Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 277–285

An interactive fuzzy satisfying method based on evolutionary

programming technique for multiobjective short-term
hydrothermal scheduling
M. Basu
Department of Power Plant Engineering, Jadavpur University, 2nd Campus, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700098, India

Abstract

This paper presents an interactive fuzzy satisfying method based on evolutionary programming technique for short-term multiobjective
hydrothermal scheduling. The multiobjective problem is formulated considering two objectives: (i) cost and (ii) emission. Assuming that the
decision maker (DM) has fuzzy goals for each of the objective functions, evolutionary programming technique based fuzzy satisfying method
is applied for generating a corresponding optimal noninferior solution for the DM’s goals. Then, by considering the current solution, the DM
acts on this solution by updating the reference membership values until the satisfying solution for the DM can be obtained. A multi-reservoir
cascaded hydroelectric system with a nonlinear relationship between water discharge rate, net head and power generation is considered. The
water transport delay between connected reservoirs is taken into account. Thermal plants with nonsmooth fuel cost and emission level function
are also taken into consideration. Results of the application of the proposed method are presented.
© 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hydrothermal scheduling; Cascaded reservoirs; Interactive fuzzy satisfying method; Membership function; Evolutionary programming technique

1. Introduction economic emission load dispatch problem is that they do not

The generation of electricity from fossil fuel releases
several contaminants, such as sulfur dioxide (SO2 ), nitro-
gen oxides (NOx ), and carbon dioxide (CO2 ) into atmo-
sphere. Atmospheric pollution affects not only humans but
also other life-forms such as animals, birds, fish and plants.
It also causes damage to materials, reducing visibility as
well as causing global warming. Due to increasing concern
over the environmental considerations, society demands ad-
equate and secure electricity not only at the cheapest pos-
sible price, but also at minimum level of pollution. In par-
ticular, since the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990, emission control has become one of the important
operational objectives [1].
Various methods have been proposed by many researchers
to deal with economic emission load dispatch problem of
thermal plants with various degrees of success. Some of
these methods are goal programming [2], Hopfield neural
networks [3] and genetic algorithms [4,5]. The major dis-
advantages of the above-mentioned methods in solving the
E-mail address: mousumibasu@yahoo.com (M. Basu).
have a mechanism to show the vague or ‘fuzzy’ preference
of the human decision maker in obtaining a compromising
solution in presence of such conflicting objectives and they
are not dealing with nonsmooth fuel cost and emission level
functions.
Hydrothermal scheduling is a daily planning task in power
system operation and it is the subject of intensive investiga-
tion for several decades. Most of the methods that have been
used to solve the hydrothermal co-ordination problem make
a number of simplifying assumptions in order to make the
optimization problem more tractable. Some of these solution
methods are dynamic programming [6], functional analysis
[7], network flow [8] and mathematical decomposition [9].
Recently simulated annealing technique [10], evolutionary
programming technique [11] and genetic algorithm [12] have
been applied separately for optimal hydrothermal scheduling
problem and circumvented the above mentioned weakness.
This paper proposes an interactive fuzzy satisfying
method based on evolutionary programming technique for
short-term optimal scheduling of generation in a hydrother-
mal system which involves the allocation of generation
among the multi-reservoir cascaded hydro plants and ther-
mal plants with nonsmooth fuel cost and emission level

0378-7796/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2003.10.003
278 M. Basu / Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 277–285

functions so as to minimize the fuel cost and emission level time m, Psimin and Psimax , the lower and upper generation limits
of thermal plants simultaneously while satisfying the vari- for ith thermal unit, Ns the number of thermal generating
ous constraints on the hydraulic and power system network. units, m and M the time index and scheduling period, fq the
The main constraints include: the time coupling effect of qth objective function.
the hydro sub problem, where the water flow in an earlier
time interval affects the discharge capability at a later period 2.1.2. Emission
of time, the varying system load demand, the cascade na- Thermal power stations are major causes of atmospheric
ture of the hydraulic network, the varying hourly reservoir pollution, because of high concentration of pollutants they
inflows, the physical limitations on the reservoir storage cause. In this study, nitrogen oxides (NOx ) emission is taken
and turbine flow rate and the loading limits of both thermal as the selected index from the viewpoint of environment
and hydro plants. Here the objective functions (i.e. cost and conservation. The amount of emission from each generator
emission) are modeled with fuzzy sets. Fuzzy sets were first is given as a function of its output [16], which is the sum of
introduced by Zadeh [13] as an effective means of solving a quadratic and an exponential function. The total emission
nonprobabilistic problems. The different objectives are eas- in the system can be expressed as
ily integrated because all the membership function values of
these objectives are in the same range [0, 1]. It is assumed
Ns
M

