Particle Swarm Optimisation for
Economic Dispatch with Cubic Fuel Cost Function
T.Adhinarayanan,
Research Scholar, EED,
National Institute of Technolog~ ,
Warangal-506004
India
Abstract: This paper presents an efficient and reliable particle
swarm optimisation (PSO) algorithm for solving the economic
dispatch (ED) problems with smooth cost functions as well as
cubic fuel cost functions. The practical ED problems have
nonsmooth cost functions with equality and inequality
constraints that make the problem of finding the global
optimum difficult using any mathematical approaches. For
such cases, the PSO is applied to the ED problems with real
power of generator in a system as state variables. However
when the incremental cost of each unit is assumed to be equal,
the complexity involved in this may be reduced by using the
Incremental cost as state variables. To show its efficiency and
effectiveness, the proposed PSO is applied to test one with
smooth cost functions and then with cubic fuel cost function.
The proposed PSO algorithm has been tested on 3 generator
systems with smooth cost functions and 3 generator systems, 5
generator systems and 26 generator systems with cubic fuel
cost function. The results are compared with Genetic algorithm
(GA) and shown better results and computation efficiency than
Genetic algorithm.
Index Terms: Economic dispatch (ED), Particle Swarm
Optimisation (PSO) and cubic fuel cost function.
I. INTRODUCTION
Economic dispatch (ED) problem is an optimisation
problem and its objective is to reduce the total generation
cost of units, while satisfying constraints. Previous efforts
on solving ED problems have employed various
mathematical programming methods and optimisation
techniques. These Conventional methods include traditional
lambda-iteration method, the base point and participation
factors method, and the gradient method [1], [2]. In these
methods, the fuel cost function is chosen to be of quadratic
form. However, the fuel cost function become more non-
linear when the actual response is considered such as cubic
fuel cost function in which the Incremental cost function is
quadratic function. Furthermore, for a large-scale generating
system, the conventional method has oscillatory problem
resulting in a longer solution time. Unlike traditional
algorithms, dynamic programming (DP) imposes no
restrictions on the nature of the cost curves and therefore it
can solve ED problems with inherently nonlinear and
discontinuous cost curves. This method, however suffers
from the "curse of dimensionality" or local optimality
[1],[2].
In order to make the numerical methods more
convenient for solving ED problems, artificial intelligence
techniques, such as the Hopfield neural networks, have been
successfully employed to solve ED problems for units with
piecewise quadratic fuel cost functions and prohibited zones
1-4244-0549-1/06/$20.00 (2006 IEEE.
Maheswarapu Sydulu,
Professor & Head, EED,
National Institute of Technology,
Warangal-506004
India
[3], [4]. However an unsuitable sigmoidal function adopted
in the Hopfield model may suffer from excessive numerical
iterations, resulting in huge calculations.
In the past decade, a global optimisation technique
known as genetic algorithm (GA) or simulated annealing
(SA), which is a form of probabilistic heuristic algorithm,
has been successfully used to solve power optimisation
problems such as feeder reconfiguration and capacitor
placement in a distribution system [1], [9] [11]. The GA
method is usually faster than SA method because the GA
has parallel search techniques, which emulate natural
genetic operations. Due to its high potential for global
optimisation, GA has received a great attention in solving
ED problems. Though the GA methods have been employed
successfully to solve complex optimisation problems, recent
research has identified some deficiencies in GA
performance. This degradation in efficiency is apparent in
applications with highly epistatic objective functions (i.e.,
where the parameters being optimized are highly correlated)
[the crossover and mutation operations cannot ensure better
fitness offspring because chromosomes in the population
have similar structures and their average fitness is high
toward the end of the evolutionary process] [15], [21].
Moreover the premature convergence of GA degrades its
performance and reduces its search capability that leads to a
higher probability toward obtaining a local optimum [15].
The original PSO mechanism is directly applicable to
the problems with the continuous domain and without any
constraints. Therefore, it is necessary to revise the original
PSO to reflect the equality/inequality constraints of the
variables in the process of modifying each individual's
search. Zwe-Lee Gaing [20] proposed a PSO method for
solving the ED problem considering the Generator power
output of each unit as a individual, and many individuals
comprises a particle and the evaluation function is taken as
the reciprocal of the generation cost function and power
balance constraint to speed up convergence. Jong-Bae Park
et.al [21] suggested a modified PSO to solve ED problems
with nonsmooth cost functions, which focuses on the
treatment of the equality and inequality constraints when
modifying each individual's search. Additionally, to
accelerate the convergence speed, a dynamic search space
reduction strategy was devised based on the distance
between the group and the inequality boundaries. The main
advantages of the PSO algorithm are summarized as: simple
concept, easy implementation, robustness to control
parameters, and computational efficiency when compared
with mathematical algorithm and other heuristic
optimisation techniques.
 Since the algorithm inception, two notable improvements
on the initial PSO have been introduced which attempt to
strike a balance between two conditions. The first
introduced by Eberhart and shi uses an extra "inertia
weight" term which is used to scale down the velocity of
each particle and this term is typically decreased linearly
throughout a run [17]. The second version introduced by
Clerc involves a "constriction factor" in which the entire
right side of the formula is weighted by a coefficient.
Clerc's generalized particle swarm model allows an infinite
number of ways in which balance between exploration and
convergence can be controlled. In this paper, an efficient
and reliable PSO method is applied to the ED problems with
cubic fuel cost unction. In this proposed technique, the
incremental cost is used as state variable (individual) in each
particle that reduces the complexity in both dimension and
checking inequality and equality constraints in each state
variable of a particle at each stage.
II. FORMULATION OF ED PROBLEM
A. ED problem with Smooth Cost Functions
The ED problem is to find the optimal combination of
power generation that minimizes the total generation cost
while satisfying equality and inequality constraints. The
most simplified cost function of each generator can be
represented as a quadratic cost function of each generator
can be represented as a quadratic function as given in (2)
n In PSO, each individual makes his decision using his own
Minimise FT= X Fi (Pi) (1)
i=1
Fi(Pi)=ai+biPi+ciP2 (2)
Where
FT Total fuel cost (S/hr);
Fi (Pi) Fuel cost of unit i
where i=1,2,...k.
ai, bi, ci Fuel cost coefficients of unit i
Pi Power generation of unit i(MW)
While minimizing the total generation cost, the total
generation should be equal to the total system demand plus
the transmission network loss. However, the network loss is
not considered in this paper for simplicity. This gives the
equality constraint
n +C2*rand2*(Gbestk_Xik)]
X Pj PD (3)
i=1
Where PD is the total system demand.
The generation output of each unit should be between its
minimum and maximum limits. That is, the following
inequality constraint for each generator should be satisfied
Pimin Pi Pimax
< < (4)
k-Ti
Where Pimin and Pimax - the minimum and maximum
Power output of ith unit.
B. ED problem with cubicfuel cost functions
Representation of generator fuel cost curves by polynomials
in real-time economic dispatch is standard practice in the
industry and it shows a great influence on the accuracy of
the economic dispatch solution. The rough approximation of
the generator cost function makes the ED solution deviated
from the optimality ref.. ED solution can be improved by
introducing higher order generator cost functions. Cubic
cost function models more accurately the actual response of
thermal generators. The cubic fuel cost function is described
as
Fi(Pi)=ai+biPi+cP7i2+diPi (5)
Where ai, bi, ci, di are the fuel cost coefficients of unit i.
III. OVERVIEW OF PSO
Kennedy and Eberhart [16] developed a PSO algorithm
based on the behavior of individuals (i.e., particles or
agents) of a swarm. Its roots are in zoologist's modeling of
the movement of individuals (e.g., fishes, birds, or insects)
within a group. It has been noticed that members within a
group seem to share information among them, a fact that
leads to increased efficiency of the group [17]. The PSO
algorithm searches in parallel using a group of individuals
similar to other Al-based heuristic optimisation techniques
[15].
experience together with other individuals' experiences
[17]. The algorithm, which is based on a metaphor of social
interaction, searches a space by adjusting the trajectories of
moving points in a multidimensional space. The individual
particles are drawn stochastically toward the position of
present velocity of each individual, their own previous best
performance, and the best previous performance of
neighbors. In a physical n-dimensional search space, the
position and velocity of individual i are represented as the
vectors Xi = (xi,, ... x in), and Vi (v ii, ....,v in), respectively,
in the PSO algorithm. Let Pbest i (x i1pbestI.....,x in pbest),
and Gbest = (x il Gbest ... X in Gbest), respectively, be the best
position of individual i and its neighbors' best position so
far. Using the information, the updated velocity of
individual I is given as the following equation in the PSO
algorithm:
V kil = *[w* Vki + C*randl *(Pbest ik _Xik)
(6)
Where
V[i] velocity of individual i
x constriction factor
w weight parameters
C1, C2 weight factors.
randl, rand2 random numbers between 0 and 1
xik position of individual i until iteration k
Pbestik best position of individual i until iteration
k
GbeSt k best position of the group until iteration k.
Each individual moves from the current position to the one V. RESULTS
by the modified velocity in (6) using the following equation: The above algorithm is first applied to an ED problem with
kXi k k+1 3 generators [5] with the quadratic cost functions and then to
X, =Xi +V1 (7)
3 generators [5], 5 generators [8] and 26 generators [7] with
cubic fuel cost function for the system demand
IV. PROPOSED ALGORITHM respectively as 850 MW, 2500MW, 1800MW and
2000MW. Table II shows the comparison of the results from
The Incremental cost of the generating unit is taken as the Proposed PSO (PPSO), MPSO [21] and NM[5]. As seen in
individual in Particle of PSO. Table II, the PPSO has provided the global solution with a
STEP1: Initialize the population size and number of very high probability, exactly satisfying the equality and
iterations inequality constraints.
STEP2:Generate the position of particles (Particle[i])
randomly between the 7imin and 7imax. Table-I Quadratic Cost function coeffiecients of 3 units
STEP3: Generate the particle velocities (v[i]) randomly system [5]
between -Vmax and Vmax
Where Vmax = (7max- kimin)/Na Unit 1 2 3
7max maximum value of incremental cost ai 561.00 310.00 78.00
among all units j. bi 7.92 7.85 7.97
7imin minimum value of incremental cost ci 0.001562 0.001940 0.004820
among all units j. Pimin 150.00 100.00 50.00
Pimax 600.00 400.00 200.00
Na = Number of intervals.
STEP4: Calculate power of each unit by using the following
equation Table -II Results for 3 units system
(i) Pb] = (particle[i]-acj])/j3U] for smooth Unit NM MPSO PPSO
cost 1 393.170 393.170 393.169
Functions and 2 334.604 334.604 334.603
(ii) PD] = (-P3[] +tl)/(2*y[j]) for cubic fuel 3 122.226 122.226 122.226
cost functions Total power 850.00 850.00 850.00
Where (TP) [MW]
Total Cost 8194.35 8194.35 8194.34
tl= (P3i] A2 4* y[j]*(Uj]- particle[i])
-
(TC) [$]
i = 1 to n particles,
j = I to m units,
Table-III Cubic Cost function coeffiecients of 3 units
Pt] = Real power of generating unit j, System [5]
c4j]), P3j], yt] = coefficients of Incremental cost of
unit j. Unit 1 2 3
Check limits of P[j], ai 749.55 1285 1531
If (Pj] > Pmax[j]) then Pt] PmaxUj] bi T 6.95 7.05 6.531
If (Pj] < Pmin[j]) then Pt] Pmin[j] ci 9.68e-4 7.375e-4 1.04e-3
Where Pmin[j] lower limits of unit j, di 1.27e-7 6.453e-8 9.98e-8
Pimin 320 300 275
Pmax[j] upper limits of unit j. Pimax - 800 1200 1100
STEP5: Calculate Pgen[i] by summation of Pb] for all units
j and Calculate error[i] = Pgen[i]- PD Table - IV Results for 3 units system
Where Pgen[i] Total Generated power of Particle i,
PD Power demand. Unit GA PPSO
STEP6: Evaluate the fitness function of each particle i and 1 725.02 724.99
compare evaluation with particles previous best 2 910.19 910.15
values. If the current value is less than the previous 3 864.88 864.85
Total power 2500.00 2500.00
best value, then set the best value to the current (TP) [MW]
value. Total Cost 22730.14 22729.35
STEP7: Determine the current global minimum among the (TC) [$]
particles personal best positions.
STEP8: Compare the current global position to the previous Table V Cost function coefficients of 5 units system [8]
-

global position. If current global position is less

than the previous global position, then set global Unit 1 2 3 4
position to current global position. ai 749.55 1285 1531 749.55 1285
STEP9: Update the velocity by using (6) bi 6.95 7.05 6.531 6.95 7.05
ci 9.68e-4 7.375e-4 1.04e-3 9.68e-4 7.375e-4
STEP 10: Update the position of particle di 1.27e-7 6.453e-8 9.98e-8 1.27e-7 6.453e-8
STEP 11: Calculate the real power of each unit i from the Pimin 320 300 275 320 300
updated position of particle and check the power Pimax 800 1200 1100 800 1200
limits.
STEP 12: Repeat steps 2 to 11 until the termination
conditions reached.
 Table-VI Results for 5 units system REFERENCES
[1] A. Bakirtzis, V. Petridis, and S. Kazarlis, "Genetic economic
Unit GA PPSO dispatch problem," proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. Gen. Transm. Dist.,
1 320.00 320.00 vol.141, no. 4, pp. 377- 382, July 1994.
2 343.74 343.70 [2] F. N. Lee and A. M. Breipohl, "Reserve constrained economic
3 472.60 472.60 dispatch with prohibited zones," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.8,
4 320.00 320.00 pp.246-254, Feb. 1993.
5 343.74 343.70 [3] C.-T Su and G.-J Chiou, "A fast-computation Hopfield method to
TP 1800.00 1800.00 economic dispatch of power systems," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
TC 18611.07 18610.40 12,pp. 1759-1764, Nov. 1997.
[4] T. Yalcinoz and M. J. Short, "Neural networks approach for solving
economic dispatch problem with transmission capacity constraints,"
Table-VII Results for 26 units system [7] IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, pp. 307-313, May 1998.
[5] A.J Wood and B.F Wollenberg, "Power generation, operation, and
Unit GA PPSO control," 2nd ed., John Wiley and sons, 1996.
1 2.40 2.40 [6] Maheswarapu Sydulu, "A very fast and effective non-iterative "X-
2 2.40 2.40 logic based" algorithm for economic dispatch of thermal units,"
3 2.40 2.40 Proc. IEEE Tencon Int conf, vol. 2, pp. 1434 - 1437, Sept. 1999.
4 2.40 2.40 [7] Young- Hyun Moon, Jeong- Do Park, Yong- Hoon Lee, and Tae-
5 2.40 2.40 shik Lee, "A new economic dispatch algorithm for thermal unit
6 4.00 4.00 generation scheduling in power systems," Proc. IEEE Power Eng.
7 4.00 4.00 Soc. Winter Meeting, vol. 2, pp.1034-1039, Jan 2000.
8 4.00 4.00 [8] Giridhar Kumaran and V.S.R.K. Mouly, "Using evolutionary
computation to solve economic load dispatch problem," Pro. Cong.
9 4.00 4.00 Evol. Comput., pp.296-301, May2001.
10 15.20 15.20 [9] D. C. Walters and G. B. Sheble, "Genetic algorithm solution of
11 15.20 15.20 economic dispatch with valve point loading," IEEE Trans. Power
12 15.20 15.20 Syst., vol. 8, pp. 1325-1332, Aug. 1993.
13 15.20 15.20 [10] K. P. Wong and Y. W. Wong, "Genetic and genetic/simulated
14 25.00 25.00 annealing approaches to economic dispatch," proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.,
15 25.00 25.00 pt. C, vol.141, no. 5, pp. 507- 513, Sept. 1994.
16 25.00 25.00 [11] G. B. Sheble and K. Brittig, "Refined genetic algorithm Economic
17 129.71 129.69 dispatch example," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, pp. 117-124,
18 124.71 124.69 Feb. 1995.
19 120.42 120.40 [12] P.-H. Chen and H.-C. Chang, "Large-Scale economic dispatch by
20 116.72 116.70 genetic algorithm," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, pp. 1919-
21 68.95 68.95 1926, Nov. 1995.
22 68.95 68.95 [13] C. C. Fung, S. Y. Chow, and K. P. Wong, "Solving the economic
23 68.95 68.95 dispatch problem with an integrated parallel genetic algorithm," in
24 337.76 337.85 Pro. Powercon Int Conf, vol.3, 2000, pp. 1257-1262.
25 400.00 400.00 [14] T. Yalcinoz, H. Altun and M. Uzam, "Economic dispatch solution
using a genetic algorithm based on arithmetic crossover," in Pro.
26 400.00 400.00 IEEE Proto Power Tech Conf, proto Portugal, Sept. 2001.
TP 2000.00 2000.00 [15] K. S. Swarup and S.Yamashiro, "Unit commitment solution
TC 27671.2441 27671.2276 methodology using genetic algorithm," IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 17, pp. 87-91, Feb. 2002.
[16] J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, "Particle swarm optimisation," Pro.
IEEE Int. Con.fNeural Networks., vol. IV, pp. 1942-1948,1995.
VI. CONCLUSION [17] Y. Shi and R.Eberhart, "A modified particle swarm optimisation,"
Pro. IEEEInt. Conf Evol. Comput., pp. 69-73, May 1998.
This paper presents a new approach to ED problems [18] Y. Shi and R.Eberhart, "Empirical study of particle swarm
with cubic fuel cost functions based on the PSO algorithm optimisation," Pro. Cong. Evol. Comput., NJ, 1999, pp. 1945-1950.
and its efficiency is tested with smooth cost functions. The [19] R.C.Eberhart and Y.Shi, "Comparison between genetic algorithms
proposed PSO has provided the global solution satisfying and particle swarm optimisation," Pro. IEEE Int. Conf Evol.
Comput., pp. 611-616, May 1998.
the constraints with a very high probability for the ED [20] Zwe- Lee Gaing, "Particle swarm optimisation to solving the
problems with both smooth cost functions and cubic fuel economic dispatch considering the generator constraints," IEEE
cost functions. For the ED problems with smooth cost Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, pp. 1187-1195, Aug. 2003.
functions, the proposed PSO has provided the global [21] Jong-Bae Park, Ki-song Lee, Joong-Rin Shin, and Kwang Y.Lee, "A
particle swarm optimisation for economic dispatch with nonsmooth
solution for 3 generator system For the ED problems with cost functions," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20, pp. 34-42, Feb.
cubic fuel cost functions, the proposed PSO has also 2005.
provided the global solution with a high probability for 3
generator system, 5 generator system and 26 generator
systems. For the above test systems, PSO shows better
results than GA method and can obtain high probability
solution with better computation efficiency.