Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 188e202

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Hybrid ower pollination algorithm with time-varying fuzzy selection

mechanism for wind integrated multi-objective dynamic economic
dispatch
Hari Mohan Dubey a, Manjaree Pandit a, *, B.K. Panigrahi b
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, M.I.T.S., Gwalior, India
b
Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT, Delhi, India

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

Article history: To maintain security and reliability of wind integrated power grid, additional spinning reserve is required
Received 7 September 2014 to meet the demand under changing loads and unpredictable wind power generation. This paper pre-
Accepted 10 April 2015 sents a solution of dynamic multi objective optimal dispatch (DMOOD) for wind-thermal system using a
Available online 14 May 2015
hybrid ower pollination algorithm (HFPA). Simultaneous minimization of cost, emission and losses is
carried out with complex constraints like valve point loadings, ramp limits, prohibited zones and
Keywords:
spinning reserve. The cost of wind power uncertainty is also included in the cost function by using a
Dynamic multi-objective optimal dispatch
probability density function model. The proposed HFPA improves the exploration and exploitation po-
(DMOOD)
Gaussian membership function
tential of the ower population which is conducting the search. In the HFPA the ower pollination al-
Hybrid ower pollination algorithm (HFPA) gorithm (FPA) and differential evolution (DE) algorithm are integrated to preserve good solutions and to
Time varying fuzzy selection mechanism stop premature convergence. A 5-class, 3-step time varying fuzzy selection mechanism (TVFSM) is in-
(TVFSM) tegrated with HFPA for solving multi-objective problems. The TVFSM nds a fuzzy selection index (FSI)
Pareto diversity by aggregating different conicting objectives. The FSI is adopted as the merit criterion while updating
Wind power uncertainty the population. Guassian membership function is applied to compute FSI in such a manner that extreme
solutions are ltered out and trade off solutions on the central portion of the Pareto-front are obtained.
The HFPA-TVFSM approach effectively searches the best compromise solution (BCS) which satises all
the three objectives maximally. The proposed approach is tested and validated on two wind-thermal test
systems from literature.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction with a focus on issues such as i) WP scheduling using stochastic or

The classical economic dispatch (ED) problem determines the
optimal allotment of active power output of available generating
units so as to minimize the operating cost while all operational
constraints of the power system are satised. Renewable energy
resources like wind, solar etc are gaining increased acceptance in
order to reduce the emissions from fossil fuels. Large scale wind
power (WP) integration into the existing power grid presents many
new operational challenges which require dedicated research focus
on the resulting ED problem.
The uncertainty in WP creates complications in the ED model.
Therefore a reformulation of the classical ED problem [1] is needed
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 0751 2665962, 91 0751 2409380.
E-mail address: manjaree_p@hotmail.com (M. Pandit).
probabilistic modelling ii) Reserve requirements to maintain power
balance and iii) Impact of wind energy on emissions from fossil
units iv) energy storage methods v) efcient solution algorithms.
These different aspects of wind integrated ED formulation can be
found in Refs. [2e35].
Wind speed prole is characterized using a Weibull probability
distribution function (pdf) [2e5], incomplete Gamma function [6],
Markov chains [7] or sometimes forecast wind speed-power curve
[8e13]. Using the pdf, the cost of wind over/under estimation can
be computed [2,6,14e20]. A stochastic approach is proposed in
Ref. [21] to model WP forecast using a relative frequency histogram.
For higher WP capacity integration in the grid the reserve
requirement also increases, resulting into increased cost and
emission [22]. Joint energy/reserve dispatch is carried out in
Refs. [23e27] based on separate bids for both commodities. To
make WP reliable energy storage options also need to be

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.04.034
0960-1481/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H.M. Dubey et al. / Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 188e202 189

investigated. In Ref. [28] compressed air energy storage system has thermal units and cost of WP over a given time period T. The cost
been proposed for prot/cost optimization. of WP uncertainty is also included in cost. The total cost FT is given
Some researchers have used single objective model for opti- by:
mizing only the cost [2e4,6e9,13,15,29,30] but minimization of 2
emission is another very important challenge in wind integrated ED X
T X
N   X M   X M  
[31]. The WP generation can increase the emission from thermal FT 4 Fit Pit t
Fwj t
Pwj t
Cpj t
Wj;av t
 Pwj
units during low and medium power demand periods [32]. t1 i1 j1 j1
3
Therefore it is also necessary to include emission reduction objec- X
M  
tive in the wind-thermal ED model. The wind integrated ED is Crjt Pwj
t t
 Wj;av 5
computed for multiple objectives in Refs. [5,10e12, j1
14,18,19,24,32e35]. (1)
Practical ED requires a multi-period solution where previous
hour dispatch is also included. Static ED including WP is presented Considering valve-point effects [1,36] the cost is computed for
in Refs. [2e6,15,16,18,19,24,29,31e33]. The dynamic ED problem the ith unit at the tth interval as
which is more practical than the static ED is solved with wind  2    

generators in Refs. [7e14,17,30,35]. Very few of these works have Fit ai bi Pit ci Pit di sin ei Pimin  Pit  (2)
taken into account valve point loading, prohibited operating zones
and transmission losses [7,8,10e12,17]. The cost of jth wind turbine at tth time can be computed as [2].
Powerful meta-heuristic methods such as EA [5], improved  
t t t
articial physical optimization (IAPO) [7], simulated annealing [9], FW Pwj Kj  Pwj (3)
chaotic quantum genetic algorithm [10,11], articial immune sys-
tem [13], particle swarm optimization [12,14,16,22], plant growth The penalty cost for not using all the available WP will be paid
simulation algorithm [15], bi-population chaotic differential evo- by the system operator to the wind farm owner. It can be computed
lution [17], Gbest guided articial bee colony algorithm [18], grav- as [2]:
itational search algorithm [19], quantum genetic algorithm [8],    
t t t t t
adaptive bacterial foraging algorithm [29] modied harmony Cpj Wj;av  Pwj kpj  Wj;av  Pwj
search [30], and modied teaching-learning algorithm [33], have Zwr  
been proved effective for wind integrated ED problems. For solving t
kpj  w  Pwj fw wdw (4)
the wind integrated DMOOD problem having intermittent WP
t
availability, robust algorithms are necessary. In this paper a multi- Pwj

objective FPA with TVFSM (HFPA-TVFSM) is proposed for the

If the available WP is insufcient to meet the scheduled WP then
DMOOD model with wind uncertainty cost, reserve constraints,
the required decit will be drawn from the available reserve. The
ramp rate constraints, transmission losses, valve point effects and
detailed computation of (4) and (5) from the pdf of WP is given in
prohibited operating zones. In the proposed hybrid algorithm a
section 2.4.6.
new ower pollination algorithm (FPA) is integrated with DE.
The organization of the paper is as follows. Section 1 presents a    
Crjt Pwj
t t
 Wj;av t
krj  Pwj t
 Wj;av
literature review on wind-thermal optimal dispatch, Section 2
formulates the wind integrated DMOOD model along with the t
ZPwj  
equality and inequality constraints applicable. The 3-objectives of t
krj  Pwj  w fw wdw (5)
DMOOD are also formulated. Uncertain wind speed has been
characterized using Weibull pdf. Section 3 illustrates how FPA and 0

DE algorithms are integrated in the proposed HFPA algorithm. The

proposed TVFSM for multi-attribute decision making has also been
described in detail. Section 4 gives the step by step procedure for
2.2. Optimal dynamic emission dispatch (ODED)
implementing the proposed model, and in Section 5 the proposed
model is tested and results obtained are validated by comparing
The total emission content Eti of the ith thermal unit at tth time
with published results/other methods. Section 6 summarizes the
can be found as [20].
ndings.
  X N n  2  o
2. Dynamic multi-objective optimal dispatch (DMOOD) Eit Pit ai bi Pit gi Pit di exp qi  Pit (6)
i1
The objective of DMOOD for wind-thermal power system is to
The total emission content, including the increased emission
nd the optimal dispatch by conducting simultaneous minimiza-
content due to the possibility of available WP not being fully uti-
tion of the three objectives, i.e. total operating cost, emission con-
lized/or increased emission due to reserve drawn from thermal
tent and power loss for a time period consisting of several sub-
units if WP is insufcient can be expressed as [20].
intervals; subject to various equality/inequality constraints. First
the three objectives are optimized individually using single objec-
2
T 6X
X Zwr  
tive formulation as described in Section 2.1e2.3 below. Then all the N  t XM
ET 6 Eit Pi epj t
w  Pwj
three objectives are simultaneously optimized using multi- 4
t1 i1 j1
objective optimization described in section 2.4. t
Pwj
t
3 (7)
2.1. Optimal dynamic cost dispatch (ODCD) X
M ZPwj  7
erj t
Pwj w 7
5
The objective of ODCD for wind-thermal power system can be j1
0
formulated as minimization of total cost consisting of fuel cost of
190 H.M. Dubey et al. / Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 188e202

2.3. Optimal dynamic loss dispatch (ODLD) imposed on the decision variables of the optimal dynamic dispatch
problem.
The transmission losses occurring in the system at time t can be
expressed using B-loss coefcients as [1]: X
N  
Pimax  Pit  Rt (15)
X
N X
N X
N i1
PLt Pit Bij Pjt Pit Bio BOO (8)
i1 j1 i1

The objective of ODLD is to minimize the total power loss PLT 2.4.6. WP uncertainity modelling
over the dispatch period T given by For obtaining the accurate solution of optimal wind-thermal
dispatch, prediction of WP is crucial. The wind speed is a random
X
T variable and WP shares a highly nonlinear relation with it. The wind
PLT PLt (9) speed data is found to match closely with the Weibull distribution
t1
and therefore it is very commonly used for computing wind speed
and WP [2e5]. The pdf of wind speed can be expressed as:
2.4. Problem formulation of dynamic multio bjective optimal   k 
dispatch (DMOOD) k sk1 s
pdf s; k; c exp  (16)
c c c
The objective function for optimization of cost, emission and
The WP output variable w at any time can be computed from
loss can be formulated as simultaneous minimization of (1), (8) and
wind speed s as:
(10). The DMOOD problem can be expressed as
8  t 
MinFT ; ET ; PLT  (10) >
> 0; s < sin or st  sout
>
>  
<
PwR sr  st < sout
Subject to the following operating constraints: w (17)
>
>
>
> s  sin PwR  
: sin  st < sr
2.4.1. Equality constraint for demand-generation balance sr  sin
The total wind and thermal generated powers should be equal
to the sum of demand and loss at any given time t as shown below For wind speed s between 0 and sin or for wind speed greater
that so the WP is zero. When s is between sr and so the WP is equal
X
N X
M to the rated WP. So for the rst and second eventuality in (17) the
Pit t
Pwj PDt PLt (11) WP is a discrete variable. The probability of WP being 0 or PwR can
i1 j1 be calculated as (18) and (19) respectively

2.4.2. Inequality constraints due to thermal generator operating

Prfw 0g cdf sin 1  cdf sout
   
limits 1  exp  sin =ck exp  sout =ck (18)
The decision variable Pit must be between the specied
maximum and minimum power limit Pimin and Pimax . The dispatch
power should satisfy the following inequality constraint given by: Prfw PwR g cdf sout 1  cdf sr
   
exp  sr =ck  exp  sout =ck (19)
Pimin  Pit  Pimax ; ci 1; 2N (12)
Between sin and sr the WP is a continuous variable and its pdf
2.4.3. Inequality constraints due to thermal generator ramping can be written as
limits

Due to the ramping limits, the operating limits of a unit specied kLs 1 Lw=PwR sin k1
pdf w in
by (12) are dynamically modied as given by the following PwR c c
(
) (20)
inequality constraint. 1 Lw=PwR sin k
 exp 
c
RRLidown  Pit  Pit1  RRLiup (13)
where RRLidown and RRLiup are the ramp down and ramp up limits of where L (sr/sin)  1. The sum of the probability of discrete and
the ith thermal unit respectively in MW/h. continuous variable will be 1 at any time. The wind penalty cost
given by (4) for not using all available wind can be computed from
2.4.4. Discontinuous cost function due to prohibited operating (19) and (20) as given below
zones of thermal units
 
For some thermal units the decision variable Pit is not a t t t
Cpj Wj;av  Pwj
continuous, the cost function is discontinuous and the range of
operation can be given as: ZPwR "  kLs 1 Lw=P s
k1
t in wR in
kpj  w  Pwj 
k1 nz PwR c c
Pimin  Pit  P 1i P i  Pit  P ki max
k 2; 3; nZ P Gi  PGi  PGi t
Pwj (21)
(14)
k !#
1 Lw=pwR sin
 exp 
c
2.4.5. Spinning reserve constraints  
t
At time t if a specied reserve capacity Rt is required for main- PwR  Pwj  Pr fw PwR g
taining security and reliability then the following constraint will be
 H.M. Dubey et al. / Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 188e202 191

The reserve cost given by (5) for WP not able to meet the 3.1. Flower pollination algorithm (FPA)
scheduled power is computed from (18) and (20) as
  The FPA developed by Yang [37] is a recent meta-heuristic
t
Cpj t
Pwj t
 Wj;av optimization technique inspired by the ower pollination process
in nature. Pollination is further divided into cross pollination and
ZPwj "  kLs 1 Lw=P s
k1 self pollination. By establishing analogy between natural ower
t in wR in
kpr  Pwj w  pollination process and solution of real world optimization prob-
PwR c c
0 (22) lems, certain rules have been established in Ref. [37] to help in

!# formulating the FPA. The following four rules provide guidance
1 Lw=pwR sin k
 exp  regarding the i) Pollination process employed ii) Selection of step
c
  size.
t
Pwj  0  Pr fw 0g Rule I: For global pollination pollinators travel over long dis-
tances and their movement is similar to Levy ights [38].
Rule II. The local pollination is conducted by means of abiotic
self pollination.
Rule III. The local pollination takes place among owers of the
3. Hybrid ower pollination algorithm with time varying same plant or owers of the same species.
fuzzy selection mechanism(HFPA_TVFSM) Rule IV. A switch probability (r) lying between 0 and 1 decides
whether a ower is pollinated by local or global pollination. The
The nature inspired (NI) stochastic algorithms are very attrac- algorithm can be formulated as:
tive due to their easy applicability, simple constraint handling
mechanism and capability to handle all kinds of functions. The 1) Global pollination is carried out if a uniformly generated
solution quality and consistency of these optimization methods is random number rand  r as shown below to iteratively update
normally good for moderately sized problems with low the position of the ith ower xi using its distance from the best
complexity. But for large and complex problems a hybrid approach ower xbest.
is very useful for computing high quality solutions [8,17,18,36]. In
this paper a multi-objective hybrid algorithm is proposed by
combining ower pollination algorithm (FPA) and differential  
evolution (DE). The FPA module conducts an extensive domain xiter1
i
xiter
i Levl  xbest  xiter
i (23)
search by making use of its exploration potential and passes on
the information to the DE module for further search and exploi- The step size Lev(l) represents levy ight behaviour of pollina-
tation. For multi-objective cases, the classical selection operation tors. It follows Levy distribution to represent the strength of
of DE is replaced by a time varying 5-class fuzzy selection mech- pollination. The distribution factor l is selected in the range
anism which aggregates the multiple conicting objectives into 0.3e1.99 [38].
one index.
The proposed HFPA_TVFSM approach consists of three mod- randn1 s1 l
ules, FPA, DE and TVFSM, which are explained one by one in Levl  (24)
jrand2 j1=l s2 l
Section 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of this section. A block diagram is given in
Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Block diagram of HFPA_TVFSM for wind-thermal optimal dispatch.

192 H.M. Dubey et al. / Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 188e202

3.3. Operation of the time varying fuzzy selection mechanism
 
l1 1=l (TVFSM)
1l 2
s1 l G1 l  sinpl=2 G l2
2 The TVFSM is employed for removing the drawbacks of
(25) weighted sum/ppf methods of solving multi-objective problems.
The merit of a solution is computed based on the degree of satis-
s2 l 1 (26) faction of that solution for all objectives. The 5-class, 3-step, time-
varying Guassian membership functions help in maintaining pop-
ulation diversity as each class assigns different merit (FSI) to a so-
lution. The fuzzy class C is selected randomly.
2) In FPA the local pollination will be carried out to using uniformly The steps employed for computing FSI are:
distributed random number randi lying between 0 and 1 to
control magnitude of mutation in the ith ower. 1) A degree of satisfaction i.e. membership value (MV) is assigned
to each objective. For a n-objective problem with objectives F1,
F2, Fn, the MV of the mth objective (Fm) of ith solution for the
  tth interval is computed as [41]:
xiter1
i xiter
i randi  xiter
j  xiter
k (27)
8 t t;best
>
> 1; if Fm  Fm
>
>
>
< t;worst t
3.2. Differential evolution algorithm Fm  Fm t;best t;worst
MVit Fm ; ::if ::Fm t
< Fm < Fm (30)
> t;worst
> Fm  Fmt;best
>
>
The DE model employed to ne-tune and process the output of >
: t t;worst
the FPA algorithm and to extract the best solution by extensive 0; if Fm  Fm
exploitation. The proposed DE module employs chaotic mutation Ft;best , Ft;worst are minimum/maximum values of the mth
m m
and binary cross over [36,39] operation. The selection operation for objective function at tth interval for a minimization problem.
HFPA and HFPA_TVFSM are explained below.
2) The rank index (RIti )of the ith solution at tth interval is obtained
3.2.1. Selection operation for HFPA based on the degree of satisfaction of the solution for all the n-
Classical DE selection is applied in HFPA to compare the trial objectives at time t as given below:
vector (Ri) generated from the target vector (Vi) [36]. The better
solution is selected based on evaluation of a population member
f(.).
(
Ri iter 1if f Ri iter 1 < f Vi iter
Vi iter 1
Vi iterotherwise
3.2.2. Selection operation for HFPA_TVFSM
The penalty factor method described above is inefcient and
weights need adjustment in every run to get the Pareto optimal
solutions. Therefore a new selection method for handling multi-
objective optimization problems is proposed here based on fuzzy
theory. A fuzzy selection index (FSI) is assigned to each solution.
The fuzzy selection index (FSI) aggregates the degree of satisfaction
of a solution for all objectives. Then (29) is modied by replacing
the merit criterion f(.) by FSI. The fuzzy selection operation can be
given as
( best compromise solution (BCS). The 5-class mechanism main-
Mi iter 1if FSIRi iter 1 > FSIVi iter
Vi iter 1
Vi iterotherwise
The details of the fuzzy selection are given in the subsequent
sections.
If randiter  0:2 then C FSM1; If randiter > 0:2&  0:4 then C FSM2; If randiter > 0:4&  0:6 then C FSM3;
If randiter > 0:6&  0:8 then C FSM4; If randiter > 0:8&  1:0 then C FSM5;

RIit min MVit F1 ; MVit F2 MVit Fn (31)
3) Guassian membership functions are used to transform the rank
index into a fuzzy selection index (FSI). The FSI of ith solution at
(28) time t in fuzzy class C is represented using Guassian function as
1
FSIit C " #K (32)
RIit aC
1 bC
where aC and bC are user dened parameters for the Cth fuzzy class;
K is the order of the function, aC represents the center value of the
Cth fuzzy class, where the membership value is equal to 1.0 and bC
decides span/width of the class.
4) A time-varying 5-class fuzzy selection mechanism (C FSM1 to
FSM5) is proposed here to increase Pareto diversity around the
tains population diversity because every fuzzy class has
different mean and standard deviation as shown in Figs. 2e4.
5) The 5-class FSM transforms the RI of trial vector Ri and target
(29)
vector Vi on the fuzzy plane using the randomly selected fuzzy
class. The following if-then rules are proposed for selecting the
fuzzy class C:
(33)
 H.M. Dubey et al. / Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 188e202 193

1
6) A 3-step TVFSM is proposed. To encourage exploration and to FSM1
get a large number of compromise solutions, the width of the 0.9 FSM2
fuzzy classes is kept large initially and then reduced to narrow FSM3

Fuzzy Selection index (FSI)

0.8
FSM4
down search.
FSM5
7) The transformation of RI into FSI to create solution diversity 0.7

may lead to loss of good solutions. Therefore an elitism 0.6

mechanism is also introduced. Solutions are sorted in merit
0.5
order based on their RI. Then a predetermined number of top
solutions are made to replace the solutions at the bottom of 0.4
the merit order.
0.3

0.2
4. Implementation of DMOOD using HFPA-TVFSM algorithm
0.1

The implementation process of the proposed HFPA-TVFSM al- 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
gorithm for solving the wind integrated DMOOD problem is given Rank Index (RI)
here step by step. The ow chart of the proposed approach is given
in Fig. 1. Fig. 3. Fuzzy selection mechanism for K 4 For 101e200 iterations.

4.1. Selection of parameters and problem attributes  

Pijt Pjmin r1 Pjmax  Pjmin cj 1; 2; N (35)
The population size, switch probability, Levy distribution factor,
control parameters of DE algorithms, thermal and wind generating where r1 is a random number between [0e1].
units cost and emission coefcients, constraint data, demand data,
Guassian membership parameters, and stopping criteria are 4.4. Formulation of unit ramp-rate inequality constraints
applied as input.
The generator ramp rate constraints given by (13) modify the
operating range in every consecutive time interval. Therefore the
4.2. Setting up initial population for FPA stage
capacity limits of the jth generating unit are computed for the tth
interval as:
The ith individual population having dimension (N  T) is rep-
resented as  
Pjmax t Min Pjmax ; Pi t  1 RRL j; up
     (36)
Popi pop11 ; pop2i popti popTi such that popti Pjimin t Max Pjmin ; Pjt1  RRLj down
 
t t
Pi1 ; Pi2 Pijt PiN
t
(34)
4.5. Formulation of power balance, prohibited zones and reserve
violation constraints

The population is corrected for equality/inequality constraints

4.3. Formulation of unit lower/upper bound inequality constraints
The jth dimension of the ith individual of the population at tth
time interval (Popti ) is set between operating capacity limits given
by (12) as
after every update. The initial population generated above is eval-
uated such that the constraints given by (12) and (13) are satised.
The prohibited operating zone constraint (14) is converted into
equality constraint by computing the absolute violation of kth zone
by ith unit BVki t at the tth interval. The evaluation function

1
FSM1
0.9 FSM2
FSM3
0.8
FSM4
FSM5
Fuzzy Selection index (FSI)

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Rank Index (RI)

Fig. 2. Fuzzy selection mechanism for K 6 for rst 100 iterations.

194 H.M. Dubey et al. / Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 188e202

1
FSM1
0.9 FSM2

Fuzzy Selection index (FSI)

FSM3
0.8
FSM4
FSM5
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Rank Index (RI)

Fig. 4. Fuzzy selection mechanism for K 4 for 200e500 iterations.

employs penalty coefcients a, b and g to penalize power balance, function method for combining objectives by applying suitable
prohibited zone and reserve violation (15), if any, respectively. The weights as given below:
values of a, b and g are selected such that a feasible solution gets a
better evaluation than an infeasible solution. The evaluation func- f FT ; ET ; PLT W1  FT W2  ppfE  ET W3  ppfL  PLT
tions for cost/emission/loss respectively are dened using (1), (7) (40)
and (9) as
Price penalty factors (ppf) for emission and loss objectives are
2 0 12 ppfE and ppfL respectively. W1, W2 and W3 are weights assigned to
X
T
6 t X
N X
M the three objectives. The ppfs calculate the implied cost of loss and
EFT 4FT a@ t
Pi t t tA
Pw  PD  PL emission and blend it with fuel cost to form a single objective
t1 i1 j1
function [41].
3
!2 !2
X nZ 
N X t X
N   7
b BVik g Rt  Pimax  Pit 5 4.7. Implementation of HFPA_TVFSM
i1 k1 i1
As mentioned in Section 3.3, the drawbacks of the weighted sum
(37)
2 0 12 methods are removed by replacing classical DE selection of HFPA by
X
T X
N X
M fuzzy selection given by (29).
6 t
EFE 4FE a@ Pit t
Pw  PDt  PLt A The implementation procedure of TVFSM is as follows:
t1 i1 j1
3
!2 !2 4.7.1. MV and RI calculation
X nZ 
N X t X
N   7 For each solution the MV and RI are computed using (30) and
b BVik g Rt  Pimax  Pit 5
i1 k1 i1 (31) respectively. The best/worst values of objectives are obtained
from optimization of each objective one by one.
(38)

2 4.7.2. FSI calculation

0 12
X
T X
N X
M To maintain population diversity, the RI of a solution is trans-
6 t
EPLT 4PLT a@ t
Pi Pw  PD  PL A
t t t
formed into FSI using (32). The transformation of RI (using the ve
t1 i1 j1 classes, FSM1-FSM5) helps in selection of solutions which have
3 different levels of satisfaction for various objectives. It is very
!2 !2
X nZ 
N X t X
N   important for maintaining solution diversity.
7
b BVik g Rt  Pimax  Pit 5
i1 k1 i1
4.7.3. Parameter selection for Gaussian membership functions
(39) The parameters of Gaussian membership functions in (32) are
selected such that i) high FSI is obtained for solutions which have a
high MV for all objectives ii) low FSI is assigned to those solutions
4.6. Implementation of the HFPA which have low MV or are good for only one objective. Thus solu-
tions near the extreme points of the Pareto front are ltered out and
After the FPA converges, the population is passed on to the DE search concentrates near the BCS of the multi-objective optimiza-
stage where mutation and crossover is performed [36,39]. Selection tion problem.
is done using (28) to extract the best solution out of the near best
solutions received from the FPA stage. 4.7.4. Random selection of fuzzy class
For HFPA, the multi-objective optimization problem dened by While computing FSI, the fuzzy class C is selected randomly
(10) is converted to single objective one [40] by using price penalty using (33). Every class has different mean and standard deviation as
 H.M. Dubey et al. / Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 188e202
shown in Figs. 2e4. Due to this, each class favours different kinds of
solution. Thus the 5 classes maintain population diversity.
4.7.5. Selection of coefcients for the time-varying fuzzy classes
The 5-fuzzy classes FSM1-FSM5 are varied with iteration count
to promote exploration initially and exploitation during the later
stages of the algorithm. The coefcients aC and bC in (32) are
selected such that, in the rst step, the Gaussian functions are
broader to select diverse solutions to carry out exploration of the
Pareto surface. As algorithm progresses through step II and step III,
exploitation is encouraged by reducing width as shown in
Figs. 2e4.
5. Results and discussion
The proposed HFPA-TVFSM algorithm is tested on two wind-
thermal power systems from literature. The performance of pro-
posed HFPA is validated with published results and then compared
with other methods. A population size of 10 was used for the rst
Test Case, with 100 FPA iterations. The results obtained are passed
over to the DE module for ne tuning; convergence was found in
500 iterations. In FPA the switch probability was taken as 0.8 and
Levy distribution factor as 1.5. Crossover rate in DE was taken as
0.75. For the second Test Case same parameters and population of
20 was employed. A larger population size may be required for
more complex or large dimension problems. The weighing factors
W1, W2 and W3 are each assumed 1/3 to give equal importance to
all three objectives in (40). The penalty coefcients a, b and g are
taken as 100.
5.1. Description of test case I
The data for this system is taken from Ref. [3]. This is a simple
single objective problem taken for validating the results of the
HFPA. The WP availability is modelled as a probabilistic constraint
in the power balance equation. The cost coefcients of thermal
units are listed in Table 1. The wind constants are c 15,sin 5,
sout 45, sr 15, PwR 1.0 (p.u).
5.2. Description of test case II (wind-thermal system)
This is a modied 30-bus system having 6 thermal units [10].
The last two units are replaced by wind generators with Weibull
shape and scale parameter given by k1 1; c1 15; k2 2; c2 15
for the two units. The reserve and penalty cost coefcients for the
two wind units are given by kr1 1; kr2 1; kp1 5; kp2 5 and
PwR1 PwR2 110 MW. The cut in, cut out and rated wind speeds
are sin 5, sout 30 and sr 15 respectively. In Table 2 the thermal
unit cost and emission coefcients are listed. The thermal unit
operating constraints are given in Table 3. Spinning reserve equal to
10% of demand is maintained. The hourly forecasted value of load is
given in Table 4. The B-loss coefcients used for computing losses
are taken from Ref. [10].
Table 1
Cost coefcients and operating limits for case I.
Unit(i) Pimin (pu) Pimax (pu) ai bi
1 0.03 1.5 10 200
2 0.03 1.5 10 150
3 0.03 1.5 20 180
4 0.03 1.5 10 100
5 0.03 1.5 20 180
6 0.03 1.5 10 150
195
5.3. Effect of WP uncertainty
The performance of the proposed HFPA is compared and vali-
dated for Test Case I in Table 5. As the wind power probability ra
increases, operating cost of thermal generation reduces due to
higher wind penetration but risk of not supplying demand in-
creases. The operators and planners are required to strike a balance.
The variation of wind uncertainty cost with scheduled WP is
plotted in Fig. 5 for Test Case II. As scheduled WP increases, the
reserve cost component increases whereas the penalty cost de-
creases. The effect of Weibull scale factor on wind uncertainty cost
is shown in Fig. 6. The reserve cost decreases with increase in
Weibull scale factor (which reects more WP availability) but un-
derestimation penalty cost increases.
5.4. Solution of optimal dynamic cost dispatch (ODCD)
Single objective ODCD problem with wind integration given by
(1) was solved using HFPA for Test Case II. The complete dispatch
solution is given in Table 6 for each interval. The wind uncertainty
costs are also computed. The total reserve cost and penalty cost due
to over/under estimation of wind power is $592.79 and $9217.9
respectively. The underestimation cost is high because the penalty
coefcients (kp) are taken higher than reserve coefcients (kr).
Effect of penalty and reserve coefcients on optimal dispatch
solution can also be observed. The selection of kp and kr plays a
signicant role in scheduling WP. If kp is higher that kr, the operator
will tend to schedule more WP to avoid underestimation penalty. In
the opposite case, lesser WP will be scheduled to avoid the
increased reserve cost in case of overestimation of WP. It can be
observed from Table 6 that the underestimation penalty Cp(.) is
much higher than overestimation cost Cr(.) because kp 5 and
kr 1.
5.5. Solution of optimal dynamic emission dispatch (ODED)
Table 7 presents the full dispatch solution for reducing only the
emission content given by (7). The optimal emission is found to be
112.2 ton. The emission reduces signicantly as compared to the
above case where only cost is optimized. .
5.6. Solution of optimal dynamic loss dispatch (ODLD)
Optimal dispatch solution obtained using HFPA, for loss mini-
mization problem formulated in (9) are tabulated in Table 8. The
minimum loss is found to be 184.72 MW. It can be noticed that all
the practical equality and inequality constraints are met for all the
time periods.
5.7. Solution of DMOOD for wind-thermal problem
The wind-thermal dispatch problem is solved for simultaneous
optimization of the three objectives; cost, emission and loss using
HFPA-TVFSM approach. The procedure for carrying out the multi-
objective optimization using FSI and TVFSM is explained below
for the rst time period having PD 350 MW and a 10% spinning
reserve. It is applied in similar manner for the dynamic optimiza-
tion problem consisting of 24 h.
ci
100 5.7.1. Computation of RI and FSI for single period multi-objective
120 problem
40 From Tables 6e8, for the rst hour the minimum values of the
60
three objectives are Fbest T 2863.14, Ebest
T 2.0 and
40
100
Pbest
LT 4.92 MW. The F worst
LT 3216.12, Eworst
T 7.43 and
Pworst
LT 25.33. These values (obtained by optimizing the three
196 H.M. Dubey et al. / Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 188e202

Table 2
Cost and emission coefcients for the modied IEEE 30-bus system (case II).

Unit ai bi ci (102) di ei ai bi gi (102) di (102) qi (102)

1 70.81 4.88 0.135 56.31 0.055 4.073 2.312 5.534 0.21 3.875
2 96.13 4.56 0.522 74.77 0.043 3.216 2.142 6.123 0.52 4.223
3 225.95 6.25 0.335 157.34 0.045 3.775 2.021 5.785 0.65 4.756
4 217.51 6.17 0.378 147.82 0.071 3.972 1.581 4.432 0.37 5.789
5 e e e e e e e e e e
6 e e e e e e e e e e

Table 3
Generating unit operating limits, ramp rate limits and prohibited zones (case II).

Unit Pmin (MW) Pmax (MW) PGio (MW) Rampup (MW/hour) Rampdown (MW/hour) Prohibited operating zones (MW)

1 40 150 110 65 65 [60,75] [90,100]

2 35 130 100 60 60 [60,70] [80, 90]
3 35 120 90 60 60 [50,60] [70, 80]
4 35 110 80 60 60 [40,50] [60, 70]
5 0 110 e e e e
6 0 110 e e e e

Table 4
Hourly load demand and corresponding price penalty factors (case II).

Hour Load (MW) ppfE ($/ton) ppfL ($/MW) Hour Load (MW) ppfE ($/ton) ppfL ($/MW)

1 350 142.2271 196.1892 13 430 182.6322 518.0280

2 297 142.2271 196.1892 14 432 182.6322 518.0280
3 295 142.2271 196.1892 15 456 182.6322 518.0280
4 302 142.2271 196.1892 16 452 182.6322 518.0280
5 308 142.2271 196.1892 17 446 182.6322 518.0280
6 310 142.2271 196.1892 18 435 182.6322 518.0280
7 350 142.2271 196.1892 19 426 182.6322 518.0280
8 430 182.6322 518.0280 20 407 182.6322 518.0280
9 460 182.6322 518.0280 21 370 142.2271 196.1892
10 465 182.6322 518.0280 22 350 142.2271 196.1892
11 462 182.6322 518.0280 23 320 142.2271 196.1892
12 455 182.6322 518.0280 24 300 142.2271 196.1892

Table 5
Comparison of optimal dispatch solutions (k 1.7) PD 9.0 (case I).

Method HN approach [3] HFPA

pa 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5

X1 (MW) 1.3509 1.2474 1.1773 1.3507 1.2472 1.1772
X2 (MW) 1.3341 1.2478 1.1894 1.3339 1.2477 1.1893
X3 (MW) 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000
X4 (MW) 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000
X5 (MW) 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000
X6 (MW) 1.5000 1.4974 1.4273 1.5000 1.4972 1.4272
Wind (MW) 0.3150 0.5074 0.7059 0.3150 0.5074 0.7059
Cost ($/h) 2401.4 2312.9 2225.1 2401.2730 2312.8251 2224.9861

objectives individually) are used to nd the MVCost, MVEmission
and MVLoss using (30) and RI of each solution using (31). The RI is
transformed into FSI using (32) and parameters listed in Table 9.
The parameters for the 3-step TVFSM in Table 9 are selected to
allow exploration during initial iterations and exploitation during
the later part of the search by reducing the width of the mem-
bership function.
5.7.2. Selection of TVFSM parameters for the DMOOD problem
The cost, emission and loss are contradictory objectives
therefore it is obviously impossible to achieve a wind-thermal
dispatch solution which will have the best of all objectives, i.e.
RI 1.0. The BCS is dened as a solution which has maximum
satisfaction level for all the three objectives. The RI values for BCS
were expected to lie between 0.4 and 0.75. The goal of the
DMOOD problem was to concentrate search around the BCS.
Therefore it was essential that solutions which fare well for all
objectives are assigned a higher merit. Hence the mean values
(aC) for FSM1-FSM5 were selected from 0.4 to 0.75 to favour so-
lutions having RI in this range. The width was iteratively reduced
to get solutions close to the BCS on the central part of the Pareto
fronts.
5.7.3. Time varying fuzzy selection mechanism
The cost, emission and loss computed for a solution is trans-
formed into MV, RI and then FSI using 5-class, 3-step fuzzy
mechanism as explained in Table 10 for one solution. The fuzzy
class is rst selected using (33) and them MV, RI for a solution
 H.M. Dubey et al. / Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 188e202 197

180
reserve cost(Cr)
penalty cost(Cp)
160
total cost
140

120

100

Cost($/h)
80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Scheduled wind power Pw(MW)

Fig. 5. Variation of wind over/under estimation cost with scheduled wind power (test case II).

250
reserve cost(Cr)
penalty cost(Cp)
total cost
200 are computed using (30) and (31). Depending on the class
selected, and the iteration count, the same solution would be
assigned different values of FSI (merit). Thus diversity is intro-
Cost($/h)

150
duced in the selection process given by (29). At every time
different solutions (solutions having different fullment levels
100 for the three objectives) are favored/selected. Thus many trades
off solutions are obtained for the multi-objective optimization
problem.
50

0 5.7.4. Performance validation and comparison

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 The objective is to get a dispatch solution which will satisfy
scale factor the three objectives, i.e. cost, emission and losses, maximally. The
ranking index (RI) is taken as the performance measure for the
Fig. 6. Variation of wind over/under estimation cost with Weibull scale factor (test multi-objective optimization problem. The RI of a solution re-
case II). ects the degree of attainment of the solution for all the

Table 6
Solution of optimal dynamic cost dispatch (ODCD) using HFPA.

Hour P1 (MW) P2 (MW) P3 (MW) P4 (MW) PW1 (MW) Pw2 (MW) Cr (.) ($/hr) Cp (.) ($/hr) Losses (MW) Thermal cost ($/hr) Emission (ton/hr)

1 100.00 94.48 41.95 35.00 42.16 49.91 32.72 257.36 13.51 2863.14 7.43
2 148.98 43.69 38.72 35.00 34.13 5.79 17.44 441.64 9.34 2401.84 10.07
3 148.81 36.52 37.07 35.00 32.06 15.07 17.82 407.51 9.55 2378.07 9.79
4 150.00 35.75 37.19 36.34 51.47 0.37 26.80 428.89 9.14 2423.29 10.00
5 150.00 90.00 35.00 40.00 5.85 0.00 2.52 537.46 12.84 2459.63 13.25
6 100.00 109.68 35.00 35.00 0.00 43.98 9.52 381.83 13.67 2472.83 9.07
7 118.54 112.27 35.00 36.32 52.11 6.41 28.01 401.56 10.67 2737.70 11.38
8 146.50 103.85 35.00 35.00 102.45 20.54 64.99 264.11 13.35 3252.89 14.10
9 150.00 123.55 88.89 35.00 58.30 19.14 34.08 337.28 14.88 3544.31 20.73
10 144.87 122.55 110.55 35.05 67.12 0.09 36.70 401.53 15.26 3526.72 22.58
11 149.00 130.00 103.03 35.00 60.75 0.00 32.56 413.13 15.79 3470.33 23.44
12 150.00 105.26 108.50 35.00 15.24 61.44 22.78 284.60 20.44 3480.84 20.57
13 146.40 113.85 112.94 35.00 27.06 9.94 14.25 440.35 15.21 3277.76 21.88
14 108.45 107.05 100.13 35.00 79.60 12.17 46.91 329.77 10.43 3313.57 14.05
15 100.00 108.36 105.15 37.18 68.99 50.24 49.56 205.73 13.93 3511.46 14.14
16 150.00 106.52 120.00 35.00 51.70 4.05 27.42 412.45 15.28 3453.38 22.84
17 150.00 109.63 108.96 39.33 25.01 29.32 17.13 368.11 16.26 3401.84 21.30
18 147.04 107.97 109.44 78.20 4.27 12.82 3.73 487.22 24.78 3335.46 22.38
19 127.30 100.52 95.66 35.00 59.28 19.89 34.85 332.49 11.67 3332.78 14.85
20 147.78 119.66 35.66 35.48 23.39 69.12 30.15 242.24 24.10 3199.04 16.55
21 141.81 122.11 50.00 35.00 19.88 14.73 11.38 437.97 13.53 2937.69 16.45
22 150.00 129.10 35.00 35.00 9.06 6.40 4.83 500.97 14.56 2677.85 18.54
23 113.43 109.22 35.00 35.00 37.15 0.00 18.34 460.06 9.81 2497.46 10.36
24 150.00 53.19 38.16 40.00 12.14 18.25 8.30 443.64 11.75 2493.58 10.70
Total cost ($): 72,443.46
Total emission (ton): 376.45
Total losses: 339.75
198 H.M. Dubey et al. / Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 188e202

Table 7
Solution of optimal dynamic emission dispatch (ODED) using HFPA.

Hour P1 (MW) P2 (MW) P3 (MW) P4 (MW) PW1 (MW) Pw2 (MW) Cr (.) ($/hr) Cp (.) ($/hr) Losses (MW) Thermal cost ($/hr) Emission (ton/hr)

1 58.48 58.14 47.10 35.00 78.29 98.31 78.75 64.82 25.33 3216.12 2.00
2 43.50 37.50 40.65 38.31 58.18 110.00 72.74 76.91 31.14 2863.68 0.54
3 55.92 70.00 48.67 40.00 12.54 92.42 36.68 212.69 24.56 2862.03 2.77
4 60.00 60.00 35.00 40.00 70.69 47.42 49.72 212.13 11.11 2713.90 1.91
5 40.00 48.37 50.00 51.25 110.00 16.22 69.87 272.34 7.85 2870.62 1.48
6 43.24 56.48 49.45 35.00 89.26 44.87 61.76 192.21 8.32 2783.88 1.49
7 52.82 72.39 35.00 40.00 78.93 98.96 79.58 62.52 28.12 3195.81 2.40
8 54.17 96.67 61.34 40.00 104.16 101.91 99.63 21.83 28.26 3819.62 5.67
9 57.59 78.06 106.78 74.97 75.57 105.61 81.36 55.01 38.58 4004.96 9.94
10 100.00 60.00 98.61 50.22 110.00 63.01 83.91 108.65 16.84 3891.89 9.19
11 90.00 70.00 91.65 60.00 98.15 75.31 80.52 89.43 23.11 4000.53 8.50
12 90.00 51.29 80.00 70.00 100.86 98.91 95.33 31.85 36.08 4065.20 6.83
13 100.55 56.30 49.21 39.87 110.00 105.99 106.60 7.17 31.94 3773.41 4.90
14 60.00 56.53 80.00 60.00 101.43 110.00 102.68 10.37 35.96 4057.47 4.72
15 88.98 93.90 60.00 50.00 104.18 84.89 89.89 58.18 25.96 3971.85 7.57
16 105.10 80.00 68.88 52.59 72.51 110.00 82.10 52.04 37.09 4076.72 8.31
17 60.00 80.00 88.08 53.42 100.08 89.43 89.28 52.91 25.03 3998.47 6.77
18 78.50 79.77 84.74 35.00 108.88 61.37 82.38 114.74 13.28 3665.18 6.95
19 86.01 75.44 85.96 40.00 62.75 104.51 72.15 78.58 28.68 3759.88 7.34
20 85.25 58.38 66.89 60.00 68.94 102.07 74.70 72.51 34.54 3816.07 5.31
21 90.00 47.31 50.00 35.00 78.76 92.90 75.91 75.36 23.97 3266.86 3.53
22 58.82 58.86 61.85 39.50 110.00 27.90 72.37 226.49 6.93 3142.73 2.83
23 42.76 35.00 37.93 39.90 107.54 74.52 87.20 79.80 17.66 2903.83 0.42
24 43.67 39.98 48.74 35.00 90.96 50.93 65.05 169.86 9.29 2710.29 0.83
Total cost ($):83,431
Total emission (ton): 112.2
Total losses (MW):569.63

objectives. The BCS of FPA, DE and HFPA are compared with
HFPA-TVFSM in Table 11 for the rst hour. The HFPA-TVFSM gives
a solution which has a 53.74% satisfaction level for all three ob-
jectives whereas the HFPA gives a solution with 53.70% fullment
level. The former performs better due to the fuzzy selection
process which promotes convergence near the BCS. The FPA and
DE methods have a slightly lower level of satisfaction at 53.02%
and 53.63% respectively. The HFPA is thus superior to both DE
and FPA in terms of solution quality. The convergence charac-
teristic of FPA, DE and HFPA are also compared in Fig. 7 for the
rst hour. It is seen that the HFPA has a faster convergence than
FPA and DE.
Having established that HFPA performs better than its
constituent algorithms, FPA and DE, the cost-emission, emission-

Table 8
Solution of optimal dynamic loss dispatch (ODLD) using HFPA.

Hour P1 (MW) P2 (MW) P3 (MW) P4 (MW) PW1 (MW) Pw2 (MW) Cr (.) ($/hr) Cp (.) ($/hr) Losses (MW) Thermal cost ($/hr) Emission (ton/hr)

1 45.00 58.73 93.05 35.00 109.99 13.13 244.51 267.32 4.92 2984.95 4.85
2 56.88 51.36 70.00 35.00 80.90 7.27 47.02 348.34 4.42 2698.01 2.82
3 75.00 35.00 60.83 35.00 79.46 14.62 47.24 319.93 4.91 2639.36 2.63
4 78.33 40.85 50.00 38.32 91.34 8.71 54.66 327.12 5.56 2676.53 2.53
5 75.00 40.94 66.81 35.00 86.78 8.32 51.32 335.20 4.86 2742.41 3.15
6 51.71 46.76 69.40 35.00 108.32 3.03 66.46 329.66 4.24 2783.67 2.40
7 54.19 77.01 90.83 35.00 98.00 0.63 58.39 352.88 5.69 2984.58 6.10
8 42.33 105.41 120.00 35.00 97.98 38.28 66.08 203.22 9.00 3485.87 13.04
9 84.63 128.81 110.02 40.00 84.09 23.74 52.32 276.51 11.31 3652.54 16.92
10 124.75 98.20 97.39 35.00 94.10 27.29 60.32 248.72 11.76 3619.31 14.47
11 109.61 80.00 115.17 50.49 100.61 17.77 63.06 277.49 11.67 3807.26 14.07
12 102.01 130.00 70.00 40.00 110.00 14.30 69.51 280.19 11.31 3688.21 14.19
13 75.00 77.09 115.90 35.00 103.97 31.57 68.71 219.93 8.54 3541.96 10.74
14 90.00 98.98 96.34 35.00 110.00 10.29 68.83 296.77 8.62 3388.24 10.91
15 75.00 130.00 102.04 35.00 104.43 19.28 66.23 266.69 9.76 3583.98 15.20
16 83.16 100.51 120.00 35.44 110.00 12.27 69.16 288.56 9.40 3603.54 14.39
17 76.75 123.19 110.80 37.58 98.86 8.67 60.16 317.27 9.85 3540.54 15.46
18 75.00 92.01 113.95 40.00 96.78 26.40 62.07 248.57 9.15 3564.48 11.82
19 43.69 118.89 118.76 50.43 89.57 14.48 54.35 305.62 9.84 3571.25 15.10
20 47.87 106.81 94.56 35.00 98.32 32.36 64.69 224.17 7.93 3283.51 9.35
21 87.75 55.01 70.00 40.00 110.00 14.16 69.49 280.74 6.93 3208.48 4.88
22 40.35 91.09 87.19 35.00 96.41 5.40 57.86 334.33 5.46 2950.59 6.56
23 58.07 35.00 92.37 35.08 90.31 13.85 54.78 307.14 4.70 2773.33 4.33
24 75.11 41.64 70.00 35.23 82.90 0.00 47.42 376.74 4.89 2683.36 3.39
Total cost ($): 77,455.96
Total emission (ton): 219.30
Total losses (MW): 184.72
 H.M. Dubey et al. / Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 188e202 199

Table 9
Guassian membership function parameters in the fuzzy selection mechanism (FSM).

TVFSM Iteration Class (C) Gaussian Index(K) FSM1 FSM 2 FSM 3 FSM 4 FSM 5

Step I 1e100 ac 6 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.7 0.75

bC 6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Step II 101e200 ac 4 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.7 0.75
bC 4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Step III 201e500 ac 4 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.7 0.75
bC 4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Table 10
Time varying fuzzy selection mechanism for computing FSI.
loss and cost-loss Pareto fronts obtained by HFPA are now
MVCost MVEmission MVLoss RI Fuzzy class Step I Step II Step III
compared with HFPA-TVFSM in Fig. 8, Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 respec-
FSI FSI FSI tively. When these algorithms converge for the multi-objective
0.3428 0.7457 0.9996 0.3428 FSM1 0.9996 0.9949 0.9238 problem, a large number of Pareto-optimal (Non-dominated)
FSM2 0.9810 0.9328 0.4647 solutions are obtained. These solutions obtained from the two
FSM3 0.8297 0.7419 0.1523 methods are plotted to get the Pareto-fronts shown in Figs. 8e10.
FSM4 0.6635 0.6113 0.0895
These Pareto fronts show that HFPA-TVFSM performs better and
FSM5 0.4733 0.4822 0.0550
gets better solutions (having better values of objectives). For

Table 11
Comparison of best solutions for multi-objective wind-thermal dispatch (PD 350 MW).

Method Cost ($) Emission (ton) Loss (MW) MVCost MVEmission MVLoss RI CPU time

FPA 3028.8846 4.1017 5.0822 0.5302 0.6129 0.9922 0.5302 0.435

DE 3026.737 4.0064 5.1716 0.5363 0.6305 0.9877 0.5363 2.333
HFPA 3026.4848 4.0057 5.1755 0.5370 0.6306 0.9875 0.5370 0.705
HFPA-TVFSM 3026.3433 4.0135 5.1677 0.5374 0.6292 0.9879 0.5374 0.796

The best result achieved by HFPA-TVFSM method are highlighted. As compared to other methods, this method has produced better results.

7000
FPA
6500 DE
HFPA
6000
Cost ($/hr)

5500

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Iteration

Fig. 7. Convergence comparison of FPA, DE and HFPA.

14
HFPA
HFPA-TVFSM
12 example, in Fig. 8, for a given value of cost, the emission obtained
by HFPA will be higher than that of HFPA-TVFSM. Better perfor-
Emission(ton/h)

10 mance is due to the fuzzy selection process which promotes

convergence near the BCS.
8 Now the optimization is carried out for 24 h period and the full
results of HFPA and HFPA-TVFSM approach respectively are
6 compared in Table 12 and Table 13. The values of coefcients
kr1,kr2,kp1and kp2are all taken 5 now to give equal emphasis on
4 over/under estimation of WP. The HFPA approach produces an
optimal generation dispatch solution which is listed in Table 12. The
2 cost, emission and loss obtained are $76468.4385, 171.8006 ton and
2900 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 167.5118 MW respectively for a typical day with load data and ppf
cost($/h) values given in Table 4. For the same day, the HFPA-TVFSM com-
putes a dispatch option that gives a cost of $76252.0628, emission
Fig. 8. Comparison of cost-emission Pareto front.
200 H.M. Dubey et al. / Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 188e202

45 of 170.7222 ton and losses of 166.529 MW respectively. The results

HFPA
40 HFPA-TVFSM are summarized in Table 14. The cost, emission and loss obtained by
HFPA-TVFSM approach are better than the values obtained by
35
Loss(MW/h)

HFPA. It was observed that the HFPA is faster than DE as DE required

30 1000 iterations to converge and computational time was 20.43 s.
25 The results were also validated using DSA [42]. The cost, emission
20 and loss was found to be $76266.961, 169.9038 ton and
166.4635 MW respectively which is quite close to the proposed
15
approach. The cpu time required by DSA was 26.43. Due to space
10 constraints the dispatch solution is not presented here. The
5 computational time of HFPA increases very slightly due to the
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
TVFSM which is justied by the improved performance. Due to the
Emission(ton/h) TVFSM the solutions which fare well for all the objectives get better
merit as compared to solutions which favour only one or two
Fig. 9. Comparison of emission-loss Pareto front.
objectives.

26
HFPA
24 HFPA-TVFSM 6. Conclusion
22
A hybrid algorithm HFPA is proposed for solving wind-
Loss(MW/h)

20
18 thermal dynamic multi-objective optimal dispatch problem for
16 simultaneous minimization of cost, emission and power loss. The
14 wind uncertainty costs are also included in the optimization
12 model. The proposed HFPA combines a new FPA with DE such
10 that their synergy and joint search capabilities are fully exploi-
8 ted. Therefore the performance of HFPA is observed to be
6 signicantly superior to separate performances of FPA and DE
2900 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 algorithms. A 3-step time-varying mean and standard deviation
cost($/h) is proposed for the Gaussian functions such that initially the
solutions cover a larger domain but during the later part, the
Fig. 10. Comparison of cost-loss Pareto front. search is concentrated near the BCS. The 5-class mechanism
creates Pareto diversity and locates high quality Pareto fronts for
the different objectives. The fuzzy selection gives the decision
maker a exibility to nd better trade off solutions by problem

Table 12
Solution of dynamic multi-objective optimal dispatch (DMOOD) using HFPA.

Hour P1 (MW) P2 (MW) P3 (MW) P4 (MW) PW1 (MW) Pw2 (MW) Cr (.) ($/hr) Cp (.) ($/hr) Losses (MW) Cost ($/hr) Emission (ton/hr)

1 48.5584 53.3533 86.6423 35.0000 110.0000 21.6215 255.4525 235.8179 5.1755 3026.4848 4.0057
2 40.0000 40.5080 61.3320 35.0000 110.0000 14.2453 245.8569 263.1033 4.0853 2665.4913 1.3611
3 40.0000 40.1474 60.0000 35.0000 110.0000 13.9218 245.4641 264.3279 4.0692 2647.5886 1.2766
4 40.0000 40.1137 66.0468 35.0000 110.0000 14.9391 246.7074 260.4846 4.0996 2707.9129 1.6319
5 42.6166 41.3799 67.5234 35.0000 110.0000 15.7124 247.6679 257.5788 4.2323 2756.1671 1.8249
6 40.9136 43.7943 68.5154 35.0000 110.0000 16.0288 248.0648 256.3937 4.2521 2771.3508 1.9281
7 75.0000 48.0229 70.0000 35.0000 110.0000 17.6123 250.0849 250.4966 5.6352 3047.9800 3.6096
8 82.2342 80.0000 104.8131 35.0000 110.0000 26.2210 262.0570 219.4252 8.2683 3412.3858 9.6048
9 89.6547 101.3510 104.8132 35.0000 110.0000 29.0864 266.4132 209.4540 9.9053 3521.0573 12.2927
10 60.0000 120.0036 114.3980 35.0000 110.0000 35.6619 277.1087 187.2721 10.0635 3699.6666 14.6253
11 90.0000 103.1156 104.8132 35.0000 110.0000 29.0870 266.4140 209.4521 10.0158 3526.2800 12.5321
12 87.5815 99.1838 104.8132 35.0000 110.0000 28.0020 264.7429 213.2057 9.5805 3502.8781 11.8795
13 75.0000 90.0000 103.3537 35.0000 110.0000 24.8020 259.9686 224.4315 8.1557 3414.3356 9.8270
14 75.0000 90.0000 104.7615 35.0000 110.0000 25.4856 260.9690 222.0139 8.2471 3419.0227 10.0294
15 88.2719 99.4734 104.8132 35.0000 110.0000 28.0852 264.8701 212.9169 9.6437 3505.8876 11.9657
16 86.2842 97.5591 104.8132 35.0000 110.0000 27.7462 264.3527 214.0945 9.4027 3493.5223 11.5980
17 81.2669 96.7341 104.8122 35.0000 110.0000 27.2132 263.5445 215.9515 9.0264 3473.3762 11.1467
18 76.5596 90.9337 104.8131 35.0000 110.0000 26.1114 261.8942 219.8102 8.4179 3432.4904 10.2269
19 75.0000 90.0000 100.6086 35.0000 110.0000 23.3699 257.9067 229.5303 7.9785 3404.3724 9.4501
20 75.0000 72.7766 99.0377 35.0000 110.0000 22.3619 256.4834 233.1469 7.1762 3326.2542 7.7765
21 40.0000 90.0000 80.8367 35.0000 110.0000 19.9631 253.1883 241.8458 5.7998 3124.5716 5.8533
22 75.0001 49.6752 69.8705 35.0000 110.0000 16.0431 248.0828 256.3402 5.5889 3048.7132 3.6670
23 43.4408 47.4468 70.0000 35.0000 110.0000 18.6732 251.4701 246.5770 4.5608 2849.7617 2.2213
24 40.4772 42.0830 62.1568 35.0000 110.0000 14.4145 246.0634 262.4635 4.1315 2690.8873 1.4664
Total cost ($): 76,468.4385
Total emission (ton): 171.8006
Total losses (MW): 167.5118
 H.M. Dubey et al. / Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 188e202 201

Table 13
Solution of dynamic multi-objective optimal dispatch (DMOOD) using HFPA_TVFSM approach.

Hour P1 (MW) P2 (MW) P3 (MW) P4 (MW) PW1 (MW) Pw2 (MW) Cr (.) ($/hr) Cp (.) ($/hr) Losses (MW) Cost ($/hr) Emission (ton/hr)

1 48.9366 53.1494 86.6953 35.0000 110.0000 21.3864 255.1277 236.6687 5.1677 3026.3433 4.0135
2 40.0000 40.6438 61.2042 35.0000 110.0000 14.2402 245.8507 263.1226 4.0882 2665.3615 1.3579
3 40.0003 40.1270 60.0089 35.0000 110.0000 13.9332 245.4778 264.2849 4.0694 2647.5909 1.2765
4 40.0000 41.7012 64.4177 35.0000 110.0000 15.0179 246.8046 260.1879 4.1368 2708.0274 1.5782
5 40.4569 42.7966 68.0743 35.0000 110.0000 15.8847 247.8837 256.9331 4.2125 2755.4410 1.8555
6 40.7222 43.1342 69.2247 35.0000 110.0000 16.1611 248.2314 255.8988 4.2422 2770.4471 1.9499
7 48.9366 53.1494 86.6953 35.0000 110.0000 21.3864 255.1278 236.6686 5.1677 3026.3426 4.0135
8 75.0000 90.0000 103.3864 35.0000 110.0000 24.7680 259.9191 224.5521 8.1544 3414.0896 9.8316
9 89.9997 101.3596 104.8132 35.0000 110.0000 28.7244 265.8525 210.7035 9.8969 3519.2851 12.3210
10 90.0000 105.7293 104.8132 35.0000 110.0000 29.6556 267.3005 207.4953 10.1981 3536.8013 12.8576
11 90.0000 103.1129 104.8132 35.0000 110.0000 29.0898 266.4185 209.4423 10.0159 3526.2938 12.5318
12 87.8169 98.8398 104.8132 35.0000 110.0000 28.1175 264.9195 212.8047 9.5874 3503.3700 11.8582
13 75.0000 90.0000 103.3890 35.0000 110.0000 24.7653 259.9152 224.5615 8.1543 3414.0702 9.8320
14 75.0001 90.0000 104.6841 35.0000 110.0000 25.5661 261.0875 221.7301 8.2503 3419.6055 10.0181
15 88.3438 99.2653 104.8132 35.0000 110.0000 28.2271 265.0873 212.4249 9.6494 3506.5269 11.9473
16 86.2416 97.5530 104.8132 35.0000 110.0000 27.7960 264.4285 213.9215 9.4038 3493.7521 11.5941
17 83.0647 94.9942 104.8132 35.0000 110.0000 27.1742 263.4855 216.0877 9.0463 3473.6499 11.0834
18 77.1386 90.3839 104.8131 35.0000 110.0000 26.0879 261.8592 219.8928 8.4235 3432.7478 10.2089
19 78.5410 80.0000 104.8131 35.0000 110.0000 25.6764 261.2502 221.3410 8.0305 3396.5993 9.3548
20 57.1250 90.0000 99.2865 35.0000 110.0000 22.6067 256.8270 232.2664 7.0182 3301.2292 8.3636
21 55.5727 59.9094 91.7659 35.0000 110.0000 23.5707 258.1931 228.8127 5.8187 3146.3723 5.1178
22 48.9366 53.1494 86.6953 35.0000 110.0000 21.3864 255.1277 236.6686 5.1677 3026.3427 4.0135
23 44.3934 47.6946 70.0000 35.0000 110.0000 17.4248 249.8429 251.1917 4.5128 2850.4533 2.2556
24 40.0000 41.2842 63.1260 35.0000 110.0000 14.7061 246.4205 261.3630 4.1163 2691.3200 1.4879
Total cost ($): 76,252.0628
Total emission (ton): 170.7222
Total losses (MW): 166.529

Table 14
Comparison of results of dynamic multi-objective optimal dispatch (DMOOD). Pimin ; Pimax minimum/maximum power limit of ith thermal unit
RRLidown,RRLiup ramp down and ramp up limits of the ith unit
Method Cost ($) Emission (ton) Loss (MW) CPU time
nz NUMBERS of prohibited operating regions
HFPA 76468.4385 171.8006 167.5118 17.96 k
HFPA_TVFSM 76252.0628 170.7222 166.529 18.86
P ki ; P i lower and upper boundaries of the kth prohibited
operation zone for the ith unit
Rt reserve required at time t
k and c Weibull shape and scale factors
specic parameter selection. The HFPA-TVFSM performs ef-
sin, sout and sr cut-in, cut-out and rated wind speeds
ciently and all constraints are satised.
PwR rated power of the wind unit.
MV membership value
Nomenclature
RI ranking index
FSI fuzzy selection index
DMOOD dynamic multi objective optimal dispatch
ppfE price penalty factors for emission
HFPA hybrid ower pollination algorithm
ppfL price penalty factors for loss
TVFSM time-varying fuzzy selection mechanism
aC, bC user dened parameters for the Cth fuzzy linguistic class
WP wind power
K order of the function
ED economic dispatch
C FSM1 to FSM5 ve class fuzzy selection mechanism
ODCD optimal dynamic cost dispatch
ODED optimal dynamic emission dispatch
ODLD optimal dynamic loss dispatch References
FT total cost of thermal and wind power generation
Pimax scheduled thermal/WP for ith thermal/jth wind unit at tth [1] Wood AJ, Wallenberg BF. Power generation, operation and control. New York:
time Wiley; 1984.
[2] Hetzer J, Yu DC, Bhattarai K. An economic dispatch model incorporating wind
Fti &Ftwj cost of ith thermal/jth wind unit at tth time power. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2008;23(2):603e11.
Ptwj &Ftwj scheduled WP at tth time interval/associated cost [3] Liu X, Xu W. Economic load dispatch constrained by wind power availability: a
here-and-now approach. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2010;1(1):02e9.
N & M number of thermal/wind units [4] Liu X. Economic load dispatch constrained by wind power availability: a wait-
Wtj av available WP at tth time interval and-see approach. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2010;1(3):347e55.
Ctpj &Ctrj penalty/reserve cost function [5] Zhu Y, Wang J, Qu B. Multi-objective economic emission dispatch considering
wind power using evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. Int J Electr
Kpj & krj penalty/reserve coefcients Power Energy Syst 2014;63:434e45.
ai, bi , ci ,di, ei & Kj cost coefcients of ith thermal/jth wind unit [6] Morshed MJ, Asgharpour A. Hybrid imperialist competitive-sequential
pdf probability distribution function quadratic programming (HIC-SQP) algorithm for solving economic load
dispatch with incorporating stochastic wind power: a comparative study on
fw(w) pdf of WP random variable
heuristic optimization techniques. Energy Convers Manag 2014;84:30e40.
Eti emission content of the ith thermal unit at time t [7] Yuan X, Ji B, Zhang S, Tian H, Chen Z. An improved articial physical opti-
ai, bi , gi ,di and qi emission coefcients of ith thermal unit mization algorithm for dynamic dispatch of generators with valve-point ef-
Epj (.) & Erj(.) penalty/reserve emission function fects and wind power. Energy Convers Manag 2014;82:92e105.
[8] Lee JC, Lin WM, Liao GC, Tsao TP. Quantum genetic algorithm for dynamic
Bij, Bio and BOO B-loss coefcients economic dispatch with valve-point effects and including wind power system.
PtD &PtL total demand/and losses at time t Elect Power Energy Syst 2011;33(2):189e97.
202 H.M. Dubey et al. / Renewable Energy 83 (2015) 188e202
[9] Chen CL. Simulated annealing-based optimal wind-thermal coordination
scheduling. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2007;1(3):447e55.
[10] Liao GC. A novel evolutionary algorithm for dynamic economic dispatch with
energy saving and emission reduction in power system integrated wind po-
wer. Energy 2011;36(2):1018e29.
[11] Liao GC. Solve environmental economic dispatch of smart MicroGrid con-
taining distributed generation system using chaotic quantum genetic algo-
rithm. Elect Power Energy Syst 2012;43:779e87.
[12] Aghaei J, Niknam T, Azizipanah-Abarghooee R, Arroyo JM. Scenario-based
dynamic economic emission dispatch considering load and wind power un-
certainties. Elect Power Energy Syst 2013;47:351e67.
[13] Lakshmi K, Vasantharathna S. Gencos windethermal scheduling problem
using articial immune system algorithm. Elect Power Energy Syst 2014;54:
112e22.
[14] Guo CX, Bai YH, Zheng X, Zhan JP, Wuc QH. Optimal generation dispatch with
renewable energy embedded using multiple objectives. Elect Power Energy
Syst 2012;42(1):440e7.
[15] Jadhav HT, Bhandari H, Dalal Y, Roy R. Economic load dispatch including wind
power using plant growth simulation algorithm. In: IEEE Environment and
Electrical Engineering International Conference; 2012. p. 388e93.
[16] Piperagkas GS, Anastasiadis AG, Hatziargyriou ND. Stochastic PSO based heat
and power dispatch under environmental constraints incorporating CHP and
wind power units. Electr Power Syst Res 2011;81(1):209e18.
[17] Peng C, Sun H, Guo J, Liu G. Dynamic economic dispatch for wind-thermal
power system using a novel bi-population chaotic differential evolution al-
gorithm. Elect Power Energy Syst 2012;42(1):119e26.
[18] Jadhav HT, Roy R. Gbest guided articial bee colony algorithm for environ-
mental/economic dispatch considering wind power. Expert Syst Appl
2013;40:6385e99.
[19] Mondal S, Bhattacharya A, Dey SH. Multi-objective economic emission load
dispatch solution using gravitational search algorithm and considering wind
power penetration. Elect Power Energy Syst 2013;44:282e92.
[20] Jin J, Zhou D, Zhou P, Miao Z. Environmental/economic power dispatch with
wind power. Renew Energy 2014;71:234e42.
[21] Jabr RA, Pal BC. Intermittent wind generation in optimal power ow dis-
patching. IET Gener Trans Distrib 2009;3:66e74.
[22] Vos KD, Petoussis AG, Driesen J, Belmans R. Revision of reserve requirements
following wind power integration in island power systems. Renew Energy
2013;50:268e79.
[23] Reddy SS, Panigrahi BK, Kundu R, Mukherjee R, Debchoudhury S. Energy and
spinning reserve scheduling for a wind-thermal power system using CMA-ES
with mean learning technique. Elect Power Energy Syst 2013;53:113e22.
[24] Reddy SS, Bijwe PR, Abhyankar AR. Multi-objective market clearing of elec-
trical energy, spinning reserves and emission for wind-thermal power system.
Elect Power Energy Syst 2013;53:782e94.
[25] Chen CL, Chen ZY, Lee TY. Multi-area economic generation and reserve
dispatch considering large-scale integration of wind. Elect Power Energy Syst
2014;55:171e8.
[26] Pandit M, Srivastava L, Pal K. Static/dynamic optimal dispatch of energy and
reserve using recurrent differential evolution. IET Proc Gener Transm Distrib
2013;7(12):1401e14.
[27] Zhou Z, Botterud A. Dynamic scheduling of operating reserves in co-optimized
electricity markets with wind power. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2014;29(1):
160e71.
[28] Abbaspour M, Satkin M, Mohammadi-Ivatloo B, Lot FH, Noorollahi Y.
Optimal operation scheduling of wind power integrated with compressed air
energy storage (CAES). Renew Energy 2013;51:53e9.
[29] Farhat IA, El-Hawary ME. Dynamic adaptive bacterial foraging algorithm for
optimum economic dispatch with valve-point effects and wind power. IET
Proc Gener Trans Distrib 2010;4(9):989e99.
[30] Pandi VR, Panigrahi BK, Das S, Cui Z. Dynamic economic load dispatch with
wind energy using modied harmony search. Bio Inspir Comput 2010;2(3):
282e9.
[31] Liu X, Xu W. Minimum emission dispatch constrained by stochastic wind
power availability and cost. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2010;25(10):1705e13.
[32] Kuo CC. Wind energy dispatch considering environmental and economic
factors. Renew Energy 2010;35(10):2217e27.
[33] Abarghooee RA, Niknam T, Roosta A, Malekpour AR, Zare M. Probabilistic
multiobjective wind-thermal economic emission dispatch based on point
estimated method. Energy 2012;37:322e35.
[34] Zhao X, Wu L, Zhang S. Joint environmental and economic power dispatch
considering wind power integration: empirical analysis from Liaoning Prov-
ince of China. Renew Energy 2013;52:260e5.
[35] Bahmani-Firouzi B, Farjah E, Azizipanah-Abarghooee R. An efcient scenario-
based and fuzzy self-adaptive learning particle swarm optimization approach
for dynamic economic emission dispatch considering load and wind power
uncertainties. Energy 2013;50(1):232e44.
[36] Sharma M, Pandit M, Srivastava L. Reserve constrained multiarea economic
dispatch employing differential evolution with time-varying mutation. Elect
Power Energy Syst 2011;33(3):753e66.
[37] Yang XS. Flower pollination algorithm for global optimization. In: Uncon-
ventional computation and natural computation, Lecture notes in computer
science, vol. 7445; 2012. p. 240e9. LNCS.
[38] Pavlyukevich I. Levy ight, non local search and simulated annealing.
J Comput Phys 2007;226:1830e44.
[39] Coelho LDS, Mariani VC. Combining of chaotic differential evolution and
quadratic programming for economic dispatch optimization with valve-point
effect. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2006;21(2):989e96.
[40] Deb K. Multi objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. John Wiley
& Sons; 2001.
[41] Pandit N, Tripathi A, Tapaswi S, Pandit M. An improved bacterial foraging
algorithm for combined static/dynamic environmental economic dispatch.
Appl Soft Comput 2012;12(11):3500e13.
[42] Civicioglu P. Transforming geocentric cartesian coordinates to geodetic co-
ordinates by using differential search algorithm. Comput Geosciences
2012;46:229e47.