Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Electrical Engineering

Optimized controller design for islanded microgrid using non-dominated

sorting whale optimization algorithm (NSWOA)
Quazi Nafees Ul Islam ⇑, Ashik Ahmed, Saad Mohammad Abdullah
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EEE), Islamic University of Technology (IUT), Board Bazar, Gazipur 1704, Bangladesh

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

Article history: Swarm-based nature-inspired optimization techniques are developing rapidly due to their universal
Received 26 August 2020 acceptance and capability in solving various real-life challenges efficiently. Hybridization of swarm intel-
Revised 29 December 2020 ligence based optimization algorithms with multi-objective based solution techniques is creating a wide
Accepted 8 January 2021
door in the field of optimization. The main focus of this work is, developing a hybrid Non-dominated
Available online xxxx
Sorting Whale Optimization Algorithm (NSWOA), where swarm-based Whale Optimization Algorithm
(WOA) is hybridized with multi-objective based, non-dominated sorting technique. This is done to
Keywords:
develop an algorithm with efficient optima searching ability and faster computational speed. The appli-
Multi-objective
Dynamic load
cation of NSWOA in optimizing the controller parameters of an islanded microgrid consisting of both sta-
Static load tic and dynamic load has been also described. SPSS software has been used to compare the performance
Non-dominated sorting of proposed NSWOA with non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II (NSGA-II) and Strength Pareto
SPSS Evolutionary Algorithm (SPEA) technique in optimizing the controller parameters of islanded microgrid
model with multi-objective problem. It is obtained that, NSWOA requires an average of 4 iterations to
reach the best optimum solution, which is less than other existing algorithms. Moreover, the computa-
tional time required by NSWOA is 2.9201 s, which proves that, it converges at a much faster rate com-
pared to existing NSGA-II and SPEA algorithms.
Ó 2021 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction and implemented in various important fields of study, for instance,

Metaheuristic optimization algorithms have gained much
acceptance over the years in solving various optimization prob-
lems. These algorithms perform the optimization process in a
stochastic manner, which implies that the operation of these algo-
rithms has been based on random operators. Evolutionary and
swarm intelligence-based algorithms such as genetic algorithm
(GA), simulated annealing (SA), particle swarm optimization
(PSO), ant colony optimization (ACO), firefly algorithm (FA), etc.
are categorized under the class of metaheuristic algorithms [1,2].
These algorithms have been inspired by some biological or natural
phenomena. Mirjalali and Lewis first introduced the whale opti-
mization algorithm (WOA) in 2016, which was inspired by the
hunting behavior of whales [3]. In the WOA technique, a specific
breed of whale known as humpback whales has been considered
where these whales use their unique bubble net feeding method
for hunting their prey. Since its inception, WOA has been used
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: quazinafees@iut-dhaka.edu (Q.N.U. Islam), ashik123@iut-
dhaka.edu (A. Ahmed), saadabdullah@iut-dhaka.edu (S.M. Abdullah).
in [4], WOA based proportional integral derivative (PID) controller
was introduced for automatic generation control of interconnected
system consisting of renewable energy sources. Similarly, refer-
ence [5] shows designing of proportional-integral (PI) controller
utilizing WOA in order to improve the performance of photovoltaic
power systems; [6] shows the application of WOA in estimation of
parameters of single- and multiple-diode photovoltaic model. In
[7]WOA was used in proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell
(FC) model in order to achieve their unidentified parameters.
Moreover, in [8] shows implementation of WOA in designing the
controller parameters of Sugeno Fuzzy Logic for improving the
fault ride through capability of wind power plants. In reference
[9], a hybrid whale Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm
(HWPSO) has been developed combining WOA with Particle
Swarm Optimization (PSO) to address the limitation of the PSO
algorithm related to the exploration of the search space. As WOA
has better exploration ability in different uncertain and small space
region, many other researchers hybridized this WOA to overcome
the time constraints and accuracy in obtaining the optimum solu-
tion of the problem. In reference [10] WOA was hybridized with

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.01.035
2090-4479/Ó 2021 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: Quazi Nafees Ul Islam, A. Ahmed and Saad Mohammad Abdullah, Optimized controller design for islanded microgrid using non-
dominated sorting whale optimization algorithm (NSWOA), Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.01.035
Quazi Nafees Ul Islam, A. Ahmed and Saad Mohammad Abdullah
PSO, and in [11] WOA was hybridized with local search strategy,
where, they showed the ability of this hybridized WOA in solving
various real-life problems and found the best optimum solution
for those situations with better accuracy, computation time and
efficiency. Recently, a enhanced whale optimization algorithm
(EWOA) has been developed for maximum power point tracking
(MPPT) of variable-speed wind generators [12].
The algorithms mentioned above were initially developed as
single-objective optimization algorithms to optimize any single
objective function. All of these proposed algorithms efficiently
handled single-objective optimization problems. However, in most
cases, the problems do not remain limited to only a single objective
function; instead, there appear multiple functions that may con-
flict with each other, but all of them are required to be optimized
simultaneously.
In single-objective optimization, generally the aim is to search
for the best design or decision, which is usually the optimum solu-
tion of the optimization problem. Nevertheless, in the case of mul-
tiple objectives, the best solution (minimum or maximum) is
determined after fulfilling the conditions of all the objective func-
tions [13]. Usually, the objective functions used in multi-objective
optimization are contradictory. Generally, a set of solutions can be
obtained for this type of problem, which may be better than the
rest of the solutions in the search space. Multi-objective and
single-objective optimization techniques have a different method-
ology of ranking the generated population. Multi-objective opti-
mization techniques have the advantage of selecting the best
optimum solution from a set of solutions arranged in a Pareto-
front using a hyper volumetric measures. They are ranked accord-
ing to their fitness value and after satisfying the constraints they
find the optimal solution for the multiple objective functions
[14]. On the other hand, nature-inspired single-objective optimiza-
tion techniques rank the fitness function using a bio-type ranking.
They consider a single optimal solution as the optimum solution
[15]. So, it is inevitable that multi-objective optimization tech-
niques also provide the flexibility in demonstrating real-life chal-
lenges and provide the methodology in optimizing them.
In the world of increasing energy demand with increased black-
outs, burnouts; microgrid came as a competent solution due to it
being a pollution-free, energy-saving and smart energy system
with diversified energy sources [16]. Microgrid evolved as a solu-
tion to the universal energy crisis, and at the same time, it became
a talking point in between the researchers for its advancement and
development [17,18]. Intending to enhance the performance, effi-
ciency, and cost-effectiveness of microgrid, optimization of the
controller parameters, load sharing, cost, etc. has become the
prime concern for the researchers [19,20]. Among the controller
parameters, tuning the controller gains play a vital role in the
proper operation of the microgrid. Optimization techniques play
a significant role in tuning the controller gains. By selecting of opti-
mized controller parameters, the system performance can be
improved, and the quality of power developed can be assured
[21]. Furthermore, if there exists any type of disturbance in the sys-
tem, the selection of proper controller parameters and tuning them
at optimized value ensures stable operation of the system [22]. For
instance, in order to control the frequency variation of islanded
microgrid, droop controller gains were optimized using artificial
fish swarm algorithm (AFSA) [23]. For the microgrid system,
NSGA-II, which is a multi-objective based optimization algorithm,
was used to optimize the controller parameters of the system but
did not mention any comparative analysis with other algorithms
[24].
In this paper, a new meta-heuristic multi-objective optimiza-
tion algorithm has been developed using the Non-dominated Sort-
ing technique with Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA) to form
hybridized Non-dominated Sorting Whale Optimization Algorithm
2
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
(WOA). The proposed NSWOA is being used to obtain an optimum
solution for optimizing the controller parameters for an islanded
microgrid consisting of both static load and dynamic load. The
aim is to develop the proposed algorithm in obtaining stable
dynamic performance of the system during load variation. The
non-dominated sorting technique has been used to develop the
algorithm to be capable of solving multi-objective practical prob-
lems. The performance of the proposed NSWOA has been analyzed
by comparing it with the existing, well recognized, Non-dominated
Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II(NSGA-II) and Strength Pareto Evolu-
tionary Algorithm (SPEA) [25]. The contribution of the paper are
represented below:
(1) Develop a hybridized multi-objective optimization algo-
rithm NSWOA and observe its performance and ability to
obtain stable operation of microgrid with optimized con-
troller parameters.
(2) Carry out a comparative analysis of the hybridized NSWOA
technique with existing and well recognized NSGA-II and
SPEA techniques.
The remaining of the paper has been organized as follows: in
Section 2, the microgrid model has been developed, which consists
of both static and dynamic load. Section 3 shows the problem that
has been formulated and the objective functions which need to be
satisfied. Moreover, the complete description about the proposed
NSWOA technique is done in Section 3. The results and analysis
of NSWOA along the comparative study between NSWOA, NSGA-
II, and SPEA are presented in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 shows
the concluding remarks.
2. Description of the microgrid model
An islanded microgrid consisting of both static and dynamic
load has been used for this study. The Microgrid model shown
in Fig. 1 consists of two DG units where static load has been
installed on one unit and induction motor as a dynamic load on
the other unit. In this section, the model of the aforementioned
islanded microgrid will be discussed where the necessary study
has been done from [22,26] for the development of the complete
microgrid model. Modeling of a microgrid includes three main
segments: inverter, loads, and network. Inverters were designed
in their individual ðdij  qij Þ reference frame, and power-sharing
controller was being used to fix their angular frequency xij . Here,
th th
i and j indicates i and j inverter, respectively. In this study, the
reference frame of one of the inverters was taken as the common
reference frame ðD  Q Þ, and the load and network state equa-
tions were transformed into the same ðD  Q Þ frame, including
the other inverters. The inverter structure used for both DGs are
Fig. 1. DGs with both static and dynamic load.
Quazi Nafees Ul Islam, A. Ahmed and Saad Mohammad Abdullah Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. Block Diagram of Different parts of Inverter.

