Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
This study proposes a Particle Swarm Optimization
(PSO) algorithm for solving Power Economic Dispatch
(PED) considering units with Prohibited Operating
Zones (POZ) and Ramp-rate limit (RRL) constraints.
The PSO algorithm was developed through the
simulation of a simplified social system and has been
formed to be robust in solving continuous nonlinear
optimization problems in terms of accuracy of the
solution and it can outperform the other algorithms.
The proposed PSO algorithm is applied for the PED of
three unit and six unit thermal systems. The
performance of the proposed PSO algorithm is
compared with other methods which are presented in
the references. The comparison of results shows that
the proposed PSO algorithm is indeed capable of
obtaining higher quality solutions.
Key words: Evolutionary Programming (EP), Power
Economic Dispatch (PED),Prohibited Operating
Zones (POZ), Particle Swarm Optimization
(PSO),Ramp rate limit constraints (RRL).
I.
INTRODUCTION
www.ijete.org
researcher put into their step by using modern meta heuristic searching techniques, including simulated
annealing (SA) [8], Modified Hopfield network
method [9], Genetic Algorithm method (GA) [10],
Evolutionary Programming method [11-15], Tabu
search algorithm (TSA)[16], Particle swarm
optimization method(PSO) [17-20] have been applied
to solve the complex non-linear ED problems. But
some of the methods do not always guarantee a global
optimal solution.
In Simulate annealing method, annealing
schedule is very closely related to performance
optimization. However, a poor tuning of the annealing
schedule may inadvertently affect the performance of
simulated annealing. Hop field neural network method
requires external training routines. Recent researchers
have identified some deficiencies in GA performance
[10]. The immature convergence of GA degrades its
performance and reduces its search capability that
leads to a higher probability towards obtaining only the
local optimal solutions [17] .The another drawback of
GA is immature convergence leading to local minima
and the complicated process in coding and decoding
the problem [21]. Evolutionary programming method
for ED problem is more efficient than GA method in
computation time and can generate a high-quality
solution with a shorter calculation. Particle swarm
optimization is one of the latest versions of natural
inspired algorithms which characteristics of high
performance and easy implementation. PSO has a
character of parallel searching mechanism, so it has
high probability to determine the global (or) near
global optimal solutions for the non-linear ED
problems. The main drawback of the conventional
PSO is its premature convergence, especially while
handling the problems with more local optima and
heavier constraints [21]. A PSO algorithm is proposed
to solve non-linear ED problems taking into
consideration of power balance constraint, generator
operating limits, ramp rate limits and prohibited
operating zones.
II.
PROBLEM FORMULATION
Min FT Fi Pi
i i
(1)
(2)
Pi PD PLoss
(3)
i 1
i 1 j 1
i 1
(4)
Pi Piu, k 1 Pi Pi ,Lk
(6)
u
L
Pi , zi Pi Pi m ax
Where,,
and ,
are the lower and upper boundary
th
of K prohibited operating zone of unit i, k is the index
of the prohibited operating zone, and Zi is the number
of prohibited operating zones (Figure1)
i = 1,2,3,..,N
20
www.ijete.org
(7)
(8)
(11)
III.
(12)
21
www.ijete.org
wmax wmin
* iter
itermax
(13)
Where
P
: Current searching point
P t+1
:Modified searching point
Vt
: Current velocity
V t+1
: Modified velocity
V pbest : Velocity based on pbest
Vgbest : Velocity based on gbest
t
IV.
Where,
Wmin and Wmax are the minimum and maximum
weight factors respectively.
Wmax =0.9; Wmin =0.4
iter
:Current number of iterations
iter max:
Maximum
no
of
iterations
(generations)
1 , 2
: Acceleration constant, equal to 2
rand ( ), Rand ( ) : Random number value between 0
and 1
: Velocity of agent i at iteration t
Pid(t 1)
Pid(t )
Vid(t 1)
(14)
Generate an initial population of particles with
random positions and velocity
No
Reach
maximum
iteration
Yes
.
Figure 3. Concept of modification of a searching point
by PSO
Stop
22
www.ijete.org
V.
GA[17]
2PNN[22]
EP
PSO
P1(MW)
194.265
165.00
199.53
190.50
P2(MW)
50.00
113.40
75.68
85.77
P3(MW)
79.627
34.05
38.19
34.8
Pi(MW)
323.892
312.45
313.40
311.16
PL(MW)
24.011
12.45
13.40
11.16
Fuel
Cost($/hr)
3737.16
3652.60
3641.70
3631.1
GA[17]
BBO[23]
HHS[24]
EP
PSO
P1(MW)
474.80
447.3997
449.9094
431.31
457.26
P2(MW)
178.63
173.2392
172.7347
170.33
160.72
P3(MW)
262.20
263.3163
262.9643
241.50
247.53
P4(MW)
134.28
138.006
136.03
147.98
131.52
P5(MW)
151.90
165.4104
166.967
182.64
170.50
P6(MW)
Pi(MW
)
PL(MW)
74.18
87.0797
86.8778
101.48
106.62
1276.0
1275.446
1275.487
1275.2
1274.1
13.02
12.446
12.4834
12.69
11.15
Fuel Cost
($/hr)
15459
15443.09
15448.37
15451
15433
VI.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Test system 2
The system contains six thermal units, 26
buses and 46 transmission lines [17]. The load
demand is 1263MW. The losses are calculated using
B-loss coefficient matrix. The dimension of the
population is 100*6 and number of generations is
taken as 100. 100 trial runs were conducted and the
best solutions are shown in Table2. The results
obtained by the proposed PSO method is compared
with EP, GA , BBO , and HHS methods. From the
www.ijete.org
24
www.ijete.org