Modified PID controller for automatic generation control of multi-source interconnected power system using fitness dependent optimizer algorithm.

In this paper, a modified form of the Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller known as the Integral- Proportional Derivative (I-PD) controller is developed for Automatic Generation Control (AGC) of the two-area multi-source Interconnected Power System (IPS). Fitness Dependent Optimizer (FDO) algorithm is employed for the optimization of proposed controller with various performance criteria including Integral of Absolute Error (IAE), Integral of Time multiplied Absolute Error (ITAE), Integral of Time multiplied Square Error (ITSE), and Integral Square Error (ISE). The effectiveness of the proposed approach has been assessed on a two-area network with individual source including gas, hydro and reheat thermal unit and then collectively with all three sources. Further, to validate the efficacy of the proposed FDO based PID and I-PD controllers, comprehensive comparative performance is carried and compared with other controllers including Differential Evolution based PID (DE-PID) controller and Teaching Learning Based Optimization (TLBO) hybridized with Local Unimodal Sampling (LUS-PID) controller. The comparison of outcomes reveal that the proposed FDO based I-PD (FDO-I-PD) controller provides a significant improvement in respect of Overshoot (Osh), Settling time (Ts), and Undershoot (Ush). The robustness of an I-PD controller is also verified by varying parameter of the system and load variation.

1 Introduction

The electrical power system consist of highly complex structures having various network of varied loads are interconnected. The basic purpose of AGC is to provide desired amount of power within satisfactory quality to entire users. The system will be stable when there is an equilibrium between generated power and consumers load. Since, the consumers load normally changes, the active power drawn from the generator increases which reduce the speed of generator or turbine due to variation in frequency. The modern power system comprises of numerous network areas which are connected to transmission lines via tie-lines. AGC plays a key role to sustain the exchange of power between the control regions via tie-lines and retain the frequency at predetermined value [1, 2].

Automatic Generation Control (AGC) performs a significant contribution in maintaining the stability of the power system. In this regards, substantial consideration has been paid by researches to deal with the Load Frequency Control (LFC). However, initially, most of the work has been performed in the single area network. For instance, the authors in [3, 4] considered a single area network of hydro power generation and reheat thermal power respectively. On the other hand some of the authors worked in single source generation of multi- area IPS and utilized different control techniques. For example Satheeshkumar and Shivakumar in [5] used Ant Lion Optimization (ALO) method for the tuning of Proportional Integral (PI) controller of three area IPS. The authors consider single source of thermal generation units for area-1, hydro units for area-2 and Photo-voltaic (PV) for area-3. The outcomes yielded from the proposed method are compared with Genetic Algorithm (GA), Bat Inspired Algorithm (BIA) and PSO. Similarly, the works related to the single source multi-area are presented in reference [6-10].

In past few decades, numerous control techniques have been employed for the AGC of single as well as multi-area with multi-source IPS. Mohanty et al. [11] have deliberate LFC of single area with multi-source including hydro, gas and thermal units by employing I/PI/PID controllers. The DE optimization algorithm is considered in order to tune the proposed controller gains. The authors also extended the research work to two-area diverse power generation systems. The authors in [12] used TLBO with PD-PID controller for two- area network with multi-source system considering hydro, gas and thermal generation units. Patel et al. in [13] suggested a Fractional Order (FO) fuzzy PID controller for two area IPS considering three generation units in one area and three sources in other area. The gain of the controllers are optimized with Ant Lion Optimization (ALO) method.

The literature survey reveals that the nature-inspired meta-heuristic optimization algorithms have received tremendous attention from researchers due to their strengths and capabilities to solve numerous complex optimization problems in engineering. These techniques have also been successfully employed for the tuning of controller parameters. For instance, a Grouped Grey Wolf Optimizer (GGWO) [14] algorithm was used for the optimization of PI controller parameters on Doubly Fed Induction Generator (DFIG) based on wind turbines. In work [15], a Democratic Joint Operator Algorithm (DJOA) was applied for the tuning of PID controller gains of Permanent Magnetic Synchronous Generator (PMSG) considering wind energy conversion system. Authors in [16] considered photo-voltaic inverters based on solar energy harvesting by employing Ying Yang Pair Optimization (YYPO) algorithm to optimize the parameters of perturbation observer based fractional order PID controller. Similarly, Yang et al. [17] proposed a robust fractional order PID controller tuned with Interactive Teaching-Learning Optimizer (ITLO) for solving super capacitor energy storage system. Various researchers have attempt to solve the AGC problem by employing different meta-heuristic optimization algorithms. Of these methods, authors have utilized Genetic Algorithm (GA) [18], (PSO) [19], (DE) [20], Improved-Ant Colony Optimization (I-ACO) [21], Firefly Algorithms (FA) [22], Improved Grey Wolf Optimization (IGWO) [23], Teaching Learning Base Optimization (TLBO) [24], Symbiotic Organisms Search Algorithm (SOSA) [25], Salp Swarm Algorithm (SSA) [26], Imperialist Competitive Algorithm (ICA) [27], Sine Cosine Algorithm (SCA) [28] and Backtracking Search Algorithm (BSA) [29]. While some of the authors have also applied hybrid techniques like TLBO hybridized with Local Unimodal Sampling (TLBO-LUS) [30], Improved Firefly with Pattern Search (IF-PS) [31], PSO hybrid with Gravitational Search Algorithm (PSO-GSA) [32], PSO hybridized with Chemical Reaction Optimization (HPSO-CRO) [33], and Hybrid PSO with Levy Flight algorithm (HPSO-LF) [34].

