Coordinated Tuning of Synchronous Generator
Controllers for Power Oscillation Damping
Amer Mešanović
Otto von Guericke University of Magdeburg
Siemens AG, Munich, DE
amer.mesanovic@siemens.com ulrich.muenz@siemens.com
Abstract—The increasing share of renewable generation will
lead to time-varying oscillatory modes in large scale power
systems. Today, oscillatory modes are defined by the location
of conventional power plants and by the current load level in
the grid. In the future, more conventional power plants will be
periodically disconnected depending on the share and location of
renewable generation. Hence, the oscillatory modes will become
more time variable than today, e.g. depending on the weather.
Thus, new functions become necessary in order to optimally use
existing controllers, e.g. power system stabilizers, for damping
of inter-area oscillations. In this paper, we present a method for
parameter tuning of generator controllers for optimal oscillation
damping based on structured H-infinity optimization. We assume
that power system stabilizers are not appropriately parametrized
and use the proposed method to find the optimal parametrization
of the controllers. The efficiency of the proposed method is shown
with detailed rounded-mean-square simulations of a well known
four generator and the IEEE 39 bus power system.
Index Terms—Distributed control, H∞ optimization, power
systems, robustness
I. I NTRODUCTION
Power system control today is built around the properties
and dynamics of synchronous generators: dispatchable control
of their generation and large time constants due to their inertia.
To further improve the small signal stability of the system, i.e.
the ability of a power system to remain in synchronism after
being subjected to a small disturbance, some generators were
equipped with a power system stabilizer (PSS). The oscillation
modes today shift due to the periodical load fluctuations,
and the PSSs are manually tuned to damp these modes.
For example, in Europe there are four dominant inter-area
oscillation modes today [1].
The percentage of renewables in the power system is
constantly increasing,leading to significant changes in power
system dynamics [2]. Distributed generators, as opposed to
conventional generators, have either very small, or no inertia
and damping properties, which makes them react much faster
to contingencies, however most do not react at all. As the share
of distributed generation in the grid increases, the impact of
low inertia and damping effects increases [3]–[6].
The authors acknowledge funding from the German Federal Ministry for
Economic Affairs and Energy within the funded research project DynaGrid-
Center.
978-1-5386-1953-7/17/$31.00
c 2017 IEEE
Ulrich Münz Rolf Findeisen
Siemens AG Otto von Guericke University
Princeton, USA Magdeburg, DE
rolf.findeisen@ovgu.de
Another important property of renewable generation is their
volatility, leading to time varying oscillation modes which
change depending on the percentage of renewable generation
and its geographic location in the grid. [2], [7]. In order to
damp time varying oscillations, the PSSs of generators would
have to be tuned conservatively, leading to a degraded system
performance [8].
Time varying oscillatory modes are the main motivation
for the contribution of this work: we propose a method for
coordinated tuning of generator controllers with structured
H∞ optimization and depending on the current grid state.
The tuning of the PSSs is coordinated because local and
uncoordinated design of controllers may degrade oscillation
damping in the system [9]. We assume that the system is
already in a state in which power oscillations are not suffi-
ciently dampened. The tracking and the update of controller
parameters for changing operating conditions is beyond the
scope of this work. For this purpose, a power system model
with detailed controller and generator models and with explicit
dependencies on the controller parameters is first defined. Then
the model is linearized around the steady-state and the H∞
norm of the system is optimized by using the bounded-real
lemma and PK iteration for the parameter tuning [10].
In Section II, the complete dynamic model of the power
system is presented. The optimization method is described in
detail in Section III, and the effectiveness of the proposed
method is shown in Section IV. In the end, the conclusion
and future steps are given in Section V.
A. Literature review
Various works consider power oscillation damping in power
systems. The authors in [11]–[13] consider H∞ optimization,
H2 optimization, or pole placement for the controller synthe-
sis. Sensitivity analysis is used in [5], [14]–[16], whereas [17],
[18] apply LQR controllers for oscillation damping. Various
other methodologies can be found in [8], [19]–[22] etc. How-
ever, most of works either consider simplified power system
models [3]–[5], [14], [17], [19], [20], or new controllers are
added on top of the existing power system model [7], [8],
[11]–[13], [18] which makes practical application complex
and expensive. Very few works consider the optimization of
existing controller parameters in the system [15]. So far, no
structured optimization approaches, except iterative simulation

