Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
K. Tomsovic
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164
tomsovic@eecs.wsu.edu
Abstract: This chapter overviews the applications of fuzzy logic in power systems. Emphasis is placed on understanding the
types of uncertainties in power system problems that are well-represented by fuzzy methods. Specific examples in the areas of
diagnostics and controls are used to illustrate such concepts.
Keywords: Distribution systems, fuzzy control, fuzzy numbers, fuzzy linear programming, preventive maintenance,
reliability.
1
different techniques, fuzzy logic has already played an in power systems based on such a classification are shown in
important role in bringing this class of problems to light. Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1. Examples of Measurements/Models with Fuzziness.
To begin with some generalities, some of the most useful
Contingencies
capabilities and features provided by modeling in fuzzy set
Equipment failure modes
approaches are:
Linear approximations
Measurement noise
Representation methods for natural language statements,
Metering errors
Models of uncertainty where statistics are unavailable or
Modeling errors
imprecise, as in say, intervals of probability,
Occurrence times of events
Information models of subjective statements (e.g., the Reduced-model parameters
fuzzy measures of belief and possibility) , Predicted demand
Measures of the quality of subjective statements (e.g., System dynamics
the fuzzy information measures of vagueness and
confusion) , Table 2. Examples of Constraints/Objectives with Fuzziness.
Integration between logical and numerical methods, Acceptable security risk
Models for soft constraints, Assessment of customer satisfaction
Models for resolving multiple conflicting objectives, Economic objectives
Strong mathematical foundation for manipulation of the Environmental objectives
above representations. Equipment loading limits
Normal operational limits
Uncertainty arises in many ways within power system Power quality objectives
problems. Historically, uncertainty has been modeled based Security objectives
on randomness, as in, stochastic models for random load Stability limits
variations, noise in measurements for state estimation,
fluctuations in model parameters, and so on. In practice, This rest of this chapter begins with an overview of
uncertainty certainly arises from the knowledge of the system applications within power systems. This is followed by a
performance and goals of operation as well. Clearly, the general section on fuzzy logic techniques and methods.
objectives in most decision problems are subjective. For Subsequently, examples of a system for stabilization control
example, the relative importance of cost versus reliability is is presented.
not precise. The underlying models of the system also exhibit
uncertainty through approximations arising from, linearized 2 Power System Applications
models and other modeling approximations, parameter
variations, costs and pricing, and so on. Fuzzy sets have been applied to many areas of power
systems. Table 3 is a list of the more common application
Heuristics, intuition, experience, and linguistic descriptions areas. This section discusses the applications based on the
are obviously important to power engineers. Virtually any particular fuzzy method used. There are essentially three
practical engineering problem requires some imprecision groups of applications: rule-based systems with fuzzy logic,
in the problem formulation and subsequent analysis. For fuzzy logic controllers and fuzzy decision systems.
example, distribution system planners rely on spatial load
forecasting simulation programs to provide information for a 2.1 Rule-based Fuzzy Systems
various planning scenarios [7]. Linguistic descriptions of
growth patterns, such as, fast development, and design The most common application of fuzzy set techniques lies
objectives, such as, reduce losses, are imprecise in nature. within the realm of rule-based systems. Here, uncertainties
The conventional engineering formulations do not capture are associated with each rule in the rule-base. For example,
such linguistic and heuristic knowledge in an effective consider a transformer diagnostics problem where dissolved
manner. gas concentrations indicate incipient faults. A sample
statement as earlier for transformer diagnostics might be:
Subjective assessments of the above uncertainties are needed
to reach a decision. These uncertainties can be broadly A high level of hydrogen in the insulating oil of a
separated into two groups: 1) measurements and models of transformer often indicates arcing
the system and 2) constraints and objectives arising from the
decision-making process. Examples of uncertainties arising The two uncertainties to be modeled are often and high,
which are most easily represented as a fuzzy measure and
2
Table 3. Fuzzy Set Application Areas in Power Systems. rule conclusions. The precise fuzzy membership functions
depend on the valid range of inputs and the general response
characteristics of the system. Within power systems, fuzzy
Contingency analysis
logic controllers have been proposed primarily for
Diagnosis/monitoring
stabilization control.
