Power System Harmonics Estimation using LMS,
LMF and LMS/LMF
Hussam M. M. Alhaj, Nursyarizal Mohd Nor, Vijanth S. Asirvadam, M. F. Abdullah
Electrical and Electronic Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
Bandar Seri Iskandar, 31750 Tronoh Perak, Malaysia
hussamalhaj13@hotmail.com
Abstract— Recently, in the world wide the use of power
electronics devices increases sharply. As a result, harmonic
pollution becomes a vital problem than before. Harmonics rotate
in the power system network and interfere with the system
equipments, disturbing their normal operation which can
deteriorate the quality of the delivered power. Therefore,
efficient method with low computational time is a critical tool to
estimate and quantify the harmonic that can be used in online
control and mitigation of harmonics. Least Mean Square (LMS)
is simple and popular algorithm that has been applied in many
applications, but, noise can affect its performance. This paper
presents and compare the performance of Least Mean Square
(LMS), Least Mean Fourth (LMF) and a combined (LMS/LMF)
in estimation harmonic component for the signal corrupted with
noise contain low signal to noise ratio (SNR). The results show
that LMF and LMS/LMF have better steady state performance
as compared to LMS.
Keywords: power system harmonic, LMS, LMF, LMS/LMF
I. INTRODUCTION
Currently, substantial increase of electronic devices increases
the nonlinear loads on the power grid. nonlinear load is one in
which the current is not proportional to the applied voltage.
Lead to increase the harmonic distortion on the power system
network that makes the wave forms of the current and voltage
irregular. Harmonic distortion can bring a significant
impact on the electrical system such as heating of the system
equipment, increasing the loss level, resonance, decreasing the
power factor which requiring additional reactive power and
interference in the protection system. Therefore, it is
necessary to monitor the harmonic behaviour and to have
knowledge about harmonic magnitude and phase angle
components can help in compensating harmonics and prevent
the system from unwanted heating and losses as well as to
assess the quality of delivered power with the IEEE standards
[1]. Thus, harmonic estimation is important tool to understand
the behaviour of harmonic and help in verifying harmonic
standard, determining the harmonic source location,
mitigation of harmonic and modelling of harmonic loads and
impedance.
Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) method is well-known
algorithm that has been used in frequency spectra assessment
due to its less computational time. However, FFT method use
a window of samples and spectral leakage can happen if the
978-1-4799-4653-2/14/$31.00 © 2014 IEEE
time of acquiring the samples is not an integral number of the
frequency cycles which can reduce the result accuracy [2, 3].
To avoid the leakage of FFT and to improve the estimation of
harmonic many algorithms based on sample-by sample
estimation not like FFT which use a window of samples have
been introduced in past two decade such as kalman filter [4,
5], recursive least squares [6, 7], least mean squares [8, 9],
Newton type[10], ADALINE linear neural network[3, 11, 12]
and ANN[13-16]. However, each algorithm of introduced
algorithms has its own advantage and disadvantage for
example kalman filter suffer from Filter drooping off and
needs sufficient information about the process for modelling
the state variables, ANN and Newton type algorithm demand
more computation resources while noise can affect the
performance of recursive least squares and least mean squares.
Due to the simplicity, low computation time and easy
implementation of Least Mean Squares (LMS) this paper
presents power system harmonics estimation using the
combination of LMS and Least Mean Forth (LMF) algorithm
[17] taken the advantage of both methods to estimate the
harmonics in low signal to noise ratio (SNR), because noise
affect the steady state performance of LMS especially in low
SNR . On the other hand, LMF algorithm can mitigate the
noise interference because LMF use higher power order which
fourth order optimization not like LMS square first order,
however, with higher computation complexity as compared to
LMS [18]. Therefore, the combination of two methods is
presented and compared with LMS and LMF.
II. BACKGROUND
A. LMS,LMF and LMS/F
Least mean square (LMS) is well-known algorithm that has
been applied in different applications because of its simplicity
and the step of standard LMS is given as follow:
›ሺሻ ൌ ™ ୘ šሺሻ ൅ œሺሻሺͳሻ
‡ሺሻ ൌ ›ሺሻ െ ™ ୘ šሺሻሺʹሻ
Where šሺሻ ൌ ሾšሺሻǡ šሺ െ ͳሻǡ ǥ ǡ šሺ െ  ൅ ͳሻሿ୘ is the input
signal, ™ ൌ ሾ™ଵ ǡ ™ଶ ǡ ǥ ǡ ™୒ ሿ୘ is is weight or coefficients of
any finite impulse response filter (FIR) with length equal to
and œሺሻis noise.
Standard LMS cost function [18] can be as follow:
 ͳ ଶ For any sampling period  Eq. (9) can be as
ଵ ሺሻ ൌ ‡ ሺሻሺ͵ሻ
ʹ
ே

