JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2011, ISSN 2151-9617

HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 112

Design of generalized regression model based

neural network controller to improve transient
stability of power system
Dr. K. R. Sudha, K. Harinadha Reddy

Abstract— This paper presents the design of neural network controller for Unified Power Flow Controller to reduce the oscillations of
power system network. The generalised neural network is used to minimize error signal at signified level. A generalised regression
neural network controller has been developed for conventional power system stabiliser using error signal derived from power system
network. The Power system stabilizer has been tested for different operating conditions with 250ms fault duration and carried
simulations using a single machine-infinite bus model.

Index Terms— Flexible AC transmission Systems (FACTS), Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC), Power System Stabilizer (PSS),
Neural Network (NN), Generalized regression neural network (GRNN).
——————————      —————————— 
d
  0 
1 INTRODUCTION  dt
d
D amping oscillations in large-scale power systems are
becoming more common for stability problems. The dt
de1q
 Pm  Pe  / M

system has grown very fast in a short period of time

with many recent methods. These require strong increase in
inter-utility power transfers, the effects of load variations.
Power systems are large-scale, nonlinear, multivariable,
complex systems distributed over large geographical areas.
System-wide disturbances in power systems are a
challenging problem for the utility. Further, because of new
constraints placed by economical and environmental
factors, the trend in power system planning and operation
is toward maximum utilization of existing electricity
infrastructure, with tight operating margins, and increased
penetration of renewable energy sources such as wind
power.
A neuro-control approach for flexible AC transmission
systems based on load angle and difference are considered
for design of controller [3, 4] in this paper. The approach
capitalizes on the superior computational abilities of ANN
and their ability to do some complex nonlinear mappings
from the simple data patterns [3] of a power systems
network. When fully trained, the network determines the
rate structures instantly without going through any
iterative loops as in conventional methods.
2 SYSTEM MODEL
For modelling purpose, the theoretical analysis of the single
machine infinite-bus system [1-9] is considered for transient
stability simulations at the first instance. The power system
and its detailed circuit model are shown in Fig. 1. The
synchronous generator is represented by a 3rd order
machine model and the generator excitation system
has a simple automatic voltage regulator.
dt
   
 E fd 0  E fd  e1q  x d  x1d id /  d1 0
dE fd
 K e Vref  Vt  u PSS  /  e
dt
 
Pe  e1q iq  x q  x1q id iq
Unified Power Flow Controller is a multifunctional
flexible ac transmission (FACTS) device with its potential
application in power system for the power flow control. In
a power system, the power flow for a two-bus system
depends on the magnitude of bus voltages, their phase
difference and the impedance of the transmission line.
UPFC controls the power flow [10-12] by controlling one of
the three basic parameters (voltage, impedance or phase
angle) of a transmission line or a combination of these
parameters.
UPFC consists of two voltage-sourced converters
connected back-to-back through a common DC link
capacitor. One of the converters is connected in parallel
with transmission line through an excitation transformer
where as the other in series with line by a series or boosting
transformer. The series and shunt parts of UPFC can
control power flow and AC voltage respectively, when a
constant voltage is maintained across the DC link capacitor.
Tr. Line
Vd, Vq 
~
ZP 
Esh  Bus1
Generator  Bus2
isd, isq 
~
UPFC

————————————————
 Dr.K.R.Sudha is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Andhra Fig. 1 . UPFC Model
University, India.
 K.Harinadha Reddy is with the Department of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering. LBR College of Engineering, India.
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 113