So far it remains a very challenging and critical task, due to the omnipresent problems of high dimensionality, non-differentiability and multimodality, to effectively and efficiently achieve the global optimum of engineering problems. Recently, a meta-heuristic algorithm called as Fitness Dependent Optimizer (FDO) has been developed to explore the swarming behavior of the bees. In short there are different types of bees: queen bees (responsible for making decision and produce offspring), worker bees (works under the command of queen bees) and scout bees (responsible for exploring environment and exploit the desirable targets) [35]. FDO algorithm has the advantages of fast convergence, simple to implement and adjust due to few parameters, higher efficiency and probability to find the global optimum and efficient exploration and exploitation. In this regards, FDO algorithm has been applied for the AGC problem to optimize the parameters of the proposed controller.

Initially, for the AGC problem integral controller has been widely used to control the load frequency of the system. But due to its slower response, the researchers have preferred to use PI controller which has the advantages of simple structure, low cost, fast response and easy to implementation [36]. The poor dynamic response of the PI controller has been improved by designing PID controller which has been widely used in industries due to its better performance, easy to design and stability [37, 38]. Similarly, the performance of PID controller has been improved by modifying the structure of PID controller without changing the system parameters. The modified form of PID controller known as I-PD controller has been successfully employed for the problem of magnetic levitation system [39], time delayed unstable process [40], and speed control of DC motor [41]. However, the literature reveals that modified form of PID controller has not been explored for the AGC problem. Therefore, in this paper the modified form of PID controller has been successfully applied.

In this paper, a novel modified form of PID controller known as I-PD controller is develop for AGC of multi-source IPS. In the proposed control model each area contains three different generation sources including hydro, reheat thermal and gas. Further, the parameters of the proposed controller is optimized with a more recent meta-heuristic algorithm known as Fitness Dependent Optimize (FDO). Moreover, the effectiveness of proposed approach has been assessed on two area network with four different scenarios i.e. reheat thermal, hydro, gas and multi-source power system. To quantify efficacy of the proposed controller’s detailed comparative performance is made with the results obtained by DE-PID, TLBO-PID, LUS-PID, LUS-TLBO-PID, FA-PID, FA-I-PD, PSO-PID, PSO-I-PD and TLBO-I-PD. Further, various performance criteria including IAE, ITAE, ITSE, and ISE have been used to check the performance of the system. Finally, the robustness of I-PD controller has been verified by varying the system parameters within a range of ± 50%.

The respite of the research work is structured as follows: Section 2 represents the material and methods followed by controller structure and optimization technique, While in section 3 implementation and results are demonstrated. The presented research work is concluded with future direction in section 4.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Controller structure

In early AGC method, the integral controller had been used to control the system frequency and tie-lines power. However, due to its slower time response, the researchers used Proportional Integral (PI) controller which have the advantages of its low cost, simple structure and faster time response. The poor dynamic performance of PI controller has been improved by PID controller and their modified form I-PD controller which are nowadays very commonly used in practical [42, 43]. In I-PD controller, the proportional parameter and the derivative parameter are put in feedback form while, integrator parameter are put in feed forward direction, as depicted in Fig 1, while in PID controller all the parameters are put in feed forward direction which are depicted in Fig 2.

Fig 1

Structure of I-PD controller.

Fig 2

Structure of PID controller.

The input of PID /I-PD controller for area 1 and 2 is specified by Area Control Error (ACE). where β1 and β2 represents biased parameters of frequency for area-1 and 2 respectively. ΔF1 and ΔF2 represents the frequency variation for area-1 and 2 respectively. Similarly, ΔP shows the tie line variation from area-1 to area- 2 and ΔP represent the tie line variation from area-2 to area-1.

To optimize the parameters of a controller, one of the essential steps is to determine the objective function. In this paper four different performance criteria, i.e., ITSE, ISE, ITAE and IAE are applied to verify the system performance and are given in below equations.

2.2 Fitness dependent optimizer

Several optimization methods are introduced by researchers in the field of power system to optimize the gains of the controllers by determination of fitness function. A nature-inspired meta-heuristic computational technique known as Fitness Dependent Optimizer (FDO) is deployed in this work to tune the various gains of the proposed controller. FDO starts from the initialization population of scout randomly in search space K; m = 1, 2, 3, ……, n. The number of the scout bees were equal to population size and each scout contains three parameters known as K, K and K denote the gains of PID/I-PD Controller. Each scout bee denotes a new exposed hive (solution). Scouts bee are randomly searching more position to find best solutions. A previously discovered hive is ignored when new search space is find out. So each time the algorithm finds a better new solution the previous one is discarded. Moreover, if the scout bee does not find the best solutions by moving forward, then it comes back to its previous direction hoping for optimal solutions. However, if the prior solution is unable to provide a better new solution then the existing solution will be considered as the best solution that has been discovered yet. During random movement of the scout bees, each time adding pace to the present position, the scout hopes to determine the best solution. The results are compared with global best and hence it is repeated until the optimal solution not achieved or generation is stopped The movement of scouts is represented as below: where m denotes current search agent, t denotes current iteration, K indicate scout bees and pace p is the movement rate and direction. Generally, pace p depends on Fitness Weight w and can be articulated as follows: where represents the value of the best global solution, k is the value of current solution and α is a weight factor which is used for the controlling of w and its value is either 1 or 0. If the value of α is 1 then, it represent high level of convergence while if the value is 0 then there is no effect on Eq (4) but often it provides more stable search. The value of w should be in the range of [1, 0]. But in some cases it may be equal to 1, for instance, when the current and global best solution are equal. The value of w will be equal to 0 when is equal to 0. Finally, the case k = 0 should be ignored. Hence, the rules given below must be considered: where R is the random number in the range of [1, −1]. The elementary steps of the FDO are shown in the algorithm 1.

