Comparative Analysis of Genetic Algorithm and Fuzzy Logic Based Automatic Generation Control of Multi Area Power Systems

International Review on Modelling and Simulations (I.RE.MO.S.), Vol. 6, N.
1
ISSN 1974-9821 February 2013
Manuscript received and revised January 2013, accepted February 2013 Copyright 2013 Praise Worthy Prize S.r.l. - All rights reserved
136
Comparative Analysis of Genetic Algorithm and Fuzzy Logic Based
Automatic Generation Control of Multi Area Power Systems

Ismayil C.
1
, Sreerama Kumar R.
2
, Sindhu T. K.
3

Abstract This paper illustrates the application of fuzzy logic FL) to automatic generation
control (AGC) of a two area thermal power system and compares its performance with genetic
algorithm (GA) based PI controller. The PI controller parameters are redesigned by the
application of fuzzy logic. To verify the performance of the fuzzy based AGC, the task of tuning
PI parameters is reformulated as an optimization problem for the application of GA. A
comparison between the proposed fuzzy logic and GA based controllers, in terms of three time
domain performance indices are presented. Copyright 2013 Praise Worthy Prize S.r.l. - All
rights reserved.

Keywords: Automatic Generation Control, Genetic Algorithm, Fuzzy Logic, Area Control Error

Nomenclature
AGC Automatic Generation Control
VSS Variable Structure System
FL Fuzzy Logic
GA Genetic Algorithm
CI Conventional Integral
FLC Fuzzy Logic Controller
VLSI Very large scale integration
AVR Automatic voltage regulator
PI Proportional and Integral controller
K
P
Proportional gain of the controller
K
I
Integral gain of the controller
ITAE Integral of Time multiplied Absolute Error
IAE Integral of the Absolute Error
ISE Integral of the Square Error
ACE Area Control Error
ACE Derivative of Area Control Error
I. Introduction
In power systems, load perturbations leads to
frequency fluctuations and inadvertent interchange of tie
line power. The desired operating frequency and
scheduled tie line power flow of an interconnected power
system is maintained through Automatic Generation
Control (AGC). The principal objectives of AGC in a
multi area interconnected power system are (i) matching
total system generation to total system load (ii)
regulating system electrical frequency error to zero (iii)
distributing system generation amongst control areas so
that net area tie flows match net area tie flow schedules
and (iv) distributing area generation amongst area
generation sources so that the area operating costs are
minimized, subjected to appropriate security and
environmental constraints [1].
In literature various methods have been proposed for
AGC in interconnected power systems. A number of
control strategies have been suggested based on the
conventional linear control theory [2]. Variable structure
system (VSS) control maintains stability of the system
frequency [3], [4]. However, these methods need some
information for system states, which are very tedious to
obtain completely. Conventional PI control schemes will
not reach a high performance [2]. Since the dynamics of
a power system even for a reduced mathematical model
is usually nonlinear, time-invariant and governed by
strong crosscouplings of the input variables, the
controllers have to be designed with special care.
Recently fuzzy logic (FL) based controllers have been
gaining increasing acceptance in power systems. Fuzzy
logic controller (FLC) techniques being not sensitive to
the variation of system structure, parameter and
operating points are found to be a good replacement for
conventional control techniques that require complex
mathematical models.
The simplicity of fuzzy logic enables the control
designers to realize a control in less development time at
lower development cost and with better performance.
Fuzzy control finds potential applications to various
power system problems [5]. Genetic algorithm (GA) is a
general purpose optimization technique which uses a
direct analogy of natural evolution where stronger would
likely be the winner in a competing environment [6].
Efficacy of GA as an optimization tool has already
been observed in many engineering problems such as
process control and VLSI design. Successful
implementations are also found in power system

Ismayil C., Sreerama Kumar R., Sindhu T. K.

Copyright 2013 Praise Worthy Prize S.r.l. - All rights reserved International Review on Modelling and Simulations, Vol. 6, N. 1
137
applications [7]-[9].
Number of researchers have been attempted to design
fuzzy counter part of conventional AGC. Fuzzy logic
gain scheduling of PI controller has been designed for
single area [10], two area [11]-[12] and four area [13]
interconnected power systems and the dynamic
performance of these systems is found to be improved.
According to J. Nanda et al. [14], the presence of
fuzzy logic controllers in both areas, and small step
perturbation in either area or in both areas
simultaneously provides better dynamic response than
with conventional integral controller. Mathur and
Manjunath [15] proposed a FLC for load frequency
control problem of electrical power system. The fuzzy
controller is constructed as a set of control rules and the
control signal is directly deduced from the knowledge
base and the fuzzy inference.
Recently, Praveen et al. [16] have proposed the
design, implementation and operation performance of
fuzzy controller as part of the combined loop of AGC
and AVR for single area power system and significant
improvement in the dynamic performance is noticed.
Ramesh and Krishnan [17] presented a method based on
fuzzy logic controllers (FLCs) for parallel AC-DC
interconnected non- reheat thermal power system. Engin
Yesil, et al. [18] presented a method based on fuzzy
logic controllers (FLCs) for AGC of power system
including three areas having two steam turbines and one
hydro turbine tied together through power lines. The
results obtained by using FLCs proposed in these papers
outperform conventional controllers.
This paper proposes application of fuzzy logic for
adjusting the gains of PI controller of AGC for
interconnected electrical power systems. Also, a
comparison of the proposed controller with GA based
controller in terms of three performance criterion, viz.
Integral of Time multiplied Absolute Error (ITAE),
Integral of the Absolute Error (IAE) and Integral of the
Square Error criterion (ISE), are presented. The rest of
this paper is organized as follows. In section II,
linearised two area power systems model of the AGC
and application of GA to the tuning of the PI controller
parameters are discussed. Section III, deals with
application of fuzzy logic to AGC. Simulations results
are presented in section IV, performance evaluation in
section V. Finally conclusion is drawn in section VI.
II. Problem Formulation
II.1. Linearized Two Area AGC System
An interconnected power system is divided into
control areas connected by a tie line. In each control
area, all generators are supposed to constitute a coherent
group. A linear model of a two area interconnected non-
reheat thermal power system with PI controller is shown
in Fig. 1 and its parameters are tabulated in Table I [19],
[12]. The controller parameters of this power system are
obtained through computational optimization technique
using GA as explained in the following section.
II.2. Genetic Algorithm Based AGC
In the GA based approach, the design criterion is
modified as an optimization problem where the objective
function comprises dynamic response specifications,
namely peak overshoot (
p
f ) and settling time (
s
t )
which mainly depends on controller constants.

1 H
G

PI

1 T
G

1
1
1 P
P
sT
K

1
1
R

1 B

2 H
G

PI

2 T
G

2
2
1 P
P
sT
K

2
1
R

s
2T

- 1

-
1
) (
1
s P
D

) ( 2 s PD
) (
2 1 s P
) (
2
s P
T

) (
21
s P

) ( 1 s PT
+

-
-
+

-

-

+
+
+
+

+

-
-
+

) ( 12 s P
) (
2
s P
ref

) (
2
s f

) (
1
s Pref

+

-
) (
1
s f

Governor
1

Governor
2

Turbine
1

Turbine
2

Load

Load

ACE
1

ACE
2

2
1
2 B

Fig. 1. Linear Model of a Two Area Power System

TABLE I
POWER SYSTEM PARAMETERS
Governor Time constant (Tg) 0.08s
Regulation constant R1 , R2 2.4
Tie-line coefficient T12 0.172
Power System constant Tp 20
Turbine Time constant Tt 0.3s
Frequency Bias Factor B1 ,B2 0.425
Power System Gain KP1 , KP2 120

For a given power system, the optimization problem
can be stated as follows:

p s
Min F f f ,t (1)

subject:
min max

where constraint represents the controller parameters
K
p
and K
I
.The major steps involved in the GA based
approach for the solution of this problem is as follows:

Step 1: Create a population of initial solutions of K
p

and K
I

This step primarily requires the population size and
the range of K
p
and K
I
. It is found that a population size
of 50-200 is an optimal one in most engineering
problems [20]. In the present problem, population size is
chosen to be 60. A chromosome length of 30 bits is
chosen for representing each solution of K
p
and K
I
i.e.,


138
the first 15 bits of chromosome represents K
p
and the
remaining 15 bits represent K
I.

Step 2: Obtain system dynamic response
The dynamic response parameters, namely peak
overshoot and settling time are computed for the entire
set of population from the transfer function model given
in Fig. 1.

Step 3: Define and evaluate the fitness function
After decoding the values of K
p
and K
I
from each
string, the suitability of the solution is evaluated for
reproduction. This is achieved by defining a proper
fitness function. The objective is to minimize the values
of the peak overshoot and the settling time. Taking these
factors into consideration, a fitness function is chosen
as:
( )
( ) ( )
100
1 1
P I
p s
F K , K
f t o |
=
+ A +
(2)

subject to:
Pmin P Pmax
K K K s s

I min I I max
K K K s s

where o and | are the weighting factors which are
assumed to be unity. Range of K
p
and K
I
are chosen
between (0 1) and (0 5) respectively, as obtained by
the conventional method. In order to limit the evaluation
value of each chromosome of the population within a
reasonable range, the Routh-Hurwitz criterion is
employed to verify the closed loop stability. If the fitness
function of the chromosome does not satisfy the test, it is
penalized with maximum positive constant.

Step 4: Perform Genetic Operations and produce off-
springs
The parent strings are selected for reproduction using
a combination of Roulette wheel selection and elitism
[6]. The cross over and mutation operations are
performed based on the probability of cross-over and
mutation and these values are selected as given in Table
II.

Step 5: Replace the current population with the new
population

Step 6: Repeat steps 2 to 4 till termination criterion is
reached
The GA parameters used in this implementation are
summarized in Table II.
III. Fuzzy Logic based AGC
As shown in Fig. 2, the proposed fuzzy logic based
AGC system consists of a two stage setup in which the
first stage consists of a FLC and the second a PI
controller. The FLC has two input signals, namely, ACE
and derivative of ACE (ACE). The output of the FLC
forms the input to the PI controller. Finally, the output
from the conventional PI controller referred to as the
control signal is used for controlling the interconnected
power system.

TABLE II
GENETIC ALGORITHM PARAMETERS
Population size 60
Chromosome length 30 bits
Number generations 100
Selection scheme Combination of roulette wheel and Elitism
Crossover operator Double point cross over
Crossover probability 0.7
Mutation probability 0.01
Termination criteria 100 generations

Fuzzy
Controller
K1
K1
KP
KI/s
ACE
ACE
+
+
Control
Signal

Fig. 2. Fuzzy logic controller for AGC

In the proposed method, the input variables ACE &
ACE and output variable KpKi are fuzzified into seven
triangular membership functions as shown in Fig. 3, 4
and 5 respectively, and represented by the linguistic
variables, viz., large negative(LN), medium negative
(MN), small negative (SN), zero (Z), small positive
(SP), medium positive (MP) and large positive (LP).
The range of variation of ACE, ACE and KpKi are
assumed to be (-0.017 to +0.017), ( -1 to +1) and (-1 to
+1) respectively.
The rule base developed for the FLC consists of 49
rules as summarized in Table III. In the Table, for
instance, ACE is SN and ACE is SP then output is Z.

X=ACE(I/P)
LN MN SN Z SP MP LP
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

Fig. 3. Membership function for FLC of ACE

X=ACE(I/P)
LN MN SN Z SP MP LP
-1 -0.65 -0.3 0 0.3 0.65 1

Fig. 4. Membership function for FLC of ACE


139

Fig. 5. Membership function for FL controller of KpKi

This rule anticipates that the desired operating point
will be reached soon and stabilization control is no
longer needed. Each of the 49 control rules represents a
desired controller response to a particular situation. The
controls are designed to be symmetric. In addition,
adjacent regions in the rule base allow only nearest
neighbor changes in the control output (LN to MN, MN
to SN and so on).
This ensures that small changes in error(ACE) and
derivative of error(ACE) results in only small changes
in output(KpKi).

TABLE III
FUZZY ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY FOR AGC
ACE
ACE
LN MN SN Z SP MP LP
LN LP LP LP MP MP SP Z
MN LP MP MP MP SP Z SN
SN LP MP SP SP Z SN MN
Z MP MP SP Z SN MN MN
SP MP SP Z SN SN MN LN
MP SP Z SN MN MN MN LN
LP Z SN MN MN LN LN LN
IV. Simulation Results
The effectiveness of the proposed GA and FL based
AGC are established through the simulation of the two
area power systems shown in Fig. 1 using Matlab/
Simulink and Fuzzy Logic Toolbox [21]. AGC with
conventional integral (CI) controller is also implemented
to compare the performance of the purposed methods.
Dynamic simulations are carried out to obtain peak
overshoots/undershoots, settling time on a 5% tolerance
band of the step change, for different load changing
conditions and results are presented.

