Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3860–3868

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Robust controller design of heat pump and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
for frequency control in a smart microgrid based on specified-structure mixed
H2/H1 control technique
Sitthidet Vachirasricirikul a,⇑, Issarachai Ngamroo b,1
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Phayao, Phayao 56000, Thailand
b
Center of Excellence for Innovative Energy Systems, Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok 10520, Thailand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper proposes a new robust controller design of heat pump (HP) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
Received 27 August 2010 (PHEV) for frequency control in a smart microgrid (MG) system with wind farm. The intermittent power
Received in revised form 24 March 2011 generation from wind farm causes severe frequency fluctuation in the MG. To alleviate frequency fluctu-
Accepted 30 April 2011
ation, the smart control of power consumption of HP and the power charging of PHEV in the customer
Available online 26 May 2011
side can be performed. The controller structure of HP and PHEV is a proportional integral derivative
(PID) with single input. To enhance the performance and robustness against system uncertainties of
Keywords:
the designed controller, the particle swarm optimization based-mixed H2/H1 control is applied to design
Smart microgrid
Heat pump
the PID controllers of HP and PHEV. Simulation studies confirm the superior robustness and frequency
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle control effect of the proposed HP and PHEV controllers in comparison to the conventional controller.
Mixed H2/H1 control Crown Copyright Ó 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Robust control
Particle swarm optimization

1. Introduction
Presently, the energy crisis affects vastly the life quality and the
countries around the world. To overcome this problem, the alter-
native energy sources such as WP, PV, and hydro, have been re-
ceived increasing attention [1], because these sources are clean,
abundant, inexpensive and eco-friendly [2]. Moreover, in many
rural areas such as 72 million households in rural India which
are not connected to the UG [3] etc., the renewable energy sources
are one of the smart choices to be installed in the remote commu-
nities for providing the electricity to system loads. Such small and
isolated power system is well known as the MG [4]. Normally, the
MG consists of the DG units, DS units and loads. Besides, the MG
can be operated autonomously in an islanding mode and also inter-
connected to the main UG [5]. However, due to intermittent power
generations from WP and PV, the unbalance of generation and load
demand causes the large frequency fluctuation problem in the MG
[6,7].
On the other hand, there are upward trends to install the con-
trollable loads such as HP and PHEV in the future smart grid
[8,9]. In [10,11], the HP and PHEV are installed in residential areas
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +66 5446 6666; fax: +66 5446 6690.
E-mail address: sitthidetv@hotmail.com (S. Vachirasricirikul).
1
Tel.: +66 2326 4550; fax: +66 2326 4550.
for frequency control in the smart MG system. The HP and PHEV
[10,11] are cooperated with TB and GOV of diesel generator. Nev-
ertheless, various system operating conditions, unpredictable WP
patterns, etc., cause system uncertainties. Due to the system uncer-
tainties such as system parameters variation, the conventional
controllers which are designed without taking system uncertain-
ties into account in the controller design, may lose the control ef-
fect and fail to damp the frequency deviation. This will affect the
quality of supply and may deteriorate the system stability. To
tackle this problem, the controller with high performance and
robustness are expected. Generally, the H2 controller can improve
the controller performance while the H1 controller can guarantee
the controller robustness against system uncertainties. Accord-
ingly, the mixed H2/H1-based PID controller has been proposed
in this paper.
To improve the performance and robustness of the HP and
PHEV controllers, this paper proposes the specified-structure
mixed H2/H1 control design. System uncertainties are represented
by the multiplicative uncertainty model [12]. By optimizing the H2
and H1 norms, the robust performance and stability can be en-
hanced. Nevertheless, the H2/H1 controller still has a high order
[13–15]. The practical controller structures such as lead-lag com-
pensator, proportional integral, are preferred because of their sim-
ple structure and low order. Since the PID is widely used in the
industry and practical systems, it is selected as the controller

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.04.055
 S. Vachirasricirikul, I. Ngamroo / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3860–3868 3861

Nomenclature

DG distributed generation WP wind power

DS distributed storage KPHP proposed controller of heat pump
GOV governor KPPHP proposed controller of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
HP heat pump PHP power consumption of heat pump
MG microgrid PL system load
PHEV plug-in hybrid electric vehicle PPHEV charging power of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
PI proportional integral PWF output power of wind farm
PID proportional integral derivative Td time constant of diesel generator
PSO particle swarm optimization Tg time constant of governor
PV photovoltaic THP time constant of heat pump
CHP conventional PID controller of heat pump TPHEV time constant of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
CPHEV conventional PID controller of plug-in hybrid electric UHP power consumption control signal of heat pump
vehicle UPHEV charging power control signal of plug-in hybrid electric
PHP proposed PID controller of heat pump vehicle
PPHEV proposed PID controller of plug-in hybrid electric vehi- Df change of system frequency
cle DPe supply error
RHP conventional pi controller of heat pump D damping coefficient
RPHEV conventional pi controller of plug-in hybrid electric M inertia constant
vehicle
TB turbine
UG utility grid

structure in this work. In addition, the PID controller has a simple
structure and a high robust performance in a wide range of operat-
ing conditions and applications [16]. The PID parameters are tuned
by the PSO [17] based on mixed H2/H1 control [18,19]. In order to
demonstrate the robustness and performance of the proposed con-
trollers, the proposed PID controllers of HP and PHEV are compared
with the conventional PID controllers of HP and PHEV designed
without considering system uncertainties, and the conventional
PI controllers of HP and PHEV in [10]. Simulation studies based
on the MATLAB program show the superior robustness and fre-
quency control effect of the proposed HP and PHEV controllers in
comparison with the conventional HP and PHEV controllers.
This paper is organized as follows. First, system modeling is de-
scribed in section 2. Next, section 3 shows the proposed controller
design. Subsequently, section 4 shows simulation results. Finally,
conclusion is given.
2. System modeling
The studied MG system in Fig. 1 consists of the 20 MW diesel
generator, 6 MW wind farm, 17 MW load, 1.62 MW HP and
2.38 MW PHEV. System parameters are given in [10,11]. Normally,
in the customer side, the HP and PHEV will be connected to the MG
system when the customers want to use them. For example, the
heat pump water heater (HPWH) [20] is used to produce hot water
during the nighttime, the PHEV [21,22] is charged for driving in an
electric mode during the nighttime when the electricity price is
inexpensive. This implies that the use of HP and PHEV depends
on the user convenience, the HP and PHEV will not be connected
to the MG system all time. Thus, the large frequency fluctuation
may not be alleviated due to this limitation.
In the MG system side, the diesel generator is utilized to provide
the power to the MG system when the WP cannot supply the
power sufficiently. However, due to the immediate power change
from WP and large load fluctuation, the diesel generator may not
adequately compensate the power because of its slow dynamic re-
sponse [23]. The connection of the large amount of controllable HP
and PHEV with the studied MG system is highly expected. In [24],
the electric drive vehicles including the battery electric vehicles,
PHEV and fuel cell vehicles are applied to facilitate the balancing
of the consumption and wind power production. Moreover, in
[25], the HP and PHEV are considered as a controllable load for
the frequency control because the power consumption can be
changed during the battery charging or water heating as long as
the charging or heating is finished when the customers need to
use them. Consequently, in this paper, it is assumed that the HP
and PHEV are connected to the MG system throughout the simula-
tion period in order to study the effect of frequency control in the
smart MG system. Due to intermittent powers from WP and load
fluctuations, the frequency control can be performed by controlling
the HP power consumption and the PHEV charging power.
By taking the dynamic response into consideration, the HP and
PHEV are faster than TB and GOV of diesel generator. Thus, the
operational tasks are assigned according to the response speed as
follows. The HP and PHEV are responsible for suppressing the peak
value of frequency deviation swiftly against the sudden load
change. Subsequently the TB and GOV of diesel generator are used
for eliminating the steady state error of the frequency oscillation.
Therefore, the TB and GOV models are neglected in the control de-
sign of HP and PHEV. The linearized model of MG system without
TB and GOV is shown in Fig. 2.
From Fig. 2, the linearized state equations can be expressed as
DX_ ¼ ADX þ BDu ð1Þ
DY ¼ C DX þ DDu ð2Þ
K I1 K D1 s
K PHP1 ðsÞ ¼ K P1 þ þ ð3Þ
s sd1 s þ 1
K I2 K D2 s
K PHP2 ðsÞ ¼ K P2 þ þ ð4Þ
s sd2 s þ 1
K I3 K D3 s
K PHP3 ðsÞ ¼ K P3 þ þ ð5Þ
s sd3 s þ 1
K I4 K D4 s
K PPHEV1 ðsÞ ¼ K P4 þ þ ð6Þ
s sd4 s þ 1
K I5 K D5 s
K PPHEV2 ðsÞ ¼ K P5 þ þ ð7Þ
s sd5 s þ 1
where the state vector DX = [PHP1 PHP2 PHP3 PPHEV1 PPHEV2 Df]T. PHP1,
PHP2 and PHP3 are the power consumptions of HP1, HP2 and HP3,
respectively. PPHEV1 and PPHEV2 are the charging powers of PHEV1
and PHEV2, respectively. Df is the change of system frequency.
3862 S. Vachirasricirikul, I. Ngamroo / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3860–3868

