Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Science and Technology,

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

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

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Full Length Article

Automatic generation control of multi-area power systems with

diverse energy sources using Teaching Learning Based Optimization
algorithm
Rabindra Kumar Sahu *, Tulasichandra Sekhar Gorripotu, Sidhartha Panda
Department of Electrical Engineering, Veer Surendra Sai University of Technology (VSSUT), Burla, Odisha 768018, India

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

Article history: This paper presents the design and analysis of Proportional-Integral-Double Derivative (PIDD) control-
Received 18 May 2015 ler for Automatic Generation Control (AGC) of multi-area power systems with diverse energy sources
Received in revised form using Teaching Learning Based Optimization (TLBO) algorithm. At first, a two-area reheat thermal power
13 July 2015
system with appropriate Generation Rate Constraint (GRC) is considered. The design problem is formu-
Accepted 20 July 2015
Available online 14 August 2015
lated as an optimization problem and TLBO is employed to optimize the parameters of the PIDD controller.
The superiority of the proposed TLBO based PIDD controller has been demonstrated by comparing the
results with recently published optimization technique such as hybrid Firefly Algorithm and Pattern Search
Keywords:
Automatic Generation Control (AGC) (hFA-PS), Firefly Algorithm (FA), Bacteria Foraging Optimization Algorithm (BFOA), Genetic Algorithm (GA)
Boiler dynamics and conventional Ziegler Nichols (ZN) for the same interconnected power system. Also, the proposed ap-
Teaching Learning Based Optimization proach has been extended to two-area power system with diverse sources of generation like thermal,
(TLBO) algorithm hydro, wind and diesel units. The system model includes boiler dynamics, GRC and Governor Dead Band
Generation Rate Constraint (GRC) (GDB) non-linearity. It is observed from simulation results that the performance of the proposed ap-
Governor Dead Band (GDB) proach provides better dynamic responses by comparing the results with recently published in the literature.
Proportional-Integral-Double Derivative Further, the study is extended to a three unequal-area thermal power system with different controllers
(PIDD) controller
in each area and the results are compared with published FA optimized PID controller for the same system
under study. Finally, sensitivity analysis is performed by varying the system parameters and operating
load conditions in the range of ±25% from their nominal values to test the robustness.
© 2015, Karabuk University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under
the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction optimization techniques and the database is scanty. The concepts

of optimal control theory [6], Integral [7], Proportional-Integral [8],
Automatic Generation Control (AGC) plays an important role in the Proportional-Integral-Derivative [9], Integral-Double Derivative [10],
large scale multi-area interconnected power systems to maintain system Fractional Order PID [11] and Proportional-Integral-Double Deriv-
frequency and tie-line powers at their nominal values. Due to sudden ative [12] have been applied and their performance has been
disturbances or some other reasons if the generated active power compared for an AGC problem. Daneshfar and Bervani [13] have sug-
becomes less than the power demand, the frequency of generating units gested the multi-objective optimization problem (MOP) approach
tends to decrease and vice versa [1,2]. This causes the system frequen- and Genetic Algorithm (GA) technique is used to tuned PI control-
cy to deviate from its nominal value which is undesirable. To damp out lers for multi-area power systems. Gozde et al. [14] have used
the frequency deviation quickly and to keep the tie-line power at its Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) optimization technique to study the
scheduled value, AGC concept is used. However, the constant frequen- dynamic performance of AGC in a two-area interconnected thermal
cy cannot be obtained by the speed governor alone. So, a control system power system. Ali and Abd Elazim [15] have optimized the gains
is essential to cancel the effects of the sudden load changes and to keep of PID controller using BFOA technique for LFC problem and they
the frequency at the nominal value [3–5]. have compared it with Ziegler Nichols (ZN) and GA optimization
Over the past decades, the researchers in the world over are trying techniques. Dash et al. [16] have the applied cuckoo search algo-
to understand the AGC problem using several control strategies and rithm for AGC of a three-area thermal system with single reheat
turbine considering Generation Rate Constraints. Mohanty et al. [17]
have applied Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm based PID con-
troller for multi-area multi-source power system. Recently, Sahu et al.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9439702316, fax: +91 6632430204.
E-mail address: [email protected] (R.K. Sahu). [18] have applied hybrid firefly algorithm and pattern search op-
Peer review under responsibility of Karabuk University. timization technique with PID controller in AGC problem. It is

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2015.07.011
2215-0986/© 2015, Karabuk University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
114 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134

