Sunteți pe pagina 1din 8

9th International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems KTH, Stockholm, Sweden – June 11-15, 2006

1

Using Adaptive Step-Size Least Mean Squares (ASLMS) for Estimating Low-Frequency Electromechanical Modes in Power Systems

R. W. Wies 1 , A. Balasubramanian 1 , J. W. Pierre 2 ,

1 Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775

2 Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82070

Abstract-- Information about the stability of heavily interconnected power systems is found in low-frequency electromechanical modes. This research complements model-based and measurement-based approaches to mode estimation typically requiring much computation and ringdown from a disturbance, respectively. This paper discusses an adaptive step-size Least Mean Square algorithm (ASLMS) for estimating the electromechanical modes near real time in which the step size (μ) is adaptively controlled to improve the convergence time of the estimates compared to the LMS. A simple gradient vector (γ) and a small positive constant (ρ) are introduced for controlled adaptation of μ. The improvement in convergence performance of the frequency and damping estimates when compared to the LMS estimates is shown by applying the ASLMS to simulated data containing a stationary mode from a 19-machine test model and ambient power system data, while using an initial weight vector from previous ASLMS, LMS and block processing algorithm estimates.

Index Terms—Inter connected power systems, low frequency electromechanical modes, ringdown, adaptive step size, Least Mean Square, adaptive control, gradient vector, small positive constant, convergence, 19-machine test model and ambient power system data.

I. INTRODUCTION

T HE stability of a power system can be assessed by the frequency and strength of low-frequency

electromechanical modes in the system. All the previous methods and applications for estimating low-frequency electromechanical modes in power systems, like eigenanalysis

Manuscript received December . This work was supported by the Bonneville Power Administration and EPRI under grant 97AP34212, and by Associated Western Universities, Inc., Northwest Division (AWU NW) under grant DE-FG06-89ER-75522, DE-FG07-93ER-75912 or DE-FG06-92RL- 12451 with the U.S. Department of Energy. R. W. Wies is with the University of Alaska Fairbanks , Fairbanks , AK 99775,USA (email: ffrww@uaf.edu) A. Balasubramanian is with University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA (email: ftab2@uaf.edu) J. W. Pierre is with the University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071 (e- mail: pierre@uwyo.edu).

on system models [1, 2], Prony identification of ring down from a disturbance [3-5] and spectral analysis methods [6-9] require or involve tedious matrix calculations [1, 2], ring down from a fault or a excitation [6-9] and do not give information about the strength of the electromechanical mode (damping), respectively. The performance of block processing techniques like that described in [10] involves selection of the adequate block size for accurate estimation of the modes. The LMS adaptive filtering technique was adopted in [11] and [12] and the technique was applied to ambient and simulated data. Different step sizes with a zero initial weight vector and initial estimate from previous LMS estimates were explored. Work is also being done with substituting an initial weight vector from block processing techniques into the LMS algorithm. Time of convergence and variability of the frequency and damping estimates were the major concerns in [11] and [12] and the work proposed above. For faster initial convergence in a non-stationary environment this work proposes an improved Least Mean Squares algorithm called the adaptive step size Least Mean Square algorithm (ASLMS). Control of the step size parameter plays an important role in controlling the tracking of an adaptive algorithm and thus improving the convergence behavior of the LMS filter. The step size parameter is adaptively controlled and in this process is introduced a gradient vector (γ ) and a small positive constant rho ( ρ ) [13]. The initial weight vector estimates from the previous run of ASLMS algorithm are substituted in the LMS algorithm to improve the performance of the LMS algorithm as proposed in [11] and [12].

II. TRACKING TIME VARYING SYSTEMS

If we assign a number to each and every outcome of an experiment then the number assigned in common terms is called a random variable x (ξ ) . Consider a set of events, all the events have a probability assigned to it and all the events are collected in a set S. To every outcome ξ of the event we

assign a number x (ξ ). The symbol x (ξ ) will represent the

number assigned to the specific out come ξ and the symbol x determines the relation between any element of the set S and the number assigned to it [14]. Thus a random variable x is a

© Copyright KTH 2006

9th International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems KTH, Stockholm, Sweden – June 11-15, 2006

2

rule for assigning to every outcome ξ of an event S a number

x (ξ ). A stochastic processes x ( t ) is a rule for assigning to

every ξ a function x ( t ,ξ ). Thus a stochastic process is

dependent on both t andξ .

A stochastic process describes how a statistical

environment based on probabilistic laws evolves with time. It is a collection of infinite random variables on each and every

time sample t . Consider a discrete time stochastic processes

inputs

with

( M 1) delay elements. The LMS algorithm is a linear adaptive filtering algorithm with two separate processes, filtering processes and adaptive processes. During the filtering processes the desired response d (n) is and the tap input

vector u(n) are used to generate an error vector e(n) .

In adaptive processes the input vector u(n) and the error

vector e(n) are compared and a correction is applied to the tap weight vector. The scaling parameter used for this correction is called the step size parameter ( μ ). The three important equations governing the LMS operation described above are [13]:

represented

un( ), un(

by

,

un(

−+M

the

1)

tap

LMS

1),

to

a

filter

() = w

yn

H

()(u

n

n

1)

(1)

en() = u()n y()n

(2)

w(

)

n +=1

wu()

n

+ μ

(

n 1 en

)

*

()

(3)

.u(n-M)] T is the same

data vector with M past values, w(n) = [w 1 (n) w 2 (n). w M (n)] T is a time varying filter tap weights, y(n) is the

filter output, e(n) is the error estimate, μ is the step size

parameter, and M is the filter order. A stochastic processes x( t ) is strictly stationary if its statistical properties are time invariant i.e. two samples of the processes taken at two different samples are the same. Let p denote a stochastic process, so that in a strictly stationary processes pn() = pn( + α ) where α denotes a time shift.

is a continuously differentiable cost function which

maps the elements of the weight vector into numbers. The

adaptive algorithm has to find an optimal solution

that

statement of unconstrained optimization

holds true for all values of the weight vector

where u(n-1) = [u(n-1)

J (w)

w such

o

J

(

w

o

the

)

J

()

w

w .

The difference between the final value of the cost function

is called

the excess mean square error

stochastic mechanism to control the tap weights in the LMS filter. The misadjustment Μ is given as

, the cost paid by the

J () and the minimum value of cost function

J

ex

(

)

J min

Μ =

J

ex

(

)

J min

(4)

and is a measure of how close the LMS algorithm is to the optimal solution. Control of the step size plays an important role in the variability of the estimates and the convergence time of the LMS algorithm in a non-stationary environment. In a

stationary environment the minimum cost function

is

fixed, but in a non-stationary environment

varying form. Furthermore, due to the presence of a gradient noise in the LMS algorithm, the tap weight vector follows a Brownian movement around the minimum point of error performance rather than terminating on the Weiner solution [13]. So the adaptive algorithm is further burdened as it has to track the minimum point first and then track the solution around the minimum point which makes the adaptive algorithm produce more variable estimates. According to first-order Markov process, the tap-weight

takes a time

J

min

J min

vector

the following relationship [13]:

w

o

(

)

n in a non-stationary environment is defined by

w

o

(

n +

1)

(

= anw

o

)

(

+ ω n

)

(5)

where ω(n) is the processes noise vector with zero mean and

correlation matrix R ω and a is a parameter very close to

unity. In a non-stationary environment the misadjustment parameter is not only the measure of how close the solution is but is also a measure of the degree of non-stationarity.

J

()

tr[R R

ω

u

]

Μ ==

ex

J min

σ

v

2

=

α 2 (6)

where α is the degree of non-stationarity, tr[ ] is the trace

is the irreducible error variance and R u is

the correlation matrix of the tap input vector u(n) . A forth equation is added to the set of three LMS equations

(1)-(3) to adaptively update the step size parameter:

of a matrix,

σ

v

μ(n = μ(n −+ ρen γ n u n

)

1)

(

)

H

(

)

(

)

(7)

where

γ

H is the gradient vector defined as the partial

© Copyright KTH 2006

9th International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems KTH, Stockholm, Sweden – June 11-15, 2006

3

derivative of the weight vector at a sample (iteration) with respect to the step size parameter of the same sample.

