Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Advanced Mechatronic Systems, Melbourne, Australia, November 30 - December 3, 2016
Comparative Assessment of Classical and Adaptive
controllers for Automatic Voltage Regulator
Adnan Khalid1, Ahmed Hussnain Shahid2, Kamran Zeb1, Amjad Ali1, Aun Haider1(Senior IEEE Member)
1
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Management and Technology, Sialkot, Pakistan
2
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
Email:{adnan.khalid; kamran.zeb; amjad.ali; aun.haider}@skt.umt.edu.pk, ahmedhusnain@hotmail.com
Abstract - In this paper various controllers such as
Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) based on Adaptive Particle
Swarm Optimization (APSO), Proportional Integral (PI), Fuzzy
PI and Fuzzy PID are analyzed and designed for Automatic
Voltage Regulator (AVR). The focal motive is to regulate the
terminal voltage and reactive power to avoid instability of the
generating station in an effective manner. Furthermore, stability
analysis based on performance measures i.e. Integral Squared
Error (ISE), Integral Absolute Error (IAE) and Integral Time-
weighted Absolute Error (ITAE) and time domain analysis based
on root locus are also performed. Besides in comparison, the
various simulation results validate robustness and effectiveness of
Fuzzy PID for control of AVR.
Index Terms - Proportional integral derivative, automatic
voltage regulator, Fuzzy PID, integral absolute error and integral
time-weighted absolute error.
I. INTRODUCTION
Electrical equipments are the essential part of our life.
However, they are very sensitive to voltage fluctuations.
Electrical devices operate within certain limits or voltage levels.
When there is a sudden and constant change of voltage beyond
the operational limit of any electrical device, it may have
negative affect on its performance or it may be seriously
damaged. To overcome this problem there must be continuous
observation and compensation of terminal voltage where the
electrical power is being generated through power generators.
The process of observation and compensation is known as
voltage regulation and the electrical circuits that are used for
voltage regulation are called voltage regulators [1].
The voltage regulator may be manual or they may be
controlled automatically. Manual voltage regulator uses
voltmeter to observe the output voltage of generator and then
one can act as a decision maker also as an actuator to
compensate the output voltage if necessary. Manual control is
not feasible due to various factors; accuracy is one of them
which is an important requirement in modern large
interconnected systems. Therefore, to have better performance
and accuracy Automatic Voltage Regulators (AVR) are
preferred over manual voltage regulators. AVR senses the
output voltage of generator and controls the input power
supplied to the exciter and hence it maintains the output voltage
of generator within the required limit [3].
The section division of the paper is made as follows:
Section II consist of mathematical modelling of AVR system.
978-1-5090-5346-9 / 16 / $31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Discussion and design of different controllers is done in section
III. Whereas section IV presents the comparative performance
evaluation of all the controllers discussed in this paper. Section
V describes conclusion and proposal for future work. At the end
section VI contains the appendix.
II. MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
In general, an automatic voltage regulator consists of the
following components [2].
1) Amplifier.
2) Exciter.
3) Sensor.
4) Generator.
A voltage sensor is installed at the output terminals of
generator which continuously observes the output voltage of
that generator. Sensor after observation of terminal voltage of
generator produces a signal which is then amplified by the
amplifier. The amplified signal is then compared with the
reference signal. This comparison is done by the comparator.
The comparator after comparing reference voltage and the
generator voltage generates an error signal. The error signal is
then fed to the excitation of the field winding of generator. As
long as there is an error signal the excitation of field winding
will have a greater value as compared to the normal condition.
The mathematical models of all these components present in the
AVR model are assumed to be linear. Their transfer functions
are given as follows.
ka
Transfer function model of an amplifier is: TFA =
1+Ta s
ke
Transfer function model of an exciter is: TFE =
1+Te s
kg
Transfer function model of a generator is: TFG =
1+Tg s
ks
Transfer function model of a sensor is: TFS =
1+Ts s
Every component involved in this closed loop has
specific parameter values. The limits of gain and time delays is
discussed in the Table I. Using the above mentioned parameter
values the complete closed loop transfer function can be found
as in Eq. 1. Whereas Fig. 1 is the transfer function model for an
AVR. The response of the desired transfer function is presented
538
in Fig. 2. Where Vt is the terminal voltage and Vref is the 0.2
0.76 0.64 0.5 0.34 0.16
reference voltage.
0.15 0.86

Imaginary Axis (millis econds-1 )

Vt 0.1s+10 0.1
= (1) 0.94
Vref 0.0004s +0.0454s3 +0.555s2 +1.51s+11
4
0.05 0.985

200 150 100 50

0

-0.05 0.985

0.94
+_ -0.1

-0.15 0.86
Amplifier Exciter Generator
0.76 0.64 0.5 0.34 0.16
-0.2
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Real Axis (millis econds -1 )

Fig. 3. Root locus of AVR system

III. CONTROLLER DESIGN

Sensor
Various controllers have been designed in this paper
Fig. 1. Closed loop for AVR
detailed as: Proportional Integral (PI), Fuzzy-PI, Proportional
Integral Derivative (PID), and Fuzzy PID along with their
mathematical description respectively.