Algorithm 1: Fitness Dependent Optimizer

Cost function J(.);

Generate scout bee population k; m = 1, 2, ⋯, n

While Boundary not reached do

for all For each scout bee k do

R ← r ∈ [−1 1] %random walk

if k == 0 then

w = 0

else

end if

if w == 0ORw == 1 then

p ← R k

else

if R ≥ 0

else

end if

end if

K ← K + p

If K < k then

Save k

Save p

else

K ← K + p

if K < K then

Save k

Save p

else keep current position

endIf

endIf

end for

end while

3 Implementation and results

In this section FDO-I-PD and FDO-PID controllers are considered and employed for a two-area IPS with three different generation units to assess their performance. Further, to evaluate the performance of these controllers, a two-area IPS with a single generation unit including hydro, reheat thermal and gas is considered and then the same two-area network with all three sources is investigated via simulations with 1% step load perturbation (SLP). In prvious work, four various performance criteria are used ITSE, ISE, ITAE, and IAE. However, ITSE [19, 32, 36], ISE [25, 26] and ITAE [11, 13] are mostly used for AGC. For the comparison among various performance criteria Eq (2a)–(2d) are executed in Matlab and identified that ITSE provides minimum error as compared to others criteria which are show in Table 1. Hence, ITSE criteria is preferred as an objective function to tune the gains of controller. Further, for the sake of comparison three other methods such as PSO, TLBO and FA are used for tuning of I-PD/ PID controller. The convergence rate for different methods using ITSE criteria is depicted in Fig 3. The time response performance is evaluated by comparing with DE-PID, LUS-PID, LUS-TLBO-PID fuzzy based LUS-TLBO-PID controllers. The parameters of FDO is chosen from Table 2. For simulation a population of 30 and generation of 60 numbers are considered. The optimization was performed by 30 times for each algorithm and the best optimal gains are picked during optimization which are specified in the Tables 3–6 for reheat thermal unit, hydro, gas and multi-source unit respectively.

Table 1

Comparative performance for different indices criteria.

Controller with Techniques	Performance Indices
	ITSE	ITAE	ISE	IAE
FDO-PID	0.000056	0.000093	0.00067	0.0147
FDO-I-PD	0.000026	0.000019	0.00056	0.0036
PSO-PID	0.000130	0.000210	0.00230	0.0096
PSO-I-PD	0.000190	0.000560	0.00980	0.0663
FA-PID	0.000350	0.000100	0.00450	0.0023
FA-I-PD	0.000040	0.000080	0.00470	0.0196
TLBO-PID	0.000055	0.000023	0.00230	0.0210
TLBO-I-PD	0.000070	0.000090	0.00120	0.0020

Fig 3

Rate of convergence for different algorithms.

Table 2

Values of Fitness Dependent Optimizer parameters.

Parameters	Values	Parameters	Values	Parameters	Values
Number of Population NP	30	Number of generation Ng	60	Lower bound Lb	-2
Upper bound Ub	2	Number of dimensions Nd	9	Weight Factor γ	0.0
random number α	[-1, 1]		-	-	-

Table 3

Optimum gains of PID /I-PD controllers optimized with different methods for reheat thermal unit.

Controller with Techniques	Reheat Thermal Power
	Kp	Ki	Kd
FDO-PID	0.260	1.903	-1.680
FDO-I-PD	0.340	1.000	-0.670
PSO-PID	1.023	1.010	-0.223
PSO-I-PD	1.305	0.011	-0.435
FA-PID	0.350	0.001	0.450
FA-I-PD	-0.030	0.600	2.800
TLBO-PID	0.450	1.230	-0.080
TLBO-I-PD	1.700	0.900	-0.203

Table 6

Optimum values of I-PD/ PID controllers tuned with various techniques for power system.

Controller with Techniques	Reheat Thermal Power			Hydro Power System			Gas Power System
	Kp	Ki	Kd	Kp	Ki	Kd	Kp	Ki	Kd
FDO-PID	0.36	0.23	-0.67	0.47	0.23	-0.32	1.36	0.23	0.67
FDO-I-PD	0.56	0.09	-0.56	1.03	0.90	0.01	1.56	0.90	0.56
PSO-PID	0.23	1.00	-0.03	1.96	1.10	0.01	0.23	1.00	0.23
PSO-I-PD	1.19	1.56	0.23	1.63	0.90	0.01	1.19	0.56	-0.23
FA-PID	0.35	0.01	-0.45	1.10	2.00	1.00	0.35	0.01	0.45
FA-I-PD	0.60	1.80	0.45	1.16	1.96	-0.03	0.60	-1.80	0.45
TLBO-PID	0.45	0.23	0.89	1.07	1.90	0.10	0.45	0.23	-0.23
TLBO-I-PD	0.70	1.90	0.49	2.00	0.90	0.10	0.70	1.90	-0.23

3.0.1 Two-area reheat thermal power system

The Transfer Function (TF) model of thermal reheat power with a two-area interconnected system is provided in Fig 4. R and R denote the droop constant of area 1 and area 2 respectively, whereas ΔP indicates the change in load perturbation and K represent thermal constant. Similarly, ΔF1 and ΔF2 represent the change of frequency in area 1 and area 2 respectively. The transfer function of the governor, reheat, and turbine for area 1 and area 2 are represented in below equations respectively. So, the overall transfer function for reheat thermal power system for area-1 and area-2 is given in Eq (9).

