a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 10 July 2013
Received in revised form 1 July 2014
Accepted 8 July 2014
Available online 1 August 2014
Keywords:
Type-2 fuzzy neural network
Transient stability assessment
Critical clearing time
Type-2 fuzzy system
Multilayer perceptron neural network
MLP NN-based sensitivity analysis
a b s t r a c t
Transient stability assessment (TSA) of large power systems by the conventional method is a time consuming task. For each disturbance many nonlinear equations should be solved that makes the problem
too complex and will lead to delayed decisions in providing the necessary control signals for controlling
the system. Nowadays new methods which are devise articial intelligence techniques are frequently
used for TSA problem instead of traditional methods. Unfortunately these methods are suffering from
uncertainty in input measurements. Therefore, there is a necessity to develop a reliable and fast online
TSA to analyze the stability status of power systems when exposed to credible disturbances. We propose
a direct method based on Type-2 fuzzy neural network for TSA problem. The Type-2 fuzzy logic can properly handle the uncertainty which is exist in the measurement of power system parameters. On the other
hand a multilayer perceptron (MLP) neural network (NN) has expert knowledge and learning capability.
The proposed hybrid method combines both of these capabilities to achieve an accurate estimation of
critical clearing time (CCT). The CCT is an index of TSA in power systems. The Type-2 fuzzy NN is trained
by fast resilient back-propagation algorithm. Also, in order to the proposed approach become scalable in a
large power system, a NN based sensitivity analysis method is employed to select more effective input
data. Moreover, In order to verify the performance of the proposed Type-2 fuzzy NN based method, it
has been compared with a MLP NN method. Both of the methods are applied to the IEEE standard
New England 10-machine 39-bus test system. The simulation results show the effectiveness of the
proposed method in compare to the frequently used MLP NN based method in terms of accuracy and
computational cost of CCT estimation for sample fault scenarios.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Nowadays, the continues trend to increase in load demands
along with economic and environmental constraints for building
new power plants and transmission lines, have lead power systems
to operate closer to their limits which increases the occurrence
probability of transient stability problem [1,2].
The analysis and methods that are used to determine if a system
is safe or unsafe (based on pre-established criteria) is typically
referred as power system security assessment. An electric power
system might have many changes in the system operating
conditions or conguration; therefore, planning phase transient
stability studies, would not be reliable for an operational system,
so continuous system analysis is necessary for operators to take
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Amir.sharifyan@gmail.com (A. Sharian), sharian_s@aut.ac.ir
(S. Sharian).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.07.007
0142-0615/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
72
[5]. In recent years, machine learning and computational intelligence techniques, such as articial neural networks (ANNs), have
been proposed as promising approaches to solve some complex
power system protection and control problems instead of simulating the power system equations for TSA in power systems [5,6,8
17]. These approaches can quickly obtain a nonlinear mapping
relationship between the input data and the output and can
approximate solutions of power systems differential equations
[6]. There are two ways in using ANN for power system TSA, one
way is using ANN as a regression function to predict transient stability degree[813], such as CCT and system stability margin;
another way is using the ANN as a classier to directly classify
the system into either stable or unstable states [14]. There are
many different types of NN such as MLP NN and radial basis function (RBF) NN which can be used in different applications.
The feed-forward NN, also best known as MLP NN, was the rst
and most simple type of NN devised. It was developed in early
1970s and is the most popular topology in use today. This NN consists of an input layer, an output layer, and one or more hidden layers. In this NN the information only moves in forward direction.
Data ows into the NN through the input layer, passes through
the hidden layer and nally ows out of the NN through the output
layer. There are no cycles or loops in the network. These networks
can be constructed from different types of units such as binary
McCulloch-Pitts neurons. But frequently are devised as continuous
neurons, with sigmoidal activation function in the context of back
propagation of error. The MLP NN can be considered as simple
interpolation of inputoutput model, with NN weights as free
parameters. Such NN conguration can model functions of almost
any arbitrary complexity. The function complexity is determined
with the number of layers and the number of neurons in each
layer.
Another frequently used NN in the literatures is RBF NN [15,16].
RBF NN is powerful method for interpolation in multidimensional
space. The RBF can be replaced by the sigmoidal hidden layer in
MLP NN. The structure of the RBF NN consists of three layers
namely, the input layer, the hidden (or RBF) layer, and the output
layer. The nodes within each layer are fully connected to the previous layer. The input nodes are directly connected to the hidden
layer neurons. Usually a Gaussian function is used in each node
in RBF layer to determine distance of inputs with respect to the
mean of the Gaussian function. A linear combination of hidden
layer values that represents mean predicted output is generated
in the output layer when RBF NN is used in regression problems.
