International Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering 3:11 2009

Conventional and Fuzzy Logic Controllers at

Generator Location for Low Frequency
Oscillation Damping
K. Prasertwong and, N. Mithulananthan
37-322605; e-mail: komkrit@
swu.ac.th).
N. Mithulananthan is with
the Power and Energy Group, Southwest Power Pool.
Abstract—This paper investigates and comparesSchool of Information Later, low frequency
performance of various conventional and fuzzy logic Technology and Electrical oscillation reported in
Engineering, University of
based controllers at generator locations for oscillation many countries. Among
Queensland, Brisbane Qld
damping. Performance of combination of conventional 4072, Australia.
various oscillatory
and fuzzy logic based controllers also studied by (e-mail: problems, a low frequency,
comparing overshoot on the active power deviation mithulan@itee.uq.edu.au).
response for a small disturbance and damping ratio of the typically in the range of
critical mode. Fuzzy logic based controllers can not be 0.1-0.4 Hz is considered
modeled in the state space form to get the eigenvalues as severe. This oscillation
and corresponding damping ratios of various modes of problem often referred to
generators and controllers. Hence, a new method based as inter-area oscillation
on tracing envelop of time domain waveform is also
results from participation
presented and used in the paper for comparing
performance of controllers. The paper also shows that if of several generating units
the fuzzy based controllers designed separately from different areas.
combining them could not lead to a better performance. There is a wide variety
of controllers that can be
Keywords—Automatic voltage regulator, installed both at generator
damping ratio, fuzzy logic controller, power system locations [1]-[4] or
stabilizer. elsewhere used to
effectively damp out such
I. INTRODUCTION
oscillations. However,
power systems are

IN interconnected power systems, there are complex dynamic systems

and their operations are
hundreds of generating units with varying size, stochastic in nature. The
complexity and mechanical speed integrated.
These units are connected with load centers that
characteristics of
are often far away by long transmission lines. One generating units are
of the major challenges in operation and control of nonlinear, the gain of them
such complex large networks is maintaining of increases with generator
electrical speed or synchronism among those loading and AC system
generating units. Whenever power systems are
strength. Thus controller
subjected to small and sudden disturbances one or
more of the generating units tend to exhibit parameters that are
oscillatory behavior. If the oscillations are not optimum for one set of
controlled, they would grow in amplitude, limit operating conditions may
power transfer capability of transmission lines, not be optimum for another
induce stress in the system and trigger protection
set of operating conditions.
devices to function. Hence, threatens system
security and hamper the efficient operation of the Hence, fuzzy logic based
entire power system stabilizers
system. [5]-[7] and automatic
Low-frequency oscillations were first voltage regulators [8]-[11]
observed in the Northern American power have been developed.
systems in the early 1960s during a trial In practice, utilities may
interconnection of the northwest power pool and use conventional
the controllers such as
automatic voltage regulator
K. Prasertwong is with the Electric Power System (CAVR), Power System
Management, Energy Field of Study, Asian Institute of Technology, Stabilizers (CPSS) or fuzzy
P.O. Box 4, Klongluang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand
logic based controllers like
(corresponding author to provide phone: 66-37-322546; fax: 66-
automatic voltage regulator (FLAVR), PSS proposed in the
conventional fuzzy logic based power system II. LOW literature and applied in
stabilizer (FLPSS). However, a combination of FREQUENCY practice. Given the
both may be suitable in some situation. Hence,
OSCILLATION configuration and
DAMPING
this paper investigates and compares different complexity of the system
controllers both individually and in combination. Installation of these solutions might not
In addition, a new technique is proposed to find supplementary excitation always sufficient in some
damping ratio of critical mode from time domaincontrol, power system cases.
simulation results, to help compare thestabilizers are simple About three decades
performance of the controllers, which normallyand economical methods back after rapid
require mathematical models to findfor improving oscillatory advancement of power
eigenvalues and evaluate damping ratios. Thestability. Most of modern
electronics a number of
proposed technique is useful for evaluating the power plants are
installed with PSS and Flexible AC Transmission
damping performance of fuzzy logic controllers
for which mathematical models are not feasible. there are wide varieties controllers

656
International Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering 3:11 2009
program common type of
development time control technique
and much faster presently used in
automated
were alsoprogram
systems. It utilizes
introduced powerexecution. Also,
instead of mathematical
oscillation
developing equations or
damping [12].
Boolean
Both series andcomplex
expressions to
shunt FACTmathematical
perform the
controllers haveformula, the
engineer converts process. Some
been used for
types of
this purpose.personal
applications that
These controllersknowledge and
experience into use mathematical
include TCSC
words as the models are often
and SVC, voltage
computer is difficult, or
source converter
programmed. The impossible, to
based FACTS
calculate because
controllers suchoperational and
of the complexity
as SSSC,control laws of the
involved. The
STATCOM andsystem are also
math function
UPFC and otherexpressed
linguistically, required is often
FACTS
too difficult to
controllers suchwhich make it
write, or takes too
as TCPAR andintuitively easier
long time to solve
IPFC. to understand and
because it
These justify.
requires massive
controllers can
II computations. An
be designed as
I. example is a
either
F system where one
conventional U or more controlled
controllers or Z
Z variables change
fuzzy logic or
Y completely or
neuro-fuzzy
L irregularly. These
controllers. Apart
O situations typically
from this, there G
require human
are other ways of I
C intervention to
providing
C make the
oscillation
O necessary
damping with the N
adjustments to
help of re- T
R correct the
dispatching of O operation.
generators, L
A revolutionary
Super Fuzzy logic is a control technique
Conducting system of logic called fuzzy logic is
Magnetic Energydeveloped for capable of
Storage (SMES),representing
fly wheel or evenconditions performing some of
that the operations that
load shedding.
cannot be easily are too complex for
In fuzzy logic
described by the PID systems.
controls (FLC)
binary terms “true” Fuzzy logic is a
there are several
and “false”. The form of artificial
attractive features
concept was first intelligence that
such as its
introduced by Lotfi enables a
programming
Zadeh in 1965 computer to
structure that
[13]. Unlike simulate human
allows the use of
Boolean logic, reasoning. When
estimates, control
fuzzy logic is people make
programs can be
multi-valued and decisions, the
constructed with
handles the present conditions
as little as one-
concept of partial are observed by
tenth the rules of
truth as well. our biological
conventional
In control sensory inputs.
systems. This
engineering PID
results in shorter The human
control is the most
response is based includes the
on rules that have definitions of the
been formulated fuzzy
through personal
FLC are rule- membership
knowledge and
based functions defined
experience. for each control
controllers. The
However, instead of variables and the
structure of the
using hard and fast necessary rules
FLC resembles
rules, each rule is that specify the
that of a
weighed based on control goals
knowledge-
its importance. The using linguistic
based controller
human thinking variables.
except that it
process
utilizes the
3• Inference
differentiates mechanism: is the
principles of
significant kernel of the
fuzzy set theory
conditions from FLC. It should be
in its data
insignificant capable of
representation
conditions to simulating
and its logic. The
decide on the human decision
basic
appropriate action making and
configuration of
to take. The influencing the
the FLC can be control actions
operation of fuzzy
simply based on fuzzy
logic is designed to
represented in logic.
make decisions in a
four parts, as
similar manner. 4• Defuzzifi
shown in Fig. 1.
cation module: it
converts the
inferred decision
base from the
Knowledge

linguistic
variables back to
Crisp
numerical
Fuzzifier
Controller values.
inputs

IV
.
S
Fig. 1 Schematic Y
diagram of the S
FLC building T
blocks E
M
D
1• Fuzzifica E
tion module: the SI
G
function of this N
module are first
A single-
to read, machine infinite-
measure, and bus system as
scale the control shown in Fig. 2
variable (e.g. was used as the
speed, design model [3].
The machine
acceleration)
model includes
and, second, to sub-transient
transform the effects and the field
measured voltage actuator is
numerical values a solid state
to the rectifier. The
corresponding machine delivers
the electrical power
linguistic (fuzzy)
Pe to the infinite
variables with
bus. The voltage
appropriate regulator controls
membership the input u to a
values. solid-state rectifier
2• Knowled excitation, which
provides the field
ge base module: it
voltage to maintain Ec and E c. The equations (1) to
d q
the generator draw the system
exciter is modeled
terminal voltage
with the voltage in state-space
Vterm at a
model as shown
referenced valuestate VR. All of
the variables are in Fig. 2.
Vref. The states for
normalized on a
the machine are its
per-unit (p.u.) 'x A'x B'u, 'y C'x
rotor angle G , its (1)
speed Z , its direct- basis, except for
where '
and quadrature-G which is in denotes the
radians.
axis fluxes \d
The power perturbation of
and\q , and the states, input,
system model is
its direct- andrepresented and outputs from
by
quadrature-axis their equilibrium
differential and
voltage behind values, with
algebraic
transient reactance
 x >G Z Eqc \d E dc \ q V R @
T
(2)

657
 International Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering 3:11 2009

y >Vterm Z Pe T @ (3) above system are the purely real one, -0.105 associated with
the field voltage response, and the electromechanical (swing)
modes, -0.479 rj9.33, with a damping ratio of [ = 0.0513,
representing the oscillatory behavior of machine against the
infinite bus with 1.5 Hz initial frequency of oscillation.
Z A. CAVR
Figure 3 shows SIMULINK diagram of CAVR along with
the test system. In this configuration, the system consists of PI-
voltage regulator, State-space model given in (1). Detail of
design CAVR can obtained from [3]. Output blocks include
V_CAVR (the terminal bus voltage of system), w_CAVR (the
rotor speed deviation of machine), P_CAVR (the active power
Fig. 2 Single-machine infinite-bus system deviation), Vr_CAVR (the excitation voltage of machine).

The matrices in (1) derived from typical machine

parameters are given in Appendix. The critical mode of the

Fig. 3 SIMULINK diagram the system with CAVR

B. FLAVR
FLAVR. Unit delay block
e 'U
gives the previous values of
In this structure, fuzzy logic controller is used instead of
e excitation signal, U-old. FLC
conventional PI-controller for automatic voltage regulator. A 49-
block gives the changing
rules fuzzy logic control is used with two input signals, namely,
values of excitation signal,
the terminal voltage error (e) and its derivative (e).
Fig. 4 Structure of 'U , and the summation of
Figure 4 shows the structure of fuzzy logic based AVR. the fuzzy logic these signals provide the new
When the system is in steady state, the signal 'U based AVR
values of excitation voltage,
unchanged, then signal U-old (the previous values of
U-new.
excitation signal) and U-new (the new values of excitation Figure 5 shows SIMULINK
signal) are the same values. diagram of system with

Fig. 5 SIMULINK
diagram of the system
with FLAVR

voltage error. functions for the and excitation 7 and 8,

Figure 6 illustrates seven Membership terminal voltage signals are respectively.
membership functions of the terminal derivation shown in Figs.

658
 International Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering 3:11 2009

TABLE I

FORTY NINE RULES FOR GENERATE EXCITATION SIGNAL

Fig. 6 Membership functions of terminal voltage error

Fig. 7 Membership functions of terminal voltage error derivative

From Table 1, it can be
described that rule 1
(upper left corner), if the
terminal voltage error (e)
is NB (negative big) and
its derivative (DE) is NB,
then the changing in
excitation voltage is NB,
means a big decrease in
Fig. 8 Membership functions of excitation excitation voltage from the
signal previous value. Similarly, if
the terminal error (e) is PS
(positive small) and its
derivative is NB (negative
Table 1 shows forty nine rules for generating
big), then the changing in
excitation signals.
excitation voltage is NS
(negative small), means a
little decrease in excitation
voltage from the past
value.
C. CAVR and CPSS
In this structure, as show
in Fig. 9, a combined
controller of CAVR with
CPSS is used. The optimum
parameters of this structure
are obtained from [3]. Input
of the power system
stabilizer using the rotor
speed deviation. More
details of this combination
of controller configuration
can be found in [14].

FLAVR and CPSS. Design of

FLAVR is same as the one in
D. FLAVR and CPSS
Fig. 9 SIMULINK Section B and CPSS
diagram the design is same as the
one in Section C.
system with
Figure 10 shows SIMULINK diagram
CAVR and CPSS
of the system with

659
International Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering 3:11 2009

Fig. 10 SIMULINK diagram the system with FLAVR and CPSS

Two input signals,
i.e. active power its derivative are
E. CAVR and
FLPSS deviation and used as control
In this input signals for
configuration, FLPSS. More
CAVR and FLPSS detail of the
are used as structure of
shown in Fig. 11. FLPSS can be
found in [15].
4 s
d
s o e
h f r
o i
w t v
h a
t e t
h i
r a o
e c n
e t
i o
m 11 SIMULINK
Fig. v f
diagram
e of the e
system
with CAVR and FLPSS
m p
F b p o
i e o w
g r w e
u s e r
r h r
e i d
s p d e
e v
1 f v i
2 u i a
n a t
t c t i
o t i o
i o n
1 o n
n , a
n v s r
of
d e p i
l o v
w a
s y er
t . d t
e i
a vi
b at v
io e
i n
l (E
) o
i
Fig. 14 f
z Membersh
i ip
p
n functions
of o
g
stabilizing w
signal e
s (VPSS)
r
i
g Fig. 13 Membership
TABLE IIf
d
n e
a u
NINE v
l Fi n
i
s g. c
a
1 t
, 2 t
M i
i
e o
r m o
b n
e n
er s
s s
p hi (
p o
e D
fu f
c n E
cti )
t o d
i n .
e

660
 International Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering 3:11 2009

F. FLAVR and FLPSS and the structure of FLPSS is the same as Section E.
The configuration shows in Fig. 15, includes FLAVR and
FLPSS. The structure of FLAVR is the same as in Section B

Fig. 15 SIMULINK diagram of the system with FLAVR and FLPSS

n
l
V. DAMPING RATIO FROM TIME DOMAIN where fd is the o
SIMULATION w
frequency of oscillation in
One drawback of fuzzy based controllers design is
that non availability of mathematical functions. Hence, Hz and Td is the time f
getting a state space model, apply small signal period in second. r
analysis and getting eigenvalues and damping ratio for e
performance comparison is not feasible. The time q
domain simulation method can be used here to u
analyze the performance of the controller. This type of e
comparison may result in error as only eye judgment is n
used to see which controller is providing a damped c
wave form. One way of overcoming this problem is to y
find weak modes and damping ratio from time domain o
data obtained from numerical integration of differential s
equations and this can be done using Prony analysis. c
However, in this work a new method is introduced to Fig. 16 A typical il
find eigenvalues and damping ratio by tracking the p l
envelope of time domain simulation. l a
Methodology to find damping ratio from time o ti
domain have procedure the following steps. t o
o n
Step 1 Pre-processing: The steady state value of the state f s
variable is forced to zero as this is needed for the method. s t
Time domain data, which may be obtained from recorded t u
data in control center or simulated data, are added or a d
subtracted with a dc component equal to the steady state t i
value. e e
v s
Step 2 Calculation of frequency ( f d ): The frequency a
of oscillation is calculated using (4), where times are ri Step 3 Prediction of
corresponding to the maximum and minimum points a damping ratio: We predict
in the typical plot shown in Fig. 16. b the damping ratio by
l observing the amplitude of
fd
1 1 e the graph, if it the response
T T s is gradually decreasing, it
Td max min *2
i means a small positive
damping ratio approach to zero. If it is rapidly 2 2 predicted
1] 1]
decreasing, it indicates a large positive damping ratio damping ratio, which
closer to 1. The predicted damping ratio will be used in acquired in Step 3
Steps 4 and 5. Where Zn is the
undamped natural Step 5 Fitting the
Step 4 Calculation of undamped natural frequency ( frequency in rad/s; Zd is the envelope:The envelop
Zn ): damped natural frequency equation was fitted with the
By using this equation, in rad/s; fd is the frequency help of parameters
Zd 2Sfd of oscillation, which
Zn calculated in the previous
obtained in Step 2; ] is the
steps.

661
International Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering 3:11 2009

]Zt
Ye rCe

where Ye is the
envelope equations
both upper and
lower lines. C is the
constant value,
normally value
selected almost
same as the
maximum and
minimum values.

Step 6 Plot the

envelope equations
with the graph: If the
curve of the
envelope line does
not fit with the
graph properly, i.e.
envelop passing
through the
maximum and
minimum points of
each cycle, the
predicted damping
ratio, ] or the
constant value, C
are adjusted until
the envelop
properly fit.
 0.08
CAVR+CPSS
0.06 FLAVR+CPSS

0.04

Active power deviation (pu)

0.02

-0.02

-0.04

-0.06

-0.08
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)
v Base power Fig. 18
i d ondeviation C
VI. a
the for cases o
S
t time CAVR+C m
ATION
R i domai PSS and p
TS o n FLAVR+C ar
The n result PSS. In is
system s, it isthis case, o
f obvio it is clear n
presented
o us that of
in Section
r that introducti ac
IV has
c FLAV on of tiv
been used
a R is afuzzy e
for better logic
s p
simulation. option controller
e o
Figs. 17 to as itin
s AVR w
20 show damp does not
compariso er
w out produce a
n of active d
i
oscill good
power ev
ation performa
t iat
deviation faster nce
h io
for than compared
n
different CAVR to all
C fo
cases for . conventio
A r
a small Howe nal
V ca
step ver, controller
R se
change in the s.
dampi However, s
reference a
ng wi
voltage. n
performa
perfor nces th
of
0.1 d manc FLAVR C
0.08 e mayand A
0.06 F not CAVR+C V
L be R
(pu)

0.04
PSS look
A clear similar. +
Active powerdeviation

0.02
V like C
0
R this in P
-0.02
some S
-0.04 Figur cases S
-0.06 e 17 as a
-0.08 shows prese n
-0.1 the nted d
0
compari later. F
son of Fig L
Fig. 17 Comparison
active ure A
power 18
of V
deviatio show
act R
n for the s the
ive +
cases
po comp C
with
we arison P
CAVR
r of S
and
de active S
FLAVR.
 n gives a e S

Active power
-0.05
Figure 19better vi
shows theperforma Figure
at
comparison nce, but 20 shows
io
of activeit looks -0.15
n the
power similar to fo compariso
deviation the r n of active
for casesperforma c power
CAVR+FLP nces of a deviation
Fig. 19
SS andFLAVR s for all six
C
FLAVR+FL and e cases. As
o
PSS. CAVR+F s can be
m
Though theLPSS. It wi seen from
p
initial should th Fig. 20
a
repose ofbe noted C some
r
FLAVR+FL that as A
i responses
PSS looksper the V
s are very
stable intime R
o difficult to
the first fewdomain +
n judge with
cycles, thesimulatio F their
system isn the L
o performan
unstable. Itperforma P
f ce. Hence,
should bences of S
the
noted thatFLAVR+ S
a proposed
these twoCPSS a
c method is
controllers and n
t used to
were FLAVR+ d
i
designed FLPSS clearly
v F
separately look the quantify
e L
and the
same. A
combined performan
p V
together in ces by
0.15 o R
this case. + calculating
w
Here, 0.1 F the
e
clearly L damping
r
deviation (pu)

0.05
CAVR+FLP P ratio on
SS S the critical
0 d
combinatio mode.

662
International Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering 3:11 2009

Active powerdeviation
0.02

0
0.15 0.08
CAVR+CPSS, damp=0.118, f=1.6909 Hz
-0.02
0.1 0.06

-0.04 0.04

Active power deviation (p.u.)

0.05

(pu)
0 1 2
0.02

deviation
0
0
Fig. 22
-0.05
Envelope fitting for active

Active power
power -0.02

-0.1 deviation for -0.04

the case
-0.15 -0.06
with FLAVR
-0.2 -0.08
0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (sec)

Fig. 20 Fig. 23 Envelope fitting for

Comparison of active power
active power
deviation for all deviation for
the six cases the case
with
Figures 21 to 25 CAVR+CPS
show the active S
power deviation 0.05
response and its 0.04
FLAVR+CPSS, damp=0.035, f=1.3699 Hz

envelope for
0.03
various cases.
Active power deviation (p.u.)

0.02
Here the enveloped
0.01
is traced for the
0
purpose of finding
-0.01
damping ratio on
-0.02
critical mode using
-0.03
the method and
-0.04
procedure
-0.05
described in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (sec)
Section V.
0.1
Fig. 24 Envelope fitting for
0.08
active power
0.06 deviation for
the case
Active powerdeviation (p.u.)

0.04

0.02 with
0 FLAVR+CPS
-0.02 S
-0.04

-0.06 0.05
CAVR+FLPSS, damp=0.215, f=1.1338 Hz
-0.08 0.04

-0.1 0.03
0 1 2
(p.u.)

0.02
Active powerdeviation

0.01
Fig. 21 Envelope
0
fitting for active
power deviation for -0.01

the case with -0.02

CAVR -0.03

0.08
-0.04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (sec)
0.06

Fig. 25 Envelope fitting for

(p.u.)

0.04
 active powerfuzzy based and Notice that the
deviation for
combination of system power
the case with
both. Among deviation
CAVR+FLPS various cases, overshoot for this
S CAVR shows the case is 0.08 and
weakest 0.094 p.u. in
Table 3 showsperformance in positive and
comparison ofterms of negative half
performance ofmaximum or cycles,
controllers, AVRminimum respectively. The
and PSS,overshoot and damping ratio on
conventional, damping ratio. the

663
International Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering 3:11 2009
FLAVR+FLPSS APPEN
DIX
VII St
. ate
weakest mode
CO -
(electromechanica NC Sp
l) is 0.01. When LU
SIO ac
CPSS is added to N e
the FLAVR, the Mo
This paper
combined del
investigates the
controller
performance of
Parameters of
performance matrix A, B, C
conventional and
deteriorates andfuzzy and D are used
based
yield lowercontrollers in the test
at system
damping ratio thangenerator as
that obtained for following.
locations. CAVR, A=[ 0 377.0 0 0 0 0 0;
FLAVR case.FLAVR, -0.246 -0.156 -0.137 -0.123 -0.0124 -0.0546 0;
However, 0.109 0.262 -2.17 2.30 -0.0171 -0.0753 1.27;
CAVR+CPSS, -4.58 0 30.0 -34.3 0 0 0;
combination ofFLAVR+CPSS,
-0.161 0 0 0 -8.44 6.33 0;
conventional AVRCAVR+ FLPSS -1.70 0 0 0 15.2 -21.5 0;
and PSS gives aand -33.9 -23.1 6.86 -59.5 1.50 6.63 -114]
B=[0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 16.4]
better FLAVR+FLPSS C=[-0.123 1.05 0.230 0.207 -0.105 -0.460 0;
performance thanare considered in 0 1 0 0 0 0 0;
FLAVR+CPSS this comparison 1.42 0.900 0.787 0.708 0.0713 0.314 0]
case. FLAVR andstudy. D = [ 0; 0; 0]
Damping
CAVR+FLPSS ratios and
give almost similarovershoot from
damping ratio andpower deviation
overshoot values.plot for a small
Among all thestep increase in
options, in thisvoltage have been
case FLAVR givescompared. The
the bestresults show that
performance. all fuzzy, i.e.
FLAVR+FLPSS
TABLE
not necessarily
III
FINDING
yield the best
FREQUENCY OF performance
GRAPH USING TIME
INTERVAL BETWEEN
among all the
0 TO 1 cases. It should
S
E
be noted that in
C this cases these
O
N two controllers
D were designed
(I.
E. separately.
FI However, in this
S
T case FLAVR and
S
W
CAVR+FLPSS,
IN i.e. introduce
G
O fuzzy logic
F controller for the
G
R last control block
A
P
give the best
H) results.
The paper also
Cases proposed a new
method to
CAVR
calculate damping
FLAVR
ratio from time
CAVR+CPSS domain simulation

FLAVR+CPSS by fitting the

envelope.
CAVR+FLPSS
 based automatic received the B.Ind.
voltage regulator for Tech.. degree in
a synchronous electrical
generator”, IEEE engineering from the
Trans. on Energy Vongchavalitkul
R
Conversion, Vol. 9,
RENC University, the
No. 3, pp.550-557, M.Eng. degree in
ES
Sep. 1994. electrical
[1] P. Kundur, Power [10] S. Jamaan, M. engineering from the
System Stability and S. Majid, M. W. Khonkean
Control, McGraw-Hill,Mustaffa, and H. A. University, Thailand,
1994. Rahman, “A in 1993 and 1998,
respectively.
[2] G. Rogers, Power comparative study He is currently a
of PI and fuzzy logic
System Oscillations, Ph.D. candidate at
automatic voltage
Kluwer, 2000. the Energy Field of
regulator of a micro-
[3] J.H. Chow, G.Ealternator system”, Study, Asian
Boukarim, & A.IEEE Conference, Institute of
Murdoch, “PowerPECON, Kuala Technology,
system stabilizers asLumpur, Malaysia, Pathumthani, and
undergraduate 2004. also is with the
control design Electrical
projects”,
[11] T.
IEEE
Hiyama, Engineeirng
“Integrated fuzzy Department,
Trans. on Power
logic stabilizing Srinakharinwirot
Systems vol. 19, no.
controller for power University,
1, pp. 144-151,
systems”, IEEE Nakhonnayok,
2004.
Proceedings of the Thailand. His
[4] J. H. Chow, J. J.35th Conference on
research interests
Sanchez-Gasca, H.Decision and Control, include fuzzy logic
Ren, and S. Wang,pp.2185-2190, Dec. controller, oscillation
“Power system1996.
studies on practical
damping controller [12] N. G. power systems,
design”, IEEE
Hingorani, and L. applications and
Control Systems
Gyugyi, control design of
Magazine, August
Understandung FACTS controllers.
2000, pp. 82-90.
FACTS, IEEE Press,
[5] Hsu, Y.Y; and1999. Nadarajah
Cheng, C.H.,“Design Mithulananthan (M’02)
of fuzzy
[13] J. Yen, and R.
power was born in Sri Lanka.
Langari, Fuzzy Logic, He received the B.Sc.
system stabilizers for
Intelligence, Control, degree in engineering
multimachine power
and Information,
systems”, IEE from the University of
Prentice Hall, 1999.
Proceedings, vol. 137, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, in
[14] K.
no. 3, Pt. C:233-238, 1993, the M.Eng. degree
1990. Prasertwong, and N. from the Asian Institute

[6] EI-Metwally,Mithulananthan,
of Technology, Bangkok,
K.A.
“Fuzzy logic based Thailand, in 1997, and
and O.P. Malik,
automatic voltage the Ph.D. degree in
“Fuzzy logic power
regulator for electrical and computer
system stabiliser”,
damping power engineering from the
IEE Proc.-Gener.
oscillations”, University of Waterloo,
Transm. Distrib, vol.
Proceedings of the Waterloo, ON, Canada,
142, no. 3, pp.277-Fourth IASTED in 2002.
281, 1995. International Currently, he is an
[7] J. Shi, L. H. Herron,Conference, Power Assistant Professor
and A. Kalam, “Designand Energy Systems, at the University of
and implementation ofApril 2-4, 2008. Queensland,
[15]
a PC-based automatic K. Brisbane, Australia.
voltage regulator andPrasertwong, and N. He was an Electrical
fuzzy logic powerMithulananthan, Engineering with the
system stabilizer”, IEE “Comparison of Generation Planning
2nd Inter. Conf. Onfuzzy logic based Branch of the Ceylon
Advances in Powerand conventional Electricity Board, Sri
System Control,power system Lanka, a Researcher
Operation andstabilizer for at Chulalongkorn
Management, Hongdamping of power University, Bangkok,
Kong, Dec.1993. system oscillations”, Thailand and an
[8] M. A. Awadallah andGMSARN Assistant Professor
M. M. Morcos, “AInternational at the Asian Institute
fuzzy logic-basedConference on of Technology,
AVR for a stand-Sustainable Bangkok, Thailand.
alone alternatorDevelopment: His research interests
feeding a heaterChallenges and include voltage
load”, IEEE Power Opportunities for stability and
Engineering Review,GMS 12-14 Dec. oscillation studies on
Oct. 2001. 2007. practical power
systems and
[9] A. R. Hasan, T. S.
applications of
Martis, and A. H. M.Komkrit FACTS controllers in
S. Ula, “Design andPrasertwong was transmission and
implementation of aborn in Thailand. He distribution systems.
fuzzy controller
664