www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution Received on 7th June 2010 Revised on 12th August 2010 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0405

ISSN 1751-8687

Seeker optimisation algorithm: application to the solution of economic load dispatch problems
B. Shaw1 V. Mukherjee2 S.P. Ghoshal3
1 2

Department of Electrical Engineering, Asansol Engineering College, Asansol, West Bengal, India Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India 3 Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Durgapur, West Bengal, India E-mail: vivek_agamani@yahoo.com

Abstract: This study presents a seeker optimisation algorithm (SOA) for the solution of the constrained economic load dispatch (ELD) problems in different power systems considering various non-linear characteristics of generators. In the SOA, the act of human searching capability and understanding are exploited for the purpose of optimisation. In this algorithm, the search direction is based on empirical gradient by evaluating the response to the position changes and the step length is based on uncertainty reasoning by using a simple fuzzy rule. A comparison of simulation results reveals the optimisation efcacy of the algorithm over the prevailing optimisation techniques for the solution of the multimodal, non-differentiable, highly non-linear and constrained ELD problems.

Nomenclature
abs(.) ai , bi , ci aik , bik , cik B Bij B i0 B00 dij (t ) ei , fi Fi FT NG PD Pi Pmin i , Pmax i Pmin ik PL rj , randj sign(.) returns the absolute value of the input vector cost coefcients of ith generator; $/h, $/MWh, $/MW2h, respectively cost coefcients of ith generator for fuel type k; $/h, $/MWh, $/MW2h, respectively symmetric loss coefcient matrix (i 2 j )th element of B ith element of the loss coefcient vector constant loss coefcient search direction for ith seeker on jth variable at time t fuel cost coefcients of the ith generator to model valve point effect; $/h, MW21, respectively cost function of ith generator; $/h total generation cost; $/h number of generators load demand; MW power output of ith generator; MW minimum and maximum output of ith generator, respectively; MW minimum output of ith generator using fuel type k; MW line loss; MW random number in [0, 1] signum function on each variable of the input vector

S aij (t )

population size step length

Introduction

Economic load dispatch (ELD) is a constrained optimisation problem in power systems that have the objective of dividing the total power demand among the online participating generators economically [1]. In recent years, several attempts have been made to solve ELD with intelligent techniques, such as hybrid differential evolution (DE) with biogeography-based optimisation (BBO) (DE-BBO) [2], BBO [3], combined particle swarm optimisation (PSO) with real-valued mutation which is an integration of the PSO with the constriction factor and inertia weight (CBPSO-RVM) [4], improved coordinated aggregationbased PSO (ICA-PSO) [5], quantum PSO (QPSO) [6], ant colony optimisation (ACO) [7], hybrid genetic algorithm (GA)pattern search (PS)-sequential quadratic programming (SQP) (GA-PS-SQP) [8], PSO with both chaotic sequences and crossover operation (CCPSO) [9], New PSO [10], PSO with crazy particles (PSO-Crazy) [10], simple PSO (SPSO) [10], PSO with time varying acceleration coefcients (PSOTVAC) [11], real coded GA (RCGA) [12], self-organising hierarchical PSO (SOH-PSO) [13], PSO with chaotic and Gaussian approaches (PSO-CG) [14], bacterial foraging with Nelder Mead algorithm (BF-NM) [15], New PSO with local random search (LRS) (NPSO-LRS) [16], New PSO (NPSO) [16], PSO with LRS [16], DE combined with SQP (DEC-SQP) [17], improved GA with multiplier updating (IGA-MU) [18], improved fast evolutionary programming (IFEP) [19] and Hopeld model (HM) [20].
81

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 1, pp. 81 91 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0405

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

www.ietdl.org
Seeker optimisation algorithm (SOA) [21] is essentially a novel population-based heuristic search algorithm. It is based on human understanding and searching capability for nding an optimum solution. In the SOA, optimum solution is regarded as one that is searched out by a seeker population. The underlying concept of the SOA is very easy to model and relatively easier than other optimisation techniques prevailing in the literature. The highlighting characteristic features of this algorithm are the following: 1. search direction and step length are directly used in this algorithm to update the position; 2. proportional selection rule is applied for the calculation of search direction, which can improve the population dive6rsity so as to boost the global search ability and decrease the number of control parameters making it simpler to implement; and 3. fuzzy reasoning is used to generate the step length because the uncertain reasoning of human searching could be the best described by natural linguistic variables, and a simple if else control rule. The present work focuses on the performance of the SOA as an optimising tool in solving different ELD problems. Four examples of the different ELD problems are solved with the SOA and the best results obtained are presented in this paper. The best results obtained by adopting the SOA are compared with those published in the recent papers. generations (using B coefcient matrix) as given in
NG NG NG

PL =
i=1 j=1

Pi Bij Pj +
i=1

B0i Pi + B00 ,

i = 1, . . . , NG

and

j = 1, . . . , NG

(3) (ii) Generation capacity constraints: The generating capacity constraints are written as in Pimin Pi Pimax , 2.2 i = 1, . . . , NG (4)

ELD problem with valve point loading

The cost function of a fossil red plant, containing inexions owing to valve point loading, is highly non-linear. Hence, the cost function is realistically denoted as a recurring rectied sinusoidal function [19] as given in Fi (Pi ) = ai + bi Pi + ci Pi2 + |ei sin(fi (Pimin Pi ))| $/h, i = 1, . . . , NG 2.3 ELD problem with valve point loading and multiple fuel options To frame both valve point loading effect and multiple fuels, the cost function [18] may be represented as (see (6)) (5)

2 Mathematical modelling of the ELD problem

2.1 ELD with quadratic cost function and transmission loss The problem of ELD is multimodal, non-differentiable and highly non-linear as stated as in
NG

Formulation of the objective function

In order to treat the problem as a normalised maximisation function, the objective function (OF(.)) is framed as in OF() = 106
NG i=1 Fi (Pi ) + 100 PL + 1000 abs NG i=1 Pi PD PL

Min FT (P) =
i=1

Fi (Pi ) $/h,

i = 1, . . . , NG

(1)

(7) In (7), the weighing factor in the numerator (106) is selected to bring the value of OF(.) within two/three digit gure. The factors 100 and 1000 in the denominator of (7) are arbitrary weighting factors to amplify the associated terms properly to partly compete with the cost term (Explanations for selecting the numerator term and the weighting factors in the denominator of (7) are given in the Appendix.).

subject to the following constraints. (i) Real power balance constraint: The power balance operation can be modelled as in
NG

Pi PD PL = 0,
i=1

i = 1, . . . , NG

(2)

4 SOA and its application to the ELD problem

4.1 Seeker optimisation algorithm

The transmission loss (PL) is a function of active power generation of each generating unit for a given load demand (PD). It may be expressed as a quadratic function of

SOA [21] is a population-based heuristic search algorithm. It regards the optimisation process as an optimal solution

min a + bi1 Pi + ci1 Pi2 + |ei1 sin( fi1 (Pimin Pi Pi1 1 Pi1 ))|, for fuel 1, Pi i1 2 min ai2 + bi2 Pi + ci2 Pi + |ei2 sin( fi2 (Pi2 Pi2 ))|, for fuel 2, Pi1 , Pi Pi2 F i (P i ) = . . . 2 aik + bik Pi + cik Pi + |eik sin( fik (Pimin Pik ))|, for fuel k , Pik 1 , Pi Pimax k
82

(6)

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 1, pp. 81 91 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0405

www.ietdl.org
obtained by a seeker population. Each individual of this population is called a seeker. The total population is randomly categorised into three subpopulations. These subpopulations search over several different domains of the search space. All the seekers in the same subpopulation constitute a neighbourhood. This neighbourhood represents the social component for the social sharing of information. 4.2 Steps of seeker optimisation algorithm If the jth variable of the ith seeker goes towards the positive direction of the coordinate axis, the value of dij (t ) is taken as + 1. If the jth variable of the ith seeker goes towards the negative direction of the coordinate axis, the value of dij (t ) is assumed as 2 1. The value of dij (t ) is assumed as 0 if the jth variable of the ith seeker stays at the current position. Every variable j of di (t ) is selected by applying the following proportional selection rule as stated in 0 dij = +1 1 if if if rj p(0) j
(0) (+1) p(0) j rj pj + pj

In the SOA, a search direction dij (t ) and a step length aij (t ) are computed separately for each ith seeker on each jth variable at each time step t, where aij (t ) 0 and dij (t ) [ { 1, 0, 1}. Here, i represents the population number and j represents the optimising variable number. 4.2.1 Calculation of search direction: It is the natural tendency of the swarms to reciprocate in a cooperative manner while executing their needs and goals. Normally, there are two extreme types of cooperative behaviour prevailing in swarm dynamics. One, egotistic, is entirely pro-self and another, altruistic, is entirely pro-group. Every seeker, as a single sophisticated agent, is uniformly egotistic. He believes that he should go towards his historical best position according to his own judgment. This attitude of the ith seeker may be modelled by an empirical direction vector di,ego(t ) as d i,ego (t ) = sign(pi,best (t ) xi (t )) (8)

(12)

p(0) j

+1) p( j

, rj 1

m) In (12), rj is a uniform random number in [0, 1], p( j (m [

In (8), sign(.) is a signum function on each variable of the input vector. On the other hand, in altruistic behaviour, seekers want to communicate with each other, cooperate explicitly and adjust their behaviours in response to the other seeker in the same neighbourhood region for achieving the desired goal. That means the seekers exhibit entirely pro-group behaviour. The population then exhibits a self-organised aggregation behaviour of which the positive feedback usually takes the form of attraction towards a given signal source. These two optional altruistic directions may be modelled as in d i,alt1 (t ) = sign(gbest (t ) xi (t )) d i,alt2 (t ) = sign(l best (t ) xi (t )) (9) (10)

In (9) and (10), gbest(t ) represents neighbours historical best position and lbest (t ) means neighbours current best position. Moreover, seekers enjoy the properties of pro-activeness; seekers do not simply act in response to their environment; they are able to exhibit goal-directed behaviour. In addition, the future behaviour can be predicted and guided by the past behaviour. As a result, the seeker may be pro-active to change his search direction and exhibit goal-directed behaviour according to his past behaviour. Hence, each seeker is associated with an empirical direction called as pro-activeness direction as given in d i,pro (t ) = sign(xi (t1 ) xi (t2 )) (11)

In (11), t1 , t2 [ {t, t 2 1, t 2 2} and it is assumed that xi(t1) is better than xi (t2). Aforementioned four empirical directions as presented in (8) (11) direct human being to take a rational decision in his search direction.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 1, pp. 81 91 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0405

Fig. 1 Flowchart of the seeker optimisation algorithm

83

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

www.ietdl.org
{0, + 1 1}) is the per cent of the numbers of m from the set {dij,ego , dij,alt1 , dij,alt2 , dij,pro } on each variable j of all the four empirical directions, that is, pj(m) (the number of m)/4. 4.2.2 Calculation of step length: Different optimisation problems often have different ranges of tness values. To design a fuzzy system to be applicable to a wide range of optimisation problems, the tness values of all the seekers are turned into the sequence numbers from 1 to S as the inputs of fuzzy reasoning. The linear membership function is used in the conditional part since the universe of discourse is a given set of numbers, that is, 1, 2, . . . , S. The expression is presented as in abs(.). The parameter v is used to decrease the step length with increasing time step so as to gradually improve the search precision. In the present experiments, v is linearly decreased from 0.9 to 0.1 during a run. The xbest and xrand are the best seeker and a randomly selected seeker, respectively, from the same subpopulation to which the ith seeker belongs. It is to be noted here that xrand is different from xbest and d is shared by all the seekers in the same subpopulation. In order to introduce the randomness in each variable and to improve local search capability, the following equation is introduced to convert mi into a vector mi with elements as given by

mij = RAND(mi , 1)

(15)

mi = mmax

S Ii (m mmin ) S 1 max

(13)

In (13), Ii is the sequence number of xi(t ) after sorting the tness values, mmax is the maximum membership degree value that is equal to or a little less than 1.0. Here, the value of mmax is taken as 0.95. A fuzzy system works on the principle of control rule as If {the conditional part}, then {the action part|. Bell 2 2 membership function m(x) = ex /2d is well utilised in the literature to represent the action part. The membership degree values of the input variables beyond [2 3d, + 3d] are less than 0.0111 (m(+3d) 0.0111), and the elements beyond [2 3d, + 3d] in the universe of discourse can be neglected for a linguistic atom. Thus, the minimum value of m, that is, mmin 0.0111 is set. Moreover, the parameter, d of the Bell membership function is determined by

In (15), RAND(mi ,1) returns a uniformly random real number within [mi ,1]. Equation (16) denotes the action part of the fuzzy reasoning and gives the step length (aij ) for every variable j

aij = dj ln(mij )

(16)

4.2.3 Updating of seekers position: In a population of size S, for each seeker I (1 i S ), the position update on each variable j is given by xij (t + 1) = xij (t ) + aij (t ) dij (t ) (17)

d = v abs(xbest xrand )

(14)

In (14), the absolute value of the input vector as the corresponding output vector is represented by the symbol
Table 1

4.2.4 Subpopulations learn from each other: Each subpopulation is searching for the optimal solution using its own information. It hints that the subpopulation may trap into local optima yielding a premature convergence. Subpopulations must learn from each other about the optimum information so far they have acquired in their respective domain. Thus, the position of the worst seeker of each subpopulation is combined with the best one in each

Implementation steps of the SOA algorithm for the ELD problems

Step 1: Initialisation (a) Read input data; (b) Read cost curves of machines and B coefcients; (c) Set number of run counter; (d) Set maximum population number of generator output parameter strings; (e) Set lower and upper limits of each generator output; (f) Read the SOA parameters and (g) Set termination criteria (i.e. maximum iteration cycles). Step 2: Initialise the positions of the seekers in the search space randomly and uniformly Step 3: Set the time step t 0 Step 4: Compute the objective function of the initial positions. The initial historical best position among the population is achieved. Set the personal historical best position of each seeker to his current position Step 5: Let t t + 1 Step 6: Select the neighbour of each seeker Step 7: Determine the search direction and step length for each seeker, and update his position Step 8: Update the position of each seeker Step 9: Compute the objective function for each seeker Step 10: Update the historical best position among the population and historical best position of each seeker Step 11: Subpopulation learns from each other Step 12: Repeat from step 5 till the end of the maximum iteration cycles/stopping criterion Step 13: Determine the best string (array index) corresponding to optimum objective function value Step 14: Determine the optimal generation schedule corresponding to the grand optimum objective function value

84

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 1, pp. 81 91 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0405

www.ietdl.org
Table 2
Best results for 20-generating units with PD 2500 MW Unit P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 total power output, MW total transmission loss, MW power mismatch, MW total generation cost, $/h time/iteration, s SOA 488.6865 157.3120 74.5396 117.1203 107.4862 86.9971 92.6288 129.3330 76.9599 116.9940 228.9248 346.0309 61.2097 80.3108 55.2398 57.8265 70.5504 43.9055 98.1375 43.4632 2533.6570 33.5286 0.00001279 59 438 0.0241 BBO [3] 513.0892 173.3533 126.9231 103.3292 113.7741 73.06694 114.9843 116.4238 100.6948 99.99979 148.9770 294.0207 119.5754 30.54786 116.4546 36.22787 66.85943 88.54701 100.9802 54.2725 2592.1011 92.1011 0 62 456.77926 0.29282 LI [20] 512.7805 169.1033 126.8898 102.8657 113.6386 73.5710 115.2878 116.3994 100.4062 106.0267 150.2394 292.7648 119.1154 30.8340 115.8057 36.2545 66.8590 87.9720 100.8033 54.3050 2591.9670 91.9670 2 0.000187 62 456.6391 0.033757 HM [20] 512.7804 169.1035 126.8897 102.8656 113.6836 73.5709 115.2876 116.3994 100.4063 106.0267 150.2395 292.7647 119.1155 30.8342 115.8056 36.2545 66.8590 87.9720 100.8033 54.3050 2591.9670 91.9669 0.000021 62 456.6341 0.006355 PSO-CG [14] 563.3155 106.5639 98.7093 117.3171 67.0781 51.4702 47.7261 82.4271 52.0884 106.5097 197.9428 488.3315 99.9464 79.8941 101.525 25.8380 70.0153 53.9530 65.4271 36.2552 2512.3343 12.3343 NR 59 804.0500 0.44

NR, not reported in the referred literature

of the other subpopulations using the following binomial crossover operator as expressed xkn j,worst = xlj,best xkn j,worst if randj 0.5 else (18)

potential benet of the SOA as an optimising algorithm for this specic application is established. The best solutions of

Table 3

Convergence results (50 trial runs) for 20-generating units with PD 2500 MW Algorithms Total generation cost, $/h Minimum Maximum 62 456.7935 NR NR 63 184.63 59 520 Average 62 456.7928 NR NR 61 171.84 59 900

In (18), randj is a uniformly random real number within [0, 1], xkn j,worst is denoted as the jth variable of the nth worst position in the kth subpopulation, xlj,best is the jth variable of the best position in the lth subpopulation. Here, n, k, l 1, 2, . . . , K 2 1 and k = l. In order to increase the diversity in the population, good information acquired by each subpopulation is shared among the other subpopulations. The owchart of the algorithm is depicted in Fig. 1. 4.3 Implementation of the SOA for the ELD problem The steps of the SOA, as implemented for the solution of ELD problem of this work, are shown in Table 1.

BBO [3] LI [20] HM [20] PSO-CG [14] SOA

62 456.7926 62 456.6391 62 456.6341 59 804.05 59 438

NR, not reported in the referred literature

5
5.1

Numerical examples and solution results

Description of the examples

Example 1 (Twenty-generating units without valve point loading): A system with 20 generators is taken as Example 1. The system input data are available in [20]. The valve point loading is not considered for this case but transmission loss is considered. For this example load demand is 2500 MW. The results reported in the literature like BBO [3], lamda-iteration (LI) [20], HM [20] and PSOCG [14] are compared to the SOA-based results and the
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 1, pp. 81 91 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0405

Fig. 2 Convergence prole of the total generation cost for 20-generating units
85

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

www.ietdl.org
Table 4
Best results for 38-generating units with PD 6000 MW Unit P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27 P28 P29 P30 P31 P32 P33 P34 P35 P36 P37 P38 total generation, MW total transmission loss, MW power mismatch, MW total generation cost, $/h time/iteration, s SOA 306.7019 321.0133 286.5511 307.9539 376.8933 377.8562 378.9361 316.4567 341.2983 165.3167 232.1709 180.1953 167.3023 156.1055 287.2468 161.4973 104.3840 196.9899 103.5650 229.6936 174.4322 194.0010 109.3498 28.4250 91.0843 86.1958 57.0373 35.8089 54.9449 31.8662 47.2721 39.1260 36.2163 30.8059 35.4889 46.5762 25.2463 23.7504 6145.8 145.79 0.01 9.1032e 1 06 0.19 DE-BBO [2] 426.606060 426.606054 429.663164 429.663181 429.663193 429.663164 429.663185 429.663168 114.000000 114.000000 119.768032 127.072817 110.000000 90.0000000 82.0000000 120.000000 159.598036 65.0000000 65.0000000 272.000000 272.000000 260.000000 130.648618 10.0000000 113.305034 88.0669159 37.5051018 20.0000000 20.0000000 20.0000000 20.0000000 20.0000000 25.0000000 18.0000000 8.00000000 25.0000000 21.7820891 21.0621792 NR NR NR 9 417 235.78639 NR BBO [3] 422.230586 422.117933 435.779411 445.481950 428.475752 428.649254 428.115368 429.900663 115.904947 114.115368 115.418662 127.511404 110.000948 90.0217671 82.0000000 120.038496 160.303835 65.0001141 65.0001370 271.999591 271.872680 259.732054 125.993076 10.4134771 109.417723 89.3772664 36.4110655 20.0098880 20.0089554 20.0000000 20.0000000 20.0033959 25.0066586 18.0222107 8.00004260 25.0060660 22.0005641 20.6076309 NR NR NR 9 417 633.637644 NR PSO-TVAC [11] 443.659 342.956 433.117 500.00 410.539 492.864 409.483 446.079 119.566 137.274 138.933 155.401 121.719 90.924 97.941 128.106 189.108 65.00 65.00 267.422 221.383 130.804 124.269 11.535 77.103 55.018 75.000 21.682 29.829 20.326 20.000 21.840 25.620 24.261 9.667 25.000 31.642 29.935 NR NR NR 9 500 448.307 NR New-PSO [10] 550.000 512.263 485.733 391.083 443.846 358.398 415.729 320.816 115.347 204.422 114.000 249.197 118.886 102.802 89.039 120.000 156.562 84.265 65.041 151.104 226.344 209.298 85.719 10.000 60.000 90.489 39.670 20.000 20.995 22.810 20.000 20.416 25.000 21.319 9.122 25.184 20.000 25.104 NR NR NR 9 516 448.312 NR

NR, not reported in the referred literature

the generation schedules, the total optimal generation cost etc. as obtained from 50 trial runs of the SOA and other aforementioned algorithms are presented in Table 2. Convergence results for the different algorithms are also shown in Table 3. The convergence prole of the cost function is depicted in Fig. 2. Example 2 (Thirty eight-generating units without valve point loading): A system with 38 generators is taken as Example 2. Fuel cost characteristics are quadratic. Transmission loss is considered for this example. The input data of the system are taken from [22]. The load demand is 6000 MW. The best results obtained by using the SOA have been compared with those by using DE-BBO [2], BBO [3], PSO-TVAC [11], New PSO [10], PSO-Crazy [10] and SPSO [10].
86

Table 5

Convergence results (100 trial runs) for 38-generating units with PD 6000 MW Algorithms Total generation cost, $/h Minimum SPSO [10] PSO-Crazy [10] New PSO [10] PSO-TVAC [11] BBO [3] DE-BBO [2] SOA 9 543 984.777 9 520 024.601 9 516 448.312 9 500 448.307 9 417 633.637 9 417 235.786 9.1032e 1 06 Maximum NR NR NR NR NR NR 9.1812e + 06 Average NR NR NR NR NR NR 9.0912e + 06

NR, not reported in the referred literature IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 1, pp. 81 91 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0405

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

www.ietdl.org
The best solutions of the generation schedules, the total generation cost etc. as obtained from 100 trial runs of the different algorithms are shown in Table 4. Convergence results for the algorithms are presented in Table 5. The convergence prole of the cost function is depicted in Fig. 3. Example 3 (Forty-generating units with valve point loading): A system with 40 generators with valve point loadings is considered as Example 3. The input data are given in [19]. Transmission loss is considered for this example. The load demand is 10 500 MW. The best results obtained from the SOA are compared to those obtained by using DE-BBO [2], BBO [3], CCPSO [9], QPSO [6], ICA-PSO [5], SOHPSO [13], NPSO-LRS [16], PSO-LRS [16], CBPSO-RVM

Fig. 3 Convergence prole of the total generation cost for 38-generating units Table 6
Unit P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27 P28 P29 P30 P31 P32 P33 P34 P35 P36 P37 P38 P39 P40 TG TTL PM TGC TI Best results for 40-generating units with PD 10 500 MW SOA 93.3423 97.4103 101.2452 164.2993 84.0175 123.2729 255.7977 263.8875 280.2526 264.0890 308.7892 277.1260 392.8826 395.1955 381.0143 380.9107 437.8174 445.1430 451.5323 460.1727 508.1364 501.0253 506.5673 487.7431 480.5522 505.1173 112.9493 124.1613 117.1892 90.1045 167.7709 149.3685 167.6685 160.6820 169.2923 165.5492 99.6996 86.2462 89.7858 412.0431 10 759.85 259.83 0.02 113 890 0.05 DE-BBO [2] 110.7998 110.7998 97.3999 179.7331 87.9576 140.00 259.5997 284.5997 284.5997 130.00 168.7998 94.00 214.7598 394.2794 394.2794 304.5196 489.2794 489.2794 511.2794 511.2794 523.2794 523.2794 523.2794 523.2794 523.2794 523.2794 10.00 10.00 10.00 97.00 190.00 190.00 190.00 164.7998 200.00 200.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 511.2794 NR NR NR 121 420.89 0.06 BBO [3] 111.0465 111.5915 97.60077 179.7095 88.30605 139.9992 259.6313 284.7366 284.7801 130.2484 168.8461 168.8239 214.7038 304.5894 394.2461 394.2409 489.2919 489.4188 511.2997 511.3073 523.417 523.2795 523.3793 523.3225 523.3661 523.4262 10.05316 10.01135 10.00302 88.47754 189.9983 189.9881 189.9663 164.8054 165.1267 165.7695 109.9059 109.9971 109.9695 511.2794 NR NR NR 121 426.95 0.11 CCPSO [9] 110.7998 110.7999 97.3999 179.7331 87.7999 140.0000 259.5997 284.5997 284.5997 130.0000 94.0000 94.0000 214.7598 394.2794 394.2794 394.2794 489.2794 489.2794 511.2794 511.2794 523.2794 523.2794 523.2794 523.2794 523.2794 523.2794 10.0000 10.0000 10.0000 87.8000 190.0000 190.0000 190.0000 164.7998 194.3976 200.0000 110.0000 110.0000 110.0000 511.2794 NR NR NR 121 403.5362 NR

QPSO [6] 111.20 111.70 97.40 179.73 90.14 140.00 259.60 284.80 284.84 130.00 168.80 168.8 214.76 304.53 394.28 394.28 489.28 489.28 511.28 511.28 523.28 523.28 523.29 523.28 523.29 523.28 10.01 10.01 10.00 88.47 190.00 190.00 190.00 164.91 165.36 167.19 110.00 107.01 110.00 511.36 NR NR NR 121 448.21 NR

ICA-PSO [5] 110.80 110.80 97.41 179.74 88.52 140.00 259.60 284.60 284.60 130.00 168.80 94.00 214.76 394.28 394.28 304.52 498.28 489.28 511.28 511.28 523.28 523.28 523.28 523.28 523.28 523.28 10.00 10.00 10.00 96.39 190.00 190.00 190.00 164.82 200.00 200.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 511.28 NR NR NR 121 413.2 0.22

SOH-PSO [13] 110.80 110.80 97.40 179.73 87.80 140.00 259.60 284.60 284.60 130.00 94.00 94.00 304.52 304.52 394.28 398.28 489.28 489.28 511.28 511.27 523.28 523.28 523.28 523.28 523.28 523.28 10.00 10.00 10.00 97.00 190.00 190.00 190.00 185.20 164.80 200.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 511.28 NR NR NR 121 501.14 NR

NPSO-LRS [16] 113.9761 113.9986 97.4241 179.7327 89.6511 105.0444 259.7502 288.4534 284.6460 204.8120 168.8311 94.0000 214.7663 394.2852 304.5187 394.2811 489.2807 489.2832 511.2845 511.3049 523.2916 523.2853 523.2797 523.2994 523.2865 523.2936 10.0000 10.0001 10.0000 89.0139 190.0000 190.0000 190.0000 199.9998 165.1397 172.0275 110.0000 110.0000 93.0962 511.2996 NR NR NR 121 664.4308 NR

TG, total generation, MW; TTL, total transmission loss, MW; PM, power mismatch, MW; TGC, total generation cost, $/h; TI, time/iterations; NR, not reported in the referred literature IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 1, pp. 81 91 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0405 87

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

www.ietdl.org
Table 7
Convergence results (50 trial runs) for 40-generating units with PD 10 500 MW Algorithms Total generation cost, $/h Minimum IFEP [19] EP-SQP [8] PSO-LRS [16] DEC-SQP [17] NPSO [16] NPSO-LRS [16] CBPSO-RVM [4] ACO [7] SOH-PSO [13] GA-PS-SQP [8] QPSO [6] BBO [3] BF-NM [15] DE-BBO [2] RCGA [12] ICA-PSO [5] CCPSO [9] SOA 122 624.3500 122 324 122 035.7946 121 741.9793 121 704.7391 121 664.4308 121 555.32 121 532.41 121 501.14 121 458.14 121 448.21 121 426.953 121 423.63792 121 420.8948 121 418.5425 121 413.20 121 403.5362 113 890 Maximum 125 740.6300 NR 123 461.6794 NR 122 995.0976 122 981.5913 123 094.98 121 679.64 122 446.30 NR NR 121 688.6634 NR 121 420.8968 121 628.5987 121 453.56 121 525.4934 116 000 Average 123 382.0000 122 379 122 558.4565 121 814.9465 122 221.3697 122 209.3186 122 281.14 121 606.45 121 853.57 122 039 122 225.07 121 508.0325 122 295.1278 121 420.8952 121 504.1169 121 428.14 121 445.3269 114 850

Fig. 4 Convergence prole of the total generation cost for 40-generating units

NR, not reported in the referred literature

[4], RCGA [12], IFEP [19], EP-SQP [8], GA-PS-SQP [8], BF-NM [15], DEC-SQP [17] and ACO [7]. The best solutions of the generation schedules and total generation cost etc as obtained from 50 trial runs are presented in Table 6. Convergence results for the different algorithms are presented in Table 7. Table 8 shows the frequency of attaining minimum cost within different ranges for this example out of 50 independent trials. The convergence prole of the cost function is depicted in Fig. 4. Example 4 (Ten-generating units with valve point loading and multiple fuel options): A system comprising of ten thermal units with valve point loading and multiple fuels option is considered as Example 4. The input data are taken from [18]. The load demand is 2700 MW. Transmission loss is not considered in this case. The best results obtained by the SOA are compared to those obtained by the
Table 8

combined DE-BBO [2], BBO [3], NPSO-LRS [16], NPSO [16], PSO-LRS [16], ACO [7], RCGA [12], IGA-MU [18] and CGA-MU [18]. The best solutions of the generation schedules, total generation cost etc. as obtained from 100 trial runs of the algorithms are shown in Table 9. Convergence results for the algorithms are presented in Table 10. Table 11 shows the frequency of attaining minimum cost within different ranges for this example out of 100 independent trials. The convergence prole of the cost function is depicted in Fig. 5. The results of interest are bold faced in the respective tables. 5.2 Discussions on the results of the examples

5.2.1 Solution quality: It is noticed from Tables 2, 4, 6 and 9 that the minimum cost achieved by applying the SOA is the least one as compared to those achieved by earlier reported algorithms as mentioned in the respective tables. It may also be noted from Tables 3, 5, 7 and 10 that the minimum, the maximum, and as well as, the average costs achieved by the SOA are the least among all other methods taken into consideration. It emphasises on the fact that the SOA offers the best near-optimal solution for the ELD problems considered. 5.2.2 Comparison of the best generation costs: It may be observed from Tables 2, 4, 6 and 9 that the

Frequency of convergence in 50 trial runs for 40-generating units with PD 10 500 MW Range of total generation cost ( 103, $/h) 120.0121.5 121.5122.5 122.5123.0 123.0123.5 123.5124.0 124.0124.5 124.5125.0 125.0125.5 125.5126.0

Algorithms

SOA DE-BBO [2] BBO [3] QPSO [6] SOH-PSO [13] NPSO-LRS [16] NPSO [16] PSO-LRS [16] CBPSO-RVM [4] IFEP [19]

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 50 38 2 0 0 0 0 41 0

0 0 12 27 50 40 37 26 8 0

0 0 0 20 10 13 17 1 11

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 25

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

88

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 1, pp. 81 91 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0405

. 126.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

,120.0

www.ietdl.org
Table 9
Unit Best results for ten-generating units with PD 2700 MW SOA DE-BBO [2] BBO [3] NPSO-LRS [16] IGA-MU [18]

Generation Fuel type Generation Fuel type Generation Fuel type Generation Fuel type Generation Fuel type P1 186.4532 P2 102.1240 P3 399.4492 P4 185.6678 P5 358.6526 P6 197.4176 P7 420.7243 P8 206.8849 P9 315.4986 P10 327.1277 total 2700 generation, MW total 0 transmission loss, MW power 0 mismatch, MW total 536.0225 generation cost, $/h time/iteration, s 0.14 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 213.4589 209.4836 332.0000 238.0269 269.1423 238.0269 280.6144 238.1613 414.7001 266.3850 2700 0 2 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 212.9 209.4 332.0 238.3 269.2 237.6 280.6 238.4 414.8 266.3 2700 0 2 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 223.335 212.195 276.216 239.418 274.647 239.797 285.538 240.632 429.263 278.954 2700 0 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 219.126 211.164 280.657 238.477 276.417 240.467 287.739 240.761 429.337 275.851 2700 0 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 1

0 605.6230127

0 605.6387

0 624.127

0 624.517

0.48

0.80

0.52

7.25

Table 10 Convergence results (100 trial runs) for ten-generating

units with PD 2700 MW Algorithms Total generation cost, $/h Minimum IGA-MU [18] CGA-MU [18] PSO-LRS [16] NPSO [16] NPSO-LRS [16] RCGA [12] ACO [7] BBO [3] DE-BBO [2] SOA 627.5178 624.7193 624.2297 624.1624 624.1273 623.8281 623.7000 605.6387 605.6230 536.0225 Maximum 630.8705 633.8652 628.3214 627.4237 626.9981 623.8814 624.0900 605.9103 605.6231 601.2624 Average 625.8692 627.6087 625.7887 625.2180 624.9985 623.8495 623.9000 605.8622 605.6252 600.0214

minimum costs achieved by the SOA for Examples 1 4, are 59 438 , 9.1032e + 06, 113 890 and 536.0225 $/h, respectively. Again, power mismatches are the least ones in the SOA as compared to those in the others. Hence, it can be concluded that for all the four examples the performance of the SOA is found to be the best one. 5.2.3 Testing of robustness: The performance of any heuristic search based-optimisation algorithm is best judged through repetitive trial runs so as to compare the robustness/ consistency of the algorithm. For this specic goal, the frequency of convergence to the minimum cost at different ranges of generation cost with xed load demand is recorded and presented in Table 8 for Example 3 and in Table 11 for Example 4, respectively. The same for Examples 1 and 2 are not included in the referred literatures, and hence, are not reported in the present work. But it has been tested by the

Table 11 Frequency of convergence in 100 trial runs for ten-generating units with PD 2700 MW
Algorithms 605.5623.5 623.5624.5 624.5625.5 Range of total generation cost, $/h 625.5626.5 626.5627.5 627.5628.5 628.5629.5 629.5630.5 630.5631.5 631.5632.5 632.5633.5 633.5634.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 89

SOA DE-BBO [2] BBO [3] NPSO- LRS [16] NPSO [16] PSO- LRS [16] IGA-MU [18] CGA- MU [18]

100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

, 605.5

0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 20 18 5 0 0

0 0 0 58 54 37 39 5

0 0 0 17 16 36 45 20

0 0 0 5 12 17 11 31

0 0 0 0 0 5 2 21

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 1, pp. 81 91 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0405

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

www.ietdl.org
5 6 7 8 cost function, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2010, 32, (9), pp. 921935 Park, J.-B., Jeong, Y.-W., Shin, J.-R., Lee Kwang, Y.: An improved particle swarm optimization for nonconvex economic dispatch problems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2010, 25, (1), pp. 156166 Meng, K., Wang, H.G., Dong, Z.Y., Wong, K.P.: Quantum-inspired particle swarm optimization for valve-point economic load dispatch, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2010, 25, (1), pp. 215 222 Pothiya, S., Ngamroo, I., Kongprawechnon, W.: Ant colony optimization for economic dispatch problem with non-smooth cost functions, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2010, 32, (5), pp. 478487 Alsumait, J.S., Sykulski, J.K., Al-Othman, A.K.: A hybrid GA PS SQP method to solve power system valve-point economic dispatch problems, Appl. Energy, 2010, 87, (5), pp. 17731781 Vlachogiannis, J.G., Lee, K.Y.: Economic load dispatch a comparative study on heuristic optimization techniques with an improved coordinated aggregation-based PSO, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2009, 24, (2), pp. 991 1001 Chaturvedi, K.T., Pandit, M., Srivastava, L.: Particle swarm optimization with crazy particles for nonconvex economic dispatch, Appl. Soft Comput., 2009, 9, (3), pp. 962 969 Chaturvedi, K.T., Pandit, M., Srivastava, L.: Particle swarm optimization with time varying acceleration coefcients for nonconvex economic power dispatch, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2009, 31, (6), pp. 249257 Amjady, N., Nasiri-Rad, H.: Nonconvex economic dispatch with AC constraints by a new real coded genetic algorithm, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2009, 24, (3), pp. 14891502 Chaturvedi, K.T., Pandit, M., Srivastava, L.: Self-organizing hierarchical particle swarm optimization for nonconvex economic dispatch, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2008, 23, (3), pp. 10791087 Coelho, L.D.S., Lee, C.-S.: Solving economic load dispatch problems in power systems using chaotic and Gaussian particle swarm optimization approaches, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2008, 30, (5), pp. 297307 Panigrahi, B.K., Ravikumar Pandi, V.: Bacterial foraging optimisation: Nelder Mead hybrid algorithm for economic load dispatch, Proc. Inst. Electr. Eng. Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2008, 2, (4), pp. 556565 Selvakumar, A.I., Thanushkodi, K.: A new particle swarm optimization solution to nonconvex economic dispatch problems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2007, 22, (1), pp. 42 51 Coelho, L.D.S., Mariani, V.C.: Combining of chaotic differential evolution and quadratic programming for economic dispatch optimization with valve point effect, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2006, 21, (2), pp. 989996 Chiang, C.-L.: Improved genetic algorithm for power economic dispatch of units with valve-point effects and multiple fuels, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2005, 20, (4), pp. 16901699 Sinha, N., Chakrabarti, R., Chattopadhyay, P.K.: Evolutionary programming techniques for economic load dispatch, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 2003, 7, (1), pp. 83 94 Su, C.-T., Lin, C.-T.: New approach with a Hopeld modeling framework to economic dispatch, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2000, 15, (2), pp. 541 545 Dai, C., Chen, W., Zhu, Y., Zhang, X.: Seeker optimization algorithm for optimal reactive power dispatch, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2009, 24, (3), pp. 1218 1231 Sydulu, M.: A very fast and effective non-iterative lamda logic based algorithm for economic dispatch of thermal units. Proc. IEEE Region Tenth Conf. TENCON, 1517 September 1999, vol. 2, pp. 1434 1437

Fig. 5 Convergence prole of the total generation cost for ten-generating units

authors of the present work with the SOA for Examples 1 and 2 and it is noticed that the convergence to the minimum value of the cost function with a minimal variation is the maximum for the SOA. Tables 8 and 11 show that the frequency of converging to a better solution is higher in the SOA as compared to the other methods. Thus, it may be inferred that the SOA method is the most consistent in achieving the lowest cost in all the runs. 5.2.4 Computational efciency: Apart from yielding the minimum cost by the SOA, it may also be noted that the SOA yields the minimum cost at comparatively lesser time of execution of the program. Thus, this approach is also efcient as far as the computational time is concerned.

10 11

12 13 14 15

Conclusion

16 17

In this paper, a novel SOA based on the act of human searching capability and understanding while performing any task, is applied to the solution of the constrained, multimodal, non-differentiable and highly non-linear ELD problem of small, as well as, large size test power systems with simplied mathematical model of transmission network. It is revealed that the SOA has the ability to converge to a better quality near-optimal solution and possesses better convergence characteristics and robustness than other prevailing techniques reported in the recent literatures. It is also clear from the results obtained by different trials that the SOA is free from the shortcoming of premature convergence exhibited by the other optimisation algorithms. The simulation results clearly reveal that the SOA may be used as an excellent optimiser for the solution of practical ELD problems of power systems.

18 19 20 21 22

Acknowledgment 9 Appendix

The constructive criticisms of the reviewers on this paper are deeply acknowledged.

References

1 Wood, A.J., Wollenberg, B.F.: Power generation, operation and control (Wiley, New York, 1984) 2 Bhattacharya, A., Chattopadhyay, P.K.: Hybrid differential evolution with biogeography-based optimization for solution of economic load dispatch, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 3 Bhattacharya, A., Chattopadhyay, P.K.: Biogeography-based optimization for different economic load dispatch problems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2010, 25, (2), pp. 10641077 4 Lu, H., Sriyanyong, P., Song, Y.H., Dillon, T.: Experimental study of a new hybrid PSO with mutation for economic dispatch with non-smooth

The authors have experimented with the ranges of the various NG NG values of i=1 Fi (Pi ), PL , and abs i=1 Pi PD PL terms in (7) for all the four examples considered in this work. Table 12 demonstrates the numerical values of the different terms associated with (7) for all the four examples. It is revealed from this table that in order to amplify the second and third terms of the denominator in (7), it is required to multiply these terms by some suitable factors. Again, in order to bring the value of OF(.) into a two/three digit gure, the factor 106 in the numerator of (7) is required.

90

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 1, pp. 81 91 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0405

www.ietdl.org
` -vis the value of OF (.) for the four test examples Table 12 Ranges of total generation, total transmission loss, power mismatch vis-a Test example Number of generating units 20 38 40 10 Total generation, MW 2533.6570 6145.8 10 759.85 2700 Total transmission loss, MW 33.5286 145.79 259.83 0 Power mismatch, MW 0.00001279 0.01 0.02 0 OF() (MW 2 1) 169.88 48.23 27.20 370.370

Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 1, pp. 81 91 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0405

91

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011