When RBF NN is used in the classication problems, the output
layer is representing a posterior probability. The output is typically
a sigmoid function of a linear combination of RBF layer values.
In RBF NN each input datum is associated with a RBF kernel
function such as support vector machine method. In this approach
73
CCT when the network inputs fallow exactly the training patterns.
On the other hand when an input data is noisy or has uncertain
value; both the MLP NN and the RBF NN failed to estimate an
accurate CCT due to the sensitivity of NN based methods to
network inputs. By considering these drawbacks, it becomes
necessary to devise a more robust solution for TSA problem in
power systems.
The Type-2 fuzzy sets have been introduced as an expansion of
the type-1 fuzzy sets by Zadeh [24]. The Type-2 fuzzy logic systems
can handle uncertainties which are associated to information in
the knowledge base of the process. The Type-2 fuzzy sets have various applications in solving many problems in the power system
area [2527]. Recently neuro-fuzzy systems have been used in
many areas of science and engineering [2833]. A Type-2 fuzzy
NN combines the learning capability of NNs and the linguistic
interpretation feature of fuzzy classier to solve various problems
such as predication, control and identication [3035]. A major
problem in adaptive fuzzy system is that its complexity is exponentially increased by the number of inputs to the network. So
many efforts have been done to reduce the number of inputs to
these networks. In Ref. [36], an adaptive fuzzy classication technique is used with normal fuzzy technique to solve the power systems TSA problem. The results are demonstrating the advantages
of using adaptive fuzzy technique. Moreover, a NN and a principal
component analysis (PCA) method are employed to reduce the
number of inputs by sensitivity analysis technique. In Ref. [14], a
neuro-fuzzy system is applied for power system DSA focusing on
the transient stability. The power system security state is classied
by the neuro-fuzzy system into three categories named as
secure, doubtful security and insecure. In Ref. [38]; a binary
SVM classier with combinatorial trajectories as inputs was
trained to predict the transient stability status.
None of the previous works did not address the uncertainty and
noisy nature of power system measured data which are used as
inputs to TSA system [46,814,1622,3543]. In this paper we
proposed a Type-2 fuzzy NN to address the uncertainty which is
exist in inputs. The Type-2 fuzzy layer converts uncertain and
noisy inputs to more dependable and reliable linguistic variables
which are used as inputs to the MLP NN layer. The Type-2 fuzzy
NN methodology is used to solve the on-line power system TSA
problem for a set of particular fault scenarios (contingencies)
under different system operating conditions.
In the proposed method the Type-2 fuzzy NN is trained to provide the CCT, as a measure of the power system transient stability.
The Type-2 fuzzy system is used to cope with uncertainty of the
power system model and measurements of system operating
parameters. In addition, in order to provide a scalable solution
for a large power system, the proposed approach uses a NN based
sensitivity analysis method [17,43] to reduce the number of inputs
to the Type-2 fuzzy NN, so the complexity of system decreased and
calculation time become shorter enough to convert the proposed
method to a feasible solution. It should be notied that the sensitivity analysis and training procedure are conducted ofine but the
estimation procedure is executed in online manner.
To evaluate the efciency of proposed method, it applied to TSA
of sample fault scenarios in the standard New England 10-machine
39-bus test system [7]. The simulation results show the effectiveness of the proposed method in terms of accuracy and online computation time. In summary, the main contributions of the paper are
as follows:
a. We propose a Type-2 fuzzy NN based method to accurately
estimate the CCT as an index of power system transient stability. The proposed method considers the uncertainty of
power system model and measurements of system operating parameters.
74
Test system
In this paper an IEEE standard New England 10-machine 39-bus
test system is used for TSA as shown in Fig. 2. We consider that bus
1 in the New England test system is a slack bus whose voltage
angle and voltage magnitude values are xed at known values.
The generated active and reactive powers of the slack bus are
denoted by PG1 and QG1. The remaining generator buses (i.e., buses
210) are assumed as PV buses and their voltage magnitude and
generated active and reactive powers in the PV buses are denoted
by Vi and PGi and QGi (i = 2,3,. . .,10) respectively. In addition the
remaining nine PV buses and other slack buses in the test system
have 29 PQ buses (i.e., buses 1139) whose active and reactive
loads are denoted by PDj and QDj (j is the bus number), even
though the loads are acting only on 19 distinct buses. System
details conguration and data are given in Ref. [7].
