Systems Science & Control Engineering

An Open Access Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tssc20

Stability comparison of different controllers

for hydraulic turbine fractional order interval
parameter time-delay system

Tian Tian, Jinhua Lv & Jian Tang

To cite this article: Tian Tian, Jinhua Lv & Jian Tang (2023) Stability comparison of different
controllers for hydraulic turbine fractional order interval parameter time-delay system,
Systems Science & Control Engineering, 11:1, 2221309, DOI: 10.1080/21642583.2023.2221309

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21642583.2023.2221309

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 16 Jun 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 242

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tssc20
SYSTEMS SCIENCE & CONTROL ENGINEERING: AN OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL
2023, VOL. 11, NO. 1, 2221309
https://doi.org/10.1080/21642583.2023.2221309

Stability comparison of different controllers for hydraulic turbine fractional order

interval parameter time-delay system
Tian Tian, Jinhua Lv and Jian Tang
College of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Wuhan Institute of Shipbuilding Technology, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper studies the stability comparison of four controllers for a hydraulic turbine fractional order Received 31 October 2022
interval parameter time-delay system. Considering the terms of parameter uncertainty and time-lag, Accepted 29 April 2023
the hydraulic turbine fractional order interval parameter time-delay system is established by using KEYWORDS
fractional calculus and identification technology. Through the edge theorem and D-decomposition Hydraulic turbine governing
method, the calculation process of controller parameter stability region is derived in every detail. system; stability region;
Subsequently, the four different controllers including the PID, PID plus second order derivative fractional order; controller
(PID2D), fractional order PID (FOPID) and fractional order PID plus second order derivative (FOPID2D) parameter; time-delay;
controllers, are applied in the hydraulic turbine fractional order interval parameter time-delay sys- interval parameter
tem. According to the experimental results, the effect of the controller parameters kd , kd2 , α and λ
on the stability region of the parameters kp and ki is analysed and the variable law of stability regions
of the hydraulic turbine governing system is presented. Finally, the stability region of these four con-
trollers is compared and the results validate the superiority of the FOPID2D controller over the other
controllers.

1. Introduction
The hydraulic turbine governing system (HTGS) is a com-
plicated closed-loop system which mainly consists of
the controller, actuator, hydraulic turbine-penstock and
generator-load. This system is occasionally influenced by
hydraulic, mechanical and electric factors (Wei, 2011). In
the HTGS system, the hydroelectric generating unit (HGU)
can be regarded as the controlled object of the turbine
governor. Thus, the control performance of closed-loop
system is essential to the strong guarantee of a stable
and safe power supply (Li & Zhou, 2011). However, the
controller parameters need to be changed or modified
accordingly in a variety of changing operating conditions.
The stability regions of closed-loop system are insepara-
bly linked to the regulation of the hydraulic turbine gov-
erning system. Therefore, the determination of stability
region intuitively and conveniently provides an effective
reference for the engineers. And it is important in guiding
the stable and safe operation of hydropower plants.
The HTGS system usually operates in multiple operat-
ing environments. This may cause the constructed model
parameters, especially the linearized model parameters,
change along with the operating-points. And the identi-
fied or measured parameter values need a complex solv-
ing process including the complicated calculation and the
numeral error. The performance analysis and control of
systems are difficult when the parameters perturb uncer-
tainly (Petras et al., 2004). Therefore, it is necessary to
propose a stability determination approach for the HTGS
system with the interval parameters. Beyond that, the
two terms of time-lag and fractional order are consid-
ered in the system modelling of HTGS. On one hand, in
the hydraulic actuator, the time delay easily occurs during
the process of signal transmission between the different
hydraulic components. This can cause a delay in the guide
vane opening to the large and frequent load disturbance
(Xu et al., 2015). For this reason, the time-lag of the actu-
ator is an important consideration in the modelling of
HTGS. On the other hand, due to the unique advantages
of high flexibility and long-term memory, the fractional
model is getting considerable attention from scholars and
experts with the development of fractional order theory
(Xian et al., 2019). It has been used in the system mod-
elling and controller design of several fields (Chen et al.,
2014). Compared to the integer order models, the frac-
tional order model has a stronger description ability and a
wider range of applications. This suggests that it is neces-
sary to establish the fractional order mathematical model
to describe the dynamic characteristics of the hydraulic
turbine governing system.

CONTACT Tian Tian hust_tiantian@163.com

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow
the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 T. TIAN ET AL.

In recent years, it has appeared some research work
on the stability of the HTGS system. Xu B et.al built a
fractional order hydraulic turbine model and analysed
the effect of fractional order parameters and water ham-
mer parameters on the system’s stability (Xu et al., 2015).
The dynamic characteristics of the system were studied
via the bifurcation graphs and time waveforms. Using a
novel Hamiltonian function, Xu B et.al presented a Hamil-
tonian mathematical model of HTGS considering the frac-
tional order and time-delay (Xu et al., 2017). Then the
influence of fractional order parameters and time-delay
parameters on the system dynamic response was dis-
cussed by simulation experiments. Long Y et.al presented
the motion laws of the bifurcation points and chaotic
regions with the changing fractional order by the results
of fractional bifurcation diagrams, time waveforms, and
phase orbits. And the stable range of kd was gained by
the various fractional-order values (Long et al., 2018). The
studies mentioned above paid attention to the impact
of the typical parameters of controlled objects on the
system stability. Several cut-off points between the sta-
ble region and unstable region were achieved using the
bifurcation theory and Poincare map in mathematics.
Unlike those studies, the research in this text uses three
different controllers besides the traditional PID (propor-
tional integral differential) controller and takes the system
parameter uncertainty into consideration. It focuses on
the stability region procedure of controller parameters for
the hydraulic turbine fractional interval parameter time-
delay system. Then the variable law of stability regions
with different controller parameter values is summarized.
Finally, the stability comparison of various controllers is
carried out.
With the exception of the classic PID controller, sev-
eral developed controllers namely the fractional order
PID (FOPID) and PID plus second order derivative (PID2D)
have been proposed and used in a variety of situations
(Raju et al., 2016; Sahib, 2015; Sain et al., 2020). Because
the stability regions of control parameter for the HGTS
system varies with the different selection of controllers,
the stability comparison of different controllers including
PID, FOPID, PID2D and fractional order PID plus second
order derivative (FOPID2D) is implemented in this paper.
Given the above considerations, the hydraulic turbine
fractional order interval parameter time-delay system is
created with the PSO algorithm and measured no-load
data. Through the edge theorem and D-decomposition
method, the calculation process of controller parame-
ter stability region is derived in every detail. The per-
mutation and combination of interval parameters can
be achieved through the edge theorem (Tan, 2005).
The hydraulic turbine fractional order interval parame-
ter time-delay system can be partitioned into several
determined parameter subsets. Then, with the system
characteristic polynomial and D-decomposition method,
the controller parameter values with a maximum stabil-
ity region can be calculated in each parameter subset
case (Hamamci, 2008, 2007). Finally, the intersection of
all stability regions of each parameter subset case is the
final stability region of the system controller. With the
experimental results, the effect of the other controller
parameters kd , kd2 , α and λ on the stability region of the
parameters kp and ki is analysed. And the variable law of
system stability regions is presented for different control
parameters. It is demonstrated that FOPID2D controller
has greater stability region and better robust stability
than the others.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2
briefly introduces the hydraulic turbine fractional order
interval parameter time-delay system. In Section 3, the
computational procedures of stability regions for differ-
ent controllers are presented in detail. The stability region
results of different controllers are shown and analysed in
Section 4. The conclusion is summarized in Section 5.
2. Hydraulic turbine fractional order interval
parameter time-delay system
2.1. Hydraulic turbine governing system and
fractional order transfer function model
The hydraulic turbine governing system mainly consists
of the controller, actuator, hydraulic turbine-conduit and
generator-load. The block diagram of hydraulic turbine
governing system is shown in Figure 1. From the view
in control theory, when the load torque mg equals to 0,
the three parts namely the actuator, hydraulic turbine-
conduit and generator-load can be regarded as the con-
trolled object. So the closed-loop HTGS system can be
divided into the controller C(s) and the controlled object
G(s). Due to the complexity of the system or the chang-
ing operation points, there is usually the system model
parameter uncertainty. When the hydraulic actuator con-
verts the weak electrical signal to the strong mechani-
cal signal, time-delay occurs in this process. Besides, the
fractional order model is more flexible than the integer
order model. Thus, considering the terms of fractional
Figure 1. The block diagram of hydraulic turbine governing
system.
 SYSTEMS SCIENCE & CONTROL ENGINEERING: AN OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL 3

order, time-lag and parameter uncertainty, the controlled paper, taking the example of no-load operation, the frac-
object can be defined as: tional order transfer function model of hydraulic turbine-
conduit and generator-load is built. The fractional order
transfer function model of the hydraulic turbine at no-
N(s) bn sβn + bn−1 sβn−1 + · · · + b1 sβ1 + b0 −ls load can be expressed as:
G(s) = = e
D(s) an sαn + an−1 sαn−1 + · · · + a1 sα1 + a0
(1) x(s) B1 sϕ1 + B0
Gfo (s) = = (2)
where ar ∈ [ar , ar ] and br ∈ [br , br ] (r = 0,1,2, . . . ,n) indi- y(s) A2 sθ2 + A1 sθ1 + 1
cate the transfer function coefficients. ar and ar are
respectively the lower limit and the upper limit of the where A2 , A1 , B1 and B0 are the coefficients of transfer
interval parameters ar . br and br are respectively the function. θ 2 , θ 1 and ϕ 1 are the orders.
lower limit and the upper limit of the interval parameters The first order transfer function is used as the actuator
br . α r and β r (0 < α 1 ≤ 1, 1 < α 2 ≤ 2, . . . , n-1 < α n ≤ n; with considering the time-delay term (Xu et al., 2015). The
0 < β 1 ≤ 1, 1 < β 2 ≤ 2, . . . , n-1 < β n ≤ n) are the orders. transfer function of actuator is defined as:
l ∈ [l, l](l > 0) indicates the constant of time-delay. ar , br , y(s) 1
α r and β r are the arbitrary real numbers. xc is the given = e−Ls (3)
yc (s) Ty s + 1
turbine speed and x is the turbine speed. yc is the output
signal of controller and y is the guide vane opening. mg where Ty indicates the major relay connecter response
indicates the load torque and mt is the turbine torque. time and L is the delay time constant.
The hydraulic turbine governing system is a closed- In this text, the PID, FOPID, PID2D and FOPID2D con-
loop regulation system which is integrated with water, trollers are applied in the HTGS system. The transfer func-
mechanical and electricity. When the turbine speed tions of four controllers are expressed as:
changes, the controller changes the control signal to ⎧
⎪ ki
drive open or close the guide vane. These actions make ⎪
⎪ CPID (s) = kp + + kd s
⎪
⎪ s
the water flow in the pipes increase or decrease and ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ k
this can cause the occurrence of water hammer. There- ⎨CFOPID (s) = kp + λi + kd sμ
s (4)
fore, the hydraulic turbine regulation process is a compli- ⎪
⎪ ki
⎪
⎪ C (s) = k + + k s + k s2
cated and nonlinear process. To strike a balance between ⎪
⎪
PID2D p
s
d d2
⎪
⎪
the identification convenience and the model accuracy, ⎪
⎩ k i
CFOPID2D (s) = kp + λ + kd sμ + kd2 s2μ
the piecewise linear model is used as an approximation s
to the nonlinear system. The hydraulic turbine-conduit
where kp , ki and kd indicate the proportional gain, inte-
model is partially linear near an operating point and
gral gain and differential gain respectively. λ and μ are
it can be represented by the transfer function model.
the integral order and differential order respectively. kd2
The model parameters change along with the oper-
is the second order derivative gain.
ating point. The block diagram of hydraulic turbine-
conduit and generator-load is shown in Figure 2. qi and hj
(i = 0,1,2, . . . ,nt ; j = 0,1,2, . . . ,mt ; mt ≤ nt ) are the transfer 2.2. Hydraulic turbine fractional order model
function coefficients. Ta indicates the inertia time con- parameter identification
stant of generator. eg is the adjusting coefficient of gen-
When the estimated model outputs including guide vane
erator.
opening and turbine speed are quite close to the mea-
Because of the different operating modes and oper-
sured data, these parameters including A2 , A1 , B1 , B0 ,
ating conditions, the system modelling and parameter
θ 2 , θ 1 and ϕ 1 can be identified in the hydraulic turbine
identification need to be presented respectively for the
no-load fractional order model. In recent years, popu-
isolated grid, small grid and no-load operations. In this
lar artificial intelligence based meta-heuristic algorithms
have become effective methods for parameter identifi-
cation. The algorithms need to strike a balance between
exploration and exploitation. As one of the traditional
algorithms, the particle swarm optimization algorithm
(PSO) has the advantage of few parameters, a simple
structure and easy realization. It has a faster convergence
speed and higher efficiency than the genetic algorithm. In
Figure 2. The block diagram of hydraulic turbine-conduit and recent years, the particle swarm optimization algorithm
generator-load. has been applied in different fields and concerned by
4 T. TIAN ET AL.

