Comparative Study of PID Controller Designs Using Particle Swarm Optimizations for Automatic Voltage Regulators

Hwan Il Kang, Min Woo Kwon

Dept. of Information & Communications Eng. Myongji Univ. Yongin, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea hwan@mju.ac.kr, kasanokk@hotmail.com
AbstractIn this paper, we present PID controller design methods for automatic voltage regulators. We use three improved particle swarm optimization for PID controllers with which the step response is optimally regulated for automatic voltage controllers. We compare three different versions of particle swarm optimizations, i.e., the modified original PSO, the crazy PSO and the chaotic PSO. Among three PSOs, the chaotic PSO has the best performance and the modified original PSO has second best performance and the crazy PSO has poor performance for the convergence and the optimal solutions. Keywords-particle swarm optimization; crazyness; chaotic theory; automatic voltage regulator;

Hwan Gil Bae

Dept. of Information & Communications Eng. Myongji Univ. Yongin, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea 5328@naver.com

II.

VARIANTS OF PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATIONS

A. Modified Standard PSO algorithm PSO is initialized with a group of random particles (or solutions) and then an algorithm can be used to search for optima by updating generations of particle movements. In every iteration, each particle is updated by following two best values. The first one is the best solution (fitness) it has so far achieved, called personal best (or pbest). The other best value that is tracked by the particle swarm optimizer is the best value obtained by any particle in the population which is global best (gbest) [1]. After finding the two best values, the particle updates its velocity and positions with following:

I.

INTRODUCTION .

The original particle swarm optimization has two vector components: i.e., a position and velocity vectors. A velocity vector is updated by the local optimal position difference and the global position difference. The crazy PSO [6] has a different updated velocity component. In addition, we may use a chaotic sequence instead of the samples from the uniform distribution between 0 and 1. This paper proposes a generalization of PSO based on chaotic particles and Hnon map. Using the three PSOs, we solve an optimization problem for design of PID controllers. PID controllers have three control parameters: the derivative gain, the proportional gain and the integrating gain. Different design methods for automatic voltage regulators with PID controllers have been known such as various evolutionary methods [2,3,4]. In Section II, definitions and the main idea of the proposed chaotic PSO with Hnon map [7] (CPSOH) will be stated. In addition, the crazy PSO [6] will be presented. In Section III, we design coefficients of the PID controller with the three particle swarm optimizations for the automatic voltage regulator. Conclusion will be followed in Section IV.

v(k + 1) = [ wv(k ) + c1r1 ( pbest (k ) x(k )) + + c2 r2 ( gbest (k ) x(k ))] x(k + 1) = x(k ) + v(k + 1)
where

v(k ) is the current velocity vector for some particle,

x(k ) the current optimal solution vector of the particle, the pbest (k ) the current optimal solution vector of the particle, gbest (k )
current solution vector of the same particle, the current global optimal solution vector. The cognitive coefficient c1 is a linear variant coefficient from 2.55 to 1.55 and the social coefficient from 1.55 to 2.55. between [0, 1]. The constriction factor is expressible as

c2 is a linear variant coefficient r1 and r2 are uniform distribution

= 2 / | 2 2 4 | with = c1 + c2 . The inertia w is expressible as a coefficient with decreasing

from 1 to 0.6. With theses parameters, the convergence of the particle position is guaranteed using the methods in [1].

978-1-4244-9224-4/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

B. Crazy PSO algorithm The velocity update equation[8] is expressible as

According to the previous work [6], one strategy of CPSOH has the best performance of updating the velocity as follows:

v(k + 1) = r2 sign(r3 )v(k ) + (1 r2 )c1r1 ( pbest (k ) x(k )) + (1 r2 )c2 (1 r1 )( gbest (k ) x(k ))

where

v(k + 1) = [ wv(k ) + c1r1 ( pbest (k ) x(k )) + + c2 r2 ( gbest (k ) x(k ))]

D. Cost Functions The cost function is

sign(r 3) may be defined as

1, sign(r3 ) = 1,

r3 0.05 . r3 > 0.05

Cost 2 = k =1 k | y ( k ) y r ( k ) | + st 2 + 10 8 OS 2
1000

In addition, the velocity is updated as follows:

v(k + 1) = v(k + 1) + Pr(r4 ) sign(r4 )v(k ) craziness

where

where k is the sample, y is the process output, reference. The reference voltage is 0.01.

y r is the

1, Pr(r4 ) = 0, 1, sign(r4 ) = 1,

r4 Pcraz r4 > Pcraz r4 0.5 r4 < 0.5

III.

