Electric Power Systems Research 63 (2002) 127
/140

www.elsevier.com/locate/epsr

A novel fuzzy index for steady state voltage stability analysis and
identification of critical busbars
P.K. Satpathy, D. Das *, P.B. Dutta Gupta
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721 302, India
Received 28 March 2001; received in revised form 4 March 2002; accepted 10 April 2002

Abstract
In this paper, a novel fuzzy index is proposed for the prediction of steady state voltage stability conditions in transmission
networks. The uncertainties in the input parameters are efficiently modeled in terms of fuzzy sets by assigning trapezoidal and
triangular membership functions. The results include fuzzy load flow solutions for the base case and critical conditions with and
without contingencies. The proposed fuzzy voltage stability index clearly indicates the location and status of critical busbars. Case
studies have been conducted on standard test systems (IEEE 14-bus, 30-bus, and 57-bus) with proper validation of the results.
# 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Voltage stability index; Critical busbars; Fuzzy set theory; Membership functions

1. Introduction
The history of fuzzy set theory (FST) dates back to
the year 1965 when it was first introduced by Zadeh [1]
with the fundamental concept of representing uncertainties. The advent of FST rendered a mathematical
platform for representing the imprecise notions and
concepts of human interpretation by the help of
membership functions (MF). Consequently the fact
that FST application is gaining popularity in many
spheres, researchers are now on the run to explore even
better means and applicability of its principles to handle
uncertainties in power systems. References [2
/5] indicate some power systems areas where FST has successfully been applied (viz. load forecasting, load flows,
operation and control of PSS, optimal VAR planning,
transient rotor stability evaluation, unit commitment,
fault diagnosis in transformers and transmission lines).
A review of the literature also reveals that no
significant research has been carried out on fuzzy
voltage stability analysis. Although a number of research contributions is available highlighting the appli-

* Corresponding author. Tel.: /91-3222-78053; fax: /91-322278707

E-mail address: ddas@ee.iitkgp.ernet.in (D. Das).

cations of fuzzy-expert control approach for voltage

stability monitoring and enhancement [6
/8], the objectives of this paper are quite different from them.
Reference [6] shows a control model based on FST for
voltage stability enhancement by using the Newton
/
Raphson load flow technique. In Ref. [7], a fuzzy-expert
rulebase is reported that formulates voltage stability
control strategies by monitoring the eigenvalue of the
load flow Jacobian with the help of modal analysis.
Reference [8] also reports another expert fuzzy control
approach for voltage stability enhancement by monitoring the L-index calculated from load flows. Although,
Refs. [6
/8] have used sets of fuzzy rules for the
enhancement and control of voltage stability, its monitoring is done by use of traditional load flow techniques, but not the fuzzy power flow (FPF).
The most remarkable difference between the traditional load flows and the FPF is that the former uses
crisp values for the input parameters (bus injections),
where as the later one makes use of FST techniques to
model the related uncertainties associated with them [9
/
12]. The results of FPF as reported in [9], are mainly the
possibility distributions of line power flows and bus
voltages, which may provide some immediate and
interesting conclusions in the form of what may happen
corresponding to a different degree of possibility or
credibility (strictly in a human sense). In Ref. [10] the

0378-7796/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 7 7 9 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 9 3 - 7

128

P.K. Satpathy et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 63 (2002) 127
/140

authors used interval arithmetic to model load uncertainties in formulating the FPF problem. Another FPF
for the base case is reported in [11], which could not
justify fuzzy distribution for all states.
In view of these facts, the authors of this paper
strongly feel that FST applications to voltage stability
analysis must be paid attention in order to find out the
effect of parameter uncertainties on the system states
and limiting conditions, if any. With this motivation, the
authors of this paper have tried to justify the possibility
and benefits of applying FST approach to voltage
stability studies within the framework of steady state
analysis. This objective is accomplished in two steps: (i)
developing an efficient FPF algorithm by assigning
suitable MFs for each input parameter; and (ii) regularizing the FPF algorithm by incorporating the continuation technique. In the past, the continuation technique
has been applied to traditional load flows for computational benefits [13,14]. In view of these advantages, we
propose a new fuzzy continuation power flow (FCPF),
which has been obtained by extending the FPF algorithm to support the continuation technique.
The main advantage of FCPF over the FPF and the
traditional load flows is that it remains capable of
withstanding numerical ill conditioning effects resulting
from Jacobian singularity at higher loading conditions.
Therefore, the results around the base case, and up to
the steady state voltage stability threshold may be
obtained by the proposed FCPF technique. With these
modifications we observe that the simulation results for
all states (both at the base case and voltage stability
threshold conditions) have been regularized and all of
them show fuzzy possibility distributions.
Major findings of voltage stability analysis on the
basis of crisp parameter formulation include steady state
voltage conditions [15
/19,28,29] and identification of
critical busbars [20
/23]. In this paper, we present some
interesting results of steady state voltage stability
analysis in view of a fuzzy parameter formulation. In
addition, a new fuzzy voltage stability index (FVSI) is
also proposed. The proposed FVSI serves as a good
indicator for identification of critical busbars both in
normal and contingency conditions. The authors claim
that the results obtained from this novel approach
would provide better insight to planners and operators
in the field of power engineering to handle the uncertainties effectively.
The organization of the paper is as follows. Section 2
highlights the basic facts about FST. Section 3 deals
with the fuzzy modeling of input parameters considering
trapezoidal and triangular MFs. In Section 4, the
general procedure is outlined to obtain base case
solutions by FPF. The necessary modifications for the
development of the proposed FCPF algorithm are
highlighted in Section 5. In Section 6, the procedure to
obtain the proposed FVSI is presented. Section 7

outlines the simulation results obtained from the case

studies conducted on standard IEEE 14-bus, 30-bus,
and 57-bus test systems with proper justification.

2. Basic facts about fuzzy set theory (FST)

The term fuzzy implies something that is imprecise,
unclear, and above all not well defined. Therefore, fuzzy
sets do not have any sharp boundary like the crisp sets
[26]. In order to make the understanding of fuzzy sets
simpler, some discussion on crisp sets is presented here.
A crisp set A may be imagined as a cluster of subsets
x having one-to-one correspondence as defined by the
characteristic function /mA/ of Eq. (1). The implication of
Eq. (1) is that the elements x may have either 100%
correspondence (as implied by mA (x)/ /1) or null correspondence (as implied by mA (x)/ /0) with the parent set
A . Such a correspondence is crisp in nature. However, in
practical life, the elements often exhibit intermediate
values of correspondence with their parent sets ranging
between 0 and 1. Such a correspondence leads to
uncertain or fuzzy events.


1; if x
A
mA (x)
(1)
0; if xQA
Zadeh [24] reported that the imprecise knowledge and
perception of human beings could be modeled in a more
natural way to generate meaningful probability distributions with the application of fuzzy sets. In view of
this, a fuzzy set /A/ in the universe of discourse U , may
be imagined as a cluster of subsets x whose correspondence with the parent set may be represented as a MF
given by mA (x); such that
mA (x)
[0; 1]

(2)

This membership indicates the degree or extent that x

The value of m (x) can be any where
belongs to A:
A
between 0 and 1, and this range is what makes it
different from a crisp set. The closer the value of mA (x) is
Elements of fuzzy sets are
to 1, the more x belongs to A:
ordered pairs comprising of the set element x and the
corresponding membership grade mA (x): This relationship is expressed mathematically in Eq. (3).
A f(x; mA (x))jx
Ug

(3)

While solving practical problems, it is important to

adopt appropriate fuzzy operators to satisfy the desired
fuzzy reasoning. This may be taken care of on the basis
of the following guidelines. Firstly, the problem to be
solved must be stated mathematically or linguistically.
Secondly, the upper and lower threshold boundaries (i.e.
the highest and the lowest degree of satisfaction) for the
variables should be well imagined. Thirdly, proper
forms of MFs or possibility distributions reflecting the
changes in the degree of satisfaction with those of the

P.K. Satpathy et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 63 (2002) 127
/140

Fig. 1. (a) Trapezoidal L
/R fuzzy MF. (b) Triangular L
/R fuzzy MF.

changes in the variables should be constructed. Finally,

the required fuzzy operations are to be so selected that
the results thus obtained suitably match with the
expected ones.

