., Morgan K. and Brown M. R., “Modified cuckoo
Delhi, India: Tata McGraw-Hill Education Pvt. Ltd.; 2011. search: A new gradient free optimization,” Chaos, Solutions &
Fractals, vol. 44, Issue 9, pp. 710-718, Sept. 2011.
[3] F. D. DeMello and C. Concordia, “Concepts of synchronous machine
stability as affected by excitation control,” IEEE Trans. Power Appl.
Syst., vol. PAS-88, no. 2, pp. 316–329, Apr. 1969. APPENDIX
[4] K. E. Bollinger, A. Laha, R. Hamilton, and T. Harras, “PSS Design The parameters of CSA, PSOA and GA are as listed below
Using Root Locus Methods,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, vol. PAS-94, no. 5, pp. 1484–1488, Oct. 1975. Parameters CSA PSOA GA
[5] J. H. Chow and J. J. Sanchez-Gasca, “Pole-Placement Designs Of Power Population size 50 50 50
System Stabilizers,” IEEE Transactions on Power System, vol. 4, pp. Number of individuals 9 9 9
271–277, Feb. 1989. Number of generations 50 50 50
[6] Y. Cao, L. Jiang, S. Cheng, D. Chen, O. P. Malik, and G. S. Hope, “A Probability (pa) 0.25 - -
Nonlinear Variable Structure Stabilizer For Power System Stability,” c1, c2 - 2 -
IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 9, pp. 489–495, Sept. wmin, wmax - [0.4, 0.9] -
1994.
Crossover Rate - - 0.8
[7] O.Abul-Haggag Ibrahim and A.M. Kamel, “A new adaptive power Mutation Rate - - 0.01
system stabilizer using a Lyapunov design technique,” International
Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 12, pp. 127–133,
April 1990.
[8] H. Quinot, H. Bourles, and T. Margotin, “Robust Coordinated AVR +
PSS For Damping Large Scale Power Systems,” IEEE Transactions on
Power System, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1446–1451, Nov. 1999.
[9] D. K. Chaturvedi and O. P. Malik, “A Generalized Neuron Based
Adaptive Power System Stabilizer for Multimachine Environment,”
IEEE Transactions on Power System, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 358–366, Feb.
2005.
[10] J. Lu, M. H. Nehrir, and D. A. Pierre, “A Fuzzy Logic-Based Adaptive
Power System Stabilizer for Multi-Machine Systems,” in IEEE Power
Engineering Society Summer Meeting, Seattle, WA, July 15–19, 2000.