4th International Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE 2015)

IGEE, Boumerdes, December 13th -15th, 2015

Effect of cost function and PSO topology selection on the

optimum design of PID parameters for the AVR System
Juba ABERBOUR, Massinissa GRABA, Aissa KHELDOUN
Department of Power and Control,
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
University of Boumerdes, Boumerdes, Algeria
Emails: juba.aberbour@outlook.fr, magrabadz@gmail.com, akheldoun@umbb.dz
AbstractThis paper presents a study of different cost
functions as well as different topologies of the optimizer that is
PSO in order to reach an optimum PID for the AVR system. The
obtained PID parameters strongly depend on the selected cost
function and the ability of the optimizer to explore well the
search space. Once the cost function and the optimizer
parameters are set, the metaheuristic method can then be applied
to obtain the optimal proportional, integral, and derivative (PID)
controller parameters. This PID is used within a closed loop
consisting of an amplifier, exciter, generator, and the voltage
sensor. The whole system including the PID is known as the
Automatic Voltage Regulator (AVR). The objective of this
optimization design is to achieve high performance voltage
control of the generator. The performance of the PID controlled
system is examined by considering the characteristics of the step
response.
KeywordsPSO; PID; AVR; optimization; control; tuning.

II.

AVR MODEL

A. Linearized Model of an AVR System with PID controller

In this section, we have represented a linearized model of a
higher order AVR system compensated with a PID controller.
The block diagram of the whole system is given in Figure1.

Fig. 1. Block diagram of an AVR linearized model

I. INTRODUCTION
Generator excitation system maintains generator voltage
and controls the reactive power flow using an automatic
voltage regulator (AVR) [1]. The role of the AVR system is to
hold the terminal voltage magnitude of a synchronous
generator at a specified level. Hence, the stability of this
regulator is of great concern because it can seriously affect the
security of the power system.
In addition, due to the uncertainties and nonlinearities of
some industrial plants, tuning PID parameters becomes
difficult. Several heuristic and metaheuristic tuning methods
have been considered, among which PSO [2] and GA [3].
They are based on seeking the optimum of cost functions
which well code the desired performances of the AVR.
However selection of the appropriate cost function to be
optimized as well as the best parameters of the optimizer is not
always an easy task. In this paper, we propose to implement a
metaheuristic particle swarm optimization (PSO) with
different topologies to optimize different cost functions in
sake of appropriately tune PID gains to improve AVR system
performance.
Next section describes the AVR system model. Section III
introduces PSO algorithm and some of its basic concepts that
are necessary to the understanding of this work. Section IV
describes the conducted experiments and simulation results
and analysis. Then, section V concludes this paper.

1) PID Control: The PID controller improves the dynamic

response of the system and also reduce the steadystate error by
rearranging the poles and zeros of the closed loop transfer
function. The derivative controller adds a finite zero to the
open-loop plant transfer function and improves the transient
response. The integral controller adds a pole at the origin, thus
increasing system type by one and reducing the steady-state
error due to a step function to zero. The PID controller transfer
function is as follows:
C(s)=kp + (ki)/s + kd s
(1)
2) Linearized Model of an AVR System: An AVR is used
to hold the terminal voltage magnitude of a synchronous
generator at a specified level. A simple AVR system
comprises four main components, namely amplifier, exciter,
generator, and sensor. For mathematical modeling and
determining transfer functions of the four components, these
components must be linearized, which takes into account the
major time constant and ignores the saturation or other
nonlinearities.The approximate transfer functions of these
components may be represented, respectively, as follows [2].
a) Amplifier model: The amplifier model is represented
by a gain KA and a time constant A . The transfer function is
as follows:
VR(s)/VC(s)=KA/(1 + A s)
(2)
Where the value of KA is in the range 10 to 400 and the value
of the amplifier time constant A is in the range 0.02s to 0.1s.
In our simulation, KA was set to 10 and A was set to 0.1s.

