You are on page 1of 6

Voltage Control Scheme Using Fuzzy Logic

for Residential Area Networks with PV
Generators in Saudi Arabia
R. A. Shalwala, Student Member, IEEE, and J. A. M. Bleijs, Member, IEEE

Abstract--One of the most important operational requirements
for any electrical power network for both distribution and
transmission level is voltage control. Many studies have been
carried out to improve or develop new voltage control techniques
to facilitate safe connection of distributed generation. In Saudi
Arabia, due to environmental, economical and development
perspectives a wide integration of photovoltaic (PV) generation in
distribution network is expected in the near future. This
development in the network may cause voltage regulation
problems due to the interface with the existing conventional
control system. Therefore, a new control system with PVs should
be developed. This paper introduces a new voltage control
scheme for residential area networks in Saudi Arabia based on
Fuzzy Logic concept (FL). The structure of two implementations
of FL controller to regulate the voltage by setting the on-load tap
changing transformer is proposed. In order to confirm the
validity of the proposed methods, simulations are carried out for
a realistic distribution network with real data for load and solar
radiation. Results showing the performance of each
implementation are presented and discussed.
Index Terms-- Distribution System, ETAP, Fuzzy logic
controller, Grid Connected, MATLAB, Photovoltaic Systems,
Saudi Arabia, Solar radiation, Voltage control

I. INTRODUCTION
raditionally, the distribution network of the power system
is a passive network with a radial configuration.
Electricity flows one way from a substation to a large
distribution network. During normal operation or planning
period, a steady-state analysis of voltage regulation, system
losses, protection coordination, power quality, and system
reliability must be performed to ensure proper operation
within appropriate operating voltage range. Each utility has its
own operation and planning criteria depending on distribution
system characteristics and design criteria.
Currently, in Saudi Arabia, the exploitation of solar energy
as an alternative source of electric power is being considered
because of the abundant amount of irradiation and long hours
of sunshine. One way to achieve this is by using GridConnected
Photovoltaic systems (GCPV) on domestic dwellings directly
connected to the distribution network. This means that in the

T

This work was supported by the Ministry of High Education In Saudi
Arabia under Grant U208. The support of the Saudi Cultural Bureau in
London for sponsoring the fact-finding trip to Saudi Arabia to obtain the
required data is gratefully acknowledged.
R. A. Shalwala is with the Department of Engineering, University of
Leicester, Leicester, UK (e-mail: rs234@leicester.ac.uk).
J. A. M. Bleijs is with the Department of Engineering, University of
Leicester, Leicester, UK (e-mail: jamb1@leicester.ac.uk)

©2010 IEEE

future the system performance will be affected by PV
generators. According to [1-3] distributed generation has both
advantages and disadvantages for the system.
In this paper two implementations of fuzzy logic technique
have been used to maintain the voltage in a residential area
network with high penetration of PV generators in Saudi
Arabia. The ETAP simulation package has been used for
power flow calculation and the MATLAB software package
has been used to design the fuzzy logic controller.
II. POWER FLOW CALCULATIONS
Generally, distribution utilities deliver electric energy to
their customers within an appropriate voltage range to meet
customer requirements. For a radial configuration the bus
voltage, voltage drop, power flow, and power loss can be
calculated by using a simplified model such as the two-bus
system as shown in Fig. 1 [4].
| |

1/

|

|

Bus#1

| |
12

Bus#2

Fig. 1. Model of a two-bus distribution system.
The model consists of a short distance line represented by a
series connection of resistance (R) and inductive reactance
(X). In this case, real and reactive power (
transfer
between bus #1 and bus #2 is described by (1) and (2).

Where:

cos

cos

(1)

sin

sin

(2)

is the voltage angle at bus #1
is the voltage angle at bus #2
is the admittance angle

Power loss between bus #1 and bus #2 is given by eq.(3):
(3)

| |

In addition, the voltage at bus #2 and the voltage drop
between theses buses can be calculated in terms of the voltage
at bus #1 by using (4) and (5), respectively.
(4)

(5)

In a typical distribution system there are many scenarios to
be considered, and to handle calculation in a large system,
power system simulation software is required. In this paper,
the power systems simulation package ETAP is used for
evaluating of steady-state performance under different load
and PV generation conditions.