A. PID AND PI CONTROLLER

There are many techniques that have been introduced to

handle complex control problems and to get better performance
but most of the industrial processes are still using simple
controllers. It is because PID controllers have simple structure
as well as satisfactory performance to be used in industrial
plants. To design a PID controller we need three parameters that
are proportional gain ( ୮ ), integral gain (‫ܭ‬௜ ), derivative gain
( ୢ ). The equation of PID control in time domain is given as
follows [8].
t
de(t)
u(t)=Kp e(t)+Ki න e(τ) d(τ)+Kd (2)
dt
Fig. 2. Step response of AVR 0

Fig. 2: demonstrates that the system does not have good
transient response as it has large value of overshoot and is
oscillatory for large value of time. It also has steady state error.
So, the system needs proper compensation to improve its
transient response as well its steady state response. Whereas the
root locus for AVR without PID controller is presented below
in Fig. 3, illustrating that the system is unstable for large values
of gain.
Where u(t) and e(t) is a control signal and an error signal
respectively. In Laplace domain, the overall transfer function of
PID controller is given as.
Ki
TFPID =Kp + +Kd s (3)
s
The output characteristics of a control system can be
optimized by tuning the values of proportional integral and
derivative coefficient of PID controller. The main output
characteristics of control system are rise time, settling time,
percentage overshoot and steady state error [8].

539
 much simple and has relatively better performance than simple
PID controller.
+_

Root Locus
Controller Amplifier Exciter Generator
0.03
0.97 0.94 0.89 0.8 0.64 0.35

0.02
0.988

Imaginary Axis (millis econds-1 )

0.01 0.997

Sensor 100 80 60 40 20
0

Fig. 4. AVR with PID controller -0.01 0.997

Eq. 2 shows the transfer function of PID controller. 0.988

-0.02
Different other robust tuning techniques have been proposed
recently for PID controller parameters [9] [11] [12] but the 0.97 0.94 0.89 0.8 0.64 0.35
-0.03
optimal values for tuning of PID controller in this paper are -0.12 -0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -1
Real Axis (millis econds )
-0.02 0 0.02

obtained using adaptive particle swarm optimization algorithm

[14]. Therein a comparison has been shown between different
Fig. 5. Root locus with PID controller
techniques for tuning PID controller like Ziegler Nichols,
particle swarm optimization (PSO), simplified particle swarm
B. Fuzzy Logic Based PID and PI Controller.
(MOL) algorithm, adaptive particle swarm optimization
(APSO) algorithm. It was concluded that the (APSO) has the
Fuzzy logic control is an important application of fuzzy set
most optimal values for PID controller for AVR system. By
theory, introduced by Zadeh in 1965. Fuzzy logic control is a
using the optimal values of PID from adaptive particle swarm
useful technique for automation and intelligent control. Fuzzy
optimization method, the system given in Fig. 4 can be
control involves Linguistic variables defined in natural
expressed by Eq. 3.
language (such as small zero or large etc) or it may be
represented by fuzzy set. There are three main fuzzy controllers
Vt 0.0194s3 +1.995s2 +5.58s+4.369
= (4) named as Mamdani, Surgeno and Tsukamoto. To solve any
Vref 0.0004s5 +0.0454s4 +0.555s3 +3.45s2 +6.536s+4.369 nonlinear system accurate mathematical modeling is difficult to
achieve. In such cases, fuzzy control technique is applicable
Similarly, we designed a simple PI controller for AVR [10]. Different types of fuzzy techniques are used in different
system given in Fig. 4 to compensate its oscillatory response types of problems. In this paper, we adopted a simple technique.
and steady state error. The transfer function of AVR system There is a single input to the fuzzy controller and it generates
with PI controller is given by eq. 5. tree outputs on the basis of input data. The simulation has been
done using Fuzzy Logic Controller [5][7] (FLC) as presented in
Vt 0.02s2 +2.015s+1.5 Fig. 6. Fuzzy rules are also written to make decision based on
= 5 4 3 2
(5) input signal value [6].
Vref 0.0004s +0.0454s +0.555s +1.51s +3s+1.5