Series Converter: 3 DESIGN OF NEURAL NETWORK CONTROLLER

The series converter injects a variable voltage source and
Neural Network controller is used to reduce the
the shunt converter a variable current. The simplified
damping of power plant. The neuron has fired at every
representation of the differential [3] and algebraic equations
instant of system model. This controller used the
for the generator, excitation systems are given.
generalized regression neural network. Generalized
Vd = -Vcd + Vb Sinδ – xe(iq+isq)
regression neural network is used for estimation of
Vq = -Vcq + Vb Cosδ – xe(id+isd)
continuous variables, as in standard regression technique.
Vt  Vd2 Vq2 Vc  Vcd2 Vcq2 Regression surface of network with two outputs g1, g2
Shunt Converter: can be modelled as
The d and q-axes of the shunt converter are chosen in exp(u1 )
g1 
such a way that d-axis voltage coincide with the terminal exp(u1 )  exp(u 2 )
voltage of the UPFC bus. Thus the direct and quadrature 1

equations of the shunt converters are 1  exp (u1  u 2 )
eD = rs iD – xsiQ+Vt
Leta1 , a 2 are weightvectors
eQ = rs iQ – xsiD
When expressed in terms of the d–q axes fixed to rotor of u k  x T ak k  1,2
the 1
 g1 
synchronous generator the voltage esd, esq are 
1  exp  x T (a1  a 2 ) 
esd   sin  t  cos  t  eD  
 vd
 g 2 1  g 1
e     e  where  t  tan  

 sq  cos  t sin  t   Q   vq  g2 
1

eD  CVdc cos eQ  CVdc sin 


1  exp  x T (a 2  a1 ) 
Function of the GN is
Shunt converter voltage, E s  e D2  eQ2  ( X  C j )T ( X  C j ) 
u j  exp   j  1,2,.......N
The capacitor voltage dynamics[2-4] is obtained as  2 2j 
dVdc
 
n
  Vt i D  Vcd icd  Vcp icp / CVdc y i   wij u j   i  1,2,.........M
dt j 1

icd  id  isd ; icq  iq  isq X=(x1, x2, x3…….. xn)T

General control strategy of basic generalized regression
For the transient stability enhancement, the active neural network is shown in Fig.2.
voltage component is controlled using either the reactive
power deviation( ∆Q) or voltage deviation (∆V1 ) at the bus
no. 1. The quadrature voltage component of the series
converter is controlled by the real power deviation ∆P at ..
the bus-1. Instead of using and directly, a more realistic
.. .. . Output Vector
control is obtained using the in-phase and quadrature Input Vector . ..
voltage components [4] , and with the line current
I c  icd2  idq
2

UPFC injects a voltage in series with a line through a

series transformer. The active power involved in the series Fig. 2. Neural Network Model
injection is taken from the line through a shunt transformer.
UPFC generates or absorb the needed reactive power Detailed construction of Generalized regression neural
locally by the switching operation of its converters, while network is represented in fig.3.Detailed model [18] consists
reactive power injected in series with line. of hidden layer and linear function is used at output unit.
W11 
Vcd  Vcp sin   Vcr cos ;Vcq  Vcp cos  Vcr sin  W21 
a2 = y 
i  p
Q 
  tan  cd
  & Vcd  Vdcref  Vdc
 R×1
dis 
n1  n2
 icq  +
nprod 
-
a1 
In case of the PI regulator is used in controlling Vcp and b1 
Vcr, the equations are
Vcp = Kpq Q + Kiq ∫Q Fig .3. Generalized regression neural network
Vcr = Kpp P + Kip ∫P p = input vector, R = no.of elements in the input vector
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 114

Q = no. of neurons in the layer

nprod = normal product
a1 = radbis[(W11 - p)b1], a2 = purelin(n2) Fig.5. Transient response at P=1.6 p.u. and at Q=0.7 p.u.
P=1.6;Q=0.7
x  1.4
o/p 
Vcr or Vcp  without nn controller
+ Plant  1.2
with nn controller
xref 
1
Upss 
Input  0.8
Signals 

Rotor angle
GRNN  0.6

0.4
Fig .4. Neural Network Controller
The input variable ‘x’ of the NNC must be weighted 0.2
with suitable values and added to bias. Transfer function is 0
selected as shown in above equation. Neural Network
training algorithm may be Regression Neuron model or -0.2
radial basis function model [3,19]. The output of NN -0.4
controller is also weighted with suitable value for better 0 5 10 15
performance. t
Learning algorithm Fig.6. Speed deviation at P=1.6 p.u. and at Q=0.7 p.u.
Step(1): Set input, p
Calculate vector distance between weight,W and p
P=1.6;Q=0.7
Step(2): Output of n1= (W11 - p)b1
0.015
Step(3): Output of input layer,a1 = radbis[(W11 -
p)b1] Conventional PSS
0.01
Step(4): Output of n2 = a1 W21 GRNN Controller
Step(5): Output of output layer, a2 = purelin(n2) 0.005
speed deviation

