Sunteți pe pagina 1din 8


A Novel Power System Stabilizer Based on Fuzzy Model Reference Adaptive Controller
Sukumar Kamalasadan, Member, IEEE, Gerald Swann, Student Member, IEEE
transient stabilization and voltage control. In the design of linear and nonlinear controllers for excitation control, attempts have been made to coordinate various requirements for stabilization and voltage regulation with and without PSS [15]. In [6] and [7], advanced robust control has been used to affect a trade-off between Automatic Voltage Regulator (AVR) and small signal PSS. A practical scheme called discontinuous excitation control (DEC) [8], uses switching of transient stability control module to augment the usual PSS. In all these designs, the system is assumed to be linearized. In DEC, different controller configurations are used based on system dynamics which can be thought of as a gain scheduling approach. However, main drawback of linearized controllers such as failure in the presence of uncertain linear models at varying operating points, inability to interact with other devices/machines in multiple machine environments still exist in such designs. Nonlinear controller and intelligent counterparts are also been used for transient stability of power system generators [9], [10], [11].The most successful nonlinear excitation scheme is based on the exact feedback linearization [12]. In this, the dynamics of the system are exactly linearized and conventional controllers are used based on linear control theory. Though effective and useful, one of the main drawbacks of nonlinear controllers is its complexity. Also, such controllers fail in the presence of system uncertainty. On the other hand, fuzzy [13]-[15] and neuro-controllers [16]-[23] can learn the system dynamics and contribute very effectively especially under various operating conditions including multivariable conditions, pre and post- fault scenarios. In general, neuro-controller designs can be divided as supervised and reinforcement based learning methods. Largely two types of neural networks: Multi Layer Perceptron (MLP) and Radial Basis Function Neural Network (RBFNN) are used as such controllers. However, the stability and tuning of such designs in the presence of online learning is questionable especially when some brute force methods are used. Also, the ability of learning controllers for real-time implementation with linear controllers/PSS has not been attempted yet. Thus, there is a need for developing hybrid controllers that can perform in a simple and effective way during the system normal operating conditions and yet, provides stable control options under unforeseen and uncertain conditions. In this paper a hybrid controller that can be integrated with conventional PSS is designed and illustrated. The main theme is to design and implement supervisory loop based fuzzy model reference adaptive control architecture. The ability of such controller is to seamlessly evolve based on system

AbstractThe main objective of this work is to illustrate the development of a new class of intelligent adaptive control system based on a system-centric approach for the control of generators under transient operating conditions. The benefit of such a structure is its ability to control time varying power system operations including complex and multimodal dynamics and scheduled/unscheduled Jumps. The underlying structural feature is the introduction of Intelligent Supervisory Loops (ISL) to augment a conventional adaptive controller. The proposed fuzzy model reference adaptive controller uses a Fuzzy Reference Model Generator (FRMG) in parallel with the Model Reference Adaptive Controller (MRAC). The main advantage of this algorithm is that it is precise, feasible and more effective than other nonlinear adaptive controllers reported to-date. Simulation results are presented in order to show that, the oscillatory and transient response of a generator in a Single Machine Infinite Bus (SMIB) has substantially improved while using the proposed control scheme. Index TermsFuzzy model reference generator, Power system stabilizer, Intelligent supervisory loop, System-centric controller.

odern power systems are highly complex, nonlinear and time varying and thus they call for sophisticated architecture for control and optimization. At normal operating conditions, the system will almost always settle to an equilibrium point based on mechanical and electric power interactions and thus, linear static controllers tuned and designed for such operating conditions normally work well under such conditions. However, in the presence of uncertainties, the system linear model will vary based on the level of uncertainty. The level and type of uncertainty depends on such system parameters as the frequency. Although, intelligent controllers are essential to control power system transients they are not required all the time. Thus, there is a need for system-centric hybrid controllers that can operate during normal conditions with simple structure and also learn and adapt when system models are uncertain. An important problem that requires such controllers are the frequently considered power system transient stability. Power system transient stability, concerns the maintenance of synchronism between generators following a severe disturbance. Several works has their focus on power system
This work was supported in part by the NSF CAREER Grant # ECS 0748238. S. Kamalasadan and Gerald Swann is with the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL 32514 USA (e-mail:


