ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

ISA Transactions
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/isatrans

Research article

Performance evolution of different controllers for frequency regulation

of a hybrid energy power system employing chaotic crow search
algorithm
∗
Dipayan Guha a , , Provas Kumar Roy b , Subrata Banerjee c
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad, India
b
Department of Electrical Engineering, Kalyani Government Engineering College, India
c
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Durgapur, India

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: The work described herein compares the performance of different optimized controllers, viz.
Received 20 February 2020 proportional–integral, proportional–integral–derivative (PID) with filter, two-degree-of-freedom
Received in revised form 13 March 2021 (2DOF)-PID, 3DOF-PID, fractional-order-PID, cascade PI–PID, tilt-integral–derivative (TID), and cascade-
Accepted 13 March 2021
TID (CC-TID) controllers in frequency regulation of a hybrid energy distributed power system (HEDPS).
Available online 16 March 2021
The HEDPS is integrated with a multi-unit hydrothermal power plant for ensuring stable power supply.
Keywords: Crow search algorithm has been adopted with chaotic mapping (CCSA) for fine-tuning of the controller
Hybrid distributed power system settings mentioned above. Extensive analysis has been presented to confirm the superiority of the CC-
Frequency regulation TID controller compared to other prevalent controllers of state-of-art in terms of different performance
Cascade non-integer controller specifications. The tuning competence of the CCSA has been demonstrated over conventional CSA
Optimization techniques
and other available optimization techniques. To enhance the mastery of the controller, disturbance-
Robustness
observer (Dob) is developed to estimate fast-changing disturbance profiles and subsequently refines
the control law. The controller’s robustness is affirmed under random perturbations, presence of
nonlinearities, and variation of parameters. The effect of integration of a geothermal power plant
on the system performance has also been outlined. The efficacy of Dob-aided CC-TID controller in
frequency regulation is validated thereof.
© 2021 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction load frequency control (LFC) technique is highly appreciable for

Owing to the rapid depletion of fossil fuel reserves (i.e., coal
and oil), renewable energy resources (RERs) have turned out
to be one of the most vital sources for matching ever-rising
load demand in the current world energy scenario [1]. Global
warming challenges also encourage the energy policy designers to
continue the research in this area. With an extensive integration
of different RERs into the modern power system, some concerns
and restrictions on system’s stability, security, operation, and
control have emerged [2]. Wind turbine generator (WTG) is highly
reliable, efficient, and economical compared to other RERs. The
intermittent power output of WTG poses stress on the operation
and control of the power system, and stability of the system
(frequency can be an indicator) becomes questionable. Thus to
preserve the stability of a RERs integrated power system against
load perturbation and uncertain wind speed, regulation of fre-
quency is needed [1,3,4]. In this context, the design of resilient
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dipayan@mnnit.ac.in (D. Guha).
modern interconnected power systems.
LFC regulates the area frequency by maintaining generation
with load demand such that frequency deviation stays within pre-
specified bounds. Various control techniques have been discussed
in the state-of-art for power-frequency regulation following load
variation and uncertain RERs outputs. The proportional–integral–
derivative (PID) or its other counterparts are widely acceptable
because of several practical advantages [5]. The frequency control
of a wind-diesel hybrid system with the classical PI/PID con-
troller, optimized utilizing particle swarm optimization (PSO),
and genetic algorithm (GA), is discussed in [1]. In [6–11], PI/PID
controllers have been utilized to study isolated and intercon-
nected power systems’ performances. PIDA (PID and acceleration)
controlled multi-area power plant is presented in [12]. Several
optimization algorithms, e.g., harmony search algorithm (HSA),
teaching learning-based optimization (TLBO), and sine–cosine al-
gorithm (SCA), were adopted to tune controller settings. PID
plus double-derivative (PID+DD) controller, tuned by multi-verse
algorithm, is applied to a complex integrated power system for
frequency regulation [13]. In [14], optimal control theory was

