5 views

Uploaded by RadyMoan

hydro thermal integration

- Linear Programming on Excel: Problems and Solutions
- 66112438X_2
- nr310206-optimization-techniques-set1
- Short Term Hydrothermal Scheduling using Evolutionary Programming
- Parked Cars are Excellent Roadside Units
- Brochure-integrated-container-terminal-planning-optimization-EN.pdf
- water.pdf
- 585-932-1-SM
- Rpt REMTI Whit 1rriers to Hydropower
- Larji Report Edited_2
- Hydro Power in India: Waiting to be Tapped | An Aranca Infographic
- BSTP DYN ISTANBUL 20110518 (3)
- Optimization of Time Restriction in Construction Project Management Using Lingo and M.S.Excel
- Optimizare Scia
- Hydro
- New Features in CMG 2012 Software
- Voulume III - Technical Annex
- Supplier Selection JurInt 3
- A Methodology and an Optimization Tool to Calibrate Phenology of Short-day Species Included in the APSIM PLANT Model Application to Soybean
- Kouvelis Panagiotis - Design and Planning Problems in Flexible Manufacturing Systems, A Critical Review

You are on page 1of 12

5, SEPTEMBER 2014

2347

Algorithm for Solving Short-Term Hydro

Scheduling Problem

Arnel Gloti, Student Member, IEEE, Adnan Gloti, Peter Kitak, Member, IEEE, Joe Pihler, Member, IEEE,

and Igor Tiar, Member, IEEE

AbstractIn order to optimize hydro power plants generator scheduling according to 24-h system demand, a parallel

self-adaptive differential evolution algorithm has been applied.

The proposed algorithm presents a novel approach to considering

the multi-population and utilization of the preselection step for

the improvements of the algorithms global search capabilities.

A preselection step with the best, middle, and worst populations

individuals establishes the new trial vectors. This algorithm has

been verified on two different models. The first one consists of

eight power plants with real parameters, and the second one

consists of four power plants, mostly used as a test model in

scientific papers. The main goal of the optimization process is to

satisfy system demand for 24 h with a decreased usage of water

quantity per electrical energy unit. The initial and final states of

the reservoirs must also be satisfied.

Index TermsAlgorithms, dispatching, hydroelectric power

generation, optimization methods, parallel algorithms.

Number of hours of the scheduling period.

Total number of hydro power plants.

Variables

Sum of inflows to hydro plant in hour .

Flow through turbine of hydro plant in hour .

Spillage of hydro plant in hour .

Reservoir volume of hydro plant in hour .

Output power of hydro plant in hour .

Flow through old riverbed to hydro plant in hour .

B. Differential Evolution

Parameters

NOMENCLATURE

Population size.

Number of parameters.

Parameters

Natural inflow to hydro plant in hour .

Required biological minimum flow of hydro plant

.

Difference factor.

Variables

Generation through algorithm steps.

Value of th vector.

Minimal reservoir volume of hydro plant .

Maximum allowed change of reservoir .

Maximal output power of hydro plant .

C. Objective Function

Parameters

Weight for objectives.

Maximal water discharge of hydro plant .

Manuscript received August 01, 2013; revised August 26, 2013, November

06, 2013, December 13, 2013, December 23, 2013, and December 23, 2013; accepted January 21, 2014. Date of publication February 07, 2014; date of current

version August 15, 2014. Paper no. TPWRS-00992-2013.

A. Gloti, P. Kitak, J. Pihler, and I. Tiar are with University of Maribor,

Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Institute of Power

Engineering, Maribor 2000, Slovenia (e-mail: arnel.glotic@uni-mb.si; peter.

kitak@uni-mb.si; joze.pihler@uni-mb.si; ticar@uni-mb.si).

A. Gloti is with the HSE Group (Holding Slovenske elektrarne d.o.o.), Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia (e-mail: adnan.glotic@hse.si).

Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online

at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2014.2302033

Variables

Objective function.

Demand energy in hour

Sum of optimal energy production in hour .

I. INTRODUCTION

HE topic of this paper is the optimization of cascade

hydro power plants (HPPs) according to the system

demand. A significant portion of publications within this field

covers the hydrothermal power system optimization, where

0885-8950 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.

See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

2348

the goal is to reduce thermal cost by hydroelectric generation scheduling [1][7]. Power generation in todays market

conditions requires continuous rationalization and profit maximization. In this context, the motivation behind these works

was to optimize the operations of HPPs. Therefore, the main

goal is to satisfy the system demand with HPPs by optimal

generator scheduling in order to decrease water quantity per

produced electrical energy unit (WQPEU) and decrease or even

eliminate water spillage. In order to create an optimization

algorithm appropriate for real-world and practical applications,

respectively, and for use in hydro generating companies, the

algorithm should have fast convergence time with the ability

to satisfy 24-h system demand in respect to all operational

constrains and requirements.

The optimization of cascade HPP reservoirs scheduling,

where downstream plant operation depends on upper plants

operation in addition to a large solution space, is known as a

complex problem. Within the last 25 years, a wide range of optimization methods has been applied for solving this problem.

In order to achieve optimal production, several methods can

be implemented [7]. These can be generally classified into two

main groups: deterministic and heuristic methods. Deterministic methods generally arrive at the same final solution through

the same sequence of solutions, while heuristic methods can be

constructive (build a solution piece by piece) or improving (take

a solution and alter it to find a better solution). Deterministic

methods include Lagrangian relaxation [8][10] and Benders

decomposition-based methods [7], mixed-integer programming

[11], [12], dynamic programming [13], [14] and sequential

quadratic programming (SQP) [15], [16]. In [15], by means of

the Lagrangian relaxation, with the hydro scheduling problem

split into a sequence of smaller and easier to solve subproblems

and afterwards, the nonlinear problem is successfully solved

by using the SQP method. The impact of combining the SQP

method with an evolutionary algorithm in the process of determining the optimal daily self-scheduling is shown in [16].

Particle swarm optimization (PSO) [1], [17], Genetic algorithms [18][20], evolutionary programming [21], and

differential evolution algorithms [4], [5], [22][28] are classified as heuristics methods. The differential evolution (DE)

algorithm [22] is an efficient and robust global optimization

algorithm, and therefore it has been selected in this paper as an

appropriate optimization technique. Short-term optimization

using DE [23] has been used on four cascade HPPs, where the

best objective value has been reached after 2000 generations.

The authors in [23] highlighted the difficulty of setting the adequate control parameters and therefore applied the chaos theory

[26] in order to improve the performance of the algorithm. The

modified DE presented in [5] includes a penalty factor during

the objective function evaluation, which preserves the satisfied

final reservoirs levels of four cascade HPPs. In order to find

optimal system cost and emission, the algorithm [5] was first

tested on four cascade HPPs and one equivalent thermal plant

and on the four cascade HPPs and three thermal plants. In

[24], the authors combined the advantages of the two modified

DE algorithms, where the grouping and shuffling operation is

carried out over the population periodically. The goal of this

approach was to find the best reservoir scheduling of two HPPs,

but without satisfying the final states of the reservoirs.

is closely connected with the proper selection of DE control pa, the differential factor

rameters [27] like the population size

and crossover constant

. To avoid this uncertainty, the

self-adaptive DE has been proposed in [25], [28]. The authors

in [29] applied dynamical differential factor combined with

the modified version of mutation strategy where population diversity information was utilized in order to control the search

capability and prevent the algorithm being stuck within a locally optimal solution. As soon as the population diversity was

equal or lower than that prescribed, the algorithm automatically

replaced several worst individuals.

The DE algorithms performance can be also improved by

parallelization [30]. The parallelization of the DE can be carried out on three levels [31]: the objective function evaluation

level (masterslave model), the population level (island or

migrant models), and the elements level (cellular model). The

parallelization on objective evaluation level is generally used

in applications where the objective function evaluation is the

most time consuming element within the optimization process

and the elements level parallelization is generally used for

massive parallel machines [31]. Therefore the parallelization

on the population level is used in this paper in similar way as in

[31][33]. The proposed parallel differential evolution (PDE)

uses self-adaptive parameters and consists of subpopulations

, where denotes the number

with an equal population size

of CPUs. After all subpopulations have been executed with

the mutation, crossover, and evaluation step, the common

selection step is followed by using the novel best-middle-worst

(BmW) strategy, where an optimal balance is achieved between

convergence time, population diversity, and global optimum.

Parallel self-adaptive differential evolution (PSADE) has been

verified on two models, as shown in Fig. 1. It is compared with

the different parallelization of the DE algorithm and with the

classic DE algorithm by using different parameter sets. The

PSADE is also compared with the SQP method. The power

system demand for both models must be satisfied by optimal

generation schedule followed by the decreased usage of water

quantity per produced electrical energy unit m MWh and

decreased or eliminated water spillage.

This paper is organized as follows. Mathematical models

are presented in Section II. The proposed PSADE with BmW

strategy are given in Section III. Simulation and results are

presented in Section IV, with conclusion given in Section V.

II. MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF HYDRO POWER PLANTS

This paper considers two different mathematical models.

Model I [Fig. 1(a)] is a real parameters model consisting of

eight cascade HPPs located in Slovenia and Model II [Fig. 1(b)]

as recently used in several papers [1][5]. The Model II consists

of four HPP with details presented in [2] and [5], and it uses

fewer restrictions in comparison to Model I, which uses real

restrictions and requirements which must be fulfilled. The total

inflow for each HPP for Model I in the observed hour is the

sum of the upstream plant flow through the turbine, the spillage,

and the natural inflow:

(1)

GLOTI et al.: PARALLEL SELF-ADAPTIVE DIFFERENTIAL EVOLUTION ALGORITHM FOR SOLVING SHORT-TERM HYDRO SCHEDULING PROBLEM

2349

of -th plant must be between the minimal and the maximal

level

(5)

of each individual reservoir . The water discharge on each HPP

must also be within the minimal and maximal allowed water

discharge of th HPP as

(6)

Model I also includes maximum allowed change

of the th

HPP reservoir level in hour compared with

as:

(7)

In cases where the inflow

exceeds the maximal allowed flow

through the turbines of the th HPP in hour and the reservoir

volume reaches the maximal allowed level, then the spillage

is unavoidable:

(8)

The hydro generator output power is expressed as

(9)

where

represents the hydropower generation

coefficients. The input data and coefficients for Model I were

obtained from the company Dravske elektrarne Maribor and

HSE Group, respectively. The input data and coefficients for

Model II can be found in [2] and [5].

Fig. 1. (a) Model I with eight HPPs. (b) Model II with four HPPs.

The last two HPPs in Model I are canal-based types where the

flow merges with the riverbed flow at the end of the canal. For

the old riverbed flow, time delay to the downstream plant must

be considered. These last two HPPs also have the required biological minimum flow which must always be provided to the

riverbed and it is different for winter and summer time. Therefore, the total inflow of the last HPPs in Model I is

(2)

is the time delay from entry of old riverbed to the

where

downstream HPP and

is the water flow through the old

riverbed, which is usually used at a time when the reservoir 6

is on the maximum storage level and the water discharge from

HPP 6 has already reached the maximum allowed discharge.

The total inflow for last two HPPs in Model II consist of the

sum of upstream HPPs discharges as

The PSADE algorithm has been used as parallel implementation of the multipopulation algorithm. The flow chart of the

proposed algorithm is shown in Fig. 2.

A. Initialization and Implementation of the Considered

Problem

The initialized population for the presented mathematical

models consists of the values for the hydro discharges of each

individual models HPP and the individual hours during the

observed day (24 h). For instance, the Model I with eight HPPs

and within observed intervals over a 24-h period with 1-h

time steps represents a problem dimension

of 192 (96 for

Model II). Therefore, the initial population is composed of

-dimensional vectors as follows:

(10)

(3)

(4)

The inflow water in both models can be used for charging reservoirs up to the maximal reservoirs volume

or used in

combination with the flow gained from discharging reservoirs,

where

is the set of hydro discharges of the th HPP which

contains randomly chosen values

. The

initial population is distributed on CPU cores as shown in Fig. 3.

The mutation and crossover step is run on each core, and the

new trial members are created by using self-adaptive parame. Each th place in population contains water

ters

and

2350

function values obtain positions in the target population.

B. Mutation and Crossover With Self-Adaptive Parameters

DE algorithm control parameters selection requires certain

effort in order to find proper values for individual optimization

problems. In order to avoid this, the authors of [25] proposed a

DE algorithm with self-adaptive parameters and

. In this

paper, the idea of self-adaptive parameters for DE from [25] is

expanded as

if

elseif

Fig. 3. HPP model integration into PSADE algorithm.

otherwise

(11)

discharges for all HPPs. The discharges for each -th HPP are

collected and used as input data of th HPP.

The generator output of the th HPP in hour is calculated as

in (9); afterwards, the evaluation step is followed. The step-bystep procedure of the evaluation step is shown in Fig. 4.

When the evaluation step is finished by all cores, the trial population is collected and sorted according to the members objective values, from minimum to maximum. The new trial population is formed by the proposed BmW strategy which is described

below. Afterwards, each trial member from trial population is

elseif

otherwise

(12)

where

,

,

, and

,

are randomly generated

GLOTI et al.: PARALLEL SELF-ADAPTIVE DIFFERENTIAL EVOLUTION ALGORITHM FOR SOLVING SHORT-TERM HYDRO SCHEDULING PROBLEM

and

difference factor for each th vector (10) in generation

2351

is the

.

trial

The subpopulation on each CPU core consists of

vectors which are evaluated by using the objective function. In

this paper, the objective function is composed of three separate

objective functions

which are merged into a single

objective function (22) by using the weighted sum method

[34]. This method transforms a set of three objectives of a given

problem into a single objective by using weights , , and

which are defined by the user in proportion to the individual

objectives importance. Each weight can take any number from

interval [0, 1], but the sum of the weights should be equal to 1.

When the value of 1/3 is set as the weight for each individual objective function, the chances of functions being minimized are

equal for all. A set of different weights leads to a set of different

solutions. Therefore, a different set of weights has been tested

and the set that obtained the best result by all objectives, has

been chosen as authors appropriate selection for weights ,

, and , which were 0.65, 0.25, and 0.1. Objective evaluates agreement between the system demand

and production

obtained by PSADE as follows:

Fig. 5. Impact of (a) the sensitivity of equation depends on (b) demand and

production.

the weight

is set low (sets 17 in Fig. 6(b)), the priority to

the largest mismatch of the system demand is decreased and

therefore the average mismatch is adequately larger. The best

agreement is achieved when both weights are set to 0.5 [set 10

in Fig. 6(b)].

The second objective in

(13)

(14)

(17)

(15)

(16)

is the hydro

where is the sensitivity of the equation, and

scheduling time step and the basic time interval, respectively.

The sensitivity of the equation has an impact on the function

value in (14), as shown in Fig. 5(a), where the system demand

through 100-h period has been set to 10 MWh and the production set to increase from 0 to 10 MWh with 0.1 MWh step

through a 100-h period as shown in Fig. 5(b). It is obvious that

bigger equation sensitivities have higher and faster impacts

on those parts, where the differences between system demand

and production are smaller. The authors set the sensitivity of

equation and time-step

to value 1. The mismatch between

system demand and production for each hour is calculated by

using (14). The larger mismatch on time interval [1, ] is obtained by using (15) and then the obtained value is used in (16).

This helps the objective function not just to follow the average

mismatch value, but also to follow the higher mismatch. The

and

are weights and both have been set as 0.5 to ensure balance between the largest mismatch of system demand founded

in hour and the average mismatch value for time interval, with

the exception of hour .

and

(example: set 1 in

The impact of weights set

Fig. 6(a) is

and

) on the final agreement between system demand and production obtained by the

PSADE and applied to Model II is shown in Fig. 6(b). When

evaluates the water quantity used per produced electrical energy, which means that the total water discharge obtained by

HPPs units is divided by the total produced energy. Because the

second objective is normalized between 0 and 1, the total maximal energy of th HPP unit is divided by the total maximal energy of th HPP unit and used in (17). The third objective shown

in

(18)

is complementary to the second objective and it evaluates the

water spillage. The restriction (6) can be integrated directly

within the mathematical model by cutting the parameters with

values outside the allowed boundaries or it can be considered

through objective function (22) by using correction factor

for the objective function, as calculated in

(19)

(20)

(21)

2352

runs.

and

to (b) final agreement between the system demand and the production, averaged over ten independent

present a correction matrix, as shown in Fig. 7.

The influence of the correction factor on the objective function value is greater when the individual is closer to the lower

allowable parameters bounds and the impact is smaller when

the individual is closer to zero.

and

are weights and both

have been set as 0.5 to ensure the balance between the largest

deviation from minimal output power across all HPPs obtained

in (20) and averaged deviation for the whole time interval ,

with the exception of hour .

Correction factor

obtained from (21) is applied onto a

has a significant impact

single objective function (22). The

on the process of keeping or moving exceeding parameters into

the allowable interval. When the output power on each th HPP

in each hour during time-interval satisfies the output power

restrictions, the correction factor will be equal to 1 and therefore

will not have any impact on objective function:

(22)

D. Forming New Trial Vector by BmW Strategy

After all of the subpopulations have been processed by the

mutation, crossover, and evaluation steps on each CPU core,

the subpopulations are sent to the master CPU core. The master

CPU core collects sub-populations into a temporary population

which is -times larger in comparison to the original initial population, and where denotes the number of CPU core. Afterwards, the master CPU core sorts the temporary population according to their objective function values, from best to worst, as

shown in Fig. 8.

After the population is collected and sorted, the new trial popis created by the proposed BmW strategy. The trial

ulation

population has the original size of the initial population and it

consists of

best,

middle, and

worst

and

are

vectors from the temporary population. The ,

user-selected weights. Their selection influences the algorithms

global search capability, as shown in Section IV.

E. Selection

In the selection step, vectors from the new trial population

are compared with the target (parent) vectors. When the trial

vector has a lower objective value compared to its parent it replaces one, otherwise the parent retains its position in the population. After the selection step is finished and the stopping criterion has not been met, the obtained population is forwarded

to the CPU cores. The process repeats all steps shown in Fig. 2

and Fig. 8 until the stopping criteria is met.

IV. SIMULATION AND RESULTS

The proposed PSADE was implemented in MATLAB environment using an Intel Core i7 3.5-GHz and 32-GB RAM

GLOTI et al.: PARALLEL SELF-ADAPTIVE DIFFERENTIAL EVOLUTION ALGORITHM FOR SOLVING SHORT-TERM HYDRO SCHEDULING PROBLEM

2353

TABLE I

RESULTS OBTAINED BY DIFFERENT METHODS FOR MODEL I IN COMPARISON WITH REAL DATA FROM SCADA

Fig. 9. Final agreement between the system demand and the production obtained by different optimization methods and applied to Model I.

TABLE II

OPTIMAL HYDRO SCHEDULING OBTAINED WITH PSADE FOR MODEL I

tested on two test models.

A. Test Model I

For the optimization process, the real system demand data

from SCADA [35] have been used as the reference for the

Model I. The effectiveness of the PSADE algorithm is evident

from Table I, where the results obtained by different optimization methods are shown in comparison with data from

SCADA. The classic DE and SQP method dissatisfied the

satisfied it in regard to the total water discharge in comparison

with SCADA. The final agreement between the system demand

and the production obtained by those algorithms is shown in

Fig. 9. The total production of all HPPs in each individual hour

obtained with the PSADE algorithm is compared in Table II

with the system demand from SCADA.

The stopping criterion for the optimization algorithm was the

maximal number of generations (1500). The weights

for forming the new trial vectors

by BmW strategy have an

2354

TABLE III

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS, AVERAGED OVER TEN INDEPENDENT RUNS OF PROPOSED PSADE

WITH DIFFERENT SETS OF WEIGHTS FOR THE BMW SELECTION STEP FOR MODEL I

Fig. 10. Objective function values through generations obtained with the proposed PSADE algorithm and different control parameters (Model I) (

,

,

,

).

impact on the algorithms capabilities of reaching global solutions. Therefore the different sets of weights have been tested

and the results are shown in Table III. The best objective function value during the tests were obtained by weight sets

,

and

, and population size

.

By using these settings for Model I the result of the optimization

process satisfied system demand with more than 4.2

of the water in reservoirs saved in comparison with the manual

operation of the dispatching personnel. According to the average water quantity used per produced electrical energy unit,

the saved water quantity is equivalent to 176.2 MWh of energy.

The disagreement between production according to PSADE algorithm and demand from SCADA was negligible. The performance of the PSADE algorithm with the self-adaptive parameters (11) and (12) in comparison with the self-adaptive parameters from [25] and the set of various fixed control parameters

are shown in Fig. 10.

In order to verify the proposed method for parallelizing the

DE algorithm, the comparison between the proposed algorithm

PSADE and the other three methods from [30][32] are shown

in Fig. 11. The constant denotes migration rate, which determines how many of the best individuals from one sub-population will replace the same number of the worst individuals from

other subpopulations.

The constant defines the migration interval which denotes

that trough each generation, migration will be set up. Other two

Fig. 11. Objective function values through generations obtained with the proposed PSADE algorithm and different parallelization types (Model I).

TABLE IV

RESULTS OBTAINED BY DIFFERENT METHODS FOR MODEL II

COMPARISON WITH DATA FROM [5]

energy unit

IN

and [32]. The best results are obtained by using the proposed

algorithm.

B. Test Model II

The results obtained by different optimization methods in

comparison with the system demand from [5] are shown in

Table IV. The optimal solution is obtained by the PSADE

algorithm, where the optimal hydro schedule shown in Table V

water in reservoirs, compared to

saved more than 228.000

[5] as shown in Table IV. This saving is equal to 200.5 MWh

of electrical energy. To evaluate performance of proposed

algorithm the standard test model combined of four HPPs,

has also been used. The reference system demand obtained

2355

TABLE V

OPTIMAL SCHEDULING OBTAINED WITH PSADE FOR MODEL II

TABLE VI

HYDRO STORAGE VOLUMES FOR MODEL II OBTAINED WITH OPTIMAL SCHEDULING,

TOTAL HYDRO GENERATION, SYSTEM DEMAND FROM [5] AND DEVIATION IN %

Deviation between total hydro generation obtained by PSADE and system demand [5]

Fig. 12. Objective function values through generations with different control

,

parameter of the proposed PSADE implemented on Model II (

,

,

).

volumes, are used for comparison purposes in Table VI. The

final reservoir levels from [5] are also satisfied and shown in

Table VI. To optimize the hydro scheduling for Model II the

PSADE algorithm has also been applied. The comparison of

results obtained for different methods for setting the algorithms

control parameters is shown in Fig. 12. The comparisons of

different methods for parallelization [30][32] are shown in

Fig. 14. The maximum generation number for Model II was set

at 1200. The best objective function value was obtained with

weights set

,

and

, and

.

The weight selection impact for the novel BmW strategy is

shown in Table VII.

The classic DE control parameters for both models were set

,

,

, and strategy to DE/rand/1.

to:

The SQP method for both models has been used with MATLAB

Optimization Toolkit by default settings, where the different

random initial points have been used, and the best obtained optimization result for Model II is shown in Table IV. Comparison

of the final agreement between each the system demand and the

production obtained by PSADE, classic DE and SQP is shown

in Fig. 13, separately for each individual hour. The associated

2356

Fig. 13. Final agreement between the system demand and the production obtained by different optimization methods and applied to Model II.

TABLE VII

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS, AVERAGED OVER TEN INDEPENDENT RUNS OF THE PROPOSED PSADE ALGORITHM

WITH DIFFERENT SETS OF WEIGHTS FOR THE BMW SELECTION STEP FOR MODEL II

Fig. 14. Objective function values through generations for different parallelization of PSADE and DE algorithm implemented on Model II.

reservoirs volumes at optimal hydro scheduling and the disagreements between total hydro energy production and system

demand in [5] are shown in Table VI.

V. CONCLUSION

The main goal of this research was to modify the standard

DE algorithm in order to improve its performance when applied to solve short-term hydropower scheduling optimization

satisfying system demand and the fulfillment of a given scheduling plan, respectively within the context of the optimal production allocation by minimizing the used water quantity per

produced electrical energy unit. Therefore, the presented parallel self-adaptive differential evolution algorithm has been developed and tested on two different models, one real-parameter

HPP model and one standard test model mostly used in scientific

publications. The experimental results for both models showed

that the novel approach for DE algorithm parallelization along

with the proposed BmW strategy and the introduced correction

matrix, significantly improved the performance of the standard

DE algorithm. The BmW strategy is used in preselection step,

and it controls the balance between global search capability and

population diversity, while the correction matrix has a significant impact on the process of keeping or moving exceeding parameters into the allowable intervals. The proposed algorithm

also uses a novel approach for the self-adaptations of DE control parameters, which improves the algorithms performance.

The PSADE algorithm, therefore, outperformed the original algorithm as well as the other modified algorithms used in this

study. According to the obtained results it can be concluded

that the proposed algorithm enables significant savings when

applied to hydro scheduling problem. It is also evident that the

PSADE convergence time is appropriate for the usage of the algorithm for real-world and practical applications, respectively.

REFERENCES

[1] J. Zhang, J. Wang, and C. Yue, Small population-based particle swarm

optimization for short-term hydrothermal scheduling, IEEE Trans.

Power Syst., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 142152, Feb. 2012.

[2] S. O. Orero and M. R. Irving, A genetic algorithm modeling framework and solution technique for short term optimal hydrothermal

scheduling, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 501518,

May 1998.

[3] S. Soares, C. Lyra, and H. Tavares, Optimal generation scheduling

of hydrothermal power system, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol.

PAS-99, no. 3, pp. 11071118, Mar. 1980.

[4] K. K. Mandal and N. Chakraborty, Differential evolution technique-based short-term economic generation scheduling of hydrothermal system, Electr. Power Syst. Res., pp. 19721979, 2008.

[5] L. Lakshminarasimman and S. Subramanian, Short-term scheduling

of hydrothermal power power system with cascaded reservoirs by using

modified differential evolotuion, Proc. Inst. Electr. Eng.Gener.,

Transm. Distrib., vol. 153, pp. 693700, 2006.

[6] N. Sinha, R. Chakrabarti, and P. K. Chattopadhyay, Fast evolutionary

programming techiques for short-term hydrothermal scheduling,

IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 214220, Feb. 2003.

[7] I. A. Farhat and M. E. El-Hawary, Optimization methods applied for

solving the short-term hydrothermal coordination problem, Electr.

Power Syst. Res., pp. 13081320, 2009.

[8] S. Al-Agtash and S. Renjeng, Augmented Lagrangian approach to

hydro-thermal scheduling, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, no. 4,

pp. 13921365, Nov. 1998.

[9] H. Yan, P. B. Luh, X. Guan, and P. M. Rogan, Scheduling of hydrothermal power systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 8, no. 4,

pp. 13921400, Nov. 1993.

[10] C. Li, E. Hsu, A. J. Svoboda, C. Tseng, R. Tseng, and R. B. Johnson,

Hydro unit commitment in hydro-thermal optimization, IEEE Trans.

Power Syst., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 764769, May 1997.

[11] O. Nilsson and D. Sjelvgren, Mixed-integer programming applied to

short-term planning of a hydro-thermal system, IEEE Trans. Power

Syst., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 281286, Feb. 1996.

[12] A. J. Conejo, J. M. Arroyo, J. Contreras, and F. A. Villamor, Selfscheduling of a hydro producer in a pool-based electricity market,

IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 12561272, Nov. 2002.

[13] S. Chang, C. Chen, C. Fong, and L. P. B., Hydroelectric generation

scheduling with an effective differential dynamic programming algorithm, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 737743, Aug. 1990.

[14] J. Tang and P. B. Luh, Hydrothermal scheduling via extended differential dynamic programming and mixed coordination, IEEE Trans.

Power Syst., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 20212027, Nov. 1995.

[15] E. C. Finardi, E. L. Silva, and C. Sagastizabal, Solving the unit commitment problem of hydro plants via Lagrangian Relaxation and Sequential Quadratic Programming, Computational Appl. Math, vol. 24,

pp. 317341, 2005.

[16] X. Yuan, Y. Wang, J. Xie, X. Qi, H. Niw, and A. Su, Optimal selfscheduling of hydro producer in the electricity market, Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 51, pp. 25232530, 2009.

[17] P. Chen, L. Chen, A. Liu, and H. Chen, Application of particle swarm

optimization to hydro generation scheduling, in Proc. Int. Conf. Energy and Environ. Technol., Guangxi, 2009, pp. 541544.

[18] E. Gil, J. Bustos, and H. Rudnick, Short-term hydrothermal generation scheduling model using a genetic algorithm, IEEE Trans. Power

System, vol. 18, pp. 12561264, 2003.

[19] C. E. Zoumas, A. G. Bakirtzis, J. B. Theocharis, and V. Petridis, A

genetic algorithm solution approach to the hydrothermal coordination

problem, IEEE Trans. Power System, vol. 19, pp. 13561364, 2004.

[20] P. Chen and H. Chang, Genetic aided scheduling of hydraulically

coupled plants in hydro-thermal coordination, IEEE Trans. Power

System, vol. 11, pp. 975981, 1996.

[21] P. C. Yang, H. T. Yang, and C. L. Huang, Scheduling short-term hydrothermal generation using evolutionary programming techniques,

Proc. Inst. Electr. Eng.Gener., Transm. Distrib., vol. 143, pp.

371376, 1996.

[22] R. Storn and K. Price, Differential evolutionA simple and efficient

Heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces, J. Global

Optimization, pp. 341359, 1997.

[23] X. Yuan, Y. Zhang, L. Wang, and Y. Yuan, An enhanced differential

evolution algorithm for daily optimal hydro generation scheduling,

Comput. Math. With Applic., pp. 24582468, 2008.

2357

using grouping differential evolution algorithm, in Proc. Int. Conf.

Comput. Sci. Electron. Eng., 2012, pp. 625629.

[25] J. Brest, S. Greiner, B. Boskovic, M. Mernik, and V. Zumer, Selfadapting control parameters in differential evolution: A comparative

study on numerical benchmark problems, IEEE Trans. Evol. Computat., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 646657, Dec. 2006.

[26] R. Caponetto, L. Fortuna, S. Fazzino, and M. G. Xibilia, Chaotic sequences to improve the performance of evolutionary algorithms, IEEE

Trans. Evol. Computat., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 289304, Jun. 2003.

[27] R. Gamperle, S. D. Muller, and P. Koumoutsakos, a parameter study

for differential evolution, in Proc. Int. Conf. Adv. Intell. Syst., Evol.

Computat., 2002, pp. 293298.

[28] A. K. Qin, V. L. Huang, and P. N. Suganthan, Differential evolution

algorithm with strategy adaptation for global numerical optimization,

IEEE Trans. Evol. Computat., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 398417, Apr. 2009.

[29] J. Cheng and G. Zhang, Improved differential evolutions using a dynamic differential factor and population diversity, in Proc. Int. Conf.

Artif. Intell. Computat. Intelligence, 2009, pp. 402406.

[30] E. Alba and M. Tomassini, Parallelism and evolutionary algorithms,

IEEE Trans. Evol. Computat., vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 443462, Oct. 2002.

[31] D. Zaharie and D. Petcu, Parallel implementation of multi-population

differential evolution, in Proc. 2nd Workshop Concurrent Inf. Process.

Computing, Romania, 2003, pp. 223232.

[32] C. Y. Wu and K. Y. Tseng, Truss structure optimization using adaptive

multi-population differential evolution, Structural Multidisciplinary

Optimization, vol. 4, pp. 575590, 2010.

[33] C. H. Liang, C. Y. Chung, K. P. Wong, and X. Z. Duan, Parallel optimal reactive power flow based on cooperative co-evolutionary differential evolution and power system decomposition, IEEE Trans. Power

Syst., vol. 22, pp. 249257, 2007.

[34] A. M. Jubril, O. A. Komolafe, and K. O. Alawode, Solving multiobjective economic dispatch problem via semidefinite programming,

IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 20562064, Aug. 2013.

[35] A. G. Bruce, Reliability analysis of electric utility SCADA systems,

IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 249257, Feb. 2007.

Arnel Gloti (S12) was born in Slovenj Gradec,

Slovenia, in 1987. He received the B.S. degree

in electrical engineering from the University of

Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia, in 2011, where he is

currently working toward the Ph.D. degree at the

Institute for Power Engineering.

His current research interest includes multi-objective optimization in the application of evolutionary

techniques for electrical power system.

in 1980. He received the B.S. and Ph.D. degrees

in electrical engineering from the University of

Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia, in 2006 and 2011,

respectively.

Since 2011, he has been with the Holding

Slovenske elektrarne d.o.o., Ljubljana, Slovenia,

within the R&D Department. His special fields of interest are electrical power network and optimization

methods.

in 1974. He received the B.S. and Ph.D. degrees

in electrical engineering from the University of

Maribor, Maribor, in 1999 and 2006, respectively.

Since 2002, he has been a Faculty Member with

the University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia. His

special fields of interest are modeling insulators and

switchgears, numerical calculation of electromagnetic fields, and optimization methods.

2358

1955. He received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees

in electrical engineering from the University of

Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia, in 1978, 1991, and

1995, respectively.

Currently he is a Full Professor with the University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia, where his special

fields of interest are switching devices and optimization methods.

1949. He received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from the University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana,

Slovenia, in 1975, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees

from the University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia,

in 1981 and 1993, respectively.

In 1977, he joined the University of Maribor,

Maribor, Slovenia, as an Assistant, where he is

currently a Full Professor. His special fields of

interest are also optimization methods.

- Linear Programming on Excel: Problems and SolutionsUploaded byacetinkaya92
- 66112438X_2Uploaded byZayd Ahmed
- nr310206-optimization-techniques-set1Uploaded bySRINIVASA RAO GANTA
- Short Term Hydrothermal Scheduling using Evolutionary ProgrammingUploaded bySatyendra Pratap Singh
- Parked Cars are Excellent Roadside UnitsUploaded byAndre Reis
- Brochure-integrated-container-terminal-planning-optimization-EN.pdfUploaded byHerum Manalu
- water.pdfUploaded byjlcastroa
- 585-932-1-SMUploaded byTushar K Gohel
- Rpt REMTI Whit 1rriers to HydropowerUploaded byJose Luis Suarez Victoria
- Larji Report Edited_2Uploaded bySachinSharma
- Hydro Power in India: Waiting to be Tapped | An Aranca InfographicUploaded byaranca_ip
- BSTP DYN ISTANBUL 20110518 (3)Uploaded byosubasic799
- Optimization of Time Restriction in Construction Project Management Using Lingo and M.S.ExcelUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Optimizare SciaUploaded bypopaciprian27
- HydroUploaded byiziusher
- New Features in CMG 2012 SoftwareUploaded byanon_123975877
- Voulume III - Technical AnnexUploaded byyeyen
- Supplier Selection JurInt 3Uploaded byorieotim
- A Methodology and an Optimization Tool to Calibrate Phenology of Short-day Species Included in the APSIM PLANT Model Application to SoybeanUploaded byHenry X Garzón Suárez
- Kouvelis Panagiotis - Design and Planning Problems in Flexible Manufacturing Systems, A Critical ReviewUploaded byRoberto Reyes
- 0155Uploaded byRaju
- Power House FileUploaded byPardeep Singh
- 494-115Uploaded bySwagat Pradhan
- Generation Report 08-06-2015Uploaded bynandarathana
- water-10-00815Uploaded bylapogunevas
- Tutorial EnUploaded byBoris Acuña Garay
- SchedulingUploaded byRaj Paroha
- Project ManagementUploaded bySuza Ahmed Auporbo
- origonal larji report.docxUploaded byNishant Verma
- Unit 3 WaterUploaded bybrock_33_99

- Ggg Dist Bass BomUploaded byKyerohtaron
- Basic Plastic TestingUploaded byAshokkumar Parthipan
- 13 Kabouris Etal WER 2009Uploaded byibrahim3318
- ESG Assignment 1Uploaded byParesh Shrivastava
- Sustainable Development Towards a New Paradigm for IndiaUploaded byaboring id
- Traction in ElevatorsUploaded byПавле Крстевски
- MAR IDP 2017 Site Adaro.xlsxUploaded byCavandra
- vvim-Uploaded byapurv123456789
- Electric FurnacesUploaded byMherk Anthony Nabartey
- Reactor designUploaded bycheckmeout803
- Do Organic Amines have a Role in the Treatment of High Purity Boiler Feedwater?Uploaded byAnkit Gokhale
- 2098979302[1]Uploaded byapi-3860791
- Carbohydrates Practical ReportUploaded byshuba
- Cooperative Learning in ChemistryUploaded byVatsalaSrinivasan
- Analysis Thai Tapioca MarketUploaded byJonny Den
- Reliable extraction of MOS interface trapsUploaded bykurabyqld
- Đề Thi Chọn Học Sinh Giỏi Cấp TỉnhUploaded byNguyễnGiang
- is.14893.2001 Pile Integrity Test.pdfUploaded byParth Patel
- PANX decanters for crude palm oil.pdfUploaded bymanuelfdo113
- Calibration of Orifice MeterUploaded byMd. Hasib Al Mahbub
- Ultra Fine GrindingUploaded byRamoutar (Ken) Seecharran
- Energenico Culebra ViequesUploaded byCORALations
- Extend the Operating Life of Incandescent Lamps (2)Uploaded bysava104
- BMW i8 Technical SpecificationsUploaded byIndian Autos Blog
- TOPIC.docxUploaded byMin Nguyễn Thị Thanh
- Delta Wiring GuidelinesUploaded byAdolfo Riquelme Novoa
- Free Harmonic Oscillations Formal Report EditedUploaded byPassionFruitBowl
- TTB CTR 20 DS 001 A4 Rev.0 DS for Premium Storage TankUploaded byIman Rahmatullah
- SMPSUploaded bybhaktamelt
- Sita Eng&ComManual 4V14 26-0353-21Uploaded bycaiofrade