Application of Neural Networks To Load-Frequency Control in Power Systems
Application of Neural Networks To Load-Frequency Control in Power Systems
Application of Neural Networks To Load-Frequency Control in Power Systems
Abstract
This paper describes an application of layered neural networks to nonlinear power systems
control. A single generator unit feeds a power line to various users whose power demand can vary
over time. As a consequence of load variations, the frequency of the generator changes over time.
A feedforward neural network is trained to control the steam admission valve of the turbine that
drives the generator, thereby restoring the frequency to its nominal value. Frequency transients
are minimized and zero steady-state error is obtained. The same technique is then applied to
control a system composed of two single units tied together through a power line. Electric load
variations can happen independently in both units. Both neural controllers are trained with the
backpropagation-through-time algorithm. Use of a neural network to model the dynamic system is
avoided by introducing the Jacobian matrices of the system in the backpropagation chain used in
controller training.
Key words
1 Introduction
Control and stability enhancement of synchronous generators is of major importance in power
systems. Dierent types of controllers based on \classical" linear control theory have been developed
in the past (Elgerd, 1982; Anderson & Fouad, 1977; Debs, 1988; Wood & Wollenberg, 1984).
Because of the inherent nonlinearity of synchronous machines, neural network techniques can be
considered in order to build nonlinear controllers with improved performances.
In this paper, we rst consider a single, isolated, generator unit connected to a power line or
electric bus which serves dierent users. Variations in the power demand of the users cause the
electric load on the bus to change over time. As the load varies, the frequency of the generator unit
varies. In order to bring the steady-state frequency back to its nominal value after a given load
variation, a control system is designed which acts on the setting of the steam admission valve of the
unit turbine. It is of great importance to eliminate frequency transients as rapidly as possible. Most
load-frequency control systems are primarily composed of an integral controller. The integrator gain
is set to a level that compromises between fast transient recovery and low overshoot in the dynamic
response of the overall system (Elgerd, 1982). This type of controller is slow and does not allow
the control designer to take into account possible nonlinearities in the generator unit.
1
We propose in this paper a neural network load-frequency controller. The neural network makes
use of a piece of information which is not used in conventional controllers: an estimate of the electric
load perturbation (i.e. an estimate of the change in electric load when such a change occurs on
the bus). This load perturbation estimate could be obtained either by a linear estimator, or by a
nonlinear neural network estimator. In certain situations, it could also be measured directly from
the bus. We will show by simulation that when a load estimate is available, the neural network can
achieve extremely good dynamic response.
The same neural network technique is then extended to control a two-area system (i.e. two generator units linked together by a tie-line) where electric load perturbations can happen independently
in both areas. The two neural controllers are adapted using the backpropagation-through-time algorithm (Nguyen & Widrow, 1989; Nguyen & Widrow, 1990; Werbos, 1990). The system to be
controlled, the dynamic plant, is represented by its state space equations. An error signal is dened
at the output of the dynamic plant as the dierence between the state vector of the plant and a
desired state vector. Backpropagation of the error vector through the plant state space equations
is eected by means of a multiplication of the error vector with the Jacobian matrix of the plant (a
matrix containing the derivatives of the elements of the state transition matrix with respect to the
state variables of the plant) (Piche & Widrow, 1991). The resulting signal is then backpropagated
through the neural network controller, and the adaptive weights of the controller are adjusted according to the backpropagation algorithm. Introducing Jacobian matrices in the backpropagation
chain can be done whenever the state space equations of the plant are known a priori, and this
avoids the introduction and training of a neural network plant model.
The next section of this paper describes the systems under study and shows how conventional
integral controllers are used to control such plants. Following sections describe the neural networks
used to control the plants and present simulation results. Models, equations, and orders of magnitude of parameters are in accord with examples in the classic book by O. Elgerd, \Electric Energy
Systems Theory" (Elgerd, 1982), chapter 9, sections 9.3 and 9.4.
Steam enters the turbine through a pipe that is partially obstructed by a steam admission valve.