978-1-4244-4241-6/09/$25.00 2009 IEEE

changes from a simple structure using linear adaptive controller to a learning controller. The advantage of such design is its ability to implement in real-time augmenting PSS and yet change in the presence of system nonlinear movement and drastic changes. PSS SMIB system has been well studied. However, the ability of linear controller based PSS implemented using classic designs fails to operate when the system operating mode changes. The novelty of the proposed design is its ability to develop a PSS that can be used at various system operating points. This is a new problem. Also, the control technique used to accomplish this task is new as well. We propose a hybrid controller based on FRMG that changes the reference model when the system operating mode changes. The technique is easy to implement a sit requies only a software module connected to the controller. The robustness and stability of the system is being designed in section 4. The paper is organized as follows. First the overall control architecture is discussed in section 2. In section 3 the MRAC and FRMG designs are illustrated. Section 4 analyses the theory and system stability/robustness and section 5 discusses the SMIB power system model. In section 6, the design methods for FRMG rules and membership functions for the proposed application is discussed and simulation results are detailed in section 7 followed by conclusions in section 8. II. OVERALL CONTROL ARCHITECTURE The overall control architecture supervision principle is shown in fig. 1.
[ Pe , TL ]
Normal Operating points/ Parametric Uncertainty (Model Based Adaptation)

based on


reference controller. This controller is assumed to be stable and feasible solution under normal plant operating points/and during parametric uncertainty. In MRAC, a single reference model and plant adjustment values interact with the error (the difference between plant and reference model output) to develop an adaptive law. Designing Model Reference Adaptive Controllers (MRAC) based exciter and governor controller has already been reported in the literature [24]-[29]. It has been concluded that the proposed concept is feasible, robust and stable during normal operation as well as under parametric changes. The above mentioned fact indicates the ability of central adaptive controller and its suitability for multi-machine control in the presence of parametric uncertainty. This basic and simple control architecture is being used as a primary controller in order to reduce controller complexity, increase speed of operation and generate a feasible adaptive control option. Model based controller also has the advantages as opposed to intelligent optimal controllers in that they are precise and can be used to provide system stability especially when the intelligent controller learns the system dynamics. Upon, drastic changes in system operation, due to faults or unforeseen conditions, the pre-designed model (developed offline) will be inadequate. At these conditions the FMRG develops or changes the reference model or implicit models providing a smooth transition between operating conditions. Fig. 2 shows the method of system supervision in this proposed scheme. As indicated, the intelligent supervisor constantly monitors system dynamics. In the proposed architecture, one supervisor is being proposed; which is generating multiple reference models by observing the changes in the system. III. DESIGN OF CONTROLLER AND FRMG The block diagram in fig. 3 illustrates the MRAC concept.


Drastic changes in plant operation/Multimodality

Reference Model(s)

ymH (t ) = (,i ,Wm Hi ) * r (t )

(t )

e = y ( t ) ym
TDL Adjustment Mechanism

Supervisory Loop

X d (t )

MRAC U ad (t ) with AVR and PSS

y (t )

Fig. 3: Direct Model Reference Adaptive Controller (MRAC block in fig. 1)

Fig. 1: Proposed architecture

This figure describes linear transformation of the system at equilibrium point which can be derived as y(t ) = A U ad (t ) . The reference model is used to generate a desired trajectory response y m H , which plant output y should follow or track. The tracking error e = y y m H is the deviation of the plant output from the desired trajectory. In an MRAC system, the objective is to design an adaptive controller such that the behavior of the controlled plant remains close to the behavior of a desirable model despite uncertainties or variations in the plant parameters; i.e., the desired performance of the closed

Fuzzy Reference Model Generator Adaptive Controller


Multi-machine System

Fig. 2: Method of system supervision

Mainly, the structure consists of one supervisory loop and one controller. The central algorithm is an adaptive model

loop system is specified through a reference model and the adaptive system attempts to make the output of the plant follow the output of the reference model automatically. Thus this approach behaves better than other conventional static controllers and adapt by itself even when there is a change in plant parameter values. The control structure for such a scheme is: (1) U ad = T where, T T ] is the control parameter vector and = [k 0 1T 2
T y 1 2 T , is the regressor vector. The regression vectors are updated online based on the following equation,

= r

1 = 1 + LU ad

(2) (3)

2 = 2 + Ly

where, is a stable matrix of order ( n 1) x (n 1) , such that the determinant sI = Z m ( s) and the vector L is defined as Further, the control signal U ad is LT = [0, 0,... 1] . structured based on the adaptive mechanism discussed in figure 5 as,
1 = 1e sgn( K p )1T
T 2 = 1e sgn( K p ) 2 T

with a relative degree equal to that of the system. The matrices Am and Bm are in controllable canonical form and r(t) is a bounded reference input, The reference model output can be further extended as ym H = C m ( m , , r ) and represents the fuzzy reference model generator contribution during modal changes. Let each plant mode of operation have a combination of best suitable and stable reference models. The fuzzified reference model generator provides this combination such that the reference model output produced (ymH) provides a reference structure suitable for respective plant operating modes. FRMG is used to map the parameters of a linear reference model into the entire operating domain of the system so that a Multiple Model Adaptive Control (MMAC) configuration can be created. In order to develop a linearized parametric model of the above mentioned system, Takagi Sugeno (TS) -fuzzy model is used that is capable of approximating the above mentioned system due to its universal approximation property. A TS- fuzzy model can be represented as a function ( ) such that:

( ) ( ) ( ) = ()
r i i i =1 r i =1 i


(4) (5) (6) (7)

k = 3e sgn( K p ) r (t )

The above mentioned fuzzy system has r rules and i is the membership function of the antecedent of ith rule given by the input where, is a vector containing the relevant auxiliary states, m i = F1 ... Fn ( 1 ,..., n ) is the value that the membership function of the antecedent of ith rule takes on at = f ( x) and i () represented as pi ,0 + p i ,1 ( 1 ) + ... + p i , m 1 ( m 1 ) denotes the parametric representation of the auxiliary states. Assume, this fuzzy system is constructed in such a way that r 0 for all relevant auxiliary states and the parameter p i

0 = 2e sgn( K p ) y where,

represents the the fuzzy contribution and represents the adaptive factor
It can be seen from these equations that the control law is adjusted using the adaptive adjustment mechanism, which always look any power system parametric changes. In this sense, any parametric uncertainty is controlled effectively by this scheme. Moreover, the multiple reference model generator using the fuzzy switching algorithm chooses the best reference model online at every time instant and act as a desired response predictor when the plant modes changes enabling the overall control scheme as shown in figure 1 to perform for a multi modal system. Formulation of FRMG theory is illustrated in the next section.
A. Fuzzy Reference Model Generator (FRMG)

e represents the error

i =1

is the consequent of ith rule. Then the above-mentioned function can be written in the parameterized form as follows,

( ) ( ) = M T P = * ( ) = ( )
r i =1 i i r i =1 i



1 ( ) ( ) 2 : m 1 ( )

m ,

P =

p1, 0 : p r ,0

... : ...

