ArticleScientific reports2025
Automatic generation control optimization for power system resilience under real world load variations using genetic algorithm.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern power systems must be resilient to sudden load variations in order to keep the system stable. For Automatic Generation Control (AGC), single load change is impractical and need further analysis. This study comprehensively explore the performance of AGC in a two-area interconnected power system, focusing on a wide range load variations that can exists in realistic power systems consisting from 100 to 300 MW in both increments and decrements. The performance of three control strategies-Conventional AGC (CAGC), Tie-Line Bias (TLB) Control, and Genetic Algorithm-Optimized PID (GA-PID)-is assessed across 12 distinct cases, each tested under these three scenarios. A total of 360 tests are conducted, with performance measured by key metrics, including overshoot, undershoot, settling time, and steady-state accuracy for both areas. The results demonstrate that GA-PID consistently outperforms CAGC and TLB in minimizing transient deviations, ensuring faster stabilization, and maintaining steady-state accuracy. For load increases, GA-PID reduces overshoot by up to 90% and eliminates undershoot in several cases. In comparison, CAGC and TLB show notable weaknesses when dealing with larger disturbances, such as extended oscillations and bigger deviations. The results highlight how effective GA-PID is as a strong and flexible control method, which is crucial for today's power systems that need to manage unpredictable changes in load.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.