Fig 4

Two-area model with reheat thermal power system.

The TF diagram for two-area reheat thermal IPS are developed in Matlab/Simulink using the values of the gains from Table 7. The system is evaluated with I-PD/ PID controllers with 1% SLP at t = 0s. Figs (5–10) depicts the responses of load frequency in each area and tie-line power. In pursuance to examine the effectiveness of the FDO-PID and FDO-I-PD control strategies, the output responses are compared with several other algorithms based PID and I-PD controllers including PSO-PID, PSO-I-PD, FA-PID, FA-I-PD, TLBO-PID, and TLBO-I-PD. The comparison of transient response specifications are quantified and presented in Table 8.

Table 7

Parameter setting for two-area interconnected power system [13].

Parameters	Values	Parameters	Values	Parameters	Values
β1, β2	0.431 MW/Hz	Rth1, Rth2, Rhy1, Rhy2, Rg1, Rg2	2.40 Hz/p.u	Tgh	0.080 s
Tt	0.30 s	K1	0.30	Tr	10 s
KP	68.95	Tp	11.490 s	T12	0.0430
a12	-1	Tw, yc	1 s	Trs	5 s
Trh	28.70 s	Tgh, Tcd, TDC	0.20 s	xc	0.60 s
Kg	0.1304	KDC, xg	1	bg	0.050 s
Kt	0.5434	Tcr	0.010 s	TF	0.230 s
Kh	0.3268	-	-	-	-

Fig 5

Results for reheat thermal unit in area 1 with PID controller.

Fig 10

Results for reheat thermal unit of tie-line power with I-PD controller.

Table 8

Comparative performance between different algorithms for reheat thermal with two-area power system.

Controller with Techniques	Settling Time Ts s			Overshoot Osh			Undershoot Ush
	ΔF1	ΔF2	ΔPtie	ΔF1	ΔF2	ΔPtie	ΔF1	ΔF2	ΔPtie
FDO-PID	2.9	9.2	10.3	0.00000	0.00250	0.00021	-0.00400	-0.00200	-0.00200
FDO-I-PD	1.9	10.1	4.9	0.00000	0.00012	0.00000	-0.00050	-0.00090	-0.00620
PSO-PID	6.5	9.1	8.4	0.00180	0.01630	0.00160	-0.01000	-0.00690	-0.01010
PSO-I-PD	8.2	14.2	6.2	0.00150	0.00030	0.00930	-0.00680	-0.00130	-0.00910
FA-PID	6.3	10.4	8.7	0.01200	0.00280	0.00081	-0.08400	-0.01700	-0.00500
FA-I-PD	10.9	16.5	9.3	0.00072	0.00025	0.00710	-0.00480	-0.00110	-0.00180
TLBO-PID	6.4	10.2	11.6	0.01300	0.00270	0.00091	-0.06300	-0.01800	-0.00160
TLBO-I-PD	3.8	14.3	8.3	0.00020	0.00310	0.00000	-0.00460	-0.00070	-0.01100

The comparison of results from Fig 5 and Table 8 reveal that FDO-PID controller completely eliminates overshoot O as compared to PSO, FA and TLBO based PID controller which is dire need of a controller for the system stability. Further, settling time (T) and undershoot (U) yielded by FDO-PID are better than PSO/FA/TLBO based PID controller. The results shown in Fig 6 further reveal that FDO-PID controller provides less O than PSO-PID however, at the cost of slight increase in T, but better than FA-PID and TLBO-PID.

Fig 6

Results for reheat thermal unit in area 2 with PID controller.

The results given in Figs 7 and 8 further shows that FDO-I-PD controller for both area 1 and area 2 outperform in terms of T, O and U which is less than PSO/FA/TLBO base tuned PID controllers. The results shown in Fig 9 reveals that FDO-PID has lesser O as compared to other controllers at the cost of increase in settling time for PSO-PID and FA-PID but still better than TLBO-PID. The outcome given in Fig 10 express the overall superiority of FDO-I-PD than other controllers in all aspects i.e less T, O and U. The overall comparison of the results for area 1 and 2 for reheat thermal power system is quantified and presented in Table 8.

Fig 7

Results for reheat thermal unit in area 1 with I-PD controller.

Fig 8

Results for reheat thermal unit in area 2 with I-PD controller.

Fig 9

Results for reheat thermal unit of tie-line power with PID controller.

3.1 Two area hydro power system

The transfer function (TF) diagram for the hydro power system with two areas are shown in Fig 11. Where K represent the hydro constant of the system and R and R shows droop constant of the hydro unit for area 1 and 2 respectively. The transfer function of the governor, pen stock turbine, and transient droop compensation for area 1 and area 2 are represented in below equations respectively. Hence, the overall transfer function for hydro power system for area-1 and area-2 is given in Eq (13).

Fig 11

Two-area model with hydro power unit.

The TF model of two-area hydro power system have been assessed with FDO-PID and FDO-I-PD. The results are compared with PID and I-PD with other tuning techniques i.e.PSO, TLBO and FA. The results obtained from two-area hydro power system with PID and I-PD controllers are given in Figs (12–17).

Fig 12

Results for hydro power unit in area 1 with PID controller.

Fig 17

Results for hydro power unit of tie-line power with I-PD controller.