Commercial and industrial

Diesel plant
Control center

Residence groups

Controller

Wind farm

PHEV HP Household

Fig. 1. Smart microgrid system.

Z 1
The output vector DY = [Df], the control output signal Du = [UHP1
J2 ¼ eT ðtÞeðtÞdt ¼ kEðsÞk22 ð11Þ
UHP2 UHP3 UPHEV1 UPHEV2]T. UHP1, UHP2 and UHP3 are the power con- 0
sumption control signals of HP1, HP2 and HP3, respectively. UPHEV1
where e(t) = r(t)  y(t) is the error which can be obtained from the
and UPHEV2 are the charging power control signals of PHEV1 and
inverse laplace transformation of E(s) with DM = 0 and d(t) = 0 as
PHEV2, respectively. KPHP1, KPHP2, KPHP3, KPPHEV1 and KPPHEV2 are the
proposed PID controllers of HP1, HP2, HP3, PHEV1 and PHEV2, EðsÞ ¼ ðI þ GKÞ1 RðsÞ ð12Þ
respectively. The system (1) is a multi-input single-output (MISO)
system and referred to as the nominal plant G. As a result, the objective function is
Minimize J 2 þ J 1 ð13Þ
3. Proposed controller design
Subject to

The proposed controller design is described as follows:
3.1. Specified-structure mixed H2/H1 control method
To enhance the robustness of HP and PHEV controllers against
system uncertainties, the inverse output multiplicative perturba-
tion [12] is applied to formulate the optimization problem. The
control system with inverse output multiplicative perturbation
and external disturbance is shown in Fig. 3. In Fig. 3, G is the nom-
inal plant. K is the designed controller. r(t) is the reference input.
e(t) is the error tracking. d(t) is the external disturbance. y(t) is
the output of the system. DM is the system uncertainties such as
various generating and loading conditions, system parameters var-
iation, which is modeled by multiplicative uncertainty. Based on
the small gain theorem, for a stable multiplicative uncertainty,
the system is stable if
kDM ðI þ GKÞ1 k1 < 1
then,
kDM k1 < 1=kðI þ GKÞ1 k1
K P15;min < K P15 < K P15;max
K I15;min < K I15 < K I15;max
ð14Þ
K D15;min < K D15 < K D15;max
sd15;min < sd15 < sd15;max
where KP15,min, KI15,min, KD15,min and sd15,min are the minimum
PID gains of HP1, HP2, HP3, PHEV1 and PHEV2, respectively.
KP15,max, KI15,max, KD15,max and sd15,max are the maximum PID
gains of HP1, HP2, HP3, PHEV1 and PHEV2, respectively.
3.2. PSO algorithm
The PSO algorithm [17] is represented as follows:
1. Specify the parameters of PSO. Initialize a population of the par-
ticles with random positions and velocities.
2. Evaluate the objective function in (13) for each particle.
ð8Þ 3. Compare the fitness value of each particle with its the best posi-
tion for particle (pbest). The best fitness value among all the
pbests is the best position of all particles in the group (gbest).
4. Update the velocity vi and position of particle xi by
ð9Þ

The right hand side of (9) implies the size of system uncertainties or
v iþ1 ¼ w  v i þ c1  rand1  ðpbest  xi Þ þ c2 :rand2  ðgbest  xi Þ ð15Þ
the robust stability margin against system uncertainties. By mini- xiþ1 ¼ xi þ v iþ1 ð16Þ
mizing ||(I + GK)1||1, the robust stability margin of the closed-loop wmax  wmin
w ¼ wmax  iter ð17Þ
system is maximum. This concept can be applied to design robust itermax
controller as the cost function J1
where c1 and c2 are the cognitive and social acceleration factors,
respectively. rand1 and rand2 are the random numbers of range
J 1 ¼ kðI þ GKÞ1 k1 ð10Þ
(0,1). w is the inertia weight factor. wmin and wmax are the minimum
However, not only the robust stability, but also small tracking error and maximum of inertia weight factors, respectively. iter and itermax
is very considerable. Accordingly, the problem of minimizing the are the iteration count and maximum iteration, respectively.
tracking error can be defined by the integral of the squared error 5. When the maximum number of iterations is arrived, stop the
(ISE) as the cost function J2 [18,19] process. Otherwise go to process 2.
 S. Vachirasricirikul, I. Ngamroo / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3860–3868 3863

Power system
Δ Pe 1 Δf
Ms + D

PPHEV
PWF PL PHP

PHP & PPHEV

K I1 K D1 s UHP1 PHP 1
K P1 + + 1
s τ D1 s + 1 T H P 1 s+1

KI2 K D2 s UHP2 PHP 2

KP2 + + 1
s τ D2 s + 1 T H P 2 s+1

KI3 K D3 s UHP3 1
PHP 3
K P3 + + T H P 3 s+1
s τ D3 s + 1

KI4 K D4s UPHEV1 PPHEV 1

KP4 + + 1
s τ D4 s + 1 T PH EV 1s+1

KI5 K D 5 s UPHEV 2 PPHEV 2

K P5 + + 1
s τ D5 s + 1 T PH E V 2 s+1

Fig. 2. Linearized model of isolated MG system without TB and GOV.

Here, the process of the values setting of the searching param-
eters is described as follows:
1. Set the minimum boundary of PID controller (KP15,min,
KI15,min, KD15,min and sd15,min) at 0.0001.
2. Suppose randomly the maximum boundary of PID controller
(KP15,max, KI15,max, KD15,max and sd15,max) at the wide range
such as 100.
3. Optimize the maximum boundary of PID controller by decreas-
ing the maximum values until they provide an acceptable
response of frequency deviation.
For the values setting of PSO parameters, the PSO size and max-
imum iteration are defined from the ability of exploration of the
fitness value to achieve the near global value or global value in
the optimization problem. Accordingly, the PSO size and maximum

Multiplicative Uncertainty
d
ΔM
Controller Nominal Plant
e u
r Σ K G Σ Σ y

Fig. 3. Control system with inverse output multiplicative perturbation and external disturbance.
3864 S. Vachirasricirikul, I. Ngamroo / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3860–3868

iteration are set at 50 and 100, respectively. As suggested in Hence, the designed CHP & CPHEV is
[26,27], the values of c1, c2, wmin and wmax are set appropriately
at 2, 2, 0.4 and 0.9, respectively. 1:2048 0:0238s
K CHP1 ðsÞ ¼ 1:3760 þ þ
s 0:069s þ 1
4. Simulation results 1:5567 0:0969s
K CHP2 ðsÞ ¼ 1:9515 þ þ
s 0:0928s þ 1
In this section, the searching parameters and PSO parameters 1:9645 0:01605s
K CHP3 ðsÞ ¼ 1:4607 þ þ ð21Þ
are set as follows: KP15 e [0.0001 5], KI15 e [0.0001 5], KD15 s 0:0072s þ 1
e [0.0001 5], sd15 e [0.0001 0.1], PSO sizes = 50, maximum 1:6329 0:0701s
K CPHEV1 ðsÞ ¼ 1:1356 þ þ
iterations = 100, c1 = 2, c2 = 2, wmin = 0.4 and wmax = 0.9. s 0:0072s þ 1
Based on (12), choose R(s) = 1/(s + 5) instead of step as reference 1:9255 0:07467s
K CPHEV2 ðsÞ ¼ 1:5463 þ þ
input in order to avoid the infinite value of H2 norm. By minimizing s 0:0096s þ 1
(13), the convergence curve of objective function is shown in Fig. 4.
From Fig. 4, the objective function value is 1.6498. Conse- In the case of normal operation, it is supposed that the MG system is
quently, the proposed HP and PHEV controllers (PHP & PPHEV) are operated under the WP output fluctuation and random load change
as in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. Frequency deviation, output power
2:8339 0:0569s of diesel generator, power consumption of HP and charging power
K PHP1 ðsÞ ¼ 2:5772 þ þ
s 0:0075s þ 1 of PHEV are exhibited in Figs. 7–10, respectively.
1:1017 0:0774s In Fig. 7, the PHP & PPHEV gives more damping effect than those
K PHP2 ðsÞ ¼ 3:8772 þ þ
s 0:0088s þ 1 of the compared HP and PHEV. This shows that the effect of fre-
2:3349 0:0353s quency control is very improved by PHP & PPHEV. Fig. 8 shows that
K PHP3 ðsÞ ¼ 2:7380 þ þ ð18Þ
s 0:0050s þ 1 the suppression effect of the output power of diesel generator in
2:5655 0:0951s the case of PHP & PPHEV is higher than those of compared HP
K PPHEV1 ðsÞ ¼ 3:7467 þ þ
s 0:0093s þ 1 and PHEV. With Fig. 9, the HP power consumption of PHP & PPHEV
3:6015 0:0955s is lower than the HP in the case of the compared HP and PHEV. This
K PPHEV2 ðsÞ ¼ 3:1321 þ þ
s 0:0089s þ 1
In simulation study, the PHP & PPHEV is compared with the conven- 0.26
tional PID controllers of HP and PHEV called as ‘‘CHP & CPHEV’’ and
the conventional PI controllers of HP and PHEV in [10] called as
0.24
‘‘RHP & RPHEV’’. The CHP & CPHEV is designed by minimizing the
integral absolute error (IAE) of frequency deviation as
WP output fluctuation (pu)

Z 1 0.22
Minimize jDfs ðtÞjdt ð19Þ
0
0.2
Subject to

K P15;min < K P15 < K P15;max 0.18

K I15;min < K I15 < K I15;max
ð20Þ
K D15;min < K D15 < K D15;max 0.16
sd15;min < sd15 < sd15;max
where Dfs is the system frequency change. The PID controller 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
parameters of CHP & CPHEV are optimized automatically by PSO. Time (sec)
Note that the tuning ranges of CHP & CPHEV are same as the PHP
& PPHEV. Fig. 5. WP output fluctuation.

4 0.94

0.92

3.5 0.9
Random load deviation (pu)

0.88
Objective function

3
0.86

0.84
2.5
0.82

0.8
2

0.78

1.5 0.76
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Iteration Time (sec)

Fig. 4. Objective function versus iteration. Fig. 6. Random load deviation.

 S. Vachirasricirikul, I. Ngamroo / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3860–3868 3865

0.012 0.16
RHP & RPHEV RHP & RPHEV
0.01 CHP & CPHEV CHP & CPHEV
PHP & PPHEV
0.14 PHP & PPHEV
0.008

Charging power of PHEV (pu)

0.12
Frequency deviation (Hz)

0.006

0.004 0.1
0.002
0.08
0

-0.002 0.06

-0.004
0.04
-0.006
0.02
-0.008

-0.01 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Fig. 7. Frequency deviation. Fig. 10. Charging power of PHEV.