In this paper we assume the pre-fault system operating conditions as applied in Refs. [6,12,13] which is used as input to the propose Type-2 fuzzy NN to estimate the CCT. The inputs are
considered as follows:
Power system
Many transient disturbances can occur in a power system such
as: loss of generation, faults, loss of load, and loss of system components such as transformers or transmission lines [3]. Assessment
of the rotor swing angles can be used to determine stability or
instability condition of a power system due to transient disturbance. Following a transient disturbance, if the relative generator
rotor angles in the system remain in synchronism with each other,
we conclude that a power system is stable. On the other hand,
when the relative generator rotor angles go out of step and lost
its synchronism a power system is considered as unstable. In this
section rst we give an introduction to the classical model of
power system and then describe our standard test system.
Power system model
Assume a power system consists of n synchronous generators.
The classical model of system and the internal center of inertia
(COI) [7,44] can be formulated by Eqs. (1)(9) as follows:
dhi
~i
x
dt
Mi
i 1; 2; . . . ; n
~i
dx
Mi
Pmi P ei
PCOI
dt
MT
Pei
n
X
1
2
j1i
PCOI
n
X
Pmi Pei
i1
MT
n
X
Mi
i1
C ij Ei Ej Bij
Dij Ei Ej Gij
Y ij Gij jBij
hij hi hj
Description
hi
~i
x
Mi
Pmi
Ei
Yij
Gij
Bij
PGi
QG1
PGi
QGi
PDj
QDj
j
i
n
Pei
PCOI
75
76
of the membership functions which quantitatively dene these linguistic labels is a time consuming task. By using the learning capability of NN we can automate designing and tuning of the
membership functions and substantially reduce development time
and cost while improving performance.
In this paper we used the rst conguration of fuzzy neural system. The Type-2 fuzzy layer converts uncertain and noisy inputs to
more dependable and reliable linguistic variables which are used
as inputs to the MLP NN layer.
Type-2 fuzzy NN
The concept of the Type-2 fuzzy set was introduced by Zadeh
[24] as an extension to the type-1 fuzzy set. It can handle the
uncertainties associated with process and input variables. The idea
of the Type-2 fuzzy logic is shown in Fig. 6. Type-2 fuzzy logic consists of three main components named as: fuzzication (Type-2
fuzzier), inference (rule base and inference engine) and output
processing (type-reducer and difuzzier) [45]. The Type-2 fuzzier
transforms an input crisp variable into a Type-2 fuzzy set it uses in
circumstances where it is difcult to determine an exact membership function of input variables. Hence it is very useful for incorporating uncertainties.
The rule base block in Type-2 fuzzy logic consists of a set of
fuzzy IfThen rules which can handle rule uncertainties. The fuzzy
inference engine gives a mapping from the input Type-2 sets to the
output Type-2 sets. The type-reduction block converts the Type-2
output sets of inference engine to a type-1 set that is called the
type-reduced set. These type-reduced sets are then defuzzied
to obtain crisp outputs. As a result, Type-2 fuzzy logic systems
are very powerful paradigm to handle uncertainty in the real world
Decisions
Neural Network
Fuzzy Interface
Perception as
neural inputs
Neural
outputs
Linguistic
statements
Learning
algorithm
77
Knowledge-base
Neural
Inputs
Neural Network
Neural
outputs
Decisions
Fuzzy Interface
Neural
outputs
Learning
algorithm
Fig. 7. Overview block diagram of Type-2 fuzzy NN.
Fig. 5. The second model of fuzzy neural system.
A1 xi ;
Vi l
i
t
10
Z V 1 ; V 2 ; . . . ; V i ; . . . ; V n t
applications and environments where there are uncertainties that
are difcult to predict.
Structure design of inference and the output processing algorithms in Type-2 fuzzy systems is difcult. Therefore, we use a
NN to model operation inference (rule base and inference engine)
and output processing (type-reducer and difuzzier) in Type-2
fuzzy system. Such a system which is named Type-2 fuzzy NN
combines the learning capability of NNs with the linguistic interpretation ability of fuzzy classiers. Overview block diagram of
the proposed Type-2 fuzzy NN system is illustrated in Fig. 7.
The block diagram is composed of two parts; a Type-2 fuzzier
(Type-2 fuzzy sets) and a neural network. The Type-2 fuzzier
enables efcient modeling of the linguistic and numerical uncertainties in the inputs and expert knowledge. Inputs to Type-2 fuzzier is crisp values while output vector consists of the fuzzied
inputs values which are called linguistic variable [23].
