Neural Comput & Applic
DOI 10.1007/s00521-016-2693-x
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Hydro-thermal generation scheduling using integrated
gravitational search algorithm and predator–prey optimization
technique
Nitin Narang1
Received: 16 March 2016 / Accepted: 1 November 2016
 The Natural Computing Applications Forum 2016
Abstract In this research work, an integrated optimization
technique has been proposed by coordinating gravitational
search algorithm (GSA) and predator–prey optimization
(PPO) in a suitable manner to improve the search capability
of algorithm. The integrated technique is applied to obtain
the optimum generation schedule of hydro-thermal gener-
ation system considering some of the practical constraints
and transmission losses. For the hydro-thermal systems, the
multi-chain hydro model has been undertaken with due
consideration of water transport delay between reservoirs.
In PPO algorithm, the search is performed by considering
the experience of other prey particles along with the effect
of predator particle. The predator effect helps to avoid any
possible stagnation of global best prey on local optima due
to the fear created by predator particle. In PPO algorithm,
the quality of the solutions has not been considered while
updating the position of prey or predator, whereas in GSA,
the agent direction is computed based on the overall force,
and it is proportional to the quality of the solutions. Fur-
ther, GSA is memory less and agent direction is not
influenced by best positions. In the proposed integrated
technique, the position of agent/prey is directed by overall
force around themselves, global best prey position and
predator effect. The proposed integrated technique is tested
on three hydro-thermal systems. A penalty-free constraint
handling approach is employed to satisfy all equality and
inequality constraints. The results obtained from proposed
technique have been compared with the results reported
with the existing technique, and it is experienced that
& Nitin Narang
nitin.narang4@gmail.com
1
Department of Electrical and Instrumentation Engineering,
Thapar University, Patiala, Punjab 147004, India
proposed technique is able to provide a better solution with
improved convergence characteristics. The statistical
analysis of results is also done to measure the sensitivity
and robustness of the proposed technique.
Keywords Integrated optimization technique 
Gravitational search algorithm  Predator–prey
optimization  Hydro-thermal generation scheduling 
Penalty-free constraint handling
1 Introduction
A modern power system integrates thermal and hydro
generation units, connected to different load centres
through transmission network. The main idea of integrated
operation is the optimum utilization of all energy sources.
Since the sources of energy are so diverse (coal, oil or gas,
river water, marine tide, etc.), the choice of one or the other
is made on economic, technical or geographic basis. Due to
electric and hydraulic coupling in hydro-thermal system,
hydro-thermal generation scheduling (HTGS) is treated as
multidimensional, nonlinear and non-convex optimization
problem [1].
To solve HTGS problem, many traditional optimization
methods have been used, such as network flow program-
ming [2], dynamic programming (DP) [3], dual DP [4] and
DP with successive approximation [5]. The traditional
optimization methods usually require certain presumptions
or simplifications to make the original model easy to solve,
which may lead to local and sub-optimal solutions with
great loss of revenue. In recent years, non-conventional,
global search techniques have aroused intense interest due
to their flexibility, versatility and robustness in seeking the
global optimal solution. Nowadays, several global search
123

techniques, such as genetic algorithm (GA) [6, 7], evolu-
tionary programming [8, 9], differential evolution (DE)
[10], modified chaotic DE (MCDE) [11] and particle
swarm optimization (PSO) [12, 13], have been applied to
solve HTGS problem. Power system researchers have also
explored some recently proposed global search techniques.
Liao et al. [14] have proposed to use an adaptive artificial
bee colony (ABC) algorithm to solve short-term HTGS
problem. In the proposed method, they have applied
chaotic search to help ABC algorithm to avoid local opti-
mum solution. The teaching learning-based optimization
(TLBO) algorithm is applied to solve short-term HTGS
problem considering valve-point loading effects of the
thermal unit and prohibited discharge zone of water dis-
charge rate [15]. Nguyen et al. [16] have proposed a
cuckoo search algorithm for solving short-term HTGS
problem considering power loss in transmission systems.
These techniques often provide a fast and reasonable
solution, but do not ensure global optimal solutions in finite
time. During the course of the time, researchers have also
explored hybrid search techniques for HTGS problem by
integrating some of the search techniques. Wong [17] has
combined simulated annealing and GA to solve HTGS
problem. A hybrid method combining DE and sequential
quadratic programming (SQP) [18] has been applied by
Sivasubramani and Swarup for solving HTGS problem. In
this method, DE is used a global optimizer and SQP
method is used as a local optimizer. Roy [19] has applied
hybrid chemical reaction optimization and DE to solve
multi-objective HTGS problem. Fang et al. [20] have
presented a hybrid algorithm for solving HTGS problem by
combining real-coded GA and artificial fish swarm
algorithm.
In current scenario, electric power system model is
transforming from centralized regulation to a deregulated
framework [21]. In deregulated framework, the main
objective of scheduling problem is to maximize the profit
of generation company. Another important issue of
scheduling problem is to consider the uncertainty in gen-
erator’s cost characteristics, network parameters, load
model coefficients, etc. It is well-known fact that load
forecast is always subjected to certain errors. Researchers
have also explored stochastic HTGS problem in deregu-
lated framework. Aghaei et al. [22] have presented the
application of mixed integer programming (MIP) approach
for HTGS problem, to maximize the profit of generation
companies. Aghaei et al. [23] have proposed a stochastic
multi-objective framework for HTGS problem for joint
energy and reserve markets. They have introduced an
efficient linear formulation to deal with the nonlinearity of
the problem, and MIP approach is applied to solve the
problem. Aghaei et al. [24] have presented the application
of a MIP approach to solve stochastic security-constrained
123
Neural Comput & Applic
daily HTGS problem. They have also undertaken the effect
of power system uncertainties including generating units
and branch contingencies and load uncertainties in
scheduling problem. In the proposed problem formulation,
they have considered the effect of valve-point loading,
POZs of thermal units and ramp rate of thermal units.
Aghaei et al. [25] have converted mixed integer nonlinear
programming of HTGS problem to MIP problem, and then,
lexicographic optimization and hybrid augmented-weigh-
ted e-constraint technique are implemented to generate
Pareto optimal solution. Karami et al. [26] have presented
an application of MIP approach for HTGS problem con-
sidering intermittency and volatility of wind power
generation.
Recently, a new global search algorithm called gravi-
tational search algorithm (GSA) has been proposed by
Rashedi et al. [27]. The GSA is based on the Newtonian
gravity and the laws of motion. It has been applied to solve
various optimization problems in the field of power system,
i.e. optimal reactive power dispatch [28], UPFC placement
[29] and multi-objective optimal power flow [30, 31].
Gouthamkumar et al. [32] have presented an oppositional
based GSA for solving the short-term HTGS problem. One
of the main drawbacks of GSA is that agents update their
position on the basis of overall force by all other agents and
not in the direction of best positions as in PSO. So,
sometimes, GSA shows slow convergence characteristics
in the last few movements and struck to local optimum
solution [33].
According to ‘no-free-lunch theorem’, no optimization
technique can suppress all other techniques in every con-
dition for all problems [34]. Hence, integration of two or
more optimization techniques is necessary in a suit-
able way, so that optimum solution with fast convergence
rate can be achieved. Recently, some researchers have
applied integrated GSA–PSO technique in numerous fields.
Some of the major applications of PSO–GSA are to train
feed-forward neural networks [33], for optimal placement
and size of multi-DG units in the distribution systems [35],
to solve static state estimation problem [36], optimal power
flow problem [37], economic emission load dispatch [38]
and HTGS problem [39]. In spite of several advantages of
PSO, it has some shortcomings. For a high-dimensional
optimization problem, PSO may be unable to find the
global optimum solution and may strike to local optimum
solution [40–42]. To improve the performance of PSO,
researchers have proposed various modifications in PSO
algorithm. One of the potential suggestions is the inclusion
of predator particle with prey swarm to form predator–prey
optimization (PPO) model, suggested by Silva et al. [43].
The predator particle introduces diversity in the prey
swarm that helps to avoid convergence at local optimum
solution [44]. Silva et al. [45] and Higashitani et al. [46]
Neural Comput & Applic
have validated the PPO technique through numerical sim-
ulations with several benchmark problems and concluded
that PPO performed significantly better than the standard
PSO. Narang et al. [47, 48] have successfully applied PPO
technique to solve HTGS problem. In another attempt,
Narang et al. [44, 49] have explored integration of PPO
technique with local search Powell’s method and reported
that results obtained by PPO with Powell’s method out-
perform the results obtained by PPO technique for HTGS
problem. In spite of various successful applications of PPO
to solve complex optimization problems, PPO’s exploita-
tion capability is uncertain as the predator’s effect is a
random process.
In the light of these observations, the authors’ contri-
bution in the field of integrated optimization technique to
solve HTGS problem will focus on the following:
• In this authorship, the author’s have proposed an
integrated optimization technique by coordinating GSA
and PPO technique in a suitable manner to improve
search capability of proposed algorithm.
• The proposed technique exploits social thinking of PPO
and local search capability of GSA.
• The velocity of agent/prey is directed by GSA mass
acceleration, global best prey position and predator’s
effect.
• The proposed technique is applied to solve short-term
HTGS problem with due consideration of some of the
practical constraints, and results have been compared
with results reported in the literature.
• Further for constraint handling, a penalty-free tech-
nique is implemented.
The manuscript is organized in six sections: The HTGS
problem formulation is introduced in Sect. 2. Section 3
presents the integrated PPO–GSA algorithm. Section 4
elaborates development of proposed technique. The results
and discussion are presented in Sect. 5. Finally, conclu-
sions are derived in Sect. 6.
2 Hydro-thermal generation scheduling problem
The main objective of hydro-thermal generation scheduling
is to minimize the generation cost while satisfying all
operational constraint related to hydro and thermal units.
The cost function of a thermal unit with valve-point load-
ing effect is represented as [47]:
X
T X
NT
   
