ISSN : 2347 - 8446 (Online) International Journal of Advanced Research in

ISSN : 2347 - 9817 (Print) Vol. 1 Issue 1 Oct-Dec 2013 Computer Science & Technology (IJARCST)

Comparative Analysis of PI & Fuzzy Based Cntroller For

Load Frequency Control of Thermal-Thermal
& Thermal: Hydro System
I
Ratnesh Chaturvedi, IIDr. Bharti Dwivedi
M.Tech Student, Institute of Engineering & Technology Lucknow, India
I

II
Professor Dept. of Electrical Engineering Institute of Engineering & Technology Lucknow, India
I
[email protected], II [email protected]

ABSTRACT
This paper presents the effectiveness of Fuzzy controller over conventional PI controller for load frequency control. The main
disadvantage of PI controller is slow acting and does not efficiently handles system nonlinearities. Due to change in load, system
frequency deviates from nominal value. System Collapse is one of the main reasons due to high deviation in frequency. Fuzzy
controller is an accurate and fast acting controller, which improve dynamic performance (settling time, peak overshoot) and reduce
the oscillation frequency. In this paper, peak overshoot, settling time and frequency deviation is compared.

Keywords
Fuzzy Logic Controller, PI Controller, Thermal Power Plant, Load Frequency Control, Automatic Gain Control

I. Introduction
In actual power system operations, the load is changing
continuously and randomly. As the ability of the generation
to track the changing load is limited due to physical/technical
considerations, this results an imbalance between the actual and
the scheduled generation quantities. This imbalance leads to a
frequency deviation. Maximum allowable change in frequency
should be ± 0.5Hz[1]. Due to change in frequency there is change
in the speed of motors. It is necessary to maintain the frequency
for smooth running of power stations in parallel. In modern large
system manual regulation is not possible .Load Frequency Control
(LFC) is a part of Automatic Generation Control (AGC).The main
objective of AGC is to maintain the system frequency at nominal
value[1]. Power system is divided into different control areas.
These control areas are connected by tie lines. Frequency should
remain constant throughout the control areas [2]. Frequency of the
system depends on active power demand. Various types of load
frequency controller are used to maintain the system frequency Fig. 1: Block Diagram of Two Area Power System (Thermal-
at nominal value. PI Controller is widely employed. It is simple Thermal)
for implementation but its settling time is more and produces
large frequency deviation. A number of state feedback controllers
based on linear optimum control technique have been proposed
to achieve better performance. Fixed gain controllers work at
nominal operating condition but its performance over a wide range
operating condition is not satisfactory. Fuzzy controller shows
good result over the conventional controller especially in complex
and nonlinearities associated system[3]. In this paper performance
analysis of PI and Fuzzy controller for two area interconnected
thermal-thermal and thermal hydro plant is proposed.

Two Area Controls:

In two area system, two single area is connected through a tie line.
Power is transferred though tie line [5,7]. The control objective is
to regulate the frequency of each area and to simultaneously the
tie line power s per inter-area power contracts. Each control areas
is represented by an equivalent turbine, generator and governor
[4].

Fig. 2: Block Diagram of Two Area Power System (Thermal-

Hydro)

www.ijarcst.com 35 © All Rights Reserved, IJARCST 2013

International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN : 2347 - 8446 (Online)
Computer Science & Technology (IJARCST) Vol. 1 Issue 1 Oct-Dec 2013 ISSN : 2347 - 9817 (Print)

II. Modeling of the Tie-Line

The well known power transfer equation is

(1)
Where and are the angles of end voltages V1 and V2
respectively.
The tie line power changes for small deviation in the angles are Taking laplace Transform of equation (9) and reorganizing, we
given by the amount. get

(2) where,
Analogous to the concept of “electric stiffness” of synchronous
machines we define the “synchronous coefficient” of a line

(3) III. Fuzzy Logic Controller

Thus the equation can be written as Fuzzy logic controller has three stages-
1. Fuzzification interface
(4) 2. Inference rule engine
The frequentation deviation is related to the reference angle by 3. Defuzzification interface
the formula

(5)
or

or
Fig. 3: Block Diagram of Fuzzy Logic Controller

Fuzzy logic controller respond to variable error(e) and change

Thus the equation can be written as of error (ce).
Global function of FLC is written as ΔPC=F[nc e(k)], nce ce(k)].
Where ne, nce and nu are known as error, change of error scaling
gains and output control gain respectively.
(6) A label set corresponding to linguistic variables of the input control
Taking Laplace transform of equation (6) signals, e (k) and ce (k), with a sampling time of 0.01 sec is as
follows L(e, ce) = { NB, NM, ZE, PM, PB}, (2)
Where, NB = Negative Big, NM = Negative Medium, ZE = Zero,
(7) PM = Positive Medium, PB= Positive Big
Similarly the incremented tie line power expected from area 2
is given by

(8)
The power balance equation for single area can be given by

(9)
So for the double area, the same equation should be modified as Fig. 4: Membership Function for the Control Input Variables
follows
Taing laplace of equation (9) Table of Fuzzy interference rule for fuzzy logic controller-
Input e(k)
NB NM ZE PM PB
NB NB NB NM NM ZE
(10)
NM NB NB ZM ZE ZE
ce(k) ZE NM NM ZE PM PM
PM ZE PM PM PB PB
PB ZE ZE PM PB PB
If

© 2013, IJARCST All Rights Reserved 36 www.ijarcst.com

ISSN : 2347 - 8446 (Online) International Journal of Advanced Research in
ISSN : 2347 - 9817 (Print) Vol. 1 Issue 1 Oct-Dec 2013 Computer Science & Technology (IJARCST)

IV. Simulation and Results:

-1
T ra nsfer F cn2
1
G ain1
2.2

0.87 .01

0.445 S lider C onsta nt

T ransfer Fcn7 G a in1 1 1 120
s
0.08s+1 0.3s+1 20s+1
T ra nsfer F cn3 T ra nsfer F cn4 T ra nsfer F cn5

T ransfer Fcn9 T ransfer Fcn12 T ransfer Fcn5 T ransfer Fcn10

-0.35 T ra nsfer F cn6
120 1 1 -0.9
s 0.545
20s+1 0.3s+1 0.08s+1 s
-0.9 T ra nsfer F cn1 s
1 1 120
s
0.08s+1 0.3s+1 20s+1
T ransfer Fcn T ransfer Fcn1 T ransfer Fcn2 T ransfer Fcn4 0.01 Constant1
1
T ransfer Fcn11 T ra nsfer F cn8
0.01 Constant2 2.2 1
1
T ransfer Fcn8 2.2 S cope
G ain 2.2 .01
-K -
C onsta nt1
-1

G a in1
1 1 120
G ain2 0.08s+1 0.3s+1 20s+1
-K -
T ra nsfer F cn9 T ra nsfer F cn10 T ra nsfer F cn11 output

T o Workspa ce

-1
-0.35
G a in
s
T ra nsfer F cn7

S cope1 S lider
0.87
G a in4

Fig. 5: Simulink Model of Two Area Thermal Thermal Plant With

PI Controller Fig. 7: Simulink Model of Two Area Thermal Thermal Plant With
Slider Gain PI Controller
0.005
Thermal -Thermal P I with s lider gain
0.005

0 0

-0.005
-0.005
Frequency Deviation(Hz)
-0.01
frequency deviation(Hz)

-0.01 -0.015

-0.02
-0.015
-0.025

-0.02 -0.03
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time(s ec.)

-0.025

1
S lider
G ain 2.4
-0.03
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.425
T ransfer Fcn1

Time(S ec.) S cope1

S tep
1 1
In1 Out1 0.08s+1 0.3s+1 120
output
T ransfer Fcn2 T ransfer Fcn3 20s+1
T ransfer Fcn T o Workspace
-1 Fuzzy controller 1
G ain1 -1

G ain
0.445
T ransfer Fcn7
s

0.545
S cope
T ransfer Fcn9 T ransfer Fcn3 T ransfer Fcn6 T ransfer Fcn10 s
120 -s+1 4s2 +s+5 -0.35
T ransfer Fcn4
20s+1 0.5s+1 4s2 +26s+5 s
G ain2 G ain3
-0.35
1 1 120 ra
s
0.08s+1 0.3s+1
-1 -1
20s+1
T ransfer Fcn
T ransfer Fcn1 T ransfer Fcn2 T o Workspace1
T ransfer Fcn4
1
T ransfer Fcn11 In1 Out1
2.4
1
T ransfer Fcn8 4s2 +s+5 -s+1
2.4
1 G ain
fuzzy controller 2 4s2 +26s+5 0.5s+1
0.01 Constant2 0.01 Constant1 120
G ain2 T ransfer Fcn6 T ransfer Fcn5
1 0.65 20s+1
T ransfer Fcn7
S lider
G ain1 S tep2 1
2.4 S cope2
T ransfer Fcn13

Fig. 8: Simulink Model of Two Area Thermal Hydro Plant With

output
S cope
T o Workspace
S cope1

Fuzzy Controller
Fig. 6: Simulink Model of Two Area Thermal Hydro Plant With
PI Controller x 10
-3
Two area Thermal- Hydro Fuzzy control
2

0
Thermal-Hydro P I
0.04

-2
0.02
Deviation in frequency(Hz)

-4
0
frequency deviation(HZ)

-6
-0.02

-8
-0.04

-0.06 -10

-0.08
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-12
Time(s ec.)

-14
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time(sec.)

www.ijarcst.com 37 © All Rights Reserved, IJARCST 2013

International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN : 2347 - 8446 (Online)
Computer Science & Technology (IJARCST) Vol. 1 Issue 1 Oct-Dec 2013 ISSN : 2347 - 9817 (Print)

[7] G. A. Chown, and R.C. Hartman, “Design and Experience

T ra nsfe r F cn1
1
with a Fuzzy Logic Controller for Automatic Generation
Control (AGC)” IEEE Trans. Power System, Vol. 13, No. 3,
2.4
S lide r
1.2074
G a in
1
Unit De la y S cope 4
z

pp. 965-970, August 1998.

Unit De la y3 S te p
Fuzzy Logic 1 1
Controller 1 120
0.08s+1 0.3s+1
z 20s+1
T ra nsfe r F cn2 T ra nsfe r F cn3
Ze ro-O rde r
Hold T ra nsfe r F cn

-1
S cope
G a in

T ra nsfe r F cn4
0.545
s

-1 1
G a in3 -1
Unit De la y1 S cope 3 G a in2
z
Unit De la y2
Fuzzy Logic 1 1
Controller1 1
0.08s+1 0.3s+1 120
z 20s+1
T ra nsfe r F cn7 T ra nsfe r F cn8
Ze ro-O rde r
Hold1 T ra nsfe r F cn5

-1

G a in1

S te p2
S lide r
1.2074
G a in1

T ra nsfe r F cn6
1
2.4

Fig. 9: Simulink Model of Two Area Thermal Thermal Plant With

Fuzzy Controller

V. Comparative Results
Table 1:
Steady state Settling +vePeak
Cases of simulation
error time over shoot
Thermal-Thermal PI 0 11 0.05
Thermal-Hydro PI 0 23 0.03
Thermal-Thermal
0 7 0.02
Fuzzy
Thermal-Hydro Fuzzy 0 17 0

VI. Conclusion
From the above MATLAB /Simulink result, it shows that with the
implementation of fuzzy controller settling time reduced,oscillation
reduced and provide better dynamic performance.

Reference
[1] D P Kothari, I J Nagrath,"Power system Engineering ", Tata
McGraw-Hill
[2] ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences ISSN
1819-6608, Vol. 4, No. 7, SEPTEMBER 2009
[3] Barjeev Tyagi and S.C.Srivastava, Senior Member, “A Fuzzy
Logic Based Load Frequency Controller In a Competitive
Electricity Environment”, IEEE 2003, pp. 560 - 565.
[4] O.L Elgerd,“Electric Energy Systems Theory: An
Introduction", Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982
[5] N. Jaleeli, D. N. Ewart, and L. H. Fink. “Understanding
Automatic Generation Control”, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, Vol. 7. No. 3. August 1992, pp.1106-1122
[6] R. D. Christie, A. Bose,“Load Frequency Control Issues
In Power System Operation After Deregulation”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems. Vol. 11, No. 3, August 1996,
pp. I191-1200

© 2013, IJARCST All Rights Reserved 38 www.ijarcst.com