sustainability

Article
Optimization of Power System Stabilizers Using
Proportional-Integral-Derivative Controller-Based Antlion
Algorithm: Experimental Validation via
Electronics Environment
Nader M. A. Ibrahim 1, * , Hossam E. A. Talaat 2 , Abdullah M. Shaheen 3 and Bassam A. Hemade 1

1 Electrical Power System and Machines Department, Faculty of Technology & Education, Suez University,
Suez 43512, Egypt; [email protected]
2 Electrical Engineering Department, Future University in Egypt (FUE), Cairo 11835, Egypt;
[email protected]
3 Department of Electrical Power Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Suez University, Suez 43533, Egypt;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: A robust, optimized power system stabilizer (PSS) is crucial for oscillation damping, and
thus improving electrical network stability. Additionally, real-time testing methods are required
to significantly reduce the likelihood of software failure in a real-world setting at the user location.
This paper presents an Antlion-based proportional integral derivative (PID) PSS to improve power
system stability during real-time constraints. The Antlion optimization (ALO) is developed with
real-time testing methodology, using hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) that can communicate multiple
digital control schemes with real-time signals. The dynamic power system model runs on the dSPACE
DS1104, and the proposed PSS runs on the field programmable gate arrays (FPGA) (NI SbRIO-9636
board). The optimized PSS performance was compared with a modified particle swarm optimization
(MPSO)-based PID-PSS, through different performance indices. The test cases include other step
Citation: Ibrahim, N.M.A.; Talaat, load perturbations and several short circuit faults at various locations. Twelve different test cases
H.E.A.; Shaheen, A.M.; Hemade, B.A. have been applied, through real-time constraints, to prove the robustness of the proposed PSS. These
Optimization of Power System include 5 and 10% step changes through 3 different operating conditions and single, double, and
Stabilizers Using
triple lines to ground short circuits through 3 different operating conditions, and at various locations
Proportional-Integral-Derivative
of the system transmission lines. The analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of ALO and MPSO in
Controller-Based Antlion Algorithm:
regaining the system’s stability under the three loading conditions. The integral square of the error
Experimental Validation via
(ISE), integral absolute of the error (IAE), integral time square of the error (ITSE), and integral time
Electronics Environment.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966.
absolute of the error (ITAE) are used as performance indices in the analysis stage. The simulation
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118966 results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed PSS, based on the ALO algorithm. It provides a
robust performance, compared to the traditional PSS. Regarding the applied indices, the proposed
Academic Editor: Mouloud Denai
PSS, based on the ALO algorithm, obtains significant improvement percentages in ISE, IAE, ITSE,
Received: 23 March 2023 and ITAE with 30.919%, 23.295%, 51.073%, and 53.624%, respectively.
Revised: 23 April 2023
Accepted: 4 May 2023 Keywords: antlion algorithm; power system stabilizer; real-time experiment; small-signal stability
Published: 1 June 2023

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
1.1. Motivation and Incitement
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article The dynamic stability of an electrical power system is defined as the system’s ability
distributed under the terms and to regain a new equilibrium point after being subjected to a significant disturbance [1,2].
conditions of the Creative Commons These disturbances adversely affect the system security and power transfer capability,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// which requires immediate countermeasures to alleviate. Blackouts—such as those notable
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ incidents which have occurred in the United Kingdom (1980), the system separation
4.0/). in the western region of the USA/Canada (1996), the USA (14 August 2003), and Italy

Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118966 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 2 of 31

(28 September 2003)—involved a low frequency of oscillation (LFO) in the range of 0.1 to
0.7 Hz [3].
These countermeasures, mainly performed by the controlling devices, aim to cancel,
or diminish the oscillations associated with disturbances. Typically, modifying the field
excitation current reduces the electromechanical changes. However, the power system
stabilizer (PSS) provides an additional control signal to the excitation system to enhance
its ability to dampen the oscillation and, as a result, improve the system stability [4]. In
this regard, the optimal design of the PSS parameters is a critical aspect of enhancing the
performance of the modern PSS controller.

1.2. Literature Review

Over the last few years, many techniques have been used to optimize the PSS param-
eter. In [5], the genetic algorithm (GA) has been implemented to produce a bank of con-
ventional PSS-optimized parameters under different operating points. The adaptive neuro-
fuzzy inference system has been activated to select the most suitable parameter for each
situation. In [6], the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGAII) has optimized the
lead-lag PSS. The study has considered different operating points to solve a multi-objective
optimization problem for increasing the damping ratios and shifting the electromechanical
modes as much as possible toward the D-shape sector. However, in this model of [6], the
power system has been linearized around the steady-state operational condition.
Similarly, in [7], the firefly algorithm has been developed to optimize the PSS param-
eters. In [8], an advanced population-based incremental learning (PBIL) technique has
been combined with an adaptive learning rate and developed to overcome the premature
convergence problems in PBIL for designing PSS. In [9], the steepest descent method has
been integrated with three metaheuristic algorithms of a gravitational search optimizer (bat
optimization technique and PSO) to optimize the PSS parameters. Moreover, the farmland
fertility algorithm, which emulates farmers’ behavior when applying various fertilizers to
farmlands with varying soil conditions, has been utilized to design the PSS’s proportional
integral derivative (PID) controller [10]. In [11], The PSO was modified by converting the
search space boundary to work as a reflecting wall. The revised edges prevent any particle
from escaping the search space by absorbing part of its velocity by the edge and randomly
reflecting it to the search space. In [12], an intelligent hybrid optimization version between
the atom search algorithm and simulated annealing has been presented for designing a PSS
damping controller.
Robust PSS requires an accurate design and many testing conditions to ensure and
validate its robustness. The researchers have investigated the PSS performance through
various test cases and diverse system structures. A three-phase short circuit (S.C.) for a
six-cycle, through a single-machine infinite bus (SMIB) model, has been covered in [12].
In [13], a 5% step change in mechanical power, across a multi-machine power system
(MMPS), has been simulated as a disturbance condition. Different loading conditions have
been conducted, with the step load increasing within the MMPS in [14]. Additionally, the
effects of a three-phase fault have been analyzed in [15]. The fault lasted for 0.1 s, using
a SMIB power system. A 100 ms 3-phase to ground fault, using the MMPS model, was
investigated in [16]. On the other hand, offline simulation tests have been analyzed, based
on small perturbations within four different system structures (2, 3, 4, and 10 machine
systems) in [17], or small step load changes in [18]. In [19], different test scenarios, covering
various operating conditions, have been demonstrated to ensure the PSS’s robustness.
For the sake of adequate investigation of the robustness of the optimized PSS in
electrical power systems, several performance indices were adopted with different objective
functions to improve the optimization process. In [19–21], the inverse time absolute square
of the error (ITAE) has been utilized. The ITAE is used as a single objective function.
The robustness of the developed method was evaluated using a damping ratio, overshot,
settling time, and eigenvalues as performance indices. The ITAE-based objective function
has also been suggested in [12]. In [22], the minimum-maximum damping ratio and
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 3 of 31

eigenvalues were employed as objective functions where both the damping ratio and
eigenvalue performance were used as indices.
On the other hand, considering the adopted simulation environment, all study cases
reported in [5,6] have relied on simulation packages. The simulation package-based veri-
fication methods have great potential and flexibility, but suffer heavily from biased and
unrealistic assumptions imposed by researchers in other cases. In other words, the simula-
tion results are as promising as the researchers are adept at using these packages. However,
in [23], experimental validation methodologies were adopted to overcome the insufficiency
related to simulation methods. A combination of both strategies was also employed [24].
On the other hand, researchers recently used contemporary technologies and techniques to
verify the robustness of their PSS models. Rapid control prototyping (RCP), hardware-in-
the-loop (HIL), and software-in-the-loop (SIL) are some of the prevailing techniques [25].
In the last few decades, electrical power networks have evolved and become more
complicated. Therefore, relevant verification methodologies and related test devices have
also made their share of progress. Real-time technology provides:
• High-speed processing powers;
• Higher computation capabilities;
• Faster operations.;
• Enhanced performance than other methods.
Compared to simulation studies, these modern technologies can validate newly cre-
ated procedures where prototyping can considerably improve the entire process. Many
simulation assumptions are not applicable in the physical world. Additionally, the simu-
lated model is a simplified representation of the physical system, which means there is no
guarantee that the well-optimized model, during simulation, will behave the same way in
the field. Such a challenge necessitates more inquiry to match the academic outcomes to
the real-world problem, resulting in more sophisticated yet unrealistic solutions [26].
Nowadays, HIL-based verification methodologies have received significant attention
from power system researchers [27]. The typical structure of the HIL-based method consists
of a real-time controller under investigation and a virtual simulation of the test system [4,28].
Recently, various platforms have been established via HIL, where the most attractive
structure was found depending on a field programmable gate array (FPGA), as indicated
in [28–33]. HIL-based verification methodology produces more tractability and replicability
than simulation outcomes. Such advantages encourage researchers to use experimental
investigation to validate their developed PSS model [30,34].
On the other hand, the rapid development of electronic chip manufacturing has also
led to sophisticated technologies such as RCP. It usually uses a fixed-point processor and can
incorporate any digital controller under testing, saving time and effort in the development.
Such a technique accelerates the transition stage from research to production [35].
Alternatively, the SIL-based verification procedure utilizes the computational capa-
bility of a supercomputer, or vector processor framework, to investigate the developed
PSS and the model under investigation on the same framework. SIL does not have any
external input/output connections [36]. Modern solutions for experimental verification
were adopted in [37], employing the real-time digital simulator platform (RTDS). In this
structure, the RCP technology assimilates the newly developed PSS, and the test system
under investigation is emulated through a supercomputer with MATLAB/SIMULINK and
RTDS. RTDS is an excellent choice for large-scale laboratories and large companies in the
power system field.

1.3. Contribution and Paper Organization

This paper gives several contributions to the research field, as described below:
• Proposing an ALO algorithm to optimize the gains of the PID-based PSS that improves
the power system stability during real-time constraints;
• Presenting experimental validation of the proposed ALO-based PID-PSS controller
via a real-time domain, using the dSPACE electronics environment;
 bility under the three loading conditions;
• The proposed ALO-based PID-PSS controller has a robust performance o
MPSO-based PID-PSS.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, Single machine
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 4 of 31 infi
(SMIB) model; in Section 3, Proposed HIL-Based Experimental Model-based Ant
timizer (ALO); in• Section 4,cases,
Several test Results andlight,
considering Analysis
nominal, in
andSection 5, Conclusions.
heavy loadings, are performed, in-
cluding different step load perturbations and several short circuit faults at various locations;
• The high effectiveness of ALO and MPSO is demonstrated to regain the system’s
2. SMIB Model stability under the three loading conditions;
• The proposed ALO-based PID-PSS controller has a robust performance over the
2.1. Block Diagram MPSO-based PID-PSS.
The power system The rest of the paper
model used is organized as follows:
in this study is ain SMIB.
Section 2,The
Singlestate-space
machine infiniterepres
bus (SMIB) model; in Section 3, Proposed HIL-Based Experimental Model-based Antlion
of the SMIB model Optimizerhas(ALO);
been summarized.
in Section The synchronous
4, Results and Analysis generator of the
in Section 5, Conclusions.
SMIB model is mathematically
2. SMIB Model
represented using a fourth-order equation. Figure
the block diagram representation
2.1. Block Diagram of the Heffron–Philips SMIB model [38]. The m
The power system model
has been described in the direct and quadrature used in this studyaxis,
is a SMIB. The state-space
while the field representation
circuit is on th
of the SMIB model has been summarized. The synchronous generator of the adopted SMIB
axis without damper
model iswindings.
mathematicallyThe SMIBusing
represented model has been
a fourth-order used
equation. for1 designing
Figure shows the an
block diagram representation of the Heffron–Philips SMIB model [38]. The machine has
lating the constants of the developed PSS. The detailed technical specs of the SMI
been described in the direct and quadrature axis, while the field circuit is on the direct axis
are listed in [38,39].
without Indamper
this regard,
windings. a workbench
The SMIB model hasMATLAB/SIMULINK dynamic m
been used for designing and calculating
the constants of the developed PSS. The detailed technical specs of the SMIB model are
PSS performance examination is shown in Figure 2 [39]. It illustrates the dyna
listed in [38,39]. In this regard, a workbench MATLAB/SIMULINK dynamic model for PSS
model used throughout
performance this case isstudy
examination shown in[38].
FigureIts dynamics
2 [39]. It illustratesand operating
the dynamic parame
test model
used throughout this case study [38]. Its dynamics and operating parameters are adapted
adapted to fit the model within the HIL method requirements.
to fit the model within the HIL method requirements.

