IET Renewable Power Generation

Research Article

ISSN 1752-1416
Multi-objective unit commitment with Received on 26th January 2015
Revised on 21st September 2015
renewable energy using hybrid approach Accepted on 23rd September 2015
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2015.0034
www.ietdl.org

Anup Shukla ✉, Sri Niwas Singh

Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, India
✉ E-mail: anupsargam@gmail.com

Abstract: During the last few years, greenhouse gas emission especially from electric power generation is a major concern
due to the global warming and environmental change, therefore, committing the generating units on minimum cost
criterion is shifting toward minimising the cost with minimum emission. Due to the conflicting nature of economic and
emission objectives, the generation scheduling becomes a multi-objective problem. In this study, a weighted sum
method is applied to convert multi-objective problem to a single-objective problem by linear combination of different
objectives as a weighted sum and an efficient hybrid algorithm is presented for aiding unit commitment (UC) decisions
in such environments. Due to uncertainty of wind power generation, the UC problem has become complex. To handle
uncertainty, scenario generation and reduction techniques are used. The proposed hybrid approach is a combination of
weighted improved crazy particle swarm optimisation with pseudo code algorithm, which is enhanced by extended
priority list to handle the spinning reserve constraints and a heuristic search algorithm to handle minimum up/down
time constraints. Simulation results confirm the potential and effectiveness of proposed approach after comparison
with other methods reported in the literature.

Pswind (t) total actual wind generation at hour t in

Nomenclature scenario s
Qhk(t)/Vhk(t) turbine out flow/volume of water for reservoir
ai, bi, ci/αi, βi, gi cost/emission coefficients of the ith k during hour t
generating unit
k /Qhk
Qhmax max/min turbine out flow of water for
min
Ahk(t)/Khk(t) water inflow/spilled outflow to the reservoir k reservoir k
during hour Tioff (t)/Tion (t) time period that the ith thermal unit has been
CSCi/HSCi cold/hot start cost of the ith thermal unit continuously down/up till period t
CSHi cold start hour
k /Vhk
Vhmax min
max/min volume of water for reservoir k
de/ue wind generation contributing to down/up Vpsp volume of reservoir in pumped storage plant
spinning reserve requirements vW(t) wind speed at hour t
DRmax
i /URmax
i maximum ramp-down/ramp-up rate of the ith v1, v2, v3 cut-in, rated and cut-out wind speed
thermal unit ρk input/output characteristics of the kth hydro
DRs,i (t)/URs,i (t) ramp-down/ramp-up rate of the ith thermal units
unit at hour t in scenario s ωs probability of scenario s
DSmax
i /USmax
i max down/up reserve contribution of the ith
thermal unit
DSs,i (t)/USs,i (t) down/up reserve contribution of the ith 1 Introduction
thermal unit at hour t in scenario s
DSRs(t)/USRs(t) down/up spinning reserve requirements at In a vertically integrated system [1], the primary objective of power
time t in scenario s system operation is to ensure that users demand is met at the least
Fi (Ps,i (t))/ fuel cost/emission function of the ith thermal cost without having competition in generation and distribution
Ei (Ps,i (t)) unit at hour t for scenarios s businesses. Selecting the generating unit states to be ON/OFF
FT/ET total cost/total emission over the scheduling during any interval of the day is known as a unit commitment
horizon (UC) problem, which is a complex non-linear mixed integer
Ii (t) schedule state of the ith thermal unit for hour t programming problem. It becomes more challenging in presence
MDTi/MUTi minimum down/up time of the ith unit of renewable energy sources and environmental constraints. Since
NT/NH number of thermal/hydro units the sources of energy are so diverse (coal, gas, water, nuclear,
Phk(t) generation of the kth hydro unit at hour t solar power etc.), the choice of one or the other form of energy is
Ps,i (t) generation of the ith thermal unit at hour t in made on economical, technical and/or geographical considerations.
scenario s Power generating units using fossil fuel emit harmful pollutants
max
Ps,i /Ps,i
max
max/min generation of the ith thermal unit in such as CO2, SOx and NOx into the atmosphere which not only
scenario s affect humans, but entire living beings. Moreover, these pollutants
Pi max /Pi max max/min generation of the ith thermal unit may cause acid rain that is responsible for damaging forests and
PH i,k pumping and generation rating of pumped vegetation’s as well as causing global warming.
storage plant US Clean Air Act Amendments in the year 1990 forced utilities to
PL(t) system load demand at hour t reduce CO2, SOx and NOx emission from the thermal power plants.
PHk(t)/PHi (t) total actual PSP load/generation at hour t Several strategies, to reduce the atmospheric emissions, are proposed
PFwind (t)/PWN (t ) forecasted/rated wind generation at hour t and discussed in [2], include installation of pollutant cleaning