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2021.03.017
0019-0578/© 2021 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee
discussed for monitoring the active power level of coordinated
micro-grid units. Though a considerable enhancement in the out-
put has been attained with the optimal controller, its perfor-
mance degrades with an increase of parameter uncertainties and
plant nonlinearities.
Traditional controllers’ performance deteriorates with an in-
crease of nonlinearities and suffering from low disturbance re-
jection ability. Moreover, the classical controller takes counter
measures against disturbances only when control variable devi-
ates from reference level. The disturbance rejection ability can
be improved with higher degree-of-freedom (DOF) controllers.
A 2DOF-PID controller was applied to regulate the frequency
of power system in [15–17]. A 2DOF state feedback controller
optimized by PSO is outlined in [18]. The frequency control of
a HEDPS with a 3DOF-PID controller, optimized by dragonfly
algorithm, was discussed in [19]. In [19], the dynamic stabil-
ity of HEDPS was only investigated with reheat thermal power
unit. 3DOF integral–derivative (3DOF-ID) controller, optimized by
biogeography-based optimization, is used as an LFC of a deregu-
lated hydrothermal power plant [20]. The control action of inte-
gral, PI, integral–derivative (ID), and PID for hybrid power sys-
tems has been demonstrated in [21]. Dash et al. have used a
flower pollination algorithm (FPA) to optimize cascade PI-PD con-
troller gains and establish the controllers’ supremacy over inte-
gral, PI, and PID controllers [22]. Researchers in this area have also
studied intelligent controllers’ efficacy, e.g., fuzzy-aided controller
(FLC), neural network (NN), etc., for frequency control of power
systems. Fuzzy-based PID (FPID) controller with the derivative
filter is applied in [23] for minimizing power-frequency deviation
of interconnected power systems. Adaptive FPID controller with
modified whale optimization algorithm (WOA) was introduced
in [24] for frequency regulation of an autonomous power genera-
tion unit. NN-based LFC of power systems is discussed in [25,26].
However, FLC and NN design for higher-order power systems is
not straightforward and requires prior initialization of some input
parameters.
Lately, fractional-order calculus (FOC) has been used with
an integral-order controller to improve design flexibility (in-
creases DOF) and system performances. Sine cosine optimized
non-integer cascade controller is applied to minimize power-
frequency oscillations following plant disturbances [27,28]. Sax-
ena [29] proposed a fractional-order (FO) internal model control
(IMC) to single- and two-area power systems. Morsali et al. [30]
have used FOPID controller to design a thyristor control series
capacitor (TCSC) based damping compensator with LFC to miti-
gate electromechanical oscillations. The controllers’ performance
is examined for a conventional multi-source power plant with
system inherent nonlinearities. In [31], a non-integer fuzzy-based
PID controller is applied to regulate frequency of an intercon-
nected multi-source (restructured environment) power system.
However, the consequences of RERs transient have not been
evaluated in the above references.
Tilt-integral–derivative (TID) controller is a new variant of
PID-controller proposed by Lurie [32]. It takes the benefits of
both FOC and PID controller. Unlike the PID controller, the pro-
( )1
portional gain in TID has fractional power, i.e., kp n , where
n is the tilt factor. This increases the degree of PID controller,
which results in improved tracking and disturbance mitigation
ability of the PID controller [32,33]. Topno and Chanana [34] have
shown the effectiveness of TID controller over PID controller. The
study was shown for a two-area thermal power plant. In [35,36],
TID controller with a derivative filter was employed for power-
frequency regulation. The effectiveness of integral-tilt-derivative
(I-TD) controller over PID and TID controllers is shown in [37]
by performing an extensive comparative analysis. The perfor-
mance of cascade fuzzy-aided fractional-order controller has been
129
ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146
studied and compared with its other counterparts in [38,39].
However, the effects of the integration of RERs are not outlined
in the above references. The literature review in this area reveal
that the number of works on the TID and cascade controller has
been individually done. However, a small effort is given to the
study of cascade TID (CC-TID) controller effectiveness in LFC area.
Moreover, performance of the CC-TID controller for RERs inte-
grated power system is yet to be explored. Beside these, adaptive
control [40–42], robust control [43], sliding mode control [44,45],
etc. are reported in the state-of-art.
Besides the above control strategies, LFC performance is also
reliant on the proper selection of its parameters. Lately, different
evolutionary algorithms (EAs), such as binary bat algorithm [8],
whale optimization technique (WOT) [9,46], differential evolu-
tion [15], sine–cosine optimization [27,28], salp swarm algo-
rithm [33], water cycle algorithm (WCA) [37], particle swarm op-
timization (PSO) [47,48], hybrid firefly optimization method [49],
hybrid DE and harmony search algorithm [50], genetic algo-
rithm [51], etc. are utilized to explore a feasible and straightfor-
ward optimum outcomes of LFC. Crow search algorithm (CSA) is a
recently derived powerful EA based on crow’s intelligent behavior
while hiding their excess foods [52]. The merits of CSA are (i) ease
to implement, (ii) computationally less expensive. In [53–56], the
success of CSA as a powerful optimization tool is demonstrated.
However, the local optima entrapment and slow convergence
rate are two problems that the original CSA faces. In the present
work, to accelerate convergence mobility, chaotic mapping is
done with original CSA, which results in chaotic CSA (CCSA). The
tuning competence of CCSA in obtaining near-optimum solutions
to optimization problems has been established in [57–59]. In CSA,
awareness probability (AP) balances the exploration and exploita-
tion phases. To derive the best outputs, AP is also updated. To the
best knowledge of authors, the effectiveness of CCSA has not been
examined for hybrid power systems (HPSs) yet.
The disturbance rejection ability of conventional controllers
can be enhanced by adopting the cascade control strategy and/or
knowing disturbance profiles beforehand. Since direct measure-
ment of disturbance is not straightforward, disturbance observer
(Dob) can estimate fast-changing disturbances and incorporate
knowledge to refine controller performance. In [33], the efficacy
of CC-TID controller over its other counterparts was discussed,
but the competency of CC-TID controller for RERs integrated
HPS is yet to explored. In [27,28], authors have studied impact
of geothermal power plant (GTPP) on the dynamic stability of
thermal power plant. Nevertheless, in real time scenario, a control
unit may comprise both thermal and hydro units. In line with this
discussion, the contributions to the present work are hereunder:
• To carry out the investigation, a HEDPS coordinated with
hydrothermal and GTPP has been mathematically modeled
(pole-zero form). The system inherent nonlinearities (GRC
& GDB) are also included in the modeled to observe their
consequences on the dynamic stability of the test system.
• Extensive comparative analysis has been carried among
classical controllers, multi-loop controllers, and non-integer
controllers to underline their mastery in compensating
power-frequency oscillations following load and uncertain
wind power disturbances.
• To enrich the controller effectiveness, a disturbance ob-
server has been developed to estimate fast changes in wind
power output and subsequently incorporated this estima-
tion into control law for further refinement.
• CSA housing with chaotic mapping (CCSA) has been derived
and applied to obtain near-optimum gains of the studied
controllers, and accelerate CSA convergence mobility.
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee
2. Modeling of HEDPS
The linearized model (pole-zero form) of HEDPS connected
with a hydrothermal power unit is developed in this section to
investigate its dynamic behavior against continuous load varia-
tion and uncertain wind power perturbation. HEDPS consists of
WTG, aqua-electrolyzer (AE), fuel-cell (FC), diesel engine genera-
tor (DEG), and battery energy storage system (BESS). The control
area’s power rating is 2000 MW with loading of 50%, and the
same for the WTG and GTPP is 3.5 MW and 100 MW, respec-
tively. The studied test system’s various parameters are adopted
from [19,60] and presented in Appendix A. The rationalized model
of HEDPS is illustrated in Fig. 1. The thermal unit includes reheat
turbine with generation rate constraint (GRC) of 3%/min and
speed governor dead-band (GDB). The hydro plant is modeled
with an electrical governor [60,61]. The performance of HEDPS
is assessed with and without GTPP. From Fig. 1, the incremental
change in total power (∆Ptotal ) is calculated as
∆PTotal = ∆PTh + ∆Phy + ∆PGTPP + ∆PDG − ∆PD
where ∆PTh , ∆PHy , ∆PGTPP , and ∆PDG are the incremental changes
in thermal, hydro, GTPP, and DGs output power in pu, in order;
∆PD is the load disturbance in pu. The components involve in the
right side of Eq. (1) are briefly discussed in the ensuing section.
In Fig. 1, Tsg , Tt are the time constants of governor and steam
turbine, in order, of thermal unit; Kps , Tps are the power system’s
gain and time-constant, respectively; R is governor speed regu-
lation parameter; ∆f is the frequency deviation; KP , KI , KD are
the proportional, integral, and derivative gains of hydro-electric
governor, in order; Tw is water column time constant. In Fig. 1,
GTh (s) , GHy (s), and GGTPP (s) are the T.F. of thermal, hydro, and
GTPP, respectively, and defined in Eqs. (2)–(3). The frequency
deviation subjected to ∆Pd can be calculated from Eq. (4).
KD s2 + KP s + KI (1 − sTw )
( ) ⎫
GHy (s) = (
⎪
⎪
KD s2 + KP + R s + KI (1 + 0.5sTw )
f
( ) ) ⎪
⎬
1 electric power production. AE takes a portion (1 − β) of electrical
GGTPP (s) = (
⎪
⎪
)( ) ⎪
⎭
1 + sTG,sg 1 + sTG,t
(−0.2/π s + 0.8) (1 + sKr Tr )
GTh (s) = (
1 + sTsg (1 + sTt ) (1 + sTr )
)
∆f
[( ) ]
Kps
u− G (s) + ∆PDG − ∆PD = ∆f
R 1 + sTps
∆PDG = ([GDEG (s) + GFC (s) − GAE (s) − GBESS (s)] u + GWTG (s)
{× ∆PWP )
u = Gc (s) [∆PDG + ∆f ]
where,
G (s) = GTh (s) + GHy (s) + GGTPP (s)
where Gc (s) is the controller T.F.
2.1. Geothermal power plant (GTPP)
Geothermal power can be considered as a potential and reli-
able resource for electric power generation. The operation cycles
in GTPP follows the fundamental thermodynamics rules. The
behavior of GTPP is analogous to a non-reheat thermal power
system except for a boiler in reheating [27,28]. As used in the
present work, Eq. (5) presents the T.F. of governor and turbine of
GTPP.
GGTPP ,sg (s) = 1/ 1 + sTG,sg
( )}
GGTPP ,t (s) = 1/ 1 + sTG,t
( )
where TG,sg and TG,t are the GTPP’s time constant of governor and
turbine, in order. The governor time-constant is set as 0.1 s, while
turbine time-constant is optimally chosen between (0.1 s,0.5 s) by
using CCSA [28]. After optimization, it is set as 0.1283 s.
ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146
2.2. Wind turbine generator (WTG)
The kinetic energy of wind is transformed into mechanical
energy (Pmech ) through a wind turbine, and this power is further
converted into electrical energy (Pelect ) via the turbine-generator
shaft. The mechanical power is directly proportional to the cube
of wind velocity [19]. In this work, a linearized first-order time-
lag model of WTG has been taken from [19,62] and shown in
Eq. (6).
∆Pelect KWTG
GWTG (s) = = (6)
∆Pmech 1 + sTWTG
where KWTG & TWTG are the WTG’s gain and time constant, respec-
tively; ‘‘∆’’ shows the variation of respective power.
2.3. Diesel engine generator (DEG)
(1) The power generated from WTG is distraught. Thus, a standby
generator must be included in the HEDPS model, especially when
working in islanded mode. The research in this area exploits that
DEG is the most reliable standby power generator for continuous
and stable power supply to the loads [62]. A simple first-order T.F.
has been considered for analysis and defined in Eq. (7). Since DEG
cannot respond instantaneously, a delayed term is introduced in
Eq. (7).
KDEG
GDEG (s) = e−sτD ∵ τD = delay time (7)
1 + sTDEG
where KDEG & TDEG are the DEG’s gain and time constant, respec-
tively. The value of τD used in the study is 6.25 ms.
2.4. Aqua-electrolyzer (AE) and Fuel-cell (FC)
Hydrogen is one of the useful alternative energy resources for
(2)
energy from the WTG to decompose the water molecules to
produce hydrogen gas (chemical energy), which is further used
(3) in the FC to generate electrical energy. Due to low pollution,
high flexibility, and high conversion efficiency, FCs are consid-
ered as essential resources in HEDPS. Avoiding nonlinearities, the
⎫
⎪
⎪ rationalized form AE and FC are defined as [62]
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎫
KAE
⎬
GAE (s) =
⎪
⎪
1 + sTAE
⎬
(8)
⎪
⎪
KFC ⎪
⎪
⎪
GFC (s) =
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎭ ⎭
1 + sTFC
(4) where KAE & KFC are the gain of AE and FC, in order; TAE & TFC
are the time constant of AE and FC, in order. The value of β is
considered as 0.6.
2.5. Battery energy storage system (BESS)
Maintaining consistent performance of HEDPS against the in-
termitted outputs of RERs, especially in the peak demand period,
different energy storage units (ESUs) are integrated into HEDPS
(viz. battery energy storage, superconducting magnetic energy
storage, etc.). BESS further helps to: (i) maintain good coordina-
tion among the different generators, (ii) minimize the operating
(5) cost, and (iii) increase the stability margin. The BESS consists
of a bank of DC batteries (chemical energy to electrical energy
and vice-versa) connected to the AC unit via power electronics
converters. It stores and releases the DC and AC power, respec-
tively, to the grid as per the requirement. Besides improving the
power system’s dynamic stability, it also enhances load leveling,
130
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146

Fig. 1. Rationalized model of HEDPS model.