that the decision maker (DM) has imprecise or fuzzy goals f2 = [αsi + βsi Psim + γsi Psim
2
+ ηsi exp(δsi Psim )]
for each of objective functions. The fuzzy goals are quanti- m=1 i=1
fied by defining their corresponding membership functions. (2)
The DM then specifies the reference membership values
for each of the objective functions and the corresponding where αsi , βsi , γ si , ηsi , δsi are emission curve coefficients of
optimal noninferior solution can be obtained. Through the ith thermal unit subject to
interaction the DM’s reference membership values are up- (i) Power balance constraints
dated by considering the current values of the membership The total active power generation must balance the
functions as well as the objectives until a satisfying solution predicted power demand plus losses, at each time in-
for the DM is obtained. The proposed method has been terval over the scheduling horizon
validated by applying it to a test system [12,17].
Ns

Nh


Psim + Phjm − PDm − PLm = 0 m∈M (3)
2. Problem formulation i=1 j=1

where PDm is the load demand at time m, PLm the

The hydrothermal scheduling problem is formulated as a total transmission line losses at time m, Phjm the output
multiobjective mathematical programming problem which power of jth hydro unit at time m, Nh the number of
is concerned with the attempt to minimize simultaneously hydro generating units.
cost and emission of thermal plants. The following ob- The hydroelectric generation is a function of water
jectives and constraints of the hydrothermal scheduling discharge rate and reservoir water head, which in turn,
problem are taken into account in the formulation of the is a function of storage.
economic emission load dispatch (EELD) problem. The
equality and inequality constraints of the system must Phjm = C1j Vhjm
2
+ C2j Q2hjm + C3j Vhjm Qhjm
meanwhile be satisfied.
+ C4j Vhjm + C5j Qhjm + C6j ,
2.1. Objectives j ∈ Nh , m ∈ M (4)

2.1.1. Economy
The fuel cost function of each thermal generating unit
considering valve-point effects [15] is expressed as the sum
of a quadratic and a sinusoidal function. The total fuel cost
in terms of real power output can be expressed as
where Cij , C2j , C3j , C4j , C5j , C6j are the power gen-
eration coefficients of jth hydro unit, Qhjm the water
discharge rate of jth reservoir at time m, Vhjm the stor-
age volume of jth reservoir at time m.
(ii) Generation limits

Ns
M


Phj
min
≤ Phjm ≤ Phj
max
, j ∈ Nh , m ∈ M (5)
f1 = [asi + bsi Psim + csi Psim
2

m=1 i=1
and
+|dsi sin{esi (Psimin − Psim )}|] (1) Psimin ≤ Psim ≤ Psimax , i ∈ Ns , m ∈ M (6)

where asi , bsi , csi , dsi , esi are the cost curve coefficients of where Phjmin , P max are the lower and upper generation
hj
ith thermal unit, Psim the output power of ith thermal unit at limits for jth hydro unit.
 M. Basu / Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 277–285 279

(iii) Hydraulic network constraints

The hydraulic operational constraints comprise the
water balance equations for each hydro unit as well
as the bounds on reservoir storage and release targets.
These bounds are determined by the physical reservoir
and plant limitations as well as the multipurpose re-
quirements of the hydro system. These constraints in-
clude:
(a) Physical limitations on reservoir storage volumes and
discharge rates,
Vhj
min
≤ Vhjm ≤ Vhj
max
, j ∈ Nh , m ∈ M (7)
Fig. 1. The membership function.
Qmin
hj ≤ Qhjm ≤ Qhj ,
max
j ∈ Nh , m ∈ M (8)

where Qmin
hj , Qhj are the minimum and maximum wa-
max
where fqmin is the minimum value of qth objective, fqmax the
ter discharge rate of jth reservoir; Vhj
min , V max : minimum
hj
maximum value of qth objective, n the number of objective
and maximum storage volume of jth reservoir. functions.
(b) The continuity equation for the hydro reservoir network After defining the membership functions, the DM is asked
to specify the reference (desirable) levels of achievement of
Vhj(m+1) = Vhjm + Ihjm − Qhjm − Shjm the membership functions, called the reference membership
Ruj values µrq , q = 1–n. Then to obtain the satisfying solution,


+ (Qhl(m−tlj ) + Shl(m−tlj ) ), the following minimax problem is solved [14].
l=1 min {max|µrq − µfq (X̄)|} (11)
j ∈ Nh , m ∈ M (9) X∈Ω q=1–n

where Ihjm is the inflow rate of jth reservoir at time
m, Ruj the number of upstream units directly above jth
hydro plant, Shjm the spillage of jth reservoir at time m,
tlj the water transport delay from reservoir l to j.
3. Fuzzy satisfying method
Considering the imprecise nature of the decision-maker’s
judgment, it is natural to assume that the decision-maker
may have fuzzy or imprecise goals for each objective func-
tion. The fuzzy sets are defined by equations called mem-
bership functions. The higher the value of the membership
function implies a greater satisfaction with the solution. The
membership function consists of a lower and upper boundary
value together with a strictly monotonically decreasing and
continuous function. Fig. 1 illustrates the graph of the possi-
ble shape of a strictly monotonically decreasing membership
function. The lower and upper bounds, fqmin (X̄), fqmax (X̄) of
each of the objective functions fq (X̄), q = 1–n under given
constraints are established to elicit a membership function
µfq (X̄) for each objective function fq (X̄). The DM is fully
satisfied with the objective value fq (X̄) if µfq (X̄) = 1, and
not satisfied at all if µfq (X̄) = 0. The qth membership func-
tion is now defined as:
 of a competition scheme, the individuals in each population

 0, if fq (X̄) ≥ fqmax

 f max − fq (X̄)
q sultant population, which is regarded as the next generation.
µfq (X̄) = , if fqmin (X̄) < fqmax (10)

 fqmax − fqmin

 1, if fq (X̄) ≤ fqmin
where Ω is the set of noninferior solutions, µfq the qth mem-
bership function; µrq the qth reference membership value.
In this paper the minimax problem is solved using evolu-
tionary programming technique. If the DM is not satisfied
with the current solution, then through the interaction, the
reference membership values can be updated and the updat-
ing is done by considering the current values of the mem-
bership functions as well as the objectives. This interactive
updating process is continued until the satisfying solution
for the DM is obtained.
4. Evolutionary programming
Evolutionary programming (EP) is a technique in the field
of evolutionary computation. It seeks the optimal solution
by evolving a population of candidate solutions over a num-
ber of generations or iterations. During each iteration, a sec-
ond new population is formed from an existing population
through the use of a mutation operator. This operator pro-
duces a new solution by perturbing each component of an
existing solution by a random amount. The degree of opti-
mality of each of the candidate solutions or individuals is
measured by their fitness, which can be defined as a function
of the objective function of the problem. Through the use
compete with each other. The winning individuals form a re-
For optimization to occur, the competition scheme must be
such that the more optimal solutions have a greater chance
280 M. Basu / Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 277–285

of survival than the poorer solutions. Through this the popu- following equation:
lation evolves towards the global optimal point. The Evolu-
Ns

Nh


tionary programming technique is iterative and the process
is terminated by a stopping rule. The rule widely used is ei- Psdg m = PDm + PLm − Psim − Phjm , m∈M
i=1 j=1
ther (a) stop after a specified number of iterations or (b) stop i=d
when there is no appreciable change in the best solution for
(14)
a certain number of generations. Rule (a) is adopted in the
present work. The dependent thermal generation must satisfy the con-
straints in Eq. (6).

5. Evolutionary programming based fuzzy satisfying 5.1. Initialization

method for hydrothermal scheduling
In this section, an algorithm based on fuzzy satisfying
method and evolutionary programming technique for solving
The initial parent trial matrix pk , k = 1–Np , is determined
by setting its ith thermal unit and jth hydro plant at time
m as Psim ∼ U(Psimin , Psimax ) and Qhjm ∼ U(Qmin hj , Qhj ),
max

economic emission load dispatch problem of hydrothermal respectively, where i = 1–Ns , j = 1–Nh and m = 1–m. U(a,
power system is described below. b) denotes a uniform random variable ranging over [a, b].
Let pk = [Ps1 , Ps2 , . . . , Psi , . . . , PsNs , Qh1 , Qh2 , . . . ,
5.2. Creation of offspring
Qhj , . . . , QhNh ]T be a trial matrix designating the kth
individual of a population to be evolved and Psi =
An offspring vector p k is created from each parent pk by
[Psi1 , Psi2 , . . . , Psim , . . . , PsiM ], Qhj = [Qhj1 , Qhj2 , . . . ,
adding to each component of pk a Gaussian random variable
Qhjm , . . . , QhjM ]. The elements Psim and Qhjm are the
with zero mean and a standard deviation proportional to the
power output of the ith thermal unit and the discharge rate
scaled cost values of the parent trial solution, i.e.
of the jth hydro plant at time m. The range of the elements
Psim and Qhjm should satisfy the thermal generating ca- p k = [Ps1

, Ps2 , . . . , Psi , . . . , PsN

, Q h1 , Q h2 , . . . ,
s
pacity and the water discharge rate constraints in Eqs. (6)
and (8), respectively. Assuming the spillage in Eq. (9) to be × Q hj , . . . , Q hNh ]T
zero for simplicity, the hydraulic continuity constraints are
Psim = Psim + N(0, σi2 ), m∈M (15)
Ruj
M

M


M

Q hjm = Qhjm + N(0, σj2 ), m∈M (16)
Vhj0 − VhjM = Qhjm − Qhl(m−tlj ) − Ihjm ,
m=1 m=1 l=1 m=1 The standard deviations σ i and σ j indicate the ranges of
j ∈ Nh (12) the offspring created around the parent trial solution and are
given according to the following equation:
where Vhj0 is the initial storage volume of jth reservoir; λpk
σi = ε (P max − Psimin ) (17)
VhjM the final storage volume of jth reservoir. λmin si
To meet exactly the restrictions on the initial and final
reservoir storage in Eq. (9), the water discharge rate of the λpk
σj = ε (Qmax − Qmin
hj ) (18)
jth hydro plant Qhjd in the dependent interval d is then λmin hj
calculated by where λmin is the minimum value of λ among the Np trial
solutions, ε is a scaling factor, λpk is the value of the function
M

associated with the trial vector pk , i.e.,
Qhjd = Vhj0 − VhjM + Ihjm
m=1
λpk = {max|µrq − µfq (pk )|} (19)
q=1,2,...,n
Ruj
M
M



+ Qhl(m−tlj ) − Qhjm , where λpk is to be minimized. The offspring p k is created
m=1 l=1 m=1 according to the relative value of λpk ; if λpk is relatively
m=d low, the offspring trial solution is created near the current
j ∈ Nh (13) solution pk ; if λpk is relatively high, the next trial solution
will be searched within a wider range.
The dependent water discharge rate must satisfy the con-
straints in Eq. (8). 5.3. Competition and selection
Also to meet exactly the power balance constraints in
Eq. (3), the thermal generation Psdg m of the dependent ther- The Np parent trial vectors pk , k = 1–Np along with their
mal generating unit dg can then be calculated using the corresponding offspring p k formed by mutation, k = 1–Np
 M. Basu / Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 277–285 281

each undergoes a series of Nt tournaments with randomly IX. Appendix

selected opponents. The score for each trial vector after a
stochastic competition is given by Ι h1 Ι h2
 t
spk = N l=1 sl
------ ------
 (20)
Reservoir 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - Reservoir 2
1, if λpk < λpr Qh1 Qh 2
sl =
0, otherwise Ι h3
The competitor pr , is selected at random from among the Reservoir 3 -------
2Np trial solutions based on r = [2Np u + 1][x] denotes -------
the greatest integer less than or equal to x. u is a uniform Qh 3
random number in the interval [0, 1]. After competing, the Ι h4
2Np trial solutions, including the parents and the offspring, -------
are ranked in descending order of the score obtained in (20). Reservoir 4 -------
The first Np trial solutions survive and are transcribed along Qh 4
with their functions into the survivor set as the individuals
of the next generation. A maximum number of generations
Nmax is given. The search process is stopped as the count of
generations reaches Nmax . Where:
Ι hj : natural inflow to j th reservoir
Qhj : discharge of j th plant
6. Simulation results

The proposed method has been applied to a test Plant 1 2 3 4

system which consists of a multi-chain cascade of four
hydro units [12] and three thermal units [17]. The schedul-
ing period is 24 h with one hour time intervals. The hydro
sub-system configuration and network matrix including the
water time delays are shown in Fig. 2, in Appendix A. The
load demand, hydro unit power generation coefficients, river
inflows, reservoir limits are given in Tables A.1–A.4, re-
spectively, in Appendix A. The generation limits, cost
coefficients and emission coefficients of thermal units are
given in Tables A.5 and A.6, respectively, in Appendix A.
In applying the developed algorithm for the test sys-
tem, the appropriate values of scaling factor ε, population
size Np and maximum generation number Nmax are set,
respectively, to the values of 0.1, 50 and 60. The fqmin and
fqmax for two objectives are computed by minimizing and
maximizing each objective separately using evolutionary
programming technique. The f1min and f2min found to be
US$ 45,063 and lb 16,554, respectively, are taken as the
chosen desired levels. Similarly, the unacceptable levels
f1max and f2max are found to be US$ 59,288 and lb 48,797,
respectively, for the DM. The results of the interactive fuzzy
Ru 0 0 2 1
td 2 3 4 0
Ru : no of upstream plants
t d : time delay to immediate
downstream plant
Fig. 2. Hydraulic system network.
satisfying procedure in obtaining EELD solution of hy-
drothermal power systems are illustrated in Table 1. The
interactive inputs are the two reference membership values
and the outputs are the corresponding values of membership
functions and objective functions. The iterative count I = 0
corresponds to the initialization of the iterative process. The
initial reference membership values are set to µr1 = 0.55
and µr2 = 0.65 and the minimax problem is solved by
evolutionary programming technique to obtain the optimal
noninferior solution of the problem. Having observed the

Table 1
Results of the interactive fuzzy satisfying procedure in obtaining solutions
Interactive Reference Output Whether satisfied with
count #I membership value current noninferior solution
Membership Objective function
function {f1 (US$)} and {f2 (lb)}
0 (initial) µr1 = 0.55 µf 1 = 0.5496 f1 = 51470 No
µr2 = 0.65 µf 2 = 0.6490 f2 = 27873
1 µr1 = 0.80 µf 1 = 0.8001 f1 = 47906 Yes
µr2 = 0.70 µf 2 = 0.6998 f2 = 26234
282 M. Basu / Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 277–285

Table 2
Hydrothermal generation (MW) schedule for µr1 = 0.55 and µr2 = 0.65
Hour Ph1 Ph2 Ph3 Ph4 Ps1 Ps2 Ps3

1 82.3981 53.1286 55.5352 218.3395 169.9366 68.2736 102.3884

2 86.8757 69.2767 17.7180 141.7749 20.0000 300.0000 144.3546
3 90.1055 78.4454 39.2881 121.6815 138.4021 40.0000 192.0773
4 65.5374 58.2640 51.7782 139.1782 175.0000 86.2085 74.0338
5 87.4067 73.7647 52.5728 203.2035 60.5002 98.3482 94.2039
6 71.2503 76.9094 33.7662 116.4211 33.4817 256.2137 211.9576
7 50.8006 46.0302 21.9187 172.7445 175.0000 259.1469 224.3591
8 54.5889 77.9782 55.4245 195.3384 150.9001 271.9598 203.8101
9 73.9492 49.3211 51.0354 225.4822 175.0000 279.6232 235.5889
10 55.2062 49.1681 56.1117 253.1893 154.7352 201.9970 309.5926
11 72.9938 48.7427 56.6753 232.0296 157.5769 121.3617 410.6201
12 79.5261 66.0050 60.1858 198.3227 151.7555 241.4779 352.7270
13 82.4955 41.8202 59.6657 230.4908 163.5059 300.0000 232.0219
14 54.6508 43.7854 60.9224 214.4361 102.1830 299.1842 254.8382
15 74.1504 56.4773 61.4714 230.0787 95.1588 182.8872 309.7763
16 59.1250 76.7647 44.3788 256.2401 147.8619 214.0322 261.5972
17 91.7975 43.3116 58.0384 220.7676 154.8541 146.9249 334.3059
18 97.3031 77.2217 58.8631 214.2444 119.2830 220.1671 332.9175
19 59.3706 39.4139 31.6918 205.0019 137.6233 200.5707 396.3279
20 68.7797 50.3446 61.5388 152.4001 89.5371 263.1138 364.2858
21 109.1539 40.4015 0 205.7225 72.8402 160.1674 321.7144
22 62.2562 59.0285 61.4805 211.0911 69.8103 222.1762 174.1572
23 83.4122 58.0825 31.1851 275.3128 157.5349 141.7571 102.7109
24 99.8098 51.7547 0 189.9187 133.0889 66.9017 258.5261

outputs after the initial interaction, the DM is not satisfied
with the current noninferior solution. In interaction 1, the
DM sets the reference membership value µr1 = 0.80 and
µr2 = 0.70 in order to reduce the cost of generation and
emission level. The problem is again solved with these new
interactive inputs and the outputs are observed. Both cost of
generation and emission level are decreased. This gives the
satisfactory noninferior solution for the DM and the inter-
active process is terminated. The determined hydrothermal
generation schedules and water discharge rates are given in
the Tables 2–5, respectively. The average CPU time using
Pentium 3 PC was 1 h, 16 min and 22 s.

Table 3
Hourly plant discharge (×104 m3 ) for µr1 = 0.55 and µr2 = 0.65
Hour Qh1 Qh2 Qh3 Qh4

1 9.2661 6.5965 16.5344 13.7843

2 10.1344 9.1504 24.4233 7.5658
3 11.0221 11.3187 19.4287 6.3723
4 6.7322 7.5930 12.6037 8.2055
5 10.6081 10.3477 10.8560 16.5056
6 7.7901 11.4980 21.5373 7.0266
7 5.0474 6.2434 23.6008 10.3524
8 5.4013 12.8595 11.4094 11.6203
9 7.9115 7.4039 17.7914 14.8600
10 5.3099 7.3086 10.5845 20.0000
11 7.4438 7.0481 10.7343 16.1023
12 8.2709 9.9661 13.9669 11.3053
13 8.6875 6.0030 14.9311 14.7715
14 5.0000 6.0927 14.0854 12.6052
15 7.2453 7.7666 12.6510 14.5891
16 5.4267 11.8860 21.5701 19.0376
17 9.7868 6.0000 10.0000 14.6673
18 10.8629 12.6867 17.1132 13.8440
19 5.4526 6.0000 23.6877 12.7731
20 6.5223 7.5941 12.2222 7.8821
21 14.9383 6.0000 29.9047 11.4237
22 5.8052 8.7017 13.1934 12.0878
23 8.5693 8.4868 23.5955 19.7641
24 11.7652 7.4485 27.9008 9.3852
 M. Basu / Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 277–285 283

Table 4
Hydrothermal generation (MW) schedule for µr1 = 0.80 and µr2 = 0.70
Hour Ph1 Ph2 Ph3 Ph4 Ps1 Ps2 Ps3

1 65.8693 50.4235 33.6066 143.0898 138.2167 172.0963 146.6977

2 56.2966 50.1200 0 129.5323 45.6521 283.4386 214.9604
3 62.2086 70.0817 51.1054 124.9163 27.6861 139.3102 224.6917
4 66.1510 51.4455 0 149.0793 111.6357 41.2621 230.4264
5 85.4468 89.6123 32.5445 154.1671 26.1007 40.0000 242.1285
6 78.7158 63.7965 19.8349 168.9508 144.3531 189.2166 135.1323
7 67.0363 49.0992 43.3665 269.2687 107.1871 127.4651 286.5772
8 57.1858 70.3350 45.7397 256.2114 96.4768 186.2457 297.8055
9 70.4730 52.0367 48.0466 186.9964 123.3675 293.4244 315.6554
10 54.5169 85.8944 43.5974 253.7911 138.5059 297.3935 206.3009
11 96.7846 56.4500 31.6874 243.0976 150.5447 204.7580 316.6777
12 88.2822 58.8093 0 287.1702 174.1680 113.3949 428.1754
13 106.6645 56.6777 37.6082 275.0299 174.5332 231.0105 228.4760
14 84.2608 56.1592 47.7710 276.1907 42.9363 290.9180 231.7640
15 106.2867 52.0637 48.7523 228.9494 115.6028 153.3064 305.0386
16 80.3112 62.0556 52.2545 255.7721 91.2126 295.1314 223.2625
17 100.1496 69.4998 41.4810 273.5355 92.2943 134.9772 338.0626
18 57.5895 47.2368 8.5085 288.5965 125.4995 247.8852 344.6841
19 68.4145 68.3975 52.3719 277.5648 74.2091 169.5286 359.5137
20 73.5644 79.4005 45.7567 280.8426 164.7772 126.2917 279.3669
21 59.1404 70.5499 52.9130 262.1701 58.7157 244.6952 161.8157
22 75.5925 48.9100 40.3219 278.2150 85.0100 97.3178 234.6329
23 72.7739 53.9476 54.7979 242.8784 174.6022 122.1067 128.8933
24 97.1304 52.5086 57.0138 282.6277 56.3684 40.0000 214.3512

Table 5
Hourly plant discharge (×104 m3 ) for µr1 = 0.60 and µr2 = 0.70
Hour Qh1 Qh2 Qh3 Qh4

1 6.6490 6.2022 22.3346 6.8455

2 5.3589 6.0101 26.8395 6.0949
3 5.9824 9.0250 12.9597 6.0032
4 6.4285 6.0395 30.0000 8.2703
5 9.3019 13.3885 18.4685 9.4953
6 8.2960 8.1663 20.8564 9.6005
7 6.6461 6.0000 10.7752 19.4264
8 5.3994 9.5104 13.3253 18.4829
9 6.9710 6.6463 10.0000 9.3199
10 5.0000 14.0000 17.4186 15.0237
11 11.1687 7.7127 20.0178 13.2635
12 9.4121 7.9679 30.0000 19.0963
13 14.5889 7.6065 16.2916 18.1628
14 8.8210 7.4798 12.8497 19.9223
15 14.4171 6.6888 14.4437 13.6952
16 8.2055 8.0565 10.7153 16.1135
17 12.0979 9.4297 19.4818 16.5828
18 5.3138 6.0000 25.4359 18.7386
19 6.5542 9.5282 15.0779 18.0035
20 7.2110 12.7624 18.5114 19.1267
21 5.4685 11.1967 10.0651 17.6503
22 7.4801 7.1982 20.0491 19.9982
23 7.0934 7.8240 10.9882 14.2019
24 11.1346 7.5604 11.5859 19.4831
284 M. Basu / Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 277–285

7. Conclusion Table A.1 (Continued )

Hour PD (MW)
An interactive fuzzy satisfying method based on evolu-
9 1090
tionary programming technique is proposed for economic
10 1080
emission load dispatch of thermal plants with nonsmooth 11 1100
fuel cost and emission level functions in coordination with 12 1150
multi-reservoir cascaded hydro plants. The economic emis- 13 1110
sion load dispatch problem posed as a multiobjective opti- 14 1030
15 1010
mization problem is transformed into a minimax problem
16 1060
that can be solved by evolutionary programming technique. 17 1050
It avoids the need for defining the membership functions in 18 1120
a subjective manner using linguistic levels and there is no 19 1070
IF–THEN production rules. Through the interactive process 20 1050
21 910
the DM updates the membership values by considering the
22 860
current values of the membership functions as well as the 23 850
objectives until the satisfactory solution is obtained. The ma- 24 800
jor advantages of this method lies in having a mechanism
to show the vague or fuzzy preference of the human DM
in obtaining a compromising solution in presence of con-
flicting objectives and capable of handling nonsmooth fuel
cost and emission level functions. It also allows the DM to Table A.2
decide on different preferences for the objectives accord- Hydro power generation coefficients
ing to the system operating conditions, thus resulting in a
Plant C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
more flexible operation on generating units. The numerical
results demonstrate that the best compromising solution in a 1 −0.0042 −0.42 0.030 0.90 10.0 −50
2 −0.0040 −0.30 0.015 1.14 9.5 −70
sense close to the DM’s requirement would be obtained for
3 −0.0016 −0.30 0.014 0.55 5.5 −40
EELD of short-term hydrothermal scheduling problem with 4 −0.0030 −0.31 0.027 1.44 14.0 −90
improved man-machine interface.

8. Discussion
Table A.3
Weighted sum approach becomes inconvenient to coordi- Reservoir inflows (×104 m3 )
nate objectives as they may possess different units of mea-
Hour Reservoir Hour Reservoir Hour Reservoir
surement making it difficult to justify the weighing factors
to generate proper Pareto optimal solutions. But in case of 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
fuzzy satisfying method different objectives are easily inte- 1 10 8 8.1 2.8 9 10 8 1 0 17 9 7 2 0
grated because all the membership function values of these 2 9 8 8.2 2.4 10 11 9 1 0 18 8 6 2 0
objectives are in the same range [0, 1]. 3 8 9 4 1.6 11 12 9 1 0 19 7 7 1 0
4 7 9 2 0 12 10 8 2 0 20 6 8 1 0
5 6 8 3 0 13 11 8 4 0 21 7 9 2 0
6 7 7 4 0 14 12 9 3 0 22 8 9 2 0
Appendix A 7 8 6 3 0 15 11 9 3 0 23 9 8 1 0
8 9 7 2 0 16 10 8 2 0 24 10 8 0 0
Fig. 2, Table A.1–A.6.

Table A.1
Load demand
Hour PD (MW) Table A.4
Reservoir storage capacity limits, plant discharge limits, reservoir end
1 750
conditions (×104 m3 ) and plant generation limits (MW)
2 780
3 700 Plant Vmin Vmax Vini Vend Qmin Qmax Phmin Phmax
4 650
1 80 150 100 120 5 15 0 500
5 670
2 60 120 80 70 6 15 0 500
6 800
3 100 240 170 170 10 30 0 500
7 950
4 70 160 120 140 6 20 0 500
8 1010
 M. Basu / Electric Power Systems Research 69 (2004) 277–285 285

Table A.5
Cost curve coefficients and operating limits of thermal generators
Unit as (US$/h) bs (US$/MWh) cs (US$/(MW)2 h) ds (US$/h) es (1/MW) Psmin (MW) Psmax (MW)

1 100 2.45 0.0012 160 0.038 20 175

2 120 2.32 0.0010 180 0.037 40 300
3 150 2.10 0.0015 200 0.035 50 500

Table A.6
Emission curve coefficients of thermal generators
Unit αi (lb/h) βi (lb/MWh) γ i (lb/(MW)2 h) ηi (lb/h) δi (1/MW)

1 60 −1.355 0.0105 0.4968 0.01925

2 45 −0.600 0.0080 0.4860 0.01694
3 30 −0.555 0.0120 0.5035 0.01478

References minimum cost network flow, IEEE Trans. PWRS 3 (3) (1988) 929–
935.
[9] M.V.F. Pereira, L.M.V.G. Pinto, A decomposition approach to the
[1] IEEE Current Operating Problems Working Group, Potential impacts
economic dispatch of the hydrothermal systems, IEEE Trans. PAS
of clean air regulations on system operations, IEEE Trans. PWRS
101 (10) (1982) 3851–3860.
10 (1995) 647–653.
[10] K.P. Wong, Y.W. Wong, Short-term hydrothermal scheduling. Part 1.
[2] J. Nanda, D.P. Kothari, K.S. Lingamurthy, Economic emission dis-
Simulated annealing approach, IEE Proc. Generation Transm. Distrib.
patch through goal programming technique, IEEE Trans. Energy
141 (5) (1994) 497–501.
Conversion 3 (1988) 26–32.
[11] P.C. Yang, H.T. Yang, C.L. Huang, Scheduling short-term hydrother-
[3] T.D. King, M.E. El-Hawary, F. El-Hawary, Optimal environmental
mal generation using evolutionary programming techniques, IEE
dispatching of electric power systems via an improved Hopfield
Proc. Generation Transm. Distrib. 143 (4) (1996) 371–376.
neural network model, IEEE Trans. PWRS 10 (3) (1995) 1559–
[12] S.O. Orero, M.R. Irving, A genetic algorithm modeling framework
1565.
and solution technique for short term optimal hydrothermal schedul-
[4] D. Srinivasan, A. Tettamanzi, Heuristic-guided evolutionary ap-
ing, IEEE Trans. PWRS 13 (2) (1998).
proach to multiobjective generation scheduling, IEE Proc. Generation
[13] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inf. Control 8 (1965) 338–353.
Transm. Distrib. 143 (6) (1996) 553–559.
[14] M. Sakawa, H. Yano, An interactive fuzzy satisfying method using
[5] Y.H. Song, G.S. Wang, P.Y. Wang, A.T. Johns, Environmen-
augmented minimax problems and its application to environmental
tal/economic dispatch using fuzzy logic controlled genetic algorithm,
systems, IEEE Trans. SMC 17 (6) (1985) 720–729.
IEE Proc. Generation Transm. Distrib. 144 (4) (1997) 377–381.
[15] H. Yang, P. Yang, C. Huang, Evolutionary programming based eco-
[6] S. Chang, C. Chen, I. Fong, P.B. Luh, Hydroelectric generation
nomic dispatch for units with non-smooth fuel cost functions, IEEE
scheduling with an effective differential programming, IEEE Trans.
Trans. PWRS 11 (1) (1996) 112–118.
PWRS 5 (3) (1990) 737–743.
[16] M.R. Gent, J.W. Lamont, Minimum emission dispatch, IEEE Trans.
[7] S.A. Soliman, G.S. Christensen, Application of functional analysis
PAS 90, 2650–2660.
to optimization of variable head multi reservoir power system for
[17] P.K. Hota, R. Chakrabarti, P.K. Chattopadhyay, A simulated
long term regulation, Water Resources Res. 22 (6) (1986) 852–
annealing-based goal-attainment method for economic emission load
858.
dispatch with nonsmooth fuel cost and emission level functions,
[8] Q. Xia, N. Xiang, S. Wang, B. Zhang, M. Huang, Optimal daily
Electr. Machines Power Syst. 28, 1037–1049.
scheduling of cascaded plants using a new algorithm of non-linear