ISA Transactions

Fractional Order Fuzzy Control of Hybrid Power
System with Renewable Generation Using Chaotic PSO
Indranil Pana and Saptarshi Dasb,c

a) Centre for Energy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016,
India.
b) School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ,
United Kingdom.
c) Department of Power Engineering, Jadavpur University, Salt Lake Campus, LB-8, Sector 3,
Kolkata-700098, India.
Authors’ Emails:
indranil.jj@student.iitd.ac.in (I. Pan)
saptarshi@pe.jusl.ac.in, s.das@soton.ac.uk (S. Das*)
Phone: +44- 7448572598

Abstract:
This paper investigates the operation of a hybrid power system through a novel fuzzy control
scheme. The hybrid power system employs various autonomous generation systems like wind
turbine, solar photovoltaic, diesel engine, fuel-cell, aqua electrolyzer etc. Other energy
storage devices like the battery, flywheel and ultra-capacitor are also present in the network.
A novel fractional order (FO) fuzzy control scheme is employed and its parameters are tuned
with a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm augmented with two chaotic maps for
achieving an improved performance. This FO fuzzy controller shows better performance over
the classical PID, and the integer order fuzzy PID controller in both linear and nonlinear
operating regimes. The FO fuzzy controller also shows stronger robustness properties against
system parameter variation and rate constraint nonlinearity, than that with the other controller
structures. The robustness is a highly desirable property in such a scenario since many
components of the hybrid power system may be switched on/off or may run at lower/higher
power output, at different time instants.

Keywords:
Chaotic PSO; fractional fuzzy PID controller; hybrid power system control; stochastic grid
frequency fluctuation; renewable energy generation

1. Introduction
The increase in energy demand coupled with the rising concerns of global warming,
has necessitated the integration of renewable energy technologies like wind and solar energy
into the power grid. This has given rise to hybrid distributed energy generation and storage
systems [1]. The generation from the wind and solar power plants are stochastic in nature and
depend on the weather conditions at any particular time instant. This might result in situations
where the electrical load is higher than the generation. Energy storage devices like batteries,
flywheels or ultra-capacitors might be coupled with such systems to mitigate this unbalance.
1

ISA Transactions

They also improve the power quality and decrease the fluctuations in grid frequency [2]. If
there is surplus power available from these renewable sources over the demanded load, these
storage devices store them for a short period of time and later release them to the grid when
the demand load is higher than the generation. For these actions to be performed properly
there needs to be a control strategy which coordinates these activities.
Control systems based on fractional calculus [3] is gaining increasing interest in the
research community due to its additional flexibility and superior design performance [4][5].
Fractional calculus has spurred recent interest in signal processing [6] and computational
intelligence techniques have also been integrated in the design of fractional order control
systems [7]. These fractional order intelligent control systems are finding wide applications
in process control [8], [9], nuclear reactor control [10], chaos synchronization [11] etc.
among many others. Fractional calculus has also been integrated with fuzzy logic [12][13]
and PSO [14], [15] to enhance their performance. Also, computational intelligence based
design for fractional order control systems have been found expedient in different power
system applications like automatic voltage regulator [16–18], two area load frequency control
[19], microgrid frequency control [20] etc. Motivated by the success of such diverse
applications of computational intelligence based fractional order control systems, a fractional
order fuzzy control scheme is explored in this paper for the case of hybrid power systems.
Other approaches towards designing control strategy for these kind of systems include the
standard PID controller [21], genetic algorithm based PI/PID controller [22], robust H∞
controller [23][24] etc.
In this paper, a comparison has been reported between standard PID and fuzzy PID
controller to show the advantage of the proposed scheme. Due to the presence of stochastic
renewable energy generation components like wind and solar power, there is a continuous
variation in grid frequency. This affects the power quality which needs to be kept within
limits so that the downstream connected electrical loads do not malfunction. For this purpose
a controller is introduced in the loop, which sends a signal to the energy storage systems to
absorb/release additional/deficit power from/into the grid respectively. The controller also
sends a command to the diesel engine to release high bursts of power into the grid to meet
short term load demands. The fractional order fuzzy PID controller [25] is employed for this
purpose and is compared with performances achieved by PID and fuzzy PID controller. The
schematic of the hybrid power system along with the controller is illustrated in Figure 1.
Another advantage of our proposed control scheme over that reported in [18]-[19] is that only
one centralized controller structure is required for the overall hybrid power system. This
removes the necessity of having one controller for each of the power storage units in the
feedback path like that reported in [21][22] and eliminates the need for effective tuning of
each of the controllers simultaneously, which is cumbersome in practice. The proposed
scheme, therefore, reduces cost, additional wiring, maintenance and also the necessity of
tuning each of the controllers separately, avoiding any possible performance deterioration due
to loop interactions.
The evolutionary and swarm algorithm works well over the classical gradient based
methods especially in noisy [26] and dynamic environments [27], [28], [29] which are
commonly encountered in control system design to handle stochastic fluctuations. In this
paper, a chaotic PSO algorithm has been used for determining the controller parameters by
optimizing a time domain performance metric (which is noisy) due to the presence of
stochastic fluctuations in the wind power generation, solar power generation and the load
profile. Other new search and optimization algorithms like the gravitational search algorithm
[30] and cat swarm algorithm [31] might also be used to find the controller parameters.
2

ISA Transactions

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the various
components of the hybrid energy system. Section 3 briefly introduces the FO fuzzy controller
which keeps the frequency deviation of the power system within allowable range. Section 4
explains two-chaotic map adapted versions of PSO algorithm, along with the objective
function for optimization. Section 5 presents the comparison amongst the performances of
three controller structures and also their robustness against system parameter variation. The
effect of the rate constraint nonlinearity in the feedback elements are explored next in section
6, followed by discussion on the heuristics and implementation issues in Section 7. The paper
ends with the conclusions in Section 8, followed by the references.