129

tions by applying trapezoidal and triangular MFs. A

fuzzy number is defined to be of the L
/R type [25], if
there are L
/R shape functions in association with
positive scalars a (left spread) and b (right spread).
A trapezoidal L
/R fuzzy MF as shown in Fig. 1(a) is
generally expressed by the characteristic points a1, a2, a3
and a4 such that the fuzzy number under study can
assume any value between a1 and a4, but values within
the range a2 and a3 are most likely to take place. All the
values within the range a2 and a3 have a membership
value mx /1, that indicates complete membership for
the event. However, values within the ranges (a1/a2)
and (a3/a4) have memberships 0 5/mx 5/1, which indicates partial membership values. Any value outside
the range of a1 and a4 has membership values mx / 0,
indicating non-membership for the parameter. A specific relationship between the element x and its degree of
membership mx satisfying the trapezoidal MF can be
mathematically stated in the form of Eq. (4), where L (x )
and R (x ) refer to the L
/R functions of the fuzzy
distribution.
8
L(x) for a1 5x5a2 ;
>
>
<
1
for a2 5x5a3 ;
(4)
mA (x)
R(x)
for a3 5 x5a4 ;
>
>
:
0
otherwise:
where,
L(x)

x  (a2  a)
a

(5)
a]0

and
3. Fuzzy modeling of input parameters
A common practice followed in several simulation
studies is the use of crisp numbers for the specified
voltages and scheduled power injections, which hardly
maintain specific values in practice. Power systems being
large, complex and geographically widely distributed,
are highly influenced by unexpected events and uncertainties. Therefore, a lot of uncertainties may be
associated with the input parameters for implementation
in any analytical method. These facts make it difficult in
dealing with power system problems through strict
mathematical formulations alone. Fuzzy logic on the
other hand, is a natural choice and seems to be
promising in modeling these uncertainties with the
help of FST [24,27]. In references [9,11,12], uncertainty
modeling for loads and generations only, has been
considered for the FPF simulation. However, the
authors of this paper feel that the specified voltages at
the PV buses may be another valid candidate for
uncertainty modeling, as this is also practically affected
by changes in loading and network configurations.
Therefore, in this paper, we have considered three input
parameters (i.e. voltages at the PV buses, loads and
generations) and modeled them as L
/R fuzzy distribu-

R(x)

(a3  b)  x
b

(6)
b]0

The mathematical implications of Eq. (4) may be

stated as a simple linguistic declaration to make the idea
clear. For instance, let us assume a practical example of
a particular power system node, where the peak demand
excursions for the real power at the i th bus are not likely
to go below 5 MW or above 20 MW, but most likely to
occur within 10
/15 MW. Such a linguistic declaration
can be easily translated into a trapezoidal fuzzy distribution as shown in Fig. 1(a) by setting the characteristic points with a1 /5 MW, a2 /10 MW, a3 /15 MW
and a4 /20 MW. On the other hand, a triangular MF as
shown in Fig. 1(b) can be derived from the trapezoidal
MF of Fig. 1(a) with the assumption that the characteristic points a2 and a3 coincide with each other.

4. Fuzzy power flow (FPF)

The mathematical formulation of the traditional load
flow problem results in a system of algebraic equations
(Eq. (7)), describing the power systems.

P.K. Satpathy et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 63 (2002) 127
/140

130

f (d; V )0

(7)

The solution of these equations is based on an

iterative technique because of their non-linearity [30].
The real and reactive powers at the i th bus in terms of
voltage magnitudes and angles are shown in Eqs. (8) and
(9). Given an initial set of bus voltage magnitudes and
angles, the real and reactive powers are calculated from
these equations.
Pi 

n
X
[Vi Vj Yij ] cos(uij di dj )

(8)

j1

Qi 

n
X

[Vi Vj Yij ] sin(uij di dj )

(9)

j1

The uncertainty modeling of the input parameters

results in a set of fuzzy equations representing the power
systems, which may be written in its compact form as
shown in Eq. (10). The fuzzy power mismatches, which
show the difference between the specified and calculated
powers are expressed in Eqs. (11) and (12).
V )0
f (d;
DPi [Pi(specified)  Pi ]

(11)

DQ i  [Q i(specified)  Q i ]

(12)

(10)

where,
Pi(specified) (PGi  PLi )

(13)

Q i(specified) (Q Gi  Q Li )

(14)

DV )/
The voltage magnitude and angle updates (Dd;
are found iteratively from the FPF equation as shown in
Eq. (15), and the process is repeated until the power
mismatches fall within a specified tolerance. The new set
of values at the end of each iteration, for voltage
magnitudes and angles are found by adding the updates
to their corresponding old values.
   1  
Ddi
DPi
H N

(15)

DV i
DQ i
J L

where the various elements of the Jacobian sub-matrices

are given by
Hij @Pi =@dj ji"j ;
Jij @Qi =@dj ji"j ;
Hii @Pi =@di ;
Jii  @Qi =@di ;

Nij @Pi =@Vj ji"j

Lij @Qi =@Vj ji"j
g
Nii @Pi =@Vi
Lii  @Qi =@Vi

(16)

Using these modified load flow equations the Newton
/Raphson load flow program is run iteratively so as
to generate the base case solutions in a fuzzy environment. However, results beyond the base case are
obtained through FCPF algorithm as described in the
next section.

Fig. 2. (a) P
/V curve at i th bus. (b) l
/V curve at i th bus.

5. Fuzzy continuation power flow (FCPF)

In electric power systems the steady state voltage
stability conditions are often analyzed through PV/QV
diagrams. In order to get a complete trace of a PV curve,
one shown in Fig. 2(a), it is desirable that the static
power flow solutions be obtained at various loading
conditions between the base case point and the critical
point. The near critical solutions often show convergence difficulties due to singularity of the power flow
Jacobian. Continuation techniques [13,14] have been
used to steer out this numerical shortcoming. In this
section, an FCPF technique has been proposed that
inherits the fundamental attributes of the continuation
power flow technique and is powered to run in a fuzzy
environment. While applying continuation method to
work in a fuzzy environment, the compact form of load
flow equations as shown in Eq. (10) are reformulated
and the modified form of this is shown in Eq. (17).
V ; l)0
f (d;

(17)

The variable (l) introduced in Eq. (17) simulates the

load-changing scenario of the network. In this paper, we
have assumed a uniform load growth all over the
network. With this assumption, we present the load
growth expressions as a function of their respective base
values, such that Pl /Pbase(1/l) and Ql /Qbase(1/
l ). The base loads have been simulated with the help
of the static polynomial ZIP model. In this paper, we
have assumed uniform ZIP coefficients for all buses in
the network (i.e. Z /0.2 p.u., I/0.3 p.u. and P /0.5

P.K. Satpathy et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 63 (2002) 127
/140
Table 1
Line outage simulation for 14-bus

Table 3
Line outage simulation for 57-bus

Line outage case Code no. of outaged lines

no.
(Line data for these lines is available in Tables A1,
A2, A3 and A4 of Appendix A)

Line outage
case no.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Nil
19
20
4
6
11
5
3
2
12,19
3,17
5,11
2,18
4,13,16
5,15,17

131

Code No. of outaged lines

(Line data for these lines is available in Tables A1,
A2, A3 and A4 of Appendix A)
Nil
79
65
74
7,65
5,54
5,10,14
35,54,79
5,22,74,79
5,10,25,35,65
8,11,14,19,74,78
8,10,11,13,19,54,65
5,7,14,25,35,74,78,79
6,7,10, 11,19,25,35,54,78
5,8,9,13,14,22,25,65,74,79

Table 2
Line outage simulation for 30-bus
Line outage
case no.

