International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)

ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-4, November 2019

GWO-SA: A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf

Optimizer-Simulated Annealing algorithm for
Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Problems
Vikram Kumar Kamboj

 power generating unit and throughout a day the load demand

Abstract: The improved variants of Grey wolf optimizer has varies with different peak values [2]. So, its need to resolve
good exploration capability for global optimum solution. which unit to turn on and when it is required in the network
However, the exploitation competence of the existing variants of of power system and the arrangement or order in which the
grey wolf optimizer is very poor. Researchers are continuously generation unit should be kept in shut down condition by
trying to improve the exploitation phase of the existing grey wolf taken consideration of the effectiveness of the cost for
optimizer, but still the improved variants of grey wolf optimizer
shutting down and turning on of the respective generating
are lacking in local search capability. In the proposed research,
unit. The complete process of making these decisions is
the exploitation phase of the existing grey wolf optimizer has
been further improved using simulated annealing algorithm and
known as unit commitment (UC) [3].
the proposed hybrid optimizer has been named as hGWO-SA
algorithm. The effectiveness of the proposed hybrid variant has II. LITERATURE SURVEY
been tested for various benchmark problems including Optimization is vast area of research in which research is
multi-disciplinary optimization and design engineering
going on very fast. The researchers are doing continues work
problems and unit commitment problem of electric power system
and it has been experimentally found that the proposed optimizer
on different problems in order to implement various
performs much better than existing variants of grey wolf techniques for the solution of different problems and are able
optimizer. The feasibility of hGWO-SA algorithm has been tested to find the solutions successfully. The work is going on to
for small & medium scale power systems unit commitment find the new algorithms and also the hybrid forms of the
problem. In which, the results for 4 unit, 5 unit, 6 unit, 7 unit, 10 algorithms to mitigate any drawbacks in the exiting
units, 19 unit, 20 unit, 40 unit and 60 units are evaluated. The techniques. Some of these research paper includes Adaptive
10-generating units are evaluated with 5% and 10% spinning gbest-Guided Search Algorithm (AGG), The Ant Lion
reserve. The results obviously show that the suggested method Optimizer, Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) algorithm,
gives the superior type of solutions as compared to other Branch and Bound, Bat Algorithm (BA), Human Group
algorithms. Optimizer (HGO), Seeker Optimization Algorithm (SOA),
Stochastic Fractal Search, Symbiotic Organisms Search
Keywords: Economic Load Dispatch (ELD), Harris Hawks
(SOS), Salp Swarm Algorithm (SSA), Search Group
Optimizer, meta-heuristics, Unit Commitment Problem (UCP).
Algorithm (SGA), Teaching-Learning-Based Optimization
(TLBO), Tabu Search (TS), Virus Colony Search (VCS),
I. INTRODUCTION
Wind Driven Optimization (WDO), Water Cycle Algorithm
In recent years the power system is categorized by highly (WCA), Water Wave Optimization (WWO), Weighted
nonlinear, large extents and highly interconnected as the size Superposition Attraction (WSA), Whale Optimization
of the power system is increasing day by day due to the heavy Algorithm (WOA). In the field of Unit Commitment, the first
load demand of the power in all sector like residential, paper was presented by Baldwin’s [2] in 1959 which is one of
agriculture, industrial and commercial sector. Due to the the considerable research work in the part of unit
increasing tendencies in deregulation, electricity demand commitment problem. According to different types of
and privatization, the impact of overloading happen on methodologies, overview of some another research work is
electricity grids. In this situation the requires development of given below: R.H. Kerr et al. [1] have enlarged the necessity
electrical grid as same step as the increase of demand but of unit commitment in the power system and various aspects
economical generation commitment and scheduling has the of unit commitment problem to solve it for single area power
capability to control the power demand which is system. Also, K. Hara et al. [52] have designated scheduling
time-varying and led to exploitation of accessible grid [1]. In method for thermal power system. Operational cost of the
recent trends modern power systems have several sources of power generating unit and the reliability of the unit are
power generating stations including thermal power considered as overall cost function of the unit. G.S. Lauer et
generating unit, hydro power generating unit and nuclear al. [53] have discussed regarding large-scale unit
commitment problems. Lee et al. [3] have taken care about
Revised Manuscript Received on November 15, 2019 some current problems related to industry. Those problems
* Correspondence Author are related with operators of electrical power utility such as
Dr. Vikram Kumar Kamboj *, Domain of Power Systems, School of production cost, uncertainty of loads and face the obstacles
Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Lovely Professional University, Punjab,
INDIA. related to operational
constraints. Snyder et al. [54]
Special Edition: ICAREST 2019, Brussels, Belgium (icarest-04-114)

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1279 & Sciences Publication
 GWO-SA: A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing algorithm for Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization Problems

developed a heuristic technique to minimize the execution suggested approach. Tseng et al. [72] and Ongsakul et al.
time for Large-Scale Power Systems. Nieva et al. [55] have [73] presented de-commitment method as the process of post
worried with thermal power generating unit commitment unit commitment is used to decrease the extreme spinning
problem. Results are explained for large and complex type of reserve. This is caused by using the Lagrangian relaxation
UCP. A.I. Cohen et al. [56] have characterized a novel method. It was used to regulate the schedule of unit
technique to solve UCP including fuel constraints. This commitment of a system which containing power generating
method is applicable for Energy Management Systems units having identical or similar characteristics of cost. This
applications. A novel method has discussed by Lee [57] for heuristic type of de-commitment method was collective with
short term thermal unit commitment. The proposed the method of Lagrangian relaxation method. This technique
algorithm has developed has been verified with acceptable is used to improve cost minimization. Tseng et al. [74]
results. In the unit commitment horizon, computation time of discussed a method of de-commitment. This technique is
the technique is almost linear in nature with number of efficient, quickly approach and reliable to solve the problem
hours. Also Hobbs et al. [58] approached a novel technique of UCP. This research paper does not include the ramp
which is useful to implement in online Energy Management constraints of the unit. Li et al. [75] have presented a new
System. Outputs are used to discuss about the benefits of this method of unit commitment on a de-commitment procedure
novel algorithm. In large scale electrical power system to to solve the resource of scheduling problem in power system.
solve long-term unit commitment problem and to overcome Comparisons of propose method with LR technique and SUC
this type of defect, Aoki et al. [59] implemented a novel established the benefits the suggested approach for power
algorithm for dual maximization which is based on variable system planning and operations. S. H. Hosseini, et al. [76]
metric method. Tong et al. [60] designed a novel method to implement a new method based on fast straight forward (SF).
determine the UC schedule which drives under fuel This new method decompose the unit commitment problem
utilization constraints. Mathematical results are presented in into three types of sub-problems. The quadratic cost
the research paper to describe the practicality and usefulness functions of units are linear. The hourly optimal solution of
of the suggested method. Chowdhury et al. [61] proposed a UC obtain including all constraints except minimum down
scheduling method for continuously changing load for a time and minimum up time. De-commitment algorithm is
specified period in interconnected power system. Handschin useful to minimize the extra spinning reserve. K. Chandram,
et al. [62] discussed about a new technique for unit et al. [77] designed IPPD and Secant method to solve UCP. It
commitment consider the energy constraints which are is useful for those unit which have low incremental cost. The
obtained from long term optimization problem. Hussain [63] problem is included two sub problems, first one is the on/off
has implemented some limitations against various scheduling of the unit and second one is economic dispatch
constraints of existing unit commitment program. Those problem. When 0-1 status of the unit information can obtain
limitations were solved by applying a simple techniques [63]. from IPPD table. After that optimal solution can be achieved
Ma et al. [64] have proposed an algorithm which is effective by Secant method. Guan et. al [78] discussed that LR method
in nature including voltage constraints and reactive power in is one of the most successful approaches. Poommalee et al.
unit commitment. Modified IEEE 30 bus system was [79] implemented UCP including the security-constrained
implemented to establish the efficacy of this method. Burns optimal power flow by using Lagrangian relaxation with
et al. [65] recommended about a dynamic priority list which genetic algorithm. A. Merlin et al. [80] discussed a new
are varied by the load demand of the system. Tingfan and application to solve UCP by LR method. Various
Ting [189] implemented a new methodology of priority list to development survey to make the method more flexible like
solve the problem related to drawback including low continuously management of pumping unit and problematic
efficiency predictable priority lists. Lee et al. [66][67] decision of spinning reserve. A new solution to conventional
implemented the priority list which is based upon CUF and problem can easily solved by LR method. R. Nieva, et al. [55]
associated with average cost including the full load. Shoults presented a method to solve complex and very large unit
et al. [68] included the average start-up cost, in addition to commitment problem. The novel method give a solution of
the average full load cost, in the determination of a unit sub optimality which indicate the nearest value of the
priority list for multi-area unit commitment with area solution to the optimum. In difference with LR technique the
import/export constraints. In 2003, T. Senjyu, et al. [69] approaches don’t create any effort to maximize the dual
presented EPL method which consists of two steps. The function. F. Zhuang, et al. [81] offered an Lagrangian
primary unit commitment schedules are formed by priority Relaxation method to solve the problem of large scale. The
list method and after that improved by using the specific algorithm include three type of phases. First one is the
heuristics problem and fulfill the generating unit. The Lagrangian dual for the UCP which is exploited with the
Economic Dispatch is achieved only on the reasonable standard sub gradient techniques, second one is that to find
schedules. In 2006, T. Senjyu, et al. [70] suggested SPL dual solution with reserve feasibility and the last one is
method. Initially unit commitment schedules are generated performed by economic load dispatch. S. Virmani et al. [82]
by priority based window system which is stochastic in approached a paper in which they deliver the practical
nature. Some specific heuristics are used to decrease aspects of the Lagrangian Relaxation methodology to solve
computational time and search space. Lee [71] have offered, the thermal unit commitment problem. R. Baldick [83]
a novel method approach to determine the about priority proposed unit commitment problem in the generalized way
order for thermal UCP. It improved the performance in and after that it solved by
priority-order- based model. In this research work,
mid-western type utility system is applied to demonstrate the

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1280 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-4, November 2019

Total production price is the additional summation of fuel

cost, start-up cost & shutdown cost, which expressed as
using Lagrangian Relaxation method. The novel method follows:
present the approximate solution of the dual optimization H N
technique. This algorithm which was slow to solve special min(TFC )   Fcos t n ( Pnt )  SUCn ,t  SDCnt  (1)
cases of generalized problem in unit commitment than the t 1 n 1
algorithms established by some other authors. The The overall power generation cost fuel cost for thermal
methodology has been verified for ten generating units over a generating units over the given time horizon ‘t’ is given as:
TFC  t 1  n1 [ Fcos t U n,t  SUCn,t (1  U n,(t 1) )  Un,t ] (2a)
time period of 24 hours. W.L. Peterson, et al. [84] presented T NU
a Lagrange Relaxation to integrate the unit with minimum
capacity and the constrains include unit ramp rate. The
TFC  t 1  n1 [( An Pn2  Bn Pn  Cn ) U n,t  SUCn,t (1  U n,(t 1) )  Un,t ]
proposed method is used to find out a possible schedule of T NU
unit commitment including ramp constraints. This algorithm
includes other types of practical structures such as the (2b)
characteristics of boiler fire-up and the sequences of ramp up Here, Fuel cost Fcos tn ( Pnt ) is expressed as the quadratic
which is non-linear in nature. A. G. Bakirtzis et al. [85] calculation which is largely employed by the researchers, it is
implemented the difference of UCP related with economic also termed as an equation for the convex shaped function.
clarification of the framework using LR solution and the The equation for operating fuel cost of the unit (n), at time
lambda values include the economic dispatch. Here two sets hour (t) may be mathematically expressed as follows:
of lambda are applied to solve LR on UCP which indicate the
Fcost  Pn   An Pn2  Bn Pn  Cn
actual marginal cost of the electricity. From the two sets of
Lambda the first one is allotted as a Lagrange multiplier for (3)
the power balance equations on UCP and the second one is Where An Bn and Cn are cost coefficients which has
used as the Lagrange multiplier for the equation of power
balance in case of ELD problems. W. P. Ongsakul, et al. [86] conveniently expressed in $ / h , $ / MWh , and.
2
discussed an enhanced adaptive Lagrangian relaxation $ / MWh respectively.
(ALR). Enhanced LR method consists of adaptive LR and The Start-up cost is warmth-dependent. It can be
heuristic search. Adaptive Lagrangian relaxation is mathematically expressed by the step function as:
improved by familiarizing with new 0-1 decisions and after
that the best possible scheduling can obtain from Adaptive  HSU n ; for TnDW  TnUP  (TnDW  TnCOLD )
Lagrangian relaxation method. In case of scheduling the SUCn,t  
CSU n ; for Tn  (Tn  Tn )
UP DW COLD
heuristic search algorithm is applied to fine tune of
scheduling. The total production costs of the system are fewer
(n  NU ; t  1, 2,3,...,T )
to solve the large scale problem of the system. The time for
computation is much more less with compared to the others (4)
methods. D. Murtaza, et al. [87] proposed a new algorithm The Shutdown cost the usual value in the standard systems is
for scheduling of UCP using the LR method including zero. But it can also be deemed as a cost that is fixed
transmission losses. The two stages of LR method was represented as:
provided for faster calculation. To obtain the better type of SDCnt = KPnt
convergence, first one include the conventional LR method (5)
in order to regulate the scheduling of UCP ignoring the Here K is the incremental shut-down cost of thermal
transmission losses. Virmani et al. [88] implemented the real generating units and subjected to the following constraints:
aspects of Lagrangian Relaxation methodology to solve the 1) System Constraints
problem of thermal unit commitment. The No Free Lunch 2) Unit Constraints
(NFL) theorem has logically suggested that none of the
meta-heuristics search algorithm is fit for all kind of 3.1 System Constraints
optimization problems [89]. Inspired by this motivation [43], The constraints which are related to every unit present in the
the research proposal to develop hybrid search algorithm by system is known as system constraints. Generally, system
combining local search and global search algorithm to solve constraints are categorised into two types which are:-
unit commitment problem of electric power system has been
taken into consideration. Power Balance Constraints
As per power balance constraint, the total generated power of
III. PROBLEM FORMULATION each committed units must meet the power demand of that
The distribution of the generating power along with the particular area including transmission losses and
scheduling of electric utilities must be scheduled in such a mathematically represented as:
NU
way that it will satisfy the load requirement for a particular  Pn,t Un,t PDn
time span’s known as (UCP) Unit Commitment Problem. n1
(6)
The major aim of the Unit Commitment problem over a
scheduling horizon is minimizing the overall or total
production cost lay open to the unit & system constraints.

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1281 & Sciences Publication
 GWO-SA: A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing algorithm for Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization Problems

Spinning Reserve Constraints INSn = Initial status of nth unit at‘t’ hours
The spinning Reserve requirement for thermal generating TnOFF
,t = Initial off status of nth unit at‘t’ hours
units can be mathematically given as: TnON = Initial on status of nth unit at‘t’ hours
,t
NU

,t Un ,t  PDt  SRt .

 PnMAX TnUP = Time for which the n th unit is in upstate
n1 (7)
TnDW = Time for which the n th unit is in down state
3.2 Unit Constraints
The Constraints which are related to particular units present SRt = Spinning reserve requirement
in the system are known as unit constraints given as below: Tn COLD
= Cold start hour for n th unit
3.2.1 Thermal constraints NP = Number of population;
The thermal generating units consists of the following t = Number of hour;
NU = Number of generators
important unit constraints:
3.2.2 Minimum Up Time
The minimum up time of each unit must be conserved and IV. METHODOLOGY
can be mathematically given as:
As per the existing grey wolf optimizer, the various steps
,t  Tn
TnON UP (8)
of (i) searching for prey, (ii) approaching towards prey, (iii)
3.2.3 Minimum Down Time encircling of prey and (iv) attacking towards prey can be
The minimum down time of each units must be taken into mathematically represented as:
account as per the following relation:
D  C.XPr ey (iter)  XGWolf (iter)
TnOFF
,t  TnDW (9) ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘
(11)
‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ ‘ ‘
XGWolf (iter  1)  X Pr ey (iter)  A.D
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘‘
3.2.4 Maximum and Minimum Power Limits (12)
The power generated by each generating units must be within ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘
A  2a.1  a ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
its minimum and maximum allowable rating and can be
mathematically represented as: ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ ‘(13)
C  2.2 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
PnMIN  Pn,t  PnMAX
(10) ‘ ‘‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘(14)
DAlpha  abs(C1.X Alpha  X) ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
3.2.5 Initial Status of Power Generating Units ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ ‘‘‘ ‘(15a)
The initial status of each power generating units must be
X1  X Alpha  A1.DAlpha ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
taken into account including minimum up and down time of
power generating units. ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ ‘ ‘ (15b)
3.2.6 Crew Constraints DBeta  abs(C2 .XBeta  X) ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
If a power plant consists of two or more similar kind of (16a)
generating units, it cannot be turned on at the same time due ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ ‘
X2  XBeta  A2 .DBeta ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
to shortage of enough crew members to operate the generated
units. ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ ‘ ‘(16b)
3.2.7 Unit Availability Constraints DDelta  abs(C3 .XDelta  X) ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
This constraint indicates the availability of the unit among
‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ ‘(17a)
any of the following diverse conditions: X3  XDelta  A3 .DDelta ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
A) Available or Not Available ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ ‘(17b)
B) Outage/Must Out
(X  X 2  X 3 )
C) Must Run X(iter  1)  1
3 ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘
Here, (18)
Fcos tn ( Pnt ) = Fuel Cost of particular unit (n th unit) at ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘
In the proposed hGWO-SA algorithm, the position vector X
particular hour (‘t’ hours) of eqn. (18) has been further updated using simulated
SDCnt = Shut down cost of nth generating unit at ‘t’ hours annealing algorithm. The PSEUDO code of simulated
annealing algorithm has been given in Fig.1.
PnMAX
,t = Maximum power generated by n th unit The exploration phase of proposed algorithm for attacking
PnMIN = Minimum power generated by n th unit and searching for prey can be diagrammatically represented
in Fig.1(a) and Fig.1(b).
SUCn,t = Start-up Cost of nth generating unit at ‘t’ hours
Pn,t = Power generated by nth unit at‘t’ hours
PDt = Power Demand at‘t’ hours

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1282 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-4, November 2019

Fig. 1(a) Fig.1(b)

Fig.1(a)-(b): Attack and search for prey

Fig. 2. PSEUDO code of Simulated algorithm

Fig. 4. Flow chart of proposed hGWO-SA

algorithm
Fig. 3. PSEUDO code of proposed hGWO-SA algorithm A. Flow chart of proposed algorithm
*In the proposed hybrid algorithm, the final position ‘of
In order to solve the unit commitment problem of electric
(X  X 2  X3 )
search agents i.e. X(iter  1)  1 is further power system, the steps shown in Fig.5 can be used.
3
explored in the neighbor search space using steps of
simulated annealing algorithm as per PSEUDO code of
Fig.3 and updated position of search agents is used to
calculate the alpha, beta and delta score.

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1283 & Sciences Publication
 GWO-SA: A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing algorithm for Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization Problems

Fig.7(c). PSEUDO code for spinning reserve repairing

START

CALCULATE ON AND OFF TIME OF

ALL PARTICIPATING UNITS

t=1:T

g=1:G

u gt  0 u gt 1  1 YES
set u gt  1
Tgt,ON
1
 MUTg

NO

Fig .5. Flowchart of Entire Process of commitment using

hGWO-SA u gt  0 u gt 1  1 g=g+1
t  MDTg  1  T
YES
B. PSEUDO Code to Repair Spinning Reserve, set u gt  1
t  MDTg 1
Minimum down tine, Minimum up time, Constraints Tg ,OFF  MDTg
To satisfying minimum up and downtime a heuristic repair
t=t+1
mechanism is adopted whose steps are mentioned as below in
Fig. 6(a) to Fig.6(b). NO

u gt  0, u gt 1  1 YES
set ugt  1
t  MDTg  1  T

NO
YES

g<N

YES
t<T
Fig. 6(a). PSEUDO code for Minimum up and down Time
constraints handling
STOP

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1284 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-4, November 2019

Fig. 6(b). Flowchart to handle minimum up and

minimum downtime constraints
C. Handling of spinning Reserve constraints
The basic feasible solution which was obtained by sine cosine
algorithm some time highly unfortunate to satisfy spinning
reserve requirement. Because handling of minimum up and
downtime also lead to excess spinning reserve. Hence it is
mandatory to adjust/handle spinning reserve requirement
heuristically. The following PSEUDO code (Fig.6(d)) and
flowchart (Fig. 6(c)) expound complete procedure to repair
spinning reserve requirement.

Fig. 6(d). PSEUDO Code for the decommitment of

Excessive Generating Units

Fig. 6(c). Flow Chart for spinning reserve repairing

De-committing of Excess of Units

It is clear from the code given above that during repair of
MDT, MUT, and spinning reserve we have to take unit status
“ON” if these constraints violated by putting it off. Since we
do so against the discretion given by algorithm obliviously it
results in extra reserve. This situation is highly undesirable
hence we have to recommit some of the units so as to archive
economic operation. Following the heuristic approach is
adopted for de-committing the extra spinning reserve.

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1285 & Sciences Publication
 GWO-SA: A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing algorithm for Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization Problems

Fig. 6(e): Flow Chart for the decommitment of Excessive hGWO-SA algorithm is assessed for 100 iterations. Table-4
Generating Units shows that optimal total production cost termed as generation
cost for 6 generating unit system model using the hGWO-SA
V. RESULT AND DISCUSSION OF THE TEST algorithm is 13489.9395700549$/hour.
SYSTERM 7-Generating Unit System: The fourth test system consists of
7-Generating units of IEEE-56 bus system having a 24-hour
For effective research study the proposed hybrid optimizer
load demand with 10 % spinning reserve [91]. The
hGWO-SA has been tested for various unimodal, benchmark
hGWO-SA algorithm is assessed for 100 iterations. Table-5.
problems and results are recorded for 30 trail runs in terms of
shows that optimal total production cost termed as generation
worst fitness, best fitness, mean fitness and standard
cost for 7 generating unit system model using the hGWO-SA
deviation and shown in Table-1.
algorithm is 34245.742436 $/hour.
To demonstrate the efficiency of the hGWO-SA Algorithm
10-Generating Unit System: This test system consist of
for resolving the Unit Commitment Problem, some standard
10-generating units. This test system has been tested for
test system falling under small level power systems
24-hour load demand pattern at different spinning reserve
possessing standard IEEE bus systems are taken into
capacity. The case-1 consist of spinning reserve capacity of
concern. The proposed hGWO-SA algorithm performance is
5% and case-2 consist of spinning reserve capacity of 10%.
assessed in MATLAB 2017a (8.1.0.604) software on
Case-1: 10-Generating Unit System (SR=5%): This test
Windows 7 Home Basic, CPU @ 2.10GHz, RAM- 3GB,
system consists of 10-Generating units having a 24-hour load
Processor-Intel® Core™ i3-2310M, System Type- 64-bit
demand with 5% spinning reserve [92]. Table-6 shows that
operating system.
optimal total production cost termed as generation cost for
In order to justify the effectiveness of the hGWO-SA
10-generating unit system model using the SCA algorithm is
algorithm from practical point of view, the results of
557533.12 $/hour. The hGWO-SA algorithm is assessed for
hGWO-SA algorithm has been compared with various
100 iterations &analogous to this algorithm results are
algorithm. The data of the generating units has been shown
matched with various other algorithms as shown in Table-11.
in Annexure-A1 to A8 and its comparative analysis has been
Case-2: 10-Generating Unit System (SR=10%): In this case,
shown in Table-2 to Table-17.
test system consists of 10-Generating units having a 24-hour
4-Generating Unit System: The first test system comprises
load demand with 10% spinning reserve [92]. Table-7 shows
of 4-Generating units having an 8-hour load demand with 10
that optimal total production cost for 10 generating unit
% spinning reserve. The hGWO-SA algorithm is assessed for
system model using the hGWO-SA algorithm is
100 iterations. Table-2 shows that optimal total production
563937.687490158 $/hour. The hGWO-SA algorithm is
cost termed as generation cost for 4-generating unit system
assessed for 100 iterations & analogous to this algorithm
model using the hGWO-SA algorithm is 74476 $/hour.
results are matched with various other algorithms as shown
5-Generating Unit System: The second test system consist of
in Table-12.
IEEE-14 Bus System. This Test system comprises of
Medium and Large Scale Power System (19-, 20- , 40- and
5-Generating units having a 24-hour load demand with 10%
60- Unit Test System): The higher order test system consists
spinning reserve. The hGWO-SA algorithm is assessed for
of 19-, 20- and 40-Generating units having a 24-hour load
100 iterations. Optimal total production cost for 5 generating
demand with 10% spinning reserves [92]. For 20 and 40-unit
unit system model using the hGWO-SA algorithm is
test system, the data of the 10-unit system had been doubled
9010.1$/hour.
and quadrupled and load demand is multiplied by two and
6-Generating Unit System: The third test system consists of
four times respectively.
6-Generating units of IEEE-30 bus system having a 24-hour
load demand with 10 % spinning reserve [90]. The

Table- 1: Review of various meta-heuristics and heuristics type search algorithms

Algorithm Name No. of Year Reference. No. Author’s Name Problem Type
Benchmark
problems
Animal Migration Optimization 23 2013 [4] Li X. NA

Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm NA 2019 [5] Xiao-long Chen Economic Load
Dispatch
An upgraded Artificial Bee Colony 5 2012 [6] Ivona Brajevic Constrained
Algorithm Optimization
Ameliorated Grey Wolf Optimization 15 2018 [7] Diljinder Singh, J.S. Economic load dispatch
Dhillon
Barnacles Mating Optimizer 23 2018 [8] Mohd Herwan Engineering Design
Sulaiman Optimization

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1286 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-4, November 2019

Binary Gray Wolf Optimization 18 2015 [9] E. Emary, Hossam Feature Selection

Biogeography-Based Optimization 14 2008 [10] Simon D. Real World

Binary PSO-GSA 22 2014 [11] Mirjalili S. NA

Bird Swarm Algorithm 18 2015 [12] Meng Bing Z. NA
Binary whale optimization algorithm NA 2018 [13] Srikanth Reddy K. Profit-Based Unit
Commitment
BBO Train Multilayer perceptron 6 2014 [14] Mirjalili S. Bio-medical
Optimization
Coyote Optimization Algorithm 40 2018 [15] Juliano Pierezan Engineering Design
Optimization
Cultural Evolution Algorithm 7 2013 [16] Kuo H.C. Reliability Engineering
Chaotic Krill Herd Algorithm 14 2014 [17] Wang G. NA
Competition Over Resources 8 2014 [18] Mohseni S. NA
Exchange Market Algorithm 12 2014 [19] Ghorbani N. NA
Electromagnetic Field Optimization 30 2015 [20] Beheshti Z. NA
Electro-Search algorithm 10 2017 [21] Amir Tabari Arshad Engineering Design
Ahmad Optimization
Emperor Penguin Optimizer 44 2018 [22] Gaurav Dhiman Engineering Design

Elephant Herding optimization 15 2015 [23] Wang G. NA

Firework Algorithm 9 2010 [24] Tan Ying NA
Fuzzy Optimization Technique NA 2015 [25] Mohammad Shoaib Optimization of Unit
Shahriar Commitment
Forest Optimization Algorithm 4 2014 [26] Ghaemi M. Feature weighting
Gravitational Search Algorithm 23 2009 [27] Rashedi E. NA
Grid Classification Based Algorithm NA 2016 [28] Tripatjot Singh Panag Wireless Sensor in
Network Monitored
Area
Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm 19 2017 [29] Saremi S. Engineering Design
Optimization
Grey Wolf Optimizer 29 2014 [30] Mirjalili S. Engineering Design
Optimization
GWO-SCA 22 2017 [31] Singh N. Bio-medical
Optimization
Harris Hawks Algorithm 29 2019 [32] Ali Asghar Heidari Standard Benchmark
Interior Search Algorithm 14 2014 [33] Gandomi A. Engineering Design
Optimization
Krill Herd 20 2012 [34] Gandomi A. NA
Lightning Search Algorithm 24 2015 [35] Shareef H. NA
Lion Optimization Algorithm NA 2017 [36] Narendrasinh B Gohil Engineering Design
Optimization
Moth-flame Optimization Algorithm 29 2015 [37] Mirjalili S. Engineering Design
Optimization
Multi-start methods NA 2012 [38] Rafael Martí Combinatorial
Optimization
Multi-verse Optimizer 19 2015 [39] Mirjalili S. Engineering
Optimization
Oppositional Artificial Bee Colony NA 2016 [40] Kamalpreet Kaur Optimization of Digital
Algorithm Dhaliwal IIR Filter
Stochastic Fractal Search 23 2014 [41] Salimi H. Engineering Design
Optimization

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1287 & Sciences Publication
 GWO-SA: A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing algorithm for Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization Problems

Symbiotic Organism Search 26 2014 [42] Cheng M. Engineering Design

Optimization
Sine Cosine Algorithm 19 2016 [43] Mirjalili S. Aircraft Wing Design
Salp Swarm Algorithm 19 2017 [44] Mirjalili S. Engineering Design
Optimization
Self-adaptive differential artificial bee 28 2019 [45] Xu Chen global
colony algorithm Optimization
The Sailfish Optimizer 20 2019 [46] S. Shadravan Engineering Design
Optimization
Virus Colony Search 30 2016 [47] Li Dond M. Engineering Design
Optimization
Volleyball Premier League Algorithm 23 2017 [48] Reza Moghdani Global Optimization
Variable neighborhood search 16 2007 [49] Krzysztof Fleszar Open Vehicle Routing
Water Cycle Algorithm 19 2012 [50] Eskandar H. Engineering Design
Optimization
Whale Optimization Algorithm 29 2016 [51] Mirjalili S. Engineering Design
Optimization

Table-3: Test Results of unimodal benchmark functions

Unimodal Functions Mean SD Worst Best

F1 3.11E-59 7.27E-59 3.60E-58 3.46E-61

F2 9.54E-35 9.39E-35 4.49E-34 1.46E-35

F3 4.70E-15 1.29E-14 6.35E-14 5.35E-20

F4 1.32E-14 2.50E-14 1.36E-13 6.81E-16

F5 27.11039376 1.006421 28.73816855 25.11623197

F6 0.618400459 0.3359576 1.506941203 1.31E-05

Table-4: Generation schedule for 6-unit test system

Generation schedule of committed units

Hour
GU1 GU2 GU3 GU4 GU5 GU6
h1 166 0 0 0 0 0
h2 154.35294 41.647059 0 0 0 0
h3 181.52941 47.470588 0 0 0 0
h4 196.52466 50.683857 19.79148 0 0 0
h5 200 60.78125 22.61875 0 0 0
h6 200 51.875 20.125 0 0 0

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1288 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-4, November 2019

h7 195.52941 50.470589 0 0 0 0
h8 168.35294 44.647059 0 0 0 0
h9 151.05882 40.941177 0 0 0 0
h10 161 0 0 0 0 0
h11 147 0 0 0 0 0
h12 160 0 0 0 0 0
h13 170 0 0 0 0 0
h14 145.29412 39.705883 0 0 0 0
h15 164.23529 43.764706 0 0 0 0
h16 184 48 0 0 0 0
h17 195.52941 50.470589 0 0 0 0
h18 191.41176 49.588235 0 0 0 0
h19 187.29412 48.705882 0 0 0 0
h20 178.23529 46.764706 0 0 0 0
h21 160.94118 43.058824 0 0 0 0
h22 142.82353 39.176471 0 0 0 0
h23 161 0 0 0 0 0
h24 131 0 0 0 0 0

Table-5: Generation schedule for 7-unit test system

Generation schedule of committed units

Hour
GU1 GU2 GU3 GU4 GU5 GU6 GU7
h1 500 0 0 0 40 0 0
h2 576 0 0 0 44 0 0
h3 576 0 0 0 378 0 0
h4 576 0 0 0 420 0 30
h5 576 0 0 0 426 0 0
h6 576 0 0 0 416 0 0
h7 576 0 0 0 402 0 0
h8 576 0 0 0 380 0 0
h9 576 0 0 0 366 0 0
h10 576 0 0 0 346 0 0
h11 576 0 0 0 326 0 0
h12 576 0 0 0 175 0 0
h13 576 0 0 0 75 0 0
h14 548 0 0 0 40 0 0
h15 562 0 0 0 40 0 0
h16 576 0 0 0 192 0 0
h17 576 0 0 0 300 0 0
h18 576 0 0 0 287 0 0
h19 576 0 0 0 267 0 0
h20 576 0 0 0 226 0 0
h21 576 0 0 0 208 0 0
h22 576 0 0 0 126 0 0
h23 576 0 0 0 116 0 0
h24 576 0 0 0 69 0 0

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1289 & Sciences Publication
GWO-SA: A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing algorithm for Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization Problems

Table-6: Generation schedule for 10-unit test system (5% SR)

Generation schedule of committed units

Hour
GU1 GU2 GU3 GU4 GU5 GU6 GU7 GU8 GU9 GU10
h1 455 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
h2 455 295 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
h3 455 395 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
h4 455 455 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0
h5 455 455 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0
h6 455 455 130 0 60 0 0 0 0 0
h7 455 410 130 130 25 0 0 0 0 0
h8 455 455 130 130 30 0 0 0 0 0
h9 455 455 130 130 110 20 0 0 0 0
h10 455 455 130 130 162 43 25 0 0 0
h11 455 455 130 130 162 80 25 13 0 0
h12 455 455 130 130 162 80 25 53 10 0
h13 455 455 130 130 162 43 25 0 0 0
h14 455 455 130 0 162 73 25 0 0 0
h15 455 455 130 0 140 20 0 0 0 0
h16 455 440 130 0 25 0 0 0 0 0
h17 455 390 130 0 25 0 0 0 0 0
h18 455 455 130 0 60 0 0 0 0 0
h19 455 455 130 130 30 0 0 0 0 0
h20 455 455 130 130 162 48 0 10 10 0
h21 455 455 130 130 110 20 0 0 0 0
h22 455 455 0 130 40 20 0 0 0 0
h23 455 315 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0
h24 455 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table-8: Generation schedule for 19-unit test system

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1290 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-4, November 2019

Generation schedule of committed units (Units GU1-GU10)

Hour
GU1 GU2 GU3 GU4 GU5 GU6 GU7 GU8 GU9 GU10
h1 464.5341 0 0 224.02557 0 0 0 0 0 0
h2 430.4072 0 39.107421 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
h3 438.43256 0 43.767293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
h4 481.39562 0 68.713588 236.67172 0 0 0 0 0 0
h5 439.26231 0 44.249082 205.07173 0 0 0 0 0 0
h6 473.73471 0 64.265316 230.92603 0 0 0 0 0 0
h7 482.59882 0 69.412216 237.57411 0 0 0 0 0 0
h8 500 0 101.86188 279.48827 0 0 0 0 0 0
h9 447.5336 0 0 211.2752 0 0 0 0 0 0
h10 499.93406 0 0 250.57559 0 0 0 0 0 0
h11 456.27281 0 0 217.82961 0 0 0 0 0 0
h12 467.56741 0 0 226.30056 0 0 0 0 20 0
h13 429.52036 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0
h14 435.4034 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0
h15 500 0 83.269803 255.4735 0 0 0 0 20 0
h16 500 0 98.032184 274.54157 0 0 0 0 0 0
h17 500 0 98.032184 274.54157 0 0 0 0 0 0
h18 451.34191 0 0 214.13143 0 0 0 0 0 0
h19 448.62317 0 0 212.09237 0 0 0 0 0 0
h20 418.3276 0 0 189.3707 0 0 0 0 0 0
h21 472.95995 10 0 230.34496 0 0 0 0 0 0
h22 500 10 0 280.97558 0 0 0 0 0 0
h23 485.65621 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
h24 418.20745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Generation schedule of committed units (Units GU11-GU19)
Hour
GU11 GU12 GU13 GU14 GU15 GU16 GU17 GU18 GU19
h1 0 364.58069 900 516.85964 0 700 0 0 0
h2 332.61648 333.86648 885.6108 480.72527 0 697.66636 0 0 0
h3 339.8393 341.0893 897.64883 489.22271 0 700 0 0 0
h4 378.50606 0 900 534.71301 0 700 0 0 0
h5 340.58608 341.83608 898.89346 490.10127 0 700 0 0 0
h6 371.61124 372.86124 900 526.60146 0 700 0 0 0
h7 379.58894 380.83894 900 535.98698 0 700 0 0 0
h8 400 0 900 595.15991 0 700 163.48994 0 0
h9 348.03024 349.28024 900 498.85911 0 700 105.0216 0 0
h10 0 396.4407 900 554.342 0 700 138.70765 0 0
h11 0 357.14553 900 508.11239 0 700 110.63966 0 0
h12 366.06067 0 900 520.07137 0 700 0 0 0
h13 331.81833 333.06833 884.28054 479.78627 0 696.52618 0 0 0
h14 337.11306 338.36306 893.1051 486.01537 0 700 0 0 0
h15 0 400 900 561.2567 0 700 0 0 0
h16 0 400 900 588.17633 0 700 159.24992 0 0
h17 0 400 900 588.17633 0 700 159.24992 0 0
h18 351.45772 352.70772 900 502.89143 0 700 107.4698 0 0
h19 349.01085 350.26085 900 500.01276 0 700 0 0 0
h20 321.74484 322.99484 867.49141 467.93511 0 682.13549 0 0 0
h21 370.91396 0 900 525.78113 0 700 0 0 0
h22 0 0 900 597.25964 0 700 164.76478 0 0
h23 0 383.59059 900 539.22422 0 700 129.52899 0 0
h24 321.6367 322.8867 867.31117 467.80789 0 681.98101 86.169075 0 0

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1291 & Sciences Publication
GWO-SA: A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing algorithm for Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization Problems

Table 9 : Total overall generation cost for each unit without renewable energy sources

Generating Units Generation Cost ($)

4-unit 74476
5-unit 9010.1
6-unit 13489.93957
7-unit 34245.74244
10-unit (5% SR) 557533.12
10-unit (10% SR) 563937.6875
19-unit 208510
20-unit 1125200
40-unit 2253700
60-unit 3388100

Table-10: Comparison of results for 4-generating unit system

Generation Cost($) Iteration Time(Sec.)

Sr.
Method Averag Averag
No. Best Worst Best Worst
e e
1 ILR [93] 75231.9 NA NA --- --- ---
2 B. SMP [94] 74812 74877 75166
3 A.SMP [94] 74812 74877 75166
4 LRPSO [93] 74808 NA NA --- -- ---
5 BDE [95] 74,676 NA NA --- --- ---
6 GA [96] 74,675 NA NA --- --- ---
74476.00
7 hGWO-SA [Proposed Method] ---- ---- --- ---- ----
0

Table-11: Comparison of results for 10-generating unit system with 5% SR

Generation Cost($) Iteration Time(Sec.)

Sr.
Method Averag
No. Best Average Worst Best Worst
e
1 BPSO [97] 565,804 566,992 567,251 --- --- ---
2 GA [97] 570,781 574,280 576,791 --- --- ---
3 APSO [98] 561,586 --- --- --- --- ---
4 BP [98] 565,450 ---- ---- --- --- ----
5 TSGB [99] 560,263.92 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---
6 IPSO [100] 558,114.80 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---
7 hPSO-SQP [101] 568,032.30 ---- --- ---- ---- ----
558,937.2
8 B. SMP [94] 558,844.76 559,154.98 --- ---- ---
4
557,905.642 558,682.010
9 Hybrid HS-RS [102] 558,267.2 --- ---- ----
7 7
hGWO-SA [Proposed
10 557533.12 --- ---- --- ---- ----
Method]

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1292 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-4, November 2019

Table-12: Comparison of results for 10-generating unit system with 10% SR

Overall Generation Cost ($) Average
Sr. Fuel Startup
Method Time(Sec.
No. Best Average Worst Cost($) Cost($)
)
1 Genetic Based Method [103] NA 623441 --- --- NA ---
Hybrid Continuous Relaxation and
2 NA 563977 --- NA NA 46
Genetic Algorithm(CRGA) [104]
Continuous Relaxation and
3 --- 563977 --- ---
Genetic Algorithm (CRGA) [104]
Integer Coded Genetic
4 --- 566404 --- ---
Algorithm(ICGA) [105]
Lagrangian Search Genetic
5 609023.69 --- --- ---
Algorithm(LSGA) [103]
6 IBPSO [106] 599782 --- --- NA NA 14.48
7 New Genetic Algorithm [103] 591715 --- --- NA NA 677
8 PSO [107] 581450 --- --- ---
9 MPSO [108] 574905 --- --- NA NA 15.73
10 HPSO [109] 574153 --- --- ---
11 LCA-PSO [110] 570006 --- --- NA NA 18.34
Two-Stage Genetic Based
12 568315 --- --- ---
Technique(TSGA) [99]
13 Hybrid PSO-SQP [101] 568032.3 --- --- ---
14 BCGA [105] 567367 --- --- ---
15 SM [111] 566686 566787 567022 NA NA ---
16 LR [105] 566107 566493 566817 NA NA ---
17 GA [105] 565866 567329 571336 NA NA ---
18 Genetic Algorithm(GA) [112] 565852 --- 570032 NA NA 221
19 ESA [111] 565828 565988 566260 NA NA 3.35
20 LR [112] 565825 --- --- ---
21 Dynamic Programming(DP) [112] 565825 --- --- ---
Improved Lagrangian
22 565823.23 --- --- ---
Relaxation(ILR) [93]
23 LRPSO[111] 565275.2 --- --- ---
24 (LRGA) [113] 564800 564800 --- NA NA 518
Evolutionary Programming (EP)
25 564551 565352 --- NA NA 5.61
[114]
26 EP [111] 564551 565352 566231 NA NA 100
Particle Swarm
27 564212 565103 565783 ---
Optimization(PSO) [115]
Ant Colony Search Algorithm
28 564049 --- --- --- ---
(ACSA) [116]
Hybrid Ant System/Priority
29 564029 564324 564490 ---
List(HASP) [117]
564121.4 564401.0
30 B. SMP [94] 564,017.73 NA NA ---
6 8
Annealing Genetic
31 564005 --- --- NA NA ---
Algorithm(AGA) [118]
32 Binary Differential Evolution [95] 563,997 563,997 563,997 NA NA ---
Social Evolutionary Programming
33 563987 --- --- NA NA ---
(SEP) [119]
Methodological Priority List(MPL)
34 563977.1 --- --- ---
[120]
35 Genetic Algorithm(GA) [112] 563977 564275 5665606 221

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1293 & Sciences Publication
 GWO-SA: A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing algorithm for Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization Problems

36 IBPSO [106] 563977 564155 565312 NA NA ---

Genetic Algorithm Based on Unit
37 563977 --- 565606 NA nA 85
Characteristics (UCC-GA) [121]
Enhanced Adaptive Lagrangian
38 563977 --- --- NA NA 4
Relaxation(EALR) [122]
39 Local Search Method(LCM) [123] 563977 --- --- NA NA 0.6
Quantum-Inspired Binary
40 563977 --- --- ---
PSO(QBPSO) [124]
41 Binary PSO [125] 563977 563977 563977 NA NA ---
Quantum-Inspired Binary
42 563977 563977 563977 NA NA ---
PSO(QIBPSO) [125]
43 Extended Priority List(EPL) [126] 563977 --- --- ---
44 Muller Method [127] 563977 --- --- 0.516
Improved Particle Swarm
45 563954 564162 564579 NA NA ---
Optimization(IPSO) [115]
Advanced Fuzzy Controlled Binary
46 563947 564285 565002 5.54
PSO(AFCBPSO) [128]
47 Hybrid PSO(HPSO) [129] 563942.3 564772.3 565782.3 NA NA ---
Fuzzy Quantum Computation
48 Based Thermal Unit Commitment 563942 --- --- ---
(FQEA) [130]
Advanced Quantum-Inspired
49 Evolutionary Algorithm(AQEA) 563938 --- --- ---
[131]
Particle Swarm-Based- Simulated
50 563938 564115 564985 NA NA ---
Annealing (PSO-B-SA) [132]
51 QEA-UC [131] 563938 564012 564711
52 IQEA-UC [131] 563938 563938 563938
Gravitational Search Algorithm
53 563938 564008 564241 2.89
[133]
54 hGWO-SA [Proposed Method] 563937.68749

Table-13: Comparison of results for 20-generating unit system

Overall Generation Cost ($)

Sr. Fuel Startup Average
Method Average Worst
No. Best Cost Cost($) Cost($) Time(Sec.)
Cost Cost
1 Genetic Based Method [103] --- 1215066 --- --- ---
2 New Genetic Algorithm [134] --- 1133786 --- --- --- 1095
Hybrid Continuous Relaxation and
3 --- 1236981 --- --- --- 98
Genetic Algorithm(CRGA) [135]
Lagrangian Relaxation and Genetic
4 --- 1122622 --- --- --- 1147
Algorithm(LRGA) [113]
Integer Coded Genetic
5 --- 1127244 --- --- --- ---
Algorithm(ICGA) [105]
Annealing Genetic Algorithm(AGA)
6 --- 1124651 --- --- ---
[118]
Improved Binary Particle Swarm
7 1196029 --- --- --- --- 60.65
optimization (IBPSO) [106]
8 MPSO [119] 1152966 --- --- --- --- 65.87
9 LCA-PSO [110] 1139005 --- --- --- --- 57.32
10 Lagrangian Relaxation(LR) [117] 1130660 --- --- --- ---
11 BCGA [105] 1130291 --- --- --- ---
12 GA [127] 1128876 1130160 1131565 --- --- ---

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1294 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-4, November 2019

13 LR [127] 1128362 1128395 1128444 --- --- ---

14 SM [127] 1128192 1128213 1128403 --- --- ---
15 DPLR [136] 1128098 --- --- --- ---
16 ESA [108] 1126254 --- --- --- --- ---
Enhanced Simulated Annealing
17 1126251 1127955 1129112 --- --- 16.8
(ESA) [127]
18 Genetic Algorithm(GA) [117] 1126243 --- 1132059 --- --- 733
19 GA [106] [117] 1126243 1200480 --- --- ---
20 PSO [115] 1125983 --- 1131054 ---
21 UCC-GA [121] 1125516 --- 1128790 --- --- 225
22 GA [133] 1125516 --- 1128790 733
23 EP[114] 1125494 1127257 --- --- --- 340
24 IPSO [115] 1125279 --- 1127643 ---
25 hGWO-SA [Proposed Method] 1125200 --- ---- ---- ---- ----

Table-14: Comparison of results for 40-generating unit system

Sr. Overall Generation Cost ($) Average

Method
No. Best Cost Average Cost Worst Cost Time(Sec.)
1 hCRGA [104] --- 2243796 --- 265
2 LRGA [113] --- 2242178 --- 2165
3 ICGA [105] --- 2254123
4 IBPSO [106] 2401728 --- --- 316.86
5 MPSO [119] 2323435 --- --- 317.29
6 LCA-PSO [110] 2277396 --- --- 274.67
7 AFCBPSO [128] 2266040 --- --- ---
8 LR [105] 2258503 --- ---
9 ESA [127] 2255864 2256971 2258897 199.55
10 hGWO-SA [Proposed Method] 2253700 --- --- ---

Table-15: Comparison of results for 60-generating unit system

Sr. Generation Cost($) Iteration Time (Sec.)

Method
No. Best Average Worst Best Average Worst
1 LCA-PSO [110] 3420438 ---- ---- --- --- ---
2 MPSO [108] 3451762 ----- ----- ---- ---- ----
3 IBPSO [106] 3592585 ----- ---- ---- ---- ----
4 hGWO-SA [Proposed Method] 3388100 ---- ---- --- -- ---
5. I. Brajevic and M. Tuba, “An upgraded artificial bee colony ( ABC )
algorithm for constrained optimization problems,” pp. 729–740, 2013.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 6. D. Singh and J. S. Dhillon, “Ameliorated Grey Wolf Optimization for
The author wish to thank Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Economic Load Dispatch,” Energy, 2018.
7. R. Rq and R. Dqg, “% DUQDFOHV 0DWLQJ 2SWLPL ] HU $ Q (
Punjab, India for providing advanced research facilities during research
YROXWLRQDU \ $ OJRULWKP IRU 6ROYLQJ 2SWLPL ]
work and providing international travel support (USCG Travel Support)
DWLRQ.”
to attend ICAREST, 2019 in Brussels, Belgium and to present his 8. B. Gray and W. Optimization, “Author ’ s Accepted Manuscript Binary
research work at international level. Gray Wolf Optimization Approaches for Feature Selection,”
Neurocomputing, 2015.
REFERENCES 9. D. Simon, “Biogeography-Based Optimization,” IEEE Trans. Evol.
Comput., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 702–713, Dec. 2008.
1. R. H. Kerr, “J,” in L, Unit Commitment, IEEE Transactions on Power 10. S. M. G. Wang, S. Mirjalili, G. G. Wang, and L. dos S. Coelho, “Binary
Apparatus And Systems.vol. PAS-85. No. 5: Scheidt. A. J. Fontana and J. optimization using hybrid particle swarm optimization and gravitational
K. Wiley, 1966, pp. 417–421. search algorithm,” Neural Comput. Appl., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1423–1435,
C. J. Baldwin, K. M. Dale, R. F. Dittrich, and A. Study, “of Economic 2014.
Shutdown of Generating Units in Daily Dispatch, AIEE Transaction of 11. X. B. Meng, X. Z. Gao, L. Lu, Y. Liu, and H. Zhang, “A new bio-inspired
Power Apparatus and Systems,” Vol. PAS-, vol. 78, pp. 1272–1284, Dec. optimisation algorithm: Bird Swarm Algorithm,” J. Exp. Theor. Artif.
1959. Intell., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 673–687, 2016.
2. K. D. Lee, “R,” H. Vierra. G.D. Nagel R.T. Jenkins, vol. 104, no. 8, pp. 12. S. Reddy K., L. Panwar, B. K. Panigrahi, and R. Kumar, “Binary whale
2072–2078, Aug. 1985. optimization algorithm: a new metaheuristic approach for profit-based
3. X. Li, J. Zhang, and M. Yin, “Animal migration optimization: An unit commitment problems in competitive electricity markets,” Eng.
optimization algorithm inspired by animal migration behavior,” Neural Optim., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–21, 2018.
Comput. Appl., vol. 24, no. 7–8, pp. 1867–1877, 2014. 13. S. Mirjalili, S. M. Mirjalili, and A. Lewis, “Let a biogeography-based
4. X. Chen, P. W. Qian, W. Y. Dong, and X. Chen, “A Two-Stage strategy to optimizer train your Multi-Layer
handle equality constraints in ABC-based power economic dispatch Perceptron,” Inf. Sci. (Ny)., vol.
problems,” Soft Comput., 2019. 269, pp. 188–209, Jun. 2014.

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1295 & Sciences Publication
 GWO-SA: A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing algorithm for Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization Problems

14. [15] J. Pierezan, “Coyote Optimization Algorithm : A new engineering design problems,” Adv. Eng. Softw., vol. 114, pp. 163–191,
metaheuristic for global optimization problems,” 2018 IEEE Congr. 2017.
Evol. Comput., pp. 1–8, 2018. 44. [45] X. Chen, H. Tianfield, and K. Li, “SC,” Swarm Evol. Comput.
15. [16] H. C. Kuo and C. H. Lin, “Cultural evolution algorithm for global BASE DATA, 2019.
optimizations and its applications,” J. Appl. Res. Technol., vol. 11, no. 4, 45. [46] S. Shadravan, H. R. Naji, and V. K. Bardsiri, “Engineering
pp. 510–522, 2013. Applications of Artificial Intelligence The Sailfish Optimizer : A novel
16. [17] G. G. Wang, L. Guo, A. H. Gandomi, G. S. Hao, and H. Wang, nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for solving constrained
“Chaotic Krill Herd algorithm,” Inf. Sci. (Ny)., vol. 274, pp. 17–34, engineering optimization problems ✩,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 80,
2014. no. July 2018, pp. 20–34, 2019.
17. [18] S. Mohseni, R. Gholami, N. Zarei, and A. R. Zadeh, “Competition 46. [47] M. D. Li, H. Zhao, X. W. Weng, and T. Han, “Advances in
over resources: A new optimization algorithm based on animals Engineering Software A novel nature-inspired algorithm for
behavioral ecology,” Proc. - 2014 Int. Conf. Intell. Netw. Collab. Syst. optimization : Virus colony search,” Adv. Eng. Softw., vol. 92, pp.
IEEE INCoS 2014, pp. 311–315, 2014. 65–88, 2016.
18. [19] N. Ghorbani and E. Babaei, “Exchange market algorithm,” Appl. 47. [48] R. Moghdani and K. Salimifard, “Volleyball Premier League
Soft Comput. J., vol. 19, no. April, pp. 177–187, 2014. Algorithm,” Appl. Soft Comput. J., vol. 64, pp. 161–185, 2018.
19. [20] H. Abedinpourshotorban, S. Mariyam Shamsuddin, Z. Beheshti, 48. [49] K. Fleszar, I. H. Osman, and K. S. Hindi, “A variable
and D. N. A. Jawawi, “Electromagnetic field optimization: A neighbourhood search algorithm for the open vehicle routing problem,”
physics-inspired metaheuristic optimization algorithm,” Swarm Evol. Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 195, no. 3, pp. 803–809, 2020.
Comput., vol. 26, pp. 8–22, 2016. 49. [50] H. Eskandar, A. Sadollah, A. Bahreininejad, and M. Hamdi,
20. [21] A. Tabari and A. Ahmad, “Ac ce pt e us cr t,” Comput. Chem. “Water cycle algorithm – A novel metaheuristic optimization method for
Eng., 2017. solving constrained engineering optimization problems,” Comput.
21. [22] G. Dhiman and V. Kumar, “PT,” Knowledge-Based Syst., 2018. Struct., vol. 110–111, pp. 151–166, 2012.
22. [23] G. G. Wang, S. Deb, and L. D. S. Coelho, “Elephant Herding 50. [51] S. Mirjalili and A. Lewis, “The Whale Optimization Algorithm,”
Optimization,” Proc. - 2015 3rd Int. Symp. Comput. Bus. Intell. ISCBI Adv. Eng. Softw., vol. 95, pp. 51–67, 2016.
2015, pp. 1–5, 2016. 51. [52] K. Hara, “M. Kimura and N,” Honda. "A Method Plan. Econ. Unit
23. [24] Y. Tan, Y. Tan, and Y. Zhu, “Fireworks Algorithm for Commit. Maint. Therm. Power Syst. IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst.,
Optimization Fireworks Algorithm for Optimization,” no. December, pp. vol. 85, pp. 421–436, May 1966.
355–364, 2015. 52. [53] J. D. Guy, “SecG,” S. Lauer, N. R. Sandell, Jr, vol. 101, pp.
24. [25] M. S. Shahriar, J. Rana, M. A. Asif, and M. Hasan, “Optimization 79–96, Jan. 1982.
of Unit Commitment Problem for Wind-Thermal Generation using Fuzzy 53. [54] W. L. Snyder, H. D. Powell, and J. C. Rayburn, “Dynamic
Optimization Technique,” pp. 88–92, 2015. programming approach to unit commitment,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
25. [26] M. Ghaemi and M. R. Feizi-Derakhshi, “Forest optimization vol. 2, pp. 339–347, 1987.
algorithm,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 41, no. 15, pp. 6676–6687, 2014. 54. [55] R. Nieva, A. Inda, and I. Guillen, “Lagrangian Reduction of
26. [27] E. Rashedi, H. Nezamabadi-Pour, and S. Saryazdi, “GSA: a Search-Range for Large-Scale Unit Commitment, IEEE Transactions on
gravitational search algorithm,” Inf Sci, vol. 179, p. 2232, 2009. Power Systems, Volume 2, No. 2,” p, pp. 465–473, May 1987.
27. [28] T. S. Panag and J. S. Dhillon, “Two Stage Grid Classification 55. [56] P. Systems and A. I. Cohen, “Uit,” no. 3, pp. 608–614, 1987.
Based Algorithm for the Identification of Fields Under a Wireless 56. [57] “Fred,” N. Lee, Short-Term Therm. Unit Commit. - A New
Sensor,” Wirel. Pers. Commun., 2016. Method , IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3, pp. 421–428, May 1988.
28. [29] S. Saremi, S. Mirjalili, and A. Lewis, “Grasshopper Optimisation 57. [58] W. J. Hobbs, G. Hermon, S. Warner, and G. B. Sheble, “An
Algorithm: Theory and application,” Adv. Eng. Softw., vol. 105, pp. Enhanced Dynamic Programming Approach For Unit Commitment,
30–47, 2017. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, No.3,” p, pp. 1201–1205, Aug.
29. [30] S. M. S. M. Mirjalili, S. M. S. M. Mirjalili, and A. Lewis, “Grey 1988.
Wolf Optimizer,” vol. 69, 2014. 58. [59] K. Aoki, M. Itoh, T. Satoh, K. Nara, and M. Kanezashi, “Optimal
30. [31] N. Singh and S. B. Singh, “A novel hybrid GWO-SCA approach Long-Term Unit Commitment In Large Scale Systems Including Fuel
for optimization problems,” Eng. Sci. Technol. an Int. J., vol. 20, no. 6, Constrained Thermal And Pumped Storage Hydro, IEEE Transaction on
pp. 1586–1601, 2017. Power System, vol. 4,” p, pp. 1065–1073, Aug. 1989.
31. [32] A. A. Heidari, S. Mirjalili, H. Faris, I. Aljarah, M. Mafarja, and H. 59. [60] S. K. Tong and C. Shahidehpour, “Of Lagrangian-Relaxation And
Chen, “Harris hawks optimization: Algorithm and applications,” Futur. Linear- Programming Approaches For Fuel-Constrained Unit
Gener. Comput. Syst., 2019. Commitment Problems. IEE Proc.- Gener,” Tansnm. Distrib., vol. 136,
32. [33] A. H. Gandomi, “Interior search algorithm (ISA): A novel pp. 162–174, May 1989.
approach for global optimization,” ISA Trans., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 60. [61] N. Chowdhury and R. Billinton, “Unit Commitment In
1168–1183, 2014. Interconnected Generating System Using A Probabilistic Technique,
33. [34] A. H. Gandomi and A. H. Alavi, “Krill herd: A new bio-inspired IEEE Transaction on Power System, vol. 5,” p, pp. 1231–1238, Nov.
optimization algorithm,” Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., vol. 1990.
17, no. 12, pp. 4831–4845, 2012. 61. [62] E. Handschin, “Slomski,” Unit Commit. Therm. Syst. With
34. [35] H. Shareef, A. A. Ibrahim, and A. H. Mutlag, “Lightning search Long-Term Energy Constraints, IEEE Trans. PowerSystem, vol. 1470, p.
algorithm,” Appl. Soft Comput. J., 2015. 1477, Nov. 1990.
35. [36] N. B. Gohil and V. V. Dwivedi, “A Review on Lion Optimization : 62. [63] K. Hussain, “Solution Method For Unit Commitment Limitations
Nature Inspired Evolutionary Algorithm,” vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 340–352, And Utility Constraints, IEEE Computer Applications in Power,” p, pp.
2017. 16–20, Jan. 1991.
36. [37] S. Mirjalili, “Knowledge-Based Systems Moth-flame optimization 63. [64] H. Ma and S. M. Shahidehpour, “Decomposition Approach to
algorithm : A novel nature-inspired heuristic paradigm,” Unit Commitment with Reactive Constraints,” in IEE Proc. Generation
Knowledge-Based Syst., vol. 89, pp. 228–249, 2015. Transmission Distribution, 1997, pp. 113–117.
37. [38] R. Martí, M. G. C. Resende, and C. C. Ribeiro, “Multi-start 64. [65] R. M. Burns and C. A. Gibson, “Optimization of Priority Lists for
methods for combinatorial optimization q,” vol. 226, pp. 1–8, 2013. a Unit Commitment Program,” Proc. IEEE PES, vol. 75, no. 453–1, pp.
38. [39] S. Mirjalili, S. M. Mirjalili, and A. Hatamlou, “Multi-Verse 1–7, 1975.
Optimizer: a nature-inspired algorithm for global optimization,” Neural 65. [66] (1989) Lee F. N. and A. New, “Approach For Determining
Comput. Appl., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 495–513, 2016. Thermal Unit Priority Commitment Order, IEEE Conference Proceedings
39. [40] K. K. Dhaliwal, “On the Design and Optimization of Digital IIR on Systems, Man and Cybernetics,” Vol., vol. 3, pp. 1166–1172.
Filter using Oppositional Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm,” 2016. 66. [67] F. N. Lee and Q. Feng, “Multi-area Unit Commitment, IEEE
40. [41] H. Salimi, “Stochastic Fractal Search: A powerful metaheuristic Transactions on Power Systems,” Vol., vol. 7, no. 2, p. 1992, May 1992.
algorithm,” Knowledge-Based Syst., vol. 75, pp. 1–18, 2015. 67. [68] R. R. Shoults, S. K. Chang, S. Helmick, and W. M. Grady, “A
41. [42] M. Y. Cheng and D. Prayogo, “Symbiotic Organisms Search: A Practical Approach to Unit Commitment, Economic Dispatch and
new metaheuristic optimization algorithm,” Comput. Struct., vol. 139, Savings Allocation For Multi-area Pool Operation with Import/Export
pp. 98–112, 2014. Constraints, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems,” Vol.
42. [43] S. Mirjalili, “SCA: A Sine Cosine Algorithm for solving PAS-, vol. 99, no. 2, p. 1980, 1980.
optimization problems,” Knowledge-Based Syst., vol. 96, pp. 120–133, 68. [69] T. Senjyu, K. Shimaukuro, K. Uezato, and A. T. Funabashi, “Fast
2016. Technique for Unit Commitment
43. [44] S. Mirjalili, A. H. Gandomi, S. Z. Mirjalili, S. Saremi, H. Faris, Problem by Extended Priority
and S. M. Mirjalili, “Salp Swarm Algorithm: A bio-inspired optimizer for List,” " IEEE Trans. Power

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1296 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-4, November 2019

Syst., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 882–888, May 2003. 3072–3080, 2010.
69. T. Senjyu, T. Miyagi, A. Y. Saber, N. Urasaki, and T. Funabashi, 94. Y. Jeong, W. Lee, H. Kim, J. Park, and J. Shin, “Thermal Unit
“Emerging solution of large-scale unit commitment problem by stochastic Commitment Using Binary Differential Evolution,” vol. 4, no. 3, 2009.
priority list, Elect. Power Syst,” Res, vol. 76, pp. 283–292, Mar. 2006. 95. J. Valenzuela and A. E. Smith, “A Seeded Memetic Algorithm for Large
70. F. N. Lee, “The Application Of Commitment Utilization Factor (CUF) To Unit,” pp. 173–195, 2002.
Thermal Unit Commitment, IEEE Transaction on Power System, vol. 6,” 96. Z. Gaing, “Discrete Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Unit
p, pp. 691–698, May 1991. Commitment,” vol. 1, pp. 418–424.
71. C. L. Tseng, X. Guan, and A. J. Svoboda, “Multi-area Unit Commitment 97. V. S. Pappala, S. Member, I. Erlich, and S. Member, “A New Approach
for Largescale Power Systems, IEE Proceedings Generation, for Solving the Unit Commitment Problem by Adaptive Particle Swarm
Transmission and Distribution,” Vol., vol. 145, no. 4, pp. 415–421, Optimization,” no. 3, pp. 1–6, 2008.
1998. 98. A. S. Eldin and M. A. H. E. H. K. M. Youssef, “A Two-Stage Genetic
72. W. Ongsakul and N. Petcharaks, “Unit Commitment by Enhanced Based Technique for the Unit Commitment Optimization Problem,” pp.
Adaptive Lagrangian Relaxation, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,” 425–430, 2008.
Vol., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 620–628, 2004. 99. W. Xiong and M. J. Li, “Chen 08 international conference on intelligent
73. C. L. Tseng, C. A. Li, and S. S. Oren, “Solving the Unit Commitment computation technology and automation, vol 01,” vol. 21.
Problem by a Unit Decommitment Method,” J. Optim. Theory Appl., vol. 100. T. A. Albert and A. E. Jeyakumar, “Hybrid PSO – SQP for economic
105, no. 3, pp. 707–730, 2000. dispatch with valve-point effect,” vol. 71, pp. 51–59, 2004.
74. C. Li and A. R. B. Johnson, New Unit Commitment Method. IEEE PES 101. V. Kumar and K. S. K. Bath, “Hybrid HS – random search algorithm
Summer Meeting, 1996. considering ensemble and pitch violation for unit commitment problem,”
75. S. H. Hosseini, A. Khodaei, and A. F. Aminifar, “Novel Straightforward Neural Comput. Appl., 2015.
Unit Commitment Method for Large-Scale Power Systems,” IEEE Trans. 102. G. B. Shebe and G. Fahd, “Unit commitment by genetic algorithm with
Power Syst., vol. 22, p. 4, Nov. 2007. penalty methods and a comparison of Lagrangian search and genetic
76. K. Chandram, N. Subrahmanyam, and M. Sydulu, “New approach with algorithm-economic disDatch examtlle,” vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 339–346,
Secant method for solving Unit Commitment problem, IEEE/PES 1996.
Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition,” p, pp. 1–7, 103. Y. Masuda and H. Nishina, “method and genetic algorithm,” pp.
Apr. 2008. 3474–3478, 2008.
77. X. Guan, Q. Zhai, and A. Papalexopoulos, “Optimization Based Methods 104. I. G. Damousis, A. G. Bakirtzis, S. Member, and P. S. Dokopoulos, “A
for Unit Commitment: Lagrangian Relaxation versus General Mixed Solution to the Unit-Commitment Problem Using Integer-Coded Genetic
Integer Programming,” in Proc. IEEE Power Engineering Society Algorithm,” vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1165–1172, 2004.
General Meeting, 2003, pp. 1095–1100. 105. X. Yuan, H. Nie, A. Su, L. Wang, and Y. Yuan, “Expert Systems with
78. W. Poommalee and P. Damrongkulkamjorn, “Unit Commitment Applications An improved binary particle swarm optimization for unit
considering Security-Constrained Optimal Power Flow by Lagrangia commitment problem,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 8049–8055,
Relaxation with Genetic Algorithm,” in Proc. 5th International 2009.
Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, 2008, pp. 893–896. 106. J. J. Grefensttete, “Optimization of control parameters for genetic
79. A. Merlin and A. P. Sandrin, “New Method for Unit Commitment at algorithm,” IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern, vol. 16, p. 122, 1986.
Electricite De France IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and 107. S. Lee, H. Park, and M. Jeon, “Binary particle swarm optimization with
Systems, Volume 102, No 5,” p, pp. 1218–1225, May 1983. bit change mutation,” IEICE Trans Fundam Electron Commun Comput
80. F. Zhuang and F. D. Galiana, “Towards a more rigorous and practical Sci E-, vol. 90, 2007.
unit commitment by Lagrangian relaxation, IEEE Transactions on Power 108. Z. Gaing, “Particle Swarm Optimization to Solving the Economic
Systems, Volume 3, No. 2,” p, pp. 763–773, May 1988. Dispatch Considering the Generator Constraints,” vol. 18, no. 3, pp.
81. S. Virmani, E. C. Adrian, K. Imhof, and S. Mukherjee, “Implementation 1187–1195, 2003.
of a Lagrangian relaxation based unit commitment problem, IEEE 109. B. Wang, “Re-Scheduling the Unit Commitment Problem in Fuzzy
Transactions on Power Systems, Volume 4, No.4,” p, pp. 1373–1380, Environment,” no. 1, pp. 1090–1095, 2011.
Nov. 1989. 110. D. N. Simopoulos, S. D. Kavatza, and C. D. Vournas, “Unit Commitment
82. R. Baldick, “The Generalized Unit Commitment Problem, IEEE by an Enhanced Simulated Annealing Algorithm,” vol. 21, no. 1, pp.
Transactions on Power Systems, Volume 10, No. 1,” p, pp. 465–475, 68–76, 2006.
Feb. 1995. 111. S. A. Kazarlis, A. G. Bakirtzis, and V. Petridis, “A genetic algorithm
83. W. L. Peterson and A. S. R. Brammer, “Capacity Based Lagrangian solution to the unit commitment problem,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
Relaxation Unit Commitment with Ramp Rate Constraints, IEEE 11, no. 1, pp. 83–92, 1996.
Transactions on Power Systems, Volume 10, No. 2,” p, pp. 1077–1084, 112. C. Cheng, C. Liu, and C. Liu, “Unit Commitment by Lagrangian
May 1995. Relaxation and Genetic Algorithms,” vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 707–714, 2000.
84. A. G. Bakirtzis and C. E. Zoumas, “Lambda of Lagrangian relaxation 113. A. Juste, S. Membel, H. Kitu, E. Tunaka, and J. Hasegawa, “An
solution to unit commitment problem, IEE Proceedings on Generation Evolutionary Programming Solution to the Unit Commitment Problem,”
Transmission and Distribution, Volume 147,” p, pp. 131–136, 2000. vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1452–1459, 1999.
85. W. P. Ongsakul and P. Nit, “Unit commitment by enhanced adaptive 114. B. Zhao, C. X. Guo, B. R. Bai, and Y. J. Cao, “An improved particle
Lagrangian relaxation, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Volume swarm optimization algorithm for unit commitment,” vol. 28, pp.
19, No. 1,” p, pp. 620–628, 2004. 482–490, 2006.
86. D. Murtaza and S. Yamashiro, “Unit Commitment Scheduling by 115. W. Ongsakul, “Ant Colony Search Algorithm for Unit Commitment,” no.
Lagrange Relaxation Method Taking into Account Transmission Losses, i, 2003.
Electrical Engineering in Japan,” Vol., vol. 152, no. 4, pp. 27–33, 2005. 116. S. Chusanapiputt, D. Nualhong, S. Jantarang, and S. Phoomvuthisarn, “A
87. S. Virmani, “Eugene C,” Adrian, Karl Imhof Shishir Muhhejee, Solution to Unit Commitment Problem Using Hybrid Ant System /
Implement. A Lagrangian Based Unit Commit. Probl. IEEE Trans. Power Priority List Method,” no. PECon 08, pp. 1183–1188, 2008.
Syst., vol. 4, pp. 1373–1384, Oct. 1989. 117. C. Cheng, C. Liu, and C. Liu, “Unit commitment by annealing-genetic
88. D. H. Wolpert and W. G. Macready, “No free lunch theorems for algorithm,” vol. 24, 2002.
optimization,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 67–82, 118. W. Zhe, Y. Yiyin, and Z. Hongpeng, “Social evolutionary programming
1997. based unit commitment,” Proc CSEE, vol. 24, p. 4, 2004.
89. J. M. Anita and I. J. Raglend, “Solution of emission constrained Unit 119. Y. Tingfang and A. P. Formulation, “Methodological Priority List for
Commitment problem using Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm,” in Unit Commitment Problem,” no. 2, pp. 176–179, 2008.
Circuits, Power and Computing Technologies (ICCPCT), 2013 120. T. Senjyu, H. Yamashiro, K. Uezato, and T. Funabashi, “by using
International Conference on, 2013, pp. 93–98. Genetic Algorithm Based on Unit Characteristic Classification,” pp.
90. C. C. A. Rajan and M. R. Mohan, “Neural-based tabu search method for 58–63, 2002.
solving unit commitment problem.” 121. W. Ongsakul and N. Petcharaks, “Unit Commitment by Enhanced
91. V. K. Kamboj, S. K. Bath, and J. S. Dhillon, “Implementation of hybrid Adaptive Lagrangian Relaxation,” vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 620–628, 2004.
harmony/random search algorithm considering ensemble and pitch 122. L. Fei, “A Solution to the Unit Commitment Problem Based on Local
violation for unit commitment problem,” Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Search Method,” pp. 51–56, 2009.
Syst., vol. 77, pp. 228–249, 2016. 123. Y. Jeong, J. Park, S. Jang, and K. Y. Lee, “A New Quantum-Inspired
92. P. Sriyanyong and Y. H. S. S. Member, “Unit Commitment Using Particle Binary PSO : Application to Unit Commitment Problems for Power
Swarm Optimization Combined with Lagrange Relaxation,” no. 6, pp. Systems,” vol. 25, no. 3, pp.
1–8. 1486–1495, 2010.
93. S. Khanmohammadi, M. Amiri, and M. T. Haque, “A new three-stage
method for solving unit commitment problem,” Energy, vol. 35, no. 7, pp.

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1297 & Sciences Publication
 GWO-SA: A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing algorithm for Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization Problems

124. Y. Jeong, J. Park, S. Jang, and K. Y. Lee, “A New Quantum-Inspired

Binary PSO for Thermal Unit Commitment Problems,” 2009.
125. T. Senjyu, K. Shimabukuro, S. Member, K. Uezato, T. Funabashi, and S.
Member, “A Fast Technique for Unit Commitment Problem by Extended
Priority List,” vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 882–888, 2003.
126. K. Chandram, N. Subrahmanyam, and M. Sydulu, “Unit commitment by
improved pre-prepared power demand table and Muller method,” Int J
Electr Power Energy Syst, vol. 33, p. 106, 2011.
127. S. Chakraborty, T. Ito, T. Senjyu, and A. Yousuf, “Electrical Power and
Energy Systems Unit commitment strategy of thermal generators by using
advanced fuzzy controlled binary particle swarm optimization
algorithm,” Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol. 43, no. 1, pp.
1072–1080, 2012.
128. T. O. Ting, S. Member, M. V. C. Rao, and C. K. Loo, “A Novel Approach
for Unit Commitment Problem via an Effective Hybrid Particle Swarm
Optimization,” vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 411–418, 2006.
129. S. Chakraborty and T. Senjyu, “Fuzzy Quantum Computation Based
Thermal Unit Commitment Strategy with Solar-battery System
Injection,” pp. 2606–2613, 2011.
130. C. Y. Chung, S. Member, H. Yu, and K. P. Wong, “An Advanced
Quantum-Inspired Evolutionary Algorithm for Unit Commitment,” vol.
26, no. 2, pp. 847–854, 2011.
131. N. Sadati, M. Hajian, and M. Zamani, “Unit Commitment Using Particle
Swarm-Based-Simulated Annealing Optimization Approach,” in
Proceedings of the IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, 2007, pp.
297–302.
132. P. K. Roy, “Electrical Power and Energy Systems Solution of unit
commitment problem using gravitational search algorithm,” Int. J. Electr.
POWER ENERGY Syst., vol. 53, pp. 85–94, 2013.
133. D. Ganguly, V. Sarkar, and J. Pal, “A New Genetic Approach For Solving
The Unit Commitment Problem,” no. November, pp. 21–24, 2004.
134. V. N. Dieu and W. Ongsakul, “Ramp rate constrained unit commitment
by improved priority list and augmented Lagrange Hopfield network,”
Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 291–301, 2008.
135. A. Y. Saber, S. Member, T. Senjyu, N. Urasaki, T. Funabashi, and S.
Member, “Unit Commitment Computation - A Novel Fuzzy Adaptive
Particle Swarm Optimization Approach,” no. 1, pp. 1820–1828, 2006.

APPENDIX

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1298 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-4, November 2019

AUTHORS PROFILE

Dr. Vikram Kumar Kamboj presently working as

Associate Professor and Head of Department (Power
Systems) in School of Electronics and Electrical
Engineering at Lovely Professional University, Phagwara,
Punjab, INDIA. He received his Bachelor of Engineering
(Instrumentation and Control Engineering) and Master of
Technology (Power Systems Engineering) degree with honors and awarded
doctorate degree in 2017. His current research work focuses on Power System
Planning and Optimization, Optimal Scheduling and Dispatch of power
generating units, Renewable Energy and Smart Grids System, Meta-heuristics
and memetic algorithms. His long-term research focus is on Multi-disciplinary
design and Optimization, Optimal utilization of Renewable Energy Sources for
power generation, evolutionary programming, Artificial Intelligence, Multi
Objective Optimization, Wireless Body Area Network, Brain-Machine
interfacing and control through meta-heuristics search algorithms and
Prosthesis design & control using artificial Intelligence.

Published By:
Retrieval Number: C6735098319/2019©BEIESP
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.C6735.118419
1299 & Sciences Publication