Stability Analysis of Power Systems by Lyapunov's Direct Method

M. A. Pai and Peter W. Sauer

ABSTRACT: After nearly four decades of research in power system stability via Lyapunov or energy functions, the method is now on the verge of being implemented for assessment of on-line dynamic security. The main bottleneck has been in the proper characterization of the stability boundary and defining the fault-dependent region of attraction locally around the controlling unstable equilibrium points. Now there is a better understanding of this issue and, hence, a number of algorithms have been proposed. Improved generating unit models and transmission network models are now being included in the technique. In this paper, an overview is presented of the theory, practical implementation, and future research issues in this area. However, in actual operation, the system loading conditions and parameters may be quite different from those assumed at the planning stage. Thus, to ensure power system security against possible abnormal conditions due to contingencies (disturbances), the operator would like to simulate contingencies in advance, assess the results, and then take preventive control action if necessary. This whole process is called dynamic security assessment (DSA) and preventive control. Since it takes a long time to conduct a transient simulation even for a single contingency, direct methods of stability such as those based on Lyapunov or energy functions offer an alternative. This paper reviews the state of the art using these methods. References [1]-[3] cover the theory and state of the art until 1985. It is pertinent to point out that until 1978, the method remained largely conservative when Kakimoto et al. [4] and Athay et al. [ 5 ] , [6] suggested alternate but closely related approaches to compute the critical energy dependent on the particular disturbance. These are the potential energy boundary surface (PEBS) method and the controlling unstable equilibrium point (UEP) method, respectively. The next refinement came in terms of accommodating more detailed modeling because of the structure-preserving approach proposed by Bergen and Hill [7]. A proper mathematical characterization of the stability region, which explains the methods of Refs. [4]-[6], was given by Chiang et al. [SI. On the application side, there has been extensive testing of the method of [5], [6] by Fouad et al. [9] with additional refinements. Thus, one can argue confidently that the method, after nearly four decades of research, holds promise for DSA. Preventive control methodologies in terms of rescheduling generation based on dynamic contingency analysis are in an early research stage [lo]-[12]. vector of state variables of the system at time t.

for t positive up to
i ( t ) = f(x(t)),

tCl

(1)

for t positive greater than

tLl

(2)

Introduction
An interconnected power system consists of generating units run by prime-movers (including turbine-governor and excitation control systems) plus transmission lines, loads, transformers, static reactive compensators, and high-voltage direct-current lines. The size of the interconnection varies depending on the system but the technical problems are the same. At the planning level, the planner would invariably study the stability of the system for a set of disturbances ranging from a three-phase-to-ground fault (whose probability of occurrence is rare) to single-phase faults, which constitute about 70 percent of the disturbances. The planner desires to determine if a potential fault has an adequate margin of safety without the system losing synchronism. A system is said to be synchronously stable (i.e., retain synchronism) for a given fault if the system variables settle down to some steady-state values as time approaches infinity after the fault is removed. These simulation studies are called transient stabiliry studies. A typical transient stability study with detailed modeling for a 500-bus, 100-machine system might take up to an hour. Hence, the planner is limited to a few likely scenarios of fault occurrences.
M. A. Pai and Peter W. Sauer are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801.

Mathematical Formulation
Conceptual Framework

In its simplest form, the transition of a power system undergoing a disturbance is described by two sets of differential equations shown below [2], where x ( t ) is the 0272-170818910100-0023 $01 00 0 1989 IEEE