Each branch includes a number of secondary substations (labeled as I1.1344 I7 I8 648 0.128+j0..Extreme load (based on the maximum capacity of customer circuit breaker) 2. R1.1344 I3 I4 153 0. RSF04. connecting to a customer feeder through another stepdown11/0.. The following conditions of each consumer load in the network will be considered in this research: 1. Average Daily load for a residential Area Jan 100..128+j0.1344 I1 I2 15 0.. Test residential network with 3 branches There are 6 load nodes tapped off from each feeder.1344 I8 I9 255 0. their behavior during steady state is similar to that of a Synchronous Generator (SG) with unity power factor. So.0 Jun 50.0 May 60. 2.. 2).85.Normal load (Annual Average load) 4. Fig. 3. PV Generators PV generators are connected to the grid through powerelectronic inverters.2). The current generation of PV inverters operate at unity power factor. The distribution network starts from the Station bus at 110 kV.and S9). Therefore. From Bus To Bus Lenghth (m) Impedance (Ω/km) ISK11 I1 1875 0. 3 shows the average daily load profile for this area during each month. Since this study is concentrating on the effect of GCPV on the voltage regulation in the network under normal operation (no faults).Light load (30% of peak load) B.128+j0.0 Average Load Aug 40.. a SG with unity power factor is used in ETAP to represent the PV generator. A.0 90.1344 I4 I5 513 0.0 Peak Load Feb Mar Laod (MW) 80.0 10.5% of nominal voltages).TABLE I III. Since in this research Building Integrating photovoltaic (BIPV) system will be used to address the effect of such . This area includes 5000 residential properties.128+j0. Each branch is equipped with on-load tap changing transformer (LTCT) that has the ability of changing the voltage level of the branch at the main substation bus in small steps (0. SYSTEM MODELING LINE PARAMETERS OF ISK11 The following model of a real distribution network in a residential area will be used as a base case in this paper (Fig.S1. Load Conditions Real load data for the selected residential area has been collected from the Saudi Electricity Company in the Western Region (SEC-WR) who has also provided details of the transformers and lines of the network. The minimum load is equal to about 30% of summer peak load. I2.1344 Fig.1344 I6 I7 132 0. through a step-down 110/11 kV power transformer at each primary substation (ISK11. this reduces the power factor (PF) of the total load to approximately 0.R7.38 kV transformer (see detail in Fig.0 Jul Nov Dec Light Load 0.0 Oct 20.0 Sep 30. This type of load can reach 65 per cent of the total load during summer and since the AC systems are motor-driven.I9. The line parameters of this branch are shown in Table I. and ISK10) connecting to 3 branches.128+j0.128+j0. Average daily load of a residential area. A considerable part of the load is due to air conditioning (A/C) systems and in general the load reaches its maximum between noon and 16:00 h in summer.. The main branches can be interconnected through normally-open circuit breakers in the case of outage of one of the 110/11 kV transformers.128+j0.1344 I2 I3 327 0.128+j0. the longest branch which is ISK11 will be the most sensitive because it will have the largest variations for the different load and irradiation scenarios.0 Apr 70. adjusted by the automatic voltage controller (AVC). Based on this information a detailed model of the distribution network has been created in ETAP.Peak load (Maximum Summer load) 3.1344 I5 I6 396 0.128+j0.0 Average 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Time (hour) Fig.

