3.2 5.

Article

PSOα: A Fragmented Swarm

Optimisation for Improved Load
Frequency Control of a Hybrid
Power System Using FOPID

Bhargav Appasani, Amitkumar V. Jha, Deepak Kumar Gupta, Nicu Bizon and Phatiphat Thounthong

https://doi.org/10.3390/en16052226
 energies
Article
PSOα: A Fragmented Swarm Optimisation for Improved Load
Frequency Control of a Hybrid Power System Using FOPID
Bhargav Appasani 1 , Amitkumar V. Jha 1 , Deepak Kumar Gupta 2 , Nicu Bizon 3,4,5, *
and Phatiphat Thounthong 6,7

1 School of Electronics Engineering, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar 751024, India
2 School of Electrical Engineering, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar 751024, India
3 Faculty of Electronics, Communication and Computers, University of Pitesti, 110040 Pitesti, Romania
4 Doctoral School, University Politehnica of Bucharest, Splaiul Independentei 313, 06004 Bucharest, Romania
5 ICSI Energy, National Research and Development Institute for Cryogenic and Isotopic Technologies,
240050 Ramnicu Valcea, Romania
6 Renewable Energy Research Centre (RERC), Department of Teacher Training in Electrical Engineering,
Faculty of Technical Education, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, 1518 Pracharat 1
Road, Wongsawang, Bangsue, Bangkok 10800, Thailand
7 Group of Research in Electrical Engineering of Nancy (GREEN), University of Lorraine-GREEN,
F-54000 Nancy, France
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Particle swarm optimisation (PSO) is one of the widely adopted meta-heuristic methods for
solving real-life problems. Its practical utility can be further enhanced by improving its performance.
In order to acheive this, academics have presented several variants of the original PSO over the
past few years, including the quantum PSO (QPSO), bare-bones PSO (BB-PSO), hybrid PSO, fuzzy
PSO, etc. In this paper, the performance of PSO is improved by proposing a fragmented swarm
optimisation approach known as the PSOα . The PSOα is tested and compared with PSOs over
14 different benchmarking cost functions to validate its efficacy. The analysis is also carried out to
see the impact of α on its performance. It is observed that the average value of the cost function
over 50 simulations obtained using the fragmented swarm approach is lower than that obtained
Citation: Appasani, B.; Jha, A.V.; using the standard PSO in 12 out of 14 benchmark functions. Similarly, the fragmented approach
Gupta, D.K.; Bizon, N.; Thounthong, outperforms the standard PSO in 13 out of 14 benchmark functions when compared with the best
P. PSOα : A Fragmented Swarm fitness value achieved out of 50 simulations. Finally, the proposed approach is applied to solve the
Optimisation for Improved Load well-known real-life optimisation problem of load frequency control (LFC) in power systems. A
Frequency Control of a Hybrid test system comprising both renewable and traditional power sources is considered to evaluate the
Power System Using FOPID. Energies efficacy of the proposed technique. A fractional order proportional-integral-differential (FOPID)
2023, 16, 2226. https://doi.org/
controller is used, whose parameters are optimised using the proposed PSO for achieving the LFC.
10.3390/en16052226
The proposed fragmentation approach can be applied with other optimisation techniques to improve
Academic Editor: Elyas Rakhshani their performance.

Received: 20 December 2022

Keywords: load frequency control; optimisation; PSO; FOPID; multi-area power system; multi-source
Revised: 30 January 2023
power system
Accepted: 20 February 2023
Published: 25 February 2023

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. In 1995, Kennedy and Eberhart proposed a meta-heuristic method known as particle
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. swarm optimisation (PSO) [1]. Since then, the widespread use of PSO has been found
This article is an open access article in solving real-life problems [2,3]. The convergence of the algorithms to a local minim
distributed under the terms and
is still a challenge that has been reported in [4]. Several methods and variants of the
conditions of the Creative Commons
original PSO were proposed in the past several years to overcome this problem and improve
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
its performance. These approaches are classified into four categories: proper selection
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
of algorithm parameters [5–8], design of proper evolution strategies [9–11], hybrid PSO
4.0/).

Energies 2023, 16, 2226. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16052226 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2023, 16, 2226 2 of 17

algorithms [12–15], and modified versions of the original PSO [16]. The choice of the PSO
parameters plays an important role in its performance [5,6]. Researchers developed methods
for the proper selection of these parameters, thereby resulting in improved performance.
Fuzzy logic-based selection, use of control theory, selection of inertia weights, etc., are
some of these methods [17]. These methods are specific to a particular application. Their
performance in solving other real-life problems is yet to be validated. However, it is generally
the case with any optimisation method or its variant that it is practically not feasible for a
single algorithm to work effectively on all real-life optimisation problems.
The second category of improvement techniques is based on modifying evolution rules
to achieve enhanced performance. Some of the examples are noted in [18], such as bare
bones PSO (BB-PSO), QPSO, and APSO. The literature reveals that the conventional PSO
can be combined with different algorithms to increase the PSO’s performance. To mention
a few examples, in [19], fuzzy logic is applied in PSO to improve its performance. Similarly,
chaotic PSO, discussed in [20], and opposition-based PSO, discussed in [21], are some
other examples where PSO is used in conjunction with other algorithms. These techniques
enhance the PSO’s efficiency but also make it more complicated. Some scientists attempted
to reduce the computational complexity of the PSO while trying to improve its efficiency
simultaneously. Simplified PSO (SPSO) and many optimising liaisons (MOL) are some
of these techniques that enhance the standard PSO’s performance and also decrease its
computational complexity [22]. The fragmented approach has shown a significant improve-
ment in the performance of the GA [23], which opened a new paradigm in performance
improvement of the PSO. In this paper, a similar approach is applied for PSO to propose a
fragmented particle swarm optimisation, which is known as the PSOα , for improving the
performance of the standard PSO. The performance of the proposed PSO is compared by
rigorously analysing it on 14 standard benchmark test functions. Further, the efficacy of
the proposed PSOα is validated through its implementation in the power system from the
perspective of the load frequency control (LFC) analysis.
In the power system, the overall power generation must match the entire load plus
losses for multi-area power systems to operate efficiently. The frequency must be within its
nominal range to maintain the system’s stability. This has drastically attracted the attention
of researchers toward LFC analysis. The frequency is kept at its average value with the aid
of various controllers [24]. One vital aspect of the controller is to optimize its parameters
using several optimisation techniques, such as PSO, GA, FA, BPSO, etc. One of the most
comprehensive surveys on LFC is reported in [25]. In order to operate and regulate a
power system effectively and reliably, LFC is crucial in that the frequency is ensured to be
within the nominal range for the reliable operation of the power system. The significant
attempts are found in the literature where various controllers are used to enhance the
power system’s dynamic performance throughout various operating shifts. The state-of-
the-art review on different controllers is presented by Latif et al., in [26], for integrated
power systems comprising both traditional and renewable energy sources. The various
controllers, in conjunction with optimisation techniques, are comprehensively reviewed by
Tungadio et al., in [27]. Within such context, a review on some of the preliminary works is
subsequently follows.
A firefly algorithm is suggested in [28] for the multi-area system’s load frequency
regulation. The reported approach is used to optimise the gains of the proportional inte-
gral/proportional integral derivative controller for two- and three-area power systems.
The LFC for a multi-source power system using different intelligent optimisation tech-
niques is reported in [29]. R.K. Sahu et al., reported the tilt integral derivative controller
using a filter constant to deal the issue of LFC for a multi-area system [30]. In this, for
optimally designing the controller, differential evolution (DE) heuristic techniques are used
to minimise integral time absolute error (ITAE) performance index. C.K. Shiva proposed
a novel quasi-oppositional harmony search algorithm in [31] to deal the issue of LFC
for a three-area power system under a deregulated regime. Authors in [32] reported the
use of PIDA controller, where the parameters of the controllers are tuned with the TLBO
Energies 2023, 16, 2226 3 of 17

algorithm. The firefly algorithm is used for LFC for a single area power system in [33].
Paliwal, N. [34] claimed that the implementation of the grey wolf optimiser (GWO) method
has been used to estimate the best PID controller settings for LFC in multi-source networks.
A novel deep reinforcement learning technique to achieve coordinated control and improve
the performance of DIC-AGC in the performance-based frequency regulation market is
proposed in [35]. A novel improved gravitational search algorithm-binary particle swarm
optimisation (IGSA-BPSO) is introduced in [36] to address problems in the automatic
generation control of interconnected deregulated power systems. For the load frequency
management in the interconnected power system, the tilted integral derivative controller is
modified and is known as an integral derivative-tilted (ID-T) controller whose parameters
are tuned using archimedes optimisation algorithm [37]. In [38], fractional-order calculus
and interval type-2 fuzzy inference systems are used to design the primary control system
for the LFC problem. In order to enhance the performance of the system, authors in [39] use
a novel improved squirrel search algorithm for the controller design where PID controllers
with varying degrees of freedom are utilised. The power system’s automated generation
control (AGC) problem is addressed in [40,41] using a novel fuzzy PID controller with
filtered derivative action and fractional order integrator controller. In [42], a two area
hydrothermal power system is considered for LFC analysis where gravitational FA is used
for the optimal tunning of the controller parameters. In [43], the fractional order PIλ Dµ
controller is used for the LFC analysis of a interconnected power system. Contrary to these
works, we propose a fragmented PSO optimisation technique, and its efficacy is evaluated
with reference to the power system within the context of LFC.
The major contributions of the paper are summarized as follows:
• A fragmented swarm optimisation approach, known as the PSOα , is proposed to
improve the performance of the conventional PSO;
• The 14 different benchmarks are considered to test the performance of PSOα ;
• The analysis is also carried out to see the impact of α on its performance;
• The proposed approach is applied to solve the well-known real-life optimisation
problem of LFC in power systems where the test system is considered with both
renewable and traditional power sources;
• A fractional order proportional-integral-differential (FOPID) controller is used, whose
parameters are optimised using the proposed PSO for the LFC of the hybrid power
system.
The article is organised into five different sections. The description of the proposed
fragmented swarm optimisation approach in Section 2 follows the introduction. The
performance of the proposed PSO is analysed in the third section with a comparative
benchmark analysis. In Section 4, the multi-source multi-area power system is designed
with a FOPID controller as a test system. The efficacy of the proposed system is evaluated
through simulations. The simulation results and discussion are reported in Section 5. The
last section presents the conclusion of the reported research work.

2. Fragmented Particle Swarm Optimisation

The movement of particles in a swarm is the foundation for the conventional PSO.
Every particle in a swarm is identified by its velocity and position in the search space.
The particles’ location, updated with each subsequent iteration, defines the answer to the
objective function. Let Xi and Vi represent the position and velocity of the ith particle. Then,
we have Equations (1) and (2) which represent Xi and Vi , respectively. N is the swarm size
for an m-dimensional solution.

Xi = ( xi1 , xi2 , . . . . . ., xim ) (1)

Vi = (vi1 , vi2 , . . . . . ., vim ) (2)

Energies 2023, 16, 2226 4 of 17

Pi and Pg represent the personal best position for the ith particle, and the global best
position for the swarm. At the kth iteration, Equations (3) and (4) can be used to update the
1
position of the ith particle and its velocity [16].
1 1 1 xid (k) =1 xid (k − 1)1+ vid (2k )2 1 1 (3)
n o
vid (k ) = vid (k − 1) + a1 r1 { pid (k − 1) − xid (k − 1)} + a2 r2 p gd (k − 1) − xid (k − 1) (4)

where, r1 and r2 are randomly generated numbers, and a1 and a2 are constants. r1 and r2 lie
in the range of [0, 1]. With the fitness function F, Equation (5) can be used to update Pi [16].
 if 1  

 Xi ( k ) if F ( X ( k )) ≤ F ( P ( k − 1))
 P (k −11) ifif F ( X (k)) > F ( P (k −11))
i i
Pi (k) =  (5)
i i i

To comprehensively review conventional PSO, its steps are depicted in Figure 1.

Start

Initialize: k = 1, N, maximum iterations

Initialize Xk and Vk within their limits

Set Pk = Xk

k=k+1

Yes
is k < N
No
Evaluate fitness

Pg = Best of all Pi

j=1

i=1

Update Xi , Vi , Pi

i=i+1

Yes is i < N

No
Evaluate fitness

Pg = Best of all Pi

j=j+1

Yes is
j < maximum
iterations
No
Best solution: Pg

Stop

Figure 1. Standard PSO algorithm.