CASE 1: Load Variation in Area-1 alone
The variation of frequency of Area-1 (f
1
) and Area-2
(f
2
), and the tie line power flow (Ptie
12
) for a load
change of 0.1 p. u. MW in Area-1 alone are shown in
Fig. 6, Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 respectively. It can be observed
from Fig. 6 that, the maximum undershoot of CI
controller is (-0.2623 p. u. Hz) and that of GA and FL
based controllers are almost the same and is given by
(0.256 p. u. Hz).
The steady state error in frequency deviation of Area-
1 is minimized to zero within a settling time of 25.86 s,
12.92 s and 9.64 s for the CI, GA and FL controllers
respectively.
A similar observation is seen in the case of change in
frequency deviation of Area-2 also as depicted in Fig. 7,
with a maximum undershoot of -0.107 p. u. Hz for CI
and with a maximum equal undershoot of -0.102
p. u. Hz for GA and FL controllers.
The corresponding settling times are of 29.78 s, 18.01
s and 10.23 s for the CI, GA and FL controllers
respectively. The difference in peak undershoot f
1
and

f
2
indicates that the frequency of the concerned area is
affected more than the others in the transient period.
As shown in Fig. 8, in tie-line power deviation also, a
significant reduction in undershoot from -0.0374 p. u.
MW of CI controller to -0.0349 p. u. MW of GA
controller is observed and the value of undershoot
reaches to -0.0339 p. u MW for the FLC. Also, a faster
settling time in the case of the FLC of 9.0 s is noticed
compared to the GA based controller with 15.01 s and
CI controller with 25.23 s.

CASE 2: Load Variation in Area- 2 alone
The variation of frequency of Area- 1 (f
1
) and Area-
2 (f
2
12
) for a load
change of 0.2 p. u. MW in Area-2 alone are shown in
Fig. 9, Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 respectively.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
Time in s.
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

d
e
v
ia
t
io
n

o
f

A
r
e
a
-
1

i
n

p
.
u
.

H
z

CI
GA
FL

Fig. 6. Dynamic response of change in frequency (f1) following
step load change of 0.1 p. u. MW in Area- 1

It can be observed from Fig. 9 that, the maximum
undershoot of CI controller is given by ( 0.214 p. u. Hz)
and that of GA and FL based controllers are almost the
same and is given by (-0.2042 p. u. Hz).
The steady state error in frequency deviation of Area-
1 is minimized to zero within a settling time of 33.13 s,
20.23 s and 11.99 s for the CI, GA and FL based
controllers respectively.
A similar observation is seen in the case of change in
frequency deviation of Area- 2 also as depicted in Fig.
10, with a maximum undershoot of -0.5241 p. u. Hz for
CI controller and equal undershoots of 0.5142 p. u Hz
each for GA and FL based controllers.


140
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.12
-0.1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
Time in s.
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

d
e
v
ia
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
r
e
a
-
2

i
n

p
.
u
.

H
z

CI
GA
FL

step load change of 0.1 p. u. MW in AREA- 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.04
-0.035
-0.03
-0.025
-0.02
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
Time in s.
T
ie

l
in
e

P
o
w
e
r

in

p
.
u
.

M
W

CI
GA
FL

Fig. 8. Dynamic response of tie-line power flow (Ptie12) following

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
Time in s.
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

d
e
v
ia
t
io
n

o
f

A
r
e
a
-
1

i
n

p
.
u
.

H
z

CI
GA
FL


The corresponding settling times are 30.49 s, 14.70 s
and 11.15 s for the CI, GA and FL based controllers
respectively. The difference in peak undershoots of f
1
and

f
2
indicates that the frequency of the concerned
area is affected more than the others in the transient
period.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
Time in s.
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

d
e
v
ia
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
r
e
a
-
2

in

p
.
u
.

H
z

CI
GA
FL

Fig. 10. Dynamic response of change in frequency (f2)
following step load change of 0.2 p. u. MW in AREA- 2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
Time in s.
T
ie

l
in
e

P
o
w
e
r

in

p
.
u
.