The results obtained from interconnected hydro power system with PID controller are given in Fig 12 which shows the better performance of FDO-PID controller as compared to TLBO/FA/PSO based PID controller. The results in Fig 13 reflect that FDO-PID provides output response with zero overshoot (O = 0.0000) as compared to PSO-PID (O = 0.0029), FA-PID (O = 0.0019) and TLBO-PID (O = 0.0006) controllers. Similarly, the results also express that FDO-PID yields lesser U and T as compared to PID controller with other tuning techniques. The results depicted in Fig 14 indicate that FDO-I-PD controller provides excellent results with zero O in load frequency of area 1, less settling time and undershoot as associated with other techniques like PSO, FA and TLBO with same controllers. The results illustrated in Fig 15 express that FDO base tuned PID controller have less settling time, undershoot and overshoot than PSO, TLBO and FA base tuned PID controller. However, a minor change of 0.001 in overshoot can be clearly seen than PID based controller optimized with FDO algorithm. From Fig 16 it can be seen that FDO base tuned algorithm have less settling time nonetheless of minor increased in overshoot which is completely eliminated by FDO based tuned I-PD controller which is indicated in Fig 17 but still better than other used techniques in terms of T, O and U. A comprehensive comparison results for two-area hydro power system and change in tie-lines in terms of T, O and U are given in Table 9. The representation of bold values indicates the best results.

Fig 13

Results for hydro power unit in area 2 with PID controller.

Fig 14

Results for hydro power unit in area 1 with I-PD controller.

Fig 15

Results for hydro power unit in area 2 with I-PD controller.

Fig 16

Results for hydro power unit of tie-line power with PID controller.

Table 9

Comparative performance between different algorithms for two-area hydro power system.

Controller with Techniques	Settling Time Ts			Overshoot Osh			Undershoot Ush
	ΔF1	ΔF2	ΔPtie	ΔF1	ΔF2	ΔPtie	ΔF1	ΔF2	ΔPtie
FDO-PID	2.83	2.30	3.20	0.00000	0.00000	0.00020	-0.00760	-0.00430	-0.00023
FDO-I-PD	2.90	5.30	4.00	0.00000	0.00100	0.00000	-0.00410	-0.00190	-0.00100
PSO-PID	7.30	6.40	10.10	0.00290	0.00190	0.00600	-0.06400	-0.00520	-0.01300
PSO-I-PD	6.70	9.80	8.70	0.00600	0.00500	0.00730	-0.00420	-0.00130	-0.00460
FA-PID	4.30	5.60	10.20	0.00190	0.00060	0.00420	-0.04300	-0.00700	-0.00600
FA-I-PD	5.40	10.1	6.80	0.00800	0.00700	0.00490	-0.00930	-0.00150	-0.00430
TLBO-PID	2.40	4.20	4.60	0.00060	0.00056	0.00100	-0.06200	-0.00560	-0.00500
TLBO-I-PD	3.10	6.20	4.40	0.00210	0.00300	0.00000	-0.00420	-0.00170	-0.00900

3.2 Two-area gas power system

The Transfer Function (TF) diagram of two area gas power generation is show in Fig 18. Where R and R represents droop constant of the gas unit for area 1 and 2 respectively and K represent the gas constant. The transfer function of the valve position, speed governor, compressor discharge and fuel with combustion reaction for area 1 and area 2 are represented in below equations respectively. Hence, the overall transfer function for gas power system for area-1 and area-2 is given in Eq (18). The TF model of two-area gas power system are established in Matlab/Simulink using Table 7. The system is assessed with FDO base optimized PID/I-PD controllers to evaluate the achievement of the proposed techniques and their outcomes are compared with some recent optimization algorithms like TLBO, FA and PSO. The results obtained from two-area gas power system for area 1 and 2 with PID and I-PD controllers are given in Figs (19–24).

Fig 18

Two-area model with gas power system.

Fig 19

Results for gas unit in area 1 with PID controller.

Fig 24

Results for gas unit of tie-line power with I-PD controller.

In Fig 19 the results reveal that FDO base PID controller completely eliminate the overshoot (o = 0.000), less settling time (T = 2.1) and undershoot (U = −0.0048) as compared to PSO (O = 0.0036, T = 5.9s, U = −0.0072), FA (O = 0.021, T = 3.9s, U = −0.0083), and TLBO (O = 0.019, T = 5.2s, U = −0.0049) base PID controller. The results depicted in Fig 20 express that FDO base tuned PID controller have similar settling time and overshoot but less undershoot than TLBO base tuned PID controller, nonetheless better than remaining techniques i.e. FA and PSO.

Fig 20

Results for gas unit in area 2 with PID controller.

The results given in Figs 21 and 22 indicates that FDO base tuned I-PD controller for change in frequency with area 1 and area 2 have good performance in terms of T, O and U which is less than PSO/FA/TLBO base tuned PID controllers. In inclusive comparison of the results for area 1 and 2 of gas power system in settling time, overshoot, undershoot and different performance indices are given in Table 10. The outcome shown in Fig 23 articulates that FDO base tuned PID controller for change in tie- line power have better results in all aspects i.e T, O and U from other applied techniques with same controller. From Fig 24 it can observed that FDO base optimized I-PD controller have better result than same controller tuned with PSO/FA/TLBO in terms of lesser O, T and U. The best results are indicated with bold formats.

Fig 21

Results for gas unit in area 1 with I-PD controller.

Fig 22

Results for gas unit in area 2 with I-PD controller.

Table 10

Comparative performance between different algorithms for two-area gas power system.

