See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260343310

Improvement of Transient Stability using Fuzzy Logic Controlled SMES in Matlab

Article · December 2011

CITATIONS READS

2 626

3 authors, including:

Chandra Yammani
National Institute of Technology, Warangal
28 PUBLICATIONS   306 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Optimal DG placement and transmission pricing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chandra Yammani on 21 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Majlesi Journal of Electrical Engineering Vol. 5, No. 4, December 2011

Improvement of Transient Stability using Fuzzy Logic

Controlled SMES in Matlab
D. Harikrishna1, N.V. Srikanth, Y. Chandrasekhar
1- Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Warangal, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Email: [email protected]

Received: December 2010 Revised: July 2011 Accepted: November 2011

ABSTRACT:
In this paper, the transient stability of an electric power system is improved by fuzzy logic controlled superconducting
magnetic energy storage (SMES). The effectiveness of the proposed fuzzy controlled SMES is compared with a
conventional proportional integral (PI) controlled SMES. In addition to it a comparison between the fuzzy controlled
SMES and fuzzy controlled braking resistor (BR) is also carried out. The simulation results show that under 3 phase
fault, the fuzzy controlled SMES performance is better than PI controlled SMES. Furthermore, the performance of
SMES is better than that of BR. The proposed method provides a very simple and effective means of improvement of
transient stability.

KEYWORDS: Braking resistor (BR), Fuzzy logic-controller (FLC), MATLAB – Simulink, Proportional-integral (PI)
controller, Superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES), Transient stability improvement.

1. INTRODUCTION conceptually easy to understand. Fuzzy logic is a

Transient stability is mainly concerned with the powerful tool with a numerous application in
immediate consequences of a transmission line embedded control and information processing. Fuzzy
disturbance on generator synchronism. Rigorous logic is tolerant of imprecise data and can handle
development in power electronics and uncertainty. The effectiveness of SMES for transient
superconductivity has provided power transmission and stability enhancement has been demonstrated for a
distribution industry with superconductive magnetic balanced fault in the power system [2]-[6]. In order to
energy storage (SMES) units. The SMES systems have carry out a detail study; the effectiveness of the
received much attention in power system applications proposed fuzzy controlled SMES is compared over
after the successful commissioning test of the BPA 30– conventional proportional integral (PI) controlled
MJ [1]. Based on the power system requirements the SMES in improving the transient stability under
real power can be absorbed or released from the low balanced 3 phase fault in the power system. The
loss superconducting magnetic coil. The firing angle of braking resistor (BR) is known to be a very effective
the converters of the SMES unit controls the amount of device for transient stability control [7]. It can be
energy to be supplied or received by the SMES unit. viewed as a fast load injection to absorb excess
The technology offers various chances for the transient transient energy from an area that arises due to severe
stability improvement of power systems by the usage of system disturbances. In some articles [7], [8] the
reliable, high speed electronic switches; one among effectiveness of fuzzy logic controlled BR in improving
them is thyristor controlled SMES unit. Many articles the transient stability of electric power systems has
are reported [2]-[6] demonstrating the use of SMES been verified. Although transient stability control is
unit for the improvement of transient stability. SMES is achieved by both SMES and BR [9], this paper presents
controlled through conventional controllers in most of a comparative study between fuzzy logic-controlled
these works. The power system stability is mainly SMES and fuzzy logic-controlled BR in MATLAB
dependent on the appropriate control strategy of SMES. Simulink environment.
Though many SMES control strategies [2]-[6] are This paper is organized as follows: power system
proposed in the literature, the real problem is the model in MATLAB Simulink environment, modeling
determination of the best or optimal switching of SMES unit, design of fuzzy logic and PI controllers,
strategies. Hence, continuous attempts to explore novel simulation results and conclusions of proposed control
and effective control options are in progress. strategy in transient stability improvement.
Fuzzy logic is based on natural language and is