It is assumed that, f o r t negative, the system would have settled down to a steady state so that the initial value x(0) = x, is known. At t = 0, a disturbance occurs and for a time duration up to I , , , called the faulted period, the system is governed by the fault-on dynamics f'. When the fault is cleared at t = tCl,we have the postfault dynamics given by Eq. (2). The initial condition x(tCl)for Eq. ( 2 ) is provided by the solution of Eq. (1) evaluated at t = tCl.Viewed in another manner, the solution of Eq. (1) provides the possible initial conditions for Eq. (2) at each instant of time. Assume that Eq. (2) has a stable equilibrium point x, that is of interest. The question is whether the trajectory x ( t ) for Eq. (2) with initial condition x(t,,) will converge to x, as t goes to infinity. The largest value of r,, that shows this to be true is called the critical clearing time tcr.In reality, the model is a set of implicit differential equations with the network structure preserved, but we shall confine our discussion to system equations (1) and (2), which, in the literature [I]-[3], are usually the internal node model. From the preceding discussion, it is clear that, if we have an accurate estimate of the region of attraction of x,, then t,, is obtained when the trajectory of Eq. ( I ) exits the region of attraction. The computation of the region of attraction for a general nonlinear dynamical system is far from easy. In the case of power systems with simple machine models, the characterization of this region has been discussed in [SI. However, for practical application, one has to resort to some approximate methods. The most popular among these methods is to describe the interior of the region of attraction through an inequality of the type where V(x) < VCr, where V(x) is a Lyapunov function for Eq. (2). The computation of V,, poses the biggest difficulty; there are currently three methods

Jonuory 1989

23

with a number of variations on each method. In these methods, it is assumed that the region of attraction is formed by connecting the UEPs surrounding x, through particular multidimensional surfaces called manifolds. These three methods are as follows: V,, equals V(x),where x is the UEP, which results in the lowest value of V,., among those lying on the stability boundary of Eq. (2).

Center of Inertia Variables

Although the Lyapunov function can be written in terms of relative rotor angles, it is more convenient to use the angle of the center of inertia (COI) as the reference angle since it represents the mean motion of the system. Modem literature invariably uses that formulation originally proposed by Tavora and Smith [13], written here without damping terms as

UEPs lying on the stability boundary. There is also a numerical test for determining which of these UEPs actually lie on the stability boundary. Basically, there are two methods that have been used successfully on practical systems for stability assessment: the controlling UEP method and the PEBS method.

Controlling Unstable Equilibrium Point Method

In general, depending on the fault, the critically cleared (but unstable) trajectory exits the region of stability in the vicinity of an equilibrium point lying on the stability boundary. It was the recognition of this fact that led to the breakthrough in [ 5 ] , [6]. The value of the true critical energy is the value of V(x) when the fault-on trajectory crosses the stable manifold of one of the UEPs. If cleared at this exit point, the postfault trajectory will slide along the stable manifold of that eauilibrium Doint to asvmDtoticallv converge to the controlling UEP. Determination of this controlling - UEP is far from easy and forms the bulk of the computational time using energy functions. Currently, there are two methods in use. Method a uses a quadratic approximation to the faulted trajectory for a short time followed by the Davidon-Fletcher method to solve the algebraic equations ( 5 ) and con. verge to the controlling UEP [51, [6], Ifxiir is the controlline UEP. then V-. is taken to be V(x). The critical clearing time is obtained when V(x) equals V,, along the faulted trajectory of Eq. (I). In the method by Vitta1 et al. [17], the energy function is used for stability assessment given a tcrrather than to compute rcr. Thus, they compute the faulted trajectory up to t,, through a Taylor series approximation. The acceleration and kinetic energies of the machines at t,, then are used to automatically sort out a list of candidate UEPs. This is followed by computing the normalized potential energy margin for each of these UEPs along an approximate linear postdisturbance trajectory. The one having the least margin is used as a starting point to solve the algebraic equations as in method a to obtain the controlling UEP. Physically, this is equivalent to finding the vulnerable cut set [18]. The energy margin is computed as A V = Vcr - Vel. The system is said to be stable if A V is greater than zero and unstable if it is less than zero. The technique of [17] has been tested on realistic data of the Ontario Hydro system.

V,, equals V(x3, where xUr is the controlling UEP, i.e., the UEP closest to the point where the critically cleared (but stable) trajectory exits the region of attraction of Eq. ( 2 ) .
V,, equals the maximum value of the potential energy component of V(x) along the sustained faulted trajectory of Eq.
(1).

M,(d28,1dt2)= J ( 0 )

(4)

where (d0,ldt) = 5,. The postfault system is assumed to have the SEP at 0 = O, W = 0, which is obtained by solving the nonlinear algebraic equations from Eq. (4).