coordination between PVs and the LTCT larger penetration and better voltage control.system on voltage regulation. Monthly average solar radiation. nventional voltage control It can be concluded that the con technique cannot properly adjust th he voltage level of feeders with various PVs connected to them m. 4. However. The simulations show that both best b and preferred position for all scenarios improve the voltag ge level and keep it within the allowable limits for all customerss in the branch. Table T II shows the results for all scenarios. and the PV power factor. It has been assumed that t the PVs are connected to each node in the system with equal power. However. consider one of the worse scenarios at light load and a maximum PV. which is no longer a good indication of the feeder status. The current flowing from the LTCT will be very low. 5 shows the voltage profile of each feeeder in this case. 6. So. The solar radiation data for this study hhas been obtained from King Abdul-Aziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) which has 40 stations around the ccountry recording the solar radiation every 5 minutes. are carrying the most of the branch lo oad.5%. a 90% efficiency of the inverter is considered in designing the PV ggenerator in order to increase the penetration level. a new technique must be developed to facilitate the L for safe integration. Average daily Solar Radiation Jan Max Radiation Voltage profile ( Light load. and Fig.0%. This will w increase the life time for the tap changer and reduce the disturbances d in the system due to changing the LTC setting. this method assumes that the poweer is unidirectional from the main substation bus (where the AVR is located) flowing to the end of the branch. In this study. PV status and combinations.0% to +5. The worse cases are shown in Fiig.No PV IV. The averaage available roof area for PV installation on houses in a residenntial area is about 100m . since it depends mainly on measuring the branch current att the main substation end. This creates an unpredictable and un ncontrolled situation where the voltage level of all nodes migh ht or might not be within acceptable limits. Therefore.Minimum midday PV = 14.Voltage profile of all feeders co onnected to ISK11 branch. and if the PVs connected to feeders are carrying most or alll the branch load. in order to reduce the number of tap ch hanging operations the best results are rounded to the nearestt preferred position of (5.0%.4 kW to 36 kW. This figure comes from about 29 different designs of residential houses in Saudi Arabia. the range of power that can be generated using concentrating PV system between 9:00 to 15:00 for each single house is between 14.-2. the followiing conditions for PV will be considered in this research: 1. The AVR will therefore assume that the branch load is at thee minimum level. the system hass been simulated for all possible scenarios of load con nditions. 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 Upper limit 1 2 Lower Limit 3 4 5 6 Customer Nodes Fig. hence it will adjust its voltage level to 1.Max PV = 36 kW 2. IMPACT OF PV ON PRESENT VOLTAG GE CONTROL At each branch of Fig. SCENARIOS AND ASSUMPTION In order to proof that the adjusttment of the LTC only is sufficient to keep the voltage level along a the branch within the permissible level. concentrating PV modules (CPV) with 40% efficiency has been assumed. to make the scenarios more realistic a further 3 random conditions of the load feeders are also considered. 5. together with the preferred position of tap chaanger. then the voltage profile along the feeders deepends mainly on Voltage % of Nominal Solar Radiation(W/m^2) 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 the PVs’ location.5%. Also. power generated. Max x PV&0% tap) Feb Mar Apr Minimum Midday Radiation May Jun Jul Aug No Radiation Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Dec Time (hour) Fig 4. 2. To illustrate such a problem. The standard deviation for all vo oltage nodes in the system from the nominal is used to determine the best possible position of LTC (-5.+2. The montthly average solar radiation that was recorded at Jeddah meteorology station for year 2002 is shown in Fig.0 00 p. 7. 2 the voltage leveel is regulated by the AVR. (0% Tap). The preseence of GCPV on feeders makes the power flow bi-directionaal. Also. 4 shows clearly the large amount oof solar radiation between 9:00 to 15:00 throughout the yeaar with minimum value of 400 W/m^2 and maximum valuee of about 1000 W/m^2. Jedddah 2002.u. The output power of the PV generator which will be delivered to the customer or the network can be estimated as: (6) Based on the previous information and bby using (6). which estimates the voltage drop oover the branch by measuring the branch current at the mainn substation end. However.0% in n 0.5% steps). A V.+5%). In this case the PVs. Fig. Fig. connected to feeders along a ISK11 in Fig.4 kW 3. the load is assumed to be same for all houses. . the available roof area of the selected buildings must be known.

7. This control system is simulated in MATLAB software.5% -2.10.5% 0. an nd simpler [6]. 9.71 -22.31 +00. and the ability y to explicitly set the tradeoff between energy costs and inteerior environment.5% Average Voltage +5.5% 0.0% -2. Therefore. Very V High (VH).5% -2. 8 shows the straight forward application of fuzzy logic controller based on the numerical solution for the preferred tap changer position at each scenario. No PV & +5% tap) 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 Voltage % of Nominal Max I1 Fuzzy Logic Control (FLC) offers an alternative to conventional controllers when theree is no available accurate model of the system to be controlled d.5% R3LAPV Random3 Min 99.0% XLAPV Extreme Min 96.94 -44.0% R2LMPV Random2 Max 101.32 +33. 8.0% +2. closer adherence to set point conditions if desired. By suitable selection of input-output linguistic variables and a rule base. Possible features might include user-specified d overall control 'tightness' analogous to a control range.0% -2. All customers voltages BEST & PREFERRED POSITION OF TAP CHANGER FOR R ALL SCENARIOS Average Scenario Load PV B Best Preferred V(p. 6.5% 0. Low (L) and Very Low (VL) as shown in Fig.0% R3LMPV Random3 101.51 +33. Just as fuzzy logic caan be described simply as "computing with words rather than n numbers" fuzzy control can be described simply as "control with sentences rather than equations".48 +22.0% ALMPV Average Max 102. thus making them more robust.TABLE II VI.5% +2.) Centralized system +5.35 -44.0% R1LNPN Random1 No 97. Max PV & -5%tap) 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 Upper limit Lower Limit 1 2 3 4 5 6 Customer Nodes Fig.0% +2. in contrast to o mathematical models or other expert systems.u. 1st Implementatiion of FLC 1) The membership of input and output o signals: Input: Average voltage (AvgV) of alll customers in the branch.56 +00.33 +00.0% R1LMPV Random1 Max 102.0% PLAPV Peak Min 98.5% Avr V Fuzzy Logic Controller Tap position 0. High (H).5% +2. .5% ALAPV Average Min 100.0% -2. and one output.43 -11. The T controller consists of one input. Fuzzy logic controllers consist of a set of o linguistic control rules based on fuzzy implications and th he rules of inference.91 +11.5% 0.0% +2.0% LLAPV Light Min 101. 1st Implementation of FLC Fig.5% +5.5% LLMPV Light Max 103.0% 0. more compact. Low (L) and Very low (VL) as shown in Fig. with approximate terms and values. Voltage profile of XLNPV scenario with prefferred position of tap ( Light load.5% R2LAPV Random2 Min 98. FUZZY LOGIC CONTROL ALNPV Average No 98.33 +22.0% NLMPV No Max 104.19 +22. Normal (N). Very High (VH). a broad range of desirable control outcomes caan be achieved.5% +2. they conv vert the linguistic control strategy based on expert knowledgee into an automatic control strategy [5].5% PLMPV Peak Max 101.0% 0.58 -11.0% +5.39 +55. Normal (N).07 -22.5% ( Extreme load.0% +2.12 00.0% PLNPV Peak No 96.0% 0.5% R2LNPV Random2 No 96.04 -11.5% R1LAPV Random1 Min 99.5% XLMPV Extreme Max 99.5% R3LNPV Random3 No 97.0% -5.5% XLNPV Extreme No 94.5% -2. fuzzy logiic controllers allow the representation of imprecise human n knowledge in a logical way.92 +33. the preferred tap changer setting. Input membership function for 1st implementation of FLC Output: Tap changer setting (TC). the average customer vo oltage. By providing an algorithm. Voltage profile of LLMPV scenario with preferrred position of tap Input variable “Avg gV” Fig. v rather than forcing the use of precise statements and exact e values.44 +00.9.95 -22.0% LLNPV Light No 99. Upper limit Lower Limit Voltage % of Nominal Customer Nodes Fig.34 +22. High (H).5% -5.0% I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fig.

11 shows the difference between the numerically calculated and proposed FLC setting for the ttap changer.0% R1LNPN 1122 691 +2.5% P @ ISK11 Q @ ISK11 Fuzzy Logic Controller Tap position 0.0% PLNPV 1619 1004 +5.0% R2LMPV -2899 927 -2. Table IV shows the measurements of active power (P) and reacttive power (Q) at ISK11.5% LLMPV -3946 315 -5.13. Input membership function 1 forr 2nd implementation of FLC Input2: Active power (P) @ ISK11. average load→ medium Q (ML) and light load→ light Q (LL) as shown in n Fig. It is quite clear that there is a poositive correlation between the load of the branch and the reactiive power flow at ISK11. 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% -1% -2% -3% -4% -5% Numerical Fuzzy 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 1055 Average Costomer voltages Fig.5% XLNPV 2444 1549 +5. the correlation between the local measurements in the system and the preferred setting have to be established based on engineering sense. 12 can be set up.0% NLMPV -4134 208 -5. Also. 9 aree because the full range of variation in average voltage is not used in the numerical calculation (scenarios only). Minimum PV→ medium P (MinPV)) and maximum Power→ light P (MaxPV) as shown in Fig.0% +2. Scenario P@ISK11(kW) Q@ISK1 11(kVar) Preferred tap ALNPV 805 479 +2.5% R2LAPV -411 805 0. However. The m main advantage of this way of control is that it is independent oof branch and line parameters and can be applied to various tyypes of networks.0% Fig.0% XLAPV -670 1480 +2. if all requiirements for this method are available. no PV→ high P (NoPV). 10. Fuzzy Logic controllerr implementation 2 where: 1) The membership of input and output o signals: Input1: Reactive power (Q) @ ISK11.0% -2. The small differences in Fig. there are many techniqques other than FL can be used based on look-up tables for thee average voltage and then set the preferred tap changer possition which may does not give any advantages of using FLC. it needs the installation of a digital voltmeter at each customer to send the voltage values to a centrralized system via a communication network. Numerical and Fuzzy Logic settingg for LTC The FLC gives almost the same results as the numerical solutions.5% +5.0% ALMPV -3382 638 -2. extreme and peak load→ high Q (HL).5% PLMPV -2624 1082 0.0% LLAPV -1502 130 -2. This makees this solution prohibitively expensive. as the load increases the reactivee power increases and vice versa. the system in Fig.5% R3LAPV -565 709 0.0% R1LMPV -3088 818 -2. According to the new relationnships.0% R3LMPV -3046 841 -2. On the other hand therre is a negative correlation between the PV generation and the active power flow at ISK11.5% ALAPV -915 486 0. Output membership function for 1st implem 2) The control rules: TABLE III RULE TABLE FOR 1ST IMPLEMENTATION O OF FLC Input: AvgV VH H N L VL Output: TC VL L N H VH Tap changer Setting Fig. So.5% R1LAPV -609 683 0.0% PLAPV -127 974 +2.14. 2nd Implementation of FLC In order to find a better solution than prevviously introduced for controlling the voltage in the branch without using a communication network and take advantaage of the FLC features.0% LLNPV 200 99 0.5% R2LNPV 1327 824 +2.TABLE IV POWER FLOW MEASUREMENTS @ ISK11 FOR F SCENARIOS USING ETAP mentation of FLC Fig. Fig. 13. .5% +5. 11.5% XLMPV -1859 1540 0. B. 12.5% R3LNPV 1168 720 +2.

ren newable energy resources and distribution network k. 15.K.C. C. Vol. Strbac.0% 2010 470 -1070 -2. In 1983 he joined Imperial College in London as a a Research Associate working on integration off wind turbines with diesel generators. pp. MacGregor.” Proceedings of Society Transmission and Distribution n Conference. "Comparison of conventional and fuzzy y control of indoor of indoor air quality in buildings. ACKNOWLED DGMENT Fig. in 2002 and the M.5% 0. “Distributed Resourrce Electric Power Systems Offer Significant Advantages Over Central Station Generation and T&D Power Systems Part II. pp. 1996. Michel. P. 54-61. degree at Un niversity of Leicester.131-140 IX. 1995. P. “Distributed Generation: Semantic Hype or the Dawn of a New N Era?. Puttgen. London . It haas been found that both proposed FLCs have the ability to impprove the voltage profile of distribution network and keepp it within the permissible limits. The Netherlands. . Dounis. from electrical generators and pow wer electronics to power systems and advanced controllers. BIOGRAPH -2610 500 50 200 -5. Murray. Tap changer setting 5. Very Highh (VH). Man and Cybernetics.B. 16. 14. H. U. Lee. where he teaches Electrical Machines and Power Systems.S.5% 1400 -4150 1550 950 1250 Reactive Power Q(kVar) 1100 650 800 350 [4] [5] [6] The authors would like to thanks KACST for providing the solar irradiance data. Bruant.mentation of FLC Fig. Allan.S. Murray W. A. Nottin ngham. This makes this solution simple and cheapp compared with other control technique. R. The main advantaage of this implementation is that all measurements are taken lo ocally and there is no need for remote communication with other o information in the system. 1. Issue 1. pp. D. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems. M degree from University of Nottingham. in 198 82. 1. Guaraccino.15. Parts I & II. N. both in electrical engineerin ng.". Kirrschen. G. However. Jenkins. Vol. His research interessts are in power system planning and operation. Crossley. Input membership function 2 for 2nd implem Output: Tap changer setting (TC). the main drawbacck of this method is that it depends on the network paraameters and the load characteristics. Raed A. pp 62-69. No. U. Embedded generation: The Institution of Electricall Engineers. Fuzzy Logic set for LTC based on powerr flow @ ISK11 The controller gives the preferred tap chaanger position for all scenarios when the values of P and Q value of each scenario have been used as an input to the this system. Jul 21-25 2002. in 2006. Davis. degree from King AbdulAziz Un niversity. Jeddah. for each network k the FLC need to be set up based on analysis of the network load l data. 404-43 35. M.K. M. Jan-Feb 2003. Johannes (Hans) Bleijs B received his MSc degree in Electrical and Electronic E Engineering from Eindhoven Univeersity of Technology. P. 20.0% [3] Davis. pp. UK. Santamou uris. and SEC-WR main office in Jeddah for providing the utility grid data. Vol." IEEE Transactions on Sysstems. IEEE Vol.R.C. He is currently pursuing the Ph. Laambert. Output membership function for 2nd implem mentation of FLC [2] 2) The control rules: TABLE V OF FLC RULE TABLE FOR 2ND IMPLEMENTATION O P→PV Max PV No PV Min PV Q→Load HL VH H N ML H N L LL N L VL Fig. In order to optimizee this solution. and G.I. Very low (VL) as show wn in Fig. REFEREN NCES [1] Fig.D. Saudi Arabia.0% 2.. 2. F. High (H). The first implementation is asssociated with significant costs due to hardware cost and the need to widespread communication infrastructure but itt can be applied to many networks since it is independent on the t network parameters. VII.” Proceedings of o the IEEE Power Engineering Society Transmission and Distribution n Conference. the results are encouraging and warrant further investigation using the fuzzy logic concept in such problems. "Fuzzy Logic in Control Sy ystems: Fuzzy Logic Controller. 16 shows the tap changer settings for poossible range of P and Q using the proposed FLC. Leicester. Shalwala a received the B. 1. In general. So. Jul 21-25 2002. He wass awarded a PhD degree from Imperial College in 1990. His field of research covers a wide range of subjects in Renewablee Energy Conversion and Energy Storage. Normal (N). VIII. W. HIES X. “Distributed Resourrce Electric Power Systems Offer Significant Advantages Over Central Station Generation and T&D o the IEEE Power Engineering Power Systems Part I. Since 1991 he has been a Lecturer in Electricaal Engineering in the Department of Engineering at th he University of Leicester. March/April 1990.. The key benefit of this implementation is that all m measurements are taken locally and there is no need for remotee communication. the membership for the input has to be tuned byy determining the preferred position numerically for the poweer flow values in the transition region. Low (L).” Power and Energy Magazine. 22 – 29. CONCLUSIONS Two methods of implementation the oof a fuzzy logic controller for setting the tap changer positioon in distribution network were investigated in this paper. The second implementation sho ows a novel technique to control the LTCT based on the pow wer flow information at the transformer itself.