1
A Review of Methods for Harmonic Power
Flow Analyses, Considering Uncertainties
A. A. Romero, H. C. Zini, R. Dib, and G. Ratta
Abstract—Nonlinear devices are increasing in all the power
systems around the world and as a result the level of harmonic
distortion in both voltage and current is growing. Computational
deterministic analysis methods have been developed for power
system harmonic prediction and assessment in order to give
solutions to the harmonic distortion problem. Unfortunately,
harmonic propagation in power systems usually does not have a
deterministic nature because the behavior in both nonlinear and
linear loads is usually known with uncertainties. This paper is a
review of two different methodologies for considering
uncertainties in the analysis: the probabilistic harmonic load flow
(PHLF) and the fuzzy harmonic load flow (FHLF). Both
methodologies are proven in a small test system and the results
are compared showing some drawbacks. A new methodology,
currently under development, which improves the FHLF, is also
presented.
Index Terms—Fuzzy sets, Harmonic distortion, Power system
harmonics, Probability, Statistical analysis, Uncertainty.
I. INTRODUCTION
H ARMONICS exist due to the nonlinear characteristics of
devices and loads on the power system, and cause
different problems to the users of an electric power system (EPS)
[1].
Nonlinear devices are increasing in all the EPS around the
world due to the widespread use of electronic devices. For that
reason the level of harmonic distortion in both voltage and
current is growing [2].
Based on the aforementioned, computational deterministic
harmonic load flows (DHLF) have been developed for power
system harmonic prediction and assessment [3]. The reasons
for predicting and evaluating the harmonic distortion are:
verification of standard compliance, analysis of harmonic
resonance with capacitors and cable capacitances, design of
harmonic filters, evaluation of harmonic power losses, etc.
The harmonic propagation in EPS does not have a
deterministic behavior because the nonlinear devices in a
network are turned on and off and change their operation
mode in an unpredictable way. Additionally, the level and
composition of linear loads (percentage of electrical motors,
reactive power compensation, etc.) also affects the harmonic
behavior of the network, and are usually known with
This work was supported in part by the German Academic Exchange
Service (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst / DAAD).
R. Dib is Professor at the University of Applied Sciences Giessen-
Friedberg, Germany (e-mail: ramzi.dib@iem.fh-friedberg.de).
G. Ratta, A. A. Romero, and H. C. Zini are with Instituto de Energía
Eléctrica, Universidad Nacional de San Juan, Av. Libertador San Martín 1109
Oeste, San Juan Capital, Argentina (e-mail: ratta@iee.unsj.edu.ar;
aromero@iee.unsj.edu.ar; zini@iee.unsj.edu.ar).
uncertainties.
Some researchers have proposed to model the uncertainties
which affect the input data for the harmonic analysis by means
of the probabilistic theory [4]-[8] and more recently by means
of the fuzzy set theory [9]. The results of their research efforts
are known as probabilistic harmonic load flow (PHLF) and Fuzzy
harmonic load flow (FHLF). While the probabilistic approach is
continuously being improved with different proposals, the
fuzzy one is rather new and it is still in a very incipient
research stage. In particular, only uncertainties regarding
nonlinear loads have been investigated.
However, in spite of these contributions many problems
regarding this subject still remain unsolved. Some of them are
due to the mathematical complexity and computational effort
involved in the probabilistic modeling, whereas others are
related to the kind and quality of the information required that
properly describes the random behavior of loads.
This paper provides a bibliographical review of the
deterministic, probabilistic and fuzzy methods. A two bus
system [10] is solved by means of the DHLF, PHLF and
FHLF and qualitative comparisons are made. Also a new
proposal approach, which aims at improving the FHLF by
means of considering the uncertainties of linear loads in the
solution, is presented. Such an approach is currently under
development at the Instituto de Energía Eléctrica, Facultad de
Ingeniería de la Universidad Nacional de San Juan, IEE-
UNSJ.
II. DETERMINISTIC HARMONIC LOAD FLOW (DHLF)
DHLF simulations start from the usual data for a
conventional AC load flow (CLF) including some parameters
that describe the loads and setting of nonlinear devices. From
these data, the fundamental and harmonic voltages in all nodes
are calculated, together with the operating point of nonlinear
devices.
The problem analysis has three fundamental stages:
1- Modeling of the system components (including linear and
nonlinear loads),
2- Formulation of harmonic load flow,
3- Numerical solution of the nonlinear system of equations of
the harmonic load flow.
The first stage has been studied by many researchers. In
[11]-[14] a complete review of concepts and models for
different components involved in harmonic power system
analysis is presented. In the second stage, the equations that
mathematically describe the problem are formulated; such
equations are, in general, nonlinear. The third and last stage is
the solution of the stated system of equations. Numerical

methods for solving the equation system are given in [15]-
[16].
Reference [3] and [17] presents a complete revision of the
state of the art regarding deterministic harmonic load flow.