Distribution planning
Load frequency control
2.3 Fuzzy Decision-Making and Optimization
Generator maintenance scheduling
Generation dispatch
The broadest class of problems within power system
Load flow computations
planning and operation is decision-making and optimization,
Load forecasting
which includes transmission planning, security analysis,
Load management
optimal power flow, state estimation, and unit commitment,
Reactive power/voltage control
among others. These general areas have received great
Security assessment
attention in the research community with some notable
Stabilization control (PSS)
successes; however, most utilities still rely more heavily on
Unit commitment
experts than on sophisticated optimization algorithms. The
fuzzy set, respectively. Strict mathematical methods have problem arises from attempting to fit practical problems into
been developed for manipulating the numerical values rigid models of the system that can be optimized. This results
associated with such uncertainty. Note equipment diagnostics in reduction in information either in the form of simplified
tend to be a particularly attractive area for application since constraints or objectives. The simplifications of the system
developing precise numerical models for failure modes is model and subjectivity of the objectives may often be
usually not practical. represented as uncertainties in the fuzzy model.
It is difficult to know just how many rule-based systems in Consider optimal power flow. Objectives could be cost
power systems employ fuzzy logic techniques as many minimization, minimal control adjustments, minimal
development tools have built in mechanisms for managing emission of pollutants or maximization of adequate security
uncertainty and developers themselves may be unaware that margins. Physical constraints must include generator and
they are using fuzzy logic. For example, the widely used load bus voltage levels, line flow limits and reserve margins.
certainty factors method is a special case of a fuzzy In practice, none of these constraints or objectives are well-
measurement. defined. Still, a compromise is needed among these various
considerations in order to achieve an acceptable solution.
2.2 Fuzzy Controllers Fuzzy mathematics provides a mathematical framework for
these considerations. The applications in this category are an
The traditional control design paradigm is to form a system attempt to model such compromises.
model and develop control laws from analysis of this model.
The controller may be modified based on results of testing
and experience. Due to difficulties of analysis, many such 3 Basics of Fuzzy Mathematics
controllers are linear. The fuzzy controller approach is to
somewhat reversed. General control rules that are relevant to In this section, some basics of fuzzy mathematics are
a particular system based on experience are introduced and introduced. Fuzzy logic implements experience and
analysis or modeling considerations come later. For example, preferences through membership functions. The membership
consider the following general control law for a positioning functions have different shapes depending on the designer's
system preference and experience. Fuzzy rules may be formed that
describe relationships linguistically as antecedent-consequent
IF error is small and positive pairs of IF-THEN statements. Basically, there are four
AND error change is large and negative approaches to the derivation of fuzzy rules: (1) from expert
THEN control output is small and negative experience and knowledge, (2) from the behavior of human
operators, (3) from the fuzzy model of a process, and (4)
This rule implements a control concept for anticipating the from learning. Linguistic variables allow a system to be more
desired position and reducing the control level before the set understandable to a non-expert operator. In this way, fuzzy
point is reached in order to avoid overshoot. The quantities logic can be used as a general methodology to incorporate
small and large are fuzzy quantities. A full control knowledge, heuristics or theory into controllers and decision-
design requires developing a set of control rules based on making.
available inputs and designing a method of combining all
3
Many of the fundamental techniques of fuzzy sets are widely
available so only a fairly brief review is given in the Aa = {x m A ( x ) a } (6)
following. The lesser-known methodology of fuzzy
measures and information theory is developed more fully
with Aa a crisp set containing all elements of the fuzzy set A
here. More extensive treatment of the mathematics can be
found in [8,9]. which have at least a membership degree of a.