γ

(

n

)

w(n)

=

(n)

μ

(8)

and ρ is a small positive constant which controls the update of the step size parameter. If the gradient vector is included in the update of the step size parameter, the update in step size during each iteration of the adaptation is reduced, therefore the error estimate e(n) during each iteration is reduced and this results in better tracking performance in terms of convergence time. The result of implementing the gradient vector with the step size parameter in (7) on the LMS algorithm (1)-(3) is the adaptive step-size LMS (ASLMS) algorithm. A block diagram of the ASLMS algorithm is shown in Fig. 1.

FIR FILTER y u u( n) + Z -1 W( n) γ (n) e( n)
FIR FILTER
y
u
u( n)
+
Z -1
W( n)
γ (n)
e( n)
-
LMS
update
Fig. 1. Block diagram of ASLMS algorithm.

The weight vectors generated by the ASLMS algorithm give us the information about the modes present in the input power system data u(n) which is stochastic in sense. The roots of the z-domain polynomial are calculated from the weight vector which is then converted into the s-plane. The z- domain polynomial is given by:

azn( , ) =−

1

w

1

(nz)

1

w

Μ

(nz)

Μ

(9)

Conversion to s-plane is done using the following rule

s(n) = ln(roots(a(z,n))) / Τ

(10)

where T is the sampling period. The total number of roots will be equal to the filter tap length M .The roots calculated contain the information about the frequency and damping ratio of the dominant mode. For a non-stationary data and a small μ , the LMS algorithm will converge if [13]:

0 < μ < (/2

total MSV )

(11)

where MSV is the mean-square-value given by the relation

total MSV

=

Μ

L

L 1

n = 0

u 2 (

n

)

(12)

where L is the length of the input data and M represents the number of tap-weights of the filter. The difference between the LMS and the ASLMS algorithm is in (7) where the step size is updated every iteration. This step allows the ASLMS algorithm to track the minimum point of error in less time than an LMS algorithm. The time of convergence of an estimate tracked by the ASLMS algorithm is far less than the time taken by the LMS algorithm. Due to

the presence of

tracking of the estimate is more variable using the ASLMS algorithm.

σ , the irreducible error variance, the

v

III. PERFORMANCE OF ASLMS ON MEGAWATT DATA

The 19-machine test system shown in Fig. 2 is a reduced order replica of the western North American power grid was used to generate simulation data [15]. The system contains five inter- area modes and several local modes. The MATLAB Power Systems Tool Box [16] was used to linearize the non-linear system into a 92 nd order linear system. A one hour window of megawatt data was generated from line 17 between buses 22

and 26. Both stationary modes and moving modes are

available in the system. The stationary mode location and

strength are shown in Table I. The location of the mode is defined by its frequency and the strength is defined by the percent damping ratio. The stationary mode at 0.2624Hz and a damping ratio of 10.33% was the mode used through out this study.

21

23 31 41 38 25 13 2 9 7 26 33 34 42 35 24
23
31
41
38
25
13
2
9
7
26
33
34
42
35
24
15
16
6
17
1
39
22
10
8
40
32
28
20
14
5
36
37
29
30
27
18
19
4 11
12 3

Fig. 2. 19-machine reduced order replica of the western North

American power grid.

Table I Stationary Frequency and Percentage Damping of the 19- Machine System

Frequency(Hz)

Percentage Damping (%)

0.2624

10.33

0.5835

3.93

0.6202

3.86

0.7347

3.17

0.8432

2.81

© Copyright KTH 2006

9th International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems KTH, Stockholm, Sweden – June 11-15, 2006

4

Fig. 3 shows the estimated power spectral density of the one hour megawatt data generated from line 17. The peaks in the figure verify the frequencies in the above table.

in the figure verify the frequencies in the above table. Fig. 3. Power spectral density of

Fig. 3. Power spectral density of real power on line 17 between buses 22 and 26.