Figure 1. Heffron–Philips SMIB System.

Figure 1. Heffron–Philips SMIB System.
 2023, 15,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966
x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 5of
of 32
31

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Dynamic
Dynamic workbench
workbench test
test Simulink model.
Simulink model.

proposed PID-PSS:
The equations of the linear SMIB model without the proposed PID-PSS: --

𝑋 =D
− 𝑋 −K 𝑋 − K2 𝑋 (1)
X10 = − X1 − 1 X2 − X3 (1)
M M M
𝑋 =𝜔 𝑋 (2)
X20 = ωb X1 (2)
𝑋 =− 𝑋 − 𝑋 + 𝑋 (3)
K 1 1
X30 = − 04 X2 − 0 X3 + 0 X4 (3)
𝑋 =T−do 𝑋 T−
do K 3 𝑋 −Tdo 𝑋
(4)

K A K5 K K6 1
where, states: X40 = − X2 − A X3 − X (4)
TA TA TA 4
𝑋 = ∆𝜔 ∆𝛿 ∆𝐸 ∆𝐸 (5)
where, states: h i
0
The above fifth equations are
X= ∆ω ∆δ
applied ∆Efor
only q ∆E f d
optimization. In contrast, the testing
(5)
process depends on the full dynamics.
The above fifth equations are applied only for optimization. In contrast, the testing
process depends
2.2. Dynamic onvia
Model thedSPACE
full dynamics.
Electronics Environment
In this section,
2.2. Dynamic thedSPACE
Model via experimental application
Electronics of the developed PSS is accomplished by
Environment
merging dSPACE and NI-single board in a unique configuration. The dynamic model of
In this section, the experimental application of the developed PSS is accomplished
the SMIB is implemented on the dSPACE board and communicationally linked with the
by merging dSPACE and NI-single board in a unique configuration. The dynamic model
developed PSS, implemented on the NI SbRIO-9636 board via ADC/DAC port. Both
of the SMIB is implemented on the dSPACE board and communicationally linked with
boards have FPGAs inside, and accessible communication between the two is guaranteed.
the developed PSS, implemented on the NI SbRIO-9636 board via ADC/DAC port. Both
Additionally, the MATLAB/SIMULINK power system model’s configuration parameter
boards have FPGAs inside, and accessible communication between the two is guaranteed.
is adopted, as shown in Figure 3, to effectively perform the dSPACE parameter for real-
Additionally, the MATLAB/SIMULINK power system model’s configuration parameter is
time links. The real-time controller and the generator 1 (G1) excitation device connection
adopted, as shown in Figure 3, to effectively perform the dSPACE parameter for real-time
are adopted using MATLAB RTI blocks. The detailed dynamic model has been discussed
links. The real-time controller and the generator 1 (G1) excitation device connection are
in [39]. The
adopted dynamic
using MATLAB test RTI
model parameters
blocks. with the
The detailed whole model
dynamic states are
hasdescribed in the
been discussed
Appendix A. This model was designed in MATLAB Simulink and then built
in [39]. The dynamic test model parameters with the whole states are described in the in the
DSPACE board to be used as the test system.
Appendix A. This model was designed in MATLAB Simulink and then built in the DSPACE
boardAstoshown
be usedinasFigure
the test3,system.
the path of the signals in Figure 3 can be illustrated in the
following order:
• The block “gain 1” shifts the G1 speed deviation by k;
 analyzing the signal;
• The correction signal was sent back from the PSS after being shifted to the dSPACE
through the analog output pin of the NI-SbRIO board;
• The dSPACE analog input received the correction signal using the ADC converter,
represented by the block DS1104ADC_C5.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 6 of 31
Considering this, Table 1 reports the I/O characteristics of dSPACE ADC/DAC at dif-
ferent ports.

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Generator
Generator excitation
excitation system
system preparation to connect
preparation to connect with
with real-time.
real-time.

TableAs
1. The parameter
shown of dSPACE
in Figure 3, the DS1104
path ofcontrols ports [40].
the signals in Figure 3 can be illustrated in the
following order:
Ports
• The block “gain 1” shifts (ADC1)
the G1 speed deviationtoby
Multiplexed k;
Four
Parameters • 8 Parallel DAC Channels
Then, the signal is sent to the developed Converters
PSS on the NI-sbRIO-9636 with the
through OneDAC
Channels.
One A/D Converter
converter (DS1104DAC_C1) of dSPACE; Channel Each
Four Parallel A/D
• The developed PSS receives the real-time signal from dSPACE through the analog
Channels DACH1:DACH8 ADCH1:ADCH4 ADC2:ADC5
pins of the NI-sbRIO-9636, and then compensates for the shift which retained before
Resolution 16-bit
analyzing the signal; 16-bit 12-bit
Conversion time • -
The correction signal was sent back from2 µs the PSS after being shifted
800tonsthe dSPACE
Settling time Max.the
through 10analog
µs -
output pin of the NI-SbRIO board; -
I/O voltage ranges • The dSPACE
±10 V analog input received the ±10 correction
V signal using the ADC
±10 V converter,
Offset error represented
±1 mVby the block DS1104ADC_C5. ±5 mV ±5 mV
Gain error Considering
±0.1% this, Table 1 reports the I/O characteristics of dSPACE
±0.25% ±0.5%ADC/DAC at
different ports.
>80 dB >80 dB
Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) >65 dB
(At 10 kHz) (At 10 kHz)
Table 1. The parameter of dSPACE DS1104 controls ports [40].
Simulink I/O −1: +1 (Double) −1: +1 (Double) −1: +1 (Double)
Offset drift 130 µV/K 40Ports
µV/K 40 µV/K
Gain drift 25 ppm/K 25 ppm/K
(ADC1) Multiplexed to Four
25 ppm/K
Parameters
8 Parallel DAC Channels Converters with One
Channels.
One A/D Converter Channel Each
Four Parallel A/D
Channels DACH1:DACH8 ADCH1:ADCH4 ADC2:ADC5
Resolution 16-bit 16-bit 12-bit
Conversion time - 2 µs 800 ns
Settling time Max. 10 µs - -
I/O voltage ranges ±10 V ±10 V ±10 V
Offset error ±1 mV ±5 mV ±5 mV
Gain error ±0.1% ±0.25% ±0.5%
>80 dB >80 dB
Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) >65 dB
(At 10 kHz) (At 10 kHz)
Simulink I/O −1: +1 (Double) −1: +1 (Double) −1: +1 (Double)
Offset drift 130 µV/K 40 µV/K 40 µV/K
Gain drift 25 ppm/K 25 ppm/K 25 ppm/K
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 32
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 7 of 31

3. Proposed HIL-Based Experimental Model-based Antlion Optimizer (ALO)

3. Proposed HIL-Based Experimental Model-based Antlion Optimizer (ALO)
3.1. HIL-Based Experimental Model via dSPACE DS1104 and NI SbRIO-9636 Board
3.1. HIL-Based Experimental Model via dSPACE DS1104 and NI SbRIO-9636 Board
Most implemented case studies push the controller to its limits, which cannot be
Most implemented case studies push the controller to its limits, which cannot be
achieved in the natural operation of physical networks. HIL verification methodology
achieved in the natural operation of physical networks. HIL verification methodology eval-
evaluates and validates the effectiveness of the developed controllers by running a set of
uates and validates the effectiveness of the developed controllers by running a set of virtual
virtual
scenariosscenarios in a complex
in a complex systemsystem
before before real-world
real-world implementation
implementation [41,42].[41,42]. HIL sim-
HIL simulation
ulation blends digital simulation’s speed with analog simulation’s real-time nature
blends digital simulation’s speed with analog simulation’s real-time nature [41]. It provides [41].
It provides
many many
benefits, benefits,shorter
including including shorter development
development times, to
times, the ability therun
ability to runtests
multiple multi-
on
ple tests on practical systems, and experience realization without causing
practical systems, and experience realization without causing damage to equipment [43]. damage to
equipment [43]. Figure 4 displays the FPGA platforms of the experimental
Figure 4 displays the FPGA platforms of the experimental setup, which include dSPACE setup, which
include
DS1104 dSPACE DS1104 andboards.
and NI SbRIO-9636 NI SbRIO-9636 boards.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 4.
4.Experimental
Experimentalsetup using
setup dSPACE
using andand
dSPACE NI SbRIO-9636 board;
NI SbRIO-9636 (a) FPGA
board; platforms;
(a) FPGA (b)
platforms;
NI SbRIO-9636 board [41].
(b) NI SbRIO-9636 board [41].

Figure
Figure 4a
4a demonstrates
demonstrates the the essential
essential connections
connections between
between thethe power
power system
system dynamic
dynamic
model
model embedded on the dSPACE board, and the PSSs prototype embedded into
embedded on the dSPACE board, and the PSSs prototype embedded into the
the FPGA
FPGA
board. The dSPACE
board. The dSPACER&D R&D real-time
real-time hardware
hardware platform
platform RTI1104
RTI1104 controlcontrol
boardboard
is usediswidely
used
widely as an obvious
as an obvious choice tochoice to test MATLAB/Simulink
test MATLAB/Simulink models models in real-time
in real-time (its specifica-
(its specifications and
tions
system and system parameter
parameter modificationmodification on a Simulink
on a Simulink model are model are described
described in Appendixin Appendix
A). The
A). The DS1104
DS1104 I/O capabilities
I/O capabilities in MATLAB in MATLAB
SimulinkSimulink are available
are available throughthrough the rtilib1104
the rtilib1104 library.
library. The DS1104 has a configurable I/O port that can be programmed
The DS1104 has a configurable I/O port that can be programmed graphically, by inserting graphically, by
inserting and connecting
and connecting the blocksthein ablocks
Simulinkin a block
Simulink blockOnce
diagram. diagram. Oncedesigning
the code the code isdesigning
finished,
is finished,toaccording
according the main to the main
goals, goals, the
the MATLAB MATLAB
coder coder
generates thegenerates
model code thein
model code in
the real-time
the real-time
model, whichmodel,
is thenwhich is then
compiled compiled
and and downloaded
downloaded on the board ontothe board the
achieve to achieve
minimum the
minimum
possible timepossible time for developing
for developing and implementing
and implementing a digital controller.
a digital controller.
Additionally, there
Additionally, thereare
aredifferent
differentconfigurations
configurationsforforNational
NationalInstrument
Instrument reconfigurable
reconfigura-
I/OI/O
ble boards. This
boards. paper
This usesuses
paper the the
NI SbRIO-9636
NI SbRIO-9636 board to assimilate
board the developed
to assimilate the developedcontroller
con-
under under
troller investigation (its technical
investigation specifications
(its technical are described
specifications in Appendix
are described in Appendix A [44]. As
A [44].
shown
As in Figure
shown 4b, the
in Figure 4b, board
the boardis comprised of anofARM
is comprised architecture
an ARM 32-bit32-bit
architecture microprocessor,
micropro-
compelling
cessor, programable
compelling hardware,
programable and a reconfigurable
hardware, electronic electronic
and a reconfigurable componentcomponent
(FPGA).
(FPGA).
3.2. Antlion Optimizer (ALO)
One ofOptimizer
3.2. Antlion the most (ALO)
contemporary algorithms, rooted in nature, created by Mirjalili in
2015,One
is the
of Antlion
the mostoptimization
contemporary (ALO) technique.
algorithms, Thein
rooted ALO procedure,
nature, createdwhich imitates
by Mirjalili in
the natural hunting behavior of antlions, has been thoroughly surveyed in [45,46],
2015, is the Antlion optimization (ALO) technique. The ALO procedure, which imitates along
withnatural
the a review of how
hunting it is applied
behavior to tackle
of antlions, optimizing
has issues insurveyed
been thoroughly many domains. It shows
in [45,46], along
great superiority, compared to several other algorithms, and validates several mathematical
with a review of how it is applied to tackle optimizing issues in many domains. It shows
benchmark functions. The ALO method is appropriate for finding the optimal solution
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 8 of 31

