16 views

Uploaded by wisnu

© All Rights Reserved

- Ranking Fuzzy Numbers Based on Sokal and Sneath Index
- Two Decision Makers’ Single Decision over a Back Order EOQ Model with Dense Fuzzy Demand Rate
- Wide Area Backup Protection of Power Systems Using Artificial Neural Networks
- FLC Traffic
- Indexing Information Systems with Fuzzy Decision Attributes-An Approach through Rough Fuzzy Groups
- A Novel Framework for History Matching Incorporating Geo-Engineering Knowledge- Teal South Case Study
- 1
- Fuzzy_logic
- 1-s2.0-S2212017314000413-main-2014
- Use Fuzzy Midrange Transformation Method to Construction Fuzzy Control Charts limits
- Intelligent Decision Support Systems in Environmental Management Proplems
- Modeling Academic Performance Evaluation Using
- Aplicación Difusa
- eee-Fuzzy-6
- Multiobjective Fuzzy Linear Programming Problems
- Fuzzy Logic Techniques Used in Manufacturing Processes Re Engineering
- lecture3fuzzylogic.ppt
- 227742148 Chapt 1 Introduction to Fuzzy Logic
- 10 - Sugeno-TSK Model
- The Role of Fuzzy Sets in Decision Sciences -Old Techniques and New Directions

You are on page 1of 17

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

on Type-2 fuzzy neural network estimation

Amir Sharian, Saeed Sharian

Department of Electrical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, P.O. Box 15914, Tehran, Iran

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.

occurred.

The primary objective of transient stability analysis (TSA) in a

power system is to determine the capability of power system to

remain in stable and safe operating condition when a large disturbance such as severe lightning strike, loss of heavily loaded transmission line, loss of generation station, or short circuit on buses [3]

inuences the system. CCT is a well-known indicator that can be

used to measure power system transient stability. The CCT is the

maximum time duration by which the disturbance may act on

the power system without losing its capability to recover to a

steady-state (stable) operation.

We can broadly classify security analysis depending on modeling and used technique into static and dynamic category [3,4]. Static security assessment is related to an equilibrium point of system,

where voltage and thermal limits are observed. Generally static

security assessment is done using computational tools based on

load ow algorithms. The contingencies events must be considered

72

of the system is lost.

Evaluation of the ability of a power system to withstand a nite

set of contingencies and to survive the transition to an acceptable

steady-state condition is dened as dynamic security assessment

(DSA) [4]. As illustrated in Fig. 1, DSA consists of three main categories: rotor angle stability, voltage stability and frequency stability. Also the rotor angle stability is divided into two sub categories

which are small signal stability and transient stability [3,5]. In this

paper we focus on TSA which involves the evaluation of the ability

of a power system to maintain synchronism under severe but credible contingencies. The DSA studies are usually conducted in a time

range between 3 and 5 s for small power systems. For large systems with dominant inter-area swings this time may extend to

10 s [5].

Two main categories of TSA methods are time domain simulation (or numerical integration) method and direct method. Currently, the widely used method by power utilities and most

accurate method for TSA is time domain simulation method [5,6].

This method is implemented by solving the differential equations

of power network while the direct method involves in calculation

of the transient energy margins which shows the system stability

limits. This method gives an accurate information about state variables and can be applied to any level of detail of power system

models [1,4,7]. In Ref. [37] the concept of lyapunov exponents

(LEs) is used to analyze the transient stability of power systems.

Also in Ref. [40]; a stochastic-based approach to evaluate the probabilistic transient stability index of the power system incorporating the wind farm is proposed.

However, use of such a method requires numerical solution to

nonlinear equations of system which has high online computation

cost and involves intensive and time-consuming numerical

integration efforts. Also, the difculty of designing good energy

functions for multi-machine power systems may lead to computational inefciency and inaccuracy [5,6]. So, it does not provide

information regarding the degree of stability and the degree of

instability in a power system.

In addition, TSA of large sized power systems has become a very

complex process due to the exponential expansion of complexity in

power system topology. 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. Therefore, there is a necessity to develop a reliable and fast online TSA to analyze the stability

status of a power system when exposed to credible disturbances.

