Dynamic response and low voltage ride-through enhancement of brushless double-fed induction generator using Salp swarm optimization algorithm

Ahsanullah Memon; Mohd Wazir Bin Mustafa; Waqas Anjum; Ahsan Ahmed; Shafi Ullah; Saleh Masoud Abdallah Altbawi; Touqeer Ahmed Jumani; Ilyas Khan; Nawaf N. Hamadneh

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265611

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 10, 2021
16 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Wei Yao, Editor PONE-D-21-35834Dynamic Response and Low Voltage Ride-Through Enhancement of Brushless Double-Fed Induction Generator Using Salp Swarm Optimization AlgorithmPLOS ONE Dear Dr. MEMON, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 30 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Wei Yao, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Comment 1: Why not directly adopt some advanced nonlinear controllers, but adopt the method of selecting optimizing PI parameters to improve its dynamic performance? The simulation results can be compared with some nonlinear controllers to show the superiority of the proposed control strategy. Comment 2: The reviewer think the sentence “Despite the mentioned advantages, the investigation regarding its low voltage ride through (LVRT) is yet explicitly unattended” in the abstract is arbitrary and suggest a revision. Comment 3: Note that the format includes paragraphs, references, etc., and some figures are unclear or deformed, such as Fig. 2 and Fig. 5. Comment 4: How to get the "8kw" in the following paragraph of Fig. 14? Comment 5: Future study should be added in Conclusion. Reviewer #2: 1. Authors employ meta-heuristic algorithms to optimally tune PI gains of DFIG, such optimization idea and framework is a very typical optimization procedure, however, authors ignored the previous related work, hence, Introduction should be carefully rewritten to cover these important works: (a) Grouped grey wolf optimizer for maximum power point tracking of doubly-fed induction generator based wind turbine, Energy Conversion and Management.2017. (b) Democratic joint operations algorithm for optimal power extraction of PMSG based wind energy conversion system, Energy Conversion and Management. 2018. (c) Energy reshaping based passive fractional-order PID control design and implementation of a grid-connected PV inverter for MPPT using grouped grey wolf optimizer, Solar Energy, 2018. and (d) Adaptive fractional-order PID control of PMSG based wind energy conversion system for MPPT using linear observers, International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems. 2019. 2. In case studies, more typical meta-heuristic algorithms should be compared with SSA to show its effectiveness and advantages; 3. SSA and PSO parameters should be provided; 4. Simulation environment should be given, e.g., solver type, sampling size, etc.; 5. Other advanced modification of SSA should be reviewed in Introduction, as SSA recently gains a number of interests, authors must address its applications carefully, see: Novel bio-inspired memetic salp swarm algorithm and application to MPPT for PV systems considering partial shading condition, Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019. 6. Section 2 should be significantly reduced as the presented knowledge is well-known, only provide the core contents; 7. In case studies, controller output curve should also be provided; 8. Future studies should be provided. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265611.r001
Revision 1
17 Jan 2022 Author Response Dynamic Response and Low Voltage Ride-Through Enhancement of Brushless Double-Fed Induction Generator Using Salp Swarm Optimization Algorithm We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. Below we respond to the comments of each reviewer in detail. We are also providing a revised manuscript that reflects their suggestions and comments. We feel that this has resulted in a stronger manuscript. Round-01 Response to Reviewer-1 Reviewer-1, Comment -1 Why not directly adopt some advanced nonlinear controllers, but adopt the method of selecting optimizing PI parameters to improve its dynamic performance? The simulation results can be compared with some nonlinear controllers to show the superiority of the proposed control strategy. Authors’ Response/Clarification Thank you for this comment. Considering the robust nature and simplicity in modeling and working mechanism, the authors have utilized the PI controller instead of a non-linear controller which is generally complex in design and comparatively sensitive to parameter variations than the PI controller. The major disadvantage of the PI controller which directly impacts the dynamic response of the system is the difficulty in its parameter selection. This research dealt with the mentioned disadvantage of PI controller by optimizing its gains automatically through a swarm intelligence-based metaheuristic technique called salp swarm optimization algorithm. Since the current is more leaned towards the optimization of the PI controller and its impact on the dynamic response of the system so we couldn’t had focused our attention towards the non-linear controllers, nevertheless, owing to this very interesting aspect of the study as mentioned by the reviewer, we have added it in our future recommendations for the researchers to explore it in greater details. Reviewer-1, Comment -2 The reviewer think the sentence “Despite the mentioned advantages, the investigation regarding its low voltage ride through (LVRT) is yet explicitly unattended” in the abstract is arbitrary and suggest a revision Authors’ Response The authors completely agree with the viewpoint of the reviewer and have removed this sentence in the revised version of the manuscript. Reviewer-1, Comment -3 Note that the format includes paragraphs, references, etc., and some figures are unclear or deformed, such as Fig. 2 and Fig. 5. Authors’ Response/Clarification Thank you for this comment. All the figures have been thoroughly checked to improve their quality as suggested. Reviewer-1, Comment -4 How to get the "8kw" in the following paragraph of Fig. 14? Authors’ Response/Clarification Thank you for highlighting this mistake. This typo error has been rectified in the revised version of the manuscript. Reviewer-1, Comment -5 Future study should be added in Conclusion. Authors’ Response/Clarification Thank you for this important suggestion. The following recommendations have been added in the revised version of the manuscript as suggested. “The current study has explored the effect of the optimized PI controller with symmetrical faults on the dynamic response of the system. The same optimization method can be explored for asymmetrical faults with different converter compositions. In addition, the nonlinear controllers may be explored and compared with the optimized PI controllers under identical operating conditions and system configurations to suggest the most efficient and suitable controller for the BDFIG based wind turbines”. Round-01 Response to Reviewer-02 Reviewer-2, Comment -1 Authors employ meta-heuristic algorithms to optimally tune PI gains of DFIG, such optimization idea and framework is a very typical optimization procedure, however, authors ignored the previous related work, hence, Introduction should be carefully rewritten to cover these important works: (a) Grouped grey wolf optimizer for maximum power point tracking of doubly-fed induction generator based wind turbine, Energy Conversion and Management.2017. (b) Democratic joint operations algorithm for optimal power extraction of PMSG based wind energy conversion system, Energy Conversion and Management. 2018. (c) Energy reshaping based passive fractional-order PID control design and implementation of a grid-connected PV inverter for MPPT using grouped grey wolf optimizer, Solar Energy, 2018. and (d) Adaptive fractional-order PID control of PMSG based wind energy conversion system for MPPT using linear observers, International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems. 2019. Authors’ Response/Clarification Thank you for this comment. The authors have thoroughly studied these research works and found them very relevant to the current study. Hence all the mentioned studies have been duly added and discussed in the literature review section of the article. Reviewer-2, Comment -2 In case of studies, more typical meta-heuristic algorithms should be compared with SSA to show its effectiveness and advantages; Authors’ Response/Clarification Thank you for this comment. We had compared our results with one of the well-known metaheuristic algorithms called PSO. Since all the metaheuristic algorithms initiate their searching mechanism by generating random numbers, therefore they must be run multiple times to achieve their statistical evaluation. Thus, adding results of other algorithms along with their statistical analysis and comparing them with SSA would add complexity in terms of results interpretation and would also increase the simulation time, paper length, and less important details which may divert the core essence of the article. That’s the reason, the authors have stuck to the major goal of this study which is to explore the intelligence of SSA in achieving an optimal set of PI parameters for enhancing dynamic response and LVRT capability of the BDFIG based wind turbines which is duly achieved as evident from the outcomes of the study. Reviewer-2, Comment -3 SSA and PSO parameters should be provided; Authors’ Response/Clarification Thank you for this comment. The utilized parameters for the PSO and SSA are added in tabular form (Table 1) in the revised version of the manuscript as suggested. Reviewer-2, Comment -4 Simulation environment should be given, e.g., solver type, sampling size, etc.; Authors’ Response/Clarification Thank you for this comment. The “Discrete Tustin/Backward Euler (TBE)” solver is used for simulating the proposed BDFIG based wind turbine model with a sampling time of 50 µs. This information regarding the solver has been added and highlighted in the revised version of the manuscript as suggested. Reviewer-2, Comment -5 Other advanced modifications of SSA should be reviewed in the Introduction, as SSA recently gains a number of interests, authors must address its applications carefully, see: Novel bio-inspired memetic salp swarm algorithm and application to MPPT for PV systems considering partial shading condition, Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019. Authors’ Response/Clarification We gladly take this suggestion. The mentioned study is very relevant to the current research work and hence added in the revised version of the manuscript as suggested. Reviewer-2, Comment -6 Section 2 should be significantly reduced as the presented knowledge is well-known, only provide the core contents; Authors’ Response/Clarification We gladly take this suggestion. The mentioned Section has been reduced accordingly. Reviewer-2, Comment -7 In case studies, controller output curve should also be provided; Authors’ Response/Clarification Thank you for this comment. The controller output in the current study is controlled pulses used to trigger the inverter. Since these pulses have been found meaningless thus their interpretation in the text would not be possible, therefore, the authors have not added them in the article. Reviewer-2, Comment -8 Future studies should be provided Authors’ Response/Clarification Thank you for this important suggestion. The following recommendations have been added in the revised version of the manuscript as suggested. “The current study has explored the effect of the optimized PI controller with symmetrical faults on the dynamic response of the system. The same optimization method can be explored for asymmetrical faults with different converter compositions. In addition, the nonlinear controllers may be explored and compared with the optimized PI controllers under identical operating conditions and system configurations to suggest the most efficient and suitable controller for the BDFIG based wind turbines. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLAS ONE reviewres comments(1).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265611.r002
7 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Wei Yao, Editor Dynamic Response and Low Voltage Ride-Through Enhancement of Brushless Double-Fed Induction Generator Using Salp Swarm Optimization Algorithm PONE-D-21-35834R1 Dear Dr. MEMON, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Wei Yao, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265611.r003
Formally Accepted
20 Apr 2022 Acceptance Letter - Wei Yao, Editor PONE-D-21-35834R1 Dynamic Response and Low Voltage Ride-Through Enhancement of Brushless Double-Fed Induction Generator Using Salp Swarm Optimization Algorithm. Dear Dr. Memon: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Wei Yao Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265611.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .