Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-022-03751-x

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Performance analysis of SSA optimized fuzzy 1PD‑PI controller on AGC

of renewable energy assisted thermal and hydro‑thermal power
systems
Emre Çelik1 

Received: 8 October 2021 / Accepted: 31 January 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Nonlinear structure, vague loading characteristics and parameter uncertainties of the interconnected power system (IPS) have
recently given birth to various controllers that better deal with automatic generation control (AGC). AGC plays a key role
in ensuring the balance of generation and load demand in IPSs. If this balance is lost, then the system faces large frequency
deviations. Thus, this work proposes a new fuzzy 1 + proportional + derivative-proportional + integral (F1PD-PI) controller to
escalate AGC performance of different IPSs integrated with renewable energy sources (RES) including wind, solar and fuel
cells. Inspiration for the proposed controller is unique and comes from combining the merits of fuzzy, 1PD and PI controllers.
Salp swarm algorithm (SSA) is utilized to optimize the proposed controller’s gains as well as fuzzy membership functions.
The effectiveness and contribution of the advocated approach are demonstrated on a two-area reheat thermal system and a
two-area multi-source hydro-thermal system by realizing an extensive comparison study with the state-of-the-art variants.
The results substantiate that SSA optimized F1PD-PI controller has better performance than its competing peers in terms of
minimum settling time, peak undershoot, peak overshoot and error-integrating performance criterion of the system responses.
Nonlinearities from governor dead band and generation rate constraint are also studied, which verifies the performance of
the control strategy in tackling nonlinearities. Additionally, the robustness of the controller is affirmed against parameter
uncertainties and load disturbances. Finally, the stability of our proposal is checked using eigenanalysis.

Keywords  Interconnected power system · Automatic generation control · Renewable energy · Fuzzy logic controller ·
Governor dead band · Generation rate constraint · Salp swarm algorithm

List of symbols Tae Aqua electrolyser time constant, s

B Frequency bias, puMW/Hz Tfc Fuel cell time constant, s
R Speed governor regulation parameter, Hz/puMW Ts , TT Solar thermal generator time constants, s
Kps Power system gain Twtg Wind turbine time constant, s
Kae Aqua electrolyser gain Tg Thermal governor time constant, s
Kfc Fuel cell gain Tt Thermal turbine time constant, s
Kr Reheat gain constant Tr Reheater time constant, s
Ks , Kt Solar thermal generator gains Trh Time constant of hydro governor transient droop, s
Kwtg Wind turbine generator gain TR Hydro governor reset time, s
Kn Participation factor for solar thermal and wind Tgh Hydro governor main servo time constant, s
power systems Tw Water starting time, s
T12 Tie line power coefficient, puMW/rad
Tps Power system time constant, s
1 Introduction
* Emre Çelik An interconnected power system (IPS) is a system that
emrecelik@duzce.edu.tr includes a number of control areas interconnected through
1
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, tie-lines to swap power among them. Increases in diversity
Engineering Faculty, Düzce University, Düzce, Turkey of energy resources and energy necessities alongside the

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 E. Çelik
growing population have turned the modern IPS out to be
a huge and intricate network. On the other hand, the power
demand on IPS is continually changing and this causes
undesirable fluctuations in output voltage and frequency of
the alternator over the whole network, where all the gen-
erating units must perform synchronously with a common
frequency. Frequency variations of different control areas
also result in transient deviations in the tie-line power flows.
Preserving frequency and tie-line power flows within nomi-
nal ranges is possible only by matching the power genera-
tion with demanded power at all times. Such equilibrium in
IPSs is maintained by a strategy called automatic genera-
tion control (AGC). AGC allows the generators of control
areas to set their output generations in accordance with the
load demands. This way, steady state errors of the system
responses are ensured at zero and the IPS’s synchronism is
sustained during normal and abnormal situations. In view
of the above discussion, AGC needs for a successful control
strategy to effectively suppress the effect of random load
variations. It is to be noted that simplicity and easy con-
troller commissioning are usually ignored in the literature
works, yet these properties are of great importance from the
view point of practical implementation.
Fossil fuels currently meet the significant portion of
the world’s total energy demand. They are finite resources
depleting day by day and hazardous to the environment. As
per the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s note, 76%
of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions came from burning the
fossil fuels in 2016. As such, the negative effects of fossil
fuels started to make the obligatory transition away from a
destructive fossil fuel towards using an alternative energy
resource like renewable energy. As the name implies, renew-
able energy sources (RES) are renewable, clean and free in
nature, which give birth to fascinating attraction to benefit
from them in generating electricity. Especially, solar and
wind energy are broadly available in nature and easier to be
accessed compared to other RES. Thus, one of the current
attentions of researchers is centered on the integration of
solar and wind into the modern IPSs. In a study by Rahman
et al. (2016), solar thermal system considering the influence
of a dish-stirling is analyzed in AGC of a two-area reheat
thermal system (RTS). An AGC research on a two-area RTS
supported by RES such as wind turbine generators (WTGs),
solar thermal generators (STGs) and aqua electrolyser (AE)-
fuel cells (FCs) units is carried out in Kler et al. (2019).
The effect of AE-FC units on AGC capability of two-area
non-reheat thermal system, PV-RTS and multi-source hydro-
thermal system (MSHTS) is also demonstrated in Arya
(2019). Besides, the outcomes of STG and geo thermal
(GT) systems have been investigated in deregulated systems
with 2 and 3 areas (Tasnin et al. 2018; Tasnin and Saikia
2018). Guangdong power grid is explored in Xi et al. (2020)
by benefitting from thermal, hydro, wind, PV and electric
13
vehicles. As a result of the above review, the contribution
of RES on different AGC systems is found to be salient.
Yet to our knowledge, there is still some research gap to be
bridged in AGC of IPSs that exploit the usefulness of RES
like STGs, WTGs and AE-FC units all together. This entails
further investigation as launched in this work.
The performance of an AGC mechanism depends
closely on three elements: (i) controller structure (ii) opti-
mization technique opted for efficient gain scheduling and
(iii) objective function used in the optimization algorithm
for assessing the quality of obtained solutions (Çelik et al.
2021a). The relevant literature has witnessed an enor-
mous volume of researches particularly on new controller
designs. Some of them are firefly algorithm (FA) opti-
mized PI controller (Abd-Elazim and Ali 2018), improved
stochastic fractal search (ISFS) algorithm (Çelik 2020)/
differential search algorithm (DSA) (Guha et al. 2017a)/
differential evolution (DE) (Hota and Mohanty 2016)/
symbiotic organisms search (SOS) algorithm (Yılmaz
et al. 2021; Hasanien and El-Fergany 2017) optimized
PID controllers, quasi-oppositional SOS (QOSOS) (Guha
et al. 2017b)/backtracking search algorithm (BSA) (Guha
et  al. 2018)/hybrid FA-pattern search (hFA-PS) (Sahu
et al. 2015)/grey wolf optimization (GWO) (Guha et al.
2016a) optimized PI/PID controllers, DE optimized I/PI/
PID controllers (Mohanty et al. 2014), jaya algorithm (JA)
optimized PID with first-order low-pass filter (Singh et al.
2017), hybrid stochastic fractal search and local unimodal
sampling (hSFS-LUS) algorithm based multistage PDF
plus (1 + PI) controller (Sivalingam et al. 2017), hybrid
stochastic fractal search and pattern search technique
(hSFS-PS) based cascade PI-PD controller (Padhy and
Panda 2017), sine–cosine algorithm (SCA) optimized dou-
ble derivate filter based PD-PID cascade controller (Sata-
pathy et al. 2018), biogeography based optimised three
degree of freedom (3DOF) PID controller (Rahman et al.
2016), evolutionary algorithm designed integral minus PD
(IPD) controller (Kler et al. 2019), and dragonfly search
algorithm (DSA) optimized (1 + PD)-PID controller (Çelik
et al. 2021a). The above-counted classical controllers are
developed around a certain condition and thus they may
perform poorly in a changeable operating environment
as frequently experienced in power systems. To avert the
shortcomings of classical controllers, there are also other
advanced control schemes grounded on sliding modes
(Dahiya et al. 2019), H-infinity (Rosaline and Somarajan
2019), fractional calculus theory (Tasnin et al. 2018; Tas-
nin and Saikia 2018; Arya and Kumar 2017a; Çelik 2021;
Arya et al. 2021a,b), artificial neural network approach
(Saikia et  al. 2011), non-linear disturbance observer
(Sharma and Mishra 2019), disturbance observer aided
optimized fractional order 3DOF tilt-integral-derivative
(FO3DOF TID) (Guha et al. 2021). However, many of
Performance analysis of SSA optimized fuzzy 1PD‑PI controller on AGC of renewable energy assisted…
these controllers suffer from complex control laws and
heavy computational burden. At this point, fuzzy logic
controller (FLC) as an intellectual approach can improve
the current situation by achieving a better balance between
performance amelioration and design complexity.
FLC is a good choice when dealing with complex and
nonlinear control systems that have vague or unknown
mathematical models as it intends to stimulate the human
knowledge in the form of linguistic rules (Çelik and
Öztürk 2019). In the case of IPS, there are several works
proved successful using FLC (Arya and Kumar 2017b;
Rajesh et al. 2019; Sahu et al. 2014; Debnath et al. 2017).
The performance of FLC depends greatly on its adjust-
able design parameters such as input/output scaling fac-
tors (IOSFs), control rules (CRs) and membership func-
tions (MFs. Classically, they are chosen by trial or expert’s
guidance if it is available. However, in either case, the
optimal design cannot be guaranteed and much time is
devoted to the design process (Öztürk and Çelik 2012;
Çelik and Öztürk 2021). To solve this problem, various
optimization techniques are applied to automate the FLC
design in different kinds of IPSs by viewing the problem
from the perspective of optimization. As the simultaneous
optimization of the whole FLC parameters is computation-
ally expensive, the generic trend in the related works is to
optimize IOSFs only while other tunable parameters are
remained fixed. In the fuzzy PI/PID (FPI/FPID) control-
ler, BFOA technique is employed to tune IOSFs (Arya
and Kumar 2017b). Hybrid improved FA-PS (hIFA-PS)
(Rajesh et al. 2019) and hybrid DE-PSO (hDE-PSO) (Sahu
et al. 2014) are proposed to successfully optimize IOSFs
of FPID controller for diverse IPSs. Since the derivative
action of FPID controller is sensitive to noise in area
control error, a first-order low-pass filter is considered in
the derivative part to obtain FPID controller with filter
(FPIDN) that eliminates the unwanted action of the pre-
vious version. In Debnath et al. (2017), JA protocol is
implemented to optimize the IOSFs of FPIDN controller
and it is revealed that FPIDN performs better than FPID.
There are also other recent researches that combine FLC
and fractional order (FO) theory, such as imperialist com-
petitive algorithm (ICA) based FPIDN-FOPIDN (Arya
et al. 2021a)/cascade fuzzy-FOIDN (C-IλDμN) (Arya et al.
2021b) structured controllers. Consequently, we realize
that many FLC configurations hybridized with classical
and FO controllers exist in the field and various algorithms
are utilized to procure the optimal controller gains and
IOSFs of the FLC. Nonetheless, a systematic attempt to
optimize MFs is currently open in the relevant literature.
Moreover, in addition to the inconveniences identified for
the earlier control schemes, the system responses offered
by them are still in need of being improved further, as will
be demonstrated extensively in this article.
In summary, the main objectives of this paper can be out-
lined as step-down:
i. To design a new fuzzy 1 + proportional + deriva-
tive-proportional + integral (F1PD-PI) controller to
ameliorate AGC performance of two-area RTS and
MSHTS.
ii. To apply SSA concept to search for optimal controller
parameters.
iii. To examine the outcomes of RES penetration from
wind, solar and fuel cells.
iv. To authenticate the potential and contribution of the
proposed approach comparing with the state-of-the-art
(SOTA) variants for the similar systems.
v. To challenge the advocated controller with nonline-
arities resulting from governor dead band (GDB) and
generation rate constraint (GRC).
vi. To evaluate the system reaction against different limits
of GRC.
vii. To investigate the controller robustness with respect
to parameter uncertainties and load disturbances.
viii. To check the controller stability using eigenanalysis.
In view of our literature knowledge, it seems there are two
main innovations in this work differentiating the proposed
approach from the SOTA. Firstly, to date, no attempt has been
made to design a F1PD-PI controller in the control engineer-
ing area. We test the performance of this controller in AGC of
two-area RTS and MSHTS with and without RES penetration.
Secondly, an effective way of optimizing membership func-
tions is presented and utilized to improve the controller perfor-
mance further. All the relevant works in the literature focus on
optimizing the controller gains only, leaving the membership
functions unoptimized.
The article layout is as follows: Sect. 2 presents TF block
diagrams of IPS models under consideration. The structure of
F1PD-PI controller is proposed in Sect. 3. The current state of
metaheuristic algorithms is reviewed in Sect. 4. After introduc-
ing to SSA in Sect. 5, the controller optimization is carried
out in Sect. 6. Section 7 is devoted to extensive simulation
results obtained and their assessment with respect to the exist-
ing results. In Sect. 8, nonlinear effect of GDB and GRC on
the system performance is analyzed which is followed by the
robustness analysis in Sect. 9. The stability analysis and the
computational complexity are presented in Sects. 10 and 11.
Finally, the paper is concluded in Sect. 12.
2 Studied IPS models
IPS models investigated in this paper are two-area RTS and
two-area MSHTS depicted in Fig. 1. In the systems depicted
in Fig. 1a and b, both generation areas are of equal sizes. A
13
 E. Çelik

Area 1
1
ΔPD1
Governor-1 Reheat turbine-1 Power system-1
Controller-1
ACE1 ΔPref1 1 ΔPg1 ΔF1
SSA: F1PD-PI
+ 1 + 1

ΔPgRES
RES ΔPtie

Governor-2 Reheat turbine-2 Power system-2

Controller-2
ACE2 ΔPref2 1 ΔPg2 ΔF2
SSA: F1PD-PI
+ 1 + 1

1
ΔPD2
Area 2

(a)
Area 1

Governor-1 Non-reheat turbine-1

1 1 ΔPgThermal-1 ΔPD1
+ 1 + 1 Power system-1
Controller-1
ACE1 ΔPgRES ΔPg1 ΔF1
SSA: F1PD-PI ΔPref1 RES
+ 1
Mechanical Hydraulic governor-1 Hydro turbine-1
− + 1 ΔPgHydro-1
0.5 + 1
ΔPtie 2

Governor-2 Non-reheat turbine-2

1 1 ΔPgThermal-2

Controller-2 + 1 + 1 Power system-2

ACE2 ΔPg2 ΔF2
SSA: F1PD-PI ΔPref2
Mechanical Hydraulic governor-2 Hydro turbine-2 + 1
− + 1 ΔPgHydro-2
0.5 + 1 ΔPD2
Area 2

(b)
Solar Thermal power system
Solar part-1 Thermal part-1

ΔPgSTG
Psol
Solar part-2 Thermal part-2

ΔPgRES
Kn
Wind power system Wind turbine-1
Fuel Cell power system
1−Kn Fuel cell-1

Wind turbine-2
ΔPgWTG ΔPgFC
PW
Fuel cell-2
Aqua
Wind turbine-3 Electrolyzer

(c)

Fig. 1  TF block diagrams of a RTS model. b MSHTS model. c RES model

13
Performance analysis of SSA optimized fuzzy 1PD‑PI controller on AGC of renewable energy assisted…

single reheat steam turbine exists in each area of RTS, and is assumed as load disturbance subjected to the whole sys-
a non-reheat steam turbine and a hydro turbine are included tem. The outer loop equation can be given by Eq. 1.
in each area of MSHTS. Besides, area-1 of both systems
is equipped with RES based generating unit consisting of
Y(s) = G1 (s)u1 (s) (1)
2 STGs, 3 WTGs, 1 AE and 2 FCs as shown in Fig. 1c.
The STG has solar part and thermal part. The solar part has where u1 (s) = y2 (s) − d1 (s) . Assuming d1 (s) = 0 , then the
solar energy collectors that capture and focus sunlight onto outer process input u1 (s) becomes the output from the inner
a receiver. A special fluid is heated and circulated in the process y2 (s).
receiver to produce steam. The steam is then transformed The inner loop includes the inner or supply process
into mechanical energy in a turbine, which drives a generator G2 (s) and its equation can be given by Eq. 2.
to produce electrical energy. In the AE, hydrogen energy is
acquired by using some of the power from STGs and WTGs y2 (s) = G2 (s)u2 (s) (2)
(specified by Kn ) to be fed to FCs that convert hydrogen into
electricity via a couple of chemical redox reactions.
where u2 (s) is the inner process input. The inner loop is capa-
Every generating unit of the systems has its own speed
ble of making an immediate effort to confine the effect of
governor system, turbine and generator. For an area, there are
inner process gain variations arisen from set point changes
three inputs and two outputs. The inputs indicated with blue
or disturbances (Arya et al. 2021b).
color are controller output ΔPref  , load disturbance ΔPD and
tie-line power error ΔPtie . The output of RES, ΔPgRES , is also
inputting to area-1. The outputs highlighted by brown color
3.1 F1PD‑PI controller
are area frequency error ΔF and area control error (ACE). The
test models and data for the system parameters are taken from
The main role of a controller developed for AGC is to quickly
the work by Arya et al. (2021b). At the end of the paper, the
drive frequency, generation and tie-line power deviations
relevant parameters values are given and nomenclature is also
toward zero under step load disturbance (SLD), parameter
provided to describe several parameters utilized.
uncertainty and other unknown disturbances. In this case, an
area control error (ACE) is generated and the controller pro-
duces a control signal by acting on ACE to accommodate new
3 Cascade control
working condition. In our literature survey presented previously,
many controllers tuned by several optimization techniques are
Cascade control conception includes the control of two sub-
investigated thoroughly considering their advantages and dis-
sequent processes, where the inner process or the output
advantages. However, the cascade combination of fuzzy, 1PD
of the first feeds the outer or second process in order. The
and PI controllers (F1PD-PI controller) has not been witnessed
fundamental cascade control system consists of two control
to date. Therefore, the performance analysis of this controller
loops (inner and outer) as seen in Fig. 2 (Arya et al. 2021a).
on AGC of different IPSs is worthy studying and thus we have
The inner loop is responsible for alleviating the impact of
addressed it in this paper.
supply disturbance or any internal disturbance on the outer
The proposed controller design is depicted in Fig. 3. As
process whereas the outer loop manages to control the qual-
seen, two controllers are chosen and named C1 (s) and C2 (s) as
ity of process final output. Such a control system is famous
the outer controller and the inner controller, respectively. Here,
for its swift rejection of disturbance before it spreads over
F1PD controller is set as outer controller and PI as inner con-
other parts of the plant (Çelik 2021).
troller. The F1PD controller receives ACE signal as input while
In Fig. 2, the outer loop carries the process output Y(s) ,
the PI controller produces the output control signal or plant
which is controlled by primary control to achieve a given
input signal ΔPref  . u is the output of FLC, which is obtained
reference signal R(s) . G1 (s) is the outer process and d1 (s)
by fuzzy approximation using ACE and the time derivative of
ACE. Since the ACE and its time derivative are observed to be
Secondary inherently in the range [− 1, 1], no scaling factors are used for
controller the inputs. The output scaling factors of FLC correspond to the
gains of 1PD and PI controllers.
Primary In accordance with Figs. 1a and b, ­ACE1 and ­ACE2 can
Inner loop
controller be defined by
Outer loop
ACE1 = −BΔF 1 − ΔPtie
ACE2 = −BΔF 2 + ΔPtie (3)
Fig. 2  Cascade control conception