The NNs are designed in an attempt to mimic the human brain
and inspired from the biological world. These networks can be
trained and used for different types of problems such as function
approximation, mapping (pattern association and pattern classication) and clustering. In this paper we use a MLP NN trained by
the back-propagation algorithm [15] in the proposed Type-2 fuzzy
NN where inputs to the MLP NN is linguistic variable. In fact, the
MLP NN uses fuzzied inputs instead of crisp values that embed
uncertainty of measurement in input parameters. The components
of the proposed Type-2 fuzzy NN is given in Fig. 8. Referring to
Fig. 8, for each input variable xi, i = 1, 2, . . ., n, a set of Ki Type-2
l
fuzzy member ship functions are dened as Aii ; li 1; 2; . . . ; K i .
Here, we use Type-2 Gaussian membership functions for the
Type-2 fuzzy set. Fuzzifying inputs by a non-linear Type-2 fuzzy
membership function enables modeling the uncertainty of inputs.
As shown in Fig. 9. Each Type-2 membership function Ai is represented by an upper membership function (UMF) and a lower
membership function (LMF) that are denoted as Ax and Ax
Ai xi and lAi xi are the member[21]. As it can be seen in Fig. 9; l
ship degree of input variable xi to the upper membership function
Ai and the lower membership function Ai respectively. The details
of data processing method in the proposed Type-2 fuzzy NNs are
described in the following steps:
A1 x1 ;
Z l
1
11
t
12
L2
n
X
Ki
13
i1
78
2. A random value with uniform distribution is assigned independently to each of the variables mentioned in step 1as turbulence. The random turbulence described by the following
equations:
Fig. 10. The structure of the Type-2 fuzzier for input variable xi.
to estimate the CCT for every valid fault scenario in a given power
system. As described in Refs. [6,12,13], and illustrated in Fig. 11,
the training and testing patterns of Type-2 fuzzy NN can be
obtained from the following procedures:
1. It is assumed that the following operating conditions can vary
randomly over some specied ranges of their nominal values:
Voltage magnitudes of all the nine PV buses are bounded
between 0.9 and 1.1 times their corresponding nominal values.
Active and reactive powers of all the 19 loads are varied in the
range 0.61.1 times their corresponding nominal values.
PDj k PDj0 0:6 0:5ejPD k
14
QDj k QDj0 0:6 0:5ejQD k
15
V i k V i0 0:9 0:2eiV k
16
where PDj(k) and QDj(k) are, the active power and the reactive
power of load at the jth load bus, respectively. And PDj0 and QDj0
are their nominal load at the jth load bus. Also Vi(k) is the voltage
magnitude at the ith PV bus for the kth training pattern and Vi0 is
the nominal voltage magnitude at the ith PV bus. Also e denotes a
uniformly distributed random number within range [0, 1].
3. In the next step, a load-ow analysis is performed on the above
mentioned training data to make sure that each of the scenarios
is a feasible power ow solution. Moreover, other operating
conditions including generated active and reactive power of
the slack buses and generated reactive powers of all the nine
PV buses which are assumed as input to Type-2 fuzzy NN are
obtained from the results of the load-ow program.
4. A time-domain simulation technique is employed to compute
the CCT for all the sample fault scenarios by solving power system differential equations. The solving method is 4th order
RungeKutta with time scale resolution of Dt = 0.001 s.
5. As shown in Fig. 11, in parallel to the time-domain simulation,
the MLP NN based sensitivity analysis is used to reduce number
of input operating conditions and chooses more effective ones
in order to simplify the design and training procedure of
Type-2 fuzzy NN.
79
Fig. 11. Block diagram of the proposed Type-2 fuzzy NN based approach.
did not have noticeable change in error are omitted from Type-2
fuzzy NN inputs.
L2
n
X
K i 2 15 3 90
i1
17
80
Fig. 13. Block diagram of the proposed Type-2 fuzzy NN based approach.
The perceptron NN has 90 neurons in input layer and four neurons in output layer without any hidden layer. A linear transfer
function is applied for the neurons in output layer. The MSE threshold to stop the training procedure was set to 0.005 s. It took about
8 s with 1159 epochs on average to train the proposed Type-2
fuzzy NN.
In order to evaluate how well the trained Type-2 fuzzy NN
reacts on the sample fault scenarios; it was tested by 500 test patterns. Performance of the proposed Type-2 fuzzy NN is evaluated
by Root Mean-Squared Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) between real and estimated values. The denition is given by Eqs. (18) and (19) as follows:
v
u N
u1 X
2
RMSE t
actual CCTp estimated CCTp
N p1
MAPE 100
N
1X
actual CCTp estimated CCTp
N p1
actual CCTp
Table 3
The RMSE and MAPE for 500 total testing patterns for each fault scenario.