On the other hand, direct method techniques require less online

computation efforts and can provide a quantitative measure of the

degree of system stability, but it has some challenges and limitations involved in the practical applications for power system TSA

[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

another space. Where in the new space the learning problem can

be solved using a linear model. RBF NN is typically trained by maximum likelihood framework. RBF NN is outperformed in most classication applications by SVM. But they can be competitive in

regression applications when the dimensionality of the input space

is relatively small [15].

There are many previous papers which are using NN based

direct methods to predict the CCT. Sobajic and Pao [8] were used

NNs to predict the CCT for a small test power system. Pao and Sobajic [9] used both unsupervised and supervised learning for the TSA

problem. In Ref. [10], Aboytes and Ramirez used NNs to predict the

stability of generators system. In Ref. [11], Bahbah and Girgis proposed a recurrent RBF NN and a MLP NNs to model system dynamics and the generators angles and angular velocities are predicted

to solve TSA problem. In Ref. [17], Sawhney and Jeyasurya

employed NNs to predict a transient stability index, which was

obtained by the extended equal area criterion method.

In Ref. [18], a procedure has been described for extracting

rules from a trained MLP NN for reasoning power systems CCT.

In Ref. [19], a generalized regression NNs based classication

method has been proposed for transient stability evaluation in

power systems. Also in Refs. [20,21], two methods are introduced

TSA which are based on adaptive resonance theory (ART) NNs. To

reduce the number of calculations and online computational time

in Ref. [22], the major portion of power system transient stabilitys mathematical calculations has been replaced by an estimation procedure. In Ref. [6], a MLP NN and a RBF NN are used to

estimate the CCT as an index for power systems TSA according

to the classical models. In Ref. [12], two MLP NNs are used to estimate the CCT and a transient stability time margin. Only a particular fault scenario is considered and the detail models of

synchronous machines are presented. In Ref. [39] classication

and regression tree (CART) based power system transient stability

preventive controls are proposed and the results are compared

with MLP based method. The nding shows that preventive controls developed by both approaches think alike. They are even

complementary.

Although ANN is the most popular computational intelligence

method to classify patterns, it requires a complicated design procedure and an extensive training process. Moreover, ANN is good in

interpolation but not so good in extrapolation which decreases

its generalization ability [23]. MLP NN is a classic solution for

CCT function approximation problem. Its accuracy can be increased

by addition of nodes and hidden layers.

Also RBF NN is shining in the problems that input parameters

can be classied into clusters (input parameters are correlated).

Another advantage of RBF NN is that the hidden layer is easier to

interpret than the hidden layer in a MLP NN. Although the RBF

NN has fast training capability, when the training is nished and

it is being used for testing; it is slower than a MLP NN [6]. So where

speed is a factor MLP NN may be more appropriate. MLP NN suffering from local minima but RBF NN is not. This is because only the

linear mapping from hidden layer to output layer is adjusted in the

learning process. Linearity ensures that the error surface is quadratic, therefore it has a single minimum. The MLP NN requires

an iterative procedure to compute the network weights. But, the

RBF NN requires an iterative procedure for clustering the data to

determine the number of nodes in RBF layer. A disadvantage for

RBF NN is that the radial basis functions should have a good coverage of the input space.

Simulation results using the New England test power system in

Ref. [6] indicates that both of NNs (RBF and MLP) could be

employed to estimate the CCT with a good degree of accuracy.

However, better test results were obtained using the MLP NN. Both

of the NNs based solutions (MLP and RBF) can accurately estimate

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

reduce the number of inputs. So only the most effective

inputs are considered and computational costs are reduced.

c. We conduct several simulations with different operating

conditions prior to fault scenario and compare the accuracy

of estimated CCT by the proposed Type-2 fuzzy NN method

and other popular relevant method (MLP NN) with actual

CCT to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed

method.

The rest of paper is organized as follows: Section Power system

describes power system model and test system. In Section Methodology for power system transient stability assessment the

proposed Type-2 fuzzy NN and sensitivity analysis methodology

for CCT prediction are presented. In Section Results and discussion

we present results and discussion of power system TSA evaluation

for sample fault scenarios by the proposed method and compare

it with MLP NN. Finally, conclusions are outlined in Section

Conclusion.

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

in Table 1.

Generated active powers of all the 9 PV buses (PG2PG10).

Active load powers of all the 19 loads acting on different buses

(PD1, PD2,. . ., PD37).

Reactive load powers of all the 19 loads acting on different

buses (QD1, QD2,. . ., QD37).

We conduct a sample TSA on the New England standard test

system with a set of four different fault scenarios. Scenario 1 is a

three phases to ground fault injected to bus 32 and is cleared by

removing the line connected between bus 32 and bus 31. Scenario

2 is a three phases to ground fault injected to bus 14 and is cleared

by removing the line connected between bus 14 and bus 33. Also

scenario 3 is a three phases to ground fault injected to bus 17

and is cleared without removing any line in the post fault systems.

And nally scenario 4 is a three phases to ground fault injected to

bus 34 and is cleared by removing the line connected between bus

34 and bus 35. The faults locations are shown in Fig. 2.

Here, its assumed that the occurrence probabilities of the sample fault scenarios are high and these fault scenarios are required

to have on-line TSA. Although only four fault scenarios are considered for verication, the proposed method is completely general

and it can be used for any fault scenario that applied at any location of the test system. Also other test systems can be used in similar way [6,12].

It should be noted that the operating conditions of the test system are changed here without compelling any limits on maximum

and/or minimum generated reactive powers of the all generators

(i.e., QG-limits are not taken into account), leading us to use above

mentioned independent system operating conditions as inputs to

the Type-2 fuzzy NN. However, other system variables can be

applied as inputs to the Type-2 fuzzy NN. To consider the violations of generated reactive power of system generators, that may

take place in practice, and also to include extra information regarding the system total loading conditions, In this paper same as Ref.

[12], we have applied the following additional inputs for the Type2 fuzzy neural network:

Generated active power of the slack bus (PG1).

Generated reactive power of the slack bus (QG1).

Generated reactive powers of all the 9 PV buses (QG2QG10).

These operating conditions are obtained by performing an AC

load-ow analysis on power system prior to fault. The New England test system consists of nine PV buses and 19 loads. Hence,

Table 1

System equations parameter notations.

Parameter

Description

hi

~i

x

Mi

Pmi

Ei

Yij

Gij

Angular velocity of rotor in reference to the COI

Inertia constant of the ith generator

Mechanical input power of the ith generator

Internal generator voltage magnitude for the ith generator

The ijth elements of the reduced system admittance matrix

Conductance of the ijth elements of reduced system admittance

matrix

Susceptance of the ijth elements of reduced system admittance

matrix

Generated active power of the slack bus

Generated reactive power of the slack bus

Generated active power of the ith PV bus

Generated reactive power of the ith PV bus

Active load of the jth bus

Reactive load of the jth bus

The bus number

Index of generators

Number of generators in system

Electrical output power of the ith generator

COI accelerating power

Bij

PGi

QG1

PGi

QGi

PDj

QDj

j

i

n

Pei

PCOI

(9 + 9 + 19 + 19 + 1 + 1 + 9 = 67) operating conditions that are used

as inputs to the Type-2 fuzzy NN.

Methodology for power system transient stability assessment

In this section, we present our proposed Type-2 fuzzy NN based

approaches to estimate the CCT as an index for power systems TSA.

First a general overview of entire system is presented, next we give

a short introduction of fuzzy neural systems that nally leads us to

the proposed Type-2 fuzzy NN. In the next sub section training and

prediction of CCT procedures are described. Finally MLP NN based

sensitivity analysis methodology is presented.

Overview of Type-2 fuzzy NN for CCT prediction

In this section we are going to describe a general overview of

power system TSA infrastructure as shown in Fig. 3. With the

development of wide area measurement system, the operational

condition of a power system can be directly measured by

geographically distributed phasor measurement units (PMUs)

before and following a disturbance. All the power system operating

conditions are transferred to an energy control center (ECC). The

75

this historical data are stored in log data base for further ofine

power system analysis. These measured operating conditions contain all the real time information of the system, such as models,

arguments and disturbance. How to predict the transient stability

status post-disturbance using these measured operational condition is an important research topic in power system stability

assessment that is the focus of this paper.

According to the Ref. [12], different fault scenario causes to different CCT value. Moreover, the systems operating conditions

prior to the fault and also the power system network topologies

both have signicant effect on the CCT. Hence, the CCT is a nonlinear and complex function of the system conguration after and

before fault occurrence, system operating conditions prior to fault

and also fault type and its location in the network.