J ( 0 ) = 0,

I , 2, . . . , n

(5)

The computation of f,,therefore involves the following four steps: Compute the stable equilibrium point (SEP) .x, knowing the postdisturbance structure. Formulate the Lyapunov function V(x) for Eq. (2). Compute the Critical Value vcr.This Step involves integration of the faulted systern in methods 2 and 3 above but not in method 1. Methods 2 and 3 give local regions of attraction depending on the fault. Method 1 searches for the UEP having the smallest V,, and, hence, is global. However, it is not practicable since the number of such UEPs is quite large. (d) Calculate the time instant t,, when V(x) is equal to V,, on the faulted trajectory of Eq. (I). This step requires integration of the faulted system in all three methods.

The system energy function V has been derived in different ways as

,.

VfO. 2 ) = ~,
I

M,5?
,=I -I
,I

P.(O. - 01)
I \
1
I ,

21-1
,I

I = I

/=!+I

hlJ(o

J
(6)

Classical Models
A large number of researchers have usedand still use today-the classical model for the multimachine system, which can be written functionally as follows, where 6, is the machine angle, M, the inertia constant, D, the damping constant, and P,a constant.

M,(d26,1dt2)+ D,(d6,/dt)
=

The term On the right-hand side Of Eq (6) 1.7 the transient kinetic energy (TKE) and the rest are potential energy terms. The last term Contains a path integral potential energy term. This function has been used extensively by researchers and is found to be satisfactory for the so-called first swing stability in the interval between zero and 1 sec. In the absence of conductance terms, Eq. (6) has been shown to satisfy the sign definite properties of the Lyapunov function in a region around the point 0 = o, W = 0. For nonzero conductance terms, only physical arguments can be used to show that the system energy function V is greater than zero. In both cases, i is less than or equal to zero along the solution of Eq. (4). For stability involving control actions, e.g., the excitation system, power system stabilizer, etc., it is necessary to use the structure-preserving model originally proposed in [7] and followed through by others to include nonlinear loads, control actions, etc., in an analytical manner [14]. Unlike the classical model described previously, these new models have not been tested on large practical systems.

P, - P,,

6, . . . , 6,)

(3)

Region of Attraction
The issue concerning the region of attraction has been settled through the works of Chiang et al. [15] and Zaborszky et al. [16]. They have shown that the stability boundary is the union of the stable manifolds of the

In this model, the loads are represented by impedances and all except the internal nodes are eliminated. For a systematic networktheoretic derivation, see 111.

Potential Energy Boundary Surface Method

This method, which was originally proposed in [4], [19], has its roots in nonlinear

24

IEEE Control Systems Magazine

mechanics. The method states that if the forces acting on a mass can be expressed as the negative gradient of a potential function, then the energy is conserved. During the faulted state, the rotors accelerate and gain kinetic energy. During the postfault phase, this excess of kinetic energy must be converted to potential energy if the system is to be stable. If there is an excess of kinetic energy that cannot be converted to potential energy, then the system is unstable. This concept can be extended to multimachine systems [20]. The energy function written in the CO1 notation is given by

works derived from the Ontario Hydro system. Some results from this work are presented here [9], [ l l ] , [17]. The computation of critical energy is done by using the modified controlling UEP method [ 171. The software has been tested extensively for systems up to 228 generators and 1644 buses. The main thrust of the project was for stability assessment given a tCland computation of prefault interface limits on lines for a given set of contingencies.
Stability Assessment

reduction. The results of stability assessment by the energy function method agreed very well with the step-by-step method.
Dynamic Security Assessment

Just as steady-state security assessment has matured to a point where it is increasingly becoming part of the Energy Management System (EMS) software, there are similar expectations regarding DSA in the near future. However, the area is still in an evolving stage. There are three approaches Dossible. (1) Extensive off-line studies by planners for a credible set of contingencies to provide the operator with guidelines regarding transfer limits, interface line flows, and so forth. However, the actual system conditions may differ drastically from the scenarios envisaged by the operators. Using state-of-the-art computer technology and parallel processing techniques, it may be possible to speed up the entire simulation process and bring it closer to on-line capabilities.