In steady-state, the opening of the valve is determined by the position of a device called the speed
changer (upper left corner in Fig.1). Its setting (points H or A in Fig.1) xes the position of the
steam valve through two rigid rods ABC and CDE. The reference value, or set-point, of the turbine
power in steady-state is called the reference power and is denoted by pref . When the load on the bus
suddenly changes, the shaft speed is modied, and a device called the speed regulator acts through
the rigid rods to move the steam valve. Note that a similar eect could be producted by temporarily
modifying the reference power (which justies the name \speed changer"). In practice, both control
schemes are used simultaneously. Amplifying stages (generally hydraulic) are introduced to magnify
the outputs of the controllers and produce the forces necessary to actually move the steam valve.
The speed regulator is a proportional controller of gain 1=R (that is the de
ection in B, xB ,
is proportional to 1=R times the frequency
uctuation f ). In conventional systems, an integral
controller of gain KI sums the frequency
uctuations f (point G) and uses the result (point H) as
a control signal to the speed changer to raise or lower the reference power. By combining these two
control loops, we get a parallel PI (proportional-integral) controller capable of driving frequency
uctuations to zero whenever a step-load perturbation is applied to the system (Elgerd, 1982).
Generator
Frequency
Frequency
Fluctuation f
AA
AAA
AAAAA
AA
AAA
AAAAAAAA
AAA
AA
AAA
AAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAA
AAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAA
AAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AA
A
AAAAAAA
AAA
AA
AA
AAAAAAAA
AA
A
AAAA
AAAAAAA
AAA
AA
AA
AAA
AA
AAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAA
AAA
AA
AA
AAA
AA
AAA
AAAAAAAA
AAA
AAA
AA
AAA AA
AAAA
AAAAAA AAA
AAA
AA
AAA AA
AAAA
AAA
+_
+
Integral
Controller
Steam
Speed
Changer
close
Steam
Admission
Valve
lower
Frequency
Sensor
Frequency
Set Point
= 60 Hz
open
raise
xB
xA ~
pref A
xC
Steam
admission
valve
xD
x E
High
Pressure
Oil
Main
Piston
Speed
Regulator
Turbine
Hydraulic
Amplifier
AAAAA
AAAA
AAAAA
AAAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAAA
AAAAA
Generator
Power Line
AA
AA
Since most devices in power systems are extremely nonlinear, one usually likes to linearize the
plant and to think of dierent variables in terms of their
uctuations about given operating points.
Nonlinearities are then modeled by making the parameters of the linearized system functions of
the operating point. The resulting small signal models consist of linear operators having variable
parameters whose values depend upon the state of the system. The last step in modeling consists
of replacing all small signals by their Laplace transform and to represent the linearized devices by
transfer functions.
3
Variable
Load
Before going any further, let us dene the notation. of some variable represents the dierence
between the variable and its nominal value. Lowercases are used for time signals, and uppercases
for their Laplace transforms. For example, f (t) represents the generator frequency relative to
its nominal value, i.e. f (t) = f (t) ? fnominal = f (t) ? 60 Hz , and F (s) represents the Laplace
transform of f (t).
A Laplace domain small signal model of the single-area system is given in Fig.2. Points A, B,
C, D, E, F and G of Fig.1 are also shown here to help relate the gures. Starting from point A in
Fig.1, the
uctuation in reference power pref (i.e. the output of the speed changer) is added to
the output of the speed regulator (point B) to produce a global control signal (point C), which is
instantaneously transmitted to the input of the hydraulic amplier (point D). For simplicity, the
hydraulic amplier is modeled by a rst order transfer function whose output is the
uctuation in
hydraulic amplier power PH (s). The turbine is also modeled by a rst order transfer function.
Its input is the hydraulic amplier output PH (s), its output is the turbine mechanical power
PT (s). The change in variable load (lower right corner in Fig.1) is symbolized by an electric
perturbation, PE (s), and can be modeled as an input perturbation to the generator (Elgerd,
1982). The input to the generator model in Fig.2 is thus the sum of the turbine output power and
the electric perturbation. The generator is modeled by a rst order tranfer function. Its output,
the frequency
uctuation F (s) (point G), is used to drive the speed regulator and the integral
controller.
