# Energy-Feedback Load Simulation Algorithm Based on Fuzzy Control
## 6 Load Simulation Strategy Based on Fuzzy Control Variable Load Simulink Simulation Results
Constant resistance load simulation test data are shown in Table 5, while its error curve is shown in Figure 14.  
The test results show that the high-efficiency energy-fed DC electronic load prototype has a good simulation accuracy of constant resistance load. With the decrease in resistance setting value, the relative error of input resistance tends to decrease, as shown in Figure 14, respectively. Input resistance maximum absolute error is \(-10.66\)\(\Omega\), and maximum relative error is \(5.33\%\), slightly larger than \(5\%\) of the design requirements. At the same time, the simulation accuracy of constant resistance load increases with the increase in input voltage. This is because other conditions remain unchanged. With the increase in input voltage or the decrease in resistance setting value, the corresponding input current increases, and the relative error of input current decreases. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Power** \\ **Setting** \\ **Value (W)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Load Analog Power Measurement**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Relative Error of Load Analog**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Value (W)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Power (\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Power (\%)**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **200 V** & **250 V** & **300 V** & **200 V** & **250 V** & **300 V** \\ \hline
400 & 392.2 & 390.5 & 398.7 & \(-1.94\) & \(-2.38\) & \(-0.32\) \\
800 & 768.9 & 755.6 & 764.8 & \(-3.89\) & \(-5.55\) & \(-4.40\) \\
1200 & 1192.4 & 1184.4 & 1189.2 & \(-0.63\) & \(-1.30\) & \(-0.90\) \\
1600 & 1564.2 & 1589.4 & 1578.7 & \(-2.24\) & \(-0.66\) & \(-1.33\) \\
2000 & 1972.9 & 1974.7 & 1944.2 & \(-1.35\) & \(-1.26\) & \(-2.79\) \\
2400 & 2351.7 & 2307.8 & 2331.0 & \(-2.01\) & \(-3.84\) & \(-2.88\) \\
2800 & 2749.6 & 2747.8 & 2720.1 & \(-1.80\) & \(-1.86\) & \(-2.85\) \\
3200 & 3269.2 & 3216.0 & 3248.6 & 2.16 & 0.50 & 1.52 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Simulation accuracy test results of constant power load. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Resistance** \\ **Setting** \\ **Value (\(\Omega\))** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Load Analog Resistance**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Load Analog Resistance Relative**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Measurement (\(\Omega\))**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Error (\%)**} & \\ \cline{2-7}  & **200 V** & **250 V** & **300 V** & **200 V** & **250 V** & **300 V** \\ \hline
20 & 20.12 & 20.16 & - & 0.61 & 0.82 & - \\
40 & 40.24 & 40.00 & 40.00 & 0.60 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
60 & 59.44 & 60.02 & 58.90 & \(-0.94\) & 0.04 & \(-1.84\) \\
80 & 77.12 & 78.62 & 79.44 & \(-3.61\) & \(-1.73\) & \(-0.69\) \\
100 & 102.45 & 101.42 & 100.77 & 2.45 & 1.42 & 0.77 \\
120 & 116.73 & 118.40 & 117.27 & \(-2.73\) & \(-1.34\) & \(-2.28\) \\
140 & 140.14 & 135.30 & 137.08 & 0.10 & \(-3.36\) & \(-2.09\) \\
160 & 156.25 & 155.96 & 155.10 & \(-2.34\) & \(-2.52\) & \(-3.06\) \\
160 & 173.10 & 172.97 & 174.24 & \(-3.83\) & \(-3.91\) & \(-3.20\) \\
200 & 189.34 & 197.09 & 194.00 & \(-5.33\) & \(-1.46\) & \(-3.00\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Test results of simulation accuracy of constant resistance load.