18
19
RMSE
MAPE
Fault scenario
1
Fault scenario
2
Fault scenario
3
Fault scenario
4
0.0102
2.49%
0.0061
1.69%
0.009
2.41%
0.0061
2.11%
Table 2
The maximum and minimum value for each 15 input.
Input
Minimum value
Maximum value
Input
Minimum value
Maximum value
Input
Minimum value
Maximum value
VG2
PG5
VG9
VG3
VG10
0.8838 pu
3.7415 pu
0.9239 pu
0.8848 pu
0.9428 pu
1.0802 pu
5.1073 pu
1.1291 pu
1.0814 pu
1.1522 pu
PG2
VG5
PD1
PG7
VG8
4.6651 pu
0.9112 pu
6.6246 pu
4.1245 pu
0.9250 pu
6.3680 pu
1.1134 pu
12.1439 pu
5.6301 pu
1.1306 pu
PG4
PG6
VG7
VG4
PG1
4.6548 pu
4.7874 pu
0.9572 pu
0.8975 pu
6.3707 pu
6.3540 pu
6.5350 pu
1.1698 pu
1.0969 pu
8.9442 pu
Fig. 15. Comparison between the estimated output and the actual output for selected fault scenarios of New England 39-bus test system.
Fig. 16. Distribution of errors between the actual CCT and the estimated CCT in percent (Ep) for all sample fault scenarios.
81
82
scenario
scenario
scenario
scenario
1
2
3
4
Number of NN
inputs
Number of NN hidden
neurons
Average NN training
time (s)
Average training
epochs
67
67
67
67
9
9
12
10
9
7
8
6
891
749
689
526
Table 5
The RMSE and MAPE for total 500 testing patterns of four fault scenarios.
Fault scenario 1 Fault scenario 2 Fault scenario 3 Fault scenario 4
RMSE 0.0067
MAPE 1.61%
0.0055
1.59%
0.0049
1.69%
0.0052
1.82%
Ep 100
20
Fig. 17. Comparison between MLP NN CCT estimation and the actual CCT for sample fault scenarios of New England 39-bus test system.
83
Fault scenario 2
Fault scenario 3
Fault scenario 4
Operating conditions
Value of MAE
Operating conditions
Value of MAE
Operating conditions
Value of MAE
Operating conditions
Value of MAE
VG2
VG9
VG10
PD1
VG5
PG7
VG8
PG1
PG6
PG10
PG3
PG9
PG4
PG2
VG6
0.1682
0.0885
0.0576
0.0548
0.0528
0.0509
0.0409
0.0329
0.0245
0.0236
0.0222
0.0196
0.0189
0.0187
0.0164
PG10
VG2
PD1
PG8
VG6
PG9
VG10
VG3
VG9
VG4
PG5
PG6
VG5
VG8
VG7
0.053
0.052
0.0516
0.0439
0.0434
0.0421
0.0418
0.0414
0.0302
0.0287
0.0279
0.0216
0.0197
0.0182
0.0146
VG9
VG10
PD1
VG2
PG10
PG8
PG4
PG2
VG8
PG1
VG4
PG7
PG9
PD19
PG3
0.1167
0.0596
0.0525
0.0432
0.0424
0.0411
0.0399
0.0396
0.0331
0.0306
0.0275
0.0151
0.0147
0.0143
0.0136
VG2
VG3
PG7
PG4
VG7
VG9
PG9
PG10
PG6
VG6
PD1
VG10
PG3
VG4
PG2
0.1636
0.0589
0.0526
0.0481
0.046
0.0439
0.037
0.0359
0.0277
0.0254
0.0242
0.0209
0.0153
0.0145
0.0139
Table 7
Comparison between MLP NN and Type-2 fuzzy NN in training phase.
Training algorithms
Training time
Average training
epochs
Training MSE
Number of inputs
MLP NN
Resilient backpropagation
8s
1159
Resilient backpropagation
16 s
1842
0.005
15
0.035
20
error is less than 5%. It can be observed that the trained Type-2
fuzzy NN estimates actual CCT for all sample fault scenarios with
an acceptable accuracy. The experimental results show that proposed Type-2 fuzzy NN which is only considered higher impact
inputs give satisfactory CCT estimation for all sample fault
scenarios.