However, because of their simple structure PID controllers

show limitations for higher order control problems and
nonlinear problems. Due to these limitations, there is a need to
increase the capabilities of PID controllers by adding new
techniques. By doing so we can improve their performance for
a wide range of industrial processes and plants. So, in this
context, the use of Fuzzy Logic seems to be relevant [13], as it
makes the system intelligent when we have to control the
system automatically.
Fig. 6. Mamdani model for AVR system
For this purpose, the technique of Fuzzy PID was
implemented on automatic voltage regulator in previous paper In this fuzzy system we take error as input and the method
[4]. Unfortunately, it has the same result as the simple PID of fuzzy interface is used for online tunning of PID parameters
controller. The design in the paper mentioned above was  ୮ ,  ୧ and  ୢ . According to our desired requirement the fuzzy
relatively complex and has the same result as that of simple PID controller used to adjust the values of PID parameters adopts
controller. Whereas the design we presented in this paper is the form of single input and three outputs. In the membership
degree function editor all the input and output membership

540
degree function are chosen as trimf. Fig. 7 shows the input of
the fuzzy system having domain [-1 1] and takes [NB, NM, Z,
PM, PB] as a fuzzy subset of the input as well as for the outputs.

Fig. 10. Output  ୢ

Fig. 7. Error input The simulation has been done in MATLAB simulink
library and fuzzy controller implemented in the simulation is
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 shows the output of the fuzzy system shown in Fig. 11.
named as  ୮ and  ୧ , having domain [-0.2 0.2] and takes [NB,
NM, Z, PM, PB] as a fuzzy subset of the input as well as for the
outputs. Whereas Fig. 10 is the third output of the fuzzy system
named as  ୢ having domain [-0.1 0.1].

Fig. 11. Fuzzy controller for Fuzzy PID

Similarly, a simulation has been done in MATLAB

Simulink library and fuzzy controller implemented for Fuzzy-
PI in the simulation is shown in Fig. 12.
Fig. 8. Output  ୮

Fig. 12. Fuzzy controller for Fuzzy PI

In this paper, we just only consider one input and degree of

membership function is five so the number of rules added to the
Fig. 9. Output  ୧ fuzzy system for online tuning of PID and PI parameters are

541
five. The rules are designed based on experience and testing.
The compensated value of Fuzzy PID and Fuzzy PI controller
is increased or decreased based on the value of error signal
going to the fuzzy controller.
IV. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
It is clear from Fig. 13 that the Fuzzy based PID and PI
controller has good fast response as compared to conventional
PID and PI controller. Furthermore, Performance assessment of
designed controllers are tabulated in Table I. It can be seen that
the Fuzzy PID controller has considerably less rise time than
simple PID controller.
1 controller, and Artificial Neural Networks.
0.8
Amplitude
V. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
Various simulation results have been shown and
comparison between conventional PID, PI, Fuzzy PID and
Fuzzy-PI controllers is done. According to the results it is
visible that Fuzzy PID controller has better response than other
controllers. The important aspect of this controller is the online
tunning of different control parameters. As the control
parameters are continuously updated with respect to the error
signal. The proposed design has better characteristics in terms
of response as the transient oscillations have reduced, low rise
time and better performance than conventional control.
In near future, our work will be extended to various
advance controllers such as: Sliding Mode Controller, Adaptive
SMC, fractional order controller PI controller, H-infinity
PI
Fuzzy PI VI. APPENDIX
PID

Fuzzy PID Table II. Parameters of AVR system [14]

0.6

0.4
Components Parameter limits Parameter values
Gain Time constant Gain Time
constant
0.2 Amplifier 10 to 40 0.02 to 0.1  ୟ=10 ୟ=0.1
Exciter 1 to 10 0.4 to 1  ୣ =1 ୣ=0.4
0 Generator 0.7 to 1 1 to 2  ୥ =1 ୥ =1
0 1 2 3 4 5 Sensor 1 0.001 to 0.06  ୱ =1 ୱ=0.01
t (sec)

Table III. Parameter values for all Controllers

Fig. 13. Response of simple PID and Fuzzy PID
Control Strategies Parameter Initial Range
According to the comparison shown in Fig. 15 it is quite values
clear that the response of PI controller is slower than others and PI ୮ 0.2 N/A
it is also poor in terms of overshoot value and settling time. ୧ 0.15 N/A
Whereas the Fuzzy-PI controller has little better response than ୮ 0.5536 N/A
PID ୧ 0.4369 N/A
that of PI controller. It has less rise time as well as it offers less
ୢ 0.1940 N/A
overshoot as compared to PI controller. On the other hand, PID FUZZY- PI ୮ 0.2 -0.2 to 0.2
controller has much better performance than the previous two ୧ 0.15 -0.2 to 0.2
as it has negligible overshoot and less rise time. Finally, the ୮ 0.5536 -0.2 to 0.2
controller with much less rise time as compared to others is the FUZZY- PID ୧ 0.4369 -0.2 to 0.2
Fuzzy PID controller. Although it gives little undershoot but ୢ 0.1940 -0.1 to 0.1
still it has very fast response than other controllers discussed
and designed in this paper.

Table I. Performance assessment of designed controller REFERENCES

Controllers OS US IAE ISE RT [1] Challapuram Yaswanth Redd, Valluri Krishnakanth, Ramadugu Sanjay,
PI 0.12 0.1 0.6664 0.4441 1.25 Velaga Naga Vijay Krishna, R Jayabarathi “Laboratory Implementation of
PID 0.02 0.02 0.2291 0.05248 0.6 Automatic Voltage Regulator,” Biennial International Conference on Power
and Energy Systems:Towards Sustainable Energy (PESTSE), pp. 1-6, 2016.
Fuzzy PI 0.08 0.15 0.6288 0.3955 0.9
Fuzzy PID 0.03 0.05 0.2291 0.05248 0.3
[2] Binod Kumar Sahu Sidhartha Panda, Pradeep Kumar Mohanty, Nandan
Note: OS: Overshoot, US: Undershoot, IAE: Integral Absolute Error, ISE:
Mishra “Robust analysis and design of PID controlled AVR system using
Integral Square Error, RT: Rise Time
Pattern Search algorithm,” IEEE International Conference on Power
Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems (PEDES), pp. 1-6, 2012.

[3] Ting-Chia Ou; Ta-Peng Tsao; Chih-Ming Hong; Chiung-Hsing

Chen“Hybrid control system for automatic voltage regulator in smart grid”
Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Machine Learning and
Cybernetics, Tianjin, pp. 1103 - 1108 14-17 July, 2013.

542
[4] Naeim Farouk; Tian Bingqi “Application of self tuning fuzzy PID controller
on the AVR system,” IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and
Automation, pp. 2510 - 2514, Aug. 2012.

[5] OUYANG Li-Ming. Fuzzy Control System Design Based on MATLAB.

Beijing: National Defence Industrial Press, 2001.

[6] ZHANG En-qin, SHI Song-jiao. “New Type of Parameters-Varying PID

Control Based on Fuzzy Rules,” Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, vol.
34, no. 5, pp. 630-634, 2000.

[7] A.Visioli, “Tuning of PID controllers with fuzzy logic,” Proceedings of

Institute of Electrical Engineering Control Theory Application, vol. 148, no. 1,
pp. 1–8, Jan. 2001.

[8] K.Ogata, Modern Control Engineering, Fourth edition, Prentice-Hall Inc.,

USA, 2002.

[9] Ching-Chang Wong, Shih-An Li and Hou-Yi Wang, “Optimal PID

Controller Design for AVR System”, Tamkang Journal of Science and
Engineering, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 259-270, 2009.

[10] P. Hoang, K. Tomsovic. “Design and analysis an adaptive fuzzy power

system stabilizer”. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 11, no. 2, pp.
455-46, 1June 1996.

[11] Ashish Kumar, Gauri Shankar “Priority based optimization of PID

controller for automatic voltage regulator system using gravitational search
algorithm,” International Conference on Recent Developments in Control,
Automation and Power Engineering (RDCAPE), pp. 292 – 297, 2015.

[12] Amir Afroomand, Saeed Tavakoli, Mahdi Tavakoli “An Efficient

Metaheuristic Optimization Approach to the Problem of PID Tuning for
Automatic Voltage Regulator Systems” IEEE International Conference on
Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM) Banff, pp. 1682 - 1687 Canada, July
12–15, 2016.

[13] Yongiuan Zhao, Yutitan Pan “The Design and Simulation of Fuzzy PID
Controller,” IEEE Conference on Information Technology and Applications
(IFITA), vol. 3 pp. 95-98, 2010.

[14] J. Femmy Nirmal; D. Jeraldin Auxillia “Adaptive PSO based tunning of

PID controller for an Automatic Voltage Regulator system,” International
Conference on Circuits, Power and Computing Technologies (ICCPCT), pp.
661 – 666, 2013.

543