, p r , m 1

p1, m 1 :

Remark 1: The control objective is to force the plant states to track the states of an asymptotically stable linear reference model

T =

[1 ()

( )
r i =1 i

........ r ()] and


Xm H = Am H Xm H (t ) + bm H r (t ) ym H (t ) = C T Xm H (t )


Thus the function approximation by fuzzy scheme is equal to the product of a parameter vector and weight matrix . Now the reference model mentioned in (8) can be written in the transfer function form as, (11) Wm H ( s) = ym H (t ) / r (t ) = Km H * Zm H / Rm H

From (11), the numerator and the denominator are functions of state variables X and the location of the poles and zeros are further influenced by the modes of operation of the plant. In order to include these modal transitions, (11) has to be combined with (9). Thus, (12) Wm H ( s) = () * ( KmH * Zm H / RmH ) We can thus map the changes in the system dynamics through auxiliary states, to changes in system polynomial roots or the poles/zero combinations. Considering these, reference model transfer function is written as a function of the fuzzy logic output, which is, T (13) ym H (t ) = (M i Pii ) *Wm H * r (t )( i *i ) *Wm H * r (t ) Thus, for a constant command signal (14) ym H (t ) = ( i ,i ,Wm H ) where, ym H (t ) is the reference model output for the ith mode,

a linear time-invariant system with transfer function Kc(p) for each piece. Let the be constant on [t1 , t 2 ) and let the reference model be represented by:


( t ) = Am

m (t )

( ) ym + bm

( ) S ( t )


Where, m(t) shows continuous mapping of H modes of the system. In order to understand what happens to the output transition of the reference model after the time t, the reference output needs to be represented as ym intervals where

m (t )


= A m ( ) ym

m (t )

during the and



m (t )

= R ( ( t ), ( t ) ym

m (t )




i is the parameter vector developed by the fuzzy system

depending on the system operating points, i is the membership function weights and WmH is the corresponding reference model transfer function. In (14), the membership function weights act as a performance index function in modifying the reference model output. Based on each modal transition of the system, the parameter vector * , which is the fuzzy system output, changes. Subsequently, the reference model output changes such that the closed loop system provides a stable output with the roots on the left half S plane. This movement in the reference model secures the system from becoming unstable. Moreover, the modal transitions are smooth in nature, which reduce the transients when system mode changes. More importantly, by this parameter vector change, the reference model selection changes smoothly that avoids a pre-defined calculation like a performance index as in the case of the identified plant model. Thus the time required for the calculation and settlement of the parameter values is minimal. This helps the control parameter identification and adaptation to perform the best at any untoward plant environment. IV. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS AND SYSTEM STABILITY/ROBUSTNESS An overall controller interaction and stability criterion for MRAC has been derived earlier by researchers. However, it is important to analyze the stability of the multiple fixed parameters reference models generated by FRMG as even though the overall scheme may be stable, due to switching instability, the multiple reference models may become unstable. Given the finite set of matrices m := {Am( p) : p P} for a specific time period, consider the liner time-varying reference models x m = Am( f () x , where f ( ) denotes switching signal from fuzzy system taking values of P . Let the switching signal f ( ) be constant and can be represented as . Then, : [0, ) P is a piecewise linear constant and depending on the sample time remains constant during the sample time period. Also, = P, c ( ) is required to behave as

time, where R ( (t ), (t ) is the switching map which is considered to be linear. The solution to this transition can be represented as ym

m (t )

= [ t , t 0 ; ) ym
R ( ( t k + 1 ),...
k =1

m ( t0 )


[ t , t 0 ; ) denotes the transition matrix and is defined as

[ t , t 0 ; ) := e ( t t m )

A ( ( t m )) m 1

t(k )e

( t k + 1 t k ) A ( ( t k ))

and (t1 ,t 2 ,..., t m ) denotes the switching times of


between (t 0 , t ] . Theorem 3: The above mention fuzzy output (14) is exponentially stable, if there exists positive constant C , such that for every (t , t 0 ; ) Ce (t t 0 ) . In case (12) remains exponentially stable, then the reference model output will remain bounded for every . Proof: Readers are encouraged to review [26] for the proof. System Robustness: As we use the fuzzy system for changing the reference model, once the domain is designed well, changes in the modeled parameters will not offer system instability. For example, if the system dynamics in real-time varies as opposed to the model, for a well defined operating domain the reference model structure will be modified using FRMG. Thus, the overall system will still be stable during uncertain parametric changes in the system, proving more robust and stable architecture as opposed to static controllers. V. POWER SYSTEM MODEL