Pre-processing of the megawatt data is performed before passing the data through the ASLMS algorithm. Pre- processing of the data involves three stages: low pass filtering, decimation and high pass filtering. After the mean value is removed from the data, a Parks/McClellan FIR low pass filter with a cutoff frequency of 2 Hz is used to remove the high frequency measurement noise from the data. The data is then decimated from 10 samples/second to 5 samples/second. Decimation of the data has two purposes: one is to achieve the Nyquist criterion in looking at the modes with frequencies below 2.5Hz and the other is to reduce the order of the filter. In the third stage of the filtering process the decimated data is high pass filtered to remove very low frequencies below 0.1Hz and to remove any DC component. The LMS and ASLMS algorithm was applied to the data generated from the 19-machine test model and set to track the 0.2624 Hz mode with a damping ratio of 10.33 %. Figs. 4 and 5 represent the estimates of frequency and damping ratios respectively by the LMS and the ASLMS algorithm with a cold start (zero weight vectors). The same value of step size ( μ =7.8231 e-06) was used in both the algorithms. It is seen from the plots that the ASLMS algorithm performs very well in terms of the convergence time of the estimate. Both the frequency and damping ratio estimates from the ASLMS algorithm have a much lower convergence time when compared to the estimates from the LMS algorithm. The extra variability exhibited in the ASLMS estimates is due to the

irreducible error variance

σ

v

mentioned earlier. The small

constant ( ρ ), which controls the adaptation of the step size in the ASLMS algorithm was set to 1.8182 e-03 in the frequency estimate in Fig. 4 and 1.428 e-03 in the damping ratio estimate in Fig. 5.

4 and 1.428 e-03 in the damping ratio estimate in Fig. 5. Fig. 4. Mode frequency

Fig. 4. Mode frequency vs. time for megawatt data between buses 22 and 26 of the 19 machine system (60 minutes, cold start, LMS: μ =7.8231 e-06, ASLMS: μ =7.8231 e-06, ρ = 1.8182 e-03).

e-06, ASLMS: μ =7.8231 e-06, ρ = 1.8182 e-03). Fig. 5. Damping ratio vs. time for

Fig. 5. Damping ratio vs. time for megawatt data between buses 22 and 26 of the 19 machine system (60 minutes, cold start, LMS: μ =7.8231 e-06, ASLMS: μ =7.8231 e-06, ρ = 1.00 e-03)

The mode frequency was estimated over time by the ASLMS algorithm with a cold start for three different values of ρ (3.33 e-03, 1.82 e-03, and 1.00 e-03). The damping ratio was then estimated over time by the ASLMS algorithm with a cold start for three different values of ρ (6.67 e-03, 1.43 e- 03, and 7.14 e-04). In all the cases mentioned above the same value of the step size parameter was used ( μ =7.8231 e-06). It is seen from these plots that as the value of ρ decreases the

variability of the estimate decreases but the time taken for the

estimate to converge increases. If the value of the small positive constant ρ is increased to achieve a smaller time of convergence of the estimate, then the variability of the estimate also increases. Figs. 6 and 7 show the ASLMS estimate of frequency and

© Copyright KTH 2006

9th International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems KTH, Stockholm, Sweden – June 11-15, 2006

5

damping ratio versus time with zero initial weight vectors and

for different values of ρ . If the value of

very small value like 5.55e-04 and 2.85e-04 in the frequency and damping estimates, respectively, the estimates behave like an ordinary LMS estimate. Although the ASLMS algorithm has a more variable estimate, the convergence time is lower when compared to the LMS algorithm. A combination of the LMS and the ASLMS algorithm was used to achieve a lower convergence time and less variability for the estimates.

ρ is decreased to a

data set using an initial weight vector estimate 10 minutes into the previous LMS estimates (LMS- ASLMS).

3. The LMS algorithm was reapplied to the same data set using an initial weight vector estimate 10 minutes into the previous ASLMS estimates (ASLMS-LMS).

The step size was also reduced by a factor of 10 (7.8231 e-07) to help reduce the variability in the mode estimates. Figs. 8 and 9 show the estimates of frequency and damping ratio for the three cases mentioned above. The step size parameter could not be reduced further due to the convergence time constraints. From Figs. 8 and 9 it is clear that the weight vector from previous ASLMS estimates gives a better estimate when compared to the weight vector from the previous LMS estimates. The convergence time in both the frequency and damping estimates is reduced using case 3.

