Send Orders for Reprints to reprints@benthamscience.

net
Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, 12, 1-00 1

CONFERENCE PAPER

hGWO-SA: A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing

Algorithm for Engineering and Power System Optimization Problems

Vikram Kumar Kamboj1,*

1
Domain of Power Systems, School of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Lovely Professional University,
Phagwara, India

ARTICLE HISTORY
Received: October 01, 2019
Revised: March 18, 2020
Accepted: April 13, 2019
DOI:
10.2174/2666255813999200721010231
Abstract: The improved variants of a Grey wolf optimizer have good exploration capability for the
global optimum solution. However, the exploitation competence of the existing variants of grey
wolf optimizer is unfortunate. Researchers are continuously trying to improve the exploitation
phase of the existing grey wolf optimizer, but still, the improved variants of grey wolf optimizer
lack in local search capability. In the proposed research, the exploitation phase of the existing grey
wolf optimizer has been further improved using a simulated annealing algorithm and the proposed
hybrid optimizer has been named as hGWO-SA algorithm. The effectiveness of the proposed hy-
brid variant has been tested for various benchmark problems, including multi-disciplinary optimiza-
tion and design engineering problems and unit commitment problems of the electric power system
and it has been experimentally found that the proposed optimizer performs much better than exist-
ing variants of grey wolf optimizer. The feasibility of hGWO-SA algorithm has been tested for
small & medium scale power systems unit commitment problems, in which, the results for 4 unit, 5
unit, 6 unit, 7 unit, 10 units, 19 unit, 20 unit, 40 unit and 60 units are evaluated. The 10-generating
units are evaluated with 5% and 10% spinning reserve. The results obviously show that the
suggested method gives the superior type of solutions as compared to other algorithms.

Keywords: Economic Load Dispatch (ELD), Harris Hawks Optimizer, meta-heuristics, Unit Commitment Problem (UCP).

1. INTRODUCTION taking consideration of the effectiveness of the cost for shut-

In recent years, the power system is categorized by high-
ly nonlinear, large extents and highly interconnected as the
size of the power system is increasing day by day due to the
heavy load demand of the power in all sectors like residen-
tial, agriculture, industrial and commercial sector. Due to the
increasing tendencies in deregulation, electricity demand and
privatization, the impact of overloading happens on electrici-
ty grids. In this situation, the development of the electrical
grid is required with the increase of demand, but economical
generation commitment and scheduling have the capability
to control the power demand, which is time-varying and led
to exploitation of an accessible grid [1]. In recent trends,
modern power systems have several sources of power gener-
ating stations, including thermal power generating unit, hy-
dropower generating unit and nuclear power generating unit
and throughout a day, the load demand varies with different
peak values [2]. Therefore, there’s a need to resolve which
unit to turn on and when it is required in the network of the
power system and the arrangement or order in which the
generation unit should be kept in shut down condition by
*Address correspondence to this author at the Domain of Power Systems,
School of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Lovely Professional Univer-
sity, Phagwara, India; Tel: 87288872287; E-mail: vikram.23687@lpu.co.in
ting down and turning on of the respective generating unit.
The complete process of making these decisions is known as
unit commitment (UC) [3].
2. LITERATURE SURVEY
Optimization is a vast area of research in which research
is going on very fast. The researchers are doing continues
work on different problems in order to implement various
techniques for the solution of different problems and are able
to find the solutions successfully. The work is going on to
find the new algorithms and also the hybrid forms of the
algorithms to mitigate any drawbacks in the exiting tech-
niques. Some of these research paper includes Adaptive
gbest-Guided Search Algorithm (AGG), The Ant Lion Op-
timizer, Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) algorithm, Branch
and Bound, Bat Algorithm (BA), Human Group Optimizer
(HGO), Seeker Optimization Algorithm (SOA), Stochastic
Fractal Search, Symbiotic Organisms Search (SOS), Salp
Swarm Algorithm (SSA), Search Group Algorithm (SGA),
Teaching-Learning-Based Optimization (TLBO), Tabu
Search (TS), Virus Colony Search (VCS), Wind Driven Op-
timization (WDO), Water Cycle Algorithm (WCA), Water
Wave Optimization (WWO), Weighted Superposition At-
traction (WSA) and Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA).

2666-2558/20 $65.00+.00 © 2020 Bentham Science Publishers

2 Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 Vikram Kumar Kamboj

In the field of Unit Commitment, the first paper was pre-

TFC = " t=1 " n=1 [( An Pn2 + Bn Pn + Cn ) ! U n,t +
T NU

sented by Baldwin’s [2] in 1959, which was one of the con-

siderable research work in the part of the unit commitment SUCn,t (1# U n,(t#1) ) ! U n,t ] (2b)
problem.
A. G. Bakirtzis et al. [4] implemented the difference of
UCP related to economic clarification of the framework us-
( )
Fcost Pn = An Pn2 + Bn Pn + Cn
(3)
ing LR solution and the lambda values include the economic
dispatch. Here, two sets of lambda are applied to solve LR The Start-up cost is warmth-dependent. It can be
on UCP, which indicates the actual marginal cost of the elec- mathematically expressed by the step function as:
tricity. From the two sets of Lambda, the first one is allotted
as a Lagrange multiplier for the power balance equations on
UCP and the second one is used as the Lagrange multiplier
for the equation of power balance in case of ELD problems. "
$ HSU n ; for Tn ! Tn ! (Tn + Tn )
DW UP DW COLD
W. P. Ongsakul et al. [5] discussed an enhanced adaptive
Lagrangian relaxation (ALR). Enhanced LR method consists SUCn,t == #
of adaptive LR and heuristic search. Adaptive Lagrangian $ for TnUP >) (TnDW + TnCOLD )
relaxation is improved by familiarizing with new 0-1 deci- ( n !NU%CSU ; n t ;= 1,2,3,...,T (4)
sions and after that, the best possible scheduling can be ob-
tained from the Adaptive Lagrangian relaxation method. In
the case of scheduling, the heuristic search algorithm is ap- The Shutdown cost the usual value in the standard
plied to fine tune the scheduling. The total production costs systems is zero. But it can also be deemed as a cost that is
of the system are fewer to solve the large scale problem of fixed represented as:
the system. The time for computation is much more less as SDC nt = KPnt (5)
compared to the other methods. D. Murtaza, et al. [6] pro-
posed a new algorithm for scheduling of UCP using the LR
method, including transmission losses. The two stages of LR Here, K is the incremental shut-down cost of thermal
method were provided for faster calculation. To obtain a generating units and subjected to the following constraints:
better type of convergence, the first one includes the conven- 1) System Constraints
tional LR method in order to regulate the scheduling of UCP,
ignoring the transmission losses. Virmani et al. [7] imple- 2) Unit Constraints
mented the real aspects of the Lagrangian Relaxation meth-
odology to solve the problem of thermal unit commitment. 3.1. System Constraints
The No Free Lunch (NFL) theorem has logically sug- The constraints which are related to every unit present in
gested that none of the meta-heuristics search algorithms is the system are known as system constraints. Generally,
fit for all kinds of optimization problems [8]. Inspired by this system constraints are categorised into two types which are:-
motivation [9], the research proposal to develop a hybrid
search algorithm by combining local search and global Power Balance Constraints
search algorithm to solve the unit commitment problem of NU
the electric power system, has been taken into consideration. " Pn,t !U n,t =PDn (6)
n=1

