An Improved Marine Predators Algorithm-Tuned Fractional-Order PID Controller for Automatic Voltage Regulator System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, an optimization method for tuning the fractional-order PID controller of the automatic voltage regulator based on MP-SEDA is proposed. My review opinions are as follow:

1. The authors should better demonstrate the contributions and motivations of the proposed control scheme. Some in-depth survey and comparison should be added in Introduction prat. 

2. What are the difficulties for proposed method？

3. A Remark should be added to explain the advantages of fractional-order PID controllers over integer-order PID controllers. In addition, the references should be enriched on fractional order, especially by some of the newest relevant work, such as adaptive fuzzy consensus tracking control for uncertain fractional-order multiagent systems with event-triggered input,event-based distributed adaptive fuzzy consensus for nonlinear fractional-order multiagent systems.

4. Please discuss the parameter values you select in simulation part.

5. Explaining the feasibility of the control approach from the implementation and computational points of views.

6. There are some typos and grammatical errors. The authors should check carefully and correct seriously.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This research work presents a variant of the marine predators algorithm (MPA) for tuning the FOPID controller of the AVR system. Here, two modifications are applied on the existing MPA: the hybridization between MPA and the safe experimentation dynamics algorithm (SEDA) in the updating mechanism to solve the local optima issue, and the introduction of tunable CF to improve the searching capability. Additionally, statistical analysis reveals that the proposed MP-SEDA-FOPID controller provides superior results for mean, best and worst values compared to the existing MPA-FOPID controller.

Although the simulation results of the research work show high control accuracy, and lower performance index values such as overshoot, rise time, settling time and steady-state error compared with different algorithms, from my opinion, this manuscript is not acceptable in the present form. The following major observations must be considered before publication:

1)     I strongly suggest to rewrite the Abstract Section. The authors used long sentences which is difficult for the reader to follow them. Here, you can find an example of the Abstract: “This research work presents a variant of the marine predators algorithm (MPA) for tuning the FOPID controller of the AVR system. Here, two modifications are applied on the existing MPA: the hybridization between MPA and the safe experimentation dynamics algorithm (SEDA) in the updating mechanism to solve the local optima issue, and the introduction of tunable CF to improve the searching capability…”

2)     In the Abstract Section, the authors mention that the AVR system shows a better performance under the proposed MPA for tuning the FOPID controller. The Reviewer recommend to specify how much it is increased compared with other existing MPA-FOPID controllers; for example: “The MP is… times compared with… .”

3)     Additionally, the Reviewer suggest to avoid acronyms in the Abstract, otherwise, all the acronyms must be described.

4)     In the Introduction Section, the authors present literature research. The Reviewer suggest to rewrite this Section. Table 1 can be removed, and this information can be included in the paragraph.

5)     Please write the sentences in the present form.

6)     For research articles, please avoid phrases such as “Last but not least…”.

7)     Please increase the quality of the figures. Additionally, homogenize how to present the content, for example, authors present a figure with title while the others do not have.

8)     Redundant information is encountered along the manuscript. For example, Fig. 5 is not necessary, additionally, in Result and discussion Section, Fig. 11-14 are not required because Table 9 summarizes the plots.

9)     In the Result and discussion Section, Fig. 16 and Fig. 22 are necessary to be presented in other plot? This because Fig. 17 contains the reference and Fig. 22 can be only described.

10)  The Reviewer can see the improvement in tracking under the modifications applied to the existing MPA, but also the manipulation must be analyzed.

11)  For the Conclusion Section, please work again on this. The Reviewer strongly recommend to present the main results.

 

Finally, I suggest that a native English person reviews your manuscript, grammatical errors are encountered along the work.

Finally, I suggest that a native English person reviews your manuscript, grammatical errors are encountered along the work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript is very interesting and comprehensive. However, there are some points to be clarified. My comment are listed in the attachment.

Kind Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Quality of the language is fine. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I do not have any further remarks or questions. 

Kind Regards