The different methodologies can be classified according to the
hypothesis on which their models are based. The two main
assumptions are:
1- Whether or not to consider the influence of harmonics in
the voltage wave on the nonlinear device behavior, i.e. if there
is harmonic interaction between the network and the device.
2- Whether or not to consider the harmonic components in the
power balance equations.
The principal formulations will be presented below.
A. Harmonic penetration (HP)
This is the simplest methodology. It is based on the first
and second stated assumptions. Because of these hypotheses
their results are inaccurate if a high level of voltage distortion
exists [17], [18]. But experience has shown that this non-
interactive method is sufficient for common harmonic studies.
In HP the currents injected by nonlinear devices depend on
the fundamental voltage, the kind of device, and its power
consumption. Thus, they can be calculated after a CLF. Once
harmonic current injections are computed, these are modeled
as current sources and the linear equations system (1) can be
set for each harmonic frequency (h) and solved by a simple
voltage nodes method.
[I(h)] = [Y(h)]⋅[V(h)] (1)
In (1), [V(h)] is the nodal voltage vector to be solved and
[Y(h)] is the admittance matrix at the hth harmonic frequency.
It is calculated from the results of the CLF and the frequency
dependent system components models. Fig. 1 summarizes the
HP method.
Fig. 1. Harmonic penetration method (HP)
B. Iterative harmonic penetration (IHP)
This methodology is a modification of the HP, such a
modification considers the voltage harmonic distortion
influence on nonlinear load behavior by means of an iterative
harmonic analysis stage. For more details the reader can refer
to [19] and [20].
C. Complete harmonic load flow (CHLF)
The CHLF methodology was proposed by Heydt in [21]
and [22]. The CHLF formulation has only one set of nonlinear
equations, which includes the CLF equations together with the
equations that describe the models of the nonlinear devices
and their interaction with the network. This set of equations is
solved by an iterative numerical method like Newton-
Raphson.
The CHLF and the IHP methods are specially used in EPS
2
with dominant harmonic sources, where the equations to
model the relationship between voltage distortion and
harmonic current injection by a nonlinear load are known.
However, nowadays an EPS may contain distributed harmonic
sources of different types and comparable sizes and where the
stated equations are not always available.
III. PROBABILISTIC HARMONIC LOAD FLOW (PHLF)
In real power system studies, many parameters are random
variables or they are known with uncertainty, i.e. linear and
nonlinear loads.
• Linear loads: Active and reactive power change with time
in a not completely predictable way. Also, the load
composition (resistive, motors, compensation degree, etc.)
changes, and is seldom well known. Both features
influence the system impedances as a function of the
frequency and consequently the harmonic load flow.
• Nonlinear loads: Their active and reactive power varies as
in the case of linear loads. In addition, these changes in
their operating points modify the harmonic current injected
into the network (both in magnitude and phase). Except for
large nonlinear devices, the nature of the nonlinear loads
and their operating points can only be roughly estimated.
When these uncertainties and the random behavior of the
input variables can be properly described through probabilistic
functions, the probabilistic theory can be applied to the
harmonic analysis.
A complete review of stochastic modeling techniques for
harmonic load flow in power systems is presented in [8]. In
general two approaches are available for PHLF: analytic
methods and the Monte Carlo simulation.
A. Analytic methods, without considering interaction between
nonlinear loads and the network
One of the key issues in analytical methods is the
summation of random harmonic phasors [23]-[26]. A phasor
A can be represented by: A = x + jy (rectangular expression).
Generally, x and y are dependent on one another, therefore,
the random behavior of phasors has to be modeled using a
joint probability density function (JPDF) [27].
∂2PXY (x, y) (2)
pXY (x, y) =
∂x ∂y
where, pXY(x,y) is the JPDF, and PXY(x,y) is the joint
cumulative density function.
In order to obtain an analytical solution to the sum of
random phasors, it is necessary to make some assumptions:
• Phasors to be added are statistically independent.
• Harmonic currents flowing through nonlinear devices are
independent of the harmonic distortion in the applied
voltage.
With the former assumption, the random behavior of each
I(h)i harmonic phasor is described by its JPDF (2) and the sum
of the n random phasors is obtained by convoluting their
marginal density functions pXi (xi) and pY i(yi), respectively, as
follows:
pX (x) = pX1 (x1) ∗ pX 2 (x2 ) ∗...∗ pXn (xn ) (3)

and similarly for the imaginary component.