Code no. of outaged lines

(Line data for these lines is available in Tables A1,
A2, A3 and A4 of Appendix A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Nil
6
3
41
10
37
18
6,18
3,41
10,28
6,17,27
12,27,37
3,20,28,41
6,18,28,37,40
3,12,17, 27,40,41

p.u.). Now we define a suitable range for the load

parameter l, for which we are interested in finding the
solutions. The lower limit of this range (lb) refers to the
base case loading, and the upper limit (lc) is referred to
the critical loading. Having solved for the base case, l is
incremented in small steps and the continuation power
flow is run every time until the critical point is reached.
Continuation power flow is based on a locally
parameterized continuation technique that employs a
predictor
/corrector algorithm. The predictor algorithm
helps to predict the solutions along a tangential direction. The tangent predictor is obtained from the partial
differentiation of Eq. (17), such that;

Fig. 3. Base voltage (Vb) distribution.

Fig. 4. Critical voltage (Vc) distribution.

V ; l)] 0
@[f (d;

or fd [@(d)]f
V [@(V )]fl [@(l)] 0

or
[fd fV

@(V ) @(l)]T  0
fl ][@(d)

(18)

A solution of Eq. (18) gives the desired tangent

vectors

P.K. Satpathy et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 63 (2002) 127
/140

132

Table 5
FCPF (critical) results for 30-bus
Case nos. (Ref. Table 2) Critical results corresponding to MF 1.0 l

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

[d V

Fig. 6. Fuzzy distribution of FVSI.

@(V ) @(l)]T
[@(d)
and then, a suitable step size s is used to predict
length of these tangent vectors as in Eq. (19). Using
tangent vectors, the new set of predicted solutions
obtained from Eq. (20). The next step is to correct
predicted solutions through a corrector algorithm.
t(V ) t(l)]T s[@(d)
@(V ) @(l)]T
[t(d)

the
the
are
the

(19)

Table 4
FCPF (critical) results for 14-bus
Case nos. (Ref. Table 1)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Critical results
Corresponding to MF  1.0 l
Critical bus

lc (p.u.)

Critical rank

8
14
8
8
8
9
8
8
7
14
8
9
7
11
14

4.0749
3.8428
3.8031
3.6099
3.4955
3.4942
3.2915
3.0861
1.5078
3.5514
3.0146
2.9901
1.5071
3.6346
3.2425

15
14
13
11
9
8
7
5
2
10
4
3
1
12
6

Critical bus

lc (p.u.)

Critical rank

30
8
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
29
30

3.1406
2.6020
2.8666
3.0413
2.6134
2.1843
2.9066
2.5786
2.8602
2.5879
2.5821
2.0699
2.8308
1.2434
0.5370

15
8
12
14
9
4
13
5
11
7
6
3
10
2
1

l]Tnew [d V

t(V ) t(l)]T
l]Told (d)

(20)

The corrector algorithm is based on a locally parameterization technique that employs the traditional load
flow program in a slightly modified form. The mod V or l as a
ification used is to specify any one out of d;
continuation parameter. The process is repeated until
the critical point is reached. By monitoring the magnitude and sign of the tangent vector @(l), corresponding
to the load parameter l , the critical point can be sensed.
The value of @(l) is positive before the critical point,
which turns zero at critical point and negative beyond it.
It is to be noted that the value of the load parameter for
the base case (and the critical point) may be referred as

Table 6
FCPF (critical) results for 57-bus
Case nos. (Ref. Table 3) Critical results corresponding to MF 1.0 l

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Critical bus

lc (p.u.)

Critical rank

57
31
51
57
51
57
57
31
57
51
57
51
31
42
51

3.7342
3.5694
2.5967
3.3151
2.5844
3.2037
3.1463
2.9921
3.0593
2.0042
3.0992
2.2925
2.3959
2.1226
1.7110

15
14
7
13
6
12
11
8
9
2
10
4
5
3
1

P.K. Satpathy et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 63 (2002) 127
/140

lb (and lc), which are assigned values lb jl0 and

lc jlc0 and @(l)0 respectively.

133

Table 7
Base case and critical results for 14-bus
MF

Results for critical busbar (bus-7)

(Ref. Case No. 13 of Tables 1 and 4)

6. Fuzzy voltage stability index (FVSI)

A new fuzzy index is proposed in this paper for
identification of critical busbars in a transmission network. A critical busbar (i.e. the weakest among all the
buses in a network) may be defined as a bus, which is
almost in the verge of experiencing voltage collapse.
Otherwise stated, the weakest bus would be the one,
whose operating point is the closest to the steady state
stability margin or the nose of the P
/V curve or P
/l
curve. Examining the status of the busbars it is possible
to derive this required information through static
analysis for formulation of voltage stability indices
(VSIs). A performance index should be numerically
stable and also be capable of measuring the amount of
load increase that the system can tolerate before the
voltage collapses in the network.
The FVSI proposed here is based on continuation
power flow technique and hence is claimed to be
numerically stable. Starting from a power flow solution
around the base case corresponding to lb jl0 ; the next
higher solutions are obtained through FCPF until
finally
the
critical
point
corresponding
to
lc jlc0 and @(l)0 is reached, as shown in Fig. 2(b).
The percentage drop in fuzzy voltage magnitude is then
calculated for each busbar corresponding to the load
increase from lb to lc, which serves as the fuzzy voltage
stability index. Thus the proposed FVSI for any
arbitrary system bus (i th bus) is expressed as
(FVSI)i %DV i
V j

i lb jl0  V i jlc jlc0


V i jlb jl0

and

@(l)0

100

(21)

Using Eq. (21) the FVSI values are obtained for all
the busbars considering specific MFs and desired
operating conditions. A comparison of these values
identifies the most critical busbar in the network on
the basis that the busbar having the largest FVSI is
considered most critical in the context of voltage
collapse. The numerical results obtained in support of
this are presented in the next section.

