You are on page 1of 14

Electrical Power and Energy Systems 67 (2015) 1124

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electrical Power and Energy Systems


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

Improved parameters for economic dispatch problems by teaching


learning optimization
S. Durai , S. Subramanian, S. Ganesan
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Annamalai University, Annamalainagar, Chidambaram 608 002, Tamil Nadu, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The solution of Economic Dispatch (ED) problems mainly depends on the modelling of thermal genera-
Received 23 August 2014 tors. The physical variations such as aging and ambient temperature affect the modelling parameters and
Received in revised form 26 September are unavoidable. As these parameters are the backbone of ED solution, the periodical estimation of these
2014
characteristics coefcients is necessary for accurate dispatch. The process is formulated as an error min-
Accepted 15 November 2014
imization problem and a nature inspired algorithm namely Teaching Learning Based Optimization (TLBO)
is proposed as an estimator. This work provides a frame work for the computation of coefcients for qua-
dratic and cubic cost functions, valve point loading, piece-wise quadratic cost and emission functions. The
Keywords:
Parameter estimation
effectiveness of TLBO is demonstrated on 5 standard test systems and a practical Indian utility system,
Error estimation involving varying degree of complexity. TLBO yields better results than benchmark Least Error Square
Economy deviation (LES) method and other evolutionary algorithms. The economic deviation is also tested with existing
Non-convex function systems.
Teaching learning optimization 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction tion of these coefcients helps to perform the secure and economic
operation [1,2]. Therefore, an accurate and reliable estimation
Role of parameters in ED problems technique is essential to estimate the coefcients of fuel cost and
emission functions.
Economic Dispatch (ED) ensures the economical operation of
power system that requires the accurate fuel inputoutput charac- Existing parameters estimation procedures for ED problem
teristic of generators which may be linear or non-linear. The char-
acteristics can be expressed mathematically as a linear or Parameter estimation is a crucial issue in power system opera-
quadratic or higher-order polynomial function. The emission char- tions. Various methods have been addressed and can be broadly
acteristics of thermal generators are also expressed in the same classied into two types; mathematical and heuristic. The mathe-
way. The accuracy of the ED solution depends on various factors matical approaches such as Least Error Square (LES) and Gauss
such as the selected model, the data and parameters used, as well Newton have been used to solve estimation problems in power
as the optimization tool used for solving the problem. Different systems [3]. Taylor and Huang reported a mathematical method
mathematical models are being used for the representation of using a recursive procedure to estimate the cost curve coefcients
functions such as fuel cost, fuel cost with valve point loading [4]. El-Hawary and Mansour conducted performance analysis of
effects and emission. Certain practical thermal units use different Least Square Error (LSE), Bard algorithm, Marquardt algorithm
fuels like coal, natural gas and oil, which have different heat con- and Powell regression algorithm for estimating coefcients [5].
tents and leads to piecewise quadratic cost function. The weighted least square multiple regression method has been
The inputoutput characteristics of thermal generators play an employed to obtain the coefcients of cubic cost function [6].
important role for its optimal operation and these characteristics The sequential regression technique and a method based on the
are affected by various factors such as ambient temperature and operating records of the power stations have been suggested for
aging of thermal units that alters the coefcients. The accurate fuel cost coefcients estimation [7]. The methods based on the
coefcients of these functions leads to the exact dispatch, and least absolute value approximations and curve tting techniques
the optimal ED solution can be obtained. Thus, periodical estima- have been reported for fuel cost coefcients estimation [8,9]. The
mathematical methods require high computational effort hence
Corresponding author. high computational time. These classical estimators deliver poor
E-mail address: duraiselvaraj86@gmail.com (S. Durai). performance in the presence of gross errors.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.11.010
0142-0615/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
12 S. Durai et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 67 (2015) 1124

Nomenclature

Fi fuel-cost function of the ith generating unit e0i, eji emission coefcients of the ith unit
Pti power generated by the ith thermal generating unit gi, di exponential term coefcients for emission function of
(MW) the ith unit
a0i, aji cost characteristics coefcients of the ith generating rei error associated with the emission characteristics of ith
unit generating unit
ei, fi valve-point loading coefcients of the ith unit Cimin, Cimax minimum and maximum fuel-cost coefcients of the
rci error associated with the cost characteristic equation of ith unit
ith generating unit Fi actual, Fi estimated actual fuel cost and estimated fuel cost of the
N number of thermal generating units ith unit
L polynomial order Ei actual, Ei estimated actual emission and estimated emission of the
Ei emission function of the ith generating unit ith unit

The heuristic and other articial intelligence techniques have elds of engineering such as Civil Engineering [30], Mechanical
been applied in the eld of power system estimation. The heuristic Engineering [31,32] and Electrical Engineering [33,34].
techniques such as Articial Neural Network (ANN) [10,11], Fuzzy
Logic (FL) [12], ant colony optimization [14] and bacterial foraging
algorithm [17,18,22] have been used as estimators for load fore- Contributions
casting, state estimation and parameter estimation of inductor
motors respectively. Though ANN is superior when the process The most important issue in economic dispatch problem is to
model is not well dened mathematically, it requires huge amount have an accurate estimate of thermal inputoutput curve coef-
of data for training, which may not be available for some cases. The cients. The inaccurate estimate adversely affects the accuracy of
main drawbacks for fuzzy logic based method are creating the the dispatch process. Few researchers have contributed to estimate
fuzzy rules is difcult which requires much experience. the quadratic fuel cost coefcients. As the results of research, third-
Among these methods, Genetic Algorithm (GA) [13], Particle order cost function model accurately represents the practical ther-
Swarm Optimization (PSO) [15,16] and Articial Bee Colony mal generator [19,21]. But, no work has been reported in this eld.
(ABC) [23] algorithm have been applied to the chosen problem. Due to the strict environmental regulations, usage of exact emis-
The heuristic techniques outperform the mathematical methods sion coefcients has become important. These two points motivate
but their solution quality is sensitive to the algorithmic controlling us to contribute research in parameter estimation of cubic cost and
parameters like population size and number of generations. emission coefcients. A maiden attempt has been performed for
Besides common control parameters, different algorithms require estimating emission parameters and estimating fuel cost coef-
their own algorithm specic control parameters. GA uses mutation cients for thermal power plants with multiple fuel options. In addi-
rate and crossover rate, PSO uses inertia weight and social and cog- tion, comparison in terms of economy deviation has also been
nitive parameters and ABC uses limit and the proper selection of carried out.
algorithm specic parameters is a crucial factor affecting the per- The main contributions of this work in accord with GA [13], PSO
formance of the algorithms. The improper selection of these [16] and ABC [23] methods are as follows:
parameters either increases computational effort or yields to local
optimal solution. 1. Estimation of fuel cost coefcients for second and third order
models of thermal generators.
2. Fuel cost with valve point coefcients estimation of thermal
Parameters improvement by TLBO generators with multiple fuel options.
3. Estimation of emission coefcients for nonlinear models of
The heuristic search techniques such as GA, PSO and ABC may thermal generators.
be trapped in local optima due to premature convergence that pre- 4. Economic deviation due to the accurate estimates is also carried
vent the algorithm reaching the global optima. The solution quality out.
of these algorithms is controlled by algorithmic parameters and
they require tuning to nd the optimal control settings. Recently, The TLBO algorithm is implemented on different scale of test
Rao et al. developed an algorithm parameter free optimization systems for estimating linear and nonlinear coefcients for both
technique by inspiring teachinglearning behaviour in the class fuel cost and emission functions.
room, namely Teaching Learning Based Optimization (TLBO) [28].
Like other nature-inspired algorithms, it is also a population
based algorithm comprises Teaching Phase (TP) and Learning Organisation of the article
Phase (LP). In the TP, random ordered states of points called learn-
ers within the search space are produced. Then the most feasible Rest of the paper is structured as follows: Economic power dis-
point is considered as the teacher, who is the highly learned person patch models are detailed in Section Economic power dispatch
and shares his or her knowledge with the learners and others learn models. Mathematical formulation for parameter estimation is
signicant group information from the teacher. In the LP, the introduced in Section Parameter estimation problem. Section
learners learn by interacting between each other. TLBO is an Teaching learning optimisation presents an overview about TLBO
algorithm-specic, parameter-less algorithm that does not require algorithm which is followed by its implementation for the chosen
any algorithm-specic parameters to be tuned [29]. This algorithm problem in Section Evaluations of coefcients using TLBO. The
can nd the global solution for nonlinear constrained optimization detailed discussions about numerical results achieved are given
problems with less computation effort and high consistency [28]. in Section Results and discussions. Finally, Section Conclusion
The effectiveness of TLBO algorithm has been reported in various outlines the conclusions.
S. Durai et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 67 (2015) 1124 13

Economic power dispatch models D System matrix that relates the fuel cost to power output
or emission to power output.
Fuel-cost function: Non-convex P(k) Power output for kth measurement.
Where D = [1 P(k)] for linear model.
In this model, the fuel cost curve for thermal generating unit (i) D = [1 P(k) P2(k)] for second-order model.
can be described as a polynomial function as, D = [1 P(k) P2(k) P3(k)] for third-order model.
x Parameters to estimate for fuel cost (or) emission
X
L
F i P ti aoi aji Pjti r ci i 1; 2 . . . N 1 coefcients.
j1 x a0 a1 a2 T and x e0 e1 e2 T for 2nd order fuel cost and
emission estimates respectively.
If L = 1, the model is linear. x a0 a1 a2 a3 T and x e0 e1 e2 e3 T for 3rd order of fuel
If L = 2, the fuel cost function is expressed as a second-order cost and emission estimates respectively.
polynomial as, r Error vector that relates y(k) to x.
F i P ti aoi a1i pti a2i p2ti r ci 2 There are k equations available to represent the Factual or
Eactual that form measurement matrix y(k).
If L = 3, the fuel cost function is a cubic polynomial and is TLBO is used to nd an estimate for the unknown values of
expressed as, [x]. These estimates are used to recalculate Festimated or
F i P ti aoi a1i pti a2i p2ti a3i p3ti r ci 3 Eestimated at each time step.

Then the error at each step k for generating unit i can be calcu-
Fuel-cost function: Non-smooth lated as,
rci F i actual  Fi estimated 12
The valve point effects produce ripples in the inputoutput
characteristics and this effect can be included in the fuel cost func- rei Ei actual  Ei estimated 13
tion by adding a sinusoid term [16] and is, Now, the problem formulation can be stated clearly to nd an
" #
X
L   estimate for the parameter vector [x] for any model that minimizes
F i P ti a0i aji Pjti ei sinf i Pi;min  Pti  rci 4 the error vector.
j1 The objective function is minimized subject to the physical lim-
  its of each coefcient that is given as,
If L 2; F i P ti a0i a1i pti a2i p2ti jei sinf i P i;min  P ti j r ci 5
C min
i 6 C i 6 C max
i 14
 
If L 3; F i P ti a0i a1i pti a2i p2ti a3i p3ti jei sinf i P i;min  Pti j r ci 6

Teaching learning optimization


Emission function
Teaching Learning Based Optimization (TLBO) is a nature
The pollutant emission characteristic of a thermal generator can inspired algorithm that mimics the teachinglearning process
be modelled as either linear or non-linear and is as follows [25]. between the teacher and the students in a classroom. It is a pow-
erful evolutionary algorithm that maintains a population of stu-
X
L
Ei Pti eoi eji Pjti r ei i 1; 2:::N 7 dents, where each student represents a potential solution to an
j1 optimization problem. This algorithm comprises of two phases,
namely teacher phase (learners learn from the teacher) and the
X
L learner phase (learners learn by interaction among themselves).
Ei Pti eoi eji Pjti gi expdi Pti r ei 8
j1 Teacher phase

If L 2; Ei P ti eoi e1i pti e2i p2ti rei 9 A teacher is one who brings the learners knowledge from the
initial to his or her level of knowledge. But in practice, this is not
Ei Pti eoi e1i pti e2i p2ti gi expdi Pti r ei 10 possible and a teacher can only move the mean of a class up to
some extent depending on the ability of the class. This follows a
random progression depending on many factors. Let, Mp is the
Parameter estimation problem mean and Tp be the teacher at any iteration p. Tp will try to shift
mean Mp towards its own level, so now the new mean will be Tp
Consider the vector equation describing the relationships designated as Mnew. The solution is updated according to the differ-
between the measurement values y the unknown parameters x, ence between the existing and the new mean given by,
the system matrix D, and the residual due to (noise) values r is
given by, D Meanp randM new  sF M p 15

Y Dx r 11 where sF is a teaching factor that decides the value of mean to be


changed, and rand is a random number in the range of [0, 1]. The
The parameter estimation problem for estimating characteristic value of sF can be either 1 or 2, which is again a heuristic step
curve coefcients of thermal generator can be formulated as
and decided randomly with equal probability as,
follows:
Let, sF round1 rand0; 1 16
The existing solution can be modied based on the difference
k Number of measurements. (Eq. (15)) according to the following expression,
y(k) Measured value of the kth measurement. i.e. Fuel cost
(Factual) or emission (Eactual). Snew; p Sold; p D Meanp 17
14 S. Durai et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 67 (2015) 1124

START

Read system data

Initialize population size (Ps), fuel cost, number of generating units,


coefficients at the time installation, maximum number of iterations

Randomly generate population using Eq. (20)

Calculate Festimated and fitness subject to constraints

Iter = 1

Compute the mean of each coefficients value (MP) and evaluate


D_Meanp according to Eq. (15)
Teacher phase
Update Snew, p using (17) and fitness using (12), (13) subject to
constraints

Obtain Snew, p in leaner phase using Eqs. (18), (19) and check
for constraints
Learner phase
Calculate and compare fitness solutions and keep the best

Iter = Iter + 1

NO Is
Iter Itermax

YES

Print the optimal results

STOP

Fig. 1. Flowchart for parameter estimation using TLBO.

Learner phase Step 3: Check for the constraint violation using Eq. (14).
Step 4: If the limit is violated, then upgrade the cost coefcients
In this phase, the knowledge level of the students is enhanced of the units using the following equation
with the use of knowledge interaction. A learner interacts ran- 8 min  
domly with other learner for enhancing him or her knowledge. If >
> C ; C ji < C min
> i
<
i
the other leaner has more knowledge than him or her, a leaner
 
C ji C max ; C ji > C min 21
can learn something new by interaction. Based on this observation, >
> i i
>
: j
randomly select two learners Sp and Sq and the equations repre- C i ; C max
i P C ji P C min
i
senting learner phase are as follows:
Step 5: Calculate Festimated and Eestimated by using Eqs. (6) and (10)
Snew; p Sold; p randSp  Sq ; if f Sp < f Sq 18 respectively.
Step 6: The error associated with each measurement can be cal-
Snew; p Sold; p randSq  Sp ; if f Sq < f Sp 19 culated by using Eqs. (12) and (13).
Step 7: Teacher phase: Compute difference mean using Eq. (15)
and evaluate Snew, p using Eq. (17).
Evaluations of coefcients using TLBO Step 8: If Snew, p is better than Sold, p then replaces Sold, p by Snew, p
otherwise Sold, p is preserved.
Step 1: Read the generator data, actual fuel cost (Factual), power Step 9: Update the coefcients subject to constraints.
output (P), number of variables (CG), population size (PS), max- Step 10: Leaner phase: Compute Snew, p by using Eqs. (18) and
imum number of iterations, maximum and minimum limits of (19).
fuel cost function coefcients (Cimin, Cimax). Step 11: Termination criterion: If Iter P Itermax, print the opti-
Step 2: Randomly generate fuel cost coefcients using the fol- mal results, otherwise goto step 7.
lowing equation,
 
Fig. 1 depicts the owchart for parameter estimation using
C ji C min
i rand  C max
i  C min
i i 1 .. .CG; j 1 .. .PS 20
TLBO.
S. Durai et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 67 (2015) 1124 15

Table 1
Estimation of fuel-cost coefcients for second-order model using TLBO and comparison with other methods 3 unit system.

Units P (MW) Coefcients estimated by TLBO Factual (GJ/h) Festimated (GJ/h) Error
TLBO ABC [23] PSO [16] LES [16]
1 (Coal) 10 a01 96.6025 176.62 176.622 0.002 0.001 0.262 2.368
20 a11 7.588 256.40 264.922 8.522 8.513 8.365 5.568
30 a21 0.0414 361.50 361.503 0.003 0.013 0.000 2.496
40 467.60 466.363 1.237 1.259 1.038 2.240
50 579.50 579.502 0.002 0.025 0.452 1.536
Total error 9.767 9.81 10.117 14.208
2 (Oil) 10 a02 101.5800 184.75 184.779 0.029 0.015 1.150 2.442
20 a12 7.8778 268.20 276.818 8.617 8.574 7.200 5.662
30 a22 0.0442 377.70 377.697 0.003 0.047 1.300 2.442
40 488.80 487.416 1.384 1.428 2.200 2.266
50 606.00 605.975 0.025 0.069 0.000 1.690
Total error 10.058 10.133 11.850 14.464
3 (Gas) 10 a03 101.820 187.20 187.200 0.000 0.599 1.420 2.376
20 a13 8.099 272.80 281.360 8.560 8.560 6.321 5.568
30 a23 0.0439 384.30 384.300 0.000 0.001 2.278 2.568
40 497.20 496.020 1.179 1.178 2.716 2.284
50 616.50 606.520 0.019 0.023 0.007 1.420
Total error 9.759 10.361 12.742 14.216

Fig. 2. Cost coefcients of generating units and error by TLBO (practical system) (a0, a1 and a2 are the fuel cost coefcients of generators by TLBO).

Results and discussions The TLBO algorithm is applied to the following test cases and
the obtained simulation results are analysed.
To assess the feasibility of TLBO as an estimator, it is applied to Case 1: Fuel cost coefcients estimation:
various test systems including a practical Indian Utility System
(IUS). The algorithm is implemented in Matlab package and (1a) Second-order (1b) Third-order
simulation cases are carried out on a personal computer having (1c) Piecewise quadratic (1d) Non-smooth
the conguration of Intel(R) core i3 CPU and 2 GB RAM. With the
knowledge of individual generating unit characteristics, the esti-
mation process has been done separately for each unit in a plant.
Case 2: Emission coefcients estimation:
The following algorithmic parameters are chosen for all cases in
order to validate the performance of the algorithm: Population
size = 10; maximum number of iterations = 120. (2a) Second-order (2b) Second-order with exponential
16 S. Durai et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 67 (2015) 1124

Table 2
Estimation of fuel cost function coefcients for third-order model using TLBO and comparison with other methods 3 unit system.

Units P (MW) Coefcients estimated by TLBO Factual (GJ/h) Festimated (GJ/h) Error
TLBO ABC [23] PSO [16] LES[16]
1 (Coal) 10 a01 124.4326 176.62 176.622 0.014499 0.0048 0.186 0.393
20 a11 3.4999 256.40 264.922 0.842196 0.7342 4.157 1.874
30 a21 0.1870 361.50 361.503 4.24431 4.4068 0.451 1.779
40 a31 0.0015 467.60 466.363 0.074983 0.1078 3.846 3.368
50 579.50 579.502 7.35e05 0.1688 0.000 2.915
Total error 5.176061 5.4224 8.641 10.329
2 (Oil) 10 a02 129.2972 184.75 184.779 0.01623 0.0109 0.674 0.449
20 a12 3.8 268.20 276.818 0.97343 0.9631 0.000 1.362
30 a22 0.1897 377.70 377.697 4.18122 4.1929 4.690 3.477
40 a32 0.0015 488.80 487.416 0.00226 0.0289 0.063 0.716
50 606.00 605.975 0.02388 0.0449 0.119 5.055
Total error 5.19702 5.2407 5.547 11.059
3 (Gas) 10 a03 129.8867 187.20 187.2141 0.014059 0.0167 0.099 0.396
20 a13 3.982732 272.80 273.5414 0.74138 1.8323 1.526 1.888
30 a23 0.19 384.30 379.8687 4.431299 3.7387 3.300 1.848
40 a33 0.0015 497.20 497.196 0.003978 0.0297 0.874 3.296
50 616.50 616.5233 0.023343 0.1593 0.000 2.720
Total error 5.214059 5.7767 5.799 10.148

Case 1: Fuel cost coefcients estimation The TLBO is applied to both test systems to estimate fuel cost
coefcients. In test system 1, generators 1, 2 and 3 are fuelled with
(1a) Second-order coal, oil and gas respectively. For each unit, the fuel costs for ve
In this study, two different test systems are used. The test system different real power outputs are specied. The estimated coef-
1 consists of 3 same rated thermal generators but are fuelled with cients by TLBO are presented in Table 1. Comparing with the Factual,
different fuels like coal, oil and gas. The second test system is a the fuel costs computed using the estimated coefcients are highly
practical IUS that consists of 19 generating units. In both test close. It is also noticed that the fuel costs for 20 MW and 40 MW
systems, thermal generator is represented as a second-order model. outputs of unit 1, 20 MW output of unit 2, 20 MW and 50 MW
The system data including the fuel cost coefcients and power for unit 3 show mismatch with the Factual. The value of total error
outputs are taken from [16,27] for test systems 1 and 2 respectively. is an indicator of the good estimate even mismatches exists. The

Table 3
Estimation of piecewise quadratic cost function coefcients using TLBO 10 unit system.
P
Unit P (MW) Fuel type Coefcients estimated by TLBO Factual (GJ/h) Festimated (GJ/h) error

Min Max a0i a1i a2i ei fi Min Max Min Max TLBO ABC
1 100 196 1 29.20909 0.40261 0.002085 0.025602 3.72202 8.98 30.74 9.795786 30.4048 1.15099 3.98151
196 250 2 27.0709 0.37683 0.002056 0.014242 1.98183 32.83 61.23 32.19326 61.36292 0.76993 2.81373
2 50 114 2 24.75813 0.32459 0.001976 0.011376 0.49052 12.31 23.21 13.44119 22.52475 1.81643 3.25496
114 157 3 121.8423 1.269 0.004171 0.01184 1.269 23.38 50.29 22.63076 50.64174 1.10097 2.75457
157 230 1 0.490106 0.01988 0.001072 0.000187 0.01988 2.68 12.12 2.176908 12.15984 0.54293 2.93069
3 200 332 1 15.33609 0.1116 0.001078 0.031386 3.116 35.85 97.17 36.14554 97.13976 0.32578 1.59272
332 388 3 0.875 0.030159 0.000799 0.00188 0.317377 96.72 130.96 97.24074 131.1594 0.720146 1.27426
388 500 2 60.1284 0.529741 1.87E05 0.06396 5.615244 148.19 210.38 148.2211 209.444 0.967105 1.66413
4 99 138 1 0.64015 0.01114 0.000976 0.000198 0.1114 9.18 17.69 9.107432 17.69844 0.081011 1.15842
138 200 2 36.63337 0.4348 0.002166 0.02856 1.348 17.9 36.55 17.88792 36.35651 0.20557 0.43500
200 265 3 297.7974 2.6212 0.005948 0.289266 26.855 10.36 20.72 11.48527 21.15547 1.560746 4.91182
5 190 338 1 10.21014 0.05733 0.001032 0.001392 0.5733 36.77 108.73 36.58122 108.7596 0.218393 1.15977
338 407 2 17.57555 0.1206 0.000943 0.180047 4.206 85.34 125.45 84.55172 124.8753 1.36296 5.70216
407 490 3 13.99 0.293241 0.000381 0.01399 4.791302 168.49 221.01 168.4314 221.1317 0.180361 0.41948
6 138 200 1 12.8828 0.1348 0.001245 0.012859 1.348 17.9 36.55 17.99385 35.7427 0.901149 1.59502
85 138 2 0.908059 0.01114 0.000966 0.003842 0.1114 6.91 17.69 6.942233 17.77321 0.115441 0.91532
200 265 3 0.221648 0.01114 0.000334 0.00253 0.1114 10.36 20.72 11.3498 20.72001 0.989807 2.44408
7 200 331 1 168.7099 1.338 0.003435 0.1668 13.38 38.55 100.6 38.49493 102.1707 1.625755 2.96959
331 391 2 10.07106 0.01325 0.000903 0.00682 0.1325 104.13 143.01 104.6028 142.9262 0.556605 1.94797
391 500 3 32.37604 0.1267 0.00108 0.017307 1.267 138.44 202.98 139.5341 203.0004 1.094147 2.66318
8 99 138 1 13.35 0.0210098 0.00018 0.01335 1.883936 9.18 17.69 8.6105 17.91155 0.791051 1.15768
138 200 2 2.439954 0.01114 0.000908 0.000198 0.1114 17.9 36.55 18.20204 36.54774 0.304309 1.13761
200 265 3 62.85 0.6348 0.001795 0.046 6.348 10.36 20.72 7.68999 20.72224 2.672249 4.66804
9 213 370 1 3.39904 0.1675 0.000765 0.05853 3.675 32.44 77.64 22.46561 38.49148 1.394315 2.68979
130 213 3 14.69024 0.03514 0.007014 0.04446 0.0817 92 125.61 92.02962 125.9219 0.341567 1.07008
370 440 3 13.6392 0.00817 0.000587 0.007614 0.0817 22.29 38.42 22.46561 38.49148 0.24709 5.65214
10 200 362 1 14.84281 0.08938 0.001092 0.025083 0.7938 39.34 125.47 40.62715 125.5281 1.345273 1.87694
362 407 3 31.56548 0.1024 0.001064 0.033809 1.024 133.44 165.57 133.8806 166.1092 0.09767 1.10165
407 490 2 61.13 0.551445 4.62E05 0.06113 5.81165 170.17 220.2 170.9682 220.2415 0.839705 1.08521
S. Durai et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 67 (2015) 1124 17

total error obtained by LES [16], PSO [16], ABC [23] and TLBO for
units 1, 2 and 3 are also listed in Table 1. Comparing the total error
with the earlier reports, the TLBO achieve the least errors of 9.767,
10.058 and 9.759 respectively. It is also noted that the TLBO
achieve errors close to zero around three times for each units
which shows the estimates are the accurate.
The IUS comprising of 19 thermal generators, whose inputout-
put characteristics are expressed as second-order polynomials, is
used to demonstrate how good the TLBO works for this type of
practical systems. The parameter estimation process has been car-
ried out for each unit in the system. The fuel costs are computed
using the new coefcients and are compared against the Factual.
The total error obtained by the TLBO for each unit is depicted in
Fig. 2. The obtained total errors are almost close to 1 for most of
the units except 1st, 6th, 12th and 18th generator which are below
0.5; hence the estimates are highly appreciable.

(1b) Third-order
In the ED models, the fuel cost function is chosen to be of qua-
dratic form. However, the fuel cost function becomes more non-
linear when the actual generator response is considered. In the
year 1965, Navarro and Baker [1] described the use of cubic cost
Fig. 3. % Error in emission coefcients estimation for 13 unit system.
curves in economic loading of electric power stations. Shoults

Table 4
Estimation of fuel cost coefcients with valve-point loadings for third-order model using TLBO 13 unit system.

Unit P (MW) Coefcients FActual (GJ/h) Festimated (GJ/h) Error Total error
Actual TLBO
1 0 550 550.6453 0.645271 1.517337
100 a0i 550 550.6453 1468.08 1468.474 0.393575
200 a1i 8.1 8.1 2378.62 2378.819 0.198763
300 a2i 2.8e4 0.000282 3270.22 3270.259 0.039493
400 a3i 4.10e08 4.00E08 4134.61 4134.56 0.050103
500 ei 300 299 4967.81 4967.749 0.061449
600 fi 0.035 0.035003 5770.65 5770.655 0.004579
680 6491.9 6492.024 0.124104
2, 3 0 309 308.7912 0.20877 0.739317
50 a0i 309 308.7912 888.05 888.0625 0.012453
100 a1i 8.1 8.1 1299 1299.018 0.017767
150 a2i 5.6e4 0.000561 1540.24 1540.059 0.181202
200 a3i 8.1e08 8.10E08 2122.97 2123.021 0.051457
250 ei 200 200.2505 2546.2 2546.292 0.092017
300 fi 0.042 0.042 2798.31 2798.22 0.089686
360 3412.29 3412.376 0.085965
4, 5 60 716.09 715.9214 0.168557 0.462576
6, 7 80 a0i 240 239.7143 1022.81 1022.723 0.087316
8, 9 100 a1i 7.74 7.742172 1133.86 1133.776 0.084475
120 a2i 32.4e4 0.003237 1305.04 1305.014 0.025655
140 a3i 11.2e08 1.11E07 1529.43 1529.423 0.006868
160 ei 150 150.0478 1564.32 1564.346 0.025963
180 fi 0.063 0.063003 1882.39 1882.454 0.063674
200 2003.78 2003.78 6.74E05
10, 11 40 474.56 474.3676 0.192437 1.0808320
50 a0i 126 125.6156 637.59 637.6407 0.050658
60 a1i 8.6 8.608757 751.68 751.7106 0.03058
70 a2i 28.4e4 0.002742 800.23 799.9631 0.266942
80 a3i 23.0e08 2.25E07 853.96 853.9672 0.007169
90 ei 100 100.2616 1010.33 1010.328 0.001784
100 fi 0.084 0.084067 1109.31 1108.935 0.374866
120 1241.6 1241.444 0.156396
12, 13 55 607.63 607.6352 0.005216 0.799582
65 a0i 126 126.8022 771.53 771.7307 0.200681
75 a1i 8.6 8.581582 886.48 886.6839 0.20391
85 a2i 28.4e4 0.002911 935.89 935.8477 0.042292
95 a3i 23.0e08 2.43E07 990.5 990.3283 0.171664
105 ei 100 100.3871 1147.73 1147.766 0.03575
115 fi 0.084 0.084011 1247.59 1247.576 0.013731
120 1272.62 1272.494 0.126337
18 S. Durai et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 67 (2015) 1124

and Mead [6] mentioned in the year 1984 that third order model is fuel costs calculated using the estimated values are close to the
suitable for electric power industry practices. Recently, Saber et al., Factual which shows the accurate estimate. The simulation results
[19] performed sensitive study to recommend third-order model reported by using LES [16], PSO [16] and ABC [23] are compared.
for economic dispatch solution. Cubic function models more accu- The most recent report [23] has attained the total error of
rately provide the actual response of thermal generators. The 5.4224, 5.2407 and 5.7767 for units 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The
rough approximation of generator characteristic function makes TLBO algorithm achieves the total error of 5.176061, 5.19702 and
the economic dispatch solution deviated from the optimality and 5.214059 for units 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The comparison clearly
the economic dispatch solution can be improved by considering indicates that the TLBO converges at the least total error for all
cubic models [20,21]. Hence, we have considered cubic models units.
for this research.
In this case, the algorithm is implemented on the same 3-unit (1c) Piecewise quadratic
system used in case 1a. The higher order representation of The test system chosen for this case consists of 10-generating
inputoutput curve may depict the practical characteristics of gen- units in which each unit has two or three fuel options like
erators [16]. By utilizing the fuel cost corresponding to power out- coal, oil and gas. As more than one fuel is used, the generator
put particulars, the estimation is processed and the obtained inputoutput characteristic is expressed as a piecewise quadratic
coefcients are presented in Table 2. Like the previous case, the function. The valve point effects can also be included along with

Table 5
Estimation of emission function coefcients by TLBO 5 unit system.

Unit P (MW) Coefcients Eactual (kg/h) Eestimated (kg/h) Error Total error
Actual TLBO
1 10 e01 80 80.97444 85.03 85.97122 0.971216 1.29921
50 e11 0.805 0.805 991491.3 991491.5 0.18236
75 e21 0.0180 0.017685 1219711333.43 1219711333.57563 0.145634
g1 0.6550 0.655
d1 0.28460 0.2846
2 20 e02 50 48.23428 45.84 45.58126 0.258736 0.879284
75 e12 0.555 0.455 96.37 96.95994 0.58994
125 e22 0.0150 0.014 227.28 227.3106 0.030608
g2 0.5773 0.4773
d2 0.02446 0.028677
3 30 e03 60 58.14515 29.78 31.02219 1.242187 1.494093
100 e13 1.355 1.2 34.31 34.08071 0.229295
175 e23 0.0105 0.009062 170.83 170.8526 0.022611
g3 0.4968 0.306411
d3 0.02270 0.028535
4 40 e04 45 43.22837 34.86 34.69329 0.166715 0.82333
150 e14 0.600 0.5476 144.03 143.5356 0.494355
250 e24 0.0080 0.007672 458.34 458.1777 0.162261
g4 0.4860 0.492315
d4 0.01948 0.019961
5 50 e05 30 29.42958 33.67 33.3066 0.363397 0.676372
200 e15 0.555 0.555 430.94 430.929 0.011046
300 e25 0.0120 0.011898 1197.88 1198.182 0.301928
g5 0.5035 0.7
d5 0.02075 0.019781

Table 6
Average increase in objectives for IUS and 13-unit system by TLBO.

Test system Unit Average increase in cost (Rs/h) Unit Average increase in cost (Rs/h)
Indian utility system 1 0.006612 11 0.110225
2 0.066567 12 0.08871
3 0.066783 13 0.056361
4 1.266229 14 0.124864
5 0.049812 15 0.184268
6 0.014133 16 0.114246
7 0.068257 17 0.967337
8 0.043484 18 0.024943
9 0.210777 19 0.007418
10 0.250025
Test system Unit Average increase in emission (kg/h) Unit Average increase in emission (kg/h)
13-Unit system 1 0.156366 8 0.076141
2 0.040766 9 0.076141
3 0.040766 10 0.288891
4 0.076141 11 0.288891
5 0.076141 12 0.102266
6 0.076141 13 0.102266
7 0.076141
S. Durai et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 67 (2015) 1124 19

this expression. The system data is available in the literature [24]. estimation process. Like previous cases, the results indicate that
The generator characteristic is expressed as a piecewise quadratic TLBO outperforms ABC. For each unit, the total error for each fuel
function including valve point effect that increases the number of is also computed and is presented in Table 3. It is observed that
variables to be estimated. Each fuel has 3 and 2 coefcients for 17 out of 29 estimate having the total error less than 1.
quadratic function and valve point term respectively. In this test
system, the generator 1 has two fuel option and the remaining (1d) Non-smooth model
units have three fuel options. It is specied that the fuel 2 is uneco- The algorithm is implemented on a test system consisting of 13
nomical for generator 9. The TLBO attains new values for coef- generating units. The generators are represented as a third order
cients and are presented in Table 3. For a generator, each fuel polynomial. The inclusion of valve point loading adds a sinusoidal
has minimum and maximum generation levels, thus two fuel costs term in its characteristic equation. It is difcult to nd the optimal
are available. The estimation process has been performed for each dispatch in the solution space as the sinusoidal term generates
generation level. Hence, two results of Factual and Festimated are pre- multiple minima in the search space. Further, the use of inaccurate
sented for each fuel type in Table 3. A maiden attempt has been coefcients, deviate the ED solution from the optimality. Hence the
made to estimate the coefcients for this kind of characteristic accurate estimate of coefcients is necessary to determine the
curves. The ABC and TLBO algorithms are applied for parameter optimal output of each generating units. The parameter estimation

Fig. 4. Convergence characteristics for second order systems using TLBO, (a) 3 unit system, (b) 5 unit system, (c) 10 unit system fuel 1, (d) 10 unit system Fuel 2, (e) 10 unit
system Fuel 3, (f) 13 unit system, and (g) 19 unit system.
20 S. Durai et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 67 (2015) 1124

is processed using TLBO. The estimated coefcients and the error In the chosen test system, limited data is available. If the number
associated with the estimates are given in Table 4. It is observed of measurements is more; then the more accurate estimate may
that the total error is greater than 1 for units 1, 11, 12 and 13 be obtained for units 1, 10 and 11. The obtained parameters are
and is less than 1 for the remaining generating units. This shows compared with the values at the time installation and the compar-
that the estimates are highly closer to actual values. Since, the ison indicates a slight deviation in each parameter. The estimation
physical generation limits of generating units are also used in the shows the actual emission characteristic of each generator. The
estimation process. The minimum generation capacity limits of actual characteristics can help to operate the system within the
1st, 2nd and 3rd generators is 0 MW, hence the value of P is taken emission limits.
as 0 MW whereas in the remaining generators (4th13th), the min-
imum values are 60 MW (Generators 49), 40 MW (Generators 10,
(2b) Second-order model with exponential characteristic
11) and 55 MW (Generators 12, 13).
In this case, a test system is chosen that having 5 thermal units.
The test system data is taken from [25]. The emission characteristic
Case 2: Emission coefcients estimation
of each generator is expressed as a second-order polynomial along
with an exponential term which includes the non-linearity in the
Further, the TLBO is applied to estimate the emission function
emission characteristic. The algorithm is executed to nd the emis-
coefcients of thermal generating units. The generator models
sion coefcients for each unit. The new values of coefcients and
such as second-order and quadratic with exponential term are cho-
their allied total error are presented in Table 5. It is seen that the
sen for estimation.
TLBO settled at the error which is less than 1 for all specied
outputs of generating units. Like previous cases, the minimum
(2a) Second-order model
total error indicates the accurate estimation. The estimated values
The TLBO algorithm is used to estimate the emission function
give the actual emission characteristics of the system. By these
coefcients of a test system contains 13 generating units. The sys-
coefcients, the system can be operated optimally while satisfying
tem specics are available in [26]. The second-order model is
the emission norms.
adopted and the pollutant emission characteristic is represented
as a quadratic equation. The algorithm is executed for each unit
to nd its accurate characteristic coefcients. The % total error Solution quality
obtained by TLBO for each unit is depicted in Fig. 3 and the
unit names are embedded inside the corresponding part. The Though the TLBO algorithm does not require specic parameter
estimation process has been made with the specied data. For tuning, several trials have been conducted by varying the
the accurate estimate, number of measurements should be more. population size. It is viewed that there is no large difference in

Fig. 5. Performance characteristics for third order systems using TLBO. Convergence characteristics: (a) 3 unit system and (b) 13 unit system with valve point. Robustness curve:
(c) 3 unit system and (d) 13 unit system with valve point.
S. Durai et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 67 (2015) 1124 21

the average tness value above the population size of 10. Hence a better estimate with least margin. The TLBO achieves the best
this parameter is chosen for all estimation. The obtained simula- estimate within the comparing methods. It is also worth to point
tion results are compared with the mathematical approach LES out that the developed methodology attains around 50% of total
and the most recent reports like PSO and ABC. In a few cases, the error obtained by LES in all cases and for some cases (units 1 and
research is not well progressed and the obtained values are 2 in Table 1; unit 2 in Table 2) close to the estimate of ABC. The
compared against the specied coefcients. The numerical results simulations are performed to estimate the quadratic and valve
presented in Table 1 prove the effectiveness of the method by point coefcients of fuel cost functions, the coefcients of piece-
detailing the solution qualities as well as performance comparison wise quadratic cost function and the emission coefcients and
with other methods such as LES, PSO and ABC. for these cases the coefcients at the time of installation are only
Obviously, the TLBO provides better estimate than LES. In addi- available, hence the comparison has been made with only these
tion, the TLBO outperforms other heuristic search based estimators values. The comparisons of total error in each case clearly indicate
such as PSO and ABC. The LES method attains the highest total that the TLBO provides the best estimate of coefcients hence the
error in all estimations. Among PSO and ABC, the latter provides accurate estimate.

Fig. 6. Robustness characteristics for second order systems using TLBO. (a) 3 unit system, (b) 5 unit system, (c) 10 unit system Fuel 1, (d) 10 unit system Fuel 2, (e) 10 unit
system Fuel 3, (f) 13 unit system, and (g) 19 unit system.
22 S. Durai et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 67 (2015) 1124

Table 7
Performance indices by TLBO for various test systems.

Test system Units Minimum Mean Worst Epsilon Iter Solution iter Standard deviation
Second-order
3-Unit Coal 9.767 11.95933 9.968 10.117 5 18 8.6777
Oil 10.058 13.28001 11.254 11.850 4 16 7.3140
Gas 9.759 10.99072 10.998 12.742 10 17 6.6055
5-Unit 1 1.29921 3.73786 1.4102 1.5127 6 13 2.3732
2 0.879284 4.627544 0.9932 1.11124 9 25 3.5952
3 1.494093 7.312233 1.5001 1.69129 3 7 4.5642
4 0.82333 15.1612 1.0009 1.09711 11 24 8.5193
5 0.676372 12.97662 0.8547 1.06881 38 54 9.3114
10-Unit 1 1.15099 9.657846 1.6897 2.2164 8 17 6.8656
0.76993 8.712287 0.8255 0.9548 17 21 5.2301
2 0.54293 7.90688 0.9874 1.27022 15 33 4.4858
1.81643 7.88428 1.9387 2.10325 16 21 4.6935
1.10097 9.145168 1.1874 1.23154 9 18 5.6406
3 0.32578 8.510824 1.6325 2.68742 7 10 6.9730
0.003979 8.824971 0.1874 0.272248 77 88 6.9102
1.85981 7.533577 1.9147 1.98654 17 25 4.3356
4 0.081011 9.139696 0.2854 0.434723 3 9 6.5030
0.20557 8.83436 0.5102 0.63587 24 53 5.8859
1.570052 9.809413 1.6998 1.7724 7 10 6.2815
5 0.218393 5.867897 0.257477 0.281658 18 33 4.6557
1.36296 7.993594 1.39851 1.40931 5 7 4.7511
0.180361 9.220367 0.197802 0.202886 28 48 6.6440
6 0.901149 9.779851 1.00871 1.08832 15 35 6.6733
0.115441 9.690017 0.18546 0.309154 6 10 6.0900
0.989807 8.923714 1.10245 1.00448 14 37 6.9824
7 1.625755 8.869472 2.27845 2.31407 11 31 7.7003
0.556605 9.140136 0.75842 0.93248 3 5 5.3204
1.094147 9.79939 1.28751 1.3026 16 55 6.6153
8 0.791051 10.98859 0.99847 1.11474 44 90 6.5973
0.304309 10.04755 0.59874 0.656397 17 74 6.6450
2.672249 10.71169 2.7852 2.9555 24 30 6.2276
9 1.394315 10.80483 1.5468 1.6325 11 14 6.1036
1.089412 10.16556 1.1187 1.28457 4 6 6.7453
0.24709 8.000195 0.8523 0.9523 6 8 4.5475
10 1.345273 10.55648 1.4477 1.51884 12 22 7.2977
0.139076 9.100437 0.14145 0.153215 20 25 6.5648
0.979767 10.12807 1.3321 1.5100 8 10 7.3787
19-Unit 1 0.326519 9.851096 0.6975 0.7553 35 50 6.4120
2 1.199224 10.53093 2.2285 2.5478 5 7 5.8303
3 1.517037 10.86282 1.5471 1.56583 9 33 5.9283
4 0.973492 10.82302 1.2639 1.35952 7 10 6.0671
5 1.025822 10.45528 1.44213 1.55238 8 15 5.6725
6 0.318719 10.79376 0.7865 0.936093 7 11 6.3473
7 1.322914 10.01637 1.8216 2.04764 15 17 5.5629
8 1.080195 10.85585 1.28975 1.52613 20 43 6.0568
9 1.38627 10.63793 1.4163 1.48517 22 64 5.8794
10 0.726798 9.508921 0.963247 1.10877 7 10 5.8373
11 0.859004 10.68346 1.42583 1.5874 55 68 5.9010
12 0.378324 10.48525 0.39852 0.409379 12 68 6.0802
13 0.566082 10.83514 0.81572 0.887714 9 17 6.0869
14 0.671458 11.27158 1.08576 1.18564 5 27 6.2812
15 1.055816 10.07697 1.11287 1.17694 6 46 6.0687
16 1.060355 10.47012 1.09891 1.11122 10 22 5.9471
17 0.914931 11.64532 1.09854 1.11458 8 12 5.9402
18 0.305246 9.624216 0.32879 0.35376 29 71 6.7785
19 0.606911 10.76255 1.49856 1.5864 28 65 6.2478

Third-order
3-Unit Coal 5.176061 21.19643 7.8956 8.641 6 34 5.5191
Oil 5.19702 20.23232 5.2287 5.547 9 28 6.2390
Gas 5.29460 18.37185 5.6932 5.799 7 25 5.2777
13-Unit 1 1.517337 20.57539 2.0089 2.17214 8 12 14.4867
2, 3 0.739317 9.021742 1.0985 1.1254 7 12 6.0620
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 0.462576 10.0358 1.6857 1.8000 15 27 7.3585
10, 11 1.0808320 13.75784 1.4120 1.58505 4 19 11.0019
12, 13 0.799582 10.96235 0.9632 1.02932 15 36 9.1698
S. Durai et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 67 (2015) 1124 23

Economy deviation obtained from the test systems, the following observations are in
order:
The TLBO accurately estimates the characteristic parameters of
any model of thermal generators. Further, from the utility point of 1. The TLBO provides the global solution satisfying the constraints
view, it is important to perform an evaluation in the economy with a high probability for smooth and non-smooth cost
aspect. The fuel cost and pollutant emission is computed for each functions.
generator by using the estimated values. The estimated values pro- 2. A set of quasi-optimums are obtained for the system with mul-
vide the fuel cost and pollutant emission for the generator output. tiple fuel options.
The deviations from the specied values are calculated. Table 6 3. In addition to this, the comparison of the results with ABC, PSO
shows the impacts of accurate coefcients values in the power sys- and LES strategies proves that the TLBO method is effective in
tem operation. The average increase in the fuel cost of each gener- giving quality solutions consistently for parameter estimation
ator in the IUS is computed and is presented in Table 6. The same problems.
procedure is adopted to realize the increases in the pollutant emis- 4. Economy deviations from values at the time of installation are
sions in the 13-unit test system. The computed values are also pre- also carried out.
sented in Table 6. The accurate coefcients are enforced for any
model in order to perform the optimal operation. From all the ndings, it is concluded that the TLBO strategy per-
form well for the entire test systems selected, even though power-
Convergence characteristic ful methods are set as the benchmark. Therefore the TLBO is
suggested as a powerful optimization tool for parameter estima-
The convergence characteristic depicts the searching ability of tion problems and thus provide accurate results for the economic
the algorithm. The TLBO is implemented on different scale of test dispatch and optimal power ow calculations. The present analysis
systems. For all cases, the convergence characteristics of the algo- is useful for power companies to update the characteristics coef-
rithm are plotted and are presented in Figs. 4 and 5. Referring all cients and the utility can solve dispatch problems, either for
these gures, it is clear that with the TLBO accurate estimate is achieving a minimum cost or to meet a prescribed pollution level.
achieved within 100 iterations. It also indicates that the system Further investigations are currently being performed to estimate
size and number of variables does not affect performance of the the transmission line parameters.
algorithm and the solution accuracy.

Acknowledgement
Robustness test
The authors gratefully acknowledge the authorities of Annama-
The consistency of the algorithm to provide the optimal solu- lai University, Annamalainagar, Tamilnadu, India, for providing
tion can be viewed by the robustness characteristics. The algorithm facilities to carry out this research work.
is executed for 50 trails and the obtained objective function values
are presented in Figs. 5 and 6. This characteristic also shows the
performance of the algorithm in nding the optimal solution. In References
all cases, the average value of objective functions is computed
which is also close to the optimal value. This characteristic clears [1] Navarro SO, Baker AD. The use of cubic cost curves in the economic loading
of electric power systems. IEEE Trans Power Apparat Syst 1965;84(6):
that the TLBO provides great searching ability, higher solution
43945.
quality and the best estimate. [2] Daycock C, Desjardins R, Fennell S. Generation cost forecasting using online
thermodynamic models. Electr Power 2004;1:19.
[3] Chen HYK, Postel CE. On-line parameter identication of inputoutput curves
Statistical analysis for thermal units. IEEE Trans Power Apparat Syst 1986;PWRS-1:2214.
[4] Taylor FJ, Huang CH. Recursive estimation of incremental cost curves. Comput
Electr Eng 1977;4:297307.
The consistency and effectiveness of the algorithm in nding [5] El-Hawary ME, Mansour SY. Performance evaluation of parameter estimation
the optimal solution can also be viewed by performing statistical algorithms for economic operation of power systems. IEEE Trans Power
analysis which is presented in Table 7. The standard statistical Apparat Syst 1982;PAS-101:57482.
[6] Shoults RR, Mead MM. Optimal estimation of piece-wise linear incremental
parameters such as best and worst values of objective functions, cost curves for EDC. IEEE Trans Power Apparat Syst 1984;PAS-103:14328.
mean, and standard deviation are used. Further, iter, soliter, epsi- [7] El-Shibini M, Osman ZH. A novel technique to estimate the fuel cost functions
lon, etc. are used. The obtained mean value is close the optimal for economic operation of power systems. Electr Power Energy Syst 1989;11:
10914.
value for all cases. This shows the consistency of the algorithm in
[8] Soliman SA, Emam SEA, Christensen GS. Optimization of the optimal
nding the optimal solution. The standard deviation is also small coefcients of non-monotonically increasing incremental cost curves. Electr
value that indicates the accuracy of estimate. The parameters such Power Syst Res 1991;21:99106.
[9] Liang ZX, Glover JD. Improved cost functions for economic dispatch
as iter, soliter helps to view the statistical performance of the TLBO.
computations. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1991;6:8219.
The algorithm takes a few iterations (usually within 100 iteration) [10] Sinha AK, Mandal JK. Hierarchical dynamic state estimator using ANN-based
to converge with the optimal solution. dynamic load prediction. IET Gener Transm Distrib 1999;146:5419.
[11] Kumar DMV, Srivastava SC. Power system state forecasting using articial
neural networks. Electr Mach Power Syst 1999;27:65364.
[12] Lin JM, Huang SJ, Shih KR. Application of sliding surface enhanced fuzzy
Conclusion control for dynamic state estimation of a power system. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2003;18:5707.
This paper proposes a TLBO based approach to estimate the [13] Al-Kandari AM, El-Naggar KM. A genetic-based algorithm for optimal
estimation of inputoutput curve parameters of thermal power plants. Electr
accurate parameters of the inputoutput characteristics of thermal
Eng 2006;89:58590.
units which is realized by minimizing the difference between the [14] Bhuvaneswari R, Subramanian S, Madhu A. A novel state estimation based on
actual and estimated fuel cost. The formulated optimization prob- minimum errors between measurements using ant colony optimization
lem is tested using different mathematical models involving con- technique. Int J Electr Eng 2008;15(6):457568.
[15] El-Naggar KM, Alrashidi MR, Al-Othman AK. Estimating the inputoutput
vex, non-convex with second and third order polynomials, parameters of thermal power plants using PSO. Eng Convers Manage
multiple fuel and exponential functions. Considering the results 2009;50:176772.
24 S. Durai et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 67 (2015) 1124

[16] Alrashidi MR, El-Naggar KM, Al-Othman AK. Particle swarm optimization [25] Basu M. Evolutionary programming-based goal-attainment method for
based approach for estimating the fuel-cost function parameters of thermal economic emission load dispatch with non-smooth fuel cost and emission
power plants with valve loading effects. Electr Power Compon Syst level functions. IE (I) J EL 2005;86:959.
2009;37:121930. [26] Hooshmand Rahmat-Allah, Parastegari Moien, Morshed Mohammad Javad.
[17] Sakthivel VP, Bhuvaneswari R, Subramanian S. Design optimization of three- Emission, reserve and economic load dispatch problem with non-smooth and
phase energy efcient induction motor using adaptive bacterial foraging non convex cost functions using the hybrid bacterial foraging-NelderMead
algorithm. Int J Comput Math Electr 2010;29(3):699726. algorithm. Appl Energy 2012;89:44353.
[18] Sakthivel VP, Bhuvaneswari R, Subramanian S. Non-intrusive efciency [27] Data of 62 bus Indian utility system. Tamilnadu electricity board statistics at a
estimation method for energy auditing and management of in-service glance; 19992000.
induction motor using bacterial foraging algorithm. IET Electr Power Appl [28] Rao RV, Savsani VJ, Vakharia DP. Teachinglearning-based optimization: a
2010;4(8):57990. novel method for mechanical design optimization problems. Comput-Aided
[19] Saber Ahmed Yousuf, Chakraborty Shantanu, Abdur Razzak SM, Seniyu Des 2011;43:30315.
Tomonobu. Optimization of economic load dispatch of higher order general [29] Rao RV, Savsani VJ, Vakharia DP. Teachinglearning-based optimization: an
cost polynomials and its sensitivity using modied particle swarm optimization method for continuous non-linear large scale problems. Inf Sci
optimization. Electr Power Syst Res 2009;79:98106. 2012;183:115.
[20] Moon YH, Park JD, Kook HJ, Lee YH. A new economic dispatch algorithm [30] Togan V. Design of planar steel frames using teachinglearning based
considering any higher order generation cost functions. Electr Power Energy optimization. Eng Struct 2012;34:22532.
Syst 2001;23:1138. [31] Rao RV, Kalyankar VD. Multi-pass turning process parameter optimization
[21] Theerthamalai Adhinarayanan, Maheswarapu Sydulu. An effective non- using teachinglearning-based optimization algorithm. Sci Iran 2013;20(3):
iterative, k logic based algorithm for economic dispatch of generators with 96774.
cubic fuel cost function. Electr Power Energy Syst 2010;32:53942. [32] Rao RV, Kalyankar VD. Parameter optimization of modern machining
[22] Sakthivel VP, Bhuvaneswari R, Subramanian S. An accurate and economical processes using teachinglearning-based optimization algorithm. Eng Appl
approach for induction motor eld efciency estimation using bacterial Artif Intell 2013;26(1):52431.
foraging algorithm. Measurement 2011;446:67484. [33] Roy Provas Kumar. Teaching learning based optimization for short-term
[23] Sonmez Yusuf. Estimation of fuel cost curve parameters for thermal power hydrothermal scheduling problem considering valve point effect and
plants using the ABC algorithm. Turk J Electr Eng Comput Sci 2013;21: prohibited discharge constraint. Electr Power Energy Syst 2013;53:109.
182741. [34] Sultana Sneha, Kumar Roy Provas. Optimal capacitor placement in radial
[24] Chiang Chao-Lung. Improved genetic algorithm for power economic dispatch distribution systems using teaching learning based optimization. Electr Power
of units with valve-point effects and multiple fuels. IEEE Trans Power Syst Energy Syst 2014;54:38798.
2005;20(4):16909.