3. PROBLEM FORMULATION
Spinning Reserve Constraints
The distribution of the generating power along with the
scheduling of electric utilities must be scheduled in such a The spinning Reserve requirement for thermal generating
way that it will satisfy the load requirement for a particular units can be mathematically given as:
time span’s known as (UCP) Unit Commitment Problem. NU
The major aim of the Unit Commitment problem over a # Pn,tMAX !U n,t "PDt +SRt . (7)
scheduling horizon is minimizing the overall, or total pro- n=1

duction cost lay open to the unit & system constraints. The
total production price is the additional summation of fuel 3.2. Unit Constraints
cost, start-up cost & shutdown cost, expressed as follows:
The Constraints which are related to particular units pre-
H N
sent in the system are known as unit constraints given as
min(TFC) = ! ! { Fcost n (Pnt ) + SUCn,t + SDCnt } below:
(1)
t=1 n=1
3.2.1. Thermal Constraints
The overall power generation cost and fuel cost for ther- The thermal generating units consist of the following im-
mal generating units over the given time horizon ‘t’ is given portant unit constraints:
as: 3.2.2. Minimum Up Time
TFC = ! t=1 ! n=1 [Fcost " U n,t + SUCn,t (1# U n,(t#1) ) " U n,t ]
T NU
The minimum uptime of each unit must be conserved and
(2a) can be mathematically given as:
A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 3

Tn,tON ! TnUP (8) TnUP = Time for which the nth unit is in
upstate
3.2.3. Minimum Down Time
TnDW = Time for which the nth unit is in down state
The minimum downtime of each units must be taken into
account as per the following relation: SRt = Spinning reserve requirement
T OFF
n ,t !T n
DW
(9) TnCOLD = Cold start hour for nth unit

3.2.4. Maximum and Minimum Power Limits Np = Number of population;

The power generated by each generating units must be t = Number of hour;

within its minimum and maximum allowable rating and can NU = Number of generators
be mathematically represented as:
4. METHODOLOGY
PnMIN ! Pn,t ! PnMAX (10)
As per the existing grey wolf optimizer, the various steps
3.2.5. Initial Status of Power Generating Units of (i) searching for prey, (ii) approaching towards prey, (iii)
encircling of prey and (iv) attaching towards prey can be
The initial status of each power generating units must be mathematically represented as:
taken into account, including minimum up and downtime of r r r r
power generating units. D = C.X Pr ey (iter) − XGWolf (iter)
(11)
3.2.6. Crew Constraints
r r r r
If a power plant consists of two or more similar kinds of XGWolf (iter + 1) = XPr ey (iter) − A.D (12)
generating units, it cannot be turned on at the same time due
to a shortage of enough crew members to operate the gener- r rr r
ated units. A = 2a.µ1 − a (13)
3.2.7. Unit Availability Constraints r r
C = 2.µ2 (14)
This constraint indicates the availability of the unit
among any of the following diverse conditions: r r r r
DAlpha = abs(C1.XAlpha − X) (15a)
A) Available or Not Available
r r r r
B) Outage/Must Out X1 = X Alpha − A1.DAlpha (15b)
C) Must Run
r r r r
Here, DBeta = abs(C2 .XBeta − X) (16a)
Fcostn (Pnt ) = Fuel Cost of particular unit (nth r r r r
X2 = XBeta − A2 .DBeta (16b)
unit) at particular hour (‘t’ hours)
r r r r
SDCnt = Shut down cost of nth generating unit at ‘t’ DDelta = abs(C3 .XDelta − X) (17a)
hours r r r r
X3 = XDelta − A3 .DDelta (17b)
Pn,tMAX = Maximum power generated by nth unit
r r r
r (X1 + X 2 + X 3 )
P MIN
= Minimum power generated by n unit th X(iter + 1) = (18)
n 3
SUCn,t = Start-up Cost of nth generating unit at ‘t’
r In the proposed hGWO-SA algorithm, the position vector
hours X of Eqn. (18) has been further updated using a simulated
annealing algorithm. The PSEUDO code of simulated an-
Pn,t = Power generated by nth unit at‘t’ nealing algorithm has been given in Fig. (1).
hours The exploration phase of the proposed algorithm for at-
tacking and searching for prey can be diagrammatically rep-
PDt = Power Demand at‘t’ hours
resented in Figs. (2 and 3).
INSn = Initial status of nth unit at‘t’ hours * In ‘the ‘proposed ‘hybrid ‘algorithm, ‘the ‘final ‘posi-
! ! !
! ( X1 + X 2 + X 3 )
T OFF
n,t
= Initial off status of nth unit at‘t’ hours tion ‘of ‘search ‘agents, ‘i.e. ‘ X(iter + 1) = is
3
ON th ‘further ‘explored ‘in ‘the ‘neighbor ‘search ‘space ‘using
T = Initial on status of n unit at‘t’ hours
n,t ‘steps ‘of ‘simulated ‘annealing ‘algorithm ‘as ‘per ‘PSEU-
4 Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1
Fig. (1). PSEUDO code of Simulated algorithm
Fig. (2). Attacking of prey in Exploration phase
DO ‘code ‘of ‘Fig. (1) ‘and ‘updated ‘position ‘of ‘search
‘agents ‘is ‘used ‘to ‘calculate ‘the ‘alpha, ‘beta ‘and ‘delta
‘score.
4.1. FLOW CHART OF PROPOSED ALGORITHM
In order to solve the unit commitment problem of the
electric power system, the steps shown in Fig. 4 can be used.
4.1.1. PSEUDO Code to Repair Spinning Reserve, Mini-
mum down time, Minimum up time, Constraints
To satisfying minimum up and downtime, a heuristic re-
pair mechanism is adopted whose steps are mentioned as
below in Fig. (5).
Vikram Kumar Kamboj
Fig. (3). Searching for prey in Exploration phase
4.1.2. Handling of Spinning Reserve Constraints
The basic feasible solution, which was obtained by the
sine cosine algorithm sometimes highly unfortunate to satis-
fy the spinning reserve requirement as the handling of mini-
mum up and downtime also leads to the excess spinning re-
serve (Fig. 6). Hence, it is mandatory to adjust/handle spin-
ning reserve requirements heuristically. The following
PSEUDO code (Fig. 7(a, b)) and flowchart (Fig. 7(c, d))
expound complete procedure to repair the spinning reserve
requirement.
4.1.2.1. De-committing of Excess of Units
It is clear from the code given above that during repair of
MDT, MUT, and spinning reserve, we have to take unit sta-
A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 5

tus “ON” if these constraints violated by putting it off. Since the units so as to archive economic operation. Following the
we do so against the discretion given by algorithm heuristic approach is adopted for de-committing the extra
obliviously, it results in extra reserve (Fig. 7e). This situation spinning reserve.
is highly undesirable;z hence we have to recommit some of

Fig. (4). ‘PSEUDO ‘code ‘of ‘proposed ‘hGWO-SA ‘algorithm.

Fig. (5). PSEUDO code for Minimum up and down Time constraints handling.
6 Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 Vikram Kumar Kamboj

Fig. (6). Flowchart of Entire Process of commitment using hGWO-SA

A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 7

Fig. (7a): PSEUDO code for spinning reserve repairing

START

CALCULATE ON AND OFF TIME OF

ALL PARTICIPATING UNITS

t=1:T

g=1:G

 u t = 0 u gt −1 = 1 YES
g  set u t = 1
g
t −1
T g ,ON ≤ MUTg

NO

 u t = 0 u t −1 = 1
g g g=g+1
YES
t + MDTg − 1 ≤ T  set u t = 1
g
t + MDTg −1
Tg ,OFF ≤ MDTg

t=t+1

NO

 u t = 0, u t −1 = 1 YES
g g
 set ut = 1
g
t + MDTg − 1 > T

NO
YES

g<N

YES
t<T

STOP

Fig. (7b). Flowchart to handle minimum up and minimum downtime constraints

8 Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 Vikram Kumar Kamboj

Fig. (7c). Flow Chart for spinning reserve repairing

Fig. (7d). PSEUDO Code for the decommitment of Excessive Generating Units.
A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 9

Fig. (7e). Flow Chart for the decommitment of Excessive Generating Units

Table 1. Results of Unimodal Benchmark Functions

Unimodal Functions Mean SD Worst Best

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

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

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

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

F5 27.11039376 1.006421 28.73816855 25.11623197

F6 0.618400459 0.3359576 1.506941203 1.31E-05

5. RESULTS & DISCUSSION OF THE TEST SYS-
TEMS
For the effective research study, the proposed hybrid op-
timizer‘hGWO-SA has been tested for various unimodal,
benchmark problems and results are recorded for 30 trail
runs in terms of worst fitness, best fitness, mean fitness and
standard deviation and shown in Table-1.
To demonstrate the efficiency of the hGWO-SA Algo-
rithm for resolving the Unit Commitment Problem, some
standard test system falling under small level power systems
possessing standard IEEE bus systems are taken into con-
cern. The proposed hGWO-SA algorithm performance is
assessed in MATLAB 2017a (8.1.0.604) software on Win-
dows 7 Home Basic, CPU @ 2.10GHz, RAM- 3GB,
Processor-Intel® Core™ i3-2310M, System Type- 64-bit
operating system.
10 Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1
In order to justify the effectiveness of the hGWO-SA al-
gorithm from a practical point of view, the results of hGWO-
SA algorithm have been compared with various algorithms.
The data of the generating units have been shown in Annex-
ure-A1 to A8, and its comparative analysis has been shown
in Tables 2 to 17.
4-Generating Unit System: The first test system com-
prises 4-Generating units having an 8-hour load demand with
10 % spinning reserve. The hGWO-SA algorithm is assessed
for 100 iterations. The convergence curve for this test system
is shown in Table-2 which shows that optimal total produc-
tion cost termed as generation cost for 4-generating unit sys-
tem model using the hGWO-SA algorithm is 74476 $/hour.
5-Generating Unit System: The second test system con-
sists of the IEEE-14 Bus System. This Test system compris-
es 5-Generating units having a 24-hour load demand with
10% spinning reserve. The hGWO-SA algorithm is assessed
for 100 iterations. The convergence curve for this test system
is shown in Table-3, which shows that optimal total produc-
tion cost termed as generation cost for 5 generating unit sys-
tem model using the SCA algorithm is 9010.1$/hour.
6-Generating Unit System: The third test system con-
sists of 6-Generating units of IEEE-30 bus system having a
24-hour load demand with 10 % spinning reserve [10]. The
hGWO-SA algorithm is assessed for 100 iterations. The
convergence curve for this test system is shown in Table-4
which shows that optimal total production cost termed as
generation cost for 6 generating unit system model using the
hGWO-SA algorithm, is 13489.9395700549$/hour.
7-Generating Unit System: The fourth test system con-
sists of 7-Generating units of the IEEE-56 bus system having
a 24-hour load demand with 10 % spinning reserve [11]. The
hGWO-SA algorithm is assessed for 100 iterations. The
convergence curve for 7-unit test system is shown in Table-
5, which shows that optimal total production cost termed as
Table 2. Generation schedule for 4-unit test system.
Generation schedule of committed units
Hour
GU1
h1 300
h2 300
h3 300
h4 300
h5 300
h6 255
h7 265
h8 300
Vikram Kumar Kamboj
generation cost for 7 generating unit system models using
the hGWO-SA algorithm is 34245.742436 $/hour.
10-Generating Unit System: The fifth test system con-
sists of 10-generating units. This test system has been tested
for a 24-hour load demand pattern at different spinning re-
serve capacity. The case-1 consists of spinning reserve ca-
pacity of 5% and case-2 consists of a spinning reserve capac-
ity of 10%.
Case-1: 10-Generating Unit System (SR=5%): This
test system consists of 10-Generating units having a 24-hour
load demand with 5% spinning reserve [12]. The hGWO-SA
algorithm is assessed for 100 iterations & analogous to this
algorithm results are matched with various other algorithms,
as shown in Table-7. The convergence curve for this test
system is shown in Table-6, which shows that optimal total
production cost termed as generation cost for a 10-generating
unit system model using the SCA algorithm is 557533.12
$/hour.
Case-2: 10-Generating Unit System (SR=10%): In this
case, the test system consists of 10-Generating units having a
24-hour load demand with a 10% spinning reserve [12]. The
hGWO-SA algorithm is assessed for 100 iterations & analo-
gous to this algorithm results are matched with various other
algorithms, as shown in Table-8. The convergence curve for
this test system is shown in Table-7, which shows that opti-
mal total production cost termed as generation cost for 10
generating unit system model using the hGWO-SA algo-
rithm is 563937.687490158 $/hour.
Medium and Large Scale Power System (19-, 20- , 40-
and 60- Unit Test System): The higher-order test system
consists of 19-, 20- and 40-Generating units having a 24-
hour load demand with 10% spinning reserves [12]. For 20
and 40-unit test systems, the data of the 10-unit system had
been doubled and quadrupled and load demand is multiplied
by two and four times, respectively.
GU2 GU3 GU4
150 0 0
205 25 0
250 30 20
215 25 0
0 80 20
0 25 0
0 25 0
200 0 0
A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 11

Table 3. Generation schedule for 5-unit test system.

Generation schedule of committed units

Hour
GU1 GU2 GU3 GU4 GU5

h1 0 48 100 0 0

h2 33 140 0 0 0

h3 220 0 0 0 0

h4 144 0 100 0 0

h5 119 140 0 0 0

h6 108 140 0 0 0

h7 227 0 0 0 0

h8 202 0 0 0 0

h9 176 0 0 0 0

h10 134 0 0 0 0

h11 100 0 0 0 0

h12 130 0 0 0 0

h13 157 0 0 0 0

h14 168 0 0 0 0

h15 195 0 0 0 0

h16 225 0 0 0 0

h17 104 140 0 0 0

h18 101 140 0 0 0

h19 90 140 0 0 0

h20 210 0 0 0 0

h21 176 0 0 0 0

h22 157 0 0 0 0

h23 138 0 0 0 0

h24 103 0 0 0 0

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

Generation schedule of committed units

Hour
GU1 GU2 GU3 GU4 GU5 GU6

h1 166 0 0 0 0 0

h2 154.35294 41.647059 0 0 0 0

h3 181.52941 47.470588 0 0 0 0

h4 196.52466 50.683857 19.79148 0 0 0

h5 200 60.78125 22.61875 0 0 0

h6 200 51.875 20.125 0 0 0

h7 195.52941 50.470589 0 0 0 0

h8 168.35294 44.647059 0 0 0 0
12 Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 Vikram Kumar Kamboj

h9 151.05882 40.941177 0 0 0 0

h10 161 0 0 0 0 0

h11 147 0 0 0 0 0

h12 160 0 0 0 0 0

h13 170 0 0 0 0 0

h14 145.29412 39.705883 0 0 0 0

h15 164.23529 43.764706 0 0 0 0

h16 184 48 0 0 0 0

h17 195.52941 50.470589 0 0 0 0

h18 191.41176 49.588235 0 0 0 0

h19 187.29412 48.705882 0 0 0 0

h20 178.23529 46.764706 0 0 0 0

h21 160.94118 43.058824 0 0 0 0

h22 142.82353 39.176471 0 0 0 0

h23 161 0 0 0 0 0

h24 131 0 0 0 0 0

Table 5. Generation schedule for 7-unit test system

Generation schedule of committed units

Hour
GU1 GU2 GU3 GU4 GU5 GU6 GU7

h1 500 0 0 0 40 0 0

h2 576 0 0 0 44 0 0

h3 576 0 0 0 378 0 0

h4 576 0 0 0 420 0 30

h5 576 0 0 0 426 0 0

h6 576 0 0 0 416 0 0

h7 576 0 0 0 402 0 0

h8 576 0 0 0 380 0 0

h9 576 0 0 0 366 0 0

h10 576 0 0 0 346 0 0

h11 576 0 0 0 326 0 0

h12 576 0 0 0 175 0 0

h13 576 0 0 0 75 0 0

h14 548 0 0 0 40 0 0

h15 562 0 0 0 40 0 0

h16 576 0 0 0 192 0 0

h17 576 0 0 0 300 0 0

h18 576 0 0 0 287 0 0

h19 576 0 0 0 267 0 0

A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 13

h20 576 0 0 0 226 0 0

h21 576 0 0 0 208 0 0

h22 576 0 0 0 126 0 0

h23 576 0 0 0 116 0 0

h24 576 0 0 0 69 0 0

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

Generation schedule of committed units

Hour
GU1 GU2 GU3 GU4 GU5 GU6 GU7 GU8 GU9 GU10

h1 455 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

h2 455 295 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

h3 455 395 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

h4 455 455 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0

h5 455 455 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0

h6 455 455 130 0 60 0 0 0 0 0

h7 455 410 130 130 25 0 0 0 0 0

h8 455 455 130 130 30 0 0 0 0 0

h9 455 455 130 130 110 20 0 0 0 0

h10 455 455 130 130 162 43 25 0 0 0

h11 455 455 130 130 162 80 25 13 0 0

h12 455 455 130 130 162 80 25 53 10 0

h13 455 455 130 130 162 43 25 0 0 0

h14 455 455 130 0 162 73 25 0 0 0

h15 455 455 130 0 140 20 0 0 0 0

h16 455 440 130 0 25 0 0 0 0 0

h17 455 390 130 0 25 0 0 0 0 0

h18 455 455 130 0 60 0 0 0 0 0

h19 455 455 130 130 30 0 0 0 0 0

h20 455 455 130 130 162 48 0 10 10 0

h21 455 455 130 130 110 20 0 0 0 0

h22 455 455 0 130 40 20 0 0 0 0

h23 455 315 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0

h24 455 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table7. Generation schedule for 10-unit test system (10% SR).

Generation schedule of committed units

Hour
GU1 GU2 GU3 GU4 GU5 GU6 GU7 GU8 GU9 GU10

h1 455 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

h2 455 295 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

h3 455 370 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0
14 Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 Vikram Kumar Kamboj

h4 455 455 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0

h5 455 390 0 130 25 0 0 0 0 0

h6 455 360 130 130 25 0 0 0 0 0

h7 455 410 130 130 25 0 0 0 0 0

h8 455 455 130 130 30 0 0 0 0 0

h9 455 455 130 130 85 20 25 0 0 0

h10 455 455 130 130 162 33 25 10 0 0

h11 455 455 130 130 162 73 25 10 10 0

h12 455 455 130 130 162 80 25 43 10 0

h13 455 455 130 130 162 33 25 10 0 0

h14 455 455 130 130 85 20 25 0 0 0

h15 455 455 130 130 30 0 0 0 0 0

h16 455 310 130 130 25 0 0 0 0 0

h17 455 260 130 130 25 0 0 0 0 0

h18 455 360 130 130 25 0 0 0 0 0

h19 455 455 130 130 30 0 0 0 0 0

h20 455 455 130 130 162 33 25 10 0 0

h21 455 455 130 130 85 20 25 0 0 0

h22 455 455 0 0 145 20 25 0 0 0

h23 455 455 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0

h24 455 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 8. Generation schedule for the 19-unit test system.

Generation schedule of Committed Units

Hour
GU1 GU2 GU3 GU4 GU5 GU6 GU7 GU8 GU9 GU10

h1 464.5341 0 0 224.02557 0 0 0 0 0 0

h2 430.4072 0 39.107421 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

h3 438.43256 0 43.767293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

h4 481.39562 0 68.713588 236.67172 0 0 0 0 0 0

h5 439.26231 0 44.249082 205.07173 0 0 0 0 0 0

h6 473.73471 0 64.265316 230.92603 0 0 0 0 0 0

h7 482.59882 0 69.412216 237.57411 0 0 0 0 0 0

h8 500 0 101.86188 279.48827 0 0 0 0 0 0

h9 447.5336 0 0 211.2752 0 0 0 0 0 0

h10 499.93406 0 0 250.57559 0 0 0 0 0 0

h11 456.27281 0 0 217.82961 0 0 0 0 0 0

h12 467.56741 0 0 226.30056 0 0 0 0 20 0

h13 429.52036 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0

h14 435.4034 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0
A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 15

h15 500 0 83.269803 255.4735 0 0 0 0 20 0

h16 500 0 98.032184 274.54157 0 0 0 0 0 0

h17 500 0 98.032184 274.54157 0 0 0 0 0 0

h18 451.34191 0 0 214.13143 0 0 0 0 0 0

h19 448.62317 0 0 212.09237 0 0 0 0 0 0

h20 418.3276 0 0 189.3707 0 0 0 0 0 0

h21 472.95995 10 0 230.34496 0 0 0 0 0 0

h22 500 10 0 280.97558 0 0 0 0 0 0

h23 485.65621 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

h24 418.20745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9. General schedule for the committed units.

Generation schedule of committed units

Hour
GU11 GU12 GU13 GU14 GU15 GU16 GU17 GU18 GU19

h1 0 364.58069 900 516.85964 0 700 0 0 0

h2 332.61648 333.86648 885.6108 480.72527 0 697.66636 0 0 0

h3 339.8393 341.0893 897.64883 489.22271 0 700 0 0 0

h4 378.50606 0 900 534.71301 0 700 0 0 0

h5 340.58608 341.83608 898.89346 490.10127 0 700 0 0 0

h6 371.61124 372.86124 900 526.60146 0 700 0 0 0

h7 379.58894 380.83894 900 535.98698 0 700 0 0 0

h8 400 0 900 595.15991 0 700 163.48994 0 0

h9 348.03024 349.28024 900 498.85911 0 700 105.0216 0 0

h10 0 396.4407 900 554.342 0 700 138.70765 0 0

h11 0 357.14553 900 508.11239 0 700 110.63966 0 0

h12 366.06067 0 900 520.07137 0 700 0 0 0

h13 331.81833 333.06833 884.28054 479.78627 0 696.52618 0 0 0

h14 337.11306 338.36306 893.1051 486.01537 0 700 0 0 0

h15 0 400 900 561.2567 0 700 0 0 0

h16 0 400 900 588.17633 0 700 159.24992 0 0

h17 0 400 900 588.17633 0 700 159.24992 0 0

h18 351.45772 352.70772 900 502.89143 0 700 107.4698 0 0

h19 349.01085 350.26085 900 500.01276 0 700 0 0 0

h20 321.74484 322.99484 867.49141 467.93511 0 682.13549 0 0 0

h21 370.91396 0 900 525.78113 0 700 0 0 0

h22 0 0 900 597.25964 0 700 164.76478 0 0

h23 0 383.59059 900 539.22422 0 700 129.52899 0 0

h24 321.6367 322.8867 867.31117 467.80789 0 681.98101 86.169075 0 0

16 Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 Vikram Kumar Kamboj

Table 10. Total overall generation cost for each unit without renewable energy sources.

Generating Units Generation Cost ($)

4-unit 74476

5-unit 9010.1

6-unit 13489.93957

7-unit 34245.74244

10-unit (5% SR) 557533.12

10-unit (10% SR) 563937.6875

19-unit 208510

20-unit 1125200

40-unit 2253700

60-unit 3388100

Table 11: Comparison of results for 4-generating unit system

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

Method
No. Best Average Worst Best Average Worst

1 Improved Lagrangian Relaxation(ILR) [13] 75231.9 NA NA --- --- ---

2 B. SMP [14] 74812 74877 75166

3 A.SMP [14] 74812 74877 75166

4 Lagrangian Relaxation and PSO (LRPSO) [13] 74808 NA NA --- -- ---

5 Binary Differential Evolution(BDE) [15] 74,676 NA NA --- --- ---

6 Genetic Algorithm(GA) [16] 74,675 NA NA --- --- ---

7 hGWO-SA Search[Proposed Method] 74476.000 ---- ---- --- ---- ----

Table 12. Comparison of results for 10-generating unit system with 5% SR.

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

Method
No. Best Average Worst Best Average Worst

1 BPSO [17] 565,804 566,992 567,251 --- --- ---

2 GA [17] 570,781 574,280 576,791 --- --- ---

3 APSO [18] 561,586 --- --- --- --- ---

4 BP [18] 565,450 ---- ---- --- --- ----

5 TSGB [19] 560,263.92 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---

6 IPSO [20] 558,114.80 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---

7 Hybrid PSO-SQP [21] 568,032.30 ---- --- ---- ---- ----

8 B. SMP [14] 558,844.76 558,937.24 559,154.98 --- ---- ---

9 Hybrid HS-RS [22] 557,905.6427 558,267.2 558,682.0107 --- ---- ----

10 hGWO-SA [Proposed Method] 557533.12 --- ---- --- ---- ----

A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 17

Table 13. Comparison of results for 10-generating unit system with 10% SR.

Overall Generation Cost ($)

Sr. Fuel Startup Average
Method Aver-
No. Best Worst Cost($) Cost($) Time(Sec.)
age

1 Genetic Based Method [23] NA 623441 --- --- NA ---

Hybrid Continuous Relaxation and Genetic Algo-

2 NA 563977 --- NA NA 46
rithm(CRGA) [24]

Continuous Relaxation and Genetic Algorithm (CRGA)

3 --- 563977 --- ---
[24]

4 Integer Coded Genetic Algorithm(ICGA) [25] --- 566404 --- ---

5 Lagrangian Search Genetic Algorithm(LSGA) [23] 609023.69 --- --- ---

6 IBPSO [26] 599782 --- --- NA NA 14.48

7 New Genetic Algorithm [23] 591715 --- --- NA NA 677

8 PSO [27] 581450 --- --- ---

9 MPSO [28] 574905 --- --- NA NA 15.73

10 HPSO [29] 574153 --- --- ---

11 LCA-PSO [30] 570006 --- --- NA NA 18.34

12 Two-Stage Genetic Based Technique(TSGA) [19] 568315 --- --- ---

13 Hybrid PSO-SQP [21] 568032.3 --- --- ---

14 BCGA [25] 567367 --- --- ---

15 SM [31] 566686 566787 567022 NA NA ---

16 LR [25] 566107 566493 566817 NA NA ---

17 GA [25] 565866 567329 571336 NA NA ---

18 Genetic Algorithm(GA) [32] 565852 --- 570032 NA NA 221

19 ESA [31] 565828 565988 566260 NA NA 3.35

20 LR [32] 565825 --- --- ---

21 Dynamic Programming(DP) [32] 565825 --- --- ---

22 Improved Lagrangian Relaxation(ILR) [13] 565823.23 --- --- ---

23 LRPSO[31] 565275.2 --- --- ---

24 (LRGA) [33] 564800 564800 --- NA NA 518

25 Evolutionary Programming (EP) [34] 564551 565352 --- NA NA 5.61

26 EP [31] 564551 565352 566231 NA NA 100

27 Particle Swarm Optimization(PSO) [35] 564212 565103 565783 ---

28 Ant Colony Search Algorithm (ACSA) [36] 564049 --- --- --- ---

29 Hybrid Ant System/Priority List(HASP) [37] 564029 564324 564490 ---

564121 564401
30 B. SMP [14] 564,017.73 NA NA ---
.46 .08

31 Annealing Genetic Algorithm(AGA) [38] 564005 --- --- NA NA ---

563,99 563,99
32 Binary Differential Evolution [15] 563,997 NA NA ---
7 7

33 Social Evolutionary Programming (SEP) [39] 563987 --- --- NA NA ---

18 Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 Vikram Kumar Kamboj

34 Methodological Priority List(MPL) [40] 563977.1 --- --- ---

566560
35 Genetic Algorithm(GA) [32] 563977 564275 221
6

36 IBPSO [26] 563977 564155 565312 NA NA ---

Genetic Algorithm Based on Unit Characteristics (UCC-

37 563977 --- 565606 NA nA 85
GA) [41]

38 Enhanced Adaptive Lagrangian Relaxation(EALR) [42] 563977 --- --- NA NA 4

39 Local Search Method(LCM) [43] 563977 --- --- NA NA 0.6

40 Quantum-Inspired Binary PSO(QBPSO) [44] 563977 --- --- ---

41 Binary PSO [45] 563977 563977 563977 NA NA ---

42 Quantum-Inspired Binary PSO(QIBPSO) [45] 563977 563977 563977 NA NA ---

43 Extended Priority List(EPL) [46] 563977 --- --- ---

44 Muller Method [47] 563977 --- --- 0.516

45 Improved Particle Swarm Optimization(IPSO) [35] 563954 564162 564579 NA NA ---

46 Advanced Fuzzy Controlled Binary PSO(AFCBPSO) [48] 563947 564285 565002 5.54

564772 565782
47 Hybrid PSO(HPSO) [49] 563942.3 NA NA ---
.3 .3

Fuzzy Quantum Computation Based Thermal Unit Com-

48 563942 --- --- ---
mitment (FQEA) [50]

Advanced Quantum-Inspired Evolutionary Algo-

49 563938 --- --- ---
rithm(AQEA) [51]

Particle Swarm-Based- Simulated Annealing (PSO-B-SA)

50 563938 564115 564985 NA NA ---
[52]

51 QEA-UC [51] 563938 564012 564711

52 IQEA-UC [51] 563938 563938 563938

53 Gravitational Search Algorithm [53] 563938 564008 564241 2.89

563937.68749
54 hGWO-SA [Proposed Method]
0158

Table 14. Comparison of results for 20-generating unit system.

Overall Generation Cost ($)

Sr. Fuel Startup Average
Method Best Average Worst
No. Cost($) Cost($) Time(Sec.)
Cost Cost Cost

1 Genetic Based Method [23] --- 1215066 --- --- ---

2 New Genetic Algorithm [54] --- 1133786 --- --- --- 1095

Hybrid Continuous Relaxation and Genetic Algo-

3 --- 1236981 --- --- --- 98
rithm(CRGA) [55]

Lagrangian Relaxation and Genetic Algorithm(LRGA)

4 --- 1122622 --- --- --- 1147
[33]

5 Integer Coded Genetic Algorithm(ICGA) [25] --- 1127244 --- --- --- ---

6 Annealing Genetic Algorithm(AGA) [38] --- 1124651 --- --- ---

Improved Binary Particle Swarm optimization (IBPSO) 119602

7 --- --- --- --- 60.65
[26] 9
A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 19

115296
8 MPSO [39] --- --- --- --- 65.87
6

113900
9 LCA-PSO [30] --- --- --- --- 57.32
5

113066
10 Lagrangian Relaxation(LR) [37] --- --- --- ---
0

113029
11 BCGA [25] --- --- --- ---
1

112887
12 GA [47] 1130160 1131565 --- --- ---
6

112836
13 LR [47] 1128395 1128444 --- --- ---
2

112819
14 SM [47] 1128213 1128403 --- --- ---
2

112809
15 DP and Lagrangian Relaxation(DPLR) [56] --- --- --- ---
8

112625
16 Enhanced Simulated Annealing (ESA) [28] --- --- --- --- ---
4

112625
17 Enhanced Simulated Annealing (ESA) [47] 1127955 1129112 --- --- 16.8
1

112624
18 Genetic Algorithm(GA) [37] --- 1132059 --- --- 733
3

112624
19 GA [26] [37] 1200480 --- --- ---
3

112598
20 Particle Swarm Optimization(PSO) [35] --- 1131054 ---
3

Intelligent Mutation based Genetic Algorithm(UCC-GA) 112551

21 --- 1128790 --- --- 225
[41] 6

112551
22 Genetic Algorithm(GA) [53] [37] GSA Paper --- 1128790 733
6

112549
23 Evolutionary Programming (EP) [34] 1127257 --- --- --- 340
4

112527
24 Improved Particle Swarm Optimization(IPSO) [35] --- 1127643 ---
9

112520
25 hGWO-SA [Proposed Method] --- ---- ---- ---- ----
0

Table 15. Comparison of results for 40-generating unit system

Overall Generation Cost ($)

Sr. No. Method Average Time(Sec.)
Best Cost Average Cost Worst Cost

1 Hybrid Continuous Relaxation and Genetic Algorithm(CRGA) [24] --- 2243796 --- 265

2 Lagrangian Relaxation and Genetic Algorithm(LRGA) [33] --- 2242178 --- 2165

3 ICGA [25] --- 2254123

4 IBPSO [26] 2401728 --- --- 316.86

5 MPSO [39] 2323435 --- --- 317.29

6 LCA-PSO [30] 2277396 --- --- 274.67

20 Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 Vikram Kumar Kamboj

7 Advanced Fuzzy Controlled Binary PSO (AFCBPSO) [48] 2266040 --- --- ---

8 LR [25] 2258503 --- ---

9 Enhanced Simulated Annealing (ESA) [47] Considering Ramp Rate 2255864 2256971 2258897 199.55

10 hGWO-SA [Proposed Method] 2253700 --- --- ---

Table 16. Comparison of results for 60-generating unit system.

Generation Cost($) Iteration Time (Sec.)

Sr. No. Method
Best Average Worst Best Average Worst

1 LCA-PSO [30] 3420438 ---- ---- --- --- ---

2 MPSO [28] 3451762 ----- ----- ---- ---- ----

3 IBPSO [26] 3592585 ----- ---- ---- ---- ----

4 hGWO-SA [Proposed Method] 3388100 ---- ---- --- -- ---

APPENDIX
Table A1. Unit Characteristics for 4-generating unit system

Generating Units
Unit Parameters
U1 U2 U3 U4

PnMAX 300 250 80 60

PnMIN 75 60 25 20

An 684.74 585.6 213 252

Bn 16.83 19.95 20.74 23.6

Cn 0.0021 0.0042 0.0018 0.0034

TnUP 5 5 4 1
DW
Tn 4 3 2 1

HSUn 500 170 150 0

CSUn 1100 400 350 0.02

COLD
Tn 5 5 4 0

INSn 8 8 -5 -6

Table A2. Unit Characteristics for 5-generating unit system.

Generating Units
Unit Parameters
U1 U2 U3 U4 U5
MAX
Pn 455 130 130 80 55
MIN
Pn 150 20 20 20 55

An 1000 700 680 370 660

Bn 16.19 16.6 16.5 22.26 25.92

Cn 0.00048 0.002 0.00211 0.00712 0.00413

TnUP 8 5 5 3 1

TnDW 8 5 5 3 1

HSUn 4500 550 560 170 30

A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 21

CSUn 9000 1100 1120 340 60

COLD
Tn 5 4 4 2 0

INSn 8 -5 -5 -3 -1

Table A3. Unit Characteristics for 6-generating unit system.

Generating Units
Unit Parameter
U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6

PnMAX 200 80 50 35 30 40
MIN
Pn 50 20 15 10 10 12

An 0.00375 0.0175 0.0625 0.00834 0.025 0.025

Bn 2 1.75 1 3.25 3 3

Cn 0 0 0 0 0 0
UP
Tn 1 2 1 1 2 1

TnDW 1 2 1 2 1 1

HSUn 70 74 50 110 72 40

CSUn 176 187 113 267 180 113

TnCOLD 2 1 1 1 1 1

INSn -1 -3 2 3 -2 2

Table A4. Unit Characteristics for 7-generating unit system.

Generating Units
Unit Parameter
U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7

PnMAX 567 100 140 100 550 100 410

PnMIN 50 10 20 10 40 10 30

An 0.0017 0.01 0.0071 0.01 0.0018 0.01 0.0024

Bn 1.7365 10 7.1429 10 1.81 10 2.439

Cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UP
Tn 3 3 2 4 1 1 2
DW
Tn 2 1 1 2 1 1 1

HSUn 70 74 50 110 72 40 70

CSUn 176 187 113 267 180 113 176

COLD
Tn 3 2 3 1 1 1 2

INSn 4 5 5 7 5 3 4

Table A5. Unit Characteristics for 10-generating unit system.

Unit Parame- Generating Units

ter U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9 U10
MAX
Pn 455 455 130 130 162 80 85 55 55 55

PnMIN 150 150 20 20 25 20 25 10 10 10

An 1000 970 700 680 450 370 480 660 665 670
22 Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 Vikram Kumar Kamboj

Bn 16.19 17.26 16.6 16.5 19.7 22.26 27.74 25.92 27.27 27.79

Cn 0.00048 0.00031 0.002 0.00211 0.00398 0.00712 0.00079 0.00413 0.00222 0.00173

TnUP 8 8 5 5 6 3 3 1 1 1

TnDW 8 8 5 5 6 3 3 1 1 1

HSUn 4500 5000 550 560 900 170 260 30 30 30

CSUn 9000 10,000 1100 1120 1800 340 520 60 60 60

TnCOLD 5 5 4 4 4 2 2 0 0 0

INSn 8 8 -5 -5 -6 -3 -3 -1 -1 -1

Table A6. Unit Characteristics for 19-generating unit system

Unit Parame- Generating Units

ter GU1 GU2 GU3 GU4 GU5 GU6 GU7 GU8 GU9 GU10

PnMAX 500 90 300 400 10 23 240 50 200 200

MIN
Pn 50 10 30 40 1 3 30 5 20 20

An 0.0018 0.0054 0.0031 0.0024 0.0093 0.0084 0.0033 0.0068 0.0039 0.0038

Bn 1.818 5.405 3.125 2.415 9.346 8.403 3.289 6.757 3.922 3.846

Cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UP
Tn 3 3 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 2

TnDW 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 5 1

HSUn 70 74 50 110 72 40 70 74 50 110

CSUn 176 187 113 267 180 113 176 187 113 267

TnCOLD 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 1

INSn 4 -5 -5 7 -5 -3 -4 -5 -5 -7

Generating Units
Unit Parameter
GU11 GU12 GU13 GU14 GU15 GU16 GU17 GU18 GU19

PnMAX 400 400 900 600 5 700 300 50 40

MIN
Pn 90 90 100 50 1 50 30 5 4

An 0.002 0.002 0.0012 0.0017 0.0096 0.0014 0.0028 0.0071 0.0074

Bn 2.037 2.032 1.242 1.733 9.615 1.414 2.841 7.143 7.353

Cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UP
Tn 3 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 1

TnDW 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1

HSUn 72 40 70 74 50 110 72 40 70

CSUn 180 113 176 187 113 267 180 113 176

TnCOLD 2 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0

INSn -5 -3 10 -5 -5 7 -5 -3 -4

Table A7. Power Demand For Various Generating Units.