Many different source of fault can be considered in a power system such as loss of load, loss of generation and loss of system components such as transformers or transmission lines. These sources

have different level of importance and different probability of

occurrence. So we should calculate CCT for each fault scenario separately. The anomaly detection block (Fig. 3) is an online system

that inspects the measured operational conditions to nd anomaly

patterns related to each fault scenario. After detection of a fault,

the anomaly detection block reports fault scenario index to scenario selection block.

Two different NNs are associated with each fault scenario index

which are activated by the scenario selection block. One of them is

a Type-2 fuzzy NN that online approximates the CCT nonlinear

function instead of solving power system differential equations.

Since the CCT is only the function of system operating conditions

prior to fault [6,8], the proposed Type-2 fuzzy NN is used to

approximate this complex function. The proposed Type-2 neuro

fuzzy method can estimate CCT for each fault with an acceptable

accuracy. Different sets of training patterns are required to train

the CCTs for each fault scenario. Once the training phase of the

Type-2 fuzzy NN is completed; the CCT for each fault scenario

can be quickly computed.

Another NN that associated with each fault scenario index is a

MLP NN that used for sensitivity analysis of input parameters in

ofine manner. For each fault scenario we run a MLP NN based sensitivity analysis to determine more effective operating conditions

that inuences CCT estimation accuracy for each fault. The MLP

NN uses ofine log database to determine more effective input

operating conditions in calculation of CCT and extract them as a

vector associated with each fault scenario. It reduces the training

time and the effort of measuring features online while declines

the complexity of Type-2 fuzzy neural network. When the scenario

selection block reports the index of fault scenario; the selector

block, lters input operating conditions according to the most

important feature vectors which is provided by MLP NN in the sensitivity analysis procedure. More details about sensitivity analysis

are presented later.

Generally; we should consider a separate Type-2 fuzzy NN for

each fault scenario in the power system TSA; like works done in

papers [6,12,13]. When we have limited computing capability,

we can only consider more important faults. On the other hand

some fault scenarios have similar effects on power system variables (e.g., voltage, active and reactive power). In working systems,

the combination of dependent faults instead of using separate fault

can be used to reduce the number of Type-2 neuro fuzzy models

and in consequence reduction of computation cost of the proposed

model. In this paper we consider a sample combination of fault

scenarios which is consist of 4 different uncorrelated and independents faults (the worst case scenario) and shows the proposed

Type-2 neuro fuzzy method can estimate CCT for each fault with

an acceptable accuracy. The capability of proposed method can

76

probable fault scenario in the power system. It is obvious that

the expansion capability of the proposed Type-2 fuzzy NNs depend

on the applied data in the training process.

As mentioned before, the CCT of a particular fault scenario in

the New England test system is a function of 67 power system

operating conditions. The neural networks-based sensitivity analysis method is used to select 15 top most effective operating conditions in order to reduce the number of inputs to the Type-2 fuzzy

neural network.

Fuzzy neural systems

NNs are good at recognizing input patterns, but are weak to

explaining how they reach their decisions. On the other hand,

fuzzy logic systems can reason with imprecise information and

nicely explain their decisions but they are incapable of automatically acquiring the rules they use to make those decisions. These

limitations are cause for combination of two or more techniques

into intelligent hybrid systems. This combination overcomes the

limitations of individual techniques. Also hybrid systems are

important when dealing with different application domains.

The intelligent hybrid systems are used successfully in many

applications including process control, cognitive simulation, nancial trading, medical diagnosis, and engineering design. In the

intelligent hybrid systems an inference mechanism under cognitive uncertainty is provided by fuzzy logic and advantages, such

as learning, generalization, adaptation, parallelism and fault-tolerance are offered by computational NNs. The concept of NNs is

incorporated into the fuzzy logic in order to achieve humans like

capability for the system to deal with cognitive uncertainties. Usually fuzzy neural systems are used in two different congurations

as follows [23]:

In the rst conguration as illustrated in Fig. 4 the fuzzy interface block accepts linguistic statements and provides the perception as an input vector to a NN. After the training phase of NN, it

is adapted to yield desired command outputs or decisions.

Second conguration as illustrated in Fig. 5 use different structure. In this conguration a NN drives the fuzzy inference mechanism. The NNs have the roll of tuning membership functions of

fuzzy systems. In this conguration fuzzy systems are employed

as decision-maker for controlling equipment.

Fuzzy logic can use rules with linguistic labels which are

directly encoded by expert knowledge, but designing and tuning

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.

l

Aii which are obtained for each of the input variable xi that is an

l

l

input to Type-2 fuzzy neural network. Where Aii and Aii are the

li th UMF and LMF of ith input variable respectively.

Step 2: after the degree of membership for total input variables

are obtained, vector Z and V that represents degree of membership set can be written as:

A1 xi ;

Vi l

i

t

i

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

1

2

t

12

where l

A

A

i

The L is size of Z and can be obtained by the following equation:

L2

n

X

Ki

13

i1

A MLP consists of an input layer, an output layer and one or

more hidden layers. L represents the size of the input layer

where size of the output layer is determined by number of

NN outputs. Number of the hidden layer and the size of hidden

neurons at each hidden layer are carefully selected to provide

best results in training phase of system. One of the popular

training algorithms for MLP NN is error back propagation algorithm [15], which is based on the gradient descent technique.

The standard back propagation method is too slow in MLP NN

training [46], so it is superseded by fast resilient back-propagation technique for training the MLP NN.

Training and testing of Type-2 fuzzy NN to predict CCT

In this section, we give a general overview of training procedure

of Type-2 fuzzy NN which is designed in previous section. As mentioned before the structure of Type-2 fuzzy NN is composed of two

parts, a Type-2 fuzzier and a NN. In order to Type-2 fuzzy NN can

be used in estimation of CCT, it should rst be trained. The training

inputs should be carefully selected in a range related to possible

variation of input parameters. According to Section Test system,

the CCT for a particular fault scenario in New England 39-bus test

system is function of 67 (19 + 19 + 9 + 9 + 1 + 1 + 9 = 67) power

systems operating parameters. This conguration can be applied

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:

function.

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.

as the desired output of Type-2 fuzzy NN that is associated with

selected input operating conditions which are used in training

procedure of Type-2 fuzzy neural network.

did not have noticeable change in error are omitted from Type-2

fuzzy NN inputs.

[47] is applied for load-ow analysis. The presented pattern generation procedure produces 2000 random data patterns for sample

fault scenarios. Among them 1500 patterns (about 75% of the total

produced patterns) were chosen for training and the remaining

500 patterns (25% of the total produced patterns) were applied

to test the Type-2 fuzzy neural network.

fuzzy NN in CCT estimation for sample fault scenarios in New England 39-bus test system. Also, a MLP NNs based sensitivity analysis

is used to reduce the number of input parameters to Type-2 fuzzy

NN as illustrated in the block diagram of Fig. 13. So the total number of inputs is reduced from 67 operating conditions to only 15

more effective operating conditions for New England 39-bus test

system. Then the design is trained by 15 inputs to estimate CCT

for four sample fault scenarios.

Sensitivity analysis is the study of how the variation in the output of a model can be allocated, qualitatively or quantitatively to

different sources of variation [17,43]. The main idea behind the

sensitivity analysis method is that it reduces the number of input

features from original set of features without losing the important

information. According to Section Test system, we have 67 systems operating parameters as input to the Type-2 fuzzy neural

network. These operating parameters have direct impacts in calculation of CCT. However some of these operating parameters have

more information and higher inuence in nal CCT than others.

Therefore, we are going to rank the operating parameters in order

of their importance and determine those operating parameters

(inputs) for each fault scenario that have higher impact on the nal

value of CCT. So we use a MLP NN based sensitivity analysis

method as proposed in Refs. [12,17,43], to nd the operating

parameters (Type-2 fuzzy NN inputs) those have more impact on

CCT. The benet of reduction in inputs of Type-2 fuzzy NN is that

it reduces the training time and effort of on-line measurement of

features while declines in complexity of Type-2 fuzzy NN.

