Applied Energy 282 (2021) 116171

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Double stage controller optimization for load frequency stabilization in

hybrid wind-ocean wave energy based maritime microgrid system
Abdul Latif a, S. M. Suhail Hussain b, *, Dulal Chandra Das a, Taha Selim Ustun b
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Silchar, Assam 788010, India
b
Fukushima Renewable Energy Institute, AIST (FREA), National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Koriyama 963-0215, Japan

H I G H L I G H T S

• Frequency control of novel independent hybrid maritime microgrid system (HMμGS).

• Evaluation of stability of the HMμGS model through the rigorous tests.
• Proposed PI-(1 + PD) controller is best in containing frequency deviation of HMμGS.
• GOA outperforms GA, PSO, FA and CA in obtaining the optimum control parameters.
• Proposed GOA based PI-(1 + PD) controller ensures maximum renewable energy capture.

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

Keywords: The momentum towards reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by reduced use of conventional source in marine
Energy Management System power networks as well as significant development of renewable energy resources (RRs) have been the moti­
System optimization vating factors for inclusion RRs in hybrid maritime microgrid system (HMμGS) and investigation of consequent
Load frequency control
frequent control mechanism. This article presents an approach of load frequency control in an independent
Non sensitive loads
Double stage controller
HMμGS consisting of wind driven generation (WDG), Archimedes wave power generation (AWPG), marine
Grasshopper optimization algorithm biodiesel generator (MBG), solid-oxide fuel cell (SOFC) energy units, heat pump (HP) and freezer (FZR). The
stability of the HMμGS model have been evaluated through the rigorous tests considering non-availability of
renewable resources, concurrent random generation of AWPG, load demand, real recorded data of WDG.
Comparative performance of several controllers such as PID, PID with filter (PIDN) and PI-(1 + PD) controller are
presented with their parameters optimized using genetic algorithmic technique (GA), particle swarm technique
(PSO), firefly algorithmic technique (FA), cultural algorithmic technique (CA) and the recent metaheuristic
grasshopper algorithmic technique (GOA). The proposed frequency control strategy of HMμGS model is
benchmarked by comparative statistical assessment and decision indicators. Finally, sensitivity assessment of
GOA tuned PI-(1 + PD) controller under uncertain parametric variations such as; variation of WDG gain, droop
factor (R), inertia constant (M) and loading without reoptimizing the optimal base condition values is conducted
as an evidence of the sturdiness of the proposed frequency control strategy. The analysis of the results shows that
the proposed GOA optimized PI-(1 + PD) control strategy perform much better than other control schemes.

1. Introduction of maritime microgrids gained significant attention. To preserve the

Today’s maritime microgrid is facing fundamental changes due to
high carbon di-oxide (CO2) emissions. International Marine Organiza­
tion (IMO) estimates that by the end of 2050 the CO2 contribution of
marine vessels will increase by 50–250% [1–3]. Over the past few years,
in parallel with grid modernization efforts, management and regulation
declining conventional fuel sources as well as to deliver carbon neutral
power demand, the penetration of alternative energy sources such as
wind driven generation (WDG) and Archimedes wave power generation
(AWPG) are taken in deliberation for hybrid maritime microgrid system
(HMμGS). Conversely, the impact of intermittent nature of RRs leads to a
frequency fluctuation issue. To address this, several authors considered

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: suhail.hussain@aist.go.jp (S.M.S. Hussain).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116171
Received 20 July 2020; Received in revised form 29 October 2020; Accepted 30 October 2020
Available online 11 November 2020
0306-2619/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Latif et al. Applied Energy 282 (2021) 116171

energy storage units (ESUs) such as battery (BSU), ultra-capacitor (UC)
and superconducting magnetic storage system (SMSU) along with diesel
engine generator as a backup unit in hybrid power system. However;
cost, maintenance and dumping issues hinder widespread use of BSU
while flow of expensive helium liquid is a huge barrier for SMSU [4]. In
such situations, dynamic adjustment of different controllable loads such
as heat pump (HP) and freezer (FRZ) could be important to curb the
fluctuation caused by deployments of RRs. Further, diesel engine
generator is a potential source of CO2 emission. Therefore, solid oxide
fuel cell (SOFC) and marine bio-diesel generator (MBG) which are non-
toxic and eco-friendly are considered as supplemented sets in this stand-
alone HMμGS.
Several articles have investigated independent microgrid power
system in marine vessels [5–9]. A generic overview of ship propulsion
topologies, hybrid power supply systems and associated control strate­
gies have been reviewed in [10], where the performance of different
control strategies have been analyzed. Authors in [5] frame out
modeling of lithium-ion battery-based ship crane microgrid system
considering diesel generator. From environmental and economic point
of view, the hybrid PV/diesel/ESUs based maritime micro power system
is discussed in [6], whereas the optimal sizing of HMμGS is framed out in
[7]. To resolve the sizing issue, authors in [8] considered a muti-
objective optimization technique in a real-time Solar PV-diesel-ESUs
based hybrid power system. Wen et al. [11] proposed an interval opti­
mization method for optimal allocation of energy storage system (EES)
in a hybrid PV/diesel/ESS based ship power system. Authors in [12]
proposed a novel predictive energy management and maneuvering
approach to improve the fuel consumption efficiency of ship microgrid.
To overcome the intermittent and stochastic character of RRs, in liter­
ature a lot of attention is paid on optimal sizing of different energy
sources/ESS in HMμGS. However, less attention has been paid on
designing control strategies for power management and frequency
regulation in HMμGS integrated with RRs.
In [13], authors presented a thorough review of recent power man­
agement schemes in AC ship microgrids. A control scheme for conven­
tional diesel set integrated PV-BESS-UC based hybrid shipboard
microgrid network is developed in [14]. However, in this work authors
only discussed the frequency sharing technique for stabilizing DC bus
voltage. In [15] and [16] authors developed a coordinated power-
frequency control topology with PI controllers for optimal power
sharing between different DERs and battery units in maritime micro­
grids. Table 1 summarizes the important features, methodology and
objectives of the recent articles on power-frequency management in
maritime microgrids. However, in these works load frequency control
(LFC) problem for maritime microgrid is not discussed.
Several control techniques have been presented for addressing the
load frequency control (LFC) problem in traditional microgrid system
with high penetration of RRs using different controllers such as
proportional-integral (PI) [17], proportional-integral-derivative (PID)
[18], model predictive [19], non-integer order proportional-integral-
derivative (NOPID) [20], fractional order PID (FOPID) [21,22], non-
integer order model predictive [23], etc. Recently, in literature some
novel control strategies such as adaptive sliding mode stratagem [24],
GOA-modified model predictive PID controller [25], sample data con­
trol [26] and tribe-DE fuzzy controller [27] for frequency stabilization of
large scale higher inertia and damping coefficient based conventional
(with/without RRs) power system have been proposed. The above dis­
cussed control strategies are applied to conventional generation units
having high system inertia. Furthermore, most of these strategies do not
consider the intermittent RR sources for short term frequency stabili­
zation. On the other hand, the maritime microgrid is a low inertia
microgrid system with the presence of intermittent renewable energy
sources. Although several control techniques addressing LFC problem
are proposed for traditional microgrids as well as conventional power
systems, very less attention is paid for addressing LFC problem in ma­
rine/shipboard microgrids.
Recently, authors in [28] proposed a fractional order fuzzy
proportional-derivative one plus integral controller to address the LFC
problem in ship based microgrids. Furthermore, the marine microgrid
considered in [28] doesn’t consider RRs and non-critical loads. Simi­
larly, in [29] authors presented a linear matrix inequality (LMI)
controller technique for LFC problem in marine microgrids. In fact, the
above discussed fractional order controller and LMI controller have a
very complex design which leads to a large elapsed time and may not be
viable for practical realization. Similarly, in [30] a sine-cosine wavelet
stratagem for frequency stabilization of mobile maritime microgrid is
investigated. The above discussed control stratagem has complex
design. Furthermore, these works do not consider power sharing be­
tween RRs and non-vital loads such as; heater, freezer. This paper pro­
poses a less complex dual-stage proportional-integral- one plus
proportional-derivative PI-(1 + PD) controller for marine microgrids
which has better performance in terms of mitigation of transient error in
system dynamics.
Apart from controller design, the optimal adjustment of the

Table 1
Comparative review of power-frequency management leveraged for renewable energy based maritime microgrid.
Ref Methodology Objective System Components Load frequency Operating Condition
No regulation

[8] Muti-objective particle swarm technique Minimization of operating cost to Solar PV, diesel, battery X Normal/emergency
(MOPSO) manage storage system
[11] Interval optimization technique Optimal power balance, optimal PV panels, diesel, battery X Normal/Uncertain
capacity of energy storage
[13] Isochronous, droop and power converter Analysis optimal of power Diesel engine, battery fuel cell X Normal
control stratagems management techniques
[14] Active low pass filter with PI control Optimal energy management, Diesel, solar PV, battery, ultra- X Normal/partial shading
technique improvement of power quality capacitor
[15] Bidirectional converter with PI control Enhancement of power quality and Two diesel engine generator, battery X Change in constant and
loop fuel consumption efficiency propulsion loads
[16] V-I droop control-based PI control Optimum power sharing to improve Diesel generator, hybrid energy X Normal
stratagem energy efficiency storage
[12] Model predictive control optimization Energy management with the Diesel generator, battery, dc link X Normal/uncertain
enhancement of system stability
[28] Modified black hole technique based Minimization of frequency Wind, solar PV, wave, diesel, battery √ Normal/uncertain
fractional order fuzzy control scheme fluctuation and flywheel
[29] Linear matrix inequality (LMI) control Optimal adjustment of system Solar PV, wave, diesel, fuel cell and √ Nominal/contingencies
technique frequency flywheel
[30] Sine-cosine wavelet-based control Enhancement of power quality with Wind, solar panel, wave, √ Normal/uncertain
scheme frequency stabilization conventional diesel, battery and
flywheel

2
A. Latif et al.
controller parameters is an important parameter to improve the system
dynamics. Hence, different heuristic algorithmic tools such as genetic
algorithm (GA) [17], PSO [18], firefly technique (FA) [31], cuckoo
search technique (CS) [31], mine blast technique (MBA) [32], flower
pollination technique (FPA) [33], butterfly algorithmic technique (BOA)
[21] are employed for tuning the parameters of the controllers [34]. In
this paper, a recently developed swarm-based grasshopper algorithmic
technique (GOA) [35] is leveraged for tuning the proposed double stage
controller. With one position vector in each search agent, this algorithm
has a high rate of convergence [35]. Furthermore, comparative perfor­
mance assessment of proposed double stage controller under different
algorithms including GOA, PSO, GA, CA and FA is presented. In the light
of above discussions, the main contributions of this work can be sum­
marized as follows;
Fig. 1. (a) System Overview, (b) schematic structure of proposed renewable energy-based hybrid maritime microgrid.
3
Applied Energy 282 (2021) 116171
(a) Proposing a novel independent renewable energy-based hybrid
maritime microgrid system (HMμGS) that consists of WDG,
AWPG, MBG, SOFC, HP, FRZ.
(b) To establish a transfer function model of different renewable
energy systems (WDG, AWPG) as well as other considered sub­
systems of the proposed HMμGS.
(c) Performance assessment of different controllers such as; PID,
PIDN and proposed PI-(1 + PD) controllers.
(d) Performance assessment different algorithms (GA, PSO, FA, CA
and GOA) using the obtained superior controller in (c).
(e) To study the system dynamics under random variation of wind
(considering real time wind data), wave and sensitive load de­
mand in HMμGS.
(f) To establish the sensitivity assessment of proposed double stage
PI-(1 + PD) controller under uncertain loading (ΔPSN) and
A. Latif et al. Applied Energy 282 (2021) 116171

variations in inertia constant (M), droop co-efficient (R) and gain microgrid system are discussed in the following sub-section. A list of
of WDG (KWDG). symbols and abbreviations are given in Table 2.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 illustrates the