2015 IEEE

b) Exciter model: After linearization, the tranfer

function of a modern exciter can be represented by a gain KE
and a single time constant E .
VF(s)/VR(s) = KE/(1 + E s)
(3)
Where the value of KE is in the range 1 to 200 and the value of
the amplifier time constant E is in the range 0.5s to 1s. In our
simulation, KE was set to 1 and E was set to 0.4s.
c) Generator model: In the linearized model of AVR
system, the transfer function relating the generator terminal
voltage to its field voltage can be represented by a gain KG and
a time constant G .
Vt (s)/VF(s)= KG/(1+ G s)
(4)
Here the constants depend on the load; the value of KG varies
between 0.7 to 1, and generator time constant G in the range
1s to 2s from full load to no load. In our simulation, KG was
set to 1 and G was set to 1s.
d) Sensor model: The sensor is modeled by a simple
first order transfer function, given by:
VS(s) / Vt(s)= KS / (1 + S s )
(5)
Where the gain KR is usually kept 1 and the time constant R is
very small, ranging from 0.01s to 0.06s. In our simulation, KR
was set to 1 and R was set to 0.01s.
B. Performance Estimation of PID Controller
In general, the PID controller design method using the
integrated absolute error (IAE), or the integral of squared-error
(ISE), or the integrated of time-weighted-squared-error
(ITSE), or the integral of time-squared-error (ITSE) is often
applied in PID controller design because it can be evaluated
analytically in the frequency domain [3]. These three integral
performance criteria in the frequency domain have their own
advantages and disadvantages. For example, a disadvantage of
the IAE and ISE criteria is that by minimizing it, we will
obtain a response with relatively small overshoot but a long
settling time because the ISE performance criterion weights all
errors equally independent of time. Although the ITSE
performance criterion can overcome the disadvantage of the
ISE criterion, the derivation processes are complex and timeconsuming [4]. The IAE, ISE, ITAE and ITSE performance
criterion formulas are as follows:

III. PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION

Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is a nature inspired
optimization algorithm. It was suggested by Eberhart and
Kennedy in 1995 [5]. It originated from observation of bird
flocks and fish schools while searching food.

PSO is aimed to find an optimal solution for a specified

optimization problem under use of appropriate fitness function.
The foundation of this metaheuristic swarm intelligence
algorithm is quite simple. It is based on the assumption of
optimum existence inside the considered search field.
Furthermore, it uses finite number of decentralized
intercommunicating particles (solutions or agents) initialized to
positions in this search space moving to hopefully converge to
the optimal solution as precise and fast as possible.
These particles are characterized by two concepts: personal
best position (Pbest) and global best position (Gbest). The first is
proper to each single agent and represents the position which
provides the best fitness function among all the other positions
explored so far specifically by this particle. The second
represents the best position explored so far by all these
particles (by the whole swarm). Each particle evaluates the
fitness function at its position and then communicates this
performance to some or all the remaining particles of the
swarm (depending on the relied topology) in order to provide
them with necessary information to appropriately update their
positions to converge toward the sought optimum position.
For a population of N particles, and letting xi and vi be
position and velocity of particle i at iteration t, and f { xi(t) } be
fitness function value evaluated at this position, then Pi,best,
Gbest, position, and velocity of particle i are updated
respectively according to the following equations.

Position of any particle is updated by adding a velocity

vector to its previous position. This velocity vector is a sum of
three main parts: inertia part, cognitive part, and social part.
The first is an attenuated version of the previous velocity and
favors smoothness in particles velocity through the
optimization process. The second part is a measure of how the
particle is far from its own Pbest. Hence, it reflects the
engagement of the particle to follow its own intuition and rely
on its own experience in discovering new positions in the
search field. This favors exploration of the search space. The
third part is a measure of how the particle is far from Gbest.
Therefore, it reflects reliance of the particle upon the social
search experience. Then, this favors the exploitation of some
specific region in the search space.
It is then clear that swarm search behavior during the
optimization can be mainly affected through velocity update
equation. In other words, appropriate choice of coefficients specifically constriction factor and acceleration coefficientsallows control of particles motion through the search space to
some degree despite induced randomness through random
coefficients r1 and r2 where rn [0;1] for n=1;2. Besides
coefficient profiles, search behavior is also affected by the
chosen topology. This latter poses basic definitions and
restrictions in Pbest and Gbest use by swarm particles. Thus, it
controls information flow through the population, hence, it is

also known as communication structure. In present work, we

will mainly consider three types of structures: fully
interconnected topology, ring topology, and star topology [6].

the coefficients used in the algorithm by suggesting different

coefficient profiles.
TABLE II.