As illustrated in Fig. 12, in this analysis, one input parameter at

a time is selected and varied by a xed percentage while rest of the

inputs remains constant. Then input data is fed to the NN and the

mean absolute error (MAE) is calculated. These steps are repeated

for all the input parameters and MAE is calculated. After all the

inputs have been examined, ranking decision is made based on

the change in MAE. Those inputs whose change in value makes a

noticeable change in the value of output MAE are selected as favorite candidate as input parameters. Remaining parameters which

In this section, rst we design a Type-2 fuzzy NN then the

design is trained by 15 more effective operating conditions to estimate CCT for four sample fault scenarios. Here, we select 15 operating conditions among of total 67 inputs that have more effect on

CCT of four sample fault scenarios. These 15 selected operating

conditions are: VG2, PG5, VG9, VG3, VG10, PG2, VG5, PD1, PG7,

VG8, PG4, PG6, VG7, VG4, and PG1. The details of sensitivity analysis based parameter selection method is presented in the next

section. Design and train procedures of the proposed Type-2 fuzzy

NN are described in the following steps:

Step 1: the maximum and minimum variation of 15 input operating conditions are extracted from 1500 training patterns as

shown in Table 2.

Step 2: for each of the 15 inputs, three sets of Type-2 fuzzy are

dened as S, M and L. Here, Gaussian membership functions are chosen for inputs as shown in Fig. 14. Moreover the

number of membership functions and UMF and LMF variances

are determined by an expert knowledge.

Step 3: after Type-2 fuzzier is designed, we are going to design

NN. Here, we use a single layer perceptron NN and train it by

the resilient back-propagation method. The number of input

neurons is obtained by the following equation:

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

Table 4

Specication of MLP NNs which are used in sensitivity analysis.

Fault scenario

number

Fault

Fault

Fault

Fault

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%

the pattern index. The RMSE and MAPE for 500 total test patterns

are shown in Table 3 for each sample fault scenario.

The results are proving generalization accuracy of trained Type2 fuzzy NN for all sample fault scenarios. Comparison between the

actual CCT and the estimated CCT by using 30 test patterns out of

total 500 test patterns is shown in Fig. 15.

Also, distribution of errors in percent for sample fault scenarios

are shown in Fig. 16 and calculated by the following equation:

Ep 100

actual Targetp

20

occurrence frequency of error in percent (Ep) for all fault scenarios

follows the Gaussian distribution. In the rst fault scenario about

30.4% of total test patterns have Ep between 1% and 1%. Moreover,

only 0.2% of total 500 test patterns have Ep between 12% and

11% which is worse case error.

In the second fault scenario about 40.6% of total test patterns

have Ep between 1% and 1%. Moreover, only 0.2% of total 500 test

patterns have Ep between 12% and 11% which is worse case

error. Also in the third fault scenario about 27.6% of total test patterns have Ep between 1% and 1%. Moreover, only 0.2% of total

500 test patterns have Ep between 9% and 8% which is worse

case error. Finally in the fourth fault scenario about 34.4% of total

test patterns have Ep between 1% and 1%. Moreover, only 0.2% of

total 500 test patterns have Ep between 10% and 11% which is

worse case error.

As shown in Fig. 16 we can conclude that for all the sample scenarios, small |EP|s (less than 5%) are more frequent (about 90%)

than large |EP|s. on the other hand if a Gaussian probability function is tted to the EP distribution, it will be have small variance

and mean value near to zero. So in 90% of conditions the estimation

Fig. 17. Comparison between MLP NN CCT estimation and the actual CCT for sample fault scenarios of New England 39-bus test system.

83

Table 6

15 Most important inputs and their MAE for each fault scenario.

Fault scenario 1

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

network

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

MSE between actual and estimated values of CCT in the training

phase was set to 0.001 s. The training method for MLP NN is resilient back-propagation method. Total computations are performed

on a personal computer with 2 GB of RAM and 2.93 GHz Pentium

Dual-Core Processor.

In order to see how well the trained MLP NNs acts in simulated

fault scenarios, the NN was tested by 500 test patterns. The performance of trained MLP NN in evaluation of CCT is determined by

RMSE and MAPE between actual and estimated CCT. The RMSE

and MAPE for 500 total test patterns and sample fault scenarios

are shown in Table 5.