M
W

CI
GA
FL

Fig. 11. Dynamic response of tie-line power flow (Ptie12)
following step load change of 0.2 p. u. MW in Area- 2

It is also inferred that amount of deviation is
proportional to the amount of step load change. As
shown in Fig. 11, in tie-line power deviation also a
significant reduction in overshoot from +0.0749 p. u.
MW of CI controller to +0.07007 p. u. MW of GA
controllers and the value of overshoot reduces to +0.068
p. u. MW for the FLC. Also, a faster settling time in the
case of the FLC of 10.46 s is noticed compared to the
GA based controller with 17.31 s and CI based
controller with 29.09 s.

CASE 3: Load Variation in Area- 1 and Area- 2
1
) and Area-
2 (f
2
12
) for a
simultaneous load change of 0. 1 p. u. MW in Area-1
and 0. 2 p. u. MW Area-2 are shown in Fig. 12, Fig. 13
and Fig. 14 respectively. As depicted in Fig. 12, in the
case of frequency deviation of Area- 1, a slight
improvement in the maximum undershoot of FLC (-
0.329 p. u. Hz) than GA controller (-0.335 p. u. Hz) and
CI controller (-0.3501) are observed. Also a significant
improvement in settling time of FLC (10.37 s) than GA


141
controller (21.01 s) and CI controller (34.93 s) are
noticed.
As shown in Fig. 12, the maximum undershoot of the
change in frequency deviation of Area- 2 is found to be -
0.557 p. u. Hz, -0.542 p. u. Hz and 0.540 p. u. Hz for
CI, GA and FL controllers respectively.
The corresponding values of settling times are 32.97
s, 18.68 s and 9.35 s and indicates 50% and 72%
improvement of FLC over GA and CI controllers
respectively.
As shown in Fig. 14, the tie line power deviation also
shows a marginal reduction in overshoot from +0.0374
p. u. MW of CI controller to +0.0345 p. u MW of GA
controller with a further reduction of overshoot to
+0.0341 p. u. MW of FLC. Also, a faster settling time
of 8.89 s in the case of the FLC is observed compared to
15.42 s of the GA based controller and 24.86 s of CI
controller.

CASE 4: Random Load variation
The frequency control effects of CI, GA and FL based
AGC are evaluated under different random step load
variations that are applied to both areas as indicated in
Figs. 15.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.4
-0.35
-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
Time in s.
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

d
e
v
ia
t
io
n

o
f

A
r
e
a
-
1

i
n

p
.
u
.

H
z

CI
GA
FL

Fig. 12. Dynamic response of change in frequency (f1) following step
load change of 0.1 p. u. MW in Area-1 and of 0.2 p. u. MW in Area-2

1
) and Area-
2 (f
2
12
) for these
simultaneous random load variations are shown in Fig.
16, Fig. 17 and Fig. 18 respectively. The dynamic
performance characteristics of the FL based controller
viz., frequency deviations of Area- 1 and Area-2 and the
tie-line power shows better tracking in comparison with
the GA and CI Controller.
V. Performance Evaluation
V.1. Based on Settling Time
The settling time of the dynamic responses viz., the
variation of frequency of Area- 1 (f
1
) and Area- 2 (f
2
),
and the tie line power flow (Ptie
12
) of a two area power
systems is evaluated on a 5% tolerance band. For
instance, the variation of frequency of Area-2 after a
load change of 0.1 p. u. MW in Area -1 is shown in a
larger scale in Fig. 19 and illustrates the calculation of
settling time. From this figure, it is seen that the settling
times are 10.2 s, 18.0 s and 29.2 s for FL, GA and CI
based AGC respectively.
In a similar manner, settling time for all the three
dynamic responses viz., f
1
, f
2
and Ptie
12
under
various step load changing conditions (CASE 1 to 3) are
evaluated. A comparison of the controllers in terms of
settling time is shown in Fig. 20.
From these observations, it can be inferred that in all
the nine cases, both the proposed controllers show
significant reduction in settling time compared to CI
controller. FLCs settling time is slightly lower than that
of the GA controllers.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
Time in s.
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

d
e
v
ia
t
io
n

o
f

A
r
e
a
-
2

in

p
.
u
.

H
z

CI
GA
FL

Fig. 13. Dynamic response of change in frequency (f2) following step

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
Time in s.
T
i
e

lin
e

P
o
w
e
r

in

p
.
u
.

