Performance Evolution of Different Optimal Controllers for Controlling AVR System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main issue in electrical system is providing a stable voltage values in order to obtain best devices performance for this reason controlling the automatic voltage regulation (AVR) system becoma more helpful to achieve this requirments, in this paper three controllers are suggested for maintaining the terminal voltage level value of the generator part in AVR system that supplied to custumers, these controllers are (Conventional PID, ArcTan PID and Nonlinear PID), all gains of these controllers is tuned by using an intelligent sun flower optimization (SFO) algorithm.The objective of the design is finding suitable values of these gains that give a stable response based on minimizing error value and testing it using the Integral Time Absolute Error (ITAE) fitness function, the numerical results exhibited that the ArcTan PID controller give the best results values with a lower settling time (0.698) and its faster than conventional PID 5.034 % and faster than nonlinear PID by 5.163% for 5 second simulation time also its reach its peak value in 0.513 sec.and an expectable overshoot value equal to 0.513 with a small error value (0.000645) at its steady state case and then small error value when working at normal state without any disturbance or any uncertainty cases applied but when a disturbances signal is applied with a value equal to ± 0.3 to the system, the NLPID and the conventional PID presents a best response by returning the system to its desired value in just 2 second in the two cases applied and when change the gain values of two parts of AVR system( amplifier & sensor) the NLPID behaves as a the more suitable one and give a superior robust performance in facing this unwanted signals and then a desired response is achieved after small period time with satisfied and acceptable values for woring in this enviroment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".