Where the updating equation of LMS is given as follow: ‫ݕ‬ሺ݇ሻ ൌ ෍ ‫ܣ‬௡ •‹ሺ߱௡ ݇ܶ ൅ ‫׎‬௡ ሻ ൅ ‫ܣ‬ௗ௖ ‡š’ሺെߙௗ௖ ݇ܶሻ
௡ୀଵ
μଶ ሺሻ ൅ ‫ݖ‬ሺ݇ܶሻሺͳͲሻ
™ሺ ൅ ͳሻ ൌ ™ሺሻ െ Ɋଵ ൌ ™ሺሻ ൅ Ɋଵ ‡ሺሻšሺሻሺͶሻ
μ™ሺሻ
Applying Taylor series expansion to the decaying dc part
Where Ɋଵ is the step size that can control the speed of the ୢୡ ‡š’ሺെȽୢୡ –ሻ and considering only the first two parts the dc
convergence and the stability and the range of Ɋଵ value is part can be given as
Ͳ ൏ Ɋଵ ൏ ʹȀɀ୫ୟ୶ , where ɀ୫ୟ୶ the maximum eigenvalue of
the input šሺሻ covariance matrix, the cost function for LMF ›ୢୡ ൌ ୢୡ െ  ୢୡ Ƚୢୡ ሺͳͳሻ
[18] can be written as follow:
Combining Eq.10 with Eq.11, Eq.10 can be written as follow:
ͳ ସ
ଶ ሺሻ ൌ ‡ ሺሻሺͷሻ ே
ʹ
‫ݕ‬ሺ݇ሻ ൌ ෍ ‫ܣ‬௡ •‹ሺ߱௡ ݇ܶ ൅ ‫׎‬௡ ሻ ൅ ‫ܣ‬ௗ௖ െ ‫ܣ‬ௗ௖ ߙௗ௖ ݇ܶ
Where the updating equation of LMF is given as ௡ୀଵ
൅ ‫ݖ‬ሺ݇ܶሻሺͳʹሻ
μଶ ሺሻ
™ሺ ൅ ͳሻ ൌ ™ሺሻ െ Ɋଶ ൌ ™ሺሻ ൅ Ɋଶ ‡ଷ ሺሻšሺሻሺ͸ሻ
μ™ሺሻ
Eq. (12) can be written as follow:
where Ɋଶ is the step size that can control the speed of the ே
convergence and the stability and the range of Ɋଶ value is
‫ݕ‬ሺ݇ሻ ൌ ෍ሾ‫ܣ‬௡ •‹ሺ߱௡ ݇ܶሻ ܿ‫׎ݏ݋‬௡ ൅ ‫ܣ‬௡ …‘•ሺ߱௡ ݇ܶሻ ‫׎݊݅ݏ‬௡ ሿ
Ͳ ൏ Ɋଵ ൏ ͳȀሺܰɀ୫ୟ୶ ሻ [18].
௡ୀଵ
൅ ‫ܣ‬ௗ௖ െ ‫ܣ‬ௗ௖ ߙௗ௖ ݇ ൅ ‫ݖ‬ሺ݇ܶሻሺͳ͵ሻ
Based on the LMS cost function in Eq. (3) and the LMF cost
function in Eq. (5) the LMS/LMF cost function can be written
as follow: In general form Eq. (13)

ͳ ͳ ‫ݕ‬ሺ݇ሻ ൌ ࢞ሺ݇ሻ࢝ሺͳͶሻ
ଷ ሺሻ ൌ ‡ଶ ሺሻ െ ɂ Žሺ‡ଶ ሺሻ ൅ ɂሻሺ͹ሻ
ʹ ʹ
࢞ሺሻ ൌ ሾ•‹ሺɘଵ ሻ …‘•ሺɘଵ ሻ ǥ •‹ሺɘ୬ ሻ…‘•ሺɘ୬ ሻͳ
To balance between the convergence speed and the stability െ ሿ୘ ሺͳͷሻ
for LMS/F small threshold valueɂ ൏ Ͳ is used
The unknown parameter vector can be given as follow:
μଷ ሺሻ
™ሺ ൅ ͳሻ ൌ ™ሺሻ െ Ɋଷ ࢝ሺ݇ሻ ൌ ሾ‫ݓ‬ଵ ሺ݇ሻ ǥ‫ݓ‬ଶ௡ିଵ ሺ݇ሻǥ‫ݓ‬ଶ௡ାଶ ሺ݇ሻሿ் ሺͳ͸ሻ
μ™ሺሻ
‡ଷ ሺሻ
ൌ ™ሺሻ ൅ Ɋଷ šሺሻሺͺሻ ࢝ ൌ ሾ‫ܣ‬ଵ ܿ‫׎ݏ݋‬ଵ ‫ܣ‬ଵ ‫׎݊݅ݏ‬ଵ ‫ܣ‬ଶ ܿ‫׎ݏ݋‬ଶ ‫ܣ‬ଶ ‫׎݊݅ݏ‬ଶ ǥ
‡ଶ ሺሻ ൅ ɂ ǥ‫ܣ‬௡ ܿ‫׎ݏ݋‬௡ ‫ܣ‬௡ ‫׎݊݅ݏ‬௡ ‫ܣ‬ௗ௖ ‫ܣ‬ௗ௖ ߙௗ௖ ሿሺͳ͹ሻ

where Ɋଷ is the step size that can control the speed of the Using Eq. (4)
convergence and the stability, choosing the threshold valueɂ
is important for LMS/F [18]. ࢝ሺሻ ൌ ࢝ሺ െ ͳሻ ൅ Ɋ‡ሺሻ࢞ሺሻሺͳͺሻ

B. General LMS harmonic estimation ‫ܣ‬௡ ൌ ඥ‫ݓ‬ଶ௡ ሺ݇ሻଶ ൅ ‫ݓ‬ଶ௡ିଵ ሺ݇ሻଶ ሺͳͻሻ
The voltage or current signal can be written as the sum of
harmonics frequencies [3, 6] as follow ௐమ೙ሺ௞ሻ
‫׎‬௡ ൌ –ƒିଵ ሺʹͲሻ
ௐమ೙షభ ሺ௞ሻ
ே

‫ݕ‬ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൌ ෍ ‫ܣ‬௡ •‹ሺ߱௡ ‫ ݐ‬൅ ‫׎‬௡ ሻ ൅ ‫ܣ‬ௗ௖ ‡š’ሺെߙௗ௖ ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൅ ‫ݖ‬ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻሺͻሻ ‫ܣ‬ௗ௖ ൌ ‫ݓ‬ଶ௡ାଵ ሺʹͳሻ
௡ୀଵ
where, N is the number of harmonics.
ω୬ ‹•–Š‡ƒ‰—Žƒ”‡ˆ”‡“—‡…›, ୢୡ ‡š’ሺെαୢୡ –ሻ is the ‫ݓ‬ଶ௡ାଶ
ߙௗ௖ ൌ ሺʹʹሻ
decaying dc part in the signal ‫ݓ‬ଶ௡ାଵ
 III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The performance of LMS/F in harmonic components
estimation is evaluated in different signal to noise ratio (SNR)
using the mean square error criteria between the actual
harmonic amplitude, phase angle and the estimated values as
shown in Table. I and Table. II .Moreover, the comparison
between LMS/F, LMF and LMS also has been presented using
MATLAB simulation software.
A. Simulation of signal with two different low SNR
Signal contain a fundamental frequency of 50 Hz with
higher harmonics orders which the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 11th with
decaying DC component is simulated using a MATLAB
software. Furthermore, this type of signal can be found in
industrial load that having power-electronic converters and arc
furnaces [3, 19, 20] and signal is given as

‫ݕ‬ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ
ൌ ͳǤͷ •‹ሺ‫ ݐݓ‬൅ ͺͲ଴ ሻ ൅ ͲǤͷ •‹ሺ͵‫ ݐݓ‬൅ ͸Ͳ଴ ሻ
൅ ͲǤʹ •‹ሺͷ‫ ݐݓ‬൅ Ͷͷ଴ ሻ ൅ ͲǤͳͷ •‹ሺ͹‫ ݐݓ‬൅ ͵͸଴ ሻ
൅ ͲǤͳ •‹ሺͳͳ‫ ݐݓ‬൅ ͵Ͳ଴ ሻ ൅ ͷ ‡š’ሺെͷ‫ݐ‬ሻ 
൅ ‫ݖ‬ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻሺʹ͵ሻ Fig.2 Estimation of the fundamental phase with LMS, LMF and LMS/F

Figure 1 and Figure 2 present the performance of the three

‫ݖ‬ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ is random noise, the amplitudes of the harmonics
methods in estimating the fundamental amplitude and phase
order are given in per unit
angle. As shown in Figure 1 the LMS faster converge to
Figure 1 to Figure 4 show the estimation of the desired amplitude which is 1.5 p.u but with lower steady state
fundamental and third harmonic amplitude and phase angle performance if compared with LMF and LMS/F, furthermore,
using LMS, LMF and LMS/F for signal havingͳͲ݀‫ܤ‬. Figure 2 also show better steady state performance of LMF
Fundamental and the third harmonic order are chosen as an and LMS/F when estimating the fundamental phase angle
example due to their main contribution in the signal while the which is equal toͺͲ଴
rest of harmonics order follow the same trend.

Fig.1 Estimation of the fundamental amplitude using LMS, LMF and LMS/F Fig.3 Estimation of the third harmonic amplitude with LMS, LMF and
LMS/F
 Table. I and Table. II show the mean square error (MSE) for
the fundamental and the third harmonic order for ͳͲ݀‫ ܤ‬and
ͷ݀‫ܤ‬SNR. From the both tables the LMS/F achieve better
MSE for all the presented components as compared to LMS
and LMF especially in estimating the phase angle, moreover,
in general the phase angle MSE increase when the harmonic
order increase as shown in the Table. I and Table. II
estimating of the third harmonic phase angle has more MSE as
compared to the fundamental in both SNR with more MSE in
ͷ݀‫ ܤ‬.