2. Description of the hybrid power system with renewable generation
The schematic of the hybrid power system using different modes of energy generation
and storage is illustrated in Figure 1 with its different components described in Table 1.

2.1.

Models of various generation subsystems

For small signal analysis, the transfer functions of the WTG, STPG, FC and DEG can
be modeled by first order transfer functions (1)-(4) with the associated gain and time
constants given in Table 1 [32][21][22].

GWTG ( s ) = KWTG (1 + sTWTG ) = ∆PWTG ∆PW

(1)

GSTPG ( s ) = ( K S (TS s + 1) ) ⋅ ( KT (TT s + 1) ) = ∆PSTPG ∆Psol

(2)

GFCk ( s ) = K FC (1 + sTFC ) = ∆PFCk ∆PAE , k = 1, 2

(3)

GDEG ( s ) = K DEG (1 + sTDEG ) = ∆PDEG ∆u

(4)

TABLE 1: NOMINAL PARAMETERS OF THE COMPONENTS OF HYBRID POWER SYSTEM
Component
Gain (K)
Time constant (T)
Wind turbine generator (WTG)

KWTG=1

TWTG=1.5

Aqua Electrolyzer (AE)

KAE=0.002

TAE=0.5

Fuel Cell (FC)

KFC=0.01

TFC=4

Flywheel energy storage system (FESS)

KFESS=-0.01

TFESS=0.1

Battery energy storage system (BESS)

KBESS=-0.003

TBESS=0.1

Ultracapacitor (UC)

KUC=-0.7

TUC=0.9

Diesel engine generator (DEG)

KDEG=0.003

TDEG=2

Solar Thermal Power Generation (STPG)

KS=1.8, KT=1

TS=1.8, TT=0.3

2.2.

Model of the aqua electrolyzer

The aqua-electrolyzer produces hydrogen for the fuel cell using a part of the power
generated from the renewable energy sources like wind and/or solar. The dynamics of the AE
for small signal analysis can be represented by the transfer function (5) [32] where it uses
(1 − K n ) fraction of the total power of WTG and STPG to produce hydrogen which is again
used by two FCs to produce power and feed it to the grid.
3

ISA Transactions

GAE ( s ) = K AE (1 + sTAE ) = ∆PAE
where, K n = Pt

2.3.

( ( ∆P

WTG

+ ∆PSTPG )(1 − Kn ) )

(5)

( PWTG + PSTPG ) , Kn = 0.6

(6)

Model of different energy storage systems

In the hybrid energy system of Figure 1, the FESS, BESS and the UC are connected in
the feedback loop and are actuated by the signal from the FO fuzzy controller. These absorb
or release energy from or to the grid if there is a surplus or deficit amount of power
respectively. Their corresponding transfer functions can be represented as (7)-(9) [32] where
∆u is the incremental control action by the centralized controller employed in feedback path,
to reduce the grid frequency oscillation ∆f .

GFESS ( s ) = K FESS (1 + sTFESS ) = ∆PFESS ∆u

(7)

GBESS ( s ) = K BESS (1 + sTBESS ) = ∆PBESS ∆u

(8)

GUC ( s ) = KUC (TUC s + 1) = ∆PUC ∆u

(9)

Figure 1: Schematic of the hybrid power system with rate constraint nonlinearity in energy
storage/generation elements.

2.4.

Power system model using grid frequency deviation

The power system model can be represented as (10).

Gsys ( s ) = ∆f ∆Pe = 1 ( D + Ms )

(10)
4

ISA Transactions

where, M and D are the equivalent inertia constant and damping constant of the hybrid
power system [1] and their typical values are considered as 0.4 and 0.03 respectively for the
present simulation study.

2.5.
Stochastic model of the renewable energy: wind and solar power
generation and the demand load
The wind generation, solar generation and load demand, is modeled in a general
template considering both large deterministic drift and small stochastic fluctuations [22]. The
models result in a mean value and stochastic fluctuations about the mean generated or
demand power at each time instant. Additionally there is a sudden shift in the mean value at
some point in time to indicate a greater variation in these parameters. The general template
for these is chosen as (11)

((

)

)

P = φη β (1 − G ( s ) ) + β δ β Γ = ξ ⋅ Γ

where, P represents the

(11)

power output of the solar, wind or the load model, φ is the

stochastic component of the power, β contributes to the mean value of the power, G ( s ) is a

low pass transfer function, {η , δ } are constants in order to normalize the generated or demand

powers ξ to match the per unit (p.u.) level, Γ is a time dependent switching signal with a
gain which dictates the sudden fluctuation in mean value for the power output.

Figure 2: A single realization of the renewable power generation and demand load.
For the wind power generation, the parameters of (11) are φ ~ U ( −1,1) , η = 0.8 ,

β = 10 , G ( s ) = 1 (10 4 s + 1) , δ = 1 and Γ = 0.5H ( t ) − 0.1H ( t − 40 ) , where H ( t ) is the
Heaviside step function. For the solar power generation, the parameters of (11) are
5

ISA Transactions

φ ~ U ( −1,1) ,

η = 0.7 ,

G ( s ) = 1 (10 4 s + 1) ,

β = 2,

δ = 0.1

and

Γ = 1.1111H ( t ) − 0.5555H ( t − 40 ) . For the demand load, the parameters of (11) are

φ ~ U ( −1,1) , G ( s ) = ( 300 ( 300s + 1) ) − (1 (1800s + 1) ) , η = 0.8 , β = 100 , δ = 1 , and
Γ = H ( t ) + ( 0.8 ξ ) H ( t − 80 ) .