Fig. 6. Mode frequency vs. time for megawatt data between buses 22 and 26 of
Fig. 6. Mode frequency vs. time for megawatt data between
buses 22 and 26 of the 19 machine system (60 minutes, cold
start, μ =7.8231 e-06, ρ =1.82e-03, 1.00e-03, 5.55 e-04).
Fig. 8. Mode frequency vs. time for megawatt data of the 19
machine system (60 minutes, μ =7.8231 e-07, LMS-ASLMS:
ρ =2.00 e-03, ASLMS-LMS: ρ =5.71 e-03).
Fig. 7. Damping ratio vs. time for megawatt data between
buses 22 and 26 of the 19 machine system (60 minutes, cold
start, μ =7.8231 e-06, ρ =2.50e-03, 1.43 e-03, 2.85 e-04).
The
following
three
cases
were
studied
using
a
combination of the LMS and ASLMS algorithms:

1. The LMS algorithm was reapplied to the same data set using an initial weight vector estimate 10 minutes into the previous LMS estimates (LMS-LMS).

2. The ASLMS algorithm was reapplied to the same

Fig. 9. Damping ratio vs. time for megawatt data of the 19 machine system (60 minutes, μ =7.8231 e-07, LMS-ASLMS:

ρ =2.00 e-03, ASLMS-LMS: ρ =5.00 e-03).

© Copyright KTH 2006

9th International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems KTH, Stockholm, Sweden – June 11-15, 2006

6

Using the initial weight vector estimate from 10 minutes into the previous ASLMS estimates (case 3) improves the convergence time of the frequency estimate in Fig. 8 while the estimates in cases 1 and 2 did not converge even after tracking the full 60 minutes of data. The ASLMS algorithm with the initial weight vector estimate 10 minutes into previous LMS estimate (case 2) allows the damping estimate in Fig. 9 to converge in half the time of the full data while the LMS-LMS case produces a poor estimate. The initial weight vector estimate from 10 minutes into previous ASLMS algorithm (case 3) produces a better damping estimate when compared to case 2 which produces a better estimate than case 1.

IV.USE OF ASLMS IN AMBIENT POWER SYSTEM DATA

The LMS algorithm was applied to ambient power system data after preprocessing. The ambient data used is the real power flow from Malin-Round Mountain #1 (MR #1) at the California-Oregon intertie on June 7, 2000. Over-determined AR block processing with different block sizes was used to determine the dominant mode frequency and damping ratio using M=0, N=30 and K=57 (M is the numerator coefficient or the number of zeros in the system, N is the denominator coefficient or the number of poles in the system and K is the correlation length). Table II lists the frequency and damping ratio estimates for different block sizes of AR block processing. The estimates from the full block of data were used for comparison with estimates of the LMS and ASLMS algorithm as no ring down was available in the data to perform Prony analysis.

Table II Frequency and Percent Damping Ratio of MR#1 Data

Block Size

Frequency

Damping Ratio

(Minutes)

(Hertz)

(%)

5

0.2688

7.479

10

0.2751

8.347

15

0.2745

7.379

18

0.2721

7.395

18.85 (full data)

0.2733

7.382

The LMS and ASLMS algorithms were applied to the ambient data set to track the 0.2743 Hz mode with a damping ratio of 7.372 %. Figs. 10 and 11 represent the estimates of frequency and damping ratios, respectively, using the LMS and the ASLMS algorithm with a cold start (zero initial weight vectors). The same value of step size ( μ =8.7448 e-07) was used in both the algorithms. It is seen from the plots that the ASLMS algorithm performs very well in terms of the convergence time of the estimate. Although the frequency estimate from the ASLMS algorithm is variable, it shows a

lower time of convergence when compared to the estimates from the LMS algorithm. The small constant ( ρ ) was set to 6.67 e-06 in the frequency estimate in Fig. 10 and 2.00 e-06 in the damping ratio estimate in Fig. 11. The ASLMS algorithm converges to the AR estimate in both the frequency and damping ratio cases. The damping ratio estimate using ASLMS shows better performance in terms of convergence time. The variability of the estimate is higher in the frequency estimate than in the damping ratio estimate. The variability of the damping estimate from the ASLMS algorithm is about the same as the LMS algorithm.

the ASLMS algorithm is about the same as the LMS algorithm. Fig. 10. Mode frequency vs.