The results of Table 5 are proving the generalization accuracy of

trained MLP NN for all sample fault scenarios. Comparison

between the actual CCT and the estimated CCT for 30 out of 500

test patterns are shown in Fig. 17 for sample fault scenarios. It

can be observed that the trained MLP NNs estimates actual CCT

with an acceptable accuracy in sample fault scenarios.

When MLP NNs was trained by 67 inputs, it is used to perform

sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity of NNs output (CCT) respect to

the each input are calculated. Each time, one MLP NN input is chosen to train and perturbed by a xed percentage of its value (e.g.,

10%), where the other inputs remains constant. In the same time

inputs are fed to the MLP NNs and output (CCT) is calculated.

The mean absolute error (MAE) between outputs which are estimated by NN before and after each variation to the input is computed. These steps are repeated for all the NNs inputs and nally

MAE is computed.

After all the 67 inputs have been examined, those inputs whose

change leads to a big variation in the MAE are chosen as best candidates for input to the Type-2 fuzzy NN. The rest of inputs with

small MAE, does not considered for Type-2 fuzzy NN. As a matter

of fact, a big value for MAE means that the corresponding perturbed variable greatly inuences the system output. MAE is computed by the following equation:

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

parameters that have higher impact on MAE are chosen. The 15

most important inputs and their MAE for each fault scenario are

shown in Table 6.

As illustrated in Table 6, most of the chosen input operating

conditions are voltage magnitudes and the active generated

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

Table 9

Different value of Ep, variances of Ep and means of Ep corresponding to the MLP NN and the Type-2 fuzzy NN for sample fault scenarios.

Fault scenario index

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.

scenario in test system.

Comparison between Type-2 fuzzy NN and MLP NN for CCI prediction

In order to compare the performance of proposed Type-2 fuzzy

NN with other relevant methods, we implement a MLP NN like the

approach which is used in papers [6,12,13]. In order to better convergence of MLP NN, we used 20 inputs which are including the

Type-2 fuzzy neural inputs and extra ve inputs (next ranks in

the sensitivity analysis). Five additional inputs are as follows:

PG9, PG3, PG10, VG6 and PG8. Also the same number of train

(1500) and test (500) patterns as we applied to the Type-2 fuzzy

NN are used for the MLP NN.

The MLP NN has 20 neurons in input layer and one hidden layer

that includes 12 neurons. A tangent sigmoid transfer function is

applied to the hidden layer neurons. Also a linear transfer function

is applied to the output layer neurons. MSE threshold in the training phase of NN was set to 0.035 s. The MLP NN is trained by resilient back-propagation method. It took about 16 s with average of

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.

[36] Abdelaziz AY, Abbas AA, Naiem AF, Elsharkawy MA. Transient stability

assessment using an adaptive fuzzy classication technique. Electr Power

Compon Syst 2006;34:92740.

[37] Wadduwagea DP, Wub ChQ, Annakkage UD. Power system transient stability

analysis via the concept of Lyapunov Exponents. Electr Power Syst Res

2013;104:18392.

[38] You D, Ye Lei, Wu J, Huang R. Transient stability assessment of power system

using support vector machine with generator combinatorial trajectories

inputs. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2013;44(1):31825.

[39] Lin Y. Comparison of CART- and MLP-based power system transient stability

preventive control. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2013;45(1):12936.

[40] Fang J, Yao W, Wen J, Cheng Sh, Tang Y, Cheng Z. Probabilistic assessment of

power system transient stability incorporating SMES. Phys C: Supercond

2013;484:27681.

[41] Dou Ch, Yang J, Li X, Gui T, Bi Y. Decentralized coordinated control for large

power system based on transient stability assessment. Int J Electr Power

Energy Syst 2013;46:15362.

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.

- Ranking Fuzzy Numbers Based on Sokal and Sneath IndexUploaded byInformatika Universitas Malikussaleh
- Two Decision Makers’ Single Decision over a Back Order EOQ Model with Dense Fuzzy Demand RateUploaded byMia Amalia
- Wide Area Backup Protection of Power Systems Using Artificial Neural NetworksUploaded byIraj Az Irani
- FLC TrafficUploaded bykuppuswamy
- Indexing Information Systems with Fuzzy Decision Attributes-An Approach through Rough Fuzzy GroupsUploaded byeditor3854
- A Novel Framework for History Matching Incorporating Geo-Engineering Knowledge- Teal South Case StudyUploaded byFoundation CMG
- 1Uploaded byreachshamanth1
- Fuzzy_logicUploaded byVaibhav Pawar
- 1-s2.0-S2212017314000413-main-2014Uploaded byHoda Hosny
- Use Fuzzy Midrange Transformation Method to Construction Fuzzy Control Charts limitsUploaded byAI Coordinator - CSC Journals
- Intelligent Decision Support Systems in Environmental Management ProplemsUploaded byIPASJ
- Modeling Academic Performance Evaluation UsingUploaded byDhanatirto Alie
- Aplicación DifusaUploaded byYolot LB
- eee-Fuzzy-6Uploaded byVivekanandhan Vijayan
- Multiobjective Fuzzy Linear Programming ProblemsUploaded byDian Abiyoga
- Fuzzy Logic Techniques Used in Manufacturing Processes Re EngineeringUploaded bycheckmimail
- lecture3fuzzylogic.pptUploaded byThiaga Rajan
- 227742148 Chapt 1 Introduction to Fuzzy LogicUploaded bynatrix029
- 10 - Sugeno-TSK ModelUploaded byAchu
- The Role of Fuzzy Sets in Decision Sciences -Old Techniques and New DirectionsUploaded byMuhammad Imran Khan
- 1-s2.0-S0169260797000564-mainUploaded byAntonio Martinez
- I nternational Journal Of Computational Engineering Research (ijceronline.com) Vol. 2 Issue. 7Uploaded byInternational Journal of computational Engineering research (IJCER)
- ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING OF LANDFILL SITES AMONG n-ALTERNATIVESUploaded byMia Amalia
- Intro to FuzzyUploaded byManish Vishal
- bjrklund2002.pdfUploaded byMarco Antônio Sabará
- Generalized Sum of Fuzzy Subgroup and a-cut SubgroupUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- v2-11-103Uploaded byMmillion Alemayehu
- On JAM of Triangular Fuzzy Number MatricesUploaded byijsret
- Kinetic Model Completeness.pdfUploaded byRojo John
- Fuzzy Systems - A TutorialUploaded byEdson F. Okuda

- Prac FinalUploaded byGina McCaffrey
- Lecture 10 Solutions to Non-Linear Equations [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded byaef
- Comparison of SEEP_W Simulations With Field Observations for Seepage Analysis Through an Earthen Dam (Case Study_ Hub Dam - Pakistan)Uploaded byijr_journal
- TIME-DEPENDENT METHODSUploaded bymanreza
- Mat Assign.docxUploaded byVijayRaghunathan
- Optimal control matlabUploaded byMarcus Macêdo
- Galerkin MethodUploaded byanpyaa
- s41928-018-0100-6Uploaded byChandreshSingh
- 3rd sem cseUploaded byDeepak Varshney
- Delft - AerodynamicsUploaded bymegatherion
- SimplexUploaded bybanti21
- AML-702-Lab7Uploaded byAnänth Värmä
- C2_MATLABUploaded byDiana Carolina Leon
- Ansys Lab ManualUploaded byaravind174
- Numerical Solution of Systems of Nonlinear EquationsUploaded byreuleanx
- Chapter 01 Introduction to Neural NetworksUploaded bymssaramalik13
- Gauss Elimination in Numerical MethodUploaded bypaivensolidsnake
- Aniso Diff FilteringUploaded byMaruni Devi
- Differential Equations ElsgoltsUploaded byAyeshaAmbreen
- Lecture 5. Fdm - FlacUploaded byRui Barreiros
- APPLICATION OF THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD TO MOLECULAR QUANTUM.pdfUploaded byhhakim32
- hw9Uploaded byLinda Hlophe
- 2011 2012 Catalog SciTech LO-RESUploaded byDarku Dark Dark
- algo1Uploaded byJesus Alberto Dominguez Coronel
- 9 Math PolynomialsUploaded byAjay Anand
- Quiz BEEUploaded byads
- EEE 423 Syllabus and Reference TextsUploaded byJamil Wahid
- Ncche MeshUploaded byLuay Kadhum Alwaili
- Explain Positive Definite Quadratic Forms PDFUploaded byJames
- books.docxUploaded byMaria Sultana