- ?Ks I
s
s
6
sB
sP (s)
H; A + C; D
H
- + - 1 +KsT
H
P (s) {
Integral
Controller
ref
Hydraulic
Amplier
KT
1 + sTT
Turbine
s
P (s)
6{
F+
-+
KP
1 + sTP F (s)
Frequency
Fluctuation
-
Generator
sG
P (s)
E
Speed
Regulator
Electric Load
Fluctuation
(1)
(2)
pH (nTs + Ts ) = pH (nTs ) + TTs [KH pref (nTs) ? KRH f (nTs ) ? pH (nTs)]
H
(3)
(4)
with
is the sampling period and n is the discrete time index.
Typical orders of magnitude in large systems ( 1000 MW) are: for the gains of the turbine,
hydraulic amplier, and generator, KH = KT = 1.0, KP = 120 Hz/pu MWy; for the corresponding
time constants, TH = 80 ms, TT = 0.3 s, TP = 20 s; for the regulator gain, R = 2.4 Hz/pu MW.
For any non negative value of the integrator gain KI , and assuming that the perturbation
PE (s) is a step function of amplitude PE , the controlled plant is stable; that is, its state vector
x(nTs) = [f (nTs) pT (nTs) pH (nTs)]T converges to a nite steady-state value. It is easy to see
from Eq.1, 2, 3, 4 that the steady-state frequency
uctuation f (nTs ) converges to zero. Therefore
(cf. Fig.2) the output turbine power pT (nTs ) converges towards PE , and the amplier output
power pH (nTs ) converges towards PE =KT . The steady-state state vector is thus:
x
= [0 P PE ]T :
(5)
Ts
steady state
KT
Fig.3 shows, for dierent values of the integrator gain KI , the dynamic responses of a single-area
system subject to a 10% step-load increase. With no integral control (KI = 0), the frequency
uctuations f (nTs) converge to some non-zero steady-state value. To achieve zero steady-state error,
the integrator must have a strictly positive gain. The higher the gain, the faster the convergence
will be, but high gains tend to produce ringing in the step response, and this should be avoided for
stability reasons. In practice, KI will be chosen to be the critical gain, i.e. the highest gain that
yields no overshoot (KI = 0:2 in Fig.3).
In the per unit (pu) system, variables are scaled by their nominal value and become thereby dimensionless.
0.05
KI = 0.32
0
KI = 0.2
-0.05
KI = 0.08
-0.1
KI = 0.04
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
KI = 0
-0.3
-0.35
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
(6)
where T 0 is a constant called the tie-line synchronizing coecient (typically 0:0707 MW/rad). This
operation is illustrated in Fig.5 (right-hand part of the tie-line).
If, for example, the electric load increases in area 2 (PE;2(s) > 0), the frequency in area 2
decreases (F2(s) < 0), and more power is transmitted from area 1 to area 2 (P1;2 > 0 (which is
in accord with Eq.6)). In area 1, this increase in tie-line power is perceived exactly the same way
as an increase in power demand from the users of area 1, that is, an increase of p in P1;2(s) or
an increase of p in PE;1 (s) has the same eect on the frequency F1 (s). Therefore, in our model,
P1;2(s) should be added to the same node as PE;1, and with the same sign (which is a minus
sign). By symmetry, P2;1 = ?P1;2 , the power going from area 2 to area 1, is added to the same
node as PE;2, also with a minus sign.
Let us now examine how two-area systems are controlled. In conventional systems, the turbine
reference power of each area is set by an integral controller. Since a perturbation in either area
aects the frequency in both areas and a perturbation in one area is perceived by the other through
a change in tie-line power, the controller of each area should take as input not only the local
frequency variations, but also the tie-line power variations. Since an integral controller has just
one input, these two contributions (local frequency variation and tie-line power variation) must be
combined into a single signal that can be inputted in the controller. The easiest way of doing this
is to combine them linearly, i.e. the input of the integrator in area 1 is P1;2 + B1 F1 , and the
input of the integrator in area 2 is P2;1 + B2 F2 (see Fig.5). The coecients B1 , B2 are usually
set to 1=KP + 1=R (see (Elgerd, 1982) for more details). With the orders of magnitude previously
mentioned, B1 = B2 = 0.425 pu MW/Hz.