researchers. Therefore, the particle swarm optimization
algorithm is introduced in the parameter identification of
the hydraulic turbine fractional order model. η = [A2 A1
B1 B0 θ 2 θ 1 ϕ 1 ] is the estimated parameter set. Its upper
and lower limits of optimization range are [50 50 50 50 2
1 1] and [0 0 -50 0 1 0 0]. The simulation time is 40s and the
sample time is 0.005s. For PSO, the population number is
200 and the maximum iteration is 50. The learning factors
are set as c1 = c2 = 2. The squared sum of differences
between the guide vane opening and turbine speed is set
as the fitness function. It can be defined as:
The convergence process of PSO algorithm is shown
in Figure 3. The measured and estimated curves of tur-
bine speed and guide vane are compared in Figure 4. The
results of turbine speed and guide vane curves in the fig-
ures show that the output curves of the estimated model
are close to the measured curves. The identified turbine
fractional order transfer function model is as follows:
x(s) −1.54s0.99 + 3.93
Gfo (s) = = (6)
y(s) 33.73s1.16 + 6.89s0.72 + 1


m=M 
m=M 3. Stability region analysis of FOPID2D
Fit = x(m))2 + 100 ·
(x(m) − y(m))2
(y(m) − controller parameter for hydraulic turbine
m=1 m=1
(5) fractional order interval parameter time-delay
where M indicates the number of sampling points system
(m = 1, . . . ,M). 
y and 
x are the estimated data of guide In this section, the hydraulic turbine fractional order
vane opening and turbine speed respectively. y and x interval parameter time-delay system is separated into
indicate the measured data of guide vane opening and several specific parameter subsets by the edge theory.
turbine speed. Then the system stability region can be drawn using D-
decomposition. The controller parameter values can be
obtained when the system stability region maximum is
reached. The intersection of stability regions of different
parameter subsets is the final system stability region. The
present paper briefly introduces the D-decomposition
theory and the details can be referred to in the following
documents (Hamamic, 2007; Tan, 2005).
In the D-decomposition theory, the imaginary axis of
the complex plane is used as a decision boundary and the
curve of characteristic polynomial parameters needs to
be drawn (Hamamci, 2008). The curve divides the param-
eter space into stable and unstable regions. Let the char-
acteristic polynomial f (s,a,b) = 0 and put s = jω into the
polynomial. Then the curve equation F(a,b) = 0 can be
received. Each point (a,b) corresponds to a characteris-
Figure 3. The iterative convergence process of PSO. tic equation and this equation has at least one root on
the imaginary axis. Considering that the ω has differ-
ent values, there are three cases of root: the origin root
(ω = 0), the infinity pure imaginary root (ω = ∞) and the
finite pure imaginary root (0 < ω < +∞). At last, the equa-
tions of the parameter curve boundary can be solved.
Due to space limitations, the stability regions of FOPID2D
controller are analysed below. And the stability analysis
procedure of FOPID controller is similar to FOPID2D.
The transfer function of close loop system in Figure 1
is as follows:

x(s) C(s)G(s)
= (7)
xc (s) 1 + C(s)G(s)

The transfer function of FOPID controller in Equation (2)

Figure 4. Measured data and estimated data of turbine speed and the transfer function of controlled object in
and guide vane. Equation (1) are brought into Equation (7). The transfer
 SYSTEMS SCIENCE & CONTROL ENGINEERING: AN OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL 5

function of the close loop system can be given by: From Equation (10) to Equation (9), the closed-loop
system characteristic polynomial can be defined as:
x(s) CFOPID (s)G(s)
=
xc (s) 1 + CFOPID (s)G(s) 
n
P(s; kp , ki , kd , kd2 , λ, μ) = [ar , ar ]sαr +λ
(kp + ki /sλ + kd sμ )N(s)/D(s)
= r=0
1 + (kp + ki /sλ + kd sμ )N(s)/D(s)
λ μ+λ
+ (kp s + ki + kd s + kd2 s2μ+λ )
(kp sλ + ki + kd sμ+λ )N(s)
= (8) 
n
D(s)sλ + (kp sλ + ki + kd sμ+λ )N(s) × e−[L,L]s [br , br ]sβr (13)
The last-written denominator is the characteristic polyno- r=0

mial and it can be expressed as: The characteristic polynomial of each specific parame-
λ λ μ+λ ter subset can be represented as:
P(s; kp , ki , kd , kd2 , λ, μ) = D(s)s + (kp s + ki + kd s
+ kd2 s2μ+λ )N(s) (9) Pkl (s; kp , ki , kd , kd2 , λ, μ)

where P(s; kp , ki , kd , kd2 , λ, μ) is the characteristic polyno- = Dl (s)sλ + e−Ls (kp sλ + ki + kd sμ+λ + kd2 s2μ+λ )Nk (s)
mial. It is the denominator of the transfer function of the 
n
close loop system in Equation (7). = ar sαr +λ + (kp sλ + ki + kd sμ+λ + kd2 s2μ+λ )
It is difficult to obtain accurate model and parame- r=0
ters due to the complexity of the actual control system. 
n

The system parameters vary with the operating points. × e−Ls br sβr (14)
r=0
Thus, the system parameters remain uncertain. The upper
and lower bounds in Equation (10) are used to describe
where ar , br and  L are the parameter values of the current
that the parameters may change in the small ranges.
subset.
The numerator and denominator in Equation (1) can be
It can be seen from Equation (14) that the system sta-
expressed as:
bility is influenced by the controller parameters. Thus, it
⎧
⎪ n is necessary to gain the parameter space stability region
⎪
⎨N(s) = [br , br ]sβr e−[L,L]s
r=0
Skl (C(s)Gkl (s)) of characteristic equation Pkl (s; kp , ki , kd , kd2 ,
n (10) λ, μ). The stability region Skl (C(s)Gkl (s))∈ is a region of
⎪
⎪ αr
⎩ D(s) = [a ,
r ra ]s
r=0 controller parameter space and it can be given as:

According to the edge theory, under the assumption of = {(kp , ki , kd , kd2 , λ, μ) : kp ∈ [0, ∞), ki ∈ [0, ∞),
n + 2 interval parameters of N(s) and n + 1 interval param-
kd ∈ [0, ∞), kd2 ∈ [0, ∞), λ ∈ [0, 2], μ ∈ [0, 2]} (15)
eters of D(s), the 2n + 2 polynomials Nk (s)(k = 1,2, . . . ,
2n + 2 ) and 2n + 1 polynomials Dl (s)(l = 1,2, . . . ,2n + 1 ) can With the D-decomposition theory, the different stabil-
be obtained. If n = 1, the 8 polynomials Nk (s)(k = 1,2, . . . , ity regions of G(s) parameter subsets can be established.
8) and 4 polynomials Dl (s)(l = 1,2, . . . ,4) can be given as: The parameter space constructed by the FOPID2D con-
⎧
⎪ β β −Ls troller parameter kp , ki , kd , kd2 , λ and μ contains the points
⎪N (s) = (b1 s 1 + b0 s 0 )e
1
⎪
⎪ which make the characteristic equation of each param-
⎪
⎪ ..
⎪
⎪ .
⎪
⎨ 8 eter set stable. The controller parameter domain can be
N (s) = (b1 sβ1 + b0 sβ0 )e−Ls given by:
(11)
⎪
⎪ D1 (s) = a0 sα0 + a1 sα1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ . S(C(s)G(s)) = S11 (C(s)G11 (s)) ∩ S12 (C(s)G12 (s))
⎪..
⎪
⎪
⎩ 4
D (s) = a0 sα0 + a1 sα1 · · · Skl (C(s)Gkl (s)) (16)

Combining N(s) with D(s), the 22n + 3 sub-controlled
objects are expressed as:
G(s) = Gkl (s) Gkl (s) =
× l = 1, 2, · · · , 2
where k = 1, . . . ,2n + 2 , l = 1, . . . ,2n + 1 .
Put s = jω into Equation (14) and the following
equation can be expressed as:
Nk (s)
(k = 1, 2, · · · , 2n+2 ;
Dl (s) Pkl (jω; kp , ki , kd , λ, μ)

n
n+1
) (12) = ar (jω)αr +λ + (kp (jω)λ + ki + kd (jω)μ+λ
r=0
6 T. TIAN ET AL.