23
Majlesi Journal of Electrical Engineering Vol. 5, No. 4, December 2011

2. POWER SYSTEM MODEL

Fig. 1. Power System Model with Fuzzy SMES

In this paper for the analysis of transient stability,

the power system model [8] connected with a fuzzy
controlled SMES under the three-phase fault at the
generator at line 3 as shown in the power system model
shown in Fig. 1 has been simulated in Matlab Simulink
environment. The 3 LG fault occurs at 0.1 to 0.5 s. The
model system consists of a synchronous generator (SG) Fig. 2(a). AVR model
feeding an infinite bus through a transformer and
double circuit transmission line. To effectively control
the power balance of the synchronous generator during
a dynamic period, the SMES unit is placed in the
generator terminal bus.
The parameters of the generator used for the
simulation are given in Table I. Fig. 2(b). GOV model
The automatic voltage regulator (AVR) and
governor (GOV) control system models, as shown in 3. MODELING OF SMES
Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) respectively, has been included in The SMES unit which consists of a Wye-Delta 500
this paper. KV/5 KV transformer, an ac/dc thyristor controlled
bridge converter, and a superconducting coil of 0.5 H
Table 1. Generator Parameters as shown in Fig. 3 is proposed. The positive or negative
MVA 1000 X'd [pu] 0.169 T'do [sec] 4.3 voltage is impressed on superconducting coil by the
Ra [pu] 0.003 X'q [pu] 0.228 T'qo [sec] 0.85 converter. Charge and discharge are easily controlled
by simply varying the delay angle α that controls the
Xa [pu] 0.13 X''d [pu] 0.135 T''do [sec] 0.032 sequential firing of the thyristors. When α is less than
Xd [pu] 1.79 X''q [pu] 0.20 T''qo[sec] 0.05 90°, the converter operates in the rectifier mode
(charging) and when α is greater than 90°, the converter
Xq [pu] 1.71 X0 [pu] 0.13 H [sec] 2.894 operates in the inverter mode (discharging). As a result,
power can be absorbed from or released to the power
system according to the requirement. During steady
state, SMES should not consume any real power.
The bridge voltage Vsm is held constant at a suitable

24
Majlesi Journal of Electrical Engineering Vol. X, No. X, X 201X

positive value to initial charge the SMES unit. The 4- Harmonic power generated by the converter is
inductor current Ism rises exponentially and magnetic neglected.
energy Wsm is stored in the inductor. When the inductor A comparison is also carried out by placing a
current reaches its rated value Ism0 it is maintained braking resistor in place of SMES unit of the power
constant by lowering the voltage across the inductor to system model shown in Fig. 1.
zero. The SMES unit is then ready to be coupled to the
power system for stabilization. It is desirable to set the 4. DESIGN OF FUZZY LOGIC AND PI
rated inductor current Ism0 such that the maximum CONTROLLERS
allowable energy absorption equals the maximum Fuzzy logic controller is one of the most practically
allowable energy discharged. successful approaches to design a controller for
utilizing the qualitative knowledge of a system and to
solve a problem with vagueness or uncertainties. The
fuzzy logic controller is realised through three sections:
fuzzification, rule base and defuzzification.