A fuzzy set is a set of ordered pairs with each containing an In assessing system states, uncertainty arises either from the
element and the degree of membership for that element. A measurement or from incomplete knowledge of the system.
higher membership value indicates that an element more Traditionally, this type of uncertainty is modeled as random
closely matches the characteristic feature of the set. For noise and so managed with probability methods. Fuzzy
fuzzy set A: measures are a generalization of probability measures such
that the additivity restriction is removed. Specifically, a
A = {( x, m A ( x )) x C} (1) fuzzy measure G is defined over the power set of the
universe C (designated as P (C ) ):
Most commonly, the logical operations (intersection, union lim G ( Ai ) = G ( lim Ai ) . (Continuity)
i i
and complement) on sets are defined as: where f is the empty set. There are three particularly
interesting cases with this definition of a fuzzy measure:
m A B ( x ) = min(m A ( x ), m B ( x )) (2)
probability, belief (a lower bound of the probability) and
plausibility (an upper bound of the probability). If the
m A B ( x ) = max( m A ( x ), m B ( x )) (3) following additivity condition is satisfied then G is a
probability measure, represented by P:
m ( x) = 1 - m A ( x) (4)
A n n n n
P ( Ai ) = P ( Ai ) - P( Ai A j ) + ...
i =1 i =1 i =1 j =i +1
Note that if set containment is defined as
A B if "x X m A ( x ) m B ( x ) , then the following + ( -1) P ( A1 A2 ... An )
n
with l 1. Increasing the parameter l will increase the and finally a plausibility measure results if the following
emphasis on the smaller membership value so that, for holds instead of (7) or (8):
example, one could emphasize a line of reasoning that
considered less likely possibilities. Also, one can define the n n n n
union operation by allowing l -1. It is often necessary to Pl ( Ai ) Pl ( Ai ) - Pl ( Ai A j ) + ...
i =1 i =1 i =1 j =i +1
generate a crisp (non-fuzzy) set from a fuzzy set, and one can
define an a-cut as: + ( -1) Pl ( A1 A2 ... An )
n
4
(9) m( A) = 1 . (Additivity)
AP ( C )
and finally it is useful to summarize these expressions in the
following way, "A C : It is important to emphasize that m( A) is not a measure but
rather can be used to generate a measure or conversely, to be
Bel ( A) + Bel ( A) 1 generated from a measure. A specific basic assignment over
Pl ( A) + Pl ( A) 1 P (C ) is often referred to as a body of evidence. Based on
P ( A) + P ( A) = 1 the above axioms, it can be shown [14] that:
Pl ( A) P( A) Bel ( A)
Bel ( A) = m( B ) (10)
B A
These expressions and consideration of the forms in (8-9)
lead to the interpretation of belief representing supportive
evidence and plausibility representing non-supportive
Pl ( A) = m( B ) (11)
B Af
evidence. This is best illustrated by considering the state
descriptions for each of the measures when nothing is known and conversely that:
about the system (the state of total ignorance). A
plausibility measure would be one for all non-empty sets; A- B
and belief would be zero for all sets excepting the universe m( A) = (-1) Bel ( A) (12)
C . Conversely, it would be typical in probability to assume B A
5
control following disturbances where the emphasis is on subsequent inference process. Here, it is assumed the control
stabilization during and immediately following a fault. rules are general and given. The controller under
consideration here can be classified as a direct adaptive
The large interconnected power system must maintain fuzzy controller where only the controller and not the system
voltage and synchronous frequency within a very narrow is modeled by fuzzy logic [13]
range. In addition, loading constraints on individual system
components must be observed. The system constantly While fuzzy logic methods have a well-founded theoretical
undergoes disturbances from minor fluctuations in load, basis, most of the reported FLC applications require some
generation and so on, which result in small easily damped form of numerical tuning to a specific system to obtain
oscillations if the system is not loaded too heavily. reasonable performance. This numerical tuning generally
Occasionally, the system experiences more severe involves a significant computational effort and may be
disturbances from line faults or other equipment outages. limited to a narrow range of operation conditions. There is
During these disturbances, and particularly when the system also a need to allow designers to specify desired response
is heavily loaded, generator controls must act quickly to characteristics. Note, this allows their expertise to be
maintain synchronism and dampen oscillations. Power expressed in two ways: the general control rules of the
system stabilizers (PSS) are designed for this purpose. controller and the desired system response.
6
n
Table 4. Control Rules .
. i
C min(m A ( e), m B ( e))
i i
(Notation: LP = large positive; MP = medium positive; u ( e, e) = i =1 n (16)
SP = small positive; ZE = zero; SN = small negative; MP .
= medium negative; LP = large positive) min(m A (e), m B (e))
i i
i =1
.
e LN MN SN ZE SP MP LP
e Ci is defined as the value of u where the fuzzy set Ci
obtains a maximum (or median of the interval where the
LN LP LP LP MP MP SP ZE maximum is reached). For the development in this example,
the membership functions are triangular form as shown
MN LP MP MP MP SP ZE SN normalized on the interval [-1,1] in Fig. 2. The control rules
are shown in Table 4.
SN LP MP SP SP ZE SN MN
.
ZE MP MP SP ZE SN MN MN The controller inputs of error, e, and error change, e, are
scaled by the constants Ke and K e& , respectively, and the
SP MP SP ZE SN SN MN LN control output u by K. These constants are analogous to the
control gains in a traditional PD controller; however rather
MP SP ZE SN MN MN MN LN than calculating gains, the designer determines a scaling
based on the possible magnitude of disturbances. Similar
LP ZE SN MN MN LN LN LN frameworks have been proposed in the literature, e.g. [14].
Here, the K constants are assumed to correspond to the
A block diagram of the feedback controller is shown in Fig. maximum allowable absolute values for the variables within
1. The controller has two inputs: error e, and error change, a particular operating regime.
e& , and a single output u. For the controller proposed here
all three variables must lie in the interval [-1,1]. This is The determination of these K constants is non-trivial and in
achieved by scaling the physical system variables by essence determines the performance of the controller.
appropriate constants and if necessary, limiting the resulting Improper values for the K constants modifies the control
value. A conventional fuzzy logic controller with two inputs rules and limits the effectiveness of the FLC. For example, a
is used with rules of the form: small value for Ke means that control rules in the middle
.
rows of Table 4 will apply less often and the system will be
Ri: If e is Ai and e is Bi then u is Ci (15) over controlled for small errors. There should be
guidelines for control engineers to select such parameters
where Ai, Bi and Ci are convex fuzzy sets. The control output independent of the rules or membership functions. In
is calculated using the minimum operation for fuzzy general, numerical tuning may require significant
implication and center of gravity defuzzification. For n rules: computational effort and the resulting parameter values may
not be valid over a wide range of operating conditions.
Ke Rule Table
+
+ K Plant
-
d/dt K e& Defuzzifier
7
LN MN SN ZE SP MP LP
1
m (x )
x
-1 -0.65 -0.3 0 0.3 0.65 1
The problem of concern in this work requires that the proportional gain feedback controller as follows:
parameters are valid during a disturbance where the system
parameters will vary widely so tuning for a particular 1. The fuzzy logic controller is replaced with a controller
operating point may not be valid. The proposed approach of constant gain K.
relies on observation of the response to a nominal 2. Response to a set of disturbances, di, i I , are observed
Fig. 3. Simulation results for tuned fuzzy PSS compared to linear PSS.
8
for the chosen value of K for a specified interval T. Assume an engineer wishes to determine the problem with
3. The other K constants are then calculated as: the transformer by entering data from several tests as
K e = [ max ei (t )]-1
evidence. Evidence values are given for three tests in Table
(17)
iI ,t[0 ,T ] 5.
K . = [ max ei (t )]- 1
.
(18) Table 5: Basic assignment for example 4.1
e iI ,t[0 ,T ]
Test 1 - DGA Test 2 - Frequency Test 3 - Visual
While this approach assumes a simulator is available, the response inspection
constants could also be determined from the actual system m1({X1,X2})=0.4 m2({X1})=0.3 m3({X1,X2,X3})=0.4
data.
m1({X2,X3})=0.3 m2({X2,X3})=0.2 m3(X1,X3)=0.2
4.2 Illustrative example m1({X4})=0.1 m2({X1,X2,X4})=0.2 m3({X4})=0.2
m1(X)=0.2 m2({X3})=0.15 m3(X)=0.2
In the following, simulations illustrate the performance of a m2(X)=0.15
PSS designed by the above methodology. The fuzzy PSS
constants are found by simulations of a step change in Using the above data, the corresponding belief and
mechanical power input using the non-linear model of [15] plausibility values can be computed from (11) and (12), as
for a single machine infinite bus system. The PSS used for follows:
comparison is designed using a conventional phase lead
technique to precisely compensate for the phase lag of the Test 1: Belief and Plausibility values
electrical loop. The step response to a three phase fault of Bel({X1,X2}) = m1({X1,X2}) = 0.4
duration 0.05 seconds. Results are shown in Fig. 3. The Bel({X2,X3}) = m1({X2,X3}) = 0.3
FPSS shows superior to the traditional controller with the
Bel({X4} = m1({X4}) = 0.1
parameters chosen exactly by the described methodology.
For the more severe disturbances, the FPSS controller has Pl({X1,X2}) = m1({X1,X2}) +
significantly better performance and the design process is m1({X2,X3}) + m1(X) = 0.9
significantly simpler. Pl({X2,X3}) = m1({X1,X2})+m1({X2,X3})
+m1(X) = 0.9
5 Example Diagnostic Application Pl({X4}) = m1({X4})+m1(X) = 0.3
Test 2: Belief and Plausibility values
It is often difficult to understand the relationship between the Bel({X1}) = m2({X1})= 0.3
fuzzy mathematics and the implementation of a useful expert Bel({X2,X3}) = m2({X3}) + m2({X2,X3}) = 0.35
system. In this section, several points are highlighted Bel({X1,X2,X4}) = m2({X1}) + m2({X1,X2,X4})
through the use of an extended example. This example = 0.5
represents a simplified version of the transformer diagnostic Bel({X3}) = m2({X3}) = 0.15
and monitoring system implemented in [16-18]. Some Pl({X1}) = m2({X1}) + m2({X1,X2,X4}) + m2(X)
caution is in order in that the examples have been simplified
= 0.65
to the degree they no longer fully represent the actual
Pl({X2,X3}) = m2({X2,X3}) + m2({X1,X2,X4}) +
physical situation. Further, the emphasis in this chapter is on
the manipulation of fuzzy membership values without m2({X3}) + m2(X) = 0.7
providing justification for the values. Justification of the Pl({X1,X2,X4}) = m2({X1}) + m2({X2,X3}) +
fuzzy values is taken up more carefully in the next section. m2({X1,X2,X4}) + m2(X) = 0.85
Pl({X3}) = m2({X2,X3}) + m2({X3}) + m2(X)
Example 5.1: Computing Belief and Plausibility = 0.5
Let the possible conclusions (set elements) which the expert Test 3: Belief and Plausibility values
system can reach for the transformer condition be: Bel({X1,X2,X3}) = m3({X1,X2,X3}) +
m3({X1,X3}) = 0.6
X1: The transformer has an electrical fault.
Bel({X1,X3}) = m3({X1,X3}) = 0.2
X2: The transformer has a thermal fault.
X3: The transformer paper insulation has Bel({X4}) = m3({X4}) = 0.2
significantly aged. Pl({X1,X2,X3}) = m3({X1,X2,X3}) +
X4: The transformer is operating normally. m3({X1,X3}) + m3(X) = 0.8
X = {X1,X2,X3,X4} Pl({X1,X3}) = m3({X1,X2,X3}) + m3({X1,X3}) +
9
m3(X) = 0.8 Note that while there are no tests done on X2 alone,
Pl({X4}) = m3({X4}) + m3(X) = 0.2 Dempster's rule of combination assigns evidence on X2
based on resolving conflicts between tests 1 and 2. Thus, the
Interpreting belief and plausibility values following is also found:
The belief and plausibility values between tests can be m12({X2}) = 0.178
compared. The higher the number computed for a belief or
plausibility on an observation, the more confidence in the A good check on these calculations is to ensure that the
truth of that observation; however, unlike probability values summation of the observations in the new body of evidence
fuzzy measures do not give predictions of frequency of equals one. The next step is to use Dempster combination to
occurrence (a 0.50 value for belief does not express that in combine the new body of evidence with the evidence from
10 similar situations one expects this event will occur 5 the third and final test.
times). Still, the relative sizes of the fuzzy measures can be
used to express the relative likelihood. These three tests have (iii) Again, compute K for the combination of the tests.
been chosen to show that there is no clear indication of fault-
type based on any individual test, although there appears to K123 = 0.2358
be strong evidence that a fault exists.
(iv) Now compute the evidence values for the combination
Example 5.2: Combining evidence with Dempster-Shafer of the tests.
theory
m123({X1,X2}) =0.167
In the above example, there is conflicting evidence between
the tests, e.g., compare m(X4) of test 1 and test 3. Further, Similarly the following values are found:
there is an incompleteness to the tests. Notice none of the
tests assign evidence values to X2 (a thermal fault) which m123({X2,X3}) = 0.145
means that Bel(X2) = 0 in all cases. In order to resolve these m123({X4}) = 0.047
problems and allow a single coherent conclusion, Dempster- m123({X1}) = 0.299
Shafer theory is used to combine the bodies of evidence.
m123({X1,X2,X4}) = 0.0133
Using equations (13) and (14) with the data from the
previous example, the combined evidence values between m123({X3}) = 0.149
tests can be found as follows: m123(X) = 0.01
m123({X2}) = 0.14
(i) First compute the K value for tests 1 and 2.
Combination with the third test also results in evidence
K12 = m1({X1,X2})m2({X3}) + m1({X2,X3})m2({X1}) + distributed among several other sets:
m1({X4})m2({X1}) + m1({X4})m2({X2,X3}) +
m1({X4})m2({X3}) = 0.215 m123({X1,X2,X3}) = 0.02
m123(X1,X3) = 0.01
(ii) Compute the combined evidence values.
The above calculations have merely followed the rules of
m12(X1,X2) = m1({X1,
X2}) X2,X4})+m1({X1,
m2({X1, m2(X)
X2}) combination. It is useful to view these results from the other
1-K12 perspective. If one desires evidence of a particular condition,
a test can be designed that will clarify the evidence. For
= 0.178
example, a DGA test that distinguishes between two possible
faults by looking at gas ratios could be combined with a test
Similarly the following values are found:
that looked at total gas concentrations. The DGA test would
reveal the particular fault type but that would need to be
m12({X2,X3}) = 0.185
backed up by a test indicating the presence of a fault.
m12({X4}) = 0.045
m12({X1}) = 0.229 Example 5.3: Calculation of fuzzy measures for combined
m12({X3}) = 0.096 evidence
m12(X) = 0.038
m12({X1,X2,X4}) = 0.051 In order to compare the combined test with the other tests,
the resulting belief and plausibility measures are computed.
10
In the following, evidence values are for the basic X 0.2 1.0 1.0
assignment m123. A few of the required computations are
shown. The entire set of values is presented in Table 6. (d) Combined Tests
11
E(m1) = - m1({X1,X2})log2(Pl({X1,X2})) m({X1,X2,X4})log2(Bel({X1,X2,X4}) 0.0078 0.49
m1({X2,X3})log2(Pl({X2,X3})) - m({X3})log2(Bel({X3})) 0.4093 25.89
m1({X4})log2(Pl({X4})) m({X})log2(Bel({X})) 0 0
m1(X)log2(Pl(X)) ) = 0.280 m({X2})log2(Bel({X2})) 0.3972 25.13
m({X1,X2,X3})log2(Bel({X1,X2,X3})) 0.0021 0.13
C(m1) = - m1({X1,X2})log2(Bel({X1,X2})) m({X1,X3})log2(Bel({X1,X3})) 0.0112 0.71
m1({X2,X3})log2(Bel({X2,X3}))-
m1({X4})log2(Bel(X4)) ) = 1.382 5.1 Membership values
Computations are similar for tests 1 and 2. For the combined One of the most frequently discussed problems in fuzzy set
test, it is instructive to take a closer look at the computation applications is specification of membership functions. Often
of confusion (highlighted quantities identify significant a linear form is chosen for computational reasons. In some
contributions to the confusion value). A summary of the cases, statistics exist for certain parameters, which can then
resulting information measures is given in Table 7 be adapted to the membership function. More theoretical
uncertainty values: approaches to this problem also exist [11]. Whatever
approach is chosen, it should be kept in mind that the
Table 7 Information measures for example 5.4 solution should not be highly sensitive to membership
values. Philosophically, if a precise membership function is
Value Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Combined needed to obtain acceptable results than the problem at hand
tests is probably not appropriate for fuzzy techniques or has not
E(m) 0.280 0.487 0.458 0.989 been defined properly.
C(m) 1.382 1.435 1.224 1.856
V(m) 1.100 0.817 1.234 0.395 5.2 Fuzzy Operators
Note that by carefully observing the calculations term by With very few exceptions, fuzzy set applications within
term, it is possible to see the largest contributions to the power systems have relied on minimum and maximum for
information uncertainty. For example, in computing the the intersection and union operators, respectively. Research
confusion of the combined test, the -m({X1})Bel({X1}) term has shown that these operators do not represent accurately
is 0.521 which is about 33% of the entire measure. Table 8 the way most people normally make decisions. It is likely
shows that three terms in that summation account for over that successful applications will have to adopt other
80% of the confusion of the entire set of observations. This inference operators from the T-norm and T-conorm classes.
illustrates the fact that in practice a few results of a test tend It has been suggested that operators be developed for
to dominate the overall uncertainty. On the other hand, note specific applications. For example, security and reliability
that these same three terms would not contribute to the non- concerns may work best with stricter operators.
specificity of the observation.
5.3 Performance analysis
6 Future Trends
Performance evaluation remains a problem common to many
Relatively few implemented systems employing fuzzy logic areas of AI applications. This problem is even more of
exist in the power industry today. Still, implementation concern with fuzzy sets. The solution is based on subjective
considerations should be primarily the same as those faced and uncertain assessments and so must be subjective and
with knowledge-based AI techniques, which have been uncertain. In contrast to other AI methods, however, the
addressed before. So, the discussion here focuses on structure exists within fuzzy mathematics for developing
fundamental questions that need to be more fully understood measurements that can indicate the quality of a solution, e.g.,
before fuzzy sets achieve greater impact. the entropy-like measures of confusion, dissonance and
Table 8 Contributions to confusion for combined tests vagueness. Thus, fuzzy mathematics has the potential to
quantify such subjectivity.
Confusion Term Calculated Percent of
Value Total 5.4 Relation to ANN and other Soft Computational Methods
m({X1,X2})log2(Bel({X1,X2})) 0.1206 7.63
m({X2,X3})log2(Bel({X2,X3})) 0.1746 11.05 Both fuzzy sets and Artificial Neural Nets (ANNs) are
methods of interpolation. The primary advantage of ANNs
m ({X4})log2(Bel({X4})) 0.2073 13.11
over fuzzy sets lies in effective methods for learning from
m({X1})log2(Bel({X1})) 0.5207 32.94 examples; however, knowledge representation is implicit in
12
an ANN, so that, it is difficult to encode a priori knowledge. [16] K. Tomsovic, M. Tapper and T. Ingvarsson, "A Fuzzy
Conversely, fuzzy set theory provides explicit knowledge Information Approach to Integrating Different
representation, yet no specific formulation for learning Transformer Diagnostic Methods,'' IEEE Transactions
exists. Several researchers have demonstrated how these on Power Delivery, Vol. 8, No. 3, July 1993, pp. 1638-
approaches complement each other. Techniques from other 1646.
areas of soft computation, such as, Genetic Algorithms also [17] K. Tomsovic, M. Tapper and T. Ingvarsson,
have shown great potential for supplementing fuzzy methods. "Performance Evaluation of a Transformer Condition
Monitoring Expert System," Proceedings of the 1993
CIGR Symposium on Diagnostic and Maintenance
7 References Techniques, Berlin, Germany, April 1993.
[18] K. Tomsovic and A. Amar, "On Refining Equipment
Condition Monitoring using Fuzzy Sets and Artificial
[1] M.-y. Chow, Fuzzy Systems, in CRC Press Industrial
Neural Nets,'' International Journal of Engineering
Electronics Handbook, D. Irwin, Ed.: CRC, 1996.
Intelligent Systems, Vol. 5, No. 1, March 1997, pp. 43-
[2] M.-y. Chow, Fuzzy Logic Based Control, in CRC
50.
Press Industrial Electronics Handbook, D. Irwin, Ed.,
1996.
Kevin Tomsovic received the BS from Michigan Tech.
[3] J. Momoh, X. Ma and K. Tomsovic, Overview and
University, Houghton, in 1982, and the MS and Ph.D.
Literature Survey of Fuzzy Set Theory in Power
degrees from University of Washington, Seattle, in 1984 and
Systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol.
1987, respectively, all in Electrical Engineering. He is an
10, No. 3, Aug. 1995, pp. 1676-1690.
Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer
[4] K. Tomsovic, Current Status of Fuzzy Set Theory
Science at Washington State University. Visiting university
Applications to Power Systems, Transactions of the
positions have included Boston University, National Cheng
IEE Japan, Vol. 113-B, No. 1, pp. 2-6, 1993.
Kung University, National Sun Yat-Sen University and the
[5] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy Sets, in Information and Control,
Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. In 1999-2000,
vol. 8. New York: Academic Press, 1965, pp. 338-353.
he held the Advanced Technology for Electrical Energy
[6] R. E. Bellman and L. A. Zadeh, Decision-making in a
Chair at Kumamoto University in Japan.
Fuzzy Environment, Management Science, vol. 17,
pp. 141-164, 1970.
[7] M.-y. Chow and H. Tram, Applications of Fuzzy
Logic Technology for Spactial Load Forecasting,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 1996, in press.
[8] A. Kaufman and M.M. Gupta, Introduction to Fuzzy
Arithmetic: Theory and Applications, Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., New York, 1985.
[9] G.J. Klir and T.A. Folger, Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and
Information, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1988.
[10] J. Dombi, A General Class of Fuzzy Operators, the De
Morgan Class of Fuzzy Operators and Fuzziness
Induced by Fuzzy Operators, Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
11, 1983, pp. 115-134.
[11] J. Dombi, Membership Function as an Evaluation,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 35, 1990, pp. 1-21.
[12] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control,
McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[13] L.X. Wang, Stable Adaptive Fuzzy Control of
Nonlinear Systems, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy
Systems, vol. 1, no. 2, May 1993, pp. 146-155.
[14] J. Lee, On Methods for Improving Performance of PI-
Type Fuzzy Logic Controllers, IEEE Transactions on
Fuzzy Systems, vol. 1, no. 4, Nov. 1993, pp. 298-301
[15] P. Hoang and K. Tomsovic, Design and Analysis of an
Adaptive Fuzzy Power System Stabilizer, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 11, No. 2, June
1996, pp. 455-461.
13