70

CHAPTER 5

ANFIS BASED RQPF

Under sinusoidal operating conditions of electric power system, the

classical definitions of apparent power and power factor work well as long as
the loads are linear and the source voltage waveform is sinusoidal. Increase in
use of power electronic devices, adjustable speed drives and other nonlinear
loads cause the voltage and current waveforms to become non-sinusoidal and
highly distorted. Apparent power and power factor are not physical quantities
by themselves, but they characterize physical phenomena however in a way
that may depend on the situation considered. The caution is that in some
special situations the same quantity may characterize more than a single
phenomenon, but this is not necessarily the case in other or more general
situations. Hence it may be necessary, to generalize a single concept,
introduced for particular situations, by more than one concept in more general
situations.

5.1 APPARENT POWER AND POWER FACTOR CORRECTIONS

In sinusoidal situations, power factor definition is unique and

expressive. However in non-sinusoidal situations and/or nonlinear load
different power factors have been proposed to express these situations (IEEE
1996, Sharon 1996, IEEE 2000). New definitions of electrical quantities in
non-standard situations are needed because of the changes in the situation in
power systems. Definitions of the power factor related to various quality
aspects may be useful to compare and optimize the effectiveness of
 71

techniques for compensation of the loads with respect to the various quality
aspects. The capability of present day microprocessors also enable
manufacturers to design equipment capable of metering electrical quantities
even when they correspond to advanced mathematical models. Therefore
there is a need for alternative definitions of apparent power and power factor
under these conditions.

Definitions for apparent power and power factor under these

conditions are proposed in literature (Filipski 1991, Emanuel 1993, IEEE
2000, Willems 2004, Willems 2005, Lev-Ari 2006). For instance, the IEEE
Working Group on Non-sinusoidal Situations (IEEE 1996, Sharon 1996,
IEEE 2000) has recommended separating the fundamental current and voltage
components from the harmonic components in order to calculate the
fundamental apparent power and subsequently the displacement power factor
to facilitate applying engineering economic techniques, such as power factor
correction. This also allows monitoring the fundamental power content
separately from harmonic power content. Proposal for separating the apparent
power and the power factor definitions to characterize power transmission
efficiency and power oscillations in distorted current and voltage waveforms,
is found in (Willems 2004). As a result two alternative power factors are
defined: the TEPF and the OSCPF. The analysis in (Willems 2004, Willems
2005) has contributed to defining characteristics that are useful to describe
different aspect of power quality, as well with respect to the supplier as the
load, and may lead to application in the definition of quality requirements as
well as in the tariff structure.

Power factor is fundamentally an index of the quality of power that

allows a user in a deregulated market to select an electricity provider on the
basis of level of quality of the delivered power. As a result, there is a need to
evaluate the quality of the power delivered through evaluating a power factor
 72

index. For a linear single-phase system supplied from sinusoidal source, there
is a clear definition for the apparent power and power factor.

The IEEE working group on “non-sinusoidal situations: Effects on

meter performance and definition of power” has suggested “practical
definitions for power systems with non-sinusoidal waveforms and unbalanced
loads” [IEEE 1996]. The main difference between this definition and other
definitions is that it separates the fundamental quantities from the rest of the
apparent power components. Focus is also rather put on revenue metering
than on compensation. The starting point is a separation of the fundamental
voltage and current harmonics from the total rms values. Some AC
quantities, such as the reactive power, are not properly defined for non-
sinusoidal situations. Efforts are made in this work to understand and explain
the problems of extending the reactive power definition to cover non-
sinusoidal conditions.

Accurate measurement of power and other AC quantities is

extremely important at all levels of the electrical power system, and is of
value for both for power distributors and power consumers. The verification
of a power measuring system, and making precise measurements in non-
sinusoidal situations, requires an understanding of the error mechanisms.
Therefore effort have been made to understand and explain these
mechanisms, both for standard measuring equipment and for instrumentation
dedicated to measurements at non-sinusoidal conditions.

A serious problem with measurements at non-sinusoidal conditions

is that quite a few of the measured quantities do have more than one possible
definition. Even worse, standard measuring equipment such as ampere meters
or reactive power meters may use measuring algorithms which do not comply
with any valid definition in the non-sinusoidal situation, and may therefore
 73

exhibit large errors. These problems are investigated, starting with the
definition of the quantities related to power measurement.

To be useful for billing purposes, a single index which is very

sensitive to any change in all the three different power factors, DPF, TEPF
and OSCPF is desirable. This becomes essential for charging the correct
penalty to the customers. The fuzzy logic based Representative Quality
Power Factor (Morsi 2008a) and the proposed ANFIS based Representative
Quality Power Factor described in the following sections serve the above
purpose. Figure 5.1 illustrates a linear load supplied from
sinusoidal/non-sinusoidal source and Figure 5.2 illustrates a non-linear
load supplied from sinusoidal/non-sinusoidal source.

Figure 5.1 Linear Load Supplied from Sinusoidal or Non-Sinusoidal

Source
 74

Figure 5.2 Nonlinear Load Supplied from Sinusoidal or Non-Sinusoidal

Source

5.2 FUZZY LOGIC BASED RQPF

This section explains the fuzzy logic-based approach utilized to

calculate the representative quality power factor (RQPF) which is a single
value that represents an amalgamation of the existing power factors,
displacement power factor DPF, transmission efficiency power factor (TEPF),
and oscillation power factor (OSCPF).
 75

Displacement
Power Factor

Fuzzy Fuzzy Logic

Logic based
Transmission based Representative
Efficiency RQPF Quality Power
Power Factor Module Factor

Oscillation
Power Factor

Figure 5.3 Schematic Diagram of the FRQPF Module

Figure 5.3 shows a schematic diagram of the FRQPF module. This

module can be built using the Fuzzy Logic Toolbox available in MATLAB.
The design procedure is as follows:

5.2.1 Input and Output Fuzzification

The inputs to the FRQPF module are the displacement power factor
(DPF), transmission efficiency power factor (TEPF), and oscillation power
factor (OSCPF). The values of the displacement power factor and
transmission efficiency power factor range between 0 and 1 while those of the
oscillation power factor range between 0 and 0.816.

The triangular form can be used for the membership functions due
to its simplicity to represent input variables. Thus three linguistic variables,
Low (L), Medium (M), and High (H) are used. The output is the FRQPF
which is represented by seven linguistic variables; Low (L), Moderately Low
(ML), Somewhat Low (SL), Medium (M), Somewhat High (SH), Moderately
High (MH), and High (H).
 76

5.2.2 Fuzzy If-Then Rules

There are three inputs and each input is represented by three

linguistic variables. Therefore there are 27 rules in the FRQPF module. The
fuzzy inference rules are stated below.

1) If (DPF is L) and (TEPF is L) and (OSCPF is L) then (RQPF

is L)

2) If (DPF is L) and (TEPF is L) and (OSCPF is M), then (RQPF

is ML)

3) If (DPF is L) and (TEPF is L) and (OSCPF is H), then (RQPF

is SL)

4) If (DPF is L) and (TEPF is M) and (OSCPF is L), then (RQPF

is ML)

5) If (DPF is L) and (TEPF is M) and (OSCPF is M) then (RQPF

is SL)

6) If (DPF is L) and (TEPF is M) and (OSCPF is H), then

(RQPF is M)

7) If (DPF is L) and (TEPF is H) and (OSCPF is L), then (RQPF

is SL)

8) If (DPF is L) and (TEPF is H) and (OSCPF is M), then

(RQPF is M)

9) If (DPF is L) and (TEPF is H) and (OSCPF is H) then (RQPF

is SH)

10) If (DPF is M) and (TEPF is L) and (OSCPF is L), then (RQPF

is ML)