Fig. 1. A synchronous generator together with the modelled controllers.
methods, for the detailed structured controller synthesis of
power system controllers have been presented.
Structured controller synthesis, considering a fixed con-
troller structure, has been a topic of significant research
in the past decades and a variety of approaches has been
developed. Approaches include non-smooth optimization tech-
niques [23], [24], sum-of-squares techniques [15], [25] etc.
Very popular approaches are iterative linear matrix inequality
(LMI) approaches [26]–[28]. In this paper, we use the so-
called iterative coordinate descent method or P-K-iteration
[29]. Previous work of the authors [30] considers H∞ , H2 and
pole placement for power oscillation damping with renewable
generation. However, very simplified generator models were
used, and in this work we use detailed generator and con-
troller models, leading to significantly larger problems. We
furthermore compare our model with nonlinear simulations in
a commercial power system simulation software.
B. Contributions
In this work, we first present the analytical derivation of
a detailed power system model with an explicit dependency
on the tunable parameters. Most of the work presented in the
literature review works either with simplified power system
models [3]–[5], [14], [17], [19], [20], or the power system
model is used as a “black box” model to which new controllers
are added [7], [8], [11]–[13], [18]. Furthermore, we propose
coordinated tuning of existing PSS parameters for power os-
cillation damping by using structured H∞ optimization. This
approach optimally uses existing controllers and no additional
controllers are required. Finally, we present a time-domain
comparison of the linearized model to the detailed nonlinear
model of the power system, showing good accuracy of the
linearization and the optimization results in the detailed model.
II. DYNAMIC POWER SYSTEM MODEL
In this section, the dynamic power system model for the op-
timization is defined. Figure 1 illustrates how the synchronous
generator is coupled with its controllers. The generator is
controlled via the mechanical power Pm from the turbine,
which is controlled by the governor, and the field voltage Ef d
from the exciter. The dynamic models of the generator with its
controllers, as well as the power flow equations, are presented
subsequently.
A. Synchronous generator model
To model the synchronous machine dynamics, a 6th order
model is used, as described in detail in [31], given with
δ̇ = ω − ωs (1a)
2H Pm
ω̇ = − Ψd iq + Ψq id − Dω (1b)
ωs ω
Ψ̇f d = −Ef d + Rf d if d Ψ̇1d = −R1d i1d (1c)
Ψ̇1q = −R1q i1q Ψ̇2q = −R2q i2q (1d)
vd = −Ψq ωs − Ra id vq = Ψd ωs + Ra iq (1e)
ψd = −Ld id + Lmd (if d + i1d ) (1f)
ψq = −Lq iq + Lmq i1q + Lmq i2q (1g)
ψf d = Lf d if d + Lmd (−id + i1d ) (1h)
ψ1d = L1d i1d + Lmd (−id + if d ) (1i)
ψ1q = L1q i1q − Lmq iq + Lmq i2q (1j)
ψ2q = L2q i2q − Lmq iq + Lmq i1q , (1k)
where Pm is the mechanical power from the turbine, Ψd and
Ψq are the direct and quadrature components of the main
flux, Ψf d is the excitation circuit flux, Ψ1d and Ψ1q are
the d- and q-axis amortisseur 1 fluxes, Ψ2q is the q-axis
amortisseur 2 flux, R, L and i with appropriate sub-indices
are the resistance, inductance and current, respectively, in the
corresponding circuit, vd and vq are the d- and q-component
of the terminal voltage, Ef d is the excitation voltage, ω is
the rotational frequency of the generator rotor, Ra is the
amortisseur resistance, Lmd and Lmq are the d- and q-axis
main inductances, and δ is the rotor angle relative to the
coordinate system rotating with the nominal angular frequency.
B. Controller models
The governor controls the turbine’s mechanical power out-
put Pm into the synchronous machine based on the angular
velocity of the generator. The two-state steam turbine and
governor model TGOV1 is chosen, which represents the
motion of steam through the reheater and turbine stages. It
is a standard model used in stability studies [11], [32], and
the model is presented in Fig. 2.
The generator exciter controls the terminal voltage of the
generator via the field winding voltage Ef d . We use here
the one-state excitation system illustrated in Fig. 3 [11],
[14], however more complex exciters can be used as well.
The inputs to the exciter are the reference voltage Vref , the
generator terminal voltage VT , and the input from the power
system stabilizer VP SS . The output of the exciter is the field
winding voltage Ef d . The exciters objective is a constant
terminal voltage of the generator, however it can reduce the
damping properties of a synchronous generator [31].
To increase the oscillation damping, some generators are
equipped with an analogue or digital power system stabilizer
(PSS). Several measured values can be chosen for the input,
and here the deviation from the nominal angular frequency is
chosen. Figure 4 shows the PSS model, see [11], [14], [31],
and this paper assumes all of its parameters to be tunable.

