## 5 Simulation Results and Discussion
### The Proposed Method's Performance in Terms of the Voltage Index  
In this work, the influence of latency upon the performance of only one fuzzy-regulated TSC-TCR was first explored. It was determined that raising the controller signal's significant  
Figure 13: System responses to fault scenario with constant time delays of 900 ms (**a**) and 100 ms (**b**).  
latency issues while improving the system voltage stability. Furthermore, the enhanced prediction approach was outperformed by the fuzzy-regulated strategy.  
A three-phase failure occurred on the Ndera and Gasogi Lines (Line 3-8) for 0.009 s between \(t_{1}=1\) s and \(t_{2}=0.009\) s. The usefulness of TSC-TCR with the fuzzy logic control was demonstrated in this model. Figures 15 and 16 depict fuzzy TSC-TCR modelled using Simulink/MATLAB. When a fault occurred, the TSC-TCR attempted to sustain the voltage by injecting reactive power onto the line if the voltage fell below the reference voltage (1.009 pu). With the fuzzy (TSC-TCR) controller in the system, the PCC terminal voltage oscillated less and stabilized faster, as shown in Figures 14 and 15. When Lines 2-8 failed because of fault B, the terminal inter-area voltage V amounts of inter-areas 1-2, 2-3, 1-3, and 1-4 were also affected, as shown in Figures 14 and 15. Figure 15 shows that the system was constructed with a fuzzy (TSC-TCR) controller. At \(t_{2}=1.009\), 0.2 s after the fault was cleared, the controller stabilized the active power differential faster.  
Table 6 demonstrates the PV generator voltage indices for both temporary and permanent 3 LG faults at power system locations A, B, and C with 900, 700, 500, 300, and 100 ms delay for the fuzzy-controlled delay reduction approach and the improved predictor-delayed optimization methodology. According to indicators, fuzzy-controlled techniques with predictive methods could minimize the delay and improve the voltage profile in the hybrid grid. The improved predictor approach, on the other hand, outperformed the more-fuzzified, regulated strategy.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Delay** \\ **Value** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Fault Type**} & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Fault** \\ **Point** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Voltage Indices at PCC**} \\ \cline{4-5}  & & & & **No Compensation** & **Predictor** & **Fuzzy Method** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{900 ms} & & A & 0.2201 & 0.1967 & 0.1797 \\  & 3 LG & B & 0.2035 & 0.1942 & 0.1772 \\  & Temp & C & 0.2201 & 0.1968 & 0.1798 \\  & & A & 0.1973 & 0.1897 & 0.1727 \\  & 3 LG & B & 0.0521 & 0.0189 & 0.0172 \\  & Perm & C & 0.2088 & 0.1897 & 0.1727 \\  & & A & 0.2265 & 0.1990 & 0.1823 \\  & 3 LG & B & 0.2079 & 0.1943 & 0.1773 \\  & Temp & C & 0.2265 & 0.1991 & 0.1741 \\  & & A & 0.1975 & 0.1911 & 0.1741 \\  & 3 LG & B & 0.0660 & 0.0169 & 0.0132 \\  & Perm & C & 0.1975 & 0.1911 & 0.1741 \\  & & A & 0.2085 & 0.1975 & 0.1805 \\  & 3 LG & B & 0.2072 & 0.1932 & 0.1762 \\  & Temp & C & 0.2213 & 0.1961 & 0.1791 \\  & & A & 0.1885 & 0.1881 & 0.1711 \\  & 3 LG & B & 0.0848 & 0.0218 & 0.0048 \\  & Perm & C & 0.1885 & 0.1463 & 0.1293 \\  & & A & 0.2105 & 0.1984 & 0.1804 \\  & 3 LG & B & 0.2060 & 0.1927 & 0.1747 \\  & Temp & C & 0.2168 & 0.1948 & 0.1768 \\
300 ms & & A & 0.1960 & 0.1897 & 0.1717 \\  & 3 LG & B & 0.0715 & 0.0482 & 0.3213 \\  & Perm & C & 0.1995 & 0.1866 & 0.1656 \\  & & A & 0.2030 & 0.1947 & 0.1767 \\  & 3 LG & B & 0.2019 & 0.1889 & 0.1720 \\  & Temp & C & 0.2140 & 0.1920 & 0.1742 \\
100 ms & & A & 0.1857 & 0.1766 & 0.1596 \\  & 3 LG & B & 0.1117 & 0.0566 & 0.0405 \\  & Perm & C & 0.1664 & 0.1489 & 0.1472 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Voltage indices at PCC.