Following the same procedure as in the one-area case, we derive the discrete state space equations
6
Electric Bus 1
Area 1
Tie-Line
Load
Tie-Line Power
Flow Signal
Area 2
Electric Bus 2
Tie-Line
Power
Flow
Sensor
Load
P;
ref;
P;
ref;
P;
P;
P;
E;
p1 2 (nT + T ) = p1 2 (nT ) + T [2T 0 (f1 (nT ) ? f2 (nT ))]
;
P;
E;
(7)
(8)
(9)
Once again, Ts is the sampling rate. For large systems ( 1000 MW), typical parameter values
are: for the generator gains, KP;1 = KP;2 = 120 Hz/pu MW; for the generator time constants,
TP;1 = TP;2 = 20 s; for the regulation parameters, R1 = R2 = 2.4 Hz/pu MW.
For any non negative integrator gains KI;1, KI;2, when a step-load perturbation has occured
in area 1 and/or in area 2, and after transients have died out, the frequency variations in both
areas converge to zero, and so does the tie-line power (see Eq.6). The plant state vector x(nTs) =
[f1(nTs ) f2 (nTs ) p1;2(nTs )]T converges thus to a steady-state value equal to:
(10)
Fig.6 shows the dynamic response of a conventional two-area system subject to a 10% stepload increase in area 2. Fig.6a shows the frequency transients in both areas, Fig.6b shows the
tie-line power transients. We may observe here that zero integrator gains (dashed lines) yield
non zero steady-state errors, while positive integrator gains (plain lines) do achieve convergence of
the state variables to zero. In this specic plot, the gains were chosen equal to the critical gains
(KI;1 = KI;2 = Kcritical ' 0:05) which ensured the fastest transient recovery with no overshoot in
the step response.
Before leaving our discussion of conventional control systems and beginning a development of
neural controls, we make an important remark. As explained in section 2.1, the plant models used
so far were linearized models. We were assuming that the operating point of the plant did not
change much when a step-load perturbation occured on the bus, and that, therefore, all the plant
parameters could be kept constant. In practice though, the \constant" characterizing the speed
7
?
B1
R1
?+ - ?
+
6+
KI;1
s
P
(s)
H;1
KT;1
P 1(s) 1 + sTT;1 P
H;
KP;1
T;
?+ - ?
+
6+
;
KI;2
s
P
sTP;1
F1(s)
HHj
P1 2(s)
;
??
r ? ? 1s
?+
6{
?1
P2 1(s)
P 2(s) KT;2 P 2(s) { ?
F2(s)
2 (s)
H;2
P;2
-+ + - 1 +KsT
- 1 + sT
-+ + - 1 +KsT
H;2
T;2
P;2
{6
{6
ref;
H;
T;
b
P (s)
E;
R2
Electric Load
Fluctuation
Figure 5: Conventional two-area system: small signal model, simplied block diagram.
2T 0 +
Area 2
?1
P2 1(s)
E;
? - KH;1
-+{
+
1 + sT
ref;
b
? -+ {
+
(s) {
6 1+
P 1(s)
Area 1
B2
Electric Load
Fluctuation
0.06
0.05
-0.04
KI,1 = KI,2 = 0
KI,1 = KI,2 = Kcritical = 0.05
KI,1 = KI,2 = 0
KI,1 = KI,2 = Kcritical = 0.05
-0.02
-0.06
-0.08
-0.1
-0.12
-0.14
-0.16
-0.18
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
140
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Figure 6: Dynamic response of a two-area system subject to a 10% step-load increase in area 2.
regulator R depends in a highly nonlinear way upon the turbine power pT , and this occurs as well
in a single-area system as in each area of a two-area system (Cohn, 1986). The presence of this
nonlinearity and the slowness of traditional integral controllers is what motivates our substituing
a neural network controller for the integrator(s). In order to emphasize the dierence in plant
dynamics for various values of the regulation parameter R, we plotted in Fig.7 the step responses
of an uncontrolled two-area system (integrator gains equal to zero) for two dierent values of R
(chosen within a reasonable physical range). Fig.7a shows the frequency transients in both areas
when a 10% step perturbation hits area 2 of a system having as regulation parameters R1 = R2 = 2:4
Hz/pu MW. Fig.7b shows the frequency transients for a system having R1 = R2 = 6:0 Hz/pu MW.
Apart from the fact that the steady-state frequencies are dierent for dierent values of R, we
notice that a higher regulation parameter creates more ringing in the system: the fact that R is
not a constant profoundly aects the dynamic response of both generators.
0
frequency variation in area 1
frequency variation in area 2
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
-0.35
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
-0.35
0
140
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Figure 7: Dynamic response of an uncontrolled two-area system subject to a 10% step-load increase
in area 2, for dierent values of R.
A feedforward multilayer neural network is shown in Fig.8(a). A single neuron extracted from the
layer of a L-layer neural network is represented in Fig.8(b). The inputs xli are multiplied by
l ; the output xl+1 is obtained by passing the sum of the weighted inputs
the adaptive weights wi;j
j
through a sigmoidal function slj () (i.e. hyperbolic tangent).
lth
xlj+1
= slj (
l xl )
wi;j
i
(11)
xl1
xl2
xl3
w1l ;j
w2l ;j
w3l ;j
weights
xlj+1
+
l ()
sigmoid sj
Figure 8: Feedforward multilayer neural network. (a) L-layer neural network. (b) j th neuron
extracted from the lth layer.
Initially set to small random values, the weights are adjusted after each presentation of a new
input pattern. The adaptation rule is given by:
T
wl = ? d(e e) :
(12)
i;j
l
dwi;j
10
l is the weight connecting neuron i in layer l with neuron j in the next layer, is the
where wi;j
learning rate, e is the error vector, i.e. the dierence between the actual and desired outputs. It
can easily be shown (see (Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986; Widrow & Lehr, 1990) for a detailed
derivation) that Eq.12 is equivalent to:
l = ? l+1 xl
wi;j
i
j
(13)
where xli is the output of neuron i in layer l. The error gradients j in a L-layer network are
evaluated with the following recursive formula:
8
>> ?2ej s0jL
>>< X
l+1 wl
s0j
m
j;m
jl =
>> m
>> X 1 w0
: m j;m
=L
1 l L?1
l
(14)
=0
where ej is the error at the output node j , and s0jl s0jl (xlj ) is the derivative of the sigmoid function
slj () for node j in layer l. Eq.14 can be interpreted as follows: the error gradient associated
with a given neuron is obtained by backpropagating the 's of the next layer through connecting
weights. This process is illustrated in Fig.9(a) and (b).
1l+1
l
wj;
1
jl
l
wj;
2
2l+1
l
wj;
3
3l+1
)
l
sigmoid derivative sj (
0
Figure 9: Feedforward multilayer neural network. (a) Backpropagation through a L-layer neural
network. (b) Backpropagation through the j th neuron of the lth layer.
To shorten the notation, we set the sampling period T to 1 so that x(nT ) is replaced by x(n), f (nT ) by
f (n), etc ...
z
11
(Eq.5) but that this convergence was slow (see Fig.6). The neural network controller that replaces the integral controller should make the plant converge to the same xsteady?state vector, while
limiting the duration and magnitude of the transients. Such an operation can not be performed
instantaneously. In addition, the value of the desired control signal (i.e. the desired output of the
neural network) is not known a priori; only the desired steady state of the plant is known. The
simple, static, backpropagation algorithm is not directly applicable, it must be generalized to the
present dynamic structure. The result of this generalization is refered to as the backpropagationthrough-time algorithm.
The dynamic controller-plant structure is shown in Fig.10. The plant model (dashed box) is
characterized, at any instant of time, by its discrete state-space vector x(n) = [f (n) pT (n) pH (n)]T
. The box labeled \plant state equations" contains the discrete state space equations previously derived to model the one-area system, Eqs.1, 2, 3. The neural network controller replaces the integral
controller used in conventional systems. Its output, the
uctuation in reference power, pref (n),
is used as a control signal to drive the plant model. For simplicity, it is refered to as u(n).
In order to evaluate u(n) = pref (n), the neural network controller makes use of a piece of
information which is not used in conventional control: an estimate of the load perturbation, p^E (n).
In general, the load perturbation of a large system is not directly measurable. It must therefore
be estimated by a linear estimator or by a nonlinear neural network estimator if the nonlinearities
in the system justify it. Such an estimator takes as inputs a series of K samples of the frequency
uctuation at the output of the generator [f (n) f (n ? 1) ::: f (n ? K + 1)]T , and estimates
the instantaneous value of the load perturbation pE (n) based on this input vector. The estimate
p^E (n) is then used to drive the plant controller. The implementation of such an estimator is
beyond the scope of this paper. Here, we assume that the load estimate p^E (n) is available and
that, for adaptation purposes, this estimate is perfect, that is, p^E (n) pE (n). We also assume
that the electric perturbation is a step function of amplitude PE : pE (n) = PE : H (n) where
H (n) = 1 for n 0 and 0 for n < 0.
The internal structure of the neural network controller is detailed in Fig.11. It contains two
layers of neurons: a hidden layer and a single neuron output layer. No sigmoid is used at output of
the network. Bias terms (i.e. constant inputs equal to 1) are included in all the hidden units and
in the output unit.
Going back to Fig.10, we see that at each time step, a new state vector x(n + 1) is evaluated,
based on the magnitude of the step load perturbation PE , the control signal u(n), and the
current state vector x(n). This is better understood if we redraw Fig.10, unravelling it in time.
The resulting block diagram is shown in Fig.12. For simplicity, the neural network controller is
denoted by C, and the plant state equations are denoted by P. At time n = 0 (dened as the instant
when the step-load perturbation hits the system), the state of the plant is x(0). The neural network
controller C takes as inputs the state vector x(0) and the amplitude of the step-perturbation PE ,
and quasi-instantaneously evaluates the control signal u(0). The plant equations P are then used to
compute the next state vector x(1) which is used by the controller to evaluate the next control signal
u(1), etc ... This way, the controller and plant model successively compute new control signals and
new state vectors until some time N is reached. N is chosen large enough to allow plant transients
to die out. At time N , the plant state vector x(N ) should have converged to xsteady?state which
appears thus for the learning algorithm as the desired state vector, and is denoted by d(N ). The
dierence between the desired state vector d(N ) and the nal state vector x(N ), the error vector
e(N ), is used to adjust the adaptive weights of the controller according to the backpropagationthrough-time algorithm. Although we are controlling the plant continuously over time, the control
law is derived as if the process were only ongoing over the last N time steps, with N large. The
weights are adjusted to reduce the error at time N .
12
- Neural Net
x(n)- Controller
Unit
Delay
Plant Model
Figure 10: Neural network controller and plant model of a single-area system: block diagram.
+1
P
8 E
>< f (n)
x(n) = > pT (n)
: pH (n)
+1
+
+1
u(n) =
pref (n)
Figure 11: Neural network controller for a single-area system: internal structure.
Fig.12 is essentially composed of a layered arrangement of controller and plant equations blocks.
The controller is a neural network. If the block containing the plant equations, P, were replaced by
a neural network copy P^ of Px, the unravelled system of Fig.12 would become a giant layered neural
network with inputs x(0) and PE , output x(N ), and desired output d(N ). The backpropagation
algorithm could then be applied to train such a network. By doing so, the error gradient dened at
the output of the network are backpropagated through the P^ and C blocks, from x(N ) back to x(0);
hence the name \backpropagation-through-time". This approach was rst introduced by Nguyen
and Widrow in (Nguyen & Widrow, 1989), and was successfully applied to number of applications
in the area of nonlinear neural control (see for example Nguyen & Widrow, 1990; Wu & Hogg &
Irwin, 1992).
In this paper, we adopt a slightly dierent approach by which we avoid the introduction and
It can be shown that any continuous nonlinear function can be approximated to an arbitrary degree of precision
by a two-layer neural network (Cybenko, 1988; Hornik & Stinchcombe & White, 1989; Irie & Miyake, 1988).
x
13
P
x(0)
P
b r
E
u(0)
P
- ?
- P
x(1)-
u(1)
P
- ? x(2)- rrr
- P
- rrr
x(N ? 1)
x(N ) e(N )
- ? -+
+
P
6{
u(N ? 1)
d(N )
Figure 12: Neural network controller and plant model of a single-area system: block diagram
unfolded in time.
training of a neural network copy of the plant equations (Piche & Widrow, 1991). The basic idea
is that instead of building a neural network copy or emulator P^ of P in order to backpropagate
error gradients through it, it is possible to directly backpropagate the error gradients through the
plant equations P .
Let us consider a 2-layer neural network which emulates a set of continuous nonlinear functions
P. The inputs to the neural network are denoted by x0i , and the outputs x2k . Applying Eq.11
recursively for l = 0; 1, and 2, and for all i; k, we get:
x2k
= s2k (
X
j
1 s1 (
wj;k
j
0 x0 )):
wi;j
i
(15)
Let us now evaluate the derivative of the kth output with respect to the ith input:
X 1 01 0
0
wj;k sj wi;j :
=
sk2
0
dx
dx2k
(16)
= ?2ekX
s0k2
0
1
j1 = sj1
k2 wj;k
(17)
(18)
i0 =
(19)
X
j
1 w0
i;j :
Substituing Eq.17 in Eq.18 and Eq.18 in Eq.19, and comparing with Eq.16, we get:
i0
= ?2ek dxk0 :
dxi
(20)
Eq.20 implies that the kth term of the error gradient vector i0 obtained by backpropagating k2
through the neural network is proportional to the derivative of the kth output of the network with
respect to its ith input. The matrix containing the derivatives of the outputs of P with respect to
its inputs is called the Jacobian matrix.
Building a neural network emulator of the plant and backpropagating error gradients through it
is nothing other than approximating the true Jacobian matrix of the plant using a neural network
technique. Whenever the equations of the plant are known beforehand, they can be used to compute,
14
analytically or numerically, the elements of the Jacobian matrix. The error gradient at the input
of the plant is then obtained by multiplying the output error gradient by the Jacobian matrix.
This approach avoids the introduction and training of a neural network emulator, which brings
a substantial saving in development time. In addition, the true derivatives being more precise than
the one obtained approximatively with a neural network emulator, the controller training is faster
and more precise. One disadvantage of this method, however, is that a neural network controller
included in such a structure can not track changes in the plant (such as parameter variations
due to wearing of certain parts, etc ...). If such considerations are an issue, the neural network
emulator method is a better choice. Again, the Jacobian approach is only applicable if an analytical
description of the plant is known beforehand. Otherwise, a plant neural network emulator can be
used to identify the plant and to backpropagate the error gradients.
4 Simulations
Computer simulations have been conducted to illustrate the behavior of single-area and twoarea systems subject to step load perturbations. Both neural networks have been adapted using backpropagation-through-time. No plant emulator was used; instead, the error gradients were
directly backpropagated through the plant equations.
As explained in section 2, the regulation parameters R of single-area and two-area systems
are nonlinear functions of the power pT produced in the areas (Cohn, 1986). The eect of this
nonlinearity on the system is generally represented in the following way. In steady-state, a simple
relationship can be written between the frequency f0 and the turbine output power pT;0 (see
Fig.2): pT;0 = pref;0 ? R1 f0 , or:
f0 = R (pref;0 ? pT;0):
(21)
The subscript 0 denotes steady-state values. If R is a constant, f0 vs. pT;0 represents a
family of straight lines with parameter pref;0. If instead the regulation R is a function of the
turbine power, Eq.21 represents a family of nonlinear curves. Nonlinearities encountered in practical
15
110
R = function of power
R = constant = 0.04% or 2.4 pu Hz/MW
108
p
104
102
p
ref
= 100%
? ?
106
=>50%
ref
100
98
-100
-50
50
100
150
Figure 13: Static frequency-power response (linear case: R = 0:04% or 2:4 pu Hz/MW).
systems produce f0 (pT;0) curves such as represented in Fig.13 (solid lines). For reference, the
corresponding curves for R = constant = 2.4 pu Hz/MW are also shown (dashed lines).
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
-0.35
-0.4
-0.45
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Figure 14: Step response of a single-area system subject to a 10% load increase.
Such a nonlinearity was introduced in the discrete plant equations, Eqs.1, 2, 3, of a single-area
system. A feedforward neural network containing one hidden layer with 20 hidden units was
adapted to control this nonlinear plant. The neural network was trained to compensate for any
perturbation ranging from minus to plus 100%.