13
 E. Çelik

Fig. 3  Structure of F1PD-PI F1PD PI

controller ΔF Kp2
FLC

u + 1 + ΔPref
ACE Kp1 + + Ki +
Δu + s
Δt

Mux Δu
Kd ΔPtie
Δt

Table 1  Rule table relating ACE and ACE derivative to u • If ACE is Negative Big and ACE derivative is Negative
ACE derivative Big, this signifies that the plant input signal ΔPref is so big
NB NM NS ZE PS PM PB
at present, thus u should be Negative Big.
• If ACE is Positive Big and ACE derivative is Positive Big,
NB NB NB NB NM NM NS ZE
NM NB NM NM NM NS ZE PS this signifies that the plant input signal ΔPref is so small at
NS NB NM NS NS ZE PS PM present, thus u should be Positive Big.
A
C ZE NM NM NS ZE PS PM PM • If ACE is Zero and ACE derivative is Zero, this signifies
E PS NM NS ZE PS PS PM PB that the plant input signal ΔPref is in its required value at
PM NS ZE PS PM PM PM PB present, thus u should be Zero.
PB ZE PS PM PM PB PB PB • If ACE and ACE derivative fulfil the other cases, this signi-
fies that the plant input signal ΔPref is neither too large nor
too small; thus u should be a transition value to the Nega-
where B is the frequency bias, ΔF i is area frequency error/
tive Big or Positive Big.
deviation and ΔPtie is tie-line power error/deviation. Thus,
the overall control rule relating ΔPref to ACE can be repre-
sented as in Eq. 4.
As the fuzzy inference method, the Mamdani’s min–max
( ) approach is employed using the following model:
({ } ) K
ΔPref = u + uKp1 + usKd − ΔF − ΔPtie × Kp2 + i
s Rn = An × Bn (6)
(4)

where Kp1 , Kd , Kp2 and Ki are proportional, derivative, pro- where Rn shows the nth fuzzy relation between two antecedent
portional and integral gains, respectively. The optimal values linguistic terms withn = 1, 2, .., K . Then, the membership degree
of these gains are procured employing SSA. of each relation is computed by the minimum (^) operator:
In FLC, due to its simplicity, we use an interval type-1 ( ) ( ) ( )
fuzzy system, where the membership is a crisp value. 7 MFs 𝜇Rn x1 , x2 = 𝜇An x1 ∧ 𝜇Bn x2 (7)
are chosen for the two inputs and one output. The linguistic
values are defined as NB: negative big, NM: negative medium, Notice that the minimum is computed for all possible pairs
NS: negative small, ZE: zero, PS: positive small, PM: positive of x1 and x2 , which is equal to K = 4.
medium and PB: positive big. All the MFs are in triangular The fuzzy relation R representing the entire model can be
form, lying over the interval [− 1, 1]. Thus, degree of member- obtained by combining the K individual rule’s relations as
ship for each input is calculated by the following rule: follows:
( ) ( )
R = ∪Kn=1 Ri ,
𝜇Aj xi = fAj xi
i i
(5) [ ]
that is, 𝜇R (x1 , x2 ) = max 𝜇An (x1 ) ∧ 𝜇Bn (x2 ) (8)
⏟⏟⏟
1≤n≤K
where xi is the ith input, Ai ( i = 1, 2 and j = 1, 2, .., 7 ) is the
j

jth MF for the ith input and f is the mathematical function In the defuzzification process the crisp output u is
for triangular shape. obtained from the output of FLC using the center of gravity
Because 7 MFs are considered for each input, the total num- (centroid) technique in the following:
ber of possible rules is 49, which are constructed as in Table 1.
These rules are declared based on the expert knowledge and
extensive simulations made in this work. The following rules
describe the function of Table 1.

13
Performance analysis of SSA optimized fuzzy 1PD‑PI controller on AGC of renewable energy assisted…
∑4 � �
i=1 ci 𝜇ci ci
u= ∑4 � �
i=1 𝜇ci ci
where ci is the center of the ith output MF and 𝜇ci is the
associated membership value obtained from the fuzzy infer-
ence system.
While the rule table is maintained fixed, the shapes of
triangular MFs are also optimized in the present study to
maximize the possible benefit from the FLC. A systematic
and effective way for optimization of MFs will be introduced
in Sect. 5. The standard appearance of MFs before optimiza-
tion is shown in Fig. 4.
4 The current state of metaheuristic
algorithms
In the past, optimization problems were used to be solved
by numerical approaches where the final point is obtained
by approaching a zero-derivative point. These traditional
methods could not meet the expected performance as the
complexity of optimization problems gets higher year by
year. This is attributed to the fact that these methods require
derivation information, have certain steps to proceed and are
prone to easy local stagnations. What is more, some prob-
lems cannot be expressed mathematically.
Later, metaheuristic (MH) optimization algorithms are
developed to avert the shortcomings of traditional methods.
Surprisingly, MH techniques became very popular and have
been the focus of academic researches for a long time. This
is attributed to the flexibility, gradient-free mechanism and
local optima avoidance of these algorithms.
Two popular MH algorithms that can be treated as ances-
tors of the relevant field are particle swarm optimization
(PSO) (Eberhart and Kennedy 1995) and genetic algorithm
(GA) (Goldberg and Holland 1988). The PSO algorithm is
based on the identified individual and collective behavior of
birds in navigating and hunting while GA works on the basis
of Darwinian theory of evolution. The free-lunch theorem
logically proves that there is no single algorithm that is able
µ circuit (Asaithambi and Rajappa 2018), parameter extrac-
NB NM NS ZE PS
1
0.5
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
Fig. 4  MFs before optimization
to solve all optimization algorithms (Wolpert and Macready
(9) 1997). This outcome is exploited as a source of inspiration
by researches to propose new MH algorithms. Some of the
latest ones can be given by red fox algorithm (RFA) (Polap
and Woźniak 2021), black widow algorithm (BWA) (Hayy-
olalam and Pourhaji Kazem 2020), arithmetic optimization
algorithm (AOA) (Abualigah et al. 2021), past present future
(PPF) algorithm (Naik and Satapathy 2021), flamingo search
algorithm (FSA) (Zhiheng and Jianhua 2021), sandpiper
optimization algorithm (SOA) (Kaur et al. 2020) and salp
swarm algorithm (SSA) (Mirjalili et al. 2017). Essentially,
all these algorithms have similar characteristics: explora-
tion and exploitation. The only difference among them is the
concept they mimic during the course of optimization. For
instance, RFA simulates the red fox habits such as hunting
and creating population while keeping away from hunters.
BWA is devised by the rare mating behavior of black widow
spiders. AOA is an interesting algorithm benefitting from
four arithmetic operators like multiplication, division, sub-
traction, and addition in mathematics whereas PPF takes its
inspiration from the concept of “future progress of a human’s
life based on their past experience and present work”. Even-
tually, FSA, SOA and SSA are nature-inspired algorithms
mimicking the social intelligence of flamingos, sandpipers
and salps, respectively. The above algorithms are shown to
be effective in solving real-life problems, which usually have
intricate search space with a great number of local optima
(Blackburn et al. 2020; Polap 2020; Khorami et al. 2021;
Ravikumar and Kavitha 2021; Majdar and Ghassemian
2021; Elkasem et al. 2021; Hussien et al. 2017; Ismael et al.
2018; Ekinci and Hekimoglu 2018; Asaithambi and Rajappa
2018; El-Fergany 2018; Reddy and Reddy 2018).
Among the algorithms reviewed in this work, SSA can be
considered as flexible, simple, understandable and capable
to solve optimization problems efficiently. Moreover, this
algorithm has only one controlling parameter that decreases
adaptively over the course of iteration to satisfy explora-
tion and exploitation inclinations until the last iteration.
These advantages have enabled the SSA to receive great
value in several applications like classification (Hussien
et al. 2017), best conductor selection in a practical radial
distribution system (Ismael et al. 2018), optimization of a
power system stabilizer (Ekinci and Hekimoglu 2018)/size
of a CMOS differential amplifier alongside the comparison
PM PB tion of polarization curves of fuel cells (El-Fergany 2018),
economic load dispatch (Reddy and Reddy 2018) and so
on. As a result, simplicity, low computational burden and
ACE (pu)
speedier convergence behavior of the SSA concept shown in
ACE derivative (pu)
u (pu)
(see e.g. Hussien et al. 2017; Ismael et al. 2018; Ekinci and
0.6 0.8 1 Hekimoglu 2018; Asaithambi and Rajappa 2018; El-Fergany
2018; Reddy and Reddy 2018) encourage us to authorize it
as an optimizer.
13
 E. Çelik
5 Salp swarm algorithm
5.1 Brief review on biological salps
Salp swarm algorithm (SSA) is a new optimization tech-
nique proposed by Mirjalili et al. (2017). It is based on the
identified swarming characteristics of salps while navigating
and foraging in their ecological environment. Salps are small
and innocuous creatures pertaining to the family of Salpi-
dae and they have transparent barrel-shape body. To move
under water, a propulsion force is generated by contracting
and thus pumping the water via their gelatinous body. They
may have the size 1–10 cm in length and lifespan of up to
1 month.
The researches on biological salps haven’t been pro-
gressed till their early milestones. As the main causes of
this, two factors are known; (i) their ecological environment
extremely hard to gain access (ii) difficulty to preserve them
in laboratory circumstances. Among the amazing features of
salps is their swarming behavior, which is exploited in SSA.
In deep oceans, salps tend to float in a form of swarm called
salp chain as seen in Fig. 5. Although there is not very clear
data for such a tendency, it is attributed to the better forage
via a locomotion using abrupt coordinated changes.
5.2 Mathematical model of SSA
The swarming behavior of salps described above are math-
ematically expressed to render that natural phenomenon suit-
able for solving optimization algorithms. For this, it is first
required to split the population into two classes: leader and
followers. The leader is the best salp standing at the front of
the chain and the remainder of salps are assumed as followers.
The leader salp beacons the swarm and is followed by follow-
ers, which change their positions based on their own and next
salp’s positions.
For n salps in a d-dimensional search space, SSA begins its
search process by randomly generating an initial population of
x , where the position of each salp is assigned by
Follower
salp
Leader
salp
Direction of
movement
Fig. 5  The shape of salp chain
13
( )
j
xi = lbj + r ubj − lbj (10)
where lbj and ubj are the lower and upper bound of the j th
dimension, respectively, and r is a random number in the inter-
val [0, 1]. The position of the i th salp can be expressed by
( )
xi = xi1 , xi2 , … , xid−1 , xid (11)
The following equation is utilized to update the position of
the leader, which is the ­1st salp in the chain.
{ j ( ( ))
j F + c1 (lbj + c2 (ubj − lbj )), c3 ≥ 0.5
x1 = (12)
F j − c1 lbj + c2 ubj − lbj , c3 < 0.5
where x1 and F j depict the position of the leader and food
j
source in the j th dimension, respectively, and c2 and c3 are
random numbers picked up from the range 0 and 1.
It is to be noted in Eq. 12 that the leader adjusts its posi-
tion with respect to the food source only. c1 is the most vital
parameter in SSA as it is responsible for balancing exploration
and exploitation propensities (Çelik et al. 2021b). The value of
c1 is decreased exponentially over the course of optimization
using the following formula:
c1 = 2e−(4l∕L)
2
(13)
where l is the current iteration and L is the maximal number
of iterations. Thanks to Eq. 13, SSA explores unvisited areas
of the search space in the early iterations and then gradually
switches to emphasize on exploitation in the last stages of
optimization. The idea of decreasing c1 is familiar to that
of temperature reduction in simulated annealing approach.
Each of followers change its position according to its own
position and the position of salp in front of it given by
( )
1 j
j j
xi = xi + xi−1 (14)
2
where i ≥ 2 and xi is the position of the i salp in the j
j
dimension.
The pseudocode of SSA is illustrated in Algorithm 1. It
displays that SSA technique starts seeking the global opti-
mum by initiating n search agents with d dimensions ran-
domly in the search space. It then calculates the fitness of
each salp, devises the one with the best fitness and assigns
the position of the best salp to the variable F as the food
source that has been the most valuable information obtained
so far about the global optimum. After updating the param-
eter c1 using Eq. 13, each dimension of the leading salp is
calculated by Eq. 12 and the positions of the follower salps
Performance analysis of SSA optimized fuzzy 1PD‑PI controller on AGC of renewable energy assisted…

