Optimization of power management in PV-based smart grids using grid-support and grid-forming inverters

Amam Hossain Bagdadee; Ishtiak Al Mamoon; Deshinta Arrova Dewi; A. K. M. Muzahidul Islam; Li Zhang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0338191

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 4, 2025
14 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Zhengmao Li, Editor Dear Dr. Bagdadee, 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 Oct 29 2025 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. 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, Zhengmao Li 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. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. 4. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Ishtiak Al Mamoon, Deshinta Arrova Dewi, A.K.M. Muzahidul Islam, and Li Zhang. 5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. Additional Editor Comments: major revision [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? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: This manuscript addresses power management in PV-based smart grids, with a particular focus on optimization strategies for grid-support and grid-forming inverters. Overall, the topic is relevant, the manuscript is well-structured, and the simulations are reasonably comprehensive. However, there are several areas that require improvement, particularly regarding the literature review, articulation of novelty, model justification, and clarity of presentation. My detailed comments are provided below. 1. The literature review is somewhat outdated, with most references from 2020-2022. More recent works from 2023-2025, particularly on Virtual Synchronous Generators, AI-driven control, and distributed storage optimization, should be included to enhance the relevance of the study. 2. It is recommended that the authors expand the introduction to include a discussion of PV output modeling approaches, particularly uncertainty modeling techniques such as stochastic programming, scenario-based methods, and Conditional Value-at-Risk. This would help better align the proposed work with mainstream methodologies and clarify its background, novelty, and applicability. Such as “A Distributed Market-Aided Restoration Approach of Multi-Energy Distribution Systems Considering Comprehensive Uncertainties from Typhoon Disaster.” and “Risk-averse stochastic capacity planning and P2P trading collaborative optimization for multi-energy microgrids considering carbon emission limitations: An asymmetric Nash bargaining approach.” 3. The optimization objective function mainly considers losses, storage costs, and voltage deviation. Frequency stability, battery lifetime, and economic trade-offs are overlooked. A more comprehensive objective function or sensitivity analysis would strengthen the study. 4. The simulations cover grid-connected and islanded modes but remain too idealized. More realistic stress tests, such as prolonged irradiance drops or large-scale load variations, should be added to demonstrate robustness. 5. The parameter values in Table 1 (e.g., battery capacity, inverter rating) lack justification. The authors should clarify whether these values are based on real-world systems, previous literature, or assumptions. 6. Some figures (e.g., Figures 9-12) have overlapping curves with insufficient labeling, reducing readability. The authors should improve figure clarity, enhance legends, and provide more detailed explanations of key phenomena. 7. The limitations section is rather superficial, mainly addressing storage size and computational complexity. It should also discuss communication delays, coordination challenges, and practical issues in scaling up to large smart grids. Reviewer #2: This study focuses on the optimization of power management based on grid-support and grid-forming inverters in PV-based smart grids, proposes control strategies, and verifies them through simulations. However, it has issues such as insufficient theoretical depth and weak experimental support, and the overall innovation and rigor need to be improved. 1. The introduction does not clearly elaborate on the specific defects of existing research in power management under high PV penetration, and the comparative analysis with the strategies proposed in this paper is lacking, making it impossible to highlight the necessity of the research. 2. In the system architecture, the specific control logic of the Energy Management System (EMS) is not described in detail, such as how to achieve real-time coordination of PV, energy storage, and inverters, and the basis for setting key parameters is unclear. 3. In the configuration of grid-support inverters in Section 3.1, the symbol expression in Equation (2) is confusing, the expression "demerit reactive power" is ambiguous, and the specific correlation mechanism between reactive power calculation and voltage control is not clarified. 4. There is an obvious error in Equation (4) for grid-forming inverters in Section 3.2. The calculation of active power involves repeated multiplication of current terms; the correct calculation should be the product of voltage, current, and power factor. This error affects the accuracy of subsequent power analysis. 5. For the objective function (Equation 6) in the problem formulation, the specific mathematical expressions and parameter values of each cost term (Closs, Cstorage, etc.) are not clearly defined, making it impossible to verify the rationality of cost optimization. 6. The simulation environment only uses MATLAB/Simulink, and the key details of model construction (such as the specific simulation models of PV modules and energy storage systems) are not explained. Moreover, there is no comparison with actual hardware experimental data, leading to doubts about the credibility of the results. 7. In Case Study 1, the power unit is not labeled in Figure 9, and the specific data sources of PV output and load changes within 24 hours are not explained, making it impossible to judge the rationality of the simulation scenario settings. 8. The discussion section only generally mentions the advantages of the control strategy, without analyzing the adaptability of the strategy under extreme weather conditions (such as continuous rainy weather) or discussing the impact of delay issues in coordinated control between inverters on system stability. 9. The discussion on the cost and capacity optimization of energy storage systems in the limitations section is too general, and no specific cost range or capacity calculation method is provided, failing to provide a clear direction for subsequent research. ****** 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.0338191.r001
Revision 1
26 Sep 2025 Author Response Response to Reviewer #1 We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive comments and insightful suggestions that have helped us improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully revised the paper in light of the provided feedback. Below, we provide a point-by-point response. 1. Literature Review (Outdated References) Response: We agree with the reviewer that including more recent studies will enhance the relevance of our work. Accordingly, we have updated the literature review by incorporating recent works from 2023–2025, with a particular focus on Virtual Synchronous Generators (VSGs), AI-driven control strategies, and distributed storage optimization. These updates provide a more comprehensive context for our research contributions. 2. Introduction and PV Output Modeling Approaches Response: We have expanded the introduction to include a discussion of uncertainty modeling approaches for PV output, including stochastic programming, scenario-based techniques, and Conditional Value-at-Risk . We also referenced the suggested studies (A Distributed Market-Aided Restoration Approach of Multi-Energy Distribution Systems Considering Comprehensive Uncertainties from Typhoon Disaster and Risk-averse stochastic capacity planning and P2P trading collaborative optimization for multi-energy microgrids considering carbon emission limitations: An asymmetric Nash bargaining approach` ) to strengthen the background and clarify the novelty of our approach compared to mainstream methodologies. 3. Optimization Objective Function (Broader Scope) Response: We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern and have revised the optimization objective function discussion to include considerations of frequency stability, battery lifetime, and economic trade-offs. Additionally, we have added a sensitivity analysis in Section 7 to illustrate the impact of these factors on system performance. This provides a more holistic view of the optimization strategy. 4. Simulations and Stress Tests Response: We appreciate this valuable suggestion. We have extended the simulations to include more realistic stress scenarios, such as prolonged irradiance drops and significant load variations, to demonstrate better the robustness of the proposed control strategies under challenging operating conditions. 5. Parameter Justification (Table 1) Response: We agree that parameter justification is necessary for transparency. We have revised the manuscript to clarify that the parameter values in Table 1 are derived from a combination of industry-standard specifications, established literature, and reasonable assumptions for research simulations. 6. Figure Readability and Explanations Response: Thank you for pointing out the clarity issues. We have revised Figures 9–12 to improve labelling, separate overlapping curves, and enhance legends for better readability. Additionally, we have expanded the figure captions and added detailed explanations in the text to highlight the key phenomena being illustrated. 7. Limitations Section (Expanded) Response: We acknowledge that the original limitations section was insufficiently comprehensive. We have now expanded it to include discussions on communication delays, coordination challenges in multi-inverter systems, and practical issues related to scaling up to large smart grids. These additions strengthen the realism and balance of the study. Response to Reviewer #2 We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive comments and valuable suggestions that have helped us identify key areas for improvement in our manuscript. We have carefully revised the paper and addressed each point as follows: 1. Introduction (Defects of Existing Research and Comparative Analysis) Response: We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern and have expanded the introduction to clearly elaborate on the shortcomings of existing research under high PV penetration, such as challenges in stability, coordination, and optimization. We now include a comparative analysis showing how the proposed strategies—particularly the combination of grid-support and grid-forming inverters with real-time power management—overcome these gaps. This addition strengthens the necessity and positioning of our research. 2. System Architecture and EMS Logic Response: We have revised Section 3.3 to provide a more detailed description of the Energy Management System (EMS), including its control logic for real-time coordination of PV generation, storage, and inverters. Flowcharts and additional explanations have been added to clarify how the EMS sets parameters dynamically and responds to fluctuations. The basis for key parameter selection has also been explained with supporting references. 3. Grid-Support Inverter Configuration (Equation 2 and Terminology) Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the ambiguity. Equation (2) has been revised for clarity, and the term “demerit reactive power” has been corrected to “compensated reactive power.” We also clarified the correlation mechanism between reactive power and voltage regulation, showing how reactive power injection/absorption influences voltage stability. 4. Equation (4) Correction (Grid-Forming Inverter) Response: We apologize for the error. Equation (4) has been corrected to properly define active power as the product of voltage, current, and power factor. The revised equation now ensures accuracy in subsequent analyses, and the affected parts of Section 3.2 have been updated accordingly. 5. Objective Function (Equation 6) Definitions Response: We agree that the objective function lacked clarity. The mathematical definitions and parameter descriptions of all cost terms ( Closs, Cstorage, Cvoltage) have now been explicitly included. 6. Simulation Environment (Model Details and Experimental Validation) Response: We have revised Section 6.1. to include detailed descriptions of the MATLAB/Simulink models used for PV modules, storage systems, and inverters, with appropriate references. While full-scale hardware testing is beyond the current scope, we have now included comparisons with benchmark results from existing experimental studies to increase credibility. Additionally, we discuss in the limitations that future work will involve hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) validation. 7. Case Study 1 (Figure 9 and Data Sources) Response: We have corrected Figure 9 by adding power units (kW). 8. Discussion Section (Extreme Conditions and Delay Impacts) Response: We have expanded the discussion to analyze the adaptability of the strategy under extreme weather conditions, including prolonged rainy/cloudy periods. We also included a discussion of the impact of inverter coordination delays on system stability and how robust control strategies and improved communication protocols may mitigate these effects. 9. Limitations (Cost and Capacity Optimization of Storage) Response: We appreciate this suggestion. The limitations section has been expanded to provide specific cost ranges (based on current Li-ion battery technology) and capacity sizing methodologies derived from optimization studies. This provides clearer guidance for future research directions in cost-effective and scalable energy storage integration. In summary, we have addressed the reviewer’s concerns by revising the introduction, correcting mathematical expressions, clarifying system logic, detailing model assumptions, improving simulation scenario explanations, and expanding the discussion and limitations with more depth and specificity. These revisions substantially improve the rigor, clarity, and novelty of the manuscript. Sincerely, Corresponding Author Dr. Amam Hossain Bagdadee Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Postdoc-plos one Reviewer Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338191.r002
20 Nov 2025 Decision Letter - Qinglin Meng, Editor Optimization of Power Management in PV-Based Smart Grids Using Grid-Support and Grid-Forming Inverters PONE-D-25-46006R1 Dear Dr. Bagdadee, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . 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, Qinglin Meng, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The manuscript has been revised based on the review comments and the responses are convincing. Therefore, the manuscript maybe considered for publication in it's present form. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> 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 Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The author provided a satisfactory reply to my feedback, and based on that, they made thorough revisions to the 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.0338191.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Qinglin Meng, Editor PONE-D-25-46006R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Bagdadee, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@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 Prof. Qinglin Meng Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338191.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 .