16th NATIONAL POWER SYSTEMS CONFERENCE, 15th-17th DECEMBER, 2010
A Hybrid PV-FC-Diesel-Battery Electric Vehicle Drive System Based on PSO Self
Regulating Multi-Loop Incremental Controller
Adel M. Sharaf, Senior Member IEEE
Centre for Energy Studies, University of Trinidad and Tobago UTT
E-mail: adel.sharaf@utt.edu.tt, adel.elgammal@utt.edu.tt
Abstract – This paper presents a novel self tuned multi-stage
incremental action self regulating tri loop controller for a hybrid PV-
FC-Diesel-Battery powered all-wheel drive electric vehicle using
four Permanent Magnet DC (PMDC) motors, which are modeled to
include existing nonlinearities in motor plus load inertia (J) and
viscous friction (B). A Tri Loop dynamic error driven scheme is
based on Multi Objective Particle Swarm Optimization MOPSO and
proposed to regulate motor current against high inrush currents and
motor overloading conditions, in addition to motor speed dynamic
reference tracking. The Proposed tri loop dynamic error driven self
tuned multi-stage incremental action controller is also used to ensure
energy efficiency, control loop decoupling, stability and system
efficient utilization while maintaining full speed tracking capability.
The integrated scheme is fully stabilized using a novel FACTS based
green filter compensators developed by First Author that ensures
stabilized DC bus voltage, minimal inrush current conditions, and
damped load excursions.
Key words: Diesel-driven generator, Photo Voltaic PV, Fuel Cell,
Backup Battery, Green Power Filter, PMDC Drives, E-V Electric
Vehicles, Multi Objective Particle Swarm Optimization MOPSO.
I. INTRODUCTION
The pressing need to utilize all abundant renewable green
energy sources (Wind, Solar, PV, Wave, Tidal, Fuel Cell,
Biogas, Hybrid ...) is motivated by economic and
environmental concerns. The increasing reliance on costly
fossil fuels with increasing rate of resource depletion is
causing a shift to energy alternatives, clean fuel replacement
and energy displacement of conventional sources to new green
renewable, environmentally safe and friendly counterparts [1-
2]. Electric vehicle is one of the solutions for the reduction of
the fossil fuel consumption and pollutant emissions of gas,
responsible for the green house effect. However, pure battery
electric vehicles have shown their own range limitations,
because of their size the vehicle habitability is reduced so as
its range. Adding different kinds of power supply in the same
vehicle allow taking advantages from their different
characteristics [3]. Several types of electric motors may be
used for EV propulsion purposes. Earlier traction motors were
exclusively dc motors, either series-excited or separately-
excited. Recently, more advanced ac drive systems have found
application in EV propulsion using induction motors,
permanent magnet synchronous motors, and permanent
magnet brushless dc motors [4-5]. The EV-DC motor speed or
position control has been realized including conventional PI,
PID, fuzzy logic based, nonlinear, adaptive variable structure,
model reference adaptive control, artificial neural networks,
feed forward computed torque control strategies [6-8]. The
need for an on-line gains adaptation or a "tunable" control
mechanism is highly stressed in the control of any nonlinear
systems with un-modeled dynamics. Several AI-related soft
computing techniques, such as Genetic Algorithms and
Department of Electrical Engineering, Univ. College of Engg., Osmania University, Hyderabad, A.P, INDIA.
435
Adel A. A. El-Gammal, Member IEEE
Particle Swarm Optimization PSO are emerging as valuable,
robust, simple and effective tools in industrial process
automation and on-line control adaptation. GA is an iterative
search algorithm based on natural selection and genetic search
mechanism. However, GA is very fussy; it contains selection,
copy, crossover and mutation scenarios and so on.
Furthermore, the process of coding and decoding not only
impacts its precision, but also increases the complexity of the
genetic algorithm. However, Particle swarm optimization
(PSO) is a novel emerging intelligence which was flexible
optimization algorithm proposed in 1995. There are many
common characteristics between PSO and GA. First, they are
both flexible optimization technologies. Second, they all have
strong universal property independent of any gradient
information. However, PSO is much simpler to implement
than GA, and its operation is more convenient, without
selection, copy, and crossover. A battery backed-up hybrid
PV-FC-Diesel powered EV drive system is studied in this
paper. A permanent magnet DC (PMDC) motor is placed on
each wheel of the four-wheel EV and operated in full
synchronism under various control strategies. The
nonlinearities of viscous friction and inertia of the rotor mass
are included in the motor modeling. The PSO based self
regulating algorithm is utilized to track any reference speed
trajectory under varying parameter and load conditions. The
control system comprises four different controllers used to
track speed reference trajectory depicting the motor with
minimum over current, inrush, ripple conditions. The
proposed novel control scheme has been validated for
effective dynamical speed reference trajectory tracking and
enhanced power utilization.
II. MULTI-OBJECTIVE PARTICLE SWARM
OPTIMIZATION MOPSO
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is an evolutionary
computation optimization technique (a search method based
on a natural system) developed by Kennedy and Eberhart [9]-
[12]. The system initially has a population of random selective
solutions. Each potential solution is called a particle. Each
particle is given a random velocity and is flown through the
problem space. The particles have memory and each particle
keeps track of its previous best position (called the Pbest) and
its corresponding fitness. There exist a number of Pbest for the
respective particles in the swarm and the particle with greatest
fitness is called the global best (Gbest) of the swarm. The basic
concept of the PSO technique lies in accelerating each particle
towards its Pbest and Gbest locations, with a random weighted
acceleration at each time step.
The following definitions are used in the proposed Multi-
Objective Optimization (MO) search algorithm [13-15]:
 16th NATIONAL POWER SYSTEMS CONFERENCE, 15th-17th DECEMBER, 2010
Def. 1 The general MO problem requiring the optimization of
N objectives may be formulated as follows:
Minimize
r r r
[ r r r r r r
] r r T
y = F ( x ) = f1 ( x ) , f 2 ( x ) , f 3 ( x ), ...., f N ( x )
r
(3)
subject to g j (x ) ≤ 0 j = 1,2, K , M (4)
Where:
r* r* r*
[
x = x1 , x2 , ... , xP ]
r* T
∈Ω (5)
r
y is the objective vector, the gr i ( xr ) represents the constraints
r purposes:
and x * is a P-dimensional vector representing the decision
variables within a parameter space Ω .. The space spanned by
the objective vectors is called the objective space. The
subspace of the objective vectors satisfying the constraints is
called the feasible space.
Def. 2 A decision vector xr1 ∈ Ω is said to dominate the decision
r r
vector xr2 ∈ Ω (denoted by x1 p x 2 ), if the decision vector xr 1 is
r reduce current transients and improve utilization at the
not worse than x2 in all objectives and strictly better than xr2 in
at least one objective.
Def. 3 A decision vector xr1 ∈ Ω is called Pareto-optimal, if
there does not exist another xr2 ∈ Ω that dominates it. An
objective vector is called Pareto-optimal, if the corresponding
decision vector is Pareto-optimal.
Def. 4 The non-dominated set of the entire feasible search
space Ω is the Pareto-optimal set. The Pareto-optimal set in
the objective space is called Pareto-optimal front.
In MOPSO [14-16], a set of particles are initialized in the
decision space at random. For each particle i, a position xi in
the decision space and a velocity vi are assigned. The particles
change their positions and move towards the so far best-found
solutions. The non-dominated solutions from the last
generations are kept in the archive. The archive is an external
population, in which the so far found non-dominated solutions
are kept. Moving towards the optima is done in the
calculations of the velocities as follows:
Vid = ω × Vid + C1 × rand 1 × (Ppd − X id )
+ C 2 × rand 2 × (Prd − X id ) (1)
X id = X id + V id (2)
Where Pr,d , Pp,d are randomly chosen from a single global
Pareto archive, ω is the inertia factor influencing the local and
global abilities of the algorithm, Vi,d is the velocity of the
particle i in the d_th dimension, c1 and c2 are weights affecting
the cognitive and social factors, respectively. r1 and r2 are two
uniform random functions in the range [0 , 1]. According to
(6), each particle has to change its position Xi,d towards the
position of the two guides Pr,d, Pp,d which must be selected
from the updated set of non-dominated solutions stored in the
archive. The particles change their positions during
generations until a termination criterion is met. Finding a
relatively large set of Pareto-optimal trade-off solutions is
possible by running the MOPSO for many generations. Figure
1 shows the flow chart of the Multi-Objective Particle Swarm
Optimization MOPSO.
Department of Electrical Engineering, Univ. College of Engg., Osmania University, Hyderabad, A.P, INDIA.
436
III. SAMPLE STUDY AC-DC SYSTEM
Figures (2-3) show the proposed all-wheel electric vehicle
drive system scheme with the PV, FC sources, the diesel
generator and the backup battery. The DC compensator
scheme developed by the First Author is used to ensure stable,
efficient, minimal inrush operation of the hybrid renewable
energy scheme. The novel PSO self tuned multi-stage
incremental action controller are used for the following
1) Diesel AC generator control regulator is based on excess
generation and load dynamic matching as well as
stabilization of the common DC collection bus using six
pulse controlled rectifier,
2) AC/DC power converter regulator to regulate the DC
voltage at the Diesel engine AC bus and ensure limited
inrush conditions as well as dynamic power matching to
diesel engine interface AC-DC bus,
3) Green plug filter compensator GPFC-SPWM regulator for
pulse width switching scheme to regulate the DC bus
voltage and minimize inrush current transients and load
excursions and/or PV and FC non linear Volt-Ampere
characteristics. The GPFC device acts as a matching DC-
DC interface device between the DC load dynamic
characteristics and that of the hybrid main PV, FC and
backup diesel generator set,
4) The permanent Magnet DC motor drive with the speed
regulator that ensure speed reference tracking with
minimum inrush conditions and ensure reduced voltage
transients and improved energy utilization,
Figures (4-7) depict the proposed multi-loop dynamic self
regulating controllers based on MOPSO. The global error is
the summation of the three loop individual errors including
voltage stability, current limiting and synthesize dynamic
power loops. Each multi loop dynamic control scheme is used
to reduce a global error based on a tri-loop dynamic error
summation signal and to mainly track a given speed reference
trajectory loop error in addition to other supplementary motor
current limiting and dynamic power loops are used as
auxiliary loops to generate a dynamic global total error signal
that consists of not only the main loop speed error but also the
current ripple, over current limit and dynamic over load power
conditions. A number of conflicting objective functions are
selected to optimize using the PSO algorithm. These functions
are defined by the following:
J 1 = Minimize { e tg , e tR , e td , e tm } (3)
J 2 = Steady State Error = eω ( k ) = (4)
= ω ref ( k ) − ω m ( k )
(5)
J = Settling Time
3
J 4 = Maximum Over Shoot (6)
J 5 = Rise Time (7)
The proposed dynamic Tri Loop Error Driven controller,
developed by the First Author, is a novel advanced regulation
concept that operates as an adaptive dynamic type multi-
purpose controller capable of handling sudden parametric
 16th NATIONAL POWER SYSTEMS CONFERENCE, 15th-17th DECEMBER, 2010 437