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 327–338
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016 327
Fig. 1 Thousand scenarios (NS) are generated to check the effectiveness of proposed approach
a Wind scenarios to simulate wind uncertainty
b Reduced wind scenarios
c Probability related to scenarios
equipment, switching to low emission fuels, replacement of the aged
fuel-burners with cleaner ones, and emission dispatching. First three
options are highly expensive and may be termed as long-term
options. The emission dispatching option is an attractive
short-term alternative in which the emission, in addition to the fuel
cost objective, is minimised. The economic and emission
objectives are conflicting in nature and they both have to be
considered simultaneously to find the overall optimal schedule.
Several optimisation methods have been proposed to solve the UC
problem which is divided into two different classes. First class
belongs to classical or numerical optimisation techniques such as
branch-and-bound [3], Lagrangian relaxation (LR) [4] and
generalised benders decomposition (GBD) [5] are normally fast
and simple, but most of them suffer from numerical convergence
Fig. 2 Simplified generation system
328
and solution quality problems [6]. The second class is stochastic
search techniques such as genetic algorithm (GA) [7], bacteria
foraging (BF) [8], evolving ant colony optimisation (EACO) [9],
particle swarm optimisation (PSO) [10, 11] and evolutionary
programming (EP) [12] can successfully handle complex
non-linear objective function and constraints, and provide
high-quality solutions, but most of them suffer from the curse of
dimensionality [5]. Later, efforts have been made to develop
hybrid techniques, such as GA with unit characteristic
classification (UCC-GA) [13], LR with PSO (LR-PSO) [14] and
binary/real coded artificial bee colony algorithm (BRABC) [15]
for better and faster optimal results to overcome these problems.
Over the past few years, several researchers have proposed
multi-objective evolutionary search strategies. Non-dominating
sorting GA-II, multi-objective evolutionary algorithm [16],
multi-objective PSO [17], and weighted improved PSO (WIPSO)
[18] constitute the pioneering multi-objective approaches that have
been applied to solve the economic and emission problems together.
In recent years, based on forecasting wind power and the predicted
errors, several scenario reduction methods are proposed such as
scenario tree construction method [19, 20] and clustering-based
scenario reduction method [21, 22]. In [21], scenarios are used for
clustering approach by identifying the area of maximum density
according to a defined similarity criterion, and replacing each
cluster by its more representative (focal) scenario. The probability
associated with each focal scenario is given by the probability
associated with its cluster within the sample. The problem
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 327–338
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
formulation in a stochastic model represents the expected value of 3 Problem formulation
the objective function. Wind power intermittency on system
operation with an energy storage system was discussed in [23], but The objective of a short-term generation scheduling problem is to
it added extra cost on energy storage equipment. minimise cost and emission by obtaining optimal scheduling of the
This paper presents wind power forecasting uncertainty using system as shown in Fig. 2, while satisfying different unit and
wind scenarios generated by Monte Carlo simulation [22] and system constraints. To do this, the study period is divided into T
efficient simultaneous backward reduction (BR) technique based time intervals and problem is formulated as follows: (See (1))
on probability metrics is used to decrease the number of scenarios
to smaller scale. Weighted improved CPSO (WICPSO) technique The total fuel cost and total emission in terms of real power output
is used to provide Pareto-optimal solutions, which present the can be expressed as
possible trade-off between the cost and emission objectives
considering hydro units, pump storage plant (PSP), wind farm and (i) Cost minimisation (CM)
thermal units with and without ramp rate by utilising pseudo code
algorithm to handle equality constraints. In proposed WICPSO, the
velocities of particles are randomised with certain probability.

NT
Fi (Ps,i (t)) = [ai Ps,i (t)2 + bi Ps,i (t) + ci ] (2)
Inertia weight and acceleration coefficients are varied randomly i=1
with iterations unlike different PSO variants, where these
acceleration coefficients are constant and decrease linearly with
time. In the proposed technique, cognitive component is also split
into two different components, i.e. Pbest and Pworst. The particles (ii) Emission minimisation (EM)
are made to remember not only its previous best position, but also
its previous worst position, while calculating its new velocity. The

NT
knowledge about the worst position helps the particles in avoiding Ei (Ps,i (t)) = [ai Ps,i (t)2 + bi Ps,i (t) + gi ] (3)
its worst position, which save time (rapid convergence). A fuzzy i=1
cardinal approach is used to achieve the best compromise solution.
The effectiveness of the proposed method is tested on a subject to following constraints:
10-generator system. (1) Power balance (See (4))

2 Scenario formulation Assumption: Power network losses PLoss(t) = 0.

The forecasted wind data and process of wind scenarios generation (2) Thermal constraints
are taken from [22]. In this paper, 1000 scenarios (NS) as shown in
Fig. 1a are generated to check the effectiveness of proposed (a) System up/down spinning reserve
approach.

USmax = d × Pimax
i ∀i [ NT (5)
2.1 Scenario reduction DSi = d × Pimax
max


To reduce the computational burden in stochastic models, the size of USs,i (t) = min (USmax max
, Ps,i − Ps,t (t))
i
the set of scenarios is conveniently reduced by scenario-reduction ∀i [ NT (6)
techniques. In this study, generated scenarios are reduced to ten DSs,i (t) = min (DSmax
i , Ps,t (t) − Ps,i
min
)
scenarios by using BR technique [20], so that reasonably good
approximation of the system uncertain behaviour is preserved. ⎛N
T
Brief introduction of BR technique is as follows: ⎜ Ii (t) × USs,i (t) ≥ USRs (t)
Let µs (s = 1, …, S) denotes S different scenarios, each with a ⎜ i=1
⎜N
probability of ωs, and Ds, s′ be the distance of scenario pair (s, s′). ⎝ T
Ii (t) × DSs,i (t) ≥ DSRs (t)
The simultaneous BR includes the following steps: i=1


Step 1: Set NS is the initial set of scenarios; R is the scenarios to be USRs (t) = h · (PL (t) + PHk (t)) + ue · Pswind (t)

deleted. Initially R is null matrix. Compute the distance of all DSRs (t) = de · Pswind (t) (7)
scenarios pairs Ds, s′ = D(µs, µs), s,s′ = 1,…, S.
Step 2: For each scenario m, Dm(n) = minDm,s′, s′, m ∈ NS and s′ ≠
m, n is the scenario index that has the minimum distance with
(b) Generation limit
scenario m.
Step 3: Compute βm (n) = ωm*Dm(n), m ∈ NS. Choose l so that βl =
min βm, m ∈ NS. Pimin (t) × Ii (t) ≤ Ps,i (t) ≤ Pimax (t) × Ii (t) (8)
Step 4: NS = NS−{l}, R = R + {l}; ωn = ωn + ωl;
Step 5: Repeat steps 2–4 until number of scenarios to be deleted to
meet the target. (c) Unit’s ramping up/down capacity
Reduced scenarios are given in Fig. 1b and the probability
associated with each reduced scenario is shown in Fig. 1c. URs,i (t) = min (URmax
i
max
, Ps,i − Ps,i (t)) ∀i [ NT (9)




T

NT
 
Minimise(FT , ET ) = vs Ii (t) × (Fi (Ps,i (t)), Ei (Ps,i (t))) + Ii (t) × (1 − Ii (t − 1)) × STCi (1)
s[S t=1 i=1

NT

NH
Ii (t) × Ps,i (t) + Pswind (t) + Phk (t) + PHi (t) = PL (t) + PLoss (t) + PHk (t) (4)
i=1 k=1

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 327–338
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016 329
 DRs,i (t) = min (DRmax
i , Ps,i (t) − Ps,i
min
) ∀i [ NT (10) 3.1 PSO module

3.1.1 Existing approach: PSO was introduced by Eberhart and

(d) Minimum up/down time Kennedy in 1995. It is inspired by social behaviour of birds
flocking or fish schooling [24]. The PSO has two primary
MUTi ≤ Tion (t) (11) operators: velocity and position update. The velocity and position
vectors of the jth weighted step of the ith particle of x-dimensional
MDTi ≤ Tioff (t) (12) search space which can be represented as Vj = (vji1, vji2, …, vjix)
and lj = (lji1, lji2, …, ljix), respectively. Each particle behaves
according to two simple rules to update its velocity and position,
respectively, (i) to follow its own achieved successes, i.e. to move
(e) Startup cost
towards the best solution found by the particle itself Pbest (local
 best) and to emulate the success of neighbouring particles, i.e. to
HSCi MUTi ≤ Tioff ≤ MDTi + CSHi follow the best performing particle in the entire population Gbest
STCt = (13) (global best). By this process, all particles reach to a global
CSCi Tioff . MDTi + CSHi
optimal solution. The modified velocity and position of each
particle for fitness evaluation in the next iteration are calculated
using the following equations
(3) Hydro constraints

jix = w × v jix + c1 × rand1 × (Pbest jix − l jix ) + c2

vk+1 k k k
(a) Hydraulic balance
× rand2 × (Gbestkgjx − l kjix ) (26)
Vhk (t + 1) = Vhk (t) + Ahk (t) − Qhk (t) − Khk (t) (14)

jix = l jix + v jix

l k+1
(b) Initial/final reservoir volume k k+1
(27)

Vhk (1) = Vhbegin

k (15)
w is known as inertia weight. In the literature [11, 14], w is set
Vhk (T ) = Vhend
k (16) according to the following equation

itermax − iter
(c) Hydroelectric power generation w = (wmax − wmin ) × + wmin (28)
itermax

Phk (t) = rk × Qhk (t) (17) One of the main drawbacks of the PSO is its premature convergence,
while handling problems with more local optima, and large/complex
constraints. To overcome this problem, crazy PSO (CPSO) was
(d) Storage/turbine volume limit introduced [25]. The idea was to randomise the velocities of some
of the particles, referred to as ‘crazy particles’, selected by
Vhk,min ≤ Vhk (t) ≤ Vhk,max (18) applying a certain probability. In [25], the probability of craziness
ρcr is defined as a function of inertia weight
Qhk,min ≤ Qhk (t) ≤ Qhk,max (19)
 
−w
rcr = wmin − exp (29)
wmax
(4) Power output limits on wind energy system

The power output function with respect to the wind speed is The velocities of particles are randomised as per the following logic
given by [25]

⎧ v jix = rand(0, vmax ); if rcr . rand(0, 1)

⎨ 0: vw (t) ≤ v1 vw (t) ≥ v3 (30)
Pswind (t) = c(vw (t)): v1 ≤ vw (t) ≤ v2 t = 1, 2, . . . , T (20) = v jix otherwise
⎩
PWN : v2 ≤ vw (t) ≤ v3
wmax = 0.9, wmin = 0.4 and acceleration constants c1 = c2 = 2.

(5) Pumped storage system where iter/itermax is the current/maximum iteration number.
To improve the global search capability of standard PSO, the
(a) Upper/lower limits inertia weight, and acceleration coefficients were adjusted in
WIPSO [18]. In this method, only improved function of weight
Pumping : PHk,min ≤ PHk (t) ≤ PHk,max (21) parameter and acceleration coefficients is highlighted. To handle
equality constraint, penalty function method is used.
Generation : PHi,min ≤ PHi (t) ≤ PHi,max (22) The velocity-update (26) using the modified inertia weight factor,
i.e. using the WIPSO method can be rewritten as

(b) Reservoir constraints

jix = wnew × v jix + c1 × rand1 × (Pbest jix − l jix ) + c2
vk+1 k k k

Vpsp (1) = Vpsp

begin
(23) × rand2 × (Gbestkgjx − l kjix ) (31)

Vpsp (T ) = Vpsp
end
(24) where

Vpspmin ≤ Vpsp (t) ≤ Vpspmax (25) wnew = wmin + w ∗ rand (32)

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 327–338
330 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
Fig. 3 Meeting of time constraint may violate spinning reserve constraint
a Spinning reserve and minimum up and down time constraint repairing
b Decommitment of excessive units
c Final modification of unit scheduling
where w is calculated using (28)
c1 = c1max − (c1max − c1min ) ∗ (iter/itermax )
c2 = c2max − (c2max − c2min ) ∗ (iter/itermax )
c1min, c1max and c2min, c2max are initial and final values of the
cognitive and social components, respectively.
3.1.2 Proposed approach: To gain the different advantages of
the various existing methods (PSO, CPSO and WIPSO) discussed
earlier in Section 3.1.1, these methods are clubbed together to
form a new proposed approach named as WICPSO. Furthermore,
in this proposed approach, the authors have done following
modifications: (i) instead of constant/linearly decreasing
coefficients, random acceleration coefficients, and (ii) cognitive
component is split into two different components as introduced in
[26, 27]. The first component named as good experience
component, aiding the swarm to have memory about its previously
visited best position. This component is exactly the same as the
cognitive component of basic PSO. The second component is
named as bad experience component. The bad experience
component helps the particle to remember its previously visited
worst position. The knowledge about the worst position helps
particles in avoiding further movement towards it, having the
sense that solutions nearby the worst one may not be suitable. To
calculate the new velocity, the bad experience of the particle is
also taken into consideration. The velocity vector with bad
experience is computed as follows
jix = wnew × v jix + c1newg × rand1 × (Pbest jix − l jix ) + c1newb
vk+1 k k k
× rand2 × (l kjix − Pworstkjix ) + c2new × rand3 × (Gbestkgjx − l kjix )
where wnew is calculated using (32).
In [28, 29], a method of linearly decreasing acceleration
coefficients (cognitive and social) with time is tested, but it was
observed that the fixed acceleration coefficients at 2 generate better
solutions. However, through empirical studies [28], it is suggested
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 327–338
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
that the acceleration coefficients should not be equal to 2 at all the
times. Seeing those concerns, in this paper, random varying
(33) acceleration coefficients for WICPSO is incorporated.
Mathematical model of random varying acceleration coefficients
(34) are as follows
c1new(g,b) = c1 min + c1 ∗ rand (36)
c2new = c2 min + c2 ∗ rand (37)
rand, and rand1,2 and 3 , are uniform random number between (0, 1).
where c1 and c2 are calculated using (33) and (34), respectively.
The acceleration coefficient c1newg helps to accelerate the particle
towards its best position while c1newb helps to accelerate the particle
away from its worst position.
The probability of craziness ρcr (32) using the modified inertia
weight (wnew) can be rewritten as
 
−wnew
rcrm = wmin − exp (38)
wmax
Then velocities of particles are randomised as follows:
v jix = rand(0, vmax ); if rcrm . rand(0, 1)
(39)
= v jix otherwise
3.1.3 Pseudo code algorithm: There are two methods to handle
the constraints in heuristic optimisation problem: repairing method
(pseudo code algorithm [22, 30]) and penalty function method. In
the repairing method, the violations occurred are repaired
iteratively, till the equality constraints are satisfied. In the penalty
function method, the constrained problem is transformed into
(35) unconstrained problem. However, the main disadvantage of
penalty function method is the reduction of search space (feasible
area) and high execution time to find the feasible solutions when
the problem is highly constrained. Generally, several methods use
penalty function for handling equality constraint in the problem.
Most of these methods have serious drawbacks [31], while some
of these may give infeasible solution or require many additional
331
 parameters. In this work, equality constraint is handled using pseudo

563937.69
WICPSO
code based algorithm.

94
3.2 Multi-objective formulation

The single-objective WICPSO algorithm as discussed above can be

further extended to consider multi-objectives by using the weighted
sum method. The bi-objective, combined cost emission minimisation
problem is converted into single optimisation problem by
introducing the weighted sum method as follows: (see (40))

563937.69
WIPSO


T

NT


20

30
Minimise(FET ) = Ii (t) × lFi Pi (t) + zEi Pi (t)
t=1 i=1

+ Ii (t) × (1 − Ii (t − 1) × STCi
(40)

0 ≤ l, ζ ≤ 1, l + ζ = 1 and subjected to constraints (4)–(25).

The particles in the swarm are moved to new positions with the
help of new velocities as given in (35) and the position of the
particles is updated using (27). The particles are evaluated using
563937.69

FET. The Pbest and Pworst of the jth weighted step of the ith
PSO

78

particle of x-dimensional search space are updated as follows

l
jix = l jix + v jix ,
Pbestk+1 , FETji
k k+1 k+1 k
if FETji
jix = Pbest jix ,
Pbestk+1 ≥ FETji
k k+1 k
if FETji
(41)
jix = l jix + v jix ,
Pworstk+1 . FETji
k k+1 k+1 k
if FETji
jix = Pworst jix ,
Pworstk+1 ≤ FETji
k k+1 k
if FETji

The weighted sum method is the simplest approach and probably the
563937.69
WICPSO

most widely used classical method to convert multi-objective

86

problem into a single-objective problem by linear combination of

different objectives as a weighted sum. The selection of weights,
lambda and zeta, depend on the relative importance of the each
objective function. Substitution method is used to select the
weights is such way that the summation of lambda and zeta is
always equals to 1. The multi-objective optimisation techniques
finally provide a set of Pareto-optimal solutions to the decision
maker while optimising a set of conflicting objectives.
563937.69

3.3 Decision making

WIPSO
10

10

Fuzzy set theory has been implemented to derive efficiently a

candidate Pareto-optimal solution for the decision makers [16, 17].
The fuzzy sets are defined by the equation called membership
function. Upon having the imprecise nature of the decision
maker’s judgment, the ith Pareto-optimal set, the proposed
approach presents a fuzzy-based mechanism to extract
Pareto-optimal solution as the best compromise solution. The
objective function of a solution in the Pareto-optimal set is
represented by a membership function defined as
563937.69
Table 1 Performance index and cost comparison

⎧
PSO

47

⎪
⎪ 1; Fi ≤ Fi min
⎪
⎨
Performance index for different PSO variants

Fi max − Fi
mi = ; Fi min ≤ Fi ≤ Fi max (42)
⎪ Fi max − Fi min
⎪
⎪
⎩
0; Fi ≥ Fimax

where Fi max and Fi min are the maximum and minimum values of the
ith objective function, respectively.
For each non-dominated solution, the normalised membership
function μk is calculated as
no. of hits to global

N obj k
Population size

minimum cost

mi
mk = M i=1
N obj (43)
Methods

k=1 i=1 mi k

where M is the number of non-dominated solutions. The best

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 327–338
332 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
Fig. 4 Comparison of inertia weight and acceleration coefficient by different methods

compromise solution is the one having the maximum of μk of an ith unit will be

  Fi c
Max = mk : k = 1, 2, . . . , M (44) = ai Pi + bi + i (45)
Pi Pi

For minimum per unit cost, first derivative of (45) should be

4 Proposed generation scheduling approach zero, i.e.
 
The time horizon is divided into smaller time stages of one hour d Fi
each. The renewable-hydro-thermal coordination algorithm =0
dPi Pi
proposed in this paper is as follows:
c
− i2 + ai = 0 (46)
Step 1: Initial preparation. First, system load, hydro units’ data and Pi
number of scenarios must be known before performing the 
ci
generation scheduling problem. Reduced scenarios of wind power Pi =
are generated by using BR techniques as discussed in Section 2.1. ai
Second, primal configuration of all units for all wind scenarios is
decided on a rule that while the spinning reserve has not been From (45) and (46), the minimum per unit cost would be
satisfied, all the allowable units for any hour of scheduling are
turned ON according to predefined priority (48). The priority list √
= 2 ci ai + bi (47)
is created on the basis of minimum per unit cost and maximum
power output. The best per unit cost of units is a function of fuel
cost coefficients and is derived as follows. The per unit fuel cost Priority = min per unit cost/Pimax . (48)

Table 2 Simulation results

CM EM

Best Average Worst Best Average Worst

operation cost, $ 563937.69 563945.31 563975.84 581941.21 582082.60 582108.23

emission, tons 26979.37 26988.38 26990.64 20409.94 20410.93 20418.15

Table 3 Cost and emission for different PSO variants in case of CEM
Methods Operating cost, $ Emission, tons

Best Average Worst Best Average Worst

LR 571788.3 – – 22571.5 – –
PSO 571319.4 571997.5 572451.8 22467.3 22625.3 22866.4
WIPSO 570952.0 571923.0 572461.0 22445.9 22642.1 22996.4
CPSO 570899.7 571935.1 572587.0 22415.6 22652.3 23055.1
proposed 570738.2 571492.0 572304.9 22405.1 22650.1 23080.7

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 327–338
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016 333
Table 4 Operation cost and schedule for 24 h for CEM
Hour Power generation of units, MW Available Generation Start-up Emission,
reserve, % cost, $ cost, $ tons
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 378.24 321.76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.00 13748.05 0 618.95

2 402.99 347.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.33 14599.08 0 719.74
3 385.78 330.55 0 0 133.68 0 0 0 0 0 26.12 17181.00 900 693.32
4 423.90 368.14 0 0 157.96 0 0 0 0 0 12.84 18976.42 0 868.15
5 382.21 325.79 0 130 162 0 0 0 0 0 20.20 20490.65 560 758.21
6 383.14 324.14 130 130 132.73 0 0 0 0 0 21.09 22758.08 1100 801.91
7 400.79 346.14 130 130 143.07 0 0 0 0 0 15.83 23649.82 0 887.26
8 416.85 361.15 130 130 162 0 0 0 0 0 11.00 24574.40 0 966.41
9 414.13 360.09 129.96 129.96 160.90 79.96 25 0 0 0 15.15 27855.72 860 1006.67
10 455 418.59 130 130 162 69.39 25.01 10.01 0 0 10.86 30256.36 60 1264.37
11 455 455 130 130 162 73.00 25 10 10 0 10.83 31916.06 60 1386.62
12 455 455 130 130 162 80 25 43 10 10 10.80 33890.16 60 1415.37
13 435.26 455 130 130 162 52.74 25 10 0 0 10.86 30180.99 0 1304.06
14 455 357.95 130 130 162 40.05 25 0 0 0 15.15 27599.00 0 1102.85
15 420.32 363.94 130 130 155.75 0 0 0 0 0 11.00 24549.73 0 975.80
16 368.93 296.88 130 130 124.19 0 0 0 0 0 26.86 21870.17 0 721.59
17 344.92 287.74 130 130 107.34 0 0 0 0 0 33.20 20966.33 0 652.55
18 381.52 327.50 130 130 130.98 0 0 0 0 0 21.09 22753.62 0 803.53
19 416.86 361.14 130 130 162 0 0 0 0 0 11.00 24574.39 0 966.41
20 455 408.00 130 130 162 80 25 10 0 0 10.86 30317.79 490 1241.06
21 455 356.92 130.00 130.00 162.00 41.08 25 0 0 0 15.15 27604.51 0 1100.70
22 453.23 396.75 0 0 161.92 63.10 25 0 0 0 12.45 23024.22 0 1053.17
23 447.84 392.75 0 0 0 59.41 0 0 0 0 10.00 17861.08 0 943.71
24 427.74 372.26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.75 15451.10 0 828.33
Total 566648.73 4090 23080.72

Step 2: Spinning reserve, minimum up/down time constraints
repairing. Since the obtained unit schedule may not satisfy the
minimum up/down time constraints, a heuristic search algorithm is
required to repair any violations of these constraints. To check for
violations, ON/OFF status of the units are determined at the time
of primary unit-scheduling as mentioned in Step 1. Meeting of
time constraint may violate spinning reserve constraint as it can be
seen in Fig. 3a-ii. Again, we have to satisfy spinning reserve
constraint, but the unit, which is OFF due to time constraint,
cannot be turned ON. This process is repeated until we get the
unit scheduling which satisfy spinning reserve as well as time
constraint. It should be noteworthy that the constraint should be
satisfied for all the scenarios. An example of repairing the
spinning reserve and minimum up/down time is shown in Fig. 3a

tON,i (t − 1) + 1 if Ii (t) = 1
tON,OFF,i (t) = , be dispatched for each reduced scenario, and the fitness of each
tOFF,i (t) = −1 if Ii (t) = 0
 (49)
t (t − 1) − 1 if Ii (t) = 0
tON,OFF,i (t) = OFF,i
tON,i (t) = 1 if Ii (t) = 1
The procedures to repair violations:
Step 2.1: Calculate the ON and OFF duration of all units for the
whole schedule time horizon using (49).
Step 2.2: Set t = 1.
Step 2.3: Set i = 1.
Step 2.4: If Ii (t) = 0, Ii (t − 1) = 1 and tON,i (t − 1) > = TON,i − tON,i (t −
1), set Ii (t) = 1 else Ii (t − 1) = 0 shown in Figs. 3a-i and a-ii.
Step 2.5: If Ii (t − 1) = 0, set another unit Ii+1(t − 1) = 1 according to
priority given by (48) to satisfy spinning reserve constraint.
− 1) = 0, Ii (t) = 1 and tOFF,i (t − 1) < TOFF,i, find δ =
Step 2.6: If Ii (t
tOFF,i (t–1) set dq=1 Ii (t − q) = 1 as shown in Fig. 3a-iii.
Step 2.7: Update the duration ON/OFF times for the unit i using (49).
Step 2.8: If i<N, i = i + 1 and return to Step 2.4.
Step 2.9: If t < T, t = t + 1 and return to Step 2.3. Otherwise, stop.
the kth unit is repaired and the lth unit is decommitted to avoid
high operating cost as shown in Fig. 3b.
Step 4: Final modification of unit scheduling. Unit scheduling
obtained in Step 3 is re-modified only by swapping units in each
hour. Last unit in each hour, for a given load and spinning reserve,
is de-committed and unit prior to last unit defined by (48) is
committed only if it satisfies time constraint and the operating cost
is decreased. Otherwise, the primary unit scheduling is set as final
unit scheduling. For example, at the tth hour the kth unit is last
unit, hence it is decommitted and next unit based on priority (48)
is committed only if time constraint is satisfied and the operating
cost is decreased. From modification it is found that the kth unit is
interchanged with the lth unit for minimum operating cost as
shown in Fig. 3c.
Step 5: System ELD and fitness evaluation. Based on the
combination of unit status achieved in Step 4, the system load can
population can be easily calculated by (40). The multi-objective
optimisation techniques finally provide a set of Pareto-optimal
solutions to the decision maker while optimising a set of
conflicting objectives as discussed in Section 3.3.
Step 6: Use WICPSO, introduced in Section 3.1.2 to update position
and velocity of the population according to (27) and (35).
Step 7: Repeat Steps 2–6 until the unit status is determined, which is
common to all wind scenarios with the best solution of CM (where
l = 1 and ζ = 0).
5 Results and discussions
The proposed method has been developed in MATLAB, executed on a
computer with Intel-Core of 3.40 GHz. There exist several parameters
to be determined for implementation of the PSO such as wmax, wmin, c1
and c2 in (26) and (28). In this paper, these parameters have been
determined through the experiments on 10-generator system. To
avoid the problem of the curse of dimensionality, the three different
procedures and strategies are determined as

Step 3: De-commitment of excess units. Repairing of time constraints
can lead to excessive spinning reserves, which is not desirable due to
the high operation cost. Therefore, we have to de-commit the
redundant units based on a priority given by (48). The units with
larger values of per unit cost are prior to other units. For example,
(i) PSO and CPSO, here the value of inertia weight decreases
linearly (28) between wmax = 0.9, wmin = 0.4 and value of
acceleration coefficient c1 = c2 = 2 are kept constant.
(ii) WIPSO, here random value of inertia weight is used (32) with
wmax = 1.2, wmin = 0.3, and acceleration coefficient is decreases

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 327–338
334 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
Fig. 5 Cost and emission convergence for the system
a Cost and emission convergence for ten units system
b Pareto-optimal fronts with best compromise solution

linearly (33) and (34) between c1min = c2min = 1.5, c1max = c2max = 2.2
[18].
(iii) WICPSO, here random values of inertia weight (32) and
acceleration coefficient (36) and (37) are taken into consideration
for solution problem. To compare the performances of the above
mentioned methods, the number of ‘global hits’ has been used as
performance index, as shown in Table 1, where 100 random trials
are performed with two different population sizes. The
comparisons of inertia weight and acceleration coefficients are
shown in Fig. 4.
5.1 Solution quality and computation efficiency

To examine the effectiveness of the proposed approach, ten thermal

Table 5 Cost and emission for study-2 by proposed method units system for single-objective function (minimum operating cost)
Solution Without ramp rate With ramp rate is taken as a benchmark. In Table 1, the effects of parameters are
illustrated, where 100 random trials are performed with different
Cost, $ Emission, tons Cost, $ Emission, tons PSO variant as discussed above. The proposed approach
(WICPSO) shows the best performance in terms of the number of
Case 1 hits to the global solution, which was obtained 86 and 94 times
CM 501812.1 23710.5 503380.6 23919.2
EM 518104.4 16999.8 515615.9 18304.7
among 100 random trials for 10 and 20 particles sizes,
CEM 507235.8 20015.1 508199.2 20468.8 respectively. The performance of the proposed approach is also
Case 2 compared with other existing techniques reported in the literature
CM 444760.3 21835.1 447879.9 22092.9 as shown in Table 1 and the optimal solution is known to be
EM 459888.6 15511.8 462800.9 15810.7
CEM 451071.7 17759.4 453989.5 18060.9
563,938$. This table also includes measure of quality of best
solution (QBS) [14] and percentage of deviation (PD) [9] which is

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 327–338
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016 335
Fig. 6 Power output from hydro plant and PSP

Fig. 7 Pareto-optimal fronts with best compromise solution for

a Test study-2, (a1) Case1 and (a2) Case 2 with and without ramp rate
b Test study-3, (b1) Case1 and (b2) Case 2 with and without ramp rate

calculated as follows approach is used for subsequent studies considering

multi-objective UC with renewable energy sources.
 
(Best solution − Optimum solution)
QBS = 100 × 1 −
Optimum solution 5.2 Test study-1
and This system contains ten thermal units with data from [22, 32]. The
  spinning reserve is assumed to be 10% of the load demand. Unit
(Best solution − Worst solution)
PD = × 100 scheduling is same for different value of weights (economical
Best solution scheduling where, l = 1 and ζ = 0). It is seen that under CM
criterion, fuel cost is 563937.69$ and emission is 26990.64 tons.
From the simulation results, it is found that the proposed approach However, cost increases to 582108.09$ and emission decreases to
provide the best result amongst all. Therefore, the proposed 20409.94 tons for the case of EM. Table 2 shows the results by

Table 6 Unit status for deterministic and stochastic model

Units Hours (1–24)

U1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
U2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
U3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
U5 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
U6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
U7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
U9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
U10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 327–338
336 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
Table 7 PSP data 5.3 Test study-2
Plant PH i,k PH Vpsp Vpsp Vpsp Vpsp ρ
i,k The rise of environmental protection and the depletion of fossil
min max min max begin end
energy sources have motivated to integrate the renewable energy
PSP 25 300 250 1500 1000 1000 2/3 sources into the existing power system. This system contains ten
thermal units, two hydro units and one equivalent wind power
generation system as shown in Fig. 2. The details of the hydro
units and wind velocity are taken from [22]. The maximum up/
Table 8 Cost and emission for study-3 by proposed method
down spinning reserve of any single thermal unit could not
Solution Without ramp rate With ramp rate contribute more than 50% of its rated capacity (d = 50%). The
generator ramp rate constraints are set at 60% of its rated capacity.
Cost, $ Emission, tons Cost, $ Emission, tons The spinning reserve is assumed to be 10% of the load demand. In
this study, wind uncertainty has not been taken into consideration,
Case 1 i.e. simulation results are obtained at forecasted wind velocity. The
CM 453541.4 21214.4 455916.7 21398.5
EM 470515.6 14228.3 472128.6 14587.9 simulation is performed on two different cases.
CEM 458491.7 17384.5 460561.5 17688.1
Case 2 Case 1: Thermal units with hydro units.
CM 448851.6 21673.5 448902.3 21795.8
EM 458671.9 16589.9 458433.1 16819.7
Case 2: Thermal units with hydro and wind units.
CEM 453050.1 18624.3 453649.3 18481.9
CM, EM and CEM for the two cases obtained from proposed
approach is shown in Table 5. A Pareto front for the test study is
merging all solutions of 100 trials. For cost and EM (CEM) fuel cost shown in Fig. 7a. It can be observed from simulation results that
is 570738.2$ which is more than 563937.69$ and less than after integrating renewable energy in the system both cost and
582108.09$, emission is 23080.70 tons which is less than emission are reduced.
26990.64 tons and more than 20409.94 tons. Results obtained
from proposed approach and the best compromise solutions of last 5.4 Test study-3
generation obtained from different PSO variant are shown in
Table 3. The result of the generation scheduling of proposed The same units mentioned in test study-2 are taken into
method for CEM is given in Table 4. Fig. 5a shows the cost and consideration, but due to uncertainty in wind power generation,
emission convergence for the system. A sample non-dominated the UC problem has become complex. In this test study, reduced
front with 101 solutions for 24 h scheduling obtained from a scenarios obtained from BR techniques as discussed in Section 2.1
sample run is shown in Fig. 5b. It is seen from Fig. 5b that no are used to consider wind power uncertainty. The reserve for
objective (cost or emission) can be further improved without unpredictable fluctuation in wind power is set to be the same as
degrading the other. the prediction error of wind power (ue = 25% and de = 25%) and

Fig. 8 Situations of system up/down spinning reserve constraints of ten scenarios

a Up/down spinning reserve satisfaction of ten random scenarios
b Impact of error, (b1) error versus total cost and (b2) error versus total emission

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 327–338
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016 337
spinning reserve is assumed to be 10% of the load for compensating
the forecasted error in load and unforeseen generator outage. These
reserves ensure the reliability measures in the power system to some
extent. The first step for solving required problem is to determine
unit state combination, common to all wind scenarios. The
scenarios are analysed one by one to adjust the unit status until
such combination is found by using the method presented in
Section 4. The unit status obtained from deterministic model (Case
2 of test study-2) and from stochastic model is shown in Table 6.
Unit status which is not highlighted is common for both
deterministic and stochastic model. Underline unit status is only
for stochastic model. In addition, PSP is combined with the
system, to check its effectiveness. PSP data are given in Table 7.
The simulation is performed on two different cases.
Case 1: Thermal units with hydro and wind units.
Case 2: Thermal units with hydro, wind and PSP.
CM, EM and CEM for the two cases obtained from proposed
approach is shown in Table 8. Power output of hydro plants and
PSP are shown in Fig. 6. A Pareto front for the test study is shown
in Fig. 7b. It can be observed from simulation results that after
considering wind power uncertainty total cost of the system has
been increased and total emission reduces. However, after
incorporating PSP in the system cost decreases and emission
increases, thus, it is found that no objective can be further
improved without degrading the other.
To give a sight on the reliability that stochastic models offer to the
system, 10 random scenarios (not reduced scenarios) have been
picked up from the 1000 generated scenarios as an input. Fig. 8a
shows the situations of system up/down spinning reserve
constraints of ten scenarios. It is observed that the system up/down
spinning reserve constrains are well satisfied for all of the
scenarios in the whole schedule time T, which means the achieved
units state combination is common for all of the generated
scenarios without any constraints violation. Fig. 8b shows the
effect of the error defined in (50) (between generated wind power
scenarios and forecasted wind power) on total cost and emission
for entire scheduling interval. It can be observed from Fig. 8b that
the error in wind power is inversely proportional to total cost and
total emission of thermal units


T 21 Sumaili, J., Keko, H., Miranda, V., et al.: ‘Clustering-based wind power scenario
Error = (Pswind (t) − PFwind (t)) (50)
i=1
6 Conclusion
This paper presents new hybrid approach for solving the
multi-objective UC problem, where weighted method is applied to
convert multi-objective optimisation problem to single-objective
optimisation problem. The proposed hybrid approach is a
combination of WICPSO with pseudo code algorithm, which is
enhanced by extended priority list to handle the spinning reserve
constraints and a heuristic search algorithm to handle minimum
up/down time constraints. The feasibility and performance of the
proposed approach are demonstrated by various test studies. The
results obtained using the proposed approach has been compared
with different methods. It is found that the proposed approach
provides a good performance in terms of solution as well as
computation time. Also, it is noticed that by efficiently utilising
the renewable energy sources, the total operating cost and
emission of the system are reduced significantly.
7 References
1 Zhang, X.-P.: ‘Restructured electrical power systems: analysis of electricity market
with equilibrium models’ (John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2010), p. 307
338
2 El-Keib, A.A., Ma, H., Hart, J.L.: ‘Economic dispatch in view of the clean air act of
1990’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1994, 9, (2), pp. 972–978
3 Chen, C.L., Wang, S.C.: ‘Branch-and-bound scheduling for thermal generating
units’, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 1993, 8, (2), pp. 184–189
4 Virmani, S., Adrian, C., Imhof, K., et al.: ‘Implementation of a Lagrangian
relaxation based unit commitment problem’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1989, 4,
(4), pp. 1373–1380
5 Rahimi, S., Niknam, T., Fallahi, F.: ‘A new approach based on benders
decomposition for unit commitment problem’, J. World Appl. Sci., 2009, 6, (12),
pp. 1665–1672
6 Pappala, V.S., Elrich, I.: ‘A new approach solving unit commitment problem by
adaptive particle swarm optimization’. Proc. IEEE PES General Meeting,
Pittsburgh, PA, 2008, pp. 1–6
7 Bakirtzis, A.G., Petridis, V.: ‘A genetic algorithm solution to the unit commitment
problem’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1996, 11, (1), pp. 83–92
8 Eslamian, M., Hosseinian, S.H., Vahidi, B.: ‘Bacterial foraging based solution to
the unit commitment problem’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2009, 24, (3),
pp. 1478–1488
9 Vaisakh, K., Srinivas, L.R.: ‘Evolving ant colony optimization based unit
commitment’, J. Appl. Soft Comput., 2011, 11, (2), pp. 2863–2870
10 Zhao, B., Guo, C.X., Bai, B.R., et al.: ‘Improved particle swarm optimization
algorithm for unit commitment’, Int. J. Electric. Power Energy Syst., 2006, 28,
(7), pp. 482–490
11 Yen, L.T.X., Sharma, D., Srinivasan, D., et al.: ‘A modified hybrid particle swarm
optimization approach for unit commitment’. IEEE Proc. Int. Conf. on
Evolutionary Computation, 2011, pp. 1738–1745
12 Juste, K.A., Kiat, H., Tanaka, E., et al.: ‘An evolutionary programming solution to
the unit commitment problem’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1999, 14, (4),
pp. 1452–1459
13 Senjyu, T., Yamashiro, H., Uezato, K., et al.: ‘A unit commitment problem by
using genetic algorithm based on characteristic classification’, IEEE/Power Eng.
Soc. Winter Meet., 2002, 1, pp. 58–63
14 Balci, H.H., Valenzuela, J.F.: ‘Scheduling electrical power generators using
particle swarm optimization combined with the Lagrangian relaxation method’,
Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci., 2004, 14, (3), pp. 411–421
15 Chandrasekaran, K., Hemamalini, S., Simon, S.P., et al.: ‘Thermal unit
commitment using binary/real coded artificial bee colony algorithm’, Electr.
Power Syst. Res., 2012, 84, pp. 109–119
16 Abido, M.A.: ‘Environmental/economic power dispatch using multiobjective
evolutionary algorithm’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2003, 18, (4), pp. 1529–1537
17 Wang, L., Singh, C.: ‘Environmental/EPD using fuzzified multiobjective particle
swarm optimization algorithm’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2007, 77, (12),
pp. 1654–1664
18 Khokhar, B., Parmar, K.P.S.: ‘A novel weight-improved particle swarm
optimization for combined economic and emission dispatch problem’,
Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol., 2012, 4, (5), pp. 2015–2021
19 Dupačová, J., Gröwe-Kuska, N., Römisch, W.: ‘Scenario reduction in stochastic
programming: an approach using probability metrics’, Math. Program A, 2003,
95, pp. 493–511
20 Bin, J., Xiaohui, Y., Chen, Z., et al.: ‘Improved gravitational search algorithm
for unit commitment considering of wind power’, J. Energy, 2014, 67, (1),
pp. 52–62
reduction technique’. 17th Power Systems Computation Conf., Stockholm Sweden,
2011
22 Shukla, A., Singh, S.N.: ‘Cluster based wind-hydro-thermal unit commitment
using GSA Algorithm’. IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting,
Washington DC, USA, July 2014, pp. 1–5
23 He, D., Tan, Z., Harley, R.G.: ‘Chance constrained unit commitment with wind
generation and superconducting magnetic energy storages’. IEEE Power &
Energy Society General Meeting, San Diego, 2012, pp. 1–6
24 Kennedy, J., Eberhart, C.R.: ‘Particle swarm optimization’. IEEE Proc. Int. Conf.
on Neural Networks, 1995, vol. 4, pp. 1942–1948
25 Aruldoss, T., Victoire, A., Jeyakumar, A.E.: ‘Reserve constrained dynamic
dispatch of units with valve point effects’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2005, 20,
(3), pp. 1273–1282
26 Selvakumar, A.I., Thanushkodi, K.: ‘A new particle swarm optimization solution to
non-convex economic dispatch problem’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2007, 2, (1),
pp. 1273–1282
27 meng, Y., Yan, S., Tang, Z., et al.: ‘Data fusion based on neural network and
particle swarm algorithm and its application in sugar boiling’. 5th Int. Symp. on
Neural Network, China, 2008, pp. 176–185
28 Suganthan, P.N.: ‘Particle swarm optimizer with neighborhood operator’, IEEE Int.
Congr. Evol. Comput., Washington DC, USA, July 1999, (3), pp. 1958–1962
29 Ratnaweera, A., Halgamuge, S., Watson, H.: ‘Self-organizing hierarchical particle
swarm optimizer with time-varying acceleration coefficients’, IEEE Trans. Evol.
Comput., 2004, 8, (3), pp. 240–255
30 Shukla, A., Singh, S.N.: ‘Pseudo-inspired PSO for solving unit commitment
problem including renewable energy sources’. Fifth Int. Conf. on Power and
Energy Systems, Kathmandu, Nepal, October 2013, pp. 1–6
31 Yenjay, O.: ‘Penalty function methods for constrained optimization with genetic
algorithms’, J. Math. Comput. Appl., 2005, 10, (1), pp. 45–56
32 Saber, A.Y., Veneyagamoorthy, G.K.: ‘Efficient utilization of renewable energy
sources by gridable vehicles in cyber-physical energy systems’, IEEE Syst. J.,
2010, 4, (3), pp. 285–294
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 327–338
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016