the same, and the inverter structure used in this study is taken An individual inverter model consists of thirteen states. In this
from Ref. [22], which is shown in Fig. 2. The detailed power, volt- study, two inverters have been used as there are two DGs. In
age, and current controller used in the DG along with the LCL fil- total, there will be twenty-six states for two inverters. The com-
ter design is developed in Ref. [22]. Fig. 2 shows the inverter ponents of AINVi ; BINVi ; Bcom , and C INVi are given in matrix form in
block diagram in which the power controller block at first Eqs. (4)–(6)

2 3
0 mp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 7
6 0 xc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:5xc Iodi 1:5xc Ioqi 1:5xc V odi 1:5xc V oqi 7
6 7
6 0 0 xc 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:5xc Ioqi 1:5xc Iodi 1:5xc V oqi 1:5xc V odi 7
6 7
6 7
6 0 0 nq 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7
6 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7
6 7
6 7
6 0 0 ni K pv K ic 0 0 0 1 0 K pv xnoload F 0 7
6 7
6 0 0 0 0 K ic 0 0 0 1 xnoload K pv 0 F 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 0 mp Ilqi
nq K pc K pv K iv K pc
0 K ic
0
K pc Rf
xo  xnoload K pc K pv 1 xnoload C f K pc K pc F
0 7
6 7
6 Lf Lf Lf Lf Lf Lf Lf
7
AINVi ¼6
6
7
7 ð4Þ
6 K iv K pc K ic
xo  xnoload K pc Rf xnoload C f K pc K pc K pv 1 K pc F 7
6 0 mp Ildi 0 0 0 0 7
6 Lf Lf Lf Lf Lf Lf
7
6 7
6 7
6 mp V oqi 1
xo 1 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6 Cf Cf
7
6 7
6 7
6 1 7
6 0 mp V odi 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
xo 0 0 7
6 Cf Cf
7
6 7
6 7
61
6 Lc ðV bDi sin di  V bQi cos di Þ mp Ioqi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 Rc
xo 7 7
6 Lc Lc 7
6 7
4 5
Rc
1
Lc
ðV bDi cos di þ V bQi sin di Þ mp Iodi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Lc
xo Lc

"  cos di  sin di

#T
calculates the instantaneous real power pðtÞ and reactive power 0 ...: 0 Lc Lc
qðtÞ from output voltage v odq and current iodq , which is then BINVi ¼ sin di  cos di
Bcom ¼ ½ 1 0 0 0 . . . :: 0 T131
0 ...: 0 Lc Lc 132
passed through a low-pass filter to obtain average real power P
ð5Þ
and reactive power Q. Eventually, power controller provides fre-
quency and magnitude of the output voltage reference. Next,  
the voltage controller compares the actual and reference values ðIodi sin di  Ioqi cos di Þ 0 0 . . . : 0 0 cos di  sin di
C INVi ¼
of output voltage and provides reference inductor output cur- ðIodi cos di  Ioqi sin di Þ 0 0 . . . : 0 0 sin di cos di 213
rents, which are fed as input to the current controller. Finally, ð6Þ
the current controller provides the switching signal, which is used
as a gate pulse of the transistor to trigger the inverter. The com- Line current flows from one node to another node of the line con-
plete inverter state-space model is given in the Eqs. (1)–(3). necting the buses. The line and static load model for this study
are taken from Ref. [22]. The line model, as well as the static load
Dx_ INVi ¼ AINVi DxINVi þ BINVi Dv bDQi þ Bcom Dxcom ð1Þ
model, consists of 2 states each.
In our study, an induction motor is being used as a dynamic
DioDQi ¼ C INVi DxINVi ð2Þ
load. The induction motor model has been developed taking [26]
as a reference. The induction motor consists of 5 states where
DxINVi ¼ ½Ddi DPi DQ i Dudqi Dcdqi Dildqi Dv odqi Diodqi  ð3Þ
DiQs ; DiDs ; DiQr ; DiDr ; Dsl are the state variables. DiQs and DiDs are

3
Quazi Nafees Ul Islam, A. Ahmed and Saad Mohammad Abdullah
the state variable for stator current of Q and D axis, respectively.
Similarly, DiQr and DiDr are the state variable for rotor current of
Q and D axis respectively, and Dsl is the state variable for rotor slip.
The complete microgrid model of our system is developed by
combining the individual inverter, line network, load, and induc-
tion motor state-space model from Ref. [22,26]. The complete
microgrid model is represented in Eq. (7).
DX_ MG ¼ AMG DX MG ðtÞ
where DX MG is the integrated states of the microgrid model. The
components of DX MG and AMG are given in Eqs. (8) and (9)
DX MG ¼ ½DxINV1 DxINV2 DiLineDQ DiLoadDQ DX IM 135
2 3
½AINV þ BINV RN M INV C INV 2626
6 ½B1Line RN M INV C INV þ B2Line C INV x 226
6 7
AMG ¼6
4 ½B1Load RN M INV C INV þ B2Load C INV x 226
½F IM T½RN M INV C INV  þ GIM C INV x þ HIM C INV x AINV 
C INV x com ¼ ½0  mp 0 . . . : 0113 C INV x ¼ ½C INV x com 0 . . . : 0126
M INV ; MNET , and M IM are used for mapping the connection points
between nodes of the network and line. In this study, the system
has 2 nodes, 2 inverters connected by a single line. The dimension
of MINV is ½ð2  number of nodesÞ -by- ð2  number of inv ertersÞ.
Similarly, dimension of M IM is ½ð2  number of nodesÞ -by- ðnumber
of induction motor connectedÞ. For this model, there are 5 connec-
tion points between induction motor and nodes. The dimension of
MNET is ½ð2  number of nodesÞ -by- ð2  number of LinesÞ, and RN
is ½ð2  number of nodesÞ -by- ð2  number of nodesÞ. The diagonal
elements of RN are equal to Rn . Components of MNET are either +1 or
1 depending upon the direction of line current means if the current
is entering the node, then +1 is considered and, if leaving the node,
then 1 is considered. For linking the stator voltage dynamics
of induction motor with the microgrid system matrix, T is used
whose dimension is ½ðnumber of induction motor connection pointsÞ
-by- ð2  number of nodesÞ.
3. Problem formulation
Stable operation of a microgrid in an islanded mode in the pres-
ence of both static and dynamic load is a challenge and it is
addressed in this work. In the sections as mentioned above it is
mentioned that for efficient, fast, and stable operation of microgrid,
the role of controller parameters is noteworthy. In the autonomous
mode of operation of a microgrid controller parameter settings
play an essential role in system stability.
3.1. Objective functions
In the previous sections, the mathematical model of the micro-
grid was developed where there were separate PI regulators for
voltage and current controllers. The mathematical model used in
this study consists of two inverters, as there are two DGs. There
are individual voltage and current controllers for each inverter sep-
arately where K pv 1 ; K iv 1 , and K pc1 ; K ic1 are the PI gains for voltage
and current controller of inverter-1, respectively. Similarly,
K pv 2 ; K iv 2 and K pc2 ; K ic2 are the PI gains for voltage and current con-
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
troller of inverter-2 respectively. The main objective of this work is
to fine-tune these controller parameter gains in order to obtain a
stable microgrid consisting of both static and dynamic load. The
objective functions based on the damping ratio and eigenvalue
are stated below in Eq. (11) where both are minimization functions
but contradictory.
J 1 ¼ minðrdesired  minðrN ÞÞ;
ð7Þ J 2 ¼ minðfdesired  minðfN ÞÞ ð11Þ
Here, r and f represents the real part of eigenvalues and damping
ratio, respectively. Here, N represents the number of states. For this
ð8Þ study, N ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . . . . . 35 as there are 35 states in the system as
per the mathematical model. The objective function is chosen in
½BINV RN MNET 264 ½BINV RN MIM 265
½AINV þ B1Line RN M NET 24 ½B1Line RN MIM 25 7
7 ð9Þ
½B1Load RN M NET 24 ½ALoad þ B1Load RN M IM 25 5
½F IM T½RN M NET  EIM þ ½F IM T½RN M IM  3535
such a way that the minimum f and the minimum r value found
ð10Þ from all the eigenvalues remain as close as possible to the desired
damping ratio and desired r respectively. Hence, minðrN Þ and
minðfN Þ will return scalar values. The two objective functions con-
sidered for this study are contrary to each other, which can be
understood from Eq. (12) where it can be seen that if the magnitude
of rN decreases, then fN becomes less negative similarly if rN
increases then reverse situation occurs.
rN
fN ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð12Þ
r2N þ x2N
rdesired and fdesired are taken as reference values to limit the objective
functions within the desired boundary [27].
The problem bounds for the developed model are given below
in Eq. (13). In order to obtain a stable system with less oscillations
and improved damping performance, the controller gains are lim-
ited as follows
0 < K pv 1;2 ; K pi1;2 ; K iv 1;2 ; K ic1;2 < 500 ð13Þ
Here, the controller parameters are aimed to be kept within the
given range in order to obtain stable performance of the microgrid
system. As the system model was developed following [26]; consid-
ering their values of controller gains, the range of controller gains
mentioned in Eq. (13) was selected accordingly and justified by root
locus analysis. Thus, J 1 and J 2 are the objective functions that need
to be optimized using optimizing algorithms in order to obtain opti-
mized controller parameters for the stable operation of the
microgrid.
3.2. Optimization process of non-dominated sorting whale
optimization algorithm (NSWOA)
Non-dominated sorting based optimization technique has been
incorporated with the Whale optimization algorithm (WOA) to
form a nature-inspired hybridized algorithm. Multi-objective opti-
mization problems often require various conflicting objectives to
be solved, so it imposes the challenge of satisfying each of the con-
flicting objectives and optimize them [13]. At times there exist dif-
ferent discordant objective functions, so non-dominated sorting
technique at first sorts a set of Pareto-optimal solutions that can
4
Quazi Nafees Ul Islam, A. Ahmed and Saad Mohammad Abdullah
be considered as the optimal solutions. In order to differentiate
between dominated and non-dominated sets of data, Pareto-
optimal value is computed from the Pareto-optimal solutions
[28]. As mentioned earlier, the sorting is done by moving the opti-
mal solutions towards Pareto-front by non-dominated sorting of
their rank values. The obtained non-dominated sorted solutions
are then optimized using the WOA technique in order to obtain a
better, efficient result with less computational time. As a non-
dominated sorting technique is hybridized with WOA, so this pro-
posed technique is named as the Non-dominated Sorting Whale
Optimization Algorithm (NSWOA).
The whale optimization algorithm consists of three stages. In
the first stage, the humpback whales encircle their preys, and in
the next stage, they use bubble hunt methods to attack their prey.
Finally, the whales again begin to search for their prey randomly
depending upon the position of each other [3,29]. A flowchart is
given in Fig. 3, showing a detailed procedure of NSWOA. The
step-wise procedure of NSWOA is described as follow:
Step 1: The first step is to initialize the system parameters and
define the number of iteration and generate the initial population
for the controller parameters, which are to be taken into consider-
ation for optimization. In this work, size of the initial population of
whales, i.e., search agent was taken as 50.
Step 2: In this step, the fitness of each search agent is evaluated
using fitness function i.e., the objective functions J 1 and J 2 of this
study.
Step 3: In this step, initially generated search agents are sorted
according to their fitness value. The non-dominated sorting tech-
nique was used as the sorting method to sort the search agents.
Next crowding distance and ranking of the current population is
calculated.
Step 4: In this step, a loop is run to update the position of the
search agents so that they can encircle their prey. Humpback
whales, i.e., the search agents considers the current solution as
the best solution and detect that as the target prey. Now, if ~ X  is
considered as the position of current best solution, then encircling
behavior of the whales can be represented by Eqs. (14) and (15) [3].
D ¼ j~
~ ~
C:X ðtÞ  ~
XðtÞj ð14Þ
Xðt þ 1Þ ¼ X~ ðtÞ  ~
~ A:~
D ð15Þ
Here ~
X is the position vector, j j represents absolute value, 0: 0 is
used for the element by element multiplication, t represents the
number of iteration; ~
A; ~
C are co-efficient vectors which are updated
to adjust the latest position of the prey around the search agent fol-
lowing Eqs. (16) and (17) [3].
~ the comparative study that is to be made amongst these algo-
A ¼ 2~ r ~
a:~ a ð16Þ
~
C ¼ 2:~
r ð17Þ
Here, ~
a decreases linearly from 2 to 0 as the iteration progresses,
which makes ~ ~ ~
A vary in ½a; a range, and ~
r is a random vector
between [0, 1] [3].
Step 5: The next stage of the WOA technique is spiral position-
ing update of the humpback whales, which is done to replicate
their helix-shaped movement. Positions of the search agent are
updated using Eq. (18) as given in [3].
~
Xðt þ 1Þ ¼ ~
D0 :ebl : cosð2plÞ þ ~
X  ðtÞ ð18Þ
where, b defines the shape of the logarithmic spiral movement of
the whales and it is a constant value, l is a random number between
[-1, 1], and ~
D0 ¼ j~
X  ðtÞ  ~
XðtÞjindicates the distance between the
position of prey (X~ ) and the position (~
X) of search agent.
5
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Step 6: Now, there are two cases for updating the position of the
whales: one is by waning or reducing the encircling procedure, and
the other one is using spiral model [3]. So the probability is indi-
cated by p, which is a random number between [0, 1]. In this step,
an if-else condition is run to satisfy the objective. If random num-
ber p < 0:5 and j~ Aj < 1 then the position of search agent is
updated using Eqs. (14) and (15).
Alternately, if p < 0:5 and j~
Aj P 1, then a random search agent
is selected, and X~r denotes the position of that search agent in
the current population. For that random search agent, the distance
between prey and search agent is determined using Eq. (19). Fur-
thermore, the position of the search agent is updated using Eq.
(20).
D ¼ j~
~ C:X~r  ~
Xj ð19Þ
~ Xr  ~
Xðt þ 1Þ ¼ ~ A:~
D ð20Þ
Step 7: If the conditions of step 6 are not satisfied and if p P 0:5,
then the position of the search agent is updated using Eq. (18).
Step 8: Fitness function values of the search agent of the whales
are evaluated in this step, which is the new fitness value N f .
Step 9: Initial generation of fitness function values generated in
step 3 i.e., O is merged with the WOA optimized new fitness values
generated in step 8 i.e., N f to generate a solution vector of length
O þ Nf .
Step 10: Here, non dominated sorting of the new solution vector
is carried out. A loop is run from step 4 to step 10 till the maximum
number of iteration is reached, and stopping criterion is fulfilled.
Step 11: The best possible position of the search agent is deter-
mined after the loop ends, and that is the optimal solution.
Thus, in this way the NSWOA optimization technique is being
implemented.
4. Results and discussion
The mathematical model of the microgrid as mentioned above
is being represented in MATLAB software in order to carry out
the performance analysis of the microgrid. In this section, the sys-
tem model is used to carry out the stability and performance anal-
ysis of the system by determining the optimized controller
parameters using the proposed NSWOA algorithm.
4.1. Simulation setup
The simulating parameters for all the optimizing algorithms,
namely: NSWOA, NSGA-II, and SPEA, are kept the same due to
rithms in order to compare their performance. The initial popula-
tion size for NSWOA, NSGA-II, and SPEA is taken as 50, and the
maximum number of iterations for each case is 100. As all these
algorithms consist of a common trait that is randomness, so micro-
grid performance using each algorithm was simulated for 30 inde-
pendent runs to find the average performance of each of the
algorithms and compare their performance. The search space was
kept the same for all the aforementioned algorithms as the con-
troller parameters were kept within 0 to 500. Initial population
was selected randomly within the mentioned limit and all the sim-
ulations were done using MATLAB. The simulations were per-
formed using a laptop of CPU of 8th generation, Intel Core i7-
8550U at 1.8 GHz with 12 GB installed RAM.
Now for NSWOA, the random vector ~ r is defined between
a linearly decreases from 2 to 0, which results in ~
½0; 1; ~ A to be lim-
ited in the range of ½a; a. b is taken as 1 to define the logarithmic
shape of spiral movement, and p is defined as a random number
Quazi Nafees Ul Islam, A. Ahmed and Saad Mohammad Abdullah
Fig. 3. Flow chart depicting NSWOA.
between ½0; 1. All these parameters are adopted from following
Ref. [3].
Similarly, for NSGA-II, the rate of mutation was defined as 0.02.
Percentage of crossover and percentage of mutation was taken as
0.7 and 0.4, respectively [28].
Finally, for SPEA, the archive size was defined as 50, the per-
centage of crossover is the same as NSGA-II i.e., 0.7, and the per-
centage of mutation is 0.3 [25].
4.2. Comparative assessment
In this portion, a comparative analysis is performed between
proposed NSWOA and well known NSGA-II, SPEA algorithms. At
6
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
first eigenvalue analysis is done to ensure the ability of NSWOA,
NSGA-II and SPEA in stabilizing the performance of the dynamic
system. Later on, Time Domain Simulation, and Statistical Tests
were performed where the performance of each of the algorithms
has been analyzed.
4.2.1. Eigenvalue analysis
Eigenvalue analysis has been done to determine the capability
of the proposed NSWOA algorithm in stabilizing the proposed sys-
tem containing both static and dynamic loads. The eigenvalue of
the state variables of the proposed system has been reflected in
Fig. 4, which shows the pre-optimization condition. It is noticed
from Fig. 4 and Table 1 that there exists instability in the system
Quazi Nafees Ul Islam, A. Ahmed and Saad Mohammad Abdullah Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 4. Eigenvalue of the system before optimization. Fig. 5. Eigenvalue of the system after optimization using NSWOA.