Fig. 2. The dynamic model of the steam turbine and governor TGOV1 [32].
The frequency droop gain of the governor KP is optimized.
Fig. 3. The dynamic model of the exciter [11], [14]. The exciter gain KA is
optimized
The controllers are described with a total of six states and
the synchronous generator also has six states. Therefore, each
synchronous generator with its controllers is modeled with a
total of twelve states.
C. Tunable Parameters
We define eight tunable parameters for each synchronous
generator, marked with red in figs. 2 to 4:
• the proportional gain KP of the steam turbine governor,
which determines how aggressive the governor reacts to
frequency deviations.
• the proportional gain KA of the exciter, which determines
how aggressive the exciter reacts to voltage deviations.
• all parameters of the PSS: KS , TW , T1 , T2 , T3 , T4 .
The parameter KP is optimized to show the possibilities of
the proposed method and because it has a significant influence
on the system stability [33]. This parameter today is used
for primary-reserve allocation without consideration for the
system dynamics, however this could change in the future.
Other parameters are assumed to be fixed.
D. Power Flow Equations
Interarea and interplant oscillations are considered, which
usually have a frequency of below 2 Hz [31]. Thus, the
dynamics of the power lines, whose time constants are much
smaller, can be neglected. For this reason, the power system
with N buses and M power lines is modeled using algebraic
power flow equations
N
X

pi = |vi ||vj | Gij cos(θi − θj ) + Bij sin(θi − θj ) (2a)
j=1
N
X

qi = |vi ||vj | Gij sin(θi − θj ) − Bij cos(θi − θj ) , (2b)
j=1
Fig. 4. The dynamic model of the simple power system stabilizer from [11],
[14], [31], where KS is the PSS gain, TW is the washout time constant,
T1 -T4 are the lead-lag filters time constants. All of the PSS parameters are
optimized.
where pi and qi are the injected active and reactive power into
the i-th bus in the grid, vi and θi are the magnitude and angle
of the voltage phasor at the i-th bus, and G and B are the
conductance and susceptance matrix of the grid [31].
E. Coupled dynamic power system model
The generator models, consisting of the synchronous gen-
erator, governor and turbine, exciter, and a PSS, presented in
Section II, are coupled with the power flow equations (2) and
a differential-algebraic nonlinear model is obtained
ẋ =f (x, w, K) 0 = h(x, w, K), (3a)
were x is the vector of all generator states in the model,
w is the vector of external inputs into the system, e.g. the
apparent power of the system loads, K is the vector of tunable
parameters of all generators, defined in Subsection II-C, f
represents the generator dynamics, and h represents the power
flow equations. Because we are interested in the small-signal
behavior of (3), we linearize the system around the steady-
state value x0 obtained by solving f (x0 , w0 , K) = 0 and
h(x0 , 0, w0 , K) = 0, and we obtain a linear system
ẋ = A(K)x + B(K)w (4)
The accuracy of the linearization is shown on a numerical
example subsequently.
III. O PTIMIZATION METHOD
The H∞ -norm of a system represents the maximal am-
plification of amplitude of any harmonic input signal in any
output direction [28]. In case of a single-input single-output
system, the H∞ norm is the maximum of the system Bode
magnitude plot. Thus, by minimizing the H∞ -norm of a
system, we automatically improve the damping of the least
damped oscillatory mode of the power system. This in turn
minimizes the oscillations of the defined outputs after, e.g., a
load step.
As the H∞ norm characterizes the input-output behavior of
the system, appropriate performance inputs and outputs need
to be defined. Since our goal is the minimization of active
power oscillations in the system, which manifest through the
oscillation of generator frequencies, we define the generator
angular frequencies as the system performance outputs

T
y = ω1 . . . ωnG = C(K)x, (5)
where nG is the number of generators in the power system.
The active power of the load in several buses is defined as the
performance input, i.e.