Xe Vinf

Fig. 4: Synchronous Machine connected to an Infinite bus

The overall features of the proposed controllers are described based on an SMIB model of power systems. A synchronous

machine connected to an infinite bus through a short transmission line is shown in fig. 4. From this figure the model of this machine and a transmission line connected to an infinite bus is as follows The SMIB is modeled using fifth order generator equations as follows: (16) (17)
(18) (19) (20)


is the rotor angle and

where the following terms are defined: H and D : Inertia constant and Damping factor respectively. B : Base speed =377 rad/sec.

Tm and Te : Mechanical and electromechanical torques respectively. The electromechanical torque is given by:
Te = 1 (Ld Lq )I d I q + kM f I q I f 3

The above equations for generator electrical dynamics can be written in matrix form as,


d I dt
+ Re 0 0
0 0

Combining all these equations into one system, the synchronous machine model is given in the state space form by:
& I d & I f & I q & &

V =

Vd V f V q

,R =


0 Rf 0

0 0 Rq +

, Re

I =

Id I f I q

[ L
Ld I q 6 H B 0

( R + G )

Lq I d 6 H B 0

0 0 0 D 2 H B 0

0 I d 0 I

kM f I q 6 H B 0


1 L V f 0 I + q 0 Tm 1 0


0 0 ( L + d
Ld + kM 0

0 0 Le ) kM f
kM f Lf 0 0 0 Lq +

Lq + Le


For the FRMG the reference model has the following form:



n 2 Wm ( s) = 2 (21) 2 s + 2 n s + n The value of is set to 0.7, and hence the value of n will be
evaluated on line depends upon the two inputs of the fuzzy model identifier in figure 1 which means again that the output of the block is the n . To evaluate the value of n , fuzzy rules are used, each fuzzy rule has two inputs, the first is the load torque , and the second input is the electric power, and one output that is n . To be able to write sufficient rules to perform the decision, membership functions of load torque, electric power and n are established. These membership functions are shown in fig. 5. From the figure, the membership function of the load torque is defined over a domain interval of [0, 1.2], the membership function of the electric power is defined over a domain interval of [0, 1.5] and the membership function of n is defined over a domain interval of [0, 1.5]. Each membership function is covered by five fuzzy sets. The five fuzzy sets are: VS: Very Small, S: Small, M: Medium, L: Large, VL: Very Large. The fuzzy rules are derived by studying and simulating the response of the process, 25 fuzzy rules are used to perform the fuzzy switching to evaluate the value of n . A convenient way to present these rules is by using a table as shown in Table 1. The center-of-Gravity defuzzification method is used which can be expressed as:

Where the terms involved are defined below. Vd and Vq : Direct and quadrature components of the terminal voltage respectively and : Generator Terminal voltage V f and I f : Field voltage and current respectively.

I d and I q : Direct and quadrature components of the terminal

current respectively. and kM f : Machine speed and mutual inductance between the windings respectively. Re and X e : Resistance and reactance of the transmission line respectively. Rd , Rq , R f , Ld , Lq and L f : Stator and field windings resistances and inductances. Vd and Vq are given in terms of the voltage at the infinite bus by: & + L I Vd = 3V sin + Re I d + Le I d e q
& L I and Vq = 3V cos + Re I q + Le I q e d

3, 3

, 3

1 3

C =
n i =1 n i i =1 i


i is the grade of membership function at region i , Ci is the center of region i and n is the number of fired rules.
Electric Power

Wm ( s ) =

0.54 . s + 1.08s + 0.54



Load Torque







To test the accuracy of the controllers, two case studies were performed to show the effect of changing the system conditions on the controller performance. The system operating conditions are shown in Table 2 and the generator parameters are in Table 3. For the demonstration an clarity only the time period up to 20 seconds for case 1 and 30 seconds for case 2 are illustrated.

