Where b

i
is the frequency bias constant,
i
f

is the frequency deviation and
itie
P
,

is the change in tie-line power for areai and C is the output matrix[4]. Fig.
1:
Two Area Interconnected System
3. FUZZY LOGIC IN POWER SYSTEMS:
Fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic establish the rules of a nonlinear mapping[6]. The use of fuzzy sets
provides a basis for a systematic way for theapplication of uncertain and indefinite models [4]. Fuzzy
control is based ona logical system called fuzzy logic is much closer in spirit to human thinkingand
natural language than classical logical systems [5,6]. Nowadays fuzzylogic is used in almost all sectors of
industry and science. One of them isload-frequency control [2]. The main goal of load-frequency control
ininterconnected power systems is to protect the balance between productionand consumption.
Because of the complexity and multi-variable conditionsof the power system, conventional control
methods may not give satisfactorysolutions.


The fuzzy controller for the single input, single output type of systems isshown in Fig. 2
[3]. In this figure, Kp and Ki are theproportional and integral gains, respectively. The fuzzy
controller input canbe the derivative of e together with the signal E. The fuzzy controller
block is formed by fuzzification of E, the inference mechanism anddefuzzification. Therefore, Y is a
crisp value, and u is a control signal for thesystem.Fig.2. The simple fuzzy controller
4. Fuzzy gain scheduled PI controller:
Gain scheduling is an effective way of controlling systems whose dynamicschange non-linearly with
operating conditions [4]. It is normally used whenthe relationship between the system dynamics
and operating conditions areknown, and for which a single linear time-invariant model is insufficient.
Inthis paper, we use this technique to schedule the parameters of the PIcontroller according to change
of the new area control error ACE, andACE, as depicted in Fig. 3.Fig.3. The scheme of fuzzy gain
scheduling.By taking ACE as the system output, the control vectors for the conventionalPI and I
controllers, respectively can be given in the following forms:u
i
= -K
P
ACE
i
- K
i
(ACE
i
)dt= - K
P
(P
tie,i
+b
i
f
i
) - K
i
(P
tie,i
+b
i
f
i
)dt


Fuzzy logic shows experience and preference through membershipfunctions, which have different
shapes depending on the experience of system experts. Same inference mechanism is realized by seven
rules for thetwo FGPI and the FL controllers. The appropriate rules used in the study aregiven in Table
1.Fig.5. Membership functions for FL Controller of (a) ACE, (b) ACE, (c)Kp, Ki


Fig.6. Membership functions for FGPI Controller of (a) ACE, (b) ACE, (c)Kp, Ki Membership functions
shapes of the error and derivative error and thegains are chosen to be identical with triangular function
for both fuzzy logiccontrollers. However, their horizontal axis ranges are taken different valuesbecause
of optimizing these controllers. The membership function sets of FLfor ACE, ACE, Kp and Ki are shown
in Fig. 5, while the ones for FGPIcontroller are shown in Fig.6. Defuzzification has also been performed
bythe center of gravity method in all studies.
5. Simulation study.
Simulations were performed using the conventional PI, Fuzzy Logic (FL)and the proposed FGPI
controllers applied to a two-area interconnectedelectrical power system. The same system parameters
given in Tables 2 wereused in all controllers for a comparison.Two performance criteria were selected in
the simulation. The frequencydeviation graphs were first plotted with Matlab 7.0-Simulink software.
Here,settling times and overshoots of the frequency deviation of the controllers


were compared against each other. The comparison results are provided inTable 2 and 3.
Fig 7. a, b, c, d shows the responses for frequency deviation of area1 (f1)p.u (Pd1=0.01p.u.).
f11
Time(sec)Fig a. Without Controller Fig 8. e,f shows the responses for Change in mechanical power in
area1(P
m1
).(ii)Change inmechanical power in area2(P
m2
).Change in Tieline power (P
tie
).

Time(sec)Fig b. With PI Controller Time(sec)Fig b. With PI Controller
f1

Time(sec)Fig c. With Fuzzy Logic Controller
f1



Time(sec)Fig d. With FGPI Controller Fig e. Without Controller

Table:1Table:2
Controller Frequency Deviation inarea 1 (f1)Steady state error(ess)FGPI -0.000067FLC -
0.00383Conventional PI -0.00136Controller Frequency Deviation in area 1(f1)Settlingtime(sec) (for 5%
bandof the stepchange)MaximumOvershoot(HZ)FGPI 3.2 -0.013FLC 6.2 -0.022ConventionalPI4.9 -0.024