modeling and functionalities of proposed frequency response model of 2.1. Wind driven generation (WDG)
the maritime microgrid. The GOA technique and its use are detailed in
Section 3. The outline of the proposed controller is described in Section The stochastic nature variable speed induction generator employed
4. Simulation test results of proposed frequency response model are wind power generation is dependent on wind velocity and inherent
discussed in Section 5. Performances of different controllers and opti­ identification of wind turbine. So, the extractable mechanical output
mization algorithms are also benchmarked in this section. Finally, Sec­ power of WDG [36] can be expressed as;
tion 6 draws the conclusions. 3
PWD = 0.5ρ.VWD .Ab .CP (λ, β) (1)
2. System modeling of proposed renewable energy-based hybrid
where ρ, VWD, Ab, and CP are the air density, stochastic wind velocity,
maritime microgrid system
blade swept area and the extractable power co-efficient respectively. A
real-time recorded datasheet (provided by National Institute of Wind
This section depicts a complete schematic structural analysis of the
Energy, India) of Akkanayakanpatti [37] wind power station is consid­
proposed HMμGS as shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b). Moreover, hybrid system
ered in this work as shown in Appendix A. The rate of change of
model mentioned in the proposed work consists of wind driven gener­
considered station’s wind power generation with its complete transfer
ators (WDG), Archimedes wave power generation (AWPG), MBG, SOFC
function model could be represented as below [38];
as well as thermostatically controllable HP and FRZ elements. The
⎧
control concept presented in this paper is based on the fact that the ⎪
⎪
⎪ 0, VWD < Vcut− in | | VWD > Vcut− out
output power of the dispatchable units (MBG and SOFC), thermostatic ⎪
⎪
⎨ Prated , Vrated ⩽ VWD ⩽Vcut− out
loads (HP and FRZ) will be controlled while allowing the renewable PWDG = (2)
⎪ ( 0.001312 VWD 6 5 4
energy units (WDG, AWPG) to generate maximum possible power. As ⎪
⎪
⎪
− 0.04603 VWD + 0.3314 VWD
⎪
such, it is assumed that all the renewable energy generating units are
3 2
⎩ +3.687 VWD − 51.1 VWD + 2.33 VWD + 366), else
employed with power electronic converters/interfacing circuits and the
WDG possesses maximum power pint tracking system. Therefore, ⎧
⎪
⎪
HMμGS model employs controllers (such as PID, PID with filter (PIDN)/ ⎪
⎪
⎪
0, VWD < Vcut− in | | VWD > Vcut− out
⎪
PI-(1 + PD)) for the dispatchable units so as to adjust the power gen­ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ 0, Vrated ⩽ VWD ⩽Vcut−
eration from these units, while the function of the controllers in ther­
out
ΔPWDG =
mostatic loads is to control the input power. The control parameters are ⎪
⎪ 5 4 3

tuned optimally using optimization techniques (such as GA, PSO, FA, CA

⎪
⎪
⎪
( [0.007872 VWD − 0.23015 VWD + 1.3256 VWD (3)
⎪
⎪
⎪
and GOA). Output power from the RRs varies significant throughout the ⎪
⎪
⎩ +11.061 VWD2
− 102.2 VWD + 2.33]. ΔVWD ), else
day/night, it is the responsibility of the control optimization strategy to
maintain active power balance for reliable and stable operation of the KWDG
GWDG (s) =
HMμGS while allowing maximum power output from the RRs. However, TWDG s + 1
issues regarding control of power electronic converters or their contri­
butions fall outside the scope of the present work. The detailed modeling
and functionalities of planned renewable energy based maritime 2.2. Archimedes wave power generation (AWPG)

Permanent magnet synchronous generator (PMSG) enabled Archi­

Table 2
medes wave power generator (AWPG) is considered in the proposed
Symbols used in HMμGS and their meanings.
work. The active speed and force of the AWPG can be formulated as
Symbol Abbreviation Value [39];
ΔPSN Change in sensitive load power output in p.u. –
dx
ΔF Fluctuation of frequency in Hz – vFG = (4)
ΔPG Change in generated power – dt
ΔPD Power difference from ΔPG and ΔPSN
KVR Gain of Valve regulator 1 dvFG
FWV = mft + βG vFG + βω vFG + kC x (5)
KBE Gain of engine 1 dt
TVR Valve regulator delay time 0.08 s
TCE Time constant of MBG 0.4 s where vFG and FWV are the velocity (m/s) of the floater-generator set and
KWDG Gain of WDG 1 wave strengths (N) respectively. The floater-translator set movement is x
TWDG Time constant of WDG 5s
KAWPG Gain value of AWPG 1
in (m), where, mft is the overall mass in (kg). The damping factor of
TAWPG Time constant of AWPG 0.3 s synchronous generator and AWPG (N s/m) is termed as βG and βω. The
KSOFC Gain of SOFC 1 spring coefficient is represented as kC is the (N/m).
TSOFC Time constant of SOFC 0.2 s The non-linear sinusoidal wave strength could be depicted as;
KHP Gain constant of HP 1
THP Time constant of HP 0.1 s F F
KFRZ Gain of FRZ 1
FWV = Fsin(ωWV .t) + sin(2ωWV .t) + sin(3ωWV .t) (6)
2 3
TFRZ Time constant of FRZ 0.265 s
M HMμGS moment of inertia 0.12 s where F and ωwv are the magnitude and radial frequency of wave
D HMμGS damping co-factor 1.0p.u/Hz
strength [7]. The linearized transfer function of AWPG can be deliber­
VWD Natural wind velocity –
Vcut-in Cut-in WDG velocity – ated as [39];
Vrated Nominal natural wind speed –
KAWPG
Vcut-out Cut-out natural wind speed – GAWPG (s) = (7)
ItrMax Maximum no of iterations 100 TAWPG .s + 1
Tsim Simulation time of HMμGS 100 s

4
A. Latif et al. Applied Energy 282 (2021) 116171

2.3. Maritime bio-diesel generator (MBG) ( )

ΔF KHMμGS
GHMμGS (s) = = (17)
Power generation from high efficiency based MBG set is analogous to ΔPD D + sM
conventional diesel generator. However, the inherent non-toxic, biode­
gradable, positive air quality characteristics are the motivating factors 2.7. Objective function formulation (J)
for their use in the proposed work. The linearized model of MBG can be
stated as [40]; Formulation of ‘J’ plays a key factor to get an optimal system dy­
( ) namics. This study considered integral square error (ISE) objective
ΔuMBG = U(s) − R− 1 × ΔF (8) function as illustrated in (18).
∫ TSim
ΔPVR = ΔuMBG − (R− 1 ∗ ΔF) (9) Minimize JISE = (ΔF)2 .dt (18)
0
( )
KVR
ΔPGCE = ΔPVR ∗ (10) Subject to :
TVR s + 1 ⎧
⎪
⎪ min max
( ) ⎪
⎪ KPi ⩽KPi ⩽KPi
KCE ⎪
⎪
ΔPMBG = ΔPGCE ∗ (11) ⎪
⎪
⎪ min max
TCE s + 1 ⎪
⎪ KIi ⩽KIi ⩽KIi
⎪
⎪ min
⎪
⎨ K ⩽KDi ⩽K max (19)
where ΔuMBG and U(s) are the change in input error of MBG and the Di Di
⎪
output control signal of the controller as framed in Fig. 2.
min max
⎪
⎪ KNi ⩽KNi ⩽KNi
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ min max
⎪
⎪ KPi2 ⩽KPi2 ⩽KPi2
⎪
⎪
⎪
2.4. Solid-oxide electrolyte fuel cell (SOFC) ⎪
⎪ min max
⎩ KDi2 ⩽KDi2 ⩽KDi2

SOFC storage unit which transform concentrated organic hydrogen

(H2) and oxygen (O2) energy into electricity considering two electrodes where i = 1, 2. The range of controller parameters is taken in between
and porcelain based electrolyte. Due to higher temperature, efficiency [0–250].
(~80%) with lower polluted gas emission it’s gains much interest among
the other fuel cell unit. The linearized model of SOFC can be illustrated 3. Overview of grasshopper algorithmic technique (GOA)
as [41];
In 2017 grasshopper swarm’s behavior has been mathematically
GSOFC (s) =
KSOFC
(12) modeled and proposed as bio-inspired grasshopper algorithmic tech­
TSOFC s + 1 nique (GOA) [35]. During swarming, the mating behavior of grasshop­
pers depends on the exploitation and exploration characteristics. With
2.5. Non sensitive heat pump (HP) and freezer (FRZ) loads considering the impact of these characteristics, the strength of social
force (SH) can be formulated as;
HP and FRZ are the two non-sensitive controllable loads can be
SH (r) = f .e− r/l
− er (20)
leveraged for load frequency regulation as well as to improve system
stability of HMμGS due to their higher regulating capacity. The transfer The initialization of virtual grasshopper (GV) with enabling N num­
function of HP [42] and FRZ [43] could be depicted as; ber of search agents is illustrated as follows;
KHP GV = LBi + (UBi − LBi ). rand(1, N) (21)
GHP (s) = (13)
THP s + 1
where i = 1, 2, 3….dim.
KFRZ To simulate the behavior of swarm for qth dimension and ith pop­
GFRZ (s) = (14)
TFRZ s + 1 ulation, a mathematical modeling corresponding to swarm behavior is
expressed as [35];
⎛ ⎞
2.6. HMμGS system dynamics model
⎜∑ ⎟
⎜ N UBq − LBq ( ⃒⃒ q ⃒ ) xj − xi ⎟ ∧
The change of difference between net generated power (ΔPG) and Xiq = Cf ⎜
⎜ Cf SH xj − xqi ⃒ ⎟ + tq (22)
2 qij ⎟
sensitive load demand (ΔPSN) can be formulated as; ⎝ j=1 ⎠
( ) i∕
=j
ΔPWDG + ΔPAWPG + ΔPMBG ± ΔPSOFC
ΔPG = (15)
− ΔPHP − ΔPFRZ = ΔPSN →0
where UBq and LBq are the upper and lower bound of qth swarm
dimension respectively. The coefficient support factor is represented by
ΔPD = ΔPG − ΔPSN (16)
Cf, whereas xj and xi are the position of grasshopper. tq is the targeted qth
Therefore, the overall frequency response model of the HMμGS could dimension value. To support the optimum target value the coefficient
be expressed as; factor (Cf) is leveraged considering the current and maximum iteration I
and ItrMax as formulated in (23).
( ) Cfmax − Cfmin
Cf = Cfmax − I (23)
ItrMax
The flow diagram of GOA technique is displayed in Fig. 3. The
considered parameters of the used algorithm are shown in Appendix A.

Fig. 2. MBG response model of proposed hybrid maritime microgrid.

5
A. Latif et al.
Fig. 3. Flow diagram representation of GOA.
4. Design of the proposed double stage controller for renewable
energy based HMμGS
The outline of proposed double stage PI-one plus-proportional-de­
rivative PI-(1 + PD) controller is depicted in Fig. 4. ΔF is used as an input
signal whereas U(s) is the output control signal of the controller. The
equation of the output control signal and transfer function of the
Fig. 4. Structure of proposed PI-(1 + PD) controller.
6
Applied Energy 282 (2021) 116171
controller are as given in (24) and (25), respectively.
U(s) = ΔF* PI − (1 + PD) (24)
GPI− (1+PD) (s) = KP + KI /S − (1 + KP + KD .S) (25)
In PI-(1 + PD) controller structure (Fig. 4), four gain parameters are
needed, i.e. two proportional gain (KP) one integral gain (KI) and one
derivative parameter (KD) as equipped in equation (25). The main
advantage of this proposed double stage PI-(1 + PD) controller is the
better performance under the steady state and transient condition
analysis where, in several applications, the classical PID structure fails to
deliver optimal output during the transient state. In the second stage of
the proposed controllers’, the selection of D discloses the necessity of
high frequency noise exclusion provided by sensor. Hence, proposed
double stage PI-(1 + PD) controller not only provides better system
stability but also cancels high frequency noise.
5. Simulated test system, results and discussion
To verify the proposed control strategy, a renewable energy based
hybrid maritime microgrid is considered as illustrated in Fig. 1(b) and
executed under diverse case studies leveraging MATLAB/SIMULINK
R2013A environment in a computer with Core-i7-4770 CPU processor.
In this study, two algorithmic techniques are considered. To ensure the
proposed control technique validation, a real-time recorded wind data is
utilized.
5.1. Case 1: Performance assessment of all controllers during non-
availability of all renewable energy resources
In this case, due to maintenance, all the renewable resources (RRs)
are deactivated. So, the output power of WDG (ΔPWDG) and AWPG
(ΔPAWPG) are zero at t = 0 s onwards. A fix change of sensitive load
demand (ΔPSN = 0.2 p.u.) is applied at t = 0 s. The comparative dynamic
responses of PID, PIDN and PI-(1 + PD) controllers are given in Fig. 5
(a)–(c). The power coordination of all the bio generation/storage/sen­
sitive loads (MBG, SOFC, HP, FRZ) units are plotted in Fig. 5(b) and (c).
To improve the system dynamics, MBG and SOFC deliver powers to meet
the expected demanded load at t = 0 s onwards. Though the demanded
load power is more during the entire period, hence the power sharing of
two non-sensitive loads (HP and FRZ) are zero p.u as shown in Fig. 5 (c).
The evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed double-stage PI-(1
+ PD) has been further analysed by rigorous testing (under 100 runs) as
shown by its comparative convergence characteristics with other
considered controllers are displayed in Fig. 5(d). The GOA tuned
controller parameters are illustrated in Table 3. The analysis of
comparative statistical assessment such as best, worst, mean and stan­
dard deviation (StD) are documented in Table 4. Frequency settling time
(TST) of frequency response maritime model for proposed double stage
PI-(1 + PD) controller is speeder than classical PID and PIDN controllers.
It is 23.48% and 30.95% quicker than PID and PIDN respectively. The
exhibition of comparative frequency stabilization, objective function
(JISE) analysis from Fig. 5(a)–(d) as well as depicted results in Table 3
reveals that GOA tuned PI-(1 + PD) controller performs dependably
better than other conventional controllers. This confirms the system
dynamics improvement due to faster response by PI-(1 + PD) control
unit to smoothen the ΔF. The system frequency fluctuation settles to its
nominal value within 3 s for load perturbation as shown in Fig. 5(a) with
zoomed view (at t = 0 s). Moreover, the performance assessment in­
dicators of different controllers in terms of Jmin, peak frequency over­
shoot (+POD), peak frequency undershoot (-PUD) and frequency settling
time (TST) is depicted in Table 3. Since PI-(1 + PD) controller performs
superior than other controllers, so the following scenarios are performed
with the proposed PI-(1 + PD) controller.
A. Latif et al. Applied Energy 282 (2021) 116171

Fig. 5. Comparative dynamic response assessment of PID, PIDN and PI-(1 + PD) controllers in terms of (a) frequency fluctuation (ΔF) (b) change in extractable
power of MBG, SOFC (c) output power of HP and FRZ and (d) objective function (J) values.

Table 3 Table 4
Comparative frequency response under optimal tuned controllers’ value. Comparative analysis of statistical parameters under different controller.
Controllers PID PIDN PI-(1 + PD) Measure Worst Best
− 5
Peak Frequency Overshoot (þPOD) PID 8.499 × 10 1.281 × 10− 5
ΔF (in Hz) 0.0078 0.0346 0.0007 PIDN 2.588 × 10− 4 1.384 × 10− 5
Peak Frequency Undershoot (-PUD) PI-(1 + PD) 5.544 £ 10− 7 1.674 £ 10− 8
ΔF (in Hz) 0.0249 0.0603 0.0076
Mean StD
Frequency Settling time (TST)
ΔF (in s) 3.649 4.044 2.792 PID 1.509 × 10− 5
9.065 × 10− 6
Minimization of J (Jmin) PIDN 1.938 × 10− 5 2.734 × 10− 5
5 5 8
1.28 * 10− 1.38 * 10− 1.67 * 10− PI-(1 + PD) 6.062 £ 10− 8 6.102 £ 10− 8
Controller tuned parameters
Controller-1 KP1 0.526 0.4998 0.507 The superior output is emphasized with bold.
KI1 10.11 10.215 15.42
KD1 0.112 0.109 –
demand. Considering the same constant load demand (0.2 p.u.) applied
N1 – 100.2 –
KP12 – – 0.503
in case 1, the output power of WDG is 0.1 p.u. during 0 < t < 50 s and
KD12 – – 0.128 0.15 p.u at t = 50 s onwards. Whereas AWPG has a constant 0.1 p.u.
generation output. The comparative frequency deviation is displayed in
Controller-2 KP2 5.014 18.02 4.517
KI2 5.558 20.05 4.115 Fig. 6(a). The comparative subsystems contribution is portrayed in Fig. 6
KD2 1.615 200.6 – (b-c). The power coordination of all the bio generation/storage/sensi­
N2 – 100.0 – tive loads (MBG, SOFC, HP, FRZ) units are plotted in Fig. 6(b)–(d). To
KP22 – – 1.115 improve the system dynamics, initially at t = 0 s MBG and SOFC deliver
KD22 – – 2.225
power to balance the generation-load mismatch. However, at t = 50 s
The superior output is emphasized with bold. onwards the excess generated power from RRs is shared by SOFC and
non-sensitive loads (HP and FRZ) to meet the expected demanded load
5.2. Case 2: Performance assessment of different algorithmic techniques as shown in Fig. 6(c) and (d). The optimized values of the controller
during availability of all renewable energy resources parameters are displayed in Table 5. From these dynamic responses, the
decision indicators such as, peak frequency overshoot (+POD), peak
This case study depicts the performance assessment of GA, PSO, FA, frequency undershoot (− PUD), rise time (RT) and frequency settling time
CA and GOA techniques under concurrent changes in RRs and load (TST) have been compared in Table 6 which clearly shows the superiority

7
A. Latif et al. Applied Energy 282 (2021) 116171

Fig. 6. Performance assessment of different algorithm (GA, PSO, FA, CA and GOA) (a) frequency deviation (ΔF) (b) extracted power of MBG, SOFC (c) extracted
power of SOFC, (d) extracted power of HP and FRZ.

considered algorithmic techniques a figure of demerits (FOD) is pre­

Table 5
sented in at the same table by utilizing Eq. (26).
Optimal controllers’ parameters under GA, PSO, FA, CA and GOA techniques,
case 2. JFOD = ( + POD )2 + ( − PUD )2 + (TST )2 (26)
Algorithms GA PSO FA CA GOA
The dynamic responses in terms of ΔF and other subsystems contri­
Controller-1 KP1 0.514 2.162 5.181 10.06 15.012 bution assess the performance of considered algorithms (from Fig. 6 and
KI1 20.61 25. 061 24. 604 25. 007 26.450
Table 6) which clearly indicate that, GOA tuned PI-(1 + PD) controller
KP12 0.572 0.589 0.547 0.565 0.051
KI12 0.104 0.115 0.109 0.113 0.1172 performs better than GA, PSO, FA and CA tuned PI-(1 + PD) controllers.
Controller-2 KP2 13.88 14.517 14.783 14.221 15.017 The system frequency fluctuation is settle to it’s nominal value within 5 s
KI2 14.415 18.113 24.072 34.115 55.118 for every perturbations as shown in Fig. 6 (a) with zoomed view (at t = 0
KP22 4.115 4.109 6.116 6.089 10.172 s and t = 50 s), insert for better interpretations. In this scenario the
KI22 2.221 2.219 2.225 2.307 2.324
performance of GOA techniques also signifies that GOA-PI-(1 + PD)
controller obtain faster global minima than the other techniques tuned
PI-(1 + PD) controller.
Table 6
Comparative decision indicator under GA, PSO, FA, CA, GOA techniques, case 2.
5.3. Case 3: Performance assessment of different controllers under
Algorithms +POD (×10− 4) − PUD (×10− 4) RT (in s) TST (in s) JFOD
concurrent random generation of WPG (using real recorded data), AWPG
GA 3.459 12.47 2.736 8.429 71.05 and load demand
PSO 3.217 11.97 2.486 7.839 61.45
FA 2.135 10.71 2.034 6.934 48.08
CA 1.773 10.56 1.729 5.912 34.95 To validate the proposed test system, a practical real-recorded wind
GOA 0.943 10.29 1.095 4.669 21.79 velocity data is considered, as obtained from NIWE, Govt. of India [37]
as tabulated in Appendix A. During the entire time period an average
The superior output is emphasized with bold.
AWPG (ΔPAWPG) and sensitive load demand (ΔPSN) of 0.2 p.u and 0.5 p.
u is leveraged from t = 0 s onwards.
of the GOA technique. The behavior of the developed frequency control
The velocity of wind and its’ corresponding extractable power
model is attaining the controlled frequency signal with less deviation.
change is depicted in Fig. 7(a). The discrepancy between active gener­
The proposed GOA-PI-(1 + PD) technique attains minimum deviation,
ated power and sensitive load demand (ΔF) is framed in Fig. 7(b),
which is 72.73% better than GA-PI-(1 + PD), 70.68% better than PSO-
whereas the comparative responses of other subsystems (MBG, SOFC,
PI-(1 + PD), 55.83% advanced than FA-PI-(1 + PD), 46.81% advanced
HP, FRZ) are framed in Fig. 7(c)–(e). To improve the system dynamics
than CA-PI-(1 + PD) techniques. The minimum settling response time
under combined random disturbances the MBG and SOFC deliver
for the proposed technique 44.60% faster than GA-PI-(1 + PD), 40.43%
powers to balance the generation-load mismatch as depicted in Fig. 7(c)
faster than PSO-PI-(1 + PD), 32.66% faster than FA-PI-(1 + PD), 21.02%
and (d). Though the demanded load power is more during the entire
faster than CA-PI-(1 + PD) techniques respectively.
period, hence the power sharing of two non-sensitive loads (HP and
In this regard, for better performance assessment in between the
FRZ) are zero p.u as shown in Fig. 7(e). The tuned values of PID, PIDN,

8
A. Latif et al.
Fig. 7. Comparative system dynamics under real time data based random disturbances (a) multiple random disturbances, (b) frequency deviation (ΔF), (c) output
power of MBG, (d) output power of SOFC, (e) output power of HP and FRZ.
PI-(1 + PD) controllers are articulated in Table 7. The behavior of the
developed frequency control model is attaining the controlled frequency
signal with less deviation. The proposed GOA-PI-(1 + PD) technique
attains minimum deviation, which is 60% better than GOA-PID and
87.02% better than GOA-PIDN controller. The analysis of comparative
dynamic performance indicators such as + POD and -PUD under PID,
PIDN and PI-(1 + PD) controllers are tabulated in the same Table 7. The
comparative dynamic responses in Fig. 7(b)–(d) and corresponding de­
cision indicators tabulated in Table 7 under GOA optimized different
controller clearly justifies that GOA-PI-(1 + PD) provide superior results
than the rest one in participation of real-time data.
5.4. Case 4: Analysis of sensitivity of GOA-optimized PI-(1 + PD)
controller under uncertain system loading and parametric variations
This case study assesses the sturdiness of the GOA tuned PI-(1 + PD)
controller with a base condition of multiple constant disturbances of
renewable resources and load demand (ΔPWDG, ΔPAWPG and ΔPSN) of 0.3
p.u, 0.25 p.u & 0.1 p.u. are leveraged at t = 0 s onwards. The optimal
9
Applied Energy 282 (2021) 116171
controller parameters are listed below.
KP11 = 5.509, KP1 = 14.98, KI1 = 25.24, KP12 = 0.059, KD1 = 0.11,
KP2 = 5.492, KI2 = 10.091, KP22 = 1.096, KD22 = 0.103.
To test the sturdiness of the suggested double stage PI-(1 + PD)
controller corresponding to the above said base case situation, a sensi­
tivity assessment with +40% increment of loading (ΔPSN), variation of
WDG gain values (KWDG), ±30% variation of inertia constant (M) and
droop coefficient (R) are taken into deliberation with optimal controller
gain values. The comparative dynamic responses of model for above
sensitivity assessment are analyzed in Fig. 8. From Fig. 8, it can be seen
that under the above uncertain circumstances the system dynamics will
not deviate much from base conditions and the maximum frequency
overshoot is only 2.464 × 10− 4 Hz. The range of uncertain system
loading and other parametric variations is given in Table 8. Finally,
regarding the assessment it could be explored that the tuned PI-(1 + PD)
controller parameters is quite robust to handle the uncertainties/para­
metric variations of proposed HMμGS.
A. Latif et al. Applied Energy 282 (2021) 116171

Table 7 test the system dynamics. The performance assessment in terms of peak
Decision indicators of different controllers with optimum controller parameters, frequency deviations (+POD, -PUD), rise time (RT) and frequency settling
case 3. time (TST) of different controllers and algorithmic techniques clearly
Controllers PID PIDN PI-(1 + PD) reveals that GOA tuned PI-(1 + PD) controller performs better than other
Peak Frequency Overshoot (þPOD)
algorithmic tuned controllers. In fact, the comparative statistical per­
ΔF (in Hz) 0.095 0.2929 0.038 formance assessment justifies the superiority of proposed PI-(1 + PD)
Peak Frequency Undershoot (¡PUD) controller over other considered controllers. The proposed control
ΔF (in Hz) 0.103 0.390 0.099 stratagem is verified on different disturbance-based case studies where
Controller tuned parameters
integral of square error (ISE) is 0.0000000167 and maximum frequency
Controller-1 KP1 0. 056 0.520 15.05
KI1 5.011 5.013 25.16 overshoot (+POD) is less than 0.05 Hz for ΔF in the proposed HMμGS.
KD1 0.109 0.108 – Figure of demerits (FOD) analysis shows that the developed GOA-PI-(1
N1 – 101.2 – + PD) technique is 69.33% better than genetic algorithmic technique
KP12 – – 0.055 (GA) tuned PI-(1 + PD), 64.54% better than particle swarm technique
KD12 0.101
(PSO) tuned PI-(1 + PD), 54.67% better than firefly algorithmic tech­
– –

Controller-2 KP2 1.211 2.010 5.517 nique (FA) tuned PI-(1 + PD) and 37.65% better than cultural algo­
KI2 5.505 6.015 10.115
rithmic technique (CA) tuned PI-(1 + PD), which confirms the
KD2 1.710 199.5 –
N2 – 117.2 –
superiority of the proposed control scheme for renewable energy based
KP22 – – 1.119 hybrid maritime microgrid system. Analysis of sensitivity assessment
KD22 – – 0.092 under uncertain variations reveals the sturdiness of proposed double
The superior output is emphasized with bold. stage PI-(1 + PD) controller.
Furthermore, the proposed novel double stage PI-(1 + PD) controller
adjusts the power output of dispatchable units such that the available
6. Conclusion

This work develops a novel controller and optimization approach for Table 8
load frequency control in renewable energy-based hybrid maritime Uncertainties and parametric variations of HMμGS.
microgrid system. By enabling a novel double stage PI-(1 + PD) Uncertain parameters Variation Range
controller, the performance of the system dynamics is established and Loading +40%
compared under diverse case studies. The novelty lies in the use of M ±30%
recently developed grasshopper algorithmic technique (GOA) to tune R ±30%
KWDG
the proposed double stage controller under real recorded wind data to –

Fig. 8. Sensitivity assessment w.r.t base condition tuned values under uncertain parametric variations (a) ΔF for +40% variations in loading, (b) ΔF for ±30%
variation in M, (c) ΔF for ±30% variation in R and (d) ΔF for variation in KWDG.

10
A. Latif et al.
power from the renewable energy sources is utilized to its maximum.
This allows using renewable energy-based sources at microgrids, espe­
cially in maritime microgrids. The proposed controller is shown to have
faster and more stable operation. This translates into controlling the
microgrid so that more renewable energy is captured, more swift action
can be taken in case of energy mismatch and power system can be
operated in a more stable manner. This accelerates the acceptance of
renewable energy sources in energy systems. Also, the proposed system
is not limited to maritime microgrids and can be adapted for use in
different scenarios.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Abdul Latif: Conceptualization, Software, Validation, Investigation,
Writing - original draft, Visualization, Formal analysis, Investigation. S.
M. Suhail Hussain: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing,
Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation. Dulal Chandra Das:
Methodology, Writing - review & editing, Resources, Supervision,
Formal analysis, Funding acquisition. Taha Selim Ustun: Writing - re­
view & editing, Supervision, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported in part by Ministry of Human Resource
Development (MHRD), India through SRF Fellowship as financial sup­
port to Abdul Latif and in part by Fukushima Prefecture’s Reconstruc­
tion Grant, 2019.
Appendix A
WDG: Date of recorded data: 01st July 2016, Minimum velocity of
wind: 7.4804 m/s; Maximum velocity of wind: 14.08 m/s; Average ve­
locity of wind: 10.922 m/s; StD: 1.1895.
PSO: Number of population: 50, ItrMax: 100, Maxm weight constant
(Wmax): 0.9, Minm weight constant (Wmin): 0.1, Acceleration co-factor
(C1&C2): 2.
FA: Size of fireflies (N): 50; Co-factor for light absorption (γ): 0.5;
Cofactor of attractiveness (β): 0.2; Co-factor to scale (s): 0.2; ItrMax: 100.
CA: Population size (N): 50; ItrMax: 100; Acceptance coefficient (γ):
0.35.
GOA: Number of population: 50, ItrMax: 100, Maximum coefficient
factor (Cfmax) = 1, Minimum coefficient factor (Cfmin) = 0.00004,
attraction intensity (f): 0.5, length scale of attractiveness (l): 1.5.
References
[1] Majumder R. Feasibility and challenges in microgrids for marine vessels. Ph.D.
dissertation. Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers University Technology; 2016.
[2] Vu TV, Gonsoulin D, Diaz F, Edrington CS, El-Mezyani T. Predictive control for
energy management in ship power systems under high-power ramp rate loads. IEEE
Trans Energy Convers 2017;32:788–97.
[3] Hou J, Sun J, Hofmann HF. Mitigating power fluctuations in electric ship
propulsion with hybrid energy storage system: design and analysis. IEEE J Oceanic
Eng 2018;43:93–107.
[4] Luo X, Wang J, Dooner M, Clarke J. Overview of current development in electrical
energy storage technologies and the application potential in power system
operation. Appl Energy 2015;137:511–36.
[5] Ovrum E, Bergh TF. Modelling lithium-ion battery hybrid ship crane operation.
Appl Energy 2015;152:162–72.
[6] Maleki A, Askarzadeh A. Artificial bee swarm optimization for optimum sizing of a
stand-alone PV/WT/FC hybrid system considering LPSP concept. Sol Energy 2014;
107:227–35.
11
Applied Energy 282 (2021) 116171
[7] Maleki A, Askarzadeh A. Optimal sizing of a PV/wind/diesel system with battery
storage for electrification to an off-grid remote region: a case study of Rafsanjan,
Iran. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2014;7:147–53.
[8] Lan H, Wen S, Hong Y-Y, Yu CD, Zhang L. Optimal sizing of hybrid PV/diesel/
battery in ship power system. Appl Energy 2015;158:26–34.
[9] Jayasinghe SG, Meegahapola L, Fernando N, Jin Z, Guerrero JM. Review of ship
microgrids: system architectures, storage technologies and power quality aspects.
Inventions 2017;2:4.
[10] Geertsma RD, Negenborn RR, Visser K, Hopman JJ. Design and control of hybrid
power and propulsion systems for smart ships: a review of developments. Appl
Energy 2017;194:34–54.
[11] Wen S, Lan H, Hong Y-Y, Yu CD, Zhang L, Cheng P. Allocation of ESS by interval
optimization method considering impact of ship swinging on hybrid PV/diesel ship
power system. Appl Energy 2016;175:158–67.
[12] Haseltalab A, Negenborn RR. Model predictive maneuvering control and energy
management for all electric autonomous ships. Appl Energy 2019;251:113308.
[13] Al-Falahi, Monaaf DA, Tomasz T, Shantha GJ, Zheming Jin, Hossein E, Josep MG.
AC ship microgrids: control and power management optimization. Energies 2018;
11:1458.
[14] Mutarraf MU, Terriche Y, Niazi KAK, Khan F, Vasquez JC, Guerrero JM. Control of
hybrid diesel/PV/battery/ultra-capacitor systems for future shipboard microgrids.
Energies 2019;12:3460.
[15] Zhaoxia X, Zhu T, Li H, Josep MG, Chun-Lien S, Juan C. V. Coordinated control of a
hybrid-electric-ferry shipboard microgrid. IEEE Trans Transp Electrif 2019;5:
828–39.
[16] Xiao Z, et al. Operation control for improving energy efficiency of shipboard
microgrid including bow thrusters and hybrid energy storages. IEEE Trans Transp
Electrif 2020;6:856–68.
[17] Das DC, Roy AK, Sinha N. GA based frequency controller for solar
thermal–diesel–wind hybrid energy generation/energy storage system. Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 2012;43:262–79.
[18] Das DC, Sinha N, Roy AK. Automatic generation control of an organic Rankine
cycle solar–thermal/wind–diesel hybrid energy system. Energy Technol 2014;2:
721–31.
[19] Pahasa J, Ngamroo I. Coordinated control of wind turbine blade pitch angle and
PHEVs using MPCs for load frequency control of microgrid. IEEE Syst J 2016;10:
97–105.
[20] Latif A, Das DC, Ranjan S, Barik A. Comparative performance evaluation of WCA-
optimised non-integer controller employed with WPG-DSPG-PHEV based isolated
two-area interconnected microgrid system. IET Renew Power Gener 2019;13:
725–36.
[21] Latif A, Das DC, Barik AK, Ranjan S. Maiden co-ordinated load frequency control
strategy for ST-AWEC-GEC-BDDG based independent three-area interconnected
microgrid system with the combined effect of diverse energy storage and DC link
using BOA optimized PFOID controller. IET Renew Power Gener 2019;13:2634–46.
[22] Wang H, Zeng G, Dai Y, et al. Design of fractional order frequency controller for an
islanded microgrid: a multi-objective external optimization method. Energies
2017;10:1502.
[23] Chen MR, Zeng G, Dai Y, et al. Fractional-order model predictive frequency control
of an islanded microgrid. Energies 2019;12:84.
[24] Guo J. Application of a novel adaptive sliding mode control method to the load
frequency control. Eur J Control 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejcon.2020.03.007.
[25] Nosratabadi SM, Bornapour M, Gharaei MA. Grasshopper optimization algorithm
for optimal load frequency control considering predictive Functional Modified PID
controller in restructured multi-resource multi-area power system with Redox Flow
Battery units. Control Eng Pract 2019;89:204–27.
[26] Shang-Guan X, et al. Sampled-data based discrete and fast load frequency control
for power systems with wind power. Appl Energy 2020;259:114202.
[27] Jalali N, Razmi H, Doagou-Mojarrad H. Optimized fuzzy self-tuning PID controller
design based on Tribe-DE optimization algorithm and rule weight adjustment
method for load frequency control of interconnected multi-area power systems.
Appl Soft Comput 2020;93:106424.
[28] Khooban MH, Dragicevic T, Blaabjerg F, Delimar M. Shipboard microgrids: a novel
approach to load frequency control. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2018;9:843–52.
[29] Vafamand N, Khooban MH, Dragičević T, Boudjadar J, Asemani MH. Time-delayed
stabilizing secondary load frequency control of shipboard microgrids. IEEE Syst J
2019;13:3233–41.
[30] Khooban MH, Gheisarnejad M, Vafamand N, Jafari M, Mobayen S, Dragicevic T,
et al. Robust frequency regulation in mobile microgrids: HIL implementation. IEEE
Syst J 2019;13:4281–91.
[31] Latif A, Pramanik A, Das DC, Hussain I, Ranjan S. Plug in hybrid vehicle-wind-
diesel autonomous hybrid power system: frequency control using FA and CSA
optimized controller. Int J Syst Assurance Eng Manage 2018;9:1147–58.
[32] Ranjan S, Das DC, Latif A, Sinha N. LFC for autonomous hybrid microgrid system of
3 unequal renewable areas using mine blast algorithm. Int J Renew Energy Res
2018;8:1297–308.
[33] Hussain I, Ranjan S, Das DC, et al. Performance analysis of flower pollination
algorithm optimized PID controller for wind-PV-SMES-BESS-diesel autonomous
hybrid power system. Int J Renew Energy Res 2017;7:643–51.
[34] Latif A, Hussain SMS, Das DC, Ustun TS. State-of-the-art of controllers and soft
computing techniques for regulated load frequency management of single/multi-
area traditional and renewable energy based power systems. Appl Energy 2020;
266:114858.
[35] Saremi S, Mirjalili S, Lewis A. Grasshopper optimisation algorithm: theory and
application. Adv Eng Softw 2017;105:30–47.
A. Latif et al.
[36] Sahin ME, Sharaf AM, Okumus HI. A novel filter compensation scheme for single
phase-self-excited induction generator micro wind generation system. Sci Res
Essays 2012;7:3058–72.
[37] ‘Wind Speed Data’. Available at: http://niwe.res.in:8080/NIWE_WRA_DATA
/DataTable_D4.jsf.
[38] Lee DJ, Wang L. Small-signal stability analysis of an autonomous hybrid renewable
energy power generation/energy storage system part I: Time-domain simulations.
IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2008;23:311–20.
[39] Hasanien MH. Whale optimisation algorithm for automatic generation control of
interconnected modern power systems including renewable energy sources. IET
Gener Transm Distrib 2018;12:607–14.
12
Applied Energy 282 (2021) 116171
[40] El-Fergany AA, El-Hameed MA. Efficient frequency controllers for autonomous
two-area hybrid microgrid system using social-spider optimizer. IET Generation
Transm Distrib 2017;11:637–48.
[41] Deng Z, Cao H, Li X, et al. Generalized predictive control for fractional order
dynamic model of solid oxide fuel cell output power. J Power Sources 2010;195:
8097–103.
[42] Ali R, Mohamed TH, Qudaih YS, et al. A new load frequency control approach in an
isolated small power system using coefficient diagram method. Int J Electr Power
Energy Syst 2014;56:110–6.
[43] Wang J, Zhang H, Zhou Y. Intelligent under frequency and under voltage load
shedding method based on the active participation of smart appliances. IEEE Trans
Smart Grid 2017;8:353–61.