Time (sec) 0.1 10 20 30 40

Disturbance Three Phase Fault 25% Mechanical Power Increase Three Phase Fault 25% Mechanical Power Decrease Three Phase Fault

A. Case #1 In this case performance of PSS, Single Reference Model MRAC and MRAC with the intelligent loop viz., Fuzzy Reference Model Generator (FMRG) is illustrated. The system is running under the following specifications: Power =0.83 pu. Power Factor= 0.85 lag. Terminal Voltage=1.062 pu. State Initial Conditions A sample of simulation results is presented in figures 6 - 8. In fig. 6, speed deviations are maximum during the time of three phase fault for 100 msec. However, the adaptive controller with fuzzy reference model (SMAC+FRMG) and the single model (SMAC) performs equally good but significantly better than with PSS (denoted as STAB) alone. Fig. 7 shows the power deviations in p.u. The adaptive controller and FRMG supervisory loop shows faster settling time in the presence of both three phase fault and power deviations. For voltage comparison shown in fig. 8, it is obvious that SMAC+FRMG combination produce lesser voltage dip as opposed to the adaptive controller with single model alone. It is worth noting that for accurate comparison stabilizer response has not been plotted. The angular deviations shows first swing instability for stabilizer but the single model adaptive controller and with supervisory loop (FRMG) performed significantly better. B. Case #2 In this experiment the comparison is between single reference model adaptive controller and the proposed intelligent controller. The system is running under the following specifications: Power =0.28 pu. Power Factor= 0.24 lag. Terminal Voltage=1.062 pu. State Initial Conditions

Fig. 5: Membership functions of Load Torque, Electric Power and reference models natural frequency

For example, lets say we want to know the reference model that will be chosen for a load torque of 0.9 Nm and an electric power of 0.6. From figure 5, A load torque of 0.9 Nm has a membership of 0.6 in L and 0.4 in VL, i.e., L = 0.6 and VL = 0.4 . An electric power of 0.6 has a membership of 0.5 in VS and 0.5 in S, i.e., VS = 0.5 and S = 0.5 . Accordingly, the rules that will fire are: Rule # 16 (L/VS) with 1 = 0.5 in S

Rule # 17 (L/S) with 2 = 0.5 in S

Rule # 21 (VL/VS) with 3 = 0.4 in L

Rule # 22 (VL/S) with 4 = 0.4 in L Now apply the Center-of-gravity defuzzification, we get 0.5(0.6) + 0.5(0.6) + 0.4(0.9) + 0.4(0.9) n = = 0.733 1.8 Therefore, the reference model for this condition will be:

A sample of simulation results is presented in figure 9-11. In this case PSS performance was not considered. It is important to note that the only change to system is the new operating point. The disturbance profile remains the same. First in the case of speed deviations, the ability of proposed intelligent controller in the supervisory loop is noteworthy. The speed deviations are less (as shown in blue) for the proposed controller. The power deviations are very less as well to the order of 1/10th. The voltage dips in the presence of both supervisory loops indicate significant improvement in the p.u. value. Also, the generator angle has faster settling time with the proposed architecture. As it can be noticed from these figures the adaptive control with supervisory loop performs effectively under the drastic changes in system parameters. Also, it is significant when there is a change in operating conditions. VIII. CONCLUSION In this paper a new intelligent controller for power system stabilization and transient voltage control is being proposed. The proposed architecture is feasible and can have better damping and transient response than the traditional PSS. The main advantage of this algorithm is that it is precise, feasible and more effective than other nonlinear adaptive controllers reported to-date. Simulation results are presented in order to show that, the oscillatory and transient response of a generator in a Single Machine Infinite Bus (SMIB) has substantially improved while using the proposed control scheme. IX. APPENDIX