Step(6): Calculate error x-xref

x = terminal voltage; xref = reference voltage 0
Test for stopping condition, may repeat the no. of
iteration. -0.005

4 SIMULATION RESULTS -0.01

4.1 Single Machine Infinite Bus
Simulation results are obtained for the single machine -0.015
infinite-bus as shown in figure.5 to 12.The UPFC control
scheme consists of controlling voltage components and by -0.02
0 5 10 15
using real and reactive power deviations. The current of the
t
shunt converter is obtained from the power balance
equations at every control instant. The following large Fig.7. Change in power at P=1.6 p.u. and at Q=0.7 p.u 
disturbance cases are also considered for evaluating the  
performance of these controllers.   P=1.6;Q=0.7
At the pre disturbance condition the operating level of   0.15
the generator is then changed to a high power case, and the
  Conventional PSS
same fault is created. Fig. 5 shows transient response of the 0.1
  GRNN Controller
power system for this operating condition with UPFC and
the nerural network controller. Variation of rotor angle  
0.05
 
change in power

with respect to time is shown in fig.5.Time response is

observed with generalized regression neural network  
0
controller. From the response, it can be ascertained that the  
electromechanical oscillations are damped very quickly in   -0.05
case of the new controller proving its superiority over the  
conventional controllers used. Variation of speed deviation   -0.1
is shown in fig.6 for same operating conditions with and  
without generalized regression neural network controller. -0.15
 
Change in power, terminal power and voltage are also
shown in figures.7, 8&9 at this operating condition.  
  -0.2
0 5 10 15
t
 JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 115

Fig.8, Terminal power at P=1.6 p.u. and at Q=0.7 p.u.

P=1.6;Q=0.7
1.15 Fig.11. Speed deviation at P=1.4 p.u. and at Q=0.6 p.u.
P=1.4;Q=0.6
Conventional PSS 0.015
1.1
GRNN Controller without nn controller
1.05 0.01 with nn controller

speed deviation
1 0.005
Power, Pt

0.95
0
0.9
-0.005
0.85

0.8 -0.01

0.75 -0.015
0 5 10 15
0 5 10 15
t
t
Fig.9 Terminal voltage at P=1.6 p.u. and at Q=0.7 p.u.
P=1.6;Q=0.7 Fig.12. Change in power at P=1.4 p.u. and at Q=0.6 p.u.
1.8
Conventional PSS P=1.4;Q=0.6
1.7 GRNN Controller 0.1
Conventional PSS
1.6
GRNN Controller
0.05
1.5
Votage, Vt

change in power

1.4 0
1.3
-0.05
1.2

1.1
-0.1
1
0 5 10 15
t -0.15
0 5 10 15
Now synchronous generator is assumed to a operating
t
conditions of power output P=1.4 p.u. and Q=0.6 p.u.
Transient response of power plant model is shown in Fig.13. Terminal power at P=1.4 p.u. and at Q=0.6 p.u.
figure10. Variation of speed deviation, change in power,  
terminal power and voltage are shown in figures 11, 12, 13   P=1.4;Q=0.6
& 14 respectively.   1.05
Fig.10. Transient response at P=1.4 p.u. and at Q=0.6 p.u.   Conventional PSS
P=1.4;Q=0.6 GRNN Controller
1.2  
1
without nn controller  
1 with nn controller  
  0.95
Power, Pt

0.8  
 
Rotor angle

0.6   0.9
 
0.4
 
0.85
 
0.2
 
0
  0.8
  0 5 10 15
t
-0.2
0 5 10 15
t
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 116

Fig.14. Terminal voltage at P=1.4 p.u. and at Q=0.6 p.u.

