Accepted Manuscript

Optimal short-term generation scheduling of hydrothermal systems by implementation

of real-coded genetic algorithm based on improved Mühlenbein mutation

M. Nazari-Heris, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, A. Haghrah

PII: S0360-5442(17)30569-8
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.007
Reference: EGY 10637

To appear in: Energy

Received Date: 28 October 2016

Revised Date: 13 March 2017
Accepted Date: 2 April 2017

Please cite this article as: Nazari-Heris M, Mohammadi-Ivatloo B, Haghrah A, Optimal short-term
generation scheduling of hydrothermal systems by implementation of real-coded genetic algorithm
based on improved Mühlenbein mutation, Energy (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.007.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Optimal short-term generation scheduling of

2 hydrothermal systems by implementation of real-coded

PT
3 genetic algorithm based on improved Mühlenbein

RI
4 mutation

SC
5 M. Nazari-Heris, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, A. Haghrah

U
6 Smart Energy Systems Laboratory, Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz,
AN
7 Tabriz, Iran

8 Emails: mnazari94@ms.tabrizu.ac.ir, bmohammadi@tabrizu.ac.ir, arslan.haghrah@gmail.com

M

9 Abstract— The short-term hydrothermal scheduling (STHS) problem is providing a daily planning of
D

10 hydro and thermal generations, aiming to minimize the total fuel cost of thermal plants. The minimization

11 of total operation cost of hydrothermal power system is considered as a complex nonlinear hard
TE

12 optimization problem with a series of several equality and inequality constraints. This paper proposes

13 real-coded genetic algorithm with an improved Mühlenbein mutation (RCGA-IMM) for the solution of
EP

14 STHS optimization problem, considering the minimization of operation cost which satisfies hydraulic and
C

15 electrical constraints. The proposed optimization procedure is employed on two test systems in which

16 different constraints have been taken into account including valve point loading effect of thermal units
AC

17 and transmission losses. The provided optimal solutions have been compared with recent studies in this

18 area, which manifest superiority of the proposed method. It is found that the proposed RCGA-IMM has

19 the capability of obtaining better solutions with respect to other optimization methods which are

20 implemented on STHS problem.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

21 Index Terms—Hydrothermal scheduling, genetic algorithm, economic dispatch, multi-objective

22 optimization

23 1 Introduction

PT
24 The objective of short-term hydrothermal scheduling (STHS) optimization problem is to determine

25 optimal power generation of available thermal and hydro power plants. The main objective of STHS

RI
26 problem is minimization of operation cost of hydrothermal system, while meeting load demands and

satisfying hydraulic and electric system constraints. According to ignorable cost of hydro power

SC
27

28 generation units, the operation cost of hydrothermal systems which is aimed to be minimized, include fuel

cost of thermal plants. The solution of STHS problem should be attained considering several equality and

U
29

30 inequality constraints including water balance, power balance, water discharge limits, limitations of water
AN
31 storage, and power generation limits of hydro and thermal generation units. Consideration of valve-point

32 loading impact of thermal power generation units and power transmission losses of hydrothermal system
M

33 makes the STHS a nonlinear complicated problem [1].

D

34 For handling the STHS optimization problem, different optimization techniques have been employed in
TE

35 previous studies. Several conventional and mathematical procedures are employed for obtaining optimal

36 generation scheduling of hydro and thermal power generation which include dynamic programming (DP)
EP

37 [2], Lagrange relaxation (LR) [3], decomposition techniques [4], mixed integer programming [5], and

38 linear programming [6]. Consideration of several constraints of hydro and thermal generation units, the
C

39 optimization method should have the capability of handling different constraints including valve-point
AC

40 loading effect of thermal units and transmission losses of hydrothermal system. Recently, heuristic

41 optimization methods, which are defined as experience-based procedures, have been introduced as an

42 efficient tool for attaining the optimal solution of the complicated STHS problem. Heuristic algorithms

43 such as genetic algorithm (GA) [7], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [8], teaching learning based
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

44 optimization (TLBO) [9], differential evolution (DE) [10], cultural algorithm (CA) [11] have been

45 implemented to solve the STHS optimization problem.

46 A modified quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization (QPSO) has been introduced in [12] for

47 obtaining the optimal generation scheduling of hydro and thermal power generation units, which

PT
48 considered short-term combined economic scheduling (CEES) as the objective function. The solution of

RI
49 the STHS optimization problem considering valve-point loading effect of thermal units and power

50 transmission losses of hydrothermal system is provided by employing differential real coded quantum

SC
51 inspired evolutionary algorithm (DRQEA) in [13]. In this reference, the capability of global search of DE

52 method has been improved by introducing a novel mutation and crossover operators. The probabilistic

U
53 power generation scheduling of hydro and thermal plants has been analyzed in [14], in which the cost
AN
54 curves of thermal power generation plants, load demand and reservoir water inflows uncertainties are

55 taken into account. For handling different equality and inequality constraints of hydrothermal systems
M

56 including prohibited operating zones of hydro units, valve-point loading impact of thermal plants and the

57 limitations of ramp rates of thermal generators, an improved DE method has been employed in [15]. A
D

58 combination of real coded GA and artificial fish swarm method which aimed to attain high convergence
TE

59 speed and increment of global search ability has been implemented on the STHS problem in [16].

60 Providing optimal generation scheduling of hydro and thermal plants to minimize the total operation cost
EP

61 of hydrothermal system is accomplished in [17], which have implemented a modified dynamic

62 neighborhood learning based PSO (MDNLPSO) procedure for solving the optimization problem. Valve
C

63 point loading impact of thermal power generation units, prohibited discharge zones of hydro units and
AC

64 power transmission losses are taken into account in this reference. In [18], optimal self-scheduling of a

65 hydrothermal generating company is accomplished by employment of a robust optimization technique.

66 Water balance, water traveling time between cascaded power stations and emission allowance are

67 considered as technical constrains which should be handled by the proposed optimization tool.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

68 In this paper a real-coded genetic algorithm based on improved Mühlenbein mutation (RCGA-IMM) has

69 been implemented for the solution of optimal generation scheduling of hydrothermal system. Valve-point

70 loading effect of thermal units and power transmission losses of hydrothermal system have been taken

71 into account in the formulation of the STHS optimization problem. The proposed optimization method

PT
72 has been implemented on two test system including one thermal plant and four hydro units, and three

73 thermal plants and four hydro generation plants. Different cases have been considered of obtaining the

RI
74 optimal solution of the STHS problem and the provided solutions ensure effectiveness of the proposed

SC
75 method by comparison of the results with respect to those from other employed optimization methods.