F1 ¼ asi p2ik þ bsi pik þ csi þ dsi sin esi ðpmin  pik Þ 
k¼1 i¼1
i unit:
ð1Þ
where asi, bsi, csi, dsi and esi are cost coefficients of ith
thermal unit; pik is power generation of ith thermal unit
during kth sub-interval; NT is the number of thermal units;
T is total time interval for scheduling; pmin is the lower
i
power generation limit of ith thermal unit.
In this work, a multi-chain hydro model is undertaken,
in which lower reservoir volume depends on upper reser-
voir discharge. The hydro power generation is taken as a
function of water discharge rate and reservoir volume and
is expressed as [50]:
pmk ¼ C1j Vjk2 þ C2j q2jk þ C3j Vjk qjk þ C4j Vjk þ C5j qjk
ð2Þ
þC6j j 2 NH ; k 2 T; m ¼ j þ NT
where pmk is power generation of mth hydro unit at kth sub-
interval; C1j, C2j, C3j, C4j, C5j and C6j are the power gen-
eration coefficients of the jth hydro unit; NH and NT rep-
resent the number of hydro and thermal units, respectively;
Tis total time interval for scheduling; qjk, Vjk are water
discharge rate and reservoir volume, respectively, of jth
hydro unit at kth sub-interval.
Reservoir volume after kth sub-interval is obtained from
volume dynamics and is expressed as:
Vjðkþ1Þ ¼ Vjk þ Ijk  qjk  SPjk
XUj  
ð3Þ
þ qrðktrj Þ þ SPrðktrj Þ
r¼1
j 2 NH ; k 2 T
where Ijk, SPjk are water inflow and spillage, respectively,
of jth hydro unit at kth sub-interval; Uj is upstream reser-
voir; trj represents water transport delay from upstream
reservoir ‘r’ to lower reservoir ‘j’.
Mathematically HTGS problem is stated as:
Minimize cost function [F1].
Subjected to the following set of constraints:
1. For HTGS problem, considering multi-chain hydro
model, thermal power generation and reservoir dis-
charge rate are undertaken as decision variables and
bound on decision variables are given as:
• The rate of discharge limits is imposed on each
hydro unit
qmin
j  qjk  qmax
j j 2 NH ; k 2 T ð4Þ
where qmax and qmin are the upper and lower limits
j j
of rate of water discharge of jth hydro unit,
respectively.
• The thermal generation limits imposed on each
pmin
i  pik  pmax
i i 2 NT ; k 2 T ð5Þ
123
 Neural Comput & Applic

where pmax
i and pmin
i are the upper and lower limits qmin  qjk  qLj;1
j
of power generation, respectively, of ith thermal
qU L
j;m1  qjk  qj;m j 2 NH ; k 2 T; m 2 NPZj ð11Þ
unit.
qU
j;NPZj  qjk  qmax
j
2. The equality constraints comprise:
• The final reservoir volume equality constraint for where NPZj is the number of prohibited operating
L
each hydro unit is given as [50]: zones of the jth hydro unit; qj,m is the lower boundary
reservoir discharge rate limit of jth hydro unit with mth
X
T X
T X
T
POZ; qU
VjF ¼ VjI þ Ijk  qjk  SPjk j;NPZj is an upper boundary reservoir discharge
k¼1 k¼1 k¼1 rate POZ limit of jth hydro unit.
Uj 
ð6Þ
T X
X  4. Ramp rate constraint: The power generated by thermal
þ qrðktrj Þ þ SPrðktrj Þ j 2 NH unit may not be able to increase or decrease suddenly
k¼1 r¼1 than a certain value. These conditions lead to the
where VjF, VjI are the final and initial reservoir following constraints:
storage volumes of jth hydro unit, respectively. pik  piðk1Þ  URi i 2 NT ; k 2 T ð12Þ
• The load demand equality constraint during each
piðk1Þ  pik  DRi i 2 NT ; k 2 T ð13Þ
sub-interval is given as:
X
NT X
NH where URi and DRi are upper and lower ramp rate
pik þ pmk ¼ pDk þ pLk k 2 T; m ¼ j þ NT limits of ith thermal unit, respectively.
i¼1 j¼1

ð7Þ
where pDk is the power demand and pLk is the 3 Integrated PPO–GSA optimization technique
transmission loss during kth sub-interval.
The transmission loss is given by Kron’s formula 3.1 Overview of PPO optimization technique
and is given as:
T þNH NX
NX T þNH NX
T þNH The PPO technique belongs to the group of swarm intel-
pLk ¼ prk Brs psk þ Br0 prk þ B00 ligence. In PPO technique, prey particles try to search
r¼1 s¼1 r¼1 optimum best solution. The predator particle is attracted
ð8Þ towards global best prey particle, while the prey particles
are repelled by its presence [43]. In this process, prey and
where Brs, Br0 and B00 are B-coefficients.
predator are responsible for diversification and conver-
3. The inequality constraints comprise: gence, respectively. The interactions between predator and
prey help to avoid convergence at local optimum solutions
• The volume and hydro power limits are imposed on
and maintain diversity in the population.
each hydro unit:
The predator updates its velocity and positions as:
Vjmin  Vjk  Vjmax j 2 NH ; k 2 T ð9Þ  
Pvtþ1
g ¼ C4 Gtg  PPtg g2N ð14Þ
pmin
j  pjk  pmax
j j 2 NH ; k 2 T ð10Þ
PPtþ1
g ¼ PPtg þ Pvtþ1
g g2N ð15Þ
where Vmax
j and Vmin
are the upper and lower limits
j
of reservoir volume of jth hydro unit, respectively, where Pvt?1
g and PPt?1
g represent predator velocity and
pmax
j and pmin
j are the upper and lower limits of position for gth dimension at (t ? 1)th movement,
hydro generation of jth unit, respectively. respectively; C4 is a uniformly distributed scaled random
number; Gtg is global best prey position for gth dimension
4. Prohibited operating zones (POZs): A hydro generat- at tth movement.
ing unit may have POZ(s), due to physical limitation of The prey updates its velocity and positions as:
power plant components. The high vibrations occur in
vtþ1
gl
the generator shaft when frequency of vibrations (
wvtgl þC1 ðLtgl Ptgl ÞrandðÞþC2 ðGtg Ptgl ÞrandðÞ; pf pfmax
becomes equal to natural frequency, and it may cause ¼
wvtgl þC1 ðLtgl Ptgl ÞrandðÞþC2 ðGtg Ptgl ÞrandðÞþC3 ag expðbg Ed Þ; pf [pfmax
damage of the shaft. The operation of reservoir g 2 N;l 2 NP
discharge rate should be avoided in these areas for
ð16Þ
better performance of the system. The POZ constraint
for hydro units is given as [20]: Ptþ1 t tþ1
gl ¼ Pgl þ vgl g 2 N; l 2 NP ð17Þ

123
Neural Comput & Applic
where vt?1 t?1
gl and Pgl represent lth prey velocity and position
for gth dimension at (t ? 1)th movement, respectively;
C1, C2 are the acceleration constant; C3 is uniformly dis-
tributed scaled random number; ag and bg are PPO algo-
rithm parameters and control the effect of predator on prey
particles; w is inertia weight; Ltgl is local best lth particle
prey position for gth dimension at tth movement; pf, pfmax
are probability fear and maximum probability fear,
respectively, and will decide whether predator affects the
prey particles; Ed is Euclidean distance between predator
and prey; rand() is uniformly distributed random number.
3.2 Overview of GSA optimization technique
Gravitational search algorithm is a population-based global
search technique introduced by Rashedi et al. [27]. The
GSA is based on the Newton’s law of gravity according to
which all agents (masses) attract at each other with the help
of gravitational force and global movement is towards the
object with heavier mass, since the agents with the heavier
mass move slowly than the agents with lighter mass.
Hence, slow movement of the heavier mass guarantees the
exploitation of search area. In GSA, the mass of each agent
is computed as [37]:
mtl
Mlt ¼ PN l 2 NP ð18Þ
h¼1 mth
where
fitlt  worstt
mtl ¼ l 2 NP ð19Þ
bestt  worstt
with fittlrepresents the fitness value of lth agent at tth
movement; bestt and worstt are the best and worst fitness of
all agents at tth movement, respectively; N represents
number of agents.
The force acting on lth agent in the gth dimension is
computed as [27]:
t
X Mt Mt   optimization algorithm by integrating PSO with GSA
Fgl ¼ Gt t h l Ptgh  Ptgl randðÞ
h6¼l
Rl;h þ e ð20Þ
g 2 N; l 2 NP; h 2 Nbest
where Gt is a gravitational constant at tth movement; Mtl and
Mth are masses of agents land h at tth movement; e is a small
t
constant; Rl,h is the Euclidian distance between agents l and
h at tth movement; Ptgl and Ptgh represent l and h positions of
agents, respectively, at tth movement in the gth dimension.
The Nbest is the set of first NP best agents on the basis of
fitness value, and its value decreases during the search pro-
cess. In the beginning, all agents apply force and as movement
processes, agents are decreasing and at the last some move-
ments only very few agents apply forces to other agents.
The gravitational constant Gt highly influences the per-
formance of optimization technique. The value of gravi-
tational constant decreases with movement that helps to
maintain trade-off between exploration and exploitation
capability of search algorithm and it is given as [37]:
 t 
Gt ¼ G0 exp a max ð21Þ
t
where G0 is initial value of gravitational constant; a is
algorithm constant; tmax is maximum number of
movements.
After computing the force on lth agents in the gth
dimension, the acceleration is computed according to
Newton’s law of motion as:
t
Fgl
atgl ¼ g 2 N; l 2 NP ð22Þ
Mlt
where atgl is acceleration of lth agent in gth dimension at tth
movement.
The velocity and positions are updated to search opti-
mum solution as:
vtþ1 t t
gl ¼ vgl  randðÞ þ agl g 2 N; l 2 NP ð23Þ
Ptþ1 t tþ1
gl ¼ Pgl þ vgl g 2 N; l 2 NP ð24Þ
where vtgl and Ptgl are velocity and position of lth agent in
gth dimension at tth movement, respectively.
3.3 Proposed integrated PPO–GSA optimization
technique
The GSA is a promising global optimization technique,
but during at the end of search process its convergence
becomes very slow and takes more time to get the opti-
mum solution [39]. To improve the performance of GSA,
researchers have suggested some modifications in GSA
and also integrated with few global search techniques.
Mirjalili and Hashimor [51] have proposed a hybrid
technique. The basic idea behind integration was to
combine global search capability of PSO with the local
search capability of GSA. One of the main deficiencies of
PSO–GSA is the stagnation of global best particle at any
stage of algorithm and PSO–GSA may lose its global best
search carrying capability. In this research work, PPO is
integrated with GSA to improve the search capability of
algorithm. The predator particle of PPO always chase
global best prey particle and avoid the convergence at
local optimum solution. The velocity of agent/prey is
directed by GSA mass acceleration, global best prey
position and predator’s effect. The agent/prey velocity is
proposed as follows:
123
 Neural Comput & Applic

tþ1
vgl
( 0 0 Start
wvtgl þC1 atgl randðÞþC2 ðGtg Ptgl Þð1randðÞÞ; pf pfmax
¼ 0 0
wvtgl þC1 atgl randðÞþC2 ðGtg Ptgl Þð1randðÞÞþC3 ag expðbg Ed Þ; pf [pfmax
g 2 N;l 2 NP

ð25Þ Generate and evaluate initial prey/agent

0 0
where C1 and C2 are accelerating factor which influence the
effect of acceleration of GSA and global best particle’s of PPO. Randomly generate predator position
The agent/prey position is updated as given by Eq. (17).
The predator velocity and position are updated as given by
Eqs. (14) and (15), respectively. During the initial phase, the
Randomly generate prey/agent and predator
predator’s effect being small, the search will be more explo- velocity
rative and in the final phase the predator’s effect will be A
dominating and the search will shift to exploitation mode. The
flow chart of proposed integrated technique is shown in Fig. 1. Update local best, global best and worst
positions

4 Development of proposed technique Compute gravitational constant

4.1 Particle representation

Compute mass, force and acceleration of all
For HTGS problem, the set of reservoir discharge rate and agents
thermal power for all sub-intervals formed the solution
structure. The structure is represented as:
2 3 Update predator velocity and position
q11 q21    qNH 1 p11 p21    pNT 1
6 q12 q22    qNH 2 p21 p22    pNT 2 7
6 7
6      7
X¼6 6 7
      7
6 7 No
4        5 If
(pf > pfmax)
q1T q2T    qNH T p1T     p NT T
Initially NP particles are randomly generated within
feasible limits as: Yes
 
q0jkl ¼ qmin
j þ qmax
j  qmin
j randðÞ j 2 NH ; k 2 T; l 2 NP Predator influences the prey velocity

ð26Þ
 
p0ikl ¼ pmin
i þ pmax
i
 pmin
i randðÞ i 2 NT ; k 2 T; l 2 NP Update prey/agent velocity and position

ð27Þ
where q0jkl represents initial reservoir water discharge rate
of lth particle for jth hydro unit during kth sub-interval; p0ikl Termination
No
represents initial thermal power generation of lth particle criteria is satisfied A
for ith thermal unit during kth sub-interval.

4.2 Constraint handling Yes

To satisfy equality constraints, a penalty-free constraint Terminate

handling technique is executed by perturbing the genera-
tions of thermal unit and water discharge rates [52]. For Fig. 1 Flow chart of proposed technique
satisfaction of inequality constraints, another heuristic
technique is implemented [53].

123
Neural Comput & Applic

4.2.1 Limits on decision variable qtjhl

8 n   o
>
< qtjhl  min DVjlt ; qtjhl  qmin  randðÞ ; DVjlt [ 0
j
During the search process, decision variables may violate ¼ n   o j 2 NH ; l 2 NP
>
: qtjhl  max DVjlt ; qtjhl  qmax  randðÞ DVjlt \0
j
its feasible limits. If decision variable violates its limit,
then it is set to its respective limits. In this work, POZ ð31Þ
constraint on reservoir discharge limit and ramp rate limit
where qtjhl is water discharge rate of jth hydro unit for hth
on thermal unit power generation are also considered. The
sub-interval at tth movement of lth particle.
details regarding handling of POZ and ramp rate limit
After evaluating the water discharge rate, if POZ con-
constraints are discussed in following subsections.
straint on water discharge rate is not satisfied, then POZ
constraint handling procedure has been applied as dis-
4.2.1.1 POZ constraint handling A heuristic approach is
cussed in sub-Sect. 4.2.1.1. This process continues until
used to adjust the reservoir discharge rate within a per-
reservoir volume equality constraint is satisfied. The flow
mitted range, in case the POZ limits are breached. The
chart shown in Fig. 2 illustrates the water balance equality
prohibited zone constraint violation is avoided by updating
constraint handling procedure.
the reservoir discharge rate as [54]:
qtjkl
8   4.2.2.2 Power balance equality constraint To satisfy
>
> qU L
jkl;NZ1  qjkl;NZ1
>
>
> q L
þ randðÞ  ; if qtjkl  qLjkl;NZ
power balance equality constraint, the residual power is
>
> jkl;NZ1
qU
>
< jkl;NZ1 computed as [49]:
 
¼ qU L
>
> jkl;NZþ1  qjkl;NZþ1 NX
> qLjkl;NZþ1 þ randðÞ  ; if qtjkl  qU H þNT
>
> U jkl;NZ j 2 NH ; k 2 T; l 2 NP
>
>
>
: t
qjkl;NZþ1
DptDkl ¼ ptikl  pDk  ptLk k 2 T; l 2 NP ð32Þ
qjkl else
i¼1
ð28Þ
If residual power is less then tolerance band, then con-
This process continues till reservoir discharge rate straint is satisfied; otherwise, one generation of slack
operates in the feasible limits. thermal unit ‘s’ is evaluated during each sub-interval as:
(    
ptskl  min DptDkl ; ptskl  pmin
s  randðÞ ; DptDkl [ 0
4.2.1.2 Ramp rate limit constraint handling The thermal ptskl ¼    
ptskl  max DptDkl ; ptskl  pmax
s  randðÞ ; DptDkl \0
unit power generation ramp rate constraint restricts the
operating scope of units between two adjacent points. To k 2 T; l 2 NP
handle ramp rate limit, thermal unit power generation min- ð33Þ
imum and maximum limits are adjusted as follows [54]:
   max t  where Ptskl
is power generation of sth slack thermal unit for
max pmin t t
i ; pikl  DRi  piðkþ1Þl  min pi ; pikl þ URi kth sub-interval at tth movement of lth particle.
i 2 NT ; k 2 T; l 2 NP ð29Þ After evaluating the slack thermal unit power, ramp
rate constraint limit is checked, and if it is not satisfied,
where ptikl is power generation of ith thermal unit for kth apply the steps as discussed in Sect. 4.2.1.2. Recalculate
sub-interval at tth movement of lth particle. the transmission losses and residual power. The whole
process is continued until both the equality constraints
4.2.2 Equality constraint handling are satisfied. The flow chart shown in Fig. 3 illustrates
the power balance equality constraint handling
4.2.2.1 Water balance equality constraint For satisfac- procedure.
tion of water balance equality constraint, the residual vol-
ume R(ai, pi,) is computed as [49]: 4.2.3 Inequality constraint handling
X
T X
T X
T
DVjlt ¼ VjF  VjI  Ijk þ qtjkl þ SPjk The heuristic approach is used to satisfy reservoir volume
k¼1 k¼1 k¼1 inequality constraint, in which pairwise comparison is
Uj 
T X
X  ð30Þ made to select smaller volume constraint violation solu-
 qtrðktrj Þ l þ SPrðktrj Þ tion by comparing two infeasible solutions. When one
k¼1 r¼1
j 2 NH ; l 2 NP feasible and another infeasible solution are compared,
then feasible solution is chosen. In case two feasible
If residual volume is less than a set limit, then constraint solutions are compared, the one with better fitness value is
is satisfied; otherwise, water discharge rate at any randomly selected. The total residual volume of lth particle Verrl is
chosen hth slack sub-interval is perturbed as: computed as:

123
 Neural Comput & Applic

Start

Initialize the counter for hydro unit j = 0

j=j+1

Compute the residual volume

If residual volume No
< tolerance band

Randomly choose a slack sub-interval and

modify the water discharge rate during slack
Yes sub-interval

If Yes
(j < NH) B Check the POZ constraint for water discharge
rate

No
If the POZ Yes
Terminate constraint is A
satisfied

No

Apply the POZ constraint handling procedure

Fig. 2 Flow chart of water balance equality constraint handling

8 max max 9 penalty-less constraint handling is applied, cost function is

< Vjkl  Vj ; Vjkl [ Vj =
Verr l ¼ 0; Vjmin  Vjkl  Vjmax converted into the fitness function. The fitness/cost func-
: min ; ð34Þ tion is evaluated, and decision variables are updated
Vj  Vjkl ; Vjkl \Vjmin
j 2 NH ; k 2 T; l 2 NP according to proposed technique. This procedure continues
till termination criterion meets.
The same procedure is applied to satisfy hydro power Elaborated steps to solve HTGS problem by applying
inequality constraint. proposed integrated technique are given as follows:
Step 1 Randomly initialize the swarm with NP particles
4.3 Implementation of proposed technique by applying Eqs. (26) and (27).
Step 2 Apply constraint handling procedure as discussed
In this research work, reservoir discharge rate and thermal in Sect. 4.2.
power during each sub-interval are searched to find opti- Step 3 Randomly initialize agent/prey and predator
mum solutions of HTGS problem. During the search pro- velocity.
cess, constraint handling procedure is applied to handle Step 4 Start the movement counter t = 0
equality and inequality constraints. Since in this work, Step 5 Increment the movement counter t = t ? 1

123
Neural Comput & Applic

Start

Initialize the counter for sub-interval k = 0

k=k+1

Compute the residual power

If residual power < No

tolerance band

Randomly choose a slack thermal unit and

modify the generation of slack unit
Yes

If Yes
(k < T) B Check the ramp rate limit for slack unit

No
If ramp rate Yes
Terminate constraint is
satisfied

No

Apply the ramp rate constraint handling

procedure

Compute the transmission losses

Fig. 3 Flow chart of power balance equality constraint handling

Step 6 Evaluate the cost function/fitness function for
swarm particles by applying Eq. (1).
Step 7 Update local best, global best and worst position
based on evaluation of fitness/cost function.
Step 8 Compute gravitational constant of algorithm by
applying Eq. (21).
Step 9 Compute the mass and force of all agents by
applying Eqs. (18) and (20), respectively.
Step 10 Compute acceleration of all agents by applying
Eq. (21).
Step 11 Update predator velocity and position by
applying Eqs. (14) and (15), respectively.
Step 12 Update prey/agent velocity and position by
applying Eqs. (25) and (17), respectively.
Step 13 Apply constraint handling procedure as dis-
cussed in Sect. 4.2.
Step 14 If (t \ tmax) then go to step 5.
Step 15 The global best position is the optimum solution.

123
 Neural Comput & Applic

5 Test systems and results been compared with some of the recently published
research work and also with GSA, PPO, PSO–GSA tech-
The proposed integrated optimization technique has been niques for all considered test systems.
applied to solve HTGS problem. To demonstrate the
effectiveness of proposed technique, three test systems 5.2 Simulation results and discussion
have been undertaken. For multi-chain hydro system, water
time delays between reservoirs have also been considered. 5.2.1 Test system-I
Three different scenarios have been considered for test
system-I and system-II. In first scenario, the effect of The test system-I comprises 4 hydro and 3 thermal units.
valve-point loading is considered, and for second scenario, The scheduling period is 24 h with 1-h sub-interval. The
transmission line losses and valve-point loading effect are problem is solved for three scenarios. The data of test
also undertaken. In third scenario, POZ on reservoir water system-I have been referred from [47]. For all scenarios,
discharge rate and ramp rate limits on thermal units are thirty trails have been performed to investigate the effect of
also considered along with transmission losses and valve- different initial solutions.
point loading effect.
5.2.1.1 Scenario-I In first scenario, fuel cost function
5.1 Parameter setting considers the effect of valve-point loading. The comparison
of cost is tabulated in Table 2. The results have been
The PPO–GSA is a global optimization algorithm; hence, compared with some of recently published technique
algorithm parameters need to set to get optimum solutions. results, i.e. real-coded GA (RCGA) [20], real-coded
The PPO–GSA has more parameters to be tuned as com- chemical reaction-based optimization (RCCRO) [55],
pared to some of the other algorithms. To tune the oppositional RCCRO (ORCCRO) [55], clonal selection
parameters, a systematic approach is used. The parameter algorithm (CSA) [56], lexicographic [57], quantum-be-
0 0
value of C1 and C2 is obtained by increasing simultane- haved PSO (QPSO) [58], adaptive chaotic ABC (ACABC)
ously from 0.5 to 2.5 in step of 0.5. The other parameters ag [14], TLBO [15], MCDE [11] and PPO [47] techniques. To
is varied from 0.5%(Xmax max
g ) to 2.5%(Xg ) in step of validate the performance of proposed technique, it has also
0.5%(Xg ) and bg is varied from 0.1%(Xmax
max
g ) to 0.5% been compared with GSA and PSO–GSA techniques. It is
(Xmax
g ) in step of 0.1%(X max
g ). The parameter pf is a uni- evident from Table 2 that proposed technique is able to
formly distributed random number, and value of pfmax achieve minimum cost as compared to other techniques.
decides whether predator will affect or not. In this work, Further, average and maximum cost are also compared, and
only 5 or 10% permission is given to predator to affect the it is found that proposed technique always outperforms
prey/agent. The basic GSA parameter a is set by increasing other compared techniques. The minimum fuel cost
its value from 10 to 30 in a step of 5 and G0 is varied from obtained by proposed technique is 40,859.50 $, which is
50 to 120 in the step of 10. The population size is varied 377 $ less than cost obtained by PSO–GSA technique.
from 50 to 60 in a step of 5, and maximum number of Hence, it is concluded that predator particle improves the
movement is decided based on converge of algorithm. The exploitation capability of algorithm by searching around
parameter values of the proposed technique to achieve nearby solution. The optimum power generation schedule
optimum schedule are given in Table 1. The results have and reservoir water discharge rate obtained by proposed
technique are reported in Table 3 and Fig. 4, respectively.
It is found from optimum schedule that applied constraint
Table 1 Different values of proposed technique parameters for handling technique is able to satisfy all the constraints.
optimum schedule
Parameters System-I System-II System-III 5.2.1.2 Scenario-II In this scenario, the valve-point load-
Number of agents/preys 50 50 60
ing effect of thermal unit and transmission losses is consid-
Max. movement 400 400 450
ered. The cost is compared with some of the reported results,
a 20 20 25
i.e. modified DE (MDE) [59], CSA [56], RCGA-artificial
fish swarm algorithm (RCGA-AFSA) [20], hybrid DE
G0 80 100 100
0 (HDE) [60], QOGSO [61] and some other techniques. It has
C1 1.0 1.5 1.5
0 been observed from results reported in Table 2 that proposed
C2 2.0 1.5 2.0
technique yields better result as compared to results reported
ag 1%(Xmax
g ) 0.5%(Xmax
g ) 0.5%(Xmax
g )
in the literature except results reported from IDE [62] and
bg 0.2%(Xmax
g ) 0.1%(Xmax
g ) 0.1%(Xmax
g )
MCDE [11]. But generation schedule reported for Refs.
pfmax 0.95 0.90 0.95
[11, 62] is not feasible and hence cannot be compared. The

123
Neural Comput & Applic

Table 2 Comparison of results: test system-I

Scenario-I Scenario-II Scenario-III
Technique [Refs.] Min. Ave. Max. Technique Min. Ave. Max. Technique Min. Ave. Max.
cost ($) cost ($) cost ($) [Refs.] cost ($) cost ($) cost ($) [Refs.] cost ($) cost ($) cost ($)

RCGA [20] 42,886 43,032 43,261 IDE [62] 40,627* – – IDE [62] 43,790 43,800 43,812
RCGA-AFSA 40,913 41,235 41,362 RCGA- 41,707 41,832 41,894 RCGA- 41,818* 41,906* 41,962*
[20] AFSA AFSA
[20] [20]
ORCCRO [55] 40,936 40,944 41,127 RCGA [20] 43,465 43,643 43,717 RCGA [20] 43,474 43,622 43,738
RCCRO [55] 41,497 41,498 41,502 MDE [59] 43,435 – – GSO [61] 43,774 43,781 43,799
CSA [56] 42,440 – – CSA [56] 42,440 – – QOGSO 43,560 43,568 43,579
[61]
Lexicographic 41,145 – – MHDE 42,679 – – GSA 44,032 44,065 44,089
[57] [60]
MCDE [11] 40,945 41,380 41,977 HDE [60] 43,656 – – PPO 43,912 43,932 43,951
MDE [59] 42,611 – – MCDE 41,586* 42,022* 42,365a PSO–GSA 43,519 43,530 43,556
[11]
PSO [13] 42,474 – – MDE [64] 43,403 – – Proposed 42,941 42,955 42,978
DE [65] 43,500 – – SPPSO 42,740 43,622 44,346
[64]
MHDE [60] 41,856 – – ACDE [69] 41,593 – –
MILP [66] 41,549 – – TLBO [15] 42,385 42,407 42,441
QPSO [58] 42,359 – – GSO [61] 42,316 42,339 42,379
SOHPSO_TVAC 41,983 – – QOGSO 42120 42130 42145
[67] [61]
ACABC [14] 43362 – – GSA 42912 42932 42963
QOTLBO [68] 42187 42193 42202 PPO 42820 42835 42872
GSA 42201 42234 42287 PSO–GSA 41916 41935 41978
PPO [47] 42042 42078 42099 Proposed 41455 41467 41483
PSO–GSA 41236 41252 41287
Proposed 40859 40864 40891
CSA clonal selection algorithm, MILP mixed integer linear programming, QPSO SOHPSO_TVAC self-organizing hierarchical technique PSO
with time-varying acceleration coefficients, ACABC adaptive chaotic ABC, HDE hybrid DE, MHDE modified HDE, ACDE adaptive chaotic DE,
QOTLBO quasi-oppositional TLBO, GSO group search optimization, QOGSO quasi-oppositional GSO
a
Constraints are not satisfied

fuel cost obtained by proposed technique is 41,455 $, which
is better than cost obtained by PSO–GSA by 461 $. Hence,
the theme of integrating PPO with GSA technique is more
productive as compared to PSO–GSA technique. The power
generation schedule and reservoir water discharge rate are
reported in Table 4 and Fig. 5, respectively.
result cannot be compared. The cost obtained by proposed
technique is 42,941 $, which is 532 $ less than the cost
obtained by next best counterpart, RCGA technique [20].
The power generation schedule and reservoir water dis-
charge rate are reported in Table 5 and Fig. 6,
respectively.

5.2.1.3 Scenario-III In third scenario, POZ on water 5.2.2 Test system-II

discharge rate and ramp rate limits on thermal units are
also considered along with conditions employed for sce-
nario-II. It is evident from Table 2 that cost obtained by
proposed technique is less than cost reported for improved
DE [62], RCGA [20], PPO, GSA and PSO–GSA. The cost
reported for RCGA-AFSA is less than cost obtained by
proposed technique. But it is found that reservoir discharge
rate reported for RCGA-AFSA does not produce same
hydro power for third hydro unit as quoted. Hence, this
The test system-II comprises 4 hydro and 10 thermal units.
The scheduling period is 24 h with 1-h sub-interval. The
problem is solved for three scenarios as discussed for test
system-I. The novel aspect of the paper is to explore sce-
nario-II and scenario-III for this system. The ramp rate
limits on thermal units and POZ constraints on reservoir
discharge rate and loss coefficients are given in Tables 9,
10 and 11, respectively, in ‘Appendix’.

123
 Neural Comput & Applic

Table 3 Optimal power

k pDk (MW) Thermal power (MW) Hydro power (MW)
generation obtained by
proposed technique: test p1k p2k p3k p4k p5k p6k p7k
system-I, scenario-I
1 750 102.6856 124.9083 139.7553 89.24672 58.28197 38.97621 196.1458
2 780 102.6446 124.9076 229.5197 54.88851 62.96923 46.6348 158.4356
3 700 20.02054 209.8161 139.7615 80.48123 49.36079 36.26778 164.292
4 650 102.5126 124.908 139.7597 70.28396 55.98648 16.18369 140.3655
5 670 102.6738 40 229.5199 95.07501 52.36573 49.51046 100.8576
6 800 102.4581 124.9079 229.5189 80.46962 66.14654 45.09602 151.4029
7 950 102.6734 209.8154 319.2792 74.76047 59.03709 25.43518 158.9993
8 1010 101.9277 209.8157 319.279 79.82126 81.17434 51.69621 166.2859
9 1090 102.35 294.7236 319.2745 64.9852 62.72992 42.41624 203.5206
10 1080 102.771 209.8158 319.2794 80.83919 64.32336 46.47609 256.4951
11 1100 102.6951 209.816 319.2795 86.46991 62.85252 43.99776 274.8892
12 1150 102.6992 209.8159 409.0391 82.79134 72.72573 44.68771 228.241
13 1110 102.6833 209.8161 319.2794 80.1293 71.6183 42.66236 283.8112
14 1030 102.638 124.9073 319.277 83.9735 64.68249 53.68274 280.8389
15 1010 102.6703 209.8157 229.5194 77.47641 57.29844 43.51456 289.7052
16 1060 102.6735 209.8159 319.278 64.68175 64.77544 56.06727 242.7082
17 1050 102.8762 209.8159 319.2823 55.4556 51.60419 46.96567 264.0002
18 1120 102.6735 209.8157 319.279 74.46196 72.46632 52.86561 288.438
19 1070 102.6712 209.8159 319.2791 65.98621 58.38187 57.37565 256.4901
20 1050 102.4875 209.8158 229.5173 70.05061 82.16383 54.66812 301.2969
21 910 102.6578 124.9078 229.5195 64.55725 52.95559 57.33807 278.0639
22 860 20.06336 124.908 229.5197 71.13208 74.35286 52.66697 287.3571
23 850 20 124.9081 229.5166 80.73988 55.37449 55.44016 284.0207
24 800 20 40 229.5192 85.46011 86.55936 50.16988 288.6103

q1
Reservoir discharge rate

25
q2
20 q3
×104 (m3/h)

q4
15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Sub-interval (h)

Fig. 4 Reservoir discharge rate obtained by proposed technique: test system-I, scenario-I

5.2.2.1 Scenario-I The comparison of cost for test [55]. Further, average and maximum cost are also
system-II is tabulated in Table 6. The cost obtained by compared with other reported results, and it is observed
PPO–GSA is compared with improved DE (IDE) [62], from Table 4 that proposed technique is able to produce
RCCRO [55], ORCCRO [55], DE [63], MDE, small satisfactorily results consistently. The optimum power
population-based PSO (SPPSO), standard PSO (SPSO) generation schedule and reservoir water discharge rate
[64], (MCDE) [11], PPO, GSA and PSO–GSA tech- obtained by proposed technique are shown in Figs. 7 and
niques. It is evident from Table 6 that cost obtained by 8, respectively.
proposed technique is less than other reported results.
The minimum cost obtained by proposed technique is 5.2.2.2 Scenario-II In this scenario, additional com-
162,336 $, which is 729 $ less than cost obtained by plexity is arisen due to consideration of valve-point
next best counterpart technique, ORCCRO technique loading effect of thermal unit and transmission losses.

123
Neural Comput & Applic

Table 4 Optimal power generation obtained by proposed technique: test system-I, scenario-II
k pDk (MW) PLk (MW) Thermal power (MW) Hydro power (MW)
p1k p2k p3k p4k p5k p6k p7k

1 750 6.04439 101.9237 126.2291 229.5205 82.85383 50.38346 32.97422 132.1593

2 780 6.5181 102.6739 124.9189 229.5213 88.14713 52.91858 43.0401 145.2978
3 700 5.81481 102.9339 124.913 229.5243 52.63601 51.44749 19.64619 124.7133
4 650 4.51373 20.43333 209.8172 139.7601 82.11875 55.26929 26.61232 120.5023
5 670 4.69664 102.7032 124.9146 139.7682 86.10814 64.66765 38.68658 117.8477
6 800 7.62868 20.1389 209.816 319.2795 51.78716 54.22339 22.388 129.9954
7 950 9.77026 103.0417 209.8177 319.2812 69.30245 63.14158 38.33908 156.8461
8 1010 15.33389 103.2993 124.9177 319.2811 87.5942 66.39276 44.05436 279.794
9 1090 17.4214 102.904 209.8218 319.2814 77.84724 55.49314 46.29334 295.78
10 1080 15.50243 102.8813 209.8161 409.0391 52.38372 56.60892 32.26352 232.5094
11 1100 16.05349 104.6011 209.8256 319.2795 88.93594 79.74974 42.45872 271.2025
12 1150 20.27259 102.7582 209.821 409.0405 55.11144 55.61228 33.49769 304.4312
13 1110 14.16602 101.3365 294.7235 319.2793 81.77324 60.48663 40.94613 225.6209
14 1030 17.32344 103.1617 124.9139 319.2802 75.91182 73.521 45.60881 304.9256
15 1010 16.14119 102.6755 209.8163 229.5198 82.43856 62.49591 39.76233 299.4324
16 1060 15.47612 102.9297 209.816 319.2887 71.23149 58.56331 45.98587 267.6606
17 1050 16.99233 102.3311 124.9074 319.2736 88.5368 86.87166 47.75569 297.3167
18 1120 18.23398 102.4911 209.8153 319.2789 83.01175 77.40323 43.74051 302.4936
19 1070 14.25908 102.6737 209.8158 319.2791 79.53766 80.93285 49.06163 242.9579
20 1050 16.74225 102.6754 209.816 229.5196 89.18121 82.76452 50.66702 302.1183
21 910 11.72156 102.6881 124.9086 229.5199 87.10289 82.67979 52.70552 242.1164
22 860 14.75345 20.01459 124.9084 229.5201 69.6318 79.24071 53.67937 297.7582
23 850 13.32927 20.53312 124.9086 229.5196 67.95975 89.58821 56.47121 274.3487
24 800 13.79518 20.43683 124.9079 139.7599 91.44893 86.31904 57.63382 293.2885

Fig. 5 Reservoir discharge rate 25 q1

Reservoir discharge rate

obtained by proposed technique: q2

test system-I, scenario-II 20 q3
×104(m3/h)

q4
15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Sub-interval (h)

For this scenario, minimum, average and maximum cost
obtained by proposed technique are compared with
results obtained by PPO, GSA and PSO–GSA tech-
niques as given in Table 6. The proposed technique
proves its superiority to search optimum solution as
compared to its counterparts. The minimum cost
obtained by proposed technique is 162,903 $, which is
8222 $ less than its closest counterpart technique PSO–
GSA technique. The optimum power generation sched-
ule and reservoir water discharge rate obtained by
proposed technique are shown in Figs. 9 and 10,
respectively.
5.2.2.3 Scenario-III To verify the creditability of pro-
posed technique along with constraint handling procedure,
the solution approach is tested on scenario-III. In this
scenario, two additional constraints POZ on water dis-
charge rate and ramp rate limits on thermal units are also
undertaken. Table 6 presents the minimum, average and
maximum cost obtained by proposed, PSO–GSA, PPO and
GSA techniques. The proposed technique outperforms the
results obtained by its counterparts. For scenario-III, opti-
mum cost achieved by proposed technique is higher, as
compared to optimum cost in scenario-I and II, because
additional constraints are imposed in this scenario. The

123
 Neural Comput & Applic

Table 5 Optimal power generation obtained by proposed technique: test system-I, scenario-III
k pDk (MW) PLk (MW) Thermal power (MW) Hydro power (MW)
p1k p2k p3k p4k p5k p6k p7k

1 750 6.01083 102.679 124.9081 228.7768 82.61914 49.32589 35.76884 131.933

2 780 6.50317 104.2548 124.9116 229.5193 90.03381 51.70871 41.36889 144.706
3 700 5.3061 102.6776 124.9079 194.7872 80.63701 51.14592 26.49201 124.6583
4 650 4.97807 102.6815 40.00083 229.1012 66.9343 53.6276 42.11476 120.5181
5 670 4.8120 103.2939 124.9091 139.7624 74.47487 58.2836 49.23201 124.8561
6 800 6.93065 102.6688 209.8182 229.5196 51.57101 55.03214 29.36336 128.9576
7 950 10.43698 174.9969 209.8141 229.5194 52.6655 55.52972 50.91761 186.9938
8 1010 10.80536 174.9987 294.7326 229.5217 55.04595 56.77236 44.28757 165.4465
9 1090 15.40119 174.9986 216.1882 229.5272 99.40997 62.92892 51.09487 271.2533
10 1080 15.00206 102.6723 294.7225 229.5192 88.11971 70.29604 43.35878 266.3135
11 1100 14.51237 174.9977 294.721 229.5187 81.43657 70.30208 26.50762 237.0289
12 1150 17.01806 174.9974 294.7231 229.5196 82.8428 70.79964 38.28426 275.8515
13 1110 16.14165 175 210.7381 229.523 100.6253 84.85764 48.05772 277.3398
14 1030 16.70395 171.2828 209.8151 229.5188 52.88452 69.47474 23.97777 289.7934
15 1010 16.27802 149.4352 209.8155 229.5207 54.4786 70.62078 23.2752 289.1742
16 1060 16.98456 175 209.8149 229.522 63.38845 70.84406 35.86124 292.5558
17 1050 16.67197 163.4763 294.7229 139.7608 54.96759 70.40237 51.02948 292.3292
18 1120 17.71241 104.5106 294.7241 229.5202 79.78426 75.5817 51.64913 301.891
19 1070 17.78112 174.9499 209.8138 229.5197 74.69009 68.61874 26.17517 303.9661
20 1050 17.57085 175 131.2249 229.5203 79.75169 95.24718 50.82931 306.0004
21 910 15.59249 175 124.9083 139.7588 67.87305 64.04469 50.3741 303.6387
22 860 14.51609 102.6912 124.9074 139.7606 74.31613 85.12547 52.29984 295.4345
23 850 14.05437 102.7088 124.9063 139.7593 70.051 79.66357 56.12068 290.8635
24 800 13.71568 80.11184 89.9966 98.92243 107.0662 86.38899 58.28163 293.0606

Fig. 6 Reservoir discharge rate 25 q1

Reservoir discharge rate

obtained by proposed technique: q2

test system-I, scenario-III 20 q3
q4
×104(m3/h)

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Sub-interval (h)

optimum power generation schedule and reservoir water
discharge rate obtained by proposed technique are shown
in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively. The optimum schedule
satisfies all the constraints.
5.2.3 Test system-III
A medium-sized test system having 16 hydro and 6 thermal
units has also been undertaken. The optimization period has
been divided into 24 sub-intervals of 1 h each. The com-
parison of cost is given in Table 7 for scenario-I. The min-
imum cost achieved by proposed technique is 1,337,150 $,
and it is minimum as compared to cost obtained by PSO [47],
PPO [47], GSA and PSO–GSA. The convergence charac-
teristics of proposed, PSO–GSA, PPO and GSA techniques
are shown in Fig. 13. It is illustrated that proposed technique
converges uniformly faster and outperforms other counter-
parts. To obtain the optimum cost, the number of fitness
function evaluations NFE is computed for PPO, GSA, PSO–
GSA and proposed techniques. The NFE required by PPO,
GSA, PSO–GSA and proposed techniques are 36,000,
39,000, 34,800 and 29,400, respectively. Hence, it is con-
cluded that proposed technique requires less number of NFE
and able to achieve minimum cost.

123
Neural Comput & Applic

Table 6 Comparison of results: test system-II

Scenario-I Scenario-II Scenario-III
Technique Min. Ave. Max. Technique Min. Ave. Max. Technique Min. Ave. Max.
[Refs.] cost ($) cost ($) cost ($) [Refs.] cost ($) cost ($) cost ($) [Refs.] cost ($) cost ($) cost ($)

IDE [62] 170576 – – GSA 180291 180356 180421 GSA 199025 199087 199172
ORCCRO 163066 163068 163134 PPO 176082 176158 176265 PPO 198210 198299 198365
[55]
RCCRO 164138 164140 164182 PSO–GSA 171093 171167 171243 PSO–GSA 191100 191178 191265
[55]
DE [63] 170964 – – Proposed 162903 162919 162928 Proposed 185825 185836 185852
MDE [64] 177338 179676 182172
SPSO [64] 189350 190560 191844
SPPSO [64] 167710 168688 170879
MCDE [11] 165331 – –
GSO [61] 170511 170547 170586
QOGSO 170293 170321 170349
[61]
GSA 179457 179489 179564
PPO 175160 175204 175278
PSO–GSA 169271 169302 169357
Proposed 162336 162346 162369

Fig. 7 Optimal power 2200

p14
generation obtained by 2000 p13
proposed technique: test p12
1800 p11
system-II, scenario-I 1600 p10
Power (MW)

p9
1400 p8
p7
1200 p6
1000 p5
p4
800 p3
p2
600 p1
400
200
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Sub-interval (h)

Fig. 8 Reservoir discharge rate 30 q1

Reservoir discharge rate

obtained by proposed technique: q2

test system-II, scenario-I 25
q3
×104 (m3/h)

20 q4

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Sub-interval (h)

123
 Neural Comput & Applic

Fig. 9 Optimal power 30 q1

Reservoir discharge rate

generation obtained by 25
q2
proposed technique: test q3

×104 (m3/h)
system-II, scenario-II 20 q4
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Sub-interval (h)

Fig. 10 Reservoir discharge 2200

p14
rate obtained by proposed 2000 p13
technique: test system-II, 1800 p12
p11
scenario-II 1600 p10
Power (MW)

p9
1400 p8
1200 p7
p6
1000 p5
800 p4
p3
600 p2
400 p1
200
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Sub-interval (h)

Fig. 11 Optimal power 2200 p14

generation obtained by 2000 p13
p12
proposed technique: test 1800 p11
system-II, scenario-III 1600
p10
p9
Power (MW)

1400 p8
p7
1200 p6
p5
1000 p4
800 p3
p2
600 p1
400
200
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Sub-interval (h)

5.3 Statistical performance analysis
In the proposed PPO–GSA integrated search technique,
initial solutions are randomly generated and parameters are
set after a number of trails. So it is necessary to investigate
the effect of random initialization of solution and param-
eter sensitivity w.r.t. solution quality. To ensure the
robustness of proposed PPO–GSA technique, thirty inde-
pendent trails are performed and best, average and worst
results are obtained, and it is tabulated in Table 8 for test
system-III. To measure the variability of results, standard
deviation (S.D.) is also computed. It is evident from
Table 8 that proposed technique shows minimum S.D. and
average and worst results are also better than results
obtained by GSA and PSO–GSA techniques. Further, t test
is performed to investigate the robustness of proposed
technique. In this work, to compare the significant differ-
ence between PSO–GSA and proposed technique, two-
sample t test (two tails) is performed at 5% level of sig-
nificance for test system-III. From the outcome of the test,
it is observed that absolute value of the statistic is greater
than the critical value and p value is \0.0001; hence, two
population means are different at significant level of 0.05
even at the significant level of 0.01. It is concluded that
proposed technique is able to produce higher success rate
to achieve global best solution.
The parameter sensitivity is also done by perturbing the
set parameters by ±10% of their original values, while
other parameters remains fixed. It is observed from Fig. 14
that percentage increase in cost is highest when PPO–GSA
parameter ‘maximum probability fear’ is perturbed. The
‘maximum probability fear’ decides whether predator

123
Neural Comput & Applic

Fig. 12 Reservoir discharge 30 q1

Reservoir discharge rate

rate obtained by proposed q2
technique: test system-II, 25 q3
scenario-III q4

×104 (m3/h)
20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Sub-interval (h)

Table 7 Comparison of results: test system-III search is directed by considering local and global best
experiences. However, GSA is a memory-less algorithm
Technique [Refs.] Min. cost ($)
and agent direction is not influenced by experience of other
PSO [47] 13,65,733 agents and search is performed with due consideration of
PPO [47] 13,49,846 quality of solutions. In the proposed technique, search
GSA 13,50,451 direction is directed by considering quality of solutions and
PSO–GSA 13,43,495 experience gained by local and global best particles. The
Proposed 13,37,150 proposed technique is applied on three hydro-thermal
systems considering transmission losses, POZ and ramp
rate constraints. Simulation results illustrate that proposed
particle will affect preys or not. It has also been observed integrated technique provides high-quality solutions.
that variation in cost is in the range from 0.102 to 0.831%. Moreover, the results obtained using the proposed inte-
So, it is concluded that optimum cost is very less sensitive grated technique is better to those obtained using PPO,
to parameters variation. GSA, PSO–GSA and other techniques reported in the lit-
erature. Hence, it is concluded that proposed technique is
able to search optimum solution with good convergence
6 Conclusions characteristics. The proposed technique requires less
number of fitness evaluation as compared to PSO–GSA,
In this article, an integrated optimization technique has PPO and GSA techniques. The sensitivity analysis and
been proposed by coordinating pros and cons of PPO and robustness of proposed technique are also verified by sta-
GSA in a suitable manner. During the search process, PPO tistical test.
algorithm does not consider the quality of solutions and

Fig. 13 Convergence 1900

characteristics: test system-III, Proposed
1850
scenario-I 1800 PSO-GSA
1750 PPO
1700 GSA
Cost×103 $

1650
1600
1550
1500
1450
1400
1350
1300
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Movement

Table 8 Minimum, average,

Technique Minimum value ($) Average value ($) Maximum value ($) S.D. ($)
maximum values and standard
deviation: test system-III GSA 13,50,451 13,50,550 13,50,994 95.052
PSO–GSA 13,43,495 13,43,561 13,43,727 47.615
Proposed 13,37,150 13,37,197 13,37,295 28.535

123
 Neural Comput & Applic

% increase from optimum

1

0.8

0.6

cost
0.4

0.2

0
+10% -10% +10% -10% +10% -10% +10% -10% +10% -10% +10% -10% +10% -10%
α α G0 G0 C1 C1 C2 C2 a a b b pfmax pfmax
Variation in set parameter

Fig. 14 % increase in cost w.r.t. variation in set parameters: test system-III, scenario-I

Appendix in an energy management system. IEEE Trans Air Power Syst

See Tables 9, 10 and 11.
Table 9 Test system-II: ramp rate limits for thermal units
Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 3, 4
UR (MW) 100 50
DR (MW) 100 50
Table 10 Test system-II: POZ for reservoir discharge rate
Hydro unit 1 2
4 3
POZ on discharge rate (9 10 m /h) 8-9 7-8
Table 11 Test system-II: loss coefficients
½0:0
½0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0
2 3
0:1 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0
6 7
6 0:0 0:1 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 7
6 7
6 0:0 0:0 0:1 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 7
6 7
6 7
6 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:1 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 7
6 7
6 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:1 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 7
6 7
6 7  104
6 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:1 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 7
6 7
6 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:1 0:0 0:0 0:0 7
6 7
6 7
6 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:1 0:0 0:0 7
6 7
6 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:1 0:0 7
4 5
0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:1
References
1. Basu M (2010) Economic environmental dispatch of hydrother-
mal power system. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 32(6):711–720
2. Li CA, Philip J, Jap J, Dan L, Streiffert L (1993) Implementation
of network flow programming to the hydrothermal coordination
8(3):1045–1053
3. Wood AJ, Wollenberg BF (2007) Power generation, operation
and control, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons press, New York
4. Gorenstin BG, Campodonico NM, Costa JP, Pereira MVF (1992)
Stochastic optimization of a hydro-thermal system including
network constraints. IEEE Trans Power Syst 7(2):791–797
5. Yang JS, Chen N (1989) Short-term hydrothermal coordination
8, 9, 10 using multi-pass dynamic programming. IEEE Trans Power Syst
4(3):1050–1056
70 6. Chen P-H, Chang H-C (1996) Genetic aided scheduling of
70 hydraulically coupled plants in hydro-thermal coordination. IEEE
Trans Power Syst 11(2):975–981
7. Senthil Kumar V, Mohan MR (2011) A genetic algorithm solu-
tion to the optimal short-term hydrothermal scheduling. Int J
Electr Power Energy Syst 33(4):827–835
3 4 8. Hota PK, Chakrabarti R, Chattopadhyay PK (1999) Short-term
hydrothermal scheduling through evolutionary programming
22-27 16-18
technique. Electr Power Syst Res 52(1):189–196
9. Cau TDH, Kaye RJ (2002) Evolutionary optimisation method for
multistorage hydrothermal scheduling. IEE Proc Gener Transm
Distrib 149(2):152–156
10. Mandal KK, Chakrabotry N (2013) Parameter study of differ-
ential evolution based optimal scheduling of hydrothermal sys-
tems. J Hydro Environ Res 7(1):72–80
11. Zhang J, Lin S, Qiu W (2015) A modified chaotic differential
evaluation algorithm for short-term optimal hydrothermal
scheduling. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 65:159–168
12. Mandal KK, Basu M, Chakrabotry N (2008) Particle swarm
optimization technique based short-term hydrothermal schedul-
ing. Appl Soft Comput 8(4):1392–1399
13. Mandal KK, Chakrabotry N (2011) Short-term combined eco-
nomic emission scheduling of hydrothermal systems with cas-
caded reservoirs using particle swarm optimization technique.
Appl Soft Comput 11(1):1295–1302
14. Liao X, Zhou J, Ouyang S, Zhang R, Zhang Y (2013) An adaptive
chaotic artificial bee colony algorithm for short-term hydrother-
mal generation scheduling. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
53:34–42
15. Kumar Roy P (2013) Teaching learning based optimization for
short-term hydrothermal scheduling problem considering valve
point effect and prohibited discharge constraint. Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 53:10–19
16. Nguyen TT, Vo DN, Truong AV (2014) Cuckoo search algorithm for
short-term hydrothermal scheduling. Appl Energy 132:276–287
17. Wong SYW (2001) Hybrid simulated annealing/genetic algorithm
approach to short-term hydro-thermal scheduling with multiple
thermal plants. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 23(7):565–575

123
Neural Comput & Applic
18. Sivasubramani S, Swarup KS (2011) Hybrid DE-SQP algorithm
for non-convex short term hydrothermal scheduling problem.
Energy Convers Manag 52(1):757–761
19. Roy PK (2014) Hybrid chemical reaction optimization approach
for combined economic emission short-term hydrothermal
scheduling. Electr Power Compon Syst 42(15):1647–1660
20. Fang N, Zhou J, Zhang R, Liu Y, Zhang Y (2014) A hybrid of
real coded genetic algorithm and artificial fish swarm algorithm
for short-term optimal hydrothermal scheduling. Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 62:617–629
21. Columbus CC, Chandrasekaran K, Simon SP (2012) Nodal ant
colony optimization for solving profit based unit commitment
problem for GENCOs. Appl Soft Comput 12:145–160
22. Aghaei J, Ahmadi A, Shayanfar HA, Rabiee A (2013) Mixed
integer programming of generalized hydro-thermal self-schedul-
ing of generating units. Electr Eng 95:109–125
23. Aghaei J, Ahmadi A, Rabiee A, Agelidis VG, Muttaqi KM,
Shayanfar HA (2015) Uncertainty management in multiobjective
hydro-thermal self-scheduling under emission considerations.
Appl Soft Comput 37:737–750
24. Aghaei J, Karami M, Muttaqi KM, Shayanfar HA, Ahmadi A
(2015) MIP-Based stochastic security-constrained daily
hydrothermal generation scheduling. IEEE Syst J 9:615–628
25. Ahmadi A, Aghaei J, Shayanfar HA, Rabiee A (2012) Mixed
integer programming of multiobjective hydro-thermal self
scheduling. Appl Soft Comput 12:2137–2146
26. Karami M, Shayanfar HA, Aghaei J, Ahmadi A (2013) Scenario-
based security-constrained hydrothermal coordination with
volatile wind power generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
28:726–737
27. Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) GSA: a
gravitational search algorithm. Inf Sci 179:2232–2248
28. Shaw B, Mukherjee V, Ghoshal SP (2014) Solution of reactive
power dispatch of power systems by an opposition-based gravi-
tational search algorithm. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
55:29–40
29. Sarker J, Goswami SK (2014) Solution of multiple UPFC
placement problems using gravitational search algorithm. Int J
Electr Power Energy Syst 55:531–541
30. Bhowmik AR, Chakraborty AK (2014) Solution of optimal power
flow using nondominated sorting multi objective gravitational
search algorithm. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 62:323–334
31. Bhattacharya A, Roy PK (2012) Solution of multi-objective
optimal power flow using gravitational search algorithm. IET
Gener Transm Distrib 6(8):751–763
32. Gouthamkumar N, Sharma V, Naresh R (2015) An oppositional
learning based gravitational search algorithm for short term
hydrothermal scheduling. Asian J Curr Eng Maths 4(3):45–54
33. Mirjalili S, Hashim SZM, Sardroudi HM (2012) Training feed-
forward neural networks using hybrid particle swarm optimiza-
tion and gravitational search algorithm. Appl Math Comput
218(22):11125–11137
34. Woodward JR, Neil JR (2003) No free lunch program induction
and combinatorial problems, chapter genetic programming, vol-
ume 2610 of the series lecture notes in computer science,
pp 475–484
35. Tan WS, Hassan MY, Rahman HA, Abdullah MP, Hussin F
(2013) Multi-distributed generation planning using hybrid parti-
cle swarm optimisation-gravitational search algorithm including
voltage rise issue. IET Gener Transm Distrib 7(9):929–942
36. Mallick S, Ghoshal SP, Acharjee P, Thakur SS (2013) Optimal
static state estimation using improved particle swarm optimiza-
tion and gravitational search algorithm. Int J Electr Power Energy
Syst 52:254–265
37. Radosavljević J, Klimenta D, Jevtić M, Arsić N (2015) Optimal
power flow using a hybrid optimization algorithm of particle
swarm optimization and gravitational search algorithm. Electr
Power Compon Syst 43(17):1958–1970
38. Jiang S, Ji Z, Shen Y (2014) A novel hybrid particle swarm
optimization and gravitational search algorithm for solving eco-
nomic emission load dispatch problems with various practical
constraints. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 55:628–644
39. Yuan X, Ji B, Chen Z, Chen Z (2014) A novel approach for
economic dispatch of hydrothermal system via gravitational
search algorithm. Appl Math Comput 247:535–546
40. Park JB, Lee KS, Shin JR, Lee KY (2005) A particle swarm
optimization for economic dispatch with non-smooth cost func-
tions. IEEE Trans Power Syst 20(1):34–42
41. Omran M, Engelbrecht A, Salman A (2009) Bare bones differ-
ential evolution. Eur J Oper Res 196(1):128–139
42. Mo Y, Liu H, Wang Q (2009) Conjugate direction particle swarm
optimization solving systems of nonlinear equations. Comput
Math Appl 57(11–12):1877–1882
43. Silva A, Neves A, Costa E (2002) An empirical comparison of
particle swarm and predator prey optimization. Proc Irish Int
Conf Artif Intell Cognit Sci 24(64):103–110
44. Narang N, Dhillon JS, Kothari DP (2012) Multiobjective fixed
head hydrothermal scheduling using integrated predator-prey
optimization and Powell search method. Energy 47(1):237–252
45. Silva A, Neves A, Costa E (2002) Chasing the swarm: a predator
prey approach to function optimization. In: Proceeding of
MENDEL 2002-8th international conference on soft computing,
Brno, Czech Republic, June 5–7
46. Higashitani M, Ishigame A, Yasude K (2006) Particle swarm
optimization considering the concept of predator-prey behavior. In:
IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, Canada, July 16–21
47. Narang N, Dhillon JS, Kothari DP (2012) Multi-objective short-
term hydrothermal generation scheduling using predator-prey
optimization. Electr Power Compon Syst 40(15):1708–1730
48. Narang N, Dhillon JS, Kothari DP (2014) Scheduling short-term
hydrothermal generation using predator prey optimization tech-
nique. Appl Soft Comput 21:298–308
49. Narang N, Dhillon JS, Kothari DP (2014) Weighted pattern
evaluation for multiobjective hydrothermal generation scheduling
using hybrid search technique. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
62:665–678
50. Orero SO, Irving MR (1998) A genetic algorithm modelling
framework and solution technique for short-term optimal
hydrothermal scheduling. IEEE Trans Power Syst 13(2):501–518
51. Mirjalili S, Hashim SZM (2010) A new hybrid PSOGSA algo-
rithm for function optimization. In: International conference on
computer and information application (ICCIA 2010), pp 374–377
52. Park J-B, Jeong Y-W, Shin J-R, Kwang YL (2010) An improved
particle swarm optimization for nonconvex economic dispatch
problems. IEEE Trans Power Syst 25(1):156–166
53. Manoharan PS, Kannan PS, Baskar S, Iruthayarajan MW (2008)
Penalty parameter-less constraint handling scheme based evolu-
tionary algorithm solutions to economic dispatch. IET Gener
Transm Distrib 2(4):478–490
54. Singh NJ, Dhillon JS, Kothari DP (2016) Synergic predator-prey
optimization for economic thermal power dispatch problem. Appl
Soft Comput. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2016.02.042
55. Bhattacharjee K, Bhattacharya A, nee Dey SH (2014) Opposi-
tional real coded chemical reaction based optimization to solve
short-term hydrothermal scheduling problems. Int J Electr Power
Energy Syst 63:145–157
56. Swain RK, Barisal AK, Hota PK, Chakrabarti R (2011) Short-
term hydrothermal scheduling using clonal selection algorithm.
Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 33(3):647–656
57. Norouzi MR, Ahmadi A, Sharaf AM, Nezhad AE (2014) Short-
term environmental/economic hydrothermal scheduling. Electr
Power Syst Res 116:117–127
123

58. Sun C, Lu S (2010) Short-term economic emission hydrothermal
scheduling using improved quantum-behaved particle swarm
optimization. Expert Syst Appl 37(6):4232–4241
59. Lakshminarasimman L, Subramanian S (2006) Short-term
scheduling of hydrothermal power system with cascaded reser-
voirs by using modified differential evolution. IEE Proc Gener
Transm Distrib 153(6):693–700
60. Lakshminarasimman L, Subramanian S (2008) A modified hybrid
differential evolution for short-term scheduling of hydrothermal
power systems with cascaded reservoirs. Energy Convers Manag
49(10):2513–2521
61. Basu M (2016) Quasi-oppositional group search optimization for
hydrothermal power system. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
81:324–335
62. Basu M (2014) Improved differential evolution for short-term
hydrothermal scheduling. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
58:91–100
63. Mandal KK, Chakrabotry N (2008) Differential evolution tech-
nique-based short-term economic generation scheduling of
hydrothermal systems. Electr Power Syst Res 78(11):1972–1979
64. Zhang J, Wang J, Yue C (2012) Small population-based particle
swarm optimization for short-term hydrothermal scheduling.
IEEE Trans Power Syst 27(1):142–152
123
Neural Comput & Applic
65. Mandal KK, Chakrabotry N (2009) Short term combined eco-
nomic emission scheduling of hydrothermal power systems with
cascaded reservoirs using differential evolution. Energy Convers
Manag 50(1):97–104
66. Ahmadi A, Kaymanesh A, Siano P, Janghorbani M, Nezhad AE,
Sarno D (2015) Evaluating the effectiveness of normal boundary
intersection method for short-term environmental/economic
hydrothermal self-scheduling. Electr Power Syst Res
123:192–204
67. Mandal KK, Chakrabotry N (2012) Daily combined economic
emission scheduling of hydrothermal systems with cascaded
reservoirs using self organizing hierarchical particle swarm
optimization technique. Expert Syst Appl 39(3):3438–3445
68. Kumar Roy P, Sur A, Pradhan DK (2013) Optimal short-term
hydro-thermal scheduling using quasi-oppositional teaching
learning based optimization. Eng Appl Artif Intell
26(10):2516–2524
69. Lu Y, Zhou J, Qin H, Wang Y, Zhang Y (2011) An adaptive
chaotic differential evolution for the short-term hydrothermal
generation scheduling problem. Energy Convers Manag
51(7):1481–1490