4.1. Fuzzification
For the design of the proposed FLC for SMES, the
deviation of speed of the synchronous generator, Δω,
and firing angle of thyristor, alpha (α), are selected as
input and output variables respectively. Fig. 4 shows
Fig. 3. SMES unit with six-pulse bridge ac/dc thyristor the membership functions for input variable Δω and
controlled converter output variable alpha (α) for SMES. The linguistic
variables for Δω are n, z and p represents negative,
The voltage Vsm of the dc side of the converter is zero, and positive respectively. The linguistic variables
expressed by for alpha (α) are sm, me and bg stand for Small,
Vsm  Vsm 0 cos  (1) Medium and Big.
For the design of the fuzzy logic controller for BR,
where Vsm0 is the ideal no-load maximum dc voltage of deviation of speed of the synchronous generator Δω
the bridge. The current and voltage of superconducting and firing angle alpha (α) are selected as the input and
inductor are related as output variables, respectively. Fig. 5 shows the
t
1 membership function for input variable Δω and output
L sm t0
I sm  V sm d  I sm 0 (2)
variable alpha (α). The linguistic variables for Δω are
n, z and p stand for negative, zero and positive. The
where Ism0 is the initial current of the inductor. The real
linguistic variables for alpha (α) are s and b stand for
power Psm absorbed or delivered by the SMES can be
Small and Big. The membership functions are decided
given by
by the trial and error approach in order to obtain the
Psm  VsmIsm (3) best system performance.
since the bridge current Ism is not reversible, the
bridge output power Psm is uniquely a function of α,
which can be positive or negative depending on Vsm.
When Vsm is positive, power is transferred from the
power system to the SMES unit and when Vsm is
negative, power is released from the SMES unit. The
energy stored in the superconducting inductor is
t
(4) Fig. 4. Membership functions of input variable Δω(pu)
W  W  P d
sm sm 0 
t0
sm
and output variable alpha for SMES
where Wsm 0  1 Lsm I sm
2 is the initial energy in the
0
2
inductor.
The assumptions considered in modeling of present
SMES unit are as follows:
1- The effect of the ripple of the DC is ignored as the
superconducting coil has a large inductance.
2- The superconducting coil resistance is zero. Fig. 5. Membership functions of input variable Δω(pu)
3- The converter thyristor voltage drop is ignored. and output variable alpha for Braking Resistors.

25
Majlesi Journal of Electrical Engineering Vol. 5, No. 4, December 2011

For the design of the fuzzy logic controller for BR,

deviation of speed of the synchronous generator Δω
and firing angle alpha (α) are selected as the input and
output variables, respectively. Fig.5 shows the
membership function for input variable Δω and output
variable alpha (α).
The linguistic variables for Δω are n, z and p stand
Fig. 6. Block diagram of PI controller
for negative, zero and positive. The linguistic variables
for alpha (α) are s and b stand for Small and Big. The
membership functions are decided by the trial and error 5. SIMULATION RESULTS
approach in order to obtain the best system Simulations are performed under balanced 3 LG
performance. fault at the generator at line 3 as shown in the system
model. The 3 LG fault occurs at 0.1 to 0.5 s. The time
4.2. Fuzzy Rule Base and Inference engine step and simulation time are 0.00005 and 5.0 s
The proposed control strategy is very simple having respectively. These simulations are carried out in
single-input single-output (SISO) variable makes the Matlab Simulink environment for different cases. Fig.
fuzzy controller very straightforward [7]-[9]. The 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 shows load angle responses under 3
control rules of the proposed controller are determined LG fault without pss, with pss, with PI controlled
from the viewpoint of practical system operation and SMES, with fuzzy controlled BR and with fuzzy
by trial and error. controlled SMES respectively.
The basic operation of the inference engine is it
deduces a logical conclusion. Actually, the inference
engine is a program which uses the rule base and the
input data to the controller to draw the conclusion. The
conclusion of the inference engine is the fuzzy output
of the controller, which subsequently becomes the input
to the defuzzification interface. For the inference
mechanism of the proposed FLC, Mamdani’s method
[10] has been utilized.
The control rules for proposed SMES are, if Δω is Fig. 7. Load angle response without power system
negative then α is big, if Δω is zero then α is medium stabilizer under 3LG fault
and if Δω is positive then α is small. The control rules
for braking resistor are, if Δω is negative or zero then α
is big and when Δω is positive then α is small.

4.3. Defuzzification
In this last operation, the fuzzy conclusion of the
inference engine is defuzzified, i.e.; it it is converted
into a crisp signal. This last signal is the final product
of the FLC which is, of course, the crisp control signal
to the process. The center-of-area method is the most
well-known and rather simple defuzzification method Fig. 8. Load angle response with power system
[11], which is implemented to determine the output stabilizer under 3LG fault
crispy value.