M
W

CI
GA
FL

Fig. 14. Dynamic response of tie-line power flow (Ptie12) following step
V.2. Based on Error Indices
The effectiveness of the controllers is also compared
on the basis of the following error indices [22], [23]:


142
The Integral of Time multiplied Absolute Error
given by:

0
ITAE e t t dt
(3)

The Integral of the Absolute Error given by:

0 0
IAE r t y t dt e t dt

(4)

The Integral of the Square Error criterion given by:

2
0
ISE e t dt
(5)

where e(t) represents the area control error (ACE).
For all the scenarios at various operating conditions,
the three performance indices are calculated and
presented in Table IV.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
Time in sec.
P
d
1

i
n

p
.
u
.
M
W

(a) Area- 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
P
d
2

i
n

p
.
u
.

M
W

(b) Area- 2

Figs. 15. Random step load change in Area-s 1 and 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Time in s.
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

d
e
v
i
a
t
io
n

o
f

A
r
e
a
-
1

in

p
.
u
.

H
z

CI
GA
FL

Fig. 16. Time response of frequency deviation of Area-1
under random load change

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Time in s.
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

d
e
v
ia
t
io
n

o
f

A
r
e
a
-
2

i
n

p
.
u
.

H
z

CI
GA
FL

Fig. 17. Time response of frequency deviation of Area-2
under random load change

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Time in s.
T
ie

l
in
e

P
o
w
e
r

in

p
.
u
.

M
W

CI
GA
FL

Fig. 18. Time response of tie-line power flow under random load change

In Table IV, column (3) shows ITAE evaluated using
Eq. (3) for the controllers in Area-1 and Area-2 of CI,
GA and FL based AGC under various load changing
conditions (CASE 1 to 3). Column (4) shows the
corresponding values of the IAE evaluated using Eq. (4)


143
and column (5) shows the corresponding values of ISE
evaluated using Eq. (5).
From the Table IV, it can be seen that ITAE of the FL
based AGC is lower than GA based and CI based AGC.
For instance, in Case 1, ITAE of the FLC is 0.3297
which is less than the corresponding values 1.018 of GA
controller-1 and 2.835 of CI controller-1. The error
index IAE of the FLC is found to be lower than the
corresponding IAE of the GA and CI controllers except
in Case 2. For instance, this index value is obtained as
0.5538, 0.3333 and 0.2094 for CI, GA and FL based
controllers in Area-1 due to a step load change of 0.1
p. u. MW. Furthermore, ISE of the FL based AGC is
also lower than GA based and CI based AGC in case
where this error index is higher than 0.01.

0 5 8 10.2 15 18 20 25 29.8 29.8
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
2
x 10
-3
Time in s.
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
r
e
a
-
2

in

p
.
u
.

H
z
5 % Tolerance band

CI
GA
FL

Fig. 19. The frequency deviation of the Area-2
with zoomed settling period

Fig. 20. Comparison of the controllers I terms of settling time

For instance, in case 2, the ISE of the controller-2 is
obtained as 0.1283, 0.08288 and 0.06476 for CI, GA
and FL controllers respectively.
In view of all these facts, it can be summarised that:
The value of the settling time of the FLC is least and
settling time of GA controller is lower than CI
controller.
The values of the three performance indices of FLC
are least.
The amount of maximum undershoot or overshoot of
the FLC and GA controllers are almost equal and
comparatively less than the CI controller
The robustness of the FLC against random load
variations is found to be better than that of the GA
and CI controllers

TABLE IV
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PERFORMANCE INDEX ITAE, IAE AND ISE
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Case 1: Following step load change of 0.1 p. u. MW in Area- 1
Controller ITAE IAE ISE
CI
Controllers
(1) 2.8350 0.5538 0.03207
(2) 0.0360 0.0166 8.62 x10
-5

GA
Controllers
(1) 1.018 0.3333 0.02710
(2) 0.0400 0.0184 0.00010
Fuzzy
Controllers
(1) 0.3297 0.2094 0.01160
(2) 0.0628 0.0245 0.00016

Case 2: Following step load change of 0.2 p. u. MW in Area- 2
CI
Controllers
(1) 0.07237 0.03341 0.00035
(2) 5.676 1.108 0.12830
GA
Controllers
(1) 0.08064 0.03715 0.00041
(2) 2.037 0.6666 0.08288
Fuzzy
Controllers
(1) 0.1225 0.04892 0.00063
(2) 0.7133 0.4305 0.06476