and achieving excellent convergence, because it is straightforward to implement, versatile,

scalable, and has a sufficient level of exploring and exploiting abilities. As a result, several
application fields—including global optimization, picture segmentation, load balancing,
feature selection, and renewable energy integration—have been effectively implemented.
The Antlion optimizer was first proposed in 2015 by S. Mirjalili, miming the hunting
behavior of antlions in nature [47]. It is mathematically modeled through two crucial phases
in its lifecycle: the larval phase and adulthood. A natural lifespan can be up to 3 years,
mostly in the larval stage (only 3–5 weeks are spent in adulthood) [47]. The larval stage
is simulated where antlions build cone-shaped traps and then hide in the sand, waiting
for prey ants. The size of the trap depends on the antlion’s hunger level and the phase
which the moon is in at the time. The antlion purposefully throws sand towards the pit
edge to slide the prey into the bottom of the hole. When a prey target falls into the pit, it is
pulled under the soil and swallowed. After consuming the prey, antlions throw the remains
outside the pit and then reconstruct it for the next hunt [48]. They have evolved and
adapted this method to improve their chance of survival. Figure 5 depicts the flow chart of
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 32
the ALO and highlights its mathematical model via five significant steps, as displayed in
Table 2, which can be illustrated as follows:

Figure 5.
Figure 5. ALO flow chart.

3.3. Optimization Process Using the Proposed ALO in Handling the HIL-Based Experimental
Model
The two optimization methods, ALO and MPSO, were exploited to optimize the pa-
rameters of the PID-PSS for the generator named G1 on the SMIB power system. Equa-
tions (16)–(19) demonstrate 𝐽’s objective function to optimize the PID-PSS gains. All the
viewed objective functions have been applied within the two AI optimization tools, while
objective 𝐽 provides the best performance with MPSO and 𝐽 gives the best perfor-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 9 of 31

Table 2. The ALO algorithm mathematical model.

Equation and Description

The random walking of ants in search of space
X(t) = [0, cusum(2r (t1 ) − 1), . . . cusum(2r (tmax_Iter ) − 1)] (6)
Definition of Stochastic function 
1 i f R > 0.5 (7)
r(t) =
1 i f R ≤ 0.5
The normalized random walking of prey in search of space
( Xit − ai )×(dit −Cit )
Xi ( t ) = ( bi − a i )
+ Cit (8)

The relationship between the random walks of the antlion and the traps
Cit = Antliontj + C t (9)

dit = Antliontj + dt (10)

The prey ants sliding into the mouth of the antlion
t
C t = CI (11)
t
dt = dI (12)
t
I = 10w max_iter (13)
Capturing the prey and rebuilding the trap in the same
 position  or a new position
Antliontj = Antit i f f Antit > f Antliontj (14)

Elitism (the fittest antlion of each iteration)

RtA + RtE
Antit = 2
(15)

Step 1: The random walking patterns of ants in search of space: it is necessary for the
antlion and the ant to engage with one another, as part of the antlion’s hunting behavior.
The ants must travel to an area in which they look for food and cover, and this is where the
antlions set their traps for the ants. The stochastic ant’s behavior—while they look for food
simulated by a random walking pattern—is selected as Equation (6), where t indicates the
random walk’s steps; max_Iter addresses the highest numbers of iteration, cusum evaluates
the cumulative sum, and r(t) refers to the stochastics expression specified by Equation
(7). R is a random, uniformly distributed number inside the range [0, 1]. Therefore, the
normalized random walking pattern is represented in Equation (8) where ai and bi show,
respectively, related to every variable (i), the lower and higher values of the random walking
pattern, and Cit and dit symbolize the lowest and the highest values in every iteration (t)
related to every variable (i).
Step 2: Traps, established where the fittest antlions with the best chance of capturing
prey, are selected through this step. The ALO program uses the roulette wheel to find the
fittest antlion during optimization.
Step 3: Ants become caught in nets where the antlion’s traps affect the random walking
pattern. Equations (9) and (10) thus represent the formal relationship for this premise. In
both equations, the hypersphere of randomly moving ants, around the chosen antlion, is
indicated by C and D.
Step 4: Ants move toward the antlion, forcing the ant inside the trap. The sliding
motion of an ant into the pit is represented by the two algebraic Equations (11) and (12),
where I denotes the ratio specified in Equation (13), t indicates the current iteration, and w
represents the constant that depends on the present iteration.
Step 5: This step mimics catching the targeted prey and reconstructing the trap where
the antlion captures the ant. Consequently, the hunting process is complete, as described by
Equation (14), based on the comparative assessment of their fitness value. In Equation (14),
Antliontj and Antit stand for, respectively, the positions of the chosen antlion (j) and ant (i).
 
The functions f Antit and f Antliontj demonstrate, respectively, the values of the goal

of the ant and the antlion. The antlion then upgrades its location, or builds a new trap to
capture a new target.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 10 of 31

Step 6: Elitism enables the program to find the best solution at each stage of the
refining process. In every iteration of the ALO, the best antlion is located and stored as
an elite, since the top selection influences all ant movement throughout rounds. As a
result, it is assumed that every ant travels through the selected antlion at random and
concurrently, as in Equation (15), where Antit indicates the position of an ant (i) in iteration
(t); RtA refers to the random walking pattern around the chosen antlion in this instance; and
RtE shows the random walking pattern close to the elite solution. The termination condition
of a flowchart, of ALO in Figure 5, is achieved when the number of iterations reaches the
maximum number.

3.3. Optimization Process Using the Proposed ALO in Handling the HIL-Based
Experimental Model
The two optimization methods, ALO and MPSO, were exploited to optimize the pa-
rameters of the PID-PSS for the generator named G1 on the SMIB power system. Equations
(16)–(19) demonstrate J’s objective function to optimize the PID-PSS gains. All the viewed
objective functions have been applied within the two AI optimization tools, while objective
J2 provides the best performance with MPSO and J4 gives the best performance with ALO.

J1 = max{ Real (λi )} (16)


J2 = min Damping ratio (17)

Z∞
J3 = ITSE = t e2 (t) dt (18)
0

Z∞
J4 = ITAE = t|e(t)|dt (19)
0

MPSO and ALO optimizes the PID parameters using the four objective functions J’s
according to Equations (20)–(22).

K Pmin ≤ K P ≤ K Pmax (20)

K min
I ≤ K I ≤ K max
I (21)

Kdmin ≤ Kd ≤ Kdmax (22)

The MPSO differs from the original PSO by modifying the search space boundary,
which is used as a reflecting wake to reflect the particles into the search and prevent it
from going out of the search space. These modifications of the original PSO algorithm
improve the algorithm’s overall performance. The author used this method with a PD-
based controller to enhance the performance of the PSS [11].

4. Results and Analysis

In this part, the performance of the developed PSS is illustrated. First, the proposed
ALO is applied, and its performance is compared to one of the highly effective techniques,
modified particle swarm optimization (MPSO). The MPSO technique is an effective modi-
fied version of the original PSO algorithm to improve the algorithm’s overall performance,
which was first proposed in [49]. In this MPSO, the search space boundary is used as
a reflecting wake to exhibit the particles in the search and prevent it from going out of
the search space. This effective version has been employed with a PD-based controller to
enhance the performance of the PSS [50]. In this study, the upper and lower boundaries
of the PID gains are set from −50 to 50 for the two optimization processes. The proposed
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 11 of 31

ALO is applied to tune the PID controller, and Table 3 shows the ALO parameters. Table 4
exhibits the proposed PID-PSS parameters, compared to MPSO.

Table 3. The parameters of the ALO.

Parameters Values
Search agents 40
Maximum no. of iteration 500
Lower bound −50
Upper bound 50
Best score Elite antlion fitness
Best position Elite antlion position

Table 4. PID-PSS parameters of the developed ALO and MPSO.

Gains MPSO-Based PID Proposed ALO-Based PID *

KP 28.958 42.7423
KI 16.9831 18.9831
KD 12.5603 8.5603
* The proposed PSS.

The ALO is applied by the mentioned parameters in Table 3, on the m-file containing
linearized SMIB with PID-PSS, according to the suggested objective function to compute the
PSS gains shown in Table 4. Next, the performance is tested experimentally, as mentioned
previously. Various case studies adopted optimization algorithms, as summarized in Table 5.
Different loading conditions are considered. These conditions are named according to the
percentage of loading from light, nominal, and heavy loading conditions. Additionally,
twelve distinct scenarios are addressed and evaluated, considering different step changes,
single, double, and three-phase short circuits (S. C.) at various transmission line (TL)
locations. All the graphs in the following sections were plotted from real-time test results.

Table 5. HIL testing map.

Operating Conditions
Test Types
Light Loading Nominal Loading Heavy Loading
Step change 5% Case No. 1 Case No. 6 Case No. 10
Step change 10% Case No. 2 Case No. 7 -
Short circuit fault at the beginning of the line Case No. 3 Case No. 8 Case No. 11
Short circuit fault at the middle of the line Case No. 4 Case No. 9 Case No. 12
Short circuit fault at the end of the line Case No. 5 - -

4.1. Light Loading

In this case, the light loading condition is considered, and both controllers, previously
optimized in the preceding section, are applied. Table 5 shows their impacts on the system,
compared to the initial case. The eigenvalues, damping ratio, damped and undamped
frequencies, and the synchronizing and damping torque coefficients are tabulated in Table 6.
The second and third eigenvalues are positive (0.0142 ± 5.3557i), indicating that the system
is initially unstable. Using the MPSO and proposed ALO-based PID-PSS controllers,
the system achieves acceptable performance where the second and third eigenvalues are
transformed to the negative side of (0.7802 ± 4.1830i) and (−1.1504 ± 4.5691i), respectively.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 12 of 31

Table 6. Eigenvalues and stability parameters of the SMIB with different PSSs during light loading,
compared to the initial condition.

PSSs
Indices Initial Operating Condition
MPSO-Based PID-PSS ALO-Based PID-PSS
λ1 −963.6785 −964.2796 −964.0872
λ2,3 0.0142 ± 5.3557i * −27.2376 ± 21.4542i −26.9996 ± 16.0385i
λ4,5 −36.7372 −0.7802 ± 4.1830i * −1.1504 ± 4.5691i *
λ6 0 0 0
λ7,8 0 −20.00 −20.00
ξ in (per unit speed change *
−0.0027 0.1834 0.2442
MVA/MW)
ωn in (rad/s) 5.3557 4.2551 4.7117
ωd in (rad/s) 5.3557 4.1830 4.5691
KS in (per unit torque/rad) 0.6756 0.4265 0.5229
K D in (per unit torque/per
−0.2102 11.5470 17.0259
unit speed change)
* An oscillatory mode.