Fig. 10. Mode frequency vs. time for ambient megawatt data (18.85 minutes, cold start, LMS: μ =8.7448 e-07, ASLMS:

μ =8.7448 e-07, ρ = 6.67 e-06)

=8.7448 e-07, ASLMS: μ =8.7448 e-07, ρ = 6.67 e-06) Fig. 11. Damping ratio vs. time

Fig. 11. Damping ratio vs. time for ambient megawatt data (18.85 minutes, cold start, LMS: μ =8.7448 e-07, ASLMS:

μ =8.7448 e-07, ρ = 2.00 e-06)

Figs. 12 and 13 show the mode frequency and damping ratio estimates over time, respectively, from the ASLMS algorithm for different values of ρ . The mode frequency was estimated over time in Fig. 12 using the ASLMS algorithm

© Copyright KTH 2006

9th International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems KTH, Stockholm, Sweden – June 11-15, 2006

7

with a cold start for three different values of ρ (6.67 e-06,

4.44 e-06, and 1.00 e-06). Similarly, the damping ratio was

damping ratio estimates for case 2 is 8.33 e-06 and for case 3 is 1.42 e-05.

then estimated over time in Fig. 13 using the ASLMS algorithm with a cold start
then estimated over time in Fig. 13 using the ASLMS
algorithm with a cold start for three different values of ρ
(1.00 e-05, 6.67 e-06 and 5.00 e-07). From Figs. 12 and 13, as
the value of ρ decreases the variability of the estimate
decreases, but the convergence time increases.
Fig. 14. Mode frequency vs. time for megawatt ambient data
(18.85 minutes, μ =8.7448 e-08, LMS-ASLMS: ρ =1.33 e-
06 ASLMS-LMS: ρ =6.67 e-06)
Fig. 12. Mode frequency vs. time for ambient megawatt data (18.85 minutes, cold start, μ
Fig. 12. Mode frequency vs. time for ambient megawatt data
(18.85 minutes, cold start, μ =8.7448 e-07 and ρ =1.00 e-05,
6.67 e-06, 4.00 e-06).
Fig. 15. Damping ratio vs. time for megawatt ambient data
(18.85 minutes, μ =8.7448 e-08, LMS-ASLMS: ρ =8.33 e-
06, ASLMS-LMS: ρ =1.42 e-05)

Fig. 13. Damping ratio vs. time for ambient megawatt data (18.85 minutes, cold start, μ =8.7448 e-07 and ρ =5.00 e-06,

2.00 e-06, 1.42 e-06).

The ASLMS-LMS case gives the best results in Fig. 14, while the LMS-ASLMS algorithm moves away from the actual estimate. Using the initial estimate of the weight vector from the ASLMS algorithm (case 3) produces an initial damping ratio estimate near the AR estimate so that the convergence time and the variability in the estimate are significantly reduced.

The three cases, LMS-LMS, LMS-ASLMS, and ASLMS- LMS, explored with the simulated data were used again with the ambient data. The same value of the step size parameter was used in all cases ( μ =8.7448 e-08). Figs. 14 and 15 show a comparison of estimates for mode frequency and damping ratio, respectively, for the three cases mentioned above. The value of ρ used in the frequency estimate for case 2 is 1.33 e-06 and for case 3 is 6.67 e-03. The value of ρ used in the

V. CONCLUSION

The ASLMS algorithm gives better performance than the LMS algorithm in terms of time of convergence. The time of convergence for all the cases mentioned above is reduced by a factor of 50% using the ASLMS algorithm. Due to the error variance inherent in the ASLMS algorithm the estimates of frequency by the ASLMS algorithm is variable. The error variance does not have a considerable effect on the damping

© Copyright KTH 2006

9th International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems KTH, Stockholm, Sweden – June 11-15, 2006

8

ratio estimates. Thus the ASLMS algorithm works better with the damping ratio estimates than the frequency estimates. Using an initial estimate from ASLMS algorithm in to LMS algorithm (case 3) helps to achieve both faster convergence and less variability compared to case 2 where an initial estimate from the LMS algorithm is used in the ASLMS algorithm. Further work on the use of the ASLMS algorithm for estimating electromechanical modes is needed to reduce the variability of the mode estimates. One possible solution would be to track the error vector and move from the ASLMS to LMS algorithm when the error vector is within the tolerance limit set so that faster convergence is achieved using the ASLMS algorithm and lower variability is achieved by using the LMS algorithm.

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express their appreciation to John Hauer and Jeff Dagle at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Bill Mittelstadt from Bonneville Power Administration, and Dan Trudnowski at Montana Tech for their cooperative efforts in research associated with this paper.