harmonic cancellations, and voltage control, etc. [19]. The T.F. where kp , ki , and kd are the proportional, integral, and derivative
model of BESS can be expressed as [19,62] parameters, in order.
KBESS
GBESS (s) = (9) 3.2. Controller degrees-of-freedom
1 + sTBESS
In (9), KBESS & TBESS are the BESS’s gain and time constant, in order. The degree-of-freedom (DOF) defines in terms of the number
of closed-loop T.F is adjusted separately. The 2DOF-controller of-
3. Controller structure fers controlled output based on the difference between set-point
and measured controlled output. Fig. 2(a) depicts the general
3.1. PI- and PIDF-controllers structure of a 2DOF-controller, where R(s), Y(s), N(s), and D(s)
are the set-point, measurement signal, sensor noise, and process
PI-controller is often used in real-time practice when a fast
disturbance, respectively; Gp (s) is the T.F. of the plant; GR (s) acts
response is not required, sizeable time-lag present in the system,
as a pre-filter to the input signal; Gc (s) shows the T.F. of single
and the system experiencing large perturbation. The inclusion of
DOF controller. The T.F. of GR (s) and Gc (s) is calculated as
derivative action with PI-controller enhances stability and makes
the response faster. However, if there is a sharp change in the U (s) ⎫
reference input, the control signal involves an impulse that may GR (s) = ⎪
(R (s)
⎪
⎪
⎪
lead to the controller’s wear and tear. Moreover, the derivative ⎪
kp PW + kd DW ∗ λ s + kp PW ∗ λ + ki s + ki λ ⎬
) 2 ( ) ⎪
term directly amplifies the noise signal causes undesirable control =
input to the plant (actuator saturation). A first-order low-pass
) s2 (s +( λ)
⎪
⎪
U (s) kp + kd λ s + kp λ + ki s + ki λ
( )
filter is connected with derivative term, as depicted in Fig. 2, to al-
⎪
⎪
Gc (s) =
⎪
=
⎪
leviate the effects of high-frequency noise. The cut-off frequency ⎭
Y (s) s (s + λ)
(or pole) of the filter (λ) is appropriately (or optimally) selected
so that these high-frequency oscillations actively compensated. (11)
This also controls random fluctuations of the controller output.
The model of 2DOF-PID controller is depicted in Fig. 2(b), which
The T.F. of a PID-controller with derivative filter (PIDF) is defined
includes set-point weighting on the proportional (PW) and deriva-
in Eq. Eq. (10) [15].
tive (DW) actions. A 2DOF-PID controller is compatible to (i) quick
s2 kp + kd λ + s kp λ + ki + ki λ
( ) ( )
mitigation of process disturbances without excessive increase of
Gc (s) = (10) peak overshoot, (ii) make controller insensitive to changes in
s (s + λ)
131
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee
Fig. 2. (a) Block diagram of 2DOF controller, (b) T.F. model of 2DOF-PID controller, (c) block diagram of 3DOF-PID controller.
reference input. Unlike 2DOF-controller, it is assumed in 3DOF-
controller that direct measurement of disturbance signal is pos-
sible, which further helps to attenuate the system oscillations
against external disturbances. Fig. 2(c) depicts 3DOF-PID con-
troller model, where kff is the feed-forward gain [19].
3.3. Cascade tilt-integral–derivative (CC-TID) controller
Cascade/multi-loop controller improves reference input track-
ing and disturbance mitigation ability of closed-loop control
systems. Unlike traditional controllers, it includes the ‘primary
or outer-loop’ and ‘secondary or inner-loop’. Inner-loop reacts
quickly compared to outer-loop to reject the disturbances before
it transmitted to subsequent sections of the plant. The advan-
tages of the multi-loop controller are discussed over single-loop
controller in [22,33]. Fig. 3(a) represents the block diagram of
multi-loop control system. The system output is obtained as
Gp2
C (s) = − D (s)
1 + Gp1 Gc2 + Gp1 Gp2 Gc1 Gc2
Gp1 Gp2 Gc1 Gc2
+ R (s)
1 + Gp1 Gc2 + Gp1 Gp2 Gc1 Gc2
where Gc1 (s) and Gc2 (s) are the T.F. of primary and secondary
controllers, respectively. In the studied cascade PI–PID (CC-PI–
PID), the PI and PID are considered as an outer-loop and inner-
loop controllers, respectively.
Fractional-order controller (FOC) is gaining importance due
to its numerous advantages, e.g., high flexibility, the capability
to provide better system dynamics, the ability to tackle system
constraints and nonlinearities, etc. The efficacy of FOC over inte-
gral order (IO) controllers in frequency control is shown in [63–
65]. The FOPID-controller is the advanced form of IO-PID con-
troller with two extra tuning parameters, as shown in Eq. (13). In
Eq. (13), β and µ are fractional-power of integral and derivative
modes, respectively. In this work, only the fractional power of
ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146
integrator is considered. The value of ‘β ’ in Eq. (13) is optimally
chosen between (0,1) by applying CCSA [65].
ki
Gc (s) = kp + + k d sµ (13)
sβ
Fig. 3(b) depicts the model of a TID-controller. The T.F. of TID-
controller considered in the present work is defined in Eq. (14).
As given in [33], the value of ‘‘n’’ is optimized between (2,10).
1 ki sλ
Gc2 (s) = kp s− n + + kd (14)
s s+λ
In this work, a cascade TID (CC-TID) controller is designed to
regulate the frequency of HEDPS, where TID and PI controllers are
utilized as an inner-loop (or secondary) and outer-loop (or pri-
mary) controllers, in order. Fig. 3(c) presents the schematic model
of the proposed regulatory control approach to study the power-
frequency instability problem of HEDPS. The near-optimum gains
of the inspected controllers are explored by applying CCSA, exer-
cising an integral error-based objective function.
(12)
4. Chaotic crow search algorithm (CCSA)
The CSA, derived by Askarzadeh [52], is explored as an opti-
mizer to find the near-optimum gain of the controllers discussed
in Section 3. CSA imitates the intelligent behavior of crows while
hiding their food in nature. The salient features of CSA are
• crows live in flock form
• crows remember food hiding places (considered as a global
optimal point)
• crows tracks others while doing thievery
• crows probabilistically defend their catches while approach-
ing the food location
132
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146

Fig. 3. Block diagram of (a) multi-loop PI–PID controller, (b) TID-controller, (c) block diagram of proposed control method.

4.1. Mathematical model of CSA 4.2. CSA applied for optimizing controller gains

Let the position of ith crow at any iteration (iter ) in the search The controller optimization procedure employing CSA is dis-
cussed hereunder.
domain (dim) is defined as
i,iter i,iter i,iter Step 1 Initializing the input control settings, such as flock size,
popi,iter = pop1 ...
[ ]
pop2 popD (15)
dimension of control parameters, highest generation
where i = 1, 2, . . . , N max ; iter = 1, 2, . . . , iter max ; N max is no. count, awareness probability (AP), and flight length (fl).
of flocks (population size); iter max represents maximum iteration Step 2 Randomly initializing the crows, i.e., controller settings,
number; dim defines the control variable. The crows store infor- applying the pseudo-code
mation of food hiding places in the memory and selected as a for i = 1 : N max
global best location computed by the ith crow. In lth iteration,
for j = 1 : dim
ith & jth crows approach the hiding place simulated as ( )
pop = dimlower +rand ∗ dimupper − dimlower ;
Step 1. Suppose jth crow is not aware whether ith crow is fol-
lowing or not. Eq. (16) can be applied to update the for − loop end
location of ith crow in search domain.
( ) for − loop end
j,l
popi,(l+1) = popi,l + ri ∗ fli,l ∗ popbest − popi,l (16) Stores the controller parameters as
X (1) = ki , X (2) = kp PI-controller
}
where ri is uniformly generated random number be-
tween (0, 1); fli,l indicates flight length of ith crow; X (3) = ki , X (4) = kp , X (5) = kd
}
popbest j,l is the best position of jth crow obtained at lth X (6) = N , X (7) = n
TID-controller
iteration, fl is flight length for controlling search ability of ( )
CSA. Low value of fl offers local search and higher value Step 3 Calculating the minimum fitness value foodold by using
yields global search ability of CSA. Eq. (20). To calculate Eq. (20), following steps have been
Step 2. If jth crow knows ith crow is following, it fool ith crow by performed.
randomly changing location in the search space by using
Step 3.1: Defining the system parameters as presented in
Eq. (17).
Appendix A.
popi,(l+1) = dimlower − dimupper − dimlower ∗ rand Step 3.2: Calculating the T.F. of the blocks presented in Fig. 1
( )
(17)
by using Eqs. (2)–(10).
In (17), dimlower and dimupper are the extreme limits of Step 3.3: Apply boundary constraints to confirm generated
search domain. solutions lie within the defined search domain.
133
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146

Step 4 Generating random crows in the search space for chasing significantly improves the speed of system responses with mini-
other crows by using mum settling time in comparison to other integral criteria of the
state-of-art [61].
X1 = ceil np ∗ rand 1, N max
( ( ))
∫ T
where ceil rounds the solution near to positive integer. J = |(∆fi )| ∗ t ∗ dt where, i = 1, 2 (20)
Step 5 Update the position of crows, i.e., controller settings, 0

utilizing the following pseudo codes. where i is number of control area; ∆fi shows frequency deviation
max in ith-control area.
for i = 1 : N
Besides the appropriate choice of objective function, the con-
if r1 > AP troller’s mastery depend on the range of controller settings. In
popnew (i, : ) = pop (i, : ) + fl ∗ rand most cases, small controller gain slow down the system out-
{

∗ (popbest (pop1 (i) , : ) − pop (i, : )) ;

put and large value yields high peak oscillations even causes
instability. After having different trails, the controller parame-
else
⎧ ters are selected between (−2, +1), and filter gain is chosen
for j = 1 : dim
⎪
⎨ between (0, 200) [66]. The empirical study for selecting the range
popnew (i, j) = dimlower + dimupper − dimlower ∗ rand;
( )
of controller gains is presented in Appendix B.
⎪
⎩
end
5. Results and discussion
end
end Initially, the performance of islanded HEDPS with CCSA opti-
mized controllers is investigated against constant load and wind
where r1 [∈ (0, 1)] is a random number.
power disturbances. In the second phase of the study, the dy-
Step 6 Calculating the minimum fitness value (foodnew ) for the
namic behavior of multi-unit HEDPS in interconnected mode is
newly generated solutions using Step 3.
demonstrated by performing time-domain analysis. The simu-
Step 7 Update crows position and memory by using following
lations are performed on an Intel Core i7 processor with 6 GB
pseudo codes.
RAM (2.4 GHz) and MATLAB 2013a simulation domain. The best
for⎧i = 1 : N max obtained outputs are marked with bold faces in the respective
new new
⎪if pop (i, : ) >= min & pop (i, : ) <= max
⎪ heads.
pop (i, : ) = popnew (i, : ) ; [position update]
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
new
5.1. Selection of CSA input parameters
⎨ if food (i) < food (i)
old
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
popbest (i, : ) = popnew (i, : ) ; [memory update] Since the performance of CSA is guided by its input con-
⎪ foodold (i) = foodnew (i)
⎪
⎪ trol parameters AP and fl, the authors have performed an em-
pirical study to select the appropriate value of AP and fl. A
⎪
⎪
⎪
end
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ PIDF-controlled islanded HEDPS has been considered to carry out
this analysis. Table 1 provides controller gains, minimum fitness
⎪
end
⎩
value, settling time (ST), and maximum overshoot (OS) of ∆f
end for different AP and fl. The variation of frequency is shown in
Fig. 4(a)–(b). The presented results reveal that the best output
Step 8 Continuing Step 5 to Step 8 unless the termination crite-
in terms of ST and minimum fitness value is derived with AP =
rion is met.
0.15 and fl = 3. Therefore, the remaining analysis of the paper is
carried with these input control values. The population count and
4.3. Chaotic CSA (CCSA)
maximum iteration numbers considered for the study are 40 and
100, in order.
As defined in Eq. (18), sinusoidal chaotic behavior is mapped
into CSA to escape local solutions and accelerates the conver- 5.2. Comparative study among different controllers
gence rate. Chaotic mapping in CSA provides (i) quasi stochastic
mechanism, (ii) sensitivity against initial condition, and (iii) er- In this section, an extensive comparative study among classical
godicity [66]. The random variable used in the original CSA for controllers (PI and PIDF), cascade PI–PID (CC-PI–PID) controller,
updating individual crow’s position is given in Eq. (19). FOPID controller, TID controller, and CC-TID controller has been
pq+1 = 2.3p2q sin π pq
( )
(18) performed. The closed-loop stability of HEDPS with GDB non-
linearity is inspected against 1% SLP and constant wind power
i,l i,l j,k i,k
pop + C (i) × fl if , C (j) ≥ AP i,k
{ ( )
popbest −x perturbation (0.01 pu). The proposed CCSA is applied to ex-
popi,(l+1) =
Randomly update otherwise plore optimum controller settings separately, and finally, results
(19) are presented in Table 2. The objective function value calcu-
lated for the individual controller is also offered in Table 2. The
In (19), C (i) and C (j) are the chaotic maps calculated at ith convergence mobility of the studied controllers is illustrated in
and jth generations, respectively; q is index of chaotic pattern Fig. 4(c). It is noticed from Table 2 and Fig. 4(c) that the CC-TID
p; and pq is the qth number of chaotic pattern p. As revealed controller produces least minimum objective function value in
from the literature, besides selecting optimization techniques, a comparison to controllers presented in Table 2. The frequency
particular choice of objective functions is also a deciding attribute variation, change in DGs output power, and controller output
for good frequency regulation. The studied frequency regulation are obtained and compared in Fig. 5(a–c). The time–response
problem is framed as regulatory control optimization problem parameters are obtained from Fig. 5(a–c) and provided in Ta-
subjected to bounded constraints (controller parameters). Inte- ble 2. It is ocular from the obtained outputs that the responses
gral time absolute error (ITAE) type performance index given obtained with PI-controller and TID-controller are suffering from
in Eq. (20) is considered to optimize the controller gains. ITAE low damping. On the other hand, the CC-TID controller increases
134
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146

Fig. 4. Frequency deviation of islanded HEDPS for (a) different AP values, and (b) different fl values, (c) convergence characteristics of controllers.

Table 1
Empirical study for the selection of input parameters of CSA.
CSA input parameters Controller gains J ST OS
fl AP kp ki kd N
0.1 0.0733 0.2161 0.0154 146.278 0.0105 10.23 0.0132
0.15 0.4694 0.0809 0.0204 139.94 0.0077 7.76 0.1618
0.2 −0.0160 0.5483 0.0212 44.0397 0.0097 8.10 0.0214
3
0.25 0.1260 0.3741 0.0165 50.9389 0.0086 9.07 0.0178
0.3 −0.0853 0.6191 0.0484 38.8922 0.0138 13.76 0.0337
0.35 0.0361 0.0635 0.0664 21.4480 0.0121 13.11 0.0065
1 −0.0796 0.0640 −0.0936 8.8356 0.0208 15.21 0.0250
1.5 0.1065 0.1769 0.0271 197.9 0.0098 10.71 0.0103
2 0.1105 0.4297 0.0235 119.34 0.0078 8.34 0.0142
0.15
2.5 0.0368 0.4880 0.0030 141.138 0.0093 9.10 0.0210
3 0.4694 0.0809 0.0204 139.94 0.0077 7.76 0.1618
3.5 0.0753 0.3870 0.0074 100.41 0.0088 8.65 0.0193

Boldfaces show best results [ST: settling time; OS: overshoot].

damping in power-frequency oscillations and yields faster re-
sponse. The results, shown in Fig. 5(a–c) and Table 2, clearly
indicate the supremacy of CC-TID controller over its other coun-
terparts. Hence, in the subsequent section, the performance of
HEDPS is only studied with the CC-TID controller. The compu-
tation time (CT) of the algorithm for the individual cases is also
shown in Table 2.
5.3. Effect of GRC in the system dynamics
compared in Fig. 5(d). The controller settings tabulated in Table 2
are taken to carry out the simulation. The ST and OS of ∆f
are noted in Table 2. It is noteworthy from Fig. 5(d) (zoomed
view), CCSA: TID controller offers the output with minimum peak
overshoot, while CCSA: CC-TID controller makes the response
faster with the least settling time. However, the effect of aforesaid
physical constraints on the system output is visible from Fig. 5,
as the controlling capability becomes a bit sluggish.

To enumerate the success of the CCSA-tuned CC-TID con-
troller to countermeasure system nonlinearities, a GRC of 3%/min
(±0.0005) in the thermal power plant is considered in addition
to GDB and time-delay in DEG. The frequency deviation of CC-
TID controlled HEDPS with these nonlinearities is plotted and
135
5.4. Comparative study among different EAs
The tuning competence of the applied CCSA has been ap-
praised with the original CSA, PSO, DE, SSA, and KHA. To study
the performances, CC-TID controlled HEDPS is simulated. The
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146

Table 2
Optimum controller settings, minimum fitness value and transient measurements.
PI- PIDF- 2DOF-PID 3DOF-PID FOPID- CC-PI–PID TID- CC-TID controller
controller controller controller controller controller controller controller
Outer Inner Outer Inner
kp = 0.1829
kp = 0.1298
ki = 0.7845 kp = 0.1445 kp = 0.1388 kp = 0.1297
kp = 0.0809 ki = 0.7708 kp = 0.1424
kd = 0.0612 ki = 0.8178 ki = 0.9665 ki = 0.9979
kp = 0.0472 ki = 0.4694 kd = 0.0451 kp = 0.7472 ki = 0.7721 kp = 1.5743
N = 59.6189 kd = 0.0531 kd = 0.0500 kd = 0.0643
ki = 0.4377 kd = 0.0204 N = 79.9328 ki = 0.3766 kd = 0.0502 ki = 0.7347
PW = 0.0127 N = 74.7438 N = 99.5881 N = 190.5689
N = 139.94 PW = 0.0485 N = 123.1826
DW = 0.0913 β = 0.0273 n = 7.0589 n = 4.2280
DW = 0.0800
kff = 0.0658
J = 0.0094 J = 0.0077 J = 0.0057 J = 0.0053 J = 0.0052 J = 0.0054 J = 0.0059 J = 0.0050
CT = 232.2 s CT = 324.7 s CT = 419.82 s CT = 462.45 s CT = 423.83 s CT = 492.74 s CT = 355.61 s CT = 571.74 s
ST = 10.44 s ST = 7.76 s ST = 6.046 s ST = 5.94 s ST = 4.23 s ST = 6.16 s ST = 4.61 s ST = 3.95 s
OS = 0.2144 OS = 0.1618 OS = 0.1238 OS = 0.1128 OS = 0.1040 OS = 0.1072 OS = 0.2450 OS = 0.1099
With GRC (3%/min) in thermal area
ST = 20.45 ST = 14.5 ST = 14.15 ST = 11.18 ST = 10.64 ST = 13.77 ST = 12.79 ST = 10.32
OS = 0.6169 OS = 0.2139 OS = 0.1707 OS = 0.1032 OS = 0.1129 OS = 0.3476 OS = 0.0605 OS = 0.1637

Fig. 5. Comparative analysis among prevalent controllers of state-of-art, (a) changes in frequency, (b) changes in DGs output power, (c) control input, (d) frequency
deviation with GRC.

optimum gains explored after optimization employing CCSA, CSA,
PSO, DE, SSA, and KHA are appended in Table 3. The variations
of frequency and DGs output power with these optimized CC-
TID controllers are compared in Fig. 6 (a–b). The comparative
convergence characteristic of the studied optimization techniques
is shown in Fig. 6(c). The comparative investigation demonstrates
that the applied controller sufficiently increases damping and
speedily settles the power-frequency oscillations to its final value.
It is salient from Fig. 6(c) that CCSA quickly approaches optimal
global solution and provides the least minimum fitness value. This
concludes that the proposed CCSA has better tuning compatibility
than CSA and other EAs considered in this work.
136
5.5. Sensitivity study
Sensitivity study has been carried to evaluate the robust
closed-loop stability of CC-TID controlled test system. The per-
formance of CCSA: CC-TID controlled HEDPS considering GDB
and GRC nonlinearities are investigated after varying system
parameters, such as R, Tsg , Tr , and Tt in the range of ±50% in
step of 25% from the nominal value. The variation of frequency
is shown and compared in Fig. 6(d) with the output obtained
at nominal conditions. It is apparent from Fig. 6(d) that the ST,
despite different overshoots and undershoots of ∆f obtained after
varying parameters, is nearly the same as value calculated at
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146

Fig. 6. Comparative study among different EAs, (a) frequency deviation, (b) DGs output power variation, (c) convergence profiles, (d) sensitivity analysis (frequency
deviation).

Table 3
Comparative study among different optimization algorithms.
PSO: CC-TID DE: CC-TID KHA: CC-TID CSA: CC-TID CCSA: CC-TID
Outer Inner Outer Inner Outer Inner Outer Inner Outer Inner
kp = 0.2533 kp = 0.0913 kp = 0.1689 kp = 0.1514 kp = 0.1297
ki = 0.1419 ki = 0.4989 ki = 0.6016 ki = 0.7265 ki = 0.9979
kp = 0.9962 kp = 0.1535 kp = −0.7375 kp = −0.6970 kp = 0.5743
kd = −0.2228 kd = 0.0207 kd = 0.0448 kd = 0.0548 kd = 0.0643
ki = 0.9112 ki = 0.7563 ki = −0.1902 ki = 0.5165 ki = 0.7347
N = 1.1938 N = 86.2359 N = 162.9407 N = 129.73 N = 190.5689
n = 4.8429 n = 4.9435 n = 4.2057 n = 4.2280 n = 4.2280
J = 0.0079 J = 0.0076 J = 0.0061 J = 0.0054 J = 0.0050
ST = 8.53 s ST = 7.36 s ST = 7.27 s ST = 6.58 ST = 3.95
OS = 0.192 OS = 0.1743 OS = 0.1145 OS = 0.0893 OS = 0.1099
PT = 0.7910 s PT = 0.5710 s PT = 0.3956 s PT = 0.3632 s PT = 0.3232 s
CT = 592.37 s CT = 570.8 s CT = 576.21 s CT = 586.01 s CT = 571.74 s
ST = 5.93s
kp = 0.7174 kp = 0.1465, ki = 0.8645, kd = 0.0592 OS = 0.1453
SSA: CC-TID Master controller gains Slave controller gains J = 0.0052
ki = 0.4442 N = 95.3828, n = 3.0159 PT = 0.3458 s
CT = 569.79 s

nominal condition. This may affirm the robustness of the con-
troller near-optimum gains explored applying CCSA at nominal
scenario. Thus, it may infer that the CCSA: CC-TID controller
obtained at nominal scenario is robust, and retuning of controller
gains is not required.
5.6. Performance study of islanded HEDPS with GTPP and random
perturbations
In this section, the stability of CC-TID controlled HEDPS has
been outlined after integrating GTPP, as shown in Fig. 1. The
integration of GTPP shows the effect of adding two extra poles on
system stability. Eigenvalue analysis is carried to inspect closed-
loop stability of GTPP integrated HEDPS. To carry out the study,
137
controllers of Table 3 are considered. Eigenvalues of GTPP inte-
grated HEDPS are appended in Table 4. It is seen from Table 4 that
PSO: CC-TID and DE: CC-TID controllers offers unstable system
modes. The frequency deviation and DGs output power variation
are plotted and compared in Fig. 7(a–b). Settling time of ∆f
with KHA: CC-TID, CSA: CC-TID, CCSA: CC-TID, and SSA: CC-TID
controllers is 10.33 s, 4.8 s, 3.97 s, and 7.756 s, respectively.
Fig. 7(a–b) shows that KHA: CC-TID controlled HEDPS possess
more oscillations with a high peak. At the same time, CCSA: CC-
TID controller significantly increases the system’s overall damp-
ing and restores outputs quickly to the steady-state level. System
stability is deteriorated after adding two extra poles, but the CC-
TID controller is competent to deliver satisfactory results in terms
of damping and ST of ∆f compared to others.
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146

Fig. 7. Dynamic performance with GTPP, (a) frequency deviation, (b) DGs output power variation, (c) frequency deviation following RWP, (d) frequency deviation
following RWP and VLP.

Table 4
Eigenvalues of islanded HEDPS integrated with GTPP [Unstable modes are highlighted with red color].
PSO: CC-TID DE: CC-TID KHA: CC-TID CSA: CC-TID SSA: CC-TID CCSA: CC-TID
−12.8798
−11.4882 −64.0456 −73.5988 −42.3067 −28.6225 −38.7543
0.2358 ± 0.1375 ± j6.4574 −0.3436 ± j9.0814 −1.3141 ± j10.7380 −0.4695 ± j11.2523 −4.0249 ± j3.6278
j4.9903 −12.6780 −12.4309 −12.2849 −12.0918 −12.2022
−7.0042 −11.2335 −10.4158 −8.5579 −6.8966 ± j0.6104 −6.7889
−3.5936 −7.0099 −7.0336 −7.1637 −3.7510 −4.1770 ± j1.6307
−2.1554 −3.5798 −3.5877 −3.6280 −1.7389 −3.1363
−1.0061 −1.0187 ± j0.4748 −1.0742 ± j0.4641 −1.3066 ± j0.4490 −1.4828 −1.2577
−0.5680 −0.1120 −0.1120 −0.1120 −0.1101 −0.1120
−0.4298 −0.5270 −0.5291 −0.5319 −0.5543 −0.5350
−0.1118 −0.3922 −0.3944 −0.3968 −0.4015 −0.3994
−0.3338 −0.3284 −0.3288 −0.3291 −0.3295 −0.3295
−0.1966 −10.000 −10.000 −10.000 −10.000 −10.000
−10.000 −2.0000 −2.0000 −2.0000 −2.0000 −2.0000
−2.0000 −0.7143 −0.7143 −0.7143 −0.7143 −0.7143
−0.7143

To study the effectiveness of the CCSA-tuned CC-TID controller
in a practical environment, the dynamic stability of GTPP inte-
grated HEDPS is inspected by applying variable load perturbation
(VLP) and random wind perturbation (RWP). The profiles of VLP
and RWP are shown in Fig. 8. The frequency deviation with
these perturbations is plotted and compared in Fig. 7(c–d). For
a better assessment, results of the CCSA-tuned CC-TID controller
are compared with CSA: CC-TID, KHA: CC-TID, and SSA: CC-TID
controllers. It is obtainable from Fig. 7(c–d) that the CCSA: CC-
TID controller yields better results compared to others in terms
of damping of frequency oscillations, and hence, confirming its
superiority. However, the fluctuations are not die-out because of
the nature of disturbance profiles.
138
5.7. Interconnected HEDPS with fixed load and wind power distur-
bances
To confirm the proposed control framework’s superiority and
feasibility, the investigation has been forwarded to an unequal
two-area interconnected HEDPS. The MW capacity of control
areas is 2000 MW and 4000 MW. To highlight the proposed
controller mastery, obtained results are compared with PI, PID,
CC-PI–PID, FOPID, 2DOF-PID, 3DOF-PID, and TID controllers’ out-
puts for the same test system. Since CCSA has been found a robust
optimization method in the previous section, the optimum set-
tings of the above-mentioned controllers are obtained applying
the same and listed in Table 5. The variation in area frequency and
tie-line power are compared in Fig. 9. Table 6 gives the minimum
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146

Fig. 8. Profile of (a) variable load perturbation (VLP), (b) random wind perturbation (RWP).

Fig. 9. Performance of two-area HEDPS with constant plant disturbances, (a) frequency deviation in area-1, (b) frequency deviation in area-2, (c) tie-line power
change.

Table 5
Optimized gains of controllers by using CCSA for interconnected HEDPS.
Controllers kp1 ki1 kd1 N1 pw1 dw1 kf f β1 n1 kp2 ki2 kd2 N2 pw2 dw2 kf f β2 n2 CT (in s)
1 2
PI −0.6824 0.9025 – – – – – – – 0.4360 0.0683 – – – – – – – 1099.8
PID −0.1325 0.2815 0.1064 57.8948 – – – – – −0.4159 0.1736 0.0610 35.9808 – – – – – 1136.7
0.6948 0.3171 – – – – – – – 0.9502 0.4387 – – – – – –
CC-PI–PID 1208.4
−0.4310 0.1544 0.1570 50.6062 – – – – – 0.0356 0.2232 0.1463 75.1896 – – – – –
2DOF-PID −0.6380 0.2773 0.0959 39.5153 0.4854 0.8003 – – – 0.0046 0.0776 0.1658 51.0263 0.0357 0.6787 – – – 1211.2
3DOF-PID −0.4961 0.1612 0.1798 51.7736 0.1419 0.9157 0.4218 – – 0.0401 0.2218 0.1277 68.3490 0.7577 0.7431 0.3922 – – 1282.8
FOPID −0.5705 0.4563 −0.1023 31.6074 – – – 0.6557 – 0.1822 0.1516 0.1448 59.8117 – – – 0.6555 – 1259.5
TID −0.2515 0.1928 0.1542 40.6224 – – – – 0.7922 −0.3756 0.1990 0.1411 41.5630 – – – – 0.1712 1279.2
0.3816 0.1869 – – – – – – – 0.7952 0.7655 – – – – – – –
CC-TID 1373.3
−0.1716 0.0983 0.1365 37.4419 – – – – 0.8491 −0.2216 0.0974 0.1866 61.9919 – – – – 0.7060

The entry ’-’ shows not applicable.

139
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146

Table 6
Smallest objective function value and transient measurements (best results are highlighted).
Controllers Fitness value Area-1 Area-2 Tie-line power
OS US ST OS US ST OS US ST
PI 16.5055 0.3418 0.3383 58.63 0.4419 0.3299 58.67 0.0719 0.0926 54.58
PID 10.5578 0.2417 0.2811 32.38 0.2165 0.2821 32.06 0.0292 0.0818 25.21
CC-PI–PID 6.4022 0.0853 0.2369 28.98 0.0630 0.2230 31.15 0.0245 0.0674 57.82
2DOF-PID 5.7577 0.1010 0.2399 39.45 0.0752 0.2252 39.78 0.0283 0.0698 57.53
3DOF-PID 4.1443 0.1238 0.2660 26.57 0.1145 0.1777 26.82 0.0186 0.0541 53.12
FOPID 12.1199 0.1117 0.2640 22.31 0.0972 0.1959 26.85 0.0224 0.0566 57.09
TID 3.8660 0.0898 0.2732 24.59 0.0809 0.1908 24.11 0.0128 0.0550 39.92
CC-TID 2.0381 0.2103 0.4026 21.77 0.2182 0.3444 24.97 0.0231 0.1035 18.19

Fig. 10. Outputs of interconnected HEDPS considering GRC (a) area-1 frequency variation, (b) tie-line power change.

fitness function value and transient outputs of Fig. 9. These results
highlight the excellence of CC-TID controller over its other coun-
terparts. It is ocular from Table 6 that proposed controller yields
the least minimum fitness value and ST. But, CC-TID controller
yields maximum peaks in power-frequency oscillations.
frequency responses is maximum with the CC-TID controller. A
noteworthy betterment in the tie-line power response is ob-
served with CC-TID controller. Minute observation of these results
helps to conclude that the CC-TID controller works better than
other controllers shown in Fig. 11.

5.8. Interconnected HEDPS with GRC 5.10. Sensitivity study

To observe the GRC’s impacts on the system stability, in-
terconnected HEDPS with a GRC of 3%/min in thermal units is
simulated. The controllers shown in Table 5 are considered to in-
spect the system behavior against constant load and wind power
disturbances. The outputs of interconnected HEDPS are depicted
in Fig. 10. It is observed from Fig. 10 that the system stability
deteriorates in terms of more oscillations, high OS, and large ST
for all the controllers mentioned in Table 5. It is noteworthy from
the presented results that the TID-controlled test system exhibits
more oscillation. The output with PIDF controller has highest
peak overshoot. On the contrary, sufficient improvement in the
speed of system responses is seen with CC-TID controller. The PI-
controlled HEDPS with GRC exhibits unbounded output; it is not
shown in Fig. 10.
5.9. Performance study of interconnected HEDPS with GTPP and
random perturbations
The stability of interconnected HEDPS has been investigated
by including GTPP in both the control areas. To carry out this
study, the controllers gain presented in Table 5 are considered.
The closed-loop responses under constant load and wind power
perturbations are obtained and compared in Fig. 11. Fig. 11 clearly
demonstrates that the interconnected HEDPS exhibits more oscil-
lations with CCSA optimized TID-controller. A close observation
of Fig. 11 further unveils that a considerable improvement in
frequency response is gained with the CC-TID controller in terms
of damping and ST of ∆f1 and ∆f2 . However, the peak OS of
140
The system parameters, such as R, Tsg , Tt , Tr and T12 , vary
from nominal settings to depict the controller’s gain robustness
computed at nominal conditions (±50% variation). Fig. 12 plots
and compares the outputs of interconnected HEDPS after these
variations. Investigation exposes that the frequency and tie-line
power responses are hardly changed with these variations. The
results settle nearly the same time despite different peaks of OS
and US. Therefore, it is concluded that the controller settings
computed at nominal condition are robust, and retuning is not
needed.
Furthermore, to confirm the robust stability margin of the
applied controller, dynamic performances of GTPP integrated in-
terconnected HEDPS with VLP and RWP perturbations (Fig. 13(a)–
(b)) are shown in Fig. 13(c)–(d). The CC-TID controller results
are compared with outputs of TID controller in Fig. 13(c)–(d).
From the results, it can be concluded that the CC-TID controller is
better compared to TID controller considering damping of system
oscillations.
5.11. Performance study of larger-order HEDPS
The dynamic stability of a four-area interconnected HEDPS
(with GTPP) against multi-step load perturbation and uncertain
WTG output is assessed to further establish the pre-eminence
of the proposed control methodology. Fig. 14 depicts the dis-
turbance profiles considered for the present simulation. A dis-
turbance observer (Dob) is designed to estimate high-fluctuated
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146

Fig. 11. Dynamic performance of two-area HEDPS integrated with GTPP, (a) frequency variation in area-1, (b) frequency variation in area-2, (c) tie-line power change.

Fig. 12. Sensitivity analysis of two-area HEDPS (a) frequency variation in area-1, (b) frequency variation in area-2, (c) tie-line power change.

141
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee
Fig. 13. Dynamic performance of coordinated HEDPS including GTPP, (a) continuous load variation, (b) random wind power variation, (c) area-1 frequency variation,
(d) tie-lie power change.
Fig. 14. Dob-estimated and actual disturbance profiles (a) multi-step load variation, (b) RWP.
load and wind power variation, and this knowledge is, subse-
quently, incorporated into the control law for refining controller
performance [67]. The estimated output of Dob is also depicted
in Fig. 14 for a fair comparison. It is perceived from Fig. 14
that the designed Dob smoothly tracks the continuously varying
disturbance profiles and thereby confirms its feasibility. Due to
page limitations, the mathematical model of Dob is not presented.
The proposed CCSA is considered to optimize CC-TID controller
gains and provided in Table 7.
Initially, the system performance has been evaluated applying
multi-step load variation (Fig. 14(a)) in area-1. The outputs of
HEDPS are compared in Fig. 15 with TID and without Dob-aided
CC-TID controllers to highlight the supremacy of the Dob-aided
CC-TID controller. It is seen from Fig. 15 that the Dob-aided
CC-TID controller effectively compensates power-frequency os-
cillations and improves stability degree with small peaks and
settling time. The analysis of results authenticate the mastery of
the Dob-aided CC-TID controller over other techniques available
in Fig. 15.
To corroborate the potential benefits of the applied control
methodology, the dynamic stability of the test system is evalu-
ated applying uncertain WTG output and multi-step load distur-
bance in area-1. The deviation of frequency and tie-line power
are provided in Fig. 16. The presented results further confirm the
142
ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146
effectiveness and superiority of the Dob-aided CC-TID controller
over other controllers of Fig. 16 in terms of speed of responses
(damping).
6. Conclusion
The work presents an extensive comparative analysis among
different optimized controllers for frequency regulation of is-
landed and interconnected HEDPS. The closed-loop stability of
HEDPS with GRC, GDB, and time-delay in DEG is demonstrated
with and without the GTPP. A meta-heuristic CSA with chaotic
mapping is harnessed maidenly to optimize the controller’s pa-
rameters, exercising integral error objective function. The sim-
ulation results help to conclude that CCSA optimized CC-TID
controller successfully mitigates system oscillations and works
better over PI, PID, 2DOF-PID, 3DOF-PID, CC-PI–PID, FOPID, and
TID controllers, considering minimum ST and higher damping.
The system performance is satisfactorily enhanced with CC-TID
controller having disturbance observer (Dob) incorporated. It is
further unveiled that the proposed controller adequately damp
out power-frequency oscillations and yields better output than
its other counterparts against multi-step load variation and un-
certain RWP. CSA with chaotic mapping produces the best prob-
able global solutions of the defined optimization problem than
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146

Fig. 15. Dynamic performance of four-area HEDPS with GTPP following multi-step load perturbation, (a) frequency variation in area-1, (b) frequency variation in
area-3, (c) tie-line power changes between area-1 & 2, (d) tie-line power changes between area-1 & 4.