76 The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The formulation of hydrothermal scheduling problem has

U
77 been introduced in Section 2. Section 3 has presented definition of the proposed RCGA-IMM for the
AN
78 solution of the STHS problem. The implementation of RCGA-IMM for solving the STHS optimization

79 problem on two hydrothermal systems has been provided in Section 4, which compared the obtained
M

80 optimal solution with respect to those provided by previous studies. Finally, the conclusion has been

81 presented in Section 5.
D
TE

82 2 Formulation of Hydrothermal Scheduling Problem

83 Considering negligible cost of hydro power generation units, the total operation cost of hydrothermal
EP

84 systems consist fuel cost of thermal plants, which is aimed to be minimized by solving the STHS

85 problem. The STHS problem is a daily planning of power generation of hydro and thermal generation
C

86 units to meet load demands, satisfying several equality and inequality constraints. In this section, the
AC

87 objective function of the STHS problem considering hydraulic and electric system constraints has been

88 provided.

89 2.1 Objective Function

90 As mentioned before, the objective of the STHS problem is minimization of total fuel cost of thermal

91 generation plants, since the operation cost of hydro units can be ignored. The formulation of operation
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

92 cost of thermal power generation units which is commonly considered as a quadratic function can be

93 presented as follows:

94 Fit (Psit ) = ai (Psit )2 + bi Psit + ci

PT
95 (1)

t
Where power generation and cost of power generation of thermal unit i at time t are denoted by Psi , and

RI
96

97 Fit , respectively. The fuel cost coefficients of thermal unit i are presented by ai , b i and ci .

SC
98 Multiple steam admitting valves in thermal generation units manifest the requirement of consideration of

U
99 the valve-point loading effect of thermal plants in the objective function of the STHS problem. The
AN
100 impact of valve-point loading of thermal plants can be added as a sinusoidal term to the quadratic

101 function of mentioned operation cost of hydrothermal system [1].

M

102 Fi t ( Psit ) = ai ( Psit ) 2 + bi Psit + ci + ei sin( f i ( Psi ,min − Psit )

D

103 (2)
TE

104 In which, the valve-point loading effect coefficients of ith thermal unit is shown by ei and fi , and

minimum capacity limitation of unit i is demonstrated by Psi ,min .

EP

105

106 The objective function of daily power generation scheduling of hydrothermal systems is to minimize total
C

107 operation cost during 24 hours which can be formulated as follow:

AC

{ }
24 N s
108 Fi t ( Psit ) = ∑∑ ai ( Psit )2 + bi Psit + ci + ei sin( fi ( Psi ,min − Psit )
t =1 i =1

109 (3)

110 Where Ns is utilized as the number of thermal generation units.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

111 2.2 Constraints

112 The consideration of the following equality and inequality constraints of hydrothermal system for solving

113 the STHS problem is required. The solution of optimal generation scheduling of hydrothermal system

114 should be obtained considering the following constraints:

PT
115 2.2.1 System power Balance

RI
116 The load demand equality constraint for each interval should be taken into account. Power generation of

117 hydrothermal system should meet load demand of the system and total transmission losses of the

SC
118 hydrothermal system which will be formulated as:

U
NS Nh
119 t
PLoad = ∑ Psit + ∑ Phjt − PLoss
t

i =1 j =1
AN
120 (4)
M

121 Where load demand of the system at time t is defined by P Load (t) , and power generation of hydro plant
D

t
122 at time t is shown by Phj . PLoss (t) is the transmission loss of hydrothermal system at time t. The
TE

123 transmission loss of hydrothermal system considering N s hydro units and N h thermal generation plants

124 can be formulated as follows [19]:

EP

NS + Nh NS + Nh NS + Nh
125
t
PLoss = ∑ ∑ Pmt Bmn Pnt + ∑ B0 n Pnt + B00
C

m =1 n =1 n =1

126 (5)
AC

127 The generation of hydro units which is a function of water release and reservoir volume in each interval,

128 is formulated as quadratic function:

129 Phjt = C1 j (Vhjt ) 2 + C2 j (Qhjt ) 2 + C3 j (Vhjt Qhjt ) + C4 j (Vhjt ) + C5 j (Qhjt ) + C6 j (6)

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

t
130 Where the power generation of jth hydro unit at time t is shown by Phj , and c1j , c2 j , c3j , c4 j , c5j , and

131 c6j are the coefficients of jth hydro unit. The volume and the discharge of hydro plant j at time t, are

132 demonstrated by Vhjt t

and Qhj , respectively.

PT
133 2.2.2 Output Capacity Limitations

RI
134 Upper and lower limitations of power generations of hydro and thermal plants should be taken into

135 account, which can be stated as:

SC
136 Phj ,min ≤ Phjt ≤ Phj ,max ; j = 1,2,..., N h

U
137 (7)
AN
138 Psj ,min ≤ Psjt ≤ Psj ,max ; j = 1,2,..., N s
M

139 (8)
D

140 Minimum and maximum limitations of generation of jth hydro unit are shown by Phj ,min and Phj ,max ,
TE

141 respectively. Moreover, Psj ,min and Psj ,max are the respective definitions of minimum and maximum

142 amounts of power generation of thermal plant j.

EP

143 2.2.3 Hydraulic network constraints

C

144 Hydro unit discharge and reservoir storage volumes are another constrains of the STHS optimization

145 problem which should be considered as:

AC

146 Vhj ,min ≤ Vhjt ≤ Vhj ,max ; j = 1,2,..., Nh

147 (9)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

148 Qhj ,min ≤ Qhjt ≤ Qhj ,max ; j = 1,2,..., Nh

149 (10)

150 Where minimum and maximum reservoir storage volumes of jth hydro unit are shown by Vhj,min and Vhj,max

PT
151 , Qhj ,min and Qhj ,max are the minimum and maximum amounts of volume and discharge of hydro plant j,

RI
152 respectively. The dynamic water balance in reservoirs can be formulated as follows:

153 Vhjt = Vhjt −1 + I hjt − Qhjt − S hjt + ∑ t − Td k t − Td k

+ S hk

SC
(Qhk )
k ∈ Rupj

154 (11)

Vhjt
U
Vhjt−1 are the respective definitions for reservoir storage volume of hydro plant j at time t,
AN
155 Where and

156 and time t-1. Ihjt is the inflow rate for jth hydro generation unit at time t. Discharge and spillage of hydro
M

157 plant j at time t is demonstrated by Qhjt and S hjt , respectively.

