Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Research article

Modeling and control of a photovoltaic-wind hybrid microgrid

system using GA-ANFIS
Linus A. Aloo *, Peter K. Kihato, Stanley I. Kamau, Roy S. Orenge
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology (JKUAT), P. O. BOX 62000-00200,
Nairobi, Kenya

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper aims to model a PV-Wind hybrid microgrid that incorporates a Battery Energy Storage
BESS System (BESS) and design a Genetic Algorithm-Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (GA-
GA-ANFIS ANFIS) controller to regulate its voltage amid power generation variations. Two microgrid models
Perturb and observe (P&O)
have been developed; a scalable Simulink Case Study Model from underlying mathematical
Photovoltaic
equations and a nested voltage-current loop-based Transfer Function model. The proposed GA-
PV-Wind hybrid model
ANFIS controller has been used as a Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) algorithm to
optimize the converter outputs and provide voltage regulation. The performance of the GA-ANFIS
algorithm was compared with the Search Space Restricted-Perturb and Observe (SSR-P&O) and
the Proportional-plus-Integral-plus-Derivative (PID) controllers using a simulation model built in
MATLAB/SIMULINK. Results indicated that the GA-ANFIS controller is superior to the SSR-P&O
and PID in terms of reduced rise time, settling time, overshoot, and the ability to handle non-
linearities in the microgrid. In future work, the GA-ANFIS microgrid control system can be
replaced with a three-term hybrid artificial intelligence algorithms controller.

1. Introduction

The main challenge associated with wind and solar Photovoltaic (PV) power as sources of clean energy is their intermittency
leading to a variable and unpredictable output [1,2]. A microgrid is a type of autonomous grid containing various distributed gen­
eration micro sources, power electronics devices, and hybrid loads with storage energy devices [3,4]. The microgrid can be operated in
two modes, namely, off-grid and grid-connected operation [5]. Although there are different views of a microgrid in terms of capacity,
from tens of kilowatts (kW) to a few megawatts (MW), this study considers a microgrid as a small controllable power system whose
nominal power output is 10 kW.
Several studies have been done on the modeling of hybrid PV-wind energy systems. For instance, M. Jayachandran et al. [6]
designed and optimized an Islanded Hybrid Microgrid System (IHMS) in which Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) was used to obtain
the lowest cost with a shorter computation time than the Genetic Algorithm (GA). N.H. Samrat et al. [7] also studied the IHMS using a
bidirectional DC-DC buck-boost converter controller for battery charging. At the same time, a three-phase voltage source inverter
regulates the load voltage and frequency using a complex vector control scheme. The authors in Ref. [8] present several PV-wind
hybrid system combinations alongside modeling parameters of the components and software tools for sizing. The distributed
inverter control strategy is proposed by Ref. [9] for load power sharing between PV and Wind, whereas authors in Ref. [10] used

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: laloo@jkuat.ac.ke (L.A. Aloo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14678
Received 7 April 2022; Received in revised form 11 March 2023; Accepted 14 March 2023
Available online 22 March 2023
2405-8440/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

switched Model Predictive Control (MPC). Some studies have presented modeling and simulation of the generic renewable
energy-based systems, which are not specific to a microgrid, with a Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generator (PMSG) based Wind
Turbine used in studies such as [11–13]. The microgrid system is considered, for instance, in Refs. [6,7,9,10], and [14]. The modeling
of a battery energy storage system (BESS) using mathematical and circuit-oriented techniques is provided by authors in Ref. [15],
while [16] presents the modeling of a Lithium-Ion battery with state of charge approximation. The concepts concerning the modeling
of DC-DC boost converter are introduced in Ref. [17], where a high step-up DC-DC boost converter with an MPC-based MPPT algorithm
is applied to a PV system. However, the variable switching frequencies created problems of optimum design, and no interleaving was
used. A comparison between interleaved DC-DC boost converters (IBC) and the conventional boost DC-DC converter is presented in a
general case in Ref. [18] and IBC compared with Cuk Converter for PV system in Ref. [19], both of which reinforced the benefits of IBC.
In addition [20], applies a single-ended primary inductance converter (SEPIC) type interleaved DC-DC boost converter to a bipolar DC
microgrid, while the three-phase parallel IBC of [21] demonstrates how output ripples decrease with an increase in the number of
parallel converters. The System Advisor Model [22] presented a platform to access technical details of actual microgrid components
and data for building case studies.
Various MPPT algorithms are presented for PV systems, namely P&O for the standalone PV system [23], P&O with confined search
space in Ref. [24], and P&O for the grid-connected PV system in Ref. [25]. The MPPT algorithms for a PMSG-based wind energy
conversion system (WECS) are reported by authors in Ref. [26] using P&O MPPT and in Ref. [27] using Proportional plus Integral (PI)
MPPT. Moreover, authors in Ref. [28] compared various MPPT methods for WECS. The researchers in Ref. [29] used MATLAB/SI­
MULINK to model microgrid system components. However, it has not presented the mathematical equations and equivalent circuit
models used to create the SIMULINK models, nor has the interleaving technique been applied. The hybrid PV-wind system model
presented in Ref. [8] has a diesel generator based on a single diode. However, detailed equations on modeling the PV system and the
WECS, as well as the SIMULINK models, have not been presented and are not specific to the microgrid. Further, a hybrid PV-wind with
storage and a diesel generator is given in Refs. [3,7,8,10] and without the diesel generator in Refs. [9,13,14,20], and [29]. Most
studies, such as [7–9,14], and [25], used single-diode equivalent circuits in modeling off-grid PV systems owing to their simplicity and
acceptable accuracy. In contrast, a few others, like [5,30], used the double diode equivalent circuit model, which is very accurate but
requires intensive mathematical manipulation.
Several authors have applied Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques in microgrid control. S. Korjani et al. [31] applied a Genetic
Algorithm (GA) to solve a microgrid-clustering problem while minimizing power exchanges. The results from the IEEE 69-bus network
showed better convergence than the Tabu Search (TS). K. Abdulhussein et al. [32] proposed three algorithms, namely PID, Artificial
Neural Networks (ANN), and Fuzzy Logic Control (FLC), for voltage regulation in a hybrid microgrid system in which the P&O MPPT
controller is present. The results simulated in MATLAB & SIMULINK depicted the FLC to be better than the PID and ANN on account of
efficiency and precision. D. Gamage et al. [33] designed an ANFIS controller for an off-grid PV microgrid with a battery and super­
capacitor. The simulated results indicated better performance of the ANFIS in voltage regulation (Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE)
value = 0.137, settling time of 0.055 s) compared with other controllers such as FLC (RMSE value = 0.357, settling time of 0.076 s) and
conventional PI (RMSE value = 1.373, settling time of 0.25 s). D.N. Truong et al. [34] controlled the inverter DC voltage in a hybrid
solar and wind grid-tie system using an ANFIS controller. Like [32], the MPPT controller deployed the P&O method. ANFIS controller
performed better than the traditional PI controller in reducing overshoot and settling time. T. Bogaraj et al. [35] report the successful
utilization of ANFIS controller in energy prediction for an HRES and a PV system by N. Pawar et al. [36]. S.K. Bilgundi et al. [37]
introduced an ANFIS-optimized PI current controller to address the impact of frequency variations, voltage distortion, and nonlinear
load simultaneously. The ANFIS-PI controller performed better than FLC and PI controllers by recording a Total Harmonic Distortion
(THD) of 4.5 % compared to 12.4 % and 22.6 % for FLC and PI controllers, respectively. M. Elsisi et al. [38] designed an ANFIS
controller for battery charging that was trained using data generated by a GA-based PI controller in MATLAB & SIMULINK. The

Table 1
The proposed versus the existing hybrid microgrid models.
Description Existing Hybrid Microgrid Models Proposed Hybrid Microgrid Model

Interleaving 1. Some existing models have not used the DC-DC Converter 1. Used interleaving technique for micro sources, converters, and
Technique interleaving technique, such as [6,7]. In Ref. [9], only inverters are storage.
interleaved.
2. Few studies reviewed used interleaved DC-DC converters in 2. Used the modified DC-DC boost converter by incorporating an
microgrids. RC circuit in parallel with the output capacitor.
Mathematical/ 1. Most existing models used the single diode model in the PV cell 1. Used the double-diode model in PV cells, which is more
Simulation for simplicity [4,7–9,14], and [26], except [5,30]. complex but has increased accuracy.
modeling 2. Some authors have not presented a SIMULINK model [4,7,9,14, 2. Detailed complete SIMULINK model has been presented.
30].
Control (MPPT) Some existing models have MPPT on the PV side only and not on the The proposed model has a GA-ANFIS controller and modified
Algorithms wind side, such as [31], while some with both have not used the P&O MPPT with a 15% SSR for both PV and Wind side DC-DC
interleaving technique nor the GA-ANFIS. converters.
Hybridization Hybridization has been done at selected levels, mainly at the micro Hybridization has been done at four levels: micro source level,
Framework source level and less at the power converter, storage, and microgrid power converter level, storage level, and microgrid level, thus
levels [8], thereby limiting future scalability. supporting future expansion,
Microsources/ 1. Some existing hybrid models include diesel generators [3,7,8,10]. 1. No generator, but instead, parallel storage is included.
Components 2. Most of the reviewed work uses standard components. 2. Used modified models of micro sources and converters.

2
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

GA-based ANFIS controller performed better than the conventional PI controller and the GA-based PI controller regarding reduced
overshoot and settling time.
From the reviewed literature on microgrid modeling and control, it is clear that a microgrid control system’s success relies on the
accuracy and dependency of the microgrid model and controller, which is still being improved through research. Conventional control
methods for regulating microgrid voltage and frequency, such as PI control, require accurate mathematical models of the microgrid
and exhibit serious struggles with non-linearities. On the other hand, artificial intelligence-based control strategies such as FLC and
ANN-based methods do not require accurate mathematical models of the microgrid. They can handle the nonlinear dynamics of the
system. This study endeavors to address challenges in the hybrid PV-wind microgrid modeling and control using the interleaving
technique and the GA-ANFIS controller, respectively. Table 1 compares the proposed and the existing hybrid microgrid models.
The major contributions of this work include the following.

• The designed GA-ANFIS controller optimizes the converter outputs and performs better than the PID or SSR-P&O algorithms.
• The interleaving of PV and wind micro sources, DC-DC boost converters, the BESS, and the three-phase parallel inverters provided
scalability, modularity, and increased power-handling capability.
• Improved mathematical modeling through modifications made to the equations and models specified in Table 1 under Mathe­
matical/Simulation modeling.
• Presentation of a unique model of the combined 10 kW PV-wind microgrid with interleaving technique and the mathematical
transfer function model of the microgrid plant.

The rest of the paper is structured as outline next: Sections II and III present the Hybrid PV-Wind Microgrid System and the
Methodology of the PV-Wind microgrid system modeling and control with the GA-ANFIS controller. Sections IV and V cover Results
(and Discussions), and Conclusions, respectively.

2. Proposed PV-wind microgrid system

The block diagram of the proposed PV-Wind microgrid system is shown in Fig. 1. The PV and Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) are
connected to the DC-DC converter to step up the respective voltage outputs to the DC-AC inverter-dictated level. The DC-DC converter
performs the MPPT operation. A DC-AC inverter follows the DC-DC converter, and the output of the inverter is connected to the AC
loads, considering an off-grid microgrid. The voltage and current generated are also measured and fed to the GA-ANFIS controller. The
buck-boost DC-DC converter is used to connect the BESS to the DC bus bar.

3. Methodology

3.1. PV generation system modeling

3.1.1. Mathematical modeling of photovoltaic system

The PV system has been modeled in terms of an equivalent circuit using the two-diode model of a PV cell having two diodes as well
as a series (Rs ) and shunt resistance (Rsh ). It is used because it provides better accuracy and increased power extraction compared to the
other two models: the one-diode model and the Rs − Rsh model [5,30]. The PV cell output current IPV , in the two-diode model of Fig. 2

Fig. 1. PV-Wind microgrid system block diagram.

3
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

is represented by a nonlinear mathematical exponential expression given in Eq. (1) [5,14]:

[ ( ) ] [ ( ) ]
VD VD (VPV + IPV Rs )
IPV = IPh − Isat1 exp − 1 − Isat2 exp − 1 − (1)
a 1 VT a 2 VT Rsh

where VPV , is the PV cell output voltage, Rs = Series resistance, Rsh = Parallel resistance, VD = Diode voltage, VT = Diode thermal
voltage, a = Ideal constant of the diode (taken to bea1 = 1, and for the second diode, a2 = 2), Isat1 and Isat2 are, respectively, the first
and second diodes saturation currents.
The Photovoltaic Current due to irradiation, IPh is given by Eq. (2):
( )
G
IPh = [IPh− STC + Ks (TC − TSTC )] × (2)
GSTC

where TSTC = STC Temperature (Standard Test Condition = 298 K), IPh− STC = STC Photovoltaic Current TC = Ambient temperature,
Ks = Short-circuit current coefficient, G = Solar radiation, and GSTC = Solar irradiance at STC ( = 1000 W/m2 ).
A PV array is created when several cells are wired in series and parallel. The values of Rs and Rsh are usually not supplied by the
manufacturers in the datasheet. One way of determining these values is to extract them from the maximum power output formula [3,
5], or a System Advisor Model [22].

3.1.2. Case study model of a 10 kW PV system

The photovoltaic generator used in the case study is a Type A panel (Jinko Solar JKM310M − 72 panel) based on monocrystalline
technology. Table 2 shows the technical specifications obtained from a System Advisor Model (SAM 2018.11.11) [22]. The PV
modules, each 310 W having 72 cells of peak voltage 37.4 V and a peak current of 8.29 A are wired in series/parallel arrangements to
realize the desired voltage. The designed PV array system voltage at Maximum Power Point (MPP) is injected into a DC-DC boost
converter with PID, SSR-P & O MPPT algorithm, and GA-ANFIS controllers in MATLAB/SIMULINK.

3.2. The wind turbine generation system modeling

Electrical power is generated from a WTG in a two-stage process involving the PMSG for the electrical part of the system and a wind
turbine model to extract the mechanical power from the wind [11,12].

3.2.1. Wind turbine model

The mechanical power of the wind turbine, Pm , is given by the cubic relationship Eq. (3):
1
Pm = ρAv3 Cp (λ, β) (3)
2

where ρ, is the air density of the power generation site (kg/m3 ), the area covered by the rotor blades, A = πR2 ; R is the wind turbine
rotor radius in meters (m), v is the wind speed of the site (m/s), Cp , is the conversion efficiency of the wind power defined by the rotor
blades’ tip speed ratio λ and the blade pitch angle β [11,12].
According to Betz, Cp , is limited to 0.59 [26,27]. The power coefficient Cp (λ, β) can be computed from Eq. (4) [28]:
( ) ( )
1 − C5
Cp (λ, β) = C1 C2 − C3 β − C4 exp + C6 λ (4)
λi λi

where C1 , C2 , C3 , C4 , C5 , and C6 , are coefficients to be specified for a given wind turbine, and the parameter λi , is defined as Eq. (5) [5,
13,27,28]:

Fig. 2. Equivalent circuit of the two-diode PV model.

4
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Table 2
Technical specifications of the Type A panel and PV Array.
For PV Panel (Jinko Solar JKM310M − 72 panel)

Electrical Characteristics Parameter Value

Max Power-Pmp 310 W
Open-circuit Voltage -Voc 45.9 Vdc
Short-circuit Current-Isc 8.8 Adc
Max Power Voltage-Vmp 37.4 Vdc
Max Power Current-Imp 8.29 Adc
Efficiency-η 15.98%
Temperature Coefficients Temperature coefficient at MPP-Kp − 0.40%/0 C
Temperature coefficient of Voltage-KV − 0.29%/0 C
Short-circuit current coefficient-Ks 0.05 %/0 C
Physical Characteristics Material Monocrystalline
Length by width 1.956 × 0.992 m
Module Area 1.940m2
Number of cells 72
Additional Parameters Series resistance-Rs 0.30353 Ω
Parallel resistance-Rsh 96.1505 Ω
PV Array System
Vmpp = Vpv 654.5 V
Pmpp = Ppv 10.537 kW
Impp = Ipv Pmpp 10537
= = 16.1 A
Vmpp 654.5
No. of modules in series Vmpp 654.5
= = 17
Vm 37.4
No. of modules in parallel Impp 17.8
= =2
Im 8.29

1 1 0.035
= − (5)
λi (λ + 0.08β) β3 + 1

Typical values of the factors are as follows: C1 = 0.5176, C2 = 116, C3 = 0.4, C4 = 5, C5 = 21 and C6 0.0068 [28].

3.2.2. Model of PMSG generator

The PMSG wind turbine with a voltage source converter (VSC) is a preferred choice of most manufacturers as it is more efficient and
reliable. Its advantages over a doubly fed induction generator (DFIG) include gearless construction, no need for a dc excitation system,
and the ability to extract maximum wind power. A simplified PMSG equivalent circuit d − q coordinate frame model is given in Fig. 3a
and Fig. 3b.
The generator is modeled in dq-coordinates in which the current equations for the d− axis and q− axis are given by Eq. (6) and Eq.
(7), whereas Eq. (8) defines the electromagnetic torque in the rotor, Te [12,14].
disd Rs Lsq 1
=− isd + ωs isq + vsd (6)
dt Lsd Lsd Lsd
( )
disq Rs Lsd 1 1
=− isq − ωs isd + ψp + vsq (7)
dt Lsq Lsq Lsq Lsq

P[ ( )]
Te = 1.5 ψ isq + isd isq Lsd − Lsq (8)
2 p

where, vsd , vsq and isd , isq denote the d− axis and q− axis voltages and currents, respectively, ωs is the generator’s electrical rotational

Fig. 3. Simplified d − q coordinate frame PMSG model: (a) d-axis circuit; (b) q-axis circuit.

5
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

speed, Lsd and Lsq are the generator inductance, ψp is permanent flux, Rs is the stator’s resistance, and P is the number of poles.
Using the Park model, the stator voltage equation is defined by Eq. (9) [3,5]:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( )
vsd i d ψsd 0 − 1 ψsd
= − Rs sd − + ωs (9)
vsq isq dt ψsq 1 0 ψsq

where , vsd , vsq, isd , isq , ψsd , and ψsq are, respectively, d − q instantaneous stator voltage, current, and flux.

3.2.3. Simulink model of PMSG wind generation system

The Wind Power Generation System (WPG) was modeled using the PMSG. The case study version was created around a type A wind
turbine (Westwind 6.4 m, 10 kW) whose kW rating is 11.48 kW. The electrical generator model involves a PMSG with three phases, a
sinusoidal back emf waveform, and a round rotor. The mechanical input is set to Torque Tm since the WTM has been modeled to output
Tm . The generator output included Rotor speed ωm (rad/s), Electromagnetic torque Te (Nm) and Stator currents. Table 3 summarizes
the parameters of the WTM and PMSG models.

3.3. DC-DC boost converter modeling

For a microgrid containing a photovoltaic (PV) system and wind energy, which are known to have the least voltage output, the
boost converter circuit is suitable to give a sufficient voltage at the output side [17,18]. The advantages of boost converters include
high efficiency, ease of control, and integration [19].

3.3.1. Mathematical modeling and design of interleaved DC-DC boost converter

In this study, an Interleaved Boost Converter (IBC) has been adopted. A more accurate boost converter circuit was modified by
incorporating an RC circuit in parallel with the output capacitor, as shown in Fig. 4.
The interleaving technique entails realizing a converter by paralleling two or more converters, thus dividing the input current
among the inductors. The I2 R losses and the current stress are minimized. It significantly reduces the output current and voltage
ripples, increasing the overall efficiency [20]. The boost converter is modeled using the averaging method. The switching frequency is
20 kHz, which is high enough to guarantee small voltage and current ripples. Using the averaging method, the state space equations for
each of the interleaved converters become Eqs. (10) and (11):
⎡ ⎤
− (1 − D)
⎢ RL ⎥ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
[ ] ⎢ − L ⎥[ ] 1 − (1 − D)
A = A1 D + A2 (1 − D) x˙1 ⎢ L ⎥ x1
⇒ =⎢⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎣ ⎦
⎥ x2 + L Vin +
⎣ L ⎦Vd (10)
B = B1 D + B2 (1 − D) x˙2 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ (1 − D) 1 ⎦ 0 0
−
C RC

where
⎡ ⎤
− (1 − D)
⎢ ⎥ ⎡ ⎤
⎢ 0 L ⎥ 1
⎢ ⎥
A=⎢
⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎣ ⎦
⎥, B = L (11)
⎢ ⎥ 0
⎣ (1 − D) 1 ⎦
−
C RC

Table 3
WTM parameters and PMSG model.
Parameter Value Units/Remarks

Nominal Mechanical Output Power 10, 000 Watts (W)

Electrical Generator Base Power 11, 111 Volt-amperes (VA)
Base Wind Speed 12 Meters per second (m/s)
Maximum power 0.73 Pu of Nominal Mechanical Power
Base Rotational Speed 1.2 Pu of base generator speed
Pitch angle beta 00 or 50 Deg (max power at 00 )
Stator Phase Resistance (Rs ) 0.18 Ohms (Ω)
Armature Inductance 0.000835 Henrys (H)
Machine Constant 0.0714394 Volt-second (V.s)
Inertia (J) 0.0006214 Kg.m2
Viscous damping (F) 0.00030345 N.m.s
Pole pairs (p) 4 ()
Static friction (Tf ) 0 N.m
Initial Conditions: ωm (rad/s), thetam (deg) and (ia , ib , ic ) in (A) 0 Initial conditions = 0, units as indicated against parameters.

6
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 4. Modified Interleaved DC-DC Boost Converter with two phases.

The design calculations for the various parameters of the IBC are given next [18,19].
A. Duty Cycle. The voltage of the PV array VPV is 561V and the DC link voltage of the inverter VDC , is taken to be 695V hence the
duty cycle of the IBC is specified as Eq. (12):
VDC − VPV 695 − 561
D= = = 0.1928 (12)
VDC 695

B. Inductor L1 and L2 . Taking the IBC switching frequency as 20 kHz to reduce the ripple current, the values of the two inductor L1 and
L2 are obtained as in Eq. (13) and Eq. (14):
IL = NP × Im = 2 × 8.29 = 16.58 A (13)

where NP , is the number of paralleled modules, and Im , is the PV peak/maximum current.

VPV D 561 × 0.1928
L1 = L2 = =( ) = 5.43 mH ≈ 6 mH (14)
f ΔiL 20 × 103 × 0.06 × 16.58

where ΔiL is the ripple current set at 6% of IL .

C. DC Link Capacitor C. The value of the DC Link Capacitor C is calculated as in Eq. (15) and Eq. (16):
D 0.1928
Cmin = (( )) = 36(0.06×695) ( ) = 4.463 μF (15)
R ΔV out
f 695
20 × 103
Vout

Taking ω = 2π f = 2π × 50 = 314.1592 rad/sec, then:

IDC 17
C= = = 216.3 μF ≈ 220 μF (16)
6 × ω × ΔVDC 6 × 314.1592 × 0.06 × 695
Table 4 summarizes the complete parameters of the proposed IBC converter.

3.3.2. Interleaved DC-DC boost converter SIMULINK design

The simulation diagram of the suggested IBC with MPPT was built within MATLAB & SIMULINK environment with the improved
MPPT algorithms for both Solar PV and WECS within the microgrid. Only the code implementing the MPPT and the values fed to the
MPPT are changed in each case [21]. The input voltage is taken to be Vin = 561 V, the switching frequency is 20 kHz, the duty ratio is D
= 0.1928 (which can be varied using the P & O algorithm), and a resistive load R = 36 Ω.

Table 4
Parameters of the IBC converter.
S/No. Parameters Value

1 Inductors (L1 = L2 ) 6 mH
2 Capacitor (C1 = C2 ) 1 μF
3 Capacitor (Cout ) 220 μF
4 Resistor (R1 = R2 ) 10 mΩ
5 Resistor (R3 = R4 ) 1 mΩ
6 Resistor (R) 36 Ω
7 Current ripple (ΔIL1 = ΔIL2 ) 0.7308 A
8 Voltage ripple (ΔV0 ) 41.7 V
9 Switching frequency (fswitching ) 20 kHz

7
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

3.4. Modeling of two-parallel three-level VSC for PV and wind microgrid

The voltage-controlled voltage source inverter (VCVSI) is preferred for interfacing renewables in a stand-alone microgrid to the
load on the grid. A VCVSI comprises four main elements: a DC link, an R-L-C filter, three-leg inverters, and an RL coupling inductor. The
switching averaging method is used to derive the average model of a phase leg. The variables of the stationary coordinates Xabc are
transformed into the corresponding rotating coordinates Xdqz , and this simplifies the average model according to iz = iz1 = − iz2 ≈ 0
[9]. If the input DC power sources are assumed ideal, it gives Eq. (17), Eq. (18), and Eq. (19):
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
d ̂i d1 1 ̂ d d1 V 1 V ̂d 0 − ω ̂i d1
̂ = ̂ dc1− ̂ − ̂i q1 (17)
dt i q1 L1 d q1 L1 V q ω 0
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ]
d ̂i d2 1 ̂ d d2 V − 1 V ̂d 0 − ω ̂i d2
̂ = ̂ dc2 ̂ − ̂i q2 (18)
dt i q2 L2 d q2 L2 V q ω 0
⎡ ⎤
1
[ ] ([ ] [ ]) − ω ⎥[ ]
d V̂d 1 ̂i d1 ̂i d2 ⎢ RC ̂d
⎢ ⎥ V (19)
̂ q = 2C
dt V ̂i q1 + ̂i q2 − ⎣
1 ⎦ ̂q
V
ω
RC
The SIMULINK model designed in this study involves a parallel connection of two, three-phase, three-level Neutral-Point-Clamped
(NPC) Voltage Source Inverters (VSIs). The inverter, connected to the PV DC-DC boost converter, utilizes IGBT as a switching device
with neutral clamped diodes [30]. The other inverter of the parallel pair is wired to the WT IBC and is designed using MOSFETs and
NPC diodes. Both inverters use the Sinusoidal Pulse Width Modulation (SPWM) modulation strategy [39].

3.5. Battery energy storage system modeling

3.5.1. Classical battery energy model

The Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) improves the reliability and efficiency of the PV-wind microgrid system through energy
storage [3,15]. The three main conventional empirical models are the Shepherd model, the Unnewehr Universal model, and the Nernst
model. According to the Shepherd model, considered a voltage-current classical empirical battery energy model, the constant-current
discharge equation is given by Eq. (20) [15,16]:
[ ] [ ]
Q K
Vbatt = E0 − K i − Ri = E0 − i − Ri (20)
(Q − it) SoC

where.
Vbatt = terminal voltage, E0 = Full capacity battery open-circuit voltage (OCV), R = internal resistance, K = polarization resistance
coefficient (Ω), Q = battery capacity (Ahr), I = battery current (A)
∫
it = i.dt (Ahr) and SoC = State of Charge.

3.5.2. Modified empirical battery energy model

The three traditional mathematical models can be improved by combining them into a single mathematical expression in Eq. (21)
[16,40–42]:
) )
K1
yk = E0 − R.ik − − K2 .zk + K3 .ln(zk + K4 .ln(1 − zk (21)
zk

Table 5
Comparison of vital parameters for the Lead Acid and Li-Ion batteries.
Parameter Lead Acid Batteries Lithium Ion Batteries

Life Cycle Lower life cycle (400–1500 cycles). Higher life cycle (2000–4000 cycles).
Deep cycle charging 1. Can only handle a charge rate 0.2 times its capacity. 1. Li-Ion can handle a charge rate 5 times its capacity.
2. Charges ten times slower 2. Ten times faster charging time.
3. Can handle overcharging. 3. Can’t handle overcharging
Energy density/Effective battery 1. Lower energy density-stores less energy for the same 1. Higher energy density-Stores more energy using the same
capacity/power density physical space. physical space.
2. Lower power density-BESS created in this study using a 2. Higher power density-BESS of 2713 kWh in this paper.
nominal power density of 930 kWh.
3. Weigh 30% more for equivalent Li-ion capacity. 3. Weigh 30% less for equivalent lead acid capacity.
Discharge curve Their voltage drops significantly throughout the discharge Has a nearly flat discharge curve (battery voltage falls very
rate. little until almost fully discharged).
Efficiency Offer 80 to 85% efficiencies [14]. They are at least 95% efficient.

8
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

where.

yk = terminal voltage, E0 = open-circuit voltage (OCV) at the full battery charge, R = internal resistance
K1 = polarization resistance, ik = instantaneous current, zk = the battery’s State of Charge (SoC).

3.5.3. BESS simulink model

The BESS model has been created in MATLAB/SIMULINK using Eqs. (22)–(25) (derived from Eqs. (20) and (21)), in addition to
information gathered from literature, particularly [41,42]. The values of SOC vary as the value of the DC Voltage source of around
600 V. If the DC voltage exceeds the battery’s nominal voltage, then SOC will remain the same, i.e., 1. If the battery’s nominal voltage
exceeds the DC Voltage, then SOC will decrease. Table 5 compares vital parameters for the two types of batteries considered. All
parameters were verified against the existing manufacturer’s data sheets and literature [21,40,41].
The model applies Eq. (22) and Eq. (23) in case of the lead-acid battery type [40–42],:
Discharge model (i∗ > 0):
( )
Q ∗ Q Exp(s)
f1 (it, i∗ , i, Exp) = E0 − K. .i − K. .it + Laplace− 1 .0 (22)
Q − it Q − it Sel (s)
Charge model (i∗ < 0):
( )
Q Q Exp(s)
f2 (it, i∗ , i, Exp) = E0 − K. .i∗ − K. .it + Laplace− 1
.1s (23)
|it| + 0.1.Q Q − it Sel (s)
For the Lithium-Ion battery type, the model uses Eq. (24) and Eq. (25) [16,41]:
Discharge model (i∗ > 0):
Q ∗ Q
f1 (it, i∗ , i,) = E0 − K. .i − K. .it + A.exp(− B.it) (24)
Q − it Q − it
Charge model (i∗ < 0) [41,42]:
Q Q
f2 (it, i∗ , i,) = E0 − K. .i∗ − K. .it + A.exp(− B.it) (25)
|it| + 0.1.Q Q − it

Where.
A = Exponential voltage (V) B = exponential capacity, (Ah− 1 ) and Ebat = the nonlinear voltage (V).
Table 6 shows the charge/discharge parameters used in the simulated case for the two types of batteries.

3.6. Transfer function model of PV-wind hybrid microgrid

The microgrid’s mathematical transfer function model has been created to study the working of the proposed GA-ANFIS controller
in regulating the microgrid’s voltage within the context of transient response. The derivation of the proposed PV-Wind Microgrid
mathematical model using the Transfer Function is challenging due to the nonlinear components in the microgrid, such as the solar PV,
PMSG-wind turbine, BESS, IBCs, and the VSI inverters [43,44]. The microgrid is generally a multi-input, multi-output (MIMO) system
with dual control loops, namely, outer voltage and inner current control loops [43,44]. Researchers have modeled the RES components
in microgrids by assuming a transfer function model with a time lag under small-signal considerations [43–46]. As reported by
Ref. [43], the output power (in watts) of the PV system given in Eq. (26) indicates that power is linearly proportional to solar radiation
G (W/m2 ), assuming ambient temperature (Tc ), surface area (A), and efficiency (ηPV ) are constant.

Table 6
Charge/Discharge parameters for the two types of batteries are considered.
S/No. Parameter Lead Acid Lithium-Ion

Charge parameters
1 Battery Nominal Voltage (V) 600 600
2 Battery Rated Capacity (Ah) 5000 5000
3 Battery Initial State of Charge (%) 100 100
4 Battery Response Time (s) 30 30
Discharge parameters
1 Maximum Capacity (Ah) 5208.33 5000
2 Cut-off Voltage (V) 450 450
3 Fully-Charged Voltage (V) 653.29 698.39
4 Nominal discharge current (A) 1000 2173.91
5 Internal Resistance (Ω) 0.0012 0.0012
6 Capacity (Ah) at Nominal Voltage 1551.39 4521.74
7 Exponential Zone [Voltage (V), Capacity (Ah)] [610.86, 16.67] [648.23, 245.65]
8 Discharge current [[i1 , i2 , i3 , …][A] 50 50

9
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

PPV = ηPV AG {1 − (0.005(Tc + 25))} (26)

In the Transfer Function modeling of the hybrid microgrid under study, the following assumptions have been made, which also
form the limitations of the study.

i. The PV & WTG are operating at their MPP.

ii. The ambient temperature, irradiance, insolation, wind speed, etc., do not vary with time; thereby, the MPP of the PV array &
WTG are also fixed.
iii. The inverter output voltage and current are in phase. Therefore, the system works at a unity power factor, and no reactive power
is supplied to the load.
iv. When the change in the voltage (ΔV) is positive, BESS status is charging, or else it is discharging.

In this study, the mathematical transfer function models for a solar PV plant, wind turbine generator, and BESS have been portrayed
as first-order lagging systems of gains (KPV , KWTG , KBESS ) and time constants (TPV , TWTG , TBESS ) as given in Eqs. (27)–(29), respectively
[43,45–47].
KPV
GPV = (27)
sTPV + 1

KWTG
GWTG = (28)
sTWTG + 1

KBESS
GBESS = (29)
sTBESS + 1
Similarly, the transfer function of the boost converter assuming any resistive load is considered as a first-order system given by Eq.
(30):
ΔVout (s) KBC
GBC = = (30)
ΔVin (s sTBC + 1

where KBC and TBC , represents the amplification factor and time constant, respectively.
The transfer function (T.F) of the 6-switch three-phase two-level inverter without any Low Pass Passive filter circuit is approxi­
mately defined as a first-order lagging system by Eq. (31) [47].
Vo (s) Kinv
GInv = ( = (31)
Vref s sTinv + 1

Fig. 5 shows the complete mathematical transfer function model of the PV-wind hybrid microgrid based on small-signal low-order
dynamic models of the individual components.
Table 7 [44,45] depicts each subsystem’s transfer functions and corresponding parameters.
The schematic diagram of the microgrid in Fig. 5 was transformed into a controlled equivalent transfer function model viewed in
terms of a small-signal-based dual voltage-current (V/I) controller T.F model, as shown in Fig. 6 [44].

Fig. 5. Schematic small-signal mathematical transfer function model of the PV-wind hybrid microgrid.

10
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Table 7
The transfer functions and related parameters used in each subsystem [44,45].
Subsystem Transfer Function Parameters

Solar PV plant KPV KPV = 1, TPV = 0.03s

GPV =
sTPV + 1
Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) KWTG KWTG = 1, TWTG = 1.5s
GWTG =
sTWTG + 1
BESS KBESS KBESS = 1.8, TBESS = 0.001s
GBESS =
sTBESS + 1
DC-DC Boost Converter KBC1 KBC1 = 2.5, TBC1 = 0.01s
GBC1 =
sTBC1 + 1
DC-DC Buck-Boost Converter KBBC KBBC = 1.5, TBBC = 0.1s
GBBC =
sTBBC + 1
Inverter/Microgrid system KM KM = 1.8, H = 2, D = 0.015pu/Hz,
GM =
2sH + D H = 0.085 pu.s
Load KL KL = 2, TL = 0.04s
GL =
sTL + 1

Fig. 6. Reduced dual-loop V/I controlled microgrid [44].

The overall T.F was obtained using the block diagram reduction procedure, the small signal model pole-zero cancellation (MPZC),
and the power quality requirements specified by IEEE-1547 and IEEE-519 standards. The T.F. relating the output to input for the
system is given by Eq. (32) and Eq. (33) [44]:
V0 (s)
= Closedloopof (F1 (s) × F2 (s) × F3 (s)) (32)
V0 ref (s)

where
⎧ KIV + sKPV
⎪
⎪ F1 (s) =
⎪
⎪ s
⎪
⎪ ( )
⎪
⎪
⎨ KIA + sKPA K + sKPA
F2 (s) = CI.loop ( ) = ( IA )
⎪
⎪ s sLf + Rf s2 Lf + Rf + KPA s + KIA
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 1
⎩ F3 (s) =
Gf + Cf s

Table 8
Parameters used for the V/I controller equivalent transfer function [44].
Parameter Description Specification

Pr Microgrid rated power 25 kW

Vdc Input DC voltage for the Inverter 540 V
ΔVac The maximum variation in the output voltage of inverter ±62 V
Fs Inverter switching frequency for PWM signals 15 kHz
Fr Minimum current ripple frequency 600 Hz
Cf Filter capacitance 50 μF
Lf Filter inductance 1.35 mH
Rf Filter resistance 0.1 Ω
Gf Filter conductance 0 mho
τ1 Inner current control loop time constant 15 ms
τ2 Outer voltage control loop’s time constant 90 ms
KPA Proportional controller specification of the current controller 0.12
KIA Integral controller specification of the current controller 6.7
KPV Proportional controller specification of the voltage controller 5.65e− 4
KIV Integral controller specification of the voltage controller 0

11
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

⎧
⎪
⎪
⎨ V (s) (KPA KPV )s2 + (KIV KPA + KPV KIA )s + KIA KIV
(33)
0
∴ ref = ( ( ) 4 ( )3 ( ) 2)
⎪
⎩ V0 (s)
⎪ Lf Cf S + Rf Cf +
( Gf Lf + KPA Cf s + Gf R)f + KPA Gf + KPA KPV+ Cf KIA s
KIA KPA + Gf KIA + KIV KPA s + KIA KIV

Applying model-based pole-zero cancellation (MPZC) by setting Gf = 0, KIV = 0, and the filter parameter (Cf ) specified in Table 8,
which also depicts the resultant computed values, the ultimate equations are given in Eq. (34) for the conventional best (CC) and Eq.
(35) for MPZC [44],
{ ⃒CC
V0 (s) ⃒⃒ 1.99s2 + 68.72s + 190.17
ref ⃒ = (34)
V0 (s) 0.001s + 0.18s3 + 5.47s2 + 68.72s + 190.17
4

