Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Science and Technology,

an International Journal Press: Karabuk University, Press Unit
ISSN (Printed) : 1302-0056
ISSN (Online) : 2215-0986
ISSN (E-Mail) : 1308-2043

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : h t t p : / / w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / j e s t c h
H O S T E D BY

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Full Length Article

Firefly algorithm optimized fuzzy PID controller for AGC of multi-area

multi-source power systems with UPFC and SMES
Pratap Chandra Pradhan a, Rabindra Kumar Sahu b,*, Sidhartha Panda b
a Department of Electrical Engineering, DRIEMS, Cuttack 754 022, Odisha, India
b Department of Electrical Engineering, VSSUT, Burla 768018, Odisha, India

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

Article history: In this paper, a Firefly Algorithm (FA) optimized fuzzy PID controller is proposed for Automatic Gener-
Received 4 March 2015 ation Control (AGC) of multi-area multi-source power system. Initially, a two area six units power system
Received in revised form is used and the gains of the fuzzy PID controller are optimized employing FA optimization technique using
1 August 2015
an ITAE criterion. The superiority of the proposed FA optimized fuzzy PID controller has been demon-
Accepted 17 August 2015
Available online 11 September 2015
strated by comparing the results with some recently published approaches such as optimal control and
Differential Evolution (DE) optimized PID controller for the identical interconnected power system. Then,
physical constraints such as Time Delay (TD), reheat turbine and Generation Rate Constraint (GRC) are
Keywords:
Automatic generation control (AGC) included in the system model and the superiority of FA is demonstrated by comparing the results over
Generation rate constraint (GRC) DE, Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA) and Genetic Algorithm (GA) optimization techniques for the
Firefly algorithm (FA) same interconnected power system. Additionally, a Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) is placed in
Fuzzy logic controller the tie-line and Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) units are considered in both areas.
Unified power flow controller (UPFC) Simulation results show that the system performances are improved significantly with the proposed UPFC
Superconducting magnetic energy storage and SMES units. Sensitivity analysis of the system is performed by varying the system parameters and
(SMES) operating load conditions from their nominal values. It is observed that the optimum gains of the pro-
posed controller need not be reset even if the system is subjected to wide variation in loading condition
and system parameters. Finally, the effectiveness of the proposed controller design is verified by con-
sidering different types of load patterns.
© 2015, Karabuk University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under
the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
The main objective of power system utility is to maintain con-
tinuous supply of electrical power with an acceptable quality, to all
the consumers in the system. The power system will be in equi-
librium, when there is a balance between electrical power demand
and the power generated. There are two basic control mecha-
nisms used to achieve reactive power balance (acceptable voltage
profile) and real power balance (acceptable frequency values). The
former is called Automatic Voltage Regulator (AVR) and latter is called
Automatic Generation Control (AGC) [1]. The goal of AGC in an in-
terconnected power system is to minimize the transient deviations
in area frequency, tie-line power interchange and to ensure their
steady state errors to be zeros [2]. A considerable drop in frequen-
cy could result in high magnetizing currents in induction motors
and transformers. The wide-spread use of electric clocks and the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9439702316, fax: +91 66324302 04.
E-mail address: rksahu123@gmail.com (R.K. Sahu).
Peer review under responsibility of Karabuk University.
use of frequency for other timing purposes require accurate main-
tenance of synchronous time which is proportional to frequency as
well as its integral. According to Indian Electricity Grid Code (IEGC),
if the rated system frequency is 50 Hz and the target range for fre-
quency control should be 49.0 Hz–50.0 Hz, the statutory acceptable
limits are 48.5–51.5 Hz. However, the users of the electric power
change the loads randomly and momentarily. This results in sudden
appearance of generation-load mismatches. The mismatch power
enters into/drawn for the rotor thus causing a change generator speed
and hence the system frequency (as frequency is closely related to
the generator speed). It is impossible to maintain the balances
between generation and load without control. So, a control system
is essential to cancel the effects of the random load changes and
to keep the frequency at the standard value. The AGC loop con-
tinuously regulates the active power output of the generator to match
with the randomly varying load [3].
In a practically interconnected power system, the generation nor-
mally comprises of a mix of thermal, hydro, nuclear and gas power
generation. However, owing to their high efficiency, nuclear plants
are generally kept at base load close to their maximum output with
no participation in AGC. Gas power generation is ideal for meeting

