Proc.
of the 2nd International Conference on Electrical, Communication and Computer Engineering (ICECCE)
Quasi Oppositional Population Based Polar Bear
Optimization Algorithm for Solution of Economic
Dispatch Problem
Saqib Fayyaz
Department of Electrical Technology Department of Electrical Engineering
Government College of Technology University of Engineering and
(GCT),
Rawalpindi, Pakistan
saqib_fayyaz@outlook.com
Hafiz Ashiq Hussain
Department of Electrical Engineering
HITEC University
Taxila, Pakistan
ashiq.hussain@hitecuni.edu.pk
Abstract— In this paper Economic Dispatch (ED) problem is
solved by a novel Quasi population-based variant of Polar Bear
Optimization (QPBO) algorithm. This algorithm is applied to
solve both convex and non-convex systems. PBO is a nature
inspired meta heuristic optimization algorithm having inherent
strengths of population-based strategies. Like all population-
based approaches PBO achieves near optimum results.
Enhancing the working of PBO with quasi population strategy
is expected to improve its global convergence rate. The
effectiveness of QPBO is tested on four IEEE test systems and
the results obtained are compared with other techniques
already available in literature. Comparison of results proved
QPBO success in reducing cost and at a better convergence
rate as compared to other techniques.
Keywords—economic dispatch, meta-heuristic algorithm,
optimization
INTRODUCTION
Electric energy has been at the forefront of
economic development and progress. With the ever-
expanding global interconnectivity new opportunities are
arising for global trade and commerce. Booming trade
market requires a sustainable and abundant supply of
electric energy. This trend of globalization reflects heavily
on the rise of electric energy demand. According to data
published by IEA [1] in global energy report electric energy
demand rose by a percentage of 2% in the year 2017. This
monumental increase in energy was mostly satisfied by
conventional thermal generators that contributed a
whopping 59.4% of global electricity demand. The heavy
reliance on thermal generation is because of their illustrious
track record. Thermal generators have shown exemplary
resilience, reliability and efficiency; also, our conventional
grids are modeled to work around these thermal units.
Thermal units operate on fossil fuels that are prone to price
hike because of their declining reserves and come with
added baggage of environmental emissions. Recent global
developments have forced economies to look for a feasible
environmentally friendly energy alternative but the dream of
a friendly renewable source that efficiently meets our
978-1-7281-7116-6/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Heriot-Watt University. Downloaded on September 23,2020 at 10:38:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
12-13 June 2020, Istanbul, Turkey
Fahad Ur Rehman Muhammad Kashif Sattar
Department of Electrical Engineering
HITEC University
Technology Taxila, Pakistan
Taxila, Pakistan kashif.sattar@hitecuni.edu.pk,
fahadcust@yahoo.com mkashifsattar94@gmail.com,
demand is still far from realization. So instead of waiting for
renewable future the need of the moment is manage thermal
generation sources such that we can extract maximum
power from them at minimized cost. The act of managing
thermal generators for a fixed load demand under numerous
operational and physical constraints is a power system
operational problem termed as Economic Dispatch (ED) [2].
ED is a single objective optimization problem with the aim
to achieve power dispatch at minimum possible cost without
violating any constraints.
ED is a highly complex, non-linear and computationally
intensive power system operation problem. The
mathematical complexity and necessity of ED dictated by
scarcity of resources makes ED and attractive problem for
optimization. ED was solved initially by conventional
optimization techniques. Some of the famous conventional
algorithms included: Lambda iteration (LI), Linear
Programming (LP), Dynamic Programming (DP), Branch
and bound method (BB), Quadratic Programming (QP). All
these approaches were successful is achieving a solution but
once the system increased dimensionally or more practical
constraints were included these techniques fared badly. To
overcome the shortcomings of conventional approaches ED
was attempted using population based meta heuristic
optimization algorithms. Some of the famous optimizations
algorithms that attempted ED problem included: Genetic
Algorithm (GA) [3, 4], Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
[5], Simulated Annealing (SA) [6], Ant lion Optimization
algorithm (ALO) [7] , Grey Wolf Optimization algorithm
(GWO) [8, 9], Sine Cosine Optimization algorithm (SCA)
[10] etc. Being population-based strategies, all the
mentioned techniques showed remarkable success in local
optima avoidance and solution optimization even at higher
dimensions with practical constraints. These solution
techniques propelled the initial random population through
local and global search phases to reach an optimal solution.
These techniques fared well most of the instances but were
mostly able to reach near optimal results. To enhance the
global optima chances of these techniques, researcher’s