7. Case study and numerical results

Case studies on IEEE 14-bus, IEEE 30-bus and IEEE
57-bus standard test systems are conducted and results
thus obtained, are presented in this section. In this
paper, we have used three types of input database off
which the first one is the standard line data for the three
test systems. Although such database is available in the

0.0
0.3
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.0

(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(R)
(R)
(R)
(R)

Vb

Vc

lc

(FVSI)c

1.0621
1.0523
1.0424
1.0291
1.0005
0.9862
0.9753
0.9643

0.8799
0.8655
0.8533
0.8364
0.8040
0.7917
0.7816
0.7709

1.9391
1.8000
1.6693
1.5071
1.1814
1.0580
0.9716
0.8902

23.364
22.981
22.380
21.635
19.690
18.342
17.390
16.496

Table 8
Base case and critical results for 30-bus
MF

0.0
0.3
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.0

(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(R)
(R)
(R)
(R)

Results for critical busbar (bus-29)

(Ref. Case No. 12 of Tables 2 and 5)
Vb

Vc

lc

(FVSI)c

0.9649
0.9523
0.9395
0.9221
0.8661
0.8469
0.8321
0.8168

0.4194
0.4095
0.4044
0.3998
0.3741
0.3729
0.3714
0.3706

3.2561
2.8200
2.4605
2.0699
1.3992
1.1962
1.0642
0.9466

53.024
52.228
50.905
48.852
43.416
40.836
38.576
36.307

literature, they are presented here in Tables A1, A2, A3

and A4 of Appendix A for a quick reference. It is to be
noted that, bus no.1 in all the three test systems is
treated as slack bus, bus nos. 2
/5 in the 14-bus system,
bus nos. 2
/6 in the 30-bus system and bus nos. 2
/7 in
the 57-bus system are treated as generator (PV) buses.
All other buses in the respective systems are treated as
load (PQ) buses.

Table 9
Base case and critical results for 57-bus
MF

0.0
0.3
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.0

(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(R)
(R)
(R)
(R)

Results for critical busbar (bus-51)

(Ref. Case No. 15 of Tables 3 and 6)
Vb

Vc

lc

(FVSI)c

1.0077
0.9999
0.9921
0.9815
0.9364
0.9250
0.9163
0.9075

0.3782
0.3712
0.3698
0.3654
0.3545
0.3504
0.3447
0.3414

2.1036
1.9755
1.8568
1.7110
1.2762
1.1797
1.1115
1.0470

63.238
62.866
61.935
60.921
55.782
54.610
54.010
53.130

P.K. Satpathy et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 63 (2002) 127
/140

134

Table 10
FPF (base case) results for 14-bus (for Case No. 13 of Table 1)
Item(s)

V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
V11
V12
V13
V14
d6
d7
d8
d9
d10
d11
d12
d13
d14
Pg1
Qg1
Qg2
Qg3
Qg4
Qg5
Ploss

MF distribution and corresponding base case results

0.0 (L)

0.3 (L)

0.6 (L)

1.0 (L)

1.0 (R)

0.6 (R)

0.3 (R)

0.0 (R)

1.0785
1.0621
1.0658
1.0806
1.0828
1.0955
1.1065
1.0948
1.0765
0.203
0.180
0.145
0.215
0.213
0.207
0.207
0.208
0.221
1.8062
0.963
0.7114
0.2649
0.2216
0.2637
0.1564

1.0693
1.0523
1.0565
1.0694
1.0711
1.0847
1.0960
1.0838
1.0638
0.219
0.191
0.155
0.234
0.233
0.227
0.228
0.230
0.243
1.9297
0.784
0.5566
0.2983
0.2432
0.2830
0.1697

1.0599
1.0424
1.0471
1.0582
1.0593
1.0738
1.0855
1.0727
1.0511
0.236
0.203
0.165
0.254
0.254
0.248
0.250
0.252
0.266
2.0528
0.604
0.4066
0.3325
0.2660
0.3027
0.1852

1.0473
1.0291
1.0345
1.0431
1.0435
1.0593
1.0715
1.0580
1.0340
0.259
0.219
0.179
0.281
0.282
0.277
0.280
0.283
0.298
2.2150
0.363
0.2130
0.3785
0.2973
0.3292
0.2091

1.0189
1.0005
1.0079
1.0098
1.0093
1.0302
1.0451
1.0297
0.9967
0.317
0.260
0.214
0.348
0.354
0.351
0.361
0.363
0.376
2.6250
0.0458
0.010
0.4636
0.4295
0.3746
0.2827

1.0056
0.9862
0.9943
0.9939
0.9928
1.0152
1.0310
1.0147
0.9789
0.343
0.277
0.229
0.378
0.386
0.383
0.394
0.397
0.411
2.7883
0.2957
0.176
0.5155
0.4701
0.4040
0.3204

0.9955
0.9753
0.9839
0.9818
0.9802
1.0039
1.0204
1.0034
0.9654
0.363
0.291
0.240
0.402
0.410
0.408
0.420
0.424
0.438
2.9109
0.4850
0.294
0.5557
0.5025
0.4266
0.3518

0.9852
0.9643
0.9733
0.9695
0.9674
0.9926
1.0098
0.9920
0.9517
0.383
0.305
0.252
0.426
0.435
0.433
0.446
0.451
0.466
3.0339
0.6758
0.406
0.5971
0.5366
0.4498
0.3862

Table 11
FCPF (critical) results for 14-bus (for Case No. 13 of Table 1)
Item(s)

V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
V11
V12
V13
V14
d6
d7
d8
d9
d10
d11
d12
d13
d14
Pg1
Qg1
Qg2
Qg3
Qg4
Qg5
Ploss
Qloss

MF distribution and corresponding critical results

0.0 (L)

0.3 (L)

0.6 (L)

1.0 (L)

1.0 (R)

0.6 (R)

0.3 (R)

0.0 (R)

0.9779
0.8799
0.9102
0.9609
0.9779
1.0402
1.0992
1.0530
0.9695
0.844
0.776
0.607
0.878
0.869
0.847
0.844
0.849
0.894
7.6838
0.527
4.3184
3.8560
1.4558
0.9034
3.0642
9.3983

0.9650
0.8655
0.8949
0.9451
0.9609
1.0260
1.0865
1.0394
0.9514
0.876
0.794
0.623
0.917
0.911
0.891
0.891
0.898
0.942
7.7586
0.284
4.2413
3.7998
1.5518
0.9419
3.0628
9.5633

0.9532
0.8533
0.8815
0.9305
0.9452
1.0125
1.0741
1.0264
0.9346
0.902
0.806
0.635
0.949
0.948
0.929
0.932
0.940
0.984
7.7853
0.055
4.1212
3.7178
1.6317
0.9732
3.0594
9.6329

0.9373
0.8364
0.8633
0.9112
0.9246
0.9949
1.0581
1.0094
0.9127
0.935
0.823
0.650
0.991
0.994
0.977
0.983
0.993
1.037
7.8084
0.2508
3.9664
3.6341
1.7341
1.0152
3.0513
9.7672

0.9038
0.8040
0.8283
0.8709
0.8828
0.9604
1.0268
0.9778
0.8668
0.999
0.851
0.678
1.073
1.086
1.079
1.100
1.106
1.142
7.8253
0.7843
3.7619
3.4070
2.0093
1.0794
3.0172
9.9534

0.8907
0.7917
0.8148
0.8551
0.8659
0.9452
1.0123
0.9627
0.8489
1.016
0.856
0.683
1.097
1.114
1.108
1.131
1.139
1.175
7.8366
1.0559
3.5127
3.3051
2.0587
1.1026
2.9623
9.9799

0.8806
0.7816
0.8041
0.8431
0.8532
0.9338
1.0016
0.9516
0.8357
1.030
0.860
0.687
1.116
1.135
1.130
1.155
1.164
1.200
7.8780
1.2629
3.3405
3.2483
2.0957
1.1211
2.9369
10.001

0.8703
0.7709
0.7928
0.8310
0.8406
0.9224
0.9911
0.9406
0.8226
1.045
0.866
0.692
1.135
1.157
1.153
1.180
1.190
1.225
7.9240
1.4731
3.1814
3.2067
2.1332
1.1408
2.9246
10.048

P.K. Satpathy et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 63 (2002) 127
/140

135

Table A1
Line data for 14-bus system
Line code no.