P=1.4;Q=0.6
Fig.17. Change in power at P=0.4 p.u. and at Q=0.2 p.u.
1.8
Conventional PSS
1.7 GRNN Controller P=0.4;Q=0.2
0.06
1.6 Conventional PSS
0.04 GRNN Controller
1.5
Votage, Vt

c hange in power
1.4 0.02

1.3
0
1.2
-0.02
1.1

1
-0.04
0 5 10 15
t -0.06
The operating level of the generator is then changed to a
0 5 10 15
low power case with P=0.4 p.u. and Q=0.2 p.u. and same
t
fault is created for 250ms duration. Performance of power
plant with and without GRNN controller has shown in Fig.18. Terminal power at P=0.4 p.u. and at Q=0.2 p.u.
figures 15,16,17,18 and 19.
Fig.15. Transient response at P=0.4 p.u. and at Q=0.2 p.u.
P=0.4;Q=0.2
P=0.4;Q=0.2 0.96
0.8 Conventional PSS
without nn controller 0.94 GRNN Controller

0.6 with nn controller

0.92
Power, Pt
Rotor angle

0.4
0.9

0.2 0.88

0.86
0
0.84
0 5 10 15
-0.2 t
0 5 10 15
Fig.16. Speed deviation at P=0.4 tp.u. and at Q=0.2 p.u. Fig.19. Terminal voltage at P=0.4 p.u. and at Q=0.2 p.u.

P=0.4;Q=0.2 P=0.4;Q=0.2
1.55
0.01
without nn controller 1.5

with nn controller 1.45

0.005
s peed dev iation

1.4
Votage, Vt

1.35
0
1.3
Conventional PSS
1.25 GRNN Controller
-0.005
1.2

1.15
-0.01
0 5 10 15 1.1
0 5 10 15
t t
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 117

Comparison of maximum overshoot and settling time for

both Conventional PSS and GRNN Controller represented Fig.21. Difference in speed of Gen.1 and Gen.2
-3
in following table. x 10 w1-w2
1.5
Response Conventional PSS GRNN Controller Conventional PSS
Max Settling Max Settling 1 GRNN Controller
Overshoot time(Sec) Overshoot time(Sec)
P=1.6 p.u. and Q=0.7 p.u. 0.5
δ 1.35 11 0.65 6
dω 0.025 12 0.15 5.5 0

w21
dP 0.12 14 0.12 7
Pt 1.05 13 1.01 5.1 -0.5
Vt 1.6 12 1.3 6.5
P=1.4 p.u. and Q=0.6 p.u. -1
δ 1.15 13 0.59 5
dω 0.012 14 0.12 5.5 -1.5
dP 0.09 12 0.09 4.5
Pt 1.02 16 1.01 6 -2
Vt 1.55 11 1.3 6 0 5 10 15
P=0.4 p.u. and Q=0.2 p.u. t
δ 0.79 12 0.3 4.5 Fig. 22. Transient response δ21
dω 0.005 14 0.005 5.5 d1-d2
dP 0.04 15 0.04 6 0.7
Pt 0.95 14 0.92 5 without nn controller
Vt 1.5 10 1.45 6 0.6 with nn controller

4.2 Multi-machine Power System 0.5

Three machine 5-bus power systems is considered for
simulation as shown in figure 20. UPFC is connected
0.4
delta21

between bus 1 and bus3. Transient stability and Difference

in speed of Gen.1 and Gen.2 is shown in figure 21,
22.Operating condition for test system is considered as 0.3
P=0.54 p.u. and at Q=0.23 p.u.
Fig. 20. Three machine 5-bus power system. 0.2

0.1
G  G 

1  3  4  0
0.09+j0.24  0.01+j0.03  0 5 10 15
t
0.02+j0.08  Fig.23. Difference in speed of Gen.2 and Gen.3   
-3 w2-w3
  x 10
0.04+j0.18  0.08+j0.24   
3
0.06+j0.18  Conventional PSS
 
5 2 GRNN Controller
0.05+j0.12   
2 
 
1
 
G   
0
 
w23

  -1
Transient stability and Difference in speed of Gen.2  
and Gen.3 are shown in figure 23 and figure 24   -2
respectively.  
  -3
 
  -4
0 5 10 15
t
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 118

Fig.24. Transient response δ23 Comparison of maximum overshoot and settling time for
both Conventional PSS and GRNN Controller represented
d2-d3
0.6 in following table.
without nn controller
0.5 with nn controller Response Conventional PSS GRNN Controller
Max Settling Max Settling
0.4 Overshoot time(Sec) Overshoot time(Sec)
P=0.54 p.u. and Q=0.23 p.u.
0.3 ω12 0.0012 16 0.009 4
delta23

δ12 0.52 13 0.35 5

0.2 ω23 0.0039 15 0.0022 5
δ23 0.52 13 0.35 4
0.1 ω31 0.003 >15 0.0019 5
δ31 0.5 >15 0.3 13
0

-0.1 5 CONCLUSION
0 5 10 15
Transient stability and Difference
t in speed of Gen.1 The new non-linear neural network controller has been
and Gen.2 is shown in figures 25 and 26. proposed for the control of UPFC. In this paper the
Fig.25 Difference in speed of Gen.3 and Gen.1 generalized regression training algorithm is used for
-3
w3-w1
training of neural network controller. This control structure
x 10
6 uses both conventional and neural network controller.
Conventional PSS Speed deviation of machine and active power of line are
GRNN Controller selected as inputs for power system stabilizer. Voltage at a
4
upfc bus is considered for training of GRNN and
oscillations of signal are damped out from light loading,
2 medium loading and heavy loading conditions.
The simulation results obtained on the single
machine infinite bus and multimachine power system with
w31

0
generalized regression neural network controller is used to
improve performance. Improvement of power system
-2 stability has been tested for fault duration of 250ms. Finally,
several fault and load disturbance results have been
-4 presented from light loading conditions to high loading
conditions.  

-6
0 5 10 15 6 APPENDICES
t
6.1 Single Machine Infinite Bus
Fig.26. Transient response δ31
d3-d1 1) Generator Data
0.6 xd = 1.9, xq=1.6, xd1=0.17, τdo1=4.314s
H=4s, xe=0.3, Ke=50 τe = 0.1s
without nn controller
0.5 2) UPFC Data
with nn controller
Vdcbase=31.113Kv, MVAbase = 100, C=5500μF
0.4 Limits of UPFC data in p.u. Vcp= ±0.2, Vcr= ±0.2
3) Controllers data
0.3 Kpp = 0.3, Kip = 3, Kpq = 0.5, Kiq = 1;
delta31

Learning rate, γ = 0.9.

0.2
6.2 Three Generator 5-bus Power System 
0.1 UPFC data:
xse=0.0006,Vermax=0.015,
0 Vcrmin= -0.015, Vcpmax=0.015,
Vcpmin= -0.015, Vdcbace=31.113Kv, Cdc=5500µFs
-0.1 AVR and PSS data: AVR:KE=21,TE=0.05s