π  π 

n
 jβr +μ = cos (βr + μ) + j sin (βr + μ)
+ kd2 (jω) 2μ+λ
) e−Ljω br (jω)βr (17) 2 2
r=0
= mr + jkr (26)
The parameter boundary curves can be got through 
Lω
the D-decomposition theory. Take ω = 0 into Equa- e−j = cos(−Lω) + j sin(−Lω) = cos(Lω) − j sin(
Lω)
tion (17) and let Pkl = 0. The following equation can be (27)
π  π 
given by: jβr +2μ = cos (βr + 2μ) + j sin (βr + 2μ)
2 2
Pkl (0; kp , ki , kd , kd2 , λ, μ) = br ki = 0 ⇔ ki = 0 (18)
= nr + jfr (28)
where sβ0 = 1 is established in each parameter set trans-
fer function of Equation (18), thus β 0 = 0.
Thus, the Equation (20) can be expressed as:
When the condition α n ≤ β n + 2μ is met, the bound-
ary curves of infinite pure imaginary roots exist. It can be
described as: Pkl (jω; kp , ki , kd , kd2 , λ, μ)
⎧
⎪
⎪ (αn = βn ) or (αn > βn 
n
⎪
⎪ kd2 = 0 = ar ωαr (xr + jyr ) + br (cos(
Lω)
⎪
⎪ and μ > 1/2(αn − βn ))
⎪
⎨ r=0
(αn > βn and
kd2 = ±an /bn (19) 
⎪
⎪ μ = 1/2(α − β )) − j sin(
Lω))[kp ωβr (zr + jtr )
⎪
⎪
n n
⎪
⎪ (αn > βn and  
⎪none
⎩ + ki ωβr −λ (qr + jhr ) + kd ωβr +μ (mr + jkr )
μ < 1/2(αn − βn ))

+ kd2 ωβr +2μ (nr + jfr )]
Then Equation (17) can be presented as:
= Re(Pkl (jω; kp , ki , kd , kd2 , λ, μ))
Pkl (jω; kp , ki , kd , λ, μ)
+ jIm(Pkl (jω; kp , ki , kd , kd2 , λ, μ))

n
= ar (jω)αr + (kp + ki (jω)−λ + kd (jω)μ =0 (29)
r=0

n

+ kd2 (jω)2μ ) e−jLω Let the values of the real part and the imaginary part
r=0 equal to 0 respectively. The following equations can be

n obtained:
 
= ar (jω)αr + e−jLω br [kp + ki (jω)βr −λ
r=0 
kp M(ω) + ki N(ω) = kd B(ω) + kd2 K(ω) + X(ω)
βr +μ βr +2μ (30)
+ kd (jω) + kd2 (jω) ] kp A(ω) + ki H(ω) = kd Z(ω) + kd2 T(ω) + Y(ω)
=0 (20)
where:
The non-integer order of complex numbers can be
expressed as:
⎧  
  ρ  ⎪
n n
(σ + jρ)δ = σ 2 + ρ 2 cos δtan−1
δ ⎪
⎪ M(ω) = cos( Lω) br zr ωβr + sin(Lω) br tr ωβr
⎪
⎪
σ ⎪
⎪
r=0 r=0
   ⎪
⎪  n n
+ j sin δtan−1 ρ ⎪
⎪N(ω) = cos( Lω) br qr ωβr −λ + sin(Lω) br tr ωβr −λ
(21) ⎪
⎪
σ ⎪
⎪ r=0 r=0
⎪
⎪ n
⎪   β +μ
⎪B(ω) = − cos(Lω) r=0 br mr ω
⎪ r
With the Euler equation, the terms in Equation (20) can ⎪
⎪
⎪
be given as: ⎨  n
− sin(
Lω) br kr ωβr +μ
ejφ = cos φ + j sin φ (22) ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
r=0

π  π  ⎪
⎪
n
⎪X(ω) = −
⎪ ar xr ωαr
jαr = cos αr + j sin αr = xr + jyr (23) ⎪
⎪
2 2 ⎪
⎪
r=0
π  π  ⎪
⎪ n

⎪K(ω) = − cos(
⎪ Lω) br mr ωβr +2μ
jβr = cos βr + j sin βr = zr + jtr (24) ⎪
⎪
2 2 ⎪
⎪
r=0
π  π  ⎪
⎪  n
⎪
⎩− sin( 
br kr ωβr +2μ
jβr −λ = cos (βr − λ) + j sin (βr − λ) = qr + jhr Lω)
2 2 r=0
(25) (31)
 SYSTEMS SCIENCE & CONTROL ENGINEERING: AN OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL 7

⎧
⎪  n n
⎪
⎪
⎪ A(ω) = cos(
Lω) br tr ωβr − sin(
Lω) br zr ωβr
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
r=0
n
r=0
 n
⎪ r hr ωβr −λ + sin(
⎪
⎪
⎪ H(ω) = cos(
Lω) b Lω) br qr ωβr −λ
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
r=0

r=0

⎪
⎪
n

n
⎪ 
⎨Z(ω) = sin(Lω) br mr ω βr +μ 
− cos(Lω) br kr ωβr +μ
r=0 r=0
⎪ n
⎪
⎪
⎪ Y(ω) = − ar yr ωαr
⎪
⎪ r=0
⎪
⎪ n
⎪
⎪ T(ω) = sin(

br mr ωβr +2μ
⎪
⎪ Lω)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
r=0
⎪
⎪ 
n

⎪
⎩− cos(Lω) br kr ωβr +2μ
r=0
(32)

From Equation (32), the parameters kp and ki which

depend on the parameters kd , λ and μ for FOPID2D con-
troller can be given as:
⎧
⎪
⎪ X · H − Y · N + kd (B · H − Z · N)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ +kd2 (K · H − T · N)
⎪
⎨kp =
M·H−A·N (33)
⎪
⎪ X · A − Y · M + kd (B · A − Z · M)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ +kd2 (K · A − T · M)
⎪
⎩ki =
A·N−M·H Figure 5. Calculation steps of stability region of FOPID2D
controller parameter.
Similarly, through the theoretical deduction, the para-
meters kp and ki which depend on the parameters kd , λ
and μ for FOPID controller can be expressed as: 4. Result and analysis
⎧
⎪ X · H − Y · N + kd (B · H − Z · N) For the convenience of readers, the main results of this
⎪
⎨k p =
M·H−A·N paper should be presented in the form of propositions.
(34)
⎪
⎪ X · A − Y · M + kd (B · A − Z · M) These propositions are shown as follows:
⎩ ki =
A·N−M·H
Proposition 1: The stability comparison of different con-
It can be known from Equation (33) that kd , kd2 , λ and
trollers for the hydraulic turbine fractional order interval
μ are the independent variables and kp and ki are the
parameter time-delay system shows that FOPID2D has
dependent variables. If kd , kd2 , λ and μ have fixed values
the biggest stability region, FOPID is moderate, PID2D
and ω increases from 0 to ∞, the boundary curve of finite
takes the third place and PID is the least. The FOPID2D
pure imaginary root can be drawn in the two dimensional
controller has better robust stability than the others.
plane (kp , ki ). Similarly, the correlation equations in which
the FOPID2D controller parameters such as kp , kd or ki ,
kd or ki , kd2 depend on the other parameters observed Proposition 2: The variable laws of stability regions of
by solving the Equation (33). Byfixing the value of inde- FOPID2D, PID2D, FOPID and PID controller parameters for
pendent variables, the boundary curves of the finite pure the hydraulic turbine fractional order interval parameter
imaginary root can be obtained. Because of space limi- time-delay system are as follows:
tations, the paper only presents the boundary curves of
finite pure imaginary root in the plane (kp , ki ). In addi- (i) The system stability region first decreases and then
tion, the controller parameters of the system are usually increases with λ decreasing from 1.6 to 0.2.
real numbers while drawing the stability regions. Finally, (ii) The system stability region first increases and then
the stability region of FOPID2D controller parameter in decreases with μ decreasing from 1.9 to 0.3.
the hydraulic turbine fractional order interval parameter (iii) The system stability region decreases with kd2
time-delay system is computed and analysed. Figure 5 decreasing from 1 to 0.2.
shows the calculation steps of the stability region of (iv) The system stability region decreases with kd
FOPID2D controller parameter. decreasing from 1 to 0.2.
8 T. TIAN ET AL.

The transfer function model of the controlled object in 4.1. Stability region results of PID and FOPID
the hydraulic turbine governing system can be given by: controllers
1 B1 sϕ1 + B0 The characteristic function of the hydraulic turbine frac-
G(s) = · e−Ls
Ty s + 1 A2 s 2 + A1 sθ1 + 1
θ tional order model based on FOPID controller can be
B1 sϕ1 + B0 given by:
= e−Ls (35)
Ty A2 sθ2 +1 + Ty A1 sθ1 +1 + Ty s
+A2 sθ2 + A1 sθ1 + 1 P(s; kp , ki , kd , λ, μ)

In the established hydraulic turbine governing system, = Ty A2 sθ2 +1+λ + Ty A1 sθ1 +1+λ + Ty s1+λ
the controlled object parameters can be selected as the + A2 sθ2 +λ + A1 sθ1 +λ + sλ
uncertain parameters. For the actuator, the major relay

connecter response time Ty can be obtained through the + e−Ls (B1 sϕ1 + B0 )(kp sλ + ki + kd sμ+λ ) (37)
signal practical experiments. Considering the hydraulic
turbine parameters changing along with the operat- where A2 , B0 and 
L indicate the interval parameters.
ing points and the uncertain error of delay time, the With the D-decomposition theory, the boundary curves
fractional order transfer function coefficients and the of origin (ω = 0) and infinite (ω = ∞) pure imaginary
time-delay are set as the interval parameters. In order roots can be calculated as:
to facilitate the realization of the simulation result dis-
play, it is assumed that the parameter uncertainties
come from the parameters A2 , B0 and L. Set the nom- Origin ki = 0 Because sβ0 = 1 (38)
inal values of these parameters: A2 = 33.73, A1 = 6.89, ⎧
⎪
⎪ k =0 (μ > 1.17)
B1 = −1.54, B0 = 3.93, θ 2 = 1.16, θ 1 = 0.72, ϕ 1 = 0.99, ⎪ d
⎨
T A
Ty = 0.1, L = 1.25. The interval parameters A2 , B0 and Infinite pure imaginary root: kd = ± y 2 (μ = 1.17)
⎪
⎪ B1
L are considered to vary in the range of 20%, 10% ⎪
⎩
none (μ < 1.17)
and 10% respectively. Thus, A2 ∈ [A2 , A2 ] = [26.98, 40.48],
B0 ∈ [B0 , B0 ] = [3.54, 4.32], L ∈ [L, L] = [1.13, 1.38]. With (39)
the D-decomposition theory, there are eight models of
parameter subsets. They can be expressed as: From Equations (31) and (32), the boundary curves of
finite (0 < ω < +∞) pure imaginary root can be given:
⎧
⎪ B1 sϕ1 + B0
⎪
⎪G11 (s) = e−Ls  π  
⎪
⎪ Ty A2 sθ2 +1 + Ty A1 sθ1 +1 + Ty s ⎧
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ϕ
⎪
⎪ +A2 sθ2 + A1 sθ1 + 1 ⎪ M = cos(Lω) B1 ω 1 cos
⎪ ϕ1 + B0
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ π 
⎪
⎪ B1 sϕ1 + B0 ⎪
⎪
⎪ + sin(Lω) sin ϕ1 B1 ωϕ1
⎪
⎪G12 (s) = e−Ls ⎪
⎪
⎪ Ty A2 sθ2 +1 + Ty A1 sθ1 +1 + Ty s ⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ π   π  
⎪
⎪ +A2 sθ2 + A1 sθ1 + 1 ⎪
⎪ N = ω−λ cos λ cos(Lω) B1 ωϕ1 cos ϕ1 + B0
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 2 2
⎪
⎪
⎪ B1 sϕ1 + B0 ⎪
⎪ π   π 
⎪G13 (s) =
⎪ e−Ls ⎪
⎪
⎪ + ϕ ω ϕ1
+ ω −λ
λ
⎪
⎪ Ty A2 sθ2 +1 + Ty A1 sθ1 +1 + Ty s ⎪ sin(Lω) sin 1 B1 sin
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 2 2
⎪
⎪ +A2 sθ2 + A1 sθ1 + 1 ⎪
⎪ π 
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −sin(Lω)(B1 ωϕ1 cos ϕ1 + B0 )
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ B1 sϕ1 + B0 ⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪G14 (s) = e−Ls ⎪
⎪  π 
⎪ θ +1 + Ty A1 sθ1 +1 + Ty s ⎪
⎪
⎪ Ty A2 s + cos(Lω)B1 ωϕ1 sin ϕ1
2
⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎪
+A2 sθ2 + A1 sθ1 + 1 ⎪
⎪ 2
(36) ⎨ π   π  
⎪
⎪ B1 sϕ1 + B0 B = −ωμ cos μ cos(Lω) B1 ωϕ1 cos ϕ1 + B0
⎪
⎪G21 (s) = e−Ls ⎪
⎪ 2 2
⎪
⎪ Ty A2 sθ2 +1 + Ty A1 sθ1 +1 + Ty s ⎪ π   π 
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ +A2 sθ2 + A1 sθ1 + 1 ⎪
⎪ + sin(Lω) sin ϕ
ϕ1 B1 ω 1 + ω sin μ
μ
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 2 2
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪    
⎪
⎪ B1 sϕ1 + B0 ⎪
⎪ π
⎪
⎪G (s) = e−Ls ⎪
⎪
⎪ −sin(Lω) B1 ωϕ1 cos ϕ1 + B0
⎪ 22
⎪ Ty A2 s 2 + Ty A1 sθ1 +1 + Ty s
θ +1 ⎪ 2
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪  π 
⎪
⎪ +A2 sθ2 + A1 sθ1 + 1 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ + cos(Lω)B1 ωϕ1 sin ϕ1
⎪
⎪ B1 sϕ1 + B0 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 
2

⎪
⎪G23 (s) = e−Ls ⎪
⎪ π
⎪
⎪ Ty A2 sθ2 +1 + Ty A1 sθ1 +1 + Ty s ⎪
⎪ X = −Ty A2 ωθ2 +1 cos (θ2 + 1)
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ +A2 sθ2 + A1 sθ1 + 1 ⎪
⎪ π
2
 π 
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ B1 sϕ1 + B0 ⎪
⎪ − T A ω θ1 +1
cos (θ + 1) − A ω θ2
cos θ2
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ y 1 1 2
⎪
⎪G24 (s) = e−Ls ⎪
⎪ 
2

2
⎪
⎪ Ty A2 sθ2 +1 + Ty A1 sθ1 +1 + Ty s ⎪
⎪ π
⎩ ⎩ − A1 ωθ1 cos θ1
+A2 sθ2 + A1 sθ1 + 1 2
(40)
 SYSTEMS SCIENCE & CONTROL ENGINEERING: AN OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL 9

⎧  π   Table 1. Stability region comparison of different kd values for PID.

⎪
⎪ A = −sin(Lω) B ω ϕ1
cos ϕ + B
⎪
⎪
1
2
1 0 Model kd = 1 kd = 0.8 kd = 0.6 kd = 0.4 kd = 0.2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ π  G13 13.36 12.76 12.16 11.59 11.03
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ + cos(Lω)B1 ωϕ1 sin ϕ1 G21 5.23 4.93 4.63 4.34 4.07
⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪  π  
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ H = −ω−λ sin(Lω) cos(Lω) b1 ωϕ1 cos ϕ1 + B0
⎪
⎪ Table 2 that the stability region of G22 model is the small-
⎪
⎪
2
⎪
⎪ π   est among the all models. In Figure 6, the intersection
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ − sin(Lω) sin β1 B1 ω ϕ1 of G21 , G22 , G23 and G23 models parameter sets’ stability
⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪ π  regions is the final stability region. The size of PID param-
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ + ω −λ
cos λ eters’ stability region for the established HTGS system is
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪  π   4.12 by calculation.
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ −sin(Lω) B1 ωϕ1 cos ϕ1 + B0
⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪  (2) Stability region of FOPID controller
⎪
⎪
⎪ π 
⎪
⎪ + cos(Lω)B1 ωϕ1 sin ϕ1
⎪
⎪ 2 Set kd = 1 and μ = 1, the value of λ decrease from 1.6
⎪
⎪ π   π  
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ Z = −ω μ
sin μ cos(Lω) B ω ϕ1
cos ϕ + B to 0.2 linearly. With the variable values of λ, the bound-
⎨ 2
1
2
1 0
ary curves of FOPID controller can be drawn and the area
⎪  π  
⎪
⎪ − sin(Lω) sin ϕ1 B1 ωϕ1
sizes of stability region can be determined. As shown in
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2 Table 3 and Figure 8, when λ < 1.4, the area of FOPID
⎪
⎪ π 
⎪
⎪ controller stability region decreases with λ increasing.
⎪
⎪ − ωμ sin μ
⎪
⎪ 2 When λ > 1.4, the area of FOPID controller stability region
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪  π   increases with λ increasing. Therefore, the area size of
⎪
⎪ −sin(Lω) ω ϕ1
ϕ +
⎪
⎪ b 1 cos 1 B 0 FOPID controller stability region for the HTGS system is
⎪
⎪ 2
⎪ 
⎪
⎪
⎪ ϕ1 π  largest with λ = 0.2.
⎪
⎪ + cos(Lω)B ω sin ϕ1
⎪
⎪
1
2 Similarly, set kd = 1 and λ = 1, the value of μ decrease
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ π  from 1.9 to 0.3 linearly. As is apparent from Table 4 and
⎪
⎪ = −T ω θ2 +1
(θ +
⎪
⎪ Y A
y 2 sin 2 1) Figure 9, when μ < 0.9, the area of FOPID controller stabil-
⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪   ity region increases with μ increasing. When μ > 0.9, the
⎪
⎪ θ1 +1 π
⎪
⎪ − T A ω sin (θ + 1) area of FOPID controller stability region decreases with
⎪
⎪
y 1
2
1
⎪
⎪ μ increasing. The area size of FOPID controller stability
⎪
⎪ π 
⎪
⎪ − ω − ω θ2
θ2 region is largest with μ = 0.9.
⎪
⎪ T y A 2 sin
⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪ π  Set kd = 1, λ = 0.2. and μ = 0.9, the boundary curve
⎪
⎪
⎩ − A1 ωθ1 sin θ1 of different FOPID controller parameter sets’ stability
2 regions can be drawn. It can be observed from Figure 10
(41)
and Table 5 that the area of G22 model’s stability region
is the smallest and it is the intersection of whole models’
stability regions. The area size of FOPID controller stability
(1) Stability region of PID controller region is 13.41 with the comparison results.

Because the stability region variation trends of hydra-

ulic turbine fractional order parameter subset models are 4.2. Stability region results of PID2D and FOPID2D
nearly the same, G13 and G21 are taken as examples. Set controllers
λ = μ = 1 and kd decreases from 1 to 0.2 linearly. Then The characteristic function of hydraulic turbine frac-
the boundary curves of finite pure imaginary root can be tional order model based on FOPID2D controller can be
drawn. The area composed of curves of origin and infi- given by:
nite pure imaginary roots is the stability region. It can be
known from Table 1 and Figure 6 that the stability region P(s; kp , ki , kd , kd2 , λ, μ)
of PID controller increases with kd increasing and the area = Ty A2 sθ2 +1+λ + Ty A1 sθ1 +1+λ + Ty s1+λ + A2 sθ2 +λ
size is largest with kd = 1.

As Table 2 and Figure 7 show, set kd = 1, the stability + A1 sθ1 +λ + sλ + e−Ls (B1 sϕ1 + B0 )
regions of PID controller parameter sets can be calcu-
× (kp sλ + ki + kd sμ+λ + kd2 s2μ+λ )) (42)
lated and drawn. The intersection of all parameter sets’
stability regions can be determined. It can be seen from where A2 , B0 and 
L indicate the interval parameters.
10 T. TIAN ET AL.

Figure 6. Stability regions of G13 and G21 with various kd values for PID. (a) G13 . (b) G21 .

Table 2. Stability region comparison of different parameter subsets for PID.

Parameter subset G11 G12 G13 G14 G21 G22 G23 G24
Stability region 7.83 6.58 13.36 11.10 5.23 4.29 8.83 7.16

From Equations (31) and (32), the boundary curves of

finite (0 < ω < +∞) pure imaginary root can be given and
the coefficient can be expressed in Equation (45):
⎧  π  
ϕ1
⎪
⎪ K = −ω 2μ
cos(π μ) cos(Lω) B 1 ω cos ϕ1 + B 0
⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪ π  
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ + sin(Lω) sin ϕ1 B1 ωϕ1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪ π 
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ + ω2μ sin(π μ) −sin(Lω)(B1 ωϕ1 cos ϕ1 + B0 )
⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪  π 
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ + cos(Lω)B1 ωϕ1 sin ϕ1
⎨ 2
⎪  π  
⎪
⎪ T = −ω2μ sin(π μ) cos(Lω) B1 ωϕ1 cos ϕ1 + B0
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2
Figure 7. Stability regions of all parameter subsets G11 -G24 ⎪
⎪ π  
⎪
⎪
for PID. ⎪
⎪ − sin(Lω) sin ϕ1 B1 ωϕ1
⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪  π  
⎪
⎪ − ω 2μ
μ) −sin(Lω) ω ϕ1
ϕ +
⎪
⎪ sin(π B 1 cos 1 B 0
With the D-decomposition theory, the boundary curves ⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪  π 
of origin (ω = 0) and infinite (ω = ∞) pure imaginary ⎪
⎩ + cos(Lω)B1 ωϕ1 sin ϕ1
roots can be calculated as: 2
(45)

Origin: ki = 0 Because sβ0 = 1 (43)

⎧ (1) Stability region of PID2D controller
⎪
⎪ kd2 = 0 (μ > 0.59)
⎪
⎨
T A In Figure 11 and Table 6, set kd = 1 and λ = μ = 1, the
Infinite pure imaginary root: kd2 = ± y 2 (μ = 0.59)
⎪
⎪ B1 value of kd2 decrease from 1 to 0.2 linearly. It is clear that
⎪
⎩
none (μ < 0.59) the area of PID2D controller stability region increases with
(44) kd2 increasing.

Table 3. Stability region comparison of different λ values for FOPID.

Model λ = 1.6 λ = 1.4 λ = 1.2 λ = 1.0 λ = 0.8 λ = 0.6 λ = 0.4 λ = 0.2
G13 10.96 10.16 11.32 13.36 16.99 32.16 32.30 43.71
G21 4.06 3.74 4.30 5.23 6.82 9.42 13.17 17.77
 SYSTEMS SCIENCE & CONTROL ENGINEERING: AN OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL 11

Figure 8. Stability regions of G13 and G21 with various λ values for FOPID. (a) G13 . (b) G21.

Table 4. Stability region comparison of different μ values for FOPID.

Model μ = 1.9 μ = 1.7 μ = 1.5 μ = 1.3 μ = 1.1 μ = 0.9 μ = 0.7 μ = 0.5 μ = 0.3
G13 11.48 12.09 12.65 13.08 13.33 13.34 13.11 12.63 11.89
G21 4.25 4.53 4.81 5.05 5.20 5.23 5.13 4.90 4.51

Figure 9. Stability regions of G13 and G21 with various μ values for FOPID. (a) G13 . (b) G21 .

Figure 12 and Table 7, the area of PID2D controller sta-

bility region increases with kd increasing.
In this text, kd = 1 and kd2 = 1 is set. From Table 8 and
Figure 13, the area of G22 model’s stability region is the
smallest. The intersection of G21 , G22 , G23 and G23 mod-
els’ stability regions is the final stability region. The final
area size of PID2D controller stability region for the HTGS
system is 4.69.

(2) Stability region of FOPID2D controller

Set kd = 1, kd2 = 1 and μ = 1, the value of λ decrease

Figure 10. Stability regions of all parameter subsets G11 -G24 for
FOPID.
Similarly, set kd2 = 1 and λ = μ = 1, the value of
kd decrease from 1 to 0.2 linearly. From the results of
from 1.6 to 0.2 linearly. Then the stability region of
FOPID2D controller can be determined with different val-
ues of λ. As can be seen from Table 9 and Figure 15, the
system stability region first decreases and then increases
with λ decreasing from 1.6 to 0.2. And the area size of
FOPID2D controller stability region is largest with λ = 0.2.
Similarly, set kd = 1, kd2 = 1 and λ = 1, the value
of μ decrease from 1.9 to 0.3 linearly. As is clear from
12 T. TIAN ET AL.

Table 5. Stability region comparison of different parameter subsets for FOPID.

Parameter subset G11 G12 G13 G14 G21 G22 G23 G24
Stability region 23.39 18.46 42.73 33.64 17.29 13.41 31.35 24.20

Figure 11. Stability regions of G13 and G21 with various kd2 values for PID2D. (a) G13 . (b) G21 .

Table 6. Stability region comparison of different kd2 values for

PID2D.
Model kd 2 = 1 kd 2 = 0.8 kd 2 = 0.6 kd 2 = 0.4 kd 2 = 0.2
G13 14.31 14.12 13.93 13.74 13.55
G21 5.69 5.60 5.51 5.42 5.32

Table 7. Stability region comparison of different kd values for

PID2D.
Model kd = 1 kd = 0.8 kd = 0.6 kd = 0.4 kd = 0.2
G13 14.31 13.65 13.01 12.38 11.78
G21 5.69 5.35 5.02 4.71 4.40

Table 10 and Figure 14, when μ > 0.7, the area of stabil-
ity region increases with μ decreasing. When μ < 0.7, the
area decreases with μ decreasing. So the system stability
region is largest with μ = 0.7.
Set kd = 1, kd2 = 1, λ = 0.2 and μ = 0.7, the bound-
ary curves can be drawn and the area sizes stability region
can be calculated. Finally, the intersection of stability
Figure 13. Stability regions of all parameter subsets G11 -G24 for
PID2D.
regions can be determined. It can be observed from
Figure 16 and Table 11 that the area of G22 model’s
stability region is the smallest. The final area size of

Figure 12. Stability regions of G13 and G21 with various kd values for PID2D. (a) G13 . (b) G21 .
 SYSTEMS SCIENCE & CONTROL ENGINEERING: AN OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL 13

Figure 14. Stability regions of G13 and G21 with various μ values for FOPID2D. (a) G13 . (b) G21 .

Figure 15. Stability regions of G13 and G21 with various λ values for FOPID2D. (a) G13 . (b) G21 .

Table 12. Stability region comparison of PID, FOPID, PID2D and interval parameter time-delay system. First, considering
FOPID2D. the terms of time-lag and parameter uncertainty and
Controller PID FOPID PID2D FOPID2D using the advantage of fractional model, the hydraulic
Stability region 4.12 13.41 4.69 16.22 turbine fractional order interval parameter time-delay
system is obtained with the identification approach and
FOPID2D controller stability region for the HTGS system measured data. At the same time, the PID, PID2D, FOPID
is 16.22. and FOPID2D controllers are all introduced to the HTGS
The following Table 12 lists the result of final stability system. Second, the stability calculation procedure of
region area size for the PID, FOPID, PID2D and FOPID2D controller parameter for the hydraulic turbine fractional
controllers. Among the four controllers, the area size of order interval parameter time-delay system is presented
FOPID2D controller stability region is largest and the area in detail. Third, the variable law of the stable regions of
size of integer PID controller stability region is smallest. It the system with the changing controller parameters is
is indicated that the FOPID2D controller has better robust achieved by the analysis of simulation results. At last, the
stability than the others. stability region of the four controllers is compared and the
results show the advantage of the FOPID2D controller in
robust stability and flexibility.
5. Conclusion Although the research in this paper is completed
This paper pays attention to the stability comparison of by the simulation experiments, these four controllers
different controllers for the hydraulic turbine fractional are applied in the stability comparison of the hydraulic

Table 8. Stability region comparison of different parameter subsets for PID2D.

Parameter subset G11 G12 G13 G14 G21 G22 G23 G24
Stability region 8.63 7.43 14.31 12.10 5.69 4.78 9.37 7.72
14 T. TIAN ET AL.

Table 9. Stability region comparison of different λ values for FOPID2D.

Model λ = 1.6 λ = 1.4 λ = 1.2 λ = 1.0 λ = 0.8 λ = 0.6 λ = 0.4 λ = 0.2
G13 11.52 11.09 12.21 14.31 18.12 24.72 34.93 48.37
G21 4.27 4.16 4.73 5.69 7.38 10.22 14.54 20.32

Table 10. Stability region comparison of different μ values for FOPID2D.

Model μ = 1.9 μ = 1.7 μ = 1.5 μ = 1.3 μ = 1.1 μ = 0.9 μ = 0.7 μ = 0.5 μ = 0.3
G13 10.77 10.96 11.43 12.31 13.59 15.00 15.89 15.70 14.28
G21 4.00 4.11 4.34 4.74 5.34 6.04 6.52 6.45 5.68

Table 11. Stability region comparison of different parameter subsets for FOPID2D.
Parameter subset G11 G12 G13 G14 G21 G22 G23 G24
Stability region 27.66 22.65 48.67 39.30 20.21 16.22 35.37 27.91

Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during
the current study are available from the corresponding
author upon reasonable request.

Figure 16. Stability regions of all parameter subsets G11 -G24 for
FOPID2D.
turbine fractional interval parameter time-delay system
for the first time. In the future, the research should focus
on stability analysis for the nonlinear HTGS system. The
nonlinear system model is better than the linear model to
describe the dynamic characteristics of the hydraulic tur-
bine governing system. On this basis, the novel research
on the control method of the nonlinear HTGS system is
the emphasis in the late period.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by the Scientific research planning
guidance project of Hubei Provincial Department of Education
(grant NO. B2021466).
References
Chen, Z., Yuan, X., Ji, B., Wang, P., & Tian, H. (2014). Design
of a fractional order PID controller for hydraulic turbine
regulating system using chaotic non-dominated sorting
genetic algorithm II. Energy Conversion and Management, 84,
390–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.04.05
Hamamci, S. E. (2008). Stabilization using fractional order PI
and PID controllers. Nonlinear Dynamics, 51(1), 329–343.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-007-9214-5
Hamamic, S. E. (2007). An algorithm for stabilization of frac-
tional order time delay systems using fractional order PID
controllers. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 52(10),
1964–1969. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2008.2007535
Li, C., & Zhou, J. (2011). Parameters identification of hydraulic
turbine governing system using improved gravitational
search algorithm. Energy Conversion and Management, 52(1),
374–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.07.012
Long, Y., Xu, B., Chen, D., & Ye, W. (2018). Dynamic characteristics
for a hydro-turbine governing system with viscoelastic mate-
rials described by fractional calculus. Applied Mathematical
Modelling, 58, 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2017.
09.052
Petras, I., Chen, Y. Q., Vinagre, B. M., & Podlubny, I. (2004). Stabil-
ity of linear time invariant systems with interval fractional orders
and interval coefficients. 2004 Second IEEE international con-
ference on computational cybernetics, 30 August 2004–01
September 2004 (pp. 341–346). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.
1109/ICCCYB.2004.1437745
Raju, M., Saikia, L. C., & Sinha, N. (2016). Automatic genera-
tion control of a multi-area system using ant lion optimizer
algorithm based PID plus second order derivative controller.
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems,
80, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2016.01.037
Sahib, M. A. (2015). A novel optimal PID plus second order
derivative controller for AVR system. Engineering Science
and Technology, an International Journal, 18(2), 194–206.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2014.11.006
 SYSTEMS SCIENCE & CONTROL ENGINEERING: AN OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL
Sain, D., Swain, S. K., Kumar, T., & Mishra, S. K. (2020). Robust
2-DOF FOPID controller design for maglev system using
jaya algorithm. IETE Journal of Research, 66(3), 414–426.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03772063.2018.1496800
Tan, N. (2005). Computation of stabilizing PI and PID con-
trollers for processes with time delay. ISA Transactions, 44(2),
213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-0578(07)90000-2
Wei, S. (2011). Simulation of hydraulic turbine regulation system,
Huazhong University of science and Technology Press.
Xian, Y., Xia, C., Zhong, D., & Xu, C. (2019). Chaotic system with
coexisting attractors and the stabilization of its fractional
15
order system. Control Theory and Applications, 36(2), 262–270.
https://doi.org/10.7641/CTA.2018.70943
Xu, B., Chen, D., Zhang, H., & Wang, F. (2015). Modeling and
stability analysis of a fractional-order francis hydro-turbine
governing system. Chaos. Solitons and Fractals, 75, 50–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2015.01.025
Xu, B., Chen, D., Zhang, H., Wang, F., Zhang, X., & Wu, Y. (2017).
Hamiltonian model and dynamic analyses for a hydro-turbine
governing system with fractional item and time-lag. Commu-
nications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 47,
35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2016.11.006