Energies 2023, 16, 2226 5 of 17

In the present work, the PSOα α technique is proposed to enhance the performance of

the conventional PSO, which is based on a fragmented approach. The fundamental notion
underlying the approach is the sub-particle division of each solution, which fragments the
swarm into two, as given by Equation (6).

Xi = {[ Xi1 ]1, [,Xi2 ]}

2 (6)

where Xi1 contains the first m/2 sub-particles, and Xi2 contains the next m/2 sub-particles
in the solution. In the following iterations, these sub-particles are updatedαin α fragments
sequentially, rather than simultaneously, as seen in Figure 2.

Fragment 1 Fragment 2 Fragment 3 Fragment 4

Fragment α
Iterations: Iterations: Iterations: Iterations: Iterations:
1 to β/α β/α + 1 to 2β/α β/α + 2 to 3β/α β/α + 3 to 4β/α … β/α + (α – 1) to β

Update Xi1 Update Xi2 Update Xi1 Update Xi2 Update Xi1 or Xi2
Iterations (β)

Figure 2. The proposed PSOα

α .

In the first iteration, only the first sub-particle of the ith particle in the swarm (Xi1 ) is
updated. The next sub-particle Xi2 is updated in the next iteration. In the similar way, all
sub-particles are updated such that only one sub-particle is updated at any iteration. Con-
sequently, in the αthα iteration, the Xi αα sub-particle is updated. As long as the termination
criteria are not met, this cycle is repeated.

3. Performance Analysis
For the performance analysis, 14 different benchmark functions summarised in [44,45]
are utilised. The dimension of a particle and the maximum number of iterations are
considered as 20 and 100, respectively, in the simulation. The efficacy of the PSOα depends
α
on the number of sub-particles (i.e., the value of α), which will also be analysed in this
α
section. However, there has not been any attempt to adjust the parameters of either the
conventional PSO or the suggested PSO. The different values of α are considered to perform
α
the simulations reported in Table 1, regarding the average cost function. Likewise, Table 2
summarises the best fitness value for the cost functions. The best results for each cost
function are highlighted in boldface. It should also be noted that for α = 1, the fragmented
PSO behaves as the standard PSO. α

Table 1. Average fitness values of the cost functions for 50 simulations.

PSOα
Standard PSO α
α=2 α=5 α = 10 α = 20
α α α α
Fletcher-Powell 461,103.9 2,604,529 2,721,716 3,022,818 2,514,629
Griewank 0.049925 0.065658 0.082329 0.080676 0.117824
Penalty #1 0.622927 0.009717 0.002073 2.25 × 10−15 2.68 × 10−12
Penalty #2 0.550521 0.04043 0.001538 × 10
0.00022 10−13
× 10
8.59 ×
Quartic 8.67 × 10−13 2.98 × 10−15 5.1 × 10−37 1.06 × 10−27 1.42 ×
× 10
10
−23
Rastrigin 49.17073 24.93886 19.34199 17.97034 15.94734
× 10 × 10 × 10 × 10 × 10
Rosenbrock 16.78169 17.46503 11.3112 12.12923 16.18238
Schwefel 1.2 −6452.71 −6603.55 −6647.61 −6696.6 −6672.26
Schwefel 2.21 7.881805 23.08167 15.24715 10.32565 4.047511
Schwefel 2.22 − 16.15846 − × 10
3.12 −11 5.18−× 10−11 5.56 −× 10−8 − × 10
1.29 −7
Schwefel 2.26 0.862617 0.861845 0.642069 0.46599 0.242072
Sphere 3.39 × 10−17 1.72 × 10−15 1.23 × 10−23 7.58 × 10−17 3.76 × 10−15
Step 183.86
×5.06
10 × 10
0.28
× 10
0.04
×
0
10
Ackley 12.03881 0.636369 0.239076 0.05167 0.000602
× 10 × 10 × 10 × 10 × 10
 α

α α α α
Energies 2023, 16, 2226 6 of 17

× 10 × 10 × 10
× 10 × 10 of the cost functions
Table 2. Best fitness values × for
1050 simulations. × 10 × 10
× 10 × 10 × 10 × 10 × 10
× 10
Standard PSO × 10 × 10 PSOα × 10 × 10
α=2 α=5 α = 10 α = 20
Fletcher-Powell 310,355.6 828,986.5 1,190,779 1,157,620 1,221,396
Griewank 1.11 × 10−16 0 0 5.55 × 10−16 1.44 × 10−14
Penalty #1 −1.28 × 10−18 − × 10−16
1.65 − 10−28
6.01 × 4.36 × 10−−20 1.13 × 10−−17
Penalty #2 1.8 × 10−18 3.91 × 10−17 2.09 × 10−25 4.6 × 10−18 6.8 × 10−16
Quartic 3.01 × 10−34 1.62 × 10−16 4.26 × 10−44 1.43 × 10−35 3.58 × 10−29
Rastrigin
× 10
23.87898
× 10
9.949591
× 10
6.964713 7.959672
× 10 6.964713
× 10
Rosenbrock 2.315889 1.251602 3.410537 2.001622 0.007852
Schwefel 1.2 −×7113.69
10 × 10
−7457.95 × 10
−7113.69 −7110 × 10 −7228.44 × 10
Schwefel 2.21 0.211203 7.728768 6.977263 2.658325 0.149143
Schwefel 2.22 3.44 × 10−11 2.97 × 10−15 8.69 × 10−16 1.93 × 10−10 5.5 × 10−9
Schwefel 2.26 × 10
0.192718 × 10
0.547877 × 10
0.376101 0.266043 × 10 0.128634 × 10
Sphere 3.46 × 10−23 1.41 × 10−16 1.04 × 10−27 1.62 × 10−19 6.02 × 10−18
Step 2 0 0 0 0
Ackley 1.48 × 10−10 1.05 × 10−8 1.11 × 10−12 1.03 × 10−9 1.14 × 10−8