MAIN RESULTS

The block diagram of the linear automatic voltage regulator (AVR) with the PID controller is shown in Fig. 1.

with Pcraz = 0.2 and v(k )craziness being a random real number between 0.1 and 0.4. C. Chaotic PSO algorithm The chaotic PSO approach is proposed here based on the constriction coefficient and Hnons map. Hnon introduced this map as a simplified version of the Poinare map of the Lorenz system. The Hnon map [6] is given by Fig. 1. Block diagram of an AVR with a PID controller

X (t ) = 1 aX (t 1) 2 + Y (t 1) Y (t ) = bX (t 1)
Hnon map is used in this work for a = 1.4 and b = 0.3 (the value for which the Hnon map has a strange attractor). X (0) = 0.1r5 and Using the initial conditions

A. AVR system parameters A practical AVR is used to verify the performance of the proposed PID controller. The system parameters are K A = 1, A = 1, K E = 1, E = 1, K R = 1, R = 1 and G = 1. We study three different conditions for K G = 0.8, 0.9, 1 . B. Design of PID using PSO for the AVR The lower bounds for

k d , k p , k i are 0.1 and their upper

bounds are 2. The population size is 50 and the maximum iteration is set to 100.

Y (0) = 0.1r6 with r5 and r6 being uniform distribution between 0 and 1, we generate the data from Y (t ) and we
normalize the data between 0 and 1. Then half of the data are used for r1 and another half of the data are used for r2 .

C. Simulation Results Table 1 shows that by executing three PSOs, optimal PID coefficients are given.

x 10 10.5

-3

Modified Chaotic Crazy

10

Results from Cr azy n 1 2 Chao Mod 1 2 1 2 Kd 0.1622 0.1840 0.2067 0.1529 0.2091 0.2219 Kp 0.5264 0.5935 0.6411 0.5171 0.6466 0.6719 Ki

KG = .9, G = 1
Minc 4.2882 3.4791 3.6711 1.4381 3.7131 4.0128 OS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 ST 1.9010 1.7070 1.7540 0.8980 1.7590 1.8080

VO 9 8.5 8 0.5 1 1.5 Time 2 2.5 3

TABLE I. SIMULATION RESULTS OF COEFFICIENTS IN THE CONTROLLER WITH THREE PSOS.

PID

9.5

0.3715 0.4209 0.4513 0.3685 0.4547 0.4699

Fig. 2. Step responses for three PSOs. TABLE II. SIMULATION RESULTS OF COEFFICIENTS IN THE CONTROLLER WITH THREE PSOS PID

Fig. 1 shows that by executing three PSOs, convergence results are given for the first trial in Table 1 for KG = .9, G = 1 . It turns out that the chaotic PSO outperforms the other two PSOs. The second best performance is achieved by the modified PSO with respect to the convergence result.

Results from Crazy n 1 2 Chao 1 2 1 2 Kd 0.1000 0.1506 0.1707 0.1269 0.2133 0.1661 Kp 0.3613 0.5141 0.5717 0.4379 0.6549 0.5370 Ki

KG = 1, G = 1
Minc 3.8623 5.5006 2.3963 1.6787 3.7954 3.4011 OS 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 ST 1.9880 2.0270 1.4740 0.9910 1.6740 1.6650

0.2592 0.3616 0.4098 0.3108 0.4597 0.3818

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 20 Modified Crazy Chaotic

Mod

Fig. 3 shows that by executing three PSOs, convergence results are given for the first trial in Table 2 for K G = 1, G = 1. It turns out that the chaotic PSO outperforms the other two PSOs. The second best performance is achieved by the modified PSO with respect to the convergence result.
30 40 50 60 Iteration 70 80 90 100

cost

Fig. 1. Convergence results for three PSOs.