0.26
0.77
RHP & RPHEV
CHP & CPHEV
0.24
0.765
Output power of diesel generator (pu)

PHP & PPHEV

WP output fluctuation (pu) 0.22
0.76
0.2
0.755
0.18
0.75
0.16
0.745
0.14
0.74
0.12
0.735
0.1
0.73 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Fig. 11. WP output fluctuation (changed system parameters).
Fig. 8. Output power of diesel generator.

0.89
0.11
RHP & RPHEV 0.885
0.1 CHP & CPHEV
PHP & PPHEV 0.88
Random load deviation (pu)

0.09
Power consumption of HP (pu)

0.875
0.08

0.07 0.87

0.06 0.865

0.05 0.86

0.04 0.855

0.03 0.85
0.02
0.845
0.01
0.84
0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Fig. 12. Random load deviation (changed system parameters).
Fig. 9. Power consumption of HP.

PPHEV. This shows that the PHEV power is greatly charged by

implies that the consumed power of PHP & PPHEV is less than PHP & PPHEV.
those of the compared HP and PHEV. From Fig. 10, the PHEV charg- Next, to investigate the robustness of PHP & PPHEV against the
ing power of the compared HP and PHEV is less than the PHP & system parameters variation, the probability density of frequency
3866 S. Vachirasricirikul, I. Ngamroo / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3860–3868

40 80
Without parameter variation Without parameter variation
Tg, Td, M : -10% Tg, Td, M : -10%
Tg, Td, M : -20% Tg, Td, M : -20%

Tg, Td, M : -30% Tg, Td, M : -30%

Probability density f(x) (%)

Probability density f(x) (%)

30 60
Tg, Td, M : -40% Tg, Td, M : -40%

20 40

10 20

0 0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
-3
-3
Frequency deviation (Hz) x 10 Frequency deviation (Hz) x 10

Fig. 13. Probability density of frequency deviation (RHP & RPHEV). Fig. 15. Probability density of frequency deviation (PHP & PPHEV).

40 0.01
Without parameter variation
RHP & RPHEV
Tg, Td, M : -10%
0.008 CHP & CPHEV
Tg, Td, M : -20% PHP & PPHEV
Tg, Td, M : -30% 0.006
Probability density f(x) (%)

30
Frequency deviation (Hz)

Tg, Td, M : -40%

0.004

0.002

20 0

-0.002

-0.004
10
-0.006

-0.008

0 -0.01
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
-3
Frequency deviation (Hz) x 10 Time (sec)

Fig. 14. Probability density of frequency deviation (CHP & CPHEV). Fig. 16. Frequency deviation (changed system parameters).

deviation under the WP output fluctuation and random load

change in Figs. 11 and 12 is determined as
0.24
 
1 1 x  l2
f ðxÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi exp  ð22Þ 0.22
r 2p 2 r
WP output fluctuation (pu)

0.2

where r (>0), x and l are standard deviation, sample frequency

deviation and mean value, respectively. To test the robustness of 0.18

the proposed controller, it is assumed that Tg, Td and M are changed

between 10% and 40% from normal values. The probability den- 0.16

sity of frequency deviation in the case of RHP & RPHEV, CHP &
CPHEV and PHP & PPHEV is shown in Figs. 13–15, respectively. 0.14

In Figs. 13–15, the distribution rates of frequency deviation in

the case of RHP & RPHEV and CHP & CPHEV are lower than those 0.12

of the PHP & PPHEV. In contrast, the PHP & PPHEV is very robust
against the variation of system parameters. 0.1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Next, in the case of system parameters change, it is supposed
Time (sec)
that the same WP output fluctuation and random load deviation
in Figs. 11 and 12 are subjected to the isolated MG system. During Fig. 17. WP output fluctuation under the multiple operating conditions.
the simulation, assume that Tg and Td are increased by 40% from
the normal values, D is changed from 0.12 puMW/Hz (positive
damping) to 0.7 puMW/Hz (negative damping). This implies that and PHEV capacities installed in the MG system are reduced. Sim-
the considered MG system is operating at the unstable point. Also, ulation result of the frequency deviation is illustrated in Fig. 16.
the HP1 controller (KPHP1) and the PHEV1 controller (KPPHEV1) are As observed in Fig. 16, the RHP & RPHEV and CHP & CPHEV fail
suddenly disconnected at t = 0 s. This demonstrates that the HP to damp the frequency fluctuation totally. On the other hand, the
 S. Vachirasricirikul, I. Ngamroo / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3860–3868 3867

0.88 As seen in Fig. 19, the RHP & RPHEV & CHP & CPHEV completely
fail to suppress the frequency oscillation in the isolated MG sys-
0.87
tem. In contrast, the PHP & PPHEV is very robust against the vari-
ation of system parameters under the different operating
Random load deviation (pu)

0.86
situations. This result confirms the superior robustness and fre-
0.85 quency control effect of PHP & PPHEV over the compared HP and
PHEV.
0.84

0.83
6. Conclusions

0.82 The new robust controller design of HP and PHEV in the smart
MG system with wind farm for frequency control has been pre-
0.81 sented. The PSO-based specified-structure mixed H2/H1 control
technique is used to optimize the PID control parameters of HP
0.8
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 and PHEV concurrently. The proposed PID controllers are greatly
Time (sec) robust against the system parameters variation and unexpected
controller outage situation. Simulation results confirm the superior
Fig. 18. Random load deviation under the multiple operating conditions. robustness and performance of the proposed HP and PHEV control-
lers over the conventional HP and PHEV controllers.

Table 1
The multiple operating conditions of the proposed HP and PHEV controllers. Acknowledgement
Controller Start Stop Start Stop
This work was supported by the King Mongkut’s Institute of
KPHP1 t=0s t = 750 s t = 950 s t = 1200 s Technology Ladkrabang Research Fund.
KPHP2 t = 350 s t = 900 s – –
KPHP3 t=0s t = 650 s t = 1000 s t = 1200 s
KPPHEV1 t=0s t = 450 s t = 850 s t = 1200 s References
KPPHEV2 t = 250 s t = 1050 s – –
[1] Ekren O, Ekren BY. Size optimization of a PV/wind hybrid energy conversion
system with battery storage using simulated annealing. Appl Energy
2010;87:592–8.
[2] Kim IS. Sliding mode controller for the single-phase grid-connected
0.02
RHP & RPHEV photovoltaic system. Appl Energy 2006;83:1101–15.
CHP & CPHEV [3] Kalantar M, Mousavi GSM. Dynamic behavior of a stand-alone hybrid power
0.015 PHP & PPHEV generation system of wind turbine, microturbine, solar array and battery
storage. Appl Energy 2010;87:3051–64.
[4] Hawkes AD, Leach MA. Modelling high level system design and unit
Frequency deviation (Hz)

0.01
0.005
0 multiple distributed generation units. IEEE Trans Power Syst
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
0 200 400 600
Time (sec)
Fig. 19. Frequency deviation under the multiple operating conditions.
PHP & PPHEV is capable of suppressing the frequency deviation
effectively.
Next, to study the multiple operating conditions of the pro-
posed HP and PHEV controllers, it is supposed that the studied
MG system is operated under the WP output fluctuation and ran-
dom load deviation in Figs. 17 and 18, respectively. In the simula-
tion study, it is assumed that Tg, Td, THP1, THP2, THP3, TPHEV1 and TPHEV2
are increased by 40% from the normal values, D is changed from
0.12 puMW/Hz to 0.5536 puMW/Hz at t = 950 s. This indicates
that the studied MG system is changed from the stable mode to
the unstable mode at t = 950 s. Besides, the HP controllers (KPHP1,
KPHP2 and KPHP3) and the PHEV controllers (KPPHEV1 and KPPHEV2)
are performed under the supposed multiple operating conditions
in Table 1. The frequency deviation under the multiple operating
conditions is shown in Fig. 19.
commitment for a microgrid. Appl Energy 2009;86:1253–65.
[5] Kroposki B, Lasseter R, Ise T, Morozumi S, Papathanassiou S, Hatziargyriou N.
Making microgrids work. IEEE Power Energy Mag 2008;6:40–53.
[6] Katiraei F, Iravani MR. Power management strategies for a microgrid with
2006;21:1821–31.
[7] Nikkhajoei H, Lasseter RH. Distributed generation interface to the CERTS
microgrid. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 2009;24:1598–608.
[8] Yokoyama A. Smarter grid I. IEEJ J 2010;30:94–7.
[9] Yokoyama A. Smarter grid II. IEEJ J 2010;30:163–7.
[10] Senjyu T, Tokudome M, Yona A, Funabashi T. A frequency control approach by
decentralized controllable loads in small power systems. IEEJ Trans Power
Energy 2009:1074–80.
[11] Senjyu T, Tokudome M, Yona A, Sekine H, Funabashi T, Kim CH. A frequency
800 1000 1200 control approach by decentralized generators and loads in power systems.
IEEE Int Conf Power Energy 2008:79–84.
[12] Gu DW, Petkov PH, Konstantinov MM. Robust control design with
MATLAB. Springer; 2005.
[13] Khargonekar PP, Rotea MA. Mixed H 2 / H 1 control: a convex optimization
approach. IEEE Trans Autom Control 1991;36:824–37.
[14] Rotea MA, Khargonekar PP. H2 optimal control with an H1 constraint: the state
feedback case. Automatica 1991;27:301–16.
[15] Scherer CW. Multi-objective H2/H1 control. IEEE Trans Autom Control
1995;40:1054–62.
[16] Mikalsen R, Roskilly AP. The control of a free-piston engine generator. Part 2:
Engine dynamics and piston motion control. Appl Energy 2010;87:1281–7.
[17] Kennedy J, Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimization. IEEE Int Conf Neural Netw
1995;1:1942–8.
[18] Ho SJ, Ho SY, Hung MH, Shu LS, Huang HL. Designing structure-specified mixed
H2/H1 optimal controllers using an intelligent genetic algorithm IGA. IEEE
Trans Control Syst Technol 2005;13:1119–24.
[19] Thanh BT, Parnichkun M. Balancing control of bicyrobo by particle swarm
optimization-based structure-specified mixed H2/H1 control. Int J Adv Robotic
Syst 2008:395–402.
[20] Masuta T, Yokoyama A, Tada Y. System frequency control by heat pump water
heaters (HPWHs) on customer side based on statistical HPWH model in power
system with a large penetration of renewable energy sources. IEEE Int Conf
Power Syst Technol 2010:1–7.
[21] Takagi M, Yamaji K, Yamamoto H. Power system stabilization by charging
power management of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with LFC signal. IEEE Int
Conf Vehicle Power Propul 2009:822–6.
3868 S. Vachirasricirikul, I. Ngamroo / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3860–3868

[22] Doucette RT, McCulloch MD. Modeling the prospects of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles to reduce CO2 emissions. Appl Energy 2011;88:2315–23.
[23] Kundur P. Power system stability and control. McGrawHill; 1993.
[24] Kristoffersen TK, Capion K, Meibom P. Optimal charging of electric drive
vehicles in a market environment. Appl Energy 2011;88:1940–8.
[25] Masuta T, Gunjikake Y, Yokoyama A, Tada Y. System frequency control by heat
pump water heaters considering customers’ convenience in a power system
with a large penetration of renewable energy sources. Int Conf Electr Eng
2010:1–6.
[26] Gaing Z-L. A particle swarm optimization approach for optimum design of PID
controller in AVR system. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2004;19:384–91.
[27] Wang J, Zhai ZJ, Jing Y, Zhang C. Particle swarm optimization for redundant
building cooling heating and power system. Appl Energy 2010;87:3668–79.