Hour Load Demand (in MW)

A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1 23

4-Unit

h1 450

h2 530

h3 600

h4 540

h5 400

h6 280

h7 290

h8 500

Table A8. Power Demand for Various Generating Units.

Load Demand (in MW)

Hour
5-Units 6-Units 7-Units 10-Units 19-Units 20-Units 40-units 60-Units

h1 148 166 540 700 3170 1400 2800 4200

h2 173 196 620 750 3200 1500 3000 4500

h3 220 229 954 850 3250 1700 3400 5100

h4 244 267 1026 950 3300 1900 3800 5700

h5 259 283.4 1002 1000 3460 2000 4000 6000

h6 248 272 992 1100 3640 2200 4400 6600

h7 227 246 978 1150 3686 2300 4600 6900

h8 202 213 956 1200 3640 2400 4800 7200

h9 176 192 1300 3560 2600 5200 7800

h10 134 161 922 1400 3440 2800 5600 8400

h11 100 147 902 1450 3250 2900 5800 8700

h12 130 160 751 1500 3200 3000 6000 9000

h13 157 170 651 1400 3175 2800 5600 8400

h14 168 185 588 1300 3210 2600 5200 7800

h15 195 208 602 1200 3420 2400 4800 7200

h16 225 232 768 1050 3620 2100 4200 6300

h17 244 246 876 1000 3620 2000 4000 6000

h18 241 241 863 1100 3580 2200 4400 6600

h19 230 236 843 1200 3460 2400 4800 7200

h20 210 225 802 1400 3270 2800 5600 8400

h21 176 204 784 1300 3210 2600 5200 7800

h22 157 182 702 1100 3156 2200 4400 6600

h23 138 161 692 900 3148 1800 3600 5400

h24 103 131 645 800 3166 1600 3200 4800

24 Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1
CONCLUSION [11]
The improved variants of Grey wolf optimizer, i.e.,
GWO-SA, have been proposed using the simulated anneal- [12]
ing algorithm and the proposed hybrid optimizer. The effec-
tiveness of the proposed hybrid variant has been tested for
various benchmark problems, including multi-disciplinary
optimization and design engineering problems and unit [13]
commitment problems of the electric power system. It has
been experimentally found that the proposed optimizer per-
forms much better than existing variants of grey wolf opti- [14]
mizer. The feasibility of hGWO-SA algorithm has been test-
ed for small & medium scale power systems unit commit-
ment problems. The results show that the proposed method
gives the superior type of solutions as compared to other [15]
algorithms.
CURRENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS [16]
Currently, the proposed optimizer has been tested for [17]
unimodal, multi-modal and fixed dimensions benchmarks
problems including 4 unit, 5 unit, 6 unit, 7 unit, 10 units, 19 [18]
unit, 20 unit, 40 unit and 60 units test system of unit com-
mitment problem. In the future, such a powerful optimizer
can be used to solve the security constraints and profit based [19]
unit commitment problem of the electric power system.
FUNDING DETAILS [20]
No Funding source was available for this research work.
[21]
REFERENCES
[22]
[1] R. H. Kerr, Scheidt. A. J. Fontana and J. K. Wiley, “J,” in L, Unit
Commitment, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus And Sys-
tems., vol. vol. PAS-85., no. No. 5, pp. 417-421, 1966. [23]
[2] C.J. Baldwin, K.M. Dale, R.F. Dittrich, and A. Study, "of Econom-
ic Shutdown of Generating Units in Daily Dispatch, AIEE Transac-
tion of Power Apparatus and Systems", Vol. PAS, vol. 78, pp.
1272-1284, 1959. [24]
[3] K.D. Lee, "“R,” H", Vierra. G.D. Nagel R.T. Jenkins, vol. 104, no.
8, pp. 2072-2078, 1985. [25]
[4] A.G. Bakirtzis, and C.E. Zoumas, "Lambda of Lagrangian relaxa-
tion solution to unit commitment problem", IEE Proceedings on
Generation Transmission and Distribution, vol. Volume 147,
2000pp. 131-136 [26]
[5] W.P. Ongsakul, and P. Nit, Unit commitment by enhanced adaptive
Lagrangian relaxation, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol.
Volume 19. 2004, no. No. 1, pp. 620-628.
[6] D. Murtaza, and S. Yamashiro, Unit Commitment Scheduling by
Lagrange Relaxation Method Taking into Account Transmission [27]
Losses, Electrical Engineering in Japan, vol. vol. 152. 2005, no. no.
4, pp. 27-33.
[7] S. Virmani, "“Eugene C,” Adrian, Karl Imhof Shishir Muhhejee, [28]
Implement. A Lagrangian Based Unit Commit", Probl. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 4, pp. 1373-1384, 1989.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/59.41687
[8] D.H. Wolpert, and W.G. Macready, "No free lunch theorems for [29]
optimization", IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 67-82,
1997.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/4235.585893 [30]
[9] S. Mirjalili, "SCA: A Sine Cosine Algorithm for solving optimiza-
tion problems", Knowl. Base. Syst., vol. 96, pp. 120-133, 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2015.12.022 [31]
[10] J.M. Anita, and I.J. Raglend, "Solution of emission constrained
Unit Commitment problem using Shuffled Frog Leaping Algo-
rithm", Circuits, Power and Computing Technologies (ICCPCT),
2013 International Conference on, 2013pp. 93-98
Vikram Kumar Kamboj
C. C. A. Rajan, and M. R. Mohan, Neural-based tabu search meth-
od for solving unit commitment problem..
http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/ip-gtd:20030244
V.K. Kamboj, S.K. Bath, and J.S. Dhillon, "Implementation of
hybrid harmony/random search algorithm considering ensemble
and pitch violation for unit commitment problem", Int. J. Electr.
Power Energy Syst., vol. 77, pp. 228-249, 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.11.045
P. Sriyanyong, and Y. H. S. S. Member, Unit Commitment Using
Particle Swarm Optimization Combined with Lagrange Relaxation,
vol. no. 6, pp. 1-8, .
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PES.2005.1489390
S. Khanmohammadi, M. Amiri, and M.T. Haque, "A new three-
stage method for solving unit commitment problem", Energy, vol.
35, no. 7, pp. 3072-3080, 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.03.049
Y. Jeong, W. Lee, H. Kim, J. Park, and J. Shin, Thermal Unit
Commitment Using Binary Differential Evolution, vol. vol. 4, no.
no. 3, 2009.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5370/JEET.2009.4.3.323
J. Valenzuela, and A.E. Smith, A Seeded Memetic Algorithm for
Large Unit.. 2002, pp. 173-195.
Z. Gaing, Discrete Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Unit
Commitment, vol. vol. 1, pp. 418-424, .
V.S. Pappala, S. Member, I. Erlich, and S. Member, A New Ap-
proach for Solving the Unit Commitment Problem by Adaptive Par-
ticle Swarm Optimization, vol. no. 3. 2008, pp. 1-6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PES.2008.4596390
A.S. Eldin, and M.A.H.E.H.K.M. Youssef, A Two-Stage Genetic
Based Technique for the Unit Commitment Optimization Problem..
2008, pp. 425-430.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MEPCON.2008.4562322
W. Xiong, and M. J. Li, Chen 08 international conference on intel-
ligent computation technology and automation, vol 01, vol. vol.
21., .
T.A. Albert, and A.E. Jeyakumar, Hybrid PSO – SQP for economic
dispatch with valve-point effect, vol. vol. 71. 2004, pp. 51-59.
V. Kumar, and K.S.K. Bath, "Hybrid HS – random search algo-
rithm considering ensemble and pitch violation for unit commit-
ment problem", Neural Comput. Appl., 2015.
G.B. Shebe, and G. Fahd, Unit commitment by genetic algorithm
with penalty methods and a comparison of Lagrangian search and
genetic algorithm-economic disDatch examtlle, vol. vol. 18. 1996,
no. no. 6, pp. 339-346.
Y. Masuda, and H. Nishina, method and genetic algorithm. 2008,
pp. 3474-3478.
I.G. Damousis, A.G. Bakirtzis, S. Member, and P.S. Dokopoulos, A
Solution to the Unit-Commitment Problem Using Integer-Coded
Genetic Algorithm, vol. vol. 19. 2004, no. no. 2, pp. 1165-1172.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2003.821625
X. Yuan, H. Nie, A. Su, L. Wang, and Y. Yuan, "Expert Systems
with Applications An improved binary particle swarm optimization
for unit commitment problem", Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 36, no. 4,
pp. 8049-8055, 2009.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.047
J.J. Grefensttete, "Optimization of control parameters for genetic
algorithm", IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., vol. 16, p. 122, 1986.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1986.289288
S. Lee, H. Park, and M. Jeon, Binary particle swarm optimization
with bit change mutationIEICE Trans Fundam Electron Commun
Comput Sci E-, vol. vol. 90. 2007.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ietfec/e90-a.10.2253
Z. Gaing, Particle Swarm Optimization to Solving the Economic
Dispatch Considering the Generator Constraints, vol. 18, no. 3, pp.
1187-1195, 2003.
B. Wang, Re-Scheduling the Unit Commitment Problem in Fuzzy
Environment, vol. no. 1. 2011, pp. 1090-1095.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FUZZY.2011.6007313
D.N. Simopoulos, S.D. Kavatza, and C.D. Vournas, Unit Commit-
ment by an Enhanced Simulated Annealing Algorithm, vol. 21, no.
1, pp. 68-76, 2006.
A Novel Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer-Simulated Annealing Recent Advances in Computer Science and Communications, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1
[32] S.A. Kazarlis, A.G. Bakirtzis, and V. Petridis, "A genetic algorithm
solution to the unit commitment problem", IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 83-92, 1996.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/59.485989
[33] C. Cheng, C. Liu, and C. Liu, Unit Commitment by Lagrangian
Relaxation and Genetic Algorithms, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 707-714,
2000.
[34] A. Juste, S. Membel, H. Kitu, E. Tunaka, and J. Hasegawa, An
Evolutionary Programming Solution to the Unit Commitment Prob-
lem, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1452-1459, 1999.
[35] B. Zhao, C.X. Guo, B.R. Bai, and Y.J. Cao, An improved particle
swarm optimization algorithm for unit commitment., vol. Vol. 28.
2006, pp. 482-490.
[36] W. Ongsakul, Ant Colony Search Algorithm for Unit Commitment,
vol. no. i, 2003.
[37] S. Chusanapiputt, D. Nualhong, S. Jantarang, and S. Phoomvuthi-
sarn, "“A Solution to Unit Commitment Problem Using Hybrid Ant
System / Priority List Method,” no", PECon, vol. 08, pp. 1183-
1188, 2008.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PECON.2008.4762655
[38] C. Cheng, C. Liu, and C. Liu, Unit commitment by annealing-
genetic algorithm., vol. Vol. 24. 2002.
[39] W. Zhe, Y. Yiyin, and Z. Hongpeng, "Social evolutionary pro-
gramming based unit commitment", Zhongguo Dianji Gongcheng
Xuebao, vol. 24, p. 4, 2004.
[40] Y. Tingfang, and A.P. Formulation, Methodological Priority List
for Unit Commitment Problem, vol. no. 2. 2008, pp. 176-179.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CSSE.2008.714
[41] T. Senjyu, H. Yamashiro, K. Uezato, and T. Funabashi, by using
Genetic Algorithm Based on Unit Characteristic Classification.
2002, pp. 58-63.
[42] W. Ongsakul, and N. Petcharaks, Unit Commitment by Enhanced
Adaptive Lagrangian Relaxation, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 620-628, 2004.
[43] L. Fei, A Solution to the Unit Commitment Problem Based on Local
Search Method.. 2009, pp. 51-56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICEET.2009.249
[44] Y. Jeong, J. Park, S. Jang, and K.Y. Lee, "A New Quantum-
Inspired Binary PSO", Application to Unit Commitment Problems
for Power Systems, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1486-1495, 2010.
[45] Y. Jeong, J. Park, S. Jang, and K. Y. Lee, A New Quantum-Inspired
Binary PSO for Thermal Unit Commitment Problems, 2009.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISAP.2009.5352869
[46] T. Senjyu, K. Shimabukuro, S. Member, K. Uezato, T. Funabashi,
and S. Member, A Fast Technique for Unit Commitment Problem
by Extended Priority List, vol. vol. 18. 2003, no. no. 2, pp. 882-888.
DISCLAIMER: The above article has been published in Epub (ahead of print) on the basis of the materials provided by the author. The Edito-
rial Department reserves the right to make minor modifications for further improvement of the manuscript.
25
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PES.2003.1270471
[47] K. Chandram, N. Subrahmanyam, and M. Sydulu, "Unit commit-
ment by improved pre-prepared power demand table and Muller
method", Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol. 33, p. 106, 2011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2010.06.022
[48] S. Chakraborty, T. Ito, T. Senjyu, and A. Yousuf, "Electrical Power
and Energy Systems Unit commitment strategy of thermal genera-
tors by using advanced fuzzy controlled binary particle swarm op-
timization algorithm", Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol. 43,
no. 1, pp. 1072-1080, 2012.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.06.014
[49] T.O. Ting, S. Member, M.V.C. Rao, and C.K. Loo, A Novel Ap-
proach for Unit Commitment Problem via an Effective Hybrid Par-
ticle Swarm Optimization, vol. vol. 21. 2006, no. no. 1, pp. 411-418.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2005.860907
[50] S. Chakraborty, and T. Senjyu, Fuzzy Quantum Computation Based
Thermal Unit Commitment Strategy with Solar-battery System In-
jection.. 2011, pp. 2606-2613.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FUZZY.2011.6007521
[51] C.Y. Chung, S. Member, H. Yu, and K.P. Wong, An Advanced
Quantum-Inspired Evolutionary Algorithm for Unit Commitment,
vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 847-854, 2011.
[52] N. Sadati, M. Hajian, and M. Zamani, "Unit Commitment Using
Particle Swarm-Based-Simulated Annealing Optimization Ap-
proach", Proceedings of the IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium,
2007pp. 297-302
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SIS.2007.367951
[53] P.K. Roy, "Electrical Power and Energy Systems Solution of unit
commitment problem using gravitational search algorithm", Int. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol. 53, pp. 85-94, 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2013.04.001
[54] D. Ganguly, V. Sarkar, and J. Pal, A New Genetic Approach For
Solving The Unit Commitment Problem, vol. no. November. 2004,
pp. 21-24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICPST.2004.1460054
[55] V.N. Dieu, and W. Ongsakul, "Ramp rate constrained unit com-
mitment by improved priority list and augmented Lagrange Hop-
field network", Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 291-301,
2008.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2007.02.011
[56] A.Y. Saber, S. Member, T. Senjyu, N. Urasaki, T. Funabashi, and S.
Member, Unit Commitment Computation - A Novel Fuzzy Adaptive
Particle Swarm Optimization Approach, vol. no. 1. 2006, pp. 1820-
1828.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PSCE.2006.296189