When the number of phasors is large enough and no phasor
is dominant, the “Central limit theorem” can be applied, and
as a result the sum of marginal probability density functions of
each component x - y is approximated by a normal distribution
function, which mean (µ) and standard deviation (σ) are:
µ X = ∑ µ X i ; σ X 2 = ∑ σ Xi 2
n n (4)
i i
A similar expression applies for y. The JPDF of the sum is
approximately:
1 η (5)
pXY (x, y) = e
2πσ xσ y 1− ρ 2
with ⎡ 2
⎛ 2ρ(x − µx )( y − µy ) ⎞ ⎛ y − µy ⎞ ⎤
η=
−1 ⎢⎛ x − µx ⎞ − ⎜ ⎟ +⎜
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜
2(1− ρ ) ⎢⎢⎝ σ x ⎠ ⎝
2 σ xσ y ⎠ ⎝ σ y ⎠ ⎦⎥
⎣
With the latter assumption, the JPDF of harmonic voltage
at node i will be the sum of JPDF of independent harmonic
currents amplified in magnitude and phase by Zij(h) (harmonic
transfer impedance between nodes i and j), as follows:
n (6)
(h) (h) (h)
Vi = ∑Zij I j
j=1
When the conditions for applying the central limit theorem
are not achieved, the convolution (3) has to be evaluated,
which, in large systems, is very difficult, both analytically and
numerically.
B. Analytic methods, considering interaction between
nonlinear loads and the network
When interaction between the voltage distortion at
nonlinear load terminals and the harmonic current injected
into the system needs to be modeled, a possibility is to apply
Monte Carlo Simulation (to be explained latter). Unluckily
this method is computationally very demanding.
As an alternative approach, the First-Order Probabilistic
Harmonic Power Flow (1stO-PHLF) has been proposed in [7].
The 1stO-PHLF method essentially relies on a linearization
around an expected point of the nonlinear equation system
established from the CHLF of the deterministic case [21].
From this linearized system and both the mean and covariance
matrix of the input variables, the mean and variance of each
output are calculated.
By the other hand, in international standards, i.e. [1], the
evaluation of percentiles is a topic of interest.
For the aforementioned the PHLF method for percentile
evaluation (PHLF-PE) has been proposed in [46]. This method
goes on ahead a step from 1stO-PHLF by calculating also the
third and forth moment of the PDF, which is assumed to be a
Pearson distribution, as it seems to be the best approach for
current and voltage harmonic percentiles observed in
experimental studies. With this complete characterization of
the PDF, the percentiles of interest are obtained.
C. Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) [5]
The MCS has three fundamental steps: first, assuming that
the JPDF’s of the input variables are given, random numbers
are generated from their distributions. Then, a DHLF is solved
for the system where the random variables take the values
randomly chosen in the previous step. And finally, both stated
3
steps are repeated enough times, and a statistical analysis of
the results is carried out (the confidence of the results
increases with the number of simulations L).
Fig. 2 presents the algorithm for the PHLF solution by
means of the MCS. Unfortunately the MCS requires a great
computational effort because thousands of simulations L are
necessary to obtain accurate results [27].
2
⎟ ⎥
⎟
⎥
Fig. 2. Monte Carlo simulation method
Probabilistic methods provides a complete picture of the
random harmonic behavior of the studied system, However, in
order to exploit its capability, stochastic input variables has to
be known and properly described in probabilistic terms. This
seldom is the case in many practical situations due to the lack
of statistical information.
IV. FUZZY HARMONIC LOAD FLOW (FHLF)
In a general sense, uncertainty can be thought of as being
the inverse of information. In the real world information is
incomplete, imprecise, unreliable, vague, deficient, and even
contradictory, (i.e. harmonic information in power systems is a
good example). Although some years ago the theory of
probabilities was the only way to model different kinds of
uncertainties, recently fuzzy sets theory arises as a powerful
tool for these kinds of problems.
In fact, the fuzzy sets theory has begun to be used for
solving several problems in electric power systems because
engineers often have imprecise data for describing a
phenomenon. These data represent a vague knowledge whose
information, without fuzzy sets theory, cannot be properly
included in any mathematical model [28]-[31].
There are three general kinds of problems where fuzziness
could be necessary or beneficial:
1- Problems that involve complex systems difficult to model,
and whose behavior is not completely understood,
2- Problems with complex input and output that are naturally
vague
3- Problems, where an approximated but fast solution is
acceptable.
Harmonic analysis problems have some of these
characteristics and, even though there are few references
where the fuzzy sets theory is applied to HLF analysis [9], this
theory is at present applied to related subjects, such as signal
assessment, classification of perturbations, fuzzy conventional

load flows (FCLF), etc. [32]-[37].
A fuzzy set can be seen as a collection of ordered pairs, in
which the first element corresponds to an element x in the
universe X, and the second is the corresponding membership
or possibility degree. A fuzzy set is defined by (7) in which
µÛ(x) is the membership function of an element x to Û. A
membership function can be thought of as a possibility
distribution.
Û= {(x, µÛ(x)) :x ∈X} (7)
Fuzzy numbers (FN) are a special class of fuzzy sets
defined in \ , they have a convex membership function and at
least an element x with 1.0 membership degree. Among them,
trapezoidal and triangular fuzzy numbers (TFN) are specially
used in practical applications due to the fact that arithmetic
operations on them can be readily performed. A TFN, Û, can
be described by α-cuts Û(α)=[u(α), u (α)], with α∈[0, 1], that
fulfill the following conditions: u(α), is a bounded left
continuous non decreasing function over [0, 1]; u ( α), is a
bounded right continuous decreasing function over [0, 1]; and
u(α) ≤ u ( α).
Fig. 3 shows a TFN, which can be described by its α-cuts
(44+6α, 56-6α). This FN could mathematically represent the
statement: “the 5th harmonic of current, injected by the device
in the node i, is approximately 50 A (with the major
possibility), but neither less than 44 A, nor greater than 56 A”.
A simpler notation for such a TFN is the triplet (44, 50, 56).
Fig. 3. Fuzzy number of a harmonic current of 50 A.
In Hong’s work, [9], a FHLF is proposed. The FHLF is a
generalization of the deterministic HP method. The proposed
procedure is as follows:
First, the complex n x n matrix equation in (1) is developed
into its classical equivalent 2n x 2n real matrix equation:
⎡Vre( h ) ⎤ ⎡ I re( h ) ⎤
⎡⎣ψ (h)
⎤⎦ ⎢ (h) ⎥ = ⎢ (h) ⎥
2 n× 2 n
⎣⎢Vimg ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ I img ⎦⎥
where, re and img indicate the real and imaginary components
of harmonic voltages and currents respectively.
Then, in order to model the uncertainty, the harmonic
current injections are modeled by means of TFNs2, and as a
consequence also the harmonic voltages become TFNs. In this
way the expression (8) becomes the following fuzzy linear
system of equations (FLSE):
⎡Vˆre( h ) ⎤ ⎡ Iˆre( h ) ⎤
⎡⎣ψ ( h ) ⎤⎦
⎢ (h) ⎥ = ⎢ (h) ⎥
2 n× 2 n
⎢⎣Vˆimg ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ Iˆimg ⎥⎦
Now, [Ψ(h)] is still a crisp matrix (a classic matrix) but
harmonic voltages and currents in the n nodes are TFNs.
In the Hong’s proposal the FLSE is solved according to
2
The notation, ^, over any character is used to indicate a fuzzy value.
4
Friedman’s method [38]. That is: from expression (9) the 4n x
4n linear system of real number (10) is obtained and solved for
a given α-cut set.
⎡V (reh ) (α ) ⎤ ⎡ I (reh ) (α ) ⎤
⎢ (h) ⎥ ⎢ (h) ⎥
⎡ψ 11 ψ 12 ⎤ ⎢V img (α ) ⎥ = ⎢ I img (α ) ⎥ (10)
⎢⎣ψ 21 ψ 22 ⎦⎥ 4 n×4 n ⎢ −Vre( h ) (α ) ⎥ ⎢ − I re( h ) (α ) ⎥
⎢ (h) ⎥ ⎢ (h) ⎥
⎣⎢ −Vimg (α ) ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ − I img (α ) ⎦⎥
where, Ψ11 contains the positive entries of [Ψ (h)], Ψ12 the
absolute values of the negative entries of [Ψ (h)], and
[Ψ (h)] = Ψ11 - Ψ12 , moreover Ψ12 = Ψ21 and Ψ11= Ψ22.
When each component of the voltage vector meets the
constraint u(α) ≤ u ( α), the solution is called a ‘strong’
solution. Such a solution is in accord with the definition of the
classic solution (CS) given in [42]. However, often the
aforementioned constrain is not achieved, and as a
consequence the CS fails to exits, in this case, the bounds are
reversed in order to obtain a ‘weak’ solution [38].
V. A NEW FUZZY APPROACH
Hong’s proposal does not permit to model the uncertainties
related to the linear loads. The above is, in principle, a severe
constraint because the system admittance at harmonic
frequencies depends on the nature of the linear loads [13], thus
these uncertain parameters can significantly affect the
harmonic flow in the network. The IEE-UNSJ is currently
carrying out a research project, aimed to include the linear
load uncertainties to the FHLF analysis. To model such
uncertainties, by means of FNs, makes the admittance matrix
[Yˆ ( h) ]i fuzzy, radically changing the mathematical nature of
the problem. Now the linear system of equations (1) changes
to the FLSE:
[Yˆ ( h) ] ⋅ [Vˆ ( h) ] = [ Iˆ( h) ] (11)
Solving this FLSE is possible by means of the vertex
method which is based on the α-cut concept and interval
analysis [39]. In fact, a fuzzy number can be considered as an
aggregate of confidence intervals with α grade of possibility,
(8) so that the FLSE can be reformulated as several (theoretically
infinite) interval linear systems of equations (ILSE),
[Yα][Vα]=[Iα], one for each value of α.
In order to solve each ILSE, it is necessary to find the
vertex solution set (VSS). The VSS is the set of solutions vα ∈
\ n of all real systems of equations, whose coefficients are all
the possible combinations of the endpoints of the coefficients
of the interval matrix [Yα] and of the interval vector [Iα]. Then
the minimum and maximum values in the VSS are found.
Such values will be the bounds of the interval vector [Vα].
(9)
Finally, the [Vα] solutions to each α-cut are composed in
order to obtain the fuzzy vector, [Vˆ ( h) ] , such a fuzzy solution
is called the joint solution (JS) [41]. In [42] is proved that if
the CS exits (the solution Friedman’s method looks for), then
CS(α ) ⊆ JS(α ) .
Clearly computational requirement of vertex method is
 5

very large when a large number of fuzzy variables are TABLE II

considered. However, promising alternative solution methods RESULTS OF THE DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES (ALL VALUES IN PU)
based on non-linear programming [40], [41] and neuronal Deterministic results (HP)
networks [43] have been recently proposed in order to reduce Volt . Real part Imaginary part Magnitude
this computational burden. In addition, intensive researches VIND1 0.0482 0.0919 0.1038

are being carried out in the area of linear equations involving VIND2 0.0503 0.0969 0.1092
Results considering uncertainties only in the nonlinear load
interval coefficients, which is strongly related with FLSE. At MCS1 (10,000 shots - uniform distribution )
present our research effort is directed to establish which of the Volt. Real part Imaginary part Magnitude
new developed tools is more suitable to solve the FLSE (11) min mean max min mean max min mean max
in order to deal with the solution of the complete FHLF. VIND1 0.0434 0.0482 0.0530 0.0827 0.0919 0.1011 0.0934 0.1038 0.1141
VIND2 0.0453 0.0503 0.0554 0.0872 0.0970 0.1066 0.0983 0.1093 0.1201
VI. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS IN A TWO BUS TEST SYSTEM FHLF (Hong’s proposal, TFNs given by the triplet (v1, v2, v3))
Volt. Real part Imaginary part Magnitude
In what follows, the deterministic HP, the PHLF applying VIND1 (0.0397, 0.0482, 0.0566) (0.0758, 0.0919, 0.1080) (0.0856, 0.1038, 0.1219)
MCS, the Hong’s FHLF and the currently investigated VIND2 (0.0415, 0.0503, 0.0591) (0.0800, 0.0969, 0.1138) (0.0901, 0.1092, 0.1282)
approach (NFHLF) that includes uncertainties in linear load NFHLF 1 (New fuzzy approach, TFNs given by the triplet (v1, v2, v3))
will be applied to the two bus test system presented in [10]3. Volt. Real part Imaginary part Magnitude
Fig. 4 shows the harmonic equivalent circuit of the example VIND1 (0.0433, 0.0482, 0.0530) (0.0827, 0.0919, 0.1011) (0.0933, 0.1038, 0.1141)

test system. The input data for each formulation is presented in VIND2 (0.0453, 0.0503, 0.0554) (0.0872, 0.0969, 0.1066) (0.0982, 0.1092, 0.1201)
Results considering uncertainties in both, linear and nonlinear loads
Table I.
MCS2 assuming uniform distributions (L=10.000)
Volt. Real part Imaginary part Magnitude
min mean max min mean max min mean max
VIND1 0.0358 0.0483 0.0630 0.0752 0.0917 0.1090 0.0836 0.1037 0.1253
VIND2 0.0375 0.0505 0.0657 0.0795 0.0968 0.1149 0.0882 0.1092 0.1317
NFHLF2 (New fuzzy approach, TFNs given by the triplet (v1, v2, v3))
Volt. Real part Imaginary part Magnitude
VIND1 (0.0325, 0.0482, 0.0679) (0.0732, 0.0919, 0.1127) (0.0816, 0.1038, 0.1293)
VIND2 (0.0340, 0.0503, 0.0709) (0.0775, 0.0969, 0.1187) (0.0861, 0.1092, 0.1358)

In order to compare results, 5th harmonic order response

will be examined. Two cases have been considered with MCS
and the investigated fuzzy methodology: MCS1, FHLF and
NFHLF1, where only the uncertainty in the nonlinear load is
modeled, and MCS2 and NFHLF2, where also the
Fig. 4. Equivalent circuit of the two buses test system uncertainties in relation to the linear loads are modeled.
From the results of this simple test system it is possible to
TABLE I make some qualitative comparisons between the different
INPUT DATA TO THE 5TH HARMONIC ORDER (ALL VALUES IN PU)
methodologies. The first conclusion is, as the comparison
Branches data
Element Data deterministic data for all the cases between MCS1 and MCS2 cases shows that uncertainties in
Rst 0.0025 linear loads affect considerably the harmonic performance. It
Transfor. Rpt 3.2000 is clearly very important to consider these uncertainties when
Xt 0.2000 an analysis of this nature is required
Rln 0.0011
By the other hand, results from MSC1 and NFHLF1 as well
Line
Xln 0.0160
PFC1 3.1000
as that from MCS2 and NFHLF2 are similar (the minimum
PFC and maximum values founded are almost the same), showing
PFC2 2.2700
Nonlinear load data that results obtained with both methodologies could have a
Element Data HP MCS1 & MCS2 FHLF, NFHLF1 & NFHLF2 similar qualitative interpretation despite the fact that they have
Nonlinear 5th been developed for to deal with different kinds of
load
I 0.12 0.12± 0.012 (0.108, 0.12, 0.132)
uncertainties. It should be noted that the triangular shape of
Linear loads data
HP, MCS1, FHLF & MCS2 results (Fig. 5a) is in accordance with the fact that the
Element Data MCS2 NFHLF2
NFHLF1 voltage tends to be normal distributed when there are several
Static Rr1 2.12 2.12 ± 0.212 (1.62, 2.12, 2.62) random variables, even if they are not normal.
Load 1 Xr1 4.50 4.50 ± 0.450 (4.0, 4.5, 5.0)
Finally, comparing FHLF results (Hong’s proposal) with
Motor Rm1 0.02 0.02 ± 0.002 (0.016, 0.021, 0.026)
Load 1 Xm1 0.83 0.83 ± 0.083 (0.785, 0.825, 0.885)
that obtained with the vertex method (NFHLF1) (see Fig. 5b)
Static Rr2 2.70 2.70 ± 0.270 (2.2, 2.7, 3.2) it is possible to notice that the FHLF result contains the
Load 2 Xr2 6.53 6.53 ± 0.653 (6.03, 6.53, 7.03) NFHLF1 result. This is in relation to the fact that the
Friedman’s method, in this case, leads to a weak solution that
3
A detailed deterministic harmonic load flow solution for this test system can
over-estimate the uncertainty about to the 5th harmonic voltage
be found in [10] at bus IND2. In this sense the NFHLF1 is in better accordance

with the MCS1 result.
Fig. 5. Results of the fifth-harmonic voltage at bus IND2 considering
uncertainties; (a) PDF results of: the Monte Carlo simulation only considering
uncertainty in the nonlinear load (MCS1), and the Monte Carlo simulation
considering uncertainties in both, linear and nonlinear loads (MCS2); (b)
Fuzzy numbers results of: Hong’s methodology only considering uncertainty
in the nonlinear load (FHLF), the new fuzzy approach only considering
uncertainty in the nonlinear load (NFHLF1) and the new fuzzy approach
considering uncertainties in both, linear and nonlinear loads (NFHLF2).
VII. CONCLUSIONS
Much of the research effort in harmonic analysis in EPS
has been directed at the deterministic assessment of DHLF.
Different formulations have been developed, ranging from
simple models where the harmonic voltage influence on the
nonlinear device behaviour is neglected, to very sophisticated,
completely coupled non-linear models where even the losses
associated with harmonics are taken into account.
Other researchers, aware of the random behaviour of power
systems and nonlinear loads, have included the assessment of
uncertainties by means of the probability theory to the analysis
of harmonic load flows. In principle both the analytic methods
and the MCS could be applied to the probabilistic assessment
of harmonic load flows. The computational efforts and the
quality of the results depend on both the simplification in
modeling and the available information.
Another major problem with harmonic studies, when
uncertainties are considered, is the lack of statistical
information about the random behaviour of non-linear and
linear loads, as well as the uncertainties about their
composition.
Because the uncertainties in input variables usually are not
statistical, but just fuzzy or vague, fuzzy sets theory could be
the best choice to deal with these kinds of problems. Methods
based on the fuzzy sets theory are in principle simpler and
computationally less extensive than those relying on the
probability theory.
A methodology that applies Fuzzy set theory to harmonic
load flow has been recently proposed [9]. This methodology
models harmonic currents injected by non-linear devices with
TFNs. However, other uncertainties, perhaps the most
important being the level and composition of linear loads are
not considered.
The IEE-UNSJ is currently carrying out a research directed
to the harmonic state calculation in electric power systems
6
with fuzzy knowledge regarding to harmonic sources and
linear loads composition. Conceptual advantages of this
approach have been shown. The results show that the
investigated approach gives reasonable results and seem to be
a good tool to deal with the linear and nonlinear load
uncertainties. Even though the simple vertex method
implemented for this test could be more extensive
computationally than the MCS for large numbers of uncertain
variables, there are promising developments in the area, such
as interval analysis techniques, neural networks and nonlinear
programming that could significantly reduce this
computational burden. Current research effort is being
directed to establish which of these tools is more suitable in
order to deal with the solution of the FHLF.
VIII. REFERENCES
[1] IEEE Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic Control
in Electrical Power Systems, IEEE Standard 519-1992, April 1993.
[2] IEEE Recommended Practices for Electric Power Distribution for
industrial Plants, IEEE Standard 141-1993, Red Book, Chapter 9:
Harmonics in power systems, 1993.
[3] S. Herraiz, L. Sainz, and J. Clua, “Review of Harmonic Load Flow
Formulations,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 1079-
1087, July 2003.
[4] M. Lehtonen, “Probabilistic Methods for Assessing Harmonic Power
Losses in Electricity Distribution Networks,” 3rd Intern. Conf.
Probabilistic Methods Applied to Elect. Power Systems, pp. 37-42, 1991.
[5] P. Caramia, G. Carpinelli, F. Rossi, and P. Verde, “Probabilistic iterative
harmonic analysis of power systems,” IEEE Proceedings-Generation,
Transmission and Distribution, vol. 141, No. 4, July 1994.