Sensitivity analysis
As described in Section MLP NN based sensitivity analysis
method a MLP NNs based sensitivity analysis is used to reduce
number of input parameters to the Type-2 fuzzy NN. This reduction can affect estimation accuracy. In this section we are going
to analyze the effect of MLP NNs based sensitivity analysis on estimation accuracy. The MLP NN is rst trained with 67 operating
conditions in each training pattern. Then the trained NN is applied
to perform sensitivity analysis. We use four MLP NNs to perform
sensitivity analysis for each fault scenario separately. Details of
four trained MLP NNs are shown in Table 4.
Here, number of neurons in hidden layer are tuned after running several experiments. Also for all the MLP NNs tangent sigmoid
transfer function and linear transfer function are applied to the
Table 8
The RMSE and MAPE of MLP NN and Type-2 fuzzy NN for each fault scenario in testing phase.
Type-2 fuzzy neural network
RMSE
MAPE
Response time for 500 test patterns
MLP NN
Fault
scenario 1
Fault
scenario 2
Fault
scenario 3
Fault
scenario 4
Fault
scenario 1
Fault
scenario 2
Fault
scenario 3
Fault
scenario 4
0.0102
2.49%
0.1020 s
0.0061
1.69%
0.009
2.41%
0.0061
2.11%
0.0265
8.01%
0.1015 s
0.0208
6.44%
0.0208
7.13%
0.0248
9.09%
84
Fig. 18. Estimated CCT by Type-2 fuzzy NN and MLP NN are compared with actual CCT for each fault scenario in the New England 39-bus test system.
MAE
N
0
1X
t cr p t cr p
N p1
t cr p
21
where tcr p is estimated CCT before any variation to the input and
t 0cr p is estimated CCT after variation of input. N is the total number
of testing patterns and p represents pattern index. After conducting
Fig. 19. Distribution of error in percent between the actual CCT and the estimated CCT for all the sample fault scenarios using the MLP NN.
85
Maximum value of Ep
Percentage of worst case error in Ep distribution
Distribution percentage Ep between 1% and 1%
Variance of Ep
Mean of Ep
Type-2 fuzzy NN
MLP NN
12%, 11%
0.2%
30.4%
8.1099
0.1044%
12%, 11%
0.2%
40.6%
4.7271
0.1988%
9%, 8%
0.2%
27.6%
6.8101
0.0398%
10%, 11%
0.2%
34.4%
7.7759
0.0993%
29%, 30%
0.2%
8.2%
94.1163
0.7957%
24%, 23%
0.2%
9%
61.2167
1.7208%
28%, 27%
0.2%
7.4%
72.2927
1.169%
32%, 31%
0.6%
7.2%
127.4749
0.6521%
Fig. 20. Comparison of absolute error (AE) between actual CCT and the estimated CCT (by Type-2 fuzzy NN and MLP NN) for sample fault scenarios.
1842 epochs to train the MLP NN. The trained MLP NN was tested
by using 500 test patterns. The response time for 500 test patterns
and the RMSE and MAPE values for 500 total test patterns are computed for each scenario. The result of experiments for comparison
between the MLP NN and Type-2 fuzzy NN are illustrated in Tables
7 and 8.
It can be seen in Tables 7 and 8, that in the training phase, MLP
NN consumes more training time and takes more epochs to converge in compare with the Type-2 fuzzy NN. Also in testing phase
of the system RMSE and MAPE of MLP NN is higher than the Type-2
fuzzy NN results, that indicates higher rate of estimation error. The
estimated CCT results that obtained by Type-2 fuzzy NN and MLP
NN are compared with actual CCT for rst 30 test patterns out of
500 total test patterns are shown in Fig. 18. The results are presented for each fault scenario separately. Also, the distribution of
errors in percent are shown in Fig. 19 for sample fault scenarios.
As it can be seen in Fig. 19, the distribution of Ep follows a
Gaussian distribution. For rst fault scenario about 8.2% of total
test patterns have Ep between 1% and 1%. Also, only 0.2% of
500 total test patterns have Ep between 29% and 30% which is
86
worse case error. In the second fault scenario about 9% of total test
patterns have Ep between 1% and 1%. Moreover, only 0.2% of total
500 test patterns have Ep between 24% and 23% which is also a
worse case error. In third fault scenario about 7.4% of the total test
patterns have Ep between 1% and 1%. Where, only 0.2% of the 500
total test patterns have Ep between 28% and 27% which is
worse case error. Finally in the fourth fault scenario about 7.2%
of total test patterns have Ep between 1% and 1%. Moreover, only
0.6% of total 500 test patterns have Ep between 32% and 31%
which is worse case error.