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]


[20] [21] [22] [23]

L111 = 1.552941

L1 33 = 0.490196

L = 1.458824 L1 21 = 1.458824

1 12

B = 377rad / sec
K e = 006905

L1 22 = 1.976471
Rd = 0.001096 pu
R f = 0.000742 pu

K f = 0.04 , K a = 40

Ld = 1.7 pu
L f = 1.65 pu

Re = 0.02 pu
R q = 0.001096 pu

Le = 0.4 pu
Lq = 1.64 pu

[1] [2] Q.H. Wu and B.W. Hogg, Laboratory evaluation of adaptive controllers for synchronous generators, Automatica, vol.27, no.5, pp.845-852, 1991. O.P. Malik, C.X. Mao, K. Prakash, G. Hope and G. Hancock, Tests with a microcomputer biased adaptive synchronous machine stabilizer on a 400MW thermal unit, IEEE Trans. Electronic Computation, vol.8, no.1, pp. 6-12, 1992. P.Kundur, M.Klein, G.J. Rogers and M.S. Zywno, Application of power system stabilizers for enhancement of overall stability, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol.4, no.2, pp.614-626, May, 1989. P.M. Anderson and A.A. Fouad, Power System Control and Stability, IEEE Press, New York, 1994. P. Kundur, Power system stability and control, in The EPRI Power System Engineering Series. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. [26]

[27] [28] [29]

[3] [4] [5]