It is essential to proceed with some caution when analysing the results in Tables 1 and 2. A
single optimisation strategy cannot effectively handle every test bench function. However, the
choice of the number of fragments are a critical parameter in the performance of the proposed
PSO, as observed from the results reported in Tables 1 and 2. But overall, fragmentation of
the swarm does result in improved optimisation. Table 1 shows that the average value of the
cost function over 50 simulations, obtained using the fragmented swarm approach, is lower
than that obtained using the standard PSO in 12 out of 14 benchmark functions. Similarly, the
fragmented approach outperforms the standard PSO in 13 out of 14 benchmark functions
when compared w.r.t to the best fitness value achieved out of 50 simulations.
Computational complexity is an important parameter that has to be considered while
comparing different algorithms. The computational burden is dependent on the number
of cost function evaluations. The proposed fragmentation technique only fragments the
solution space and it requires the same number of cost function evaluations as the standard
PSO. Thus, the proposed PSO has a similar computational complexity as the standard PSO.
To further understand the proposed approach, boxplots of some of the test functions are
shown in Figure 3.
Fitness Value

Fitness Value

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Cont.
Energies 2023, 16, 2226 7 of 17

80

70

60

Fitness Value
50

40

30

20

10

=1 =2 =5 = 10 = 20

(c) (d)
α
Figure 3. The boxplots for the proposed PSO α
α for different values of α. (a) Ackley. (b) Fletcher.
(c) Rastringin. (d) Rosenbrock.

The boxplots further corroborate the results shown in Tables 1 and 2. It can be clearly
seen that, depending on the cost function, the fragment size has to be optimally chosen to
achieve better results.

4. Design of a Test System for Performance Analysis of the PSOαα in LFC

In this section, the multi-source, multi-area test system is described, followed by
design aspects of the FOPID controller for the LFC of the test system.

4.1. Multi-Source Multi-Area Power System

As a test system for LFC analysis using PSOα , αa multi-source multi-area power system
is considered. Such a test system is shown in Figure 4, which comprises two areas, referred
to as area-1 and area-2. The transfer function of the test system is shown in Figure 4a
whereas, the transfer function of individual power plants are shown in Figure 4b. Where
the different constants used are as follows: k1 = 0.543478, k2 = 0.326084, k3 = 0.130438,
k = 0.543478 k = 0.326084 k =
k4 = 0.4312, and k5 = 1/2.4. Both of these areas are of a multi-source hybrid in nature
0.130438 k = 0.4312 k = 1/2.4
from the generation’s perspective. Particularly, the thermal plant, hydro plant, and gas
turbine plant are considered to infuse the multi-source characteristics in both areas. The
frequencies in both the areas, and tie-line power flow between area-1 and area-2 are key
parameters of interest.

4.2. FOPID Controller

The FOPID controller is proposed for the LFC with the objective to enhance the
system performance compared to the traditional PID-based controller. Compared to the
PID controller, the FOPID controller has two additional parameters, namely λ and µ,
other than K p , Ki and Kd . Here, λ defines integrator order and µ defines derivative
order, whereas proportional gain, integral gain, and derivative gain are defined by K p , Ki
and Kd , respectively. The block schematic representation of the FOPID controller for the
proposed system is represented in Figure 5. The transfer function of the FOPID controller
is characterised by Equation (7).

U (s) K
Gc (s) = = K p + λi + Kd sµ (7)
R(s) s
Energies 2023, 16, 2226 8 of 17

k4

Step load change

k5 k5 k5

_ Thermal
plant
+ _
+

+ +
68.9566
+ FOPID _ ΔF 1
-1
Hydro plant 11.49 s + 1
+
+ Controller 1 _
+

_ Gas turbine
plant
+

ACE 11 In1
Governor 21 ITAE
+
2 × 3.14 × 0.0433 In2
s -
Tieline In3
-1

New
ITAE
_ Thermal
-1
plant
+ + -

+ + ΔF 2
68.9566
+ FOPID _
-1 11.49 s + 1
Hydro plant + -
+ Controller 2
+

_
Gas turbine
k4 plant
+

k5 k5 k5 Step load change

(a)
Thermal plant

1 0.3 × 10 s + 1 1
k1k1
0.08s + 1 10 s + 1 0.3s + 1

Hydro plant

1 5s + 1 −s + 1
k2
0.02 s + 1 28.75s + 1 1 × 0.5s + 1

Gas turbine plant

1 0.6s + 1 −0.01s + 1
k3
0.05s + 1 s +1 0.23s + 1

(b)
α
Figure 4. Simulink model for LFC analysis using the proposed PSO α optimisation techniques: (a) of
the test system and (b) transfer functions of different plants.

𝜆 𝜇
𝐾 𝐾 𝐾 𝜆 𝜇
 𝜆 𝜇
𝐾 𝐾 𝐾 𝜆 𝜇
𝐾 𝐾
𝐾
Energies 2023, 16, 2226 9 of 17

Kp

+
U (s)
1
Ki
R( s) sλ + +

Kd sµ

Figure 5. FOPID controller for the LFC analysis of the test system.

The approach for using the proposed PSOααoptimisation techniques for the LFC of the
test system is schematically represented (in) Figure 6. The iterative methodology is used to
( )
obtain the performance of the test system with optimised
µ
FOPID controller parameters. The
( )
parameters of the FOPID controller, i.e., K p , 𝐾 𝐾d , λ𝐾 and
Ki , K 𝜆 µ, are
𝜇 required to be optimised
for the LFC analysis of the test system. For their optimisation, the PSOα optimisation
α

techniques are used for the optimization constraints, and initial values of optimization
parameters work as inputs. The inputs to the FOPID controller are frequency variation
in the corresponding area, and tie-line power between area-1 and area-2. For the tuning
of K p𝐾, Ki𝐾
, Kd𝐾
, λ 𝜆and µ,𝜇the integral time absolute error (ITAE) is chosen as an objective
(fitness) function. The objective function includes the tie-line power and frequency of the
proposed test system as defined using (8).

Zt
ITAE = 0 ∆F1 1| + |∆F22 | + |∆Ptie |) t dt
(| (8)
0
1 2
where ∆F1 , ∆F2 , and ∆Ptie represent the frequency variation in area-1, area-2, and tie-line
power between area-1 and area-2, respectively.