observed from literature survey that, most of the work was con- (ZN) [15]. It is observed that TLBO optimized PIDD controller for
fined to reheat thermal plants, hydro plants and relatively lesser the proposed two-area power system gives better dynamic perfor-
attention has been devoted to wind, diesel generating units. As con- mance in terms of settling time, overshoot and undershoot. In
ventional sources are exhausting day by day, now it is essential to addition the proposed approach is extended to multi-area multi-
make use of non-conventional sources such as solar and wind energy source power systems. The better system performance is achieved
at favorable locations [19]. with TLBO optimized PIDD controller compared to others. Further
It is clear from literature survey that the performance of the a three unequal-area thermal power system is considered. Results
power system depends on the controller structure and the optimi- obtained are compared with that of a recently published work pro-
zation techniques employed to optimize the controller parameters. posed by Padhan et al. [21]. Robustness test is performed by varying
Classical techniques of determining the optimum gains of the con- the operating load condition and system parameters in the range
trollers may fail to give optimal solution while solving harder of ±25% from their nominal values.
constrained problems with large number of variables or in a large
search space. To overcome such difficulties evolutionary algo- 2. Materials and methods
rithms (EAs) are used for searching near-optimum solutions to
problems. Hence, proposing and implementing new controller ap- 2.1. Two-area power system model
proaches using high performance heuristic optimization algorithms
to real world problems are always welcome. A two-area non-reheat interconnected thermal power system as
In this proposed work optimum values of PIDD controller gains shown in Fig. 1 is considered. Each area has a rating of 2000 MW
are obtained by using Teaching Learning Based Optimization (TLBO) with a nominal load of 1000 MW. The system is widely used in lit-
algorithm. The performance of many optimization techniques erature for the design and analysis of AGC [8,15,22]. In Fig. 1, B1 and
depends on proper selection of certain control parameters. In Par- B2 are the frequency bias parameters; ACE1 and ACE2 are area
ticle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm the control parameters control errors; u1 and u2 are the control outputs from the control-
influencing performance are inertia weight (w), social and cogni- ler; R1 and R2 are the governor speed regulation parameters in p.u.
tive parameters ( c1 and c 2 respectively), in Differential Evolution Hz; TG1 and TG 2 are the speed governor time constants in seconds;
(DE) algorithm the control parameters are scale factor (F) and cross- ΔPG1 and ΔPG 2 are the governor output command (p.u.); TT 1 and
over rate (CR). Selection of these parameters plays a very crucial role TT 2 are the turbine time constant in seconds; ΔPT 1 and ΔPT 2 are
in the performance of the algorithms. However TLBO algorithm does the change in turbine output powers; ΔPD1 and ΔPD2 are the load
not require any controlling parameter. Since it is a parameter free demand changes; K P1 and K P 2 are the power system gains; TP1 and
algorithm, it is simple, effective and faster which motivates many TP 2 are the power system time constant in seconds; T12 is the syn-
researchers to use this algorithm in their own research area. TLBO chronizing coefficient in p.u.; ΔPTie is the incremental change in tie
algorithm proposed by Rao et al. [20] is a recently developed evo- line power (p.u.); ΔF1 and ΔF2 are the system frequency deviations
lutionary optimization technique which does not require any control in Hz. The relevant parameters are given in Appendix A.
parameter.
Having known all this, in the present work, it is planned to carry 2.2. Controller structure and objective function
out a methodical simulation study, to evaluate the performance of
the proposed PIDD controller with TLBO algorithm. Simulation results Classical PID controllers are used in most of the industrial pro-
are compared with some recently published works based on Firefly cesses due to their simple and robust design, low cost, and
Algorithm (FA) [18], hybrid Firefly Algorithm and Pattern Search (hFA- effectiveness for linear systems. However, the classical PID control-
PS) algorithm [18], Bacteria Foraging Optimization Algorithm (BFOA) lers are usually not effective due to their linear structure, especially,
[15], Genetic Algorithm (GA) [15] and conventional Ziegler Nichols if the processes involved are higher order, time delay systems and

ΔPD1
1 AREA 1
B1
R1 ΔF1
+ ACE1 u1 − ΔPG1 −
1 + 1 1 ΔPT 1 K P1
∑ Controller
+
∑ 1 + sTG1
∑ TT1 s ∑ 1 + sTP1
− + −
+ Governor
Turbine with GRC Power System
+
ΔP12 T12
s
∑
ΔPTie −
a12 AREA 2 a12
ΔF 2
+ ΔP21 ΔPG 2 −
u2 1 + ΔPT 2
∑ Controller
+ ∑ 1 + sTG 2
∑
1
TT 2
1
s +
∑ K P2
1 + sTP 2
− −
+ ACE2 −
Governor Power System
Turbine with GRC
1
B2
R2 Δ PD2

Fig. 1. Transfer function model of two-area non-reheat thermal power system.

 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134 115

systems with uncertainties. On the other hand Proportional-Integral- jects offered. The ith column of the initial population represents the
Double Derivative (PIDD) controller improves the stability of the marks secured by different learners in the ith subject.
system and helps to achieve better settling time compared to PID
controller [12]. In view of the above, PIDD controllers are chosen ⎡ x11, x1,2 … . x1,D ⎤
⎢x x2,2 … . x2,D ⎥
in this paper to solve the AGC problem. ⎢ 2,1 ⎥
In view of the fact that investigation has been carried out on a Initial population X = ⎢ . . . ⎥ (5)
two-equal area non-reheat turbine thermal power system, similar ⎢ ⎥
⎢ . . . ⎥
kinds of PIDD controllers are considered in both areas. The design ⎢⎣ xNP ,1 xNP ,2 … . xNP ,D ⎥⎦
of PIDD controller requires determination of the three main pa-
rameters: Proportional gain (KP), Integral gain (KI) and Double
Derivative time constant gain (KDD). The transfer function of PIDD 3.2. Teacher phase
controller is given by Equation (1)
In this phase each teacher tries to improve the mean result of a
KI
TFPIDD = K P + + K DD s2 (1) class in the subject assigned to him. As the teacher trains the learn-
s ers he is assumed to be a highly learned person and taken as the
best learner i.e. the best solution X best is identified and assigned as
The error inputs to the controllers are the respective Area Control
teacher. The mean value of each column i.e. the mean value of the
Errors (ACE) given by:
marks obtained by different students for each subject is calcu-
e1 (t ) = ACE1 = B1ΔF1 + ΔP12 (2) lated as:

Md = [m1, m2, … . . , mD ] (6)