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2015.08.007
2215-0986/© 2015, Karabuk University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354
the varying load demand. So, Gas plants are used to meet peak
demands only [4,5]. Parmar et al. have reported in [4] a multi-
sources generation including thermal-hydro-gas systems, considering
HVDC link connected in parallel with existing AC link for stabiliz-
ing frequency oscillation and used an optimal output feedback
controller for frequency stabilization. Recently, Mohanty et al. [5]
have studied the controller parameters tuning of Differential Evo-
lution (DE) algorithm and its application to optimize the parameters
of I, PI and PID controllers of multi-sources power system. The
authors have demonstrated the superiority of DE approach over
optimal output feedback controller for the same power systems.
Keeping in view the present power scenario, combination of multi-
source power generation is considered with their corresponding
participation factors.
When the governor system is not able to absorb the frequency
fluctuations due to its slow response, active power source with fast
response such as Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES)
is highly effective in improving the dynamic performance of the
system [6,7]. In Banerjee et al. [8], the effectiveness of small-sized
superconducting and normal loss types Magnetic Energy Storage
(MES) units for load frequency control is investigated and means
of best utilizing the small energy storage capacity of such units to
improve the dynamics performance of large power areas are sug-
gested. As the SMES unit is capable of concurrently controlling both
active and reactive powers [9], it is one of the most effective and
vital stabilizer of frequency oscillations. The feasibility of SMES for
improving load frequency performance has been reported in liter-
ature [10,11]. The recent advances in power electronics have led to
the development of the Flexible Alternating Current Transmission
Systems (FACTS) controllers in power systems. FACTS controllers are
capable of controlling the network condition in a very fast manner
and can be employed for improving the performance of a power
system. The Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) is member of the
FACTS family with very versatile features. UPFC which consists of
a series and shunt converter connected by a common dc link ca-
pacitor can simultaneously perform the function of transmission
line real and active power flow control in addition to UPFC bus
voltage /shunt reactive power control [12]. The impact of different
FACTS controllers such as Static Synchronous Series Compensator
(SSSC) and Thyristor Controlled Phase Shifter (TCPS) in coordina-
tion with SMES for AGC has been reported in literature [13,14]. In
view of the above, AGC in presence of SMES and UPFC has been
carried out in the present paper.
Literature study reveals that several control strategies have been
proposed by many researchers over the past decades for AGC of
power system [15]. Many control and optimization techniques such
as conventional [16], optimal control [4], Genetic Algorithm [17],
Particle Swarm Optimization [18], Bacteria Foraging Optimization
Algorithm [19], Artificial Neural Network [20], linear-quadratic
optimal output feedback controller [21], sub-optimal controller [22],
AGC with wind generators and flywheel energy storage system [23]
etc. have been proposed for AGC.
To get an accurate insight of the AGC problem, it is necessary
to include the important physical constraints in the system model.
The major physical constraints which affect the power system per-
formance are Time Delay (TD) and Generation Rate Constraint (GRC)
[3]. In view of the above, TD and GRC associated with both com-
munication channels and signal processing are considered in the
present paper to have more realistic power system.
In the load frequency control, integral controller is sufficient to
reduce the frequency and tie-line power deviations and bring them
back to nominal values. However, the disadvantage of integral con-
troller is that it might produce a closed loop system with significantly
slower response times. To improve the system performance, Pro-
portional Integral (PI), Integral Derivative (ID), Proportional Integral
Derivative (PID) and Integral Double Derivative (IDD) controllers have
339
been proposed in literature [4,5,16]. However, the above conven-
tional controllers perform satisfactorily at the operating point at
which the controllers are designed and their performance de-
grades when there is any change in operating point or in system
parameter. It has been reported by many researchers that Fuzzy Logic
Controller (FLC) improves the closed loop performance of I/PI/PID
controller and can handle any changes in operating point or in system
parameter by online updating of the controller parameters [24–26].
Fuzzy logic based PID controller can be successfully used for all non-
linear system but there is no specific mathematical formulation to
decide the proper choice of fuzzy parameters (such as inputs, scaling
factors, membership functions, rule base etc.). Normally these pa-
rameters are selected by using certain empirical rules and therefore
may not be the optimal parameters. Improper selection of input-
output scaling factor may affect the performance of FLC to a greater
extent.
It is obvious from literature survey that the performance of the
power system depends on the controller structure and the tech-
niques employed to optimize the controller parameters. Hence,
proposing and implementing new controller approaches using high
performance heuristic optimization algorithms to real world prob-
lems are always welcome. Recently, a new biologically-inspired meta-
heuristic algorithm, known as the Firefly Algorithm (FA), has been
developed by Yang [27,28]. FA is a population based search algo-
rithm inspired by the flashing behavior of fireflies. It has been
successfully employed to solve the nonlinear and non-convex op-
timization problems [29]. Recent research shows that FA is very
efficient and could outperform other meta-heuristic algorithms [30].
In view of the above, a maiden attempt has been made in this
paper to apply an FA optimization technique to tune the input and
output scaling factors of fuzzy PID controller for the AGC of multi
area power systems with the consideration of time delay, reheat
turbine and Generation Rate Constraint (GRC). The structure of the
fuzzy PID used here is inherited from a combination of fuzzy PI and
fuzzy PD controllers from Mudi and Pal and Sahu et al. [24,26], with
K1 and K2 as input scaling factors of Fuzzy Logic Controller (FLC).
The FLC output is multiplied KP, its integral and derivative are mul-
tiplied KI and KD respectively, and then summed to give the total
controller output. Fixed membership functions and rule base are
assumed for the FLC structure. The input scaling factors (K1 and K2)
and output scaling factors (KP, KI and KD) are optimized in pres-
ence of FLC employing FA technique to minimize the objective
function. The results are compared with some recently published
approaches such as DE optimized PID controller and optimal control.
The superiority of FA over GA, GSA and DE techniques is also dem-
onstrated. Further, UPFC is employed in series with the tie-line in
coordination with SMES to improve the dynamic performance of
the power system. Finally, sensitivity analysis is carried out by varying
the loading condition and system parameters.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Power system model
A two area six unit thermal, hydro and gas power system [4,5]
as shown in Fig. 1 is considered for design and analysis purpose.
Each area comprises reheat thermal, hydro and gas generating units.
A fuzzy PID controller is considered for each unit. In Fig. 1, RT, RH,
and RG are the regulation parameters of thermal, hydro and gas units
respectively; B1 and B2 represent the frequency bias parameters;
ACE1 and ACE2 stands for Area Control Errors; UT, UH and UG are
the control outputs for thermal, hydro and gas units respectively;
KT, KH and KG are the participation factors of thermal, hydro and gas
generating units, respectively; TG is speed governor time constant
of thermal unit in sec; Tt is steam turbine time constant in sec; Kr
is the steam turbine reheat constant; T r is the steam turbine
340 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354

SMES
1 1 1 AREA 1
1
K SMES
RG1 RH 1 RT 1 1 + sTSMES ΔPD1
B1
Thermal power plant with reheat turbine, GRC & time delay
− +
UT 1
TD +
1
1 + sTG1 ∑
T
1 1
s
1 + sKr1Tr1
1 + sTr1
KT − ΔF1

+ − t 1

ACE1 Hydro power plant with governor, GRC & time delay + − K PS
∑ − + 1 − sTW 1 1 + sTRS 1 1 + sTPS
+
U H1
TD +
1
1 + sTGH 1
∑
1 + 0.5sTW 1
1
s 1 + sTRH 1
KH + +
−
+ − UPFC
Gas turbine power plant with time delay
1
− 1 1 + sX C 1 − sTCR 1 1
U G1 KG 1 + sTUPFC
TD + bg + scg 1 + sYC 1 + sTF 1 1 + sTCD 1 + +
2 * 3.14 * T12
+
s
∑
AREA 2 −
Thermal power plant with reheat turbine, GRC & time delay
a12 UT 2
+ 1 + 1 1 1 + sKr 2Tr 2 a12
1 + sTG 2
∑ KT
− 1 + sTr 2
−
Tt 2 s
−
ΔF2
+
+
UH 2 Hydro power plant with governor, GRC & time delay
+ + 1 − sTW 2 1 + sTRS 2
+ 1 1 K PS
ACE2 1 + sTGH 2
∑
1 + 0.5sTW 2 1 + sTRH 2
KH + 1 + sTPS
−
∑ − s
−
+
+
Gas turbine power plant with time delay
UG 2
+ 1 1 + sX C 1 − sTCR 2 1
KG
−
B2 − bg + scg 1 + sYC 1 + sTF 2 1 + sTCD 2

1 1 1
1
RT 2 RH 2 RG 2 K SMES
1 + sTSMES ΔPD 2
SMES

Fig. 1. Transfer function model of multi-area multi-source interconnected power system.

reheat time constant in sec; TW is nominal starting time of water
in penstock in sec; TRS is the hydro turbine speed governor reset time
in sec; TRH is hydro turbine speed governor transient droop time con-
stant in sec; TGH is hydro turbine speed governor main servo time
constant in sec; XC is the lead time constant of gas turbine speed
governor in sec; YC is the lag time constant of gas turbine speed gov-
ernor in sec; cg is the gas turbine valve positioner; bg is the gas turbine
constant of valve positioner; TF is the gas turbine fuel time con-
stant in sec; TCR is the gas turbine combustion reaction time delay
in sec; TCD is the gas turbine compressor discharge volume-time con-
stant in sec; KP power system gain in Hz/puMW; TP is the power
system time constant in sec; T12 is the synchronizing coefficient and
ΔF1 and ΔF2 are the system frequency deviations in Hz. The rele-
vant parameters are given in Appendix.
For more realistic analysis, the major physical constraints which
affect the power system performance are Reheat turbine, Genera-
tion Rate Constraint (GRC) and time delay. In a power system having
steam and hydro plants, power generation can change only at a speci-
fied maximum rate. The reheat units have a generation rate of about
3–10% pu MW/min [31]. The typical value of permissible rate of gen-
eration for hydro plant is relatively much higher. Typical value of
GRC for hydro plants is 270%/min for raising generation and
360%/min for lowering generation [20]. Owing to the growing com-
plexity of power systems in deregulated environment,
communication delays become a significant challenge in the AGC
analysis. Time delays can degrade a system’s performance and even
cause system instability. Typical value of time delays is consid-
ered 2 sec for the present study [31]. In view of the above, Reheat
turbine, GRC and time delay are included in the system model.
2.2. Controller structure and objective function
To control the frequency, fuzzy PID controllers are provided in
each area. The structure of fuzzy PID controller is shown in Fig. 2
[24].
The error inputs to the controllers are the respective Area Control
Errors (ACE) given by:
e1 (t ) = ACE1 = B1ΔF1 + ΔPTie (1)
e2 (t ) = ACE2 = B2ΔF2 − ΔPTie (2)
Fuzzy controller uses error (e ) and derivative of error (e ) as input
signals. The outputs of the fuzzy controllers UT, UH and UG are the
 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354 341

KP

Proportional gain Integrator

K1 Fuzzy +
1 u
ACE Logic KI
Scaling factor s +
Controller +
d Integral gain
K2 dt d
KD dt
Derivative
Derivative gain Derivative

Fig. 2. Structure of proposed fuzzy PID controller.

control inputs of the power system. The input scaling factors are
the tuneable parameters K 1 and K 2. The proportional, integral and
derivative gains of fuzzy PID controller are represented by K P , K I
and K D respectively. Triangular membership functions are used with
five fuzzy linguistic variables such as NB (negative big), NS (nega-
tive small), Z (zero), PS (positive small) and PB (positive big) for both
the inputs and the output. Membership functions for error, error
derivative and FLC output are shown in Fig. 3. Mamdani fuzzy in-
terface engine is selected for this work. The FLC output is determined
by using centre of gravity method of defuzzification. The two-
dimensional rule base for error, error derivative and FLC output is
shown in Table 1.
In the design of modern heuristic optimization technique based
controller, the objective function is first defined based on the desired
specifications and constraints. Typical output specifications in the
time domain are peak overshooting, rise time, settling time, and
steady-state error. The commonly used integral based error crite-
ria are as follows: Integral of Squared Error (ISE), Integral of Absolute
Error (IAE), Integral of Time multiplied Squared Error (ITSE) and In-
tegral of Time multiply by Absolute Error (ITAE). ITAE integrates the
absolute error multiplied by the time over time. ITAE technique
weights errors which exist after a long time much more heavily than
those at the start of the response. The time multiplication term pe-
nalizes the error more at the later stages than at the beginning and
hence effectively reduces the settling time. ITAE tuning produces
systems which settle much more quickly than ISE and IAE tuning
methods. Since the absolute error is included in the ITAE criteri-
on, the maximum percentage of overshoot is also minimized. ITSE
based controller provides large controller output for a sudden change
in set point which is not advantageous from controller design point
of view. It has been reported in literature that ITAE gives a better
performance compared to other integral based performance crite-
ria [32]. Therefore, ITAE is used as objective function in this paper
to optimize the scaling factors and proportional, integral and
derivative gains of fuzzy PID controller. Expression for the ITAE ob-
jective function is depicted in equation (3).
t sim
J = ITAE = ∫ ( ΔF 1 + ΔF2 + ΔPTie ) ⋅ t ⋅ dt (3)
0
In the above equation, ΔF1 and ΔF2 are the system frequency de-
viations; ΔPTie is the incremental change in tie line power; t sim is
the time range of simulation.
2.3. Modeling of UPFC in AGC
During the last decade, continuous and fast improvement of
power electronics technology has made Flexible AC Transmission
Systems (FACTS) a promising concept for power system applica-
tions. With the application of FACTS technology, power flow along
transmission lines can be more flexibly controlled. The Unified Power
Flow Controller (UPFC) is regarded as one of the most versatile
devices in the FACTS family which has the capability to control the
power flow in the transmission line, improve the transient stabil-
ity, alleviate system oscillation and offer voltage support [12,33].
The two area power system with a UPFC as shown in Fig. 4 is con-
sidered in this study [34]. The UPFC is installed in series with a tie-
line and provides damping of oscillations in the tie-line power. In
Fig. 4, Vse is the series voltage magnitude and φ se is the phase angle
of series voltage. The shunt converter injects controllable shunt
voltage such that the real component of the current in the shunt
branch balance the real power demanded by the series converter.
It is clear from Fig. 4 that the complex power at the receiving end
of the line is
Preal − jQ reactive = Vr*Iline = Vr* ⎨
(
⎧⎪ Vs + Vse − Vr ) ⎫⎪ (4)
⎬
⎩⎪ j(X) ⎭⎪

NB NS Z PS PB
1

0
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Fig. 3. Membership functions for error, error derivative and FLC output.
342 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354

Table 1 The above equation, if Vse = 0, represents that the real power is
Rule base for error, derivative of error and FLC output. an uncompensated system. Whereas the UPFC series voltage mag-
e e nitude can be controlled between 0 and Vse max, and its phase angle
NB NS Z PS PB ( φ se ) can be controlled between 0 and 360° at any power angle.
The UPFC based controller can be represented in AGC as [35]
NB NB NB NS NS Z
NS NB NS NS Z PS
⎧ 1 ⎫
Z NS NS Z PS PS ΔPUPFC ( s ) = ⎨ ⎬ ΔF ( s ) (7)
PS NS Z PS PS PB ⎩1 + sT UPFC ⎭
PB Z PS PS PB PB
where TUPFC is the time constant of UPFC.

2.4. Modeling of SMES in AGC

where Vse = Vse ∠ (δ s − φ se ) (5)

Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) is a device

Solving the equation (4), the real part is as given below
which can store the electrical power from the grid in the magnet-
Vs Vr V V ic field of a coil. The magnetic field of coil is made of superconducting
Preal = sin (δ ) + s se sin (δ − φ se ) = P 0 (δ ) + Pse (δ , φ se ) (6) wire with near-zero loss of energy. SMESs can store and refurbish
(X) ( X)
huge values of energy almost instantaneously. Therefore the power
system can discharge high levels of power within a fraction of a
cycle to avoid a rapid loss in the line power. The SMES is consist-
ing of inductor-converter unit, dc super-conducting inductor, AC/
DC converter and a step down transformer [13]. The stability of
Area 1 Area 2 the SMES unit is superior to other power storage devices, because
all parts of an SMES unit are static. Fig. 5 shows the schematic
I se diagram of SMES unit in the power system. During normal opera-
Is Iline tion of the grid, the superconducting coil will be charged to a set
Vs Zse Vr
I sh value (normally less than the maximum charge) from the utility
Tse
grid. The DC magnetic coil is connected to the AC grid through a
Tsh Power Conversion System (PCS) which includes an inverter/
rectifier. After being charged, the superconducting coil conducts
Psh Zsh current, which supports an electromagnetic field, with virtually
Pse
Shunt Series no losses. The coil is kept at very low temperature by immersion
Converter Converter in a bath of liquid helium.
I DC +V The stored energy is almost rapidly released through the PCS to
− DC
Vsh Vse the grid as AC power when there is a sudden rise in the demand
of load. The coil charges back to its initial value of current as control
Fig. 4. Two-area interconnected power system with UPFC. mechanisms start working to set the power system to the new

Dump Resistor

DC Breaker

6-Pulse
Converter
Converter
Super Conducting

Transformer 1
magnetic coil

Bypass
6-Pulse SCRs
Converter
3-Phase Converter
AC system Transformer 2

Fig. 5. SMES circuit diagram.

 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354 343

-0.01

Δ F1 & Δ F2 (Hz)
-0.02

-0.03

-0.04 Δ F2
Δ F1
-0.05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(S)

Fig. 6. Dynamic responses of the system without controller and physical constraints for 1% step increase load in area-1.

equilibrium condition. During sudden release of loads, the coil rapidly
gets charged toward its full value, thus absorbing some portion of
the excess energy in the system. The excess energy absorbed is re-
leased and the coil current attains its normal value as the system
returns to its steady state. In view of the above two SMES, units are
established in area-1 and area-2 in order to stabilize frequency os-
cillations as shown in Fig. 1. The input signal of the SMES controller
is p.u. frequency deviation ( ΔF ) and the output is the change in
control vector [ ΔPSMES ]. The controller gains KSMES and the time con-
stant TSMES are to be optimized.

Initialize the parameters and constants of Firefly Algorithm

f(xi) Define objective function

Generate initial population of Fireflies

xif = [ xi1, xi 2 ,…, xid ]

Evaluate the fitness of Fireflies by time-domain simulation

Determine light intensity Ii of Fireflies

using objective function f(xi)
Define light absorption coefficient γ
Iter. = 0

for i = 1 : All Fireflies

for j = 1 : All Fireflies
if (Ij>Ii)
Move Firefly i towards j in d-dimension
end
Attractiveness varies with distance r via exp [- γ r]
Evaluate new solutions by time domain simulation
Update light intensity determined by objective function
end
end

Rank the Fireflies and find the current best

Yes No Stop Firefly algirithm

Iter.=Iter.+1 Iter.<Max Iter.?
and store the results

Fig. 7. Flow chart of Firefly Algorithm.

344 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354

Table 2 3. Overview of firefly algorithm

FA optimized Fuzzy PID Controller parameters for system without physical constraints.

Generation types/controller gains/ FA optimized parameters The Firefly Algorithm (FA) is a population-based algorithm de-
Thermal K1 0.5517 veloped by Yang [27]. Fireflies are characterized by their flashing
K2 0.5322 light produced by biochemical process bioluminescence. The flash-
KP1 1.6912 ing light may serve as the main courtship signals for mating. It is
KI1 0.7014
KD1 1.1754 based on the following three idealized behavior of the flashing char-
Hydro K3 0.4531 acteristics of fireflies [28]:
K4 0.0026
KP2 1.0763
KI2 1.8706 • All fireflies are unisex and are attracted to other fireflies regard-
KD2 0.2035 less of their sex.
Gas K5 1.7860
K6 0.9070 • The degree of the attractiveness of a firefly is proportional to its
KP3 1.8203 brightness. Their attractiveness is proportional to their light
KI3 1.8554
KD3 0.7338

-0.005

-0.01
Δ F1(Hz)

-0.015

-0.02

-0.025 Optimal control [4]

(a) DE: PID [5]
-0.03
FA:Fuzzy PID

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(S)

-0.005
Δ F2(Hz)

-0.01

-0.015

Optimal control [4]

-0.02 DE: PID [5]
(b) FA:Fuzzy PID
-0.025
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(S)
-3
x 10
2

0
Δ P Tie (p.u.)

-2

-4
Optimal control [4]
DE: PID [5]
-6
FA:Fuzzy PID
(c)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(S)

Fig. 8. Dynamic responses of the system without considering the physical constraints for 1% step increase load in area-1. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1; (b) Frequency
deviation of area-2; (c) Tie-line power deviation.
 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354 345

Table 3 Table 6
Comparison of simulation results over 50 independent runs for different tech- Optimized Fuzzy PID controller and SMES parameters with UPFC & SMES.
niques with physical constraints.
Optimum controller gains With UPFC only With UPFC & SMES
Algorithm Minimum Average Maximum Standard dev.
Thermal K1 1.4425 1.7447
GA 1.0507 1.1234 1.5932 0.7943 K2 1.2469 1.7222
GSA 0.9291 1.0032 1.2851 0.5029 KP1 1.3682 0.7600
DE 0.7459 0.8419 0.9814 0.4173 KI1 0.7230 0.8464
FA 0.6542 0.7215 0.8015 0.3121 KD1 0.2116 0.0776
Hydro K3 0.9102 0.6792
K4 1.5666 1.9432
KP2 0.8504 0.7823
KI2 0.3973 0.4311
intensity. Thus, for any two flashing fireflies, less bright firefly KD2 1.1487 1.1281
moves toward the brighter one. As brightness is proportional to Gas K5 0.6754 1.9086
K6 0.3044 1.9726
distance, more brightness means less distance between two fire-
KP3 1.5351 0.8592
flies. If any two flashing fireflies have the same brightness, then KI3 1.8084 0.9927
they move randomly. KD3 0.4847 0.0817
• The brightness of a firefly is determined by the objective func- SMES KSMES – 0.9834
tion to be optimized. TSMES – 0.0181

For proper design of FA, two important issues need to be defined:

the variation of light intensity ( I ) and the formulation of attrac-
tiveness ( β ). The attractiveness of a firefly is determined by its light 2
intensity or brightness and the brightness is associated with the ob- β = β 0e − γ r (9)
jective function. The light intensity I (r ) varies with the distance
where β0 is the attractiveness at r = 0 .
r monotonically and exponentially as:
The distance between any two fireflies si and s j is expressed as
I (r ) = I 0 e − γ r (8) Euclidean distance by the base firefly algorithm as:

where I0 is the original light intensity and γ is the light absorp-

tion coefficient.
As a firefly’s attractiveness is proportional to the light intensity Table 7
seen by adjacent fireflies, the attractiveness β of a firefly is defined Comparison of performance index with UPFC and SMES.

as: Parameters With UPFC only With UPFC & SMES

ITAE 0.3397 0.2957

Settling time (TS) (sec) ΔF1 7.20 3.57
ΔF2 10.21 9.28
Table 4 ΔPTie 6.51 6.47
Optimized Fuzzy PID controller parameters without UPFC and SMES with physical Peak overshoot × 10-3 ΔF1 0.20 0.19
constraints. ΔF2 1.20 0.41
ΔPTie 0.40 0.17
Optimum controller gains/techniques Without UPFC & SMES

GA GSA DE FA

Thermal K1 0.2558 0.3622 0.4894 0.3136

Table 8
K2 1.0991 0.7753 0.4051 0.6521
System eigenvalues and minimum damping ratio without and with controller.
KP1 0.8925 1.7243 1.3323 1.7598
KI1 0.1232 1.4693 1.3211 1.4675 Without With Controller With Controller With Controller
KD1 1.2157 1.8188 1.1649 1.9593 Controller without UPFC in presence of in presence of
Hydro K3 0.9705 0.6482 0.4127 0.6281 and SMES UPFC both UPFC and
K4 1.7810 1.6131 1.3451 1.7890 SMES
KP2 0.1567 0.0597 0.0718 0.0882
KI2 1.5604 0.6866 0.6005 0.8743 −9.1753 −20.3895 −93.5824 −94.1426
KD2 1.4825 0.6904 0.8435 0.7980 −8.2743 −20.3896 −20.3895 −48.5124
Gas K5 1.5979 0.3026 0.4051 0.4940 −7.1479 −16.7730 −20.3784 −45.8625
K6 1.4687 0.5757 0.4575 0.6214 −7.4473 −16.7718 −16.7730 −20.3728
KP3 0.7930 1.2271 1.1918 1.3734 −2.3850 −5.5222 −16.8492 −20.2873
KI3 0.6752 0.6076 0.7242 0.7597 −2.3704 −5.4897 −6.5934 −16.8811
KD3 0.2096 0.6473 0.7206 0.8804 −1.7236 −3.8000 −5.5222 −17.6835
−1.6988 −3.7752 −4.0686±1.7077i −14.0559
−1.2460 −2.7689 −3.7752 −7.0701
−1.0869 −2.4152 −3.6007 −4.2511 ± 1.4782i
−0.2312 ± 0.9965i −0.3036 ± 1.9440i −2.4152 −4.5730 ± 0.6929i
Table 5
0.1329 ± 1.4253i −0.8736 ± 0.6794i −0.8736±0.6794i −3.5732
Comparison of performance index without UPFC and SMES with physical constraints.
0.1793 ± 1.2724i −0.8484 −0.9961 −3.4787
Parameters Without UPFC & SMES −0.3818 −0.2331 −0.4914 −0.9487
−0.1049 −0.0950 −0.2331 −0.9367
GA GSA DE FA
−0.0428 −0.0426 −0.0944 −0.2693
ITAE 1.0507 0.9291 0.7459 0.6542 −0.0426 −0.0345 −0.0426 −0.1137
Settling time (TS) (sec) ΔF1 27.59 28.55 28.16 17.23 −0.0345 −5.0000 −0.0345 −0.0935
ΔF2 28.29 28.52 29.65 22.37 −5.5000 −5.0000 −5.0000 −0.0373
ΔPTie 19.43 16.43 12.32 16.66 −5.0000 −5.0000 −0.0345
Peak overshoot × 10-3 ΔF1 5.20 5.80 5.30 5.10 −5.0000
ΔF2 3.00 3.00 3.10 2.50 −5.0000
ΔPTie 0.50 0.70 0.50 0.50 MDR = 0.0629 MDR = 0.0930 MDR = 0.1001 MDR = 0.1345
346 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354

− γ rij2
rij = s i − s j =
k =n

∑ (s ik − s jk )
2
(10) si = si + β0e ( si − s j ) + αε i (11)
k =1

where n denotes the dimensionality of the problem. 4. Results and discussions

The movement of the i-th firefly is attracted to another more
attractive firefly j . The movements of fireflies consist of three terms:
the current position of i-th firefly, attraction to another more at-
tractive firefly, and a random walk that consists of a randomization
parameter α and the random generated number ε i from interval
[0; 1]. The movement is expressed as:
Initially, a two area power system with diverse sources of gen-
erations without UPFC, SMES and any physical constraints is
considered. The model of the system under study shown in Fig. 1
(without any controller) is developed in MATLAB/SIMULINK envi-
ronment and a 1% step increase in load is applied in area-1. The

-3
x 10

5
(a)
0
Δ F1(Hz)

-5

-10
GA :without UPFC & SMES
GSA:without UPFC & SMES
-15 DE :without UPFC & SMES
FA :without UPFC & SMES
-20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(s)
-3
x 10
4
(b)
2

-2
Δ F2(Hz)

-4

-6
GA :without UPFC & SMES
-8 GSA:without UPFC & SMES
DE :without UPFC & SMES
-10
FA :without UPFC & SMES
-12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(s)
-3
x 10

(c)
0
Δ P Tie (p.u.)

-1

-2
GA :without UPFC & SMES
GSA:without UPFC & SMES
-3
DE :without UPFC & SMES
FA :without UPFC & SMES
-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(s)

Fig. 9. Dynamic responses of the system without UPFC and SMES for 1% step increase load in area-1. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1; (b) Frequency deviation of area-2;
(c) Tie-line power deviation.
 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354 347

system response for the above disturbance is shown in Fig. 6 from
which it is clear that even though the primary controller is suffi-
cient to bring back to steady state condition but the steady errors
are not zero. To eliminate the steady state errors, controllers are con-
sidered and the controller parameters are optimized by Firefly
Algorithm (FA).
4.1. Implementation of firefly algorithm
FA is controlled by three parameters: the randomization param-
eter α , the attractiveness β , and the absorption coefficient γ . These
parameters are generally chosen in the range 0 to 1. Additionally,
the number of fireflies and maximum generation should be prop-
erly chosen so as to get the satisfactory performance of the algorithm
with minimum computational efforts. A series of experiments were
conducted to properly choose these control parameters of FA. The
tuned control parameters are: number of fireflies = 5; maximum gen-
eration = 100; β = 0.2 ; α = 0.5 and γ = 0.5 [36]. In order to ensure
the satisfaction of inequality constraints, the updated solutions/
locations of fireflies are checked. If the solutions fall outside the
limiting range, they are fixed to their limiting values. Simulations
were conducted on an Intel, core i-3core cpu, of 2.4 GHz and 4 GB

-3
x 10
5
(a)

0
Δ F1(Hz)

-5

-10 Without UPFC & SMES

With UPFC
Proposed with UPFC & SMES
-15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time(s)
-3
x 10

2
(b)
0

-2
Δ F2(Hz)

-4

-6
Without UPFC & SMES
-8 With UPFC
Proposed with UPFC & SMES
-10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time(s)
-3
x 10
0.5
(c)
0

-0.5
Δ PTie (p.u.)

-1

-1.5

-2
Without UPFC & SMES
-2.5 With UPFC
Proposed with UPFC & SMES
-3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time(s)

Fig. 10. Dynamic responses of the system for 1% step increase load in area-1. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1; (b) Frequency deviation of area-2; (c) Tie-line power deviation.
348 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354

30 c
a b c a b
25

Setteling Time (S)

d
20 a
d b d
15
c
e
10 f
e e f
5 f
0
ΔF ΔF ΔPTie
1 1

Fig. 11. Comparison of settling time. (a) GA: without UPFC& SMES; (b) GSA: without UPFC& SMES; (c) DE: without UPFC& SMES; (d) FA: without UPFC& SMES; (e) FA: with
UPFC only; (f) FA: with UPFC& SMES.

RAM computer in the MATLAB 7.10.0.499 (R2010a) environment.
The flow chart of proposed FA approach is shown in Fig. 7.
And the gains of the fuzzy PID controller are optimized employ-
ing FA technique. The objective function (ITAE) value given by Eq.
(3) is determined by simulating the developed model by applying
a 1% step load increase in area-1. The optimization was repeated
50 times and best solution obtained corresponding to the minimum
objective function is given in Table 2. The dynamic responses of the
system without considering the physical constraints for 1% step load
increase in area-1 is shown in Fig. 8. To show the superiority of the
proposed approach, the results are compared with some recently
published approach such as optimal control [4] and DE optimized
PID controller [5] for the same interconnected power system. It can
be observed from Fig. 8 that significant improvements in terms of
settling times, maximum overshoot/undershoot are obtained in the
system response with proposed FA optimized fuzzy PID controller
compared to optimal control [4] and DE optimized PID controller
[5].
In the next step, physical constraints such as Time Delay (TD),
reheat turbine and Generation Rate Constraint (GRC) are included
in the system model; the minimum, average, maximum and stan-
dard deviations of objective function values are summarized in
Table 3. The best final solutions obtained in the 50 runs are shown
in Table 4. For comparison, the corresponding values of Genetic Al-
gorithm (GA), Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA) and Differential
Evolution (DE) optimized fuzzy PID controllers are also shown in
Tables 3 and 4. The different input parameters of the comparative
algorithms are presented below.
i) Genetic Algorithm (GA) [37]: Generation G = 100, Popula-
tion = 30, crossover rate = 80%., mutation probability = 0.001,
Selection = Normal geometric selection, Crossover: Arithmet-
ic crossover, Mutation: Non uniform mutation.
ii) Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA) [32]: Generation = 100,
Population = 30, Gravitational constant (G0) = 100, constant
α = 20.
iii) Differential Evolution (DE) [5]:Generation = 100, Population
size = 30, Step size = 0.2, Crossover probability = 0.6, Strate-
gy: DE/best/2/bin
From statistical analysis of Table 3, it is clear that minimum ob-
jective function value is obtained with proposed FA algorithm
(ITAE = 0.6542) compared to GA (ITAE = 1.0507), GSA (ITAE = 0.9291)
and DE (ITAE = 0.7459) algorithms. It is also clear from Table 3 that,
from evolutionary point of view proposed, FA algorithm out per-
forms other considered techniques in terms of average, maximum
and standard deviation values obtained.
4.2. Analysis of results with physical constraints
A 1% step increase in load is applied in area-1 and the corre-
sponding performance index in terms of ITAE value, and settling

Table 9
Robustness analysis.

Parameter variation % Change Performance index with UPFC and SMES

Settling time Ts (Sec) Peak over shoot × 10-3 ITAE

ΔF1 ΔF2 ΔPTie ΔF1 ΔF2 ΔPTie

Nominal 0 3.57 9.28 6.47 0.19 0.41 0.17 0.2957

Loading condition +25 3.56 9.28 6.47 0.19 0.41 0.17 0.2961
−25 3.57 9.28 6.47 0.19 0.41 0.16 0.2953
TG +25 3.57 9.19 6.51 0.13 0.40 0.16 0.2456
−25 4.30 10.70 6.62 0.12 0.53 0.11 0.3001
Tt +25 3.54 9.95 6.42 0.15 0.37 0.16 0.3014
−25 5.37 8.26 6.79 0.05 0.16 0.12 0.3102
TRH +25 5.72 8.74 7.31 0.02 0.11 0.13 0.3109
−25 3.70 9.91 6.55 0.14 0.51 0.13 0.3108
TCD +25 3.62 9.22 6.51 0.17 0.35 0.18 0.2916
−25 5.74 8.27 6.66 0.02 0.12 0.14 0.3102
R +25 3.57 9.28 6.48 0.19 0.41 0.17 0.2958
−25 3.56 9.28 6.49 0.19 0.41 0.17 0.2956
 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354 349

times (2%) in frequency and tie-line power deviations is shown in
Table 5. It is evident from Table 5 that FA outperforms GA, GSA and
DE as minimum ITAE value, less settling times and peak over-
shoots are obtained withFA.
Further, a UPFC is incorporated separately in the tie-line to analyze
its effect on the power system performance. Then SMES units are
installed in both areas and coordinated with UPFC to study their
effect on system performance. The fuzzy PID controller gains, KSMES
and TSMES are optimized and the results over 50 independent runs
are shown in Table 6. The performance indexes are provided in
Table 7. It is clear from Table 7 that the objective function (ITAE)
value is minimized to 0.3397 by employing the UPFC along with
fuzzy PID controller. It is also seen that with coordinated applica-
tion of UPFC and SMES, the ITAE value is further reduced to 0.2957.
Table 7 also shows the settling times, peak over shoot and errors
with UPFC and SMES. It can be seen from Table 7 that with UPFC
and SMES, the settling times of ΔF1, ΔF2 and ΔPTie are improved com-
pared to others.
The dynamic performance of the system is shown in Fig. 9(a)–(c)
for 1% step increase in load in area-1. It is clear from Fig. 9(a)–(c)

-3
x 10

2
(a)
0

-2
Δ F1(Hz)

-4

-6
Without UPFC & SMES
-8 With UPFC
Proposed with UPFC & SMES
-10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time(s)
-3
x 10
5
(b)

0
Δ F2(Hz)

-5

-10 Without UPFC & SMES

With UPFC
Proposed with UPFC & SMES
-15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time(s)
-3
x 10
3
Without UPFC & SMES
2.5
With UPFC
2 Proposed with UPFC & SMES

1.5
Δ PTie (p.u.)

0.5

0
(c)
-0.5

-1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time(s)

Fig. 12. Dynamic responses of the system for 1% step increase load in area-2. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1; (b) Frequency deviation of area-2; (c) Tie-line power deviation.
350 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354
that better dynamic performance is obtained by FA optimized
fuzzy PID controller compared to GA, GSA and DE optimized fuzzy
PID controller. Hence it can be concluded that FA outperform GA,
GSA and DE techniques. To evaluate the capability of UPFC and
SMES in improving the dynamic performance of the power system,
the system dynamic responses with UPFC only and with coordi-
nated application of UPFC and SMES are shown in Fig. 10(a)–(c).
Critical analysis of the dynamic responses clearly reveals that
significant system performance improvement in terms of minimum
undershoot and overshoot in frequency oscillations as well as
tie-line power exchange is observed with coordinated application
of UPFC and SMES. For better visualization of the improvements
with the proposed approach, comparisons of settling times
are presented graphically in Fig. 11. It is evident from Fig. 11 that,
for the system without UPFC and SMES, less settling times are
obtained with proposed FA optimized fuzzy PID controller com-
pared to GA, GSA and DE optimized fuzzy PID controller. The
settling times are further reduced with the application of UPFC
and minimum settling times are obtained with the FA optimized
fuzzy PID controller with coordinated application of UPFC and
SMES.
The system eigenvalues with physical constraints for all the
above cases are shown in Table 8. It is clear from Table 8 that the
system is unstable without controller as all the real parts of
-3
x 10
-1
Δ F1(Hz)
-2
-3
(a)
-4
0 5
-3
x 10
-1
Δ F1(Hz)
-2
-3
(b)
-4
0 5
Fig. 13. Frequency deviation of area-1 with variation of (a) loading and (b) TG.
eigenvalues are not negative and hence some poles lie in the right
half of s-plane, thus making the system unstable. It is also evident
from Table 8 that the system becomes stable with proposed FA
optimized Fuzzy PID controller as all the real parts of eigenvalues
are negative and hence all the poles lie in the left half of s-plane,
thus making the system stable. Further, it can be seen from
Table 8 that, in presence of UPFC with controller, the system
becomes more stable when the negative real parts are shifted
further toward left half of s-plane. Additionally, it can be observed
from Table 8 that the system is more stable with proposed FA
optimized Fuzzy PID controller in presence of both UPFC and
SMES compared to other cases as the real parts of eigenvalues are
more negative. The minimum damping ratios (MDR) for all the
cases are also provided in Table 8. It is worthwhile to mention
here that the MDR should be high to reduce the system oscilla-
tions. From Table 8, it is clear that higher MDR value is obtained
with proposed controller compared to without controller case.
The MDR value is further increased in presence of UPFC and
highest MDR value is obtained with controller in presence of both
UPFC and SMES. Hence it can be concluded that the proposed
approach reduces oscillating state. Fig. 10(a)–(c) validates the
above results. It is worthwhile to mention here that when physi-
cal constraints such as Time Delay (TD), reheat turbine and
Generation Rate Constraint (GRC) are considered, the system
Nominal loading
+25% of nominal loading
-25% of nominal loading
10 15 20 25 30
Time(s)
Nominal
+25% of nominal TG
+25% of nominal TG
10 15 20 25 30
Time(s)
 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354 351

becomes unstable without controller. In this example, the values
of TD is so chosen that the system becomes unstable without
controller for a better illustration of capabilities of proposed
controllers. However, in the realistic system, primary controller
alone may be enough to stabilize the system with some steady
state error.
To evaluate the effectiveness of proposed approach with change
in location of disturbance, a 1% step increase in load in area-2 is
considered at t = 0 s and the system dynamic response is shown in
Fig. 12(a)–(c). It is obvious from Fig. 12(a)–(c) that the proposed FA
optimized fuzzy PID controller is robust and perform satisfactori-
ly when the location of the disturbance changes. In this case also
better results are obtained with proposed FA optimized fuzzy PID
controller with coordinated application of UPFC and SMES com-
pared to others.
4.3. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity is the ability of a system to perform effectively while
its variables are changed within a certain tolerable range [5,31,36].
In this section, robustness of the power system is checked by
varying the loading conditions and system parameters from their
nominal values (given in appendix) in the range of +25% to −25%
without changing the optimum values of fuzzy PID controller
gains. The change in operating load condition affects the power
system parameters KP and TP. The power system parameters are
calculated for different loading conditions as given in the appen-
dix. The system with UPFC and SMES is considered in all the
cases due to their superior performance. Table 9 gives perfor-
mance of the system for a 1% step load change in area-1 under
nominal and varied conditions. Critical examination of Table 9
clearly reveals that ITAE, settling time and peak overshoot values
vary within acceptable ranges and are nearby equal to the respec-
tive values obtained with nominal system parameter. So it can be
concluded that the proposed control approach provides a robust
and stable control satisfactorily and the optimum values of con-
troller parameters obtained at the nominal loading with nominal
parameters need not be reset for wide changes in the system
loading or system parameters. As an example, the frequency devi-
ation response of area-1 with the varied loading condition and
TG is shown in Fig. 13(a)–(b). It can be observed from Fig. 13(a)–(b)
that the effect of the variation of loading and system time con-
stant TG on the system performance is negligible. So it can be
concluded that the proposed control strategy provides a robust
control under wide changes in the system loading or system
parameters.
Further, to investigate the effectiveness of the proposed con-
troller, different types of random load disturbances are applied to
area-1. Fig. 14(a) shows the random step load pattern of power
system [38]. The step load is random both in magnitude and
duration. The variation in frequency of area-1 is shown in Fig. 14(b).
From Fig. 14(b) it is evident that proposed approach shows better

-3
x 10
2
(a)
1.5

1
Δ PL ( p.u)

0.5

-0.5

-1
0 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150
Time (Sec)
-3
x 10

2
(b)
1.5
1
0.5
ΔF1(Hz)

0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Without UPFC & SMES
-2
Proposed with UPFC & SMES
-2.5
0 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150
Time(Sec)

Fig. 14. (a) Random step load pattern; (b) Frequency deviation of area-1.
352 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354

0.2
(a)
0.15

0.1

0.05
ΔPs (p.u.)
0

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Time(Sec)

0.2
(b)
0.15

0.1

0.05
ΔF1(Hz)

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15 Without UPFC & SMES

Proposed with UPFC & SMES
-0.2
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Time(Sec)

Fig. 15. Dynamic responses with variable sinusoidal load. (a) Random sinusoidal pattern; (b) Frequency deviation of area-1.

transient response when the system is incorporated with UPFC &
SMES compared to other.
The following sinusoidal load perturbation is applied to area-1
[39].
ΔPS = 0.03sin ( 4.36t ) + 0.05sin (5.3t ) − 0.1sin (6t )
The applied sinusoidal pattern is shown in Fig. 15(a) and the fre-
quency response of area-1 is shown in Fig. 15(b). As sinusoidal load
disturbance is present in total simulation time, system never damped
out. So the performance of the system should be analyzed by the
amplitude of oscillations. From Fig. 15(b), it is clear that the oscil-
lations are minimum by employing fuzzy PID controller with UPFC
& SMES compared to other. Finally, a random pulse load distur-
bance [39] is applied to area-1 and its pattern is shown in Fig. 16(a).
The frequency response for random load disturbance is shown in
Fig. 16(b) and it is clear that the system performs effectively with
proposed approach.
5. Conclusion
and the superiority of FA over GA, GSA and DE is demonstrated.
Further, UPFC and SMES are added in the system model in order
to improve the system performance. It is observed that when the
UPFC unit is placed with the tie-line, dynamic performance of
system is improved. Then the impact of SMES in the AGC along
(12) with UPFC is also studied. From the simulation results, it is
observed that significant improvements of dynamic responses are
obtained with coordinated application of UPFC and SMES. Finally,
sensitivity analysis is carried out to show the robustness of the
controller by varying the loading conditions and system param-
eters in the range of +25% to −25% from their nominal values. It is
observed that the proposed control approach provides a robust
and stable control satisfactorily as the parameters of the proposed
FA optimized fuzzy PID controllers need not be reset even if the
system is subjected to wide variation in loading conditions and
system parameters. Different types of random load patterns are
applied in area-1 to test the robustness of proposed approach. It
is observed from simulation result that proposed controller per-
formed well against random load patterns when system is
incorporated with UPFC & SMES compared to other.

In this paper, a Firefly Algorithm (FA) optimized fuzzy PID

controller has been proposed for Automatic Generation Control of
multi-area multi-source power systems. Initially, a two area six
units power system without any physical constraints is consid-
ered and the optimal gains of the fuzzy PID controller are obtained
by FA optimization technique. It is observed that the proposed
controller gives superior dynamic performance compared to some
recently published approaches such as optimal control [4] and
DE optimized PID controller [5] for the same power system. Then
physical constraints such as GRC and time delay are considered
Appendix
Nominal parameters of the system investigated are:
Multi-area multi-source system [5]:
B1 = B2 = 0.4312 p.u. MW/Hz; RT1 = RT2 = RH1 = RH2 = RG1 = RG2 = 2.4 Hz/
p.u.; T G = 0.06 sec, T t1 = T t2 0.3s, K r1 = Kr2 = 0.3; T r1 = T r2 = 10.2 s;
KP1 = KP2 = 68.9655 Hz/p.u. MW; TP1 = TP2 = 11.49 s; T12 = 0.0433, a12 =
-1, TW1 = TW2 = 1.1s, TRs1 = TRs2 = 4.9s, TRH1 = TRH2 = 28.749 s, TGH1 = TGH2 = 0.2s,
XC = 0.6s, YC = 1.1s, cg = 1, bg = 0.049s, TF = 0.239s, TCR1 = TCR2 = 0.01s.
 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354
0.1
0.08
0.06
Δ Pp(p.u.)
0.04
0.02
0 10 20 30
0.3
0.2
0.1
ΔF1(Hz)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0 10 20 30
Fig. 16. Dynamic response with pulse load pattern. (a) Pulse pattern; (b) Frequency deviation of area-1.
References
[1] O.I. Elgerd, Electric Energy Systems Theory – An Introduction, second ed., Tata
McGraw Hill, New Delhi, 2000.
[2] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, eighth reprint, Tata McGraw-Hill,
2009.
[3] H. Bevrani, Robust Power System Frequency Control, Springer, 2009.
[4] K.P.S. Parmar, S. Majhi, D.P. Kothari, Load frequency control of a realistic power
system with multi-source power generation, Int. J. Elec. Power Energ. Syst. 42
(2012) 426–433.
[5] B. Mohanty, S. Panda, P.K. Hota, Controller parameters tuning of differential
evolution algorithm and its application to load frequency control of multi-source
power system, Int. J. Elec. Power Energ. Syst. 54 (2014) 77–85.
[6] S.C. Tripathy, M. Kalantar, R. Balasubramanian, Dynamics and stability of
wind and diesel turbine generators with superconducting magnetic energy
storage unit on an isolated power system, IEEE Trans. Energy Conv. 6 (1991)
579–585.
[7] R.J. Abraham, D. Das, A. Patra, Automatic generation control of an interconnected
hydrothermal power system considering superconducting magnetic energy
storage, Int. J. Elec. Power Energ. Syst. 29 (2007) 571–579.
[8] S. Banerjee, J.K. Chatterjee, S.C. Tripathy, Application of magnetic energy
storage unit as load-frequency stabilizer, IEEE Trans. Energy Conv. 5 (1990)
46–51.
[9] R.J. Abraham, D. Das, A. Patra, AGC of a hydrothermal system with SMES unit,
in: Proc of IEEE conf. GCC Conference (GCC), 2006, pp. 1–7.
[10] S. Padhan, R.K. Sahu, S. Panda, Automatic generation control with thyristor
controlled series compensator including superconducting magnetic energy
storage units, Ain Shams Eng. J. 5 (3) (2014) 759–774.
[11] K.R. Sudha, S.R. Vijaya, Load frequency control of an interconnected reheat
thermal system using type-2 fuzzy system including SMES units, Int. J. Elec.
Power Energ. Syst. 43 (2012) 1383–1392.
[12] N.G. Hingorani, L. Gyugyi, Understanding FACTS: Concepts and Technology of
Flexible AC Transmission System, IEEE Press, 2000.
[13] B. Praghnesh, R. Ranjit, S.P. Ghoshal, Load frequency stabilization by coordinated
control of Thyristor Controlled Phase Shifters and superconducting magnetic
energy storage for three types of interconnected two-area power systems, Int.
J. Elec. Power Energ. Syst. 32 (2010) 1111–1124.
353
(a)
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time(Sec)
(b)
Without UPFC & SMES
Proposed with UPFC & SMES
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time(Sec)
[14] B. Praghnesh, R. Ranjit, S.P. Ghoshal, Comparative performance evaluation of
SMES–SMES, TCPS–SMES and SSSC–SMES controllers in automatic generation
control for a two-area hydro–hydro system, Int. J. Elec. Power Energ. Syst. 32
(2011) 1585–1597.
[15] N. Ibraheem, P. Kumar, D.P. Kothari, Recent philosophies of automatic generation
control strategies in power systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 20 (2005) 346–
357.
[16] J. Nanda, A. Mangla, S. Suri, Some findings on automatic generation control of
an interconnected hydrothermal system with conventional controllers, IEEE
Trans. Energy Conv. 21 (2006) 187–193.
[17] S.P. Ghoshal, Application of GA/GA-SA based fuzzy automatic generation control
of a multi area thermal generating system, Elect. Power Syst. Res. 70 (2004)
115–127.
[18] H. Gozde, M.C. Taplamacioglu, Automatic generation control application with
craziness based particle swarm optimization in a thermal power system, Int.
J. Elec. Power Energ. Syst. 33 (2011) 8–16.
[19] E.S. Ali, S.M. Abd-Elazim, Bacteria foraging optimization algorithm based load
frequency controller for interconnected power system, Int. J. Elec. Power Energ.
Syst. 33 (2011) 633–638.
[20] L.C. Saikia, S. Mishra, N. Sinha, J. Nanda, Automatic generation control of a multi
area hydrothermal system using reinforced learning neural network controller,
Int. J. Elec. Power Energ. Syst. 33 (4) (2011) 1101–1108.
[21] R. Elyas, Intelligent linear-quadratic optimal output feedback regulator for a
deregulated automatic generation control system, Elect. Power Compon. Syst.
40 (5) (2013) 513–533.
[22] P. Ibraheem, K.N. Hasan, N. Nizamuddin, Suboptimal automatic generation
control of interconnected power system using output vector feedback control
strategy, Elect. Power Compon. Syst. 40 (9) (2012) 977–994.
[23] C. Huang, K.D. Xianzhong, Q. Zang, Robust load frequency controller design
based on a new strict model, Elect. Power Compon. Syst. 41 (11) (2013)
1075–1099.
[24] K.R. Mudi, R.N. Pal, A robust self-tuning scheme for PI-and PD-type fuzzy
controllers, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 7 (1) (1999) 2–16.
[25] E. Yesil, M. Guzelkaya, I. Eksin, Self tuning fuzzy PID type load and frequency
controller, Energy Conv. Manag. 45 (3) (2004) 377–390.
[26] R.K. Sahu, S. Panda, N.K. Yagireddy, A novel hybrid DEPS optimized fuzzy PI/PID
controller for load frequency control of multi-area interconnected power
systems, J. Proc. Cont. 24 (10) (2014) 1596–1608.
354 P.C. Pradhan et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 338–354
[27] X.S. Yang, Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms, Luniver Press, UK,
2008.
[28] X.S. Yang, Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization, Stochastic Algorithms:
Foundations and Applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, Springer,
5792 (2009) 169–178.
[29] X.S. Yang, S.S.S. Hosseini, A.H. Gandomi, Firefly algorithm for solving non-convex
economic dispatch problems with valve loading effect, Appl. Soft Comput. 12
(2012) 1180–1186.
[30] X.S. Yang, Firefly algorithm, stochastic test functions and design optimization,
Int. J. Bio-Inspir. Comput. 2 (2010) 78–84.
[31] R.K. Sahu, S. Panda, U.K. Rout, DE optimized parallel 2-DOF PID controller for
load frequency control of power system with governor dead-band nonlinearity,
Int. J. Elec. Power Energ. Syst. 49 (2013) 19–33.
[32] R.K. Sahu, S. Panda, S. Padhan, Optimal gravitational search algorithm for
automatic generation control of interconnected power systems, Ain Shams Eng.
J. 5 (3) (2014) 721–733.
[33] L. Gyugyi, Unified power-flow control concept for flexible ac transmission
systems, IEE Gen. Trans. Dist. 139 (4) (1992) 323–333.
[34] R.K. Khadanga, S. Panda, Gravitational search algorithm for Unified Power Flow
Controller based damping controller design, IEEE International Conference,
Energy Automation and Signal (ICEAS) (2011) 1–6.
[35] A. Kazemi, M.R. Shadmesgaran, Extended supplementary Controller of UPFC
to improve damping inter-area oscillations considering inertia coefficient,
International Journal of Energy 2 (1) (2008) 25–36.
[36] S. Padhan, R.K. Sahu, S. Panda, Application of firefly algorithm for load frequency
control of multi area interconnected power system, Elect. Power Compon. Syst.
42 (13) (2014) 1–12.
[37] S. Panda, N.P. Padhy, Comparison of particle swarm optimization and genetic
algorithm for FACTS-based controller design, Appl. Soft Comput. 8 (4) (2008)
1418–1427.
[38] S. Debbarma, L.C. Saikia, N. Sinha, Automatic generation control using two
degree of freedom fractional order PID controller, Int. J. Elec. Power Energ. Syst.
58 (2014) 120–129.
[39] K. Zare, M.T. Hagh, J. Morsali, Effective oscillation damping of an interconnected
multi-source power system with automatic generation control and TCSC, Int.
J. Elec. Power Energ. Syst. 65 (2015) 220–230.