2011 IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Research (CHUSER 2011), Dec 5-6 2011, Penang

Fast Stability Achievement through Fuzzy Logic

Based Non-Linear Excitation Control of
Synchronous Generator
*M. M. Aman, *G.B. Jasmon, **A. Ghufran, **M. A. Nawaz and ** M. Raza
*Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
**Department of Engineering, NED University of Engg. And Tech, Karachi, Pakistan
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract—Power System Controllers are most commonly used for

stabilized operation of power system under different operating
conditions. Different conventional controller exists for excitation
control to maintain power system voltages, for synchronism and
stability. Many controllers work satisfactorily under steady state
conditions, but needed their fast action under transient
conditions. In this paper the impact of fuzzy logic controller on
system performance observed through non-linear excitation
control of synchronous generator under transient condition. The
results of fuzzy logic controller are also compared with the
conventional controller (PID). Figure 2. Controlling of Generating Units

Keywords-component; Excitation control; fuzzy logic; Analysis of power system has proved that among the
controllers; transient voltage stability. different forms of power system stability, transient system
stability still a basic and important consideration in power
I. INTRODUCTION system design. The transient system stability is the ability of a
Stability of power system is one of the key issues of present power system to remain in synchronism when subjected to
days; a small disturbance in power system may lead to a big large transient disturbances. These disturbances may include
problem, affecting the huge number of customers. Different faults on transmission lines, loss of generation, and loss of
types of stability problems may occur in power systems, shown system components such as transformer or transmission lines
in figure (1) [1]. These problems may arise due to major loss of [3].
generation or loss of heavy load from the power system. In first II. EXCITATION SYSTEMS
case we have two options either to decrease the load or the fast
opening of valves for fuel intake in case of steam power plants. The field voltage of a synchronous machine is controlled by
In second case, we have an excess energy which could be their excitation system, so as to regulate the terminal voltage
dissipated by resistor braking, generator drooping, by passing and enhance system transient stability and small signal
the steam and fast closure of steam valves [2]. stability at different load levels [3]. Automatic Voltage
regulator (AVR) is responsible to sense the generator output
voltage and takes corrective measures by controlling the
generator excitation in the correct direction, ensuring stable
response of output voltage [4].
A power system stabilizer (PSS) is also included in
conjunction with AVR, in such a manner so as to reduce
damping & inter machine oscillations. PSS has supplementary
Figure 1. Stability Classification input ∆ω or ∆f (in addition to Vref - used as a reference for
AVR). Fast action of these controllers is needed in power
Two different types of controllers are commonly employed system for stable operation; a slow response of controller may
for output control i.e. speed governor which controls the active lead to lose in synchronism and cascading shut down of power
power flow and automatic voltage regulator which controls the plant [1, 5].
reactive power supplied by the generator. Figure (2) showing PSS, PID and Linear optimal excitation control (LOEC)
the basic controllers employed in a common power systems. based controller has a common problem, such controllers are
The design of the controller should be such that it could based on the mathematical model, which is approximately
support and withstand under fault conditions [3]. linearized at a specific operating point of the system. However
the power system behaviour is typically non linearized [1]. It

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitatsbibliothek Erlangen Nurnberg. Downloaded on August 30,2024 at 09:53:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
978-1-4673-0020-9/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE 431
 2011 IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Research (CHUSER 2011), Dec 5-6 2011, Penang

has been proved that steady state power limits of network In Table 1, the transient stability limits of three different
increases by using fast acting voltage regulators [3]. types of excitation strategies are given, which shows that
compared with PSS and linear optimal excitation controllers,
The aim of this paper is the development of the non linear the nonlinear excitation controllers can remarkably improve
excitation control of synchronous generator, fuzzy based small disturbance stability and even more prominently enhance
controller is used here to simulate the AVR and enhance large disturbance stability[1].
system stability. Fuzzy logic controller has benefit over other
controller is that classical controllers require a deep TABLE I. COMPARISON OF TRANSIENT STABILITY LIMITS
understanding of a system, exact equation and precise numeric Transient Stability
values while fuzzy controllers can be used for non-linear Stability Limit
Excitation Control Mode
system, like transient operations of power systems [6]. Limit Improvement
(Pe max) p.u (%)
III. TRANSIENT STABILITY ANALYSIS PID Excitation Control 0.74 0.0
The transient stability problem refers as whether or not the Linear Optimal Excitation
0.85 14.8
system will sustain the fault and can return back to its original Control
staedy state conditions after the fault has cleared [7]. Different Nonlinear Excitation Control 1.00 35.0
types of stability problems can arise, but in this paper the most
commonly transient voltage stability issue will be considered. IV. FUZZY LOGIC CONTROLLERS
Fast controlling of voltage is the necessary requiremnet of Among the different types of conventional controllers like
controller. If the AVR is very slow having large time constant PI, PID; fuzzy controller has better response because of its
then it may be assumed that following a small disturbance the learning ability; it remembers what it has tuned before [9,10].
AVR will not respond during the transient state and the
Fuzzy logic control is a non mathematical decision
regulated and unregulated systems will behave in a similar
algorithm tool, which takes action on the basis of defined set
manner. This respond time is know as volatge response ratio,
of rules. Such type of controller is particularly useful for non
which shows how the exciter open terminal vltage will change
in 0.5sec if the excitation control is adjusted in any direction linear system or systems dynamics are very complex and not
[3, 8]. With reference to fig (3), the input voltage Vref will be well defined [9,6] like in voltage control of synchronous
a impulse input of sufficeint magnitude to drive the output generator, as the relation between field current and output
voltage to its ceiling point [7]. voltage does not remain constant due to non linear BH curve
[11].
A simple fuzzy logic controller involves different steps
shown in fig (4) [12].