as the real parts of the eigenvalues of states Duq2 ; Dcd2 ; Dioq2 and
DiLineD are situated on the right half portion of s plane. As a result,
the proposed NSWOA algorithm is being used to stabilize the sys-
tem in a optimized manner.
Fig. 5–7 shows the eigenvalue of the states after optimizing the
controller parameters of the system using NSWOA, NSGA-II and
SPEA algorithm respectively. The dominant eigenvalues i.e., the
values nearer to the imaginary axes are depicted in Fig. 4–7 as
other values are well situated in the left half of s plane indicating
those states being stable. The eigenvalues of the system before
and after optimization are mentioned in Table 1 and Table 2. It is
observable that the unstable positive eigenvalues of the states
Duq2 ; Dcd2 ; Dioq2 , and DiLineD have moved from right half of the s
plane to the left half of s plane for all the mentioned algorithms.
For Duq2 and Dioq2 there is no significant difference between Fig. 6. Eigenvalue of the system after optimization using NSGA-II.

Table 1
Eigenvalue Analysis of NSWOA.

Index States Eigen Value of the System Before Optimization Eigen Value of the System After Using NSWOA Optimization
1 Dd1 2909410.542 + 12209388.904i 2909410.508 + 12209388.839i
2 DP 1 2909410.542–12209388.904i 2909410.508–12209388.839i
3 DQ 1 3261123.439 + 8309127.704i 3261123.425 + 8309127.501i
4 Dud1 3261123.439–8309127.704i 3261123.425–8309127.501i
5 Duq1 55.194 + 45315.607i 28863.554 + 384659.375i
6 Dcd1 55.194–45315.607i 28863.554–384659.375i
7 Dcq1 352.417 + 44476.812i 28820.165 + 384322.746i
8 Dild1 352.417–44476.812i 28820.165–384322.746i
9 Dilq1 4107.969 + 31524.405i 12450.226 + 172830.502i
10 Dv od1 4107.969–31524.405i 12450.226–172830.502i
11 Dv oq1 5629.972 + 29764.098i 12497.721 + 172390.083i
12 Diod1 5629.972–29764.098i 12497.721–172390.083i
13 Dioq1 8720.541 + 8365.113i 8197.709 + 21329.295i
14 Dd2 8720.541–8365.113i 8197.709–21329.295i
15 DP 2 6328.127 + 8624.675i 12535.996 + 19463.657i
16 DQ 2 6328.127–8624.675i 12535.996–19463.657i
17 Dud2 1291.429 + 0i 2217.887 + 515.833i
18 Duq2 213.426 + 784.754i 2217.887–515.833i
19 Dcd2 213.426–784.754i 22.813 + 194.338i
20 Dcq2 81.284 + 376.280i 22.813–194.338i
21 Dild2 81.284–376.280i 138.088 + 0i
22 Dilq2 162.677 + 0i 4.848 + 52.592i
23 Dv od2 70.227 + 1.578i 4.848–52.592i
24 Dv oq2 70.227–1.578i 70.683 + 0i
25 Diod2 67.497 + 0i 67.556 + 2.059i
26 Dioq2 22.647 + 0i 67.556–2.059i
27 DiLineD 1.315 + 0i 5.740 + 0.974i
28 DiLineQ 2.394 + 0i 5.740–0.974i
29 DiLoadD 2.393 + 0i 2.801 + 0i
30 DiLoadQ 0.018 + 0.045i 1.715 + 0i
31 DiQs 0.018–0.045i 0.188 + 0i
32 DiDs 0.021 + 0i 1.472 + 1.870e-06i
33 DiQr 0.329 + 0i 1.472–1.870e-06i
34 DiDr 0.200 + 0i 0.405 + 0i
35 Dsl 0.202 + 0i 0.405 + 0i

7
Quazi Nafees Ul Islam, A. Ahmed and Saad Mohammad Abdullah Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

dominated solutions for both the objectives. The optimized set of

controller parameters resulting in this Pareto-front are K pv 1 ¼
60:0229; K iv 1 ¼ 339:6462; K pc1 ¼ 105:3193; K ic1 ¼ 155:0871;
K pv 2 ¼ 129:8271; K iv 2 ¼ 227:7560; K pc2 ¼ 240:2978; K ic2 ¼ 97:3373:

4.2.2. Time domain simulation analysis

Fig. 7. Eigenvalue of the system after optimization using SPEA.
NSWOA, NSGA-II and SPEA. However, for Dcd2 and DiLineD it is
observable that NSGA-II is comparatively less negative to NSWOA
and SPEA. Moreover, the eigenvalues nearer to the imaginary axes
i.e., of states DiLoadQ ; DiQs ; DiDs ; DiQr ; DiDr , and Dsl have moved further
away from the imaginary axes towards into the left-half portion of
s plane which indicates that system has become more stable after
using NSWOA technique.
In non-dominated sorting technique basically pareto-
dominance criterion is used to sort the solutions obtained from
the generated population. Non-dominated solutions are the solu-
tions where one objective function does not dominate other objec-
tive function. Fig. 8 represents the most optimum Pareto front
among the 30 independent runs, which shows the non-
In this section, the results of proposed NSWOA algorithms are
compared with both NSGA-II and SPEA algorithms to differentiate
their performance. The comparison of performance was made
based on the amount of peak overshoot, and oscillation frequency
of real power, reactive power, inductor current (d  q), and output
voltage (d  q) of DG-1 and DG-2. Conventional approach was fol-
lowed to calculate the oscillation frequency from the imaginary
part of eigenvalues[30]. Peak overshoot was calculated from the
step response of the mentioned parameters in MATLAB. Peak over-
shoot is basically the deviation of the peak value of the states from
its steady state point. The comparison is presented inTable 3. The
step response of the above-mentioned parameters for DG-1 and
DG-2 is represented inFig. 9–11 where a step disturbance is given
at 1 sec. For the real power of DG-1, it is visible from Table 3 and
Fig. 9(a) that SPEA has a peak overshoot of 72:2e  5 compared
to zero peak overshoot in NSGA-II and NSWOA. However, oscilla-
tion frequency is comparable for all these algorithms. In the case
of DG-2, all the algorithms namely NSGA-II, SPEA and NSWOA
gives zero peak overshoot, as shown in Fig. 9(b). Similarly, in the
case of reactive power, as shown in Fig. 9c) and Fig. 9(d) and tab-
ulated data inTable 3 it is seen that NSWOA and NSGA-II gives zero
peak overshoot for both the DGs. But, SPEA produces a high peak
overshoot of 2398 for DG-1 and 4:4 peak overshoot for DG-2. The
oscillation frequency of reactive power is comparable for all the

Table 2
Eigenvalue Analysis of NSGA-II and SPEA.

Index States Eigen Value of the System Using NSGA-II Optimization Eigen Value of the System Using SPEA Optimization
1 Dd1 2909410.547 + 12209388.859i 2909410.529 + 12209388.805i
2 DP 1 2909410.547–12209388.859i 2909410.529–12209388.805i
3 DQ 1 3261123.505 + 8309127.596i 3261123.517 + 8309127.438i
4 Dud1 3261123.505–8309127.596i 3261123.517–8309127.438i
5 Duq1 31079.667 + 748441.857i 59787.105 + 486045.741i
6 Dcd1 31079.667–748441.857i 59787.105–486045.741i
7 Dcq1 31097.864 + 748806.691i 59850.414 + 486371.655i
8 Dild1 31097.864–748806.691i 59850.414–486371.655i
9 Dilq1 25183.414 + 123925.053i 42180.717 + 316294.455i
10 Dv od1 25183.414–123925.053i 42180.717–316294.455i
11 Dv oq1 25572.932 + 123361.294i 42190.873 + 316724.617i
12 Diod1 25572.932–123361.294i 42190.873–316724.617i
13 Dioq1 7630.771 + 30869.799i 8158.994 + 20798.415i
14 Dd2 7630.771–30869.799i 8158.994–20798.415i
15 DP 2 12648.788 + 29168.383i 12454.773 + 18925.813i
16 DQ 2 12648.788–29168.383i 12454.773–18925.813i
17 Dud2 2476.499 + 526.494i 2178.097 + 516.632i
18 Duq2 2476.499–526.494i 2178.097–516.632i
19 Dcd2 11.526 + 134.882i 23.435 + 200.800i
20 Dcq2 11.526–134.882i 23.435–200.800i
21 Dild2 7.757 + 47.245i 137.294 + 0i
22 Dilq2 7.757–47.245i 7.810 + 49.700i
23 Dv od2 80.298 + 0i 7.810–49.700ii
24 Dv oq2 71.040 + 5.850i 70.767 + 0i
25 Diod2 71.040–5.850i 67.341 + 2.142i
26 Dioq2 69.908 + 0i 67.341–2.142i
27 DiLineD 0.850 + 1.034i 7.426 + 0i
28 DiLineQ 0.850–1.034i 4.239 + 0i
29 DiLoadD 1.197 + 0i 2.637 + 0.274i
30 DiLoadQ 0.395 + 0i 2.637–0.274i
31 DiQs 1.058 + 0i 0.207 + 0i
32 DiDs 0.730 + 0.0001i 1.381 + 1.122e-05i
33 DiQr 0.730–0.0001i 1.381–1.122e-05i
34 DiDr 0.682 + 0i 0.873 + 0i
35 Dsl 0.682 + 0i 0.873 + 0i