Constraints
Objective
Proposed PSOα
function
PSOα Parameters

K p Ki Kd λ µ

Output
Input FOPID Test
controller system

Figure 6. The methodology for the implementation of proposed PSOα optimisation techniques for LFC.
α
5. Simulation Results and Discussion
The proposed PSOα optimisation techniques are applied to tune the FOPID parameters
to achieve the LFC of multi-source multi-area power system. The system configurations
used for the implementation
α and simulations are as follows: MATLAB (R2016a) software
with i5-6200 CPU@ 2.30 GHz with 16 GB RAM. The performance analysis of the proposed
optimisation technique is carried out for two different cases. In the first case study, the load
variation in area-1 and area-2 is considered as 1% and 2%, respectively. In the second case

α
Energies 2023, 16, 2226 10 of 17

study, area-1 and area-2 are subjected to the 3% and 2% load variation, respectively. For
these case studies, ITAE as an objective function is chosen to optimise all five parameters
of the FOPID controllers. For optimisation, the standard PSO and PSOα optimisation
techniques are considered. The different parameters for the proposed case studies are
included in the Appendix A. The simulation results and discussion for both the case studies
are followed in subsequent sections.

5.1. Case Study-I

In case study-I, the load variation in area-1 and area-2 is considered as 1% and 2%,
respectively. The best FOPID controller parameters are selected using both standard PSO
and the proposed PSOα optimisation techniques. Further, to observe the efficacy of the pro-
posed optimisation techniques, the dynamic responses are captured through the simulation.
The simulation results for the perturbed responses in frequency deviations of area-1 (∆F1 )
and area-2 (∆F2 ) are plotted in Figure 7a,b, respectively. The plots for simulation results
depicting dynamic response in the tie-line power flow (∆P12 ) are shown in Figure 7c. The
analysis of Figure 7 reveals that the proposed PSOα optimisation techniques outperform the
standard PSO in terms of dynamic perturbed response of ∆F1 , ∆F2 and ∆P12 . Nevertheless,
the number of sub-particles α plays a critical role in performance enhancements, which can
be validated from the perturbed responses shown in Figure 7 for ∆F1 , ∆F2 and ∆P12 with
PSO2 , PSO5 and PSO10 Optimally tuned parameters of FOPID controllers with different
optimisation techniques are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Optimally tuned parameters of FOPID controllers with different optimisation techniques for
case study-I.

FOPID Parameters PSO PSO2 PSO5 PSO10

Kp1 0.01 5.1816 2.3064 10
KI1 8.8499 5.6965 7.2508 8.6551
KD1 5.3573 3.0801 3.3643 5.1749
µ1 0.791 1 0.8454 1
λ1 0.5 0.9949 0.5 0.6662
Kp2 9.6153 10 6.0612 4.6897
KI2 10 10 8.381 10
KD2 5.7386 3.8028 2.5067 3.5886
µ2 0.9967 1 0.9709 1
λ2 0.8292 0.5 0.9338 0.7885
ITAE 0.0411 0.0575 0.0314 0.0291

To further augment the performance analysis, the perturbed response of the test system
for case study-I can be analysed in terms of the settling time, undershoot, and overshoot.
Thus, for evaluating the efficacy of the proposed PSOα -driven FOPID controller for LFC,
the settling time, undershoot/overshoot results for different parameters, i.e., ∆F1 , ∆F2 and
∆P12 are summarised in Table 4. These results are recorded to strengthen the comprehensive
analysis of the overall performance of the test system with standard PSO-driven FOPID and
the proposed PSOα -driven FOPID controller. From the summarised results, it is inferred
that the proposed PSOα -driven FOPID controller provides better system stability and robust
performance with an optimum choice of sub-particles α, when compared to the standard
PSO-based FOPID controller. Specifically, with α = 10, the proposed PSO10 -based FOPID
controller provides a more stable and robust performance. However, this is the maximum
value of α that can be used, as the maximum iterations are 10. Nevertheless, a trade-off can
be observed between the system LFC performance parameters and value α, which can be
corroborated from the results summarized for α = 5 and α = 10. Moreover, the ITAE = 0.0291,
is observed to be the minimum in the case of PSO10 -based FOPID controller which further
corroborates the efficacy of the proposed PSOα -driven FOPID controller and the significance
of sub-particles α on its performance.
 α

Δ𝐹1 Δ𝐹2
Δ𝑃12 particles α plays

Δ𝐹
Energies 2023, 16, 2226
1 Δ𝐹2 Δ𝑃12 PSO2 , PSO PSO10 11 of 17

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 7. Dynamic response for the frequency deviation and tie-line power flow for case study-I:
Δ𝐹1 Δ𝐹2 Δ𝑃
(a) ∆F1 ,12
(b) ∆F2 and (c) ∆P12 .
Energies 2023, 16, 2226 12 of 17

Table 4. Key performance parameters for the LFC of the test system pertaining to case study-I with
PSO, PSO2 , PSO5, and PSO10 .

PSO PSO2 PSO5 PSO10

ITAE 0.0411 0.0575 0.0314 0.0291
Peak Overshoot (∆F1 ) 1.68% 1.46% 1.47% 1.14%
Peak Overshoot (∆F2 ) 2.91% 2.4% 2.15% 2.51%
Peak Overshoot (∆P12 ) 0.158% 0.081% 0.055% 0.168%
Settling Time (∆F1 ) 5.98 s 9.23 s 4.99 s 3.5 s
Settling Time (∆F2 ) 4.82 s 5.57 s 4.57 s 4.82 s
Settling Time (∆P12 ) 18 s 12 s 9.5 s 9.5 s

5.2. Case Study-II

Under case study-II, the load fluctuation in area 1 is considered as 3%, and in area-2
is considered as 2%. The best FOPID controller parameters are selected using both the
standard PSO and the proposed PSOα optimization techniques for the LFC analysis.
The simulation results for the perturbed responses in frequency deviations of area-1
(∆F1 ) and area-2 (∆F2 ) are plotted in Figure 8a,b, respectively. The plots for the simulation
results depicting dynamic response in the tie-line power flow (∆P12 ) are shown in Figure 8c.
Optimally tuned parameters of FOPID controllers with different optimisation techniques
are shown in Table 5. From Figure 8, it is inferred that the proposed PSOα optimisation
techniques outperform the standard PSO in terms of the dynamic perturbed response
of ∆F1 , ∆F2 , and ∆P12 . Nevertheless, the number of sub-particles α play critical role in
performance enhancements that can be validated from the perturbed responses shown in
Figure 8 for ∆F1 , ∆F2 and ∆P12 , with PSO2 and PSO5 .

Table 5. Optimally tuned parameters of FOPID controllers with different optimisation techniques for
case study-II.

FOPID Parameters PSO PSO2 PSO5 PSO10

Kp1 8.7717 3.3908 10 5.5647
KI1 7.6618 3.5364 8.1693 8.4972
KD1 3.0907 2.7922 6.0918 5.7859
µ1 0.9748 0.8824 1 1
λ1 0.8058 1 1 0.71
Kp2 3.3765 10 6.8539 10
KI2 4.8148 0.01 7.205 10
KD2 2.2872 5.1184 6.8575 6.513
µ2 1 1 0.9217 1
λ2 0.9901 0.5 0.6523 0.7604
ITAE 0.1225 0.3152 0.0788 0.0433

To evaluate the efficacy of the proposed technique, the perturbed response of the
test system for case study-II is analysed in terms of the settling time, undershoot, and
overshoot pertaining to the different parameters, such as ∆F1 , ∆F2 , and ∆P12 . The results
are comprehensively summarised in Table 6. These results are comparatively analysed
with not only the standard PSO-driven FOPID but also with proposed PSOα -driven FOPID
controllers for the different values of sub-particles α. From the summarised results, it can be
concluded that the proposed PSOα -driven FOPID controller provides better system stability
and robust performance with an optimum choice of sub-particles α, when compared to the
standard PSO-based FOPID controller. The optimum results are obtained for the highest
possible number of sub-particles, i.e., α = 10. Specifically, with α = 10, the proposed PSO10 -
based FOPID controller provides a more stable and robust performance as the following
key parameters are recorded: peak overshoot (∆F1 ) = 3.2%, peak overshoot (∆F2 ) = 2.08%,
peak overshoot (∆P12 ) = 0.138%, settling time (∆F1 ) = 4.59 s, settling time (∆F2 ) = 5.29 s, and
settling time (∆P12 ) = 4.84 s. Moreover, the ITAE = 0.0433 is observed to be the minimum in
Energies 2023, 16, 2226 13 of 17

α between the system

the case of the PSO10 -based FOPID controller. Nevertheless, a trade-off
performance and number of sub-particles α can be observed which can be corroborated
Δ𝐹1 Δ𝐹
from Δ𝑃12 summarized for PSO5 and PSO10 . In aparticles
2 the reults nutshell,αtheplay criticalPSOα -driven
proposed
FOPID controller perfoms better than the standard PSO, and the significant impact of
sub-particles
Δ𝐹 Δ𝐹 α is observed
Δ𝑃 on its performance.
PSO PSO
1 2 12 2 5

(a)

(b)

(c)
Δ𝐹1 study-I:
Figure 8. Dynamic responses for case Δ𝐹2(a) ∆F , (b)Δ𝑃12 and (c) ∆P .
∆F
1 2 12
Energies 2023, 16, 2226 14 of 17

Table 6. Key performance parameters for the LFC of the test system, pertaining to case study-II, with
PSO, PSO2 , PSO5 and PSO10 .

PSO PSO2 PSO5 PSO10

ITAE 0.1225 0.3152 0.0788 0.0433
Peak Overshoot (∆F1 ) 4% 4.27% 3.2% 3.2%
Peak Overshoot (∆F2 ) 3.37% 2.59% 2.24% 2.08%
Peak Overshoot (∆P12 ) 0.214% 0.367% 0.063% 0.138%
Settling Time (∆F1 ) 9.4 s 20 s 5.9 s 4.59 s
Settling Time (∆F2 ) 6.55 s 15 s 8.02 s 5.29 s
Settling Time (∆P12 ) 9.956 s 50 s 12 s 4.84 s

Moreover, the convergence plot for the objective function is compared for both stan-
dard PSO, PSO2 , PSO5 , and PSO10 at different values of the iteration, which is as shown in
Figure 9.

(a)

(b)

Figure 9. Comparative analysis of the proposed optimisation techniques in terms of convergence

plots for (a) case study-I (b) case study-II.

The convergence plot shows that the convergence performance is even better for the
α
proposed PSOα optimisation techniques. In addition, it is important to note that all the
optimisation techniques have the same initial parameters, which is reflected in the same
ITAE value at theITAE
beginning
value of
at optimisation.
the beginningNevertheless, the Nevertheless,
of optimisation. choice of α is the
critical in of α is critical in
choice
enhancing the performance of the proposed optimisation techniques. The results reveal
that fragmentationthat
improves the performance
fragmentation improvesofthe
theperformance
PSO for α = of
5 and α = 10
the PSO for α = 5 and α = 10. However,
for α

α
Energies 2023, 16, 2226 15 of 17

for α = 2, the performance degrades. Thus, the parameters of the FOPID controller must be
tuned with PSO5 and PSO10 for a better LFC of the multi-source multi-area test system.

6. Conclusions
To summarize, the proposed optimisation technique, i.e., PSOα, uses a segmentation
approach to improve the performance of the conventional PSO. The segmentation method-
ology is a useful method for enhancing the PSO’s performance. The recommended PSO
outperforms the conventional PSO, not only in terms of average fitness value but also
in terms of achieving the lowest fitness value when applied to 14 benchmark functions
and studied in over 50 simulations of 100 iterations each. Apart from the performance
improvement, the proposed technique’s efficacy is validated for a multi-area multi-source
power system for the LFC analysis. In the test system, a FOPID-based controller is used
for the LFC analysis. The parameters of the FOPID controller are tuned using the pro-
posed PSOα techniques. The comparative LFC analysis is performed under the dynamic
perturbed response of ∆F1 , ∆F2 and ∆P12 for two case studies to study the efficacy of the
proposed PSOα techniques. It was found that the proposed PSOα works better than the
conventional PSO. Moreover, with α = 5 and α = 10, the proposed PSO10 -based FOPID
controller provides a more stable and robust performance as the following key parameters
are recorded: ITAE = 0.0411 with PSO, ITAE = 0.0575 with PSO2 , ITAE = 0.0314 with
PSO5 , and ITAE = 0.0291 with PSO10 under case study-I. Similarly, the following key
parameters are recorded under case study-II: ITAE = 0.1225 with PSO, ITAE = 0.3152 with
PSO2 , ITAE = 0.0788 with PSO5 , and ITAE = 0.0433 with PSO10 . The choice of α is critical
in the performance enhancement of the proposed optimisation techniques. However, the
optimum value of α for which the performance of PSO improves depends on the nature
of the fitness function and needs to be explored further. In addition, the fragmentation
approach can be used by other optimisation techniques or other variants of PSO to achieve
improved performance, which is left as an open research problem.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, B.A. and A.V.J.; methodology, D.K.G.; software, B.A. and
D.K.G.; validation, A.V.J.; formal analysis, A.V.J. and B.A.; investigation, N.B. and P.T.; resources, B.A.,
D.K.G. and N.B.; data curation, B.A. and A.V.J.; writing—original draft preparation, A.V.J.; supervision,
N.B. and P.T.; project administration, N.B. and P.T.; funding acquisition, P.T. writing—review and
editing: A.V.J., B.A., P.T., N.B., and D.K.G.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported in part by the framework agreement between the University of
Pitesti (Romania) and King Mongkut’s University of Technology, North Bangkok (Thailand), in part
by an International Research Partnership “Electrical Engineering—Thai French Research Center (EE-
TFRC)” under the project framework of the Lorraine Université d’Excellence (LUE), in cooperation
between the Université de Lorraine and King Mongkut’s University of Technology, North Bangkok,
and in part by the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) under the Senior Research Scholar
Program under Grant No. N42A640328.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Detailed information of the test system are [42]:
PL = 1840 MW (nominal loading); R1 = R2 = R3 = 2.4 Hz/pu MW; B1 = B2 = 0.4312 pu
MW/Hz; PR = 2000MW (rating), Tsg = 0.08 s; Tr = 10 s; Kr = 0.3; Tt = 0.3 s; KT = 0.543478;
KH = 0.326084; KG = 0.130438; Tgh = 0.2 s; Trh = 28.75 s; Trs = 5 s; [W = 1 s; bg = 0.5; cg = 1;
Xc = 0.6 s; Yc = 1 s; Tcr = 0.01 s; Tfc = 0.23s; Tcd = 0.2 s; Tps = 11.49 s; Kps = 68.9566 Hz/pu
MW; Tdc = 0.2 s; Kdc = 1; T12 = 0.0433 pu; a12 = −1.
Energies 2023, 16, 2226 16 of 17

References
1. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R. Particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks,
Perth, Australia, 27 November–1 December 1995; Volume 4, pp. 1942–1948.
2. Poli, R. Analysis of the publications on the applications of particle swarm optimization. J. Artif. Evol. Appl. 2008, 2008, 1–10.
[CrossRef]
3. Poli, R.; Kennedy, J.; Blackwell, T. Particle Swarm Optimization. In Encyclopedia of Machine Learning; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2007; pp. 760–766.
4. Yang, Y.; Wen, J.; Chen, X. Improvements on particle swarm optimisation algorithm for velocity calibration in micro-seismic
monitoring. Earthq. Sci. 2015, 28, 263–273. [CrossRef]
5. Xu, S.H.; Rahmat-Samii, Y. Boundary conditions in particle swarm optimisation revisited. IEEE Trans Antennas Propag. 2007, 55,
760–765. [CrossRef]
6. Zhang, L.-P.; Yu, H.-J.; Hu, S.-X. Optimal choice of parameters for particle swarm optimization. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A 2005, 6,
528–534. [CrossRef]
7. Rezaee Jordehi, A.; Jasni, J. Parameter selection in particle swarm optimisation: A survey. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 2013, 25,
527–542. [CrossRef]
8. Chaturvedi, K.T.; Pandit, M.; Srivastava, L. Particle swarm optimisation with time varying acceleration coefficients for non-convex
economic power dispatch. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2009, 31, 249–257. [CrossRef]
9. Zhang, Q.; Li, Z.; Zhou, C.J.; Wei, X.P. Bayesian network structure learning based on the chaotic particle swarm optimisation
algorithm. Genet. Mol. Res. 2013, 12, 4468–4479. [CrossRef]
10. Jau, Y.M.; Su, K.L.; Wu, C.J.; Jeng, J.T. Modified quantumbehaved particle swarm optimisation for parameters estimation of
generalised nonlinear multi-regressions model based on Choquet integral with outliers. Appl. Math. Comput. 2013, 221, 282–295.
11. Kennedy, J. Bare Bones Particle Swarms. In Proceedings of the IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium (SIS ’03), Indianapolis, IN,
USA, 26 April 2003; pp. 80–87.
12. Khan, S.A.; Engelbrecht, A.P. A fuzzy particle swarm optimisation algorithm for computer communication network topology
design. Appl. Intell. 2012, 36, 161–177. [CrossRef]
13. Zhang, Y.; Wu, L. Crop classification by forward neural network with adaptive chaotic particle swarm optimization. Sensors 2011,
11, 4721–4743. [CrossRef]
14. Wang, H.; Wu, Z.; Rahnamayan, S.; Liu, Y.; Ventresca, M. Enhancing particle swarm optimisation using generalised opposition-
based learning. Inf. Sci. 2011, 181, 4699–4714. [CrossRef]
15. Dong, N.; Wu, C.-H.; Ip, W.-H.; Chen, Z.-Q.; Chan, C.-Y.; Yung, K.-L. An opposition-based chaotic GA/PSO hybrid algorithm and
its application in circle detection. Comput. Math. Appl. 2012, 64, 1886–1902. [CrossRef]
16. Appasani, B.; Jha, A.V.; Gupta, D.K.; Bizon, N.; Srinivasulu, A. An Improved Particle Swarm Optimisation Technique and its
Application in Load Frequency Control. In Proceedings of the 2021 13th International Conference on Electronics, Computers and
Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Pitesti, Romania, 1–3 July 2021; pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
17. Parvin, K.; Hannan, M.A.; Al-Shetwi, A.Q.; Ker, P.J.; Roslan, M.F.; Mahlia, T.M.I. Fuzzy Based Particle Swarm Optimisation for
Modeling Home Appliances Towards Energy Saving and Cost Reduction Under Demand Response Consideration. IEEE Access
2020, 8, 210784–210799. [CrossRef]
18. Jain, M.; Saihjpal, V.; Singh, N.; Singh, S.B. An Overview of Variants and Advancements of PSO Algorithm. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12,
8392. [CrossRef]
19. Shi, Y.; Eberhart, R.C. Fuzzy Adaptive Particle Swarm Optimisation. In Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary
Computation CEC2001, Seoul, Korea, 27–30 May 2001; IEEE Press Los Alamitos, COEX, World Trade Center: Seoul, Korea, 2001;
pp. 101–106.
20. Pan, I.; Das, S. Fractional order fuzzy control of hybrid power system with renewable generation using chaotic PSO. ISA Trans.
2016, 62, 19–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Dong, W.; Kang, L.; Zhang, W. Opposition-based particle swarm optimisation with adaptive mutation strategy. Soft Comput. 2017,
21, 5081–5090. [CrossRef]
22. Mohanty, P.; Sahu, R.K.; Panda, S. A novel hybrid many optimising liaisons gravitational search algorithm approach for AGC of
power systems. Automatika 2020, 61, 158–178. [CrossRef]
23. Appasani, B.; Gupta, N. A novel segmentation approach in GA and its application in antenna array. Microw. Rev. 2017, 23, 8–14.
24. Goyal, H.; Handmandlu, M.; Kothari, D.P. A novel modelling technique for automatic load frequency control of small hydro
power plants. Int. J. Model. Simul. 2007, 27, 186–192. [CrossRef]
25. Shayeghi, H.A.S.H.; Shayanfar, H.A.; Jalili, A. Load frequency control strategies: A state-of-the-art survey for the researcher.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2009, 50, 344–353. [CrossRef]
26. Latif, A.; Hussain, S.S.; Das, D.C.; Ustun, T.S. State-of-the-art of controllers and soft computing techniques for regulated load
frequency management of single/multi-area traditional and renewable energy based power systems. Appl. Energy 2020, 266,
114858. [CrossRef]
27. Tungadio, D.H.; Sun, Y. Load frequency controllers considering renewable energy integration in power system. Energy Rep. 2019,
5, 436–453. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 2226 17 of 17

28. Padhan, S.; Sahu, R.K.; Panda, S. Application of firefly algorithm for load frequency control of multi-area interconnected power
system. Electr. Power Compon. Syst. 2014, 42, 1419–1430. [CrossRef]
29. Gupta, D.K.; Jha, A.V.; Appasani, B.; Srinivasulu, A.; Bizon, N.; Thounthong, P. Load Frequency Control Using Hybrid Intelligent
Optimisation Technique for Multi-Source Power Systems. Energies 2021, 14, 1581. [CrossRef]
30. Sahu, R.K.; Panda, S.; Biswal, A.; Sekhar, G.C. Design and analysis of tilt integral derivative controller with filter for load
frequency control of multi- area interconnected power systems. ISA Trans. 2015, 61, 251–264. [CrossRef]
31. Shiva, C.K.; Mukherjee, V. A novel quasi-oppositional harmony search algorithm for AGC optimisation of three-area multi-unit
power system after deregulation. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2016, 19, 395–420.
32. Mostafa Elsaied, M.; Abdallah Attia, M.; Abdelhamed Mostafa, M.; Fouad Mekhamer, S. Application of different optimisation
techniques to load frequency control with WECS in a multi-area system. Electr. Power Compon. Syst. 2018, 46, 739–756. [CrossRef]
33. Khamari, D.; Kumbhakar, B.; Patra, S.; Laxmi, D.A.; Panigrahi, S. Load Frequency Control of a Single Area Power System using
Firefly Algorithm. Int. J. Eng. Res. 2020, 9, 1318–1320.
34. Paliwal, N.; Srivastava, L.; Pandit, M. Application of grey wolf optimisation algorithm for load frequency control in multi-source
single area power system. Evol. Intell. 2022, 15, 563–584. [CrossRef]
35. Li, J.; Yu, T.; Zhang, X. Coordinated load frequency control of multi-area integrated energy system using multi-agent deep
reinforcement learning. Appl. Energy 2022, 306, 117900. [CrossRef]
36. Kumar, A.; Gupta, D.K.; Ghatak, S.R.; Appasani, B.; Bizon, N.; Thounthong, P. A Novel Improved GSA-BPSO Driven PID
Controller for Load Frequency Control of Multi-Source Deregulated Power System. Mathematics 2022, 10, 3255. [CrossRef]
37. Ahmed, M.; Magdy, G.; Khamies, M.; Kamel, S. Modified TID controller for load frequency control of a two-area interconnected
diverse-unit power system. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2022, 135, 107528. [CrossRef]
38. Shakibjoo, A.D.; Moradzadeh, M.; Moussavi, S.Z.; Mohammadzadeh, A.; Vandevelde, L. Load frequency control for multi-area
power systems: A new type-2 fuzzy approach based on Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm. ISA Trans. 2022, 121, 40–52. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
39. Dei, G.; Gupta, D.K.; Sahu, B.K.; Jha, A.V.; Appasani, B.; Zawbaa, H.M.; Kamel, S. Improved Squirrel Search Algorithm Driven
Cascaded 2DOF-PID-FOI Controller for Load Frequency Control of Renewable Energy Based Hybrid Power System. IEEE Access
2022, 10, 46372–46391. [CrossRef]
40. Gheisarnejad, M.; Khooban, M.H. Design an optimal fuzzy fractional proportional integral derivative controller with derivative
filter for load frequency control in power systems. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control 2019, 41, 2563–2581. [CrossRef]
41. Pan, I.; Das, S. Fractional-order load-frequency control of interconnected power systems using chaotic multi-objective optimisation.
Appl. Soft Comput. 2015, 29, 328–344. [CrossRef]
42. Gupta, D.K.; Soni, A.K.; Jha, A.V.; Mishra, S.K.; Appasani, B.; Srinivasulu, A.; Bizon, N.; Thounthong, P. Hybrid Gravitational–
Firefly Algorithm-Based Load Frequency Control for Hydrothermal Two-Area System. Mathematics 2021, 9, 712. [CrossRef]
43. Jaber, H.H.; Miry, A.H.; Al-Anbarri, K. Load frequency control of interconnected power system using artificial intelligent
techniques based fractional order PIλ Dµ controller. In Proceedings of the AIP Conference Proceedings, Bogor, Indonesia, 11
January 2022; Volume 2386, p. 040014.
44. Simon, D. Biogeography Based Optimisation. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2008, 12, 702–713. [CrossRef]
45. Molga, M.; Smutnicki, C. Test Functions for Optimisation Needs. 2005. Available online: https://robertmarks.org/Classes/
ENGR5358/Papers/functions.pdf (accessed on 18 December 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.