REFERENCES

P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, New York: McGraw Hill, 1994.

[2] D. J. Trudnowski and J. E. Dagle, “Effects of Generator and Static-Load Nonlinearities on Electromechanical Oscillations,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1283-1288, Aug. 1997.

[1]

[3]

J. F. Hauer, “Applications of Prony Analysis to the Determination of

[4]

Modal Content and Equivalent Models for Measured Power System Response,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, pp. 1062-1068, August 1991. J. F. Hauer, C. J. Demeure, and L. L. Scharf, “Initial Results in Prony

analysis of power system response signals,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 5, Feb. 1990, pp. 80-89. [5] D. A. Pierre, D. J. Trudnowski, and J. F. Hauer, “Identifying linear

reduced-order models for systems with arbitrary initial conditions using Prony signal analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 37, no. 6, June 1992, pp. 831-835. J. J. Sanchez-Gasca and J. H. Chow, “Performance comparison of three identification methods for the analysis of electromechanical

[6]

oscillations,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 14 Issue: 3, pp. 995-1002, Aug. 1999. [7] I. Kamwa, L. Gerin-Lajoie, “State-space system identification-toward MIMO models for modal analysis and optimization of bulk power systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 15, no. 1, Feb.

2000.

[8]

R. Doraiswami and W. Liu, “Real-time estimation of the parameters of

[9]

power system small signal oscillations,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 74-81, Feb. 1993. P. O'Shea, “The use of sliding spectral windows for parameter

estimation in power system disturbance monitoring,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1261-1267, Nov. 2000. [10] R. W. Wies, J. W. Pierre, and D. J. Trudnowski, “Use of ARMA Block Processing for Estimating Stationary Low-Frequency Electromechanical Modes of Power Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 167-173, Feb. 2003. [11] R. W. Wies, “Estimating Low-Frequency Electromechanical Modes of Power Systems Using Ambient Data,” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, 1999. [12] R. W. Wies, J. W. Pierre and D. J. Trudnowski “Use of LMS Adaptive Filtering Technique for Estimating Low-Frequency Electromechanical Modes of Power Systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE Power Meeting, Denver, CO, June 2004. [13] S. Haykin, Adaptive Filter Theory, 2nd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, 1991.

[14] Athanasios Papoulis, S.Unnikrishna Pillai, Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes, 4th ed., Tata McGraw-Hill Edition. [15] J. R. Smith, C. S. Woods, F. Fatehi, G. L. Keenan, and J. F. Hauer, "A Low Order Power System Model with Dynamic Characteristics of the Western North American System," Proceedings of the North American Power Symposium, Manhattan, Kansas, Sept. 1994. [16] G.J. Rogers, Power Systems Toolbox (PST), Cherry Tree Scientific Software, 1998.

BIOGRAPHIES

Richard W. Wies (S’92-M’99) received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering from the University of Wyoming in 1992, 1995, and 1999, respectively. He was a Department of Energy AWU Graduate Fellow at the University of Wyoming Electric Motor Training and Testing Center during the 93-94 academic year, a Department of Energy EPSCOR Research Fellow during the 95-96 academic year, and a AWU Graduate Fellow at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories during the summer of 1996. He has been an assistant professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks since 1999. His research interests include the application of statistical signal processing techniques in electric power systems, hybrid electric energy systems, and electric motor drives. Dr. Wies is a member of the IEEE Power Engineering Society.

Ashok Balasubramanian received his B.E degree in 2004 in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from University of Madras, Chennai, India. He is currently working towards the M.S degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA.

John W. Pierre (S’86-M’86-S’87-M’91-SM’99) received the BS degree in 1986 in electrical engineering with a minor in economics from Montana State University, Bozeman. He also received the M.S. degree in 1989 in electrical engineering with a minor in statistics and the Ph.D. degree in 1991 in electrical engineering from the Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He worked as an electrical design engineer at Tektronix before attending the University of Minnesota. Since 1992, he has been on the faculty in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at the University of Wyoming, Laramie, where he is currently a Professor. His research interests include statistical signal processing applied to power systems as well as DSP education. Dr. Pierre was a UW NASA Space Grant Faculty Fellow and a Department of Energy AWU Faculty Fellow during the summers of 1994 and 1995, respectively.

© Copyright KTH 2006