changes, load and/or DC source excursions. Figure (8) shows combines several objective functions using specified or
the change in the control voltage ΔVc of the Multi-Loop selected weighting factors as follows:
Incremental Controller that is defined as: weighted objective function = (12)
Δ V c ( k ) = γ 1 e ( k − 1) + γ 2 e ( k − 2 ) + γ 3 e ( k − 3 ) (8) = α1 J1 + α 2 J 2 + α 3 J 3 + α 4 J 4 + α 5 J 5
+ γ 4e(k − 4) + γ 5Δ Vc Where α1 = 0.20, α2 = 0.20, α3 = 0.20, α4 = 0.20, α5 = 0.20 are
(9) selected weighting factors. J1, J2, J3, J4, J5 are the selected
V c ( k ) = Δ V c ( k ) + V c ( k − 1)
objective functions. Table 1 shows the optimal solutions of the
In this strategy, the PSO searching algorithm is main objective functions versus the self tuned multi-stage
implemented for tuning the gains (γ1, γ2, γ3, γ4) minimize the incremental action controller Gains based SOPSO and
selected objective functions (J1 – J5). MOPSO control schemes. Table 3 shows the system behavior
using the PSO based self tuned multi-stage incremental action
Initialize Position, tuned dynamic controllers. Figures (9-11) show the
Velocity, and archive effectiveness of MOPSO search and optimized control gains
in tracking the PMDC-EV motor three reference speed
trajectories. Comparing the PMDC-EV dynamic response
Update Velocity results of the two study cases, with PSO tuning algorithms and
traditional controllers with constant controller gains results
shown in table 2, it is quite apparent that the PSO tuning
Update position algorithms highly improved the PMDC-EV system dynamic
archive performance from a general power quality point of view. The
PSO tuning algorithm had a great impact on the system
Evaluate
Particles
efficiency improving it from 0.8972640 to arround 0.94140
which is highly desired. Moreover, The Normalized Mean
Square Error (NMSE-VDC-Bus) of the DC bus voltage is
Find Global best
then insert in archive
reduced from 0.082472 to around 0.0098300. In addition the
Normalized Mean Square Error (NMSE-ωm) of the PMDC
motor is reduced from 0.075045 to around 0.008105.
Update the memory Maximum Transient DC Voltage Over/Under Shoot (PU) is
of each particle
reduced from 0.084487 to around 0.0032875. Maximum
Fig. 1 Flow chart of the MOPSO optimization search algorithm Transient DC Current – Over/Under Shoot (PU) is reduced
from 0.071758 to around 0.0061122. DC bus voltage (PU) is
IV. DIGITAL SIMULATION RESULTS
improved from 0.901546 to around 0.986164. DC bus current
The integrated micro grid for PMDC driven Electric Vehicle (PU) is reduced from 0.7676 to around 0.605763. PMDCM
scheme using the Photo Voltaic PV, Fuel Cell FC, and backup total controller Error (etm) is reduced from 0.071253 to around
Diesel generation with battery backup renewable generation 0.005417. DC side GPFC Error (etd) is reduced from 0.08041
system performance is compared for two cases, with fixed and to around 0.0043684. The diesel engine gen set total controller
self tuned type controllers using MOPSO for three different Error (etg) is reduced from 0.084623 to around 0.005005. The
speed references. In all references, the system responses have diesel engine converter total controller Error (etR) is reduced
been observed. Matlab-Simulink Software was used to design, from 0.048952 to around 0.0073354.
test, and validate the effectiveness of the integrated micro grid
for PMDC driven Electric Vehicle scheme using Photo V. CONCLUSION
Voltaic PV, Fuel Cell FC, and backup Diesel generation with A novel hybrid integrated (PV-FC-Diesel-Battery) PMDC
battery backup renewable generation system with the FACTS driven Electric Vehicle scheme with a self regulating Multi-
devices. The Normalised Mean Square Error (NMSE) Stage Incremental Action control strategy has been studied.
deviations between output plant variables and desired values, Inappropriate control parameters can affect the dynamic
and is defined as: performances of the drive system, so it is important to adapt in
∑ (V DC − bus − V DC − bus − ref ) real time all regulators parameters according to selected
2
(10)
=
∑ (V )
NMSE V DC − bus
DC − bus − ref
2
criteria. The Multi Objective Optimization MOPSO technique
is used to adjust all controllers’ gains and settings to minimize
∑ (ω − ω )
2

= m m − ref (11) each controller total absolute error. The iterative search and
∑ (ω )
NMSE ωm 2
m − ref optimization results show the effectiveness of the Multi
The digital simulation results validated the effectiveness of Objective Particle Swarm Optimization approach MOPSO to
MOPSO based tuned controllers in providing effective speed control power transfer from all renewable sources to the
tracking minimal steady-state errors. Transients are also PMDC driven Electric Vehicle while maintaining the power
damped with minimal overshoot, settling time, and fall time. quality. The proposed novel control schemes have been
The MOPSO based self tuned controllers are more effective validated for effective dynamical speed reference trajectory
and dynamically advantageous in comparison with the fixed tracking with enhanced power utilization. The common dc-bus
parameters controller. The weighted single objective function

Department of Electrical Engineering, Univ. College of Engg., Osmania University, Hyderabad, A.P, INDIA.
 16th NATIONAL POWER SYSTEMS CONFERENCE, 15th-17th DECEMBER, 2010 438

concept is especially effective to ensure minimum over [7] Vas, J.V.; Venugopal, S.; Nair, V.G.; “Control scheme for electrical
drive of solar powered vehicles” India Conference, 2008. INDICON
current, inrush and ripple conditions and variations in the 2008. Annual IEEE, Volume: 1 , Page(s): 75 – 80
common DC bus, to make minimum DC bus content in bus [8] Zhu, Z.Q.; Howe, D.; “Electrical Machines and Drives for Electric,
voltage and current and also to prolong other power Hybrid, and Fuel Cell Vehicles” Proceedings of the IEEE, Volume: 95 ,
electronics equipments life with absorbing stresses. Issue: 4 , 2007 , Page(s): 746 – 765
[9] J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, "Particle swarm optimization" Proceedings,
REFERENCE IEEE International Conf. on Neural Networks, Vol. 4, pp.1942–1948,
1995
[1] Billinton, R.; Yi Gao “Multistate Wind Energy Conversion System
[10] Y. Shi and R. Eberhart, "Empirical study of particle swarm
Models for Adequacy Assessment of Generating Systems Incorporating
optimization" Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary
Wind Energy” IEEE Transaction on Energy Conversion, Volume
Computation, Vol. 3, 1999.
23, Issue 1, March 2008 Page(s):163 - 170
[11] R. Eberhart and Y Shi, (2001) "Particle swarm optimization:
[2] Weihao Hu; Yue Wang; Weizheng Yao; Jinlong Wu; Hailong Zhang;
developments, applications and resources" Proceedings of the 2001
Zhaoan Wang “An efficient experimental method for high power direct
Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 1, pp. 81 -86, 2001.
drive wind energy conversion systems” Power Electronics Specialists
[12] Y. Shi and R. Eberhart, (1998) "Parameter Selection in Particle Swarm
Conference, 2008. PESC 2008. IEEE, 15-19 June 2008 Page(s):3955 –
Optimization" Proc. Seventh Annual Conf. on Evolutionary
3959
Programming, pp. 591-601, 1998.
[3] Pera, M.C.; Hissel, D.; Kauffmann, J.M. “Fuel cell systems for electrical
[13] Ngatchou, P.; Zarei, A.; El-Sharkawi, A.; (2005) "Pareto Multi
vehicles” Vehicular Technology Conference, 2002, VTC Spring 2002,
Objective Optimization" Intelligent Systems Application to Power
IEEE 55th, Volume: 4 Page(s): 2097 – 2102.
Systems, 2005. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on 6-
[4] Parspour, N.; “ Novel drive for use in electrical vehicles”, Vehicular
10 Nov. 2005 Page(s):84 – 91
Technology Conference, 2005. VTC 2005-Spring. 2005 IEEE, 1st ,
[14] Berizzi, A., M. Innorta, and P. Marannino. (2001) "Multiobjective
Volume: 5 , Page(s): 2930 - 2933 Vol. 5
optimization techniques applied to modern power systems". In 2001
[5] Sharaf, A.M.; Ozkop, E.; Altas, I.H. “A Hybrid Photovoltaic PV Array-
IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, Jan 28-Feb 1 2001.
Battery Powered EV-PMDC Drive Scheme “, Electrical Power
[15] C. A. Coello Coello and M. S. Lechuga. (2003) “MOPSO: A proposal
Conference, 2007. EPC 2007. IEEE Canada , Page(s): 37 – 43
for multiple objective particle swarm optimization". In IEEE
[6] Zhu, Z.Q.; Chan, C.C.; “Electrical machine topologies and technologies
Proceedings World Congress on Computational Intelligence, pages
for electric, hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles” Vehicle Power and
1051–1056, 2003.
Propulsion Conference, 2008. VPPC '08. Page(s): 1 – 6
Rf3 Lf3

Cf3
GPFC
Rfd
Sx , Tx
CS
Rf1 Lf1

SC
PV Cf1
All-wheel drive Electric Vehicle

SA = SC = Not (SB) Four PMDC Motors

Rf2 Lf2 Rs Ls VDL
H2
FC Cf2
Vd
Id
Rfd Cd Rd Ld S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2

Rfd SA SB

PMDCM1 PMDCM2 PMDCM3 PMDCM4

Rfd
Rf0 Lf0
IR VR Cd
GPFC S3 S4 S3 S4
S3 S4 S3 S4

1.6 KVLL SG
500 KVA
6 - pulse Controlled Rectifier

ig
Cf0
Gear Box

600 KW Multi-loop
@ 3600 rpm dynamic
DIESEL
Vg
controller

Multi-loop
Fuel gv Tri-Loop dynamic
Cself = 300 μF × controller
Multi-loop Multi-loop
dynamic dynamic Id Vd
controller controller ×
Tri-Loop

Tri-Loop Tri-Loop Im ωm
× ×

Ig Vg IR VR

Fig. 2 The proposed all-wheel electric vehicle drive system with PV-FC-Diesel-Battery AC/DC Generation

Department of Electrical Engineering, Univ. College of Engg., Osmania University, Hyderabad, A.P, INDIA.
 16th NATIONAL POWER SYSTEMS CONFERENCE, 15th-17th DECEMBER, 2010 439

Table 1 Selected Objective Functions versus the Tuned Multi-Stage Incremental Action Controller Gains based SOPSO and MOPSO control schemes
[γ1g, γ2g, γ3g, [γ1d, γ2d, γ3d, [γ1m, γ2m, [γ1R, γ2R, γ3R, J1 J2 J3 J4 J5
γ4g] γ4d] γ3m, γ4m] γ4R] × 10-2 × 10-2 × 10-2 × 10-2 × 10-2
29.0155 61.5733 22.9056 72.9744
56.3671 31.0813 65.7142 17.5898
SOPSO 0.3978 0.8255 0.2113 0.9433 0.3264
49.3574 85.8153 6.7619 95.6733
95.2815 12.5975 24.1336 20.8799
24.3925 30.2620 67.2536 77.9573
48.6753 11.1582 32.1686 61.9257 0.1199 0.1888 0.4152 0.8490 0.6833
53.3859 40.6830 31.7453 17.5388
79.5840 34.3710 72.4940 4.6241
20.5628 94.4953 95.4964 29.9735
91.0868 84.0948 14.4739 97.1358 0.1577 0.3548 0.5072 0.4708 0.5391
92.3264 27.0012 8.2874 95.1118
2.8735 5.7897 13.8922 24.0113
77.1067 2.1470 17.9200 95.9018
94.8012 58.0996 91.2656 68.4765 0.5249 0.8147 0.4082 0.2891 0. 4410
81.6098 74.7794 14.9780 6.9777
92.4871 80.9726 62.2899 60.6016
MOPSO
21.1523 64.3148 28.0399 40.2596
67.9267 26.2969 23.2847 22.7633 0.5304 0.3287 0.4328 0.5039 0.4182
92.8093 15.7713 71.7285 19.5188
35.4048 65.6907 55.5977 9.1217
60.0753 94.6776 94.2113 2.2985
62.1414 81.8639 34.0317 79.1964 0.2526 0.1309 0.7935 0.3576 0.5640
1.8999 93.1187 70.9003 3.3185
98.2132 32.0709 94.4157 87.9710
90.0940 28.0237 58.8058 36.2635
69.7460 54.3630 88.1888 72.6377
0.4470 0.3171 0. 7470 0.3100 0.6832
44.8367 17.6370 75.3414 96.8786
70.5595 22.3324 38.9281 16.8880

Shoot (PU)
DC System Efficiency 0.89672 0.8972640 0.896780
PMDC PMDC
NMSE_VDC-bus 0.082472 0.07215 0.09449
NMSE_ωm 0.074672 0.075045 0.074285
PMDCM total controller
0.07499 0.071253 0.071842
Error etm
Intillegent Self
regulating Controller
DC side GPFC Error etd 0.07291 0.08041 0.084003
The diesel engine gen set
0.08380 0.084623 0.086650
total controller Error etg
4 Quadrants DC/DC The diesel engine
converter
converter total controller 0.05157 0.048952 0.04851
Error etR
GPFC
Table 3 DC bus behavior comparison using the PSO based Tuned Multi-Stage
Incremental Action Controller
Hybrid The First
PV-FC-Diesel-Battery The Second The Third
Speed
Speed Track Speed Track
Track
DC bus voltage (PU) 0.968850 0.986164 0.97388
DC bus current (PU) 0.60999 0.605763 0.606011
Maximum Transient DC
Voltage Over/Under 0.003978 0.0032875 0.003615
PMDC PMDC

Shoot (PU)
Maximum Transient DC
Fig. 3: Schematic diagram of a prototype all-wheel drive electric vehicle Current – Over/Under 0.006372 0.0061122 0.0067285
using four PMDC motors Shoot (PU)
Table 2 DC bus behavior comparison using constant parameters Multi-Stage DC System Efficiency 0.94102 0.94140 0.94877
Incremental Action Controller NMSE_VDC-bus 0.000978 0.0098300 0.009697
The First
The Second The Third NMSE_ωm 0.008726 0.008105 0.009627
Speed
Speed Track Speed Track PMDCM total controller
Track 0.0051066 0.005417 0.0051534
Error etm
DC bus voltage (PU) 0.9094984 0.901546 0.908831
DC side GPFC Error etd 0.0049363 0.0043684 0.0049147
DC bus current (PU) 0.74000 0.7676 0.72160
The diesel engine gen set
Maximum Transient DC 0.0056140 0.005005 0.005310
total controller Error etg
Voltage Over/Under 0.09721 0.084487 0.088616
The diesel engine
Shoot (PU)
converter total controller 0.007518 0.0073354 0.007200
Maximum Transient DC
0.07593 0.071758 0.072453 Error etR
Current – Over/Under

Department of Electrical Engineering, Univ. College of Engg., Osmania University, Hyderabad, A.P, INDIA.
 16th NATIONAL POWER SYSTEMS CONFERENCE, 15th-17th DECEMBER, 2010 440

D = 10 mSec
Vc(k-1)
γ1
D
Current Limiting Loop Z-1 +
eId ΔVc
1 1
-+ γId et Vc(k)
γ2
Idbase 1 + TdS
id Z-2 + +
+
fSW
Muliply
ePd Limiter
SA Z-3 γ3 +
SPWM SB

× +
etd Ton
γpd SC
γ4
+- ++ Tuning Controller

Z-1 +
1 SA = SC = Not (SB)
1 + TdS

vd
Voltage Stabilization Loop
Fig 8 Tuned Multi-Stage Incremental Action regression based Controller block
eVd
1 1
- γvd diagram
Vdbase 1 + T dS +
-4
speed curve x 10 Speed Error curve
Vdref 1 10
Fig. 4: Tri-loop error driven self regulating self tuned multi-stage incremental 0.5
action dynamic controller for the common DC side - GPFC Scheme

Speed Error
speed(PU)
5
D = 10 mSec 0
D 0
Current Limiting Loop -0.5
eIg
1 1
-+ γIg -1
0 10 20 30
-5
0 10 20 30
Igbase 1 + T gS
ig Time(sec) Time (sec)
-3 -4
x 10 Current Error curve x 10 Global Error Curve
1 10

Muliply

Current Error

Global Error
ePg Limiter 0 5
gv

× +
etg
+- γpg ++ Tuning Controller

-1 0
0 < gv < 1
1
1 + Tg S -2 -5
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Voltage Stabilization Loop Time (sec) Time (sec)
vg eVg
1 1 Fig. 9 EV-PMDC Motor Speed response for the first speed track using PSO based
- γvg
Vgbase 1 + T gS +
tuned Tri-loop Multi-Stage Incremental Action Controller
speed curve -3 Speed Error curve
x 10
Vgref 1 1
Fig. 5: Tri-loop error driven self regulating self tuned multi-stage incremental
0.5 0.5
action dynamic controller for the diesel engine generator set

Speed Error
speed(PU)

ωmref 0 0
speed Loop
eωm
ωm 1 S1 =Not (S2) -0.5 -0.5
1
-+ γωm
ω mbase 1 + TωS S1 =S4
-1 -1
Speed Tracking loop 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
S2 =S3
Time(sec) Time (sec)
fSW S1 -3 Current Error curve -3 Global Error Curve
x 10 x 10
S2 1 1
epm Limiter
SPWM
M = ωm im

×
e Ton S3
+ tm
Dynamic Momentum loop γpm ++ Tunned Controller 0.5
Current Error

+-
Global Error

S4 0
0
1 DC - DC Converter Pulsing
1 + TpS -1
-0.5
Current Loop
eIm -2 -1
Im 1 1 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
I mbase 1 + TIS
-
+ γIm
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Current Limiting loop

D Fig. 10 EV-PMDC Motor Speed response for the Second speed track using PSO
based tuned Tri-loop Multi-Stage Incremental Action Controller
Fig. 6 Tri-loop error driven self regulating self tuned multi-stage incremental action
dynamic controller for dynamic speed control PMDC motor drive speed curve x 10
-3
Speed Error curve
D = 10 mSec
1 1

D
Speed Error

Current Limiting Loop

speed(PU)

0.5
eIR
1 1
-+ 0.5
IRbase 1 + TRS
γIR
iR 0

-0.5 0
Muliply 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
etR
ePR Limiter Limiter
α Time(sec) Time (sec)

× + -3 -4
γpR x 10 Current Error curve x 10 Global Error Curve
+- ++ TUNNED CONTROLLER
COS-1
1 10
3o ≤ α ≤ 85o
1
Current Error

Global Error

1 + TRS 0 5

Voltage Stabilization Loop

vR eVR -1 0
1 1
VRbase 1 + TRS
-
+ γvR
-2 -5
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
VRref
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Fig. 7 Tri-loop error driven self regulating self tuned multi-stage incremental action
firing angle α- controller for Diesel AC side rectifier scheme Fig. 11 EV-PMDC Motor Speed response for the third speed track using PSO
based tuned Tri-loop Multi-Stage Incremental Action Controller

Department of Electrical Engineering, Univ. College of Engg., Osmania University, Hyderabad, A.P, INDIA.