A single realization of the stochastic components viz. generated powers ( PW , Psol ),
demand ( PL ) and also the net generated power to the grid ( Pt ) are shown in Figure 2. These
are independent of the controller structure present in the feedback path. It can be seen for all
the cases that there is a stochastic component superimposed on a base value and there are
sudden jumps of the base value at arbitrary instants of time to indicate a sudden large change
in the power at different time instants (40 sec and 80 sec in this case). The expression (11)
with parameters, mentioned above have been used to calculate the net power generated by the
wind and solar units i.e. { PW , Psol } in (1) and (2) respectively.

3. Fractional order fuzzy controller
3.1.

Basics of fractional calculus

Fractional calculus is an extension of the nth order successive differentiation and
integration of an arbitrary function having the order as any real value. There are three main
definitions of fractional calculus, the Grünwald-Letnikov (GL), Riemann-Liouville (RL) and
Caputo definitions [3]. The Caputo definition is widely used in fractional order control
system design problems [3–7]. According to Caputo’s definition, the α th order differ-integral
of a function f ( t ) with respect to time t is given by (12).

Dα f ( t ) =

t
D m f (τ )
1
dτ ,
Γ ( m − α ) ∫0 ( t − τ )α +1− m

(12)

α ∈ ℝ+ , m ∈ ℤ+ , m − 1 ≤ α < m

3.2.

Hybridization of fuzzy PID and fractional order control

Figure 3: Schematic of the fractional order fuzzy PID controller.
The FO fuzzy PID controller has been introduced by Das et al. in [25] with { Ke , K d }

and { K PI , K PD } being its input and output scaling factors (SFs) respectively and has been
6

ISA Transactions

shown to give good results for process control applications [8], [10], [25], [26]. The
schematic diagram of the fuzzy FOPID controller is shown in Figure 3. Also, the rule base
considered for the fuzzy controller is depicted in Figure 4 and the corresponding membership
functions in Figure 5. The fuzzy linguistic variables NL, NM, NS, ZR, PS, PM, PL represent
Negative Large, Negative Medium, Negative Small, Zero, Positive Small, Positive Medium
and Positive Large respectively. The crisp output of the Fuzzy Logic Controller is determined
by using center of gravity method of defuzzification. The FO fuzzy controller SFs and
integro-differential orders { Ke , K d , K PI , K PD , λ , µ} are tuned using PSO for a fixed rule base
and membership function type.

Figure 4: Rule base for error, fractional rate of error and FLC output.

Figure 5: Rule base for error, fractional rate of error and FLC output.
Various continuous and discrete time rational approximation methods exist for
fractional order elements [4][3][5] which can be seen as the heart of the proposed fuzzy logic
based fractional order controller. In the present paper, each guess value of the fractional order
differ-integrals {λ , µ} within the optimization process is continuously rationalized with
Oustaloup’s 5th order rational approximation. The FO differ-integrators are basically infinite
dimensional linear filters. However, band-limited realizations of fractional order controllers
are necessary for practical implementation. In the present study, each fractional order element
has been rationalized with Oustaloup’s recursive filter given by the equations (13)-(14). If it
be assumed that the expected fitting range or frequency range of controller operation is
7

ISA Transactions

(ωb , ωh ) , then the higher order filter which approximates the FO element

sα can be written as

(13).
N

G f ( s) = sα ≈ K ∏ ( ( s + ωk′ ) ( s + ωk ) )

(13)

k =− N

Its poles, zeros, and gain of the filter can be evaluated as (14).

ωk = ωb (ωh ωb )

k + N + (1+α ) 2
2 N +1

, ωk′ = ωb (ωh ωb )

k + N + (1−α ) 2
2 N +1

, K = ωhα

(14)

In equations (13)-(14), α is the order of the differ-integration and ( 2 N + 1) is the order of the
realized analog filter. The present study considers a 5th order Oustaloup’s approximation for
all the FO elements within the frequency range of ω ∈ 10−2 ,102 rad/sec.

{

}

4. Control objectives and optimization based tuning of the fuzzy FOPID
controller parameters
4.1.
Optimization strategy for dynamically changing objective
functions
The objective function ( J ) for optimization has been considered as an integral
performance index over the simulation period of Tmax = 120 sec , using the weighted sum of
squared frequency deviation and the deviation of control signal u from its expected steady
state value u ss as given by (15).
J =∫

Tmax

0

( w ( ∆f )
1

2

)

+ w2 ( u − uss ) dt
2

(15)

In (15) the first term represents the Integral of Squared Error (ISE) of grid frequency
deviation and the second term is known as the Integral of Squared Deviation of Controller
Output (ISDCO) as studied in [8], [20] for a disturbance rejection task of the controller, since
it is placed in the feedback path. In (15), the weights w1 , w2 govern the relative importance of
each term in the objective function. They are taken as w1 = w2 = 1 to give equal importance to
both. Here, the steady state control signal u ss changes after each switching in the generation
and load as also studied in [32][20]. For the present simulation study, Tmax = 120 sec and

uss = 0.81H ( t ) + 0.17 H ( t − 40 ) + 1.12 H ( t − 80 ) .

Due to the presence of stochastic terms in generation and load as shown in Figure 2,
the optimization for controller tuning essentially deals with locating the expected minima of a
dynamic (time-varying) objective function [10], [27], [28], [33]. The PSO variants are
employed to identify the expected minima of the multiple realizations of the objective
function (15) that slightly changes its shape in each realization (ensembles) and fluctuates
around the respective steady values during the three time intervals in u ss [33], [27]. Also, the
objective function (15) is formulated in such a way that beside the frequency oscillation ( ∆f
), the control signal variations to different actuators are also minimum to avoid possible
mechanical shock/stress in those elements. This helps to limit the requirement of increased
capacity for the battery and ultra-capacitor, reduces flywheel jerk and diesel consumption,
making the overall hybrid power system more cost-effective.

8

ISA Transactions

4.2.

Chaotic map adapted particle swarm optimization

The PSO algorithm tries to optimize an objective function f ( x) with respect to the
design variable x ∈ ℝ n . It is expressed as (16).
(16)

f ( x)
minimize
n
x∈ℝ

where, the objective function f : ℝ n → ℝ and the n-dimensional search space G ∈ ℝ n is pre-

{

specified by the user. The PSO algorithm consists of a swarm of particles xi ∀ i ∈ 1, 2,..., n p

}

. The maximum number of particles np is specified by the user. The particles xi search for an
optimal

solution x ′ ∈ ℝ n of

(16).

The

position

of

the i th particle

is

denoted

by

xi := ( xi ,1 , xi ,2 ,..., xi , n ) ∈ ℝ n and the velocity is denoted by vi := ( vi ,1 , vi ,2 ,..., vi , n ) ∈ ℝ n , where
T

T

i ∈ {1, 2,..., n p } . The position and velocity of the i th particle xi ∈ ℝ n is updated in each
iteration, based on equations (17)-(18) for k ∈ ℤ + which indicates the iteration number.

xi k +1 = xi k + vi k +1

(17)

best , k
vi k +1 = α vi k + β1θ1,ki ( xi best ,k − xi k ) + β 2θ 2,k i ( xswarm
− xi k )

(18)

where, α is the inertia factor, β 1 is the cognitive learning rate and β 2 is the social learning rate
and is pre-specified by the user. These influence the exploration and exploitation properties
of the particles and must be properly chosen for faster convergence. θ1,ki and θ2,k i represent
random numbers uniformly distributed in the interval

[0,1] . xibest ,k in

(19) refers to the

best ,k
previously obtained best position of the i th particle and xswarm
denotes the best position of the

swarm at the current iteration k . This is expressed as (20).

xibest ,k := arg min
{ f ( xi j ), 0 ≤ j ≤ k}
j

(19)

best , k
xswarm
:= arg min
{ f ( xik ), ∀i}
k

(20)

xi

xi

The pseudo-code for the PSO algorithm can be summarized as follows:
[Step 1]: Initialize np particles randomly distributed in the search space G ∈ ℝ n and calculate

the objective function values for each particle xi ∀ i ∈ {1, 2,..., n p } . Set, k = 0 . Determine
best ,0
xi best ,0 and xswarm
.

[Step 2]: If the criteria for termination is satisfied, the algorithm terminates with the solution
x′ := arg min
f ( xi j ), ∀i, j . Otherwise go to [Step 3].
j
xi

{

}

[Step 3]: Use (17) and (18) to update the position and velocity of the particles and evaluate
the corresponding objective functions at each position. Set, k = k + 1 . Determine xi best ,k and
best ,k
xswarm
and go to [Step 2].

The termination criterion is set as the user specified maximum number of iterations
kmax. The population is taken as 30 and the number of generations as 300. The inertia weight
α is linearly decreased over the iterations from 0.9 to 0.1. The values of β1 and β 2 are
9

ISA Transactions

chosen as 0.5 and 1 respectively.
In [34], [35], it is shown that incorporating a chaotic map for the random number
generation instead of the conventional random number generators (RNG), increases the
efficiency of the algorithm and introduces diversity in the solutions. In the present study, a
Henon map and a logistic map is coupled with the PSO algorithm for improved performance
[18], [19]. The Henon map is a two dimensional discrete time dynamical system that exhibits
chaotic behavior. Given a point with co-ordinates { xn , yn } , the Henon map transforms it to a

new point { xn +1 , y n +1 } using the following set of equations in (21).
xn +1 = yn + 1 − axn2 ,

(21)

yn +1 = bxn

The map is chaotic for the parameters a = 1.4 and b = 0.3 . It is actually a simplified
model of the Poincare section of the Lorenz system. The initial values of all the variables are
zero. The output yn +1 varies in the range [ −0.3854, 0.3819 ] . Since the Henon map is used here

as a replacement for the RNG, it has to produce a number in the range [ 0,1] . Hence, the

output is scaled in the range [ 0,1] as also done in [36], [37].

The one dimensional chaotic Logistic map is given in (22).

xn+1 = axn+1 (1 − xn )
(22)
The initial condition of the map in (22) has been chosen to be x0 = 0.2027 and the
parameter a = 4 has been taken similar to that in [36], [37]. The performances of standard
global optimizers have been improved to a higher extent using several chaotic maps reported
as in [38], [39] and have also been applied in various power or energy system applications
e.g. economic load dispatch [34], [35], automatic voltage regulator design [16], [18] and two
area load frequency control [19] etc.

5. Results and discussions
5.1.
Performance of the controller in nominal condition of the hybrid
power system
The hybrid power system is simulated with different controller structures and
optimized with the chaotic map adapted PSO algorithm as in section 4, while all the
components in Figure 1 are considered to be working within the linear operating regime. The
total simulation time is considered as 120 seconds and the coupled ordinary differential
equations (comprising of the system components and controller) along with the stochastic
forcing terms, representing the whole hybrid power system in Figure 1, are numerically
integrated with a fixed step size of 0.01 sec using the 3rd order accurate Bogacki-Shampine
formula. It has been found that the PID controllers tuned with different chaotic maps result in
the same minima of the cost function as J min = 4.51 with corresponding gains as K p = 2.04 ,
K i = 0.64 , K d = 0.61 , although the individual convergence characteristics are different for
three PSO variants. Similar analysis for the fuzzy PID and fuzzy FOPID controllers are
shown in Table 2 reporting the best controller parameters, corresponding to the minimum
J min across multiple runs. The convergence characteristics for different PSO algorithms for
each of the controllers are shown in Figure 6.

10

ISA Transactions

Figure 6: Convergence characteristics of the PSO algorithm with the uniform RNG and
chaotic Logistic/Henon map.
TABLE 2: PSO BASED TUNING OF FUZZY PID AND FUZZY FOPID CONTROLLERS
Controller parameters
Random number
Controller structure
generator
Jmin
Ke
Kd
KPI
KPD
λ

Fuzzy PID

Fuzzy FOPID

µ

Uniform

4.35

0.05

0.02

11.76

22.04

-

-

Logistic

4.31

0.07

0.02

6.08

18.61

-

-

Henon

4.28

0.06

0.02

7.64

23.45

-

-

Uniform

4.56

0.72

0.47

1.28

2.07

0.87

0.87

Logistic

4.37

0.15

0.18

6.29

3.53

0.78

0.99

Henon

4.25

0.22

0.25

3.17

4.00

0.99

0.84

It is already mentioned that for the case of the PID controller, the same value of J min is
obtained for all the three different versions of PSO. However from Table 2, it is observed that
the best J min is obtained by the Henon map adapted PSO algorithm for the fuzzy PID and the
fuzzy FOPID controller. Also the convergence characteristics for these two cases as shown in
Figure 6 indicate that the Henon map adapted PSO converges to the solution quickly as
compared to the Logistic map version. The results indicate towards a general trend that the
chaotic map adapted PSO algorithms are better in those cases where the number of
parameters to be tuned are more and the objective function is obtained through nonlinear
relationships with long memory (for fuzzy logic and fractional calculus respectively). For
11

ISA Transactions

PID controller design, there is no difference in the minima found by three PSO variants but
Logistic map assisted version of PSO takes less iterations to converge (as can be observed
from Figure 6). For Fuzzy PID/FOPID design, both the minima of the control objective and
number of iterations is lower with Henon map augmented PSO than that with the other
variants.
The controller design task has been carried out with the scenario shown in Figure 2
for multiple realizations of the stochastic processes in the generated and demand powers.
Both the wind and solar power have superimposed fluctuations about the steady state value.
Both the powers drop to significantly different levels after 40 sec. This is representative of
the actual scenario where there is a high variability in the generated power over time,
depending on the weather condition. The load demand also has similar fluctuations about the
steady state values and increases suddenly after 80 sec. The controller tuning methodology
takes these fluctuations into account with multiple such realizations of the stochastic
fluctuations while computing the controller gains. Therefore, the controller is expected to
work in a wide variety of scenarios.

Figure 7: Deviation in frequency and control signal with different controller structures.

Figure 7 shows the frequency deviation for the three different controller structures
with the best obtained values in Table 2. The corresponding individual powers of the
different components of the hybrid power system for these cases are shown in Figure 8. From
the frequency deviation curves, it is difficult to distinguish that the fuzzy FOPID controller
works better than the other two, but this is indicated by the numerical values of J min in Table
2. However, from the control signal curve in Figure 7, it can be observed that the band of
oscillations for the fuzzy FOPID controller is less than that with the PID or the fuzzy PID
controller. This is especially important from the practical implementation point of view
because the control signal actuates mechanical components like the FESS, BESS, DEG etc.
12

ISA Transactions

Sustained oscillation in the actuator command would wear out the mechanical components
and would deteriorate the life time and the performance of that particular component. Figure
8 also shows that amongst different energy storing or supplying components, the UC
contributes to the maximum power followed by the FESS, BESS, DEG and FC respectively.
Also, in Figure 8 positive powers in FC, DEG indicate that they are power producing and
conversely negative powers in FESS, BESS, UC signify that they are energy storing elements
in the hybrid power system.

Figure 8: Power generated by different components of the hybrid power system.
TABLE 3: ROBUSTNESS TEST AGAINST PARAMETER VARIATION OF UC
Performance - ISE (ISDCO) for different controllers
Condition

PID

Fuzzy PID

Fuzzy FOPID

nominal

1.55 (2.96)

1.50 (2.78)

1.50 (2.76)

30% increase

1.24 (13.67)

1.18 (13.53)

1.17 (13.47)

50% increase

1.14 (26.71)

1.07 (26.59)

1.06 (26.51)

30% decrease

2.37 (49.09)

2.4 (48.85)

2.36 (48.87)

50% decrease

3.89 (236.7)

4.17 (236.3)

4.00 (236.4)

To test the robustness of the obtained solutions and compare them across different
controllers, two kinds of simulations are shown next. In section 5.2, the parameters of the
transfer function of the maximum power storing/producing component (i.e. UC) are changed
and its effect on the system performance is studied. In section 5.3, different components are
disconnected from the hybrid power system one by one and the performance of the controller
to adjust the dynamics of the remaining power system is quantified by the increase in J (15).
13

ISA Transactions

5.2.