4.4. PI Controller
The fuzzy controlled SMES in the power system
model shown in Fig. 1 is replaced by the PI SMES
shown in Fig. 6 and the effectiveness of the proposed
fuzzy controlled SMES unit in enhancing the transient
stability is compared to that of a conventional PI
controlled SMES under the same three phase faulted
condition. The PI controller parameters Kp = 180 and Ti
= 0.2s are determined by trial and error in order to Fig. 9. Load angle response with PI controlled SMES
attain better system performance. under 3LG fault

26
 Majlesi Journal of Electrical Engineering Vol. X, No. X, X 201X

SMES by using adaptive control,” Electric Power

Components Syst., vol. 30, pp. 233–249, Mar. 2002.
[4] Y. L. Tan and Y.Wang, “Augmentation of transient
stability using a superconducting coil and adaptive
nonlinear control,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13,
no. 2, pp. 361–366, May 1998.
[5] A. H. M. A. Rahim and A. M. Mohammad,
“Improvement of synchronous generator damping
through superconducting magnetic energy storage
systems,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 9, no. 4,
Fig. 10. Load angle response with fuzzy controlled pp. 736–742, Dec. 1994.
Braking Resistor under 3LG fault [6] Y. Mitani, K. Tsuji and Y. Murakami, “Application of
superconducting magnetic energy storage to improve
power system dynamic performance,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1418–1424, Nov. 1988.
[7] M. H. Ali, T. Murata, and J. Tamura, “The effect of
temperature rise of the fuzzy logic-controlled braking
resistors on transient stability,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1085–1095, May 2004.
[8] M. H. Ali, Y. Soma, T. Murata, and J. Tamura,
“Transient stability improvement by fuzzy logic
controlled braking resistor,” Int. J. Power Energy
Fig. 11. Load angle response with fuzzy controlled Syst., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 143–150, 2005.
SMES under 3LG fault [9] M. H. Ali, Y. Soma, T. Murata, and J. Tamura, “A fuzzy
logic controlled superconducting magnetic energy
storage for transient stability augmentation,” IEEE
6. CONCLUSIONS Trans .Control Syst., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 144–150, Jan
In this paper, a fuzzy logic controlled SMES with 2007.
thyristor switching is proposed to improve the transient [10] E. H. Mamdani, “Application of fuzzy algorithms for
stability. Simulation results of balanced 3LG fault simple dynamic plant,” Proc. IEE, vol. 121, pp. 1585–
clearly shows the validity and effectiveness of the 1588, 1974.
proposed method in enhancing the transient stability. [11] D. Driankov, H. Hellendoorn, and M. Reinfrank, An
Furthermore, the performance of fuzzy controlled Introduction to Fuzzy Control. Berlin, Germany:
SMES is found to be better than that of PI controlled Springer-Verlag, 1993.
SMES. The load angle responses indicate that the [12] Tripod, Lycos, SMES Applications (1994). [Online].
Available:
performance of fuzzy controlled SMES is better than
http://members.tripod.com/~albert51/jazz.html.
that of fuzzy controlled BR from the view point of
faster operation. However, in reducing the first
transient swing, BR is more effective than SMES. The
main reason of the better performance of SMES is its
ability to control both acceleration and deceleration of
the generator by consuming and supplying real power.
So, it can be concluded that the proposed fuzzy logic-
controlled SMES strategy is superior to the fuzzy logic-
controlled BR strategy, and provides a very simple and
effective means of improving power system transient
stability.

REFERENCES
[1] H. J. Boenig and J. F. Hauer, “Commissioning tests of
the Bonneville power administration 30 MJ
superconducting magnetic energy storage unit,”
IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-104, no. 2, pp.
302–309, Feb. 1985.
[2] C.-J.Wu and Y.-S. Lee, “Application of
superconducting magnetic energy storage unit to
improve the damping of synchronous generator,”
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 573–
578, Dec. 1991.
[3] A. Demiroren and H. L. Zeynelgil, “The transient
stability enhancement of synchronous machine with

27

View publication stats