2020
DOI: 10.3390/en13184885
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Microgrid Frequency Fluctuation Attenuation Using Improved Fuzzy Adaptive Damping-Based VSG Considering Dynamics and Allowable Deviation

Abstract: Recently, virtual synchronous generators (VSGS) are a hot topic in the area of microgrid control. However, the traditional fixed-parameter-based VSG control methods have an obvious disadvantage. Namely, if the damping value is set to be small, the amplitude of frequency deviations under external power disturbances is large, meaning that the frequency suppression capacity is insufficient, but if the damping value is large, the dynamics of the system will be greatly sacrificed. To solve the problem, taking the d… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
(54 reference statements)
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Concerning the four uncertainties of the EV energy storage systems mentioned in Section I, as for one fixed microgrid system, the number of EVs that could feed the microgrid was the most crucial factor influencing the power level of the system. Hence, in the simulation, the uncertainties of EV energy storage systems were simulated by controlling the maximum allowable current (e.g., when the allowable current is 0, it represents that there are no vehicles that can feed the microgrid); (4) The DGS was equivalent to a DC source as well; (5) To better illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed strategy, the simulation results of the traditional VSG control method mentioned in [43] (see Figure 1) and the improved VSG with adaptive droop coefficients in [24] are presented for comparison. It deserves to be mentioned that in addition to the parameters in Table 2, the inertia and damping factors used for the VSG strategies were J = 0.5 and D = 0.5, respectively, but in terms of the improved VSG, the values of the initial droop coefficients double those in Table 2.…”
Section: Simulation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Concerning the four uncertainties of the EV energy storage systems mentioned in Section I, as for one fixed microgrid system, the number of EVs that could feed the microgrid was the most crucial factor influencing the power level of the system. Hence, in the simulation, the uncertainties of EV energy storage systems were simulated by controlling the maximum allowable current (e.g., when the allowable current is 0, it represents that there are no vehicles that can feed the microgrid); (4) The DGS was equivalent to a DC source as well; (5) To better illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed strategy, the simulation results of the traditional VSG control method mentioned in [43] (see Figure 1) and the improved VSG with adaptive droop coefficients in [24] are presented for comparison. It deserves to be mentioned that in addition to the parameters in Table 2, the inertia and damping factors used for the VSG strategies were J = 0.5 and D = 0.5, respectively, but in terms of the improved VSG, the values of the initial droop coefficients double those in Table 2.…”
Section: Simulation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They cannot be directly used for adjusting the PI controller parameters, so they need to be converted to crisp values by the use of the defuzzification part. In engineering, the most common strategy is the centroid defuzzification which contains most of the inference results [41]:…”
Section: (D) Defuzzificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These have been associated with linguistic rules that have been defined as negative big (NB), negative medium (NM), negative small (NS), zero (Z), positive small (PS), positive medium (PM), and positive big (PB). The following step is the inference mechanism where previous linguistic definitions are evaluated according to if-then type rules formerly established [35]. In this case, the rules were settled according to Table 1.…”
Section: Type-1 Fuzzy Logic Controllermentioning
confidence: 99%