Case 3: Following step load change of 0.1 p. u. MW in Area- 1 and 0.2 p.
u. MW in Area- 2
CI
Controllers
(1) 2.8400 0.5537 0.0315
(2) 5.6740 1.1070 0.1273
GA
Controllers
(1) 1.0220 0.3330 0.0201
(2) 2.0450 0.6666 0.0818
Fuzzy
Controllers
(1) 0.3334 0.2092 0.0153
(2) 0.7157 0.4305 0.0636
VI. Conclusion
In this paper, two artificial intelligent techniques,
genetic algorithm and fuzzy logic have been applied for
the development of automatic generation control of a
two area thermal power system. Performance of these
controllers have been compared with the conventional
integral controller based on settling time, maximum
overshoot/ undershoot of the dynamic response and three
error indices, viz., ITAE, ISE and IAE. According to
the simulation results and performance evaluation, the
proposed methods are capable to guarantee the robust
performance under various load changing conditions
and hence verify the validity of the proposed schemes.
FLC performs significantly better than the GA controller
in settling time with less than or equal in maximum
overshoot and in terms of the error indices.
Performance comparison of the proposed controllers for
AGC in deregulated systems is under progress.
References
[1] Nasser Jaleeli, L. S. VanSlyck, D. N. Ewart, L. H. Fink and A. G.


144
Hoffmann, Understanding automatic generation control, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 1106-1122,
Aug. 1992.
[2] O. P. Malik, A. Kumar and G. S. Hope, A Load Frequency Control
Algorithm Based on a Generalized Approach, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems,Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.375-382, May 1988.
[3] Ashok Kumar, O. P. Malik and G.S Hope, Variable Structure-
System Control Applied to AGC of an Interconnected Power
System, Generation, Transmission and Distribution, IEE
Proceedings C, Vol. 132, No.1, pp. 23-29, Jan. 1985.
[4] N. N. Bengiamin and W. C. Chan Variable Structure Control of
Electric Power Generation, IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-101, No. 2, pp. 376-380, Feb.
1982.
[5] M. E. El-Hawary, Electric Power Applications of Fuzzy Systems,
IEEE Press, New York, 1998.
[6] David E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization &
Machine Learning, Pearson Education, Edition 2003.
[7] C. Srinivasa Rao, Siva S. Nagaraju, P. Sangameswara Raju, A
modified genetic approach to hydrothermal system with thyristor
controlled phase shifter under open market system, (2007)
International Review of Electrical Engineering (IREE), 2 (1),
pp. 507-514.
[8] Faisal A. Mohamed, Heikki N. Koivo, Multi objective genetic
algorithms for online management problem of microgrid, (2008)
International Review of Electrical Engineering (IREE), 3 (1),
pp. 46-54.
[9] Saeed Jazebi, Sahar Jazebi, Masoud Rashidinejad, Application of a
Novel Real Genetic Algorithm to Accelerate the Distribution
Network Reconfiguration, (2009) International Review of
Electrical Engineering (IREE), 4 (1), pp. 114-121.
[10] M. Masiala, M. Ghribi and A. Kaddouri An Adaptive Fuzzy
Controller Gain Scheduling for Power System Load Frequency
Control, IEEE International Conference on industrial
Technology (IEEE ICIT 04), Vol.3, pp. 1515-1520,
8-10 Dec. 2004.
[11] Ertugrul Cam and Ilhan Kocaarslan, A Fuzzy Gain Scheduling PI
Controller Application for an Interconnected Electrical Power
System, Electric Power Systems Research, Vol. 73, Issue 3,
pp. 267-274, Mar. 2005.
[12] Ertugrul Cam and Ilhan Kocaarslan Load Frequency Control in
Two Area Power Systems Using Fuzzy Logic Controller, Energy
conversion and Management, Vol. 46, Issue 2,
pp. 233-243, Jan. 2005.
[13] Chang C.S and Weihui Fu, Area Load Frequency Control Using
Fuzzy Gain Scheduling of PI controllers, Electric Power Systems
Research, Vol. 42, Issue 2, pp. 145-52, Aug. 1997.
[14] J. Nanda and A. Mangla, Automatic Generation Control of an
Interconnected Hydro-Thermal System Using Conventional Integral
and Fuzzy Logic Controller, International Conference on
Electrical Utility, Deregulation, Restructuring, And Power
Technologies (DRPT), pp. 372-377, Apr. 2004.
[15] H. D. Mathur and H. V. Manjunath Frequency stabilization using
fuzzy logic based controller for multi-area power system , The
South Pacific Journal of Natural Science, pp. 22-30, Apr. 2007.
[16] Parveen Dabur, Naresh Kumar Yadav and Ram Avtar, Matlab
Design and Simulation of AGC and AVR For Single Area Power
System with Fuzzy Logic Control, International Journal of Soft
Computing and Engineering (IJSCE), Vol. 1, Issue 6, pp. 44-49,
Jan. 2012.
[17] Ramesh, S., Krishnan, A., Fuzzy logic based frequency stabilization
in a parallel AC - DC multi area non reheat thermal power systems,
(2010) International Review on Modelling and Simulations
(IREMOS), 3 (4), pp. 590-597.
[18] Engin Yesil, Aysen Demiroren, Erkin Yesil Automatic generation
control with fuzzy logic controller in the power system including
three areas- http://www.emo.org.tr/ekler/71f0311e2754fcd_ek.pdf.
[19] O. I. Elgerd, Electric Energy Systems Theory: An Introduction,
McGraw Hill, New York, 1982.
[20] Jan Roupec Advanced Genetic Algorithms for Engineering Design
Problems, Engineering MECHANICS, Vol. 17, No. 5/6, pp. 407-
417, 2010.
[21] Fuzzy Logic Toolbox users Guide, Version 2, The MathWorks,
Inc.
[22] I. J. Nagrath and M. Gopal, Control Systems Engineering, Fifth
Edition, New Age International Publishers.
[23] Sakhavati, A., Gharehpetian, G.B., Hosseini, S.H., QFT-based load
frequency controller design with GA-based optimized bias
coefficients, (2010) International Review of Electrical Engineering
(IREE), 5 (3), pp. 1127-1137.
Authors information
1
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
Calicut, Kerala-673601, India.