The various stages in this program are as follows [9]:

where V,, is such that dVldt is zero when evaluated along the cleared system trajectory. In the absence of dynamics other than 0 and G , this energy function reduces to Eq. (6). It is also possible to derive as a special case a similar energy function for each individual machine [2 11. The generalized potential energy VCpE is evaluated by numerical integration. At t = t,,, x(t,,) is known from the faulted equation and, hence, VTKE(tcl)is known. This energy must be converted into V,, f o r t > tcl if the system is to be stable. If VCpEis initialized to zero at t = tcl, VCpE must be capable of reaching a value equal to VTKE(tcl) as time goes to infinity. The maxin the cleared imum possible value of V,, system then becomes the critical energy. This can be used for computing energy margins and their sensitivities for a given tcl. The PEBS method uses the sustained fault trajectory to approximate the critically cleared trajectory so that Vzz obtained by using a sustained fault trajectory is an estimate of V,,. In this case, VCpE is initialized to zero at t = 0. If the potential well in the angle space is equally steep in all directions, then V Z E gives a good approximation to VCr. If this is not true, as in the case of stressed systems [I71 or systems having time-scale separation [6], (201, [22], the PEBS method or the controlling UEP method gives poor estimates of tcr. Proper accounting for fast dynamics can improve the estimates. In [22], the concept of a slow energy function corresponding to the COIs of coherent areas is proposed.

( I ) Computation of the nodal admittance matrix for both the faulted and postfault networks using network reduction.
(2) Computation of the postfault SEP. (3) Determining the controlling UEP and the computation of critical energy V,,, which is V(6, U ) evaluated at the UEP. (4) Determination of the rotor angles and speeds at tClusing an approximate faulton trajectory, giving V,,, which is V(6, U ) evaluated at t,,.

(5) Computation of energy margin, i.e., AV

=

v,.

- VA.

The computation time for various networks on the Ontario Hydro system is given in the Table. The times for the step-by-step method [i.e., trial-and-error integration of Eqs. (1) and (2)] were obtained using a general commercial transient stability program for a simulation period of 3 sec. The higher CPU times using the energy function method for larger systems are due to the operations involving reduced admittance matrix formulation. Since the publication of [9], this CPU time has been reduced substantially by using sparsity and optimally ordered network

(2) The present approach is to use various forms of equal area criterion by a gross equivalencing of the external system and get a single-machine infinite-bus system. The results are bound to be somewhat unreliable.
(3) The use of energy function methods initially was limited to compute the critical clearing times. Current research [ 101[ 121 is directed toward computing an energy margin for a given contingency and given clearing time and the sensitivity of the energy margin to a system parameter such as load. These can provide potentially valuable guidelines to operators and lead to preventive control strategies.

Table VAX18600 CPU Time for Various Tasks (in seconds) (from [9])
Test system: 17-gens. 40-gens. 117-lines 50-gens. 145-buses 649-lines 100-gens. 1095-buses 204 1-lines 150-gens. 1145-buses 2535-lines 228-gens. 1644-buses 3666-lines

Applications
Energy function methods have given good results in many test systems. However, to lend confidence to the method, the Electric Power Research Institute initiated a project with Iowa State University and Ontario Hydro to validate the technique to several net-

Energy function analysis: Load-flow input Data and network reduction SEP solution UEP solution Other tasks Total Step-by-step method

1.2 0.1 0.1 1.o 2.4 2.5

3.0 1.o 1.5 2.0 __

7.5
14.0

25 5 5 5 40 130

138 33 25 6 202 171

281 82 62 I 43 1 23 1

January 1989

25

Conclusion and Future Issues for Research

Perhaps do other area in power engineering has brought control and power engineers together as in the case of power system stability. This is a healthy sign since both tend to benefit in the long run. What are the future issues? Dynamic security assessment (DSA) is far from being a reality. Taking the same time frame as in the case of steady-state security assessment, one can put DSA as being part of the Energy Management System software by the late 1990s. Several issues by the control and power engineering community need to be addressed. (1) A fast and reliable method of computing the controlling unstable equilibrium point (UEP) is needed. Since a characterization of the stability boundary is now available, and also its relation to the stability boundary of the gradient system [which is the potential energy boundary surface (PEBS)], a modification of the PEBS technique to quickly locate the UEP is a possibility [23], [24]. (2) The use of detailed models, excitation systems, and other control system actions in the system in the context of Lyapunov functions need to be tested on large practical systems.

Large-scale Electric Power Systems-A Survey, Automatica, vol. 32, pp. 1-21, Jan. 1985. N. Kakmoto, Y. Ohsawa, and M. Hayashi, Transient Stability Analysis of ElectricPower System via Lure-type Lyapunov Function, Parts I and 11, Trans. IEE Japan, vol. 98, pp. 62-71, 72-79, 1978. r. Athay, R. Podmore, and S. Virmani, A Practical Method for Direct Analysis of Transient Stability, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst., vol. PAS-98, pp. 573-584, 1979. T. Athay, V. R. Sherket, R. Podmore, S. Virmani, and C. Puech, Transient Energy Stability Analysis, in Proc. Con$ on System Engineering for Power: Emergency op-

[I71

181

191

(3) If the operator needs more information about a possible contingency other than the energy margin and allowable transfer limits, then fast techniques of simulation need to be studied, e.g., parallel processing [25]. Combining dynamic contingency analysis with optimal power flow is an open area of research. (4) The problem of model reduction and energy functions need not, always reduce to the equal area criterion based on a single-machine system. A multiarea reduced-order energy function has been investigated recently [22] and needs to be studied further.
( 5 ) Perhaps the first place to try the DSA algorithms will be in the training simulators on which considerable developmental work is going on at present.

References
[ I ] M. A. Pai, Power System Stubiliy, New

York: North Holland, 1981. [2] P. P. Varaiya, F. F. Wu, and R. L. Chen, Direct Methods for Transient Stability Analysis of Power Systems: Recent Results, Proc. IEEE, vol. 73, pp. 17031715, Dee. 1985. [3] M. Ribbens-Pavella and F. J . Evans, Direct Methods for Studying Dynamics of

IV, Davos, Switzerland, 1979. A. R. Bergen and D. J . Hill, A Structure Preserving Model for Power System Stability Analysis, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst., vol. PAS-100, pp. 25-35, Jan. 1981. H. D. Chiang, F. F. Wu, and P. P. Varaiya, Foundations of Direct Methods of Power System Stability Analysis, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. CAS-34, no. 2, Feb. 1987. A. A. Fouad, V. Vittal, S. Rajgopal, V. F. Carvalho, M. A. El-Kady, C. K. Tang, J . V. Mitsche, and M. V. F. Pereira, Direct Transient Stability Analysis Using Energy Functions Applications to Large Power Networks, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. PWRS-2, no. 1, Feb. 1987. P. W. Sauer, K. D. Demaree, and M. A. Pai, Stability Limited Load Supply and Interchange Capability, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst., vol. PAS-102, Nov. 1983. M. A. El-Kady, C. K. Tang, V. F. Carvalho, A. A. Fouad, and V. Vittal, Dynamic Security Assessment Utilizing the Transient Energy Function Method, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. PWRS-1, no. 4, Nov. 1986. Y. Xue, Th. Van Cutsen, and M. Ribbens Pavella, Real-Time Analytic Sensitivity Method for Transient Security Assessment and Preventive Control, Proc. IEE (U.K.), vol. 135, Part C, no. 2, Mar. 1988. C. J . Tavora and 0. J . M. Smith, Characterization of Equilibrium and Stability in Power Systems, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst.. vol. PAS-91, no. 3, May1 June 1972. K. R. Padiyar and H. S. Y. Sastry, Topological Energy-Function Analysis of Stability of Power Systems, Int. J . Electric Energy Power Syst., vol. 9, no. 1, Jan. 1987. H. D. Chiang, M. W. Hirsch, and F. F. Wu, Stability Regions of Nonlinear Autonomous Dynamical Systems, IEEE Trans. Auto. Contr., vol. 33, no. I , Jan. 1988. J . Zaborszky, G. Huang, B. Zheng, and T. C. Leung, On the Phase Portrait of a erating State Control-Sec.

[20]

[21]

1221

Class of Large Nonlinear Dynamic Systems Such as Power Systems, IEEE Trans. Auto. Contr., vol. 33, no. 1, Jan. 1988. V. Vittal, S. Rajagopal, A. A. Fouad, M. A. El-Kady, E. Vaahedi, and V. F. Carvalho, Transient Stability Analysis of Stressed Power Systems Using the Energy Function Method, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3, no. 1, Feb. 1988. K. S. Chandrasekhar and D. J . Hill, Cutset Stability Criterion for Power Systems Using a Structure Preserving Model, Int. J . Electric Energy Power Syst., vol. 8 , no. 3, July 1986. H. Sasaki, An Approximate Incorporation of Field Flux Delay into Transient Stability Analysis of Multimachine Power Systems by the Second Method of Lyapunov, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst, , vol. PAS98, no. 2, pp. 473483, Mar./Apr. 1979. P. W. Sauer, A. K. Behera, M. A. Pai, J . R. Winkelman, and J . H. Chow, Trajectory Approximations for Direct Energy Methods That Use Sustained Faults with Detailed Power System Models, Paper 88 SM 688-4, IEEE PES Summer Power Meeting, Portland, OR, July 1988. A. N. Michel, A. A. Fouad, and V. Vittal, Power System Transient Stability Using Individual Machine Energy Functions, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. 30, no. 5, May 1983. H. A. Othman and M. A. Pai, Dynamic Equivalencing and Direct Methods of Stability Analysis, Proc. IFAC Symp. on
Power Systems-Modelling and Control Applications, Brussels, Belgium, Sept.

1988. [23] H. D. Chiang and F. F. Wu, Stability of Nonlinear Systems Described by a Second Order Vector Differential Equation, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. CAS-35, June 1988. 1241 R. J . Thomas and J . S. Thorp, Towards a Direct Test for Large Scale Electric Power System Instabilities, Proc. 24th IEEE Con6 on Decision and Contr., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Dec. 1985. [25] M. Ilic-Spong, M. L. Crow, and M. A. Pai, Transient Stability Simulation by Waveform Relaxation Methods, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. PWRS-2, no. 4, Nov. 1987.
M. A. Pai graduated from

Madras University, India, with a bachelors degree in electrical engineering in 1953. He obtained his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1958 and 1961, respectively. He taught at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Univcr-

26

IEEE Control Systems Mogorrne

Cililonii~i Lt)\ Angele\. helore ~(iining the In\titute 01 I echnologq K m p u r in 1961 \shere he \\I\ on the 1,icult) u n t i l 19x1 Hc I Vi\iting Prole\\or dt I o \ s d Stdre Uni\cr\it) from I979 to 19x1 Since 1081. he hd\ heen Piole\sor it the O n i \ e r \ i t > 01 Illinoi\ 11 Urhdni Chmipdign H i \ re\eriiCh intcre\t\ ire i n power \>\teni mhil i t \ c o n t i o l md coinput,ition HL I \ the ,iuthor ot three hook.\ .incl \e\erIiI paper\ He I \ <I Fello\s o i the Indim h c i t i o n d l Siicn~c Acdein! tutioii 01 t-ngiiicer\ ( I n d i d ) dnd tlic I F
\it\ (it
Incli,in

Peter W. Sauer wd\ born in Winond, Minnewta, i n 1946 He received the B S degree i n electncal engineenng from the Uni versity of Missouri dt Rolla and the M S m d Ph D degree\ in electncal engineeringtroin Pur due Uni\er\it) i n 1969. 1974, and 1977, re\pectively From 1969 to 1971 he wa\ the electri

cdl engineer o n I de\ign r l \ \ i \ t m c e tcmi lor the Tdcticdl Air Commdnd 11 N A S A I .ingle) Air Force Bd\e. Virginid, uorking o n the de\ign and construction ot dirheld lighting and electricIil di\ tribution \y\terns He h d \ clone con\ulung \\orb tor the U S Arniy Corps ot hginecr\ Con\truction Engineenng Resedrch Libordtop d e ~ e l o p ing dn interdcti\e electric pouer di\tribution p l m ning program He 15 currently clGrdingcr A\\ocidc dnd d Prote\\or ot Electnc,il hgineering and the Coordindted Science Ldbor,itop .it the Uni\er\it) ot Illinois at Urbana-Chanipdign He I\ I ineinher of Eta Kdppd Nu. Sigind X I . Phi K q p d Phi. m d I \ a Regi\tered Prole\\iondl Fngincci i n the Coni inonwedlth of Virginia and the State ol Illinoi\

1989 CDC Call for Papers

Thc IEEE Conterence on Dcci\ion and Control (CDC) i \ conducted in cooperation \+ i t h the Soc,ict! 101Indu\trial anti Applied Mathcniatics and the Operations Kewarch Socict) of Anicrica. Thc 2Hth CDC will be held on December 13-15. 1989. a t the Hyatt Regency Tampa Hotel in Taiiipa. Florida. The General Chninnan of thc conterencc 1 5 Imnard Shaw of the Polytechnic Ilnibersity in New York. The Program Chairman is Tamer BLisar of the University of Illinoi\ at ~Jrbana~Cliampaign. The conference will include both contributed and invited sessions. Papers anti sessions are hereby solicited in 2111 aspects o t the theory a n d application of sy\tems involving decision. control. optimimtion. anti xlaptation. paper for consideration as a regular paper. or four (4) copies of a 3-6-page detailed summary (plus references) for short papers. The papers and summaries must be headed w i t h the paper title. the names, affiliations, and complete [nailing addresses of all authors. and the statement 28th CDC. The first-named author will be used for all correspondence unless otherwise stated. Submissions must be made by March 1, 1989, to: 28th CDC Prof. N. H . McClamroch Dept. of Aerospace Engineering University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Phone: (313) 763-2355 mcclainroch@um .cc.umich. edu Authors will be notified regarding acceptance of their papers for presentation at the CDC by July 15. 1989. University of Illinois 1101 W . Springfield Ave. Urbana, 1L 61801 Phone: (217) 333-3607 e-mail: tbasar@uicsl .csI.uiuc.edu Proposals should contain a complete list of the authors. their addresses. titles. and one-page abstracts of the papers. session title. and names and addresses of the chairperson and cochairperson. The organizer should also attach a cover lcttcr describing the main theme of the proposed session. The Program Committee particularly encourages invited sessions with an introductory tutorial or survey paper, which will be allotted twice the time accorded t o regular papers. As a new feature at the 28th CDC. the Committee also invites proposals for technical sessions 011 topics for which it IS most effective to have the audience \tancl closc to view displays of computer terminals. videotapes, diagrams, and/or photos. The same deadlines as above apply to proposals in this category. The organizers will be contacted before June 1. 1989, concerning the tentative disposition of their sessions. Additional information may be requested at that time. Final selection of invited sessions will bc announced by July 15, 1989.

Contributed Papers
The 28th CDC Program Committee is now soliciting papers lor presentation at the conI~rence.Two types of papers are sought: regular papers tle\cribinF completed work in \oiiic detail. and short papers that present recent. perhaps prcliniinary. results. All the papers accepted tor CDC presentation will be included in the Proceedings. which \vi11 be available at the time ot the conference. Iri.strrcc~rio~i.\t o A i c t h o r ~ :Prospective authors should submit six ( 6 ) copies of the full

Invited Sessions
The 28th CDC Program Committee is also soliciting proposals for invited sessions, Proposals should be submitted by April I , 1989. to the CDC Program Chairman: Prof. Tamer Basar Coordinated Science Laboratory