As shown in Fig. 19 we can conclude that for all sample scenarios, small |EP|s (less than 5%) are about half of samples (about 50%)
and large |EP|s are more frequent than Type-2 fuzzy NN results
(Fig. 16). On the other hand if a Gaussian probability distribution
function is tted to the EP distribution, it will be have large variance and negative mean value near to zero. So in 50% of conditions
the MLP NN estimation error is less than 5%. Different values of Ep,
variances of Ep and the means of Ep corresponding to two different
methods are compared in Table 9 for sample fault scenarios.
Also absolute error (AE) between the actual CCT and the estimated CCT by Type-2 fuzzy NN and MLP NN for rst 30 out of
500 test patterns are shown in Fig. 20. The results are presented
for each fault scenario separately. It can be concluded that the
Type-2 fuzzy NN could estimate CCT with higher degree of accuracy than MLP NN for sample fault scenarios. Also the proposed
method requires less computational cost in compare to the MLP
NN method.
Conclusion
In this paper we propose a new direct method for online TSA
problem in power systems. A hybrid Type-2 fuzzy NN system is
designed to estimate the CCT of sample contingency (fault scenarios). Also, MLP NN based sensitivity analysis is used to reduce the
number of inputs to Type-2 fuzzy NN about four times. That results
to less complex and faster Type-2 fuzzy NN system with negligible
decrease in estimation accuracy. By using Type-2 fuzzy sets as
Type-2 fuzzier, we can handle the uncertainties which are associated to measurements of operating conditions and device parameters in a power system and complexity of power networks
effectively. Type-2 fuzzy layer converts uncertain and noisy inputs
to more dependable and reliable linguistic variables which are
used as inputs to the MLP NN layer. Moreover, heavy computational burden is avoided in online applications. The outputs of
Type-2 fuzzier are injected to a single layer perceptron NN to estimate CCT. We applied resilient back-propagation method for fast
ofine training of Type-2 fuzzy NN system.
New England 10-machine 39-bus standard test power system
was applied as an example to demonstrate the efciency of proposed method. Simulation results show that the proposed Type-2
fuzzy NN could estimate the CCT for sample fault scenarios with
reasonable accuracy at different system operating conditions in
compare to widely used MLP NN method. The proposed Type-2
fuzzy NN reduces RMSE and MAPE of CCT estimation about four
times in compare to MLP NN method. In addition, the proposed
method has very simple structure and consumes low computational power for training and in online systems; therefore the solution is feasible and can be employed for fast assessment of the
transient stability in a power system control center.
References
[1] Kundur P. Power system stability and control. McGraw-Hill; 1994.
[2] Sauer PW, Pai MA. Power system dynamics and stability. New Jersey: PrenticeHall; 1998.
[3] IEEE/CIGRE Joint Task Force. Denition and classication of power system
stability. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2004: 1(2).
[4] Sauer PW, Tomsovic KL, Vittal V. Dynamic security assessment. In: Grigsby LG,
editor. Power system stability and control. New York: CRC Press; 2007.
[5] A-Wahab NI, Mohamed A, Hussain A. Fast transient stability assessment of
large power system using probabilistic neural network with feature reduction
techniques. Expert Syst Appl 2011;38(9):111129.
[6] Karami A. Estimation of the critical clearing time using MLP and RBF neural
networks. Eur Trans Electr Power 2010;20(2):20617.
[7] Pai MA. Energy function analysis for power system stability. Kluwer Academic;
1989.
[8] Sobajic DJ, Pao YH. Articial neural-net based dynamic security assessment for
electric power systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1989;4(1):2206.
[9] Pao YH, Sobajic DJ. Combined use of unsupervised and supervised learning for
dynamic security assessment. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1992;7(2):87884.
[10] Aboytes F, Ramirez R. Transient stability assessment in longitudinal power
systems using articial neural networks. IEEE Trans Power Syst
1996;11(4):200310.
[11] Bahbah AG, Girgis AA. New method for generators angles and angular
velocities prediction for transient stability assessment of multimachine power
systems using recurrent articial neural network. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2004;19(2):101522.
[12] Karami A, Esmaili SZ. Transient stability assessment of power systems
described with detailed models using neural network. Int J Electr Power
Energy Syst 2013;45:27992.
[13] Karami A. Power system transient stability margin estimation using neural
networks. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2011;33:98391.
[14] Assis TML, Nohara AA, Valentini TM. Power system dynamic security
assessment through a neuro-fuzzy scheme. In: 15th International conference
on intelligent system applications to power systems, 2009. p. 16.
[15] Haykin S. Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation. 2nd ed. NJ: PrenticeHall; 1999.
[16] Refaee JA, Mohandes M, Maghrabi H. Radial basis function networks for
contingency analysis of bulk power systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst
1999;14(2):7728.
[17] Sawhney H, Jeyasurya B. A feed-forward articial neural network with
enhanced feature selection for power system transient stability assessment.
Electr Power Syst Res 2006;76:104754.
[18] Lin YJ. Explaining critical clearing time with rules extracted from a multilayer
perceptron articial neural network. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
2010;32:8738.
[19] Haidar AMA, Mustafa MW, Ibrahim FAF, Ahmed IA. Transient stability
evaluation of electrical power system using generalized regression neural
networks. Appl Soft Comput 2011;11:355870.
[20] Ferreira WP, Silveira MCG, Lotufo ADP, Minussi CR. Transient stability analysis
of electric energy systems via a fuzzy ARTARTMAP neural network. Electr
Power Syst Res 2006;76:46675.
[21] Marchiori SC, Silveira MCG, Lotufo ADP, Minussi CR, Lopes MLM. Neural
network-based on adaptive resonance theory with continuous training for
multi-conguration transient stability analysis of electric power systems. Appl
Soft Comput 2011;11:70615.
[22] Augutis J, Zutautaite I, Radziukynas V, Krikstolaitis R, Kadisa S. Application of
Bayesian method for electrical power system transient stability assessment.
Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2012;42:46572.
[23] Robert Fullr. Introduction to neuro-fuzzy systems, advances in soft
computing series. Berlin/Heildelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2000 [chapter 3].
[24] Zadeh LA. The concept of linguistic variable and its application to approximate
reasoning-1. Inf Sci 1975;8:199249.
[25] Abbadi A, Nezli L, Boukhetala D. A nonlinear voltage controller based on
interval type 2 fuzzy logic control system for multimachine power systems. Int
J Electr Power Energy Syst 2013;45:45667.
[26] Sudha KR, Vijaya Santhi R. Robust decentralized load frequency control of
interconnected power system with generation rate constraint using Type2fuzzy approach. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2011;33:699707.
[27] Sudha KR, Vijaya Santhi R. Load frequency control of an interconnected reheat
thermal system using Type-2fuzzy system including SMES units. Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 2012;43:138392.
[28] Afzalian A, Linkens DA. Training of neurofuzzy power system stabilisers using
genetic algorithms. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2000;22:93102.
[29] Radaideh SM, Nejdawi IM, Mushtaha MH. Design of power system stabilizers
using two level fuzzy and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems. Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 2012;35:4756.
[30] Jang JSR, Sun CT, Mizutani E. In: Neuro-fuzzy and soft computing. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1997 [ch 17].
[31] Juang CF. A TSK-type recurrent fuzzy network for dynamic systems processing
by neural network and genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst
2002;10(2):15570.
[32] Efe MO, Kaynak O. On stabilization of gradient-based training strategies
for computationally intelligent systems. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 2000;8(5):
56475.
[33] Abiyev RH, Kaynak O. Fuzzy wavelet neural networks for identication and
control of dynamic plantsa novel structure and a comparative study. IEEE
Trans Ind Electron 2008;55(8):313340.
[34] Abiyev RH, Kaynak O, Alshanableh T, Mamedov F. A Type-2neuro-fuzzy system
based on clustering and gradient techniques applied to system identication
and channel equalization. Appl Soft Comput 2011;11:1396406.
[35] Pandit M, Srivastava L, Sharma J. Voltage contingency ranking using fuzzied
multilayer perceptron. Electr Power Syst Res 2001;59:6573.
87
[42] Mahmuda MA, Hossain MJ, Pota HR. Transient stability enhancement of
multimachine power systems using nonlinear observer-based excitation
controller. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2014;58:5763.
[43] Chakrabarti S, Jeyasurya B. Generation rescheduling using ANN-based
computation of parameter sensitivities of the voltage stability margin. Eng
Appl Artif Intell 2008;21:11649.
[44] Fouad AA, Vittal V. Power system transient stability analysis using the
transient energy function method. Prentice-Hall; 1992.
[45] Karnik NN, Mendel JM, Liang Q. Type-2fuzzy logic systems. IEEE Trans Fuzzy
Syst 1999;7(6):64358.
[46] Riedmiller M, Braun H. A direct adaptive method for faster backpropagation
learning: the RPROP algorithm. In: Proceedings of the international conference
on neural networks, San Francisco, 1993.
[47] MATPOWER, Version 3.0.0. Power systems engineering research center, school
of electrical engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, 2005.