2
Vice-Presidency for Projects, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah,
P.O.Box: 80200, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia.

3
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
Calicut, Kerala-673601, India.

Ismayil C. received his B. Tech from Regional
Engineering College, Calicut, Kerala, India and
M. Tech. degree from National Institute of
Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India in 2006.
Currently, he is working as Assistant Professor of
Electrical & Electronics Engineering at Govt.
Engineering College, Thrissur, Kerala, India. His
research interests include the field of Power
System Operations and Control, Soft Computing Techniques. He is
student member of IEEE.
E-mail: ismayilc@gmail.com

R. Sreerama Kumar is working as Professor
(DSM & EE Chair) in King Abdulaziz University,
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He did his B. Tech from
NSS College of Engineering Palakkad, Kerala,
India, M. Tech from Indian Institute of
Technology Madras and Ph.D. from Indian
Institute of Science Bangalore, India. Dr.
Sreerama Kumar is the recipient of the prestigious
national award, constituted by the Indian Society for Technical Education
(ISTE), for Promising Engineering Teacher for the year 2003 for creative
work done in technical education and the ISTE national award for the best
engineering college Teacher of Kerala state in 2008. He is Fellow of the
Institution of Engineers (India) and Senior Member of IEEE. He has
authored five books, and has more than 80 technical publications in
reputed journals and conferences. His current fields of interest include
power system security,dynamics and control, demand side management
and smart grid.
E-mail: sreeram@nitc.ac.in

Sindhu T. K. has received both her B.Tech and
M. Tech degree in Electrical and Electronics
Engineering from Calicut University in the years
1996 and 2000 respectively. Her PhD degree is in
the year 2008 from IIT Madras and currently she
is working with National Institute of Technology
Calicut, Kerala, India. Her research interests
include power system stability, nanotechnology
applications in power system and electromagnetic interference in power
system. Dr. Sindhu T.K. is the recipient of young engineers award from
Institution of Engineers (India) for the year 2008. She is a member of
IEEE.
E-mail: tk_sindhu@nitc.ac.in

Comparative Analysis of Genetic Algorithm and Fuzzy Logic Based Automatic Generation Control of Multi Area Power Systems

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Comparative Analysis of Genetic Algorithm and Fuzzy Logic Based Automatic Generation Control of Multi Area Power Systems

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

International Review on Modelling and Simulations (I.RE.MO.S.), Vol. 6, N.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai