Harmonics Estimation in Transient Conditions using

Static and Dynamic Frequency-domain Techniques

David Macii, Dario Petri
Department of Industrial Engineering
University of Trento
Trento, Italy
david.macii@unitn.it

Abstract – Harmonics estimation during transients (e.g. caused by
power quality events such as dips and swells) is a well-known,
although less explored measurement problem in power systems,
which deserves greater attention due to the changeable operating
conditions of future smart grids. The classic frequency-domain
harmonics estimator in nonstationary conditions is the Short-
Time Fourier Transform (STFT). In this paper, the results
achieved with this technique to estimate the amplitude of time-
varying harmonics are compared with those returned by an
extended version of the so-called Interpolated Dynamic Discrete
Fourier Transform (IpD2FT), which in principle is more suitable
to track phasor variations over time. Several simulation results
show indeed that the IpD2FT exhibits better responsiveness and it
is more accurate than the STFT in estimating the fundamental
and odd-order harmonics. On the contrary, for weak even-order
harmonics the STFT looks preferable. This scenario suggests that
both techniques could be advantageously used together.
Keywords – Power system harmonics, power system transients,
amplitude estimation, Fourier transform, power quality, accuracy.
I. INTRODUCTION
The proliferation of nonlinear electronic loads and
techniques aimed at improving energy efficiency as well as the
increasing penetration of distributed generators based on
renewable energy sources and storage systems pose new
challenges to ensure adequate reliability and Power Quality
(PQ), especially at the distribution level [1], [2], [3]. This
problem is expect to be further exacerbated in the future as a
result of the widespread diffusion of plug-in electric vehicles [4],
or in the context of smart cities [5]. As known, different kinds of
PQ phenomena may affect distribution systems. These include
(but are not limited to) continuous or prolonged variations of
voltage or current waveform characteristics (e.g. due to
harmonic and inter-harmonic distortion) as well as sporadic,
temporary and sudden events such as voltage dips/sags, swells
or rapid voltage changes (RVCs) [6], [7], [8]. Depending on
the specific PQ disturbance considered, different PQ indices
(PQI) exist. The definitions and the most common
measurement techniques of such PQIs are reported in well-
known international standards, e.g. standards IEEE 1459-2010
and IEC 61000-4-15:2010 for flicker measurement [9], [10],
IEC standard 61000-4-30:2015 for PQ event detection
(particularly dips and swells) [11], and the IEC standard
61000-4-7-2012 for harmonics and inter-harmonics
measurement [12]. In this respect, harmonics and inter-
harmonics are usually supposed to be measured mainly in
steady-state, whereas the diffusion of active distribution
systems tends to stress the relevance of PQ issues under
dynamic conditions, in which transients play a crucial role.
Of course, if the spectral features of a power waveform
change over time, suitable signal processing techniques in the
time-frequency domain are needed for proper signal analysis.
Among them, the most common one is undoubtedly the
discrete Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT), which tends
to track the time evolution of the spectrum of a signal by
simply computing the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the
collected waveform over adjacent or partially overlapped
sliding windows [13]. Unfortunately, the STFT suffers from
the well-known Gabor limit, which provides a lower bound to
the product between time and frequency resolution. As a
result, increasing time resolution (e.g. by using short
windows) unavoidably reduces frequency resolution. To tackle
this problem a variety of techniques have been used for PQ
analysis, e.g. the wavelet or wavelet packet transforms [14],
[15], [16], the Gabor–Wigner transform [17], the Hilbert-
Huang transform [18], and various other hybrid solutions
based on the combination of some of the techniques mentioned
above with other algorithms such as the frequency-shifting
decomposition [19], the symbolic aggregate approximation method
[20] or simply single-sideband modulation [21].
As known, no optimal PQI estimators in all aspects exist,
especially when nonstationary conditions are considered. For
instance, the discrete STFT is more suitable than dyadic
wavelet transforms for time-varying harmonic analysis [22]. A
time-domain algorithm recently proposed for harmonics
dynamic estimation relies on the combination of recursive least
squares (RLS) and iterated extended Kalman filter (IEKF)
techniques [23]. This paper instead investigates the possibility
to estimate amplitude and phase of time-varying harmonics in
transient conditions through the so-called Interpolated Dynamic
Discrete Fourier Transform (IpD2FT) [24].
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. In Section II,
the IpD2FT algorithm is briefly recalled and it is extended to
estimate not only the phasor of the fundamental, but also those
of higher-order harmonics. In Section III, a qualitative and
quantitative comparison between the extended IpD2FT
algorithm and the discrete STFT techniques is performed. On
the basis of this comparison, the joint use of both techniques is
proposed as a viable and effective solution to estimate
harmonics amplitude and phase during PQ events. Finally,
Section IV concludes the paper.

978-1-5386-5375-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

 II. SIGNAL MODEL AND EXTENDED IPD2FT ALGORITHM
Let x(t) be a voltage or current AC waveform of
fundamental frequency f = f0(1+ς), given by the sum of the
nominal value f0 and a possible static or quasi-static frequency
deviation f0ς. If x(t) includes H significant and nonstationary
harmonics and fs denotes the sampling rate (with M = fs/f0
being an integer, usually even, number), then the sequence of
samples within an observation interval centered at time tr=r/fs
and consisting of approximately C cycles can be modeled as
H
 
xr n  A r ,h ncos 2hf n r,h n wn
h1  fs
Observe that, in general,  = C +  where   C    1M 
is the
frequency location between two bins if N is even (which is the
most common case). If the phasor Taylor’s series in (2) and (4)
are truncated to the second order (i.e. K=2), and if the spectral
leakage of the window spectrum centered at frequency hꞏ for
h=1,…H, has a negligible influence on the other spectral tones
(as it happens when observation intervals are long enough)
[25], then it follows from (3) that the DTFT of (1) at frequency
bins h C+l (with l = -1, 0, 1) can be rearranged into a matrix
form as follows [24]:
r
N N
 n  r  (1)
 2 2 Xr ,h  WP h δ Pr,h WI h δ P *r,h h=1,…H (5)

where N=CꞏM, Ar,h(n) is the amplitude of the hth nonstationary where

harmonic, φr,h is the corresponding initial phase at time tr and  X r h  C  1  pr ,0 ,h   p*r ,0 ,h 
εw(ꞏ) is an additive wideband noise (e.g. due to acquisition      
circuitry). Consider that, for the sake of brevity, in the rest of X r,h   X r h  C   Pr,h   pr ,1,h  Pr,*h   p*r ,1,h  (6)
this paper the fundamental component will be also referred to  X r h  C  1  pr ,2h 
 
 p* 
 r ,2 ,h 
as the first-order harmonic. The observation intervals can be
disjoint or overlapped depending on the value used to W0 1 h   W11 h   W2 1 h  
 
increment r. In the following, it is assumed that observation Wp h     W0  h   W1 h   W2  h    , (7)
intervals are shifted by just one sample at a time. Even if this  W0 1 h   W11 h   W2 1 h   
choice may hinder real-time processing when N is large,
observation intervals sliding sample by sample maximize time and
resolution when nonstationary harmonics need tracking. W0 2C 1 h    W12C 1 h    W22C 1 h   
 
Within every observation interval, the phasor Pr,h(ꞏ) related WI h     W0 2C  h    W12C  h    W22C  h     . (8)
to each harmonic in (1) is a time-varying quantity that can be
described by a Taylor’s series truncated to the K-th order, i.e. W02C 1 h   W12C 1 h    W22C 1 h   

jr ,h n
K
N N Observe that, if the interbin frequency location  is known, (5)
Pr ,h n  Ar ,h ne  
k0
pr ,h,k nk r
2
nr
2
(2) is a set of H independent and complex-valued linear systems
whose unknowns are Re{Pr,h} and Im{Pr,h} for h=1,…,H.
k 
Pr ,h tr  Therefore, by computing the real and imaginary parts of both
where pr ,h ,k  is the kth coefficient of the Taylor’s sides of (5) and by solving the resulting linear system, the
k! f sk values of harmonics phasors (i.e. amplitude and phase) along
k 
series and Pr ,h t r  is the k-th-order derivative of the phasor with their 1st and 2nd order derivatives at time tr can be finally
associated with the h-th harmonic at time tr. If the cosine determined. Since  is usually unknown, initially it is set to
functions in (1) are expressed in a complex form, (2) is zero. This actually happens when an integer number of
replaced into (1), and εw(ꞏ) is assumed to be negligible, it can waveform cycles is observed, i.e. at nominal frequency. Then,
be shown that the windowed Discrete-Time Fourier Transform for N even, it can be estimated iteratively as follows, i.e. [24]
(DTFT) of (1) over N points is approximately [24]:
N  
 *
C  M  1 Im pr ,1,1 pr ,0 ,1  
1
(9)
1
1 2 2
 j n 2 p r ,0 ,1
2 M
X r   
W 0
 x nwn
N
r e N 
to compensate for the effect of possible static or quasi-static
n (3)
2 off-nominal fractional frequency deviations ς. In practice, two
H K
or three iterations are typically enough to achieve very
  p
h1 k 0
r ,h ,kWk   h    p*r ,h,kWk   h   accurate results [24]. However, if frequency deviations are
very small, multiple simulation results showed that no
where w(ꞏ) is the chosen window sequence with DC gain W(0), iterations are needed to estimate harmonics phasors with good
functions Wk(λ) are defined as accuracy, thus drastically reducing processing time.
N
1 2
1  N  d k W  
2 k
1 j n
Wk   
W 0  N
n k wne N  j 
W 0  2  dk
, (4) III. RESULTS AND ACCURACY ANALYSIS
The accuracy of nonstationary harmonics phasors
n 
2 estimation achievable using the revised IpD2FT algorithm
symbol “*” denotes the conjugate operator, and finally  and described in Section II and the classic discrete STFT was
 = f0/(Nꞏfs) represent the DTFT frequency variable and the analyzed in different conditions. Initially, a qualitative
fundamental frequency of (1), respectively, expressed in bins. comparison was performed by using the experimental test
 1.5
1 True
Voltage [p.u.]

STFT
0.5
IpD2FT
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Time [s]
0.04

0.02

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Time [s]
Voltage [p.u.]

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Time [s]
0.05

(a)
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Time [s]
0.1

0.05

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Time [s]

Fig. 2 – Actual and estimated amplitude values of the first five

harmonics of a simulated 50-Hz power waveform affected by a 20-ms,
voltage dip. Fundamental and higher-order harmonics amplitude
decreases by 90% at a rate of -10 p.u./s.

between accuracy and responsiveness. Indeed, for C<4,

(b)
Fig. 1 – (a) Two experimental test waveforms taken from the IEEE
Project Group 1159.2 database. (b) Amplitude of the first five harmonics
of test waveform 1 (on the left) and 2 (on the right) as a function of time,
estimated by the discrete STFT (dotted lines) and the IpD2FT algorithm
(solid lines) over 4-cycles intervals using the 2T-MSD (Hann) window.
waveforms of the IEEE Project Group 1159.21, which were
adopted for the same purpose in [22]. These 60-Hz test
waveforms are sampled at fs = 15.360 kHz (i.e. M=256
samples are collected in a single nominal cycle) and include a
variety of PQ events. Fig. 1(a) shows two of such test
waveforms affected by PQ events of different severity.
Fig. 1(b) displays instead the amplitude of the first five
harmonics of either waveform estimated by the classic discrete
STFT (dotted lines) and the IpD2FT algorithm (solid lines)
over C=4 cycles intervals sliding sample-by-sample. In both
cases, the 2-term Maximum Side-lobe Decay (2T-MSD or
Hann) window is used. The rationale for choosing C=4 cycles
stems from the fact that this value provides a good trade-off
1
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1159/2/
spectral leakage drastically affects estimation accuracy. This
problem is common to both estimators, but it is more critical
in the IpD2FT algorithm case for the reasons explained later in
this Section.
It is worth highlighting that the results shown in Fig. 1(b)
are just qualitative, since it is very difficult to realize which
algorithm is more accurate without knowing the actual
amplitude of each harmonic at a given time. Nevertheless, the
curves in Fig. 1(b) are interesting for two main reasons. First,
they clearly show that the harmonic content during transients
is significant, and it deserves to be monitored. Secondly, it is
evident that the IpD2FT estimator reacts more quickly to PQ
events than the discrete STFT, as expected. This outcome
suggests that the IpD2FT algorithm might be preferable to
track harmonics amplitude in nonstationary conditions,
provided that the estimation of the first and the second
derivative of each harmonic phasor is not excessively
perturbed by spectral leakage.
An exhaustive accuracy comparison between the discrete
STFT and the IpD2FT algorithm was performed through
Monte Carlo simulations. In particular, multiple waveforms
affected by transient PQ events were generated. The
simulation settings are briefly summarized below.
 Amplitude and frequency of the fundamental component
are initialized to √2 p.u. and 50 Hz, respectively. Each
waveform is affected by a static off-nominal frequency
deviation within ±1% of 50 Hz with 99.5% probability, as
prescribed in [26].
TABLE I – 95TH-PERCENTILES OF HARMONICS RELATIVE AMPLITUDE AND PHASE ESTIMATION ERRORS, RESPECTIVELY, ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISCRETE STFT AND
THE IPD2FT ALGORITHMS APPLIED TO 4-CYCLE OBSERVATION INTERVALS SLIDING ONE SAMPLE AT A TIME WHEN A 2-TERM MSD WINDOW IS USED. THE
MAGNITUDE OF ALL HARMONICS IS REDUCED BY 90%, 50% OR 10%, RESPECTIVELY, AT A RATE OF CHANGE OF -5 P.U./S.

Harmonics amplitude changes -90% -50% -10%

Harmonic Initial harmonics E95(A) [%] E95(φ) [crad] E95(A) [%] E95(φ) [crad] E95(A) [%] E95(φ) [crad]
order h amplitude STFT IpD FT 2
STFT 2
IpD FT STFT 2
IpD FT STFT 2
IpD FT STFT 2
IpD FT STFT IpD2FT

1 √2 p.u. (100%) 10.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 2.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
2 2% 29.2 54.6 19.3 43.3 7.3 16.5 9.2 19.4 3.0 8.3 3.0 7.7
3 5% 10.3 1.3 1.9 1.8 2.2 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.4
4 1% 11.0 6.4 3.8 6.1 2.1 2.8 2.4 3.8 1.0 1.9 0.9 2.0
5 4% 9.9 0.8 1.6 0.8 2,0 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.2
6 0.5% 11.0 11.5 6.2 10.5 2.6 6.1 3.3 6.7 1.7 4.6 1.8 4.4
7 4% 9.7 0.9 2.1 0.7 1.7 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1
8 0.5% 10.5 9.0 5.6 8.7 1.9 4.8 2.9 5.6 1.1 3.8 1.6 3.9
9 1.2% 9.4 2.5 2.9 2.2 1.4 0.7 1.6 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4

 Harmonics amplitude was set in such a way that the Total
Harmonic Distortion (THD) is steadily equal to the
maximum value specified in the EN Standard 50160:2010,
i.e. 8% [26]. In particular, the harmonics from the 2nd to
the 9th take values close to the maxima reported in the
same Standard for low-voltage and medium-voltage
distribution systems (i.e. comprised between 0.5% and 5%
of the fundamental component, depending on the harmonic
order).
 Every simulated test waveform lasts 1 s and includes one
PQ event of duration ranging between ½ cycle and 30
cycles (this is indeed the range of instantaneous PQ events
according to the IEEE Standard 1159-2009 [27]). During
such events the amplitude of all harmonics changes
linearly by ±10%, ±50% or ±90% at different rates ranging
from ±1 p.u./s to ±10 p.u./s. In this way, the THD of the
test waveform is kept constant.
 For each type of PQ events, about 128 test waveforms
were generated with random initial phase uniformly
distributed in the interval [0, 2π).
 The Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) due to the additive
wideband acquisition noise εw(ꞏ) was set to 74 dB
(corresponding to 12 effective bits).
 To reduce simulation time, just M=64 samples per
wveform cycle were considered (i.e. fs=3.2 kHz). Even if
such a sampling frequency is lower than the rate typically
used in real PQ meters, this choice does not affect the
proposed analysis since the frequency of the highest-order
harmonic is well below the Nyquist frequency.
Fig. 2 displays the sequence of actual and estimated
amplitude values of the first five harmonics of one of the
waveforms simulated as described above, i.e. when a 1-cycle,
90%-deep voltage sag occurs. The estimated values result
from the IpD2FT technique (solid line) and the classic discrete
STFT estimator (dashed-dotted line). In both cases the 2T-MSD
window over C=4 cycle intervals is used. Even if this is just an
example, it is quite evident that the second-order harmonic
estimates exhibit significant oscillations, due to the large
contribution caused by the spectral leakage of the fundamental.
The estimation accuracy of the other harmonics amplitude is
instead apparently quite good.
Tab. I shows the 95th percentiles of the relative amplitude
estimation errors and the phase estimation errors associated
with the discrete STFT and the IpD2FT algorithm,
respectively, over 4-cycle intervals. Again, the 2T-MSD
window is used in all cases. Both percentiles, denoted with
E95(A) and E95(φ), are computed over 128 test waveforms (i.e.
over about 4.1ꞏ105 data) with dips of duration equal to 30
cycles, harmonics amplitude reduced by 10%, 50% or 90% of
the steady-state values and amplitude rate of change of -5
p.u./s. Dual results obtained with increments by 10%, 50% or
90% of the nominal values at different rates exhibit a similar
behavior and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
The values in Tab. I show clearly that the IpD2FT
algorithm outperforms the discrete STFT in estimating
amplitude and phase of odd-order harmonics. On the contrary,
the discrete STFT provides more accurate results when even-
order harmonics are considered. This behavior is more evident
when sudden and large PQ events occur (e.g. -90% voltage
dips). This is due to the fact that the DTFT W1(ꞏ) and W2(ꞏ)
used in (7) and (8) exhibit larger side-lobes than the related
window spectrum W0(ꞏ). Therefore, even if the IpD2FT
technique is generally more accurate than the STFT in
estimating amplitude and phase of a single tone in dynamic
conditions (as clearly visible when the phasor of the
fundamental component is considered [24]), the lower
robustness to spectral leakage has a major impact on the
estimation of small harmonics affected by the spectral leakage
 Harmonics amplitude variation: -90% Harmonics amplitude variation: -90%
102 105 STFT - h=2
STFT - h=2
STFT - h=6 STFT - h=6
STFT - h=4 STFT - h=4
100 100
IpD2FT - h=5 IpD2FT - h=5
IpD2FT - h=3 IpD2FT - h=3
IpD2FT - h=1 IpD2FT - h=1
10-2 10-5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Rate of change [p.u./s] Rate of change [p.u./s]
Harmonics amplitude variation: -50% Harmonics amplitude variation: -50%
102 105

100 100

10-2 10-5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Rate of change [p.u./s] Rate of change [p.u./s]
Harmonics amplitude variation: -10% Harmonics amplitude variation: -10%
102 105

100 100

10-2 10-5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Rate of change [p.u./s] Rate of change [p.u./s]

(a) (b)
th
Fig. 3 – 95 percentiles of harmonics relative amplitude (a) and phase (b) estimation errors for different rates of change of harmonics amplitudes when
they are reduced by 90%, 50% or 10% of the initial values. Dotted and solid lines refer to the STFT and IpD2FT algorithms, respectively, applied to
4-cycle intervals. In all cases, the 2T-MSD window is used.

of nearby stronger tones. Of course, this behavior becomes
more evident when the difference in amplitude between
adjacent tones grows and it is maximum for the 2nd order
harmonic, mainly due to its closeness to the fundamental
component, as shown in Fig. 2. Given that, in typical
distribution systems, the magnitude of odd-order harmonics is
quite larger than the magnitude of even-order ones, the
estimation accuracy of the IpD2FT technique when it is
applied to such smaller harmonics degrades drastically.
This scenario persists even in the presence of frequency
jumps occurring during PQ events (with a loss of accuracy
which is basically the same for both techniques) and suggests
that the best and simplest approach to estimate harmonics
amplitudes and phases is just to use the IpD2FT algorithm and
the classic STFT for odd- and even-order harmonics,
respectively.
Fig. 3 highlights the impact of harmonics amplitude rate of
change on estimation accuracy when either technique is used
as explained above. In particular, Fig. 3(a)-(b) shows the 95th
percentiles E95(A) and E95(φ) of the relative amplitude
estimation errors and the phase estimation errors, respectively,
of the first six harmonics when they decrease by 90%, 50% or
10%. Dotted and solid lines refer to the STFT and the IpD2FT
algorithm, respectively, over 4-cycle intervals when the 2T-MSD
window is used. The curves in Fig. 3 clearly show that
estimation accuracy tends to degrade as the rate of change of
harmonics amplitude grows, as expected. Observe that not
only the IpD2FT algorithm used to estimate the odd-order
harmonics is more accurate than the discrete STFT used to
estimate the even-order ones (in accordance with the results of
Tab. I), but it is also slightly less sensitive to the rate of
change, especially when large voltage dips or swells occur.
To complete the analysis, Fig. 4 shows the 95th percentiles
E95(A) and E95(φ) associated with the estimation of all 9
harmonics present in the simulated signal for different voltage
dips durations. In this case, harmonics amplitude decreases by
90% at a rate of -10 p.u./s. Again, the odd-order harmonics
phasors are estimated by the IpD2FT, while the even-order
harmonics phasors are estimated by the discrete STFT. The
bars in Fig. 4 show that, for a given harmonic component,
amplitude and phase estimation accuracy is quite independent
of dip duration. This result is due to the fact that the largest
estimation errors occur at the beginning or at the end of each
dip, regardless of PQ event duration.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
This paper reports an accuracy comparison between the
classic discrete Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT) and an
extended version of the Interpolated Dynamic Discrete Fourier
Transform (IpD2FT) when they are used to estimate amplitude
and phase of nonstationary harmonics during PQ events. On
the whole, the proposed analysis suggests that the IpD2FT

Fig. 4 - 95th percentiles of harmonics relative amplitude (above) and
phase (below) estimation errors for voltage dips of different duration.
Voltage dips are -90% deep with a rate of amplitude change equal to -10
p.u./s. Harmonics phasors are estimated by the IpD2FT (odd-order
harmonics) or the discrete STFT (even-order harmonics) using a 2T-MSD
window over 4-cycle intervals sliding by one sample at a time.
algorithm is able to better estimate nonstationary odd-order
harmonics (especially when sudden and large PQ events
occur), but it is also more sensitive to spectral leakage, which
may strongly degrade estimation accuracy of even-order
harmonics (particularly the 2nd one), which are typically
smaller. In such conditions the STFT is preferable. Ultimately,
the joint use of both techniques looks a simple and sensible
solution.
REFERENCES
[1] V. Agarwal, and L. H. Tsoukalas, “Smart Grids: Importance of Power
Quality,” in Energy-Efficient Computing and Networking, N.
Hatziargyriou, A. Dimeas, T. Tomtsi, A. Weidlich (Eds.), Springer
Berlin-Heidelberg, pp. 136-143, Berlin-Heidelberg, 2011.
[2] O. P. Mahela, A. G. Shaik, and N. Gupta, “A critical review of detection
and classification of power quality events,” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, vol. 41, pp. 495–505, Jan. 2015.
[3] G. Barchi, D. Fontanelli, D. Macii and D. Petri, “On the Accuracy of
Phasor Angle Measurements in Power Networks,” in IEEE Trans. Instr.
Meas., vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1129-1139, May 2015.
[4] V. Monteiro, H. Gonçalves and J. L. Afonso, “Impact of Electric
Vehicles on power quality in a Smart Grid context,” Proc. Int.
Conference on Electrical Power Quality and Utilisation (EPQU),
Lisbon, Portugal, Oct. 2011, pp. 1-6.
[5] D. Macii, D. Fontanelli and D. Petri, “Performance of Phasor
Measurement Units for power quality event detection in urban
distribution grids,” Proc. IEEE Int. Smart Cities Conference (ISC2),
Trento, Italy, Sep. 2016, pp. 1-7.
[6] IEEE Std. 1159:2009, IEEE Recommended Practice for Monitoring
Electric Power Quality, Jun. 2009.
[7] D. Gallo, C. Landi, M. Luiso and E. Fiorucci, “Survey on Voltage Dip
Measurements in Standard Framework,” in IEEE Trans. Instr. Meas.,
vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 374-387, Feb. 2014.
[8] D. Macii and D. Petri, "On the detection of Rapid Voltage Change
(RVC) events for power quality monitoring," Proc. IEEE Int. Instr. and
Meas. Tech. Conf. (I2MTC), Turin, Italy, May 2017, pp. 1-6.
[9] IEEE Std. 1459-2010, IEEE Standard Definitions for the Measurement
of Electric Power Quantities Under Sinusoidal, Nonsinusoidal,
Balanced, or Unbalanced Conditions, pp.1-50, Mar. 2010.
[10] IEC 61000-4-15:2010, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-
15: Testing and measurement techniques - Flickermeter - Functional
and design specifications.
[11] IEC 61000-4-30:2015, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-
30: Testing and measurement techniques – Power quality measurement
methods.
[12] IEC 61000-4-7:2002, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-
7:General Guide on Harmonics and Interharmonics Measurements for
Power Supply Systems and Equipment Connected Thereto.
[13] M. H. J. Bollen, I. Y. H. Gu, Signal Processing of Power Quality
Disturbances, Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, USA 2006.
[14] C. Jaipradidtham and V. Kinnares, “Discrete wavelet transform - signal
processing for harmonic analysis of electromagnetic transients in 500
kV single circuit transmission system,” Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on
Communications and Information Technology (ISCIT), Beijing, China
Oct. 2005, pp. 594-597.
[15] W. G. Morsi and M. E. El-Hawary, “Wavelet packet transform-based
power quality indices for balanced and unbalanced three-phase systems
under stationary or nonstationary operating conditions,” IEEE Trans. on
Power Delivery, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2300–2310, Oct. 2009.
[16] T. Croes, C. Gherasim, J. Van den Keybus, J. Ghijselen, J. Driesen, and
R. Belmans, “Power measurement using the wavelet transform of
analytic signals,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Harmonics Quality Power,
Lake Placid, NY, USA, Sep. 2004, pp. 338–342.
[17] S. H. Cho, G. Jang, S. H. Kwon, "Time-frequency analysis of power-
quality disturbances via the Gabor–Wigner transform", IEEE Trans. on
Power Delivery, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 494-499, Jan. 2010.
[18] N. Senroy, S. Suryanarayanan, and P. F. Ribeiro, “An improved Hilbert-
Huang method for analysis of time-varying waveforms in power
quality,” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1843–1850,
Nov. 2007.
[19] N. C. F. Tse, J. Y. C. Chan, W. H. Lau and L. L. Lai, “Hybrid Wavelet
and Hilbert Transform With Frequency-Shifting Decomposition for
Power Quality Analysis,” in IEEE Trans. Instr. Meas., vol. 61, no. 12,
pp. 3225-3233, Dec. 2012.
[20] M. J. Afroni, D. Sutanto and D. Stirling, "Analysis of Nonstationary
Power-Quality Waveforms Using Iterative Hilbert Huang Transform and
SAX Algorithm," in IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 28, no. 4, pp.
2134-2144, Oct. 2013.
[21] I. Urbina-Salas, J. R. Razo-Hernandez, D. Granados-Lieberman, M.
Valtierra-Rodriguez and J. E. Torres-Fernandez, “Instantaneous Power
Quality Indices Based on Single-Sideband Modulation and Wavelet
Packet-Hilbert Transform,” in IEEE Trans. Instr. Meas., vol. 66, no. 5,
pp. 1021-1031, May 2017.
[22] Y. H. Gu and M. H. J. Bollen, “Time-frequency and time-scale domain
analysis of voltage disturbances,” in IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1279-1284, Oct 2000.
[23] J. Enayati and Z. Moravej, “Real-time harmonics estimation in power
systems using a novel hybrid algorithm,” in IET Generation,
Transmission & Distribution, vol. 11, no. 14, pp. 3532-3538, 9 28 2017.
[24] D. Petri, D. Fontanelli and D. Macii, “A Frequency-Domain Algorithm
for Dynamic Synchrophasor and Frequency Estimation,” in IEEE Trans.
Instr. Meas., vol. 63, no. 10, pp. 2330-2340, Oct. 2014.
[25] D. Belega, D. Fontanelli and D. Petri, “Low-Complexity Least-Squares
Dynamic Synchrophasor Estimation Based on the Discrete Fourier
Transform,” in IEEE Trans. Instr. Meas., vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 3284-3296,
Dec. 2015.
[26] EN 50160:2010, Voltage characteristics of electricity supplied by public
distribution systems, Brussels, Belgium, Dec. 2010.
[27] IEEE Std. 1159:2009, IEEE Recommended Practice for Monitoring
Electric Power Quality, Jun. 2009.