Fig. 2 shows that by executing three PSOs, step responses are given for the first trial in Table 1 for KG = .9, G = 1 . It turns out that the chaotic PSO outperforms the other two PSOs.

180 160 140 Modified Crazy Chaotic

TABLE III. SIMULATION RESULTS OF COEFFICIENTS IN THE CONTROLLER WITH THREE PSOS

PID

Results from Cr azy n 1 2 Chao 1 2 Mod 1 2 Kd 0.2409 0.1714 0.1526 0.1788 0.2019 0.2414 Kp 0.7312 0.5952 0.5317 0.5982 0.6588 0.7405 Ki 0.5110 0.4257 0.3765 0.4285 0.4695 0.5197

K G = .8, G = 1
Minc 3.9433 3.4536 1.8367 1.7133 3.3370 3.8354 OS 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ST 1.8480 1.4610 1.0360 1.0410 1.6380 1.7730

120 100 cost 80 60 40 20 0

10

20

30

40

50 Iteration

60

70

80

90

100

Fig. 3. Convergence results for three PSOs.

Fig. 4 shows that by executing three PSOs, step responses are given for the first trial in Table 2 for K G = 1, G = 1. It turns out that the chaotic PSO outperforms the other two PSOs.

Fig. 5 shows that by executing three PSOs, convergence results are given for the first trial in Table 3 for K G = .8, G = 1. It turns out that the chaotic PSO outperforms the other two PSOs. The second best performance is achieved by the modified PSO with respect to the convergence result.

90
-3

x 10 11

80 Modified Chaotic Crazy 70 60 50

Modified Crazy Chaotic

10.5

10

cost

40 30 20

VO

9.5

9 10 8.5 0

10

20

30

40

50 Iteration

60

70

80

90

100

8 0.5 1 1.5 Time 2 2.5 3

Fig. 5. Convergence results for three PSOs.

Fig. 4. Step responses for three PSOs.

Table 3 shows that by executing three PSOs, optimal PID coefficients are given.

Fig. 6 shows that by executing three PSOs, step responses are given for the first trial in Table 3 for K G = .8, G = 1. It turns out that the chaotic PSO outperforms the other two PSOs.

x 10

-3

10.5

Modified Chaotic Crazy

craziness-based swarm optimizaed intelligent PID and PSS controlled AVR system, Electric Power and Energy Systems, pp.323-333, 2009. [7] L. S. Coelho, A. A. R. Coelho, Model-free adaptive control optimization using a chaotic particle swarm approach, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 41, 2009, 2001-2009.

10

VO

9.5

8.5

0.5

1.5 Time

2.5

Fig. 6. Step responses for three PSOs.

IV.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, tuning of coefficients in the PID controller has been made by three different PSO methods with a fixed cost functions. By experiments, we have shown that the the chaotic PSO has best performance than the other two PSOs with respect to the output of the AVR and the convergence results. With the chaotic PSO, the convergence rate is fastest and stable. In future work, we will study design of fractional order PID controllers using the choatic PSO. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology under Grant 2009-0185.

REFERENCES
[1] A. P. Engelbrecht, Fundamentals of Computational swarm intelligence, Chichester, West Sussex, U.K., John Wiley & Sons, 2005, pp. 149-151. V. Mukherjee and S. P. Ghoshal, Intelligent particle swarm optimized fuzzy PID controller for AVR system, Electric Power Systems and Research, no. 77, pp. 1689-1698, 2007. Dong Hwa Kim, Hybrid GA-BF based intelligent PID controller tuning for AVR system, Applied Soft Computing Journal, 2008, doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2009.01.004. L. S. Coelho, Tuning of PID controller for an automatic regulator voltage system using chaotic optimization approach, Chaos, Solitions and Fractals, vol. 39, no. 4, pp.1504-1514, 2009. J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, Particle Swarm Optimization, Proceeding of the IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, pp. 1942-1948, 1995. A. Chatterjee, V. Mukherjee, S. P. Ghoshal, Velocity relaxed and

[2] [3] [4]

[5]

[6]