IV. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the comparison between LMS, LMF and
LMS/F algorithms in estimating the amplitude and phase
angles of harmonics in low SNR is presented. Balancing
between steady state and speed of convergence is important
for the three methods. However, it can be found from the
result that LMS/F present better performance as compared
with LMS and LMF based on steady state performance and
MSE.
Fig.4 Estimation of the third harmonic phase angle with LMS, LMF and
LMS/F
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge University Technology
Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the estimation of the third PETRONAS (UTP) for providing the facilities and grant for
harmonic amplitude which is 0.5 p.u and third harmonic phase financial support.
angle respectively. It can be shown that the steady state and
speed of convergence are much better for LMF and LMS/F as References
compared to LMS in estimating the third harmonic [1] R. H. Sarri, "Discussion of "Update of harmonic standard IEEE-519:
components. Moreover, the balance between convergence IEEE Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic
Control in Electric Power Systems" (and reply)," Industry
speed and the steady state performance is necessary in the
Applications, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 27, p. 244, 1991.
practical implementation. Therefore, selecting the best value [2] A. A. Girgis and F. M. Ham, "A Quantitative Study of Pitfalls in the
of the steps sizeɊଵ Ɋଶ Ɋଷ is important. In this paper is FFT," Aerospace and Electronic Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol.
selected having Ɋଵ ൌ ͲǤͲ͵ Ɋଶ ൌ ͲǤͲʹ and Ɋଷ ൌ ͲǤͲͲͻ AES-16, pp. 434-439, 1980.
[3] M. Joorabian, S. S. Mortazavi, and A. A. Khayyami, "Harmonic
estimation in a power system using a novel hybrid Least Squares-
Adaline algorithm," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 79, pp. 107-
TABLE I. MEAN SQUARE ERROR FOR ͳͲ݀‫ܤ‬ 116, 1// 2009.
[4] H. Ma and A. A. Girgis, "Identification and tracking of harmonic
sources in a power system using a Kalman filter," Power Delivery,
Mean Square Error IEEE Transactions on, vol. 11, pp. 1659-1665, 1996.
Method 3th harmonic 3th [5] A. Routray, A. K. Pradhan, and K. P. Rao, "A novel Kalman filter for
Fundamental Fundament
amplitude harmonic frequency estimation of distorted signals in power systems,"
amplitude al phase
phase Instrumentation and Measurement, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 51, pp.
LMS 9.7861e-004 2.3339 0.0011 1.4879 469-479, 2002.
[6] M. Bettayeb and U. Qidwai, "Recursive estimation of power system
LMF 5.9450e-004 0.4200 4.1048e-004 1.4135 harmonics," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 47, pp. 143-152,
4.0988e-004 1.2977 10/15/ 1998.
LMS/F 5.5322e-004 0.4048 [7] H. C. So, "A comparative study of three recursive least-squares
algorithms for single-tone frequency tracking," Signal Process., vol.
83, pp. 2059-2062, 2003.
[8] A. K. Pradhan, A. Routray, and A. Basak, "Power system frequency
estimation using least mean square technique," Power Delivery, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 20, pp. 1812-1816, 2005.
TABLE II. MEAN SQUARE ERROR FOR ͷ݀‫ܤ‬ [9] J. P. Patra and P. K. Dash, "Fast frequency and harmonic estimation in
power systems using a new optimized adaptive filter," Electrical
Mean Square Error Engineering, vol. 95, pp. 171-184, 2013/06/01 2013.
Method 3th 3th [10] V. V. Terzija and V. Stanojevic, "Two-Stage Improved Recursive
Fundamental Fundament
harmonic harmonic Newton-Type Algorithm for Power-Quality Indices Estimation,"
amplitude al phase
amplitude phase Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 22, pp. 1351-1359, 2007.
LMS 0.0040 5.1601 0.0044 39.9394 [11] G. W. Chang, I. C. Cheng, and L. Quan-Wei, "A Two-Stage
ADALINE for Harmonics and Interharmonics Measurement,"
LMF 0.0036 2.9317 0.0028 26.9668
Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 56, pp. 2220-2228,
0.0015 13.4314 2009.
LMS/F 0.0019 1.8621
[12] A. Sarkar, S. R. Choudhury, and S. Sengupta, "A self-synchronized
ADALINE network for on-line tracking of power system harmonics,"
Measurement, vol. 44, pp. 784-790, 5// 2011.
[13] S. Osowski, "Neural network for estimation of harmonic components
in a power system," Generation, Transmission and Distribution, IEE
Proceedings C, vol. 139, pp. 129-135, 1992.
[14] B. Swiatek, M. Rogoz, and Z. Hanzelka, "Power system harmonic
estimation using neural networks," in Electrical Power Quality and
Utilisation, 2007. EPQU 2007. 9th International Conference on, 2007,
pp. 1-8.
[15] W. Xihong, H. Wei, Z. Zhanlong, D. Jun, and L. Bing, "The harmonics
analysis of power system based on Artificial Neural Network," in
Automation Congress, 2008. WAC 2008. World, 2008, pp. 1-4.
[16] X. Xiao, X. Jiang, X. Lu, and B. Chen, "A Harmonics Analysis Method
Based on Triangular Neural Network," in Control, Automation and
Systems Engineering, 2009. CASE 2009. IITA International
Conference on, 2009, pp. 323-326.
[17] L. Shao-Jen and J. G. Harris, "Combined LMS/F algorithm,"
Electronics Letters, vol. 33, pp. 467-468, 1997.
[18] G. Gui, W. Peng, and F. Adachi, "Adaptive system identification using
robust LMS/F algorithm," International Journal of Communication
Systems, pp. n/a-n/a, 2013.
[19] P. K. Dash, D. P. Swain, A. Routray, and A. C. Liew, "Harmonic
estimation in a power system using adaptive perceptrons," Generation,
Transmission and Distribution, IEE Proceedings-, vol. 143, pp. 565-
574, 1996.
[20] P. K. Ray and B. Subudhi, "Ensemble-Kalman-Filter-Based Power
System Harmonic Estimation," Instrumentation and Measurement,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 61, pp. 3216-3224, 2012.