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS

The main objective of this work is to explore PSO
performance in optimizing the considered problem as deeply as
we could afford it. Hence, we tried to tackle the problem on
different fronts: trying different fitness functions, trying
different topologies, and trying different coefficient profiles.

FITNESS FUNCTIONS EXPLORATION RESULTS

0.2497

Ts (s)
2%
0.3722

Po
(%)
1.9922

0.1385

4.1790

4.0565

0.0024

F3

0.0797

0.8388

33.9008

0.0053

F4

0.0797

0.8388

33.9008

0.0053

F5

0.2046

0.5553

6.7463

0.0048

F6

0.2638

0.3963

1.4653

0.0016

F7

0.2698

0.4051

1.4829

0.0065

F8

0.25

0.3728

1.9812

0.0043

F9

0.2497

0.3722

1.9922

0.0043

Name

Tr (s)

F1
F2

ess
0.0043

A. Fitness function exploration

Trying to find new fitness functions to handle the considered
problem, we have simulated our program using nine cost
function formulas. Except F1which is the most used one
throughout the authors explored literature, the remaining
formulas have been suggested empirically as we were
continuously trying to design a more appropriate fitness
function for the handled problem. Table I shows the list of
fitness functions used to simulate the system, while table II
shows the results obtained for each formula.
We can notice in table II that F1, F8 and F9 result in almost
same system performance. Hence, instead of always using the
same classical fitness functions to handle this problem, this
experiment suggests a different formula that can inspire
exploring new attempts to relate system performance to cost
function formula. Furthermore, since our thriving interest is
exploring PSO capabilities by continuously seeking for
performance improvement in the unusual direction, F8is the
fitness function formula used for the remaining simulations.
B. Topology and coefficient profiles exploration
Since we used constriction factor in velocity update
equation, it was necessary to satisfy the condition C1+C2 > 4 in
order to ensure convergence. This allows us to use the value of
0.7298 for the restriction factor [5].

k: vector [kpkikd]
Po: percent overshoot
Ts: settling time
Tr: rise time
Tp: peak time
ess: steady state error

bw: bandwidth
mse: mean square error
ise: integral square error
itse: integral time square error
iae: integral absolute error
itae: integral time absolute error

First, we have tried to explore different fitness functions

aiming to find one that most appropriately suits the considered
problem. After that, using the selected fitness function, we
have tried to explore different populations communication
structures. Three main structures have been used: fully
interconnected topology, ring topology, and star topology.
Furthermore, we have tried to perform the control aspect over

Then, exploring coefficient profiles, we have only varied

acceleration coefficients paying attention to continuously
respect this restriction. On this sake, we have tried three main
profiles. In addition to the classical constant coefficients
profile, and the linearly varying coefficients profile, we have
tried to use an exponentially varying coefficients profile. These

profiles are defined in table III and experiment results in table

IV.

set

Step Response
1.4

DIFFERENT TOPOLOGIES & PROFILES SIMULATION RESULTS

tf

F( Gbest)

Tr (s)

Ts (s)
2%

Po
(%)

ess

R
I
N
G

CP

426

5724.3

0.2501

0.3731

1.9738

0.0043

LP

501

5704.6

0.2495

0.3720

1.9995

0.0043

EP

368

5741.1

0.2497

0.3722

1.9926

0.0043

F
U
L
L

CP

157

5523.3

0.2499

0.3727

1.9843

0.0043

LP

224

5705.2

0.2496

0.3721

1.999

0.0043

EP

153

5724.2

0.2499

0.3726

1.9941

0.0042

S
T
A
R

CP

188

5706.6

0.2497

0.3723

1.9987

0.0042

LP

320

5704.8

0.2495

0.3720

1.9979

0.0043

EP

121

5746.4

0.2523

0.3766

1.9728

0.0030

1.2

Amplitude

TABLE IV.

performance.