Robustness against ultracapacitor parameter variation

A 30% and 50% increase and decrease of UC gain and time constant has been
introduced to test the robustness of three controller structures. Among all the components
connected in the feedback path, the UC has the highest share of power as can be seen from
Figure 8. Hence changes in the UC parameters will affect the overall system more than the
other components. So testing for parametric robustness of UC is essentially testing for the
worst case scenario. Figure 9 shows the frequency and control deviation for the three
controller structures. Table 3 lists the corresponding values of the performance measures (ISE
and ISDCO) for these perturbed cases of UC parameters. The robustness of the fuzzy FOPID
controller as the centralized controller in feedback loop is evident since it consistently keeps
ISE and ISDCO at lower values than that with the PID and fuzzy PID structures.
From Table 3, it is evident that the fuzzy FOPID outperforms the PID or the fuzzy
PID controller in all the perturbed cases although for the nominal case the performance gain
is relatively smaller. The improvement with fuzzy FOPID over fuzzy PID is small but still the
former is better under all cases of (±) parameter perturbation of UC.

Figure 9: Frequency and control signal deviations with variation UC parameter.

5.3.
Robustness against disconnecting different energy storage
components
Robustness of the obtained solutions are verified next by disconnecting different
components and looking at the two performance measures i.e. ISE/ISDCO and their
percentage change from the nominal case (having all the components). Three cases are
considered i.e. separately disconnecting the DEG, FESS and BESS.
The corresponding performance measures ( I ) is given by (23) along with the
decrease in performance due to disconnecting a particular component k .
Performance decrease k = ( ( I nominal − I k ) I nominal ) × 100%,
(23)
I nominal > I , I ∈ { ISE , ISDCO, J } , k ∈ { DEG , FESS , BESS }
From the tabulated results in Table 4, it can be seen that in all cases, the grid frequency
14

ISA Transactions

oscillation suppression (load rejection ISE) and controller effort (ISDCO) of the PID
controller is the worst. The performance is better with fuzzy PID and the best with the fuzzy
FOPID controller. Table 4 shows that disconnecting FESS has higher impact on the
performance followed by BESS and DEG. Also, the severity of the performance deterioration
is the minimum for fuzzy FOPID, followed by fuzzy PID and the traditional PID controller.
TABLE 4: ROBUSTNESS AGAINST DISCONNECTING STORING/GENERATING ELEMENTS
Performance measure
% performance decrease
Controller

PID

Fuzzy PID

Fuzzy FOPID

Element opened

ISE

ISDCO

J

ISE

ISDCO

J

nominal

1.55

2.96

4.51

-

-

-

DEG

1.55

3.01

4.56

3.54

9.29

7.26

FESS

1.61

3.29

4.90

7.20

19.56

15.21

BESS

1.56

3.05

4.61

4.27

10.74

8.46

nominal

1.50

2.78

4.28

-

-

-

DEG

1.51

2.82

4.33

0.60

2.50

1.83

FESS

1.57

3.10

4.67

4.47

12.52

9.69

BESS

1.52

2.86

4.38

1.33

3.92

3.01

nominal

1.50

2.76

4.25

-

-

-

DEG

1.51

2.80

4.31

0.60

1.63

1.27

FESS

1.57

3.07

4.64

4.94

11.36

9.10

BESS

1.52

2.84

4.36

1.40

3.01

2.44

6. Effect of nonlinear operation of the energy storing/producing
elements in the feedback path
In order to test the robustness of the proposed control scheme for significant
nonlinearity in the energy storing or generating devices like FESS, BESS, UC and DEG, all
the components are considered to have a rate constraint type nonlinearity. This typical
nonlinearity restricts a particular component to store or release power very fast by putting an
upper and lower bound on them which is representative of a realistic scenario. Figure 10
shows the implementation of a rate constraint non-linearity for all the different types of
energy generation and storage subsystems which are represented by first order transfer
functions. It is implemented as a saturation block (with pre-specified upper and lower cut-off
limits) before the integrator block.
with

Figure 11 shows this phenomenon for each of the four components in feedback path
a constraint of PɺFESS < 0.02 , PɺBESS < 0.005 , PɺUC < 1.2 , PɺDEG < 0.001 , while the

controllers are tuned for the linear operation, as considered in the previous sections. The
robustness comparison can be done with the increase in the cost function (15) for the three
controller structures as reported in Figure 11 which clearly shows that fuzzy FOPID
outperforms the other two structures. Figure 12 also shows the deviation between the
15

ISA Transactions

corresponding linear operation and nonlinear rate constrained operation with the well-tuned
controllers. The value of the objective function reported alongside each controller structure in
Figure 12 again verifies the fact that the fuzzy FOPID controller is better than its
counterparts.

Figure 10: Rate constraint type nonlinearity for a first order transfer function representing the
generation or storage units in the feedback path.

Figure 11: Effect of nonlinear rate constraints on energy storage/generating elements.