Fig. 7. Load bus voltage distribution (14-bus).

Fig. 8. Load bus angle distribution (14-bus).

Fig. 9. Generation and loss distribution (14-bus).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Buses at both ends

1
/2
2
/3
2
/7
1
/8
2
/8
3
/7
8
/4
6
/7
6
/5
7
/9
6
/9
9
/10
4
/11
4
/12
4
/13
9
/14
10
/11
12
/13
13
/14
7
/8

Line impedances (p.u.)

R

0.01938
0.04699
0.05811
0.05403
0.05695
0.06701
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.03181
0.09498
0.12291
0.06615
0.12711
0.08205
0.22092
0.17093
0.01335

0.05917
0.19797
0.17632
0.22304
0.17388
0.17103
0.25202
0.20912
0.17615
0.55618
0.11001
0.08450
0.19890
0.25581
0.13027
0.27038
0.19207
0.19988
0.34802
0.04211

0.0264
0.0219
0.0187
0.0246
0.0170
0.0173
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0064

The second database refers to the formulation of

characteristic values for use in the uncertainty modeling
of the input parameters. In this paper, we have formed
this complete database for the characteristic values (/
a1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a4 ; a and b); corresponding to all the three
test systems, which are presented in Tables A5, A6, A7
and A8 of Appendix A.
The third database has been prepared by us to
simulate various line outage contingency cases. This is
necessary to observe the uncertainty based critical
performance of the system under various operating
conditions. The contingencies simulated in this paper
include single and multiple line outage cases. While
forming the database for multiple contingencies, the
maximum number of lines taken for outage has been
limited to 15% of the total lines existing in the original
network. Tables 1
/3 indicate the database for selected
contingencies of the 14-bus, 30-bus and 57-bus systems
respectively.
The results highlighted in this section may be split
into four groups to justify the objectives of this paper
efficiently. We now precisely present the results obtained
for all the three test systems, justifying these objectives.
Grouping of results are as follows:
. Group 1: Verification of FPF (base case) results. The
objective is to justify fuzzy distribution of all output
states corresponding to base case conditions, in
agreement with the fuzzy distribution of input parameters.
. Group 2: Verification of FCPF (critical) results. The
objective is to justify fuzzy distribution of all output

P.K. Satpathy et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 63 (2002) 127
/140

136
Table A2
Line data for 30-bus system
Line code no.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

Buses at both ends

1
/2
1
/8
2
/11
8
/11
2
/5
2
/13
11
/13
5
/7
13
/7
13
/3
13
/9
13
/10
9
/4
9
/10
11
/12
12
/6
12
/14
12
/15
12
/16
14
/15
16
/17
15
/18
18
/19
19
/20
10
/20
10
/17
10
/21
10
/22
21
/22
15
/23
22
/24
23
/24
24
/25
25
/26
25
/27
27
/28
27
/29
27
/30
29
/30
3
/28
13
/28

Line impedances (p.u.)

R

0.0192
0.0452
0.0570
0.0132
0.0472
0.0581
0.0119
0.0460
0.0267
0.0120
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1231
0.0662
0.0945
0.2210
0.0824
0.1070
0.0639
0.0340
0.0936
0.0324
0.0348
0.0727
0.0116
0.1000
0.1150
0.1320
0.1885
0.2544
0.1093
0.0000
0.2198
0.3202
0.2399
0.0636
0.0169

0.0575
0.1852
0.1737
0.0379
0.1983
0.1763
0.0414
0.1160
0.0820
0.0420
0.2080
0.5560
0.2080
0.1100
0.2560
0.1400
0.2559
0.1304
0.1987
0.1997
0.1923
0.2185
0.1292
0.0680
0.2090
0.0845
0.0749
0.1499
0.0236
0.2020
0.1790
0.2700
0.3292
0.3800
0.2087
0.3960
0.4153
0.6027
0.4533
0.2000
0.0065

0.0264
0.0204
0.0184
0.0042
0.0209
0.0187
0.0045
0.0102
0.0085
0.0045
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0214
0.0599

states corresponding to critical conditions, in agreement with the fuzzy distribution of input parameters.
. Group 3: To analyze the effect of various contingencies on maximum power transferring capability of the
network. The objective is to rank the contingencies
according to their severity.
. Group 4: To identify the critical busbars at the steady
state voltage stability threshold. The objective is to
monitor its status subject to parameter uncertainties.
Results for Group 1 and Group 2 have been obtained
for 14-bus, 30-bus and 57-bus test systems, for all
contingency cases listed in Tables 1
/3. Group-1 results

show the possibility distributions of various items at the

base case (i.e. per unit voltage magnitudes/angles at all
load buses, per unit active power generation at the slack
bus, per unit reactive power generations at slack bus and
all PV buses, and per unit power losses of the system)
corresponding to parameter uncertainties. It is observed
from these results that all items satisfactorily followed
similar membership patterns as considered for the input
parameters. In order to justify this claim, we presented
in Tables 10 and 11 the detail numerical values showing
the possibility distributions obtained for the 14-bus base
case and critical results subject to a contingency operation, i.e. a multiple line outage case as in Case 13 of
Table 1.
Table A3
Line data for 57-bus system (for lines 1
/40)
Line code no.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Buses at both ends

1
/2
2
/3
3
/8
8
/9
8
/6
6
/12
6
/4
4
/5
5
/10
5
/11
5
/7
5
/13
13
/14
3
/15
1
/15
1
/16
1
/17
3
/15
8
/18
8
/18
9
/6
12
/4
10
/7
11
/13
7
/13
7
/16
7
/17
14
/15
18
/19
19
/20
21
/20
21
/22
22
/23
23
/24
24
/25
24
/25
24
/26
26
/27
27
/28
28
/29

Line impedances (p.u.)

R

0.0083
0.0298
0.0112
0.0625
0.0430
0.0200
0.0339
0.0099
0.0369
0.0258
0.0648
0.0481
0.0132
0.0269
0.0178
0.0454
0.0238
0.0162
0.0000
0.0000
0.0302
0.0139
0.0277
0.0223
0.0178
0.0180
0.0397
0.0171
0.4610
0.2830
0.0000
0.0736
0.0099
0.1660
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1650
0.0618
0.0418

0.0280
0.0850
0.0366
0.1320
0.1480
0.1020
0.1730
0.0505
0.1679
0.0848
0.2950
0.1580
0.0434
0.0869
0.0910
0.2060
0.1080
0.0530
0.5550
0.4300
0.0641
0.0712
0.1262
0.0732
0.0580
0.0813
0.1790
0.0547
0.6850
0.4340
0.7767
0.1170
0.0152
0.2560
1.1820
1.2300
0.0473
0.2540
0.0954
0.0587

0.0645
0.0409
0.0190
0.0129
0.0174
0.0138
0.0235
0.0274
0.0220
0.0109
0.0386
0.0203
0.0055
0.0115
0.0494
0.0273
0.0143
0.0272
0.0000
0.0000
0.0062
0.0097
0.0164
0.0094
0.0302
0.0108
0.0238
0.0074
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0042
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

P.K. Satpathy et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 63 (2002) 127
/140
Table A4
Line data for 57-bus system (for lines 41
/80)
Line code no.

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80

Buses at both ends

12
/29
25
/30
30
/31
31
/32
32
/33
34
/32
34
/35
35
/36
36
/37
37
/38
37
/39
36
/40
22
/38
11
/41
41
/42
41
/43
38
/44
15
/45
14
/46
46
/47
47
/48
48
/49
49
/50
50
/51
10
/51
13
/49
29
/52
52
/53
53
/54
54
/55
11
/43
44
/45
40
/56
56
/41
56
/42
39
/57
57
/56
38
/49
38
/48
5
/55

Line impedances (p.u.)

R

0.0000
0.1350
0.3260
0.5070
0.0392
0.0000
0.0520
0.0430
0.0290
0.0651
0.0239
0.0300
0.0192
0.0000
0.2070
0.0000
0.0289
0.0000
0.0000
0.0230
0.0182
0.0834
0.0801
0.1386
0.0000
0.0000
0.1442
0.0762
0.1878
0.1732
0.0000
0.0624
0.0000
0.5530
0.2125
0.0000
0.1740
0.1150
0.0312
0.0000

0.0648
0.2020
0.4970
0.7550
0.0360
0.9530
0.0780
0.0537
0.0366
0.1009
0.0379
0.0466
0.0295
0.7490
0.3520
0.4120
0.0585
0.1042
0.0735
0.0680
0.0233
0.1290
0.1280
0.2200
0.0712
0.1910
0.1870
0.0984
0.2320
0.2265
0.1530
0.1242
1.1950
0.5490
0.3540
1.3550
0.2600
0.1770
0.0482
0.1205

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0016
0.0008
0.0000
0.0010
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0010
0.0000
0.0000
0.0016
0.0000
0.0024
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0020
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0030
0.0000
0.0000

The graphical interpretation of results shown in

Tables 10 and 11 is presented in Figs. 7
/9, marked
separately as base case and critical. Fig. 7 confirms the
trapezoidal distribution of all load bus voltage magnitudes (V6
/V14); Fig. 8 confirms the trapezoidal distribution of all load bus voltage angles (d6
/d14); and Fig. 9
confirms the trapezoidal distribution of active/reactive
power generations at the slack bus (Pg1, Qg1), reactive
power generations at the PV buses (Qg2
/Qg5), and
system losses (Ploss, Qloss).
Due to large number of items involved in Group 1
results, and the space constraint, we limit our complete
presentation of base case and critical results to 14-bus
only. However, limited FPF (base case) results for few
voltage magnitudes have been presented for 14-bus, 30-

137

bus and 57-bus systems as shown in Tables 7
/9 under

the nomenclature Vb. In Table 7 we presented the
distribution of Vb for bus-7 of 14-bus system subject
to line outage (Case-13 of Table 1). These values are
eventually same as item V7 of Table 10 that holds all
base case items of 14-bus system. In Table 8 we
presented the distribution of Vb for bus-29 of 30-bus
system subject to line outage (Case-12 of Table 2). In
Table 9 we presented the distribution of Vb for bus-51 of
57-bus system subject to line outage (Case-15 of Table
3). Graphical interpretation for the distribution of Vb
present in Tables 7
/9 has been shown in Fig. 3, which
justifies a clear trapezoidal distribution for 14-bus, 30bus and 57-bus systems.
In addition to the above, Tables 7
/9 also figure
numerical distributions of few other FCPF (critical)
result items coming under Group 2. These items are the
critical voltage Vc, critical loading level lc and the
proposed FVSI for 14-bus, 30-bus and 57-bus systems
pertaining to those busbars only, which are critical for
the particular outage condition considered. Although all
the listed contingency cases have been successfully tried
for the analysis, results have been presented here
selectively (as in Tables 7
/9), with a clear mention of
the contingency case and critical busbar in each table.
Graphical interpretation for the distribution of Vc
present in Tables 7
/9 has been shown in Fig. 4, that
justifies a clear trapezoidal distribution for 14-bus, 30bus and 57-bus systems. Similarly, graphical interpretation for the distributions of lc and FVSI present in
Tables 7
/9 has been shown in Figs. 5 and 6 respectively,
justifying clearly trapezoidal distributions for 14-bus,
30-bus and 57-bus systems.
Group 3 and Group 4 results obtained for all
contingency cases reported in Tables 1
/3, have been
presented in Tables 4
/6 for 14-bus, 30-bus and 57-bus
systems respectively. The severity of contingency cases
has been assessed through the evaluation of critical
loading level lc. From the results of Tables 4
/6, we
observed that the critical loading level lc is different for
different contingency conditions. It is the highest for
normal healthy operating conditions without any contingency and the least for the most severe contingencies.
A lower value of lc indicates a reduction in the
maximum power transfer capability that implies a
higher degree of severity for the said contingency. In
view of this, we monitored the value of lc to scale the
contingencies according to their severity ranking and
presented them in the name of critical rank, as shown in
Tables 4
/6. Critical busbars have been identified
through the evaluation of the proposed FVSI. Regarding the identification of critical busbars we observed
that it is a function of network loading and type of
contingency. Monitoring the proposed FVSI values for
all network buses and comparing them for the highest
FVSI, critical busbars have been identified and pre-

P.K. Satpathy et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 63 (2002) 127
/140

138

Table A5
Fuzzy modeling of input parameters (14-bus)

Table A6
Fuzzy modeling of input parameters (30-bus)

Item(s)*

Item(s)*

V2
V3
V4
V5
PG2
QG2
QG3
QG4
QG5
PL2
PL3
PL4
PL7
PL8
PL9
PL10
PL11
PL12
PL13
PL14
QL2
QL3
QL4
QL7
QL8
QL9
QL10
QL11
QL12
QL13
QL14

Characteristic values for trapezoidal MF

a1

a2

a3

a4

1.00
0.98
1.03
1.06
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.85
0.05
0.40
0.01
0.20
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.10
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.10
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.03

1.03
1.00
1.06
1.08
0.40
0.35
0.25
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.90
0.10
0.45
0.06
0.25
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.13
0.10
0.15
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.15
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04

0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

1.05
1.02
1.08
1.10
0.50
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.95
0.15
0.50
0.10
0.30
0.11
0.04
0.08
0.15
0.17
0.15
0.20
0.09
0.05
0.02
0.20
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.06

1.08
1.04
1.11
1.12
0.60
0.50
0.35
0.20
0.25
0.30
1.00
0.20
0.55
0.15
0.35
0.16
0.05
0.10
0.20
0.22
0.20
0.25
0.12
0.07
0.03
0.25
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.07

0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

* Missing parameters may be assumed as zero.

sented for all contingency cases, as shown in Tables 4
/6.

From these results it is clear that critical busbar location
is different for different contingency cases.
Although the computation of results under Group 3
and Group-4 has been carried out for various possible
uncertainty levels (i.e. MF /0.0, 0.3, 0.6, and 1.0 on
either side slopes of the trapezoid), it could not be
possible to present them all, due to want of space. It is to
be noted that the results reported in Tables 4
/6
correspond to a MF value 1, taken on the left side
slope of the trapezoidal distribution function.
In the course of analyzing these output results plotted
in Figs. 3
/9, it is observed that the trend of trapezoidal
distribution is retained. This finding justifies the most
demanding objective of the FST application, as implied
in [9]. According to the author of Ref. [9], the results of
FPF are mainly the possibility distributions of line
power flows and bus voltages, which are also extensively
verified in this paper. Rather, in view of the FCPF
findings, we would like to add that the results of the
proposed FCPF might be considered as the possibility
distributions of critical voltages, critical loading levels

V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
PG2
QG2
QG3
QG4
QG5
QG6
PL2
PL3
PL5
PL7
PL8
PL10
PL11
PL12
PL14
PL15
PL16
PL17
PL18
PL19
PL20
PL21
PL23
PL24
PL26
PL29
PL30
QL2
QL3
QL5
QL7
QL8
QL10
QL11
QL12
QL14
QL15
QL16
QL17
QL18
QL19
QL20
QL21
QL23
QL24
QL26
QL29
QL30

Characteristic values for trapezoidal MF

a1

a2

a3

a4

1.035
1.000
1.000
1.075
1.065
0.200
0.150
0.250
0.150
0.150
0.100
0.160
0.250
0.800
0.175
0.015
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.055
0.075
0.025
0.075
0.025
0.075
0.015
0.100
0.025
0.050
0.010
0.015
0.075
0.100
0.200
0.150
0.080
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.050
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.050
0.000
0.020
0.001
0.050
0.010
0.050
0.015
0.000
0.010

1.040
1.005
1.005
1.080
1.070
0.300
0.250
0.300
0.200
0.250
0.150
0.210
0.290
0.900
0.200
0.020
0.055
0.070
0.100
0.060
0.080
0.030
0.085
0.030
0.090
0.020
0.150
0.030
0.085
0.025
0.020
0.100
0.120
0.275
0.180
0.105
0.010
0.015
0.010
0.070
0.010
0.015
0.010
0.055
0.005
0.030
0.004
0.100
0.015
0.060
0.020
0.005
0.015

0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.100
0.050
0.050
0.100
0.050
0.050
0.040
0.100
0.025
0.005
0.005
0.020
0.050
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.015
0.005
0.050
0.005
0.035
0.015
0.005
0.025
0.020
0.075
0.030
0.025
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.020
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.003
0.050
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005

1.050
1.015
1.015
1.084
1.072
0.500
0.350
0.400
0.300
0.350
0.250
0.220
0.310
1.000
0.250
0.030
0.065
0.080
0.120
0.065
0.085
0.040
0.095
0.035
0.100
0.025
0.200
0.035
0.090
0.045
0.030
0.110
0.135
0.325
0.200
0.115
0.015
0.025
0.020
0.080
0.020
0.035
0.020
0.060
0.015
0.040
0.010
0.120
0.020
0.075
0.025
0.015
0.025

1.055
1.020
1.020
1.089
1.077
0.600
0.450
0.450
0.350
0.450
0.300
0.270
0.350
1.100
0.275
0.035
0.070
0.100
0.170
0.070
0.090
0.045
0.105
0.040
0.115
0.030
0.250
0.040
0.125
0.060
0.035
0.135
0.155
0.400
0.230
0.140
0.020
0.035
0.025
0.100
0.025
0.045
0.025
0.065
0.020
0.050
0.013
0.170
0.025
0.085
0.030
0.020
0.030

0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.100
0.050
0.050
0.100
0.050
0.050
0.040
0.100
0.025
0.005
0.005
0.020
0.050
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.015
0.005
0.050
0.005
0.035
0.015
0.005
0.025
0.020
0.075
0.030
0.025
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.020
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.003
0.050
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005

* Missing parameters may be assumed as zero.

and critical FVSIs, from which a lot of information may

be derived to improve the operator intelligence in
handling power system uncertainties.

P.K. Satpathy et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 63 (2002) 127
/140
Table A7
Fuzzy modeling of input parameters (57-bus)
Item(s)*

Table A8
Fuzzy modeling of input parameters (57-bus), continued from Table
A7

Characteristic values for trapezoidal MF

Item(s)*

V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
PG2
PL2
PL3
PL5
PL7
PL9
PL10
PL13
PL14
PL15
PL16
PL17
PL18
PL19
PL20
PL23
PL25
PL27
PL28
PL29
PL30
PL31
PL32
PL33
PL35
PL38
PL41
PL42
PL43
PL44
PL47
PL49
PL50
PL51
PL52
PL53
PL54
PL55
PL56
PL57

139

a1

a2

a3

a4

1.035
1.000
1.075
1.000
1.065
1.005
0.100
0.100
0.120
0.350
0.200
0.070
0.010
0.090
0.070
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.140
0.005
0.005
0.025
0.025
0.035
0.015
0.090
0.010
0.020
0.002
0.020
0.010
0.090
0.005
0.060
0.010
0.090
0.145
0.100
0.120
0.130
0.040
0.080
0.030
0.060
0.060
0.050

1.040
1.005
1.080
1.005
1.070
1.010
0.110
0.110
0.140
0.430
0.250
0.080
0.015
0.100
0.075
0.110
0.115
0.110
0.160
0.010
0.010
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.020
0.100
0.015
0.025
0.004
0.025
0.015
0.100
0.010
0.070
0.015
0.100
0.155
0.110
0.130
0.140
0.045
0.090
0.037
0.065
0.070
0.060

0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.010
0.020
0.080
0.050
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.010
0.020
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.002
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.010
0.010

1.050
1.015
1.084
1.015
1.072
1.020
0.125
0.125
0.160
0.454
0.290
0.100
0.025
0.120
0.085
0.130
0.145
0.130
0.184
0.016
0.016
0.036
0.036
0.046
0.032
0.120
0.025
0.031
0.008
0.031
0.025
0.120
0.020
0.072
0.025
0.120
0.160
0.130
0.150
0.160
0.055
0.110
0.045
0.070
0.082
0.075

1.055
1.020
1.089
1.020
1.077
1.025
0.135
0.135
0.180
0.534
0.340
0.110
0.030
0.130
0.090
0.140
0.160
0.140
0.204
0.021
0.021
0.041
0.041
0.051
0.037
0.130
0.030
0.036
0.010
0.036
0.030
0.130
0.025
0.082
0.030
0.130
0.170
0.140
0.160
0.170
0.060
0.120
0.052
0.075
0.092
0.085

0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.010
0.020
0.080
0.050
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.010
0.020
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.002
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.007
0.005
0.010
0.010

* Remaining part continued in Table A8.

8. Conclusions
In the majority of cases, the imprecision and uncertainties in loads and generations are generally overlooked for simplistic reasons. However, to obtain more
viable, realistic solutions and assure proper operations
of the power systems the merits of FST and other
emerging technologies must be explored. In this paper,
the principles of FST have been exploited and a

QG2
QG3
QG4
QG5
QG6
QG7
QL2
QL3
QL5
QL7
QL9
QL10
QL13
QL14
QL15
QL16
QL17
QL18
QL19
QL20
QL23
QL25
QL27
QL28
QL29
QL30
QL31
QL32
QL33
QL35
QL38
QL41
QL42
QL43
QL44
QL47
QL49
QL50
QL51
QL52
QL53
QL54
QL55
QL56
QL57

Characteristic values for trapezoidal MF

a1

a2

a3

a4

0.120
0.350
0.200
0.070
0.010
0.090
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.120
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.020
0.035
0.001
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.001
0.008
0.010
0.007
0.010
0.001
0.008
0.005
0.015
0.005
0.035
0.004
0.005
0.105
0.035
0.090
0.020
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.025
0.018
0.015

0.140
0.430
0.250
0.080
0.015
0.100
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.130
0.015
0.008
0.010
0.020
0.015
0.008
0.025
0.040
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.002
0.011
0.013
0.009
0.015
0.002
0.010
0.008
0.018
0.008
0.040
0.007
0.008
0.110
0.040
0.100
0.026
0.016
0.008
0.012
0.030
0.020
0.017

0.020
0.080
0.050
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.005
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.006
0.006
0.003
0.002
0.005
0.002
0.002

0.160
0.454
0.290
0.100
0.025
0.120
0.105
0.110
0.110
0.150
0.025
0.012
0.016
0.026
0.025
0.012
0.035
0.055
0.004
0.011
0.014
0.016
0.004
0.015
0.019
0.013
0.023
0.004
0.012
0.012
0.022
0.012
0.050
0.013
0.014
0.122
0.050
0.110
0.040
0.028
0.012
0.016
0.040
0.024
0.023

0.180
0.534
0.340
0.110
0.030
0.130
0.115
0.120
0.120
0.160
0.030
0.015
0.021
0.031
0.030
0.015
0.040
0.060
0.005
0.013
0.017
0.019
0.005
0.018
0.022
0.015
0.028
0.005
0.014
0.015
0.025
0.015
0.055
0.016
0.017
0.127
0.055
0.120
0.046
0.034
0.015
0.018
0.045
0.026
0.025

0.020
0.080
0.050
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.005
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.006
0.006
0.003
0.002
0.005
0.002
0.002

* Missing parameters may be assumed as zero.

judicious choice is made for fuzzy modeling of these

parameters by using trapezoidal and triangular MFs for
the purpose of steady state voltage stability analysis. In
Section 7, FPF and FCPF results on the basis of
trapezoidal distribution of input uncertainties have
been presented. However, similar observations have
been verified for triangular membership distribution of
input parameters too. Fuzzy reasoning offers a realistic
way to understand these problems and also allows

140

P.K. Satpathy et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 63 (2002) 127
/140

incorporating the operators own intuition, intelligence

and knowledge acquired from past experiences in
solving them. The basic objective of this paper is to
observe whether the output results follow some kind of
fuzzy membership or possibility distribution. This
objective has been validated through case studies on
IEEE 14-bus, 30-bus and 57-bus test systems in view of
the fuzzy results at the base case and critical point under
various system configurations. Analysis of the results
reveals that the voltage magnitudes/angles, power generations, and power losses in the system follow similar
type of fuzzy memberships. Also the paper introduces a
novel fuzzy voltage stability index for identifying critical
busbars subject to normal and contingency mode of
operations. The critical results reflect the maximum
loading margin in the system before the voltage may
collapse. The proposed fuzzy approach enables power
system operators and planners to operate the system
more realistically for a given range of loads and
generations. The above findings make it evident that
the FST can be a very useful supplement to the
traditional mathematical tools in solving power system
problems. Thus it is concluded that for voltage stability
analysis the fuzzy reasoning can be successfully applied
in modeling the imprecision and uncertainty offered by
the system parameters and variables to understand the
system behavior during normal and contingency conditions as well.

Appendix A
Tables A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7 and A8

References
[1] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, IJ Information and Control 8 (1965)
338
/353.
[2] J.A. Momoh, X.W. Ma, K. Tomsovic, Overview and literature
survey of fuzzy set theory in power systems, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems 10 (3) (1995) 1676
/1690.
[3] R.J. Sarfi, M.M.A. Salama, A.Y. Chikhani, Application of fuzzy
sets theory in power system planning and operation: a critical
review to assist in implementation, IJ Electric Power Systems
Research 39 (1996) 89
/101.
[4] D. Srinivasan, A.C. Liew, C.S. Chang, Application of fuzzy
Systems in power systems, IJ Electric Power Systems Research 35
(1995) 39
/43.
[5] A.K. David, et al., An expert system with fuzzy sets for optimal
planning, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 6 (1991) 59
/65.
[6] C.T. Su, C.T. Lin, A new fuzzy control approach to voltage
profile enhancement for power systems, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems 11 (3) (1996) 1654
/1659.

[7] B. Nageswararao, B. Jeyasurya, Fuzzy-expert system for voltage

stability monitoring and control, IJ Electric Power Systems
Research 47 (1998) 215
/222.
[8] A.N. Udupa, D. Thukaram, K. Parthasarathy, An expert fuzzy
control approach to voltage stability enhancement, IJ Electrical
Power and Energy Systems 21 (1999) 279
/287.
[9] V. Miranda, J.T. saraiva, Fuzzy modeling of power system
optimal load flow, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 7 (2)
(1992) 843
/849.
[10] Z. Wang, F.L. Alvarado, Interval arithmetic in power flow
analysis, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 7 (3) (1992)
1341
/1349.
[11] R. Kenarangui, A. Seifi, Fuzzy power flow analysis, IJ Electric
Power Systems Research 29 (1994) 105
/109.
[12] J.G. Vlachogiannis, Fuzzy logic application in load flow studies,
IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib. 148 (1) (2001) 34
/40.
[13] V. Ajjarapu, C. Christy, The Continuation Power Flow: a tool for
steady state voltage stability analysis, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems 7 (4) (1992) 416
/423.
[14] H.D. Chiang, A.J. Flueck, K.S. Shah, N. Balu, CPFLOW: a
practical tool for tracing power system steady state stationary
behavior due to load and generation variations, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 10 (2) (1995) 623
/634.
[15] P. Kessel, H. Glavitch, Estimating the voltage stability of a power
system, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery 1 (3) (1986) 346
/
354.
[16] B. Gao, G.K. Morison, P. Kundur, Voltage stability evaluation
using modal analysis, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 7 (4)
(1992) 1529
/1542.
[17] P.A. Lof, G. Anderson, D.J. Hill, Voltage stability indices for
stressed power systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 8
(1) (1993) 326
/335.
[18] V. Ajjarapu, S. Battula, Effect of load modeling on steady state
voltage stability, IJ Electric Machines and Power Systems 23
(1995) 501
/514.
[19] M. El-Sadek, M. Dessouky, G. Mahmoud, W. Rashed, Load
representation for steady state voltage stability studies, IJ Electric
Power System Research 43 (1997) 187
/195.
[20] O.O. Obadina, G.J. Berg, Identifying electrically weak and strong
segments of a power system from a voltage stability view point,
IEE Proceedings, Pt-C 137 (3) (1990) 205
/212.
[21] R. Schlueter, I. Hu, M. Chang, A. Costi, Methods for determining
proximity to voltage collapse, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems 6 (1) (1991) 285
/291.
[22] A.M. Chebbo, M.R. Irving, M.J.H. Sterling, Voltage collapse
proximity indicator, IEE Proceedings, Pt-C 139 (1992) 3.
[23] G.K. Morison, B. Gao, P. Kundur, Voltage stability analysis
usingstatic and dynamic approaches, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems 8 (3) (1993) 1159
/1171.
[24] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility, IJ
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1 (1978) 3
/28.
[25] D. Dubois, H. Prade, Fuzzy real algebra, some results, IJ Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 2 (1979) 327
/348.
[26] T. Terano, K. Asai, M. Sugeno, Fuzzy Systems Theory and Its
Applications, Academic Press, New York, 1987.
[27] Md. El-Hawary, Electric Power Applications of Fuzzy Systems,
IEEE Press, 1998.
[28] C.W. Taylor, Power System Voltage Stability, Mc Graw-Hill,
New York, 1993.
[29] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, Mc Graw-Hill,
New York, 1994.
[30] G.W. Stagg, A.H. Ei-Abiad, Computer Methods in Power
Systems Analysis, McGraw Hill, New York, 1968.