Moreover, the proposed ALO-based PID-PSS boosts the damping ratio and the syn-
chronizing and damping torque more than the modified PSO-based PID-PSS. The natural
frequency of the ALO-based PSS was found to be higher than the MPSO–PSS. On the
other hand, MPSO-based PSS have a higher damped frequency, compared with ALO-based
PSS. Consequently, under light loading conditions, the developed ALO-based PID-PSS is
superior and more robust than the modified PSO-based PID-PSS.
The experimental validations are described for each scenario at this loading condition
as follows:

4.1.1. Simulation of Case Study No. (1) during Light Loading

In this case, a 5% load step change is considered, where Figure 6 shows its impacts on
the controlled machine speed deviation, rotor angle deviation, active power, and voltage
at bus 1 (B1). As shown, the proposed ALO-based PID-PSS derives superior stability
performance than the modified PSO-based PID-PSS for stabilizing the machine speed
deviation, rotor angle deviation, active power, and voltage at B1. The developed PSS
improves the system stability with the lowest settling time and area under the curve.
Furthermore, the adopted optimization algorithm supports the damping of the LFOs faster
than the MPSO.
In accompanying those figures, the numerical analysis of the considered objectives
is summarized in Table 7. From this table, regarding the ISE performance measures, the
proposed ALO-based PID-PSS has a much lower value than the modified PSO-based PID-
PSS, with the improvement of 23.64%, 8.55%, 7.87%, and 7.86% for stabilizing the machine
speed deviation, rotor angle deviation, active power, and voltage at B1, respectively.
 performance than the modified PSO-based PID-PSS for stabilizing the machine speed d
viation, rotor angle deviation, active power, and voltage at B1. The developed PSS i
proves the system stability with the lowest settling time and area under the curve. F
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966
thermore, the adopted optimization algorithm supports the damping of the LFOs fas
13 of 31
than the MPSO.

(a) Speed deviation

(b) Rotor angle deviation

Figure 6. Cont.
Sustainability 2023,
Sustainability 2023, 15,
15, 8966
x FOR PEER REVIEW 1414of
of 32
31

(c) Active power deviation

(d) enlarged area (A) from subfigure (c).

(e) Deviations in positive sequence line voltage at bus 1 (B1)

Figure
Figure 6.
6. The
The system
system reaction
reaction to
to aa 5% load step
5% load step change
change during
during light
light loading.
loading.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 15 of 31

Table 7. Performance indices at 5% load step change of case study No. (1) during light loading.

Signal PSS ISE IAE ITSE ITAE

MPSO-based PID-PSS 5.6141 × 10−8 7.5682 × 10−4 4.0514 × 10−7 7.9489 × 10−3
∆ω
in (per unit)
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 4.2867 × 10−8 6.0334 × 10−4 2.7636 × 10−7 5.8924 × 10−3
Improvement % 23.64 20.28 31.79 25.87
Average improvement % 25.4
MPSO-based PID-PSS 99.2272 73.3638 2722.6478 2002.0799
∆δ
in (electrical Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 90.7444 67.3441 2298.9890 1695.0494
radian)
Improvement % 8.55 8.21 15.56 15.34
Average improvement % 11.91
MPSO-based PID-PSS 4.8840 1.6280 132.5225 441.7392
Active Power
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 4.4999 1.4999 112.5009 375.0011
in (per unit)
Improvement % 7.87 7.87 15.11 15.11
Average improvement % 11.49
MPSO-based PID-PSS 55.1833 54.7230 1496.6154 1484.4879
Positive Voltage B1
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 50.8451 50.4205 1270.5249 1260.2205
in (per unit)
Improvement % 7.86 7.86 15.11 15.11
Average improvement % 11.48

Similar findings are obtained, considering the IAE performance measures, the pro-
posed ALO-based PID-PSS has a much lower value than the modified PSO-based PID-PSS
with the improvement of 20.28%, 8.21%, 7.87%, and 7.86% for stabilizing the machine
speed deviation, rotor angle deviation, active power, and voltage at B1, respectively. Addi-
tionally, considering the ITSE performance measures, the proposed ALO-based PID-PSS
has a much lower value than the modified PSO-based PID-PSS, with the improvement of
31.79%, 15.56%, 15.11%, and 15.11% for stabilizing the machine speed deviation, rotor angle
deviation, active power, and voltage at B1, respectively. Considering the ITAE performance
measures, the proposed ALO-based PID-PSS has a much lower value than the modified
PSO-based PID-PSS with the improvement of 25.87%, 15.34%, 15.11%, and 15.11% for
stabilizing the machine speed deviation, rotor angle deviation, active power, and voltage at
B1, respectively.
The developed PSS has the smallest ISE, IAE, ISAE, and ITAE, compared with the
MPSO. On average, the proposed ALO-based PID-PSS has much lower objective metrics
than the modified PSO-based PID-PSS, with an improvement of 25.4%, 11.91%, 11.49%, and
11.48% for stabilizing the machine speed deviation, rotor angle deviation, active power,
and voltage at B1, respectively.

4.1.2. Case Study No. (2) during Light Loading

Similar to case No. 1, a 10% load step change has been considered. A significant
load change directly affects the speed deviation, rotor angle deviation, active power, and
voltage on bus B1 of the controlled machine. Table 8 summarizes the effects of step load
change, using step information performance indices on the PSS to show the robustness of
the adopted optimization tools.

Table 8. Performance indices at 10% load step change of case study No. (2) during light loading.

Signal PSS ISE IAE ITSE ITAE

MPSO-based PID-PSS 1.8618 × 10−7 1.2599 × 10−3 1.2429 × 10−6 1.2518 × 10−2
∆ω
in (per unit)
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 1.4160 × 10−7 9.7225 × 10−4 8.3481 × 10−7 8.9427 × 10−3
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 16 of 31

Table 8. Cont.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 32

Signal PSS ISE IAE ITSE ITAE

Improvement % 23.94 22.83 32.83 28.56
Table 8. Performance indices at 10% load step change of case study No. (2) during light loading.
Average improvement % 27.04
Signal PSS
MPSO-based PID-PSS 99.6772 ISE 73.5034IAE ITSE
2751.3496 ITAE
2012.3675
∆δ −7 −3 −6
in (electrical
MPSO-based PID-PSS
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS
1.8618
90.8837
× 10 1.2599
67.3758
× 10 1.2429
2318.1264
× 10 1.2518
1701.8895
× 10−2
∆𝝎
radian) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS
Improvement %
1.4160 × 10
8.82
− 7
9.7225
8.34
× 10 − 4
8.3481
15.75
× 10 − 7
8.9427
15.43
× 10−3
in (per unit) Improvement % 23.94 22.83 12.08 32.83 28.56
Average improvement %
Average improvement % 27.04
MPSO-based PID-PSS 4.8842 16.2799 132.5242 441.7405
Active Power MPSO-based PID-PSS 99.6772 73.5034 2751.3496 2012.3675
∆𝛿unit) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 4.5002 14.9997 125.0260 375.0021
in (per
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 90.8837 67.3758 2318.1264 1701.8895
in (electrical ra- Improvement % 7.862 7.864 5.658 15.108
Improvement % 8.82 8.34 15.75 15.43
dian) Average improvement % 9.12
Average improvement % 12.08
MPSO-based PID-PSS 55.1986 54.7304 1496.4318 1484.3961
Positive Voltage B1 MPSO-based PID-PSS 4.8842 16.2799 132.5242 441.7405
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 50.8609 50.4281 1270.3843 1260.1499
in (per unit)
Active Power Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 4.5002 14.9997 125.0260 375.0021
Improvement % 7.858 7.861 15.106 15.107
in (per unit) Improvement % 7.862 7.864 5.658 15.108
Average improvement % 11.48
Average improvement % 9.12
MPSO-based PID-PSS 55.1986 54.7304 1496.4318 1484.3961
As shown,
Positive Voltage B1 Proposed ALO-based the proposed
PID-PSS ALO-based PID-PSS
50.8609 50.4281has much1270.3843
lower objective 1260.1499
metrics than
the modified PSO-based PID-PSS, with an average improvement of 27.04%, 12.08%, 9.12%,
in (per unit) Improvement % 7.858 7.861 15.106 15.107
and 11.48% for stabilizing the machine speed deviation, rotor angle deviation, active power,
Average improvement % 11.48
and voltage at B1, respectively.

4.1.3.As shown,
Case Study theNo.
proposed ALO-based
(3) during PID-PSS has much lower objective metrics than
Light Loading
the modified PSO-based PID-PSS, with an average improvement of 27.04%, 12.08%, 9.12%,
In this case, a 3-phase S.C. is considered at the sending end of the TL at a time of 5 s.
and 11.48%
The fault forfor
lasts stabilizing
five cycles.the machine
Figure speed
7 reveals thedeviation, rotor
performance angle
of the PSSdeviation, active
to this stern test.
power, and voltage at B1, respectively.
The proposed ALO-based PID-PSS reduces the oscillation and makes the system regain the
same equilibrium point faster than the MPSO-based PSS.
4.1.3. Table
Case Study No. (3) during
9 summarizes Light Loading
the performance indices related to the three-phase S.C. at the
In this of
beginning case,
theaTL.
3-phase S.C. is the
As shown, considered
proposed at the sending end
ALO-based of thehas
PID-PSS TL much
at a time of 5ob-
lower s.
The fault lasts for five cycles. Figure 7 reveals the performance of the PSS to
jective metrics than the modified PSO-based PID-PSS, with an average improvement of this stern test.
The proposed
15.79%, 4.49%,ALO-based
11.43%, andPID-PSS reduces
11.49% for the oscillation
stabilizing and
the machine makes
speed the system
deviation, rotorregain
angle
the same equilibrium
deviation, active power,point
andfaster than
voltage atthe
B1,MPSO-based
respectively. PSS.

(a) Speed deviation (b) Rotor angle deviation

Figure 7. Cont.
 Sustainability
Sustainability 2023, 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
15, 8966 17 of1731of 32

(c) Active power deviation (d) enlarged area (A) from subfigure (c).

(e) Deviations in positive sequence line voltage at B1

Figure
Figure 7. system
7. The The system reaction
reaction to a three-phase
to a three-phase S.C.
S.C. at theatbeginning
the beginning
of theofT-L
theduring
T-L during
light light load-
loading.
ing.

Table 9. Performance indices at three-phase S.C. at the sending end of the TL of case study No. (3)
Table 9 summarizes the performance indices related to the three-phase S.C. at the
during light loading.
beginning of the TL. As shown, the proposed ALO-based PID-PSS has much lower objec-
tive metrics than the modified PSO-based PID-PSS, with an average improvement of
Signal PSS ISE IAE ITSE ITAE
15.79%, 4.49%, 11.43%, and −
11.49% for stabilizing
−
the machine−speed deviation, rotor angle
MPSO-based PID-PSS 1.04 × 10 5 1.05 × 10 2 8.71 × 10 5 1.18 × 10−1
∆ω deviation, active power, and voltage at B1, respectively.
in (per unit)
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 8.97 × 10−6 9.21 × 10−3 6.95 × 10−5 9.85 × 10−2
Table
Improvement % 9. Performance13.62
indices at three-phase S.C. at the sending
12.42 end of the TL of case
20.25 16.88study No. (3)
during light
Average improvement % loading. 15.79
MPSO-based PID-PSS 132.1931 82.1348 3055.509 ITSE 2090.912 ITAE
∆δ Signal PSS ISE IAE
in (electrical MPSO-based
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 136.3286 1.04 × 10 80.0167 1.05 × 10 2841.1418.71 × 10
PID-PSS −5 −2 −5 1.18 × 10−1
1850.655
radian) ∆𝝎 Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS−3.13 8.97 × 10−6 2.58 9.21 × 10−3
Improvement % 7.02 6.95 × 10−5 11.499.85 × 10−2
in (per unit) Average improvement
Improvement% % 13.62 12.42
4.49 20.25 16.88
Average improvement % 4.9663
MPSO-based PID-PSS 16.3013
15.79
132.947 441.8534
Active power MPSO-based PID-PSS 132.1931 82.1348 3055.509 2090.912
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 4.5831 15.0222 112.9271 375.116
in (per unit)
∆𝛿 Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 136.3286 80.0167 2841.141 1850.655
Improvement % 7.716 7.847 15.059 15.104
in (electrical radian) Improvement % −3.13 2.58 7.02 11.49
AverageAverage
improvement %
improvement % 11.43 4.49
MPSO-based PID-PSS PID-PSS
MPSO-based 54.8311 4.9663 54.4937 16.3013 1493.386 132.947 1482.835441.8534
Positive voltage B1
Active power
in (per unit)
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 50.5184 4.5831 50.2043 15.0222 1267.963 112.9271 1258.669375.116
in (per unit) Improvement
Improvement % % 7.865 7.716 7.871 7.847 15.095 15.059 15.117 15.104
AverageAverage improvement
improvement % % 11.49 11.43
MPSO-based PID-PSS 54.8311 54.4937 1493.386 1482.835
Positive voltage B1 Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 50.5184 50.2043 1267.963 1258.669
4.1.4. Case Study No. (4) during Light Loading
in (per unit) Improvement % 7.865 7.871 15.095 15.117
In this case,
Average improvement % a single-phase S.C. to the ground occurred in
11.49the middle of the TL. Table 10
summarizes performance indices of the developed PSS based on adopted optimization
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 18 of 31

tools to show the robustness of the developed method. As shown, the proposed ALO-based
PID-PSS has much lower objective metrics than the modified PSO-based PID-PSS, with an
average improvement of 18.81%, 6.53%, 11.48%, and 11.49% for stabilizing the machine
speed deviation, rotor angle deviation, active power, and voltage at B1, respectively.

Table 10. Performance indices at single-phase S.C. to ground at the middle of the line of case study
No. (4) during light loading.

Signal PSS ISE IAE ITSE ITAE

MPSO-based PID-PSS 4.94 × 10−6 7.28 × 10−3 4.22 × 10−5 8.25 × 10−2
∆ω
Proposed ALO-based
in (per unit) 4.06 × 10−6 6.23 × 10−3 3.20 × 10−5 6.70 × 10−2
PID-PSS
Improvement % 17.82 14.43 24.24 18.74
Average improvement % 18.81
MPSO-based PID-PSS 122.3997 80.097 2960.332 2072.018
∆δ
in (electrical Proposed ALO-based
122.4022 76.8583 2678.378 1812.301
radian) PID-PSS
Improvement % 0.00 4.04 9.52 12.53
Average improvement % 6.53
MPSO-based PID-PSS 4.8865 16.2812 132.5237 441.7258
Active power
Proposed ALO-based
in (per unit) 4.5029 15.0019 112.5045 374.9918
PID-PSS
Improvement % 7.850 7.858 15.106 15.108
Average improvement % 11.48
MPSO-based PID-PSS 54.9084 54.5824 1494.37 1483.347
Positive voltage
B1 Proposed ALO-based
50.5927 50.2913 1268.54 1259.168
in (per unit) PID-PSS
Improvement % 7.860 7.862 15.112 15.113
Average improvement % 11.49

4.1.5. Case Study No. (5) during Light Loading

In this case, a three-phase S.C. to ground fault occurred at the end of the TL. Table 11
summarizes the system response to this fault using performance measures. As illustrated,
the performance indices emphasize the robustness of the proposed PSS, compared with the
MPSO-based PSS since it has a smaller ISE, IAE, ITSE, and ITAE than the other assessed PSS.
The proposed ALO-based PID-PSS has much lower objective metrics than the modified
PSO-based PID-PSS, with an average improvement of 15.12%, 7.22%, 11.46%, and 11.49%
for stabilizing the machine speed deviation, rotor angle deviation, active power, and voltage
at B1, respectively.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 19 of 31

Table 11. Performance indices at three-phase S.C. to ground fault at the end of the line of case study
No. (5) during light loading.

Signal PSS ISE IAE ITSE ITAE

MPSO-based PID-PSS 4.8497 × 10−6 7.0375 × 10−3 3.9695 × 10−5 7.8472 × 10−2
∆ω
in (per unit) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 4.2507 × 10−6 6.1757 × 10−3 3.2162 × 10−5 6.5195 × 10−2
Improvement % 12.35 12.25 18.98 16.92
Average improvement % 15.12
MPSO-based PID-PSS 117.9186 78.9027 2902.6561 2054.6824
∆δ
in (electrical radian) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 116.7623 75.3083 2600.7211 1788.6808
Improvement % 0.98 4.56 10.40 12.95
Average improvement % 7.22
MPSO-based PID-PSS 4.9262 16.2894 132.7317 441.7767
Active Power
in (per unit) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 4.5425 15.0098 112.7113 375.0399
Improvement % 7.789 7.855 15.083 15.106
Average improvement % 11.46
MPSO-based PID-PSS 54.9541 54.5859 1495.1461 1483.6358
Positive Voltage B1
in (per unit) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 50.6308 50.2909 1269.0789 1259.3816
Improvement % 7.867 7.868 15.120 15.115
Average improvement % 11.49

4.2. Nominal Loading

The nominal loading situation is considered in this instance, and both previously
optimized controllers are used. Table 12 compares their effects on the system to the original
model and displays the results. The fact that the second and third eigenvalues are positive
(0.1646 ± 5.5081i), as shown, implies that the system is inherently unstable. The system
obtains adequate performance when the second and third eigenvalues are transformed to
the negative side of (−25.0930 ± 38.1149i) and (−24.4835 ± 30.2602i), respectively, using
the MPSO and proposed ALO-based PID-PSS controllers.

Table 12. Eigenvalues and stability parameters of the SMIB with different PSSs during Nominal loading.

PSSs
Indices Normal Operating Condition
MPSO-Based PID-PSS ALO-Based PID-PSS
λ1 −966.47668 −968.1181 −967.5935
λ2,3 0.1646 ± 5.5081i * −25.0930 ± 38.1149i −24.4835 ± 30.2602i
λ4,5 −34.2399 −1.0417 ± 3.1403i * −1.9135 ± 3.3986i *
λ6 0 −20.00 −20.00
λ7,8 0 0 0
ξ in (per unit speed change *
−0.0290 0.3148 0.4906
MVA/MW)
ωn in (rad/s) 5.5123 3.3086 3.9003
ωd in (rad/s) 5.5100 3.1403 3.3986
KS in (per unit torque/rad) 0.7157 0.2578 0.3583
K D in (per unit torque/per unit speed
−2.3680 15.4172 28.3198
change)
* An oscillatory mode.

4.2.1. Case Studies No. (6) and (7) during Nominal Loading
The first 2 cases in this loading condition consider 5% and 10% load changes, respec-
tively. The impacts of the proposed ALO-based PID-PSS and the modified PSO-based
PID-PSS are assessed on the controlled machine using speed deviation, rotor angle devia-
tion, active power, and voltage at bus 1 (B1). Figure 8 displays the valuable improvement
percentages of the proposed ALO controller versus MPSO. As shown, the proposed ALO-
based PID-PSS has much lower objective metrics than the modified PSO-based PID-PSS
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 20 of 31

with an average improvement of 33.57%, 11.69%, 11.49%, and 11.48% at 5% step load change,
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 32
and 17.76%, 6.51%, 11.48%, and 11.49% at 10% step load change for stabilizing the machine
speed deviation, rotor angle deviation, active power, and voltage at B1, respectively.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 8.
8. Improvement
Improvementpercentages
percentagesofofthe
the proposed
proposed ALO
ALO controller
controller versus
versus MPSO
MPSO with
with load
load
changes during nominal loading. (a) 5% Step Change (Case Study No (6)); (b) 10% Step Change
changes during nominal loading. (a) 5% Step Change (Case Study No (6)); (b) 10% Step Change (Case
Study No (7)).
(Case Study No (7)).

4.2.2.
4.2.2. Case
CaseStudy
StudyNo.No.(8)
(8)during
duringNominal
NominalLoading
Loading
In
Inthis
thiscase,
case,aadouble-line-to-ground
double-line-to-groundfaultfaultat
atthe
thesending
sendingend endofofthe
theTL
TLisisconsidered.
considered.
The
The performance
performance indices
indices are
are calculated
calculated and
and summarized
summarized in in Table
Table 13. The
The performance
performance
indices
indices clearly show
show the
thesuperiority
superiorityofofthethe developed
developed PSS,
PSS, compared
compared withwith the conven-
the conventional
tional PSS.conclusion
PSS. This This conclusion is based
is based on theon the performance
performance indices
indices that arethat are lower
lower in thein theofcase
case the
proposed
of PSS. The
the proposed PSS.proposed ALO-based
The proposed PID-PSS
ALO-based has much
PID-PSS has muchlowerlower
objective metrics
objective than
metrics
the modified
than PSO-based
the modified PID-PSS,
PSO-based with an
PID-PSS, average
with improvement
an average of 17.79%,
improvement 1.74%, 11.48%,
of 17.79%, 1.74%,
and 11.33%
11.48%, andfor stabilizing
11.33% the machine
for stabilizing thespeed deviation,
machine speed rotor angle deviation,
deviation, rotor angle active power,
deviation,
and voltage
active power,atand
B1, voltage
respectively.
at B1, respectively.

Table
Table 13. Performance
Performance indices
indices at
at double-line
double-lineto
toground
groundfault
faultat
at the
the sending
sendingend
endof
ofthe
the line
line of
of case
case
study
study(8)
(8)during
duringnominal
nominal loading.
loading.