-0.2
0 5 10 15
t
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG
PSS:TW=0.4,T1=0.3,T2=0.1
Generator data:
Generator
Ra Xd1
No.
1 0 0.20
2 0 0.15
3 0 0.25
Controllers data;
KPP=0.0025,Kpi=0.1085,
Kpd=30×10-6(Both P and Q controller);Kpdc=0.1
Kidc=1.0
REFERENCES
[1] K. R. Padiyar and A. M. Kulkarni, “Control design and
simulation of unified power flow controller,” IEEE Trans.
on Power Delivery, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1348–1354, 1998.
[2] S. Limyingcharoen, U. D. Annakkage, and N. C.
Pahalawaththa, “Fuzzy logic based unified power flow
controllers for transient stability improvement,” IEE Proc. -
C, vol. 145, no. 3, pp. 225–232, 1998.
[3] P.K..Dash, S.Mishra,and G.Panda “A Radial Basis
Function Neural Network Controller for UPFC” IEEE
Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1293–1299,
November 2000.
[4] Sukumar Mishra “Neural-Network-Based Adaptive
UPFC for Improving Transient Stability Performance of
Power System” IEEE Trans. on Neural Networks, vol. 17,
no.2, pp. 461–471,March 2006.
[5] L. Gyugyi, C. D. Schauder, S. L. Torgerson, and A. Edris,
“The unified power flow controller: A new approach to
power transmission control,” IEEE Trans. on Power
Delivery, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1088–1097, 1995.
[6] M. Noroozian, L. Angquist, M. Ghandari, and G.
Anderson, “Improving power system dynamics by series-
connected FACTS devices,” IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery,
vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1635–1641, 1997.
[7] K. S. Narendra and K. Parthasarathy, “Identification and
control of dynamical systems using neural networks,” IEEE
Trans. on Neural Networks,
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 4–27, Mar. 1990.
[8] K. G. Narendra, K. Khorasani, V. K. Sood, and R. V.
Patel, “Intelligent current controller for HVDC transmission
link,” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 13, no. 3, pp.
1076–1083, Aug. 1998.
[9] M. Noorzian, G. Anderson, and K. Tomsovic, “Robust,
near time-optimal
control of power system oscillations with fuzzy logic, ”
IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 393–400,
1996.
[10] K.R.Sudha, K.Harinadha Reddy, “A fuzzy controller
for enhancement of Power System Stability with FACTS
device” Journal of information technology and applied
science, Vol.6,No.9, Pg33-39, Jan2010.
[11] Narain G. Hingorani, Laszlo Gyugyi “Understanding
FACTS Concepts and Technology of Flexible AC
Transmission Systems”. IEEE press, Standard Publishers
Distributors 2001:299–329.
119
[12] Edris A-A. Proposed terms and definitions for flexible
ac transmission systems (FACTS). IEEE Trans Power
Delivery 1997; 2 (4):1848–53.
H
[13] Gyugyi L. Unified power-flow control concept for
20 flexible ac transmission system. IEEE Proc C 1992; 139
4 (4):323–31.
12 [14] Schauder CD, Hamai DM, Edris A. Operation of the
unified power flow controller (UPFC) under practical
constraints. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 1998;13 (2):630–9.
[15] Chaudhuri B, Majumder R, Pal BC. Application of
multiple-model adaptive control strategy for robust
damping of interarea oscillations in power system. IEEE
Trans Control Syst Technol 2004;12 (5):727–36.
[16] Wu B, Malik OP. Multivariable adaptive control of
synchronous machines in a multimachine power system.
IEEE Trans Power Systems 2006; 21 (4):1772–81.
[17] Narendra KS, Parthasarathy K. Identification and
control of dynamical system using neural networks. IEEE
Trans Neural Netw 1990;1:4–27.
[18] Amjady N. Generation adequacy assessment of power
systems by time series and fuzzy neural network. IEEE
Trans Power Syst 2006;21 (3):1340–1349..
[19] A.Madkiur, MA.Hossain, K.P.Dahal, H.Yu.’’Intelligent
Learning Algorithms for Active Vibration control” IEEE
Trans on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2007;37 (5):1022–
1033.
[20] D.P.Kothari.’’ Application of neural networks to power
systems’’ IEEE Trans Power Syst 2000; 3 (5):621–626.
Dr. K. R. Sudha received her B.E. degree in Electrical and Electronics
Engineering from GITAM; Andhra University 1991.She did her M.E in
Power Systems 1994. She was awarded her Doctorate in Electrical
Engineering in 2006 by Andhra University. During 1994-2006, she
worked with GITAM Engineering College and presently she is working
as Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Andhra
University, Visakhapatnam, India
K.Harinadha Reddy received his B.Tech degree in electrical
engineering from K.U. in 1997 and M.Tech degree in Electrical Power
Systems emphasis High Voltage Engineering from JNTUK in 2005. At
present he is working as associate professor at LBR College of
engineering. His research interests include HVDC transmission using
FACT controllers, AI techniques and their applications to power system
stability problems.