sustainability

Article
Automatic Generation Control in Renewables-Integrated
Multi-Area Power Systems: A Comparative Control Analysis
Tayyab Ashfaq 1,∗ , Sidra Mumtaz 1 , Saghir Ahmad 1 , Basharat Ullah 2 and Fahad R. Albogamy 3,∗

1 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad Campus,
Abbottabad 22060, Pakistan; [email protected] (S.M.); [email protected] (S.A.)
2 Department of Mechatronics Engineering, College of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering,
National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan; [email protected]
3 Turabah University College, Department of Mathematics, Computer Sciences Program, Taif University,
P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
* Correspondence: [email protected] (T.A.); [email protected] (F.R.A.)

Abstract: Electrical load dynamics result in system instability if not met with adequate power gen-
eration. Therefore, monitoring and control plans are necessary to avoid potential consequences.
Tie-line-bias control has facilitated power exchange between interconnected areas to cope with load
dynamics. However, this approach presents a challenge, as load variation in either area leads to
frequency deviations and power irregularities in each of the interconnected areas, which is unde-
sirable. The load frequency control loop method is used to address this issue, which utilizes area
control errors. This study focuses on the control of inter-area oscillations in a six-area power system
under the effect of renewable energy sources. It evaluates the area control errors in response to
changes in load and the penetration of renewable energy into the system. To mitigate these errors
efficiently, an adaptive-PID controller is proposed, and its results are compared with PI and PID
controllers optimized with heuristic and meta-heuristic algorithms. The findings demonstrate the
superiority of the proposed controller over traditional controllers in mitigating tie-line power errors
and frequency deviations in each area of the interconnected power system, thus helping to mitigate
inter-area oscillations and restore system stability.
Citation: Ashfaq, T.; Mumtaz, S.;
Ahmad, S.; Ullah, B.; Albogamy, F.R.
Automatic Generation Control in
Keywords: load frequency control; renewable energy sources; area control error; Ziegler–Nichols
Renewables-Integrated Multi-Area method; particle-swarm optimization; proportional integral controller; proportional integral derivative
Power Systems: A Comparative controller; adaptive-PID
Control Analysis. Sustainability 2024,
16, 5735. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su16135735
1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Ahmed Fathy and
Hassan M. Hussein Farh The interconnection of different areas within electrical power systems has become a
necessity due to the increasing demand for reliable power and its economic viability. This
Received: 29 May 2024
interconnection is expanding in both reach and scope, encompassing a range of connections
Revised: 28 June 2024
from the integration of multiple grids to the establishment of regional, provincial, and even
Accepted: 2 July 2024
global energy connections [1,2]. The drawback of these vast interconnected areas is the
Published: 4 July 2024
increased stress on the power system, which can lead to a mismatch in the power balance
equation if not managed diligently [3]. The integration of renewable energy sources (RESs)
with the power grid is also viewed as a promising solution to meet the rising demand for
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. clean and sustainable energy [4]. However, due to their intermittent nature and lack of
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. redundancy, RESs can introduce instability to the power system, making it challenging to
This article is an open access article control and stabilize [5,6]. Therefore, several challenges need to be addressed to ensure
distributed under the terms and the stability and reliability of the power system. Both of these challenges can result in an
conditions of the Creative Commons imbalance between power generation and load, leading to stress on the power system. This,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// in turn, can lead to deviations in frequency and voltage, ultimately leading to a reduction
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ in the quality of the power supply.
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135735 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 2 of 20

To address the challenge of power system stresses, the deregulated environment of

the power system has been widely adopted [6–8]. This involves the use of the tie-line
power flow method, which facilitates contractual power flows in and out of a specific area
of the power system. Nonetheless, areas that are interconnected via tie-lines can prove
problematic during instances of faults, such as power outages or sudden load changes,
wherein the resultant load deviation in one area can lead to frequency deviations and power
irregularities in every other interconnected area, which is far from ideal [3,6]. To resolve
this issue, a secondary control loop modification, commonly known as Load Frequency
Control (LFC), is used in power systems. The LFC employs area control errors (ACEs) to
restore the electrical power flow on the tie-line and maintain the frequency of an area at
nominal values [9].
Several studies have been conducted on how to improve the stability of power systems
by swiftly mitigating ACE from system dynamics. These investigations have utilized
various techniques, including controller organizations such as proportional–integral (PI),
proportional–integral–derivative (PID), proportional–integral–derivative with notch filter
(PID-N), fuzzy logic control (FLC), and fractional-order-PID (FOPID), as well as refining
techniques for classical controllers such as particle swarm optimization (PSO), Ziegler–
Nichols (Z-N), genetic algorithms (GAs), firefly algorithms (FAs), artificial bee colony
optimization (ABCO), ant colony optimization (ACO), grasshopper optimization (GOA),
grey wolf optimization (GWO), differential evolution (DE), acteria forging (BF), teacher
learning-based optimization (TLBO), and Levy flight, and fitness distance balance (FDB)-
based coyote optimization algorithm (LRFDBCOA) [10–20]. Some of these works have
considered wind and photovoltaic (PV) solar power, along with the stochastic load demand,
in order to imitate a realistic power system.
Although these techniques are beneficial in controlling dynamics in a power system,
there are a few shortcomings when it comes to effectively controlling complex and dynamic
systems, such as the increasing penetration of renewable energy into the systems. Moreover,
these methods also require tuning efforts as these techniques require a priori knowledge of
system dynamics and a well-tuned set of parameters to ensure optimal performance and
system stability. If these controllers are not finely tuned, their performance may deteriorate
or even destabilize the system; therefore, the system may not perform efficiently.
Adaptive PID (APID) control has numerous benefits for AGC because of its inherent
nature of adaptability to changing system dynamics, its better performance in non-linear
systems, its ability to handle uncertainties and model variations, its improved stability and
reliability, and the reduction in manual tuning efforts. With online tuning of the control
parameters, it offers a more robust and effective approach to control as it swiftly adapts to
the dynamics of the power system and updates its parameters for optimal control. This
makes it more suited for load balancing, and renewable-energy-integrated power systems,
which are variable and unpredictable.
Adaptive controllers can adapt to system changes, yet they cannot ensure optimal
performance. Therefore, the intelligent data-driven approach has led to widespread in-
terest in developing controllers for unknown and complex systems. It is an effective
approach that makes use of data to optimize control techniques to enhance the system
performance [21,22]. Adaptive dynamic programming (ADP) is a data-driven control
technique that works efficiently to achieve the optimal controller performance by keeping
the feedback-controlled system stable. It is an effective method that makes use of data to
identify optimal control rules, enhancing system stability and performance [23]. ADP and
reinforcement learning (RL) are useful strategies for resolving the aforementioned issues
with optimal control and adaptive control [24]. In the absence of accurate system dynamics
knowledge, online measured data can be used by ADP and RL algorithms to solve the
optimal control problem [25].
An RL-based adaptive PID controller for non-linear systems is suggested and pre-
sented in [26]. The initial settings of PID are set to zero, meaning that knowledge of the
system is not required. Furthermore, it can tune the controller parameters without the
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 3 of 20

use of heuristic methods like PSO, genetic algorithms, etc. As such, the suggested control
scheme reduces the amount of calculation, the time, and the complexity. The parameters of
this intelligent control can be changed online based on the needs of the system. The authors
in [27] use the adaptive PID controller to adjust the load frequency of a two-area power
system. However, there is a noticeable lack of typical AGC practices in this investigation,
such as an evaluation of the controller’s ability to handle uncertainties resulting from
variable parameters or renewable energy sources. Moreover, the evaluation solely focuses
on the controller’s performance in disrupting one area while the other remains unaltered.
The contributions of this article are as follows:
• A gradient descent algorithm-based adaptive-PID (APID) control is implemented for
the automatic generation control of an interconnected multi-area power system.
• The robustness of the proposed controller against an intermittent supply of PV and
wind energy sources is demonstrated by comparing the results with the PSO-based as
well as ZN-based PI control and PID control.
• The number of interconnected areas is increased from two to six. Since a fault in one
area can propagate to other areas, this is useful in assessing the performance of proposed
controller regarding its overall stability under large-scale power system dynamics.
• This paper illustrates simultaneous load deviations in more than one area. This
demonstration was missing in [27]

2. Modelling of Power System Dynamics

In a power system, a load reference set point (LRSP) is a pre-set target value for
maintaining the desired level of electrical load. It is often determined by controllers or
system operators based on system restrictions, resource availability, and demand estimates.
The governor of a power plant is responsible for keeping track of the turbine speed, active
power, and frequency. It detects and reduces the frequency bias brought on by load
fluctuations by modifying the inputs to the turbine. The prime mover drives a rotating
mass that is linked to a rotating mass or generator, which ultimately governs the load. The
transfer function-based model presented in this section represents several components that
form part of the primary control loop (PCL), as depicted in Figure 1. This control system is
responsible for enhancing the frequency stability of a power system, following the change
in load [28].

Figure 1. Block diagram of primary loop control.

Thus, a composite transfer function that characterizes the correspondence between

the perturbation in load, denoted as ∆PL , and the ensuing change in frequency, represented
by ∆ω, can be stated as follows:
−1
∆ω (s) Ms+ D
= (1)
∆PL (s) 1+ 1 1 1 1
R [ 1+sTG ][ 1+sTch ][ Ms+ D ]

Equation (1) shows that an alteration in the load, either through addition or removal,
will result in a variation in frequency within the interconnected areas; thus, a power
exchange occurs through the tie lines connecting them. This results in the emergence of
power differences, denoted as ∆Ptie , between the coupled area and a tie-line synchronizing
torque coefficient, PS .
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 4 of 20

To better understand the behavior of the system, we modify steady-state behaviour in

Equation (2) by introducing perturbations. Specifically, we determine the deviations in the
steady-state power flow of a tie-line from its nominal value by considering the deviations
in phase angle ∆δ [28]. This analysis allows us to gain insight into the behaviour of the
system in response to changes in phase angle ∆ω,
1
Ptie = (δ1 − δ2 ) (2)
X tie

1
Ptie + ∆Ptie = [(δ1 + ∆δ1 ) − (δ2 + ∆δ2 )]
X tie
1
∆Ptie = tie (∆δ1 − ∆δ2 )
X
As changes in electrical frequency are the rate of the change in the rotor angle, ∆ω = dt ( ∆δ ),
d

therefore:
P
∆Ptie = (∆ω1 − ∆ω2 ) (3)
s

3. Generation Control
3.1. Supplementary Action Control
For a shift in frequency followed by a change in electrical load, the PCL can react
quickly to modify the system conditions to regain approximate stability, but it is unable to
completely mitigate steady-state errors in frequency deviations, which can be sustained
for considerable a length of time within a power system [28,29]. Therefore, an additional
loop is required, as well as a control action, to achieve zero steady-state response, which is
referred to as a supplementary control loop (SCL), as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Supplementary control added to generating unit.

The supplementary control should ensure that the load demand ∆PLi within a specific
area is fulfilled by the generation of that same area.
∆Pgeni = ∆PLi (4)

∆Pgen j = 0 (5)

3.2. Tie-Line Control

The objective of tie-line control is to limit the power flow from the neighboring areas
when a load change occurs in either area.
∆Ptie = Ptie − Ptie,sch (6)

Ptie is total actual net interchange and Ptie,sch is the scheduled or desired interchange
value. This control system must also have the ability to recognize the following:
• A load increase has taken place outside the area if the frequency dropped and the net
interchange power leaving the area increased.
• A load increase has occurred inside the area if the frequency dropped and the net
interchange power exiting the area decreased.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 5 of 20

• When a change in frequency is negative, this indicates that the area’s frequency is
reduced because it experienced an increase in load, and when the change in frequency
is positive, this indicates that area’s frequency increased because it experienced a
decrease in load.
• The location of the increase in load is determined by looking at ∆Ptie of the tie-line.
• Positive (+) and negative (−) signs in ∆Ptie , respectively, represent power leaving and
entering the system.
The implementation of the rules outlined in Table 1 can be achieved through the use of
a control mechanism that takes into account both the frequency deviation ∆ω and the net
interchange power ∆Ptie . These rules can be utilized to compute the frequency deviations
and tie flows that arise due to a load change ∆PLi using Equations (7) and (8).

∆PLi
∆ω = (7)
+ ∑ j R j +1 Dj
∑i Ri +1 Di
h i
∆PLi × ∑ j R +1 D
j j
∆Pijtie = 1 1
(8)
∑i R i + Di + ∑j R j +Dj

Table 1. Rule set for a control mechanism.

∆ω ∆Ptie ∆PL Resulting Control Action

∆PLi = increased;
−ive − Increase Pgen in area i
∆PL j = 0
∆PLi = decreased;
+ive + Decrease Pgen in area i
∆PL j = 0
∆PLi = 0;
−ive + Increase Pgen in area j
∆PL j = increased
∆PLi = 0;
+ive − Decrease Pgen in area j
∆PL j = increased
This table indicates a control mechanism which mitigates ACE in order to achieve the desired frequency and net
interchange value.

3.3. Area Control Error

ACE is the amount of adjustment in the generation of an area that is necessary to
restore the frequency and net interchange to their desired values [28]. LFC aims to permit
the scheduled power exchange owing to the tie-line as well as to mitigate frequency
deviations in every area, since all system steady-state frequency deviations lead to tie-line
power errors. The ACEs in each area can be reduced to zero to eliminate both the frequency
errors and tie-line power errors. If Ptie is the tie-line power and β = R1 + D is the frequency
bias, then ACE can be calculated as follows [29]:
!
m n
ACEi = ∑ β i ∆ f i + ∑ ∆Pijtie ; i ̸= j (9)
i j

The control signal from the LFC loop in any area is applied in Equation (9) as ∆PiC =
ϕi ( ACEi ). Where ϕi () indicates the use of the LFC controller as a function. The detailed
flowchart of the problem is provided in Figure 3.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 6 of 20

Variable RESs Input & Load

Frequency & Tie-line Power

Deviations

Area Control Error

Classical Control Methods Advanced Control Methods

PI & PID Control Adaptive PID Control

Particle Swarm Optimization Ziegler-Nichols Method

Gradient Descent Method
(Metaheuristic Optimization) (Heuristic Optimization)

Restored frequency &

Scheduled Tie-line Power Flow

Figure 3. Problem Flowchart.

4. Renewable Energy Sources

Each control area exclusively comprises conventional non-reheat generation sources.
However, due to growing environmental concerns, RESs are being integrated into the
global energy mix in significant amounts [4]. Their impact on frequency regulation has
recently become a significant point of interest since their power outputs are primarily
influenced by uncontrollable weather conditions. In addition to their intermittent nature,
RESs are linked to the power system grid through power converters, which allow them
to operate independently of the grid [30]. The inclusion of RESs like wind and/or solar
introduces an additional instability factor to power networks, which are already inherently
fluctuating [5,6].
A first-order transfer function is utilized to simulate the effects of RESs on the system,
with the penetration level serving as the gain of the transfer function [31]. Each transfer
function is presented below.

∆PWTG (S) KWTG

= (10)
∆PWT (S) 1 + sTWTG

∆PPV (S) K PV
= (11)
∆ψ(S) 1 + sTPV
where ∆PWTG is the change in wind turbine generation, ∆ψ is the change in solar irradiance,
and ∆PPV is the change in solar power output [32]. The frequency variations caused by
RESs depend on how much of the total electrical power is produced by them [6]. The
impact of RESs on the LFC loop is limited in power networks with high inertia, where
the majority of the power is generated by traditional resources, as the system’s inherent
stability and damping properties can help absorb fluctuations caused by an intermittent
RES output; however, where there is large penetration of RESs, the LFC strategy has to be
changed to consider the dynamics of the power variation caused by the RESs [33]. Thus, the
modified equations for the net interchange of tie-line flow and ACEs under the influence of
RESs are represented as follows:

∆Pitie,TOTAL = ∆Pitie,RES + ∆Pitie (12)

Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 7 of 20

ACEi = β i ∆ f i + Pitie,TOTAL (13)

The dynamic behaviour of wind and solar energy, shown in Figure 4a,b is introduced
in area 2 and area 3 respectively, of the test system, as seen in Figure 5:

(a) (b)

Figure 4. RES profile; (a) wind profile; (b) solar profile.

Figure 5. Single-line diagram for six areas.

5. Multi-Area Interconnected System

As the inter-machine oscillations inside each area are not primarily of concern, an
analogous generation unit connected to a single bus can represent a control area. Figure 6
displays the six areas of equally rated capacities with a block diagram of the complete trans-
fer function. Each area has multiple neighbors; hence A1Ne = [2, 4, 5], A2Ne = [1, 3, 4, 5, 6],
A3Ne = [2, 5, 6], A4Ne = [1, 2, 5], A5Ne = [1, 2, 3, 4, 6], A6Ne = [2, 3, 5], as seen on the single-line-
diagram in Figure 5.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 8 of 20

Figure 6. Six-area test system.

The parametric description of Figure 6 can be found in Appendix A.

5.1. Tie-Line Model for Six-Area Systems

The increase in frequency due to an increase in area load is a representation of the
incremental power [∆PG − ∆PD ], where ∆PG and ∆PD are the change in the generated
power and the change in the demanded power, respectively. The equations for tie-line
power are distinct for each area and are provided by the following equations. The tie-line
power for each area is represented by ∆Pi , where i = 1, 2, . . . , 6.

∆P1 = ∆P12 + α14 ∆P14 + α15 ∆P15 (14)

∆P2 = ∆P21 + α23 ∆P23 + α24 ∆P24 + α25 ∆P25 + α26 ∆P26 (15)

∆P3 = ∆P32 + α35 ∆P35 + α36 ∆P36 (16)

∆P4 = ∆P45 + α41 ∆P41 + α42 ∆P42 (17)

∆P5 = ∆P51 + α52 ∆P52 + α53 ∆P53 + α54 ∆P54 + α56 ∆P56 (18)

∆P6 = ∆P62 + α63 ∆P63 + α65 ∆P65 (19)

∆Pi is the change in power in the ith area and ∆Pij is the change in power from area i
to j. Since we are considering equal areas, α can be ±1 depending upon the power entering
or leaving the area.

5.2. ACEs for Six-Area Systems

Bias control, which mandates that each control area is in charge of power exchange
and frequency control, is utilized to remove frequency errors and is calculated as follows:

ACE1 = (∆P12 + ∆P14 + ∆P15 ) + β 1 ∆ f 1 (20)

ACE2 = (∆P21 + ∆P23 + ∆P24 + ∆P25 + ∆P26 ) + β 2 ∆ f 2 (21)

ACE3 = (∆P32 + ∆P35 + ∆P36 ) + β 3 ∆ f 3 (22)

Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 9 of 20

ACE4 = (∆P41 + ∆P42 + ∆P45 ) + β 4 ∆ f 4 (23)

ACE5 = (∆P51 + ∆P52 + ∆P53 + ∆P54 + ∆P56 ) + β 5 ∆ f 5 (24)

ACE6 = (∆P62 + ∆P64 + ∆P65 ) + β 6 ∆ f 6 (25)

where β 1−6 refers to the frequency bias of the areas 1, 2. . . 6.

6. Controller Design
This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of using different tuning methods
for the LFC application. By comparing the results of the benchmark methods with APID,
the aim is to identify the most suitable technique for improving the performance of LFC
systems. For this purpose, commonly used PI and PID controllers are employed, along
with benchmark tuning techniques, such as the Z-N and PSO algorithms, to optimize
their performance for LFC. The results of these benchmark methods are compared with an
APID controller.

6.1. Ziegler–Nichols Optimization

This method starts by making the integral and differential gains zero initially and then
raising the proportional gain until the system is marginally stable. The value of K p at this
point of stability is referred to as Ku . The period of oscillation at Ku is; therefore, Tu [34].
After successfully finding these parameters, the gains for PI and PID can be found by using
their respective formula in Table 2.

Table 2. ZN-based gain parameters.

Controller Type KP KI KD
0.45 × Ku Ku −
PI 0.54 × Tu

0.6 × Ku Ku 0.075 × Ku × Tu
PID 1.2 × Tu
The values of Ku = 0.992 , Tu = 2.729 for PI, and Ku = 0.6775 , Tu = 2.790 for PID are obtained by visualising the
bode-plot in the MATLAB R2021A version 9.10.0 environment.

6.2. Particle Swarm Optimization

The goal of PSO is to find an optimal set of values for the gains of the PID controller.
This method involves a group of agents or particles exploring a search space with multiple
dimensions. These particles adjust their position, velocity, and direction based on their own
experience and the experience of their neighbours. By considering the optimal position
found by its neighbours, each particle moves towards a better solution. This approach
facilitates systematic population-based exploration in the search space [35]. Mathematically:

vik+1 = w × vik + c1 × rand × ( Pbest

k
i
− xik ) + c2 × rand × ( Gbest
k
i
− xik ) (26)

xik+1 = xik + vik+1 (27)

Here,
• w is the inertia of the particle.
• vik is the ith particle’s velocity at iteration k.
• c is the learning rate.
• rand is any numeral value between 0 and 1.
• xik is the current location of the ith particle at iteration k.
• k
Pbest k
is the personal best of ith particle at iteration k, and Gbest is the global best at
i i
iteration k.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 10 of 20

For i = 16 particles after k = 100 iterations with weight w = 1 and a relative tolerance
of 10−6 , the effectiveness of the method is assessed by the objective function, which is a
minimization of the integral-time-absolute-error (ITAE) of ACE. The gain parameters for PI
and PID controllers using PSO are shown in Table 3. The weight of the error per iteration is
shown in Figure 7a,b for PI and PID controllers, respectively.

Table 3. Gain parameters with PSO.

Controller PI PID
KP KI KP KI KD
Area 1 0.07997 0.21875 1 1 1
Area 2 −0.19399 0.44547 1 1 0.44732
Area 3 −0.20879 0.47944 1 1 0.82825
Area 4 0.08521 0.19439 1 1 0.90532
Area 5 −0.42646 0.21091 1 0.99813 0.89595
Area 6 −0.02965 0.09085 1 1 0.87521
The limit values for both controllers are set as ±1.

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Error minimization using PSO-based (a) PI and (b) PID controller.

6.3. Adaptive PID

A PID controller with the automated tuning of controller gains is known as an APID.
It functions as a learning mechanism and updates the parameters throughout system
operation to take the process of dynamic variations into consideration [36]. On the basis of
the error signal, the gains are modified in real-time using the gradient descent approach.
The error between the desired value and the actual value of a certain power system
parameter is determined; in our case, the system is the ACE.
Mathematically, the APID controller is shown as follows:

d t
Z
ukAdap = k p Adap et (k) + k d Adap e (k) + k i Adap et (k)dt (28)
dt
Here, the adaptive proportional, derivative, and integralgain parameters are denoted
by k p Adap > 0, k d Adap > 0, and k i Adap > 0, respectively.
• k p Adap yields an output which is directly proportional to the current error value. For a
given error e(t), a higher k p Adap yields a more aggressive response. A system that sets
k p Adap too high may become unstable and oscillate, although raising k p Adap normally
decreases the rise time and steady-state inaccuracies.
• The integral gain k i Adap determines the response based on the accumulated preceding
errors, and the integral term accumulates errors over time and incorporates them
into the control output. In doing so, the residual steady-state errors that cannot be
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 11 of 20

addressed using only k p Adap are significantly reduced. While raising k i Adap lowers the
steady-state errors, if it is not tuned appropriately, it can also slow down the response
and result in overshooting; conversely, raising k i Adap too high induces oscillations or
instability in the system.
• The derivative gain k d Adap provides a damping effect that improves system stability
by counteracting the error’s rate of change, while the derivative term predicts future
errors based on its rate of change. Raising k d Adap decreases overshoot and enhances
stability, but if k d Adap is set too high, it may lead to increased sensitivity to error signal
noise and unpredictable control behavior.
Hence, a finetuning of controller gains is inevitable so that the objective of reducing
the error function is achievable, as in e(t) = 21 (y − r )2 , where y and r are the desired and
actual values of the system. The control signal ukAdap uses the error signal ek (t) at any
point in time t for a specific iteration k and updates the gain parameters of APID using the
gradient descent approach, such that the error is minimized.

Gradient Descent Method

Gradient descent is an optimization process that moves in an iterative manner in the
direction of the steepest descent, which is indicated by a negative gradient, in order to
minimize a function [37]. Its application steps are as follows:
• Parameters’ initialization: The weights are provided, along with their initial values.
These can be random values.
• Gradient determination: The gradient of cost function is determined in relation to
each parameter. The gradient shows the cost function’s steepest rise in terms of both
direction and rate.
• Parameters update: The parameters are adjusted by a certain step size, ak, learning
rate, in the gradient’s opposite direction. In our case, the learning rate was 0.25. This
was to guarantee that the parameters tended to approach the cost function’s minimum.
• Reiteration: The process is repeated until convergence occurs, i.e, there is almost no
variation in the parameters between iterations.
The update equation is given as follows:

−1
K kAdap = K kAdap + α Adap · ∇ · ek (t) (29)

where α Adap > 0 is a step size whose values are typically measured in the range [0, 1], ∇ is
the gradient, and ek (t) is the error function. The updated APID parameters reduce error
and hasten convergence in a closed-loop system [38].

7. Performance Analysis
This section presents the findings of the schemes implemented over a six-area system
(represented in Figure 6). The results are categorized into three cases to provide a clear
picture of the LFC problem and to identify the most effective control technique.
1. Case 1 shows the system with an unequal load distribution.
2. Case 2 investigates the system with renewable penetration only.
3. Case 3 depicts the test system along with the effect of load change and renewable
penetration.

7.1. Case 1
At t = 15 s, Areas 2, 4, and 6 are subjected to a step increase in load ∆L of 0.1 pu,
0.2 pu, 0.3 pu, respectively, while the load in remaining areas remains unchanged. As the
electrical load suddenly increased, the LRSP, which determines the turbines’ spinning rate,
aka the frequency of subjected areas, was altered. It must be noted that areas 1, 3, and 5
also experienced a decrease in frequency due to the increase in load in other areas, as they
are interconnected. To avoid this situation, the APID controller sends the control signal to
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 12 of 20

the governor to increase the turbine’s spinning rate. It can be seen from the performance
indicator, ITAE, as shown in Table 4 and Figure 8, that this decrease in frequency is quickly
restored in the case of APID. Figure 8 also shows the smaller overshoot and shorter settling
time and rise time in the case of APID, followed by PID-PSO, PID-ZN, PI-PSO, and PI-ZN.
The overshoot and settling time are important factors, as they represent the magnitude of
error and the time an error remains in the system, respectively. The rise time, however,
represents the quickness with a controller responds to a change. As the frequency deviation
of each area is brought back to zero, the inter-area frequency oscillations are dampened.
Hence, the system becomes more stable.
Electrical power flowing through a tie-line is rapidly reduced to zero in the case
of APID, meaning that no access power flows from any area. However, an important
factor to observe here is the overshoot and the undershoot. Areas where the load has
increased experience an overshoot in tie-line power while the remaining areas experience
an undershoot. This happens because, after the load change, the areas with an undershoot
started sharing their power with areas with an overshoot to meet that change in load. This
is unwanted and quickly resolved since each area should provide its own load. Therefore,
with a secondary control loop, a given area will be responsible for its own load change, as
seen in Figure 9. In the case of ACE, the APID controller adapts its gain in accordance with
system dynamics and helps to swiftly diminish the area control errors in each area, as seen
in in Figure 10, which, in turns, helps to restore the tie-line power and system frequency
back to their nominal values, thereby reducing unwanted oscillations and improving
system stability.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 8. Change in frequency ∆ω for a six-area interconnected system.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 13 of 20

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 9. Change in tie−line power ∆P for a six-area interconnected system.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 10. ACE for a six-area interconnected system.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 14 of 20

Table 4. ITAE Case 1.

Performance Criterion ZN_PI ZN_PID PSO_PI PSO_PID APID

ITAE 29.4 3.516 8.274 0.998 0.4187

7.2. Case 2
This case represents the system response when subjected to pure RES penetration.
when RESs are integrated with a power system, it causes an imbalance in the power balance
equation, which introduces inter-area oscillations. Although RESs inject power into the
system, the power system sees their integration as variations in its load dynamics. This
can be observed by noticing the overshoot in the frequency of the system, especially in
area 2 and area 3 of Figure 11. Change in tie-line power ∆P for a six-area interconnected
system is provided in Figure 12. As the RESs are introduced to the system, this alters the
LRSP, which, in turn, increases the prime-mover speed; hence, the frequency of each area
in an inter-connected area is increased. Figure 13 shows that as long as RESs are injected
into power systems, the ACEs will persist. This means that if there is more renewable
penetration, the stability of the system reduces. Nonetheless, in response to the increase
in frequency due to the injection of RESs, the SCL effectively minimizes frequency and
power flow deviations in the case of APID, as shown in Figures 11 and 12. Figure 13 and
Table 5 show that the APID controller quickly minimizes the ITAE and strives to maintain
ACEs closer to zero when compared with PID-PSO, PID-ZN, PI-PSO, and PI-ZN. APID also
outperforms the rest of controllers in terms of rise time, settling time, and the overshoot of
frequency deviation and power flow on tie-lines.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 11. Change in frequency ∆ω for a six-area interconnected system.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 15 of 20

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 12. Change in tie-line power ∆P for a six-area interconnected system.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 13. ACE for a six-area interconnected system.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 16 of 20

Table 5. ITAE Case 2.

Performance Criterion ZN_PI ZN_PID PSO_PI PSO_PID APID

ITAE 17.6 8.514 9.661 3.435 1.617

7.3. Case 3
In practical power systems, there are simultaneous changes that occur in both the
load and RES power injected into the system. It is, therefore, crucial to observe the system
response. In this case too, the change in frequency, change in tie-line power and ACE are
provided in Figures 14–16, respectively. In this case, area 2 is subjected to a load change of
∆ Pload = 0.1 pu, while the RESs are integrated in both area 2 and area 3. Figure 16 shows the
occurrence of ACEs. As explained earlier, in case 1 and case 2, this changes the LFSP, which
alters the prime mover output to a new setpoint. To ensure effective control and maintain
system stability, APID effectively minimizes the ACEs, as seen in Figure 16 and Table 6
compared to other controllers optimized with the PSO and ZN algorithms. This restores
the system frequency Figure 14 and tie-line power Figure 15 to their nominal values. This
demonstrates the successful control and stability of the system in terms of rise time, settling
time, and overshoot. The other meta-heuristically optimized controller under-performs
when compared with APID. This is because of the inherent nature of the APID controller to
improvize the system changes and quickly mitigate those changes.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 14. Change in frequency ∆ω for a six-area interconnected system.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 17 of 20

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 15. Change in tie-line power ∆P for a six-area interconnected system.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 16. ACE for a six-area interconnected system.

Table 6. ITAE Case 3.

Performance Criterion ZN_PI ZN_PID PSO_PI PSO_PID APID

ITAE 19.51 8.485 9.917 3.437 1.672
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 18 of 20

8. Conclusions
This study emphasizes the importance of developing effective strategies for minimiz-
ing changes in power systems caused by variations in load demand. The use of secondary
control, tie-line power exchange, and optimization techniques are proposed as effective
means to achieve this goal. By reducing frequency deviations and stress on the controllers,
these strategies help maintain system stability while ensuring that the power demand
is met efficiently. The results suggest that the adaptive-PID controller can be used to
modify the values of various parameters in power systems to adapt to changes in load
demand while preserving system stability, and this controller outperforms various bench-
mark techniques such as the Ziegler–Nichols algorithm and particle swarm optimization
algorithm. This method offers a more efficient and effective alternative to the traditional
hit and trial methodology, which can be time-consuming and tedious. In addition to the
gradient descent method, other meta-heuristics can be applied to enhance the performance
of controllers used in AGC for future advancements. Overall, this study provides valuable
insights into the strategies that can be employed to minimize changes in power systems
and maintain system stability. By implementing these strategies, power system operators
can improve the efficiency and reliability of the power supply, thus contributing to the
sustainable development of the energy sector.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.A. and S.M.; methodology, T.A. and B.U.; software, T.A.;
validation, T.A., S.M. and S.A.; formal analysis, B.U. and F.R.A.; resources, F.R.A.; data curation,
T.A.; writing—original draft preparation, T.A.; writing—review and editing, T.A, B.U.; visualization,
F.R.A.; supervision, S.M.; project administration, F.R.A.; funding acquisition, F.R.A. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia (TU-DSPP-2024-129).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

ACE Area control error

FLC Fuzzy logic control
PI Proportional and integral
PID Proportional, integral, and differential
LFC Load frequency control
PSO Particle swarm optimization
Z-N Ziegler–Nichols
GA Genetic algorithm
FA Firefly algorithm
ABCO Artificial bee colony optimization
ACO Ant colony optimization
GWO Grey wolf optimization
TLBO Teacher learning-based optimization
APID Adaptive-PID
LRSP Load reference set point
PCL Primary control loop
SCL Supplementary control loop
ITAE Integral-time-absolute-error
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 19 of 20

Appendix A

Table A1. The parametric values for six-area test system. All values are taken in p.u system.

Parameter Description Value Unit

D1−6 Damping coefficient of areas 1 to 6 0.9 pu/Hz
M1−6 The constant of inertia of areas 1 to 6 1 pu · s
β 1−6 Frequency bias constant of areas 1 to 6 16.9 pu/Hz
R 1−6 Governor speed regulation of areas 1 to 6 0.0625 Hz/pu
PS1−6 Synchronizing torque coefficient of areas 1 to 6 2 pu/Hz
α 1−6 The rated capacity ratio of area 1 to 6 1 −
TCh1−6 The time constant of the prime mover of areas 1 to 6 0.6 s
TG1−6 The time constant of speed governor of areas 1 to 6 0.3 s
TWTG The time constant of the wind plant 0.9 s
TPV The time constant of the PV plant 0.8 s
K P1−6 Gain of the prime mover of areas 1 to 6 1 −
KG1−6 Gain of the governor of areas 1 to 6 1 −
K PV Gain of the PV plant 0.8 −
KWTG Gain of the wind plant 0.8 −

References
1. Yang, S.; Fan, X.; Zhao, Y.; Hao, Z.; Zhang, B.; Hojo, M. A novel method for transient stability margin evaluation of the post-
disturbance power system. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Developments in Power System Protection
(DPSP 2020), Liverpool, UK, 9–12 March 2020; pp. 1–5.
2. Dong, X.; Hao, X.; Chen, Q.; Wang, C.; Wang, M. A distributed power transfer limit calculation method for multi-area
interconnection power networks. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2021, 36, 4723–4732. [CrossRef]
3. Arya, Y. Improvement in automatic generation control of two-area electric power systems via a new fuzzy aided optimal
PIDN-FOI controller. ISA Trans. 2018, 80, 475–490. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Panigrahi, B.K.; Bhuyan, A.; Shukla, J.; Ray, P.K.; Pati, S. A comprehensive review on intelligent islanding detection techniques
for renewable energy integrated power system. Int. J. Energy Res. 2021, 45, 14085–14116. [CrossRef]
5. Jain, D.; Saxena, D. Comprehensive review on control schemes and stability investigation of hybrid AC-DC microgrid. Electr.
Power Syst. Res. 2023, 218, 109182. [CrossRef]
6. Bevrani, H.; Golpîra, H.; Messina, A.R.; Hatziargyriou, N.; Milano, F.; Ise, T. Power system frequency control: An updated review
of current solutions and new challenges. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2021, 194, 107114. [CrossRef]
7. Ranjan, M.; Shankar, R. A literature survey on load frequency control considering renewable energy integration in power system:
Recent trends and future prospects. J. Energy Storage 2022, 45, 103717. [CrossRef]
8. Gulzar, M.M.; Iqbal, M.; Shahzad, S.; Muqeet, H.A.; Shahzad, M.; Hussain, M.M. Load frequency control (LFC) strategies in
renewable energy-based hybrid power systems: A review. Energies 2022, 15, 3488. [CrossRef]
9. Yan, Z.; Xu, Y. A multi-agent deep reinforcement learning method for cooperative load frequency control of a multi-area power
system. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2020, 35, 4599–4608. [CrossRef]
10. Moniya, P.; Anand, B. Automatic generation control with fuzzy logic controller incorporating tandem and cross compound
turbine. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2021, 12, 7071–7083. [CrossRef]
11. Hakimuddin, N.; Khosla, A.; Garg, J.K. Comparative Performance Investigation of Genetic Algorithms (GAs), Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO) and Bacteria Foraging Algorithm (BFA) Based Automatic Generation Control (AGC) with Multi Source
Power Plants (MSPPs). Electr. Power Compon. Syst. 2022, 49, 1513–1524. [CrossRef]
12. Oshnoei, S.; Oshnoei, A.; Mosallanejad, A.; Haghjoo, F. Novel load frequency control scheme for an interconnected two-area
power system including wind turbine generation and redox flow battery. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2021, 130, 107033.
[CrossRef]
13. Debnath, M.K.; Mallick, R.K.; Sahu, B.K. Application of hybrid differential evolution–grey wolf optimization algorithm for
automatic generation control of a multi-source interconnected power system using optimal fuzzy–PID controller. Electr. Power
Compon. Syst. 2017, 45, 2104–2117. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5735 20 of 20

14. Jagatheesan, K.; Anand, B.; Dey, K.N.; Ashour, A.S.; Satapathy, S.C. Performance evaluation of objective functions in automatic
generation control of thermal power system using ant colony optimization technique-designed proportional–integral–derivative
controller. Electr. Eng. 2018, 100, 895–911. [CrossRef]
15. Simhadri, K.S.; Mohanty, B.; Panda, S.K. Comparative performance analysis of 2DOF state feedback controller for automatic
generation control using whale optimization algorithm. Optim. Control Appl. Methods 2019, 40, 24–42. [CrossRef]
16. Kumar, N.K.; Gopi, R.S.; Kuppusamy, R.; Nikolovski, S.; Teekaraman, Y.; Vairavasundaram, I.; Venkateswarulu, S. Fuzzy
logic-based load frequency control in an island hybrid power system model using artificial bee colony optimization. Energies
2022, 15, 2199. [CrossRef]
17. Jagatheesan, K.; Anand, B.; Samanta, S.; Dey, N.; Ashour, A.S.; Balas, V.E. Design of a proportional-integral-derivative controller
for an automatic generation control of multi-area power thermal systems using firefly algorithm. IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sin. 2017,
6, 503–515. [CrossRef]
18. 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]
19. Tabak, A. Fractional order frequency proportional-integral-derivative control of microgrid consisting of renewable energy sources
based on multi-objective grasshopper optimization algorithm. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control 2022, 44, 378–392. [CrossRef]
20. Tabak, A.; Duman, S. Levy flight and fitness distance balance-based coyote optimization algorithm for effective automatic
generation control of PV-based multi-area power systems. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2022, 47, 14757–14788. [CrossRef]
21. Zhuang, Z.; Tao, H.; Chen, Y.; Stojanovic, V.; Paszke, W. An Optimal Iterative Learning Control Approach for Linear Systems
with Nonuniform Trial Lengths Under Input Constraints. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 2023, 53, 3461–3473. [CrossRef]
22. Zhang, Z.; Song, X.; Sun, X.; Stojanovic, V. Hybrid-driven-based fuzzy secure filtering for nonlinear parabolic partial differential
equation systems with cyber attacks. Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process. 2023, 37, 380–398. [CrossRef]
23. Stojanović, V. Fault-tolerant control of a hydraulic servo actuator via adaptive dynamic programming. Math. Model. Control 2023,
3, 181–191. [CrossRef]
24. Guo, W.; Liu, F.; Si, J.; He, D.; Harley, R.; Mei, S. Online supplementary ADP learning controller design and application to power
system frequency control with large-scale wind energy integration. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 2015, 27, 1748–1761.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Li, H.; Liu, D.; Wang, D. Integral reinforcement learning for linear continuous-time zero-sum games with completely unknown
dynamics. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2014, 11, 706–714. [CrossRef]
26. Guan, Z.; Yamamoto, T. Design of a Reinforcement Learning PID controller. IEEJ Trans. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2021, 16, 1354–1360.
[CrossRef]
27. Muduli, R.; Nair, N.; Kulkarni, S.; Singhal, M.; Jena, D.; Moger, T. Load Frequency Control of Two-area Power System Using an
Actor-Critic Reinforcement Learning Method-based Adaptive PID Controller. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE 3rd International
Conference on Sustainable Energy and Future Electric Transportation (SEFET), Odisha, India, 9–12 August 2023; pp. 1–6.
28. Wood, A.J.; Wollenberg, B.F.; Sheblé, G.B. Power Generation, Operation, and Control; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013.
29. Kundur, P.S.; Malik, O.P. Power System Stability and Control; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2022.
30. Fernández-Guillamón, A.; Gómez-Lázaro, E.; Muljadi, E.; Molina-García, Á. Power systems with high renewable energy sources:
A review of inertia and frequency control strategies over time. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 115, 109369. [CrossRef]
31. Magdy, G.; Shabib, G.; Elbaset, A.A.; Mitani, Y. Optimized coordinated control of LFC and SMES to enhance frequency stability
of a real multi-source power system considering high renewable energy penetration. Prot. Control Mod. Power Syst. 2018, 3, 1–15.
[CrossRef]
32. Srinivasarathnam, C.; Yammani, C.; Maheswarapu, S. Load Frequency Control of Multi-microgrid System considering Renewable
Energy Sources Using Grey Wolf Optimization. Smart Sci. 2019, 7, 198–217.
33. Ratnam, K.S.; Palanisamy, K.; Yang, G. Future low-inertia power systems: Requirements, issues, and solutions-A review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 124, 109773. [CrossRef]
34. Patel, V.V. Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Method: Understanding the PID Controller. Resonance 2020, 25, 1385–1397. [CrossRef]
35. Wang, D.; Tan, D.; Liu, L. Particle swarm optimization algorithm: An overview. Soft Comput. 2018, 22, 387–408. [CrossRef]
36. Zhao, B.; Zhao, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, R.; Taylor, R. An adaptive PID control method to improve the power tracking performance of
solar photovoltaic air-conditioning systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109250. [CrossRef]
37. Ruder, S. An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1609.04747.
38. Khan, L.; Qamar, S.; Khan, U. Adaptive PID control scheme for full car suspension control. J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 2016, 39, 169–185.
[CrossRef]

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.