7. Discussion
We have initially tuned the three controllers with linear models of the hybrid power
system components. Then, we have tested the performance of the controllers under nonlinear
operation of the energy storing and producing elements in section 6. In this mode of
operation, all the power system components have a rate constraint type nonlinearity which is
representative of a more realistic scenario [20]. Since our optimization methodology is
generic in nature (unlike H2/H∞ techniques [17] or Linear Matrix Inequality (LMI) based
techniques [33] etc.) and the controllers are not limited to have a linear structure only, it is
easy to explore other kinds of process nonlinearities as well. The fractional order fuzzy
controllers also have high robustness properties as demonstrated in sections 5.2 and 5.3. This
is important since the control design can take into account the effects of different unmodelled dynamics which are neglected while modelling the different power system
components. Therefore in spite of the consideration of small signal linear models in the initial
power system components (i.e. during the tuning phase), the other advantages of robustness
16

ISA Transactions

e.g. parametric uncertainties, robustness against disconnection of different energy storage
components, satisfactory performance in the presence of rate constraint nonlinearities (as in
section 6) are also enjoyed due to the presence of fuzzy logic in the FO controller. Therefore,
it might be an attractive option to the system designer for giving preference to the fuzzy
control design over other traditional techniques.

Figure 12: Change in performance of the storage elements due to nonlinear rate constraints.

Also, here other controller design approaches like model predictive control, sliding
mode control etc. could have been used which might give better performance over the PID
controller for this hybrid power system. However, most industrial control systems still rely on
the PID controller due to its simple structure, ease of implementation and satisfactory closed
loop performance in the presence of uncertainty. Therefore the objective of introducing the
simulation results with the PID controller is solely to serve as a benchmark of traditionally
accepted industrial practices. The focus of the present study is to make a comparison between
the integer order fuzzy PID controller and the fractional order fuzzy PID controller. Naturally
these are more complicated control system designs and would require more expensive
hardware to implement. The system designer can look at the relative improvement in
performance as obtained by these fuzzy strategies over the simple PID controller and decide
whether it is worthwhile for his specific application to obtain this improvement in control
system performance, at the expense of investing in more sophisticated hardware for the fuzzy
controllers.

8. Conclusions
This paper proposes a centralized control scheme with a novel fractional order fuzzy
PID controller for suppressing the grid frequency oscillation in a hybrid power system. The
centralized scheme offers the advantage of cost effectiveness, reduced maintenance, wiring
and number of parameters to tune. Parameters of the fuzzy FOPID controller are tuned with
17

ISA Transactions

chaotic map adapted PSO algorithms and the controller outperforms the PID and fuzzy PID
controller structures. The chaotic map adapted PSO works better than the traditional PSO in
terms of the quality of the solution and obtaining faster convergence. The fuzzy FOPID
controller also shows high robustness properties with respect to parameter variation in UC,
nonlinear rate constraint on feedback elements and also on disconnection of some
components. This suggests that once the fuzzy FOPID is tuned for the nominal system and
implemented, it would not need additional retuning or online auto-tuning, even in the
perturbed cases, which increases system reliability. The operation of each component in the
nonlinear regime is also probed into and it is shown that the fuzzy FOPID controller is able to
handle system nonlinearities better than the other two controller structures.

References
[1] T. Senjyu, T. Nakaji, K. Uezato, and T. Funabashi, “A hybrid power system using
alternative energy facilities in isolated island,” Energy Conversion, IEEE Transactions
on, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 406–414, 2005.
[2]

V. C. Ganti, B. Singh, S. K. Aggarwal, and T. C. Kandpal, “DFIG-based wind power
conversion with grid power leveling for reduced gusts,” Sustainable Energy, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 12–20, 2012.

[3]

S. Das, Functional fractional calculus. Springer, Berlin, 2011.

[4]

C. A. Monje, Y. Q. Chen, B. M. Vinagre, D. Xue, and V. Feliu, Fractional-order
systems and controls: fundamentals and applications. Springer, London, 2010.

[5]

R. Caponetto, G. Dongola, L. Fortuna, and I. Petras, Fractional order systems:
modeling and control applications, vol. 72. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore,
2010.

[6]

S. Das and I. Pan, Fractional order signal processing: introductory concepts and
applications. Springer, Heidelberg, 2012.

[7]

I. Pan and S. Das, Intelligent fractional order systems and control: an introduction, vol.
438. Springer, Berlin, 2013.

[8]

S. Das, I. Pan, and S. Das, “Performance comparison of optimal fractional order hybrid
fuzzy PID controllers for handling oscillatory fractional order processes with dead
time,” ISA Transactions, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 550–566, 2013.

[9]

S. Das, I. Pan, S. Das, and A. Gupta, “Improved model reduction and tuning of
fractional-order PIλDµ controllers for analytical rule extraction with genetic
programming,” ISA Transactions, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 237–261, 2012.

[10] S. Das, I. Pan, and S. Das, “Fractional order fuzzy control of nuclear reactor power with
thermal-hydraulic effects in the presence of random network induced delay and sensor
noise having long range dependence,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 68,
pp. 200–218, 2013.
[11] S. Das, I. Pan, S. Das, and A. Gupta, “Master-slave chaos synchronization via optimal
fractional order PIλDµ controller with bacterial foraging algorithm,” Nonlinear
18