by Eq. 14. All the above-described steps except initialization The number of gains to be tuned for the proposed F1PD-PI
are iterated till the satisfaction of a termination criterion, and controller is 4, which are Kp1 , Kd , Kp2 and Ki . Optimization of
in the end, SSA reports F as the final solution. the MFs is explained next.
One triangular MF is normally declared by at least three
Algorithm 1: The salp swarm algorithm (SSA) parameters. This in turn forms a complex optimization problem
Initialize the salp population [ ] considering and in our case, which demands to tune seven triangular MFs for each
while < do variable of FLC. To reduce the number of tunable parameters and
Evaluate the fitness of each candidate solution (salp) expedite the optimization, the following assumptions are made
Set as the best solution in the present paper (Öztürk and Çelik 2012):
Update the value of 1 using Eq. 13
for each salp ( , = 1,2, . . , ) do • The arrangement of MFs is symmetrical about the y-axis.
if ( == 1) then
• The peak values of MFs at two edges are − 1 and + 1,
Update the position of the leading salp using Eq. 12
else respectively.
Update the position of the follower salp using Eq. 14 • A crisp input can fire at most two MFs, and the sum of the
end if associated membership degrees must be 1.
end for
Update the salps based on the upper and lower bounds of Thanks to the above assumptions, the center points of input
variables
and output MFs can be easily characterized using the follow-
= +1
end while ing formula:
return the best solution ( ) ( )cp
i
(16)
n

where n = m−12
 , m is the number of MFs and i = 1, 2, .., n.
In Eq. 16, the only tunable parameter is cp . As one illus-
6 Controller optimization trative example, Fig. 6 shows the shape of seven MFs when
cp = 0.5 and cp = 1.75 whereas they appear as in Fig. 4 when
The goal of a controller optimization is to procure the opti- cp = 1 . As seen, if cp < 1 , the center points of MFs move
mal controller parameters that satisfy the given control away from the μ-axis and otherwise they are gathered closely
objectives. These control objectives are generally encapsu- around the μ-axis.
lated in an objective function ( J  ) designed for the system As we have two input and one output variable for the
and its value is minimized by an optimization technique FLC, three more parameters, namely cp1 , cp2 and cp3 , are
considering the system constraints. At the end of the opti-
mization process, minimum value of J results in optimal
controller parameters. Here, it is worth stressing that the µ
attained controller parameters are expected to be optimal or
near-optimal, yet they may not be the true optimal. NB NM NS ZE PS PM PB
1

To solve the AGC problem, integral squared error (ISE)

criterion is employed in this paper as objective function. As 0.5

formulated in Eq. 15, ISE integrates the square of the three ACE (pu)
ACE derivative (pu)
error terms over time and it penalizes large errors more than u (pu)

smaller errors. Thereby, ISE has the merit of eliminating large -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

errors quickly, thus leading to faster responses comparing with (a)

other integral-based error criteria. µ

NB NM NS ZE PS PM PB
tsim 1
( 2 )
J = ISE = ΔF 1 + ΔF 22 + ΔP2tie dt (15)
∫ 0.5
0
ACE (pu)
ACE derivative (pu)
u (pu)

where tsim is simulation time.

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

(b)

Fig. 6  The shape of seven MFs a cp = 0.5 . b cp = 1.75

13
 E. Çelik

required to be optimized. Thus, F1PD-PI controller has a Later, according to the calculated fitness values, the salps
total of 7 parameters. The optimization problem that we con- are updated in the algorithm for the next iterations. Any
sider can be formulated in the following, where the bounds salp violating the constraints in Eq. 17 is brought back on
of each controller parameter act as problem constraints. the boundaries. The process of going forward and back
Minimize J  , subject to: between the Simulink model and the SSA routine is iterated
min max
till Miter = 50.
⎧ Kp1 ≤K
p1
≤ Kp1 The optimization process is repeated 30 times, and F1PD-
⎪
⎪
Kdmin ≤ K d ≤ Kdmax PI controller parameters with and without RES offering
⎪ min
Kp2 ≤ K ≤ Kp2 max
minimum value of J over 30 runs are assumed optimum
⎪ p2
and reported in Table 2 for both RTS and MSHTS. In any
⎨ Kimin ≤ K i ≤ Kimax (17)
⎪ cmin ≤ c ≤ cmax of the following tables, better results are bolded and a quite
p1 p1
⎪ p1
narrow tolerance band of ± 0.00005 is considered for meas-
⎪ cmin ≤c ≤ cmax
p2 p2 p2 uring settling time.
⎪ cmin ≤ cmax
⎩ p3
≤c
p3 p3
7.2 Two‑area reheat thermal system

where the superscripts min and max speak for the minimum
and maximum values of the respective controller param-
eter. Following the termination of SSA, the set of controller
parameters yielding the smallest value of J is assumed opti-
mal and they are utilized to collect the results of the systems.
7 Simulation results
7.1 SSA implementation for the controller synthesis
The general block diagram of the proposed control scheme
is presented in Fig. 7. The studied IPS models shown in
Fig. 1, as well as the F1PD-PI controller recommended in
Fig. 3, are modelled in Matlab/Simulink platform. Program
codes of SSA routine are written using Matlab/Script editor
which is linked to the Simulink model in order to assess the
quality of candidate solutions in SSA. At the beginning of
the algorithm, 50 salps are generated randomly; each salp
has seven controller parameters, i.e. Kp1 , Kd  , Kp2 , Ki , cp1 ,
cp2 and cp3 . Then, each salp is fed into the Simulink model
to calculate the associated fitness value J after simulating
and acquiring the system responses of ΔF1 , ΔF2 and ΔPtie .
The performance assessment of the proposed F1PD-PI
controller is initially made on a two-area RTS assisted by
RES in area-1 as shown in Fig. 1a. The system dynamic
responses such as area frequency deviations ( ΔF1 , ΔF2 )
and tie-line power deviation ( ΔPtie ) are acquired by
our proposal and presented in Fig.  8 when a SLD of
0.01puMW is applied to area-1 at t = 0. Meanwhile, at the
same instant, it is assumed STGs and WTGs are subject
to a SLD of 0.001puMW and 0.002puMW, respectively.
In the zoomed views, the dashed lines are displayed to
clearly show the tolerance band. To rigorously check the
value and contribution of SSA tuned F1PD-PI controller,
several comparisons with the SOTA like bacterial swarm
optimization (BSO) optimized FOPID (Özdemir et  al.
2015), SOS optimized PIDN (Hasanien and El-Fergany
2017), hDE-PSO optimized FPID (Sahu et  al. 2014),
SCA optimized C-PDN-PIDN (Satapathy et al. 2018), JA
optimized FPIDN (Debnath et al. 2017), dragonfly search
algorithm (DSA) optimized FOPI-FOPD (Çelik 2021),
improved SCA (ISCA) optimized adaptive fuzzy based
PID (AFPID) (Rajesh and Dash 2019), chaotic crow search
algorithm (CCSA) optimized hybrid fuzzy proportional
derivative–tilt integral derivative (FPD-TID) (Khokhar
et  al. 2021) and ICA optimized C-I λD μN (Arya et  al.

, Table 2  Optimum F1PD-PI controller parameters

Controllers Two-area RTS Two-area MSHTS
parameters
F1PD-PI F1PD-PI (RES) F1PD-PI F1PD-PI (RES)
SSA F1PD-PI
Kp1 3.4005 4.9999 4.3234 4.3581
Routine Controller
Interconnected Kd 0.1140 0.1742 0.1457 3.4153
Power System
Kp2 4.9999 4.9999 1.8222 0.8121
Ki 3.8256 4.0406 4.8683 1.6613
cp1 4.0000 3.1053 1.1612 0.4382
cp2 1.9417 2.0150 3.3365 3.5886
cp3 3.9999 3.9999 1.1910 0.2001
Fig. 7  The proposed control scheme

13
Performance analysis of SSA optimized fuzzy 1PD‑PI controller on AGC of renewable energy assisted…
Tolerance
Band
(a)
Fig. 8  Responses of two-area RTS a ΔF1 . b ΔF2 . c ΔPtie
2021b) controllers are established. Inspecting the results in
Fig. 8 points out that F1PD-PI controller offers marvelous
performance over other reported approaches in obtaining
fast responses with negligible Ts ∕Us ∕Os in ΔF1 , ΔF2 and
ΔPtie signals. The closest competitor to F1PD-PI control-
ler is FPD-TID controller, which is followed by the AFPID
controller. However, this controller results in some salient
steady state error comparing with other controllers. It is
also found that C-IλDμN controller gains the fourth rank.
To evaluate the system dynamic responses quantitatively,
time-domain characteristics of the responses such as set-
tling time Ts , undershoot Us and overshoot Os are chosen
as comparison criteria among the approaches. Numerical
values of Ts , Us , Os and J are measured from Fig. 8 and
noted in Table 3. As per the results reported, SSA optimized
F1PD-PI controller has superior performance over its pub-
lished peers in terms of smaller values of J ( = 1.77E − 10 ),
Ts ( ΔF1 = 0.01 s, ΔF2 = ΔPtie = 0 s), Us ( ΔF1 = −0.0001
Hz, ΔF2 = −2.06E − 6 Hz, ΔPtie = −8.56E − 7 puMW).
Moreover, thanks to the inclusion of RES generating pow-
ers simultaneously in critical moments by STGs, WTGs and
AE-FC units, the system performance are further improved
by the proposed controller via further amelioration in J
( = 7.14E − 11 ), Ts ( ΔF1 = 0.008 s) and Us ( ΔF1 = −0.00007
Hz, ΔF2 = −1.94E − 6 Hz, ΔPtie = −7.98E − 7 puMW).
The percentage improvement in J contributed by RES is
calculated as 59.6%. Considering the value of J  , our pro-
posal takes the first rank for this system, which is followed
by FPD-TID, AFPID, C-IλDμN and so on.
Figure  9 displays the generated power by each gen-
eration unit in area-1 and area-2. As discussed in the
introduction part of this article, frequency regulation is
accomplished by matching the total generated power to
demanded load. As seen, the power generated by RES is
ΔPgRES = 0.00575 puMW, which is contributed by STGs
( ΔPgSTG = 0.0036 puMW), W TGs (  ΔPgWTG = 0.006
puMW) and FCs (  ΔPgFC = 1.29E − 7 puMW). In
Tolerance
Band
(b) (c)
area-1, the thermal power generation is ΔPgThermal = 0.00425
puMW. Thus, the total power generated in area-1 is
ΔPg1 = ΔPgRES + ΔPgThermal = 0.01 puMW, which is equal
to the power demand ΔPD1 as necessitated. Meanwhile,
owing to ΔPD2 = 0 puMW, the generated power in area-2
is ΔPg2 = 0 puMW.
7.3 Two‑area multi‑source hydro‑thermal system
To investigate the potential of the F1PD-PI controller
further, the study is forwarded by considering a two-area
MSHTS. The TF block diagram of this system is displayed
in Fig. 1b. Two generating units based on non-reheat ther-
mal and mechanical governor driven hydro are available in
area-1 and area-2. Additionally, RES contributes collec-
tively to the total power generation of area-1. The simulation
results showing ΔF1 , ΔF2 and ΔPtie responses are obtained
by the advocated approach under a SLD of 0.015 puMW to
area-1 at t = 0 and demonstrated in Fig. 10. For compari-
son, numerous results offered by the earlier studies such as
quasi-oppositional differential search algorithm (QODSA)
(Guha et al. 2016b)/GWO (Guha et al. 2016a)/hFA-PS (Sahu
et al. 2015) optimized PID controller, BFOA optimized FPI/
FPID/FOPID (Arya and Kumar 2017a,b), DSA optimized
FOPI-FOPD (Çelik 2021), ISCA optimized AFPID (Rajesh
and Dash 2019), CCSA optimized FPD-TID (Khokhar et al.
2021) and ICA optimized FPIDN/C-IλDμN (Arya et  al.
2021b) are also presented in Fig. 10. As we can see, SSA
optimized F1PD-PI controller is able to accomplish the best
transient response by rejecting the given SLD very fast com-
paring with all other published approaches. The second-best
controller in this case is again FPD-TID controller, which is
followed by AFPID controller. Nonetheless, similar to the
previous case, AFPID controller is not good at eliminating
the steady state error in the responses. The performance of
C-IλDμN controller comes in the fourth place, outperforming
the rest of published controllers in the literature.
13
 E. Çelik

The numerical transient information regarding ΔF1 , ΔF2

7.14E − 11
1.77E − 10
6.61E − 9
2.38E − 8
3.79E − 6
7.44E − 7
2.57E − 6
2.05E − 6
1.76E − 5
6.57E − 6

1.07E − 7
3.31E − 8
and ΔPtie responses are comparatively reported in Table 4.
Note that n/a means not applicable. In this case, settling
times of ΔF1 and ΔF2 obtained by AFPID controller are
J

indicated by n/a because the associated signals could not

|Os |(puMW)

enter into the tolerance band over the whole simulation time.

3.62E − 6
2.94E − 5
2.30E − 5
9.15E − 4
Critical observation of Table 4 points out that SSA tuned
ΔPtie

F1PD-PI controller outperforms its peers significantly with

| |

0
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
regard to smaller values of J ( = 8.31E − 10 ), Ts ( ΔF1 = 0.23
s, ΔF2 = 0.13 s, ΔPtie = 0 s), Us ( ΔF1 = −0.0015 Hz,

1.42E − 6
8.54E − 6
7.25E − 5
4.85E − 5
2.65E − 3

ΔF2 = −8.71E − 5 Hz, ΔPtie = −2.13E − 5 puMW). Fur-

thermore, the RES inclusion reflects itself on the system
ΔF2

as an effective means further improving J ( = 2.94E − 8 ),

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
Ts ( ΔF1 = 0.15 s, ΔF2 = 0 s), Us ( ΔF1 = −0.0014 Hz,
ΔF2 = −4.32E − 5 Hz, ΔPtie = −1.19E − 5 puMW) and Os
1.10E − 4
1.99E − 4
8.36E − 5
8.92E − 5
2.37E − 4
3.56E − 3
|Os |(Hz)

( ΔF1 = 0 Hz). The system performance in presence of RES

ΔF1
| |

is improved by 64.6% considering the value of J .

0
0

0
0
0
0

The associated power generations in area-1 and area-2

are displayed in Fig. 11. The power outputs from STGs,
|Us |(puMW)

WTGs, FCs, RES, thermal and hydro units in area-1

7.98E − 7
8.56E − 7
3.32E − 6
2.10E − 6
0.000346
0.000180
0.000313
0.000334
0.000949
0.000471

0.000130
0.000034

are ΔPgSTG = 0.0036 puMW, ΔPgWTG = 0.006 puMW,

ΔPtie
| |

ΔPgFC = 1.29E − 7 puMW, ΔPgRES = 0.00575 puMW,

ΔPgThermal−1 = 0.007214 puMW and ΔPgHydro−1 = 0.002041
puMW. The sum of these powers is equal to
1.94E − 6
2.06E − 6
9.21E − 6
6.23E − 6
0.00086
0.00042
0.00078
0.00054
0.00287
0.00120

0.00013
0.00007

ΔPg1 = ΔPgRES + ΔPgThermal−1 + ΔPgHydro−1 = 0.015

ΔF2

puMW, which matches the demanded power ΔPD1 in area-

1. ΔPgThermal−2 , ΔPgHydro−2 and accordingly ΔPg2 , meantime,
are zero due to ΔPD2 = 0 puMW.
|Us |(Hz)

0.00007
0.00010

In the final exercise, we take another realistic scenario

0.0003
0.0002
0.0031
0.0016
0.0034
0.0023
0.0066
0.0036

0.0010
0.0005
ΔF1
| |

into consideration. It is known that renewable powers gen-

erated by STGs and WTGs depend strictly on the envi-
ronment circumstances like wind speed ( PW  ) and solar
ΔPtie

3.73
1.83
2.39
3.83
3.75
6.41

0.63

radiation ( Psol ). Since PW and Psol are extremely unpre-

0
0

0
0
0

dictable and variable in nature, here we hypothetically

Table 3  Results of Ts ∕Us ∕Os ∕J for two-area RTS measured from Fig. 8

assume they are changing frequently and severely with

9.89
2.33
2.82
3.45
9.98
7.61

1.32
0.86
ΔF2

time as seen in Fig. 12a. The resulting ΔF1 , ΔF2 and ΔPtie

0
0

0
0

responses under such a challenging condition are shown

in Fig. 12b when the F1PD-PI controller parameters and
0.008
Ts(s)

0.84
0.11
9.53
1.09
3.99
7.38
6.60

0.01
8.76

0.55
0.48
ΔF1

SLD in area-1 remain the same as in the previous exercise.

Observe that system stability is still preserved; however,
ΔF1 , ΔF2 and ΔPtie signals present oscillations with low
SOS: PIDN (Hasanien and El-Fergany 2017)

magnitude around zero owing to the variable power gen-

SCA: C-PDN-PIDN (Satapathy et al. 2018)

ICA: C-IλDμN (RES) (Arya et al. 2021b)

erations. It is noticeable in Fig. 12c that ΔPgSTG , ΔPgWTG ,

CCSA: FPD-TID (Khokhar et al. 2021)
ISCA: AFPID (Rajesh and Dash 2019)

ΔPgFC   , ΔPgRES   , ΔPgThermal−1 and ΔPgHydro−1 in area-1 are

BSO: FOPID (Özdemir et al. 2015)

hDE-PSO: FPID (Sahu et al. 2014)

ICA: C-IλDμN (Arya et al. 2021b)

JA: FPIDN (Debnath et al. 2017)

not constant, but varying in response to PW and Psol . This

DSA: FOPI-POPD (Çelik 2021)

results in ΔPg1 to fluctuate around the demanded power

ΔPD1 = 0.015 puMW. Figure 12d also shows responses of
SSA: F1PD-PI (RES)

ΔPgThermal−2 , ΔPgHydro−2 and ΔPg2 , which are strictly kept

around zero since there is no power demand in area-2, i.e.
SSA: F1PD-PI
Controller type

ΔPD2 = 0 puMW. As a result, it can be divulged that the

proposed controller is capable of working effectively in
such an intractable condition.

13
Performance analysis of SSA optimized fuzzy 1PD‑PI controller on AGC of renewable energy assisted…

Fig. 9  Power generations
responses in RTS a ΔPgArea−1 . b
ΔPgArea−2

(a) (b)

Tolerance
Band Tolerance
Band

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 10  Responses of two-area MSHTS a ΔF1 . b ΔF2 . c ΔPtie

Table 4  Results of Ts ∕Us ∕Os ∕J for two-area MSHTS measured from Fig. 10

Controller type Ts(s) |Us |(Hz) |Us |(puMW) |Os |(Hz) |Os |(puMW) J
| | | | | | | |
ΔF1 ΔF2 ΔPtie ΔF1 ΔF2 ΔPtie ΔF1 ΔF2 ΔPtie

QODSA: PID (Guha et al. 2016b) 4.48 5.53 4.59 0.0154 0.0078 0.00274 2.50E − 4 0 0 1.50E − 4
GWO: PID (Guha et al. 2016a) 3.53 6.01 4.51 0.0149 0.0069 0.00260 0 0 0 1.47E − 4
hFA-PS: PID (Sahu et al. 2015) 5.75 7.12 5.75 0.0134 0.0066 0.00220 0 0 0 1.17E − 4
BFOA: FOPID (Arya and Kumar 2017a) 3.10 4.52 3.81 0.0115 0.0046 0.0015 4.51E − 4 0 0 5.22E − 5
BFOA: FPI (Arya and Kumar 2017b) 2.62 5.00 4.25 0.0093 0.0029 0.00108 0 0 0 1.60E − 5
BFOA: FPID (Arya and Kumar 2017a,b) 2.75 3.23 2.66 0.0065 0.0019 0.00079 2.59E − 4 0 0 1.60E − 5
DSA: FOPI-POPD (Çelik 2021) 7.45 8.45 3.60 0.0029 0.0007 0.00029 8.11E − 5 6.08E − 5 2.71E − 5 2.94E − 6
ISCA: AFPID (Rajesh and Dash 2019) n/a n/a 1.15 0.0016 0.0001 4.81E − 5 3.25E − 4 0 0 3.02E − 7
CCSA: FPD-TID (Khokhar et al. 2021) 1.06 1.69 0.93 0.0013 0.0001 5.02E − 5 0 0 0 1.01E − 7
ICA: FPIDN (Arya et al. 2021b) 1.75 3.79 3.05 0.0047 0.0011 0.00043 0 0 0 6.01E − 6
ICA: C-IλDμN (Arya et al. 2021b) 3.19 1.92 1.44 0.0027 0.0004 0.00015 0 0 0 9.41E − 7
ICA: C-IλDμN (RES) (Arya et al. 2021b) 1.61 1.43 0.96 0.0020 0.0002 0.00009 0 0 0 3.68E − 7
SSA: F1PD-PI 0.23 0.13 0 0.0015 8.71E − 5 2.13E − 5 3.03E − 4 0 0 8.31E − 8
SSA: F1PD-PI (RES) 0.15 0 0 0.0014 4.32E − 5 1.19E − 5 0 0 0 2.94E − 8

n/a: not reported

13
 E. Çelik

Fig. 11  Power generations
responses in MSHTS a
ΔPgArea−1 . b ΔPgArea−2

(a) (b)

Fig. 12  Responses of two-area
MSHTS under challenging envi-
ronment conditions a variable
PW ∕Psol . b ΔF1 , ΔF2 and ΔPtie .
c ΔPgArea−1 . d ΔPgArea−2

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

8 Analysis of governor dead band
and generation rate constraint
To reveal the capability of the F1PD-PI controller in
dealing with more realistic AGC systems, nonlinearity
sources like governor dead band (GDB) and generation
rate constraint (GRC) are employed in two-area RTS with-
out RES penetration. GDB causes the system to behave
oscillatory because the valve position due to the effect of
GDB does not change during a number of speed variations
(Çelik 2021). To study the dynamics of GDB nonlinearity,
the governor TF of each area of RTS shown in Fig. 1a is
replaced by the TF stated below:

13
Performance analysis of SSA optimized fuzzy 1PD‑PI controller on AGC of renewable energy assisted…

Δu +δ 1
at time and SSA based optimization procedure described
Δt
ΔPg before is reinitiated to tune the controller parameters by
-δ s
considering a SLD of 0.01puMW in area-1 at t = 0. Optimal
controller parameters and the ISE value for tsim = 20 s are
Fig. 13  Open loop model of GRC​ presented in Table 5, where a comparison with the nominal
case (without GDB and GRC) is also provided. As we can
−(0.2∕𝜋)s + 0.8 see in Table 5, the value of J is increased comparing with
Gs (s) =
sTg + 1
, (18) the nominal case owing to the occurrence of GDB and GRC,
meaning that the frequency regulation is deteriorated.
The respective dynamic responses in comparison with
where Tg = 0.2 s. the nominal response are depicted in Fig. 14. The presence
Another important source of nonlinearity in IPSs comes of GDB, particularly GRC, in two-area RTS leads to larger
from generation rate constraint (GRC) that imposes limit on deviations in Ts ∕Us ∕Os than that of the nominal response.
the rate of change of the power generation due to the limita- Nonetheless, ΔF1 , ΔF2 and ΔPtie signals of the nonlinear
tions of thermal and mechanical actions as they require some RTS settle again to the desired 0 steady state value with
finite time to be completed. The inclusion of GRC enables some overshoot and no sustained oscillations. In vision of
the generated power to vary only at a certain rate, thus it is this, the proposed controller can be recognized capable to
a suitable means for a realistic AGC study. The open loop tackle the introduced nonlinearities satisfactorily without
model of GRC displayed in Fig. 13 is employed in each area loss of system stability. It can be also disclosed that the
of RTS with ±𝛿 being the limits of GRC. system performance improves as the limit of GRC is set to
GDB and GRC of ± 0.02 puMW/s, ± 0.0033 puMW/s higher value.
and ± 0.002 puMW/s are considered in two-area RTS one

Table 5  Optimal controller Controllers Nonlinear two-area RTS

parameters in presence of GDB parameters
and GRC nonlinearities
F1PD-PI (nominal) F1PD-PI (GDB) F1PD-PI F1PD-PI F1PD-PI
(GRC (GRC (GRC
of ± 0.02) of ± 0.0033) of ± 0.002)
Kp1 3.4005 3.9999 1.9682 0.3281 3.4018
Kd 0.1140 2.2242 0.0940 0.4813 1.8751
Kp2 4.9999 0.3896 3.2052 1.3628 1.2674
Ki 3.8256 0.3649 4.9999 1.3308 3.7044
cp1 4.0000 0.9653 0.2000 1.5507 3.7010
cp2 1.9417 2.7286 0.2001 0.2000 0.9706
cp3 3.9999 0.4281 0.2000 0.2000 0.8161
J 2.47E − 10 7.50E − 6 9.82E − 5 4.30E − 3 1.35E − 2

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 14  Responses of two-area RTS in presence of GDB and GRC nonlinearities a ΔF1 . b ΔF2 . c ΔPtie

13
 E. Çelik
9 Robustness to system parameters
variation and load disturbances
Finally, the robustness of the proposed F1PD-PI controller
to parameter variations and load disturbances is evaluated
in this section. The aim of robustness test is to check how
healthy the controller parameters are against a change in
operating condition and decide whether to reset them to
accommodate new conditions. Two-area RTS is chosen as
test system and the controller parameters remain the same
as in Table 2. Initially, the system parameters such as Tg ,
Tt,Tr and Kr are assumed to deviate from their nominal val-
ues (provided in Appendix) in the scale of + 20 to − 20%.
The resulting ΔF1 , ΔF2 and ΔPtie responses of RTS under
nominal and varying parameters are displayed in Fig. 15.
As seen, parameter changes considered do affect the sys-
tem responses inconsiderably as they are found to be very
close to the nominal response.
In the second exercise, the robustness property of
the proposed approach is analyzed when a SLD shown
in Fig.  16a is applied to both areas of RTS. The SLD
(a)
Fig. 15  Responses of two-area RTS under parameter variation
Fig. 16  Responses of two-area
RTS under load disturbance
(a)
13
considered here is more challenging since its duration and
magnitude change continuously and abruptly, which are
faced frequently in practice. As per the ΔF1 , ΔF2 and ΔPtie
signals in Fig. 16b, the F1PD-PI controller is still able to
force the responses toward zero without unwanted oscil-
lations, affirming the robustness of F1PD-PI controller to
load disturbances.
Consequently, the robustness analysis concludes that
the proposed controller with the gains tuned at nomi-
nal conditions performs robustly with respect to param-
eter variation and load disturbance and its gains do not
require to be reset for the considered changes in working
condition.
10 Stability analysis
While improving the dynamic responses of an AGC sys-
tem, it is mandatory to have a sufficient degree of stability.
There are several approaches to make stability analysis
of a system and eigenanalysis is one of them. In order
to show whether the proposed controller is stable or not,
(b) (c)
(b)
Performance analysis of SSA optimized fuzzy 1PD‑PI controller on AGC of renewable energy assisted…