8
Quazi Nafees Ul Islam, A. Ahmed and Saad Mohammad Abdullah Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 8. Pareto Front of the objective functions.

Table 3
NSGA-II, SPEA and NSWOA comparison on the basis of peak overshoot and oscillation frequency.

Criterion Parameters NSGA-II SPEA NSWOA

Real Power of DG-1 Peak Overshoot 0 72.2e 5 0
Oscillation Frequency (Hz) 1943184.58924875 1943184.58908575 1943184.58590787
Real Power of DG-2 Peak Overshoot 0 0 0
Oscillation Frequency (Hz) 3093.62629126010 5025.72911114868 3097.73723900745
Reactive Power of DG-1 Peak Overshoot 0 2398 0
Oscillation Frequency (Hz) 1322438.73204884 1322438.73035667 1322438.71460419
Reactive Power of DG-2 Peak Overshoot 0 4.4 0
Oscillation Frequency (Hz) 3093.62629126010 5025.72911114868 3097.73723900745
Output Voltage of DG-1 (d-axis) Peak Overshoot 0 0 0
Oscillation Frequency (Hz) 42789.3365339348 18305.6577760513 27506.8287713625
Output Voltage of DG-2 (d-axis) Peak Overshoot 0 0 0
Oscillation Frequency (Hz) 8.10924153674564 2.04792679461399 8.37029981802671
Output Voltage of DG-1 (q-axis) Peak Overshoot 5.1e - 3 73.1e - 3 0
Oscillation Frequency (Hz) 42858.5317697674 18218.3019399697 27436.7338495822
Output Voltage of DG-2 (q-axis) Peak Overshoot 0 12.2 0
Oscillation Frequency (Hz) 0.931166398517253 2.04792679461399 0
Inductor Current of DG-1 (d-axis) Peak Overshoot 0 0 0
Oscillation Frequency (Hz) 64349.5728503008 75598.1848439340 61166.8648946795
Inductor Current of DG-2 (d-axis) Peak Overshoot 0 4.5 0
Oscillation Frequency (Hz) 0 6.78536409154396 0
Inductor Current of DG-1 (q-axis) Peak Overshoot 5.52 32.29 0
Oscillation Frequency (Hz) 42789.3365339348 18305.6577760513 27506.8287713625
Inductor Current of DG-2 (q-axis) Peak Overshoot 1.91 1.43 1.52
Oscillation Frequency (Hz) 8.10924153674564 6.78536409154396 8.37029981802671

algorithms in the case of DG-1, whereas for DG-2, SPEA provides
more oscillation frequency i.e., 5025:729 Hz compared to
3093:626 Hz of NSGA-II and 3097:737 Hz of NSWOA. Now, for
the inductor current (d  axis), it is observed fromFig. 10(a) that
in case of DG-1, all optimizing algorithms provide zero peak over-
shoot, among which NSWOA has the least oscillation frequency of
61166:864 Hz compared to 64349:572 Hz of NSGA-II and
75598:184 Hz of SPEA. Similarly, for DG-2 shown inFig. 10(b),
NSGA-II and NSWOA gives zero peak overshoot compared to 4:5
peak overshoot of SPEA where, the oscillation frequency of
NSGA-II and NSWOA is zero compared to more significant oscilla-
tion frequency of SPEA, which is 6:785 Hz. Now, inductor current
(q  axis), it is seen fromFig. 10(c) and tabulated data that for
DG-1, NSGA-II and SPEA give peak overshoot values of 5:52 and
32:29 respectively compared to zero peak overshoot of NSWOA.
Moreover, SPEA has the least oscillation frequency of
18305:6577 Hz compared to NSGA-II and NSWOA. For DG-2,
Fig. 10(d) shows that the oscillation frequency and peak overshoot
values of NSGA-II,SPEA and NSWOA are comparable. Now for out-
put voltage (d  axis) of DG-1 and DG-2, as shown in Fig. 11a) and
Fig. 11(b), it is seen that all algorithms produce zero peak over-
shoot for both the DGs. Now, SPEA and NSWOA have a relatively
lower oscillation frequency for the output voltage (d  axis) for
both DGs. Similarly, for output voltage (q  axis) represented
inFig. 11(c), Fig. 11(d), and Table 3, NSWOA provides zero peak
overshoot for both DGs with better oscillation frequency response.
But, NSGA-II and SPEA gives peak overshoot values of 5:1e  3 and
73:1e  3 respectively for DG-1 where as for DG-2 the peak over-

9
Quazi Nafees Ul Islam, A. Ahmed and Saad Mohammad Abdullah Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 9. Step Response of the system for Real and Reactive Power.

Fig. 10. Step Response of the system for Inductor Current.

shoot value of SPEA is 12:2. The time-domain analysis of the sys- and improve damping characteristics of the system, where the pro-
tem using the algorithms, namely NSGA-II, SPEA, and NSWOA, posed NSWOA algorithm provides better step response compared
shows that though all the optimizing techniques can optimize to the other mentioned algorithms.

10
Quazi Nafees Ul Islam, A. Ahmed and Saad Mohammad Abdullah
Fig. 11. Step Response of the system for Output Voltage.
Table 4
NSGA-II and NSWOA comparison based on F-test and t-test.
Parameters Levene’s Test for Equality
of Variances (F- test)
F Sig (p)
Total Number of iterations 5.069276 .028
Total summation of Eigenvalues (Real) 8.947109 .004
Total time required 2.758497 .102
4.2.3. Statistical tests
In order to ratify the competence of the algorithms mentioned
above, a statistical assessment was enacted using SPSS software,
where an independent sample t  test was carried out for determi-
nation of the uniqueness of each of the algorithms. In this test, the
parameters taken under consideration were the total number of
iterations needed by each of the algorithms to satisfy the objective
functions, the total time required for completion of the iteration,
and total summation of the real part of eigenvalues for determina-
tion of the algorithm providing most negative eigenvalues. The
data sets included here are for 30 independent runs from, which
the average data are being tabulated. The total time required for
completion of the iteration indicates the time required by the algo-
rithm from initialization to reach the optimized controller param-
eters which is actually algorithm run time.
Lev ene0s test for equality of v ariances [31] i.e., F  test, was also
carried out alongside the t  test. F  test determines whether
there exist equal variances among the algorithm depending upon
the condition that the SigmaðpÞ value is higher than 0:05 or not.
If the value is higher than 0:05, then equal variances between the
data sets of the algorithms are assumed. Similarly, in t  test, the
assumption of null hypothesis ðHo Þ and alternative hypothesis H1
are determined based on Sigmað2  tailedÞðpÞ value. If the value is
higher than 0:05, then the null hypothesis ðHo Þ needs to be consid-
11
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Equality Means Test (t - test)
t df Sig. (2- tailed)(p) Mean Difference
4.040 52.273 .000 7.50000
1.795 42.743 .078 45741.56900
3.473 58 .001 3.80446
ered, which indicates the mean values of the algorithms’ group
data are equal. However, if Sigmað2  tailedÞðpÞ is less than 0:05,
then alternative hypothesis, H1 will be taken into consideration,
which indicates that the mean value of group data is not equal.
This independent sample t  test helps in determining the homo-
geneity of the algorithms.
Table 4 shows the F  test and t  test analysis of NSWOA and
NSGA-II. It is observable from the above-mentioned table that in
F  test; SigmaðpÞ value is higher than 0:05 for the total time
required for completion of iteration only, but for all other cases,
it is less than 0:05. So, it concludes that the variance of NSWOA
and NSGA-II is not spread equally. Now, for equality means
t  test, it is seen from Table 4 that equality means exists only
for total summation of the real part of eigenvalues where
Sigmað2  tailedÞðpÞ is higher than 0:05. For the total number of
iterations and total time required, it is less than 0:05, which indi-
cates that the null hypothesis is rejected, and the difference in
means between NSGA-II and NSWOA is statistically significant.
Similarly, Table 5, shows the analysis between NSWOA with
SPEA. From Table 5 it is seen that the SigmaðpÞ value of the
F  test is less than 0:05 for the total summation of the real part
of eigenvalues though for the total number of iterations, it is
slightly higher than 0:05. Moreover, from the t  test, it is observed
that Sigmað2  tailedÞðpÞ is significantly lower than 0:05 for the
Quazi Nafees Ul Islam, A. Ahmed and Saad Mohammad Abdullah Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 5
SPEA and NSWOA comparison based on F-test and t-test.

Parameters Levene’s Test for Equality Equality Means Test (t - test)

of Variances (F- test)
F Sig(p) t df Sig. (2- tailed)(p) Mean Difference
Total Number of iterations 3.092900 .084 2.287 58 .029 2.56667
Total summation of Eigenvalues (Real) 8.527837 .005 .942 42.896 .350 24030.48633
Total time required 1.622513 .208 3.603 58 .001 2.74787

Table 6
Group Statistical Data of NSGA-II, SPEA and NSWOA.

Parameters Algorithm Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Mean

Total Number of iterations NSGA-II 11.5333 8.29513 1.51448
SPEA 10.1333 4.24047 .77420
NSWOA 4.0333 5.88091 1.07370
Total Summation of Eigenvalues (Real) NSGA-II 12734141.7097 62613.54069 11431.61621
SPEA 12709722.4533 60017.17312 10957.58652
NSWOA 12688400.1407 124729.01128 22772.29768
Total Time Required(sec) NSGA-II 6.7245 4.57376 .83505
SPEA 4.2842 1.88320 .34382
NSWOA 2.9201 3.88320 .70897

total number of iterations and total summation of the real part of
eigenvalues. Thus from Table 5, it can be analyzed that there exists
significant difference in means between NSWOA, and SPEA
statistically.
Table 6 shows the group data of NSGA-II, SPEA and NSWOA
from which it is clearly visible that for NSWOA, even though total
summation of eigenvalues is least negative, but NSWOA takes a
significant lesser number of iterations and less time to achieve con-
vergence compared to NSGA-II and SPEA. Eigenvalue analysis
proved the ability of NSWOA to obtain a much stable system,
which ensures that despite having the least negative total summa-
tion of the real part of eigenvalues, NSWOA is much efficient and
much faster in obtaining optimized values for the controller.
NSWOA can be useful is optimizing controller gains for grid
connected mode of operation of microgrid provided the system
model is developed for grid connected mode. As NSWOA is not
based on any unique problem, instead it is compatible with other
systems depending on system parameters, so in future, this hybri-
dized NSWOA technique might be used in other aspects of micro-
grid such as, load flow analysis in order to determine steady state
operating point of microgrid, optimal sizing of hybrid renewable
energy systems (HRES), etc.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.

5. Conclusion
In this work, a new hybridized optimization algorithm entitled,
Non-dominated Sorting Whale Optimization Algorithm (NSWOA),
has been developed by combining nature-inspired swarm intelli-
gence based Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA) with multi-
objective based non-dominated sorting technique. Moreover, a
mathematical model of typical microgrid was developed with a
static load and induction motor as a dynamic load. The controller
parameters of the developed microgrid system were optimized
using NSGA-II, SPEA, and the new NSWOA technique, and detailed
performance analysis of each of the algorithms along with the sta-
tistical analysis was carried out. The performance analysis and sta-
tistical analysis concludes to the fact that the proposed NSWOA
technique can obtain a stable system with less overshoot and oscil-
lation frequency in most cases compared to the well recognized
NSGA-II, and SPEA technique. Furthermore, the computation speed
of NSWOA is much faster than NSGA-II and SPEA. It takes less num-
ber of iteration for reaching convergence, which adds to the bene-
ficial characteristics of NSWOA. For instance, the total number of
iteration required by NSWOA to reach convergence is 4:033 ’ 4
compared to 11:533 ’ 12 iterations of NSGA-II and 10:13 ’ 10
iterations of SPEA. Similarly, the time to reach convergence is
2:92 s for NSWOA, which is much faster than 6:72 s of NSGA-II,
and 4:28 s of SPEA. From the statistical F  test and t  test, it is
also proved that NSWOA, NSGA-II, and SPEA techniques are differ-
ent from each other and there are some unique features in each of
these algorithms.
References
[1] S.M. Abdullah, A. Ahmed, Hybrid bare bones fireworks algorithm for load flow
analysis of islanded microgrids, in: Handbook of Research on Fireworks
Algorithms and Swarm Intelligence, IGI Global, 2020, pp. 283–314.
[2] Q.N.U. Islam, A. Ahmed, Optimized controller design for islanded microgrid
employing nondominated sorting firefly algorithm, in: Nature-Inspired
Computation and Swarm Intelligence, Elsevier, 2020, pp. 247–272.
[3] Mirjalili S, Lewis A. The whale optimization algorithm. Adv Eng Software
2016;95:51–67.
[4] Hasanien HM. Whale optimisation algorithm for automatic generation control
of interconnected modern power systems including renewable energy sources.
IET Gener, Transmiss Distrib 2017;12(3):607–14.
[5] Hasanien HM. Performance improvement of photovoltaic power systems using
an optimal control strategy based on whale optimization algorithm. Electric
Power Syst Res 2018;157:168–76.
[6] Elazab OS, Hasanien HM, Elgendy MA, Abdeen AM. Parameters estimation of
single-and multiple-diode photovoltaic model using whale optimisation
algorithm. IET Renew Power Gener 2018;12(15):1755–61.
[7] El-Fergany AA, Hasanien HM, Agwa AM. Semi-empirical PEM fuel cells model
using whale optimization algorithm. Energy Convers Manage
2019;201:112197.
[8] Qais MH, Hasanien HM, Alghuwainem S. Whale optimization algorithm-based
Sugeno fuzzy logic controller for fault ride-through improvement of grid-
connected variable speed wind generators. Eng Appl Artif Intell
2020;87:103328.
[9] Laskar NM, Guha K, Chatterjee I, Chanda S, Baishnab KL, Paul PK. Hwpso: A new
hybrid whale-particle swarm optimization algorithm and its application in
electronic design optimization problems. Appl Intell 2019;49(1):265–91.
[10] I.N. Trivedi, P. Jangir, A. Kumar, N. Jangir, R. Totlani, A novel hybrid pso–woa
algorithm for global numerical functions optimization, in: Advances in
Computer and Computational Sciences, Springer, 2018, pp. 53–60.
[11] Abdel-Basset M, Manogaran G, El-Shahat D, Mirjalili S. A hybrid whale
optimization algorithm based on local search strategy for the permutation
flow shop scheduling problem. Future Gener Comput Syst 2018;85:129–45.