C. Comparison to published work

The smallest fitness function value was obtained using full
topology and constant acceleration coefficients as seen in table
IV. The corresponding optimal PID parameters and system
performances are depicted in Table V which provides also a
comparison to the performances obtained for the same
problem in some recent and reference literature.

Tr (s)

PO (%)

0.3727

0.2499

1.9843

0.5155

0.3433

0.5200

0.2400

2%

0.4

0.2

PSO
PSO
[7]
PSO
[8]

ess

0.5

1.5

2.5

Time (seconds)

V. CONCLUSION
This paper examined the optimization of a PID controlled
AVR system using different topologies of PSO and also
different cost functions. Comparison of obtained PID
controllers has been performed and encouraging system
performance has been obtained. Comparison of this
performance with reference reported results has been included.
Beyond suggesting different fitness functions, we have
designed a different formula that well describe the problem and
inspires a different search approache. In addition, one of the
explored coefficient profiles, exponential variation, effectively
enhances speed of convergence. Finally, this work proved that
despite the considerable progress recorded using PSO
algorithm, much is still to be achieved as relating time
performance to frequency domain characteristics, and
establishing appropriate coefficient control over the swarm
search behavior.
REFERENCES

TABLE STYLES
Kp

Ki

Kd

43

0.6835

0.6322

0.2722

1.0195

NM*

0.5857

0.4189

0.1772

2.6000

NM*

0.7080

0.6560

0.2820

(*10-4)

[7]

Fig. 2. Our best obtained step response (in red)

What should be noticed in table IV is that for each

topology, the optimization resulted in almost same system
performances. Therefore, our algorithm succeeded to overcome
premature convergence by converging to the same optimal
solution through different search behaviors. In addition, we can
notice that the exponential profile converges to the optimal
solution faster than the other profiles where it uses the smallest
number of iterations (smallest final number of used iterations:
tf) Hence, we can conclude that this profile enhances
convergence of the algorithm.

Ts (s)

Our AVR
0.6

[8]

CP: constant profile; LP: linear profile; EP: exponential profile.

TABLE V.

0.8

[1]
[2]

[3]

*NM: not mentioned

Figure 2 shows the step responses of our system and those

compared to in table V. We can see that the performance of our
system is acceptable with respect to those of reference [7] and
[8]. Table V shows that our system holds a slightly better
combination of speed and overshoot requirements than the
other considered systems. Hence, it has an encouraging

[4]

[5]
[6]

[7]

[8]

H. Saadat, Power System Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999.

H. Yoshida, K.Kawata, and Y. Fukuyama, A particle swarm
optimization for reactive power and voltage control considering voltage
security assessement, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, pp.1232-1239,
Nov. 2000.
R. A. Krohling and J. P. Rey, Design of optimal disturbance rejection
PID controllers using genetic algorithm, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput.
Vol. 5, pp. 78-82, Feb. 2001.
D. Molina, M. Lozano, and F. Herrera, MA-SW-Chains: Memetic
algorithm based on local search chains for large scale continuous global
optimization, in IEEE Congree on Evolutionary Computation, 2010.
R.C.Eberhart & Y.Shi, Comparing Inertia Weights and Constriction
Factors In PSO, IEEE 2000
Angelina Jane Reyes Medina, Gregorio Toscano Pulido, Jos Gabriel
Ramirez Torres, A comparative study of neighborhood topologies for
Particle Swarm Optimizers, IJCCI 2009
S. Panda, B.K. Sahu, P.K. Mohanty, Design and performance analysis
of PID controller for an automatic voltage regulator system using
simpli ed particle swarm optimization, Journal of the Franklin Institute
349 (2012) 26092625
Mouayad A Sahib, Bestoun S. Ahmed, A new multiobjective
performance criterion used in PID tuning optimization algorithms,
Journal
of
Advanced
Research
2015.

3.5