11) If (DPF is M) and (TEPF is L) and (OSCPF is M), then

(RQPF is SL)
 77

12) If (DPF is M) and (TEPF is L) and (OSCPF is H), then

(RQPF is M)

13) If (DPF is M) and (TEPF is M) and (OSCPF is L) then (RQPF

is SL)

14) If (DPF is M) and (TEPF is M) and (OSCPF is M), then

(RQPF is M)

15) If (DPF is M) and (TEPF is M) and (OSCPF is H), then

(RQPF is SH)

16) If (DPF is M) and (TEPF is H) and (OSCPF is L), then

(RQPF is M)

17) If (DPF is M) and (TEPF is H) and (OSCPF is M) then

(RQPF is SH)

18) If (DPF is M) and (TEPF is H) and (OSCPF is H), then

(RQPF is MH)

19) If (DPF is H) and (TEPF is L) and (OSCPF is L), then (RQPF

is SL)

20) If (DPF is H) and (TEPF is L) and (OSCPF is M), then

(RQPF is M)

21) If (DPF is H) and (TEPF is L) and (OSCPF is H) then (RQPF

is SH)

22) If (DPF is H) and (TEPF is M) and (OSCPF is L), then

(RQPF is M)

23) If (DPF is H) and (TEPF is M) and (OSCPF is M), then

(RQPF is SH)

24) If (DPF is H) and (TEPF is M) and (OSCPF is H), then

(RQPF is MH)
 78

25) If (DPF is H) and (TEPF is H) and (OSCPF is L) then (RQPF

is SH)

26) If (DPF is H) and (TEPF is H) and (OSCPF is M), then

(RQPF is MH)

27) If (DPF is H) and (TEPF is H) and (OSCPF is H), then (RQPF

is H)

5.2.3 Applications and Results

The Rule Viewer Diagram for FRQPF in the non-ideal case is

shown in Figure 5.4. Figure 5.5 shows the Rule Viewer Diagram for FRQPF
in the ideal case. Table 5.1 shows the rule viewer output for ideal and non
ideal cases. The membership functions of Input Variables, Displacement
Factor, Transmission Efficiency Factor and Oscillation Power Factor are
shown in Figures 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 respectively.

Table 5.1 Rule Viewer Output for Ideal and Non Ideal Cases

Input Output
Case
DPF TEPF OSCPF FRQPF ANFIS-RQPF
Ideal Case 1.0 1.0 0.8165 0.947 1
Non Ideal Case 0.633 0.741 0.585 0.666 0.58
 79

Figure 5.4 Rule Viewer Diagram for FRQPF in Non-Ideal Case

Figure 5.5 Rule Viewer Diagram for FRQPF in Ideal Case

 80

5.3 ANFIS BASED REPRESENTATIVE QUALITY POWER

FACTOR

In this thesis, an ANFIS based RQPF is introduced. The ANFIS

based approach is used to calculate the ANFIS-RQPF which is a single value
index that represents a blend of the existing power factors, DPF, TEPF and
OSCPF, each having three linguistic variables assigned as inputs. The
proposed approach is tested for linear and nonlinear loads supplied from
sinusoidal and non-sinusoidal sources while considering lagging and leading
power factors.

The ANFIS based RQPF can be successfully applied for evaluating

the power quality while considering distorted waveforms. The proposed
ANFIS-RQPF can represent an essential ANFIS module in that application
for evaluating the power factors while aggregating it with other modules
outputs such as voltage total harmonic distortion and total demand distortion.

5.4 ANFIS BASED RQPF DETERMINATION

This section explains the ANFIS based approach used to calculate

the ANFIS-RQPF which is a single value index that represents an
amalgamation of the existing power factors, DPF, TEPF and OSCPF. This
module was built using the Fuzzy Logic Tool Box (Matlab 2008) available in
MATLAB. The flowchart for determining the proposed ANFIS-RQPF value
is illustrated in Figure 5.6. The schematic diagram of the ANFIS-RQPF
module is shown in Figure 5.7. About 500 samples were trained to obtain the
desired results.

An ANFIS based representative quality power factor (ANFIS-

RQPF) is proposed in this thesis to represent the existing different power
factors - displacement power factor (DPF), transmission efficiency power
factor (TEPF) and oscillation power factor (OSCPF). The ANFIS-RQPF can
represent an essential module for evaluating and combining the three power
 81

factors. The ANFIS-RQPF was applied to different cases - linear, nonlinear,

sinusoidal, and non-sinusoidal considering lagging and leading power factors.
It is shown that the ANFIS-RQPF is expressive and represents accurately the
existing power factors in all cases and in all situations.

Incoming Power Line

Voltage and Current

Measurement

Calculate DPF, TEPF & OSCPF

from the values of current and
voltage measured

Compute ANFIS-RQPF using the

ANFIS based approach taking
DPF, TEPF & OSCPF as inputs

Display ANFIS-RQPF

Figure 5.6 Flowchart of the ANFIS based RQPF Assessment

 82

Figure 5.7 Schematic Diagram of the ANFIS-RQPF Module

The ANFIS-RQPF is applied to different test cases that include

linear and nonlinear loads supplied from sinusoidal and non-sinusoidal
sources. The seven cases shown in Table 5.2 were considered for sinusoidal
and non-sinusoidal situations under linear and non-linear load conditions.

Table 5.2 Seven Cases Considered for ANFIS-RQPF

Case RLoad in ohms XLoad in ohms

1 1 0
2 0 20
3 0 5
4 20 20
5 20 113
6 20 5
7 20 -20
 83

Low
Medium
High

Input Variable-1
1

0.8
Degree of membership

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
DPF

Figure 5.8 Membership Function of Input Variable DPF

Low
Medium
High
Input Variable-2
1
Degree of membership

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
TEPF

Figure 5.9 Membership Function of Input Variable TEPF

 84

Low
Medium
High
Input Variable-3
1

0.8
Degree of membership

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
OSCPF

Figure 5.10 Membership Function of Input Variable OSCPF

The membership functions of the input variables DPF, TEPF and

OSCPF are shown in Figures 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10, respectively. For given values
of the DPF, TEPF and OSCPF, the ANFIS module will calculate the ANFIS-
RQPF. Analysis of both, ideal and non ideal cases were carried out. The ideal
case corresponds to the sinusoidal linear load while the non ideal case
corresponds to cases other than the sinusoidal linear load.

Figure 5.11 and Figure 5.12 show the Rule Viewer Diagram for the
Non-Ideal and Ideal cases, respectively. Tables 5.3 (a) to (d) show the
comparison of the values of FRQPF proposed by Morsi (2008a) and ANFIS-
RQPF for the same input, which shows that better performance is achievable
using the proposed ANFIS, based approach.
 85

Figure 5.11 Rule Viewer Diagram for ANFIS-RQPF in Non-Ideal Case

Figure 5.12 Rule Viewer Diagram for ANFIS-RQPF in Ideal Case

 86

Table 5.3(a) Comparison of FRQPF and ANFIS RQPF of Sinusoidal

Source – Linear Load Case

RLoad + ANFIS-
Case DPF TEPF OSCPF FRQPF
jXLoad RQPF
1 1 1 1 0.8165 0.947 1.0
2 j20 0 0 0 0.0521 0
3 j5 0 0 0 0.0521 0.1
4 20+j20 0.7071 0.7071 0.7071 0.703 0.703
5 20+j113 0.1743 0.1743 0.2393 0.29 0.304
6 20+j5 0.9701 0.9701 0.8081 0.882 0.906
7 20-j20 0.7071 0.7071 0.7071 0.703 0.703