Fig.14 shows the frequency
uctuations at the output of the power unit when a 10% step-load
increase occurs on the bus. Two control schemes are compared: (a) the plant is controlled by a
16
conventional integral controller with critical gain, (b) the plant is controlled by a neural network
controller. The neural network clearly achieves faster transient recovery while still limiting the
overshoot. This result is not unexpected. The neural network controller makes use of the estimate
of the load-perturbation which is provided to it as an input signal to immediately counteract the
eect of the perturbation hitting the system. The integral controller, on the other hand, proceeds
by building up the frequency error and using it to drive the plant. Therefore, it has to wait untill
the error has built up before signicantly eecting the system response.
In a sense, the comparison between the neural network and the PI controller may seem unfair
since the neural network is provided with a piece of information that is not available to the other
controller. On the other hand, the PI controller is the most wildly used in practice and constitues
therefore the standard comparison tool for new control methods. The point that the authors would
like to illustrate is that a judicious use of some additional information can produce a tremendous
improvement in the system dynamic behaviour.
17
0.005
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
4
3
2
1
-0.02
-0.025
0
x10 -3
0.01
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
-1
0
200
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
delayed neural net control
integral control
0.03
Figure 15: Dynamic response of a two-area system subject to a 1% step-load increase in area 2.
0.02
0.01
0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
0
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
-0.01
-0.02
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
-0.03
0
160
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Figure 16: Dynamic response of a two-area system subject to a 1% step-load increase in area 1 and
a 2% step-load decrease in area 2.
18
5 Conclusion
Layered neural networks have been successfully applied to control the turbine reference power of a
computer-simulated generator unit. The same principle has then been applied to a simulated twoarea system. Both neural networks have been adapted using backpropagation-through-time. In this
paper, the frequency variations in both areas of the two-area system were inputted into the neural
network controller. The neural network thus implements a global control scheme. In the past, non
neural network local controllers have been developped (Aly & Abdel-Magid, 1981; Abdel-Magid et
al., 1984). A subject of future research consists in building independent neural network controllers
for the dierent areas of a multi-area system. Each neural network controller receives only local
information about the system (frequency in that specic area and powers in the tie-lines connected
to that area). Such an architecture decentralizes the control of the overall system and reduces the
amount of information to be exchanged between dierent nodes of the power grid. Performance
with local control only will be compared with that obtained with global control.
References
Abdel-Magid, Y.L. et al. (1984). Robust decentralized load frequency regulator for intercon
nected power systems. (pp. 69-73). Eurocon 84, 6th conference on eletrotechnics-computers
in communication and control. Brighton, UK
Aly, G. and Abdel-Magid, Y.L. (1981) Two level load-frequency control of interconnected
power systems. (pp. 213-218). IECI Proceedings. San Francisco, CA
Anderson, P.M. and Fouad, A.A. (1977). Power System Control and Stability. Ames:
Iowa State University Press
Cohn, N. (1986). Control of Generation and Power
ow on interconnected systems.
John Wiley
Cybenko, G. (1988) Continuous Valued Neural Networks with two Hidden Layers are Sucient. Department of Computer Science, Tufts University
Debs, A.S. (1988). Modern Power Systems control and operation. Norwell, MA:
Kluwer-Nijho Pub.
Elgerd, O.E. (1982). Electric Energy Systems Theory. 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Hornik, K. and Stinchcombe, M. and White, H. (1989). Multilayer Feedforward Networks
Are Universal Approximators. (pp. 359-366). Neural Networks. vol.2
Irie, B. and Miyake, S. (1988). Capabilities of Three-Layered Perceptrons. (pp. 641-647).
Proceedings of the IEEE Second International Conference on Neural Networks. vol.I. San
Diego, CA
Nguyen, D. and Widrow, B. (1989). The Truck Backer-Upper: An Example of Self-Learning
in Neural Networks. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks.
vol. II. (pp. 357-363). Washington, DC
19
Nguyen, D. and Widrow, B. (1990). Neural Networks for Self-Learning Control Systems.
Nomenclature
ii) Two-area system: (in addition to above symbols with additional underscore 1 or 2 to specify
the area concerned)
p1;2(t)
P1;2(s)
p2;1(t)
P2;1(s)
1 (t); 2(t)
1 (s); 2(s)
T0
B1 ; B2
sjl ()
jl
0
H (n)
u(n)
e
d
21