e2 (t ) = ACE2 = B2ΔF2 + ΔP21 (3)
The difference between the mean results in a particular subject
where ΔPTie is the change in tie-line power. When the system is sub-
and the result of corresponding teacher is given by
jected to a small disturbance, ACEs are used as actuating signal to
reduce ΔPTie and ΔF to zero when steady state is reached. Mdiff = rand (0, 1) [ X best − TF Md ] (7)
In the design of a modern heuristic optimization technique based
controller, the objective function is first defined based on the desired where TF is the teaching factor and rand (0, 1) is a random number
specifications and constraints. Performance criteria usually con- between 0 and 1. Value of TF is taken as either 1 or 2 and decided
sidered in the control design are the Integral of Time multiplied randomly using the equation given below:
Absolute Error (ITAE), Integral of Squared Error (ISE), Integral of Time
multiplied Squared Error (ITSE) and Integral of Absolute Error (IAE). TF = round [1 + rand (0, 1)] (8)
ITAE criterion reduces the settling time which cannot be achieved
with IAE or ISE based tuning. ITAE criterion also reduces the peak The existing population is updated by the expression:
overshoot. ITSE based controller provides large controller output for
X new = X + Mdiff (9)
a sudden change in set point which is not advantageous from con-
troller design point of view. It has been reported that ITAE is a better Elements of X new are accepted if f ( X new ) < f ( X ); otherwise el-
objective function in LFC studies [22,23]. Therefore in this paper ITAE ements of X are accepted.
is used as objective function to optimize the gains of IDD/PIDD con-
troller. Expression for the ITAE objective function is shown in
4. Simulation results and discussion
Equation (4).
t sim 4.1. Implementation of TLBO algorithm
J = ITAE = ∫ ( ΔF i + ΔPTie−i−k ) ⋅ t ⋅ dt (4)
0
The model of the system under study is developed in MATLAB/
In the above equations, ΔFi is the incremental change in fre- SIMULINK environment and the TLBO program is written (in .mfile).
quency of area i; ΔPTie−i−k is the incremental change in tie line power The developed model is simulated in a separate program (by .mfile)
connecting between area i and area k; t sim is the time range of considering a 5% step load increase in area-1. The objective func-
simulation. tion is determined in the .mfile and used in optimization algorithm.
A series of experiments was conducted to properly choose the pop-
ulation size and number of iterations of TLBO algorithm. In the
3. Teaching Learning Based Optimization (TLBO) algorithm present study, a population size of NP = 50 and the maximum
number of iterations are taken as 100. For the very first execution
Teaching Learning Based Optimization (TLBO) algorithm [20,24] of the program, wider solution space can be given, and after getting
was introduced by Rao et al. Since then this algorithm has become the solution, one can shorten the solution space nearer to the values
a very popular and powerful optimization algorithm that is applied obtained in the previous iterations. Simulations were conducted on
in many engineering fields. The working process of TLBO consists an Intel, Core i-5 CPU of 2.5 GHz, 8 GB, 64-bit processor computer
of two parts (i) Teacher Phase and (ii) Learner Phase. In teacher phase in the MATLAB 7.10.0.499 (R2010a) environment. The flow chart of
students (learners) learn from teachers and in learner phase stu- proposed TLBO approach is shown in Fig. 2. The optimization was
dents learn through interaction between learners (students). Different repeated 50 times and the best final solution among the 50 runs
steps involved in TLBO algorithm [20] are presented below. is chosen as final controller parameters. The best final solutions of
controller parameters are shown in Table 1.
3.1. Initialization
4.2. Analysis of results
In this step the initial population of size [ NP × D] is randomly gen-
erated, where NP indicates size of population i.e. number of learners The effectiveness of proposed TLBO tuned PIDD controller is com-
and D indicates the dimension of the problem i.e. number of sub- pared with TLBO optimized IDD controller and other recently
116 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134

Initialize the number of students (population), termination criterion

Calculate the mean of each design variable

Identify the best solution (teacher)

Modify solution based on best solution

X new = X + r(X − (TF )Mean)
old teacher Teacher
Phase

No Yes
Is new solution
Reject Accept
better than existing?

Select any two solutions randomly X i and X j

Yes No
Is Xi better than Xj ?
X new = X old + r ( X i − X j ) X new = X old + r ( X j − X i )
Student
Phase
No Is new solution
Reject Accept
better than existing?
Yes

Is termination
criterion satisified?

Yes No
Final value of solutions

Fig. 2. The flow chart of TLBO algorithm.

published [15,18] conventional and heuristic techniques such as: IDD controller (ITAE = 0.7400), hFA-PS (ITAE = 0.7405), FA
ZN, GA, FA, hFA-PS based PID controller for the same intercon- (ITAE = 0.8023), BFOA (ITAE = 1.5078), GA (ITAE = 2.4668) and ZN
nected power system as shown in Table 2. It can be seen from Table 2 (ITAE = 3.4972) based PID controller. Therefore, it can be con-
that a smaller ITAE value is obtained with the proposed TLBO op- cluded that the proposed TLBO algorithm outperforms the
timized PIDD controller (ITAE = 0.6798) compared to TLBO optimized conventional ZN technique and heuristic techniques FA, BFOA, GA
as minimum ITAE value is obtained. Further, it is observed from
Table 2 that the performance of proposed TLBO optimized PIDD con-
Table 1 troller in terms of settling times in frequency and tie-line power
Tuned IDD/PIDD controller parameters. deviations is better compared to others.
Controller parameters IDD PIDD To study the dynamic performance of the proposed PIDD con-
troller optimized TLBO technique, a step increase in load of 5% is
Proportional gain (KP) – 0.0260
Integral gain (KI) 0.3215 0.2997 applied at t = 0 s in area-1. The system responses are shown in
Double derivative gain (KDD) 0.1704 0.1819 Fig. 3a–c. For comparison, the simulation results with BFOA, FA, hFA-
PS based PID, TLBO tuned IDD and proposed TLBO based PIDD
controller for the same power system are also shown in Fig. 3a–c.
Table 2
Critical analysis of the dynamic responses clearly reveals that the
Comparative performance of error and settling time for two area power system. proposed PIDD controller performs better than others in terms of
settling time, peak over shoot and peak under shoot.
Techniques/Controller Settling time (2% band) Ts (s) ITAE

ΔF1 ΔF2 ΔPTie

4.3. Sensitivity analysis
ZN:PID [15] 15.3 14.1 15.3 3.4972
GA:PID [15] 11.1 11.2 11.0 2.4668
Sensitivity analysis is carried out to study the robustness of the
BFOA:PID [15] 9.0 7.9 8.3 1.5078
FA:PID [18] 7.8 6.3 7.9 0.8023
system to wide changes in the operating conditions and system pa-
hFA-PS:PID [18] 6.9 5.2 7.5 0.7405 rameters [6,10,18,25,26]. Taken one at a time, the operating load
TLBO:IDD 7.3 4.9 6.5 0.7400 condition and time constants of speed governor (TG) and turbine
Proposed TLBO:PIDD 6.8 3.9 6.5 0.6798 (TT) are changed from their nominal values (given in Appendix A)
Bold signifies the best result. in the range of ±25%. TLBO based PIDD controller is considered due
 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134 117

0.06
0.04
0.02
0
ΔF1 (Hz)

-0.02
-0.04
-0.06 BFOA:PID [15]
FA:PID [18]
-0.08
hFA-PS [18]
-0.1
(a) TLBO:IDD
-0.12 Proposed TLBO:PIDD
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (sec)

0.05

0
ΔF2 (Hz)

-0.05
BFOA: PID [15]
FA: PID [18]
-0.1 hFA-PS: PID [18]
TLBO:IDD
(b)
Proposed TLBO:PIDD
-0.15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (sec)

-0.005

-0.01
ΔPTie (p.u.)