Table 5.3(b) Comparison of FRQPF and ANFIS RQPF of Non-

Sinusoidal Source – Linear Load Case

RLoad + ANFIS-
Case DPF TEPF OSCPF FRQPF
jXLoad RQPF
1 1 1 1 0.8165 0.947 1.0

2 j20 0 0 0 0.0521 0
3 j5 0 0 0 0.0521 0
4 20+j20 0.706 0.522 0.594 0.653 0.642
5 20+j113 0.1626 0.0925 0.1296 0.253 0.207
6 20+j5 0.9704 0.92 0.999 0.877 0.92
7 20-j20 0.7071 0.864 0.774 0.764 0.595
 87

Table 5.3(c) Comparison of FRQPF and ANFIS RQPF of Sinusoidal

Source – Non Linear Load Case

RLoad + ANFIS-
Case DPF TEPF OSCPF FRQPF
jXLoad RQPF
1 1 1 0.6797 0.6929 0.788 0.932
2 j20 0 0 0 0.0521 0
3 j5 0 0 0 0.0521 0
4 20+j20 0.80316 0.5369 0.6047 0.677 0.663
5 20+j113 0.3467 0.5369 0.318 0.408 0.312
6 20+j5 0.9747 0.6658 0.6855 0.771 0.868
7 20-j20 0.9902 0.5 0.6 0.674 0.72

Table 5.3(d) Comparison of FRQPF and ANFIS RQPF of Non-

Sinusoidal Source – Non Linear Load Case

RLoad + j ANFIS-
Case DPF TEPF OSCPF FRQPF
XLoad RQPF
1 1 1 0.684 0.695 0.789 0.787
2 j20 0 0 0 0.0521 0
3 j5 0 0 0 0.0521 0
4 20+j20 0.8768 0.5369 0.5537 0.682 0.69
5 20+j113 0.46042 0.1808 0.2477 0.328 0.338
6 20+j5 0.98547 0.6389 0.6704 0.769 0.768
7 20-j20 0.999 0.4534 0.5397 0.703 0.702

5.5 CUSTOMER BILLING

Charging the customer precisely, based on the power factor

maintained by them is very crucial in the point of view of all stakeholders.
 88

Neither the Utility nor the customer must suffer due to an incorrect bill. A
solid proof for satisfying the customer with the reason for which he has been
penalized is also crucial. The proposed ANFIS-RQPF expresses quantitatively
and successfully discriminates between these situations since its value does
not exceed unity. The following section explains the usefulness of ANFIS-
RQPF in two critical cases of penalty and benefit to the customers.

5.5.1 Penalty to the Customer

Table 5.4 shows the selected cases of DPF and ANFIS-RQPF

values less than TEPF. In these situations, though the fundamental power
factor is low, TEPF is high which penalizes the utility. Hence, the customers
pay less than the actual penalty. The numerical value of ANFIS-RQPF
indicates the proportionality of additional penalty to the customer. Thus, the
ANFIS-RQPF helps the utility to charge more penalties to the customer.

Table 5.4 Critical Cases of TEPF Higher Than ANFIS-RQPF and DPF

*Source
RLoad +
Case and Load DPF TEPF OSCPF F-RQPF ANFISRQPF
jXLoad
Type
5 20+j113 SNL 0.3467 0.5369 0.318 0.408 0.312
7 20-j20 NSL 0.7071 0.864 0.774 0.764 0.595
*Source and Load Type:
SNL – Sinusoidal Source, Non-Linear Load
NSL – Non-Sinusoidal Source, Linear Load

5.5.2 Benefit to the Customer

Table 5.5 shows the selected cases of DPF and ANFIS-RQPF

values greater than TEPF. In these situations, though the fundamental power
factor is high, TEPF is low which penalizes the customer. Hence, the
 89

customers pay more than the actual penalty. The numerical value of ANFIS-
RQPF indicates the proportionality of benefit to the customer. Thus, the
ANFIS-RQPF helps the customer to pay fewer penalties to the Utility.

Table 5.5 Critical Cases of TEPF Less Than ANFIS-RQPF and DPF

RLoad + *Source and

Case DPF TEPF OSCPF F-RQPF ANFISRQPF
jXLoad Load Type
SNL 1 0.6797 0.6929 0.788 0.932
1 1
NSNL 1 0.684 0.695 0.789 0.787
SNL 0.8032 0.5369 0.6047 0.677 0.663
4 20+j20 NSL 0.706 0.522 0.594 0.653 0.642
NSNL 0.8768 0.5369 0.5537 0.682 0.69
NSL 0.1626 0.0925 0.1296 0.253 0.207
5 20+j113
NSNL 0.4604 0.1808 0.2477 0.328 0.338
SNL 0.9747 0.6658 0.6855 0.771 0.868
6 20+j5
NSNL 0.9855 0.6389 0.6704 0.769 0.768
SNL 0.9902 0.5 0.6 0.674 0.72
7 20-j20
NSNL 0.999 0.4534 0.5397 0.703 0.702
*Source and Load Type:
SNL – Sinusoidal Source, Non-Linear Load
NSL – Non-Sinusoidal Source, Linear Load
NSNL – Non-Sinusoidal Source, Non-Linear Load

Hence, the ANFIS-RQPF provides the tradeoff amalgamation of

the three power factor values and helps the utility to charge the correct
amount and penalty for the customers based on the power factor maintained
by them.

5.5.3 Case Study from Real Time Situation

In order to validate the experimental results obtained for the

proposed ANFIS-RQPF, case studies from real time situation was also
 90

considered. FRQPF and ANFIS-RQPF was computed for the readings

measured at the input of the power supply in the Computer Block of Mepco
Schlenk Engineering College having non linear load with a total UPS capacity
of 134 KVA.

Table 5.6 show the FRQPF and ANFIS-RQPF values obtained for
the voltage and current readings recorded in the Power Room of the Computer
Block on 01-02-2011 from 10.50 am to 11.50 am and from 2.10 pm to 3.10
pm.

Table 5.6 Real Time Situations - Case Study 1

S. ANFIS-
TEPF DPF OSCPF FRQPF
No. RQPF
1. 0.97 0.99 0.8095 0.835 0.975
2. 0.97 0.99 0.8082 0.833 0.972
3. 0.96 0.99 0.8046 0.827 0.998
4. 0.97 0.99 0.8077 0.833 0.971
5. 0.98 0.99 0.8093 0.838 0.939
6. 0.97 0.99 0.8091 0.834 0.974
7. 0.97 0.99 0.8075 0.832 0.971
8. 0.96 0.99 0.8046 0.827 0.998
9. 0.97 0.99 0.8088 0.835 0.971

Observation of Table 5.6 shows that TEPF is less than DPF and
ANFIS-RQPF. It is also observed that the ANFIS-RQPF values are better
compared to FRQPF. These ANFIS-RQPF values computed for the real time
system are also similar to that of the experimental results obtained in the
simulation study and hence the result is beneficial to the customer.

Table 5.7 show the FRQPF and ANFIS-RQPF values obtained for
the voltage and current readings recorded in the Power Room of the Computer
 91

Block on 02-02-2011 from 11.20 am to 12.50 pm and from 2.30 pm to 3.30

pm.

Table 5.7 Real Time Situations - Case Study 2

S. ANFIS-
TEPF DPF OSCPF FRQPF
No. RQPF
1. 0.92 0.94 0.7935 0.781 0.896
2. 0.92 0.94 0.7935 0.781 0.896
3. 0.91 0.93 0.7900 0.773 0.882
4. 0.92 0.94 0.7937 0.794 0.893
5. 0.93 0.95 0.7960 0.790 0.911
6. 0.93 0.94 0.7966 0.786 0.856
7. 0.93 0.94 0.7967 0.786 0.816
8. 0.93 0.95 0.7972 0.791 0.877

Observation of Table 5.7 shows that TEPF is higher than ANFIS-

RQPF. It is also observed that the ANFIS-RQPF values are better compared
to FRQPF. These ANFIS-RQPF values computed for the real time system are
also similar to that of the experimental results obtained in the simulation study
and hence result is benefit to the utility i.e. Penalty to the customer.