[6] T. Esposito, G. Carpinelli, F. Rossi, and P. Verde, “Probabilistic
Harmonic Power Flow for Percentile Evaluation,” Conference on
Electrical and Computer Engineering 2001, Canadian, vol. 2, pp. 831-
838, May 2001.
[7] T Esposito, G. Carpinelli, P. Varilone, and P. Verde, “First-order
Probabilistic Harmonic Power Flow”; IEEE Proceedings-Generation,
Trans. and Distribution, vol. 148, Issue: 6, pp. 541-548; Nov. 2001.
[8] Task Force on Probabilistic Aspects of Harmonics (Y. Baghzouz, Chair),
“Time-Varying Harmonics: Part II – Harmonic Summation and
Propagation,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 279-285,
January 2002.
[9] Y. Hong, J. Lin, and C. Liu, “Fuzzy Harmonic Power Flow Analyses,”
International Conference on Power System Technology, Proceedings,
PowerCon 2000, vol. 1, pp. 121-125, 2000.
[10] Task force on harm. Modeling and simulation, “A step-by-step guide for
harmonic analysis: document and example cases (ATP and Matlab)”
Available: http://www.ee.ualberta.ca/pwrsys/IEEE/download.html.
[11] Task force on harm. Modeling and simulation (S. Ranade, Chair),
“Modeling and Simulation of the Propagation of Harmonics in Electric
Power Net-works,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 11, pp. 452-465,
Jan. 1996.
[12] Task force on harmonics modeling and simulation, “Tutorial on
harmonics modeling and simulation,” IEEE Publication TP-125-0, 1998.
[13] Task force on harmonics modeling and simulation (G. Chang, Chair),
“Impact of Aggregate Linear Load Modeling on Harmonic Analysis: A
Comparison of Common Practice and Analytical Models,” IEEE Trans.
Power Delivery, vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 625-630, April 2003.
[14] Wilsun Xu, “Component Modeling Issues for Power Quality
Assessment,” IEEE Power Engineering Review, pp. 12-17; Nov. 2001.
[15] J. Arrillaga, and C. P. Arnold, Computer Analysis of Power System, T.
Wiley & Sons, Reprinted July 1995.
[16] L. Sainz Sapera, “Estudio de la Formulación y Resolución del Problema
del Flujo Armónico de Cargas,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. de Ing.
Eléctrica, Univ. Politécnica de Cataluña, Barcelona, 1995.
[17] S. Herraiz Jaramillo, “Aportaciones al estudio del flujo armónico de
cargas,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. de Ing. Eléctrica, Univ. Politécnica de
Cataluña, Barcelona, Mayo de 2002.
[18] G. T. Heydt, Electric Power Quality, Stars in a Circle Publications,
Second printing 1994.
 7

[19] J. Arrillaga, and C. Callaghan, “Double-iterative Algorithm for the IX. BIOGRAPHIES
analysis of power and harmonic flows at AC/DC convertor terminals,”
IEE Proc, vol. 136, No. 6, Nov. 1989. Andrés Romero was born in Colombia in 1978. He received the Electrical
[20] J. Arrillaga, B. C. Smith, N. R. Watson, and A. R. Wood, Power System Engineer degree in 2002, from “Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNC)”.
Harmonic Analysis, T. Wiley & Sons, 1997. Currently holds a scholarship from the German Academic Exchange Service
[21] G. T. Heydt, and D. Xia, “Harmonic Power Flow Studies. Part I. (Deutscher Akademischer AustauschDienst/DAAD) for Ph.D. studies at
Formulation and Solution,” IEEE Trans. PAS-101, No. 6, pp. 1257- “Instituto de Energía Eléctrica, Facultad de Ingenieria de la Universidad
1265, June 1982. Nacional de San Juan (IEE-UNSJ), Argentina”. His research interests are
[22] G. T. Heydt, and D. Xia, “Harmonic Power Flow Studies. Part II. power quality, electromagnetic transients and high voltage test techniques.
Implementation and Practical Application,” IEEE Trans. PAS-101, No. Email: aromero@iee.unsj.edu.ar
6, pp. 1266-1270, June 1982. Humberto Zini was born in San Juan, Argentina, on February 4, 1958. He
[23] W. Sherman, “Summation of Harmonics with Random Phase Angles,” received the electrical engineer degree from the Universidad Nacional de San
Proc. Inst. Elec. Eng, vol 19, No. 11, pp. 1643-1648, 1972. Juan (UNSJ), Argentina, in 1985, and its PhD. degree at UNSJ in 2002.