Controller with Techniques	Settling Time Ts			Overshoot Osh			Undershoot Ush
	ΔF1	ΔF2	ΔPtie	ΔF1	ΔF2	ΔPtie	ΔF1	ΔF2	ΔPtie
FDO-PID	2.1	10.2	3.1	0.00000	0.00013	0.00003	0.00730	-0.00720	-0.00059
FDO-I-PD	4.0	3.9	5.2	0.00000	0.00000	0.00000	-0.00100	-0.00084	-0.00047
PSO-PID	5.9	12.4	10.4	0.03600	0.00390	0.00040	-0.00480	-0.00160	-0.00110
PSO-I-PD	8.7	9.6	5.9	0.00730	0.00201	0.00930	-0.00460	-0.00019	-0.00054
FA-PID	3.9	12.3	7.9	0.00210	0.00320	0.00016	-0.00490	-0.00170	-0.00064
FA-I-PD	6.8	9.2	6.3	0.00490	0.00000	0.00021	-0.00430	-0.00082	-0.00052
TLBO-PID	5.2	10.2	6.8	0.01000	0.00013	0.00017	-0.00830	-0.00080	-0.00061
TLBO-I-PD	4.4	5.9	10.1	0.00000	0.00000	0.00000	-0.00900	-0.00089	-0.00096

Fig 23

Results for gas unit of tie-line power with PID controller.

3.3 Two-area multi-source interconnected power system

The Transfer Function (TF) diagram for multi-source with two-area IPS is depicted in Fig 25. In each control area the system is equipped with reheat thermal, gas power and hydro power unit which makes the system more complicated as compared to generation unit which are individually applied in two area power system. Two-area multi-source interconnected power system have been developed in Matlab Simulink and the values have been used from Table 7. The system is assessed with FDO base tuned I-PD/ PID controllers and the superiority of the proposed techniques are compared with other techniques i.e LUS-PID, LUS-TLBO-PID, FA-PID, TLBO-PID, PSO-PID and DE-PID. The results are depicted in Figs (26)–(31).

Fig 25

Two-area with multi-source power system.

Fig 26

Results for multi-source in area 1 with PID controller.

Fig 31

Results for multi-source of tie-line power with I-PD controller.

The results shown in Fig 26 for multi-source interconnected power system of area 1 reveals that PID controller with FDO base algorithm have no overshoot, less settling time and undershoot as associated with other techniques like PSO, TLBO and FA. The results depicted in Fig 27 express that FDO base tuned PID controller have less overshoot and settling time than TLBO and FA base tuned PID controller however at the cost of 0.001 increase in undershoot, but shows better improvement than PSO base tuned PID controller.

Fig 27

Results for multi-source in area 2 with PID controller.

The results shown in Fig 28 express that FDO-PID has less settling time T, undershoot U h and overshoot O h than PSO-PID, TLBO-PID and FA-PID. However, a minor change of 0.001 in O h can be clearly seen than FDO-PID. The results given in Fig 29 indicates that FDO-I-PD technique for change in frequency of area 2 has no overshoot, less settling time and undershoot as compared with other techniques like PSO-I-PD, FA-I-PD and TLBO-I-PD. The results given in Figs 30 and 31 reflect that FDO-I-PD for change in tie line power have good performance in terms of T, O and U which is less than PSO/FA/TLBO base optimized PID/I-PD controllers. A comprehensive comparison results for two-area multi- source power system and tie lines in terms of T, O and U are given in Table 11. The representation of bold values indicates the best results. the percentage improving comparing with different techniques is shown in bar chart of Fig 32.

Fig 28

Results for multi-source in area 1 with I-PD controller.

Fig 29

Results for multi-source in area 2 with I-PD controller.

Fig 30

Results for multi-source of tie-line power with PID controller.

Table 11

Comparative performance between different algorithms for two-area multi-source power system.

Controller with Techniques	Settling Time Ts			Overshoot Osh			Undershoot Ush
	ΔF1	ΔF2	ΔPtie	ΔF1	ΔF2	ΔPtie	ΔF1	ΔF2	ΔPtie
FDO-PID	5.20	12.70	4.30	0.00000	0.00021	0.00020	-0.00047	-0.00130	-0.00056
FDO-I-PD	2.30	1.65	2.10	0.00000	0.00000	0.00000	-0.00450	-0.00500	-0.00058
PSO-PID	5.90	13.40	9.30	0.00930	0.00250	0.00630	-0.00054	-0.00016	-0.00580
PSO-I-PD	2.90	9.20	6.80	0.00400	0.00400	0.00080	-0.00720	-0.05500	-0.00910
FA-PID	6.30	13.10	7.10	0.00021	0.00036	0.00610	-0.00052	-0.00110	-0.00510
FA-I-PD	4.30	4.10	5.90	0.00000	0.00000	0.00043	-0.00490	-0.00900	-0.00640
TLBO-PID [30]	9.37	3.76	4.76	0.00172	0.00043	0.00017	-0.01972	-0.01279	-0.00307
TLBO-I-PD	2.20	2.20	2.20	0.00000	0.00000	0.00011	-0.00530	-0.00500	-0.00130
LUS-TLBO Fuzzy-PID [30]	5.26	2.96	2.36	0.00055	0.00021	0.00008	-0.00895	-0.00301	-0.00096
DE Fuzzy-PID [30]	5.30	2.90	2.60	0.00073	0.00024	0.00009	-0.01297	-0.00589	-0.00160
LUS-TLBO-PID [30]	9.22	3.34	4.98	0.00167	0.00042	0.00015	-0.01689	-0.01133	-0.00289
LUS-PID [30]	9.29	4.62	6.36	0.00185	0.00046	0.00015	-0.02105	-0.01517	-0.00358
DE-PID [11]	13.84	8.35	9.35	0.00203	0.00077	0.00019	-0.02657	-0.02214	-0.00475

Fig 32

Comparison in sense of improvement% with reference DE-PID [11].