{ ⃒MPZC
V0 (s) ⃒⃒ s + 56.08
= (35)
V0 ref (s)⃒ 0.001s3 + 0.163s2 + 5.97s + 56.08

3.7. Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) controller

3.7.1. ANFIS control structure

In the Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS), the linguistic strength of the knowledge-based FLC is infused with the
learning and optimization ability of the adaptive ANN. The resulting control framework is one that is robust, self-tuning and has the
ability to handle non-linearities [2,33]. The ANFIS is used to produce the training signal in Sugeno-type fuzzy systems. Conceptually,
the ANFIS control structure has five interconnected layers built from fixed and adaptive nodes, as depicted in Fig. 7 [34,35]. The fixed
nodes are represented with circles while the adaptive ones are denoted with squares. The fuzzification of input membership functions
is executed in layer 1, the fuzzy AND operation in layer 2, normalization of rules in layer 3, consequent parameters in layer 4 and
computation of the sum of fired rules in layer 5. The details of operation of the 2-input-1-output ANFIS structure are reported in
Ref. [33]. The ANFIS may be trained using hybrid learning algorithm. Here, the least-square estimation that caters for output
membership functions is blended with the backpropagation algorithm that applies to both output and input membership functions to
generate the training signal [36].
Assuming an ANFIS structure of two inputs x, y, and one output z, the ANFIS rule set take the form in Eqs. (36) and (37) for a first-
order Sugeno fuzzy model.
Rule 1: If x is A1 and y is B1 , then:
z1 = p1 x + q1 y + r1 (36)
Rule 2: If x is A2 and y is B2 , then:
z2 = p2 x + q2 y + r2 (37)

where Ai and Bi represent the fuzzy sets in the antecedent, and pi , qi , and ri , are the design parameters computed while the ANFIS is
undergoing training. Both the premise parameters Ai and Bi and the result parameterspi , qi , and ri , must be trained to obtain a well-
designed ANFIS.

3.7.2. Design of GA-ANFIS microgrid control system

The GA-ANFIS controller is required to generate appropriate pulse width modulated (PWM) control signals necessary to regulate
and stabilize the converter voltage and is made up of two parts. The first portion is the GA unit used to obtain optimal generation

Fig. 7. The typical architecture of ANFIS.

12
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

outputs of PV and WT of the microgrid system based on the available meteorological data. Fig. 8 presents the flow chart of the GA part
of the control system. The inputs to the GA, primarily the wind speed, solar irradiance, cell temperature, and BESS data representing
the initial population, are specified. The captured data is modeled using different functions to create clusters corresponding to subset
input selection. The outputs of this step include data about PV output (PPV− out ), wind turbine (PWT− out ) and stored power (Ps ). The next
step involved the determination of computational fitness and represented the calculation of objective function, which was done ac­
cording to the power balance Eq. (38):
PT = PWTG + PPV ∓ PBESS (38)

where PT , is the total power generated in the microgrid.

The GA is then taken through iterative optimization, which manipulates the prescribed data sets using the standard GA algorithm’s
selection, crossover, and mutation processes. If the stop condition has not been reached, it jumps to the modeling step; else, it proceeds
to the optimized results, i.e., optimum PPV− out , PWT− out and Ps . Finally, in the second part of the proposed GA-ANFIS controller, the
ANFIS is trained with this data. The GA algorithm was implemented using a program written in MATLAB in which all the important
parameters were specified, including population size, the maximum number of generations, the number of elite individuals, selection
method, crossover function and fraction, mutation function, and mutation rate. Fig. 9 shows the ANFIS algorithm flowchart. The GA-
optimized results are presented to the ANFIS alongside the expected output voltage of the IBC and measured values of V andI.
Using the power balance equation, the reference voltage is computed according to predetermined conditions. Once a new set of
training data is created, the same is used to compute the ANFIS values for every input, by utilizing the reference microgrid DC voltage
(Vref ) and IBC output voltage (Vc− out ). A comparison is made between Vc− out and Vref , and if equal, no action is executed. If the two are
unequal, the voltage error (Ev ) and change in voltage error (ΔEv ) are obtained from Vc− out , Vref and PEv , where PEv , is the previous
voltage error. All the ANFIS values are verified and the learning parameters are specified. A hybrid algorithm incorporating the least
squares and the backpropagation gradient descent methods is used to train the ANFIS. The training parameters of the ANFIS controller
specified in its design are the number of fuzzy rules, the number of linear and nonlinear parameters, the number of nodes, and the
number of training, checking, and testing data set. Once trained according to the tolerance or criteria set, the GA-ANFIS controller
produces an appropriate output control signal that is sent to the PWM module. The PWM signals emanating from the PWM block are
fed to the DC-DC converter to regulate the converter output voltage. Since labelled input-output data set pairs was available, the ANFIS
has been designed using supervised learning. The data was obtained from the designed model run with the SSR-P&O and a MATLAB
code, according to the generation data available at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) site [22]. The parameters of the
designed integrated GA and ANFIS system are captured in Table 9.

3.8. PID controller

The Proportional-plus-Integral-plus-Derivative (PID) controller optimum gains were obtained by applying the Ziegler-Nichols
ultimate cycle tuning method and the MATLAB PID auto-tuning tool as Kp = 1.77, KI = 31.74, KD = 0.016 and filter coefficient
N = 2558.64. The contribution of the derivative term of the PID controller was minimal; hence the controller action was very close to

Fig. 8. Flow chart of proposed Genetic Algorithm (GA).

13
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 9. Steps for GA-Optimized ANFIS controller Design.

Table 9
GA-ANFIS system parameters.
Parameters of the GA

PopulationType Double Vector

PopulationSize 50
Elite Count (0.05*PopulationSize) Adapted in simulations
Crossover Fraction (0.8) Adapted in simulations
Migration Interval 20
Migration Fraction 0.2
Generations (100*number of variables) 300
PenaltyFactor (InitialPenalty = 10) 100
StallGenLimit 50

Parameter of the ANFIS

Number of nodes 115

Number of linear parameters 147
Number of nonlinear parameters 224
Total number of parameters 371 (premise = 28, consequent = 349)
Number of training data pairs 54 (57.4%)
Number of checking data pairs 20 (21.3%)
Number of testing data pairs 20 (21.3%)
Number of membership functions/fuzzy rules 7 × 7/49
Training/teaching method Hybrid learning algorithm
Designated epoch number 50
ANFIS training error tolerance 0.001

PI.

3.9. Combined Simulink Models for transfer function and case study

Fig. 10 shows the MATLAB/SIMULINK Transfer Function (T.F) Model of the proposed PV-Wind hybrid microgrid used to test the
SSR-P&O, PID, ANFIS performance, and GA-ANFIS controllers.
The consolidated microgrid case study SIMULINK model shown in Fig. 11 was obtained by integrating the individual models for the

14
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 10. Simulink Transfer Function Model of proposed PV-Wind hybrid Microgrid.

PV system, WT system, IBCs, Two parallel Inverters, BESS, and the Load Model.
It significantly altered the response time by increasing the computation and dynamic response time.
In essence, the developed microgrid model is a nonlinear model in which the nonlinearities have been handled as follows. First, the
zone restriction technique was applied to the PV and wind power curve to eliminate 85% of the curve and only focus on the 15%
section. The restriction kept the operating points of PV and WT close to the equilibrium points around the MPP and had a higher chance
of exhibiting local stability if subjected to the Jacobian linearization of the state-space model equations. Second, the form of the T.F.
was used after the model pole-zero cancellation, which simulates a nearly linear microgrid. Finally, the designed GA-ANFIS controller
was deployed to withstand the impact of nonlinear dynamics on the model response.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Response of SSR-P&O, PID, ANFIS, and GA-ANFIS controllers with the microgrid T.F. model

Fig. 12 shows the response of SSR-P&O, PID, ANFIS, and GA-ANFIS controllers to the unit step change in voltage when applied to
the Transfer Function (T.F) model of the proposed PV-Wind hybrid microgrid.
The performance of these algorithms was tested with other voltage changes, and the voltage regulation capabilities obtained were
summarized in Table 10.
The results obtained with various step voltage inputs indicated that the GA-ANFIS responds with the fastest settling time (ts ) and
shortest rise time (tr ). According to the average values in Table 10, GA-ANFIS recorded the best average performance. The rise time is
0.10 s for GA-ANFIS, 0.22 s for ANFIS, 0.26 s for SSR-P&O, and 0.36 s for the PID controller. The maximum overshoot (Mp ) with GA-
ANFIS is reduced up to 3.52% though there were no overshoots registered with the PID, SSR-P&O, and ANFIS controllers on the MPZC
T.F, which is a second-order plant. However, these controllers depicted higher overshoots than the GA-ANFIS (Mp of8.00%, 5.50%,
and 5.00%, respectively) when applied to the fourth-order microgrid T.F without pole-zero cancellation. The settling time is 0.16 s for
GA-ANFIS, 0.42 s for ANFIS, 0.44 s for the SSR-P&O, and 0.76 s with the PID. It is interpreted from these results that with the GA-
ANFIS, the system tracks the new set voltage points in the fastest time (0.10 s) and registering permissible overshoot of 3.52%
(against IEEE-1547 and IEEE-519 standards voltage limits of ±5%) as compared to SSR-P&O, ANFIS, and PID controllers. The GA-
ANFIS controller is also the most optimal controller with the best prediction, learning capability, and ability to cope with non-
linearities associated with the microgrid. However, this has been achieved at the expense of the 3.52% overshoot introduced in the
steady state value, but which is still well within the expected voltage limits. Despite showing zero overshoots, the SSR-P&O and PID
controllers do not have the learning and prediction capability of the ANFIS and GA-ANFIS and struggle with nonlinearities in the
microgrid.

15
 L.A. Aloo et al.
16

Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 11. Combined Simulink Model of the proposed Microgrid with Case Study.
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 12. Response of different controllers to step change with the microgrid T.F. model.

Table 10
SSR-P&O, PID, ANFIS, and GA-ANFIS controllers with various voltage changes.
Step Input SSR-P&O PID ANFIS GA-ANFIS

tr ts Mp tr ts Mp tr ts Mp tr ts Mp

(V) (s) (s) (%) (s) (s) (%) (s) (s) (%) (s) (s) (%)
1 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 3.5
2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 3.5
3 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 3.6
4 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 3.5
5 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 3.5
Avg. 0.26 0.44 0.00 0.36 0.76 0.00 0.22 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.16 3.52

4.2. Current, voltage, and Power Outputs of PV, WT, and BESS in the microgrid Simulink Case Study

Fig. 13a and Fig. 13b depicts the I–V and P–V plots, respectively, for the PV Array of the 10 kW PV system for the Microgrid Case
Study at different solar irradiance levels. It is clear that with the two parallel strings created from 17 series connected modules, the PV
array system of 10 kW with a peak current of 16 A and voltage 654 V was realized for irradiance of 1 kW/m2 at 250 C. Simulation results
of the PMSG WTGS connected to an uncontrolled three-phase diode rectifier and the IBC were obtained to ascertain its performance. It
was established that the maximum power extraction happens when the WT, which is connected directly to the PMSG, is subjected to a
wind speed of 12 m/s and a pitch angle of 00 as depicted in Fig. 14.
Fig. 15 shows the WT Stator Output parameters (rotor speed-a, electromagnetic torque-b, and three-phase stator currents-c-e) in the
proposed Microgrid with SSR-P&O. The struggles of the SSR-P&O algorithm in the presence of nonlinear dynamics of the WT are
evident. In Fig. 16a–e, these generator output parameters are much refined owing to the ability of the GA-ANFIS controller to predict
system conditions and deal with the nonlinearities.
The nominal current discharge characteristics of a 5000 Ah capacity of the Lead-Acid BESS model are shown in Fig. 17a (Voltage
versus Ampere-hour) and Fig. 17b (Voltage-time plot). Similarly, for Lithium-Ion BESS model, the same parameters are shown in the
plots of Fig. 18a and b. The discharge rate for the same storage capacity is faster in Lead-Acid BESS compared to Lithium-Ion BESS. For
this reason, the Lithium-Ion BESS has been selected for use in the proposed microgrid.

4.3. Results from the IBC with SSR-P&O MPPT and GA-ANFIS controller

The proposed PV side IBC inputs are voltage Vin = 561 V and current, Iin = 26 A whose profiles with SSR-P&O are shown in Fig. 19
(a-Input Voltage, b-Input Current and c-Inductor Current), while the current plot with GA-ANFIS is shown in Fig. 20.
The IBC output voltage with SSR-P&O of 680 V and current of 20.63 A obtained at a switching frequency of 20 kHz and the duty
ratio of D = 0.1928 are presented in Fig. 21 (a-Output Voltage, b-Output Current and c-Capacitor Current). The SSR-P&O MPPT
technology indicated a 0.25 s rise time, a 0.40 s settling time and a 7.50% overshoot and an efficiency of 96.5% compared to one
obtained in Ref. [20] of 96.1% and the conventional P&O which is 80 to84%.
Fig. 22 (a- Output Voltage, b-Output Current and c-Capacitor Current) shows the PV Side IBC Output voltage and Current with GA-

17
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 13. I–V and P–V PV array plots: (a) I–V plots of PV array; (b) P–V plots of PV array.

Fig. 14. Turbine output power for various WT speeds.

ANFIS in Case Study Model when the generated PV power varies. The GA-ANFIS regulated the IBC output voltage to within ± 2.21% of
the nominal 680V, i.e., 680 ± 15 V which is well within the required ±5%. The rise time and settling time of the GA-ANFIS were 0.10 s
and 0.15 s, respectively, giving a better voltage profile than SSR-P&O.
Fig. 23 (a-Input Voltage, b-Input Current and c-Inductor Current) and Fig. 24 (a-Output Voltage, b-Output Current and c-Capacitor
Current) show the WT IBC Inputs and outputs, respectively, with SSR-P&O in the proposed microgrid. The voltage and current profiles
distortions depict the inability of the SSR-P&O algorithm to tackle the nonlinear dynamics of the microgrid system. When the SSR-P&O
controller is replaced with the GA-ANFIS, the voltage, and current transient profiles are much refined, as shown in Fig. 25 (a-Input
Voltage, b-Input Current and c-Inductor Current) and Fig. 26 (a-Output Voltage, b-Output Current and c-Capacitor Current). This
validates the ability of GA-ANFIS algorithm to tackle the nonlinear dynamics of the microgrid system.

18
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 15. WT Stator Output parameters in the proposed Microgrid with SSR-P&O: (a) Rotor speed; (b)Electromagnetic torque; (c) Stator current in
Red phase (d) Stator current in Yellow phase (e) (c) Stator current in Blue phase

Fig. 16. Generator Output Data with GA-ANFIS: (a) Rotor speed; (b)Electromagnetic torque; (c) Stator current in Red phase (d) Stator current in
Yellow phase (e) (c) Stator current in Blue phase

Fig. 17. Lithium-Ion Discharge Characteristics: (a) Voltage versus Ampere-hour; (b) Voltage-time plot.

19
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 18. Lead-Acid Discharge Characteristics: (a) Voltage versus Ampere-hour plot; (b) Voltage-time plot.

Fig. 19. PV System IBC Input Voltage (Vin ) and Current (Iin ) in the proposed Microgrid: (a) PV System Side IBC Input Voltage; (b) PV System Side
IBC Input Current; (c) PV System Side IBC Inductor Current.

Fig. 20. PV side IBC Input Current with GA-ANFIS.

4.4. PV BESS output voltage, SoC, and current in the proposed microgrid

Fig. 27 (a-Output Voltage, b-SoC and c-Output Current) and Fig. 28 (a-Output Voltage, b-SoC and c-Output Current) show the PV
side BESS and WT side BESS Output Voltage, SoC, and Current with SSR-P&O in the proposed microgrid. The voltage is regulated to
within 680 ± 15 V for PV side BESS and 695 ± 5 V for WT BESS but with notable distortions.
Fig. 29 (a-Output Voltage, b-SoC and c-Output Current) and Fig. 30 (a-Output Voltage, b-SoC and c-Output Current) depict the PV
side BESS and WT side BESS Output Voltage, SoC, and Current with the GA-ANFIS controller in the proposed Microgrid. The voltage is
regulated to within 680 ± 15 V for PV side BESS and 695 ± 5 V for WT BESS with fewer distortions, faster rise times, and settling times.

4.5. Inverter output and power output to residential loads in the proposed microgrid

Fig. 31 (a-Red phase, b-Yellow phase and c-Blue phase) and Fig. 32 (a-Red phase, b-Yellow phase and c-Blue phase) present the
filtered three-phase voltage outputs of the proposed inverter on the PV and Wind Turbine sides, respectively, with the SSR-P&O
algorithm.
The GA-ANFIS controller plots for inverter outputs and load voltages are shown in Fig. 33 (a-VSC Output Line voltage and b-Load

20
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 21. PV side IBC outputs with P&O-SSR in case study model: (a) PV system side IBC output voltage; (b) PV system side IBC output current; (c) PV
system side IBC output capacitor current.

Fig. 22. PV side IBC outputs with GA-ANFIS in case study model: (a) PV system side IBC output voltage; (b) PV system side IBC output current; (c)
PV system side IBC output capacitor current.

voltage) and Fig. 34 33 (a-VSC Output Line voltage and b-Load voltage), which depict better transient responses concerning reduced
settling time, rise time, and overshoots in comparison with the SSR-P&O algorithm.
Fig. 35 shows the power output to loads in the proposed microgrid with the GA-ANFIS controller, which confirms the generation
and supply of well-regulated voltage that meet the transient voltage response requirements.

21
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 23. WT IBC Inputs in the proposed Microgrid with SSR-P&O in Case Study Model: (a) WT IBC Input Voltage; (b) WT IBC Input Current; (c) WT
IBC Input Inductor Current.

Fig. 24. WT IBC outputs with SSR-P&O in case study model: (a) WT side IBC output voltage; (b) WT side IBC output current; (c) WT IBC output
capacitor current.

4.6. Summary of Simulink Case Study Model results with voltage variations

Table 11 shows a numerical summary of Simulink case study model results obtained with the SSR-P&O and GA-ANFIS controllers
amid voltage variations. From Table 11, the GA-ANFIS controller recorded the best performance.
The GA-ANFIS controller has a 0.10 s rise time, a 0.14 s settling time and a 3.54% overshoot compared to the 0.26 s, 0.46 s, and

22
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 25. WT IBC Inputs in the proposed Microgrid with GA-ANFIS in Case Study Model: (a) WT IBC Input Voltage; (b) WT IBC Input Current; (c) WT
IBC Inductor Current.

Fig. 26. WT IBC outputs with GA-ANFIS in case study model: (a) WT IBC output voltage; (b) WT IBC output current; (c) WT IBC capacitor current.

7.6%, respectively, realized with the SSR-P&O controller.

By comparing the results obtained between the Transfer Function model and the Simulink case study model using the developed
control algorithms, it was observed that even with changes in the plant model, there was no significant impact on the control system
performance of the GA-ANFIS. However, the SSR-P&O controller depicted degraded transient performance due to its struggles in
handling nonlinearities. The GA-ANFIS’s superior performance is attributed to the training of the ANFIS and its optimization with GA.
This introduced some intelligence to the controller, thereby improving its time domain transient response characteristics and tolerance
to changes in microgrid plant nonlinear dynamics. The ability of GA-ANFIS to work for the voltage regulation in the microgrid system
despite the existence of non-linearities and other dynamic changes in its operating conditions is thus verified.

23
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 27. PV BESS outputs with SSR-P&O in case study model: (a) PV BESS output voltage; (b) PV BESS SoC; (c) PV BESS output current.

Fig. 28. WT BESS outputs with SSR-P&O in case study model: (a) WT BESS output voltage; (b) WT BESS SoC; (c) WT BESS output current.

5. Conclusions

This paper has developed a unique model of a hybrid 10 kW off-grid PV-wind microgrid using an interleaving technique in
MATLAB/SIMULINK and designed a GA-ANFIS controller for voltage regulation. The key contributions of the study include the
microgrid model developed using the interleaving technique and the GA-ANFIS controller used to optimize the DC-DC boost converter
outputs. Further, a Perturb and Observe (P&O) MPPT algorithm with a 15% Search Space Restriction (SSR) and PID controller were
developed for performance validation of the GA-ANFIS controller on both a Transfer Function microgrid model and the Simulink Case
Study model. The performance of the control algorithms has been analyzed by tracking the voltages and currents at various points
across the case study model. The GA-ANFIS approach provided the best performance compared to SSR-P&O and PID. The GA-ANFIS

24
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 29. PV side BESS outputs with GA-ANFIS: (a) PV BESS output voltage; (b) PV BESS SoC; (c) PV BESS output current.

Fig. 30. WT side BESS outputs with GA-ANFIS: (a) WT BESS output voltage; (b) WT BESS SoC; (c) WT BESS output current.

controllecorded a 0.10 s rise time, 0.15 s settling time and 3.5% overshoot compared to the 0.25 s, 0.45 s and 7.5% for SSR-P&O
controller and 0.36 s, 0.76 s and 8.0% for the PID controller respectively. The GA-ANFIS controller also significantly reduced the
microgrid’s voltage and current distortions. The results verified the functionality of the hybrid PV-Wind interleaved model and the GA-
ANFIS controller as meeting all the specifications of the voltage regulation in the microgrid system. The study’s limitations are that the
GA-ANFIS controller was applied to an off-grid microgrid and that no micro-hydroelectric power sources were incorporated in the
microgrid model. Thus, the impact of the connection of the microgrid to the grid or the addition of micro-hydroelectric power sources
on the controller performance has not been investigated. Moreover, the Transfer Function microgrid model is limited to the small-
signal-based pole-zero cancellation to simulate a nearly linear microgrid. In future work, the designed GA-ANFIS controller can be
improved by hybridizing it further using the third algorithm in the controller and considering the grid-connected microgrid.

25
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 31. PV side Inverter 1 output Line voltages with SSR-P&O: (a) Red Phase; (b) Yellow Phase; (c) Blue Phase

Author contribution statement

Linus Alwal Aloo: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data;
Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Peter K. Kihato, Stanley I. Kamau and Roy S. Orenge: Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis
tools or data.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.

Declaration of interest’s statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

26
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 32. Wind Turbine side Inverter 2 output Line voltages with SSR-P&O: (a) Red Phase; (b) Yellow Phase; (c) Blue Phase

Nomenclature

Symbol
a The ideal constant of the diode
A Area covered by the rotor blades (unit: m2 )
Cf /Lf /Rf /Gf Filter Capacitance/Inductance/Resistance/Conductance
Cp Conversion efficiency/power coefficient of the wind power (unit: %)
Ebat Nonlinear voltage (unit: V)
E0 Open-circuit voltage (OCV) of the battery at full capacity (unit: V)
Ev /ΔEv Voltage error / change in voltage error (unit: V)
F Viscous damping (unit: N.m.s)
Fr Minimum ripple frequency component in the current (unit: Hz)
Fs Switching frequency for inverter PWM signals (unit: Hz)
f switching Switching frequency (unit: Hz)
G Solar radiation (unit: W/m2 )
GPV /GWTG /GBESS /GBC1 /GBBC /GM /GL Transfer functions of solar PV, Wind, BESS, Boost Converter, Buck-Boost Converter, Inverter/
Microgrid system, and Load, respectively
GSTC Solar irradiance at STC ( = 1000 W/m2 )
I Battery current (unit: A)
ik Instantaneous current (unit: A)
Imp Max Power Current (unit: A dc)
IPh− STC Photovoltaic Current at STC (unit: A)
IPV PV cell output current (unit: A)Isat1 / Isat2 PV cell output current (unit: A)Isat1 / Isat2 Saturation currents of the first and second diodes

27
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 33. PV side Inverter 1 performance with GA-ANFIS: (a) VSC Output Line voltage; (b) Load voltage.

Fig. 34. Wind Turbine side Inverter 2 performance with GA-ANFIS: (a) VSC Output Line voltage; (b) Load voltage.

28
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Fig. 35. Power outputs to loads with GA-ANFIS.

Table 11
Summary of Simulink Case Study Model Results with voltage variations.
Voltage Variation SSR-P&O GA-ANFIS

tr ts Mp tr ts Mp

(V) (s) (s) (%) (s) (s) (%)

1 0.2 0.4 7.5 0.1 0.2 3.5
5 0.3 0.5 7.0 0.1 0.2 3.5
10 0.3 0.5 8.0 0.1 0.1 3.6
15 0.2 0.4 7.5 0.1 0.1 3.5
20 0.3 0.5 8.0 0.1 0.1 3.6
Avg 0.26 0.46 7.60 0.10 0.14 3.54

(unit: A)
Isc Short-circuit Current (unit: A dc)
isd , isq The d− axis and q− axis currents (unit: A)
J Inertia (unit: Kg.m2 )
K/ K1 Polarization resistance coefficient (unit: Ω)
Kp /Ks /KV Max Power/Voltage/Short-circuit current temperature coefficient (unit: %/0 C)
KPA , KIA /KPV , KIV Proportional/Integral controller specification of the current/voltage controller
KPV /KWTG /KBESS /KBC1 /KBBC /KM /KL Amplification factors of solar PV, wind, BESS, Boost Converter, Buck-Boost Converter,
Inverter/Microgrid system, and Load, respectively
Lsd , Lsq The inductance of the PMSG generator (unit: H)
P or p The number of poles or pole pairs respectively (unit: dimensionless)
PEv Previous voltage error (unit: V)
Pm /Pmp /Pr /Ps Aerodynamic wind turbine power/Max Power/Rated power of microgrid/Stored power (unit: W)
PPV− out /PWT− out PV output power/Wind turbine power (unit: W)
Q Battery capacity (Ahr)
R/Rs /Rsh Internal/Series/Parallel resistance (unit: Ω)
τ1 /τ2 Current control-inner loop/Voltage control-outer loop time constant
TC /TSTC Ambient temperature/Temperature at Standard Test Condition (STC) (unit :0 C)
Tf Static friction (unit: N.m)
TPV /TWTG /TBESS /TBC1 /TBBC /TL Time constants of solar PV, wind, BESS, Boost Converter, Buck-Boost Converter, and Load,
respectively
v Wind speed of the site (m/s)
Vac /Vdc Inverter output voltage/Input DC voltage (unit: V)
Vbatt Terminal voltage (unit: V)
Vc− out DC-DC converter output voltage
VD /VT Diode voltage/Diode thermal (unit: V)

29
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

Vmp /Voc Max Power Voltage/Open-circuit Voltage (unit: Vdc)

VPV PV cell output voltage (unit: V)
Vref Set microgrid DC voltage (unit: V)
vsd , vsq The d− axis and q− axis voltages (unit: V)
Xabc /Xdqz PMSG variables in the stationary/rotating coordinates
yk Terminal voltage (unit: V)
zk Battery’s State of Charge (SoC)

Greek Letters
ρ Air density of the power generation site (unit: kg/m3 )
η Efficiency (unit: %)
λ Tip speed ratio of the rotor blades (unit: m)
β Blade pitch angle (unit: degrees)
ωs Generator’s electrical rotational speed (unit: rad/s)
ψp /ψsd /ψsq Permanent flux/The d− and q− component of instantaneous stator flux (unit: Wb)

Abbreviations
ANFIS Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System
ANN Artificial Neural Networks
BESS Battery Energy Storage System
DFIG Doubly Fed Induction Generator
FLC Fuzzy Logic Control
GA Genetic Algorithm
IBC Interleaved DC-DC Boost Converters
IGBT Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor
IHMS Islanded Hybrid Microgrid System
PID Proportional-plus-Integral-plus-Derivative
PI Proportional plus Integral
PMSG Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generator
P&O Perturb and Observe
PSO Particle Swarm Optimization
PV Photovoltaic
PWM Pulse Width Modulated
RES Renewable Energy Source
RMSE Root Mean Squared Error
SOC State of Charge
SSR Search Space Restricted
SPWM Sinusoidal Pulse Width Modulation
MOSFET Metal Oxide Semi-conductor Field Effect Transistor
MPC Model Predictive Control
MPP Maximum Power Point
MPPT Maximum Power Point Tracking
MPZC Model-Based Pole-Zero Cancellation
NPC Neutral-Point-Clamped
THD Total Harmonic Distortion
VSC/VSI Voltage Source Converter/Voltage Source Inverter
WECS Wind Energy Conversion System
WTG Wind Turbine Generator

References

[1] L.A. Alwal, P.K. Kihato, S.I. Kamau, A review of control strategies for microgrid with PV-wind hybrid generation systems, in: Proceedings of the Sustainable
Research and Innovation Conf., JKUAT Main Campus, Kenya, 2nd - 4th May, 2018.
[2] L.A. Aloo, P.K. Kihato, S.I. Kamau, R.S. Orenge, Model Predictive Control-Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System Control Strategies for Photovoltaic-Wind
Microgrid: Feasibility Review, IEEE PES/IAS PowerAfrica, 2020, pp. 1–5.
[3] S. Sumathi, L. Ashok Kumar, P. Surekha, Solar PV and Wind Energy Conversion Systems, first ed., Springer, 2015.
[4] A. Alzahrani, M. Ferdowsi, P. Shamsi, C.H. Dagli, Modeling and simulation of microgrid, Proc. Comput. Sci. 114 (2017) 392–400. Elsevier, 2017.
[5] I. Yahyaoui, Advances in renewable energies and power technologies, in: Solar and Wind Energies, vol. 1, Elsevier, 2018.
[6] M. Jayachandran, G. Ravi, Design and optimization of hybrid micro-grid system, Elsevier-Science Direct, Energy Procedia 117 (2017) 95–103.

30
L.A. Aloo et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e14678

[7] N.H. Samrat, N. Ahmad, I.A. Choudhury, Z. Taha, Technical study of a standalone photovoltaic–wind energy based hybrid power supply system for island
electrification in Malaysia, PLoS One 10 (6) (2015).
[8] Y. Sawle, S.C. Gupta, A.K. Bohre, PV-Wind Hybrid System: A Review with Case Study, Cogent Engineering, 2016.
[9] A. Khalil, K.A. Alfaitori, A. Asheibi, Modeling and control of PV/wind microgrid, in: 7th Int. Ren. Energy Congress, 2016.
[10] G. Ma’slak, P. Orłowski, Microgrid operation optimization using hybrid system modeling and switched model predictive control, Energies 15 (2022) 833,
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030833.
[11] O. Elbeji, M. B Hamed, L. Sbita, PMSG wind energy conversion system: modeling and control, Int. J. Mod. Nonlinear Theor. Appl. 3 (Jul 2014) 88–97.
[12] C. N Wang, W.C. Lin, X.K. Le, Modeling of a PMSG wind turbine with autonomous control, in: Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Mathematical Problems in
Engineering, vol. 2014, 2014. Article ID 856173.
[13] A. Kokate, H. Khandagale, J. George, A. Koli, S. Nair, Modeling and simulation of standalone wind energy conversion system, in: 3rd Int. Conf. On Trends in
Electronics and Informatics, IEEE Xplore, 2019, pp. 1295–1297.
[14] S. Amara, S. Toumi, C.B. Salah, Modeling and Simulation of Hybrid Renewable Microgrid System,” 2020 17th International Multi-Conference on Systems,
Signals & Devices (SSD’20), IEEE, 2020.
[15] S. Li, B. Ke, Study of Battery Modeling Using Mathematical and Circuit Oriented Approaches, IEEE, 2011.
[16] J. Meng, G. Luo, M. Ricco, M. Swierczynski, D. I Stroe, R. Teodorescu, Overview of Lithium-Ion Battery Modeling Methods for State-Of-Charge Estimation in
Electrical Vehicles, Applied Sciences, MDPI, 2018.
[17] O.A. Rahim, H. Wang, A new high gain DC-DC converter with model-predictive-control based MPPT technique for photovoltaic systems, CPSS Transactions on
Power Electronics and Applications 5 (No. 2) (2020).
[18] K.S. Faraj, J.F. Hussein, Analysis and comparison of DC-DC boost converter and interleaved DC-DC boost converter, Engineering and Technology Journal 38 (5)
(2020) 622–635.
[19] R.D. Tayade, S.S. Mopari, Comparative analysis of interleaved boost converter and Cuk converter for solar powered BLDC motor, Int. J. Electr. Electron. Eng. 6
(Issue 4) (2017).
[20] P. Prabhakaran, V. Agarwal, Novel boost-SEPIC type interleaved DC-DC converter for mitigation of voltage imbalance in a low-voltage bipolar DC microgrid,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 67 (8) (2020).
[21] C. Hisar, Three-phase parallel interleaved boost converters, in: MATLAB central file exchange, 2020. https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/
fileexchange/72749-three-phase-parallel-interleaved-boost-converters. Retrieved August 26.
[22] System Advisor Model Version 2017.9.5 (SAM 2017.9.5), National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 2020. https://sam.nrel.gov/download. Accessed
August 29.
[23] K. Özel, A. Karaarslan, The design of standalone PV system using P&O algorithm for maximum power point tracking, Physical Sciences and Engineering 62 (1)
(2020) 14–25. University of Ankara, Series A2-A3.
[24] M. Kamran, M. Mudassar, M.R. Fazal, M.U. Asghar, M. Bilal, R. Asghar, Implementation of improved Perturb & Observe MPPT technique with confined search
space for standalone photovoltaic system, J. King Saud Univ. Eng. Sci. 32 (7) (2020) 432–441.
[25] S.A. Mohamed, M. Abd El Sattar, A comparative study of P&O and INC maximum power point tracking techniques for grid-connected PV systems, SN Appl. Sci.
1 (Jan 2019) 174.
[26] P. Sahin, R. Resmi, V. Vanitha, PMSG based standalone wind electric conversion system with MPPT, in: 2016 International Conference on Emerging
Technological Trends [ICETT], IEEE, 2016.
[27] A. Tounsi, H. Abid, M. Kharrat, K. Elleuch, MPPT algorithm for wind energy conversion system based on PMSG, in: 18th International Conference on Sciences
and Techniques of Automatic Control and Computer Engineering (STA), IEEE, 2017, 978-1-5386-1084-8/17/$31.00.
[28] O. Zebraoui, M. Bouzi, Comparative study of different MPPT methods for wind energy conversion system, IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 161 (2018), 012023.
[29] M.A. Fouad, M.A. Badr, M.M. Ibrahim, Modeling of micro-grid system components using MATLAB/SIMULINK, Global Scientific Journals 5 (Issue 5) (May 2017).
[30] N. Priyadarshi, S. Padmanaban, D. M Ionel, L.M. Popa, F. Azam, Hybrid PV-Wind, Micro-grid Development Using Quasi-Z-Source Inverter Modeling and Control-
Experimental Investigation, Energies, MDPI, Aug 2019.
[31] S. Korjani, A. Facchini, M. Mureddu, A. Damiano, A Genetic Algorithm Approach for the Identification of Microgrids Partitioning into Distribution Networks,
IEEE, 2017, 978-1-5386-1127-2/17/$31.00.
[32] K. Abdul-Hussein, A. Sumarmad, N. Sulaiman, N.I.A. Wahab, H. Hizam, Energy management and voltage control in microgrids using artificial neural networks,
PID, and Fuzzy Logic Controllers 15 (303) (2022). Energies.
[33] D. Gamage, X. Zhang, A. Ukil, C. Wanigasekara, A. Swain, Design of ANFIS Controller for a DC Microgrid, IEEE, 2021, 978-1-6654-2536-0/21/$31.00.
[34] D.N. Truong, V.T. Ngo, M.N. Thi, A. Hoang, Application of an adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system to control a hybrid solar and wind grid-tie
inverter, Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 11 (No. 5) (2021) 7673–7677.
[35] T. Bogaraj, J. Kanakaraj, A novel energy management scheme using ANFIS for independent microgrid, Int. J. Renew. Energy Resour. 6 (No.3) (2016).
[36] N. Pawar, P. Nema, ANFIS based forecast model for predicting PV energy generation system, International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research 9 (Issue
03) (Mar. 2020).
[37] S.K. Bilgundi, R. Sachin, H. Pradeepa, H.B. Nagesh2, M.V.L. Kumar, Grid Power Quality Enhancement Using an ANFIS Optimized PI Controller for DG,”
Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems, Springer, 2022.
[38] M. Elsisi, M.Q. Tran, V.T. Lien, N.T.T. Nga, Adaptive energy management in microgrid based on new training strategy for ANFIS, in: ICERA 2021 in Advances in
Engineering Research and Application, Springer, 2022, pp. 142–149.
[39] S.A. Rahman Kashif, Three Level Three Phase Diode Clamped SPWM Inverter,” MATLAB Central File Exchange, 2021. Retrieved March 9, https://www.
mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/27313-three-level-three-phase-diode-clamped-spwm-inverter.
[40] R. Tan, Battery Energy Storage System Model,” MATLAB Central File Exchange, 2021. Retrieved May 28, https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/
fileexchange/69512-battery-energy-storage-system-model.
[41] S. Kumar, Battery Charging and Discharging Model,” MATLAB Central File Exchange, 2021. Retrieved Jul 2, https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/
fileexchange/38304-battery-charging-and-discharging-model.
[42] J.R. Krishnan, “PV and Battery System,” MATLAB Central File Exchange, 2021. Retrieved Aug 3, https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/
69064-pv-and-battery-system.
[43] D. Kumar, H. D Mathur, S. Bhanot, R.C. Bansal, Modeling and frequency control of community microgrids under stochastic solar and wind sources, Engineering
Science and Technology, an Int. Journal 23 (2020) 1084–1099. Elsevier.
[44] Y.V.P. Kumar, R. Bhimasingu, Design of Voltage and Current Controller Parameters Using Small Signal Model-Based Pole-Zero Cancellation Method for
Improved Transient Response in Microgrids, SN Applied Sciences, 2021.
[45] M. Ali, H. Kotb, K.M. Aboras, N.H. Abbasy, Design of Cascaded PI-FOPID Controller for Improving Frequency Response of Hybrid Microgrid System, IEEE, 2021.
[46] C. Srinivasarathnam, Y. Chandrasekhar, M. Sydulu, Load frequency control of multi-microgrid system considering renewable energy sources using grey wolf
optimization, Smart Science 7 (No. 3) (2019) 198–217.
[47] A. Mohanty, M. Viswavandya, D. K Mishra, P. K Ray, S. Pragyan, Modeling & simulation of a PV based Microgrid for enhanced stability, Energy Proc. 109 (2017)
94–101. Elsevier.

31