A. Heniche, H. Bourles, and M. P. Houry, A decentralized controller for voltage regulation of power systems, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 10, pp. 14611466, 1995. K. Law, D. J. Hill, and N. R. Godfrey, Robust controller structure for coordinated power system voltage regulator and stabilizer design, IEEE Trans. Control Systems Technology, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 220232, 1994. J.W. Chapman, M.D.Ilic, A.C. Eng, H. Kaufman, Stabilizing a multimachine power system via decentralized feedback linear excitation control, IEEE trans on power systems, vol, 8, pp.830-838, 1993. Q.Lu, Y.Z. Sun, Nonlinear stabilization control of multi-machine systems, IEEE Trans on power systems, Vol. 4, pp 234-241, 1989. R. Ortega, A.Stankovic, P. Stefanov, A passivation approach to power system stabilization, In proceedings of IFAC, NOLCOS, Netherlands, 1998. L.Gao, L. Chen, Y. Fan. H.Ma, A nonlinear control design for power systems, Automatica, Vol.28, pp-97f5-979, 1992. B. Kuipers and K. Astrom, The composition and validation of heterogeneous control laws, Automatica, vol. 30, pp. 233249, 1994. Y. Kituachi and H. Taniguchi, Experimental verification of fuzzy excitation control system for multi-machine power system, IEEE Trans. Energy Conversion, vol.12,no.1, pp.94-99, March 1997. S. G. Cao, N. W. Rees, and G. Feng, Analysis and design for a class of complex control systemsPart II: Fuzzy controller design, Automatica, vol. 33, pp. 10291039, 1997. _____, Lyapunov-like stability theorems for continuous-time fuzzy control systems, Int. J. Control, vol. 69, pp. 4964, 1998. G. K. Venayagamoorthy, R. G. Harley, D. C. Wunsch, Dual Heuristic Programming Excitation Neurocontrol for Generators in a Multimachine Power System, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Volume: 39, Issue: 2, March/April 2003. G. K. Venayagamoorthy, R. G. Harley, D. C. Wunsch, "Implementation of Adaptive Critic Based Neurocontrollers for Turbogenerators for Turbogenerators in a Multimachine Power System", IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks Special Issue on Hardware Implementations, September 2003. Ganesh Kumar Venayagamoorthy, Ronald G. Harley, Two Separate Continually Online-Trained Neurocontrollers For Excitation And Turbine Control Of A Turbogenerator, IEEE Transactions On Industry Applications, Vol. 38, No. 3, May/June 2002. Yi Guo, David J. Hill, and Youyi Wang, Global Transient Stability and Voltage Regulation for Power Systems, Ieee Transactions On Power Systems, Vol. 16, No. 4, November 2001. Kingsley Fregene, Diane Kennedy, Neural Stabilization/Excitation Control of a High-Order Power System by Adaptive Feedback Linearization, arXiv:math.OC/0007063 v1 11 Jul 2000. D.K. Chaturvedi, O.P. Malik, Generalized Neuron-Based Adaptive PSS for Multimachine Environment, IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, Vol.20. No.1, pp.358-366, Feb 2005. S. Hohagheghi, G.K. Venayagamoorthy, R.G.Harley, Adaptive critic design based neuro-fuzzy controller for a static compensator in a multimachine power system, IEEE Trans. On power system, vol.21, No.4, pp.1744-1754, Nov.2006. S. Kamalasadan, Adel A. Ghandakly, Khalid Al-Olimat A Neural Network based Intelligent Model Reference Adaptive Controller, In Proceedings of 2004 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Measurements Systems and Applications, July 2004, pp.174-179. S. Kamalasadan, Adel A.Ghandakly, Multiple Fuzzy Reference Model Adaptive Controller Design for Nonlinear Fighter Aircraft Pitch-Rate Tracking, IEEE Transactions of Instrumentation and Measurements, Vol.56, No.5, pp.1797-1808, October 2007. S. Kamalasadan, Adel A. Ghandakly, A Novel Multiple Reference Model Adaptive Control Approach for Multi Modal and Dynamic Systems, Journal of Control and Intelligent Systems, Vol. 36, No.2, 2008. S. Kamalasadan, Adel A. Ghandakly, K. S. Al-Olimat, A Fuzzy Multiple Reference Model Adaptive Controller Design, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, Vol.8, No.3, pp.165-172, September 2006. A. A. Ghandakly, P. Idowu, Design of a model reference adaptive stabilizer for the exciter and governor loops of power generators, IEEE Transactions on Power systems, Vol 5, No.3, pp.887-893, 1990. A. A. Ghandakly, J.J.Dai, An adaptive synchronous generator stabilizer design by generalized multivariable pole shifting (GMPS) technique, IEEE Transactions on Power systems, Vol 7, No.3, pp.1239-1244, 1992.

Fig. 6: Speed deviation (comparisons) Fig.10: Active power deviations (comparisons)

Voltage Deviations (Comparisons)
1.4 1.3 1.2 Bus Voltage (p.u) 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7


Fig. 7: Active power deviations (comparisons)


15 Time (sec)




Fig. 11: Voltage (comparisons)

Time (sec) Fig. 8: Voltage (comparisons)

S. Kamalasadan (M 05) received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Toledo, Ohio in 2004, M.Eng in Electrical Power Systems Management, from the Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok Thailand in 1999 and B Tech. degree in Electrical and Electronics from the University of Calicut, India in 1991. He is currently working as an Assistant Professor at the University of West Florida. He has won several awards including the NSF CAREER award, faculty summer research award at UWF, Outstanding teaching award from the graduate student association University of Toledo, 2001/2002 and from the college of engineering, 2002/2003. His research interests include Intelligent and Autonomous Control, Power Systems dynamics, Stability and Control, AI applications in control of Dynamic Systems and Realtime Embedded Systems Applications. He is a technical reviewer of IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Fuzzy systems, on education, Neural Networks and other international journal and conferences.

G. Swann (SM 04) received his BS degree from the University of West Florida in 2008. He is currently working on his MS degree in the department of Computer Science. He has won the outstanding student award at the University of West Florida and is in the Deans list. His research interests include Intelligent and Autonomous Control, Power Systems dynamics, Stability and Control,

Fig. 9: Speed deviation (comparisons)