Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Of PI Controller.
Document By
SANTOSH BHARADWAJ REDDY
Email: help@matlabcodes.com
Engineeringpapers.blogspot.com
More Papers and Presentations
available on above site
ABSTRACT:
1. INTRODUCTION:
d (t ) = [ ∆Pd 1 ∆Pd 2 ] T,
where ∆ denotes deviation from the nominal values. u1 and u 2 are the
control outputs in
Figure1. The system output, which depends on area control error (ACE)
shown as
y1(t) A 1 C E
y(t)= = =Cx(t) (2)
y 2(t) A 2 C E
ACE i = ∆Ptie ,i + bi ∆f i , (3)
Where bi is the frequency bias constant, ∆f i is the frequency deviation and
∆Ptie ,i is the change in tie-line power for areai and C is the output matrix
[4].
Fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic establish the rules of a nonlinear mapping
[6]. The use of fuzzy sets provides a basis for a systematic way for the
application of uncertain and indefinite models [4]. Fuzzy control is based on
a logical system called fuzzy logic is much closer in spirit to human thinking
and natural language than classical logical systems [5,6]. Nowadays fuzzy
logic is used in almost all sectors of industry and science. One of them is
load-frequency control [2]. The main goal of load-frequency control in
interconnected power systems is to protect the balance between production
and consumption. Because of the complexity and multi-variable conditions
of the power system, conventional control methods may not give satisfactory
solutions.
The fuzzy controller for the single input, single output type of systems is
shown in Fig. 2 [3]. In this figure, Kp and Ki are the
proportional and integral gains, respectively. The fuzzy controller input can
be the derivative of e together with the signal E. The fuzzy controller block
is formed by fuzzification of E, the inference mechanism and
defuzzification. Therefore, Y is a crisp value, and u is a control signal for the
system.
By taking ACE as the system output, the control vectors for the conventional
PI and I controllers, respectively can be given in the following forms:
ui = -KPACEi-∫ Ki (ACEi)dt
= - KP(∆Ptie,i+bi∆fi) -∫ Ki(∆Ptie,i+bi∆fi)dt
Fuzzy logic shows experience and preference through membership
functions, which have different shapes depending on the experience of
system experts. Same inference mechanism is realized by seven rules for the
two FGPI and the FL controllers. The appropriate rules used in the study are
given in Table 1.
Fig.5. Membership functions for FL Controller of (a) ACE, (b) ∆ACE, (c)
Kp, Ki
Fig.6. Membership functions for FGPI Controller of (a) ACE, (b) ∆ACE, (c)
Kp, Ki
Membership functions shapes of the error and derivative error and the
gains are chosen to be identical with triangular function for both fuzzy logic
controllers. However, their horizontal axis ranges are taken different values
because of optimizing these controllers. The membership function sets of FL
for ACE, ∆ACE, Kp and Ki are shown in Fig. 5, while the ones for FGPI
controller are shown in Fig.6. Defuzzification has also been performed by
the center of gravity method in all studies.
5. Simulation study.
Simulations were performed using the conventional PI, Fuzzy Logic (FL)
and the proposed FGPI controllers applied to a two-area interconnected
electrical power system. The same system parameters given in Tables 2 were
used in all controllers for a comparison.
Two performance criteria were selected in the simulation. The frequency
deviation graphs were first plotted with Matlab 7.0-Simulink software. Here,
settling times and overshoots of the frequency deviation of the controllers
were compared against each other. The comparison results are provided in
Table 2 and 3.
Fig 7. a, b, c, d shows the responses for frequency deviation of area1 (∆f1)p.u (∆Pd1=0.01
p.u.).
∆f11
Time(sec)
Fig b. With PI Controller
Time(sec)
Fig a. Without Controller
∆f1
1
Time(sec)
Fig b. With PI Controller
Fig 8. e,f shows the responses for Change in mechanical power in area1(∆Pm1).(ii)Change in
mechanical power in area2(∆Pm2).Change in Tieline power (∆Ptie).
∆f1
1
Time(sec)
Fig c. With Fuzzy Logic Controller
Time(sec)
Fig d. With FGPI Controller
Frequency Deviation in
area 1 (∆f1)
Controller
Steady state error(ess)
FGPI -0.000067
FLC -0.00383
Conventional PI -0.00136
Table:2
Frequency Deviation in area 1
(∆f1)
Controller
Settling Maximum
time(sec) (for Overshoot
5% band (HZ)
of the step
change)
System performances for all controllers with steady state error for
frequency deviation of area1.
6.CONCLUSION:
In this paper, a new fuzzy gain scheduling of PI controller was investigated
for automatic load-frequency control of a two-area interconnected electrical
power system. In the simulations, the horizontal ranges of membership
functions of the FL and the two FGPI controllers were taken differently in
order to decrease the oscillations of frequency deviation in all areas. The
proposed controller is very simple and easy to implement, since it does not
require any information about the system parameters. According to the
experimental results, it performs significantly better than other controllers in
the settling time and absolute error integral while it performs closer in the
overshoot magnitude. In conclusion, the proposed fuzzy gain scheduling PI
controller is recommended to generate good quality and reliable electric
energy.
Appendix.
References.
[1]. Demiro¨ren A, Yes¸il E. “Automatic generation control with fuzzy logic
controllers in the power system including SMES units”. Electr Power
Energy Syst 2004;26: 291–305.
Document By
SANTOSH BHARADWAJ REDDY
Email: help@matlabcodes.com
Engineeringpapers.blogspot.com
More Papers and Presentations
available on above site