proposed modeling initial population through a
mathematical approach or altering techniques functionality the maximum number of generation units available for
in any way to eventually augment the techniques scheduling, is the i-th generating unit and is the least
functionality. Such approaches were used in: Hybrid sine power limit of i-th generating unit.
cosine algorithm (HSCA)[11], Hybrid PSO [12, 13], Hybrid These objective functions are subjected to
DE [14, 15], Quasi oppositional TLBO [16], Quasi following equality and inequality constraints.
oppositional gravitational search algorithm (QGSA) [17] Equality constraints include power generation balance
and many more. The main objective of modeling the initial shown in (3).
population using a mathematical approach was to single out = + (3)
regions of greatest feasibility so that the optimization
techniques can exploit it to the iteration limit. Results Where is the total power scheduled,
achieved through these hybrid population techniques is the power demand and is the transmission
showed significant improvement from the predecessors. The loss incurred at respective level of power scheduled.
success of this hybrid approach and the continuous Inequality constraints include generation limits and
improvement in optimization as indicated by No Free prohibited operating zones (POZ) represented by eq. (4) and
Lunch theorem [18] has inspired us to propose Quasi eq. (5).
oppositional based PBO (QPBO). < < (4)
In this paper we present solution of ED problem
using Quasi oppositional based PBO (QPBO). PBO is a < <
nature inspired population based meta heuristic technique < < ( ) (5)
that mimics the hunting capabilities of polar bears in nature. < <
PBO has three distich phases of search namely global
search, local Search and dynamic population. Unlike other Where and are the lower and upper limits of i-
population techniques PBO has capability to change its th generation unit, is the power scheduled on the i-th
population hence reducing number of calculations per generation unit and represent the feasible operation
iteration resulting in reduced execution times. PBO was regions of the i-th generation unit.
used by author to solve ED problem [19] and it showed The transmission loses can be computed from loss
remarkable results. This success of PBO in solution of ED coefficient matrix B using following equation (6).
problem and the opportunity to improve its mechanism were =∑ ∑ ( )+∑ ( )+ (6)
main inspiration behind this research. The proposed Where, , and are transmission loss
techniques are used to solve ED 3-unit, 5 unit and 6-unit coefficients.
system and the results obtained are compared with results in The overall fitness function including equality
literature. constraints and objective can be defined as:
The contents of this paper are organized as follows,
= ∗ ∑ − − + (7)
first section provides the overview of ED problem, along
with summary and mathematical formulations of solution
Where, penalty is a constant value normally taken
techniques employed, second section presents the case study
greater than 100.
and results and third section provides conclusion.
A. Overview of PBO
PROBLEM FORMULATION
Polar bear optimization algorithm [20] was presented by
ED is a single-objective constrained optimization David Polap et al. in 2017. Polar bear is a population based
problem that models the task of scheduling electrical power meta-heuristic optimization algorithm that mimics the
outputs from different generation units such that the total hunting capabilities of polar bears in harsh arctic regions.
operational cost is minimized without violating the PBO algorithm has three unique stages of search within
respective constraints like generation limits, valve point search space namely local search by encircling and catching
effect and power balance. ED problem may also include the prey, global search by drifting ice floats and dynamic
calculation of transmission losses incurred by each population. Each of these stages mimics some important
generating unit at its respective power output. aspect of Polar Bear’s hunting mechanism in arctic regions
Mathematically, the main objective of ED problem is and is detailed below.
minimization of operational cost of generation units that can PBO algorithm starts its search by randomly initializing
be modeled as shown in eq. (1) and eq. (2). each polar bear having n coordinates as represented by ̅ =
( , , … … , ) and then propels itself to find optimum
∑ F =∑ aP + bP + c (1) solution in search space using global and local search
strategies.
∑ =∑ + + +( ∗ (sin( ∗ ( − Global search mechanism mimics Polar Bears nature to
drift on arctic ice bergs in search of food, this behavior is
)))) (2)
modeled using following equation:
Here Equation (1) represents the quadratic ( ) =( ) + (ω)α + γ (8)
approximation of thermal units fuel cost curves excluding
valve point impact whereas equation (2) represents the Where ( ) is movement of i-th polar bear having
detailed cost equation including the valve point effect. In j coordinates in t-th iteration towards the optimum, is
above equations a, b, c, e and f are cost coefficients; Nx is random number in range (0,1), is distance between the
present bear and optimum bear and is random number in

Authorized licensed use limited to: Heriot-Watt University. Downloaded on September 23,2020 at 10:38:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the range (0, ω).The distance is dealt in Euclidian metrics • Qausi Opposite population:
and is given as: Let = ( , , , … … … … ) are points in
(( ̅ )( ) , ̅ )( ) = ∑ (( )( ) − ( )( ) ) (9) n dimensional space, ∈[ , ] and ∈
(1,2,3, … … … … . ) . and opposite points =
During local search, the bears encircle the prey and ( , , , … … … … . ) and defined as in (16).
stab it with their teeth. This behavior is effectively modeled = + − (16)
using trifolium equations. To transform polar bears behavior Qausi opposite points =
into these equations two parameters are defined known as ( , , , … … … … . ) of initial population is
distance of vision ‘a’ selected randomly in range (0,0.3) and
defined as in (17).
angle of tumbling selected randomly in range (0, ). ( )
= [ ,( + − )(17)
From these parameters, we compute radius of vision as:
= 4 acos( ) ( ) (10) According to qausi opposite population
This radius is used to compute movement in local optimization process is done as follows.
search space for each spatial coordinate respectively as: • Optimization process using qausi population:
In this work initial population and qausi
= ± ( ) opposite population are evaluated simultaneously.
( )+ ( )] Let = ( , , , … … … … ) points in n
= ±[
dimensional space and fitness value is defined as
= ±[ ( ) + ( )+ ( )] = ( ) (18)

…
= ± [∑ ( )+ ( )]
=( , , ,…………. ) are
= ± [∑ ( )+ ( )] qausi opposite points and fitness value is defined as
= . Now if < for
(11) minimization then is replaced with .So both
Where , are selected at random in the point and its qausi opposite are evaluated
range (0,π). simultaneously.
Finally, to model the influence of harsh arctic
weather and introduce randomness to the optimization SIMULATION RESULTS
strategy PBO algorithm initializes with 75% of population IEEE four standard test systems were tested by the
while the remaining 25% depends on population growth proposed technique and results were compared with other
governed by reproduction of best or starvation of worst. To techniques available in literature. The test systems included:
implement this strategy a new constant k is introduced 1. 3-unit standard test system with transmission
having value in range (0,1). Depending on k we create or losses power demand of 150 MW.
destroy individuals according to following rule: 2. 3-unit standard test system with valve point effect
ℎ < 0.25 excluding losses and power demand of 850 MW,
(12)
> 0.75 1050 MW.
The individuals are destroyed depending on k until 3. 5-unit standard test under valve point loading
population in above 50% whereas the reproduced individual
is given as: effect excluding losses with power demand of 730
̅
( )
̅
() MW.
( ̅ ) = (13) 4. 6-unit standard test system with transmission
( )
Where ̅ the best solution is up to current iteration losses and power demand of 1263 MW.
()
and ̅ is chosen randomly from among top 10% of best Simulations were done on MATLAB 2016 software and the
individuals up to current iteration. system employed was Intel core m with 4 GB ram.

B. Overview of Quasi-opposiontinal PBO (QPBO) C. Test System 1:

In this article the working of PBO is augmented with
qausi opposite population to create Quasi oppositional based
PBO (QPPBO). Qausi opposite population based algorithm
was proposed by M.Basu et al. [05] to improve performance
of differential optimization algorithm. The working of Qausi
opposite population can be detailed in following steps:
• Opposite Number and Qausi Opposite number:
If X be a number between [min,max], its
opposite number (Xo) and qausi opposite number
(Xqo) will be defined as in (14),(15) respectively.
= min + − (14)
And
( ) converges at iteration number 10 in comparable time with
= [ ,( + − )] (15)
The simulation results of 3-unit test system are shown in
Table 1. Three unit test system, load demand 150MW with
transmission losses was chosen from [21]. Simulations was
performed for 20 test runs with initial population of 65 each
run contains maximum iteration of 100. Table 1 shows best
result of 20 runs along with other techniques GWO [22],
ALO[7], PSO[22], LI [21] and PBO[19] methods. It is
shown from table 1 that QPBO achieved best minimum cost
of 1591.33 $/h with improvement in range of 8.57 to 6.103$
at a power loss of 1.513 MW. Fig 1 (a, b, c) show
convergence curve of best run, cost comparison of 20 runs
and comparison bar graph with other techniques
simultaneously. From fig 1(a) it is shown that QPBO
other techniques.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Heriot-Watt University. Downloaded on September 23,2020 at 10:38:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig 1 (b): Cost per Run
Table 1: Comparison of Fuel Cost for Test System 1 (150MW)
Method/ Unit Power (MW) Total Ploss
Technique Fuel (MW)
Cost
P1 P2 P3 ($/h)

LI [21] 33.4401 64.0974 55.1011 1599.9 2.66

PSO[22] 33.0858 64.4545 54.8325 1598.79 2.37

GWO[22] 30.4998 64.6208 54.8994 1597.482 2.3444 Fig 1 (c): Comparison

ALO[7] 32.8101 64.595 54.9369 1597.482 2.342

PBO[19] 33.05371 64.07982 55.19585 1597.433 2.3294

QPBO 33.49255 63.55853 54.46448 1591.33 1.515

D. Test System 2
The three-unit test system with load demand of 850MW
and 1050 MW under valve point effect [23] was simulated
simultaneously with proposed technique. Simulation was
performed for 20 test runs with initial population of 65 each
run contains maximum iteration of 100. Table 2 shows best
Fig 2: (a) Convergence curve Test System 2 Case 1
result of 20 test runs for each case along with comparison
with other techniques such as GWO [22], ALO [7], PSO[22]
, GA [22] , ABC[7], LI[21] and PBO[19]. Table 2 shows
that QPBO algorithm achieved minimum fuel cost of
8238.284 Rs/hr and 10067.20 Rs/hr respectively. The
overall improvement was observed to be in the range of
337.396 to 14.025 $ and 145.26 to 55.64$ respectively.
Convergence curve for best run, cost comparison for 20 runs
and comparison bar graph with other techniques are given in
Fig 2 (a, b, c) and Fig 3(a, b, c) respectively for each case.
From fig 2(a) and 3(a) it is shown that proposed technique
converges at 35 and 57 iteration numbers for each case
respectively.
Fig 2 (b) Cost per run

Fig 1(a): Convergence curve of test system 1

Fig 2 (c) Comparison

Authorized licensed use limited to: Heriot-Watt University. Downloaded on September 23,2020 at 10:38:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig 3: (a) Convergence curve Test System 2 Case 2 Fig 3 (c) Comparison
E. Test System 3
The five-unit test system with load demand of 730MW
under valve point effect [23] was tested simultaneously.
Initial population size was taken 65 with iteration of 200,
number of runs are 20. Table 3 and 4 shows power dispatch
of best results among 20 runs for mentioned case and cost
comparison with other techniques such as LI [21], GA[22] ,
PSO[22] , APSO[7], EP [22], ABC[7] , GWO[22], ALO[7]
and PBO[19] respectively. Table 4 shows that QPBPBO
algorithm achieved min fuel cost of 2029.612 $ showing an
overall improvement in the range 383.097 to 0.037 $. Fig 4
(a, b, c) shows convergence curve of best run, cost
comparison of each run and comparison bar graph with other
techniques simultaneously. From figure QPBO converges
after 150 iterations in a comparable time.
Fig 3 (b) Cost per run

Table 2: Comparison of fuel cost for Test System 2

Proposed/ Case 1
Power of each Unit (MW) Total Fuel
Techniques
P1 P2 P3
Cost ($/h)
LI[21] 382.258 127.419 340.323 8575.68
GA[22] 382.2552 127.4184 340.3202 8575.64
PSO[22] 394.5243 200 255.4756 8280.81
ABC[7] 300.266 149.733 400 8253.1
GWO[22] 300.5116 149.8107 399.6777 8253.105
ALO[7] 300.2673 149.733 399.9997 8253.105
PBO[19] 300.1647 150.3856 399.3703 8252.309 Fig 4 (a) Convergence curve Test System 3
QPBO 498.9372 99.8667 251.1870 8238.284
Case 2
Proposed/ Power of each Unit (MW) Total Fuel
Techniques P1 P2 P3 Cost ($/h)
LI[21] 487.5000 162.5000 400.0000 10212.4600
GA[22] 487.4980 162.4990 400.0000 10212.4400
PSO[22] 492.6990 157.3000 400.0000 10123.7300
ABC[7] 492.6991 157.3010 400.0000 10123.7300
GWO[22] 492.8465 157.3927 399.7609 10123.7200
ALO[7] 492.6994 158.1015 399.1991 10123.6900
PBO[19] 492.7833 157.2734 399.8870 10122.8400
QPBO 498.9335 150.7338 400.0000 10067.2000
Fig4. (b) Cost per run

Authorized licensed use limited to: Heriot-Watt University. Downloaded on September 23,2020 at 10:38:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig 5 (c) Comparison

Fig 4 (c) Comparison Table 3: Power Dispatch Test System 3 and 4

F. Test System 4 Power (MW) Power (MW)

Test system 4 was taken from [24] was tested with load Units Test System 3 Units Test System 4
demand of 1263 MW including transmission loses under PBO QPBO PBO QPBO
generator limit constraints and prohibited operating zones.
Initial population size was taken 65 with iteration of 1000, P1 229.5277 229.5201 P1 458.1617 448.4211
number of run was 20. Table 3 shows power dispatch of best P2 102.9107 102.9659 P2 171.6244 172.1512
result whereas Table 4 shows comparison with other P3 112.7185 112.6799 P3 255.6233 261.9400
techniques TS [24], CBA[25] , PSO [26], MABC [27],
P4 74.99928 74.9998 P4 139.6318 143.3668
Jaya[28] , SPSO [26] , VSA[26] and PBO[19]. It is shown
from table 4 QPBO algorithm achieved minimum fuel cost P5 209.8338 209.8243 P5 163.5335 163.2884
of 1544.22 $/hr with transmission loss of 12.30 MW. The P6 86.82866 86.0931
overall improvement was in the range 12.75 to 2.29 $. Fig 5 P
730 730 P Total 1275.4034 1275.2606
(a, b, c) shows convergence curve of best run, cost Total
comparison of 20 runs and comparison bar graph P loss 12.4034 12.300
respectively. QPBO converges on 757 iteration number in a
comparable time. Table 4: Comparison of fuel cost Test System 3 and 4

Total Fuel Cost ($/h)

Method/ Technique
Test System 3 Test System 4
LI[21] 2412.709 -
GA[22] 2412.538 -
PSO[22][26] 2252.572 15450
APSO[7] 2140.97 -
EP[22] 2030.673 -
ABC[7] 2030.259 -
GWO[22] 2030.071 -
ALO[7] 2029.667 -
TS[24] - 15454.89
Fig 5 (a): Convergence curve Test System 4 CBA[25] - 15450.238
MABC[27] - 15449.899
Jaya [28] - 15448.74
VSA [26] - 15447
SPSO[26] - 15446.63
PBO[19] 2029.649 15444.43
QPBO 2029.612 15442.14

CONCLUSION
In this paper a new Quasi Population based PBO
(QPBO) was used to solve economic dispatch problem. The
Fig 5 (b) Cost per run results achieved showed that QPBO was successful in
achieving better results in terms of cost. For 3-unit system 1
and two cases of test system 2 QPBO was able to attain an

Authorized licensed use limited to: Heriot-Watt University. Downloaded on September 23,2020 at 10:38:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
improvement in cost in the range 0.54% to 0.38%: 4.1% to
0.17% and 1.44% to 0.55% respectively. Similarly, for 5-
and 6-unit systems QPBO was able to attain an
improvement in cost in the range 18.87% to 0.00018% and
0.082% to 0.014% respectively. Convergence curves for
each solution when compared with other techniques in
literature showed faster convergence better start points and
smoother transitions among exploration and exploitation.
The success of QPBO is a motivating factor for researchers
to employ such hybridization on other optimization
techniques. This research will also open a doorway for
application of QPBO to other power system optimization
problems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors would like to thank faculty and staff of
department of electrical engineering UET Taxila and HITEC
University Pakistan for their support and guidance.
REFERENCES
[1] I. E. A. (IEA). (2018, 24-7-19). Electricity Information 2018
Available: https://www.iea.org/statistics/electricity/
[2] R. Subramanian, K. Thanushkodi, and P. Neelakantan, "A numerical
solution to economic load dispatch problems," UNIVERSITY
POLITEHNICA OF BUCHAREST SCIENTIFIC BULLETIN SERIES
C-ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE, vol.
77, pp. 39-46, 2015.
[3] A. Bakirtzis, V. Petridis, and S. Kazarlis, "Genetic algorithm solution
to the economic dispatch problem," IEE proceedings-generation,
transmission and distribution, vol. 141, pp. 377-382, 1994.
[4] T. Yalcinoz, H. Altun, and M. Uzam, "Economic dispatch solution
using a genetic algorithm based on arithmetic crossover," in 2001
IEEE Porto Power Tech Proceedings (Cat. No. 01EX502), 2001, p. 4
pp. vol. 2.
[5] B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, A. Rabiee, A. Soroudi, and M. Ehsan,
"Iteration PSO with time varying acceleration coefficients for solving
non-convex economic dispatch problems," International journal of
electrical power & energy systems, vol. 42, pp. 508-516, 2012.
[6] K. P. Wong and Y. W. Wong, "Genetic and genetic/simulated-
annealing approaches to economic dispatch," IEE Proceedings-
Generation, Transmission and Distribution, vol. 141, pp. 507-513,
1994.
[7] V. K. Kamboj, A. Bhadoria, and S. Bath, "Solution of non-convex
economic load dispatch problem for small-scale power systems using
ant lion optimizer," Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 28, pp.
2181-2192, 2017.
[8] S. Mirjalili, S. M. Mirjalili, and A. Lewis, "Grey wolf optimizer,"
Advances in engineering software, vol. 69, pp. 46-61, 2014.
[9] M. K. Sattar, A. Ahmad, S. Fayyaz, S. S. Ul Haq, and M. S.
Saddique, "Ramp rate handling strategies in Dynamic Economic Load
Dispatch (DELD) problem using Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO),"
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, pp. 1-14, 2019.
[10] P. P. Singh, R. Bains, G. Singh, N. Kapila, and V. K. Kamboj,
"Comparative analysis on economic load dispatch problem
optimization using moth flame optimization and sine cosine
algorithms," no, vol. 2, pp. 65-75, 2017.
[11] M. I. BABAR, A. AHMAD, and S. FAYYAZ, "A Hybrid Sine
Cosine Algorithm with SQP for Solving Convex and Nonconvex
Economic Dispatch Problem," Mehran University Research Journal
of Engineering and Technology, vol. 39, pp. 31-46, 2020.
[12] J. Radosavljević, "A solution to the combined economic and emission
dispatch using hybrid PSOGSA algorithm," Applied Artificial
Intelligence, vol. 30, pp. 445-474, 2016.
[13] H. Lu, P. Sriyanyong, Y. H. Song, and T. Dillon, "Experimental study
of a new hybrid PSO with mutation for economic dispatch with non-
smooth cost function," International Journal of Electrical Power &
Energy Systems, vol. 32, pp. 921-935, 2010.
[14] S. Khamsawang, P. Wannakarn, and S. Jiriwibhakorn, "Hybrid PSO-
DE for solving the economic dispatch problem with generator
constraints," in 2010 the 2nd international conference on computer
and automation engineering (ICCAE), 2010, pp. 135-139.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Heriot-Watt University. Downloaded on September 23,2020 at 10:38:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[15] S. Sayah and A. Hamouda, "A hybrid differential evolution algorithm
based on particle swarm optimization for nonconvex economic
dispatch problems," Applied soft computing, vol. 13, pp. 1608-1619,
2013.
[16] T. Prakash, V. Singh, S. P. Singh, and S. Mohanty, "Economic load
dispatch problem: quasi-oppositional self-learning TLBO algorithm,"
Energy Systems, vol. 9, pp. 415-438, 2018.
[17] S. M. A. Bulbul and P. K. Roy, "Quasi-oppositional gravitational
search algorithm applied to complex economic load dispatch
problem," in 2014 1st International Conference on Non Conventional
Energy (ICONCE 2014), 2014, pp. 308-313.
[18] M. S. Saddique, A. R. Bhatti, S. S. Haroon, M. K. Sattar, S. Amin, I.
A. Sajjad, et al., "Solution to optimal reactive power dispatch in
transmission system using meta-heuristic techniques―Status and
technological review," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 178, p.
106031, 2020.
[19] S. Fayyaz, A. Aftab, and I. Babar, Muhammad, "Solution of
economic dispatch problem using polar bear optimization," Journal of
fundamental and applied sciences, vol. 11, pp. 562-577, 2019.
[20] D. Połap and M. Wozniack, "Polar bear optimization algorithm:
Meta-heuristic with fast population movement and dynamic birth and
death mechanism," Symmetry, vol. 9, p. 203, 2017.
[21] A. J. Wood and B. F. Wollenberg, Power Generation, Operation, and
Control.: Wiley, 1996.
[22] V. K. Kamboj, S. Bath, and J. Dhillon, "Solution of non-convex
economic load dispatch problem using Grey Wolf Optimizer," Neural
Computing and Applications, vol. 27, pp. 1301-1316, 2016.
[23] M. Bestha, K. H. Reddy, and O. Hemakeshavulu, "Economic Load
Dispatch Downside with Valve-Point Result Employing a Binary Bat
Formula," International Journal of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, vol. 4, p. 101, 2014.
[24] S. Pothiya, I. Ngamroo, and W. Kongprawechnon, "Application of
multiple tabu search algorithm to solve dynamic economic dispatch
considering generator constraints," Energy Conversion and
Management, vol. 49, pp. 506-516, 2008.
[25] B. Adarsh, T. Raghunathan, T. Jayabarathi, and X.-S. Yang,
"Economic dispatch using chaotic bat algorithm," Energy, vol. 96, pp.
666-675, 2016.
[26] M. Saka, S. S. Tezcan, I. Eke, and M. C. Taplamacioglu, "Economic
load dispatch using vortex search algorithm," in 2017 4th
International Conference on Electrical and Electronic Engineering
(ICEEE), 2017, pp. 77-81.
[27] D. C. Secui, "A new modified artificial bee colony algorithm for the
economic dispatch problem," Energy Conversion and Management,
vol. 89, pp. 43-62, 2015.
[28] R. Rao, "Jaya: A simple and new optimization algorithm for solving
constrained and unconstrained optimization problems," International
Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, vol. 7, pp. 19-34,
2016.