Signal PSS ISE IAE ITSE ITAE

Signal PSS ISE IAE ITSE ITAE
MPSO-based PID-PSS 3.0812−5× 10−5 1.4898 −×2 10−2 2.2519 ×−10 −4 1.3995 × −
10−1
∆𝝎 MPSO-based PID-PSS 3.0812 × 10 1.4898 × 10 2.2519 × 10 4 −4 1.3995 × 10 1 −1
∆ω Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 2.6185 × 10 − 5
1.2706 × 10 − 2
1.7327 × 10 1.1421 × 10
inin(per
(per unit) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS −5 1.2706 × 10−2 17.79 1.7327 × 10−4 1.1421 × 10−1
unit)
Average improvement % 2.6185 × 10
∆𝛿 Average improvement
MPSO-based %
PID-PSS 73.4539 59.663317.79 1612.1012 1505.4544
∆δ
in (electrical ra- Proposed ALO-based
MPSO-based PID-PSS PID-PSS 73.453979.4138 59.5458
59.6633 1541.2948
1612.1012 1347.6912
1505.4544
in (electrical
dian) Average improvement
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS % 79.4138 59.5458 1.74 1541.2948 1347.6912
radian)
MPSO-based PID-PSS 49.0806 51.5533 1329.4346 1398.8343
Active Power Average improvement % 1.74
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 49.0806
MPSO-based PID-PSS
45.2330 47.5007
51.5533
1128.6774
1329.4346
1187.5008
1398.8343
in (per
Active unit)
Power Average improvement % 11.48
in (per unit) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 45.2330 47.5007 1128.6774 1187.5008
MPSO-based PID-PSS 53.7099 53.9568 1460.3439 1466.2232
Positive Voltage B1 Average improvement % 11.48
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 49.8328 49.7099 1239.6082 1244.6283
in (per unit)
Positive MPSO-based PID-PSS 53.7099 53.9568
Average improvement % 11.33 1460.3439 1466.2232
Voltage B1
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 49.8328 49.7099 1239.6082 1244.6283
in (per unit)
4.2.3. Case %
Average improvement Study No. (9) during Nominal Loading 11.33
Likewise, the double-line-to-ground fault is addressed in this case study. The fault is
initiated at 5 s in the middle of the TL. Figure 9 shows the speed deviation, rotor angle
deviation, active power, and B1 positive sequence voltage. As shown, the four signals em-
phasize the significant impact of the developed PSS to dampen the LFO better than the
modified PSO-based PSS. In accompanying those figures, the numerical analysis of the
considered objectives is summarized in Table 14. From this table, the proposed ALO-
based PID-PSS has much lower objective metrics than the modified PSO-based PID-PSS,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 21 of 31

4.2.3. Case Study No. (9) during Nominal Loading

Likewise, the double-line-to-ground fault is addressed in this case study. The fault
is initiated at 5 s in the middle of the TL. Figure 9 shows the speed deviation, rotor angle
deviation, active power, and B1 positive sequence voltage. As shown, the four signals
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 32
emphasize the significant impact of the developed PSS to dampen the LFO better than the
modified PSO-based PSS. In accompanying those figures, the numerical analysis of the
considered objectives is summarized in Table 14. From this table, the proposed ALO-based
with an average
PID-PSS has much improvement of 19.72%,
lower objective 3.74%,
metrics than the11.48%, and
modified 11.49% for
PSO-based stabilizing
PID-PSS, withthe
an
machine speed deviation,
average improvement rotor angle
of 19.72%, deviation,
3.74%, 11.48%,active power,for
and 11.49% and voltage atthe
stabilizing B1,machine
respec-
speed deviation, rotor angle deviation, active power, and voltage at B1, respectively.
tively.

(a) Speed deviation (b) Rotor angle deviation

(c) Active power deviation (d) Enlarged area (A) from subfigure (c).

(e) Deviations in positive sequence line voltage at B1

Figure
Figure 9.
9. Stability
Stabilityimpacts
impactsof
ofaadouble-phase
double-phaseS.C.
S.C.on
onthe
themiddle
middleof
ofthe
theT-L
T-L during
during nominal
nominal loading.
loading.

Table 14. Performance indices at double-phase S.C. on the middle of the line of case study No. (9)
during nominal loading.

Signal PSS ISE IAE ITSE ITAE

MPSO-based PID-PSS 2.10 × 10−5 1.23 × 10−2 1.54 × 10−4 1.15 × 10−1
∆𝝎
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 1.74 × 10−5 1.03 × 10−2 1.15 × 10−4 9.19 × 10−2
in (per unit)
Average improvement % 19.72
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 22 of 31

Table 14. Performance indices at double-phase S.C. on the middle of the line of case study No. (9)
during nominal loading.

Signal PSS ISE IAE ITSE ITAE

MPSO-based PID-PSS 2.10 × 10−5 1.23 × 10−2 1.54 × 10−4 1.15 × 10−1
∆ω
in (per unit) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 1.74 × 10−5 1.03 × 10−2 1.15 × 10−4 9.19 × 10−2
Average improvement % 19.72
∆δ MPSO-based PID-PSS 68.7602 58.5991 1569.719 1495.881
in (electrical
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 72.115 57.6263 1463.141 1325.248
radian)
Average improvement % 3.74
MPSO-based PID-PSS 49.0306 51.5537 1329.163 1398.829
Active Power
in (per unit) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 45.1818 47.5008 1128.402 1187.496
Average improvement % 11.48
MPSO-based PID-PSS 53.7112 53.9735 1460.347 1466.309
Positive Voltage B1
in (per unit) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 49.4829 49.7257 1239.607 1244.711
Average improvement % 11.49

4.3. Heavy Loading

The third and final step toward validating the robustness of the developed PSS covers
the heavy loading condition. Both previously adjusted controllers are used. Table 15
compares their effects on the system to the original instance and displays the results. The
fact that the second and third eigenvalues are positive (0.1843 ± 5.5145i), as shown, implies
that the system is inherently unstable. The system obtains adequate performance when
the second and third eigenvalues are transformed to the negative side of (−24.9295 ±
38.8812i) and (−24.3121 ± 30.9152i), respectively, using the MPSO and proposed ALO-
based PID-PSS controllers.

Table 15. Eigenvalues and stability parameters of the SMIB with different PSSs during heavy loading.

PSSs
Heavy Loading MPSO-Based
Indices ALO-Based PID-PSS
Condition PID-PSS
λ1 −966.7365 −968.4387 −967.8947
λ2,3 0.1843 ± 5.5145i * −24.9295 ± 38.8812i −24.3121 ± 30.9152i
λ4,5 −34.0196 −1.0449 ± 3.0970i * −1.9342 ± 3.3408i *
λ6 0 −20.00 −20.00
λ7,8 0 0 0
ξ in (per unit speed
−0.0334 0.3197 0.5010
change MVA/MW)
ωn in (rad/s) 5.5176 3.2685 3.8603
ωd in (rad/s) 5.5145 3.0970 3.3408
KS in (per unit
0.7171 0.2516 0.3510
torque/rad)
K D in (per unit
torque/per unit −2.7276 15.4645 28.6262
speed change)
* An oscillatory mode.

4.3.1. Case Study No. (10) during Heavy Loading

The load step change disturbance is applied in this case, where 5% of the load is sud-
denly added after 4.1 s. Figure 10 shows the controlled machine speed deviation, rotor angle
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 23 of 31

deviation, active power, and the bus B1 system response voltage in this case study. This
figure reveals that the system’s response to the proposed PSS has a shorter settling time, os-
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW range, area under the curve, and higher rise time than the other PSS. In
cillation 23this
of 32regard,

Table 16 summarizes the system response to this fault using the performance measures.

(a) Speed deviation (b) Rotor angle deviation

(c) Active power deviation (d) Deviations in positive sequence line voltage at B1
Figure 10. The effect of a 5% load step change during heavy loading.
Figure 10. The effect of a 5% load step change during heavy loading.
Table 16. Performance indices at three-phase S.C.-to-ground fault at the end of the line of case study
Table (10)Performance
no. 16. indices at three-phase S.C.-to-ground fault at the end of the line of case study
during light loading.
no. (10) during light loading.
Signal PSS ISE IAE ITSE ITAE
MPSO-based PID-PSS 4.8497 × 10 −6 7.0375 × 10 −3 3.9695 × 10 −5 7.8472 10−2
×ITAE
Signal PSS ISE IAE ITSE
∆𝝎 Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS4.8497 4.2507
MPSO-based PID-PSS × 10−6
× 10−6 7.0375
6.1757 × 10−3
× 10−3
3.2162 × 10−5
3.9695 × 10−5
6.5195 × 10−2
7.8472 × 10−2
∆ωin (per unit) Improvement % 12.35 12.25 18.98 16.92
in (per unit) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 4.2507 × 10−6 6.1757 × 10−3 3.2162 × 10−5 6.5195 × 10−2
Average improvement % 15.12
Improvement % 12.35 12.25 18.98 16.92
MPSO-based PID-PSS 117.9186 78.9027 2902.6561 2054.6824
∆𝛿 Average improvement % 15.12
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 116.7623 75.3083 2600.7211 1788.6808
in (electrical ra- MPSO-based PID-PSS 117.9186 78.9027 2902.6561 2054.6824
∆δ Improvement % 0.98 4.56 10.40 12.95
dian)
in (electrical radian) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 116.7623 75.3083 2600.7211 1788.6808
Average improvement % 7.22
Improvement % 0.98 4.56 10.40 12.95
MPSO-based PID-PSS 4.9262 16.2894 132.7317 441.7767
Average improvement % 7.22
Active Power Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 4.5425 15.0098 112.7113 375.0399
MPSO-based PID-PSS 4.9262 16.2894 132.7317 441.7767
Active in (per unit)
Power Improvement % 7.789 7.855 15.083 15.106
in (per unit) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 4.5425 15.0098 112.7113 375.0399
Average improvement % 11.46
Improvement % 7.789 7.855 15.083 15.106
MPSO-based PID-PSS 54.9541 54.5859 1495.1461 1483.6358
Average improvement % 11.46
Positive Voltage B1 Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 50.6308 50.2909 1269.0789 1259.3816
MPSO-based PID-PSS 54.9541 54.5859 1495.1461 1483.6358
in (per
Positive Voltage B1 unit) Improvement % 7.867 7.868 15.120 15.115
in (per unit) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 50.6308 50.2909 1269.0789 1259.3816
Average improvement % 11.49
Improvement % 7.867 7.868 15.120 15.115
Average improvement % 11.49
As illustrated, the performance indices emphasize the robustness of the proposed
PSS, compared with the MPSO-based PSS, since it has a smaller ISE, IAE, ITSE, and ITAE
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 24 of 31

As illustrated, the performance indices emphasize the robustness of the proposed PSS,
compared with the MPSO-based PSS, since it has a smaller ISE, IAE, ITSE, and ITAE than
the other assessed PSS. The proposed ALO-based PID-PSS has much lower objective metrics
than the modified PSO-based PID-PSS, with an average improvement of 15.12%, 7.22%,
11.46%, and 11.49% for stabilizing the machine speed deviation, rotor angle deviation,
active power, and voltage at B1, respectively.

4.3.2. Case Study No. (11) during Heavy Loading

In this case, a three-line-to-ground fault has been applied to evaluate the robustness
of the proposed PSS. The fault has been involved at the sending end of the TL. The
performance indices of this case study are reported in Table 17. As can be seen, the
proposed PSS enhances the overall system stability more than the modified PSO-based
PID-PSS. The proposed ALO-based PID-PSS has much lower objective metrics than the
modified PSO-based PID-PSS, with an average improvement of 12.28%, 2.81%, 11.47%, and
11.49% for stabilizing the machine speed deviation, rotor angle deviation, active power,
and voltage at B1, respectively.

Table 17. Performance indices at three-phase S.C.-to-ground fault at the end of the line of case study
no. (11) during light loading.

Signal PSS ISE IAE ITSE ITAE

MPSO-based PID-PSS 3.61 × 10−5 1.39 × 10−2 2.38 × 10−4 1.27 × 10−1
∆ω
in (per unit) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 3.35 × 10−5 1.22 × 10−2 2.05 × 10−4 1.06 × 10−1
Average improvement % 12.28
∆δ MPSO-based PID-PSS 64.1097 56.4723 1466.215 1443.575
in (electrical
Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 68.3277 55.8618 1382.389 1284.358
radian)
Average improvement % 2.81
MPSO-based PID-PSS 54.4781 54.2652 1473.608 1472.48
Active Power
in (per unit) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 50.2158 49.9989 1251.161 1250.018
Average improvement % 11.47
MPSO-based PID-PSS 53.6238 53.8894 1457.186 1464.516
Positive Voltage B1
in (per unit) Proposed ALO-based PID-PSS 49.4051 49.6465 1236.963 1243.178
Average improvement % 11.49

4.3.3. Case Study No. (12) during Heavy Loading

To fully assess the resilience of the optimized PSS, a three-line-to-ground fault is
planned to occur in the center of the TL. Five cycles of the test are conducted. The deviations
of the governed machine speed, the rotary angle, the active power, and the voltage are
shown in Figure 11 for bus B1. This finding confirms the results of the other case studies in
this work. In contrast to the modified PSO-based PID PSS, Figure 11 demonstrates that the
system responses, using the suggested PSS, have superior performance.
Sustainability
Sustainability 2023,
2023, 15,
15, x8966
FOR PEER REVIEW 2525ofof32
31

(a) Speed deviation (b) Rotor angle deviation

(c) Active power deviation (d) enlarged area (A) from subfigure (c).

(e) Deviations in positive sequence line voltage at B1

Figure 11. The effect of three-phase S.C. at the middle of the TL during heavy loading, they are listed
Figure 11. The effect of three-phase S.C. at the middle of the TL during heavy loading, they are
as: (a) speed deviation; (b) Rotor angle deviation; (c) active power; (d) enlarged area (A) from sub-
listed as: (a) speed deviation; (b) Rotor angle deviation; (c) active power; (d) enlarged area (A) from
figure (c); (e) Deviations in positive sequence line voltage at B1.
subfigure (c); (e) Deviations in positive sequence line voltage at B1.
To emphasize the amount of participation of the optimized controller, Figure 12 dis-
To emphasize the amount of participation of the optimized controller, Figure 12 dis-
plays the performance
plays the performancemetrics
metricsofof both
both MPSO-based
MPSO-based PID-PSS
PID-PSS andand the proposed
the proposed ALO-
ALO-based
based PID-PSS controllers. As shown in Figure 12, with an average increase of
PID-PSS controllers. As shown in Figure 12, with an average increase of 10.73%, 8.86%, 10.73%,
8.86%,
11.48%,11.48%, and 11.49%
and 11.49% for stabilizing
for stabilizing the machine
the machine speed deviation,
speed deviation, rotor
rotor angle angle devia-
deviation, active
tion, active power, and voltage at B1, respectively, the suggested ALO-based PID-PSS
power, and voltage at B1, respectively, the suggested ALO-based PID-PSS has significantly has
significantly lower objective metrics than the modified
lower objective metrics than the modified PSO-based PID-PSS.PSO-based PID-PSS.
 Sustainability
Sustainability 2023,
2023, 15,15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
8966 26 of2632of 31

(a) Speed deviation (b) Rotor angle deviation

(c) Active power deviation (d) Deviations in positive sequence line voltage at B1
Figure12.
Figure 12.The
The performance
performance metrics
metrics of
ofboth
bothMPSO-based
MPSO-basedPID-PSS
PID-PSSand thethe
and proposed ALO-based
proposed ALO-based
PID-PSS controllers.
PID-PSS controllers.

5.5.Conclusions
Conclusions
Thispaper
This paper proposed
proposed anan advanced,
advanced,ALO-based
ALO-basedPID-PSS
PID-PSStoto
improve
improve thethe
power system
power system
stability. In this study, the adoption of powerful optimization tools, in combination
stability. In this study, the adoption of powerful optimization tools, in combination withwith
hardware-in-the-loop (HIL),
hardware-in-the-loop (HIL), provides
providesreal-time
real-timeexperimental
experimental validation.
validation. The developed
The developed
PSS,via
PSS, viathe
the ALO
ALO algorithm,
algorithm, has
has complied
compliedwith withaareconfigurable
reconfigurableinput/output
input/output single-
single-
board (SbRIO-9636), made by the National Instrument considering
board (SbRIO-9636), made by the National Instrument considering software package,software package,
MATLAB/SIMULINK. A total of 12 case studies were simulated under different loading
MATLAB/SIMULINK. A total of 12 case studies were simulated under different loading
conditions and disturbances to ensure the robustness and effectiveness of the developed
conditions and disturbances to ensure the robustness and effectiveness of the developed
ALO-based PID-PSS over the MPSO-based PID-PSS. Under the various loading condi-
ALO-based PID-PSS over the MPSO-based PID-PSS. Under the various loading conditions,
tions, the proposed ALO-based PID-PSS successfully demonstrated a high ability to re-
the proposed ALO-based PID-PSS successfully demonstrated a high ability to regain power
gain power system stability.
system stability.
Several disturbances were investigated, which were symmetrical and unsymmetrical
Several disturbances were investigated, which were symmetrical and unsymmetrical
faults, different fault locations, and step load changes. The performance indices of ALO-
faults, different fault locations, and step load changes. The performance indices of ALO-
based PID-PSS and MPSO-based PID-PSS were compared to assess the developed PSS’s
based PID-PSS
superiority underandallMPSO-based PID-PSS
test cases. The were results
comparison compared to assess
showed thedeveloped
that the developedPSSPSS’s
superiority
improved the rise time, settling time, oscillation range, and the area under the curve forPSS
under all test cases. The comparison results showed that the developed
improved the rise time, settling time, oscillation range, and the area under the curve for all
cases by 22.031%, 12.894%, 19.859%, and 267.849%, respectively. The average scores of ISE,
IAE, ITSE, and ITAE were 30.919%, 23.295%, 51.073%, and 53.624%, respectively.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 27 of 31

The current study tested ALO’s ability to produce PSS which is able improve the
power system stability through real-time constraints. The valuable part of this paper is that
the system is configured with low-cost electronics boards, which is a new development in
HIL tests, since existing HIL tests depend on costly real-time digital simulator systems or
costly boards and high-speed, high-cost computers. However, one of the disadvantages of
ALO is that it may become caught in premature convergence. The ALO technique in this
paper was developed to handle the problem of PSS design, via a PID-based controller, to
improve the power system stability of a single machine infinite bus model. The assessment
of the ALO algorithm is compared to one of the improved and efficient versions of PSO
technique. The applications show the significant performance of the ALO in solving
the considered problems. Additionally, experimental validations, through the DSPACE
electronics environment, using several scenarios of fault types and locations, provides great
validation of the ALO in solving the considered problems.
The authors currently study how the current system can test the system with a higher
number of generators, which may be a significant challenge with the same boards—especially
the DSPACE board—since it runs the system in real time. This issue needs more investiga-
tion and work, which may depend on the cost of the system components.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.M.A.I.; Methodology, N.M.A.I.; Software, A.M.S.; Vali-

dation, N.M.A.I. and A.M.S.; Formal analysis, B.A.H.; Data curation, B.A.H.; Writing—original draft,
N.M.A.I.; Writing—review & editing, A.M.S. and B.A.H.; Supervision, H.E.A.T.; Project administra-
tion, H.E.A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The APC was funded by [Future University in Egypt].
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Glossary

List of symbols:
xi : The state variables.
i: The number of states.
Xi0 : The derivative of the state variables.
D: Damping coefficient.
M: Inertia coefficient.
K1 : K6 : Constants of the linearized model.
ωb : The rated speed in elec. rad/s = 2πf0 = 377 for 60 Hz system
Tdo0 − T0 : (d and q)-axis open circuit transient time constant, respectively.
qo
U: The vector of inputs to the system.
Tm : The mechanical torque, p.u.
Vref : The reference voltage, p.u.
λi : The electromechanical mode eigenvalue.
ξ: The damping ratio, per unit speed change MVA/MW.
KA : Voltage regulator gain.
TA : Voltage regulator time constants.
X: The state vector
∆: Linearized incremental quantity.
∆ω: Machine speed deviation, p.u.
∆δ: Rotor angle or power angle deviation, rad.
∆Eq0 : The q-axis component of the transient voltage behind transient reactance.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 28 of 31

∆Efd : Generator field or exciter output voltage deviation, p.u.

X(t) : The random walks of ants in search of space.
cusum : The cumulative sum.
t: The step of random walk.
r(t) : A stochastic function.
rand : a random number generated with uniform distribution in the interval of [0, 1].
Xi(t) : The normalized random walk of prey in the search space.
ai : The minimum of random walk of i-th variable.
bi : The maximum of random walk in i-th variable.
cti : The minimum of i-th variable at t-th iteration.
dti : The maximum of i-th variable at t-th iteration.
Antliontj : The position of the selected j-th antlion at t-th iteration.
ct : The minimum of all variables at t-th iteration.
dt : The vector including the maximum of all variables at t-th teration.
ctj : The minimum of all variables for i-th ant.
dtj : The maximum of all variables for i-th ant.
I: A ratio.
t: The current iteration.
T: A constant defined based on the current iteration (w = 2 when t > 0.1 T, w = 3
when t > 0.5 T, w = 4 when t > 0.75 T, w = 5 when t > 0.9 T, and w = 6
when t > 0.95 T).
Antti : The position of i-th ant at t-th iteration.
Ji : The J’s objective function.
KS : The steady-state synchronizing torque coefficient, per unit torque/rad.
KD : The damping torque coefficient, per unit torque/per unit speed change.
ωn : The undamped natural frequency, rad/s.
ωd : The damped frequency, rad/s.
List of abbreviations:
PSS: Power system stabilizer.
PID: Proportional integral derivative.
ALO: The Antlion optimization.
HIL: Hardware-in-the-loop.
FPGA: Field programmable gate arrays.
NI: National Instruments.
MPSO: Modified particle swarm optimization.
ISE: The integral square of the error.
IAE: The integral absolute of the error.
ITSE: The integral time square of the error.
ITAE: The integral time absolute of the error.
GA: Genetic algorithm.
NSGAII: Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II.
PBIL: Population-based incremental learning.
SMIB: Single-machine infinite bus.
MMPS: Multi-machine power system.
RCP: Rapid control prototyping.
SIL: Software in the loop.
A/D: Analog/digital.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 29 of 31

Appendix A
Table A1 describes the dynamic test system parameters.

Table A1. The power system model parameters [39].

Device Parameter Value

F 50 Hz
D 0
M 7.4000 S
0
Hydro Generator Tdo 4.42586 S
(Salient pole) Xd 1.305 P.U.
Xd0 0.296 P.U.
Xq 0.474 P.U.
KA 200
TA 0.001 S
L 0.8737 × 10−3 H/Km
T-L
R 0.01755 Ω/Km

Table A2 reports the specs and system parameter modification on a Simulink model to
generate the necessary system code to be implemented in real time.

Table A2. dSPACE RTI1104 configuration parameter requirements [40].

Gains Property Value

Start Time 0.0
Stop Time Inf.
Fixed Step-Size Fixed-Step
Solver
Solver Type Unconstrained
Periodic Sample Time Constraint 6=
Higher Priority Value Indicates
Off
Higher Task Priority
Block Reduction Off
Optimization
Signal Storage Reuse Off
Code Generation System Target File RTI 1104

Table A3 reports the technical specifications of the NI SbRIO-9636 device I/O, as in

the product manual.

Table A3. NI SbRIO-9636 device I/O technical specification [51].

Components Parameter
Storage 512 MB
DRAM 256 MB
Processing Speed 400 MHz
AI 16ch-16bit
AO 4ch-16bit
RS-232 2
RS-485 1
CAN 1
USB 1
FPGA type Xilinx Spartan-6 LX45
Number of flip-flops 54,576
Number of 6-input LUTs 27,288
Input Range −10 V to 10 V
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 30 of 31

References
1. Bhukya, J.; Mahajan, V. Mathematical modelling and stability analysis of PSS for damping LFOs of wind power system. IET
Renew. Power Gener. 2019, 13, 103–115. [CrossRef]
2. El Ela, A.A.A.; El-Sehiemy, R.A.; Shaheen, A.M.; Diab, A.E.G. Optimal design of PID controller based sampe-jaya algorithm for
load frequency control of linear and nonlinear multi-area thermal power systems. Int. J. Eng. Res. Afr. 2020, 50, 79–93. [CrossRef]
3. Prasertwong, K.; Mithulananthan, N.; Thakur, D. Understanding low-frequency oscillation in power systems. Int. J. Electr. Eng.
Educ. 2010, 47, 248–262. [CrossRef]
4. Reddy, J.; Kishore, M.J. Real time implementation of H∞ loop shaping robust PSS for multimachine power system using dSPACE.
Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2011, 33, 10. [CrossRef]
5. Aghazade, A.; Kazemi, A. Simultaneous coordination of power system stabilizers and STATCOM in a multi-machine power
system for enhancing dynamic performance. In Proceedings of the 4th International Power Engineering and Optimization
Conference (PEOCO 2010), Program and Abstracts, Shah Alam, Malaysia, 23–24 June 2010. [CrossRef]
6. Guesmi, T.; Farah, A.; Abdallah, H.H.; Ouali, A. Robust design of multimachine power system stabilizers based on improved
non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms. Electr. Eng. 2018, 100, 1351–1363. [CrossRef]
7. Ameli, A.; Farrokhifard, M.; Ahmadifar, A.; Safari, A.; Shayanfar, H.A. Optimal tuning of Power System Stabilizers in a multi-
machine system using firefly algorithm. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Environment and Electrical
Engineering (EEEIC 2013), Wroclaw, Poland, 5–8 May 2013. [CrossRef]
8. Dombo, D.A.; Folly, K. Multi-machine power system stabilizer design based on population based incremental learning.
In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI 2015), Cape Town, South Africa,
7–10 December 2015. [CrossRef]
9. Peres, W.; Júnior, I.C.S.; Filho, J.A.P. Gradient based hybrid metaheuristics for robust tuning of power system stabilizers. Int. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2018, 95, 47–72. [CrossRef]
10. Sabo, A.; Wahab, N.I.A.; Othman, M.L.; Jaffar, M.Z.A.M. Mitigation of oscillations in smib using a novel farmland fertility
optimization based PIDPSS. In Proceedings of the 2020 2nd International Conference on Smart Power and Internet Energy
Systems (SPIES 2020), Bangkok, Thailand, 15–18 September 2020. [CrossRef]
11. Ibrahim, N.M.A.; Elnaghi, B.E.; Ibrahem, H.A.; Talaat, H.E.A. Modified particle swarm optimization based on lead-lag power
system stabilizer for improve stability in multi-machine power system. Int. J. Electr. Eng. Inform. 2019, 11, 161–182. [CrossRef]
12. Izci, D. A novel improved atom search optimization algorithm for designing power system stabilizer. Evol. Intell. 2022,
15, 2089–2103. [CrossRef]
13. Alotaibi, I.M.; Ibrir, S.; Abido, M.A.; Khalid, M. Nonlinear Power System Stabilizer Design for Small Signal Stability Enhancement.
Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2022, 47, 13893–13905. [CrossRef]
14. Bayu, E.S.; Khan, B.; Ali, Z.M.; Alaas, Z.M.; Mahela, O.P. Mitigation of Low-Frequency Oscillation in Power Systems through
Optimal Design of Power System Stabilizer Employing ALO. Energies 2022, 15, 3809. [CrossRef]
15. Yokus, H.; Ozturk, A. A robust crow search algorithm-based power system stabilizer for the SMIB system. Neural Comput. Appl.
2022, 34, 9161–9173. [CrossRef]
16. Ansari, J.; Abbasi, A.R.; Heydari, M.H.; Avazzadeh, Z. Simultaneous design of fuzzy PSS and fuzzy STATCOM controllers for
power system stability enhancement. Alex. Eng. J. 2022, 61, 2841–2850. [CrossRef]
17. Rodrigues, F.; Molina, Y.; Silva, C.; Ñaupari, Z. Simultaneous tuning of the AVR and PSS parameters using particle swarm
optimization with oscillating exponential decay. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2021, 133, 107215. [CrossRef]
18. Chaib, L.; Choucha, A.; Arif, S. Optimal design and tuning of novel fractional order PID power system stabilizer using a new
metaheuristic Bat algorithm. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2017, 8, 113–125. [CrossRef]
19. Hemmati, R. Power system stabilizer design based on optimal model reference adaptive system. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2016,
9, 311–318. [CrossRef]
20. Abid, S.; El-Rifaie, A.M.; Elshahed, M.; Ginidi, A.R.; Shaheen, A.M.; Moustafa, G.; Tolba, M.A. Development of Slime Mold
Optimizer with Application for Tuning Cascaded PD-PI Controller to Enhance Frequency Stability in Power Systems. Mathematics
2023, 11, 1796. [CrossRef]
21. El-Sehiemy, R.; Shaheen, A.; Ginidi, A.; Al-Gahtani, S.F. Proportional-Integral-Derivative Controller Based-Artificial Rabbits
Algorithm for Load Frequency Control in Multi-Area Power Systems. Fractal Fract. 2023, 7, 97. [CrossRef]
22. Huang, J.; Liu, J.; Zhang, C.; Kuang, Y.; Weng, S. Application of Improved Quasi-Affine Transformation Evolutionary Algorithm
in Power System Stabilizer Optimization. Electronics 2022, 11, 2785. [CrossRef]
23. Radovici, A.; Culic, I. Embedded Systems Software Development. In Getting Started with Secure Embedded Systems; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022.
24. Irfan, A.; Khan, M.G.; Amin, A.A.; Mohsin, S.A.; Adnan, M.; Zulfiqar, A. Model-Based Design, HIL Testing, and Rapid Control
Prototyping of a Low-Cost POC Quadcopter with Stability Analysis and Control. Complexity 2022, 2022, 1492170. [CrossRef]
25. Menghal, P.M.; Laxmi, A.J. Real time simulation: A novel approach in engineering education. In Proceedings of the 2011 3rd
International Conference on Electronics Computer Technology (ICECT 2011), Kanyakumari, India, 8–10 April 2011. [CrossRef]
26. Estrada, L.; Vázquez, N.; Vaquero, J.; de Castro, Á.; Arau, J. Real-time hardware in the loop simulation methodology for power
converters using labview FPGA. Energies 2020, 13, 373. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8966 31 of 31

27. Picerno, M.; Lee, S.-Y.; Pasternak, M.; Siddareddy, R.; Franken, T.; Mauss, F.; Andert, J. Real-Time Emission Prediction with
Detailed Chemistry under Transient Conditions for Hardware-in-the-Loop Simulations. Energies 2022, 15, 261. [CrossRef]
28. Almas, M.S.; Vanfretti, L.; Vanfretti, L. Experimental performance assessment of a generator’s excitation control system using
real-time hardware-in-the-loop simulation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics
Society (IECON 2014), Dallas, TX, USA, 29 October–1 November 2014. [CrossRef]
29. Tian, H.; Guo, S.; Zhao, P.; Gong, M.; Shen, C. Design and implementation of a real-time multi-beam sonar system based on fpga
and dsp. Sensors 2021, 21, 1425. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Saralegui, R.; Sanchez, A.; de Castro, A. Modeling of deadtime events in power converters with half-bridge modules for a highly
accurate hardware-in-the-loop fixed point implementation in fpga. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6490. [CrossRef]
31. Hermassi, M.; Krim, S.; Kraiem, Y.; Hajjaji, M.A.; Alshammari, B.M.; Alsaif, H.; Alshammari, A.S.; Guesmi, T. Design of Vector
Control Strategies Based on Fuzzy Gain Scheduling PID Controllers for a Grid-Connected Wind Energy Conversion System:
Hardware FPGA-in-the-Loop Verification. Electronics 2023, 12, 1419. [CrossRef]
32. El Zerk, A.; Ouassaid, M. Real-Time Fuzzy Logic Based Energy Management System for Microgrid Using Hardware in the Loop.
Energies 2023, 16, 2244. [CrossRef]
33. Essa, M.E.S.M.; Lotfy, J.V.W.; Abd-Elwahed, M.E.K.; Rabie, K.; ElHalawany, B.M.; Elsisi, M. Low-Cost Hardware in the Loop for
Intelligent Neural Predictive Control of Hybrid Electric Vehicle. Electronics 2023, 12, 971. [CrossRef]
34. Samano-Ortega, V.; Padilla-Medina, A.; Bravo-Sanchez, M.; Rodriguez-Segura, E.; Jimenez-Garibay, A.; Martinez-Nolasco, J.
Hardware in the loop platform for testing photovoltaic system control. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8690. [CrossRef]
35. Hasan, N.; Ibraheem, I.; Farooq, S. Real time simulation of automatic generation control for interconnected power system. Int. J.
Electr. Eng. Inform. 2012, 4, 40–51. [CrossRef]
36. Almas, M.S.; Vanfretti, L. Implementation of conventional and phasor based power system stabilizing controls for real-
time simulation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON 2014),
Dallas, TX, USA, 29 October–1 November 2014. [CrossRef]
37. Scheibe, C.; Kuri, A.; Graf, L.; Venugopal, R.; Mehlmann, G. Real Time Co-Simulation of Electromechanical and Electromagnetic
Power System Models. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Smart Energy Systems and Technologies (SEST
2022), Porto, Portugal, 9–11 September 2022. [CrossRef]
38. Prabha, O.P.M.; Kundur, S. Power System Stability And Control by Prabha Kundur; McGraw-Hill, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2022.
39. Jovcic, D.; Pillai, G.N. Analytical modeling of TCSC dynamics. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2005, 20, 1097–1104. [CrossRef]
40. DS1104 R&D Controller Board. Available online: www.dspace.com/en/pub/home/products/hw/singbord/ds1104.cfm (ac-
cessed on 5 February 2022).
41. Piyaratna, S.; Duong, N.; Carr, J.; Bird, D.; Kennedy, S.; Udina, A.; Jenkinson, P. Digital RF processing system for Hardware-in-the-
Loop simulation. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Radar—Beyond Orthodoxy: New Paradigms in Radar
(RADAR 2013), Adelaide, SA, Australia, 9–12 September 2013. [CrossRef]
42. Bacic, M. On hardware-in-the-loop simulation. In Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, and the
European Control Conference (CDC-ECC’05), Seville, Spain, 15 December 2005. [CrossRef]
43. Latha, A.H.; Shubhanga, K.N. Hardware-in-the-Loop testing of PSS for synchronous generator. In Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Green Computing, Communication and Electrical Engineering (ICGCCEE 2014), Coimbatore, India,
6–8 March 2014. [CrossRef]
44. Lee, E.A.; Seshia, S.A.; Jensen, J.C. Teaching embedded systems the Berkeley way. In Proceedings of the 2012 Workshop on
Embedded and Cyber-Physical Systems Education (WESE 2012), Tampere, Finland, 12 October 2013. [CrossRef]
45. Pathak, V.K.; Gangwar, S.; Singh, R.; Srivastava, A.K.; Dikshit, M. A comprehensive survey on the ant lion optimiser, variants and
applications. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 2022, 28, 1397–1416. [CrossRef]
46. Assiri, A.S.; Hussien, A.G.; Amin, M. Ant lion optimization: Variants, hybrids, and applications. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 77746–77764.
[CrossRef]
47. Mirjalili, S. The Ant Lion Optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2015, 83, 80–98. [CrossRef]
48. Raju, M.; Saikia, L.C.; Sinha, N. Automatic generation control of a multi-area system using ant lion optimizer algorithm based
PID plus second order derivative controller. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2016, 80, 52–63. [CrossRef]
49. Robinson, J.; Rahmat-Samii, Y. Particle swarm optimization in electromagnetics. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2004, 52, 397–407.
[CrossRef]
50. Ibrahim, N.M.; Attia, H.E.; Talaat, H.E.; Alaboudy, A.H.K. Modified Particle Swarm Optimization Based Proportional-Derivative
Power System Stabilizer. Int. J. Intell. Syst. Appl. 2015, 7, 62–76. [CrossRef]
51. NI sbRIO-960x/962x/963x OEM Instructions and Specifications. Available online: www.ni.com/pdf/manuals/realtest.pdf
(accessed on 7 February 2022).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.