the eigen values of RTS and MSHTS with SSA optimized 11 Computational complexity
F1PD-PI controller are obtained and provided in Table 6,
when the controller parameters are set as in Table 2, i.e. In this section, finally, some controllers utilized in simula-
those used in Sects. 7.2 and 7.3. It is obvious from Table 6 tions are compared in terms of computational complexity/
that all the poles of both systems with and without RES are cost and the number of tunable parameters they require.
located at the left-half of the s-plane. Therefore, it can be For this goal, two-area MSHTS is allowed to be controlled
concluded that SSA optimized F1PD-PI controller is able by each controller while the simulation time is tsim = 10 s
to control the studied systems stably. and the sampling time is h = 0.001 s. The runtime of the
simulation program is measured for each controller under
identical conditions and this information is considered as
an indicator to apprise the readership of computational
cost that the controllers demand. Table 7 shows the num-
ber of tunable parameters required for each controller
Table 6  Eigenvalues of the systems controlled by SSA optimized
F1PD-PI controller
and the mean runtime in seconds calculated over 30 runs
with each controller. As we can see, F1PD-PI controller
Two-area RTS Two-area MSHTS requires the tuning of 7 parameters, which is smaller than
Without RES With RES Without RES With RES that for AFPID, FPD-TID and C-I λD μN controllers, but
higher than that for PID, FOPID, FPI, FPID and FOPI-
 − 19.2  − 100 ± 100i  − 100 ± 100i  − 16
FOPD controllers. Thus, we can remark that the tuning
 − 2.20  − 20.2  − 18  − 16.3
of F1PD-PI controller parameters has moderate effort for
 − 0.99 ± 11i  − 2.27  − 18.4  − 1.89 ± 6.85i
engineering commissioning. On the other hand, Table 7
 − 19.8  − 1.27 ± 12i  − 1.29 ± 9.02i  − 0.0382
divulges that the simpler the controller, the lower its
 − 0.202  − 20.8  − 0.65 ± 8.91i  − 0.0382
runtime or computational cost. It is also noticed that an
 − 0.720  − 0.201  − 0.0382  − 1.24 ± 6.64i
important portion of the total runtime for a given FLC-
 − 0.200  − 0.773  − 0.0382  − 1.61 ± 0.5i
based controller is allocated to FLC. Eventually, it can be
 − 1.37 ± 10.9i  − 0.200  − 2.20 ± 0.244i  − 2.20 ± 0.57i
concluded that all the FLC-based controllers have more
 − 0.757  − 0.89 ± 11.9i  − 1.98 ± 0.556i  − 1.84
or less the same runtime around 55 s, signifying that the
 − 0.25  − 0.801  − 2.54  − 2.09 ± 0.63i
complexity of these controllers is similar and higher than
 − 0.25  − 0.250  − 2.07 ± 0.625i  − 0.25
other controllers.
 − 0.250  − 100 ± 100i  − 0.25
 − 2  − 100 ± 100i  − 2
 − 3.33  − 3.33
12 Conclusions
 − 3.33  − 3.33
 − 0.667  − 0.667
In this paper, a new F1PD-PI controller is introduced for
 − 0.667  − 0.667
AGC of two-area IPSs that are integrated with RES. The
 − 0.667  − 0.667
proposed control scheme connects FLC, 1PD and PI con-
 − 0.556  − 0.556
trollers in cascade. SSA is utilized to optimize the gains
 − 0.556  − 0.556

Table 7  Comparison of the Controllers Number of tunable param- Mean

controllers considering the eters runtime in
number of tunable parameters seconds
and runtime
PID (Sahu et al. 2015; Guha et al. 2016a,b) 3 0.2833
FOPID (Arya and Kumar 2017a) 5 0.6165
FPI (Arya and Kumar 2017b) 4 53.9806
FPID (Arya and Kumar 2017a, b; Sahu et al. 2014) 5 55.2902
FOPI-FOPD (Çelik 2021) 6 0.5661
AFPID (Rajesh and Dash 2019) 8 56.8066
FPD-TID (Khokhar et al. 2021) 8 55.5845
C-IλDμN (Arya et al. 2021b) 9 55.8503
F1PD-PI 7 55.6229