T
w = P1 . . . PnL , (6)
 TABLE I
I NITIAL PARAMETRIZATION OF THE TUNABLE CONTROLLER PARAMETERS
FOR EACH GENERATOR .

Gov Exc PSS

Gen KP KA Ks TW T1 T2 T3 T4
G1 10 10 10 20 0.019 0.04 8.1 10.8
G2 20 16 16 12.5 0.012 0.025 12.96 6.75
Fig. 5. A two-area system from [31, p. 813, Example 12.6]. G3 50 22 22 9.1 0.009 0.018 17.82 4.91
G4 30 28 28 7.1 0.007 0.014 22.68 3.86

where nL is the number of loads in the power system.

TABLE II
The system G(K) = (A(K), B(K), C(K)) is now defined O PTIMAL H∞ NORM PARAMETRIZATION OF THE TUNABLE CONTROLLER
and we minimize the H∞ norm of the system from w to y PARAMETERS FOR EACH GENERATOR .

by tuning K. The tuning is done with help of the bounded Gov Exc PSS
real lemma [10], and the following optimization problem is Gen KP KA Ks TW T1 T2 T3 T4
obtained G1 137 7.94 6.67 4.05 0.017 0.041 7.84 3.39
G2 147 5.78 6.65 3.99 0.032 0.025 12.4 4.87
min γ (7a) G3 147 24.22 26.59 2.47 0.015 0.018 18.4 3.26
P,K G4 142 21.04 29.06 1.81 0.007 0.014 22.87 4.19
A(K)T P + P A(K) P B(K) C(K)T
 

s.t.  B(K)T P −γI D(K)T  ≺ 0

C(K) D(K) −γI
(7b)
Kmin ≤ K ≤ Kmax P = P T  0,
where the notation ‘ 0’ and ‘≺ 0’ for a matrix means
the matrix is positive definite or negative definite, Kmin and
Kmax are the minimal and maximal bounds for the tunable
parameters, respectively, and ≤ / ≥ is defined element-wise
for vectors. The obtained optimization problem is non-convex,
however, it can be solved efficiently with state-of-the-art
solvers [34] by iteratively optimizing P and K, thus the name
PK iteration. It shows very good results for the analyzed power
systems, as evident from the subsequent numerical examples.
Another advantage of this method is that it can be readily
adapted to communication failures. For example, if a generator
loses communication to the central unit, the generator can keep
the last parameters it obtained, or revert to predefined default
parameters. Then, in the subsequent optimization, we can set
the controller parameters of the respective generator to this
defined value, and optimize the parameters of other generators.
In this way, we still achieve ”optimal“ POD under the given
circumstances, even in the case when the communication to
several generators is lost.
IV. N UMERICAL EVALUATION
In this section, we show the effectiveness of the proposed
method on the four generator system from [31] and the IEEE
parameters are presented in Table I. We consider a load step
of 100 MW in bus 9 in Fig. 5 as the disturbance input w for
(7c) the simulation. All generators are equipped with PSSs in this
example because we consider them as equivalent models for
several generators.
Figures 6 and 7 show the linear (dashed lines) and non-
linear (solid lines) simulations of generator frequencies and
terminal voltages with the initial parameters from Table I.
The nonlinear simulation is done in Simscape Power Systems
with detailed nonlinear models of the synchronous generators
and the nonlinear power flow. As shown in Fig. 6 and 7,
the difference in responses is small and the linear model
can be used for the optimization of the detailed nonlinear
model. The linear system consists of 48 states and 32 tunable
parameters described in Section II-C. Figures 8 and 9 show
the system frequency and voltage magnitude response after the
parameter optimization. The tuned parameters are shown in
Table II. A much better system response is obtained by tuning
the controller parameters. The simulation with the optimized
parameters of the linear model shows good correspondence
to the detailed nonlinear simulation. Tuning the controller
parameters reduced the system’s H∞ norm by a factor of 30.
The pole-zero map of the system with the initial and opti-
G1 linear
G2 linear
frequency (Hz)

ten generator 39 bus system. 60 G3 linear

G4 linear
G1 nonlinear
A. Four generator system G2 nonlinear
59.95 G3 nonlinear
First we consider the grid from [31, p. 813, Example 12.6] G4 nonlinear
presented in Fig. 5. The parameters of the transmission grid,
5 10 15 20 25
as well as the parameters of synchronous generators, can be
time(s)
found in [31]. The parameters of the TGOV1 controller are
T1 = 0.04s, T2 = 1s, T3 = 2s, and Dt = 0, chosen to satisfy Fig. 6. Generator frequency response after a 100 MW load step in bus 9 in
Fig. 5 with initial parameters presented in Table I. The solid lines represent
the limits defined in [35], while the exciter time constant the simulation with the linear model, whereas the dashed lines represent the
TA is set to 1s as in [31]. The initial values for the tunable simulation with the nonlinear model.
 G1 linear G1 linear
G2 linear G2 linear
20 G3 linear 20 G3 linear

VT (kV)
VT (kV)

G4 linear G4 linear
G1 nonlinear G1 nonlinear
19.5 G2 nonlinear 19.5 G2 nonlinear
G3 nonlinear G3 nonlinear
G4 nonlinear G4 nonlinear
19 19
5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
time(s) time(s)
Fig. 7. Generator voltage magnitude response after a 100 MW load step Fig. 9. Generator voltage magnitude response after a 100 MW load step
in bus 9 in Fig. 5 with initial parameters presented in Table I. The solid in bus 9 in Fig. 5 with tuned parameters presented in Table II. The solid
lines represent the simulation with the linear model, whereas the dashed lines lines represent the simulation with the linear model, whereas the dashed lines
represent the simulation with the nonlinear model. represent the simulation with the nonlinear model. The y-axis scale is set to
be the same as in Fig. 7.

G1 linear
G2 linear
frequency (Hz)

60 G3 linear
G4 linear
G1 nonlinear
G2 nonlinear
59.95 G3 nonlinear
G4 nonlinear

5 10 15 20 25
time(s)
Fig. 8. Generator frequency response after a load step in bus 9 in Fig. 5 with
tuned parameters presented in Table II. The solid lines represent the simulation
with the linear model, whereas the dashed lines represent the simulation with
the nonlinear model. The y-axis scale is set to be the same as in Fig. 6.

mized parameters is presented in Fig. 10. With H∞ controller

tuning, the system poles were shifted to the left to achieve
better power oscillation damping. Note that the power system
does not have a swing bus. Therefore, the phase angles of all Fig. 10. Pole-zero map of the system which shows the system poles and
generators continuously increase, even in steady-state. These zeros with initial parameters (blue) and optimized parameters (red).
dynamics are represented by the single pole at the origin,
which does not have an influence on the inter-area oscillations.
The efficiency of the method was shown on a four generator
B. Ten generator IEEE 39 bus system and IEEE 39 bus power system, in which power oscillations
We also consider the 10 generator IEEE 39 bus system, were effectively dampened with parameter optimization and no
shown in Fig. 11, to evaluate the method for larger systems. additional controllers. As the proposed method can be time-
The linear model of the system consists of 120 states and 80 consuming to solve for very large systems, as future work we
tunable controller parameters. We define a 100 MW load step will consider faster methods for the optimization including
in bus 2 in Fig. 11 as the performance input for the simulation. model reduction [15], we will evaluate the method on larger
Figures 12 and 13 show the simulation results with the
linear model for the inital and optimized parameters. Because
the accuracy of the linear model was verified in the previous
example, the simulation with the nonlinear model is not shown
in Fig. 12 and 13. Again, the system H∞ norm was reduced
by a factor of 40 just by tuning the controller parameters.

V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a structured H∞ algorithm is proposed which
minimizes the oscillations of generator frequencies after a load
change by only tuning existing controllers. For this purpose,
a detailed analytic linear model of the system with explicit
parameter dependencies is defined and its accuracy is verified
with nonlinear simulation. The method can be readily extended
to a wide variety of controller structures and generator types. Fig. 11. The New England IEEE 39 bus ten generator system.
 60 Gen 1
Gen 2 [12] X. Wu, F. Dörfler, and M. Jovanović, “Input-output analysis and de-
frequency (Hz) Gen 3 centralized optimal control of inter-area oscillations in power systems,”
59.99 Gen 4 IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 2434 – 2444, 2016.
Gen 5
Gen 6 [13] S. Schuler, U. Münz, and F. Allgöwer, “Decentralized state feedback
59.98 Gen 7 control for interconnected systems with application to power systems,”
Gen 8 Journal of Process Control, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 379–388, 2014.
Gen 9 [14] M. Mahmoudi and K. Tomsovic, “A distributed control design method-
59.97 Gen10
ology for damping critical modes in power systems,” Proc. IEEE Power
5 10 15 20 25 and Energy Conference at Illinois (PECI), 2016.
[15] B. Marinescu, B. Mallem, H. Bourles, and L. Rouco, “Robust coor-
time (s) dinated tuning of parameters of standard power system stabilizers for
Fig. 12. Generator frequency response after a 100 MW load step in bus 2 in local and global grid objectives,” in PowerTech, 2009 IEEE Bucharest.
Fig. 11 with initial controller parameters. IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–7.
[16] L. Rouco, “Coordinated design of multiple controllers for damping
60 Gen 1 power system oscillations,” International Journal of Electrical Power
Gen 2 & Energy Systems, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 517–530, 2001.
frequency (Hz)

Gen 3 [17] M. Mahmoudi, J. Dong, and K. Tomsovic, “Application of distributed

59.99 Gen 4
Gen 5
Gen 6
59.98 Gen 7
Gen 8
Gen 9
59.97 Gen10
5 10 15 20 25
time (s)
Fig. 13. Generator frequency response after a 100 MW load step in bus 2
in Fig. 11 with optimized controller parameters. The y-axis scale is set to be
the same as in Fig. 12.
systems with other component types, and the tracking and
the update of the controller parameters for changing operating
conditions will be considered as well.
R EFERENCES
[1] E. Grebe, J. Kabouris, S. Lopez Barba, W. Sattinger, and W. Winter,
“Low frequency oscillations in the interconnected system of continental
europe,” IEEE PES General Meeting, 2010.
[2] S. Al Ali, T. Haase, I. Nassar, and H. Weber, “Impact of increasing
wind power generation on the north-south inter-area oscillation mode in
the European ENTSO-E system,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 47,
no. 3, pp. 7653–7658, 2014.
[3] A. Ulbig, T. S. Borsche, and G. Andersson, “Impact of low rotational
inertia on power system stability and operation,” IFAC World Congress,
vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7290 – 7297, 2014.
[4] B. Poolla, S. Bolognani, and F. Dörfler, “Placing rotational inertia in
power grids,” American Contr. Conf. (ACC), pp. 2314 – 2320, 2016.
[5] T. Borsche, T. Liu, and D. J. Hill, “Effects of rotational inertia on power
system damping and frequency transients,” in Decision and Control
(CDC), 2015 IEEE 54th Annual Conference on. IEEE, 2015, pp. 5940–
5946.
[6] M. Garmroodi, D. Hill, G. Verbic, and J. Ma, “Impact of tie-line power
on inter-area modes with increased penetration of wind power,” IEEE
Trans. Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 3051 – 3059, 2016.
[7] R. Preece and J. Milanovic, “Tuning of a damping controller for multi-
terminal VSC-HVDC grids using the probabilistic collocation method,”
IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 318 – 326, 2014.
[8] A. Fuchs, M. Imhof, T. Demiray, and M. Morari, “Stabilization of large
power systems using VSC-HVDC and model predictive control,” IEEE
Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 480 – 488, 2014.
[9] M. Gibbard, D. Vowles, and P. Pourbeik, “Interactions between, and
effectiveness of, power system stabilizers and facts device stabilizers in
multimachine systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp.
748 – 755, 2000.
[10] C. Scherer and S. Weiland. (2017, Feb) Linear matrix inequalities
in control, lecture notes. TU Delft. [Online]. Available: http:
//www.dcsc.tudelft.nl/∼cscherer/lmi/notes05.pdf
[11] M. Raoufat, K. Tomsovic, and S. Djouadi, “Virtual actuators for wide-
area damping control of power systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Systems,
vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 4703 – 4711, 2016.
control to mitigate disturbance propagations in large power networks,”
North American Power Symposium (NAPS), 2015.
[18] R. Preece, J. Milanovic, A. A. M., and O. Marjanovic, “Damping of
inter-area oscillations in mixed AC/DC networks using WAMS based
supplementary controller,” IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 28, no. 2,
pp. 1160 – 1169, 2013.
[19] T. Graber, S. Hoehn, and M. Luther, “A contribution to thorough com-
prehension of POD provided by FACTS devices,” Proc. International
ETG Congress, 2015.
[20] K. Liao, Z. He, Y. Xu, G. Chen, Z. Dong, and K. Wong, “A sliding
mode based damping control of DFIG for interarea power oscillations,”
IEEE Trans. Sustainable Energy, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 258 – 267, 2017.
[21] F. J. De Marco, N. Martins, and J. Ferraz, “An automatic method
for power system stabilizers phase compensation design,” IEEE Trans.
Power Systems, vol. 28, pp. 997–1007, 2013.
[22] A. Yaghooti, M. Buygi, and M. Shanechi, “Designing coordinated power
system stabilizers: A reference model based controller design,” IEEE
Trans. Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 2914 – 2924, 2016.
[23] S. Gumussoy, D. Henrion, M. Millstone, and M. L. Overton, “Multiob-
jective robust control with HIFOO 2.0,” Proc. 6th IFAC Symposium on
Robust Control Design, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 144–149, 2009.
[24] P. Gahinet and P. Apkarian, “Decentralized and fixed-structure H∞
control in MATLAB,” IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and
European Control Conference, pp. 8205 – 8210, 2011.
[25] C. Hol and C. Scherer, “A sum-of-squares approach to fixed-order H∞
synthesis,” Lecture Notes in Control and Information Science, 312.
Springer, 2005.
[26] J. Han and R. Skelton, “An LMI optimization approach for structured
linear controllers,” 42nd IEEE International Conference on Decision and
Control, no. 5, pp. 5143 – 5148, 2004.
[27] A. Karimi, H. Khatibi, and R. Longchamp, “Robust control of polytopic
systems by convex optimization,” European Cont. Conf. (ECC), 2007.
[28] C. W. Scherer, “Structured H∞ optimal control for nested intercon-
nections: A state-space solution,” Systems & Control Letters, pp. 1105–
1113, 2013.
[29] E. Simon, V. Wertz, P. Rodriguez-Ayerbe, C. Stoica, and D. Dumur,
“LMIs-based coordinate descent method for solving BMIs in control
design,” IFAC Proc. Volumes, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 10 180–10 186, 2011.
[30] A. Mešanović, U. Münz, and C. Heyde, “Comparison of H∞ , H2 , and
pole optimization for power system oscillation damping with remote
renewable generation,” IFAC Workshop on Control of Transmission and
Distribution Smart Grids CTDSG, vol. 49, no. 27, pp. 103–108, 2016.
[31] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control. McGraw-Hill, 1993.
[32] P. Pourbeik, “Dynamic models for turbine-governors in power system
studies,” Technical report PES-TR1, 2013.
[33] I.-Y. Chung, W. Liu, D. Cartes, E. Collins, and S. Moon, “Control
methods of inverter-interfaced distributed generators in a microgrid
system,” IEEE Trans. Industry Applications, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 1078
– 1088, 2010.
[34] J. Lofberg, “YALMIP : a toolbox for modeling and optimization in MAT-
LAB,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp.
284 – 289, 2004.
[35] NEPLAN AG. (2016) Turbine-governor models. [On-
line]. Available: http://www.neplan.ch/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/
Nep TURBINES GOV.pdf