IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 25, NO.

4, NOVEMBER 2010

1955

Hybrid Differential Evolution With BiogeographyBased Optimization for Solution of Economic Load Dispatch
Aniruddha Bhattacharya, Member, IEEE, and Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
AbstractThis paper presents a hybrid technique combining differential evolution with biogeography-based optimization (DE/BBO) algorithm to solve both convex and nonconvex economic load dispatch (ELD) problems of thermal power units considering transmission losses, and constraints such as ramp rate limits, valve-point loading and prohibited operating zones. Differential evolution (DE) is one of the very fast and robust evolutionary algorithms for global optimization. Biogeography-based optimization (BBO) is a relatively new optimization. Mathematical models of biogeography describe how a species arises, migrates from one habitat (Island) to another, or gets extinct. This algorithm searches for the global optimum mainly through two steps: migration and mutation. This paper presents combination of DE and BBO (DE/BBO) to improve the quality of solution and convergence speed. DE/BBO improves the searching ability of DE utilizing BBO algorithm effectively and can generate the promising candidate solutions. The effectiveness of the proposed algorithm has been veried on four different test systems, both small and large. Considering the quality of the solution and convergence speed obtained, this method seems to be a promising alternative approach for solving the ELD problems in practical power system. Index TermsBiogeography-based optimization, differential evolution, economic load dispatch, prohibited operating zone, ramp rate limits, valve-point loading.

I. INTRODUCTION

CONOMIC load dispatch (ELD) allocates generation among the committed generating units in the most economical manner subject to different operational constraints. Various investigations on ELD have been undertaken to date as better solutions would result in signicant saving in operating cost. The fuel cost characteristics of modern generating units are highly nonlinear with demand for solution techniques having no restrictions on to the shape of the fuel cost curves. The calculus-based methods [1] fail in solving these types of problems. The dynamic programming approach, proposed by Wood and Wollenberg [2], though does not impose any

Manuscript received November 04, 2009; revised January 06, 2010. First published March 15, 2010; current version published October 20, 2010. This work was supported by the Electrical Engineering Department, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India. Paper no. TPWRS-00862-2009. The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, West Bengal 700 032, India (e-mail: ani_bhatta2004@rediffmail.com; pkchattopadhyay47@hotmail.com). Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TPWRS.2010.2043270

restriction on the nature of the cost curves, but suffers from the curse of dimensionality and larger simulation time. Modern meta-heuristic algorithms are a promising alternative for solution of complex ELD problems. Genetic algorithm [3], articial neural networks [4], simulated annealing [5], tabu search, evolutionary programming [6], particle swarm optimization, [7], ant colony optimization [8], differential evolution (DE) [9], articial immune system (AIS) [10], bacterial foraging algorithm (BFA) [11], etc., that have been developed so far and applied successfully to ELD problems, belong to this class. Although these methods do not always guarantee global best solutions, they often achieve a fast and near global optimal solution. Recently, different hybridization and modication of GA, EP, PSO, methods like IFEP [12], IGAMU, RQEA, DSGA, UHGA, PSOSQP, NPSO-LRS [13], APSO [14], SOH-PSO [15], SA-PSO, ESO, etc. are being proposed for solving ELD in search of better quality and fast solution. DE, invented by Price and Storn in 1995 [16], is a population-based stochastic parallel search evolutionary algorithm for minimizing nonlinear, nondifferentiable, continuous space functions. Differential evolution enriches a population of candidate solutions over several generations using three basic operations, namely, mutation, crossover, and selection operators. DE has been found to yield better and faster solution, satisfying all the constraints, both for uni-modal and multi-modal ELD system, using its different crossover strategies. It has been found that, in DE, initially the solutions move very fast towards the optimal point but at later stages when ne tuning operation is required, DE fails to perform satisfactorily in ELD problems. Many modications on the basic DE algorithm, like differential evolution, in combination with sequential quadratic programming (DEC-SQP), hybrid differential evolution (HDE), variable scaling hybrid differential evolution (VSHDE), self-tuning HDE (STHDE), etc., have been proposed to remedy the situation. Very recently,ba new optimization concept, based on Biogeography, has been proposed by Simon [17]. Biogeography is modeled after the process of natural immigration and emigration of species between islands in search of more friendly habitats. A habitat is any Island (area) that is geographically isolated from other Islands. Migration of some species out of one habitat into another is known as emigration. When some species enters into one habitat from some other habitat, the process is known as immigration. Areas that are well suited as residences for biological species are said to have a high habitat suitability index (HSI). The variables that characterize habitability are called suitability