Figure 4. Basic configuration of fuzzy control

Figure 3. Block Diagram of Excitation Control
These steps are briefly defined here, for detail [6, 12-14]:
Exciter controls not only help during transient, it is a
necessary requirement during steady state also. The generator Fuzzification: is a process of making linguistic labels from a
power limits, given by (1), also increases due to increase of crisp quantity (real numbers). In the real world the measured
system voltages [3]. quantities are real numbers.
ES ER Inference Engines: for taking action according to fuzzy rules
P= Sin δ (1)
X defined. Here rules are linguistic in natures like
If the transient is initiated by a fault, it tries to decrease the IF the voltage error is positive large, AND the rate of change
flux linkage, which results in decrease in output voltages and of voltage error is positive large, THEN the field voltage is
thus power which causes acceleration or declaration of rotor. negative large.
Excitation system tries to maintain the voltages; however the
longer time period may lead to loss of synchronism [5]. In Inference is a way to assign memebership function to fuzzy
transient stability, quickness of response is one of the most varaibles, there are also some other techniques [12]. In the
important features. Therefore instead of using conventional inference method, facts and existing knowledge is given and
controllers (like PI, PID), we have implemented fuzzy logic deduce or infer a conclusion.
based AVR and compare the output results with PID.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitatsbibliothek Erlangen Nurnberg. Downloaded on August 30,2024 at 09:53:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
432
 2011 IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Research (CHUSER 2011), Dec 5-6 2011, Penang

Defuzzification: It is a reverse process, converting fuzzy

quantities defined over membership function to a real time
crisp quantity.
The complete fuzzy system is shown in figure (5),
reproduce from [15].

Figure 7. System Model

The two fuzzy state variables in our system defined to

control the excitation system are:

1) Voltage Error: Error is the difference between the pre-

defined set voltage and the actual voltage given by (2). This
error can be either positive or negative.
e (t ) = V ref − υ (t ) (2)
Figure 5. Detailed system of fuzzy controller
2) Rate of Change of Voltage Error: Another input parameter
Two types of fuzzy systems are commonly used open is the rate of change of voltage which is given by (3). Here the
system and closed system, shown in fig. 6. In fuzzy based AVR rate of change of voltage is taken to enhance the controller
system, we have used closed loop system. In open loop systems action.
fuzzy setup some parameters and system behaves accordingly.
While in close loop system fuzzy monitors system parameters e (t ) − e (t − T )
r (t ) = (3)
and behave accordingly [12]. T
Where:
Vref = Voltage reference
r(t) = Rate of change of error
e(t) = Voltage error
T = Error sampling time
The other fuzzy control variable is the output field current
Figure 6. (a) Open Loop System to regulate the output voltage of generator. Fig. 8 is showing
these variables with fuzzy logic controller.

Figure 6. (b) Closed Loop System

Figure 8. Fuzzy logic controller and input output variables
V. DEVELOPMENT OF FUZZY LOGIC CONTROLLER
The question may arise why we have chosen only these
In the development of fuzzy logic based AVR controller,
variables as a fuzzy input for Fuzzy-AVR? The answer lies in
the main theme is to control the field current to regulate the
the fact that the exciter field flux linkage is related with the
output voltages through pre-defined sets of fuzzy rules. In the
machine field voltage given as (4), reproduced from [17]:
fuzzy based AVR system of synchronous machine, two fuzzy
state variables and one fuzzy control variable is applied to
K aω
fuzzy logic controller; FLC takes intelligent decision and υf = λf (4)
control the output variable [16]. The considered model of the N fσ
system is shown in fig. (7). where;
λf = Field flux linkage (Proportional to field current If)
υf = Synchronous Machines Field Voltage
σ = Coefficient of dispersion

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitatsbibliothek Erlangen Nurnberg. Downloaded on August 30,2024 at 09:53:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
433
 2011 IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Research (CHUSER 2011), Dec 5-6 2011, Penang

Ka = Machines constant
ω = Rotational frequency
Nf = Field Turns

So here we are controlling the output voltage (reference);

giving the voltage and its error as an input to the FLC and thus
changing the field current for voltage control. In fuzzy based
PSS controller [18], the author has considered generator speed
(ω) and rotor speed deviation (∂ω) as an input variable, to
minimize the damping oscillations.
Mapping:
In the development of controller, fuzzy variables are Output: Field Current
divided into three broad divisions namely positive, zero and Figure 9. Membership functions of fuzzy logic controllers
negative. These divisions can be further quantized into small,
medium and large [16,14]. This quantization yields the A total of 49 fuzzy rules were employed, with triangular
following subdivisions: membership functions. The FAM table is shown in fig. 10.
• NL: negative large
• NM: negative medium
• NS: negative small
• ZE: zero
• PS: positive small
• PM: positive medium
• PL: positive large
The tuning of FLC involves the definition of membership
functions of any arbitrary shaped for each sets of input output
variables. The control parameters of FLC are determined by
trial and error [16]. Triangular shaped membership functions Figure 10. FAM Table
are defined here for voltage error, rate of change of voltage
It should be remembered that in choosing the fuzzy set for
error and output field current (centered about a precise value
the input variables, the domain of each input variable should be
and width) shown in fig. 9. These membership functions are
covered. The voltage control FAM bank is a 7-by-7 matrix
derived from capacity of humans to develop membership
with 49 linguistic fuzzy set entries/rules.
functions through own intelligence and system understanding.
VI. FUZZY LOGIC VS PID (A CASE STUDY)
A. System Description
In order to compare the two controllers i.e. fuzzy and PID,
a simple power system is considered. A fault is generated in
between transmission line shown in fig. 11 and various
characteristics of generators are observed. The system
parameters are mentioned in appendix section.

Input 1: Voltage “error”

Figure 11. Power system MATLAB/Simulink® Model

Input 2: Rate of Change of Voltage Error

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitatsbibliothek Erlangen Nurnberg. Downloaded on August 30,2024 at 09:53:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
434
 2011 IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Research (CHUSER 2011), Dec 5-6 2011, Penang

B. Simulations
Fig. 12 to Fig. 14 showing the comparison of different
parameters of generator when PID and fuzzy is used as a
controller.

Figure 15. (a) Terminal voltage (Fault duration 0.1 sec)

Figure 12. Comparison of load angle

Figure 15. (b) Terminal voltage (Fault duration 0.15 sec)

Figure 13. Comparison of active power

Figure 15. (c) Terminal voltage (Fault duration 0.18 sec)

VII. SIMULATION RESULTS (DISCUSSION)

Satisfactory experimental results come from the simulation
of synchronous machine. Load angle, electromagnetic torque
and active power are well controlled by using fuzzy logic
Figure 14. Comparison of electromagnetic torque
technique. For different fault duration times the terminal
Fig 15 is showing the output terminal voltage response voltage is observed and it give better results over PID. It is
when the three phase fault occurs and persists for 0.1 sec, 0.15 evidently seen that the fuzzy logic is a powerful tool as
sec and 0.18 sec. compared to conventional controllers to control the power
system stability.
The hardware implementation of fuzzy logic controller is
also possible on FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitatsbibliothek Erlangen Nurnberg. Downloaded on August 30,2024 at 09:53:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
435
 2011 IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Research (CHUSER 2011), Dec 5-6 2011, Penang

using VHDL (Very-high-speed-integrated-circuits Hardware REFERENCES

Description Language). VHDL is used to simulate the chosen [1] Qiang Lu, et al., Non linear control system and power systems
Fuzzy Logic functions were chosen then it is implemented on dynamics, 1st ed.: Springer, 2001.
actual hardware kit through FPGA [19]. In [20], the author has [2] Electrical Transmission and Distribution Reference Book: Westinghouse
proved that FLC is neither less effective (in terms of Electric Co., 1950.
performance) nor more complex (in terms of program coding) [3] P. M. Anderson. and A. A. Fouad., Power System Control and Stability,
than its PID counterpart. A PID controller has limitation, in 2nd Edition: Wiley-IEEE press, 2002.
terms of performance, design flexibility and addition of new [4] D. Sumina, et al., "Excitation control of a synchronous generator using
rules or conditions. These features makes fuzzy superior than fuzzy logic stabilizing controller," in Power Electronics and
Applications, 2005 European Conference on, 2005, pp. 6 pp.-P.6.
PID. PID is just one possible special case of a fuzzy logic
[5] P. Kundur., Power System Stability and Control: McGraw-Hill
controller. Professional, 1994.
In classical control, a lot of time is used to determine the [6] B. J. LaMeres and M. H. Nehrir, "Fuzzy logic based voltage controller
transfer functions of the motor, generator and other circuits of for a synchronous generator," Computer Applications in Power, IEEE,
vol. 12, pp. 46-49, 1999.
the system. In many cases, transfer function that is obtained, is
[7] J. Machowski., et al., Power System Dynamics: Stability and Control:
an approximation of the actual one. In comparison a fuzzy Wiley, 2008.
controller does not need any transfer function and can be [8] K. R. Padiyar, Power System Dynamics: Stability & Control: Anshan,
developed and tested in a fairly short amount of time. Another 2004.
significant advantage of the fuzzy controller is the tendency of [9] A. G. Aissaoui., et al., "A Fuzzy Logic Controller For Synchronous
the system to have minimal overshoot, if any, this tends to Machine," Journal Of Electrical Engineering, vol. 58, pp. 285-290, 2007.
smooth out operations and improve overall efficiency [12,14]. [10] N. Ndubisi Samuel, "Fuzzy Model Reference Learning Controller For
Synchronous Generator Terminal Voltage Control," European Journal of
Scientific Research, vol. 24, pp. 378-386, 2008.
Even though, fuzzy logic is a powerful tool that can be used [11] Arnalte S., Fuzzy logic-based voltage control of a synchronous
to replace classical controller, but not to be used carelessly. generator, International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education,
The stability of fuzzy systems on the other hand cannot be Volume 37 Issue 4, October 2000, pp 333-343, ISSN: 0020-7209.
predicted. Therefore, it is necessary to simulate fuzzy systems [12] L.-X. Wang, A Course In Fuzzy Systems and Control: Prentice Hall,
as well as perform trial runs on them so as to obtain the system 1996.
response. One major drawback of this approach is that one can [13] C. C. Lee, "Fuzzy logic in control systems: fuzzy logic controller. I &
never simulate all unseen cases. However there is advancement II," Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 20, pp.
in fuzzy system now. Traditional 2D fuzzy systems are 404-435, 1990.
converting into 3D fuzzy systems with the addition of [14] T. J. Ross, Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications, 3rd ed.: Wiley,
2010.
stochastic informations, which will improve the fuzzy
[15] A. B. d. R. Costa., et al., "A Simple Fuzzy Excitation Control System
performance for unseen cases [21]. (AVR) In Power System Stability Analysis," presented at the
Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conference, Perth,
VIII. CONCLUSION Australia, 2001.
The fuzzy logic based power system controller is designed [16] S. Chapman., Electric Machinery Fundamentals: McGraw-Hill Series,
and tested on power system under fault conditions and it was 2003.
observed that the results of fuzzy controller are much better [17] P. W. Sauer. and M. A. Pai., Power System Dynamics and Stability:
Prentice hall, 1997.
than PID controller. The settling time, rise time, overshoot,
[18] A. R. Roosta, et al., "Design and analysis of fuzzy power system
and zero steady state error have reduced sharply. The fast stabilizer," in Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe
response of such controller may save the system from large (ISGT Europe), 2010 IEEE PES, 2010, pp. 1-7.
disturbance, which could result in severe blackout. [19] V. K. Sharma, “Hardware Implementation of Fuzzy Logic using VHDL”
Available on:
APPENDIX http://vikasks.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/4/0/3840535/project_report.pdf
x d = 1 .305 x1 = 0 .18 T d' = 1 .01 [20] http://www.mstarlabs.com/control/fuzzypid.html
[21] L. Han-Xiong and L. Zhi, "A probabilistic fuzzy logic system: Learning
x d' = 0 .296 x q" = 0 .243 T d" = 0 .053 in the stochastic environment with incomplete dynamics," in Systems,
Man and Cybernetics, 2009. SMC 2009. IEEE International Conference
x d" = 0 .252 R s = 2 .85 × 10 −3 T q"0 = 0 .1 on, 2009, pp. 383-388.
x q = 0 .474 H = 3 .2

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitatsbibliothek Erlangen Nurnberg. Downloaded on August 30,2024 at 09:53:05 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
436