Load Frequency Active Disturbance Rejection Control Based on Improved Particle Swarm Optimization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper aims to propose an improved Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm based on Levy flight and chaos mapping. The algorithm is introduced to optimize the active disturbance rejection control parameters. Theoretical developments, supported by simulation results, are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed control approach.

However, there are a couple of items that need to be addressed. Also, more numerical validations and results, including a comparative study between the proposed method and the existing approaches need to be added

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

There are several grammatical and syntax errors in the current manuscript version. The authors are inverted to proofread the manuscript and improve the quality of the English language

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1)     Please provide abbreviation of PVG, WTG,

2)     No power directional arrow shall be shown in Figure 1. The secondary of the transformer shall be shown to show the power grid.

3)     The operating principle of a photovoltaic power generator is not properly explained. The authors might briefly describe the function of each of the system's components on Figure 1.

4)     In equation (2), what are the parameters Δ_Ppv and Δ_ref elements referring to?

5)     In equation (8), the parameter T_t is not defined.

6)     Page 12-13, On figure 7: On Figure 7(a)-7(c), the authors displayed two-set of plots (right and left side): Add have titles/captions. Explain the meaning of x, y, and z in the 3D plots.

7)     Figures 11(a), 11(b), and 11(c) should include the results of the three compared algorithms. This would allow for a better assessment of the effectiveness of each of them.

8)     Additionally, the peaks in frequency deviations with LADRC optimized by improved PSO are significant during load disturbance events. This could be quite dangerous and even unacceptable for a real electrical grid, for which frequency variations should not exceed the limit imposed by the standard. Please provide a justification/explanation.

Language proof reading shall be performed.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has technical potential, however it is badly presented, with poor Abstract, Introduction and overall sections.

The Figures have, in general, poor quality. Figure 1 is wrong: the representation of a PV array is not like that. The power grid is represented with the symbol of a transformer.

Literature review must be careful made. I have serious concerns about the sentence "these methods are not suitable for engineering practice because of the complex structure and excessive information required". First, there is no citation for that. Second, complexity depends on what you can have and on what you want. Such a sentence is not suitable for a paper.

The same happens with "conventional PID control can no longer meet the existing control requirements". This is obviously wrong since modern wind generation systems are being implemented right now with PIDs and its derivations.

The Wind Power and Hydropower system models are weak.

Section 4 has strong technical points, however must be highly improved.

Concerning Section 5, I would recommend also a comparison with other benchmark system, specially with some that has stability issues. 

Conclusion must be highly improved.

The used English is weak, but I'd say that this is not the main problem. Formatting is a giant issue that must be improved. It seems that the authors didn't review the paper before submitting. Wrong citations, lack of spaces between words, use of future, capital letters where it's not the case, etc, etc, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors to have addressed my concerns.

The manuscript has been proofread, and the use of the English language has been improved

Author Response

非常感谢您对文章提出的意见和建议。我们非常同意您的观点，并请熟悉英语写作的同事对文章进行更正和修改。另外，我们根据要求对文章进行了格式化，并适当添加了一些必要的数据。

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is improved, congrats. It is clear that you worked hard in its improvement. Well done.

Now, it seems that it is technically ok, however improvements in formatting are still important to be performed.

Please revise carefully the formatting of paper. Figures that are not readible, badly presented fluxograms, some equations too, etc.

Now it has improved substantially.

Author Response

非常感谢您对文章提出的意见和建议。我们非常同意您的观点，并请熟悉英语写作的同事对文章进行更正和修改。另外，我们根据要求对文章进行了格式化，并适当添加了一些必要的数据。最后，我们还对文章的结论进行了必要的修改。