0885-8950/$26.00 2010 IEEE

1956

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 25, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2010

index variables (SIVs). can be considered as the indecan be calculated pendent variables of the habitat, and using these variables. BBO works on two mechanisms: Migration and Mutation. Optimization technique based on this concept is known as biogeography-based optimization (BBO) [17]. BBO has already proved its effectiveness as a commendable optimization technique. In BBO, poor solutions accept a lot of new features from good ones which helps to improve the quality of those solutions. This is a unique feature of BBO. The superiority of the performance of BBO, compared to other EAs, has already been established in [17][19] (on some benchmark functions). Present authors also have applied BBO successfully for solution of ELD problem [20] and consider it as a more promising approach compared to other already established EAs. In order to exploit the exploration and the exploitation capabilities of DE and BBO, a hybrid technique combining DE with BBO, referred to as DE/BBO, is being proposed for the solution of ELD problems. In this paper, the migration operator of BBO along with mutation, crossover and selection operators of DE have been combined together to effectively utilize the goodness of both DE and BBO to enhance the convergence property and to improve quality of solution. The authors have applied this newly developed algorithm to solve non-convex complex ELD problems. This paper considers four types of non-convex ELD problems. These are 1) ELD with quadratic cost function, prohibited operating zones and Ramp rate limits (ELDPOZRR):-3 Generator System, 2) ELD with quadratic cost function and transmission loss (ELDQCTL):-38 Generator system, 3) ELD with valve-point loading effects and without transmission loss (ELDVPL):-40Generator system, and 4) ELD with combined valve-point loading effects and multifuel options (ELDVPLMF). Section II of the paper provides a brief description and mathematical formulation of different types of ELD problems. The DE and BBO approach are described in Sections III and IV, respectively. Section V describes the proposed DE/BBO algorithm along with a short description of the algorithm used in these test systems. Simulation studies are presented and discussed in Section VI. The conclusion is in Section VII. II. ECONOMIC LOAD DISPATCH PROBLEMS The ELD may be formulated as a nonlinear constrained optimization problem. Both convex and non-convex ELD problems have been considered here. Four different types of ELD problems have been formulated and solved by DE/BBO approach. A. ELDQCTL The objective function of ELD problem may be written as

Real Power Balance Constraint: (2) The transmission loss as may be expressed using B-coefcients

(3) Generator Capacity Constraints: The power generated by each generator shall be within their lower limit and upper limit . So that (4) B. ELDPOZRR The objective function of this type of ELD problem is (1). Here the objective funcsame as mentioned in tion is to be minimized subject to the constraints of (2), (4), and ramp-rate limits as mentioned below. Ramp Rate Limit Constraints: The power generated, , by the th generator in certain interval may not exceed that of by more than a certain amount , the previous interval up-ramp limit and neither may it be less than that of the previous , the down-ramp limit interval by more than some amount of the generator. These give rise to the following constraints. As generation increases (5) As generation decreases (6) and (7) Prohibited Operating Zone: The prohibited operating zones are the range of output power of a generator where the operation causes undue vibration of the turbine shaft. Normally operation is avoided in such regions. Hence mathematically the feasible operating zones of unit can be described as follows:

(8) (1) where is cost function of the th generator, and is usually expressed as a quadratic polynomial; , , and are the cost coefcients of the th generator; is the number of committed is the power output of the th generator. The generators; ELD problem consists in minimizing subject to following constraints. where represents the number of prohibited operating zones of is the upper limit and is the lower limit of the unit . th prohibited operating zone of the th unit. Total number of prohibited operating zone of the th unit is . C. ELDVPL In ELD with Valve point loadings, the objective function is represented by a more complex formula, given as is

BHATTACHARYA AND CHATTOPADHYAY: HYBRID DIFFERENTIAL EVOLUTION

1957

given by

The loading of the dependent generator (i.e., th) can then be found by solving (13) using standard algebraic method. The above equation can be simplied as (14) where (9)

The objective of ELDVPL is to minimize constraints given in (2) and (4) as in is zero. loss is not considered. Here D. ELDVPLMF

of (9) subject to the . Transmission

fuel options For a power system with generators and for each unit, the cost function of the generator with valve-point loading is expressed as

The positive roots of the equation are obtained as where (15)

for fuel option (10) where and are the minimum and maximum power generation limits of the th generator with fuel option , respec, , , , and are the fuel-cost coefcients of tively; generator for fuel option . The objective function is to be minimized subject to the same constraints as mentioned in (2)(4). Calculation for Slack Generator: Let N committed generating units deliver their power output subject to the power balance constraint (2) and the respective capacity constraints (4). Assuming the power loadings of rst (N-1) generators are known, the power level of th generator (called slack generator) is given by (11) The transmission loss is a function of all the generator outputs including the slack generator and it is given by

To satisfy the equality constraint (11), the positive root of (15) is chosen as output of the th generator. If the positive root of quadratic equation violates operation limit constraint of (4) at the initialization process of the algorithm, then Generation value of rst (N-1) generators is reinitialized until the positive root satises the operation limit and other constraints (if any). If the positive root of quadratic equation violates operation limit constraint of (4) at the later stage of the algorithm that means when the modied generation value is obtained after applying necessary steps of the algorithm (which is used for solving ELD problems; as it is DE/BBO in this case), then that modied generation set is discarded and different steps of the algorithm is reapplied on its old value until it satises the operation limit and other constraints (if any). III. DIFFERENTIAL EVOLUTION (DE) Differential evolution (DE) is technically population based Evolutionary Algorithm, capable of handling non-differentiable, nonlinear and multi-modal objective functions. DE generates new offspring by forming a trial vector of each parent individual of the population. The population is improved iteratively, by three basic operators: mutation, crossover, and selection. A brief description of different steps of DE algorithm is given below. A. Initialization

(12) Expanding and rearranging, (10) becomes The population is initialized by randomly generating individuals within the boundary constraints

(16) where function generates random values uniformly in is the size of the population; is the the interval [0, 1]; number of decision variables. and are the lower and upper bound of the th decision variable, respectively.

(13)

1958

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 25, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2010

B. Mutation As a step of generating offspring, the operations of Mutation are applied. Mutation occupies quite an important role in the reproduction cycle. The mutation operation creates muby perturbing a randomly selected vector tant vectors with the difference of two other randomly selected vectors and at the th iteration as per the following equation: (17) , , and are randomly chosen vectors at the th iteraand . , , tion are selected anew for each parent vector. is and known as Scaling factor used to control the amount of perturbation in the mutation process and improve convergence. C. Crossover Crossover represents a typical case of a genes exchange. The trial one inherits genes with some probability. The parent vector is mixed with the mutated vector to create a trial vector, according to the following equation: if otherwise where or (18)

7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20)

for if

to D or

else

end end end for to

Evaluate the offspring if is better than

end end

21) end where is the number of decision variables. is the size of is the th variable of the solution the parent population . . is the offspring. randint(1,D) is a uniformly distributed random integer number between 1 and . Many schemes of creation of a candidate are possible. Here Strategy 1 has been mentioned in the algorithm. More details on different DE schemes can be found in [21] and [22]. IV. BIOGEOGRAPHY-BASED OPTIMIZATION (BBO) Biogeography describes how species migrate from one island to another, how new species arise, and how species become extinct. A habitat is any Island (area) that is geographically isotend to have lated from other Islands. Habitats with a high have a large number of species, while those with a low a small number of species. Habitats with a high have a low species immigration rate because they are already nearly habitats saturated with species. By the same token high have a have a high emigration rate. Habitats with a low high species immigration rate because of their sparse populations. The emigration rate works similarly. Emigration in BBO does not mean that the emigrating island loses a feature. The worst solution is assumed to have the worst features; thus, it has a very low emigration rate and a low chance of sharing its features. The solution that has the best features also has the highest probability of sharing them. This approach is known as biogeography-based optimization [17]. Mathematically the concept of emigration and immigration can be represented by a probabilistic model. Let us consider the that the habitat contains exactly species at . probability changes from time to time as follows:

; . are the th individual of target vector, mutant vector, and trial vector at iteration, respectively. is a randomly chosen index that guarantees that the trial vector gets at least one parameter from the mutant vector even if . is the Crossover constant that controls the diversity of the population and aids the algorithm to escape from local optima. D. Selection Selection procedure is used among the set of trial vector and the updated target vector to choose the best. Selection is realized by comparing the cost function values of target vector and trial vector. Selection operation is performed as per the following equation: if otherwise (19) The pseudo-code of the DE algorithm is shown in Algorithm 1. Algorithm 1: The DE algorithm with Strategy 1 1) Generate the initial population P 2) Evaluate the tness for each individual in P 3) while the termination criterion is not satised 4) 5) 6) for to

Select uniform randomly (20)

BHATTACHARYA AND CHATTOPADHYAY: HYBRID DIFFERENTIAL EVOLUTION

1959

where and are the immigration and emigration rates when there are species in the habitat. This equation holds because , one of the following in order to have species at time conditions must hold: 1) there were species at time , and no immigration or em; igration occurred between and species at time , one species immi2) there were grated; species at time , one species emigrated. 3) there were is small enough so that the probability of more If time than one immigration or emigration can be ignored then taking gives the following equation: the limit of (19) as

of habitat . With the migration operator, BBO can share the information among solutions. Especially, poor solutions tend to accept more useful information from good solutions. This makes BBO be good at exploiting the information of the current population. Details about the two operators can be found in [17]. V. DE/BBO APPROACH DE has been found to yield better and faster solution, satisfying all the constraints, both for uni-modal and multi-modal system, using its different crossover strategies. But when system complexity and size increases, DE method is unable to map its entire unknown variables together in a better way. Due to presence of crossover operation in Evolutionary based algorithms, many solutions whose tness are initially good, sometimes loose their quality in later stage of the process. In BBO there is no crossover-like operation; solutions get ne tuned gradually as the process goes on through migration operation. This gives an edge to BBO over techniques mentioned above. In a nut shell, DE has good exploration ability in nding the region of global minimum. Similarly, BBO has good exploitation ability in global optimization problem. In order to utilize both the properties of DE and BBO for solution of complex optimization problems, a hybrid technique called DE/BBO has been developed [23]. Proposed DE/BBO approach is described below: A. Hybrid Migration Operator

(21) For the straight-line graph of migration [17], the equation for and immigration rate for number of emigration rate species can be written as per the following way: (22) (23) When the value of , then combining (22) and (23) (24) Algorithm 2: Habitat migration for to Select a habitat if for to Select another habitat with probability proportional to if Randomly select an from habitat Replace a random in with that selected SIV of end end end end In BBO, there are two main operators, the migration and the mutation. One option for implementing the migration operator is described in Algorithm 2. Where rand (0,1) is a uniformly distributed real random number in (0, 1) and is the th SIV set with probability proportional to

Hybrid migration operator is most important step in DE/BBO algorithm. In this algorithm child population takes new features from different sides. These are mutation operation of DE, of migration operation of BBO and corresponding parents offspring. The core idea of the proposed hybrid migration operator is based on two considerations. Here, due to this hybridization good solutions would be less destroyed, while poor solutions can accept a lot of new features from good solutions. In this sense, the current population can be exploited sufciently. In Algorithm 3 the DE/rand/1 mutation operator is illustrated. Algorithm 3: Hybrid Migration operator of DE/BBO 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) end else else Select with probability for if if or to D for to

Select uniform randomly

1960

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 25, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2010

13) 14) 15) 16) end end end

TABLE I COMPARISON AMONG DIFFERENT METHODS AFTER 50 TRIALS (THREE-GENERATOR SYSTEM, Pd = 300 MW )

B. Main Procedure of DE/BBO Introducing previously mentioned hybrid migration operator of BBO into DE has developed one new algorithm known as DE/BBO. The structure of proposed DE/BBO is also very simple. Detail hybrid method is given in Algorithm 4. For more information, refer to [23]. Algorithm 4: The Main DE/BBO algorithm 1) Generate the initial population P 2) Evaluate the tness for each individual in P 3) while the termination criterion is not satised 4) For each individual calculate species count probability and Step 4) Step 3)

5) For each individual calculate Immigration rate emigration rate 6) Modify the updated population with the Hybrid Migration operation of Algorithm 3 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) end end for to

Step 5)

Evaluate the offspring if is better than Step 6)

Step 7)

13) end C. DE/BBO Algorithm for ELD Problem In this section, a new approach, DE/BBO algorithm is described for solving the ELD problems. Step 1) For initialization, choose number of Generator units , population size . Specify maximum and minimum capacity of each generator, power demand, B-coefcients matrix for calculation of transmission loss. Initialize DE parameters like Crossover Proba, Scaling Factor . Also initialize the BBO bility parameters like max immigration rate , max emigration rate , lower bound for immigration probability per gene, upper bound for immigration probability per gene, etc. Set maximum number of Iteration. Step 2) Initialize the Population . Since the decision variables for the ELD problems are real power generations, they are used to represent each element of Step 8)

a given population set. Each element of the Population matrix is initialized randomly within the effective real power operating limits. Each population set of the population matrix should satisfy equality constraint (2) using the concept of slack generator as mentioned in Section II. Each individual population set of the population matrix represents a potential solution to the given problem. Calculate the tness value for each population set of the total population for given emigration rate , immigration rate . Fitness value represents the fuel cost of the generators in the power system for a particular power demand. Probabilistically perform hybrid migration operation on those elements of population matrix , which are selected for migration. Perform hybrid migration operation on the Population set as per Algorithm 3. After migration operation, new offspring population is generated. In ELD problems these repset resent new modied generation values of generators . Equality constraint (2) is satised using concept of slack generator as mentioned in Section II. Fitness value of each newly generated population set (offspring matrix ) is recomputed, i.e., fuel cost of each power generation set. Perform selection operation between parent populaand newly generated offspring based tion on their tness values as per (19). Go to step 3 for the next iteration. This loop can be terminated after a predened number of iterations.

VI. NUMERICAL EXAMPLE AND SIMULATION RESULT Proposed DE/BBO algorithm has been applied to solve ELD problems in four different test cases for verifying its feasibility. The software has been written in MATLAB-7 language and executed on a 2.3-GHz Pentium IV personal computer with 512-MB RAM. A. Description of the Test Systems 1) Test Case 1: A 3 generators system with ramp rate limit and prohibited operating zone is considered here. The input data have been adapted from [3]. The load demand is 300 MW. Results obtained from proposed DE/BBO, BBO, and other methods have been presented in Table I. The convergence characteristic is shown in Fig. 1.

BHATTACHARYA AND CHATTOPADHYAY: HYBRID DIFFERENTIAL EVOLUTION

1961

Fig. 1. Convergence characteristic of three-generator system (PD

300 MW).

Fig. 2. Convergence characteristic of 38-generator system (PD 6000 MW).

TABLE II BEST POWER OUTPUT FOR 38-GENERATOR SYSTEM (Pd = 6000 MW)

3) Test Case 3: A system with 40 generators with valve point loading is used here. The input data are given in [12]. The load demand is 10 500 MW. Transmission loss has not been considered here. The result obtained from proposed DE/BBO method has been compared with BBO, ICA_PSO [26], SOH_PSO [15], and other methods. Their best solutions are shown in Table III. Its convergence characteristic is shown in Fig. 3. 4) Test Case 4: A simple system with 10 thermal units is considered here. The input data are taken from [27]. The load demand is 2700 MW. Transmission loss has not been considered here. The result obtained from the proposed DE/BBO, BBO, different PSO techniques [13] and different GA [27] methods are shown in Table IX. Convergence characteristic of the tengenerator systems in case of BBO algorithm is shown in Fig. 4. B. Determination of Parameters for DE/BBO Algorithm To get optimal solution using the DE/BBO algorithm, the following procedures have been applied to calculate optimum value of Scaling Factor and Crossover probability . 1) The Population Size is xed at 80. 2) Crossover Probability, Scaling Factor is increased from 0.1 to 0.9 in suitable steps as shown in Tables VI and VII. Performance of DE/BBO algorithm in ELDVPL system is calculated for all the above mentioned combination. Fifty independent trials have been made with 1000 iterations per trial. The minimum generation costs for this system reported so far are 121 413.20 $/h (actual 121 422.1684 $/h) [26], 121 501.14 $/h [15], 121 664.4308 $/h [13], and 121 704.7391 $/h [13]. In case of DE/BBO algorithm, based on the simulation results obtained for different value of parameters given in Tables VI and VII, Crossover Probability CR 0.2 and Scaling Factor 0.7 gives optimal generation cost 121 420.8963 $/h and it is more consistent.

2) Test Case 2: A system with 38 generators is taken here. Fuel cost characteristics are quadratic. The input data of the system are from [24]. The load demand is 6000 MW. The result obtained using proposed DE/BBO algorithm has been compared with BBO, PSO_TVAC [25], and other methods and is shown in Table II. Its convergence characteristic is shown in Fig. 2.

C. Effect of Population Size on DE/BBO Algorithm Change in population size, affects the performance of the DE/BBO algorithm. The optimum population size is found to be related to the problem dimension and complexity. Table VIII shows the performance of the DE/BBO algorithm for different population sizes. Tests were carried out 50 times each for the

1962

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 25, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2010

TABLE III BEST POWER OUTPUT FOR 40-GENERATOR SYSTEM (Pd = 10500 MW)

Fig. 4. Convergence characteristic of ten-generator system (with multi-fuel options, PD = 2700 MW ).

, DE Paramebeen settled: ters , Scaling Factor . The maximum migration rates ( and ) are relative quantities. That is, if they all change by the same percentage, then the behavior of BBO not changes [17]. This is because if and change, then the migration rates and change by the same relative amount for each solution. Same happens in DE/BBO also as total migration step of BBO is incorporated in DE/BBO in the same manner. So value of following parameters of DE/BBO algorithm is same as mentioned in BBO [20]. BBO parameters , . D. Comparative Study 1) Solution Quality: From the Tables I, II, III, and IX, it is clear that the minimum costs achieved by DE/BBO are less than those reported in recent literature [14], [20], [25], [27]. Tables I, IV, and X also show that the average costs achieved by DE/BBO are the least of all other methods, emphasizing its superior quality of solution. Test Cases 1, 3, and 4 indicate that the average costs obtained by DE/BBO are less for both convex and non-convex ELD problems. 2) Computational Efciency: Tables I, II, III, and IX show that the minimum cost achieved by DE/BBO are 3619.7565 $/h, 9 417 235.786391673 $/h, 121 420.8948 $/h, and 605.6230127 $/h for Test Cases 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Those are less as compared to the reported results in recent literature. Again from Tables I, IV, and IX, it is also clear that the DE/BBO approach is also efcient as far as computational time is concerned. Time requirement is quite less and either comparable or better than other mentioned methods. So as a whole it can be said that the DE/BBO method is computationally efcient than previously mentioned methods. 3) Robustness: Since initialization of population is performed using random numbers in case of stochastic simulation techniques, so randomness is inherent property of these techniques. Hence the performances of stochastic search algorithms are to be judged over a number of trials. So many trials with different initial population have been carried out to test the

Fig. 3. Convergence characteristic of 40-generator system (with valve point loading, PD = 10500 MW ).

40-unit system. A population size of 80 resulted in achieving global solutions more consistently for the test system. After a number of careful experimentation, following optimum values of DE/BBO parameters have nally

BHATTACHARYA AND CHATTOPADHYAY: HYBRID DIFFERENTIAL EVOLUTION

1963

TABLE IV COMPARISON AMONG DIFFERENT METHODS AFTER 50 TRIALS (40-GENERATOR SYSTEM)

TABLE VIII EFFECT OF POPULATION SIZE ON 40-GENERATOR SYSTEM (F:-0.7, CR:-0.2)

Exact generation cost from the above schedule is 121 422.1684 $/h which is higher than that reported in [26]. TABLE V FREQUENCY OF CONVERGENCE, 40-GENERATOR SYSTEM OUT OF 50 TRIALS

TABLE IX BEST POWER OUTPUT FOR TEN-GENERATOR SYSTEM (Pd = 2700 MW)

TABLE VI INFLUENCE OF PARAMETERS ON DE/BBO PERFORMANCE

TABLE VII INFLUENCE OF PARAMETERS ON DE/BBO PERFORMANCE

TABLE X COMPARISON AMONG DIFFERENT METHODS AFTER 100 TRIALS (TEN-GENERATOR SYSTEM)

consistency of the DE/BBO algorithm. Table V shows the frequency of attaining minimum cost within different ranges for Test Case 3 out of 50 independent trials. It can be seen that DE/BBO is robust as it reaches the minimum cost 50 times out of 50 times compared to 38 times in BBO.

VII. CONCLUSION In this paper, the DE/BBO method has been successfully implemented to solve different convex and non-convex ELD problems. It has been observed that the DE/BBO has the ability to

1964

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 25, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2010

converge to a better quality solution and possesses better convergence characteristics and robustness than ordinary BBO. It is also clear from the results obtained by different trials that the proposed DE/BBO method can avoid the shortcoming of premature convergence exhibited by other optimization techniques. Due to these properties, the DE/BBO method in future can be tried for solution of complex power system optimization problems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author would like to thank D. Simon, Associate Professor in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Cleveland State University, whose paper on BBO has helped a lot to carry out this work. The authors are also thankful to Jadavpur University for providing infrastructural facilities to conduct the research work.

REFERENCES
[1] A. A. El-Keib, H. Ma, and J. L. Hart, Environmentally constrained economic dispatch using the Lagrangian relaxation method, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 17231729, Nov. 1994. [2] J. Wood and B. F. Wollenberg, Power Generation, Operation, and Control, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1984. [3] P. H. Chen and H. C. Chang, Large-scale economic dispatch by genetic algorithm, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 19191926, Nov. 1995. [4] C.-T. Su and C.-T. Lin, New approach with a Hopeld modeling framework to economic dispatch, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, no. 2, p. 541, May 2000. [5] K. P. Wong and C. C. Fung, Simulated annealing based economic dispatch algorithm, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen., Transm., Distrib., vol. 140, no. 6, pp. 509515, Nov. 1993. [6] T. Jayabarathi, G. Sadasivam, and V. Ramachandran, Evolutionary programming based economic dispatch of generators with prohibited operating zones, Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 52, pp. 261266, 1999. [7] Z.-L. Gaing, Particle swarm optimization to solving the economic dispatch considering the generator constraints, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 11871195, Aug. 2003. [8] Y. H. Hou, Y. W. Wu, L. J. Lu, and X. Y. Xiong, Generalized ant colony optimization for economic dispatch of power systems, in Proc. Int. Conf. Power System Technology, Power-Con 2002, Oct. 1317, 2002, vol. 1, pp. 225229. [9] N. Nomana and H. Iba, Differential evolution for economic load dispatch problems, Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 13221331, 2008. [10] B. K. Panigrahi, S. R. Yadav, S. Agrawal, and M. K. Tiwari, A clonal algorithm to solve economic load dispatch, Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 77, no. 10, pp. 13811389, 2007. [11] B. K. Panigrahi and V. R. Pandi, Bacterial foraging optimization: Nelder-Mead hybrid algorithm for economic load dispatch, IET Gen., Transm., Distrib., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 556565, 2008. [12] N. Sinha, R. Chakrabarti, and P. K. Chattopadhyay, Evolutionary programming techniques for economic load dispatch, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 8394, Feb. 2003. [13] I. Selvakumar and K. Thanushkodi, A new particle swarm optimization solution to nonconvex economic dispatch problems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 4251, Feb. 2007. [14] B. K. Panigrahi, V. R. Pandi, and S. Das, Adaptive particle swarm optimization approach for static and dynamic economic load dispatch, Energy Convers. Manage., vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 14071415, 2008. [15] K. T. Chaturvedi, M. Pandit, and L. Srivastava, Self-organizing hierarchical particle swarm optimization for nonconvex economic dispatch, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 10791087, Aug. 2008.

[16] R. Storn and K. Price, Differential EvolutionA Simple And Efcient Adaptive Scheme For Global Optimization Over Continuous Spaces, Int. Comput. Sci. Inst., Berkeley, CA, Tech. Rep. TR-95-012, Mar. 1995. [17] D. Simon, Biogeography-based optimization, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 702713, Dec. 2008. [18] D. Simon, M. Ergezer, and D. Du, Markov Analysis of BiogeographyBased Optimization. [Online]. Available: http://academic.csuohio.edu/ simond/bbo/markov/. [19] D. Simon, M. Ergezer, and D. Du, Population Distributions in Biogeography-Based Optimization With Elitism. [Online]. Available: http:// academic.csuohio.edu/simond/bbo/markov/. [20] A. Bhattacharya and P. K. Chattopadhyay, Biogeography-based optimization for different economic load dispatch problems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/ tocpreprint.jsp?isnumber=4374138&punumber=59. [21] R. Storn and K. Price, Home Page of Differential Evolution, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.ICSI.Berkeley.edu/~storn/code.html. [22] K. Price, R. Storn, and J. Lampinen, Differential Evolution: A Practical Approach to Global Optimization. Berlin, Germany: SpringerVerlag, 2005. [23] W. Gong, Z. Cai, and C. X. Ling, DE/BBO: A Hybrid Differential Evolution With Biogeography-Based Optimization for Global Numerical Optimization. [Online]. Available: http://embeddedlab.csuohio.edu/BBO/. [24] M. Sydulu, A very fast and effective non-iterative Lamda Logic Based algorithm for economic dispatch of thermal units, in Proc. IEEE Region 10 Conf. TENCON, Sep. 1517, 1999, vol. 2, pp. 14341437. [25] K. T. Chaturvedi, M. Pandit, and L. Srivastava, Particle swarm optimization with time varying acceleration coefcients for non-convex economic power dispatch, Int. J. Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 249257, Jul. 2009. [26] J. K. Vlachogiannis and K. Y. Lee, Economic load dispatchA comparative study on heuristic optimization techniques with an improved coordinated aggregation-based PSO, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 9911001, May 2009. [27] C.-L. Chiang, Improved genetic algorithm for power economic dispatch of units with valve-point effects and multiple fuels, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 16901699, Nov. 2005. [28] R. Naresh, J. Dubey, and J. Sharma, Two phase neural network based modeling framework of constrained economic load dispatch, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen., Transm., Distrib., vol. 151, no. 3, pp. 373378, May 2004. Aniruddha Bhattacharya (M09) received the B.Sc. Engg. degree in electrical engineering from the Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur, India, in 2000 and the M.E.E. degree in electrical power system from Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India, in 2008. He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree at Jadavpur University. He is a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Electrical Engineering at Jadavpur University. His employment experience includes the Siemens Metering Limited, India; Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Raigarh, India; Bankura Unnyani Institute of Engineering, Bankura, India; and Dr. B. C. Roy Engineering College, Durgapur, India. His areas of interest include power system load ow, optimal power ow, economic load dispatch, and soft computing applications to different power system problems.

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay received the M.E.E. degree in electrical power system from Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India, in 1971. He is currently working as a Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Jadavpur University. His areas of interest include application of soft computing techniques to different power system problems.