13
 E. Çelik
of F1PD-PI controller. Furthermore, the shapes of input/
output MFs are also adjusted by the SSA via an efficient
and systematic way. The resulting controller provides a
simple and effective control strategy suitable for easy com-
missioning in practice. Performance gained is checked in
two-area RTS and two-area MSHTS with and without
RES penetration. A rigorous comparison with the SOTA
approaches is also presented to credit the contribution of
the proposed approach. It is found that SSA optimized
F1PD-PI controller renders significantly better perfor-
mance than other reported approaches in terms of mini-
mum settling time, peak undershoot, peak overshoot and
ISE value of the system responses. A certain performance
amelioration is also observed when RES is included in
area-1. That is why RES utilization must be encouraged
and increased on our planet to obtain reliable, high-quality
and environmentally-friendly electrical energy.
Moreover, nonlinearities due to GDB and GRC are
individually introduced in two-area RTS, from which it
is disclosed that the proposed approach can offer good
performance in handling practical nonlinearities. Also,
the robustness analysis reveals that F1PD-PI controller
is robust and operates satisfactorily without changing the
controller parameters under parameter uncertainties and
load disturbances. Eventually, the results are investigated
using eigenanalysis and the stability of the systems under
study is affirmed.
Several search directions can be given as the source of
inspiration for future works. Solving control problems in
other IPSs or different fields using the proposed control
scheme is recommended. The current work touched on
the MF shape optimization of the FLC only. Optimizing
scaling factors and control rules would be valuable con-
tributions. Lastly, other advanced fuzzy control systems
with intervals 2 (Mosavi et al. 2020; Sabzalian et al. 2019;
Mohammedzadeh and Rathinasamy 2020) and 3 (Moham-
medzadeh et al. 2020) may be tried out to achieve better
performance at the cost of increased complexity.
Appendix: System data (Arya et al. 2021b)
Nominal parameters of two-area RTS:
Pr = 2000 MW, Tps = 20 s, Kps = 120 Hz/puMW,
Tg = 0.08 s, Tt = 0.3 s, Kr = 0.5 , Tr = 10 s, 2𝜋T12 = 0.545
puMW/Hz, B = 0.425 puMW/Hz, R = 2.4 Hz/puMW,
F 0 = 60 Hz.
Nominal parameters of two-area MSHTS:
Pr = 2000 MW, Tps = 20 s, Kps = 100 Hz/puMW,
Tg = 0.08 s, Tt = 0.3 s,Trh = 48.7 s, TR = 5 s, Tgh = 0.513
s, Tw = 1 s, T12 = 0.0707 puMW/Hz, B = 0.425 puMW/Hz,
R1 = 2 Hz/puMW, R2 = 2.4 Hz/puMW, F 0 = 60 Hz.
13
Nominal parameters of RES:
Ts = 1.8 s, Ks = 1.8  , TT = 0.3 s, Kt = 1  , Twtg = 1.5 s,
Kwtg = 1  , Kn = 0.6  , Tae = 0.5 s, Kae = 0.002 Tfc = 4 s,
Kfc = 0.01
Data availability  All the research data presented in the work is reach-
able upon contacting with the author by email.
Declarations 
Conflict of interest  The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
Abd-Elazim SM, Ali ES (2018) Load frequency controller design of a
two-area system composing of PV grid and thermal generator via
firefly algorithm. Neural Comput Appl 30:607–616
Abualigah L, Diabat A, Mirjalili S, Elaziz MA, Gandomi AH (2021)
The arithmetic optimization algorithm. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 376:113609
Arya Y (2019) Impact of hydrogen aqua electrolyzer-fuel cell units on
automatic generation control of power systems with a new optimal
fuzzy TIDF-II controller. Renew Energy 139:468–482
Arya Y, Kumar N (2017a) BFOA-scaled fractional order fuzzy PID
controller applied to AGC of multi-area multi-source electric
power generating systems. Swarm Evol Comput 32:202–218
Arya Y, Kumar N (2017b) Design and analysis of BFOA-optimized
fuzzy PI/PID controller for AGC of multi-area traditional/restruc-
tured electrical power systems. Soft Comput 21(21):6435–6452
Arya Y, Dahiya P, Çelik E, Sharma G, Gözde H, Nasiruddin I (2021a)
AGC performance amelioration in multi-area interconnected ther-
mal and thermal-hydro-gas power systems using a novel control-
ler. Int J Eng Sci Technol 24(2):384–396
Arya Y, Kumar N, Dahiya P, Sharma G, Çelik E, Dhundhara S, Sharma
M (2021b) Cascade-IλDμN controller design for AGC of ther-
mal and hydrothermal power systems integrated with renewable
energy sources. IET Renew Power Gener 15(3):504–520
Asaithambi S, Rajappa M (2018) Swarm intelligence-based approach
for optimal design of cmos differential amplifier and compara-
tor circuit using a hybrid salp swarm algorithm. Rev Sci Instrum
89(5):054702
Blackburn LD, Tuttle JF, Powell KM (2020) Real-time optimiza-
tion of multi-cell industrial evaporative cooling towers using
machine learning and particle swarm optimization. J Clean Prod
271:122175
Çelik E (2020) Improved stochastic fractal search algorithm and modi-
fied cost function for automatic generation control of intercon-
nected electric power systems. Eng Appl Artif Intell 88:103407
Çelik E (2021) Design of new fractional order PI-fractional order
PD cascade controller through dragonfly search algorithm for
advanced load frequency control of power systems. Soft Comput
25:1193–1217
Çelik E, Öztürk N (2019) A new fuzzy logic estimator for reduction
of commutation current pulsation in brushless DC motor drives
with three-phase excitation. Neural Comput Appl 31:1125–1134
Çelik E, Öztürk N (2021) Commutation current ripple minimization
of brushless DC motor drive based on programmed phase current
references. Electr Eng 103:2661–2674
Performance analysis of SSA optimized fuzzy 1PD‑PI controller on AGC of renewable energy assisted…
Çelik E, Öztürk N, Arya Y, Ocak C (2021a) (1+PD)-PID cascade
controller design for performance betterment of load frequency
control in diverse electric power systems. Neural Comput Appl
33:15433–15456
Çelik E, Öztürk N, Arya Y (2021b) Advancement of the search process
of salp swarm algorithm for global optimization problems. Expert
Syst Appl 182:115292
Dahiya P, Sharma V, Naresh R (2019) Optimal sliding mode control for
frequency regulation in deregulated power systems with DFIG-
based wind turbine and TCSC–SMES. Neural Comput Appl
31:3039–3056
Debnath MK, Sinha S, Mallick RK (2017) Application of fuzzy-PIDF
controller for automatic generation control using jaya algorithm.
Int J Pure Appl Math 114(9):51–61
Eberhart RC, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm
theory. In: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on
micro machine and human science, pp 39–43
Ekinci S, Hekimoglu B (2018) Parameter optimization of power system
stabilizer via salp swarm algorithm. In: 5th International confer-
ence on electrical and electronic engineering, pp 143–147
El-Fergany AA (2018) Extracting optimal parameters of PEM fuel cells
using salp swarm optimizer. Renew Energy 119:641–648
Elkasem AHA, Khamies M, Magdy G, Taha IBM, Kamel S (2021)
Frequency stability of AC/DC interconnected power systems with
wind energy using arithmetic optimization algorithm-based fuzzy-
PID controller. Sustainability 13:12095
Goldberg DE, Holland JH (1988) Genetic algorithms and machine
learning. Mach Learn 3:95–99
Guha D, Roy PK, Banerjee S (2016a) Load frequency control of inter-
connected power system using grey wolf optimization. Swarm
Evol Comput 27:97–115
Guha D, Roy PK, Banerjee S (2016b) Quasi-oppositional differential
search algorithm applied to load frequency control. Int J Eng Sci
Technol 19(4):1635–1654
Guha D, Roy PK, Banerjee S (2017a) Study of differential search algo-
rithm based automatic generation control of an interconnected
thermal-thermal system with governor dead-band. Appl Soft
Comput 52:160–175
Guha D, Roy P, Banerjee S (2017b) Quasi-oppositional symbiotic
organism search algorithm applied to load frequency control.
Swarm Evol Comput 33:46–67
Guha D, Roy PK, Banerjee S (2018) Application of backtracking search
algorithm in load frequency control of multi-area interconnected
power system. Ain Shams Eng J 9:257–276
Guha D, Roy PK, Banerjee S (2021) Disturbance observer aided
optimised fractional-order three-degree-of-freedom tilt-integral-
derivative controller for load frequency control of power systems.
IET Gener Transm Distrib 15(4):716–736
Hasanien HM, El-Fergany A (2017) Symbiotic organisms search
algorithm for automatic generation control of interconnected
power systems including wind farms. IET Gener Transm Distrib
11(7):1692–1700
Hayyolalam V, Pourhaji Kazem AA (2020) Black widow optimization
algorithm: a novel meta-heuristic approach for solving engineer-
ing optimization problems. Eng Appl Artif Intell 87:103249
Hota PK, Mohanty B (2016) Automatic generation control of multi
source power generation under deregulated environment. Int J
Electr Power Energy Syst 75:205–214
Hussien AG, Hassanien AE, Houssein EH (2017) Swarming behav-
iour of salps algorithm for predicting chemical compound
activities. In: IEEE international 8th conference on intelligent
computing and information systems, pp 315–320
Ismael S, Aleem S, Abdelaziz A, Zobaa A (2018) Practical consid-
erations for optimal conductor reinforcement and hosting capac-
ity enhancement in radial distribution systems. IEEE Access
6:27268–27277
Kaur A, Jain S, Goel S (2020) Sandpiper optimization algorithm: a
novel approach for solving real-life engineering problems. Appl
Intell 50:582–619
Khokhar B, Dahlya S, Singh Parmar KP (2021) A novel hybrid fuzzy
PD-TID controller for load frequency control of a standalone
microgrid. Arab J Sci Eng 46:1053–1065
Khorami E, Babaei FM, Azadeh A (2021) Optimal diagnosis of
COVID-19 based on convolutional neural network and red fox
optimization algorithm. Comput Intell Neurosci. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1155/​2021/​44545​07
Kler D, Kumar V, Rana KPS (2019) Optimal integral minus propor-
tional derivative controller design by evolutionary algorithm for
thermal-renewable energy-hybrid power systems. IET Renew
Power Gener 13(11):2000–2012
Majdar RS, Ghassemian H (2021) Spectral-spatial classification
fusion for hyperspectral images in the probabilistic framework
via arithmetic optimization algorithm. Int J Image Data Fusion.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​19479​832.​2021.​20010​51
Mirjalili S, Gandomi AH, Mirjalili SZ, Saremi S, Faris H, Mirjalili
SM (2017) Salp swarm algorithm: a bio-inspired optimizer for
engineering design problems. Adv Eng Softw 114:163–191
Mohammedzadeh A, Rathinasamy S (2020) Energy management in
photovoltaic battery hybrid systems: a novel type-2 fuzzy con-
trol. Int J Hydrog Energy 45:20970–20982
Mohammedzadeh A, Sabzalian MH, Zhang W (2020) An interval
type-3 fuzzy system and a new online fractional-order learn-
ing algorithm: theory and practice. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst
28(9):1940–1950
Mohanty B, Panda S, Hota PK (2014) Controller parameters tuning
of differential evolution algorithm and its application to load
frequency control of multi-source power system. Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 54:77–85
Mosavi A, Qasem SN, Shokri M, Band SS, Mohammedzadeh A
(2020) Fractional-order fuzzy control approach for photovoltaic/
battery systems under unknown dynamics, variable irradiation
and temperature. Electronics 9(255):1–19
Naik A, Satapathy SC (2021) Past present future: a new human-
based algorithm for stochastic optimization. Soft Comput
25:12915–12976
Özdemir MT, Öztürk D, Eke İ, Çelik V, Lee KY (2015) Tuning of
optimal classical and fractional order PID parameters for auto-
matic generation control based on the bacterial swarm optimiza-
tion. IFAC-Papers OnLine 48(30):501–506
Öztürk N, Çelik E (2012) Speed control of permanent magnet syn-
chronous motors using fuzzy controller based on genetic algo-
rithms. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 43(1):889–898
Padhy S, Panda S (2017) A hybrid stochastic fractal search and
pattern search technique based cascade PI-PD controller for
automatic generation control of multi-source power systems in
presence of plug in electric vehicles. CAAI Trans Intell Technol
2:12–25
Polap D (2020) An adaptive genetic algorithm as a supporting mecha-
nism for microscopy image analysis in a cascade of convolution
neural networks. Appl Soft Comput 97(B):106824
Polap D, Woźniak M (2021) Red fox optimization algorithm. Expert
Syst Appl 166:114107
Rahman A, Saikia LC, Sinha N (2016) AGC of dish-Stirling solar ther-
mal integrated thermal system with biogeography based optimised
three degree of freedom PID controller. IET Renew Power Gener
10(8):1161–1170
Rajesh KS, Dash SS (2019) Load frequency control of autonomous
power system using adaptive fuzzy based PID controller opti-
mized on improved sine cosine algorithm. J Ambient Intell Hum
Comput 10:2361–2373
Rajesh KS, Dash SS, Rajagopal R (2019) Hybrid improved firefly-
pattern search optimized fuzzy aided PID controller for automatic
13
 E. Çelik
generation control of power systems with multi-type generations.
Swarm Evol Comput 44:200–211
Ravikumar S, Kavitha D (2021) IOT based autonomous car driver
scheme based on ANFIS and black widow optimization. J Ambient
Intell Hum Comput. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12652-​020-​02725-1
Reddy YVK, Reddy MD (2018) Solving economic load dispatch
problem with multiple fuels using teaching learning based opti-
mization and salp swarm algorithm. J Intell Syst Theory Appl
1(1):5–15
Rosaline AD, Somarajan UK (2019) Structured H-infinity controller
for an uncertain deregulated power system. IEEE Trans Ind Appl
55(1):892–906
Sabzalian MH, Mohammedzadeh A, Lin S, Zhang W (2019) Robust
fuzzy control for fractional-order systems with estimated fraction-
order. Nonlinear Dyn 98:2375–2385
Sahu BK, Pati S, Panda S (2014) Hybrid differential evolution particle
swarm optimization optimised fuzzy proportional integral deriva-
tive controller for automatic generation control of interconnected
power system. IET Gener Transm Distrib 8(11):1789–1800
Sahu RK, Panda S, Padhan S (2015) A hybrid firefly algorithm and
pattern search technique for automatic generation control of multi
area power systems. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 64:9–23
Saikia LC, Mishra S, Sinha N, Nanda J (2011) Automatic generation
control of a multi area hydrothermal system using reinforced
learning neural network controller. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
33(4):1101–1108
Satapathy P, Debnath MK, Mohanty MK (2018) Design of PD-PID
controller with double derivative filter for frequency regulation.
In: IEEE international conference on power electronics, intelligent
control and energy systems, pp 1142–1147
Sharma D, Mishra S (2019) Non-linear disturbance observer-based
improved frequency and tie-line power control of modern
interconnected power systems. IET Gener Transm Distrib
13(16):3564–3573
Singh SP, Prakash T, Singh VP, Babu MG (2017) Analytic hierar-
chy process based automatic generation control of multi-area
13
interconnected power system using jaya algorithm. Eng Appl
Artif Intell 60(2):35–44
Sivalingam R, Chinnamuthu S, Dash SS (2017) A hybrid stochastic
fractal search and local unimodal sampling based multistage PDF
plus (1+PI) controller for automatic generation control of power
systems. J Frankl Inst 354:4762–4783
Tasnin W, Saikia LC (2018) Maiden application of an sine-cosine algo-
rithm optimised FO cascade controller in automatic generation
control of multi-area thermal system incorporating dish-stirling
solar and geothermal power plants. IET Renew Power Gener
12(5):585–597
Tasnin W, Saikia LC, Raju M (2018) Deregulated AGC of multi-area
system incorporating dish-stirling solar thermal and geothermal
power plants using fractional order cascade controller. Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 101:60–74
Wolpert DH, Macready WG (1997) No free lunch theorems for opti-
mization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1(1):67–82
Xi L, Zhou L, Liu L, Duan D, Xu Y, Yang L, Wang S (2020) A deep
reinforcement learning algorithm for the order optimization allo-
cation of total power in the interconnected power grids. CSEE J
Power Energy Syst 6(3):712–723
Yılmaz ZY, Bal G, Çelik E, Öztürk N, Güvenç U, Arya Y (2021)
A new objective function design for optimization of second-
ary controllers in load frequency control. J Fac Eng Archit Gaz
36(4):2053–2067
Zhiheng W, Jianhua L (2021) Flamingo search algorithm: a new swarm
intelligence optimization algorithm. IEEE Access 9:88564–88582
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.