Optimal Frequency Control in Microgrid System Using Fractional Order Pid Controller Using Krill Herd Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This paper investigates the use of fractional order Proportional, Integral and Derivative (FOPID) controllers for the frequency and power regulation in a microgrid power system. The proposed microgrid system composes of renewable energy resources such as solar and wind generators, diesel engine generators as a secondary source to support the principle generators, and along with different energy storage devices like fuel cell, battery and flywheel. Due to the intermittent nature of integrated renewable energy like wind turbine and photovoltaic generators, which depend on the weather conditions and climate change this affects the microgrid stability by considered fluctuation in frequency and power deviations which can be improved using the selected controller. The fractional-order controller has five parameters in comparison with the classical PID controller, and that makes it more flexible and robust against the microgrid perturbation. The Fractional Order PID controller parameters are optimized using a new optimization technique called Krill Herd which selected as a suitable optimization method in comparison with other techniques like Particle Swarm Optimization. The results show better performance of this system using the fractional order PID controller-based Krill Herd algorithm by eliminates the fluctuations in frequency and power deviation in comparison with the classical PID controller. The obtained results are compared with the fractional order PID controller optimized using Particle Swarm Optimization. The proposed system is simulated under nominal conditions and using the disconnecting of storage devices like battery and Flywheel system in order to test the robustness of the proposed methods and the obtained results are compared.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".