Bacteria foraging optimisation algorithm based optimal control for doubly‐fed induction generator wind energy system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, an optimisation method, based on bacteria foraging, is investigated to tune the parameters of the proportional–integral (PI) controllers in a doubly‐fed induction generator (DFIG) wind energy system connected to the grid. The generator is connected to the grid directly at the stator and through the back‐to‐back converter at the rotor. The control system includes PI controllers, at the rotor side, to regulate the rotor currents and PI controller to regulate the dc‐link voltage for efficient power transfer. The control parameters, of three PI controllers, are optimised offline using the bacteria foraging optimisation algorithm and a modelled DFIG wind energy system. Various performance criteria, based on the tracking errors, are used to assess the efficiency of the optimisation method. Furthermore, the conventional tuning method and genetic algorithm optimisation method are conducted and compared to the bacteria foraging optimisation method to demonstrate its advantages. The optimised control parameters are evaluated on a DFIG wind energy experimental setup. Experimental and simulation results are provided to validate the effectiveness of each optimisation method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".