Table 7
Optimized gains of CC-TID and TID controllers for four-area HEDPS.
Controllers Master controller Slave controller Fitness value CT (in s)
kp ki kd N n kp ki
Area-1 0.9834 0.9981 0.2472 25.2844 7.4299 0.8147 0.6324
Area-2 0.9499 0.9002 0.5352 20.5844 8.0619 0.9058 0.3975
CC-TID 4.222 × 10−5 6342.72
Area-3 0.1939 0.4344 0.7039 90.8691 7.9451 0.1270 0.2785
Area-4 0.2222 0.7094 0.7883 82.3704 5.1378 0.9134 0.5469
Area-1 0.9916 0.7901 0.4375 31.1080 3.3695 0.9575 0.4854
Area-2 0.8138 0.8927 0.3059 99.2298 7.6484 0.9649 0.8003
TID 4.9978 × 10−5 5895.39
Area-3 0.3034 0.4710 0.6183 77.8671 2.2547 0.1576 0.1419
Area-4 0.2257 0.4438 0.6861 54.6502 4.2154 0.9706 0.4218

PSO, DE, KHA, CSA, SSA, and CSA. Sensitivity analysis of the test
systems ensures that the optimized CC-TID controller gains at
nominal operating conditions by the proposed CCSA may work for
the more extensive range of system parameters variation. Table 8
summarizes the suggested control method’s pros and cons in
comparison to other prevalent control schemes of the literature.
6.1. Future extension
The following points may be the future contribution in the
presented work:
(a) The performance of HEDPS may be studied, employing
a sliding mode controller (SMC). To alleviate the high-
frequency chattering problem, higher-order SMC may be
designed.
143
(b) A nonlinear observer (fuzzy or neural network-based) may
be designed to estimate system uncertainties, nonlineari-
ties, and external disturbances, and thereby enriching de-
gree of stability.
(c) In this work, the controller has been designed consid-
ering the linearized test systems, i.e., transfer function
model. Subsequently, its performance, including different
system nonlinearities (GRC & GDB), has been assessed. In
future, the controller may be designed considering non-
{·
x (t ) = f (x (t ) , u (t ))
linear model of test systems, i.e., ,
y (t ) = h (x (t ) , u (t ))
where f (.) and h (.) are nonlinear functions.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146

Fig. 16. Dynamic performance of four-area HEDPS with GTPP following RWP, (a) frequency variation in area-1, (b) frequency variation in area-3, (c) tie-line power
changes between area-1 & 2, (d) tie-line power changes between area-1 & 4.

Table 8
Pros and Cons of proposed control scheme.
Pros
1. Easy to realize, flexible, and resilient (due to
increase of degree-of-freedom and integration
of fractional-order calculus).
2. Fast disturbance rejection ability and
superior tracking performance because of the
multi-loop control structure.
3. Integration of chaotic behavior in crow
search algorithm (CSA) increases convergence
mobility and reduces premature solutions.
4. Prior estimation and incorporation of
knowledge of fast-changing disturbance profile
utilizing disturbance observer (Dob) refines the
control law and increases stability margin.
Cons
1. A linearized model (transfer function) of HEDPS has
been considered to assess the mastery of the controller.
2. Computation time increases because of higher-degree
and fractional-order controller parameters.
3. The applied CSA performance relies on two input
control parameters, i.e., flight rate (fl) and awareness
probability (AP), which need to be optimally selected.
4. The linear estimator is developed to estimate
fast-changing disturbance profiles. The efficacy of Dob
can be enhanced by incorporating intelligent algorithms
(Fuzzy, ANN, etc.) and/or nonlinear estimator.

Table A.1
Nominal values of test system parameters.
Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value
Tsg 0.08 s Tt 0.3 s Tps 20 s Kps 20 Hz/pu MW
R 2.4 Hz/pu MW B 0.425 pu MW/Hz T12 0.545 pu Tr 10 s
Kr 0.5 Tw 1 s KP 1 KI 5
KD 4 KFC 0.01 KBESS −0.003 TFC 3 s
TBESS 0.1 s KDEG 0.03 TDEG 2.3 s TWTG 1.4 s
KAE 0.02 TAE 0.5 s f 60 Hz

144
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146

[10] Khodabakhshian A, Hooshmand R. A new PID controller design for au-

tomatic generation control of hydro power systems. Electr Power Energy
Syst 2010;32:375–82.
[11] Tah A, Das D. Operation of small hybrid autonomous power generation
system in isolated, interconnected and grid connected modes. Sustain
Energy Technol Assess 2016;17:11–25.
[12] Elsaied MM, Attia MA, Mostafa MA, Mekhamer SF. Application of Differ-
ent Optimization techniques to load frequency control with WECS in a
multi-area system. Electr Power Compon Syst 2018;46(7):739–56.
[13] Guha D, Roy PK, Banerjee S. Multi-verse optimisation: a novel method for
solution of load frequency control problem in power system. IET Gener
Transm Distrib 2017;11(14):3601–11.
[14] Tungadio DH, Bansal RC, Siti MW. Optimal control of active power of two
micro-grids interconnected with two AC tie-lines. Electr Power Compon
Syst 2017;45(19):2188–99.
[15] Sahu RK, Panda S, Rout UK. DE optimized parallel 2-DOF PID controller
for load frequency control of power system with governor dead-band
nonlinearity. Electr Power Energy Syst 2013;49:19–33.
[16] Guha D, Roy PK, Banerjee S. Quasi-oppositional JAYA optimized 2-
degree-of-freedom PID controller for load-frequency control of intercon-
Fig. B.1. Frequency deviation of islanded HEDPS with optimized PI-controller nected power systems. Int J Model Simul 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
parameters considering search boundary. 02286203.2020.1829444.
[17] Dash P, Saikia LC, Sinha N. Comparison of performances of several FACTS
devices using cuckoo search algorithm optimized 2DOF controllers in
Table B.1 multi-area AGC. Electr Power Energy Syst 2015;65:316–24.
Empirical study for choosing appropriate controller range for optimization. [18] Gozde H. Robust 2DOF state-feedback PI-controller based on meta-
Range kp ki J ∆f CT heuristic optimization for automatic voltage regulation system. ISA Trans
2020;98:26–36.
OS ST
[19] Guha D, Roy PK, Banerjee S. Optimal tuning of 3 degree-of-freedom
(0, 2) 0.0278 0.3292 0.0098 0.1884 11.35 s 240.96 s proportional–integral–derivative controller for hybrid distributed power
(−1, +1) 0.0737 0.4016 0.0104 0.2375 11.62 s 397.02 system using dragonfly algorithm. Comput Electr Eng 2018;72:137–53.
(−2, +2) 0.0531 0.5015 0.0110 0.2707 12.46 s 249.407 s [20] Rahman A, Saikia LC, Sinha N. Load frequency control of a hydro-thermal
(−2, +1) 0.0472 0.4377 0.0094 0.2144 10.44 s 232.2 s system under deregulated environment using biogeography-based opti-
mised three degree-of-freedom integral-derivative controller. IET Gener
Transm Distrib 2015;9(15):2284–93.
[21] Tarkeshwar Mukherjee V. Evolutionary optimization technique for compar-
Appendix A. System parameters defined at nominal condition ative analysis of different classical controllers for an isolated wind-diesel
hybrid power system. Swarm Evol Comput 2016;26:120–36.
[22] Dash P, Saikia LC, Sinha N. Flower Pollination Algorithm Optimized PI-PD
See Table A.1. cascade controller in automatic generation control of a multi-area power
system. Electr Power Energy Syst 2016;82:19–28.
Appendix B. Empirical study of choosing controller range for [23] Kumar A, Suhag S. Multiverse optimized fuzzy-PID controller with a
optimization derivative filter for load frequency control of multisource hydrothermal
power system. Turk J Electr Eng Comput Sci 2017;25:4187–99.
[24] Sivalingam R, Chinnamuthu S, Dash SS. A modified whale optimiza-
Authors have simulated test systems for different controller tion algorithm based adaptive fuzzy logic PID controller for load
ranges, such as (−2, 2) , (0, 2) , (−1, 1) , & (−2, 1), and found frequency control of autonomous power generation systems. Automatika
that best results considering minimum fitness value and ST of 2018;58(4):410–21.
frequency deviation are obtained with (−2, 1), as seen from the [25] Nasiruddin I, Sharma G, Niazi KR, Bansal RC. Non-linear recurrent ANN-
based LFC design considering the new structures of Q matrix. IET Gener
below results [Table B.1 and Fig. B.1]. That is why in the entire
Transm Distrib 2017;11(11):2862–70.
simulation, the controller gains were optimized between (−2, 1). [26] Yin L, Yu T, Zhou L, Huang L, Zhang X, Zheng B. Artificial emotional
reinforcement learning for automatic generation control of large-scale
References interconnected power grids. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2017;11(9):2305–13.
[27] Tasnin W, Saikia LC. Maiden application of an sine-cosine algorithm opti-
[1] Gampa SR, Das D. Real power and frequency control of a small isolated mised FO cascade controller in automatic generation control of multi-area
power system. Electr Power Energy Syst 2015;64:221–32. thermal system incorporating dish-stirling solar and geothermal power
[2] Mosaad MI. Model reference adaptive control of STATCOM for grid inte- plants. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2018;12(5):585–97.
gration of wind energy systems. IET Electr Power Appl 2018;12(5):605–13. [28] Tasnin W, Saikia LC. Performance comparison of several energy storage de-
[3] Fini MH, Golshan MEH. Determining optimal virtual inertia and frequency vices in deregulated AGC of a multi-area system incorporating geothermal
control parameters to preserve the frequency stability in islanded mi- power plant. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2018;12(7):761–72.
crogrids with high penetration of renewables. Electr Power Syst Res [29] Saxena S. Load frequency control strategy via fractional-order controller
2018;154:13–22. and reduced order modeling. Electr Power Energy Syst 2019;104:603–14.
[4] Khalil A, Rajab Z, Alfergani A, Mohamed O. The impact of the time delay [30] Morsali J, Zare K, Hagh MT. Applying fractional order PID to design
on the load frequency control system in microgrid with plug-in-electric TCSC-based damping controller in coordination with automatic generation
vehicles. Sustainable Cities Soc 2017;35:365–77. control of interconnected multi-source power system. Eng Sci Technol Int
[5] Routh UK, Sahu RK, Panda S. Design and analysis of differential evolution J 2017;20:1–17.
algorithm based automatic generation control for interconnected power [31] Arya Y. AGC of restructured multi-area multi-source hydrothermal power
system. Ain Shams Eng 2013;4:409–21. systems incorporating energy storage units via optimal fractional-order
[6] Das D, Aditya SK, Kothari DP. Dynamics of diesel and wind turbine fuzzy PID controller. Neural Comput Appl 2019;31:851–72.
generators on an isolated power system. Electr Power Energy Syst [32] Lurie BJ. Three parameters tunable tilt-integral derivative (TID) controller.
1999;21:183–9. 1994, US Patent US5371670.
[7] Ameli H, Ameli MT, Hosseinian SH. Multi-stage frequency control of a [33] Guha D, Roy PK, Banerjee S. Maiden application of SSA-optimised CC-TID
microgrid in the presence of renewable energy units. Electr Power Compon controller for load frequency control of power systems. IET Gener Transm
Syst 2016;45(2):159–70. Distrib 2019;13(7):1110–20.
[8] Guha D, Roy PK, Banerjee S. Binary Bat Algorithm applied to solve MISO- [34] Topno PN, Chanana S. Tilt integral derivative control for two-area load
type PID-SSSC-based load frequency control problem. Iran J Sci Technol frequency control problem. In: Proc. of 2nd int conf on recent advances
Trans Electr Eng 2019;43(2):323–42. in engineering & comput scie (RAECS) 2015; 21-22 Dec 2015.
[9] Hasanien HM. Whale optimisation algorithm for automatic generation [35] Sahu RK, Panda S, Biswal A, Sekhar GTC. Design and analysis of tilt integral
control of interconnected modern power systems including renewable derivative controller with filter for load frequency control of multi-area
energy sources. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2018;12(3):607–14. interconnected power systems. ISA Trans 2016;61:251–64.

145
D. Guha, P.K. Roy and S. Banerjee
[36] Mishra DK, Panigrahi TK, Ray PK, Mohanty A. Application of tilt integral
derivative filter for load frequency control of three area interconnected
system. In: Proc. 2017 progress in electromagnetics research symposium
- fall (PIERS - FALL) 2017; 19-22 Nov 2017.
[37] Kumari S, Shankar G. Novel application of integral-tilt-derivative controller
for performance evaluation of load frequency control of interconnected
power system. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2018;12(14):3550–60.
[38] Arya Y. A novel CFFOPI-FOPID controller for AGC performance en-
hancement of single and multi-area electric power systems. ISA Trans
2020;100:126–35.
[39] Arya Y. Effect of electric vehicles on load frequency control in inter-
connected thermal and hydrothermal power systems utilising CF-FOIDF
controller. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2020;14(14):2666–75.
[40] Pan CT, Liaw CM. An adaptive controller for power system load-frequency
control. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1989;4(1):122–8.
[41] Mosaad MI. Model reference adaptive control of STATCOM for grid inte-
gration of wind energy systems. IET Electr Power Appl 2018;12(5):605–13.
[42] Kayalvizhi S, Kumar DMV. Load frequency control of an isolated mi-
cro grid using fuzzy adaptive model predictive control. IEEE Access
2017;5:16241–51.
[43] Khooban MH, Niknam T, Blaabjerg F, Davari P, Dragicevic T. A robust
adaptive load frequency control for micro-grids. ISA Trans 2016;65:220–9.
[44] Cui Y, Xu L, Fei M, Shen Y. Observer based robust integral sliding
mode load frequency control for wind power systems. Control Eng Pract
2017;65:1–10.
[45] Gomaa Haroum AH, Yin-Ya L. Ant lion optimized hybrid intelligent PID-
based sliding mode controller for frequency regulation of interconnected
multi-area power systems. Trans Inst Meas Control 2020;42(9):1594–617.
[46] Guha D, Roy PK, Banerjee S. Whale optimization algorithm applied to load
frequency control of a mixed power system considering nonlinearities and
PLL dynamics. Energy Syst 2020;11:699–728.
[47] Bevrani H, Habibi F, Babahajyani P, Watanabe M, Mitani Y. Intelligent
frequency control in an AC microgrid: Online PSO-based fuzzy tuning
approach. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2012;3(4):1935–44.
[48] Modirkhazeni A, Almasi ON, Khooban MH. Improved frequency dynamic
in isolated hybrid power system using an intelligent method. Electr Power
Energy Syst 2016;78:225–38.
[49] Rajesh KS, Dash SS, Rajagopal R. Hybrid improved firefly-pattern search
optimized fuzzy aided PID controller for automatic generation control
of power systems with multi-type generations. Swarm Evol Comput
2019;44:200–11.
[50] Reddy SS, Park JY, Jung CM. Optimal operation of microgrid using hy-
brid differential evolution and harmony search algorithm. Front Energy
2016;10(3):355–62.
[51] Nandar CSA. Robust P I control of smart controllable load for frequency
stabilization of microgrid power system. Renew Energy 2013;56:16–23.
146
ISA Transactions 120 (2022) 128–146
[52] Askarzadeh A. A novel metaheuristic method for solving constrained
engineering optimization problems: Crow search algorithm. Comput Struct
2016;169:1–12.
[53] Askarzadeh A. Capacitor placement in distribution systems for power
loss reduction and voltage improvement: A new methodology. IET Gener
Transm Distrib 2016;10:3631–8.
[54] Rajput S, Parashar M, Dubey HM, Pandit M. Optimization of benchmark
functions and practical problems using Crow Search Algorithm. In: Proc
of 2016 5th Int Conf on Eco-friendly Comput and Commun Syst (ICECCS)
2016; 8-9 Dec 2016.
[55] Ramesh AK, Lakshmi M, Kiruthika A. CSA tuned fuzzy based PID controller
for automatic generation control for multi area power system. J Adv Res
Dyn Control Syst 2018;9:275–82.
[56] Pain S, Acharjee P. Load frequency control of security constrained deregu-
lated power system using crow search algorithm. In: Proc of 2018 3rd Int
Conf for convergence in technology (I2CT) 2018; 6-8 April 2018.
[57] Rizk-Allah RM, Hassanien AE, Slowik A. Multi-objective orthogonal
opposition-based crow search algorithm for large-scale multi-objective
optimization. Neural Comput Appl 2020;32:13715–46.
[58] Rizk-Allah RM, Hassanien AE, Bhattacharyya S. Chaotic crow search
algorithm for fractional optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput
2018;71:1161–75.
[59] Hassanien AE, Rizk-Allah RM, Elhoseny M. A hybrid crow search algorithm
based on rough searching scheme for solving engineering optimization
problems. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s12652-018-0924-y.
[60] Nanda J, Mangla A, Suri S. Some new findings on automatic generation
control of an interconnected hydrothermal system with conventional
controllers. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2006;21(1):187–94.
[61] Guha D, Roy KP, Banerjee S. Load frequency control of intercon-
nected power system using grey wolf optimization. Swarm Evol Comput
2016;27:97–115.
[62] Shankar G, Mukherjee V. Load frequency control of an autonomous hybrid
power system by quasi-oppositional harmony search algorithm. Electr
Power Energy Syst 2016;78:715–34.
[63] Pan I, Das S. Fractional-order load-frequency control of interconnected
power systems using chaotic multi-objective optimization. Appl Soft
Comput 2015;29:328–44.
[64] Alomoush MI. Load frequency control and automatic generation control
using fractional-order controllers. Electr Eng 2010;91(7):357–68.
[65] Guha D, Roy PK, Banerjee S. Grasshopper optimization algorithm-scaled
fractional-order PI-D controller applied to reduced-order model of load
frequency control system. Int J Model Simul 2020;40(3):217–42.
[66] Sayed GI, Hassanien AE, Azar AT. Feature selection via a novel chaotic crow
search algorithm. Neural Comput Appl 2019;31(1):171–88.
[67] Wang C, Mi Y, Fu Y, Wang P. Frequency control of an isolated micro-grid
using double sliding mode controllers and disturbance observer. IEEE Trans
Smart Grid 2018;9(2):923–30.