Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epsr

Power flow based hydro-thermal-wind scheduling of hybrid power system T

using sine cosine algorithm
Koustav Dasguptaa, , Provas Kumar Royb, Vivekananda Mukherjeec
⁎

a
Department of Electrical Engineering, Techno India University, Salt Lake, West Bengal, India
b
Department of Electrical Engineering, Kalyani Government Engineering College, Kalyani, West Bengal, India
c
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Different types of optimization techniques are being applied in hydrothermal scheduling (HTS) problem for
Cumulative density function optimizing fuel cost, emission and combined cost emission. Usage of fossil fuel for thermal power generation
Short-term hydrothermal scheduling increases global warming and environment pollution. In this work, environment friendly, clean energy such as
Sine cosine algorithm wind energy, has been integrated with the HTS problem to overcome the effect of thermal pollution and to
Weibull probability density function
reduce generation cost. A novel sine cosine algorithm (SCA) has been implemented to minimize generation cost
Wind energy
and fuel emission. The different control parameters of the SCA have been properly utilized to balance the ex-
ploration and the exploitation phases leading to find out near global optimal solution. To study its performance
and efficiency, SCA has been applied to solve different cases (i.e., economic load scheduling, economic emission
scheduling, combined economic emission scheduling) of HTS and hydrothermal wind scheduling (HTWS) pro-
blems. Furthermore, optimal power flow (OPF) based HTWS is studied for a standard 9-bus system. Results
offered by some newly surfaced algorithms (like teaching learning-based optimization, gravitational search al-
gorithm, real-coded genetic algorithm etc.) have been compared with those offered by the SCA to establish its
effectiveness. Utility of wind energy in scheduling problem has been proposed in this work.

1. Introduction
In the recent year, major attention has given to efficient renewable
energy sources (RESs) such as wind and hydropower for protecting the
crisis of conventional energy and global warming of the environment.
Wind energy draws attention in power generation sector, which helps
to reduce power generation cost and pollutant emission from fossil
fuels. Most renewable resources for power generation in the world are
wind power. Wind, the most appealing RES, has become the subject of
widespread concern over the last few decades. Main causes of global
warming are the emission of NOx, SOx, CO, etc. These are produced
from fossil-fuelled generating plants. Power generated from winds
farms, under various emission reduction schemes across the world, are
being utilized in the power sector. In some countries, production of
power generation from the wind farms has been started on large scale.
Australian government proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
[1] by producing a large amount of power from the wind farm. Gen-
eration companies of Hong Kong and China have already proposed their
respective plan of construction of wind farms [2,3]. Wind energy is used
as a locally distributed energy resource for satisfying local load demand
[4,5]. Recently, different criteria of market design is studied and ana-
lysed to achieve maximum profit [6].
Daily scheduled demand is mostly fulfilled by hydrothermal power
generation (HTPG). Presently, wind power has been introduced to co-
ordinate with HTPG for satisfying power demand for scheduled periods.
Coordination of wind with hydrothermal is very effective and profitable
for power generation. It is also effective for minimization of emitted
NOx, SOx, CO, etc. from fossil fuel, by which global warming will be
controlled. So, clean energies (like wind, hydro, etc.) have a major
contribution to keep emission-free or pollution-free environment.
Application of soft computing techniques on hydrothermal sche-
duling (HTS) problem is very useful for getting optimal cost and
emission. Literature survey shows that different types of optimization
techniques have been applied in HTS domain for presenting minimum
emission and cost of fossil fuel for power generation. Over the past
years, HTS problems have been solved using various mathematical
optimization techniques. Such classical optimization techniques have
some drawbacks such as they require longer time to yield optimal re-
sults. Recently, many meta-heuristic algorithms, (for example, differ-
ential evolution (DE), evolutionary programming (EP) etc.) are applied

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: koustav2009@gmail.com, koustav.17dp000235@ee.iitism.ac.in (K. Dasgupta).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2019.106018
Received 21 January 2019; Received in revised form 12 July 2019; Accepted 27 August 2019
Available online 14 September 2019
0378-7796/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
K. Dasgupta, et al. Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018

Nomenclature min
VHYn max
, VHYn Minimum and maximum water storage volume of the
nth hydro reservoir, respectively
i, j Phase angle of bus i and j, respectively PWGi, QWGi Real and reactive power generation of the wind gen-
THk , THk , THk , THk , THk Emission coefficients of the kth erator, respectively
thermal unit PDh Load demand at time h
aTHk , bTHk , cTHk , dTHk , eTHk Fuel cost curve coefficients of the kth min
PHYn ,PHYn
max
Minimum and maximum power generation limits for the
thermal unit nth hydro unit, respectively
CH 1n , CH 2n , CH 3n , CH 4n , CH 5n , CH 6n Power generation coefficients PLh Transmission loss at time h
of the nth hydro unit
min
PTHk , PTHk
max
Minimum and maximum power generation limits for the
D ln Water transport delay from the lth reservoir to the nth kth thermal unit, respectively
reservoir PTHkh Power generation of the kth thermal unit at time h
Edir , Z , T Direct cost of wind power Power generation of the nth hydro unit at time h
EOVE, Z , T Overestimated cost of wind power
min
QTG i
, QTGmax
i
Minimum and maximum generation of reactive power
EUNE, Z , T Underestimated cost of wind power of the ith thermal generator, respectively
FC (PTH ) Total fuel cost of the thermal units
min
QHYn , QHYnmax
Minimum and maximum water discharge rate for the
Gij, Bij Conductance and susceptance, respectively, of the (i, j)th nth hydro reservoir, respectively
bus
min
QWG i
max
, QWG i
Minimum and maximum generation of reactive
h, H Number of time intervals i.e., scheduling period power of the ith wind turbine, respectively
IHYnh Inflow rate of the nth reservoir at time m QCmin
i
, QCmax
i
Minimum and maximum reactive power injection to
NT Number of thermal generating units the system by the ith shunt compensator, respectively
NH Number of hydro generating units
QHYnh Water discharge rate of the nth hydro reservoir at time h
PD , QD Real and reactive demand, respectively Run Number of upstream hydro generating plants directly
PTGi, QTGi Real and reactive power generation of the thermal gen- above the nth hydro reservoir
erator, respectively
SHYnh Spillage discharge rate of the nth reservoir at time h
Sh , Sf Shape and scale factor
T Number of interval of scheduled wind power generation
Timin , Timax Higher and lower range of tap setting of transmission SLmax
i
Maximum value of apparent power flow in the ith trans-
mission line
line of the ith transformer, in order
Vel Current wind speed
VHYnh Water storage volume of the nth hydro reservoir at the
Velin , Velout Cut-in and cut-out velocity, in order
beginning of time m
Velr Rated wind velocity
VGmin , VGmax Minimum and maximum voltage, respectively, the
i i
ith generator bus w Wind power
li
Vmin li
, Vmax Minimum and maximum limits of generator voltages of WR Rated wind power of turbine
the ith load bus, respectively z Number of wind power generating units

instead of classical optimization techniques. Different heuristic and
meta-heuristic optimizations have been applied for solving different
types of optimization problem. Nazari-Heris et al. [7,8] proposed a
comprehensive review on heuristic optimization techniques from the
perspective of economic and environmental optimal combined heat and
power dispatch. Application of different stochastic methods in different
areas of power system has been studied in different literatures.
Mohan et al. [9] have proposed decomposition approach and linear
programming (LP) method to solve HTS problem and they have es-
tablished convergence ability of the algorithm by getting optimal cost.
Wong [10] has presented simulated annealing (SA) technique, genetic
algorithm (GA) and a hybrid of SA-GA technique for getting minimum
fuel cost of HTS problem. Sinha et al. [11] have proposed Gaussian and
Cauchy mutations in EP techniques (known as fast EP) for solving HTS
problem. The authors of this work have established the capability of EP
towards finding very nearly global solutions of the objective function
within some reasonable time. Mandal and Chakraborty [12] have
considered two test systems of HTS problem [13] and these were solved
using DE method. Mandal et al. [14] have considered four hydro units
and thee thermal units for solving HTS problem using particle swarm
optimization (PSO) and proposed its effectiveness by comparing the
results with those obtained while using EP and SA technique. Hota et al.
[15] have proposed improved PSO (IPSO) in HTS problem to present
optimal fuel cost of the considered problem and established promising
convergence behaviour and convergence speed. Solution time of IPSO
was found to be better than EP and DE in Ref. [15]. Swain et al. [16]
have considered different generating constraints and clonal selection
algorithm was applied for getting optimal fuel cost. Effectiveness of this
algorithm was presented by comparing with gradient search, SA, EP,
etc. Improved self-adaptive PSO was proposed by Wang et al. in [17]
wherein pre-mature convergence behaviour of PSO has been overcome
by this new variant of PSO. Feasibility and effectiveness of this PSO
variant were explored by solving HTS problem. Consideration of valve-
point effects and transmission losses in HTS problem make it more
complicated one. Wang et al. (see [18]) have implemented real-coded
quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm with Cauchy mutation by
utilizing clonal operator and Cauchy mutation.
Self-organizing hierarchical PSO technique with time-varying ac-
celeration coefficients (SOHPSO-TVAC) was considered for HTS pro-
blem by Mandal and Chakraborty (refer [19]), instead of PSO for
avoiding its premature convergence. In [20], Roy has analysed HTS
problem with the help of teaching learning based optimization (TLBO)
where different nonlinearities like valve-point loading, prohibited op-
erating zone were considered. In this work, different practical diffi-
culties (like cascading nature of hydro reservoirs, water transport delay,
etc.) were considered in HTS for presenting more complicated HTS
problem. Quasi-oppositional based TLBO (QOTLBO) was applied by
Roy et al. in [21] to solve different practical difficulties of HTS problem.
Selvakumar has proposed civilized swarm optimization in [22] by
modifying the PSO technique using food-searching strategy. This
modified technique was applied to solve different cases of HTS pro-
blems. Culture belief based multi-objective hybrid DE algorithm was
considered by Zhang et al. [23] for solving different cases (like cost,
emission) of HTS problem. The authors of [23] have established that
this algorithm is more effective to optimize fuel, emission and other
cases of HTS problem in comparison to other techniques. Real-coded
chemical reaction optimization (RCCRO) was implemented in short and
large test systems of HTS problem by Bhattacharjee et al. in [24] where
they have presented effectiveness of RCCRO by comparing the results
with different other techniques like PSO, DE, modified DE etc. Nguyen

2
K. Dasgupta, et al.
et al. [25] considered a short-term fixed-head HTS problem and solved
the same using cuckoo search algorithm (CSA) for getting optimal fuel
cost. Norouzi et al. [26] have presented effectiveness of the CSA method
by considering different controllable parameters and solved the HTS
problem. Real-coded genetic algorithm (RCGA) helps to determine
better quality convergence results of the objective function. Artificial
fish-swarm algorithm (AFSA) is another important optimization tech-
nique, based on the working behaviour of fish. Fang et al. [27] pro-
posed the combined form of RCGA and AFSA. The authors of Ref. [27]
implemented the same in HTS problem where different operating
constraints were considered. Short-term economic/environmental HTS
was considered by Tian et al. [28] to solve fuel cost, emission and
combined fuel-emission using an improved non-dominated sorting
gravitational search algorithm (GSA) (NSGSA) with chaotic mutation
(NSGSA-CM). Yuan et al. [29] have proposed enhanced GSA for solving
the dynamic nonlinear constrained optimization problem i.e., the daily
economic dispatching of HTS. Mixed-integer linear programming
(MILP) method was considered by Ahmadi et al. [30] for getting op-
timal fuel cost and emission of different cases of HTS problem. Gau-
thamkumar et al. [31] have considered disruption operator in GSA for
increasing its exploration and exploitation abilities and the modified
technique was named as disruption based GSA (DGSA). It was applied
to HTS problem for establishing its better convergence accuracy. Krill
herd algorithm was implemented by Roy and Pradhan for solving the
HTS problem (refer [32]). Nguyen and Vo [33] have tested effective-
ness of modified CSA (MCSA) over CSA by producing optimal cost of
different test systems of HTS problem. Glotić and Zamuda [34] have
solved different cases of HTS problem using parallel self-adaptive DE
(PSADE) technique. Dubey et al. [35] have considered wind power with
HTS problem and applied ant lion optimization algorithm on the con-
sidered problem to determine optimal fuel. Gil and Araya [36] have
established effectiveness and good convergence properties of paralle-
lized stochastic MILP algorithm by solving HTS problem and showing
optimal cost with minimum simulation time. Nguyen and Vo [37] have
considered combined economic emission scheduling (CEES) case of HTS
problem and solved the considered case using cuckoo bird inspired
algorithm (CBIA). Nazari-Heris et al. [38] have considered valve-point
effect, transmission losses in HTS problem and solved the problem to
get optimal fuel cost by improved Mühlenbein mutation based real-
coded GA. Narang [39] have considered different generating con-
straints, like ramp rate limit, valve-point loading effect, prohibited zone
etc. in HTS problem and solved it using improved predator influenced
civilized swarm optimization technique. Nguyen and Vo [40] have
determined optimal fuel cost and emission of HTS problem using MCSA.
Zhang et al. [41] have introduced power flow constraints in HTS pro-
blem and presented a small-population based parallel DE algorithm for
getting optimal fuel cost of the problem. An improved harmony search
algorithm was proposed to minimize generation cost of thermal power
plant by Nazari-Heris et al. in Ref. [42], where the authors have con-
sidered valve-point effect in the cost function. Hoseynpour et al. [43]
considered different linear and nonlinear constraints of HTS problem
and solved the same using dynamic nonlinear programming. Valinejad
et al. [44] presented DC power flow model while considering wind
power and adopting MILP for optimizing nodal or zonal market price of
electricity. Nazari-Heris et al. [45] considered ε-constraint method for
minimizing cost and emission of the micro grid dispatch problem.
Zhang et al. [46] proposed HTS problem while integrating wind and
photovoltaic power and obtained optimal fuel and emission cost using
gradient decent based multi-objective cultural DE. Patwal et al. [47]
have considered RESs like solar power generation in pumped storage
hydrothermal system for reducing fuel cost of the thermal power gen-
eration. The authors of Ref. [47] have determined optimal fuel cost of
the problem using time-varying acceleration coefficient PSO with mu-
tation strategies.
Recently, Mirjalili proposed a new population-based algorithm i.e.,
sine cosine algorithm (SCA) [48] in 2016. This technique is, mainly,
3
Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018
based on two phases which are the exploration phase and the ex-
ploitation phase. These two phases are maintained by sine and cosine
functions. SCA creates multiple initial random candidate solutions and
requires them to fluctuate outwards or towards the best solution using a
mathematical model based on sine and cosine functions. Several
random and adaptive variables are also integrated to this algorithm to
emphasize the exploration and the exploitation of the search space in
different milestones of optimization. These two phases of SCA are able
to find out the near global optimal solution of the objective function.
SCA overcomes different types of problems which are discussed in the
literature. SCA is tested in Ref. [48] on mathematical benchmark
functions to analyse its exploration, exploitation, local optima avoid-
ance and convergence behaviour. It overcomes premature convergence
behaviour of the multi-objective problems. The results of test functions
and performance metrics prove that the SCA algorithm is able to ex-
plore different regions of the search space, avoid local optima, converge
towards the global optimum and exploit promising regions of the search
space during optimization effectively. Recently, SCA has been used to
solve different real life problem like, multi-objective engineering design
problems [49], parameter optimization [50], wind speed forecasting
[51] etc.
In this work, wind energy is considered with the HTS problem and,
thus, a new model of hydrothermal wind scheduling (HTWS) is formed.
This new model consists of RESs which produces clean energy. It re-
duces global warming, environmental pollution. Generation cost and
emission will be reduced as compared to the traditional HTS model.
Power flow constraints are separately considered, instead of traditional
power balance constraints, to solve HTS and HTWS problem. An IEEE 9-
bus test system is considered to validate the proposed HTS and HTWS
models. The SCA (a recently published novel optimization technique) is
considered in this paper to solve different cases of traditional power
balance constraints based HTS, HTWS problems and power flow con-
straints based problems such as economic load scheduling (ELS), eco-
nomic emission scheduling (EES) and CEES. It reduces total generation
cost and emission of pollutant gases. Performance comparison with
existing algorithms in terms of solution optimality, consistency and
computational time requirement is presented for ELS, EES and CEES
problems. Obtained results, yielded by the proposed SCA technique (in
terms of total cost and emission), are compared to those obtained by
other methods available in the recent state-of-the-art literature in-
cluding self-organizing hierarchical PSO technique with time-varying
acceleration coefficients (SOHPSO-TVAC) [19], TLBO [20,21],
QOTLBO [21], RCCRO [24], RCGA [27], NSGSA-CM [28], non-domi-
nated sorting PSO (NSPSO) with chaotic mutation (NSPSO-CM) [28],
NSGSA [28], NSPSO [28], MILP [30], GSA [31], DGSA [31], PSADE
[34] and CBIA [37] etc.
The remaining section of the paper is as follows. Power generation
from wind source is described in Section 2. Generation cost of wind
power is analysed in Section 3. Proposed SCA is reviewed in Section 4.
Application of SCA for HTS is furnished in Section 5. In Section 6, re-
sults of the considered test cases are presented and analysed. Finally,
conclusion of the present work has been drawn in Section 7.
2. Wind power generation
Wind power generation [52] depends upon wind velocity due to
variable character of the wind speed. Wind power uncertainty con-
straints are considered for power generation from wind source. Ex-
pression of Weibull probability density function (pdf) for wind speed is
expressed in (1).
Sh 1 Sh
Sh Vel Vel
pdf (Vel; Sh; Sf ) = exp
Sf Sf Sf
where Vel > 0, Sh > 0 and Sf > 0 (1)
K. Dasgupta, et al. Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018

Cumulative density function (cdf) may be expressed in (2) de- Velin, Z S hZ Velout , Z ShZ
EUNE , Z , T = CUNE, Z × (wr , Z wZ ,T )[exp( ( ) ) exp( ( ) )]
pending on pdf of wind speed. Sf Z Sf Z
wr , Z Velin, Z Vel Vel
Sh +( + w Z , T)[exp( ( r , Z ) ShZ) exp( ( 1 ) ShZ )]
Vel vr , Z vin, Z Sf Z Sf Z
(2)
cdf (Vel; Sh; Sf ) = 1 exp Sf
wr , Z Sf Z 1 Vel1 S hZ 1 Velr , Z ShZ
+ { [1 + ( ) ] [1 + ( ) ]}
Velr , Z Velin, Z ShZ Sf Z ShZ S f Z
Generation of wind power (w) depends on wind velocity Vel . The
relation between wind velocity and power is represented by a linear (8)
model, as shown in (3). It is necessary to purchase the power from the wind farm operator to
fulfil the demand. This cost (i.e., the direct cost of wind power) is re-
0 (Vel < Velin or Vel Velout ) presented by (9)
(Vel Velin ) WR
w= (Velin Vel < Velr ) Edir , Z , T = gZ × wZ , T (9)
Velr Velin
WR (Velr Vel < Velout ) (3) where direct cost coefficient of the Zth wind generators is represented
by gZ .
Probability of wind power is considered as 0 and WR . It may be The wind cost function is considered in objective function for sol-
calculated using (4) and (5), respectively, ving HTWS problem. Wind cost function depends on three factors.
Direct wind cost component is the first factor. The second factor de-
Pw (w = 0) = cdf (Velin) + (1 cdf (Velout )) pends upon the wind uncertainty. Wind power is an uncertain resource
Velin
Sh
Velout
Sh which will be available more than scheduled wind power at the Tth
=1 exp + exp interval or less than scheduled wind power at the Tth interval. Excess
Sf Sf
(4) wind power is not utilized for the case of excess generation of wind
power. Penalty cost is considered for excess generation of wind power
Pw (w = WR ) = cdf (Velout ) + (1 cdf (Velr )) from the scheduled wind power. Sometimes, deficiency of wind power
Sh Sh
is observed when generated wind power is less than the scheduled wind
= exp
Velr
+ exp
Velout power. Deficiency of scheduled wind power is made up by the thermal
Sf Sf
(5) reservoir. The third factor is the reservoir cost function which is con-
sidered for deficiency of scheduled wind power. Three factors are
where cdf of the random variable (w ) is represented by integrating (4) considered for the cost of wind power of the Tth time interval. Eqs
and (5) and the same is given in (6). (7)–(9) are considered for the formulation of the cost function of the
wind power. The cost function of wind power generation is shown in
0 (w < 0) (10)
hw T NW
(1 + ) Velin
Sh hvin WR ETot _ wind = (EOVE , Z , t + EUNE , Z , t + Edir , Z , t )
fw (w ) =
[ ]Sh 1 (0 w < WR ) t=1 Z=1 (10)
WR Sf Sf
(1 + hw ) Velin
WR where the number of wind generators are shown by NW .
×exp { [ ]}
Sf

1 (w WR ) 3.1. Problem formulation of HTWS

Velr
where h = ( ) 1
Velin (6) The main objective of the HTS problem is to minimize generation
cost as well as emission cost. Running cost of hydropower generation is
very low, which is neglected. So, the target of this problem is proper
utilization of hydro plant by which it reduces emission and cost of fuel.
3. Generation cost of wind power Here, the nonconventional energy source (such as wind energy) is
considered for reducing generation cost and emission. So, wind in-
Generated wind power at each period does not always satisfy the tegrated HTS problem becomes more complicated than other sche-
actual value due to variation of the wind velocity. Power is required to duling problem. Thus, power generation cost minimization of thermal
purchase from another source, if power generation is less than the units along with wind units is considered as the prime objective func-
power demand. Cost involved therein for the fulfilment of demand tion. The objective function of the proposed HTWS problem is shown in
power is called overestimated cost. In other case, underestimated cost is (11).
considered for excess generation of wind power than power demand. FCT = FTH (PTH ) + ETot _ wind (11)
Underestimated cost is needed to compensate the excess wind power
generation by power suppliers. The cost function of overestimated and Optimal fuel cost may be achieved by proper allocation of power
underestimated of wind power is shown in (7) and (8), in order. among the committed generating units. The objective function of fuel
cost for the thermal power is shown in (12).
Velin, Z ShZ Velin, Z ShZ H NT
EOVE, Z , T = COVE , Z × wZ , T [1 exp( ( ) ) + exp( ( ) )] 2
Sf Z Sf Z Minimize FTH (P TH) = (aTHk + bTHk PTHkh + cTHk PTHkh
)
wr , Z Velin, Z Velin, Z ShZ h=1 k=1 (12)
Vel
+( + wZ , T )[exp( ( ) ) exp( ( 1 ) ShZ )]
Velr , Z Velin, Z Sf Z Sf Z In real-world, fuel cost function presented in (12), is needed to be
wr , Z Sf Z 1 Vel1 ShZ 1 Velin, Z ShZ modified by considering valve-point effect for getting more appropriate
+ { [1 + ( ) ] [1 + ( ) ]} fuel cost value [13]. However, in real-life, valves control the flow of
Velr , Z Velin, Z ShZ Sf Z ShZ Sf Z
stream entering through the nozzle groups of turbine. Each nozzle
(7) group achieves best efficiency when operating (presumably) at full
output. So, for increasing the output, valves are opened in sequence in
order to achieve the highest possible efficiency for given output. The

4
K. Dasgupta, et al. Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018

fuel cost function is modified by introducing sinusoidal function in the Table 1

cost function (see (13)) for satisfying valve-point loading effect. Effect of control parameter on SCA approach for HTS problem.
H NT Constraints (k) ELS fuel cost ($)
2
Minimize FTH (PTH ) = (aTHk + bTHk PTHkh + cTHk PTHkh )
h=1 k=1 SCA with wind SCA without wind
min
+ |dTHk sin (eTHk (PTHk PTHkh))| (13) 1.5 38060.94 41510.79
1.6 38049.21 41506.82
Fossil fuel is used for thermal power generation. It produces parti- 1.7 38027.90 41494.39
cles and gaseous emissions apart from heat. So, the use of fossil fuel for 1.8 38012.67 41485.87
thermal power generation increases global warming, environmental 1.9 38005.20 41479.66
temperature. Therefore, an additional exponential part has been con- 2.0 37999.28 41471.90
2.1 38015.21 41484.43
sidered with quadratic function to express objective function of the fuel
2.2 38039.65 41496.79
emission (ETH (PTH ) ) [37] and it is shown in (14). 2.3 38051.73 41503.16
H NT 2.4 38058.61 41515.89
Minimize ETH (PTH ) = ( 2 2.5 38066.82 41519.50
THk + THk PTHkh + THk PTHkh)
h=1 k=1
Bold values mean optimal generation cost is obtained when the value of con-
+ THk exp ( THk PTHkh) (14) straint is taken 2.
Emission and cost are needed to be optimized, as presented in (15).
The continuity equation for the hydro reservoir network may be
Minimize TC = FTH (PTH ) + h × E (PTH ) (15) represented by (23).
Generating constraints (like power balanced constraint, generating
VHYnh = VHYn (h + IHYnh QHYnh SHYnh
limit, water discharge and storage limit constraints etc.) must be ful-
1)
Run
filled by the participating generators. Fulfilment of demand power + (QHYl (h + SHYl (h
Dln ) Dln) )
(PDm ) for 24 h with 1-h interval case is necessary for hydro, thermal and l=1 (23)
wind plant. Expression of demand power balance of generated power
from hydro, thermal and wind plant is represented in (16).
NT NH NW 3.2. Problem formulation of optimal power flow
PTHkh + P HYnh + PWzh P Dh = 0 h = 1, 2, ..., H
k=1 n=1 z=1 (16) Prime purpose of conventional OPF [41] analysis is to determine the
best setting of control parameters of power system control variables
Demand power balance equation is reformed by considering trans-
that reduce generation cost of power production while fulfilling the
mission loss (PLh ) constraint, which is presented in (17).
system constraints. In this work, the OPF issue includes wind generation
NT NH
units. Active and reactive power balance constraints of this problem are
PTHkh + P HYnh denoted, respectively, by (24) and (25).
k= 1 n=1
NW
PTGi + PWGi PDi
+ PWzh P Dh P Lh = 0h = 1, 2, ..., H
(17)
NB
z=1
Vi Vj [Gij cos( i j ) + Bij sin( i j )] = 0 i = 1, 2, 3.. ,N B
Participating hydropower generators generate a portion of demand j=1 (24)
power which is determined using the function of reservoir storage vo-
lume and water discharge, as shown in (18). QTGi + QWGi PDi
NB
2 2
PHYnh = CH 1n VHnh + CH 2n QHnh + CH 3n VHnh QHnh n = 1 , 2, ........, NH Vi Vj [Gij sin( i j ) + Bij cos( i j )] = 0 i = 1, 2, 3.. ,N B
+ CH 4n VHnh + CH 5n QHnh + CH 6n h = 1 , 2, ........, H j=1 (25)
(18)
The limitations of power generation are as follow:
Every generator has its own minimum and maximum generating
min max
limits. So, participating generators should fulfil their own generating PTGi
PTGi PTGi
i = 1, 2, 3, ....NTG (26)
limits. Generating limit constraints of hydro and thermal power gen-
erating plants are shown in (19) and (20), in order. min
PWGi
PWGi max
PWGi
i = 1, 2, 3, ....NWG (27)
min max
PTHk PTHkh PTHk min max
QTGi
QTGi QTGi
i = 1, 2, 3, ....NTG (28)
k = 1, 2, …, NT and h = 1, 2, …, H (19)
min max
min max QWG QWGi QWG i = 1, 2, 3, ....NWG (29)
PHYn PHYnh PHYn i i

n = 1, 2, …, NH and h = 1, 2, …, H (20) The limitations of system security constraints are as follow:

Water storage (VHYnh ) and discharge capacity of the reservoir (QHYnh ) VGmin
i
VGi VGmax
i
i = 1, 2, 3, ....NG (30)
must be within respective minimum and maximum capacity, as laid
down, in order, in (21) and (22). VLmin VLi VLmax i = 1, 2, 3, ....NL (31)
i i
min max
VHYn VHYnh VHYn
Timin Ti Timax i = 1, 2, 3, ....NT (32)
n = 1, 2, …, NH and h = 1, 2, …, H (21)

min max QCmin

i
QCi QCmax
i
i = 1, 2, 3, ....NC (33)
QHYn QHYnh QHYn
n = 1 , 2, . ..,NH and h = 1 , 2, . ..,H (22) S Li S Lmax
i
i = 1, 2, 3, ....NL (34)

5
K. Dasgupta, et al. Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018

Table 2
Water discharge rates and thermal schedule obtained by SCA technique pertaining to ELS.
Hour Water discharge of reservoir Thermal power (MW)

3 3 3 3
Qh1 (m ) Qh2 (m ) Qh3 (m ) Qh4 (m ) Ps1 Ps2 Ps3

1 84370 80050 143770 110740 104.0967 124.6823 139.8913

2 143560 99810 267890 94940 103.2246 209.8697 139.9331
3 91600 97110 211550 92120 20.0894 124.8401 229.5350
4 72420 89340 264800 102050 104.0643 124.8977 140.0105
5 96830 94630 273480 99810 102.3612 40.0323 229.4378
6 93920 80940 172590 91400 104.7002 125.2067 229.6084
7 61120 95250 191950 177840 106.4088 125.6522 319.2975
8 50450 64410 191540 184110 98.8314 293.5130 229.4918
9 91740 65170 220960 127870 102.4532 294.7249 319.8454
10 93460 112950 141820 155470 102.9419 294.8169 229.4456
11 117890 90370 144590 167130 105.7690 210.3184 319.3118
12 83950 80520 160240 149720 102.4940 295.2953 319.3318
13 72700 65430 181930 135180 175.0000 295.2899 229.6630
14 81020 64590 207610 132840 100.2606 294.9338 229.4527
15 80860 129150 151790 149700 102.0518 209.8925 229.5076
16 53980 68470 172440 172510 102.0215 294.8827 229.1899
17 63970 65810 151360 135880 101.5657 210.0339 319.3228
18 81650 90660 160420 195850 102.5877 294.7314 229.7645
19 67240 69350 143220 157020 102.1421 294.4480 229.3674
20 117770 88460 137400 195210 102.8022 209.4127 229.5233
21 65970 76320 126090 176700 100.3743 209.7311 139.8198
22 77210 88120 112590 192880 21.8399 125.2067 229.5841
23 56260 76510 138920 195030 29.7658 132.4375 229.5659
24 50060 86580 166520 167350 102.3599 124.7999 139.8895

Fig. 1. Graphical characteristics of water storage volume vs. time period pertaining to ELS.

Table 3
Comparison of results obtained by the proposed SCA pertaining to ELS.
Methods EES

Minimum fuel cost ($) Average fuel cost ($) Maximum fuel cost ($) Simulation time (s) Number of trail runs

SCA [Proposed] 41471.90 41473.52 41476.60 12.52 15

RCCRO [24] 41497.8517 41498.2129 41502.3669 15.51 25
MILP [30] 41549.99 – – 1.92 -
DGSA [31] 41,751.15 41,821.49 41989.02 31.99 20
SOHPSO-TVAC [19] 41983 – – 112 50
GSA [31] 42,032.35 42,292.12 42,561.53 32.29 -
QOTLBO [21] 42187 42193.46 42202.75 21.6 50
TLBO [20] 42385.88 42407.23 42441.36 - 50
RCGA [27] 42886.352 43032.334 43261.912 30 30
TLBO [21] 42386.13 42407.23 42441.36 25.7 50

4. SCA problem). Mirjalili proposed SCA algorithm in Ref. [48] and success-
fully implemented the same to solve non-smooth objective function
A novel SCA is proposed in the present article for solving the con- based optimization problems.
sidered power system optimization problem (i.e., HTS and HTWS Like other population-based algorithms, the SCA is consisting of two

6
K. Dasgupta, et al. Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018

Fig. 2. Convergence characteristics of fuel cost.

Table 4
Water discharge rates, thermal and wind schedule obtained by SCA technique pertaining to ELS.
Hour Water discharge of reservoir Thermal power (MW) Wind power (MW)

Qh1(m3) Qh2 (m3) Qh3 (m3) Qh4 (m3) Ps1 Ps2 Ps3 Pw1 Pw2

1 78010 69220 278270 153600 102.8765 40.1056 139.9180 81.2413 38.8984

2 70740 65250 221950 71870 24.2046 122.9749 232.3273 89.5716 34.1768
3 99300 66530 120840 107890 23.2590 40.9757 137.3111 84.9373 59.2871
4 109210 87550 135670 91030 21.7207 129.5877 57.1310 70.2635 28.8880
5 87580 111370 150640 153380 27.9068 42.6330 54.0646 78.0429 56.3221
6 90500 108850 136340 192660 20.8903 124.8998 127.5276 63.7691 23.8174
7 74270 68690 134840 132370 25.1652 209.9935 228.8970 80.1287 37.5701
8 101060 110690 159960 166370 25.4138 294.2870 140.9171 75.8006 51.9703
9 114060 97130 197820 110050 102.9164 208.6387 318.0615 86.5007 6.8858
10 94290 70860 205380 105110 103.6337 126.7785 403.1318 83.0545 22.4543
11 106800 89630 235320 95510 103.0210 212.0041 326.6447 68.2001 54.6043
12 55130 74110 175070 115330 101.3848 113.0880 496.6710 58.9048 29.0234
13 56270 90270 250930 147760 101.5551 292.6109 235.0132 82.2307 41.6305
14 50170 93370 176030 100390 102.4382 126.4727 317.6326 67.8301 58.2024
15 79190 70810 106280 150000 20.5812 124.4448 319.0647 81.2602 32.3399
16 81220 111620 170560 188450 99.2966 212.4750 145.3770 78.6755 48.7851
17 65840 69430 244230 184600 93.1360 208.2703 225.6763 89.7261 21.3540
18 55650 64290 115500 96130 102.6601 210.9432 316.4245 71.9019 51.8204
19 86460 104430 117920 182630 21.0193 211.3639 228.2828 88.4556 37.4354
20 57520 80960 223590 194410 72.7757 210.2900 233.7026 75.8402 30.3488
21 94940 61220 137570 120420 103.3078 124.3650 140.3895 76.2621 43.6684
22 60640 68400 104670 198810 97.3089 41.9350 143.8751 76.4066 41.7963
23 65850 66180 240410 168240 48.3784 120.6207 140.5902 83.6791 53.5887
24 115300 119140 118340 198130 20.7807 127.1109 135.4273 1.8639 1.1327

phases i.e., the exploration phase and the exploitation phase. Two SCiI + z1 × sin(z2 ) × |z 3 PoiI SCiI | , z 4 < 0.5
equations (namely, sine and cosine functions) have been considered to SCiI =
SCiI + z1 × cos(z2 ) × |z 3 PoiI SCiI | , z 4 0.5 (37)
emphasize the two phases involved in the algorithm. These two equa-
tions are expressed as follow:
where z 4 is a random number in [0,1].
This algorithm is termed as SCA for the presence of both the com-
SCiI + 1 = SCiI + z1 × sin(z2) × |z 3 PoiI SCiI | (35)
ponents (i.e., sine and cosine), as represented in (37). Existence of the
sine and the cosine components in the algorithm is mentioned in [48].
SCiI + 1 = SCiI + z1 × cos(z2) × |z 3 PoiI SCiI | (36) The exploration and the exploitation are required to be balanced to find
the promising regions of the search space which may, eventually,
where SCiI is considered for denoting the position of the current solu- guarantee to converge to the global optimum. Eq. (38) is considered to
tion. Current position and dimension of the solution are considered by i change the range of sine and cosine in (35) and (36) for balancing the
and I , respectively. Here, z1, z2, z 3 are the random numbers in [0,1]. phase of exploration and exploitation. In order to balance exploration
PoiI is the position of the dimension point in the ith dimension and the and exploitation, the range of sine and cosine in (35) and (36) are
sign indicates the absolute values. Application of the sine component changed using (38)
is shown in (35) while the same for the cosine component is illustrated
in (36). z1 = k i
k
These two equations are combined and may be expressed by (37) I (38)

7
K. Dasgupta, et al. Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018

Fig. 3. Graphical characteristics of water storage volume vs. time period pertaining to ELS (HTWS).

Table 5
Comparison of results obtained by the proposed SCA pertaining to ELS.
Methods Minimum fuel cost ($) Average fuel cost ($) Maximum fuel cost ($) Simulation time (s)

SCA with wind 37999.28 38001.27 3803.47 14.50

CPLEX(software) with wind 39460.59 39462.39 39465.14 110.73
SCA without wind 41471.90 41473.52 41476.60 12.52

Fig. 4. Convergence characteristics of generation cost (HTWS).

where the current iteration and the maximum number of iterations are, Furthermore, it may be stated while referring Figs. 6 and 7 of Ref. [46]
represented, respectively, by i and I , k is a constant, z1, z2, z 3 and z 4 that the SCA algorithm explores the search space when the ranges of the
are the main four parameters of the algorithm. Two phases (i.e., the sine and the cosine functions are, in sequence, in (1, 2] and [−2,−1].
exploration and the exploitation) are controlled by the prime parameter
of SCA (i.e. z1). This model has a circular search pattern (as illustrated in 5. Hydro-thermal-wind scheduling using SCA
Ref. [48]). The best solution or the desired destination point is in the
centre of a circle and the search agent is positioned around it. The HTWS has been solved using SCA. Detailed steps of SCA for the
parameter z1 indicates the movement in between the solution and the HTWS problem is described below.
destination regions or outside it. It may be noted that z1 is used to
balance the exploration and the exploitations steps. The parameter z2
indicates how far the movement should be outwards or towards the
• Consider total number of generating limits and other constraints of
the hydro and the thermal generating plants.
destination. The random number z2 lies between 0 and 2 . The effect of
desalination (in defining the distance) is emphasized (Z3 > 1) or
• The water discharge rates of all the committed hydro plants are
randomly set within water discharge limit for (T-1) hours using (39).
deemphasized (Z3 < 1) by giving random weights using the parameter
T MIN MIN MAX
z 3 for the destination. Finally, the parameter z 4 equitably changes be- QHYI = QHYI + rand × (QHYI QHYI )
tween the sine and the cosine components, as presented in (37). I = 1, 2, 3....., NH ; T = 1, 2, 3, ..., H (39)

8
K. Dasgupta, et al. Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018

Table 6
Water discharge rates and thermal schedule obtained by SCA technique pertaining to EES.
Hour Water discharge of reservoir Thermal power (MW)

3 3 3 3
Qh1(m ) Qh2(m ) Qh3(m ) Qh4(m ) Ps1 Ps2 Ps3

1 85500 60000 234390 60000 175.0000 179.9056 115.3651

2 90010 60000 241590 60000 175.0000 206.8500 129.4606
3 73010 60000 229590 60000 175.0000 124.9100 140.8226
4 69950 60000 215590 60000 140.3583 124.9100 125.4222
5 67330 60000 194090 60000 135.2458 124.9100 125.8193
6 58200 60000 172990 60000 175.0000 184.9700 139.4074
7 82150 71480 164590 121890 175.0000 209.8200 153.1969
8 99000 76100 164290 142890 175.0000 211.6800 173.5139
9 99200 79500 170290 160990 175.0000 269.9043 176.5291
10 96200 81940 173690 170490 175.0000 244.6824 183.7832
11 98700 101360 173190 164590 175.0000 226.6849 214.0590
12 99790 100830 179490 164290 175.0000 280.0800 213.3024
13 102740 95440 182990 170290 175.0000 245.0854 205.1985
14 95500 87040 186890 173690 175.0000 214.5600 159.9274
15 82060 73380 184290 173190 175.0000 209.8200 156.5514
16 92400 86570 172490 179490 175.0000 230.9795 161.3844
17 92400 98000 161390 182990 175.0000 214.5700 157.1322
18 90500 104330 157990 186890 175.0000 255.6919 182.8313
19 89900 108890 154690 199790 175.0000 214.9100 166.8085
20 84200 112080 151890 199990 175.0000 211.4000 156.1800
21 50790 70100 121290 190390 167.6479 166.4454 118.5119
22 50000 93850 126690 192690 126.0281 171.9857 91.8606
23 50000 106390 131190 199990 141.2750 124.9100 109.1830
24 50470 112720 134000 199870 102.6700 124.9100 102.6429

T 1 T T
24 I FINAL J J J
QHYI = VHYI VHYI QHYI SHYI + IHYI
Table 7 J =1 J =1 J =1
Comparison of results obtained by the proposed SCA pertaining to EES. UI T
J DKI J DKI
Methods Cost ($) Emission Computational Number of + (QHYK + SHYK ) I = 1, 2, ....., NH
(lb/day) time (s) trail runs K =1 J =1 (40)
Limitation value of water discharge is considered for checking the
SCA [Proposed] 46730.20 15849.43 12.45 15
CBIA [37] – 16,303 96 50 last hour discharge. The complete solution set is abandoned, if any
PSADE [34] 49717 16495.62 26.25 – violation of constraint occurs for water discharge. Above procedure
SOHPSO-TVAC 44432 16803.00 112.56 50 is continued until the constraints are satisfied. The volume of the
[19]
reservoir of all the hydro generators is computed using (23). Water
reservoir volume is checked by considering water volume con-
straints. The population set will be discarded and reinitialized, if any
reservoir volume is not satisfied by inequality constraints. After that,
Water discharges all the hydro generators, for the last hiatus, are
power generation of all the hydro plants (for 24 h with the one-hour
determined by (40) where initial, last volume of the reservoir, dis-
interval) is calculated using (18).After that, the maximum part of
charge of previous hours, water spillage and inflow of 24 h are
remaining demand power is generated by committed thermal and
considered.
wind power generating plants, except slack generator using (41) and
(6), respectively. The slack generator of thermal and wind power

Fig. 5. Graphical characteristics of water storage volume vs. time period pertaining to EES.

9
K. Dasgupta, et al. Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018

Fig. 6. Convergence characteristics of emission.

Table 8
Water discharge rates, thermal and wind schedule obtained by SCA technique pertaining to EES.
Hour Water discharge of reservoir Thermal power (MW) Wind power (MW)

Qh1(m3) Qh2(m3) Qh3(m3) Qh4(m3) Ps1 Ps2 Ps3 Pw1 Pw2

1 93810 62780 148510 62280 104.2739 108.1056 70.5977 85.0348 58.3549

2 101950 70580 280180 70710 127.5633 129.3693 98.7170 89.9608 51.5290
3 74710 60920 229990 61760 114.6756 117.3756 61.9818 87.6423 55.4658
4 50590 67140 264710 82950 104.6895 90.9569 61.5909 88.9830 51.8246
5 50820 60890 224180 69560 111.8858 95.0539 64.7814 89.0461 54.6918
6 81520 60440 287870 123490 118.5865 117.4348 76.3637 89.0969 58.8379
7 85920 65190 121800 156140 142.7504 141.5067 108.8252 88.8250 44.1309
8 94680 66270 255730 148320 163.0068 147.2624 160.0517 88.4094 58.4761
9 113470 62410 119280 170630 172.2708 174.1878 135.6996 89.5328 56.3016
10 107890 95400 151020 176990 147.4384 173.3157 127.6575 86.7415 51.9685
11 86760 75740 194170 186880 170.2083 159.5091 162.2921 89.4491 59.8007
12 64970 69810 195950 178880 170.7016 168.3469 226.6425 88.8880 52.8191
13 117050 110230 131160 136700 155.2051 204.5456 126.7035 88.9783 58.2998
14 107190 73740 148150 143220 157.7164 144.9619 119.5149 89.3153 58.5517
15 65430 68250 179620 199230 163.2284 132.2608 98.5595 88.9836 58.2323
16 72490 94090 139710 186000 151.5494 162.4155 106.4793 88.6977 55.8532
17 90050 93490 166930 155920 143.6234 175.7944 111.0784 89.5040 55.7925
18 91540 106610 144020 179210 164.2985 155.5365 162.8827 87.1104 51.3823
19 93540 111110 135970 189930 146.4752 147.1600 124.4181 89.6655 54.8290
20 78850 122820 162810 191370 156.7852 145.2903 109.7861 88.9951 57.2314
21 60160 103430 131230 181560 115.1595 104.3295 75.6232 88.3771 57.8594
22 57550 104890 106440 181680 106.5466 87.1373 58.2452 86.8224 57.7735
23 57560 92090 131340 175690 100.7952 80.9800 77.0761 82.5012 57.1535
24 51500 121680 114510 140660 86.5992 80.0012 59.4746 87.8045 55.8301

generating plants generate remaining part of demand power. If violated, then go to Step 4, otherwise go to the next step.
generated power violates the nonlinear generating limit constraints, • The updated position of the particles of the HTWS problem is
then discard that population set and that set is reinitialized using checked whether water discharge rate and thermal power genera-
(41). tion, in sequence, satisfy (22) and (19) or not. If any value is higher
T MIN MIN MAX
than the maximum limit, then that value is set to the maximum
PHI = PHI + rand × (PHI PHI )
limit. Similarly, if any value is lower than the minimum limit, then
I = 1, 2, 3....., NT ; T = 1, 2, 3, ..., H (41) that value is replaced by its minimum limit.
• The water discharge rate of the last interval of all the hydro plants

• The fitness of an initial set of thermal power is evaluated using fit- are evaluated using (40) and the thermal power of the last gen-
erating unit is evaluated. The discharge rate of the last interval of all
ness function (described in (13)).
• Parameters of SCA (z1, z2, z 3 and z 4 ) are initialized. the hydro plant and the thermal power generation of the last unit

• The position of initial particles of the HTWS problem is updated by

the two phases of SCA (the exploration phase and the exploitation
phase), in order, by (35) and (36). Check the condition of z 4 . If z 4 is
less than 0.5, then the position of initial particles of HTS problem is
updated by (35), otherwise position of the initial particles of the
HTS problem is updated by (36). This condition is expressed in (37).
are checked by (40) and (16), respectively. The infeasible solutions
are replaced by the randomly generated new solution sets.
• Fitness of values of the updated particles’ positions are determined
by the fitness function. New fitness values of the updated particles
are compared to the previous value of the fitness function.
• Steps 4 to 9 are continued, until the the adaptive stopping

• In this step, the boundary condition is checked. If the limit is criterion [53] is satisfied. The maximum number of
consecutive iterations is considered as k = 20. When

10
K. Dasgupta, et al. Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018

Fig. 7. Graphical characteristics of water storage volume vs. time period pertaining to EES (HTWS).

Table 9 power generating units with the same number of hydro and thermal
Comparison of results obtained by the proposed SCA pertaining to EES. generating units of HTS problem. Optimal values of three cases (i.e. ELS,
Methods EES
EES and CEES) of HTS and HTWS problems have been obtained by the
SCA. Different values of k for the SCA algorithm have been chosen for
Cost ($) Emission Computational time(S) determining near global optimal value. Sensitivity of the parameter (k)
(lb/day) for the SCA algorithm has been tabulated in Table 1. Near global op-
SCA with wind 77742.76 8258.24 14.30
timal solution is obtained when the value of k is considered as 2. The
CPLEX(software) with 79821.76 9899.62 114.71 effectiveness of wind plant on the HTS problem has been presented in
wind this work by showing the difference of the results for the two cases (i.e.,
SCA without wind 46730.20 15849.43 12.45 without wind and with wind) of HTS problem. Different linear, non-
linear constraints have been considered for HTS and HTWS problems.
The generating constraints of HTS and HTWS problem are taken from
abs ( fitness at kth iteration - fitness at(K-1)th iteartion
fitness at kth iteration ) 10 6 is achieved, the stop- Refs. [14,52]. Transmission loss is neglected for simplicity. The best
ping criterion of SCA is made. result is presented in this paper out of 15 independent trial runs. The
programming part of the proposed work has been completed using
6. Result analysis MATLAB.

Different cases of HTS and HTWS have been solved using a novel
algorithm, i.e. SCA. Here, the nonconventional energy sources (i.e.,
wind power generating plant) perform a vital role with the hydro and
the thermal power plants in fulfilling power demand. Fuel cost and
emissions (like NO2, SO2, CO, etc.) are reduced by considering wind
power plants with hydro and thermal plants. Four hydro and three
thermal power generating units are involved in the considered problem.
The considered problem has been modified by introducing two wind
6.1. Study and result analysis of ELS
In this case study, the fuel cost of HTS problem has been minimized
using SCA. Wind power generation cost is also considered with thermal
power generation cost for producing the optimum cost of HTWS pro-
blem using SCA technique. Generating constraints are considered from
Refs. [14,52] for both the problems. Valve-point effect is considered in
the objective function for both the problems. Here, transmission losses

Fig. 8. Convergence characteristics of emission (HTWS).

11
K. Dasgupta, et al. Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018

Table 10
Water discharge rates, thermal schedule obtained by SCA technique pertaining to CEES.
Hour Water discharge of reservoir Thermal power (MW)

3 3 3 3
Qh1(m ) Qh2(m ) Qh3(m ) Qh4(m ) Ps1 Ps2 Ps3

1 85460 60000 234280 60000 175.0000 155.5978 139.6206

2 72360 60000 241480 60000 175.0000 206.9534 139.7997
3 73860 60000 229490 60000 175.0000 124.9725 139.6644
4 67170 60000 215490 60000 128.4142 124.9725 139.6082
5 65370 60000 194000 60000 123.0315 124.9725 139.6129
6 58170 60000 172910 60000 175.0000 185.0625 139.6713
7 99150 75370 164520 121840 175.0000 209.9249 142.2409
8 97120 79430 164220 142830 175.0000 211.7858 173.3308
9 102700 79820 170210 160920 175.0000 217.0585 228.1007
10 83180 77210 173610 170410 175.0000 209.9249 228.5010
11 98650 83760 173110 164520 175.0000 219.5097 229.1709
12 96420 70690 179410 164220 175.0000 280.2200 229.4296
13 98700 87300 182910 170210 175.0000 224.8424 228.6281
14 95150 104390 186810 173610 175.0000 214.6673 149.9110
15 96670 88070 184210 173110 175.0000 209.9249 140.4648
16 63290 60970 172410 179410 175.0000 209.9249 218.6637
17 110710 114290 161320 182910 175.0000 214.6773 140.1253
18 92370 95110 157920 186810 175.0000 212.2361 228.7015
19 102830 118310 130980 199700 175.0000 215.0175 152.9400
20 89360 135410 151820 199900 175.0000 210.3753 146.9550
21 50950 94150 121240 190300 175.0000 124.9725 140.4178
22 50000 99850 126640 192600 124.3822 124.9725 139.4094
23 50000 116850 131130 199900 111.4657 124.9725 139.7313
24 50360 79020 176800 175910 102.7213 124.9725 139.6705

Fig. 9. Graphical characteristics of water storage volume vs. time period pertaining to CEES.

are neglected for simplicity. Three factors (i.e., direct, overestimated

and underestimated cost of wind power generation) are considered in
Table 11
the objective function (see (10)) for getting appropriate wind power
Comparison of results obtained by the proposed SCA pertaining to CEES.
generation cost of the considered problem. Water discharge rates and
Methods Cost ($) Emission (lb/day) Computational Number thermal schedule, as obtained from SCA, are shown in Table 2. Gra-
time (s) of runs
phical representation of water storage volume versus time period is
for trial
represented in Fig. 1. Optimal fuel cost of 41471.90$ for HTS problem,
SCA [Proposed] 42957.30 16319.850295 13.16 15 as obtained while using SCA, is shown in Table 3. Convergence beha-
NSGSA-CM 43,207 16,564 – 10 viour of fuel cost of the HTS problem, as obtained using SCA, is dis-
[28]
played in Fig. 2. Comparison of proposed optimal fuel costs of the HTS
NSPSO-CM [28] 44,248 16,651 – –
NSGSA [28] 44,519 16,574 – – with the results offered by different latest optimization techniques (like,
NSPSO [28] 44,638 16,694 – – SOHPSO-TVAC [18], TLBO [19,20], QOTLBO [20], RCCRO [23], RCGA
CBIA [37] 42,990 17,311 98 50 [26], MILP [29], GSA [30] and DGSA [30]) are given in Table 3. The
PSADE [34] 41697.23 17981.40 26.27 - computation time for the proposed SCA is found to be 12.52 s. Fuel cost
SOHPSO-TVAC 43045.00 17003.00 120 50
is also optimized using SCA technique for HTWS problem. Here, the
[19]
MILP [30] 43,501.896 16,146.542 40.95 - wind power plant is considered with other two plants (i.e., hydro and
thermal plants). Hourly plant discharge and thermal and wind

12
K. Dasgupta, et al. Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018

Table 12
Water discharge rates, thermal and wind schedule obtained by SCA technique pertaining to CEES.
Hour Water discharge of reservoir Thermal power (MW) Wind power (MW)

3 3 3 3
Qh1 (m ) Qh2 (m ) Qh3 (m ) Qh4 (m ) Ps1 Ps2 Ps3 Pw1 Pw2

1 108410 65060 113010 61710 102.7217 114.2142 66.1372 88.1552 47.5114

2 84120 68600 132400 79190 107.6037 128.1778 62.0471 84.5251 58.1843
3 51210 73440 219700 126440 92.1812 102.8123 51.3565 84.0126 38.9478
4 52850 84620 206940 62210 104.2275 116.4210 53.7697 77.8611 29.0982
5 51890 64830 267640 126230 99.7216 44.3131 110.4148 84.3465 43.6564
6 94410 73290 220990 61790 110.5504 126.1352 140.9740 88.3853 52.1025
7 69040 83480 106790 99310 109.8103 211.2236 133.2084 86.3849 51.6938
8 74790 92420 193970 68030 152.4047 186.1650 215.7141 78.4880 50.1493
9 63960 72670 186230 186410 161.2883 231.5260 132.2215 86.0193 46.3202
10 86280 83620 155930 121830 164.7659 127.7958 228.3066 89.8511 47.1401
11 118960 115410 184330 159750 111.9897 214.7045 156.1879 88.4623 56.9597
12 55550 61800 176090 152090 154.9441 199.4501 249.7002 82.9065 55.7726
13 121200 76260 274500 147420 152.4419 199.0776 199.7868 87.9471 56.5853
14 64660 77770 124710 156760 106.3196 207.6066 135.4655 83.4827 53.0120
15 67410 73110 270660 195470 96.8374 204.9448 155.4664 79.6893 54.0581
16 82520 94490 136130 170140 150.5553 127.3650 168.1719 85.3603 52.5095
17 87560 68140 130180 181360 171.9587 210.3388 51.4524 89.4656 43.9178
18 120010 83290 219320 187930 167.8401 128.3075 241.2352 77.5350 29.6085
19 111030 106720 128240 171690 103.9937 205.7069 108.8636 86.4813 56.5066
20 53930 85510 152070 194890 104.0449 205.2222 141.1398 85.2266 45.3000
21 65570 137730 103820 199750 102.6396 56.4203 135.1721 66.5207 54.7120
22 94750 71660 132280 191300 97.6214 89.4344 53.8296 74.8012 56.4049
23 57150 82350 134880 180840 77.7931 116.7275 58.3173 84.5981 56.9075
24 112740 123730 174560 185290 99.6759 46.6674 143.8841 0.9287 7.3581

Fig. 10. Graphical characteristics of water storage volume vs. time period pertaining to CEES (HTWS).

Table 13
Comparison of results obtained by the proposed SCA pertaining to CEES.
Methods Cost ($) Emission (lb/day) Computational time (s)

SCA with wind 38877.1685 10897.626856 14.30

CPLEX(software) with wind 39820.6654 11284.7366 125.60
SCA without wind 42957.30 16319.850295 13.16

schedule, as obtained from SCA, are included in Table 4. Graphical HTWS problems shows that fuel cost of HTWS is better than HTS pro-
characteristic of water storage volume versus hour, as obtained using blem.
SCA, is shown in Fig. 3. Optimal generation cost of 37999.28 $ for
HTWS problem, as obtained by using SCA, is expressed in Table 5.
6.2. Study and result analysis of EES
Computational time of the SCA for the solution of the HTWS problem is
14.50 s. CPLEX software is also considered to solve the ELS case of
Emission minimization of fuel is considered as the main objective
HTWS problem. Optimal generation cost (i.e. 39460.59 $), as obtained
function (see (14)) for HTS and HTWS problems using SCA. Hourly
by CPLEX software, is illustrated in Table 5. Convergence behaviour of
plant discharges and thermal schedule of HTS problem, as obtained by
generation cost for HTWS problem, as obtained by using SCA, is pre-
SCA, are illustrated in Table 6. Optimal emission of 15849.43 lb/day for
sented in Fig. 4. Comparison of proposed optimal costs of HTS and
HTS problem, as proposed by SCA technique, is shown in Table 7.

13
K. Dasgupta, et al. Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018

Table 14
Optimal solution of OPF based HTS problem of 9-bus system using SCA pertaining to ELS.
Hour Water discharge of reservoir Generation (p.u.) Generators’ bus voltage (p.u.) Tap changing transformer (p.u.) Reactive power (p.u.)

3 3
Qh1(m ) Qh2(m ) Ph1 Ph2 Ps1 V1 V2 V3 Tc1 Tc2 Qc1 Qc2

1 67020 110130 0.6708 0.7501 1.7550 1.0241 1.0397 1.0460 0.9319 1.0321 0.0396 0.0035
2 77990 131150 0.7508 0.7840 1.7682 1.0780 1.0406 1.0885 0.9541 0.9985 0.0277 0.0384
3 50400 115730 0.5419 0.7649 1.6997 1.0852 0.9314 0.9140 0.9042 0.9364 0.0104 0.0406
4 125770 149680 0.9587 0.8696 0.9267 1.0986 1.0167 1.0652 0.9529 1.0942 0.0216 0.0009
5 54190 66470 0.5664 0.5593 1.7531 1.0785 0.9163 0.9343 0.9154 0.9243 0.0097 0.0150
6 73710 149750 0.7157 0.9464 1.7525 1.0749 0.9983 0.9160 0.9590 0.9365 0.0358 0.0118
7 53380 141380 0.5638 0.9111 2.5808 1.0750 0.9147 1.0122 1.0751 1.0041 0.0235 0.0213
8 83130 146610 0.7860 0.9204 2.5880 1.0384 1.0795 1.0848 0.9326 1.0509 0.0380 0.0050
9 90210 149650 0.8304 0.9151 2.8934 1.0385 1.0658 1.0716 0.9007 1.0398 0.0091 0.0041
10 50930 123740 0.5530 0.8799 3.3417 0.9084 0.9132 1.0783 1.0917 1.0920 0.0283 0.0302
11 58270 85720 0.6240 0.7557 3.4055 0.9536 0.9040 1.0907 1.0422 1.0183 0.0360 0.0168
12 50000 149500 0.5512 0.9951 3.4019 0.9948 1.0031 0.9565 1.0106 0.9791 0.0208 0.0368
13 50640 142100 0.5566 0.9765 3.3904 0.9029 0.9113 1.0738 1.0993 1.0929 0.0312 0.0330
14 84410 143740 0.8357 0.9782 2.5774 1.0796 0.9462 0.9887 0.9201 1.0388 0.0162 0.0373
15 71750 150000 0.7409 0.9859 2.5786 1.0643 1.0211 0.9678 1.0493 0.9560 0.0003 0.0123
16 102730 145760 0.9507 0.9882 2.5772 0.9661 1.0682 0.9496 0.9012 1.0136 0.0412 0.0053
17 92710 149540 0.8916 0.9915 2.5816 1.0980 1.0654 1.0251 0.9757 1.0434 0.0389 0.0282
18 50000 150000 0.5427 1.0000 3.4047 0.9026 1.0598 0.9289 1.0967 1.0848 0.0311 0.0084
19 115560 136740 1.0120 0.9831 2.5804 1.0821 1.0672 0.9130 1.0887 1.0719 0.0096 0.0063
20 91040 149780 0.8787 1.0031 2.5792 1.0674 1.0632 1.0734 0.9227 0.9998 0.0058 0.0362
21 137400 150000 1.0648 1.0346 1.7596 0.9988 1.0633 1.0943 0.9032 0.9685 0.0386 0.0031
22 85180 150000 0.8345 1.0509 1.7595 1.0302 1.0985 1.0749 0.9405 0.9628 0.0426 0.0252
23 83240 150000 0.8223 1.0836 1.7535 1.0939 0.9224 0.9013 0.9280 0.9073 0.0012 0.0460
24 50330 149260 0.5535 1.0891 1.7522 1.0295 1.0231 1.0599 1.0165 0.9132 0.0005 0.0025
Cost($) 18268.57
Emission (lb/Hr.) 11710.00
Computational time (s) 18.63

Table 15
Optimal solution of OPF based HTS problem of 9-bus system using SCA pertaining to EES.
Hour Water discharge of reservoir Generation(p.u.) Generators’ bus voltage(p.u.) Tap changing transformer (p.u.) Reactive power(p.u.)

Qh1(m3) Qh2(m3) Ph1 Ph2 Ps1 V1 V2 V3 Tc1 Tc2 Qc1 Qc2

1 66120 110530 0.6642 0.7515 1.7587 1.0299 1.0926 1.0843 0.9467 0.9767 0.0429 0.0056
2 77520 129520 0.7480 0.7805 1.7919 1.0707 0.9307 0.9472 1.0215 0.9078 0.0247 0.0053
3 50480 116210 0.5428 0.7666 1.6493 0.9694 1.0387 1.0203 0.9319 0.9354 0.0237 0.0410
4 124430 150000 0.9564 0.8694 0.9396 0.9925 1.0004 1.0465 1.0391 1.0918 0.0338 0.0470
5 54130 66590 0.5664 0.5596 1.7184 1.0375 0.9008 0.9480 0.9828 1.0204 0.0268 0.0102
6 74920 149410 0.7244 0.9445 1.7253 0.9403 1.0600 1.0232 0.9282 1.0146 0.0459 0.0194
7 53580 140880 0.5657 0.9089 2.5751 1.0328 0.9586 0.9544 1.0001 0.9695 0.0151 0.0401
8 83310 148240 0.7874 0.9223 2.5868 1.0830 1.0533 0.9936 0.9532 1.0726 0.0488 0.0099
9 90580 149330 0.8327 0.9135 2.8978 0.9814 1.0366 1.0842 0.9101 0.9229 0.0133 0.0336
10 51730 125630 0.5602 0.8843 3.1647 1.0491 1.0792 1.0480 0.9231 1.0780 0.0038 0.0482
11 58600 86340 0.6268 0.7577 3.3071 1.0428 1.0762 1.0934 0.9089 0.9823 0.0177 0.0028
12 50000 150000 0.5512 0.9942 3.3658 1.0848 1.0435 1.0522 0.9489 1.0160 0.0481 0.0323
13 51090 141680 0.5610 0.9741 3.1960 1.0672 1.0708 1.0666 0.9168 0.9865 0.0370 0.0328
14 83590 144730 0.8300 0.9785 2.5681 1.0569 1.0843 1.0900 0.9284 1.0515 0.0254 0.0450
15 72360 149360 0.7459 0.9833 2.5666 0.9898 1.0282 1.0360 0.9039 1.0207 0.0355 0.0151
16 103860 145370 0.9567 0.9858 2.5775 0.9541 1.0059 0.9717 0.9492 0.9511 0.0457 0.0345
17 92510 149350 0.8903 0.9901 2.5849 1.0449 1.0088 1.0972 0.9167 0.9583 0.0463 0.0224
18 50350 150000 0.5464 0.9995 3.2244 1.0939 1.0978 1.0888 0.9051 1.0061 0.0166 0.0316
19 115870 135170 1.0131 0.9790 2.5640 1.0058 1.0224 1.0330 0.9388 1.0438 0.0140 0.0163
20 90870 150000 0.8775 1.0040 2.5840 0.9841 1.0737 1.0567 0.9114 0.9905 0.0132 0.0316
21 135100 149830 1.0595 1.0349 1.7792 0.9439 1.0350 0.9951 1.0033 0.9019 0.0443 0.0107
22 85830 149920 0.8388 1.0513 1.7658 1.0539 0.9759 0.9400 0.9557 1.0615 0.0051 0.0029
23 83020 149380 0.8208 1.0819 1.7083 0.9843 0.9511 1.0606 0.9933 1.0001 0.0207 0.0160
24 50130 149360 0.5517 1.0893 1.7525 1.0509 0.9848 1.0858 0.9742 0.9809 0.0087 0.0265
Cost($) 18550
Emission (lb/Hr.) 10905
Computational time (s) 20.74

Water storage volume of reservoir versus time is expressed graphically
in Fig. 5. Convergence mobility of emission versus iteration is shown in
Fig. 6. Obtained optimal emission of HTS problem using SCA is com-
pared with the latest optimization techniques for the same problem.
Proposed result is compared with SOHPSO-TVAC [19], PSADE [34] and
CBIA [37]. Computational time (i.e. 12.45 s) of SCA technique is found
to be less than the compared techniques. Wind power generation is
considered in the same problem for fulfilling demand power and re-
ducing emission. Wind power reduces not only fuel cost but also the
emission of fuel. Application of wind plant in power generation reduces
the need of thermal power generation for satisfying load demand. So,
the necessity of fuel for thermal power generation is reduced. SCA is

14
K. Dasgupta, et al. Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018

Table 16
Comparison of statistical results of OPF based HTS problem of 9-bus system.
Methods Cost Emission Combined economic emission

Minimum fuel cost Average fuel cost Maximum fuel cost Minimum emission Average emission Maximum emission Cost ($) Emission (lb/h)
($) ($) ($) (lb/h) (lb/h) (lb/h)

SCA 18268.57 18271.23 18275.38 10905.74 10907.50 10910.93 18308.79 10996.45

Serial DE [54] 18295.53 18519.45 18405.07 – – – – –

Table 17
Optimal solution of OPF based HTWS problem of 9-bus system using SCA pertaining to ELS.
Hour Water discharge of reservoir Generation(p.u.) Generators’ bus voltage(p.u.) Tap changing transformer (p.u.) Reactive power(p.u.)

3 3
Qh1(m ) Qh2(m ) Ph1 Ph2 Ps1 Pw V1 V2 V3 V4 Tc1 Tc2 Qc1 Qc2

1 0.6708 1.1105 0.6712 0.7532 1.0431 0.7219 1.0065 1.0566 0.9542 0.9499 1.0871 0.9300 0.0112 0.0285
2 0.7774 1.2907 0.7492 0.7791 1.1799 0.6019 0.9950 0.9613 0.9441 1.0131 0.9730 0.9980 0.0427 0.0467
3 0.5026 1.1480 0.5407 0.7630 0.8121 0.8505 1.0705 0.9203 1.0650 0.9575 1.0055 0.9206 0.0107 0.0151
4 1.2529 1.5000 0.9579 0.8713 0.1948 0.7359 0.9717 1.0223 1.0782 1.0708 1.0093 1.0278 0.0014 0.0492
5 0.5373 0.6660 0.5627 0.5609 1.0287 0.6979 1.0412 0.9962 0.9690 1.0313 0.9686 0.9040 0.0105 0.0275
6 0.7468 1.4874 0.7224 0.9457 0.9615 0.7780 1.0609 1.0678 1.0172 0.9975 1.0911 1.0996 0.0260 0.0340
7 0.5357 1.4294 0.5654 0.9145 1.6795 0.8983 1.0040 1.0329 0.9305 0.9051 1.0342 1.0037 0.0121 0.0219
8 0.8417 1.4827 0.7922 0.9231 1.7366 0.8596 1.0327 0.9101 1.0839 1.0383 0.9114 1.0909 0.0193 0.0491
9 0.8979 1.4996 0.8279 0.9149 2.6709 0.2441 1.0795 1.0124 0.9718 1.0096 0.9635 0.9069 0.0246 0.0280
10 0.5119 1.2475 0.5553 0.8828 2.5772 0.6170 1.0022 0.9792 0.9297 0.9276 0.9709 1.0691 0.0294 0.0315
11 0.5783 0.8568 0.6201 0.7549 2.7828 0.5442 1.0417 1.0443 0.9825 0.9371 0.9048 0.9812 0.0433 0.0437
12 0.5000 1.4942 0.5512 0.9943 2.6670 0.7256 1.0464 0.9272 0.9423 1.0625 1.0078 0.9339 0.0351 0.0176
13 0.5093 1.4078 0.5594 0.9732 2.4183 0.8018 1.0660 0.9266 1.0734 1.0204 0.9911 1.0109 0.0177 0.0308
14 0.8403 1.4361 0.8331 0.9779 1.8546 0.7257 1.0376 1.0755 0.9667 1.0737 0.9952 1.0646 0.0447 0.0040
15 0.7178 1.5000 0.7412 0.9861 1.8069 0.7693 1.0794 0.9677 1.0815 0.9126 0.9867 1.0614 0.0016 0.0217
16 1.0399 1.4689 0.9574 0.9900 1.6872 0.8897 1.0299 0.9757 1.0463 1.0840 1.0464 0.9896 0.0253 0.0036
17 0.9119 1.5000 0.8819 0.9915 1.7965 0.8247 1.0024 1.0844 0.9031 1.0918 1.0314 1.0539 0.0119 0.0132
18 0.5000 1.4964 0.5427 0.9992 2.5468 0.7301 0.9014 0.9846 0.9050 1.0375 0.9366 0.9024 0.0014 0.0051
19 1.1612 1.3625 1.0143 0.9812 1.8260 0.7588 0.9207 0.9641 1.0460 0.9732 1.0020 0.9553 0.0289 0.0234
20 0.9151 1.4981 0.8816 1.0026 1.9632 0.6580 0.9210 0.9880 0.9984 1.0458 0.9862 1.0862 0.0242 0.0182
21 1.3724 1.4955 1.0642 1.0337 1.0753 0.7026 1.0211 0.9459 0.9140 1.0034 0.9307 1.0678 0.0049 0.0031
22 0.8485 1.5000 0.8323 1.0511 0.9961 0.7819 1.0148 0.9215 0.9221 0.9032 0.9851 0.9601 0.0136 0.0328
23 0.8290 1.5000 0.8200 1.0837 1.0177 0.6895 1.0031 0.9958 1.0748 1.0626 0.9906 1.0480 0.0192 0.0132
24 0.5015 1.4913 0.5515 1.0889 1.7398 0.0175 1.0197 0.9669 0.9586 1.0364 1.0086 1.0297 0.0107 0.0246
Cost($) 14840.00
Emission (lb/Hr.) 4851.80
Computational time (s) 25

Table 18
Comparison of statistical results of OPF based HTWS problem of 9-bus system.
Methods Cost Emission Combined economic emission

Minimum fuel Average fuel Maximum fuel Minimum emission Average emission Maximum emission Cost ($) Emission (lb/h)
cost ($) cost ($) cost ($) (lb/h) (lb/h) (lb/h)

SCA(with wind) 14840.60 14843.73 14845.51 3711.00 3712.65 3715.56 15766.45 3958.95
SCA(without wind) 18268.57 18271.23 18275.38 10905.74 10907.50 10910.93 18308.79 10996.45

applied in the objective function of emission of fuel for HTWS problem optimal generation schedule.
to produce optimal emission of fuel. Hourly plant discharges, thermal
and wind schedule, as obtained by the SCA pertaining to HTWS pro-
6.3. Study and result analysis of CEES
blem, are given in Table 8. Hourly water storage volume versus time is
shown graphically in Fig. 7. Proposed optimal emission of 8258.24 lb/
In this case study, fuel costs and emissions are given attention for
day, as obtained by using SCA for HTWS problem, is shown in Table 9.
getting optimal combined fuel cost-emission of HTS and HTWS problem
The SCA based convergence characteristic of emission is shown in
using SCA. Water discharge rates, thermal schedule obtained by SCA
Fig. 8. Computational time of SCA (i.e., 14.30 s) for the current study is
technique of the considered problem (i.e., HTS) are shown in Table 10.
less than the other compared techniques (see Table 9). This case is also
Water storage volume versus time is presented graphically in Fig. 9. In
solved using CPLEX software for getting global optimal emission of
Table 11, optimal combined generation cost-emission schedule (i.e.,
HTWS problem. Optimal emission (i.e. 9899.62 lb/day), as obtained by
42957.30$ as fuel cost and 16319.850295 lb/day as emission) is
CPLEX software, is illustrated in Table 9. The proposed result (i.e.,
shown. Proposed results of HTS problem is compared with resent op-
optimal emission obtained by SCA for HTWS problem) is compared
timization techniques like NSGSA-CM [28], NSPSO-CM [28], NSGSA
with the same for HTS problem. Proposed results for the considered
[28], NSPSO [28], CBIA [37] and SOHPSO-TVAC [19]. Obtained results
case of HTWS problem are better than that of HTS problem. These re-
of optimal combined fuel-emission are also compared with MILP [30]
sults reveal that the proposed method is very effective in reaching
and PSADE [34]. Comparison of cost and emission of the combined

15
K. Dasgupta, et al.
cost-emission result obtained by SCA and MILP [30] shows the SCA
offers better result than MILP [30]. SCA reduces the fuel cost of CEES
problem from MILP by 544.596$. The presented result shows that the
SCA has helped to reduce the emission of 1661.549705 lb/day from
PSADE [34]. The computation time of SCA is found to be 13.16 s (refer
Table 11). Effectiveness of wind plant for power generation along with
the hydro and the thermal plants is shown by obtaining the optimal
combined fuel-emission cost of the proposed problem (i.e., HTWS using
the SCA). Hourly water discharges, thermal and wind schedule, as ob-
tained by using the SCA, are given in Table 12. Hourly water storage
volume versus time is presented graphically in Fig. 10. Optimal com-
bined cost-emission (i.e., 38877.1685$ as fuel cost and
10897.626856 lb/day as emission), as obtained by using the SCA) is
shown in Table 13. Computational time of SCA for the solution of the
problem is 14.30 s. CPLEX software is introduced to solve the CEES case
of HTWS problem. Optimal emission (i.e., 39820.6654$ as fuel cost and
11284.7366 lb/day as emission), as obtained by CPLEX software, is il-
lustrated in Table 13. Proposed optimal combined fuel-emission ob-
tained by SCA is compared with the result of HTS problem. Obtained
results help to infer that the considered case of HTWS problem offer
better convergence ability than the other techniques.
6.4. Result analysis of OPF based HTS and HTWS problem
In order to consider the AC power flow power flow constraint, IEEE
9-bus test system has been considered for solution of OPF based HTS
and HTWS problems. Here, two hydro units and one thermal unit have
been taken for hydro thermal generation. Moreover one wind power
generation unit has been considered with hydro-thermal generation for
hydro-thermal-wind generation. This test system consists of nine buses,
nine branches, two reactive power compensators, two transformers and
three generators for the problem of HTS (i.e. two hydro and one thermal
unit) and four generators for the problem of HTWS (i.e. two hydro, one
thermal and one wind power generating unit). Bus data, line data and
fuel cost coefficients of generators are taken from Ref. [54]. The p.u.
value of load buses and generator buses are considered within
0.9–1.1 p.u. Range of reactive power injection is 0–0.05 p.u. The per-
missible ranges of transformer taps are taken from 0.9 p.u. to 1.1 p.u.
In this work, both single objective function (i.e. fuel cost and
emission minimization) and multi-objective function (i.e. combined fuel
cost and emission minimization) are considered to solve the OPF based
HTS and HTWS problems. SCA algorithm has been applied to determine
near global optimal solution of fuel, emission and combined fuel-
emission function. Optimal solution of generation cost of OPF based
HTS problem of 9-bus system using SCA is shown in Table 14. The
optimal generation cost of 18268.57 $/day, as obtained by using SCA
for HTS problem, is shown in Table 14. The simulation results of
emission of OPF based HTS problem using SCA is illustrated in
Table 15. Emission of 10905 lb/day for OPF based HTS problem is
achieved by SCA technique. Detailed results of combined cost-emission
of OPF based HTS problem is not given in the manuscript for space
limitation. Optimal cost and emission of 18308.79 $/day and
10996.45 lb/day for multi-objective optimization as achieved by SCA,
are shown in Table 16. Comparison of statistical results of cost, emis-
sion and combined cost-emission of OPF based HTS problem of 9-bus
system are also listed in Table 16. Effectiveness of wind plant for power
generation along with the hydro and the thermal plants is examined by
solving OPF based HTWS problem. It is observed from Table 17 that
optimal generation cost of 14840.00 $ is achieved by the proposed
approach. Detailed results of emission and combined cost-emission are
not shown in the manuscript for space limitation. The optimal emission
of 3711.00 lb/day achieved, as obtained by SCA, is shown Table 18.
The optimal cost and emission of 15766.45 $/day, 3958.95 lb/day for
combined cost-emission objective, as obtained by SCA, are shown in
Table 18. To judge the superiority of the proposed SCA approach, ob-
tained results of different cases, i.e. ELS, EES, CEES, OPF based HTS by
16
Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018
the said algorithm are compared with serial DE [41] to establish its
effectiveness. Proper utilization of wind energy in power generation is
shown by comparing the results of OPF based HTWS problem with the
results of OPF based HTS problem (see Table 18).
7. Conclusion
The basic purpose of this paper is to present and demonstrate the
effectiveness and robustness of the proposed SCA for solving different
cases of both HTS and HTWS problems of power systems. This paper
proposes the nonconventional energy source (such as wind energy)
with HTS problem. The stochastic behaviour of wind speed is modelled
by Weibull distribution. The significant outcomes of the present work
are outlined in the following aspects:
(a) The wind energy (being environment friendly and clean in nature)
has been integrated with the traditional HTS problem to overcome
the impact of thermal pollution and to reduce generation cost.
(b) A recently surfaced SCA has been properly realized to minimize
generation cost and fuel emission.
(c) Control parameters of the SCA have been properly activated to
balance the exploration and the exploitation phases leading to ob-
tain near global optimal solution.
(d) The proposed SCA has been effectively employed to solve different
ELS, EES and CEES problems of HTS and HTWS.
(e) The SCA based obtained results are compared with those offered by
a range of well-established algorithms (like, SOHPSO-TVAC, TLBO,
QOTLBO, RCCRO, RCGA etc) to project the optimizing efficacy of
the proposed SCA for this power system optimization application.
(f) Effectiveness of wind energy for OPF based HTS scheduling pro-
blem has been anticipated in this work.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) website, http://www.aemo.com.au.
(Accessed 14 February 2018).
[2] Hong Kong Electric website, http://hec.com.hk. (Accessed 14 February 2018).
[3] China Light and Power Group website, http://www.clp.com.hk. (Accessed 14
February 2018).
[4] M. Javadi, M. Marzband, M.F. Akorede, R. Godina, A.S. Al-Sumaiti, E. Pouresmaeil,
A centralized smart decision-making hierarchical interactive architecture for mul-
tiple home microgrids in retail electricity market, Energy 11 (2018) 3144.
[5] M. Marzband, F. Azarinejadian, M. Savaghebi, E. Pouresmaeil, J.M. Guerrero,
G. Lightbody, Smart transactive energy framework in grid-connected multiple home
microgrids under independent and coalition operations, Renew. Energy 126 (2018)
95–106.
[6] J. Valinejad, T. Barforoshi, M. Marzband, E. Pouresmaeil, R. Godina, J.P.S. Catalão,
Investment incentives in competitive electricity markets, Appl. Sci. 8 (10) (2018)
1978.
[7] M. Nazari-Heris, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, G.B. Gharehpetian, Short-term scheduling
of hydro-based power plants considering application of heuristic algorithms: a
comprehensive review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 74 (2017) 116–129.
[8] M. Nazari-Heris, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, G.B. Gharehpetian, A comprehensive re-
view of heuristic optimization algorithms for optimal combined heat and power
dispatch from economic and environmental perspectives, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev.
81 (2018) 2128–2143.
[9] M.R. Mohan, K. Kuppusamy, A.M. Khan, Optimal short-term hydrothermal sche-
duling using decomposition approach and linear programming method, Int. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 14 (1) (1992) 39–44.
[10] S.Y.W. Wong, Hybrid simulated annealing/genetic algorithm approach to short-
term hydro-thermal scheduling with multiple thermal plants, Int. J. Electr. Power
Energy Syst. 23 (7) (2001) 565–575.
[11] N. Sinha, R. Chakrabarti, P.K. Chattopadhyay, Fast evolutionary programming
techniques for short-term hydrothermal scheduling, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 66 (2)
(2003) 97–103.
[12] K.K. Mandal, N. Chakraborty, Differential evolution technique-based short-term
economic generation scheduling of hydrothermal systems, Electr. Power Syst. Res.
K. Dasgupta, et al.
78 (11) (2008) 1972–1979.
[13] G.L. Decker, A.D. Brooks, Valve point loading of turbines, Electr. Eng. 77 (6) (1958)
481–484.
[14] K.K. Mandal, M. Basu, N. Chakraborty, Particle swarm optimization technique
based short-term hydrothermal scheduling, Appl. Soft Comput. 8 (4) (2008)
1392–1399.
[15] P.K. Hota, A.K. Barisal, R. Chakrabarti, An improved PSO technique for short-term
optimal hydrothermal scheduling, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 79 (7) (2009)
1047–1053.
[16] R.K. Swain, A.K. Barisal, P.K. Hota, R. Chakrabarti, Short-term hydrothermal
scheduling using clonal selection algorithm, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 33 (3)
(2011) 647–656.
[17] Y. Wang, J. Zhou, C. Zhou, Y. Wang, H. Qin, Y. Lu, An improved self-adaptive PSO
technique for short-term hydrothermal scheduling, Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (3) (2012)
2288–2295.
[18] Y. Wang, J. Zhou, L. Mo, S. Ouyang, Y. Zhang, A clonal real-coded quantum-in-
spired evolutionary algorithm with Cauchy mutation for short-term hydrothermal
generation scheduling, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 43 (1) (2012) 1228–1240.
[19] K.K. Mandal, N. Chakraborty, Daily combined economic emission scheduling of
hydrothermal systems with cascaded reservoirs using self-organizing hierarchical
particle swarm optimization technique, Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (2012) 3438–3445.
[20] P.K. Roy, Teaching learning based optimization for short-term hydrothermal
scheduling problem considering valve point effect and prohibited discharge con-
straint, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 53 (2013) 10–19.
[21] P.K. Roy, A. Sur, D.K. Pradhan, Optimal short-term hydro-thermal scheduling using
quasi-oppositional teaching learning based optimization, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 26
(10) (2013) 2516–2524.
[22] A.I. Selvakumar, Civilized swarm optimization for multiobjective short-term hy-
drothermal scheduling, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 51 (2013) 178–189.
[23] H. Zhang, J. Zhou, Y. Zhang, Y. Lu, Y. Wang, Culture belief based multi-objective
hybrid differential evolutionary algorithm in short term hydrothermal scheduling,
Energy Convers. Manage. 65 (2013) 173–184.
[24] K. Bhattacharjee, A. Bhattacharya, S. Halder nee Dey, Real coded chemical reaction
based optimization for short-term hydrothermal scheduling, Appl. Soft Comput. 24
(2014) 962–976.
[25] T.T. Nguyen, D.N. Vo, A.V. Truong, Cuckoo search algorithm for short-term hy-
drothermal scheduling, Appl. Energy 132 (2014) 276–287.
[26] M.R. Norouzi, A. Ahmadi, A.M. Sharaf, A.E. Nezhad, Short-term environmental/
economic hydrothermal scheduling, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 116 (2014) 117–127.
[27] N. Fang, J. Zhou, R. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Zhang, A hybrid of real coded genetic algo-
rithm and artificial fish swarm algorithm for short-term optimal hydrothermal
scheduling, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 62 (2014) 617–629.
[28] H. Tian, X. Yuan, B. Ji, Z. Chen, Multi-objective optimization of short-term hy-
drothermal scheduling using non-dominated sorting gravitational search algorithm
with chaotic mutation, Energy Convers. Manage. 81 (2014) 504–519.
[29] X. Yuan, B. Ji, Z. Chen, Z. Chen, A novel approach for economic dispatch of hy-
drothermal system via gravitational search algorithm, Appl. Math. Comput. 247
(2014) 535–546.
[30] A. Ahmadi, A. Kaymanesh, P. Siano, M. Janghorbani, A.E. Nezhad, D. Sarno,
Evaluating the effectiveness of normal boundary intersection method for short-term
environmental/economic hydrothermal self-scheduling, Electr. Power Syst. Res.
123 (2015) 192–204.
[31] N. Gouthamkumar, V. Sharma, R. Naresh, Disruption based gravitational search
algorithm for short term hydrothermal scheduling, Expert Syst. Appl. 42 (20)
(2015) 7000–7011.
[32] P.K. Roy, M. Pradhan, T. Paul, Krill herd algorithm applied to short-term hydro-
thermal scheduling problem, Ain Shams Eng. J. 9 (1) (2018) 31–43.
[33] T.T. Nguyen, D.N. Vo, Modified cuckoo search algorithm for short-term hydro-
thermal scheduling, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 65 (2015) 271–281.
17
Electric Power Systems Research 178 (2020) 106018
[34] A. Glotić, A. Zamuda, Short-term combined economic and emission hydrothermal
optimization by surrogate differential evolution, Appl. Energy 141 (2015) 2–56.
[35] H.M. Dubey, M. Pandit, B.K. Panigrahi, Ant lion optimization for short-term wind
integrated hydrothermal power generation scheduling, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 83 (2016) 158–174.
[36] E. Gil, J. Araya, Short-term hydrothermal generation scheduling using a parallelized
stochastic mixed-integer linear programming algorithm, Energy Procedia 87 (2016)
77–84.
[37] T.T. Nguyen, D.N. Vo, An efficient cuckoo bird inspired meta-heuristic algorithm for
short-term combined economic emission hydrothermal scheduling, Ain Shams Eng.
J. 9 (4) (2018) 483–497.
[38] M. Nazari-Heris, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, A. Haghrah, Optimal short-term genera-
tion scheduling of hydrothermal systems by implementation of real-coded genetic
algorithm based on improved Mühlenbein mutation, Energy 128 (2017) 77–85.
[39] N. Narang, Short-term hydrothermal generation scheduling using improved pre-
dator influenced civilized swarm optimization technique, Appl. Soft Comput. 58
(2017) 207–224.
[40] T.T. Nguyen, D.N. Vo, Modified cuckoo search algorithm for multiobjective short-
term hydrothermal scheduling, Swarm Evol. Comput. 37 (2017) 73–89.
[41] J. Zhang, S. Lin, H. Liu, Y. Chen, M. Zhu, Y. Xu, A small-population based parallel
differential evolution algorithm for short-term hydrothermal scheduling problem
considering power flow constraints, Energy 123 (2017) 538–554.
[42] M. Nazari-Heris, A.F. Babaei, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, S. Asadi, Improved harmony
search algorithm for the solution of non-linear non-convex short-term hydrothermal
scheduling, Energy 151 (2018) 226–237.
[43] O. Hoseynpour, B. Mohammadi-ivatloo, M. Nazari-Heris, S. Asadi, Application of
dynamic non-linear programming technique to non-convex short-term hydro-
thermal scheduling problem, Energies 10 (9) (2017) 1440.
[44] J. Valinejad, M. Marzband, M.F. Akorede, I.D. Elliott, Long-term decision on wind
investment with considering different load ranges of power plant for sustainable
electricity energy market, Sustainability 10 (2018) 3811.
[45] M. Nazari-Heris, S. Abapour, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, Optimal economic dispatch of
FC-CHP based heat and power micro-grids, Appl. Therm. Eng. 114 (2017) 756–769.
[46] H. Zhang, D. Yue, X. Xie, C. Dou, F. Sun, Gradient decent based multi-objective
cultural differential evolution for short-term hydrothermal optimal scheduling of
economic emission with integrating wind power and photovoltaic power, Energy
122 (2017) 748–766.
[47] R.S. Patwal, N. Narang, H. Garg, A novel TVAC-PSO based mutation strategies al-
gorithm for generation scheduling of pumped storage hydrothermal system in-
corporating solar units, Energy 142 (2018) 822–837.
[48] S. Mirjalili, SCA: a sine cosine algorithm for solving optimization problems, Knowl.
Based Syst. 96 (2016) 120–133.
[49] M.A. Tawhid, V. Savsani, Multi-objective sine-cosine algorithm (MO-SCA) for multi-
objective engineering design problems, Neural Comput. Appl. 31 (S-2) (2019)
915–929.
[50] S. Li, H. Fang, X. Liu, Parameter optimization of support vector regression based on
sine cosine algorithm, Expert Syst. Appl. 91 (C) (2018) 63–77.
[51] J. Wang, W. Yang, P. Du, T. Niu, A novel hybrid forecasting system of wind speed
based on a newly developed multi-objective sine cosine algorithm, Energy Convers.
Manage. 163 (2018) 134–150.
[52] F. Yao, Z.Y. Dong, K. Meng, Z. Xu, H.H. Iu, K.P. Wong, Quantum-inspired particle
swarm optimization for power system operations considering wind power un-
certainty and carbon tax in Australia, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 8 (4) (2012) 880–888.
[53] A.I. Selvakumar, K. Thanushkodi, A new particle swarm optimization solution to
nonconvex economic dispatch problems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 22 (2007) 42–51.
[54] J. Zhang, S. Lin, X. Zeng, Q. Tang, Short-term optimal hydrothermal scheduling
problem considering power flow constraint, IEEE Congress on Evolutionary
Computation (CEC) (2015).