-0.015

-0.02
BFOA: PID [15]
-0.025 FA: PID [18]
-0.03
hFA-PS: PID [18]
(c) TLBO:IDD
-0.035 Proposed TLBO:PIDD
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec)
Fig. 3. Dynamic responses of two-area non-reheat thermal power system for 5% step load increase in area-1. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1. (b) Frequency deviation of
area-2. (c) Tie-line power deviation.

to its superior performance. The various performance indexes (ITAE ranges. The dynamic performances of the system under variation
values and settling times) under normal and parameter variation of parameters are shown in Figs. 4–6. It can be observed from
cases for the system are shown in Table 3. It can be observed from Figs. 4–6 that the effect of the variation of operating loading con-
Table 3 that ITAE and settling time values vary within acceptable ditions on the system responses is negligible. So it can be concluded
118 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134

0.02

-0.02
ΔF1 (Hz)

-0.04

-0.06

-0.08

-0.1 Nominal loading

(a)
-0.12 +25% of nominal loading
-25% of nominal loading
-0.14
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (sec)

-0.05
ΔF2 (Hz)

-0.1
Nominal loading
(b) +25% of Nominal loading
-25% of Nominal loading
-0.15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (sec)
0

-0.005

-0.01
ΔPTie (p.u.)

-0.015

-0.02

-0.025

-0.03
Nominal loading
(c)
-0.035 +25% of Nominal loading
-25% of Nominal loading
-0.04
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec)
Fig. 4. Dynamic responses of two-area non-reheat thermal power system with variation of loading condition. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1. (b) Frequency deviation of
area-2. (c) Tie-line power deviation.
 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134 119

0.02

-0.02
ΔF1 (Hz)
-0.04

-0.06

-0.08
Nominal
-0.1
+25% of T
(a) G
-0.12
-25% of TG
-0.14
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (sec)

-0.02

-0.04
ΔF2 (Hz)

-0.06

-0.08

-0.1
Nominal
-0.12 +25% of T
G
(b) -25% of T
-0.14 G

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (sec)
0

-0.005

-0.01
ΔPTie (p.u.)

-0.015

-0.02

-0.025
Nominal
-0.03
(c) +25% of TG
-0.035
-25% of TG
-0.04
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec)
Fig. 5. Dynamic responses of two-area non-reheat thermal power system with variation of TG. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1. (b) Frequency deviation of area-2. (c) Tie-
line power deviation.
120 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134

0.02

-0.02
ΔF1 (Hz)

-0.04

-0.06

-0.08
Nominal
-0.1 +25% of T
T
(a)
-0.12 -25% of T
T

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (sec)

-0.05
ΔF2 (Hz)

-0.1
Nominal
+25% of TT
(b)
-25% of T
T
-0.15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (sec)
0

-0.005

-0.01
ΔPTie (p.u.)

-0.015

-0.02

-0.025

-0.03
Nominal
+25% of TT
(c)
-0.035
-25% of T
T
-0.04
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec)
Fig. 6. Dynamic responses of two-area non-reheat thermal power system with variation of TT. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1. (b) Frequency deviation of area-2. (c) Tie-
line power deviation.
 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134 121

Table 3 5. Extension to other power system model

Sensitivity analysis for two area power system.

Parameter variation % Change Settling time Ts (s) ITAE 5.1. Multi-area multi-source realistic power system
ΔF1 ΔF2 ΔPTie
To demonstrate the ability of proposed TLBO optimized PIDD
Nominal 0 6.8 3.9 6.5 0.6798
Loading condition +25 6.7 4.0 7.1 0.6932
controller, the study is further extended to a realistic multi-area
−25 7.3 4.0 7.5 0.6878 multi-source interconnected power system as shown in Fig. 7
TG +25 6.8 4.7 7.6 0.7291 [17]. Area-1 consists of reheat thermal, hydro and wind power
−25 6.7 4.2 6.9 0.6865 plants. Area-2 consists of reheat thermal, hydro and diesel power
TT +25 7.4 4.8 7.6 0.7035
plants. To get an accurate insight of the AGC problem, it is essen-
−25 6.6 4.4 6.9 0.6909
tial to include the important inherent requirement and the basic
physical constraints and include them in the model. The impor-
tant constraints which affect the power system performance are
boiler dynamics, Generation Rate Constraint (GRC) and Governor
that the proposed control approach provides a robust and stable
Dead Band (GDB). Boiler dynamics configuration is incorporated
control satisfactorily, and the optimum values of controller param-
in thermal plants to generate steam under pressure. Changes in
eters obtained at the nominal loading with nominal parameters need
the steam flow and deviations in pressure are sensed and the
not be reset for wide changes in the system loading or system
corresponding action is initiated by the turbine control valves and
parameters.

1 1 1 AREA 1
B1 R3 R2 R1
− 1 + 1 1 + sK r1Tr1 ΔPD1
U TH 1
+
GDB 1 + sTG1 +
∑ K3
1 + sTT 1 1 + sTr1
Boiler
dynamics du 1
− ΔF1
+ dt s
ACE1
∑ − 1 1 + sTRS1 1 − sTW 1 du 1 +
GDB K PS1
+ U HY 1 1 + 0.5sTW 1
+ 1 + sTGH 1 1 + sTRH 1 dt s + 1 + sTPS1
+
− 1 K P1 (1 + sTP1 ) K P2
UW 1
+
−
1 + sTP 2 1+ s 1+ s
Thermal-Hydro-Wind Plants +
2 * π * T12
ΔPTie s
∑
−
a12 AREA 2
UTH 2
+ 1 + 1 1 + sK r 2Tr 2
GDB ∑ K3 a12
− 1 + sTG 2 1 + sTT 2 1 + sTr 2
+
Boiler −
dynamics du 1 ΔF2
dt s +
U HY 2
+
GDB
1 1 + sTRS 2 1 − sTW 2 du 1 + K PS 2
+ − 1 + sTGH 2 1 + sTRH 2 1 + 0.5sTW 2 1 + sTPS 2
dt
∑
ACE2 s
+
+
U D2 K diesel (1 + s ) −
+
⎛ 1 ⎞ 2
− ⎜ ⎟s + s
⎝ 40 ⎠ ΔPD 2
B2
1 1 1 Thermal-Hydro-Diesel Plants
R4 R5 R6

Fig. 7. Transfer function model of multi-area multi-source power system.

122 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134

+ Δ Steam flow
Table 4

∑ K3
Optimized controller parameters for multi-area multi-source power system.

Controller parameters/Techniques TLBO

PID IDD PIDD

+
Area-1 Thermal KP 0.5225 – 0.2883
K1 1.9605 0.9221 1.6812
K2 KD 1.2691 – –
KDD – 0.0161 0.2442
Δ Drum K1 Hydro KP 0.6127 – 1.2704
pressure +
KI 0.1748 0.2152 0.4265
KD 1.9573 – –
−
∑
KDD – 1.4503 1.5219
Wind KP 1.1955 – 1.6408
Pressure Δ Throttle KI 0.8557 1.5001 1.8705
KD 0.4886 – –
control pressure KDD – 1.0396 1.1587
Boiler
storage K IB (1 + sTIB )(1 + sTRB ) Area-2 Thermal KP
KI
1.1090
1.8597
–
1.1202
1.3393
1.9396

1 s (1 + s 0.1TRB ) KD 1.2793 – –
KDD – 1.5438 1.2423
Hydro KP 0.6524 – 0.9432
sC B KI 1.6786 1.2908 0.7505
Fuel e − sTD KD 0.5736 – –
KDD – 0.9408 0.9798
system 1 + sTF Diesel KP 1.1466 – 1.8890
KI 1.8503 1.9775 1.9697
Δ Fuel flow KD 0.3622 – –
+ −
KDD – 0.0254 0.4409

∑
load of 1% is applied at t = 0 s in area-1 and the system dynamic per-
Fig. 8. Block diagram of boiler dynamics configuration.
formance is shown in Fig. 9a–c. It is evident from Fig. 9a–c that better
response is achieved with proposed PIDD controller optimized TLBO
technique compared to recently published DE optimized PID con-
boiler control. The block diagram of boiler dynamics configura- troller [17] and PID/IDD optimized TLBO algorithm.
tion is shown in Fig. 8. Governor dead band is defined as the total The nominal system parameters of the multi-area multi-source
amount of a continued speed change within which there is no interconnected power system are varied from −25% to +25% to check
change in valve position. Steam turbine dead band is due to the the robustness of the system. The various performance index values
backlash in the linkage connecting the servo piston to the cam- such as ITAE values and settling times under normal and parameter
shaft. Much of this appears to occur in the rack and pinion used to
rotate the camshaft that operates the control valves. Due to the
governor dead band, an increase/decrease in speed can occur before Table 5
the position of the valve changes. The speed governor dead band Comparative performance of error and settling time for multi-area multi-source power
has a great effect on the dynamic performance of electric energy system.

system. The backlash non-linearity tends to produce a continuous Techniques/Controller Settling time (2% band) Ts (s) ITAE
sinusoidal oscillation with a natural period of about 2 s. In the ΔF1 ΔF2 ΔPTie
present work backlash nonlinearity of 0.05% for the thermal system
DE:PID [17] 19.68 21.93 25.89 1.3210
and 0.02% for hydro system is considered [17]. In a power system,
TLBO:PID 18.22 18.88 16.28 0.9227
power generation can change only at a specified maximum rate TLBO:IDD 17.95 18.72 13.01 0.6442
known as Generation Rate Constraint (GRC). In the present study, TLBO:PIDD 16.14 16.79 12.77 0.4543
a GRC of 3% per min is considered for thermal units [17,26]. The
GRCs considered for hydro unit are 270% per minute for raising
generation and 360% per minute for lowering generation [27]. In Table 6
view of the above, the effect of boiler dynamics, GRC and GDB are Robustness analysis for multi-area multi-source power system.
incorporated in the system model as shown in Fig. 7. The nominal
Parameter variation % Change Settling time (2% band) Ts(s) ITAE
parameters of the system under study are given in Appendix B.
ΔF1 ΔF2 ΔPTie
The participation factors for thermal and hydro are assumed as
0.575 and 0.3 respectively. For wind and diesel same participation Nominal 0 16.14 16.79 12.77 0.4543
factors of 0.125 is assumed. Loading condition +25 16.14 16.79 12.78 0.4542
−25 16.14 16.78 12.76 0.4544
The same procedure is followed to optimize the controller gains
TG +25 16.12 16.77 12.75 0.4543
of PID/IDD/PIDD as explained in section 4.1. The optimal values of −25 16.16 16.81 12.79 0.4543
the controller parameters are given in Table 4. The performance index TT +25 16.06 16.70 12.70 0.4542
values are shown in Table 5. From Table 5 it can be seen that minimum −25 16.21 16.87 12.83 0.4544
TGH +25 16.06 16.71 12.74 0.4574
ITAE value is obtained with proposed PIDD controller (ITAE = 0.4543)
−25 16.25 16.89 12.81 0.4418
compared to IDD (ITAE = 0.6442), PID (ITAE = 0.9227) optimized TLBO TRH +25 16.13 16.78 12.76 0.4621
technique and recently published DE optimized PID controller −25 16.12 16.77 12.77 0.4464
(ITAE = 1.3210) [17]. Further, it is clear from Table 5 that settling times R +25 16.05 16.73 12.77 0.4577
in frequencies and tie-line power deviation are improved with TLBO −25 16.35 16.93 12.80 0.4500

optimized PIDD controller compared to others. A step increase in Bold signifies the best result.
 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134 123

0.005

-0.005
ΔF1 (Hz)

-0.01

-0.015

DE:PID [17]
-0.02
TLBO:PID
-0.025
TLBO:IDD
(a) Proposed TLBO:PIDD
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
-3
x 10

0
-2
ΔF2 (Hz)

-4
-6

-8

-10 DE:PID [17]

-12 TLBO:PID
-14 TLBO:IDD
(b) Proposed TLBO:PIDD
-16
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
-3
x 10

-2
ΔPTie (p.u.)

-4

-6
DE:PID [17]
TLBO:PID
-8 TLBO:IDD
(c) Proposed TLBO:PIDD
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
Fig. 9. Dynamic responses of multi-area multi-source power system for 1% step load increase in area-1. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1. (b) Frequency deviation of area-2.
(c) Tie-line power deviation.
124 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134

-3
x 10

-5
ΔF1 (Hz)

-10

-15 Nominal loading

+25% of nominal loading
(a) -25% of nominal loading
-20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
-3
x 10
2

-2
ΔF2 (Hz)

-4

-6

-8
Nominal loading
-10 +25% of nominal loading
(b) -25% of nominal loading
-12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
-3
x 10
1

-1
ΔPTie (p.u.)

-2

-3

-4
Nominal loading
-5 +25% of nominal loading
(c) -25% of nominal loading
-6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
Fig. 10. Dynamic responses of multi-area multi-source power system with variation of loading condition. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1. (b) Frequency deviation of area-2.
(c) Tie-line power deviation.
 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134 125

-3
x 10

-5
ΔF1 (Hz)

-10

Nominal
-15 +25% of TG
(a) -25% of T
G
-20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
-3
x 10
2

-2
ΔF2 (Hz)

-4

-6

-8 Nominal
+25% of TG
-10
-25% of T
(b) G
-12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
-3
x 10
1

-1
ΔPTie (p.u.)

-2

-3

-4 Nominal
+25% of TG
-5
-25% of T
(c) G
-6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
Fig. 11. Dynamic responses of multi-area multi-source power system with variation of TG. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1. (b) Frequency deviation of area-2. (c) Tie-line power
deviation.
126 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134

-3
x 10

-5
ΔF1 (Hz)

-10

Nominal
-15 +25% of TT

(a) -25% of TT
-20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
-3
x 10
2

-2
ΔF2 (Hz)

-4

-6

-8 Nominal
+25% of TT
-10
-25% of TT
(b)
-12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
-3
x 10
1

-1
ΔPTie (p.u.)

-2

-3

-4 Nominal
+25% of T
T
-5
-25% of TT
(c)
-6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
Fig. 12. Dynamic responses of multi-area multi-source power system with variation of TT. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1. (b) Frequency deviation of area-2. (c) Tie-line
power deviation.
 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134 127

-3
x 10

-5
ΔF1 (Hz)

-10

Nominal
-15 +25% of T
GH

(a) -25% of T
GH
-20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
-3
x 10

-1
ΔF2 (Hz)

-5

Nominal
-9 +25% of T
GH
(b) -25% of TGH

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
-3
x 10

0
ΔPTie (p.u.)

-2

-4 Nominal
+25% of TGH
(c) -25% of TGH
-6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
Fig. 13. Dynamic responses of multi-area multi-source power system with variation of TGH. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1. (b) Frequency deviation of area-2. (c) Tie-line
power deviation.
128 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134

-3
x 10

-5
ΔF1 (Hz)

-10

Nominal
-15 +25% of TRH
(a) -25% of T
RH
-20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
-3
x 10

0
ΔF2 (Hz)

-4

-8 Nominal
+25% of TRH

(b) +25% of TRH

-12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
-3
x 10
1

0
ΔPTie (p.u.)

-2

-4 Nominal
+25% of TRH

(c) -25% of TRH

-6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
Fig. 14. Dynamic responses of multi-area multi-source power system with variation of TRH. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1. (b) Frequency deviation of area-2. (c) Tie-line
power deviation.
 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134 129

-3
x 10

-5
ΔF1 (Hz)

-10

-15 Nominal
+25% of R
(a) -25% of R
-20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
-3
x 10
2

-2
ΔF2 (Hz)

-4

-6

-8
Nominal
-10
(b) +25% of R
-12 -25% of R
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
-3
x 10

0
ΔPTie (p.u.)

-2

-4
Nominal
+25% of R
(c) -25% of R
-6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
Fig. 15. Dynamic responses of multi-area multi-source power system with variation of R. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1. (b) Frequency deviation of area-2. (c) Tie-line
power deviation.
130 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134

Fig. 16. Transfer function model of the three-area unequal thermal power system with reheat, GRC and GDB.

variations are given in Table 6. Critical examination of Table 6 clearly Area-3: KP1 = −0.0816, KI1 = −0.8385, KDD1 = −0.2151
reveals that the performance indexes vary within acceptable ranges
and are close to their respective values obtained with nominal system The performance index such as settling times (2% of final
parameters. The dynamic performance of the system with the varied value) and ITAE values with proposed TLBO optimized PIDD
conditions of loading, TG, TT, TGH, TRH and R are shown in Figs. 10–15. controller are given in Table 7. To show the superiority of the
It can be observed from Figs. 10–15 that the effect of the variation proposed approach, the best claimed results of FA [21] optimized
of operating loading conditions and system time constants on the PID controller for the same interconnected power system are also
system responses is negligible. Hence it can be concluded that the provided in Table 7. From Table 7 it is clear that the proposed
proposed control approach provides a robust, stable control TLBO optimized PIDD controller, the ITAE value (ITAE = 20.4041)
satisfactorily. is reduced by 33.97% compared to published FA [21] optimized
PID controller (ITAE = 20.4041) for the same interconnected power
5.2. Three unequal area thermal power system with GRC and GDB system. Settling times of ΔF1, ΔF2, ΔF3, ΔPTie,12, ΔPTie,13 and ΔPTie,23
non-linearity with proposed TLBO tuned PIDD controller are 27.41%, 32.41%,
31%, 2.6%, 0.2% and 23.48% respectively improved compared to FA
In order to demonstrate the potential and effectiveness of the optimized PID controller. The comparative dynamic responses of
proposed approach, it is further applied to a three-unequal area the system are shown in Fig. 17a–f for 10% step load disturbance
thermal power system [21] considering appropriate generation rate is applied in area-1 at t = 0 s. It can be easily seen from Fig. 17a–f
constraint and governor dead band nonlinearity as shown in Fig. 16. that the system response is much better in terms of settling time
The system consists of three-unequal area interconnected power and the overshoots with proposed approach compared to recently
systems (Area-1: 2000 MW, Area-2: 4000 MW, and Area-3: 8000 published FA optimized PID controller. The performance of the
MW). The relevant parameters are given in Appendix C. To tune the proposed approach is further investigated for a different operat-
proposed PIDD controller parameters, the same procedure as pre- ing condition with variation of system parameters and loading
sented in section 4.1 is followed. The final controller parameters conditions by ±25% from their nominal values to test the robust-
obtained for each area using proposed TLBO algorithm employing ness. Table 8 shows the performance indexes (ITAE values and
ITAE objective function are: settling times) with the varied system conditions. It can be ob-
served from Table 8 that the performance indexes are more or
Area-1: KP1 = −0.5992, KI1 = −0.5107, KDD1 = −0.3464 less the same and the effect of the variation in operating loading
Area-2: KP2 = −0.2241, KI2 = −0.1943, KDD2 = −0.6651 conditions and system time constants on the system performance

Table 7
Comparative performance of error and settling time for three-unequal thermal power system.

Techniques/Controller Settling time (2% band) Ts (s) ITAE

ΔF1 ΔF2 ΔF3 ΔPTie,12 ΔPTie,13 ΔPTie,23

FA:PID [21] 26.56 26.72 26.55 24.03 19.66 20.70 30.9001

TLBO:PIDD 19.28 18.06 18.31 23.39 19.23 15.84 20.4041
 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134 131

0.1

0.05

0
ΔF1 (Hz)

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15
FA: PID controller [21]
(a)
TLBO: PIDD controller
-0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec)

0.06
0.04

0.02

0
ΔF2 (Hz)

-0.02

-0.04
-0.06

-0.08

-0.1 FA: PID controller [21]

(b) TLBO: PIDD controller
-0.12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec)

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
ΔF3 (Hz)

-0.02

-0.04

-0.06

-0.08
(c) FA: PID controller [21]
-0.1
TLBO: PIDD controller
-0.12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec)
Fig. 17. Dynamic responses of the system for 10% step load increase in area-1. (a) Frequency deviation of area-1. (b) Frequency deviation of area-2. (c) Frequency deviation
of area-3. (d) Tie-line power deviation between area 1 and 2. (e) Tie-line power deviation between area 1 and 3. (f) Tie-line power deviation between area 2 and 3.
132 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134

0.1

ΔPTie-12 (p.u.) 0.05

-0.05

-0.1
FA: PID controller [21]
(d) TLBO: PIDD controller
-0.15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec)

0.03

0.02
ΔPTie-13 (p.u.)

0.01

-0.01
FA: PID controller [21]
(e) TLBO: PIDD controller
-0.02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec)

0.03

0.02
ΔPTie-23 (p.u.)

0.01

-0.01
FA: PID controller [21]
(f) TLBO: PIDD controller
-0.02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec)
Fig. 17. (continued)
 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134 133

Table 8
Sensitivity analysis under varied conditions for three-unequal thermal power system.

Parameter variation % Change Settling time Ts (s) ITAE

ΔF1 ΔF2 ΔF3 ΔPTie,12 ΔPTie,13 ΔPTie,23

Nominal 0 19.28 18.06 18.31 23.39 19.23 15.84 20.4041

Loading condition +25 18.46 17.91 19.19 23.60 18.91 14.54 18.4688
−25 21.66 20.99 18.68 23.29 19.60 18.27 23.2985
TG +25 23.81 22.34 21.38 22.63 19.69 19.47 23.5468
−25 18.35 19.84 19.87 24.01 19.12 14.44 18.8464
TT +25 21.71 20.15 18.59 22.65 19.44 18.21 21.5080
−25 17.56 17.24 18.20 23.88 19.12 15.59 19.7571
R +25 20.36 19.78 17.41 23.19 19.24 15.69 20.7292
−25 19.72 19.29 19.46 23.89 19.21 19.01 20.8883

is negligible. As an example, the frequency deviation response of has been improved in terms of settling time and overshoot with
area-1 with the varied loading condition is shown in Fig. 18. It can proposed TLBO optimized PIDD controller compared to FA opti-
be observed from Fig. 18 that the effect of the variation of loading mized PID controller. Finally, the robustness analysis is carried
condition on the system performance is negligible. Therefore it out to test the robustness of the proposed PIDD controller for the
can be concluded that the proposed control strategy provides a above three test systems. Investigations clearly reveal that the
robust control under wide changes in the system loading or proposed TLBO optimized PIDD controller parameters need not
system parameters. be reset even if the system is subjected to wide variation in
loading condition and system parameters.
6. Conclusion

In this paper, an attempt has been made to apply a Teaching Appendix A

Learning Based Optimization (TLBO) algorithm based on PIDD
controllers for Automatic Generation Control (AGC) of multi-area Two-area thermal power system [8,15,22]
multi-source interconnected power system. Firstly, a two-area F = 60 Hz, B1 = B2 = 0.425 p.u. MW/Hz; R1 = R2 = 2.4 Hz p.u. ;
power system with GRC is considered. The superiority of the TG1 = TG 2 = 0.08 s ; TT 1 = TT 2 = 0.3 s ; K P 1 = K P 2 = 120 Hz p.u. ;
proposed design approach has been shown by comparing the TP 1 = TP 2 = 20 s ; T12 = 0.545 p.u. ; a12 = −1.
results with some recently published modern heuristic optimiza-
tion techniques such as hFA-PS, FA, BFOA, GA and ZN for the same
interconnected power system. Then further, the analysis is ex- Appendix B
tended to more realistic diverse source power system including
the nonlinearities. It is observed from simulation result that TLBO Multi-area multi-source power system [17]
optimized PIDD controller performed better compared to recently F = 60 Hz ; B1 = B2 = 0.425 p.u. MW Hz ; TG1 = TG 2 = 0.08 s ;
published DE optimized PID controller and also TLBO optimized TT 1 = TT 2 = 0.3 s ; K r 1 = K r 2 = 0.333; Tr 1 = Tr 2 = 10 s ; TGH 1 = TGH 2 = 48.7 s;
PID and IDD controllers. The system performance indexes such as TRS1 = TRS 2 = 0.513 s ; TRH 1 = TRH 2 = 10 s ; TW 1 = 1; K diesel = 16.5;
ITAE and settling times reveal that the proposed approach proves K P1 = 1.25 ; K P 2 = 1.4 ; TP1 = 6 ; TP 2 = 0.041; R1 = R2 = R3 = R4 = R5 =
its effectiveness more than others. The proposed approach is also R6 = 2.4 Hz p.u. ; K 1 = 0.85 ; K 2 = 0.095; K 3 = 0.92; K IB = 0.03;
extended to a three unequal area thermal power system consider- TIB = 26 ; TRB = 6.9 ; C B = 200; TD = 0; TF = 10 ;
ing nonlinearity effects of GRC and governor dead band (GDB). K PS1 = K PS 2 = 120 Hz p.u. MW ; TPS1 = TPS 2 = 20 s ; T12 = 0.0866 p.u. ;
The simulation results show that the performance of the system a12 = −1 .

0.1

0.05

0
ΔF1 (Hz)

-0.05

-0.1

Nominal loading
-0.15
+25% of nominal loading
-25% of nominal loading
-0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec)
Fig. 18. Dynamic responses of the system with variation of loading condition for the three unequal thermal system.
134 R.K. Sahu et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 19 (2016) 113–134

Appendix C [12] S. Debbarma, L.C. Saikia, N. Sinha, Robust two-degree-of-freedom controller

for automatic generation control of multi-area system, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 63 (2014) 878–886.
Three-unequal area thermal power system [21] [13] F. Daneshfar, H. Bervani, Multi objective design of load frequency control using
f = 60 (Hz ) ; B1 = 0.3483 , B2 = 0.3827 , B3 = 0.3692 (p.u. Hz ) ; genetic algorithms, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 42 (2012) 257–263.
D1 = D3 = 0.015 , D2 = 0.016 (p.u. Hz ); 2H1 = 0.1667 , 2H 2 = 0.2017 , [14] H. Gozde, M.C. Taplamacioglu, I. Kocaarslan, Comparative performance analysis
of Artificial Bee Colony algorithm in automatic generation control for
2H 3 = 0.1247 , (p.u. s); R1 = 3.0 , R2 = 2.73 , R3 = 2.82 (Hz p.u.); interconnected reheat thermal power system, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.
Tg1 = 0.08 , Tg 2 = 0.06 , Tg 3 = 0.07 (s); Tt1 = 0.4 , Tt 2 = 0.44 , Tt 3 = 0.3 (s); 42 (2012) 167–178.
K r 1 = K r 2 = K r 3 = 0.5 ; Tr 1 = Tr 2 = Tr 3 = 10 (s), T12 = 0.2, T23 = 0.12, [15] E.S. Ali, S.M. Abd Elazim, BFOA based design PID controller for two-area Load
Frequency Control with nonlinearities, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 51 (2013)
T31 = 0.25 (p.u. Hz ) , PR1 = 2000 MW , PR2 = 4000 MW , 224–231.
PR3 = 8000 MW . [16] P. Dash, L.C. Saikia, N. Sinha, Comparison of performances of several Cuckoo
search algorithm based 2DOF controllers in AGC of multi-area thermal system,
Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 55 (2014) 429–436.
[17] B. Mohanty, S. Panda, P.K. Hota, Differential evolution algorithm based automatic
References generation control for interconnected power systems with non-linearity,
Alexandria Eng. J. 53 (2014) 537–552.
[1] O.I. Elgerd, Electric Energy Systems Theory – An Introduction, second ed., Tata [18] R.K. Sahu, S. Panda, S. Padhan, A hybrid firefly algorithm and pattern search
McGraw Hill, New Delhi, 2000. technique for automatic generation control of multi-area power systems, Int.
[2] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, eighth reprint, Tata McGraw Hill, J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 64 (2015) 9–23.
New Delhi, 2009. [19] D. Das, S.K. Aditya, D.P. Kothari, Dynamics of diesel and wind turbine generators
[3] H. Bevrani, Robust Power System Frequency Control, Springer, New York, 2009. on an isolated power system, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 21 (1999)
[4] I.P. Kumar, D.P. Kothari, Recent philosophies of automatic generation 183–189.
control strategies in power systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 20 (2005) 346– [20] R.V. Rao, V.J. Savsani, D.P. Vakharia, Teaching–learning-based optimization: an
357. optimization method for continuous non-linear large scale problems, Inf. Sci.
[5] H. Shayaghi, H.A. Shayanfar, A. Jalili, Load frequency control strategies: (Ny) 183 (1) (2012) 1–15.
a state of the art survey for the researcher, Energy Convers. Manag. 50 (2009) [21] S. Padhan, R.K. Sahu, S. Panda, Application of firefly algorithm for load frequency
344–354. control of multi-area interconnected power system, Electr. Power Compo. Syst.
[6] K.P.S. Parmar, S. Majhi, D.P. Kothari, Load frequency control of a realistic power 42 (13) (2014) 1419–1430.
system with multi-source power generation, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. [22] R.K. Sahu, S. Panda, S. Padhan, Optimal gravitational search algorithm for
42 (2012) 426–433. automatic generation control of interconnected power systems, Ain Shams Eng.
[7] P. Bhatt, S.P. Ghoshal, R. Roy, Load frequency stabilization by coordinated control J. 5 (2014) 721–733.
of thyristor controlled phase shifters and superconducting magnetic energy [23] H. Shabani, B. Vahidi, M. Ebrahimpour, A robust PID controller based on
storage for three types of interconnected two-area power systems, Int. J. Electr. imperialist competitive algorithm for load-frequency control of power systems,
Power Energy Syst. 32 (2010) 1111–1124. ISA Trans. 52 (1) (2013) 88–95.
[8] U.K. Rout, R.K. Sahu, S. Panda, Design and analysis of differential evolution [24] R.V. Rao, V.D. Kalyankar, Parameter optimization of modern machining processes
algorithm based automatic generation control for interconnected power system, using teaching–learning based optimization algorithm, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.
Ain Shams Eng. J. 4 (3) (2013) 409–421. 26 (1) (2013) 524–531.
[9] S. Panda, N.K. Yegireddy, Automatic generation control of multi-area power [25] B. Mohanty, S. Panda, P.K. Hota, Controller parameters tuning of differential
system using multi-objective non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II, Int. evolution algorithm and its application to load frequency control of multisource
J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 53 (2013) 54–64. power system, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 54 (2014) 77–85.
[10] L.C. Saikia, J. Nanda, S. Mishra, Performance comparison of several classical [26] R.K. Sahu, S. Panda, U.K. Rout, DE optimized parallel 2-DOF PID controller for
controllers in AGC for multi-area interconnected thermal system, Int. J. Electr. load frequency control of power system with governor dead-band nonlinearity,
Power Energy Syst. 33 (2011) 394–401. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 49 (2013) 19–33.
[11] S.A. Taher, M.H. Fini, S.F. Aliabadi, Fractional order PID controller design for LFC [27] S.R. Khuntia, S. Panda, Simulation study for automatic generation control of a
in electric power systems using imperialist competitive algorithm, Ain Shams multi-area power system by ANFIS approach, Appl. Soft Compt. 12 (2012)
Eng. J. 5 (2014) 121–135. 333–341.