[24] W. Kazibwe, T. Ortmeyer, and M. Hammam, “Summation of Currently, he is a Senior Researcher and Consulting Engineer with the
Probabilistic Harmonic Vectors,” IEEE Trans. vol. 4, No. 1, Jan. 1989. Instituto de Energía Eléctrica of UNSJ. In 1998, he completed a one-year
[25] Y. Wang, L. Pierrat, and L. Wang, “Summation of Harmonic Currents postgraduate stage at CESI, Milan, Italy, working on electromagnetic transient
Produced by AC/DC Static Power Converters with Randomly calculation. His research interests are electromagnetic transients and power
Fluctuating Loads,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 9, April 1994. quality. Email: zini@iee.unsj.edu.ar
[26] Y. Wang, L. Pierrat, “Vectorial Summation of Probabilistic Current Ramzi Dib was born in Lebanon in 1954. He received his Electrical Engineer
Harmonics in Power Systems: From a Bivariate Distribution Model degree and his PhD from the University of Aachen in Germany. After several
Towards a Univariate Probability Function,” ETEP, vol. 10, Jan. 2000. years in the electrical industry, he joined the University of Applied Sciences
[27] J. Anders George, Probability Concepts in Electric Power Systems, Giessen-Friedberg in Germany as a Professor. His research interests include
Wiley & Sons, Interscience Publication, 1989. power quality. Email: ramzi.dib@iem.fh-friedberg.de.
[28] J. M. Mendel, “Fuzzy Logic Systems for Engineering: A Tutorial,” IEEE Giuseppe Rattá was born in Italy in 1950. He received his Electromechanical
Proceedings, vol. 83, No. 3, March 1995. Engineer degree from Universidad Nacional de Cuyo-Argentina in 1974.
[29] G Morales-Luna, “Introducción a la Lógica Difusa,” Centro de Since 1997 he has been director of the IEE-UNSJ, Argentina.
Investigación y estudios avanzados del IPN, febrero de 2002. Prof. Rattá is currently an Assistant Professor in the UNSJ. He is also member
[30] R. Bansal, “Bibliography on the Fuzzy Set Theory Applications in of the Commission of Postgraduate Evaluation. His research interests include
Power Systems (94–01),” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, Nov. 2003. transient behavior of power system components and power quality. Email:
[31] T. Ross, Fuzzy Logic with engineering applications, Second Edition, ratta@iee.unsj.edu.ar
John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
[32] W. L. Chan, H. Hon, and T. P. Albert, “Fuzzy Arithmetic Based Power
Harmonics Signature Recognition,” IEE 2nd International Conference
on Advances in Power System Control, Hong Kong, December 1993.
[33] V. Miranda, M. Matos, J. Saraiva, “Fuzzy Load Flow – New Algorithms
Incorporating Uncertain Generation and Load Representation”; Instituto
de Eng. De Sistemas e Computadores – INESC and Fac. Engenharia
Univ. Porto – FEUP/DEEC; 1990.
[34] V. Miranda, J. Saraiva, “Fuzzy Modeling of Power System Optimal
Load Flow,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 7, May 1992.
[35] S. Soliman, R. Alammari, M. Hawary, and M. Mostafa, “Frequency and
Harmonics Evaluation in Power Networks Using Fuzzy Regression
Technique,” PPT 2001, IEEE Porto Power Tech Conference, Sept. 2001.
[36] A. Dimitrovski, and K. Tomsovic, “Boundary Load Flow Solutions,”
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 19, No. 1, February 2004.
[37] J. T. Saraiva, N. Fonseca, and M. Matos, “Fuzzy power flow - an AC
model addressing correlated data,” Intern. Conference on Probabilistic
Methods Applied to Power Systems, pp. 519–524; Sept. 2004
[38] M. Friedman, M. Ming, and A. Kandel, “Fuzzy Linear Systems,” Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 96; pp. 201-209, 1998.
[39] W. Dong, and H. Shah, “Vertex Method for Computing Functions of
Fuzzy Variables,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol 24, pp. 65-78, 1987.
[40] H. Reynaerts, and S. Muzzioli, “Solving Fuzzy Systems of linear
equations by a nonlinear programming method,” Dept of Applied
Mathematics and Computer Science, 2004.
[41] H. Reynaerts, and S. Muzzioli, “Fuzzy Linear Systems of the form
A1x+b1=A2x+b2,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems; Article in Press, 2005.
[42] J. Bucley, and Y. Qu, “Solving Systems of Linear Fuzzy Equations,”
Fuzzy Sets and Systems; vol. 43 pp.33-43, 1991.
[43] J. Bucley, and Y. Hayashi, “Neural Net Approximations to Solutions of
Systems of Fuzzy Linear Equations,” IEEE Trans. on power systems,
1997.
[44] S. M. Rump, “IntLab, Interval Laboratory,” Developments in Reliable
Computing, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 77-104, 1999.
[45] G. I. Hargreaves, “Interval Analysis in Matlab,” Manchester Ceme for
Comp. Math., Manchester, Numerical Analysis Report No. 416, 2002.
[46] T. Esposito, G. Carpinelli, F. Rossi and P. Verde, “Probabilistic
Harmonic Power Flow for Percentile Evaluation,” Conference on
Electrical and Computer Engineering 2001, Canadian, vol. 2, pp. 831-
838, May 2001.