3.4 Sensitivity analysis

The robustness of an I-PD controller is verified by varying the system parameters of two areas multi-generation system within a range of ± 50% with a step of ± 25%. Fitness dependent algorithm (FDO) is employed to check the performance of the proposed controller by varying some parameters of the system from their nominal values such as turbine constant (T), droop constant R and governor constant (T). The results yielded from sensitivity analysis for ΔF1, ΔF2, and ΔP with variation in T, R and T is depicted in Figs 33–41. It can be observed from results that our proposed controller provides robustness by changing system parameters T, R and T for ΔF1, ΔF2, and ΔP respectively within a range of ± 50%. Further, it can also be observed from Figs 33–41 that the system response plotted with variation in various parameters are very close to the nominal values and hence, the controller gains need not be re-tuned for a change of system parameters and load conditions within a range of ± 50%.

Fig 33

Results for variation in R with ΔF1.

Fig 41

Results for variation in T with ΔP.

4 Conclusion

In this paper, PID and I-PD controllers have been designed and successfully implemented to handle Automatic Generation Control (AGC) of multi-source with multi-area Interconnected Power System (IPS). Fitness Dependent Optimizer (FDO) algorithm has been used to attain the gains of these controllers. The effectiveness of FDO based controllers i.e. FDO-PID and FDO-I-PD are evaluated on two-area with reheat thermal, gas and hydro power system individually and then collectively with all three generation units present in the system. The transient response performance achieved by the designed controllers with 1% step load perturbation are presented and quantified in detail via simulations and compared with several other controller techniques. The comparison of results evidently shows that FDO-PID and FDO-I-PD controllers provide superior results in respect of Settling time (Ts), overshoot (Osh), and undershoot (Ush) for thermal reheat, gas, hydro and multi-source power generation. It is observed th at FDO-I-PD as compared to DE-PID completely eliminates Osh in load frequency of both areas and in tie-line power, while 83.38%, 80.24%, and 77.54% improvement in Ts in area-1 and area-2 load frequency, and tie-line power are achieved respectively. Similarly, FDO-I-PD also provides an improvement of 83.1%, 77.4%, and 87.8% in Ush as compared DE-PID. The results further show that FDO- I-PD as compared to LUS-PID provides significant improvement of 75.24%, 64.28% and 66.98% in Ts of load frequency forΔF1, ΔF2, and ΔP respectively, while an improvement in Ush of 63.23%, 49.43% and 57.58% are achieved for load frequency of ΔF1, ΔF2, and ΔP respectively. The supremacy of FDO based PID and I-PD controllers proposed in this work clearly demonstrate the capability of these controllers to tackle the automatic generation control problem effectively with oscillation-free and quick response. In future studies, the performance of the same power system can be improved by employing robust FOPID controller and powerful meta-heuristic algorithms. The same power system may be extended by incorporating with other renewable energy sources.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

11 Sep 2020

Submitted filename: Final_PLOS_ONE_Chang.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

30 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-28150

Modified PID Controller for Automatic Generation Control of Multi-Source Interconnected Power System Using Fitness Dependent Optimizer Algorithm

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Daraz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 14 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Wei Yao, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3.  In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 7 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. Authors should clearly clarify the motivation and contribution of this work;

2. Meta-heuristic algorithms are widely and popularly used in PID control gains tuning, authors should address this important domain in Introduction with a thorough discussion, see: (a) Grouped grey wolf optimizer for maximum power point tracking of doubly-fed induction generator based wind turbine, Energy Conversion and Management. 2017. (b) Democratic joint operations algorithm for optimal power extraction of PMSG based wind energy conversion system, Energy Conversion and Management. 2018. and (c) Perturbation observer based fractional-order PID control of photovoltaics inverters for solar energy harvesting via Yin-Yang-Pair optimization, Energy Conversion and Management. 2018.

3. Future studies should be provided in Conclusion;

4. Authors are suggested to consider fractional-order PID which can significantly improve the overall control performance, an additional discussion section should be made on this domain, e.g., Robust fractional-order PID control of supercapacitor energy storage systems for distribution network applications: A perturbation compensation based approach. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021.

Reviewer #2: In this paper, a modified form of the PID controller known as the I-PD controller is developed for AGC of the two-area multi-source IPS. The FDO algorithm is employed. My comments for the article are as follows.

1. The literature review only describes the work of the existing literature, however, the relationship of the existing literature with this paper is not described. What the developing trend for these literature should also be explained?

2. “The effectiveness of the proposed approach has been assessed on a two-area network with individual source including gas, hydro and reheat thermal unit and then collectively with all three sources.” However, the FDO algorithm method seems to have the same effect on different types of sources. Please describe in detail the differences between the methods applied to different types of sources.

3. It can be observed from Fig 33-41 that the proposed controller provides robustness by changing system parameters within a range of ± 25%. However, it is not indicated whether the robustness can be guaranteed when the parameter range becomes larger, so comparative verification is needed.

4. Please carefully check the format of references, such as "2018; 12(5): 585-97. " in [29]. Please change it to" 2018, 12(5): 585-97."

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

23 Oct 2020

Reviewer#1, Concern # 1: Authors should clearly clarify the motivation and contribution of this work.

Author response: Thanks, the motivation and contribution of this research work has been updated in the section of introduction.

1) Author action: We updated the manuscript by adding the motivation and contribution of this work on page number 3/19.

Reviewer#1, Concern # 2: Meta-heuristic algorithms are widely and popularly used in PID control gains tuning, authors should address this important domain in Introduction with a thorough discussion, see: (a) Grouped grey wolf optimizer for maximum power point tracking of doubly-fed induction generator based wind turbine, Energy Conversion and Management. 2017. (b) Democratic joint operations algorithm for optimal power extraction of PMSG based wind energy conversion system, Energy Conversion and Management. 2018. and (c) Perturbation observer based fractional-order PID control of photovoltaics inverters for solar energy harvesting via Yin-Yang-Pair optimization, Energy Conversion and Management. 2018.

Author response: Thanks for detailed guidance. The introduction section has been updated and discuss thoroughly as directed by reviewers.

Author action: We updated the manuscript by adding detailed introduction on page 2 and 3.

Reviewer#1, Concern # 3: Future studies should be provided in Conclusion.

Author response: Thanks, future studies have been included in the section of conclusion.

Author action: We updated the manuscript by adding the future studies on Page number 15/19.

Reviewer#1, Concern # 4: Authors are suggested to consider fractional-order PID which can significantly improve the overall control performance, an additional discussion section should be made on this domain, e.g., Robust fractional-order PID control of supercapacitor energy storage systems for distribution network applications: A perturbation compensation based approach. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021.

Author response: Thanks for valuable suggestions. FOPID controller will be considered in future studies to evaluate the performance of the same power system as well as more complex system incorporating with non-linearities and three area system with other renewable energy sources. However, in this work we have develop modified form of PID controller known as I-PD controller which perform better as compare to conventional PID controller and also with other techniques reported in references [9] and [30]. Further, a more recent powerful meta-heuristic algorithm known as Fitness Dependent Optimizer (FDO) has been used for the optimization of controller parameters.

Reviewer#2, Concern # 1: The literature review only describes the work of the existing literature, however, the relationship of the existing literature with this paper is not described. What the developing trend for these literature should also be explained?

Author response: Thanks for guidance. The relationship of existing literature with this research work has been updated and provided in the section of introduction of the revised manuscript.

Author action: We updated the manuscript by adding introduction on page number 2 and 3.

Reviewer#2, Concern # 2: The effectiveness of the proposed approach has been assessed on a two-area network with individual source including gas, hydro and reheat thermal unit and then collectively with all three sources. However, the FDO algorithm method seems to have the same effect on different types of sources. Please describe in detail the differences between the methods applied to different types of sources.

Author response: I agree, with the reviewer comments that the effect of FDO techniques are almost similar with each type of generation which shows that our proposed approach performs well for each type of generation. However, each generation source i.e. reheat thermal, hydro and gas power generation have different transfer function which are given in detail in the subsection of reheat thermal, hydro, gas and multi- source power system. In case of multi-source system, the transfer function of each generation are collectively applied which makes the system higher order in terms of transfer function as compared to individual sources.

Author action: We updated the manuscript by adding detail in the subsections of reheat thermal, hydro, gas and multi –source on page number 7,8,9,10,11 and 12.

Reviewer#2, Concern # 3: It can be observed from Fig 33-41 that the proposed controller provides robustness by changing system parameters within a range of ± 25%. However, it is not indicated whether the robustness can be guaranteed when the parameter range becomes larger, so comparative verification is needed.

Author response: Thanks, the robustness of the proposed controller is verified by changing the system parameters to ± 50% with a step of ± 25% which are depicted in Fig 33-41 of the manuscript. It can be observed from Fig 33-41 that system response plotted with variation in various parameters are very closed to the nominal values and hence, the controller gains needs not be re-tuned for a change of system parameters within a range of ± 50% which shows the robustness of the proposed controller.

Author action: We updated the manuscript by adding updated figures (Fig 33-41).

Reviewer#2, Concern # 4: Please carefully check the format of references, such as "2018; 12(5): 585-97. " in [29]. Please change it to" 2018, 12(5): 585-97.".

Author response: Thanks for correction and reminding. The references have been thoroughly checked and correct it.

Author action: We updated the manuscript by updating references and correct it according to format.

Submitted filename: Response-to-Reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

3 Nov 2020

Modified PID Controller for Automatic Generation Control of Multi-Source Interconnected Power System Using Fitness Dependent Optimizer Algorithm

PONE-D-20-28150R1

Dear Dr. Daraz,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Wei Yao, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The revised manuscript has been greatly improved. All my concerns have been addressed and the paper is recommended for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

5 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-28150R1

Modified PID Controller for Automatic Generation Control of Multi-Source Interconnected Power System Using Fitness Dependent Optimizer Algorithm

Dear Dr. Daraz:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Wei Yao

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 4

Optimum gains of PID /I-PD controllers optimized with different methods for hydro power unit.

Controller with Techniques	Hydro Power system
	Kp	Ki	Kd
FDO-PID	1.163	1.962	-0.003
FDO-I-PD	1.200	1.012	1.001
PSO-PID	0.962	0.003	0.002
PSO-I-PD	1.012	1.001	1.012
FA-PID	1.002	1.002	0.001
FA-I-PD	1.013	1.012	0.080
TLBO-PID	0.450	0.093	-0.080
TLBO-I-PD	0.700	0.010	-0.230

Table 5

Optimum gains of PID /I-PD controllers optimized with different methods for gas generation unit.

Controller with Techniques	Gas Power system
	Kp	Ki	Kd
FDO-PID	0.723	0.112	-1.012
FDO-I-PD	0.305	0.811	0.029
PSO-PID	0.962	0.003	0.002
PSO-I-PD	1.060	0.723	0.687
FA-PID	1.002	1.002	0.001
FA-I-PD	0.062	1.100	0.458
TLBO-PID	1.072	1.007	-0.238
TLBO-I-PD	0.723	0.112	-1.012