12
Quazi Nafees Ul Islam, A. Ahmed and Saad Mohammad Abdullah
[12] Qais MH, Hasanien HM, Alghuwainem S. Enhanced whale optimization
algorithm for maximum power point tracking of variable-speed wind
generators. Appl Soft Comput 2020;86:105937.
[13] Prabakar K, Li F, Xiao B. Controller hardware-in-loop testbed setup for multi-
objective optimization based tuning of inverter controller parameters in a
microgrid setting. In: 2016 Clemson University power systems conference
(PSC), IEEE. p. 1–8.
[14] Ishibuchi H, Nojima Y, Doi T. Comparison between single-objective and multi-
objective genetic algorithms: Performance comparison and performance
measures. In: 2006 IEEE International conference on evolutionary
computation, IEEE. p. 1143–50.
[15] El-Fergany AA, Hasanien HM. Single and multi-objective optimal power flow
using grey wolf optimizer and differential evolution algorithms. Electric Power
Comp Syst 2015;43(13):1548–59.
[16] Basu AK, Chowdhury S, Chowdhury S, Paul S. Microgrids: Energy management
by strategic deployment of ders–a comprehensive survey. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2011;15(9):4348–56.
[17] Al-Awami A, Sortomme E, El-Sharkawi M. Optimizing economic,
environmental dispatch with wind and thermal units. In: IEEE Power &
energy society general meeting, IEEE, 2009. p. 1–6.
[18] Hsu C-T, Korimara R, Cheng T-J, Tsai L-J, Huang H-M. Cost power curtailment
analysis for optimum PV size and the energy potential for the desalination
plant on the island distribution system. J Clean Energy Technol 2017;5
(3):199–205.
[19] Hemamalini S, Simon S. Maclaurin series-based lagrangian method for
economic dispatch with valve-point effect. IET Gener, Transmiss Distrib
2009;3(9):859–71.
[20] Coelho LS, Mariani VC. Combining of chaotic differential evolution and
quadratic programming for economic dispatch optimization with valve-point
effect. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2006;21(2):989–96.
[21] Iyer SV, Belur MN, Chandorkar MC. A generalized computational method to
determine stability of a multi-inverter microgrid. IEEE Trans Power Electron
2010;25(9):2420–32.
[22] Pogaku N, Prodanovic M, Green TC. Modeling, analysis and testing of
autonomous operation of an inverter-based microgrid. IEEE Trans Power
Electron 2007;22(2):613–25.
[23] Ibrahim A, Jibril Y, Haruna Y. Determination of Optimal Droop Controller
Parameters for an Islanded Microgrid System Using Artificial Fish Swarm
Algorithm (AFSA). Int J Scient Eng Res 2017;8(3):959–65.
[24] Wang R, Wu S, Wang C, An S, Sun Z, Li W, Xu W, Mu S, Fu M. optimized
operation and control of microgrid based on multi-objective genetic
algorithm. In: 2018 International conference on power system technology
(POWERCON), IEEE. p. 1539–44.
[25] Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L. SPEA2: Improving the strength Pareto
evolutionary algorithm. TIK-report 2001;103:1–21.
13
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
[26] Kahrobaeian A, Mohamed YA-RI. Analysis and mitigation of low-frequency
instabilities in autonomous medium-voltage converter-based microgrids with
dynamic loads. IEEE Trans Industr Electron 2013;61(4):1643–58.
[27] Mudaliyar SR, Sahoo SS. Comparison of different eigenvalue based multi-
objective functions for robust design of power system stabilizers. Int J Electr
Electron Eng Telecommun 2015;1(2):329–42.
[28] Deb K, Agrawal S, Pratap A, Meyarivan T. A fast elitist non-dominated sorting
genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: Nsga-ii. In: International
conference on parallel problem solving from nature. Springer; 2000. p.
849–58.
[29] Reddy PDP, Reddy VV, Manohar TG. Optimal renewable resources placement
in distribution networks by combined power loss index and whale
optimization algorithms. J Electr Syst Inf Technol 2017;28:669–78.
[30] Nise NS. Control systems engineering. John Wiley & Sons; 2020.
[31] Brown MB, Forsythe AB. Robust tests for the equality of variances. J Am Stat
Assoc 1974;69(346):364–7.
Quazi Nafees Ul Islam completed his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from the Electrical and
Electronic Engineering (EEE) department of Islamic University of Technology (IUT),
Gazipur, Bangladesh on 2016 and 2020 (January) respectively. His undergrad
research was focused on solar cell material and improvement of efficiency of thin
film solar cell. Later on, he did his M.Sc. on optimization of Microgrid controller
parameters. He is working as a Lecturer in the Electrical and Electronic Engineering
(EEE) department of IUT since 2017. Currently his research interest includes: neural
network, optimization of microgrid controller parameters, nature inspired opti-
mization algorithm.
Dr. Ashik Ahmed completed his MSc and PhD in Electrical and Electronic Engi-
neering (EEE) from King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dharhan, Saudi
Arabia, and Islamic University of Technology (IUT), Gazipur, Bangladesh in the years
2010 and 2016, respectively. Earlier, he completed his undergraduate level of study
from the EEE department of IUT, Gazipur, Bangladesh in 2003. Currently, he is
serving as a Professor in the EEE department of IUT. His current fields of research
interests include Swarm and Evolutionary Algorithms, Nonlinear Control of
dynamic system, Power System Stability and Control, Flexible AC Transmission
Systems, Demand Side Management, Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems, etc.
Saad Mohammad Abdullah received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Electrical and Electronic
Engineering (EEE) from Islamic University of Technology (IUT), Gazipur, Bangla-
desh, in the years 2016 and 2019, respectively. He is working as a lecturer in the
department of EEE, IUT since 2017. His research interests include microgrids,
engineering optimization, power system stability and control, and wireless power
transfer.