ISA Transactions

Dynamics, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 2193–2206, 2012.
[12] M. O. Efe, “Fractional fuzzy adaptive sliding-mode control of a 2-DOF direct-drive
robot arm,” Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions
on, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1561–1570, 2008.
[13] H. Delavari, R. Ghaderi, A. Ranjbar, and S. Momani, “Fuzzy fractional order sliding
mode controller for nonlinear systems,” Communications in Nonlinear Science and
Numerical Simulation, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 963–978, 2010.
[14] M. S. Couceiro, R. P. Rocha, N. F. Ferreira, and J. T. Machado, “Introducing the
fractional-order Darwinian PSO,” Signal, Image and Video Processing, vol. 6, no. 3, pp.
343–350, 2012.
[15] E. S. Pires, J. T. Machado, P. de Moura Oliveira, J. B. Cunha, and L. Mendes, “Particle
swarm optimization with fractional-order velocity,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 61, no.
1–2, pp. 295–301, 2010.
[16] I. Pan and S. Das, “Chaotic multi-objective optimization based design of fractional
order PIλDµ controller in AVR system,” International Journal of Electrical Power &
Energy Systems, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 393–407, 2012.
[17] S. Das and I. Pan, “On the mixed H2/H∞ loop shaping trade-offs in fractional order
control of the AVR system,” Industrial Informatics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 10, no.
4, pp. 1982–1991, 2014.
[18] I. Pan and S. Das, “Frequency domain design of fractional order PID controller for
AVR system using chaotic multi-objective optimization,” International Journal of
Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 51, pp. 106–118, 2013.
[19] I. Pan and S. Das, “Fractional order load-frequency control of interconnected power
systems using chaotic multi-objective optimization,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 29,
pp. 328–344, 2015.
[20] I. Pan and S. Das, “Kriging based surrogate modeling for fractional order control of
microgrids,” Smart Grid, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 36–44, 2015.
[21] P. K. Ray, S. R. Mohanty, and N. Kishor, “Proportional-integral controller based smallsignal analysis of hybrid distributed generation systems,” Energy Conversion and
Management, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1943–1954, 2011.
[22] D. C. Das, A. Roy, and N. Sinha, “GA based frequency controller for solar thermaldiesel-wind hybrid energy generation/energy storage system,” International Journal of
Electrical Power \& Energy Systems, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 262–279, 2012.
[23] V. P. Singh, S. R. Mohanty, N. Kishor, and P. K. Ray, “Robust H-infinity load
frequency control in hybrid distributed generation system,” International Journal of
Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 46, pp. 294–305, 2013.

19

ISA Transactions

[24] V. J. Ginter and J. K. Pieper, “Robust gain scheduled control of a hydrokinetic turbine,”
Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 805–817, 2011.
[25] S. Das, I. Pan, S. Das, and A. Gupta, “A novel fractional order fuzzy PID controller and
its optimal time domain tuning based on integral performance indices,” Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 430–442, 2012.
[26] I. Pan, A. Korre, S. Das, and S. Durucan, “Chaos suppression in a fractional order
financial system using intelligent regrouping PSO based fractional fuzzy control policy
in the presence of fractional Gaussian noise,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 70, no. 4, pp.
2445–2461, 2012.
[27] I. Pan, S. Das, and A. Gupta, “Tuning of an optimal fuzzy PID controller with stochastic
algorithms for networked control systems with random time delay,” ISA Transactions,
vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 28–36, 2011.
[28] I. Pan, S. Das, and A. Gupta, “Handling packet dropouts and random delays for unstable
delayed processes in NCS by optimal tuning of PIλDµ controllers with evolutionary
algorithms,” ISA Transactions, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 557–572, 2011.
[29] D. Yazdani, B. Nasiri, R. Azizi, A. Sepas-Moghaddam, and M. R. Meybodi,
“Optimization in dynamic environments utilizing a novel method based on particle
swarm optimization,” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 11, no. A13,
pp. 170–192, 2013.
[30] R. Precup, R. David, E. M. Petriu, S. Preitl, and M. Radac, “Novel adaptive
gravitational search algorithm for fuzzy controlled servo systems,” Industrial
Informatics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 791–800, 2012.
[31] S. K. Saha, S. P. Ghoshal, R. Kar, and D. Mandal, “Cat swarm optimization algorithm
for optimal linear phase FIR filter design,” ISA Transactions, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 781–
794, 2013.
[32] D.-J. Lee and L. Wang, “Small-signal stability analysis of an autonomous hybrid
renewable energy power generation/energy storage system part I: time-domain
simulations,” Energy Conversion, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 311–320,
2008.
[33] I. Pan and S. Das, “Design of hybrid regrouping PSO-GA based sub-optimal networked
control system with random packet losses,” Memetic Computing, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 141–
153, 2013.
[34] L. dos Santos Coelho and C.-S. Lee, “Solving economic load dispatch problems in
power systems using chaotic and Gaussian particle swarm optimization approaches,”
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 297–
307, 2008.
[35] L. dos Santos Coelho and V. C. Mariani, “A novel chaotic particle swarm optimization
approach using Henon map and implicit filtering local search for economic load

20

ISA Transactions

dispatch,” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 510–518, 2009.
[36] R. Caponetto, L. Fortuna, S. Fazzino, and M. G. Xibilia, “Chaotic sequences to improve
the performance of evolutionary algorithms,” Evolutionary Computation, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 289–304, 2003.
[37] M. Bucolo, R. Caponetto, L. Fortuna, M. Frasca, and A. Rizzo, “Does chaos work better
than noise?,” Circuits and Systems Magazine, IEEE, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 4–19, 2002.
[38] M. S. Tavazoei and M. Haeri, “Comparison of different one-dimensional maps as
chaotic search pattern in chaos optimization algorithms,” Applied Mathematics and
Computation, vol. 187, no. 2, pp. 1076–1085, 2007.
[39] B. Alatas, E. Akin, and A. B. Ozer, “Chaos embedded particle swarm optimization
algorithms,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1715–1734, 2009.

21