D

158 Considering known amount of the initial and final reservoir storage volume, the following formulations
TE

159 can be taken into account:

Vjh0 = Vj,hinit
EP

160

161 (12)
C

Vjh24 = Vj,hend
AC

162

163 (13)

164 In which the reservoir storage of hydro plant j at time 0 and 24 are illustrated by V jh0 and Vjh24 ,

h h
165 respectively. Vj,init and Vj,end are the initial and final reservoir storage of hydro unit j.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

166 3 Real-coded genetic algorithm based on improved Mühlenbein

167 mutation (RCGA-IMM)

168 3.1 An overview of GA

PT
169 Genetic algorithm (GA) is defined as a meta-heuristic procedure for the solution of different optimization

170 problems which has been handled by a large number of researchers in the area of optimization problems

RI
171 [20]. GA is based on modeling natural selection in which genetics and natural selection are the

SC
172 fundamental concept. Production of generations considering the fittest individuals of last generations,

173 utilizing basic operators called mutation and crossover is the main process of GA. The process of GA can

U
174 be introduced as follows:
AN
175 1. Initiation of problem and optimization method parameters

176 2. Generation of initial population

M

177 3. Selection of fittest individuals from previous generation and implementation of GA operators for

178 producing new generations

D

179 4. Evaluation of the obtained new generation and decision on ending the optimization process if the
TE

180 conditions are satisfied, otherwise continuing the procedure from step 2.
EP

181 3.2 Proposed RCGA-IMM

182 The proposed RCGA-IMM in this paper which is based on real coding for problem parameters,
C

183 implements a novel point view of mutation operator for increasing the efficiency of the optimization
AC

184 operation. In this paper, improved Mühlenbein mutation is employed on real-coded genetic algorithm. In

185 this subsection, the main processes of the proposed RCGA-IMM are introduced. The proposed RCGA-

186 IMM has been successfully implemented on other optimization problems, which has shown improvement

187 in the reported results, simple employment, and good convergence characteristics [21].
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

188 3.2.1 Generation of initial population

189 For generating initial population of the optimization problem, the formulation which provides sufficient

190 diversity and individuals distribution in problem space is as follows:

X ix = rand (X ix ,max − X ix ,min ) + X ix ,min

PT
191

192 (14)

RI
193 The independent parameters are randomly generated, which will be utilized for calculation of other

SC
194 parameter considering equations. Moreover, the fitness value is determined and the generated populations

195 are sorted considering the fitness function.

196 3.2.2 Fitness assignment and constraints handling

U
AN
197 A considerable role is remarked for fitness function on leading the individuals to optimal region.

198 Therefore, determination of fitness to individuals based on a function of total operation cost and penalties
M

199 requires a noticeable way of implementation. For dealing with inequality constraints of hydrothermal
D

200 system, a linear form, a quadratic form, and also constant only penalty function is introduced, which

201 guides the individuals to a feasible region. Besides, presence of infeasible individuals in future generation
TE

202 should be prohibited.

EP

 K1 ( X i − X i ) + k 2 , if X>X i 
max max

203 PenaltyLinear ( X i ) =  min 

 K1 ( X i − X i ) + k 2 , if X<X i 
min
C

204 PenaltyQuadratic ( X i ) = k1 ( X i − X idesired )2 + k2 X i − X idesired + k3

AC

0, if X is in the feasible region 

205 PenaltyCons tan t ( X ) =  
 k , if X is not in the feasible region 
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

206 3.2.3 Crossover operator

207 The proposed RCGA-IMM implements weighted averaging parameters of parents as the crossover

208 operator, considering a high value for weight of parent with better fitness. Employing the crossover

209 operator to the individuals generate a new individual which is compared with parents. If the comparison

PT
210 ensured that the new generated individual is more appropriate with respect to parent with weaker fitness,

211 it will be replaced.

RI
212 Opting two individuals as parents is the basic process for employment of crossover operator. Option

SC
213 technique influences the optimal solution of the problem, so that the implementation of the option

214 procedure is noticeable. The proposed RCGA-IMM in this paper, utilizes a sequential option for selecting

U
215 parents, which implements crossover operation to i th index and N p − i th index in the population. The
AN
216 population size is demonstrated by N p .
M

Np
217 1≤ i <
2
D

218 After ending the implementation of crossover operator on population in every generation, fitness value is
TE

219 taken into account to sort the population.

EP

220 3.2.4 Mutation process

221 As mentioned previously, this paper has implemented improved Mühlenbein mutation operator to real
C

222 coded genetic algorithm for obtaining the solution of STHS problem. The individuals are sorted
AC

223 considering the fitness and the mutation operator has been employed on top percent of individuals. After

224 the implementation of improved Mühlenbein mutation to the top percent of individuals, the provided

225 population is sorted again in terms of fitness.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

226 3.2.5 Pseudo-code of the algorithm

227 In this subsection pseudo-code of the algorithm is proposed. Besides, Flowchart of implementation of the

228 proposed RCGA-IMM hydrothermal scheduling optimization problem is demonstrated in Fig. 1.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
229
M

230 4 Simulation results

D

231 The proposed RCGA-IMM is applied on two hydrothermal test instances considering multiple cases,
TE

232 which handle different constrains specially valve-point loading effect of thermal plants and power

233 transmission losses of hydrothermal system. The employment of the proposed optimization method for
EP

234 solving the STHS problem is done utilizing C++ code on a Pentium-IV, 2.8 GHz and 4GB RAM system.

235 The obtained optimal solutions of generation scheduling of hydro and thermal plants by implementation
C

236 of the proposed RCGA-IMM are compared with those provided by recent introduced methods in previous
AC

237 studies. Data of test systems are adopted from [13].

238 4.1 Tests system 1

239 First test system includes four cascade hydro power generation units and an equivalent thermal plant.

240 Power generation coefficients, reservoir inflows, technical limitations of hydro units and hourly load
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

241 demand of the test system are taken from [13]. Hydro generation unit characteristics including reservoir

242 storage capacity limits, plant discharge limits, plant generation limits and reservoir initial and end

243 conditions of test system 1 is illustrated in Table 1. Table 2 and Table 3 show power generation

244 coefficients of hydro and thermal plants, respectively. Hydropower plants reservoir inflows and Hourly

PT
245 load demand of power system are provided in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively. To ensure the

246 effectiveness of the proposed RCGA-IMM for the solution of the STHS problem, two different cases have

RI
247 been taken into account. Case 1 is smooth quadratic operation cost of thermal power generation unit. The

SC
248 proposed function in case 1 is as (1). Non-smooth fuel cost of thermal plants, which considers valve-point

249 loading impact of thermal units is analyzed as case 2.

U
250 The provided optimal generation scheduling of hydro and thermal power generation units without
AN
251 considering valve-point effect of thermal units, by implementation of the proposed RCGA-IMM are

252 demonstrated in Table 6. Table 7 compares the obtained operation cost of test system 1 with those
M

253 provided by utilizing different optimization procedures. As seen in this table, the minimum operation cost

254 of test system 1 which is obtained in recent studies, is $877735.9825 which is reduced to 875856.41135 $
D

255 by employing the proposed RCGA-IMM in this paper. The convergence characteristics of the proposed
TE

256 RCGA-IMM in comparison with real coded genetic algorithm approach with random transfer vectors-

257 based mutation (RCGA-RTVM), random mutation, non-uniform mutation, and Mühlenbein mutation are
EP

258 presented in Fig. 2. As seen in this figure, the proposed RCGA-IMM is capable to obtain the optimal

259 solution in less computational efforts with respect to other mentioned optimization methods.
C

260 Table 8 illustrates the provided solution of generation scheduling of test system 1 with consideration of
AC

261 valve-point impact. The obtained operation cost of case 2 is compared with respect to previous studies in

262 Table 9. As seen in this table, the minimum operation cost of test system 1 which is obtained in recent

263 studies, is $917222.7357 which is reduced to $891779.85087 by utilizing the proposed RCGA-IMM in

264 this paper.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

265 4.2 Test system 2

266 This test system consists of four hydro plants and three thermal units. For obtaining the optimal

267 generation scheduling of this hydrothermal system, valve-point loading effects of thermal plants and

268 transmission losses of hydrothermal system have been taken into account. The coefficients of

PT
269 transmission losses of this test instance are as follows:

RI
 0.34 0.13 0.09 −0.10 −0.08 −0.01 −0.02 
 
 0.13 0.14 0.10 0.01 −0.05 −0.02 −0.01 
 0.09 −0.11 −0.07 −0.05 

SC
0.10 0.31 0.00
 
270 B =  −0.01 0.01 0.00 0.24 −0.08 −0.04 −0.07  × 10−4 MW −1

 −0.08 −0.05 −0.11 −0.08 1.92 0.27 −0.02 

 
 −0.01 −0.02 −0.07 −0.04 0.27

U
0.32 0.00 
 1.35 
 −0.02 −0.01 −0.05 −0.07 −0.02 0.00
AN
271 (15)
M

272 B = ( −0.75 −0.06 0.70 −0.03 0.27 −0.77 −0.01) ×10−6

273 (16)
D
TE

274 B00 = 0.55 MW

275 (17)
EP

276 Hydro power generation unit characteristics including reservoir storage capacity limits, plant discharge
C

277 limits, plant generation limits and reservoir initial and final conditions of test system 2 is illustrated in

278 Table 10. Table 11 and Table 12 provide power generation coefficients of hydro generation units and
AC

279 thermal plants, respectively. Hourly load demand of power system is provided in Table 13.

280 The optimal generation scheduling of hydro and thermal power generation units with the considerations

281 of valve-point effect of thermal units and transmission losses of hydrothermal system, employing the

282 proposed RCGA-IMM are provided in Table 14. Table 15 compares the obtained operation cost of test
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

283 system 1 with those provided by utilizing different optimization procedures. As seen in this table, the

284 minimum operation cost of test system 2 which is obtained in recent studies, is $40,489.66676 which is

285 reduced to $40,483.26196 by employing the proposed RCGA-IMM in this paper.

PT
286 5 Conclusion

287 In this paper an improved GA optimization method called RCGA-IMM has been proposed for solving the

RI
288 complicated nonlinear STHS problem, considering multiple equality and inequality hydraulic and electric

network. The proposed RCGA-IMM has been implemented successfully on two hydrothermal test

SC
289

290 instances for obtaining the optimal generation scheduling of hydro and thermal power generation units.

Different cases have been taken into account for employing the RCGA-IMM on test instances to evaluate

U
291

292 the efficiency of the proposed method, including valve-point loading effect of thermal units and power
AN
293 transmission losses of hydrothermal system. In comparison with the best reported results, the

294 improvement of the obtained operation cost of test system 1 case 1 is $4879.57115, and tests system 1
M

295 case 2 is $25442.88483. Additionally, the total operation cost in test system 2 is reduced by $6.4048 in
D

296 comparison with the best reported result in recent studies. The obtained solution results for test systems
TE

297 are compared with respect to those reported by previous studies in this area, which showed better

298 solutions in term of total operation cost of hydrothermal power system.

EP

299 6 References
C

300 [1] B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, A. Rabiee, and A. Soroudi, "Nonconvex dynamic economic power
301 dispatch problems solution using hybrid immune-genetic algorithm," Systems Journal, IEEE, vol.
302 7, pp. 777-785, 2013.
AC

303 [2] T. Homem-de-Mello, V. L. de Matos, and E. C. Finardi, "Sampling strategies and stopping
304 criteria for stochastic dual dynamic programming: a case study in long-term hydrothermal
305 scheduling," Energy Systems, vol. 2, pp. 1-31, 2011.
306 [3] V. N. Dieu and W. Ongsakul, "Improved merit order and augmented Lagrange Hopfield network
307 for short term hydrothermal scheduling," Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 50, pp. 3015-
308 3023, 2009.
309 [4] T. N. D. Santos and A. L. Diniz, "A new multiperiod stage definition for the multistage benders
310 decomposition approach applied to hydrothermal scheduling," Power Systems, IEEE
311 Transactions on, vol. 24, pp. 1383-1392, 2009.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

312 [5] A. Ahmadi, J. Aghaei, H. A. Shayanfar, and A. Rabiee, "Mixed integer programming of
313 multiobjective hydro-thermal self scheduling," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 12, pp. 2137-2146,
314 2012.
315 [6] G. W. Chang, M. Aganagic, J. G. Waight, J. Medina, T. Burton, S. Reeves, et al., "Experiences
316 with mixed integer linear programming based approaches on short-term hydro scheduling,"
317 Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 16, pp. 743-749, 2001.
318 [7] A. Haghrah, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, and S. Seyedmonir, "Real coded genetic algorithm approach

PT
319 with random transfer vectors-based mutation for short-term hydro–thermal scheduling," IET
320 Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 9, pp. 75-89, 2014.
321 [8] A. Mahor and S. Rangnekar, "Short term generation scheduling of cascaded hydro electric system
322 using novel self adaptive inertia weight PSO," International Journal of Electrical Power &

RI
323 Energy Systems, vol. 34, pp. 1-9, 2012.
324 [9] P. K. Roy, "Teaching learning based optimization for short-term hydrothermal scheduling
325 problem considering valve point effect and prohibited discharge constraint," International

SC
326 Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 53, pp. 10-19, 2013.
327 [10] J. Zhang, S. Lin, and W. Qiu, "A modified chaotic differential evolution algorithm for short-term
328 optimal hydrothermal scheduling," International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems,
329 vol. 65, pp. 159-168, 2015.

U
330 [11] H. Zhang, J. Zhou, Y. Zhang, Y. Lu, and Y. Wang, "Culture belief based multi-objective hybrid
331 differential evolutionary algorithm in short term hydrothermal scheduling," Energy Conversion
332 and Management, vol. 65, pp. 173-184, 2013.
AN
333 [12] S. Lu, C. Sun, and Z. Lu, "An improved quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization method
334 for short-term combined economic emission hydrothermal scheduling," Energy Conversion and
335 Management, vol. 51, pp. 561-571, 2010.
336 [13] Y. Wang, J. Zhou, L. Mo, R. Zhang, and Y. Zhang, "Short-term hydrothermal generation
M

337 scheduling using differential real-coded quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm," Energy, vol.
338 44, pp. 657-671, 2012.
339 [14] J. S. Dhillon, J. Dhillon, and D. Kothari, "Real coded genetic algorithm for stochastic
D

340 hydrothermal generation scheduling," Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, vol.
341 20, pp. 87-109, 2011.
TE

342 [15] M. Basu, "Improved differential evolution for short-term hydrothermal scheduling," International
343 Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 58, pp. 91-100, 2014.
344 [16] N. Fang, J. Zhou, R. Zhang, Y. Liu, and Y. Zhang, "A hybrid of real coded genetic algorithm and
345 artificial fish swarm algorithm for short-term optimal hydrothermal scheduling," International
EP

346 Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 62, pp. 617-629, 2014.
347 [17] A. Rasoulzadeh-akhijahani and B. Mohammadi-ivatloo, "Short-term hydrothermal generation
348 scheduling by a modified dynamic neighborhood learning based particle swarm optimization,"
349 International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 67, pp. 350-367, 2015.
C

350 [18] A. Soroudi, "Robust optimization based self scheduling of hydro-thermal Genco in smart grids,"
351 Energy, vol. 61, pp. 262-271, 2013.
AC

352 [19] A. Rabiee, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, and M. Moradi-Dalvand, "Fast dynamic economic power
353 dispatch problems solution via optimality condition decomposition," Power Systems, IEEE
354 Transactions on, vol. 29, pp. 982-983, 2014.
355 [20] M. Nazari-Heris and B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, "Application of heuristic algorithms to optimal
356 PMU placement in electric power systems: An updated review," Renewable and Sustainable
357 Energy Reviews, vol. 50, pp. 214-228, 2015.
358 [21] A. Haghrah, M. Nazari-Heris, and B. Mohammadi-ivatloo, "Solving combined heat and power
359 economic dispatch problem using real coded genetic algorithm with improved mühlenbein
360 mutation," Applied Thermal Engineering, 2016.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

361 [22] S. Kumar and R. Naresh, "Efficient real coded genetic algorithm to solve the non-convex
362 hydrothermal scheduling problem," International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems,
363 vol. 29, pp. 738-747, 2007.
364 [23] B. Yu, X. Yuan, and J. Wang, "Short-term hydro-thermal scheduling using particle swarm
365 optimization method," Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 48, pp. 1902-1908, 2007.
366 [24] X. Yuan, L. Wang, and Y. Yuan, "Application of enhanced PSO approach to optimal scheduling
367 of hydro system," Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 49, pp. 2966-2972, 2008.

PT
368 [25] L. Lakshminarasimman and S. Subramanian, "Short-term scheduling of hydrothermal power
369 system with cascaded reservoirs by using modified differential evolution," IEE Proceedings-
370 Generation, Transmission and Distribution, vol. 153, pp. 693-700, 2006.
371 [26] P. Hota, A. Barisal, and R. Chakrabarti, "An improved PSO technique for short-term optimal

RI
372 hydrothermal scheduling," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 79, pp. 1047-1053, 2009.
373 [27] P. K. Roy, "Hybrid Chemical Reaction Optimization Approach for Combined Economic
374 Emission Short-term Hydrothermal Scheduling," Electric Power Components and Systems, vol.

SC
375 42, pp. 1647-1660, 2014.
376 [28] H. Zhang, J. Zhou, N. Fang, R. Zhang, and Y. Zhang, "Daily hydrothermal scheduling with
377 economic emission using simulated annealing technique based multi-objective cultural
378 differential evolution approach," Energy, vol. 50, pp. 24-37, 2013.

U
379 [29] J. Zhang, J. Wang, and C. Yue, "Small population-based particle swarm optimization for short-
380 term hydrothermal scheduling," Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 27, pp. 142-152,
381 2012.
AN
382 [30] L. Lakshminarasimman and S. Subramanian, "A modified hybrid differential evolution for short-
383 term scheduling of hydrothermal power systems with cascaded reservoirs," Energy Conversion
384 and Management, vol. 49, pp. 2513-2521, 2008.
385 [31] K. K. Mandal and N. Chakraborty, "Short-term combined economic emission scheduling of
M

386 hydrothermal systems with cascaded reservoirs using particle swarm optimization technique,"
387 Applied soft computing, vol. 11, pp. 1295-1302, 2011.
388 [32] C. Wenping, "Optimal Scheduling of Hydrothermal System Based on Improved Particle Swarm
D

389 Optimization," in Power and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC), 2010 Asia-Pacific,
390 2010, pp. 1-4.
TE

391 [33] N. Sinha, R. Chakrabarti, and P. Chattopadhyay, "Fast evolutionary programming techniques for
392 short-term hydrothermal scheduling," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 66, pp. 97-103,
393 2003.
394 [34] Y. Lu, J. Zhou, H. Qin, Y. Wang, and Y. Zhang, "An adaptive chaotic differential evolution for
EP

395 the short-term hydrothermal generation scheduling problem," Energy Conversion and
396 Management, vol. 51, pp. 1481-1490, 2010.
397 [35] R. Swain, A. Barisal, P. Hota, and R. Chakrabarti, "Short-term hydrothermal scheduling using
398 clonal selection algorithm," International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 33,
C

399 pp. 647-656, 2011.

400 [36] P. K. Roy, A. Sur, and D. K. Pradhan, "Optimal short-term hydro-thermal scheduling using quasi-
AC

401 oppositional teaching learning based optimization," Engineering Applications of Artificial

402 Intelligence, vol. 26, pp. 2516-2524, 2013.
403 [37] X. Liao, J. Zhou, S. Ouyang, R. Zhang, and Y. Zhang, "An adaptive chaotic artificial bee colony
404 algorithm for short-term hydrothermal generation scheduling," International Journal of Electrical
405 Power & Energy Systems, vol. 53, pp. 34-42, 2013.

406
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
407
408 Fig. 1. Flowchart of implementation of RCGA-IMM on hydrothermal STHS problem
M

409
410
411
D
TE
C EP
AC

412
413 Fig. 2. The convergence characteristics of the proposed RCGA-IMM in comparison with real coded genetic

414 algorithm approach with random transfer vectors-based mutation (RCGA-RTVM), random mutation, non-uniform

415 mutation, and Mühlenbein mutation

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

416 Table 1. Characteristics of hydro power generation unit of four hydro plants and one equivalent thermal plant

Plant j Vhj ,min Vhj ,max Vhj ,initial Vhj ,end Qhj ,min Qhj ,max Phj ,min Phj ,max

1 80 150 100 120 5 15 0 500

PT
2 60 120 80 70 6 15 0 500

RI
3 100 240 170 170 10 30 0 500

SC
4 70 160 120 140 13 25 0 500

417

418
U
Table 2. Power generation coefficients for hydro plants of four hydro plants and one equivalent thermal plant
AN
Plant j C1 j C2 j C3 j C4 j C5 j C6 j
M

1 -0.0042 -0.42 0.030 0.90 10.0 -50

D

2 -0.0040 -0.30 0.015 1.14 9.5 -70

TE

3 -0.0016 -0.30 0.014 0.55 5.5 -40

4 -0.0030 -0.31 0.027 1.44 14.0 -90

EP

419
C

420 Table 3. Power generation coefficients for thermal plants of four hydro plants and one equivalent thermal plant
AC

Plant i ai bi ci di ei Psi,min Psi ,max

1 0.002 19.2 5000 700 0.085 500 2500

421

422 Table 4. Hydropower plants reservoir inflows of test system 1

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir

Hour 1 2 3 4 Hour 1 2 3 4 Hour 1 2 3 4

1 10 8 8.1 2.8 9 10 8 1 0 17 9 7 2 0

PT
2 9 8 8.2 2.4 10 11 9 1 0 18 8 6 2 0

3 8 9 4 1.6 11 12 9 1 0 19 7 7 1 0

RI
4 7 9 2 0 12 10 8 2 0 20 6 8 1 0

SC
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

U
AN
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
M

423
D

424 Table 5. Load demands hydrothermal system consisting of four hydro plants and one equivalent thermal plant
TE

Hour Load Hour Load Hour Load Hour Load

1 1370 7 1650 13 2230 19 2240

EP

2 1390 8 2000 14 2200 20 2280

C

3 1360 9 2240 15 2130 21 2240

AC

4 1290 10 2320 16 2070 22 2120

5 120 11 2230 17 2130 23 1850

6 1410 12 2310 18 2140 24 1590

425
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

426 Table 6. Obtained results for STHS problem (plant discharges, power outputs and total thermal generation) without

427 considering valve-point loading effect for test system 1

Hour Hydro Plant Discharge, 104 m3 Hydro Plant Power Generation, MW Thermal Plant Total

Generation, Generation,

PT
Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4
MW MW

1 5.92212 6.00012 19.68725 18.44605 61.15681 50.16479 50.76213 268.9959 938.9204 1370

RI
2 6.34502 6.00004 20.1313 20.72852 65.07157 51.29621 52.6851 295.0334 925.9137 1390

SC
3 6.73647 6.00042 20.39154 22.81507 68.34176 52.93673 52.46382 314.4398 871.8179 1360

4 6.98607 6.0004 20.59553 24.81022 70.21071 54.50239 50.59814 327.3036 787.3852 1290

5 7.31571 6.00026 20.62061 19.68728

U
72.30868
AN
55.50528 49.5637 304.1183 808.5041 1290

6 7.79235 6.0001 20.52287 20.13128 75.38546 55.99405 49.23982 306.7718 922.6089 1410
M

7 8.31272 6.00102 20.24933 20.39162 78.64089 56.0003 49.49745 308.2707 1157.591 1650

8 8.92846 6.46927 20.05742 20.59619 82.31008 59.61065 49.29912 309.4184 1499.362 2000
D
TE

9 9.28406 7.3786 19.88313 20.61996 84.47934 66.05801 48.9021 309.5509 1731.01 2240

10 9.53657 7.90946 19.82622 20.52332 86.23337 69.96256 48.16074 309.0125 1806.631 2320
EP

11 9.57061 8.16966 19.91248 20.24913 87.06927 71.96401 47.00598 307.4552 1716.506 2230

12 9.62314 8.49392 19.94737 20.05715 87.44318 73.64341 46.59225 306.3372 1795.984 2310
C
AC

13 9.47596 8.35781 19.94496 19.88324 87.04209 72.66364 47.0091 305.3043 1717.981 2230

14 9.25232 8.36539 20.15193 19.82663 86.42712 73.02648 46.34028 304.9637 1689.242 2200

15 8.90131 8.25299 20.51999 19.91209 84.78805 72.72645 44.90975 305.4769 1622.099 2130

16 8.4015 8.19532 20.78824 19.94762 81.92713 72.2837 43.40816 305.6886 1566.692 2070
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

17 8.1245 8.28295 20.78239 20.54728 80.21992 72.17065 43.01431 308.5222 1626.073 2130

18 7.64343 8.49148 20.52568 21.01302 76.91482 72.1133 43.63112 310.1393 1637.201 2140

19 7.46474 8.84822 19.62141 21.56596 75.56394 73.14598 46.72331 311.8252 1732.742 2240

PT
20 7.23228 9.08026 18.47473 22.11129 73.69466 73.81956 50.36529 312.9448 1769.176 2280

21 6.88199 9.32643 16.26536 22.6606 71.04002 74.94608 56.38327 313.2228 1724.408 2240

RI
22 6.47479 14.37687 16.74616 23.46197 67.9516 90.22213 55.73178 312.9264 1593.168 2120

SC
23 9.43048 14.99971 17.37897 24.44926 88.30919 86.38799 54.16347 310.2945 1310.845 1850

24 9.3634 14.99929 18.10464 24.99944 88.03946 80.9489 51.59115 303.5487 1065.872 1590

428
U
AN
429 Table 7. Comparison of the obtained results for STHS problem without considering valve-point loading effect for
M

430 test system 1 by implementation of different optimization procedures

Optimization method Minimum cost ($) Average Cost ($) Maximum cost ($)
D

BCGA [22] 925940.03 926120.26 926538.81

TE

LWPSO [23] 925383.80 926352.8 927240.1

EPSO [24] 922904.00 923527.00 924808.00

EP

RCGA [16] 923966.285 924108.731 924232.072

DE [25] 923574.31 - -
C

IPSO [26] 922553.49 - -

AC

DRQEA [13] 922526.73 923419.37 925871.51

HCRO-DE [27] 922444.79 922513.62 922936.17

TLBO [9] 922373.39 922462.24 922873.81

RCGA-AFSA [28] 922339.625 922346.323 922362.532

SPPSO [29] 922336.31 922668.45 927203.63

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

MHDE [30] 921893.94 - -

SOHPSO-TVAC [31] 922018.24 - -

IDE [15] 917237.7 917250.1 917277.8

FAPSO [32] 914660.00 - -

PT
RCGA-RTVM [7] 877735.9825 878597.2406 880948.518

Proposed RCGA-IMM 875856.4113 8.75947.5057 876267.6570

RI
431

SC
432 Table 8. Obtained results for STHS problem (plant discharges, power outputs and total thermal generation) with

433 considering valve-point loading effect for test system 1

U
Hour Hydro Plant Discharge, 104 m3 Hydro Plant Power Generation, MW Thermal Plant Total
AN
Generation, Generation,
Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4
MW MW
M

1 5.05294 11.14163 10.7215 19.72624 53.90863 75.43931 60.28412 273.8104 906.5575 1370

2 5.25401 6.33751 22.94101 23.74641 56.28258 50.4732 39.40483 300.3358 943.5036 1390
D

3 5.11654 6.30201 11.78152 17.63955 55.42849 51.83563 62.91924 283.2661 906.5506 1360
TE

4 5.19705 6.14032 27.91247 20.03775 56.35467 52.33873 5.64753 306.0644 869.5947 1290
EP

5 5.29313 6.22011 26.71873 14.49573 57.29206 53.88678 11.71139 260.5522 906.5576 1290

6 5.03676 6.065 26.13135 20.70149 55.12914 53.29037 12.87001 308.2359 980.4746 1410
C

7 11.65405 6.27524 25.08718 17.07055 96.8917 54.63418 16.95121 279.2846 1202.238 1650
AC

8 10.24671 6.44588 22.12959 24.74517 90.68333 56.12603 32.58167 322.6913 1497.918 2000

9 12.88497 6.27877 12.53497 24.9096 99.17857 55.87163 58.82768 325.2724 1700.85 2240

10 5.8648 6.55885 20.46651 24.67439 62.20355 59.09192 41.88076 326.2726 1830.551 2320
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

11 6.09875 6.38352 11.67942 24.89891 64.78666 59.16332 59.22787 327.1496 1719.673 2230

12 5.40077 6.33264 26.0977 22.47089 58.8666 59.59859 6.04923 317.9743 1867.511 2310

13 6.08033 6.30967 23.82334 13.66382 65.01448 60.21848 19.73281 254.4827 1830.552 2230

PT
14 12.15013 6.56139 15.53552 18.71977 102.667 63.10469 53.6836 297.8333 1682.711 2200

15 12.76657 11.93886 10.43806 15.66314 104.3896 90.81471 55.22262 270.7758 1608.797 2130

RI
16 10.23479 9.7097 25.85887 22.95018 93.8582 79.99439 4.55397 319.7561 1571.837 2070

SC
17 7.86434 6.06348 22.85622 23.5233 79.24147 57.85085 24.82972 322.3206 1645.757 2130

18 11.20279 7.06659 16.05863 24.01037 98.1273 64.35769 54.38962 314.2496 1608.876 2140

19 10.35128 8.0893 14.6179 24.00116

U
93.54131 70.32672 57.37932 297.6288 1721.124 2240
AN
20 8.56782 12.44091 15.79519 22.07413 83.00741 88.34804 56.42836 295.5726 1756.644 2280
M

21 5.77755 12.8233 20.55463 14.62809 62.06871 87.17505 41.55758 255.6014 1793.597 2240

22 7.73662 13.51486 18.62095 22.12093 77.61943 86.11261 49.13991 298.3293 1608.799 2120
D

23 9.08461 14.50171 21.42734 15.48146 86.42161 83.61007 36.71136 256.219 1387.038 1850
TE

24 10.0827 12.49874 15.2904 18.22729 91.94719 75.19615 57.60946 273.8886 1091.359 1590
EP

434

435 Table 9. Comparison of the obtained results for STHS problem without considering valve-point loading effect for
C

436 test system 1 by implementation of different optimization procedures

AC

Optimization method Best total cost ($)

IFEP [33] 933949.25

QEA [11] 930647.96

RCGA [28] 930565.242

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

DE [11] 928662.84

RCGA-AFSA [28] 927899.872

RQEA [11] 926068.33

MDE [25] 925960.56

PT
IPSO [26] 925978.84

MHDE [34] 925547.31

RI
DRQEA [11] 925485.21

IDE [15] 923016.29

SC
RCGA-RTVM [7] 917222.7357

The proposed RCGA- 891779.85087

U
IMM
AN
437

438 Table 10. Reservoir storage capacity limits, plant discharge limits, plant generation limits and reservoir initial and
M

439 end conditions of four hydro plants and three thermal plants
D

Plant j Vhj ,min Vhj ,max Vhj ,initial Vhj ,end Qhj ,min Qhj ,max Phj ,min Phj ,max
TE

1 80 150 100 120 5 15 0 500

EP

2 60 120 80 70 6 15 0 500

3 100 240 170 170 10 30 0 500

C

4 70 160 120 140 6 25 0 500

AC

440

441 Table 11. Power generation coefficients for hydro plants of four hydro plants and three thermal plants

Plant j C1 j C2 j C3 j C4 j C5 j C6 j
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 -0.0042 -0.42 0.030 0.90 10.0 -50

2 -0.0040 -0.30 0.015 1.14 9.5 -70

3 -0.0016 -0.30 0.014 0.55 5.5 -40

PT
4 -0.0030 -0.31 0.027 1.44 14.0 -90

442

RI
443 Table 12. Power generation coefficients for thermal plants of four hydro plants and three thermal plants

SC
Plant i ai bi ci di ei Psi,min Psi ,max

U
1 0.0012 2.45 100 160 0.038 20 175
AN
2 0.0010 2.32 120 180 0.037 40 300

3 0.0015 2.10 150 200 0.035 50 500

M

444
D

445 Table 13. Load demands hydrothermal system consisting of four hydro plants and three thermal plants
TE

Hour Load Hour Load Hour Load Hour Load

EP

1 750 7 950 13 1110 19 1070

2 780 8 1010 14 1030 20 1050

C

3 700 9 1090 15 1010 21 910

AC

4 650 10 1080 16 1060 22 860

5 670 11 1100 17 1050 23 850

6 800 12 1150 18 1120 24 800

446
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

447 Table 14. Obtained results for STHS problem (plant discharges, power outputs and total thermal generation) with

448 considering valve-point loading effect and transmission losses for test system 2

Ho Hydro Plant Discharge, 104 m3 Hydro Plant Power Generation, MW Thermal Thermal Thermal Total
ur Plant Plant Plant Genera

PT
Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4
Generatio Generatio Generatio tion,

n, MW n, MW n, MW MW

RI
1 6.37743 6.00008 16.36838 16.88107 64.67986 50.16451 57.72261 259.9276 145.4444 40.00416 139.7611 750

SC
2 6.47465 6.00562 16.74754 18.51321 65.96787 51.33307 58.10575 282.7608 154.3335 124.9065 50.00224 780

3 6.65385 6.08091 17.52977 18.79421 67.61477 53.46858 56.74281 286.4313 102.6784 69.91538 67.82496 700

U
4 7.08229 6.32644 17.68087 19.64261 70.79182 56.62133 55.70134 302.4671 78.21623 40.00248 50.00103 650
AN
5 7.3614 6.19864 18.14513 19.64294 72.48378 56.63275 53.89308 299.1018 102.3461 40.00165 50.00038 670
M

6 7.47982 6.79 18.2062 19.55093 73.19352 60.86416 53.47607 295.6187 102.6728 124.9082 94.97034 800

7 8.01064 6.58576 18.27643 19.45566 76.72666 59.16503 52.89467 293.0114 125.5652 124.9167 229.5199 950
D

8 8.21734 6.97337 18.49375 19.33601 78.24026 61.81355 51.5393 290.5287 100.8933 209.3435 229.4767 1010
TE

9 8.20969 7.11801 18.98934 19.19333 78.63163 63.22783 49.06533 288.5425 102.1793 124.7459 408.9078 1090
EP

10 8.54843 7.55677 19.44882 19.26309 81.31676 66.80864 46.37508 287.8293 174.3262 209.7808 229.5062 1080

11 8.74433 7.43615 20.13949 19.19365 83.21829 66.81574 42.39789 286.4192 110.4633 209.844 319.2888 1100
C

12 8.7409 7.72451 20.19244 19.33519 83.45011 68.79073 41.37932 286.3519 166.0814 123.3786 409.0326 1150
AC

13 8.67301 7.7226 20.32238 19.25244 83.46054 68.91551 40.801 285.5722 123.5062 124.9216 409.0437 1110

14 8.45721 7.59567 20.64482 19.30104 82.63507 68.79152 38.86092 286.0232 102.943 148.7476 319.2918 1030

15 8.63838 7.82576 20.20201 19.554 84.11774 70.80807 40.60181 288.1499 101.0771 123.0268 319.1691 1010
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

16 8.34012 8.24299 19.96243 19.87201 82.33652 73.25751 41.06056 290.3185 147.9804 209.8166 229.5188 1060

17 8.246 8.62745 19.54046 19.9765 81.76912 74.7252 42.3905 291.2837 133.9906 209.8198 229.5193 1050

18 8.28042 9.21143 18.93144 19.99857 81.97808 76.31555 44.49846 292.1175 110.8266 213.5507 319.2861 1120

PT
19 8.45449 9.54663 17.87515 19.9948 82.99656 76.68163 47.94236 292.324 102.6738 165.6359 319.2788 1070

20 7.95769 9.70948 16.56502 19.99016 79.39874 76.53609 51.81946 292.2677 123.5786 209.8188 229.5237 1050

RI
21 8.04425 9.9521 14.82492 19.9943 79.87369 77.17741 56.04942 291.7921 60.34359 124.9101 229.5195 910

SC
22 7.96863 13.5156 15.30696 19.99973 79.35539 87.65985 56.44835 290.6435 98.68668 114.1605 139.7546 860

23 9.91872 14.27571 15.77146 19.99966 91.1173 85.01692 56.45516 288.2786 850

U
20.00116 92.16244 225.8022

24 10.12031 14.97832 15.91105 19.99994 92.13955 80.91625 56.69063 284.3997 174.9996 43.25335 75.82713 800
AN
449
M

450 Table 15. Comparison of the obtained results for STHS problem with considering valve-point loading effect and

451 transmission losses for test system 2 by implementation of different optimization procedures
D

Optimization method Best total cost ($)

TE

MDE [25] 42611.14

EP

CSA [35] 42440.574

C

TLBO [36] 42386.13

AC

QOTLBO [36] 42187.49

ACABC [37] 41281.75

IDE [15] 40627.92

RCGA-RTVM [7] 40486.6676

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The proposed RCGA- 40483.26196

IMM

452

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

• RCGA-IMM is implemented for obtaining the optimal solution of STHS problem

• Valve-point impact of conventional thermal units is handled by STHS-IMM

PT
• Power transmission losses is considered in the formulation of the STHS problem

• The proposed optimization procedure has been implemented on two test system

RI
• The simulation results ensures the performance of RCGA-IMM in the solution of STHS

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC