energies
Article
Mitigation of Low-Frequency Oscillation in Power Systems
through Optimal Design of Power System Stabilizer
Employing ALO
Endeshaw Solomon Bayu 1 , Baseem Khan 1 , Zaid M. Ali 2,3, * , Zuhair Muhammed Alaas 4
and Om Prakash Mahela 5
Citation: Bayu, E.S.; Khan, B.; Ali,
Z.M.; Alaas, Z.M.; Mahela, O.P.
Mitigation of Low-Frequency
Oscillation in Power Systems through
Optimal Design of Power System
Stabilizer Employing ALO. Energies
2022, 15, 3809. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en15103809
Academic Editor: Abdelali El
Aroudi
Received: 12 April 2022
Accepted: 18 May 2022
Published: 22 May 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2022, 15, 3809. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15103809
1 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Hawassa University, Hawassa P.O. Box 05, Ethiopia;
endeshawsolomon24@gmail.com (E.S.B.); baseem.khan04@gmail.com (B.K.)
2 College of Engineering at Wadi Addawasir, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Wadi
Addawasir 11991, Saudi Arabia
3 Electrical Engineering Deptartment, Faculty of Engineering, Aswan University, Aswan 81542, Egypt
4 Electrical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia;
zalaas@jazanu.edu.sa
5 Power System Planning Division, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur 302005, India;
opmahela@gmail.com
* Correspondence: dr.ziad.elhalwany@aswu.edu.eg
Abstract: Low-frequency oscillations are an inevitable phenomenon of a power system. This paper
proposes an Ant lion optimization approach to optimize the dual-input power system stabilizer
(PSS2B) parameters to enhance the transfer capability of the 400 kV line in the North-West region of
the Ethiopian electric network by the damping of low-frequency oscillation. Double-input Power
system stabilizers (PSSs) are currently used in power systems to damp out low-frequency oscillations.
The gained minimum damping ratio and eigenvalue results of the proposed Ant lion algorithm
(ALO) approach are compared with the existing conventional system to get better efficiency at various
loading conditions. Additionally, the proposed Ant lion optimization approach requires minimal time
to estimate the key parameters of the power oscillation damper (POD). Consequently, the average
time taken to optimally size the parameters of the PSS controller was 14.6 s, which is pretty small
and indicates real-time implementation of an ALO developed model. The nonlinear equations that
represent the system have been linearized and then placed in state-space form in order to study and
analyze the dynamic performance of the system by damping out low-frequency oscillation problems.
Finally, conventional fixed-gain PSS improves the maximum overshoot by 5.2% and settling time
by 51.4%, but the proposed optimally sized PSS employed with the ALO method had improved the
maximum overshoot by 16.86% and settling time by 78.7%.
Keywords: low-frequency oscillations; ant lion optimization; power oscillation damper; power
system stabilizer
1. Introduction
Low-frequency oscillation is one of the main problems for power system stability.
LFO limits the normal power-transfer capacity of the transmission network, which affects
the operational system economics and security. The frequency ranges of low-frequency
oscillations are between 0.1 and 3 Hz, which are caused by the connection of a high
gain exciter and poorly tuned generator excitation system. If low-frequency oscillations
are not damped, they will lead to system instability or complete blackout. To enhance
power system stability, the installation of a simple and effective supplementary excitation
controller is proposed in this system. In a power system, PSS devices and supplementary
controllers were used to keep the balance between demand and generation in a reliable
manner with high power quality [1]. The main objective of this manuscript is to damp out
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 2 of 29

low-frequency oscillation through the optimal sizing of the power system stabilizer. The
stabilizer parameters are optimally tuned by using the Ant lion optimization technique.

1.1. Motivation and Incitement of the Paper

The motivation of this paper is that there are different problems that occur in power
systems. To address these issues, a dual-input power system stabilizer is proposed. The
proposed system has the advantage of damping low-frequency oscillation using PSS2B
to improve power system stability in the power system network. Instability may occur
due to different reasons that happen at the generation station, transmission or at the
distribution when a large load is connected to the system. The main effect of low-frequency
oscillation is the interruption of power from generation to end-user, and this may cause
a breakdown of electrical equipment due to the oscillation generators. Enhancing the
dynamic power system stability by damping out of LFO helps to minimize the failure of
electrical equipment, as well as the whole power system network.

1.2. Literature Review

Various researchers’ have performed research for mitigating the low-frequency oscilla-
tions from the power network.
In [2], the authors presented the dynamic stability enhancement using a PSO algorithm
for sizing the power system stabilizer to low-frequency oscillation damping. In [3], the
authors investigated the performance of FLC-based adaptive PSS for a SMIB system stability
enhancement. In [4], the authors presented particle swarm-optimized PSS to increase the
dynamic stability of the entire power system. The authors of [5] presented the proposed
controller design of STATCOM using the modified shuffled frog leaping algorithm (MSFL)
for LFO damping. In this work, a new MSFL algorithm is proposed for the optimal selection
of STATCOM damping controller parameters to shift eigenvalues to the left-hand side of
the plane. In [6], the authors described an optimal modal coordination strategy based on
modal superposition theory to mitigate low-frequency oscillation in FCWG-penetrated
power systems. In [7], the author shows the mitigation of the inter-area oscillation of an
interconnected power system by considering the time-varying delay and actuator saturation
using renewable energy. In [8], the authors offered optimal damping for a generalized
unified power flow controller-equipped single-machine infinite bus system for addressing
low-frequency oscillation. In [9], the authors presented the analysis of low-frequency
interactions of DFIG wind turbine systems in a series of compensated grids. In [10],
the authors discussed the design of an adaptive wide-area damping controller based on
delay scheduling for improving small-signal oscillation. In [11], researchers described a
UPFC-based stabilizer that adopts a conventional PI controller and a lead-lag controller to
produce the damping effect. Because the UPFC covers active and reactive power controls
with multiple time scales, the low-frequency damping control parameters of UPFC are
hard to design for different operating conditions. In [12], the authors presented a design
of an adaptive wide-area damping controller based on delay scheduling for improving
small-signal oscillations. In this paper, the damping controllers are properly tuned, and
the controller has limited applications. In [13], the authors presented the mitigation of
low-frequency oscillations by optimal allocation of power system stabilizers. In this case,
single-input PSS is used as a controller, and the damping efficiency of the controller is poor.

1.3. Research Gaps

From the above literature, the dynamic stability of a power system is improved by
using a poorly tuned power system stabilizer controller. The performance index of the
response to attain a steady-state system takes a large settling time and maximum overshoot
to converge. The techniques utilized in the above papers could not be coordinated, and the
stability was not improved effectively within a short amount of time. Further, the power
system’s stabilizer parameters were estimated to treasure the optimum values of two key
PSS parameters (K and T1) by keeping constant values for the other three parameters (T2,
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 3 of 29

T3 and T4), but the result may not be accurate since three out of five parameters are set
to be constant to optimize K and T1. However, the proposed ALO-based PSS is used to
optimize the parameters of the controller using a multi-objective function. The damping
torque provided by the excitation system is not enough for LFO suppression.

1.4. Contribution of the Manuscript

There have been many studies on low-frequency oscillation damping controllers.
A power system stabilizer (PSS) in the excitation system is used to generate the damping
effect. The PSS suppresses LFOs by controlling the electromagnetic torque variation. The
newly designed PSS2B in the excitation system has been proven to be the most cost-
effective damping controller compared to the other papers cited in this paper. The main
contribution of the proposed approach is that the controllers are optimally sized using the
ALO approach to damp out low-frequency oscillations. The power oscillation damping
controller has a low controller gain, time constants and small settling time to attain steady-
state stability. Moreover, the controller is optimally sized and installed in its proper place.
The proposed mathematical models were employed to estimate the respective values
of the key parameters in real-time depending on the operating conditions of the power
system network. The superiority of the proposed ALO-based PSS system over the above
literature was confirmed through the presented minimum damping ratio and eigenvalue
analyses, along with the time domain representations of the power system states. In the
proposed system, the parameters of the power system stabilizer are optimally sized by
ALO to produce electrical torque in phase with speed deviation by the phase compensation
technique, which meets the proposed objective function.
The novelties of this paper are as follows:
1. In this manuscript, the application of the dual-input PSS with optimally tuned con-
troller parameters uses the most recent ALO technique.
2. As presented in the results section, all of the simulation results are superior to the
other applied techniques.
3. In addition, the authors tried to compare the results of the dual-input PSS with the
single-input PSS, base case and classical system.
4. Further, a practical utility network was utilized, which is from a developing nation
Ethiopia. As in the developing nations, such as Ethiopia, practical systems are facing
challenges from the low-frequency oscillations. Further, the system network is going
to be upgraded, which makes the LFO problem more complex. Therefore, this work
is very helpful for providing the solution to the utility network.

1.5. Organization of the Manuscript

The manuscript is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses the methodology of the
performed research. Section 3 discusses the utilized Ant lion optimization technique.
Section 4 discusses the results. Finally, Section 5 is the conclusion.

2. Methodology
2.1. Power System Stabilizer
A power system stabilizer is used to improve the damping out of low-frequency
oscillation through the excitation control system. The inputs for power system stabilizers
are terminal frequency, shaft speed deviation and acceleration power. In this study, the
input signal for the single-input PSS model is synchronous machine rotor speed deviation
(∆ω). The output signal of a PSS is stabilized voltage (Vs ). The time constant Tw represents
the signal washout time constant and shows the stabilizer gain of PSS. T1–T4 represent
the phase compensation time constants [8]. The power system stabilizer output can be
restricted by limiter settings in VSTmin and VSTmax [9]. In an interconnected system, LFO is
one of the main problems faced in power systems. System separation occurs if no sufficient
damping is provided to compensate for the insufficiency of the damping torque in the
 tion (∆ω). The output signal of a PSS is stabilized voltage (Vs ). The time constant Tw
represents the signal washout time constant and shows the stabilizer gain of PSS. T1–T4
represent the phase compensation time constants [8]. The power system stabilizer output
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 can be restricted by limiter settings in VSTmin and VSTmax [9]. In an interconnected sys-
4 of 29
tem, LFO is one of the main problems faced in power systems. System separation occurs
if no sufficient damping is provided to compensate for the insufficiency of the damping
torque in the synchronous generator. Low-frequency oscillation problems happen due to
synchronous generator. Low-frequency oscillation problems happen due to the automatic
the automatic voltage regulator’s exciter high speed and high gain.
voltage regulator’s exciter high speed and high gain.
Types of Power
Types of Power System
System Stabilizers
Stabilizers
Single-input PSS: The inputs
Single-input PSS: The inputs for single-input PSSPSS
for single-input are are
the the
rotor speed
rotor deviation
speed (∆ῳ),
deviation (∆ω),
the the
change
changein frequency
in frequency (∆f)(∆f)
andand thethe
accelerating power
accelerating power (∆Pa). TheThe
(∆Pa). single-input power
single-input power
system stabilizer
system (PSS1B)
stabilizer (PSS1B) hashas
anan input
inputofofrotor
rotorspeed
speeddeviation.
deviation. This
This stabilizer reduces the
stabilizer reduces
the damping
dampingofofthe thelow-frequency
low-frequency oscillations. The structure of PSS1B has parameters
oscillations. The structure of PSS1B has parameters such as
such as stabilizer
stabilizer gaingain
K and K lead-lag
and lead-lagtimetime constants
constants T1–T4.T1–T4.
Dual-input
Dual-input PSS (PSS2B): In this PSS, one inputthe
PSS (PSS2B): In this PSS, one input is rotor
is the speed
rotor deviation
speed deviation(∆ῳ), andand
(∆ω),
another input
another is the
input change
is the change in electric
in electricpower
power(∆Pe). DueDue
(∆Pe). to the simplicity
to the simplicityof measuring
of measuring
electric power
electric power andandthetherelationship
relationshipwith withthe
the shaft
shaft speed, the thechange
changeininelectric
electric power
power (∆Pe)
(∆Pe) is taken
is taken as input
as an an input signal
signal for power
for the the power system
system stabilizer.
stabilizer. The input
The input controlcontrol
signalsignal
of PSS2B
of PSS2B is electric
is electric powerpowerdeviation deviation
(∆Pe), (∆Pe),
and theand the parameters
parameters to be optimized
to be optimized are theare the
controller
controller
gain (K) gain
and(K) and
time time constant
constant (t). (t).

2.2. 2.2. Sizing

Sizing of Power
of Power System
System Stabilizer
Stabilizer Parameters
Parameters
Figure
Figure 1 shows
1 shows thethe block
block diagram
diagram of of
thethe power
power system
system stabilizer[4],
stabilizer [4],which
whichconsists
consists of
of gain K, washout time constant Tw and phase compensation time constants T1, T2,T3
gain K, washout time constant Tw and phase compensation time constants T1, T2, T3and
and T4 [10]. The power system stabilizer produces torque on the rotor to compensate for the
T4 [10]. The power system stabilizer produces torque on the rotor to compensate for
the phase
phase lag
lag between
between exciter
exciter input
input and
and machine
machine electrical
electrical torque.
torque.

Dw sTw (sT1+1) (sT3+1) Vpss

Kpss
(sTw+1) (sT2+1) (sT4+1)

Figure 1. Single-input
Figure power
1. Single-input system
power stabilizer
system lead-lag
stabilizer structure.
lead-lag structure.

TheThe typical
typical range
range of time
of time constants
constants andand controller
controller gain
gain areshown
are shownininthe
theTable
Table11be-
below.
low.
Table 1. Typical range of single-input PSS optimized parameters.
Table 1. Typical range of single-input PSS optimized parameters.
Parameters T1 T2 T3 T4 K
Parameters
Minimum T1 0.01 T2 0.01 T3 0.01 T4 0.01 K 0.01
Minimum 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Maximum 1 1 1 1 100
Maximum 1 1 1 1 100

TheThe parameter
parameter values
values of of
thethe powersystem
power systemstabilizer
stabilizerare
are gained by
by the
theALO
ALOalgorithm
algo-
by by
rithm considering low-frequency
considering low-frequencyoscillation.
oscillation.

2.3. 2.3. Modeling

Modeling of Power
of Power System
System Stabilizer
Stabilizer
The method of incorporating
The method of incorporating excitation excitation control
control system
system models
models intointo an LFO
an LFO damping
damping
by considering
by considering the the excitation
excitation system
system shown
shown in Figure
in Figure 2 below
2 below [10].[10].
TheThe
AVR AVR
andand
PSSPSS
for for
excitation system control are presented
excitation system control are presented below. below.
The thyristor excitation system with AVR and PSS has different blocks, and the mathe-
matical model is presented as shown below [10]. From block 1 of Figure 2

1
pv1 = ( Et − v1 ) (1)
TR

From blocks 3 and 4,

1
pv2 = KSTAB p∆ωr − v2 (2)
Tw
with, p∆ωr , from block 5
1
pv3 = ( T pv2 + v2 − v3 ) (3)
T2 1
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 5 of 29

with pv2 given by the above equation. The stabilizer output Vs is

Vs = v3 (4)

with Vs max ≥ Vs ≥ Vs min from block 2, the exciter output voltage is

h i
E f d = K A Vre f − v1 + vs (5)

with EF max ≥ E f d ≥ EF min The initial value of the excitation system variables are

v1 = Et , v2 = 0, Vs = 0 (6)

The AVR reference is

Efd
Vre f = + v1 (7)
KA
Thus, Vre f takes the appropriate value of generator operating conditions prior to
disturbance.
There are four generating units in the power plant, and there are four power system
stabilizers
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
for each unit. The local input signal is better for single-input PSS, while multiple-
5 of 29
input PSS requires multiple-input signals, such as rotor speed deviation and active power
deviation.

AVR
Vref
Terminal voltage Efmax
+ Exciter
Et 1 V1
S KA Efd
(sTr+1) -
+ 2
1 Vsmax
Gain Washout filter Phase compensation
Efmin
Dwr sTw V2 (sT1+1) (sT3+1)
Kstab
(sTw+1) (sT2+1) (sT4+1) Vs=V3
3 4 5
PSS Vsmin

Figure 2. Thyristor excitation system with AVR and PSS.

Figure 2. Thyristor excitation system with AVR and PSS.
2.4. Dual-Input Power System Stabilizer
The main
The thyristor
blockexcitation
diagramssystem withdual-input
of different AVR and stabilizers
PSS has different blocks,
under study areand the
shown
mathematical
below. model is models
These stabilizer presented
areas shown
sized below [10].
to represent From block
a variation 1 of Figure stabilizers,
of dual-input 2
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
which is a combination of power and speed 1deviation to stabilizing signal. In PSS2B, 6 offor
29
𝑝𝑣 =
each input, two washout blocks can be represented
1 (𝐸𝑡 − 𝑣 )
(Tw1 to Tw4) along with a transducer
1 (1)
𝑇𝑅
time constant (T6, T7) and transducer gain constant (Ks2). Time constants (T8–T9) and
From
indices, blocks
N and
and M, 3allow
and 4,
allow
indices, N M, aa ramp-tracking
ramp-tracking or
or simpler
simpler filter
filter characteristic
characteristic to
to be
be represented.
represented.
Finally, two lead-lag compensators with time constants are represented by T1T4
Finally, two lead-lag compensators with time constants are
1 represented by T1 to to and the
T4 and
stabilizer output voltage (Vpss) 𝑝𝑣2 =are
which 𝐾𝑆𝑇𝐴𝐵 𝑝∆𝜔𝑟 −in Figure
presented 𝑣2 3 below. (2)
the stabilizer output voltage (Vpss) which are presented 𝑇𝑤 in Figure 3 below.
with, 𝑝∆𝜔𝑟 , from block 5
1
𝑝𝑣3 = (𝑇 𝑝𝑣 + 𝑣2 − 𝑣3 ) (3)
𝑇2 1 2
with 𝑝𝑣2 given by the above equation. The stabilizer output 𝑉𝑠 is
𝑉𝑠 = 𝑣3 (4)
with 𝑉𝑆 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≥ 𝑉𝑠 ≥ 𝑉𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑛 from block 2, the exciter output voltage is
Figure 3. Dual-input
Figure 3. Dual-input power
power system 𝐸𝑓𝑑 = 𝐾
stabilizer
system stabilizer 𝐴 [𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝑣1 + 𝑣𝑠 ]
(PSS2B).
(PSS2B). (5)
𝐸𝐹 𝑚𝑎𝑥Formulation
withProblem
2.5. ≥ 𝐸𝑓𝑑 ≥ 𝐸𝐹 𝑚𝑖𝑛
The initial value of the excitation system variables are
ALO optimization is characterized as the way towards finding the conditions that
give the best or most extreme condition𝑣1 = 𝐸of𝑡 , 𝑣a2function,
= 0, 𝑉𝑠 = where
0 (6)
the function expresses the
effort required. Basically, optimization refers to maximizing or minimizing an objective
The AVR reference is
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 6 of 29

2.5. Problem Formulation

ALO optimization is characterized as the way towards finding the conditions that
give the best or most extreme condition of a function, where the function expresses the
effort required. Basically, optimization refers to maximizing or minimizing an objective
function subject to some specific constraints. In this paper, the main goal of employing the
ALO algorithm is to select the optimal parameters for PSS among the different options to
operate the system at optimal conditions. Therefore, the ALO algorithm has been selected
and used as the optimal tuning method for the proposed paper. To get optimal parameters
that improve LFO damping, the problem is formulated to optimize a selected objective
function J subjected to gain and time constant inequality constraints.

2.5.1. Objective Function

The primary input signal of PSS is rotor speed deviation, and its main objective is to
minimize this speed deviation during the disturbance. This problem has combined two
objective functions, the damping factor and the damping ratio. The first function improves
the damping factor while the second one sets the damping ratio. The overall multi-objective
function J can be described as [14]:

J3 = J1 + αJ2 (8)

J3 = ∑ (σ0 − σi )2 + α∗ ∑ ( ζ 0 − ζ i )2 (9)
σi ≤σ ζ i ≥ζ 0

2.5.2. Constraint Equations

The constraint equations are the controller gain K and phase-compensating time
constants and the lead-lag time constants T1–T4.
Subject to controller gain:
Kmin ≤ K ≤ Kmax
Phase-compensating time constants:

Tmin
1 ≤ T1 ≤ Tmax
1

Tmin
2 ≤ T2 ≤ Tmax
2

Tmin
3 ≤ T3 ≤ Tmax
3

Tmin
4 ≤ T4 ≤ Tmax
4

where, σi and ζ i represent the real part and damping ratio of the ith eigenvalue, respectively.
The values of σ0 and ζ 0 are 10, −2 and 0.5, respectively. σ0 controls the relative stability
in terms of damping factor margin. The main goal of optimization is to maximize the
damping ratio. The optimal parameters for single-input PSS are K, T1 , T2 , T3 and T4 , but
for dual-input PSS, there are additional time constants and gains, such as transducer time
constant (T6, T7), time constants (T8–T9) and transducer gain constant (Ks2). There are also
two washout blocks with washout time constants (Tw1 to Tw4).
Figure 4a shows the first objective function (J1), which carries out the eigenvalues
towards the left of the jω-axis. Similarly, Figure 4b represents the second objective function
(J2) that limits the maximum overshoot of the eigenvalues by restricting a specific region.
When the two objective functions are considered, the eigenvalues are limited to a D-shaped
region, as shown in Figure 4c below.

Energies 2022, 15, 3809
transducer time constant (T6, T7), time constants (T8–T9) and transducer gain constant
(Ks2). There are also two washout blocks with washout time constants (Tw1 to Tw4).
Figure 4a shows the first objective function (J1), which carries out the eigenvalues
towards the left of the jω-axis. Similarly, Figure 4b represents the second objective func-
tion (J2) that limits the maximum overshoot of the eigenvalues by restricting a specific
region. When the two objective functions are considered, the eigenvalues are limited to 7aof 29
D-shaped region, as shown in Figure 4c below.

jw
(a) si≤s0

J1 s
s0

(b) zi≥z0 z0 jw

J2 s

(c)
z0
jw
si≤s0
zi≥z0
s
J3
s0

Figure 4. Region
Figure of location
4. Region of eigenvalues
of location for objective
of eigenvalues functions.
for objective functions.

Figure
Figure 4a shows
4a shows thethe objective
objective functions
functions whichforces
which forcesthe
thedamping
dampingfactor
factor to
to the
the negative
neg-
axis
ative and
axis Figure
and 4b shows
Figure the damping
4b shows the dampingration of theofeigenvalues
ration that limits
the eigenvalues that the overshoot
limits the
while Figure
overshoot while 4c shows
Figure 4c the intersection
shows point ofpoint
the intersection the objective function.
of the objective The optimal
function. values
The op-
arevalues
timal obtained by ALO technique
are obtained as shownas
by ALO technique inshown
Table 2in
below.
Table 2 below.

Table
Table 2. Typical
2. Typical range
range of dual-input
of dual-input optimized
optimized parameters.
parameters.

Parameters Tw1 Parameters

Tw2 Tw1
Tw3 Tw2
Tw4 Tw3
T1 Tw4T2 T1 T3 T2 T4T3 T4T6 T6 T7 T7 T8 T8 T9 T9
Minimum 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Minimum 1.15 1.15
Maximum 1.15
15 1.15
15 0.01
15 0.01
15 1 0.01 1 0.01
1` 10.02 2 0.02 2 0.022 2 0.02
Maximum 15 15 15 15 1 1 1‘ 1 2 2 2 2
For PSS2B 10 ≤ 𝐾𝑠1 ≤ 100 and−10 ≤ K s2 ≤ −0.00.
For PSS2B 10 ≤ K ≤ 100 and −10 ≤ Ks2 ≤ −0.00.
3. Ant Lion Optimization s1
Problem
3.The
Antrecently developed ALO
Lion Optimization technique is a new meta-heuristic optimization ap-
Problem
proach. ItThe was introduced by Seyedali Mirjalili [11].
recently developed ALO technique Themeta-heuristic
is a new inspiration foroptimization
ALO comesapproach.
from
the Itreal-life analysis of the ALO hunting mechanism in nature. The ALO
was introduced by Seyedali Mirjalili [11]. The inspiration for ALO comes from the technique
mimics the hunting
real-life analysis strategy of antlions
of the ALO huntingin nature. The
mechanism infive stepsThe
nature. of ALO
the hunting mecha-
technique mimics
nism are the random walk of ants, building traps, entrapment of ants in traps,
the hunting strategy of antlions in nature. The five steps of the hunting mechanism are catching
preytheand rebuilding
random walktraps.
of ants, building traps, entrapment of ants in traps, catching prey and
rebuilding traps.
3.1. Operators of ALO Algorithm
3.1. Operators of ALO Algorithm
The ALO algorithm mimics the interaction between antlions and ants in the trap. In
order to represent such interactions, ants are required to move in the search space and
antlions are allowed to hunt the ants and become fitter using traps. The random walk of
ants is as follows:

X (t) = [0, cumsum(2r (t1 ) − 1), cumsum(2r (t2 ) − 1), cumsum(2r (tn ) − 1)] (10)
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 8 of 29

where cumsum represents the cumulative sum, n is the maximum number of iterations, t
represents the steps of the random walk and r(t) is a stochastic function, which is repre-
sented as: 
1 if rand > 0.5
r (t) = (11)
0 if rand ≤ 0.5
where t represents the random walk of ants and rand is a random number generated with
uniform distribution in the interval of [0, 1]. The position of the ants is saved and utilized
during optimization in the following matrix:
 
A1,1 A1,2 A1,d
···
 A2,1 A2,2 A2 , d 
M Ant = (12)
 
.. .. .. 
 . . . 
An,1 An,2 ··· An,d

where M Ant is the matrix for saving the position of each ant, Ai,j shows the value of the jth
variable of ith ant, n is the number of ants and d is the number of variables. The position of
an ant refers to the parameters for a particular solution. Matrix M Ant has been considered
to save the position of all ants during optimization.
 
f ([ A1,1 A1,2 A1,d ])
···
 f ([ A2,1 A2,2 A2 , d]) 
MoA =  (13)
 
.. .. .. 
 . . . 
f ([ An,1 An,2 ··· An,d ])

where MoA is the matrix for saving the fitness of each ant, Aij shows the value of jth
dimension of ith ant, n is the number of ants and f is the objective function.
 
AL1,1 AL1,2 AL1,d
···
 AL2,1 AL2,2 AL2,d 
M Antlion =  (14)
 
.. .. .. 
 . . . 
ALn,1 A Ln,2 ··· ALn,d

where M Antlion is the matrix for saving the position of each antlion, ALi,j shows the jth
dimension’s value of the ith antlion, n is the number of antlions and d is the number of
variables.  
f ([ AL1,1 AL1,2 AL1,d ])
 f ([ AL2,1 AL2,2 · · ·
AL2 , d]) 
MoAL =  (15)
 
.. .. .. 
 . . . 
f ([ ALn,1 ALn,2 ··· ALn,d ])

where MoAL is the matrix for saving the fitness of each ant lion, ALi,j shows the jth dimen-
sion’s value of the ith antlion, n is the number of antlions and f is the objective function.

3.2. Random Walk of Ants

Ants update their positions with a random walk at every step of the optimization. To
keep the random walks inside the search space, they are normalized using the following
equation:
Xit − ai × di − cit



t
Xi = + ci (16)
dit − ai

where ai is the minimum of random walk of the ith variable, di is the maximum random
walk of the ith variable, cit is the minimum of the ith variable at the tth iteration and dit
indicates the maximum of the ith variable at the tth iteration. The formula for updating the
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 9 of 29

position of ants is presented in Equation (22) below. It should be applied to guarantee the
occurrence of RWs inside the search space.

3.3. Trapping in Ant Lion’s Pit

In order to mathematically model this assumption, the following equations are pro-
posed:
cit = Antliontj + ct (17)

dit = Antliontj + dt (18)

where ct represents the minimum of all variables at the tth iteration, dt indicates the vector
including the maximum of all variables at the tth iteration, cit represents the minimum of
all variables for the ith ant, dit is the maximum of all variables for the ith ant and Antliontj
shows the position of the selected jth antlion at the tth iteration.

3.4. Sliding Ants towards Ant Lion

This behavior slides down the trapped ant that is trying to escape. The following
equations are proposed in this regard:

ct
ct = (19)
I

dt
dt = (20)
I
where I is a ratio, ct is the minimum of all variables at the tth iteration and dt represents the
vector, including the maximum of all variables at the tth iteration. In Equations (16) and
(17), I = 1 + 10w Tt , where t is the current iteration, T is the maximum number of iteration,
and w is defined based on the current iteration (w = 2 when t > 0.1 T, w = 3 when t > 0.5 T,
w = 4 when t > 0.75 T, w = 5 when t > 0.9 T and w = 6 when t > 0.95 T). The parameter w in
the equation for I is able to adjust the accuracy level of the exploitation.

3.5. Catching Prey and Rebuilding Pit

The last stage of the hunt is when an ant reaches the bottom of the pit and is caught in
the antlions jaw. The following equation is proposed:

Antliontj = Antit i f f Antit > f Antlionit

(21)

Where t shows the current iteration, Antliontj shows the position of selected jth antlion
at the tth iteration and Antit indicates the position of the ith ant at the tth iteration.

3.6. Elitism
Elitism is a characteristic of evolutionary algorithms, which allows them to keep
the best solution obtained at any stage of the optimization process. Since the elite is the
fittest antlion, it should affect the movement of all ants during the iteration. The elite and
updating the position of ants is:

RtA + RtE
Antit = (22)
2

where RtA is the random walk around that the antlion selected by roulette wheel at the tth
iteration, RtE is the random walk around of the elite at the tth iteration and Antit indicates
the position of the ith ant at the tth iteration.
The pseudo-codes of the ALO algorithm (Algorithm 1) are defined as follows:
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 29

Energies 2022, 15, 3809 10 of 29

Algorithm 1. The pseudo-codes of the ALO algorithm
Initialize the first population of ants and antlions randomly
Calculate the fitness
Algorithm 1. The of ants and antlions
pseudo-codes of the ALO algorithm
Find the best antlions and assume it as the elite (determined optimum)
Initialize the first population of ants and antlions randomly
While the end criterion is not satisfied
Calculate the fitness of ants and antlions
for every ant
Find the best antlions and assume it as the elite (determined optimum)
Select
While the endusing
an antlion Roulette
criterion wheel
is not satisfied
Update c and
for every antd using equations above
Create
Select an antlion using Roulette wheel it given by the above equations in the random
a random walk and normalize
walkUpdate c and d using equations above
Create
Update theaposition
random walkof antand normalize
using it given
Equation (22)by the above equations in the random walk
Update
end for the position of ant using Equation (22)
end for
Calculate the fitness of all ants
Calculate the fitness of all ants
Replace an antlion with its corresponding ant it if becomes fitter
Replace an antlion with its corresponding ant it if becomes fitter
Update elite if an antlion becomes fitter than the elite
Update elite if an antlion becomes fitter than the elite
end while
end while
Return eliteelite
Return

3.7.3.7.
Optimal
OptimalSizing of Single-Input
Sizing PSSPSS
of Single-Input
TheThefivefive
optimal
optimalparameters
parametersof PSS areare
of PSS four time
four constants
time constantsT1–T4 andand
T1–T4 gain 𝐾𝑃𝑆𝑆
gain K,PSS ,
which is optimally selected and sized by the ALO algorithm to guarantee
which is optimally selected and sized by the ALO algorithm to guarantee optimal system optimal system
performance
performance of ofthe
thegenerator
generatorunder
under various systemconfigurations.
various system configurations.TheThe optimality
optimality in-
intended
tended in paper
in this this paper
is toisfind
to find the best
the best parameter
parameter sizessizes for PSS.
for PSS. PSS PSS
couldcould generate
generate torque
torque on the
on rotor
the rotor of electrical
of electrical machines,
machines, andand hence
hence phase
phase laglag between
between exciter
exciter inputand
input andmachine
ma-
chine electrical torque is compensated. The main purpose of sizing
electrical torque is compensated. The main purpose of sizing PSS and POD parameters PSS and POD pa- is
rameters is to ensure the appropriate phase lead to compensate for the phase
to ensure the appropriate phase lead to compensate for the phase lag resulting from the lag result-
inggenerator
from the excitation
generator system,
excitation
andsystem, and the parameters
the parameters are optimized aretooptimized
provide theto appropriate
provide
thephase
appropriate phase5lead.
lead. Figure Figure3 5show
and Table and the
Table 3 show
optimal the optimal
parameters parameters
of PSS tuned byofALO PSS for
tuned by ALO
exciter input. for exciter input.

PSS Gain Washout Filter Phase lag Phase lead

Dw 32.6712
10s (1+0.0296813s) (1+0.247449s) Du
(1+10s) (1+0.560678s) (1+0.63342s) Exciter (Vstab)

Figure 5. Optimally
Figure sized
5. Optimally power
sized system
power stabilizer
system lead-lag
stabilizer structure.
lead-lag structure.

Table 3. Optimal
Table parameter
3. Optimal values
parameter of power
values system
of power stabilizer
system employing
stabilizer ALO.
employing ALO.
Parameters K Tw (s) T1 (s) T2 (s) T3 (s) T4 (s)
Parameters K Tw (s) T1 (s) T2 (s) T3 (s) T4 (s)
Optimal values 32.6712 10 0.0296813 0.560678 0.247449 0.63342
Optimal values 32.6712 10 0.0296813 0.560678 0.247449 0.63342
3.8. Optimal Parameter Sizing of Dual-input PSS
3.8.
TheOptimal
SMIB Parameter
system is Sizing
the bestof Dual-Input PSS
to start evaluating any proposed control strategy in a
power system.
The SMIBThesystem
optimalisparameters
the best to of theevaluating
start dual-inputany PSSproposed
are optimally selected
control strategyandin a
sized by the
power ALO The
system. algorithm
optimal toparameters
guarantee optimal system performance
of the dual-input of the generator
PSS are optimally selected and
sized
under by thesystem
various ALO algorithm to guarantee
configurations. Dual-inputoptimal systemgenerate
PSS could performance
torqueofonthe thegenerator
rotor
under various
of electrical systemso
machines, configurations.
phase lag betweenDual-input PSS could
the exciter generate
input torque onelectrical
and machine the rotor of
electrical
torque machines, soThe
is compensated. phase
main lagpurpose
betweenofthe exciter
sizing theinput and machine
dual-input electrical torque
PSS parameters is to is
compensated.
ensure The main
the appropriate phasepurpose
leads toof the
sizing the dual-input
compensation PSSphase
of the parameters is to ensure
lag resulting fromthe
theappropriate phase leads
generator excitation to the
system incompensation
a complex power of the phaseof
system lag resulting
SMIB. from the
The input generator
signals to
thisexcitation system
PSS are speed in a complex
deviation power system
and electrical powerofdeviation
SMIB. The input
from thesignals to this gen-
synchronous PSS are
speed
erator. Thedeviation andinput
limits of the electrical power
signals, which deviation
represent from the synchronous
the allowable ranges of generator.
the sensedThe
values, depending on specific design parameters. For each input, two washout blocks values,
limits of the input signals, which represent the allowable ranges of the sensed can
depending on specific design parameters. For each input, two washout blocks can be
represented (Tw1–Tw4), along with transducer time constants (T6 and T7). A torsional
filter (time constants T8 and T9) with indices M = 5 and N = 1 is provided. The VSMAX
Energies
Energies2022, 15,15,
2022, x FOR
3809 PEER REVIEW 11 11
of of
2929

beand VSMIN are,

represented respectively,
(Tw1–Tw4), alongthewith
maximum and time
transducer minimum limits
constants (T6ofand
the T7).
stabilizer output.
A torsional
0.1 ≤
filter VSMAX
(time ≤ 0.2T8
constants and −0.1
and T9)≤with
VSMIN ≤ −M
indices 0.05
= 5pu areNused
and = 1 in
is practice
provided.[15].
TheThe derived
VSMAX
speed
and VSMINdeviation signal has athe
are, respectively, relatively
maximum lowand
level of torsional
minimum components
limits and isoutput.
of the stabilizer fed to a
0.1 ≤ VSMAX ≤ 0.2 and −0.1 ≤ VSMIN ≤ −0.05 p.u. are used in practice [15]. Thepower
pair of cascade-connected lead-lag networks. The optimal parameters of dual-input de-
system
rived stabilizer
speed are signal
deviation presented
has in Table 4 below.
a relatively low level of torsional components and is fed
to a pair of cascade-connected lead-lag networks. The optimal parameters of dual-input
4. Optimal
Table system
power parameter
stabilizer arevalues of dual-input
presented in Tablepower system stabilizer using ALO.
4 below.

Parameters Ks1 Ks2 4. Optimal

Table Ks3 parameter
T1 valuesT2of dual-input
T3 power
T4system stabilizer
T6 T7 ALO.
using T8 T9
PSS2B 12.0624 −1.442 16.239 0.4217 0.8679 0.3073 0.4475 0.665 0.1932 1.637 0.994
Parameters Ks1 Ks2 Ks3 T1 T2 T3 T4 T6 T7 T8 T9
PSS2B 12.0624 −1.442 16.239 0.4217 0.8679 0.3073 0.4475 0.665 0.1932 1.637 0.994
The structure of optimally sized power system stabilizer are presented in Figure 6
The structure of below.
optimally sized power system stabilizer are presented in Figure 6 below.

High Pass filter Ramp Tracking filter Stabilizer gain and Phase lead Limit
Vstmax
Dw 14.438S 3.136S 1 [1+1.637S]1 12.06*(1+0.422S) 1+0.3073S
S S
1+14.438S 1+3.136S 1+0.665S [1+0.994S]5 1+0.8679S 1+0.4475S Output

16.239 VsTmin
High Pass filters

DPe 9.716S 2.805S -1.442

1+9.71S 1+2.805S 1-1.442s

Figure 6. Optimally sized power system stabilizer lead-lag structure.

Figure3.9.
6. Optimally sizedDiagram
Overall System power system stabilizer
with MATLAB lead-lag structure.
Simulink
The considered
3.9. Overall System Diagramelectric
withnetwork
MATLAB consists of Tana Beles power plant, as mentioned in
Simulink
Appendix A, equipped with PSS and an infinite bus, which are interconnected through a
The considered
transmission electric
line. The networkof
parameters consists of Tanacontrollers
the damping Beles power forplant, as mentioned
individual in
and coordi-
Appendix A, equipped with PSS and an infinite bus, which are interconnected
nated sizing are optimized utilizing the ALO technique based on the eigenvalue objective through a
transmission
function. The line. The selection
proper parameters of the
of PSS dampingiscontrollers
parameters the damping for of
individual and coordi-
LFO to improve power
nated
system stability. The PSS is installed at the power plant generator excitationobjective
sizing are optimized utilizing the ALO technique based on the eigenvalue system to
function.
supply the Thestabilized
proper selection
voltage. of PSS parameters is the damping of LFO to improve
powerThe system
overall powerThe
stability. PSSnetwork
system is installed at the power
equipped with PSS plant generatorinexcitation
is presented sys- 8.
Figures 7 and
tem to supply the stabilized voltage.
Figure 8 presents the implementation of the power system network in Matlab Simulink that
Thethe
shows overall power system
experimental test casenetwork
system.equipped
The overall with PSS system
power is presented
is usedintoFigures
implement7 andthe
8.experimental
Figure 8 presents the implementation of the power system network in Matlab
test system of the proposed cases. Therefore, the power system is constructed Simulink
that
withshows
a Tana the experimental
Beles power plant, testfive
case system.
buses, a 400ThekVoverall power system
double-circuit is used
transmission to and
line im- a
plement the experimental test system of the proposed cases. Therefore,
230 kV infinite grid at the Bahirdar substation. Figure 8 shows the main components and the power system
iscircuit
constructed with a Tana
organization BelesBeles
of a Tana power plant,
power fivethat
plant buses, a 400 kV double-circuit
is interconnected trans-
with a hydraulic
mission
turbine,line and a 230
excitation kV infinite
system, powergrid systemat the Bahirdar
stabilizer andsubstation.
synchronous Figure 8 showsInthe
generator. this
main
powercomponents
plant, the andinputcircuit
to PSS organization
is the active ofpower
a TanaandBeles power
rotor speedplant that is intercon-
deviation, while the
nected
outputwith
signala hydraulic
is stabilized turbine,
voltage,excitation system, connected
which is directly power system to thestabilizer
excitationand syn-
system.
chronous generator. In this power plant, the input to PSS is the active power and rotor
speed deviation, while the output signal is stabilized voltage, which is directly connected
to the excitation system.
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 29

Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 29

Energies 2022, 15, 3809 12 of 29

Figure 7. Overall power system network.

Figure 7. Overall power system network.

Figure
Figure 8. Schematic diagram
8. Schematic diagram of
of dual-input
dual-input PSS
PSS with
with excitation
excitation system.
system.
4. Result and Discussion
Figure 8. Schematic
4. Result diagram of dual-input PSS with excitation system.
and Discussion
4.1. Time Domain Simulation Analysis
4.1. Time Domain
Power systemSimulation Analysis on controller gain K and time constants (T1–T4), these
stability depends
4. Result and Discussion
Power must
parameters systembestability depends
optimized, and the on mentioned
controller gain K andfunction
objective time constants (T1–T4),
(J) has the same
4.1. Time Domain Simulation Analysis
these parameters
requirement. must be optimized,
Consequently, the objectiveand the mentioned
function objective
of this paper function
alters the (J) has and
maximizing the
same
the Power
minimum system
requirement. stability
ratios.depends
Consequently,
damping Tablethe on controller
objective
5 shows gain of
the function
optimized Kparameters
and paper
this time constants
alters
of the (T1–T4),
maxim-
the coordinated
these parameters
izing and
controllersthe must
minimum
obtained be optimized,
damping
by ALO, and
ratios.
GA, PSO the 5mentioned
Table
and TLBO. shows theobjective
optimized function (J) has
parameters of the
the
same requirement.
coordinated Consequently,
controllers obtained bythe objective
ALO, GA, PSOfunction of this paper alters the maxim-
and TLBO.
izing and the minimum damping ratios. Table 5 shows the optimized parameters of the
coordinated controllers
Table 5. Comparison obtainedresults
of simulation by ALO, GA, PSO
of different and TLBO.
algorithms.

Parameters
Table 5. Comparison Sizing Time
K of simulation
Tw results
T1 of different
T2 algorithms.
T3 T4
Algorithm (Seconds)
Parameters Sizing Time
K Tw T1 T2 T3 T4
Algorithm (Seconds)
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 13 of 29

Table 5. Comparison of simulation results of different algorithms.

Parameters Sizing Time

K Tw T1 T2 T3 T4
Algorithm (s)
ALO 32.6712 10 0.0296813 0.560678 0.247449 0.63342 15.531407
GA 41.708 10 0.194398 0.212408 0.148983 0.877625 55.909
PSO 41.708 10 0.4250 0.802737 0.107363 0.988972 106.3817
TLBO 81.4742 10 0.166037 0.659183 0.708986 0.444357 203.4058

Table 6 shows the optimized parameters of the coordinated controllers obtained of

dual input PSS by ALO, GA, PSO and TLBO.

Table 6. Optimal parameter values of the dual-input power system stabilizer.

Parameters Ks1 Ks2 Ks3 T1 T2 T3 T4 T6 T7 T8 T9

ALO 12.0624 −1.442 16.239 0.4217 0.8679 0.3073 0.4475 0.665 0.1932 1.637 0.994
GA 77.5731 −7.30099 8.34627 0.194398 0.21241 0.148983 0.87762 0.993315 0.222622 1.33431 0.29577
PSO 62.7183 −4.43815 8.3463 0.425003 0.80274 0.107363 0.988972 0.247197 0.666757 0.36123 0.059363
TLBO 34.261 −8.77915 4.46505 0.58973 0.01311 0.80497 0.568069 0.105715 1.7782 1.99667 0.774753

Table 7 shows the optimized parameters values of the washout time constant for dual
input PSS obtained by ALO, GA, PSO and TLBO.

Table 7. Parameter values of washout time constant for dual-input PSS.

Parameters Tw1 Tw2 Tw3 Tw4

ALO 14.438 3.1364 9.716 2.8045
GA 2.5121 10.658 5.03415 5.13569
PSO 1.41823 2.56733 13.6621 13.3838
TLBO 12.7328 4.79597 4.91447 10.9656

From the above table, the gain of the proposed ALO technique is less than the re-
maining methods, which avoids the adverse interaction with active power generation and
amplification of high-frequency noise. Further, the computational time to optimally tune
the parameters of the controller is small compared to the others. The recorded average
times to optimally tune PSS parameters were approximately 15.5314, 55.909, 106.3817 and
203.4058 s for ALO, GA, PSO and TLBO, respectively. Consequently, the average time
required to tune the parameters of ALO-based PSS was 15.5314 s, which is pretty small and
indicates real-time implementation of the ALO-developed model in a power system and
the proposed method is fast, which confirms the superiority of the developed method.

Eigenvalue Analysis and Minimum Damping Ratio

The system is stable if all eigenvalues have negative real parts. If any one of the
eigenvalues has a positive real part, then the system is unstable, or if the eigenvalues
have a real part equal to zero, then the poles are complex with only the imaginary part
locating on the jω axis. In order to obtain robust controllers, eigenvalue analysis and the
minimum damping ratio of three operating conditions have been compared and discussed
in Table 8 below. Synchronous machine variables, such as real and reactive powers, with
their terminal voltage (P0, Q0 and Ut) are considered as the loading conditions. The ranges
of values for the selected variables are 0.2 ≤ P0 ≤ 1.2, 0.01 ≤ Q0 ≤ 0.4 and 0.6 ≤ Ut ≤ 1.
 Energies 2022, 15, 3809 14 of 29

Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 29

Table 8. Eigenvalues and minimum damping ratios of different loading conditions.

Operating Normal Loading Light Loading Heavy Loading

Condition (pu) P0 = 0.8, Q0 = 0.114, Ut = 1 P0 = 0.2, Q0 = 0.01, Ut = 0.6 P0 = 1.20, Q0 = 0.4, Ut = 1.4
+0.1527
−2.8657 + 0.0000 i + 9.1627 −2.8400
i −7.0589
+ 0.0000 i + 0.0000−2.9339
i + 0.0000+0.1320
i + 12.5527 i
Eigenvalues +0.1527 − 9.1627 i
of + 8.4810 +1.5345 + 0.0000 i +0.1320 − 12.5527 i
−0.2123 i
+1.4242 + 0.0000 i+3.3395 + 0.0000 i −2.3738
+0.1156 + 5.1410 i + 10.6746 i
+1.5318 + 0.0000 i
base case −0.2123
system − 8.4810
−6.9972
i + 0.0000−1.3107
i + 6.8592 i
+0.1156 − 5.1410−2.3738
i −6.9952
− 10.6746 i + 0.0000 i
Eigenvalues for −2.8657 −2.8400
−5.9644 + 4.8680 i + 0.0000−1.3107
i − 6.8592 i + 0.0000−4.1923
i + 5.8688−i2.9339 + 0.0000 i
PSS1B controller −0.2123
−5.9644 − 4.8680 i + 8.4810−6.9527
i +3.3395
+ 0.0000 i + 0.0000−4.1923
i − 5.8688−i2.3738 + 10.6746 i
Eigenvalues −0.2123 − 8.4810 i
for + 0.0000 −1.3107 + 6.8592 i −2.3738 − 10.6746 i
+2.8079 i
−5.9644 + 4.8680−3.4574
i + 0.0000 i
−1.3107 − 6.8592+3.7656
i + 0.0000−i4.1923 + 5.8688 i
PSS1B controller − 5.9644 − 4.8680 i − 6.9527 + 0.0000 − − 5.8688 i
−0.2655 + 7.2754 i, 0.03647 −0.2616 + 4.1837 i, 0.0624 −0.2701 + 10.10234.1923
i i, 0.02673
+2.8079 + 0.0000 i −3.4574 + 0.0000 i +3.7656 + 0.0000 i
Eigenvalues for−0.2655 − 7.2754 i, 0.03647 −0.2616 − 4.1837 i, 0.0624 −0.2701 − 10.1023 i, 0.02673
PSS2B Controller −2.5097 + −0.2655
2.447 i, + 7.2754−2.5210
0.7161 i, 0.03647
+ −0.2616
2.4518 i, 0.7169 i, 0.0624+ 2.4946−i,0.2701
+ 4.1837−2.5038 + 10.1023 i, 0.02673
0.7084
Eigenvalues for −0.2655 − 7.2754 i, 0.03647 −0.2616 − 4.1837 i, 0.0624 −0.2701 − 10.1023 i, 0.02673
(damping ratio ζ) Controller
PSS2B −2.5097 − 2.447 i, 0.7161
−2.5097 + 2.447 i,−2.5210
0.7161 − 2.45181 i, 0.7169
−2.5210 + 2.4518−2.5038
i, 0.7169− 2.4946−i,2.5038
0.7084
+ 2.4946 i, 0.7084
(damping−0.0154 −2.5097
ratio ζ)+ 0.000 i, 1 − 2.447 −0.0007 −2.5210
i, 0.7161 + 0.0000 i, 1 − 2.45181 + 0.0000−i,2.5038
i, 0.7169
−0.0182 1 − 2.4946 i, 0.7084
−0.0154 + 0.000 i, 1 −0.0007 + 0.0000 i, 1 −0.0182 + 0.0000 i, 1

The overall system for a Tana Beles 400 kV line is simulated for different loading
conditions, andThetheoverall
minimum system for a Tana
damping ratiosBeles 400 kV line
are tabulated in is simulated
Table forbase
8 for the different
case loading
conditions, and the minimum damping ratios are tabulated
system, PSS1B and ALO-based PSS2B. The ALO-based, optimally tuned PSS2B modelin Table 8 for the base case
has a better performance than the base case system and PSS for each case only in terms ofmodel has
system, PSS1B and ALO-based PSS2B. The ALO-based, optimally tuned PSS2B
a better performance than the base case system and PSS for each case only in terms of the
the minimum damping ratio.
minimum damping ratio.
4.2. Simulation Output Results at Each Bus
4.2. Simulation Output Results at Each Bus
The objective of the LFO
The objective of study
the LFO was to ascertain
study whether the
was to ascertain designed
whether system could
the designed system could
damp outdamplow-frequency oscillation and return to a steady value following
out low-frequency oscillation and return to a steady value following the clearance
the clearance
of the disturbance. However, However,
of the disturbance. in this paper, the paper,
in this simulation results for parameters,
the simulation such as
results for parameters, such
rotor angle deviation,
as rotor angle rotor speedrotor
deviation, deviation, active power,
speed deviation, activereactive
power, power,
reactiverotor/load
power, rotor/load
angle, excitation voltage, voltage,
angle, excitation rotor speed,rotor terminal voltage,voltage,
speed, terminal and positive sequence
and positive voltage,
sequence voltage, are
are provided to clearly show that the damping out of the low-frequency
provided to clearly show that the damping out of the low-frequency oscillation oscillation in in power
power system stability enhancement.
system stability enhancement.
However,However,
when thewhen system theissystem
disturbed, the output
is disturbed, thepower
output ofpower
the generators either either
of the generators
increasesincreases
or decreases from their maximum output. Active and reactive power
or decreases from their maximum output. Active and reactive power oscillation oscillation
and deviation from their
and deviation rated
from theirvalue
ratedindicate that thethat
value indicate power generation
the power is unstable.
generation Fig- Figure 9
is unstable.
ure 9 below shows
below showsthethe
positive
positive sequence
sequencevoltage,
voltage,active
activepower
powergeneration
generation and
andreactive
reactive power
power whenwhen the system
the system is is
disturbed,
disturbed,but butPSS2B
PSS2Bcancandamp
dampout outthose
thoseoscillations
oscillationsandandre-
retains the
tains the system at a steady-state value without interruption. The following figure
at a steady-state value without interruption. The following figure shows small shows
small oscillations since
oscillations thethe
since optimal
optimalvalues areare
values tuned by by
tuned thethe
ALOALOalgorithm.
algorithm.

(a)
Figure 9. Cont.
Energies 2022, 15,
Energies x FOR
2022, PEER REVIEW
15, 3809 15 of 2915 of 29

(b)

(c)
FigureFigure
9. Simulation resultsresults
9. Simulation of positive sequence
of positive voltage
sequence (a), active
voltage (b) and
(a), active (b)reactive powerpower
and reactive (c) with
(c) with
ALO. ALO.

The positive sequence

The positive voltages,
sequence activeactive
voltages, powerpower
and reactive powerpower
and reactive at different busesbuses
at different
will be obtained,
will as shown
be obtained, in Figure
as shown 9a–c. 9a–c.
in Figure Although there there
Although were were
oscillations for a for
oscillations fewa few
seconds, the system returned to its steady state. The time required for the dampingpower
seconds, the system returned to its steady state. The time required for the damping
powersystem
system oscillations is reduced
oscillations is reduced when
when PSSPSS
is installed in the
is installed in system; the system
the system; is stabilized
the system is
in a short
stabilized duration
in a short of time.
duration of time.

4.3. Comparison
4.3. Comparison of Proposed
of Proposed Optimization
Optimization Technique
Technique with Other
with Other Techniques
Techniques
The simulation
The simulation resultresult clearly
clearly illustrates
illustrates thatproposed
that the the proposed objective
objective function-based
function-based
optimized PSS2B has good performance in damping LFO and stabilizes thesystem
optimized PSS2B has good performance in damping LFO and stabilizes the systemquickly
compared
quickly compared to the
to conventional
the conventionalfixed-gain model,
fixed-gain GA, PSO
model, GA,andPSO TLBO
and methods. The compar-
TLBO methods.
The comparison analysis on the impact of different techniques for optimal sizing of PSS has
ison analysis on the impact of different techniques for optimal sizing of PSS parameters
been illustrated
parameters has been in Figures 10–12
illustrated below. 10–12
in Figures A detailed
below.explanation
A detailed of explanation
the maximum ofovershoot
the
maximum overshoot and settling time of different algorithms is presented in Table 9shows
and settling time of different algorithms is presented in Table 9 below. Table 9 clearly
the tabular representation of power system states, which are depicted in Figures 10–12.
below. Table 9 clearly shows the tabular representation of power system states, which are
depicted in Figures 10–12.
 Energies
Energies
Energies 2022,
2022,
2022,
Energies 15,
15,
15,
2022, xFOR
x 15,FOR
xFOR PEER
PEER
PEER
3809 REVIEW
REVIEW
REVIEW 16ofof
1616 of 29
2929
16 of 29

Figure
Figure
Figure 10.
Figure
10.
10. Rotor
10.
Rotor
Rotor speed
Rotor
speed
speed deviation
speed
deviation of
deviation
ofof
deviation different
of
different algorithms
different
algorithms
different algorithms with
algorithms
withwith
with conventional
conventional
conventional
conventional fixed
fixed
fixed gain.
fixed gain.
gain.
gain.

Figure
Figure 11.
11.
Figure
Figure 11. Rotor
Rotor
11. angle
angle
Rotor
Rotor deviation
deviation
angle
angle of
ofof
deviation
deviation different
different
of algorithms
algorithms
different
different with
with
algorithms
algorithms with
with conventional
conventional
conventional
conventional fixed
fixed
fixed gain.
gain.
fixed gain.
gain.

Figure
Figure
Figure 12.
12.
12.
Figure Rotor
Rotor
Rotor
12. speed
speed
speed
Rotor of
ofof
speed different
different
different
of algorithms
algorithms
algorithms
different with
with
with
algorithms thethe
the
with conventional
conventional
conventional
the fixed
fixed
fixed
conventional gain
gain
gain
fixed model.
model.
model.
gain model.

Table
Table
Table 9.
9.9. Maximum
Maximum
Maximum overshoot
overshoot
overshoot and
and settling
settling
and settling time
time
time of
ofof power
power system
system
power system parameters.
parameters.
parameters.
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum Overshoot
Overshoot
Overshoot Settling
Settling
Settling Time
Time
Time (s)
(s)(s)
Existing
Existing
Existing GA GA
GA PSO
PSO
PSO TLBO
TLBO
TLBO ALO
ALO
ALO Existing
Existing
Existing GA GA
GA PSOPSO
PSO TLBO
TLBO
TLBO ALO
ALO
ALO
∆𝜔∆𝜔
∆𝜔 0.0182
0.0182
0.0182 0.0181
0.0181
0.0181 0.0180 0.0180
0.0180
0.0180 0.0180
0.0180 0.0167
0.0167
0.0167 Oscillatory
Oscillatory
Oscillatory 6.97
6.97
6.97 11.85
11.85
11.85 14.52
14.52
14.52 4.62
4.62
4.62
∆𝛿
∆𝛿∆𝛿 −2.165
−2.165
−2.165 −1.932
−1.932
−1.932 −1.935
−1.935
−1.935 −1.933
−1.933
−1.933 −1.865
−1.865
−1.865 Oscillatory
Oscillatory
Oscillatory 6.27
6.27
6.27 9.78
9.78
9.78 12.23
12.23
12.23 3.95
3.95
3.95
𝜔𝜔𝜔 0.017
0.017
0.017 0.0173
0.0173
0.0173 0.0185
0.0185
0.0185 0.0180
0.0180
0.0180 0.016
0.016
0.016 Oscillatory
Oscillatory
Oscillatory 7.04
7.04
7.04 11.32
11.32
11.32 13.6
13.6
13.6 4.68
4.68
4.68
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 17 of 29

Table 9. Maximum overshoot and settling time of power system parameters.

Maximum Overshoot Settling Time (s)

Existing GA PSO TLBO ALO Existing GA PSO TLBO ALO
∆ω 0.0182 0.0181 0.0180 0.0180 0.0167 Oscillatory 6.97 11.85 14.52 4.62
∆δ −2.165 −1.932 −1.935 −1.933 −1.865 Oscillatory 6.27 9.78 12.23 3.95
ω 0.017 0.0173 0.0185 0.0180 0.016 Oscillatory 7.04 11.32 13.6 4.68

From Figure 10 above, it is apparent that the rotor speed deviation of different al-
gorithms with conventional fixed gain and the maximum overshoot and settling time of
ALO is less than for the other optimization algorithms. Generally, the ALO technique
gives more accurate results than the rest of the techniques for damping out low-frequency
oscillation within the shortest possible time. The simulation result demonstrated that the
ALO technique is the most effective for solving and damping out of the LFO problem as
the maximum overshoot and settling time of angular frequency deviations are relatively
small compared to other techniques. The obtained results are promising and prove the
potential of the proposed LFO control strategy-based ALO algorithm to ensure power
system stability.
From Figure 11 above, it is apparent that the rotor angle deviation of different algo-
rithms with conventional fixed gain model and the maximum overshoot and settling time
of ALO is less than the remaining techniques. ALO gives more accurate results than the rest
of the methods to damp out low-frequency oscillation within the shortest possible time.
From the simulation results shown in Figure 12 above, the rotor speed of different
algorithms and the maximum overshoot and settling time of ALO is less than the remaining
techniques, and, generally, ALO gives more accurate results when compared to the other
techniques for damping out low-frequency oscillation within the shortest possible time.
The proposed ALO has good performance and gives better results in terms of mini-
mizing the fluctuations of low-frequency oscillations and shows superiority compared with
conventional fixed gain, GA, PSO and TLBO approaches. The comparative study shows
that the ALO algorithm could rapidly converge to the correct optimal solution and gives
the optimal sizes of POD controller parameters.

4.4. Simulation Results at Different Operating Conditions

For a power system, the operating load can vary over a wide range. It is necessary
to test the variations in operating conditions for the power system. It is clear that the
proposed PSS2B approach can significantly damp out the unwanted LFO and improve the
stability performance of the Tana Beles 400 kV transmission network. The three operating
conditions, normal, light and heavy loading, have been used for comparison purposes.

4.4.1. Simulation Result at Normal Operating Condition

The robustness of the proposed method is tested with the test system under nominal
loading conditions. Figures 13–17 show the parameters determined under nominal op-
erating conditions of the system. From these results, the system is not properly damped
with the existing conventional system. Whereas the PSS2B shows a good damping effect
on low-frequency oscillations when compared with no controllers. The settling time and
maximum overshoot of these oscillations are also good for the system.
 Energies 2022,
Energies
Energies 2022, 15,x xFOR
2022, FOR
15, PEERREVIEW
3809 REVIEW 18 of1829of 29
Energies 2022, 15,15,
x FOR PEER PEER
REVIEW 1818ofof2929

Figure 13.Rotor
Figure
Figure 13. Rotor
13. speed
Rotor
speed deviation
speed (∆𝜔)
deviation
deviation (∆𝜔) ofthe
(∆ω) the power
ofpower system
the power atnormal
system normal loading.
at normal loading.
Figure 13. Rotor speed deviation (∆𝜔) ofofthe power system
system atatnormal loading.
loading.

Figure
Figure 14.14.Rotor
Rotor angle
angle deviation
deviation (∆𝛿)of
(∆𝛿) ofthe
the power
ofpower system
system atnormal
normal loading condition.
FigureFigure
14. 14.
Rotor Rotor
angle angle deviation
deviation (∆𝛿) of(∆δ)
the the
power power
system atatnormal
system loading
at normal
loading condition.
loading condition.
condition.

Figure15.
Figure 15.Rotor
Rotorangle
angle(𝛿)(𝛿)ofofthe
thepower
powersystem
systematatnormal
normalloading.
loading.
Figure 15. Rotor
Figure 15. angle
Rotor (𝛿) of the
angle power
(δ) of systemsystem
the power at normal loading.
at normal loading.
 Energies2022,
Energies 2022,15,
15,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 1919ofof 29
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 1929of 29

Figure
Figure 16.16.
16.
Figure Rotor
Rotor speed
speed
Rotor (𝜔)(ω)
(𝜔)
speed ofofthe
thethe
of power
power system
system
power atatnormal
system normal
at loading.
loading.
normal loading.

Figure 17.17.
Figure
Figure 17. Rotor
Rotor speed
Rotor
speed deviation
speed
deviation ofofthe
deviation thethe
of power system
power
power atatheavy
system
system heavy
at loading.
heavy loading.
loading.

For
For normaloperating
normal operatingcondition
conditionTable
Table 10
10 shows the
showsthe maximum
maximumovershoot
themaximum overshootand
andsettling
set-
For normal operating condition Table 10 shows overshoot and set-
time of
tlingtime rotor speed
timeofofrotor deviation.
rotorspeed
speeddeviation.
deviation.
tling
Table 10. Maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor speed deviation at normal loading.
Table10.
Table 10.Maximum
Maximumovershoot
overshootand
andsettling
settlingtime
timeofofrotor
rotorspeed
speeddeviation
deviationatatnormal
normalloading.
loading.
Device
Device MaximumOvershoot
Maximum Overshoot SettlingTime
Settling Time(s)
(s)
Device Maximum Overshoot Settling Time (s)
Base
Base
Base case
case
case 0.01737
0.01737
0.01737 20
20 20
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional PSS
PSSPSS 0.01736
0.01736
0.01736 10.37
10.37
10.37
PSS1B
PSS1B 0.0134
0.0134 6.98
6.98
PSS1B 0.0134 6.98
PSS2B
PSS2B 0.01732
0.01732 4.614
4.614
PSS2B 0.01732 4.614
FromFigure
From Figure13,13,thetherotor
rotorspeed
speeddeviation
deviationofofthe thegenerator
generatorhas hasbeen
beendemonstrated
demonstrated
with the existing system and PSS2B at nominal loading conditions. Due to aasmall
with the existing
From Figuresystem
13, the and
rotorPSS2B
speed at nominal
deviation ofloading
the conditions.
generator has Due
been to smalldis-
demonstrated dis-
with
the existing
turbance
turbance system
ofofturbine
turbine rotorandspeed
rotor PSS2B
speed at nominalthe
oscillation,
oscillation, loading
the conditions.
settling
settling timeisis20
time 20Due
andto
and a small
4.614
4.614 ssfor
fordisturbance
conven-
conven-
of turbine rotor speed oscillation, the settling time is 20 and
tional and PSS2B, respectively, which quickly damp out oscillations and return toto aa
tional and PSS2B, respectively, which quickly damp out 4.614
oscillations s
andfor conventional
return
and PSS2B,
steady-state
steady-state respectively,
system.
system. Therefore, which
Therefore, the
the quickly
generatordamp
generator outspeed
rotor
rotor oscillations
speed and return
oscillations
oscillations to a steady-state
forPSS2B
for PSS2B showin-
show in-
system.
creased Therefore,
damping the
comparedgenerator
to rotor
the speed
existing oscillations
conventional for
creased damping compared to the existing conventional system. Therefore, with the PSS2B
system. show increased
Therefore, damping
with the
compared to
conventional
conventional the existing
model,
model, the conventional
thesystem
system system.
isisoscillatory
oscillatory andTherefore,
and with
becomesunstable,
becomes the conventional
unstable, whilethe
while model,
thestability
stabilityofofthe
system
thesystem
the is oscillatory
systemisismaintained, and
maintained,and becomes unstable,
andlow-frequency while
low-frequencyoscillationsthe stability
oscillationsare of the system
areeffectively
effectivelydamped is maintained,
dampedwith with
and low-frequency oscillations are effectively damped with PSS2B.
PSS2B.
PSS2B.
ForFor normaloperating
normal operatingcondition
conditionTable
Table 1111 shows
showsthe the maximum
maximumovershoot
themaximum overshootand andsettling
set-
For normal operating condition Table 11 shows overshoot and set-
time
tling of rotor
time of angle
rotor angledeviation.
deviation.
tling time of rotor angle deviation.
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 20 of 29

Table 11. Maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor angle deviation at normal loading.

Device Undershoot Settling Time (s)

Base case −2.048 20
Conventional PSS −2.049 10.45
PSS1B −1.932 6.27
PSS2B −1.910 4.14

Rotor angle deviation with the conventional base case is an oscillatory system and
takes a long time to damp out those oscillations and attain a steady-state operation, while
when PSS2B is used, the system damps out and diminishes the oscillations very quickly.
Therefore, using PSS2B can quickly damp out electromechanical oscillations. When rotor
angle deviation is subjected to a positive change (∆δ > 0), the power will be subjected to
∆P and the machine falls towards the instability. When a deviation of (∆δ < 0) occurs,
the machine returns to its initial state. For normal operating deviation Table 12 shows the
maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor angle.

Table 12. Maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor angle at normal loading.

Device Maximum Overshoot Settling Time (s)

Base case 2.1298 20
Conventional PSS 2.1958 5.417
PSS1B 2.1899 3.2
PSS2B 2.1610 2.910

The initial generator rotor angle (δ) is around 2.1298 and 2.155 rad for the existing
conventional system and PSS2B, and the settling time is 20 and 2.91 s, respectively. Ac-
cording to the IEEE standards for rotor angle stability, the obtained graphs show that the
generator oscillates and attains steady-state values. Since δ starts to decrease after reaching
a maximum value, the machine returns to its steady state. For normal operating condition
Table 13 shows the maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor speed.

Table 13. Maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor speed at normal loading.

Device Maximum Overshoot (pu) Settling Time (s)

Base case 0.017 20
Conventional PSS 0.018 10.73
PSS 0.0173 7.04
PSS2B 0.0161 4.49

Figure 16 shows the generator rotor speed (ω) of the base case and PSS2B, and a step
increase in load is taken as a disturbance, which shows the per-unit speed of the Tana
Beles generator. The standard rated speed of the generator is expected to be between 0.95
and 1.05 pu when the synchronous machine is healthy. The rotor speed oscillations of the
generator with the conventional controller take approximately 20 s to damp out, and when
PSS2B is included, it takes around 4.49 s to damp out and come to a steady-state system.
The rotor speed oscillations with PSS2B show increased damping compared to the existing
conventional system.

4.4.2. Discussion of Results at Normal Operating Conditions

Generally, at normal loading conditions, the simulation results show that the proposed
PSS2B gives good damping characteristics for LFO. When compared with the base case
 Energies 2022, 15, 3809 21 of 29

Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW system, PSS2B quickly stabilizes the system under a sudden load increase in21the of system.
29

Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Hence, it can be concluded that the proper sizing of PSS parameters using the21
ALO approach
of 29
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW provides effective damping characteristics for the damping out of LFO. 21 of 29
To check the effectiveness of the proposed controller, the system is operated under
4.4.3. Simulation Result at Heavy Operating Conditions
heavyTooperating
check theconditions. Figures
effectiveness of the17–22 represent
proposed the simulation
controller, the system results of the
is operated system
under
To check
To heavy
check the the effectiveness
effectiveness of theof the proposed
proposed controller,
controller, the system is operated
under under
under
heavyaoperating loading condition.
conditions. FiguresFrom
17–22the results
represent thethe system
of simulation
the test is operated
system,
resultsthe existing
of the systemcon-
heavy
heavy operating
operating conditions.
conditions. Figures
Figures 17–2217–22 represent
represent the simulation
the simulation results
results of theofsystem
the system un-
ventional systemloading
under a heavy is unstable, and the
condition. generator
From loses
the results of its
thesynchronism.
test system, the existing con-
dera aheavy
under heavyloading
loadingcondition.
condition.From
Fromthe
theresults
resultsof of the
the test
test system,
system, the existing conventional
con-
ventional system is unstable, and the generator loses its synchronism.
system
ventional is unstable,
system and the
is unstable, andgenerator losesloses
the generator its synchronism.
its synchronism.

Figure
Figure18.
18.Rotor
Figure Rotor angle deviation
angle angle
18. Rotor deviation of the
of thepower
deviation power
of system
system
the power atatheavy
systemheavy loading.
atloading.
heavy loading.
Figure 18. Rotor angle deviation of the power system at heavy loading.

Figure 19. Generator rotor angle of the power system at heavy loading.
Figure
Figure 19.Generator
19.
Figure Generator rotor angle
19. Generator angle of
of the power
theof
rotor angle power system
system
the power atatheavy
system atloading.
heavy loading.
heavy loading.

Figure 20. Generator rotor speed (𝜔) of the power system at heavy loading
Figure 20. Generator
Figure rotor speed
20. Generator (𝜔) of (ω)
rotor speed the power system system
of the power at heavyatloading
heavy loading.
Figure 20. Generator rotor speed (𝜔) of the power system at heavy loading
Energies 2022,
Energies
Energies 15, xx15,
2022,
2022, 15, FOR
FOR PEER REVIEW
3809
PEER REVIEW 22 of
22 of22
29of 29
29

Figure 21. Rotor

Figure
Figure 21. Rotor speed
21. Rotor
speed deviation
speed
deviation of the
deviation
of the power
of power
the system
power at light
system
system at light loading.
at light loading.
loading.

Figure
Figure 22. Rotor
22.
Figure Rotor angle
angle
22. Rotor deviation
deviation
angle of the
of
deviationthe power
of power
the system
system
power at light
at
system light loading.
loading.
at light loading.

ForFor
For heavy
heavy operating
heavy
operating condition
operating
condition Table
condition 14 shows
Table
Table 14 shows thethe
14 shows
the maximum overshoot
maximum
maximum andand
overshoot
overshoot and settling
settling
settling
time
time of rotor
time
of rotor speed
of rotor deviation.
speed
speed deviation.
deviation.

Table 14. Maximum

Table
Table 14. Maximum
14. overshoot
Maximum
overshoot andand
overshoot
and settling
settling time
settling
time of rotor
time
of rotor speed
of rotor deviation
speed
speed at heavy
deviation
deviation at heavy loading.
at heavy loading.
loading.
Device
Device
Device Maximum
Maximum
Maximum Overshoot
Overshoot
Overshoot SettlingTime
Settling
Settling Time(s)
Time (s)
(s)
Base case
Base case 0.01748
0.01748 20
20
Base case 0.01748 20
Conventional PSS
Conventional PSS 0.01747
0.01747 10.35
10.35
Conventional
PSS1B PSS 0.01747
0.01738 10.35
6.98
PSS1B 0.01738 6.98
PSS2B
PSS1B
PSS2B 0.0168
0.01738
0.0168 4.77
6.98
4.77
PSS2B 0.0168 4.77
A step
A step increase
increase inin load
load isis taken
taken asas aa disturbance
disturbance in in the
the heavy
heavy loading
loading condition.
condition. In In
Figure 17, the rotor speed deviation of the generator has been demonstrated
Figure 17, the rotor speed deviation of the generator has been demonstrated for the base for the base
A step increase
case, conventional
conventional in
PSS, PSS1Bloadand
PSS1B is taken
PSS2B as under
a disturbance in the heavy
heavy loading
loading loading
conditions. Due condition.
small In
to small
case, PSS, and PSS2B under heavy conditions. Due to
Figure 17,
disturbances of the rotor
of turbine speed
turbine rotor deviation
rotor speed,
speed, the of the generator
the oscillation has
oscillation overshoot been
overshoot varies demonstrated
varies at
at 0.01748, for the base
0.01748, 0.01747,
0.01747,
disturbances
case, conventional
0.01738 and
and 0.0167
0.0167 with PSS, PSS1B
with aa settling and
settling time PSS2B
time of 20, under
20, 10.35, heavy
10.35, 6.98
6.98 andloading
and 4.77 conditions.
4.77 s, Due
s, respectively. to small
respectively. There-
There-
0.01738
disturbances of turbine rotor speed, of the oscillation overshoot varies at 0.01748, 0.01747,
fore, the
fore, the generator’s
generator’s rotor
rotor speed oscillations
oscillations with
with PSS2B
PSS2B show increased
increased damping
damping com- com-
0.01738 and 0.0167 withspeed a settling time of 20, 10.35, 6.98showand 4.77 s, respectively. Therefore,
pared to
pared to the
the existing
existing conventional
conventional systemsystem under
under aa heavy
heavy loading
loading condition.
condition. ForFor heavy
heavy
the generator’s rotor speed oscillations with PSS2B show increased damping compared to
operating condition
operating condition Table
Table 15 15 shows
shows thethe maximum
maximum overshoot
overshoot and and settling
settling time
time ofof rotor
rotor
the existing conventional system under a heavy loading condition. For heavy operating
angle deviation.
angle deviation.
condition Table 15 shows the maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor angle deviation.
Table 15.
Table 15. Maximum
Maximum overshoot
overshoot and
and settling
settling time
time of
of rotor
rotor angle
angle deviation
deviation at
at heavy
heavy loading.
loading.

Device
Device Undershoot
Undershoot Settling Time
Settling Time (s)
(s)
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 23 of 29

Table 15. Maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor angle deviation at heavy loading.

Device Undershoot Settling Time (s)

Base case −2.075 20
Conventional PSS −2.074 10.37
PSS1B −1.951 6.36
PSS2B −1.94 4.18

A step increase in load is taken as a disturbance in the heavy loading condition. The
rotor angle deviation of the existing conventional system is an oscillatory system and takes
a long time to damp out the low-frequency oscillations and attain a steady-state operation,
while when PSS2B is incorporated, the system damps out and diminishes the oscillations
very quickly. Therefore, by using PSS2B, it can damp out electromechanical oscillations
or low-frequency oscillations. When the rotor angle deviation is subjected to a positive
change (∆δ > 0), then the power will be subjected to ∆P, and the machine falls towards
instability. When a deviation of (∆δ < 0) occurs, the machine attains its initial state. For
heavy operating condition Table 16 shows the maximum overshoot and settling time of
rotor angle.

Table 16. Maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor angle at heavy loading.

Device Maximum Overshoot Settling Time (s)

Base case 2.0259 20
Conventional PSS 2.1729 4.829
PSS1B 2.150 3.2
PSS2B 2.144 2.75

A step increase in load is taken as a disturbance in the heavy loading condition.

According to the IEEE standards of rotor angle stability, the obtained graphs show that
the generator oscillates and attains steady-state values. Therefore, the generator fulfills the
local mode and inter-area mode of oscillation, having a 2.75 s settling time and around
2.0259, 2.1729, 2.150 and 2.144 rad for the base case, conventional PSS, PSS1B and PSS2B,
respectively. Since δ starts to decrease after reaching a maximum value, the machine
attains its steady-state value. For heavy operating condition Table 17 shows the maximum
overshoot and settling time of rotor speed.

Table 17. Maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor speed at heavy loading.

Device Maximum Overshoot Settling Time (s)

Base case 0.018 20
Conventional PSS 0.0175 9.733
PSS1B 0.0168 7.04
PSS2B 0.0160 4.67

Figure 20 shows the generator rotor speed (ω) for the base case and PSS2B, a step
increase in the load is taken as a disturbance, which shows the per-unit speed of the Tana
Beles generator. The rotor speed oscillations of the generator for the conventional base
case take greater than 20 s to damp out oscillations, and when PSS2B is included, it takes
around 4.67 s. The standard rated speed of the generator is expected to be between 0.95
and 1.05 pu when the synchronous machine is healthy. The addition of PSS2B improved
the damping of the generator rotor speed oscillations by quickly damping out oscillations
and attaining the steady-state system.
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 24 of 29

4.4.4. Discussion of Results at Heavy Operating Conditions

Generally, the simulation results show that at heavy loading conditions, the proposed
PSS2B gives effective damping characteristics to LFO that rapidly stabilizes the system
under disturbance when compared with the conventional base case. From the above study
with the SMIB system connected to PSS2B, it is concluded that it can effectively damp
out the low-frequency oscillations by using PSS2B and hence, the stability of the system
increases.

4.4.5. Simulation Result at Lightly Loading Condition

The figure shown below represents the simulation results of the system at the lightly
loading condition. The low-frequency oscillation is damped out rapidly with the proposed
optimized controller compared with the conventional base case. For light operating condi-
tion Table 18 shows the maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor speed deviation.

Table 18. Maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor speed deviation at light loading.

Device Maximum Overshoot Settling Time (s)

Base case 0.01727 20
Conventional PSS 0.01725 9.967
PSS1B 0.0168 6.90
PSS2B 0.01631 4.467

In Figure 21, the rotor speed deviation (∆ω) of the generator is demonstrated for the
conventional base case and PSS2B under lightly loading conditions. Therefore, the generator
rotor speed oscillations with PSS2B show increased damping compared to the existing
conventional system under lightly loading conditions. Therefore, for the conventional
fixed-gain model, the system is oscillatory and becomes unstable, while the stability of
the system is maintained with the proposed PSS2B. For light operating condition Table 19
shows the maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor angle deviation.

Table 19. Maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor angle deviation at light loading.

Device Undershoot Settling Time (s)

Base case −2.012 20
Conventional PSS −2.010 8.183
PSS1B −1.920 6.25
PSS2B −1.896 4.033

At lightly loaded conditions, the rotor angle deviation of the existing conventional sys-
tem is an oscillatory system and takes a long time to damp out the oscillations, while when
PSS2B is used, the system damps out and diminishes the oscillations quickly. Therefore,
using PSS2B can quickly damp out electromechanical oscillations. When the rotor angle
deviation is subjected to a positive change (∆δ > 0), the power will subjected to ∆P and
the machine falls towards instability. When a deviation of (∆δ < 0) occurs, the machine
returns to its initial state. For light operating condition Figure 23 shows the maximum
overshoot and settling time of rotor angle.
EnergiesEnergies
2022, 15, x FOR
2022, PEER REVIEW
15, 3809 25 of 2925 of 29

Figure 23. Rotor angle of the power system at light loading.

Figure 23. Rotor angle of the power system at light loading.
For light
For operating condition
light operating Table Table
condition 20 shows the maximum
20 shows overshoot
the maximum and settling
overshoot and settling
time of rotor angle.
time of rotor angle.
Table 20. Maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor angle at light loading.
Table 20. Maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor angle at light loading.
Device Maximum Overshoot Settling Time (s)
Device Maximum Overshoot Settling Time (s)
Base case 2.0063 20
Base PSS
Conventional case 2.1513 2.0063 4.8 20
PSS1B
Conventional PSS 2.128 2.1513 3.12 4.8
PSS2B
PSS1B 2.125 2.128 2.8 3.12
PSS2B 2.125 2.8
The initial generator rotor angle (𝛿) is around 2.0063, 2.1513, 2.128 and 2.125 rad for
the base case, conventional PSS, PSS1B and PSS2B, respectively. According to the IEEE
standards The initial
of rotor generator
angle rotor
stability, theangle (δ) isgraphs
obtained around 2.0063,
show that2.1513, 2.128 and
the generator 2.125 rad for
oscillates
the base
and attains case, conventional
steady-state PSS, PSS1B
values. Therefore, the and PSS2B,fulfills
generator respectively.
the localAccording to the IEEE
mode of oscilla-
standards
tion and of rotor
inter-area mode angle stability, the
of oscillation, obtained
having a 2.8graphs show
s settling thatThe
time. the generator
time takenoscillates
to
and attains steady-state values. Therefore, the generator fulfills the
damp out low-frequency oscillation is 2.8 s for PSS2B. Since δ starts to decrease after local mode of oscillation
andainter-area
reaching maximummode value,ofthe
oscillation,
machine having a 2.8
attains its s settling
steady state.time. The operating
For light time takencon-
to damp
out low-frequency oscillation is 2.8 s for PSS2B. Since
dition Table 21 shows the maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor speed.
δ starts to decrease after reaching a
maximum value, the machine attains its steady state. For light operating condition Table 21
Table shows the maximum
21. Maximum overshootovershoot
and settlingand settling
time of rotortime
speedof at
rotor
lightspeed.
loading.

Device Maximum Overshoot Settling Time (s)

Table 21. Maximum overshoot and settling time of rotor speed at light loading.
Base case 0.0175 20
Conventional
DevicePSS Maximum 0.0170
Overshoot 10.32 Time (s)
Settling
PSS1B
Base case 0.0169
0.0175 7.01 20
PSS2B 0.0162 4.43
Conventional PSS 0.0170 10.32
PSS1B
Figure 24 shows the generator rotor speed0.0169 7.01
for the existing conventional system and
PSS2B under lightly loaded conditions. A sudden
PSS2B load change is taken as a disturbance,
0.0162 4.43
which shows the per-unit speed of the Tana Beles generator. The standard rated speed of
the generator is expected
Figure 24 shows tothe
be between
generator0.95 and
rotor 1.05 for
speed pu when the synchronous
the existing machine
conventional system and
is healthy. The rotor speed oscillations of the generator for the existing conventional
PSS2B under lightly loaded conditions. A sudden load change is taken as a disturbance,
system takeshows
which approximately 20 speed
the per-unit s to damp
of the out,
TanaandBeleswhen PSS2BThe
generator. is standard
included,rated
it takes
speed of
around 4.43 s to quickly damp out the oscillations and return to a steady-state system.
the generator is expected to be between 0.95 and 1.05 pu when the synchronous machine is
healthy. The rotor speed oscillations of the generator for the existing conventional system
take approximately 20 s to damp out, and when PSS2B is included, it takes around 4.43 s to
quickly damp out the oscillations and return to a steady-state system.
Energies 2022,2022,
Energies 15, x15,
FOR PEER REVIEW
3809 26 of 26
29of 29

Figure 24. Rotor

Figure speed
24. Rotor of power
speed system
of power at light
system loading.
at light loading.

4.4.6.
4.4.6. Discussion
Discussion of Result
of Result at Lightly
at Lightly Operating
Operating Condition
Condition
Generally,
Generally, for for lightly
lightly loading
loading operating
operating conditions,the
conditions, thesimulation
simulationresult
resultshows
shows that
that the
proposed PSS2B provides effective damping for LFO and stabilizes
the proposed PSS2B provides effective damping for LFO and stabilizes quickly when quickly when compared
with thewith
compared existing
the conventional system. Hence,
existing conventional system.it can be concluded
Hence, it can bethat the system
concluded thatwith
thefine
sizing of the PSS parameters provides robustness for the controller, and
system with fine sizing of the PSS parameters provides robustness for the controller, and it attains power
system stability rapidly. The system can effectively damp out the low-frequency
it attains power system stability rapidly. The system can effectively damp out the oscillations
by using PSS2B;
low-frequency hence the
oscillations bystability of the system
using PSS2B; is maintained.
hence the stability of the system is main-
tained.
4.5. Main Achievements of the Proposed Method

4.5. MainThe proposed dual-input

Achievements of the Proposedpower system stabilizer is superior to the conventional power
Method
system stabilizer. As the results of eigenvalue analysis show that with the conventional PSS,
The
the proposed
system is notdual-input
stable due power
to poorly system
tunedstabilizer
controllerisparameters.
superior toWith the the
conventional
conventional
power system stabilizer. As the results of eigenvalue analysis
power system stabilizer, the controller gain and time constants were not properly show that with the con-
tuned,
ventional PSS, the system is not stable due to poorly tuned controller
and the results show that the system is not stable. Since the power system is a dynamic, parameters. With
the conventional
conventional power system
PSS, it does notstabilizer, the controller
vary its operating gain and
conditions andtime constants
looks static aswere not To
a result.
properly tuned, and the results show that the system is not stable.
test the robustness of the proposed method, different operating conditions were considered Since the power sys-
temfor is aboth
dynamic, conventional
eigenvalue analysisPSS, and ittime-domain
does not vary its operating
simulation conditions
results. and
Ref. [16] looksthat
shows
static as a result. To test the robustness of the proposed method,
PSS is designed for more complex systems, but the parameters of PSS are not properly different operating
conditions
tuned towere makeconsidered
the system for bothIneigenvalue
stable. [17], geneticanalysis
algorithm and time-domain
utilized simulation of
for the coordination
results.
PSSsRef. and[16]
UPFC.shows that PSS
Similarly is designed
robust PSSs are forproposed
more complex systems,
using GA butFor
in [18]. thethis
parame-
case, the
terseigenvalue-based
of PSS are not properly tuned tofunction
multi-objective make the system stable.
is formulated as a In [17], genetic
damping factor algorithm
and damping
utilized
ratio.forThethe low
coordination
controllerofgain,PSSs time
and UPFC.
constant, Similarly robust PSSs
computational are convergence
time, proposed using curve,
GA maximum
in [18]. Forovershoot
this case, andthe eigenvalue-based multi-objective function
settling time shows that the proposed PSS2B design is formulated as a to
is superior
damping
GA and factor and damping
the other ratio. The low controller gain, time constant, computational
applied methods.
time, convergence curve, maximum overshoot and settling time shows that the proposed
PSS2B5. Conclusions
design is superior to GA and the other applied methods.
In this paper, low-frequency oscillation damping using a PSS2B controller was studied.
5. Conclusions
This paper examined the efficiency of meta-heuristic techniques called ALO for the damping
ofInlow-frequency oscillations in an
this paper, low-frequency electric network
oscillation damping by optimally sizing the
using a PSS2B PSS parameters.
controller was
This technique
studied. This paper has been selected
examined by critically
the efficiency reviewing and comparing
of meta-heuristic techniquesitcalled
with the
ALO base
forcase.
the The
dampingproposed system is usedoscillations
of low-frequency to estimatein theankey parameters
electric network in by
real-time depending
optimally sizing theon the
operating conditions. The superiority of the proposed ALO
PSS parameters. This technique has been selected by critically reviewing and comparing system over the conventional
fixed-gain
it with the basemodelcase. was
The confirmed
proposed system through is the
used presented
to estimatesimulation results of rotor
the key parameters angle
in re-
al-time depending on the operating conditions. The superiority of the proposed ALO the
deviation, rotor speed deviation, rotor angle and rotor speed. The controller gain of
proposed
system over thetechnique is lower,
conventional which shows
fixed-gain model that theconfirmed
was amplification of thethe
through noise signal will
presented
be reduced.
simulation resultsFurthermore,
of rotor angle the deviation,
proposed technique
rotor speed requires a very
deviation, short
rotor time
angle and(about
rotor15 s)
to predict the parameters of the objective functions provided.
speed. The controller gain of the proposed technique is lower, which shows that the am- Therefore, the proposed
plification of the noise signal will be reduced. Furthermore, the proposed technique re-
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 27 of 29

ALO-based dual-input power system stabilizer is superior to the other applied techniques
for a complex power system.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.S.B. and B.K.; methodology, E.S.B., Z.M.A. (Zaid M.
Ali) and Z.M.A. (Zuhair Muhammed Alaas); software, E.S.B. and B.K.; validation, E.S.B., B.K. and
O.P.M.; formal analysis, E.S.B. and B.K.; investigation, E.S.B. and B.K.; resources, E.S.B. and B.K.; data
curation, B.K., E.S.B., O.P.M. and Z.M.A. (Zaid M. Ali); writing—original draft preparation, E.S.B.
and B.K.; writing—review and editing, E.S.B., B.K., O.P.M. and Z.M.A. (Zuhair Muhammed Alaas),
visualization, B.K.; supervision, B.K.; project administration, B.K.; funding acquisition, Z.M.A. (Zaid
M. Ali). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All the data are obtained from Ethiopian electric power and Tana Beles
generation station.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest of any author in any form.

Nomenclature

Hz Hertz
IT Current iteration
ITmax Maximum number of iterations
Pu Per unit
M, D Inertia Constant, Damping Coefficient
ωb Synchronous Speed of the Generator
δ, ω Rotor Angle, Rotor Speed
Eq0 Generator Internal Voltage
Efd Field Voltage
Vre f AC Bus Reference Voltage
u pss Control Signal of PSS
Id, Iq dq axes Generator Armature Current
Vt Generator Terminal Voltage
KA, TA Gain and Time Constant of Exciter and Regulator
Vb Infinite Bus Voltage
λi Eigenvalues
σi , ω i Eigenvalue’s Real Part and Imaginary Part
ζ Damping ratio of mth Eigenvalue
T1, T2, T3, T4 Time Constants
K, Tw Controller Gain and Washout Time Constant
Vs Stabilized Voltage
Abbreviations
AC Alternating current
AL Antlion
ALO Antlion optimization
AVR Automatic voltage regulator
DC Direct current
EEP Ethiopian Electric power
FLC Fuzzy logic controller
FLPSS Fuzzy logic power system stabilizer
GA Genetic Algorithm
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 28 of 29

kV Kilo volt
kVA Kilo Volt Ampere
kVAr Kilo Volt Ampere reactive
LFO Lows frequency oscillation
MATLAB Matrix Laboratory
MVA Mega Volt Ampere
MVAr Mega Volt Ampere reactive
MW Mega watt
MWh Megawatt hour
NP Number of operating point
PSS Power system stabilizer
PSO Particle swarm optimization
POD Power oscillation Damper
RC Resistor Capacitor
RWs Random walks
SFLA Shuffled frog leaping algorithm
SMIB Single machine infinite bus system
TLBO Teaching learning-based optimization

Appendix A
Tana Beles HPP all data.

Voltage (kv) = 15 kv M = 8 MJ/MVA

S = 133 MVA, Inertia H(s) = 3.14
Generator parameters
T0 d0 = 9.2 s, T00 d0 = T00 q0 = 0.1 s
of the system
Xd = 1.03, Xq = 0.7, X0 d = 0.31
X00 d = X00 = X00 q = 0.25 XL = 0.2 D = 4
TR = 0.01; VI min = −0.3; VI max = 0.2
TC = 0; TB = 0; KA = 60
TA = 0.002 s; VR max = 5; VR min = −5
Exciter type EXST1 data
KC = 0; KF = 0.03; TF (> 0) = 1
Efd max = 7.3 pu, Efd min = −7.3 pu
Ke = 1, Te = 0, Kf = 0.00008; Tf = 0.1
Ka = 3.33; Ta = 0.07, beta = 0, Tw = 2,
R, permanent droop = 0.04
r, temporary droop = 0.5 Tr (> 0),
Control parameters for generators
governor time constant = 6, Tf (> 0),
with governor type UYGOV
filter time constant = 0.05, Tg (> 0)
Servo time constant = 0.5 At,
Turbine gain = 1.2, Dturb, tubine damping = 0.3
Transformer XT = 0.1 pu; XtE = 0.1 pu; XBV = 0.1 pu
Transmission line XL = 1 pu
Operating condition P = 0.8 pu; Vt = 1 pu; Vb = 1 pu

Existing Generator data of Tana Beles.

Sn P Pmin Pmax Qmin Qmin

No. Name V (kV)
(MVA) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MVAR) (MVAR)
1 Beles G1 133 15 80 0 115 −130 130
2 Beles G2 133 15 100 0 115 −130 130
3 Beles G3 133 15 90 0 115 −130 130
4 Beles G4 133 15 100 0 115 −130 130

Load buses: Beles 400 KV, Pd = 20 MW, Qd = 6.3 Mvar

Bahirdar 230 KV, Pd = 65.53 MW, Qd = 30.76 Mvar
Energies 2022, 15, 3809 29 of 29

Transmission line parameters in pu from Tana Beles 400 kV to Bahir Dar.

No. From Bus To Bus R (pu) X (pu) B (pu) KA Km

1 Tana Beles 400 Bahir Dar 400 0.000958 0.012159 0.37713 1341 65

Transformer parameters

Voltage (kV) Rating (MVA) R (%) X (%) X/R Ratio

400/230 133 0.176 12.045 68.44
400/15 133 0.215 13.5 62.79

References
1. Grebe, E.; Kabouris, J.; Barba, S.L.; Sattinger, W.; Winter, W. Low frequency oscillations in the interconnected system of Continental
Europe. In Proceedings of the IEEE PES General Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 25–29 July 2010; pp. 1–7.
2. Al-Hinai, A.S.; Al-Hinai, S.M. Dynamic stability enhancement using particle swarm optimization power system stabilizer. In
Proceedings of the 2009 2nd International Conference on Adaptive Science & Technology (ICAST), Accra, Ghana, 14–16 January
2009; pp. 117–119. [CrossRef]
3. Datta, S.; Roy, A.K. Fuzzy logic based STATCOM controller for enhancement of power system dynamic stability. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Electrical & Computer Engineering (ICECE 2010), Dhaka, Bangladesh, 18–20 December 2010;
pp. 294–297. [CrossRef]
4. Rout, K.C.; Panda, P.C. An adaptive fuzzy logic based power system stabilizer for enhancement of power system stability.
In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Industrial Electronics, Control and Robotics, Rourkela, India, 27–29
December 2010; pp. 175–179. [CrossRef]
5. Haghshenas, M.; Hajibabaee, M.; Ebadian, M. Controller Design of STATCOM Using Modified Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm
for Damping of Power System Low Frequency Oscillations. Int. J. Mechatron. Electr. Comput. Technol. 2016, 6, 2786–2799.
6. Luo, J.; Bu, S.; Teng, F. An optimal modal coordination strategy based on modal superposition theory to mitigate low frequency
oscillation in FCWG penetrated power systems. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2020, 120, 105975. [CrossRef]
7. Sengupta, A.; Das, D.K. Mitigating inter-area oscillation of an interconnected power system considering time-varying delay and
actuator saturation. Sustain. Energy Grids Netw. 2021, 27, 100484. [CrossRef]
8. Rahman, M.; Ahmed, A.; Galib, M.H.; Moniruzzaman. Optimal damping for generalized unified power flow controller equipped
single machine infinite bus system for addressing low frequency oscillation. ISA Trans. 2021, 116, 97–112. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Trevisan, A.S.; Fecteau, M.; Mendonça, Â.; Gagnon, R.; Mahseredjian, J. Analysis of low frequency interactions of DFIG wind
turbine systems in series compensated grids. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2021, 191, 106845. [CrossRef]
10. Darabian, M.; Bagheri, A. Design of adaptive wide-area damping controller based on delay scheduling for improving small-signal
oscillations. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2021, 133, 107224. [CrossRef]
11. Mirjalili, S. The Ant Lion Optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2015, 83, 80–98. [CrossRef]
12. Thu, W.M.; Lin, K.M. Mitigation of Low Frequency Oscillations by Optimal Allocation of Power System Stabilizers: Case Study
on MEPE Test System. Energy Power Eng. 2018, 10, 333–350. [CrossRef]
13. Khodabakhshian, A.; Hooshmand, R.; Sharifian, R. Power system stability enhancement by designing PSS and SVC parameters
coordinately using RCGA. In Proceedings of the 2009 Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, St. John’s,
NL, Canada, 3–6 May 2009; pp. 579–582. [CrossRef]
14. Bomfim, A.D.; Taranto, G.; Falcao, D. Simultaneous tuning of power system damping controllers using genetic algorithms. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 2000, 15, 163–169. [CrossRef]
15. Shahriar, M.S.; Shafiullah; Rana, J.; Ali, A.; Ahmed, A.; Rahman, S.M. Neurogenetic approach for real-time damping of low-
frequency oscillations in electric networks. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2020, 83, 106600. [CrossRef]
16. Ajami, A.; Armaghan, M. Application of multi-objective gravitational search algorithm (GSA) for power system stability
enhancement by means of STATCOM. Int. Rev. Electr. Eng. 2012, 7, 4954–4962.
17. Hassan, L.H.; Moghavvemi, M.; Almurib, H.A.; Muttaqi, K.M. A coordinated design of PSSs and UPFC-based stabilizer using
genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2014, 50, 2957–2966. [CrossRef]
18. Abdel-Magid, Y.L.; Abido, M.A. Optimal Multi objective Design of Robust Power System Stabilizers Using Genetic Algorithms.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2003, 18, 1125–1132. [CrossRef]