Electric Power Systems Research 108 (2014) 340344

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research

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

Short communication

Discussion of Continuous quick group search optimizer for solving non-convex

economic dispatch problems by Moradi-Dalvand et al.
[Electr. Power Syst. Res. 93 (2012) 93105]
H.R. Abdolmohammadi , A. Kazemi
Centre of Excellence for Power System Automation and Operation, Department of Electrical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Narmak, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 19 September 2012
Accepted 22 November 2012
Available online 17 December 2013
Keywords:
Economic dispatch
Prohibited operating zones
Multi-fuel effects

a b s t r a c t
This short communication presents a discussion of Continuous quick group search optimizer for solving
non-convex economic dispatch problems by Moradi-Dalvand et al. [Electr. Power Syst. Res.] 93 (2012)
93105. The discussed paper presented economic dispatch problem by experimenting with ve example
systems considering 6, 10, 20, 40 and 140-unit test systems considering non-convex cost function with
valve point loading effects, multi-fuel effects and prohibited operating zones. However, in the reported
results for the 6 and 20-unit test system, the total generation, total loss and the cost quoted were different
for the given generation schedule. In this communication, the corrected data of the 6-unit test system
and clarication regarding power transmission losses and cost calculations are presented.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The authors are to be highly commended for presenting a very
interesting paper [1]. They have provided an economic dispatch
(ED) solution by considering valve-point loading effects, multi-fuel
effects, prohibited operating zones (POZs) and power transmission
loss which is denoted by the B-coefcient method. The feasibility
of the continuous quick group search optimizer (CQGSO) algorithm
to solve nonlinear and non-smooth ED problem is shown by experimenting with ve test systems. However, by carefully examining
the simulation results proposed in [1], we nd that the system
data and the reported results have some errors. In this paper we
shall correct the system data and simulation results proposed in
discussed paper.

to read as:
Fi (Pi ) = ai + bi Pi + ci Pi2
where ai , bi , ci are cost function coefcients of ith unit.
Also, when we studied and veried the results reported in the
discussed paper for 6-unit test system, we found that there is a
major difference between the total transmission loss reported in
Table 5 of Ref. [1] and the result obtained by substituting the same
values of power outputs of the generators. Coefcients of the Krons
loss formula in per unit (with a 100 MVA base capacity) can be
found in Appendix A of Ref. [2]. When the Boo value of 0.056 is
changed to 0.0056 (after experimenting), obtained result is closer
to the reported result in Ref. [1] than before.
3. Discussion

2. Correction of the system data

The generators characteristics of the 6-unit test system are
given in [2]. Table 1 shows these characteristics. In this table the
units of the ai , bi , ci are reported as $, $/MW and $/MW2 , respectively. Therefore, it is necessary for the fuel inputpower output
characteristic of each unit in the 6-unit test system:
Fi (Pi ) = ai Pi2 + bi Pi + ci

Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 73225612; fax: +98 21 73225777.

E-mail address: hmohammadi@iust.ac.ir (H.R. Abdolmohammadi).
0378-7796/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2012.11.014

In the discussed paper [1], ve case studies (6, 10, 20, 40 and 140
generators) of ED problems are performed to assess the efciency
of the proposed CQGSO approach. In these cases, valve-point loading effects, multi-fuel effects and prohibited operating zones are
considered in the power system operation. In the test system I and
III, some discrepancies are identied.
3.1. Test system I: 6-unit system with prohibited operating zones
The rst test system studied in the discussed paper [1] is 6unit test system. Table 1 gives the system parameters including
fuel cost coefcients and generator capacities for each unit. These
data are presented in [2]. The load demand is 1263 MW. From the

H.R. Abdolmohammadi, A. Kazemi / Electric Power Systems Research 108 (2014) 340344

341

Table 1
Generating units characteristics of 6-unit test system (Table 1 of Ref. [2]).
Unit

Pi0 (MW)

Pimin (MW)

Pimax (MW)

ai ($)

bi ($/MW)

ci ($/MW2 )

URi (MW/h)

DRi (MW/h)

Prohibited zones (MW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

440
170
200
150
190
110

150
150
20
20
150
50

455
455
130
130
470
120

240
200
220
200
220
190

7.0
10.0
8.5
11.0
10.5
12.0

0.0070
0.0095
0.0090
0.0090
0.0080
0.0075

80
50
65
50
50
50

120
90
100
90
90
90

[210, 240] [350, 380]

[90, 110] [140, 160]
[150, 170] [210, 240]
[80, 90] [110, 120]
[90, 110] [140, 150]
[75, 85] [100, 105]

Table 2
Dispatch result of the GSO and CQGSO algorithm for 6-unit test system (load = 1263 MW).
Unit

GSO [1]

CQGSO [1]

P1 (MW)
P2 (MW)
P3 (MW)
P4 (MW)
P5 (MW)
P6 (MW)
Total generation (MW)
Total loss (MW)
Exact total generation calculated by discussers (MW)
Exact total loss calculated by discussers (MW)
Power balance violation (MW)

263.9171a
173.1811
263.9171
139.0505
165.5743
86.6208
1275.415
12.4158
1092.2609
9.7885
180.5276

263.9079a
173.2418
263.9079
139.0529
165.6013
86.5357
1275.4163
12.4163
1092.2475
9.7884
180.5409

1082.4724b

1082.4591b

Pload =
a
b

Pi PL (MW)

Violates the ramp rate constraint.

Violates the power balance constraint.

Table 3
Generating units characteristics of 20-unit test system (Table 2 of Ref. [3]).
Unit

ai ($)

bi ($/MW)

ci ($/MW2 )

Pimin (MW)

Pimax (MW)

Unit

ai ($)

bi ($/MW)

ci ($/MW2 )

Pimin (MW)

Pimax (MW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

1000
970
600
700
420
360
490
660
765
770

18.19
19.26
19.80
19.10
18.10
19.26
17.14
18.92
18.27
18.92

0.00068
0.00071
0.00650
0.00500
0.00738
0.00612
0.00790
0.00813
0.00522
0.00573

150
50
50
50
50
20
25
50
50
30

600
200
200
200
160
100
125
150
200
150

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

800
970
900
700
450
370
480
680
700
850

16.69
16.76
17.36
18.70
18.70
14.26
19.14
18.92
18.47
19.79

0.00480
0.00310
0.00850
0.00511
0.00398
0.07120
0.00890
0.00713
0.00622
0.00773

100
150
40
20
25
20
30
30
40
30

300
500
160
130
185
80
85
120
120
100

Table 4
Comparison of generation costs for 10-unit test system with 2500 MW load.
Method
GSO
CQGSO

Generation cost ($/h) reported

by the authors in [1]
62,456.6332
62,456.6330

simulation results presented in the discussed paper [1] for 6-unit

test system, authors mentioned the best costs as 15,442.6607 $/h
and 15,442.6608 $/h for GSO and CQGSO algorithm, respectively.
Although it may appear that the GSO and CQGSO algorithms outperform all other methods presented, the calculations for total
generation and total loss, as made by the present discussers, reveal
the discrepancies as given in Table 2.
The authors convey that the obtained results reported in Table 5
of Ref. [1] satisfy the prohibited operating zones and ramp rate constraints. Also, transmission losses are considered in this test system.
As can be seen from Table 1, the previous power output of unit 1
(P10 ) is 440 MW, the minimum and maximum generation capability
is 150 and 455 MW, respectively, and the up-ramp limit (URi ) and
down-ramp limit (DRi ) are 80 and 120 MW, respectively. With these
data, the generator operation constraint for unit 1 can be dened
as follows:
Max(150, 440 120) P1

Min(455, 440 + 80)

Exact generation cost ($/h)

found by the discussers
62,456.6364
62,456.6349

Power balance
violation (MW)
0.0002
0.0001

This shows that the generation capability of unit 1 is from 320

to 455 MW, due to the ramp rate limits. But the results summarized in Table 2 for unit 1 are 263.9171 and 263.9079 MW for GSO
and CQGSO algorithm, respectively. These values of power outputs of unit 1 violate the ramp rate constraint, and therefore these
results do not validate the feasibility of the GSO and CQGSO algorithms. Furthermore, the total generation and total transmission
loss reported in Table 2 are different from the authors values and
therefore, the power balance constraint is not satised.

3.2. Test system III: 20-unit system with prohibited operating

zones
In Ref. [1], GSO and CQGSO algorithms are applied to 20-unit test
system considering transmission losses. Table 3 gives the system
parameters including fuel cost coefcients and generator capacities for each unit. Coefcients of the Krons loss formula in per unit

342

M. Moradi-Dalvand et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 108 (2014) 340344

Table 5
Detailed cost calculation of GSO and CQGSO algorithms for 20-unit test system with 2500 MW load.
Unit

Output power
(MW) of GSO in [1]

Exact cost calculated

by discussers ($/h)

Output power (MW) of

CQGSO in [1]

Exact cost calculated

by discussers ($/h)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

512.6382
169.1817
126.8581
102.8404
113.6931
73.4903
115.1345
116.4033
100.4915
106.0393
150.3287
292.7353
119.1552
30.8990
115.8099
36.2584
66.8621
87.9949
100.8210
54.3340

10,503.5914
4248.7615
3216.3947
2717.1324
2573.2399
1808.4762
2568.1274
2972.5097
2653.6941
2840.6936
3417.4598
6141.8949
3089.2169
1282.6901
2669.0246
980.6494
1799.5284
2400.0718
2625.3894
1948.0902

512.7303
169.0263
126.8806
102.8723
113.6836
73.5741
115.3037
116.4090
100.4303
106.0581
150.2337
292.7813
119.1165
30.8431
115.8179
36.2542
66.8611
87.9696
100.8088
54.3106

10,505.3310
4245.7312
3216.8773
2717.7745
2573.0520
1810.1656
2571.3355
2972.6284
2652.5118
2841.0721
3415.7372
6142.7493
3088.4667
1281.6271
2669.1816
980.5678
1799.5081
2399.5614
2625.1488
1947.6075

Total fuel cost ($/h)

62,456.6364

(with a 100 MVA base capacity) can be found in [3]. From Table 8
of Ref. [1] for 20-unit test system, although it may appear that the
GSO and CQGSO algorithms outperforms all other methods presented, the calculations for generation costs, as made by the present
discussers, reveal some discrepancies as given in Table 4. Detailed
cost calculation of GSO and CQGSO algorithms for 2500 MW load
demand is given in Table 5.

62,456.6349

of unit 1 violates the ramp rate limit constraint. In the 20-unit test
system, the reported costs are not exactly correct. Therefore the
solutions and costs for 6 and 20-unit test system given in [1] cannot
be considered as true ones and they cannot measure the effectiveness of the GSO and CQGSO algorithms in solving the economic
dispatch problems.
References

4. Conclusions
The errors in the 6-unit test system data and the solutions of ED
problem for 6 and 20-unit test system in Ref. [1] have been pointed
out. In the test system I, total power generation of the 6-unit test
system is less than load demand, and thus the power balance constraint of the ED problem is not satised. Furthermore, generation

[1] M. Moradi-Dalvand, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, A. Naja, A. Rabiee, Continuous

quick group search optimizer for solving non-convex economic dispatch problems, Electric Power Systems Research 93 (2012) 93105.
[2] S. Pothiya, I. Ngamroo, W. Kongprawechnon, Application of multiple Tabu
search algorithm to solve dynamic economic dispatch considering generator
constraints, Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 506516.
[3] C.-T. Su, C.-T. Lin, New approach with a Hopeld modeling framework to economic dispatch, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 15 (2000) 541545.

Short communication

Response to the Discussion of Continuous quick group search optimizer for

solving non-convex economicdispatch problems
[Electr. Power Syst. Res. 93 (2012) 93105]
Mohammad Moradi-Dalvand, Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo, Arsalan Naja, Abbas Rabiee
Department of Electrical Engineering, Ashtian Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ashtian, Iran

Abstract
This short communication provides a response to the Discussion
of Continuous quick group search optimizer for solving nonconvex economic dispatch problems [Electr. Power Syst. Res. 93
(2012) 93105].
1. Introduction
The authors are extremely thankful to discussers for their great
interest on the authors work and discussion on the paper.
In the discussed paper [1], a solution method has been proposed
for solution of economic dispatch problems considering nonconvex fuel cost functions, prohibited operating zones and mutli fuel
options. The proposed method was veried by implementing on
5 test systems. Respectful discussers had concerns regarding the
results of 6-unit and 20-unit test cases. There concerns are replied
and claried in the following sections.
2. 6-Unit test system
There was a typesetting error in Table 5 of [1], where in the
second part, the third row (P3 ) was pasted instead of rst row
(P1 ). This typesetting error has been corrected by the publisher
in [2]. The obtained optimal value for P1 using GSO and CQGSO
algorithms are 447.072154 and 447.076770, respectively. While

E-mail address: moradi.dalvand@gmail.com (M. Moradi-Dalvand).

0378-7796/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2012.11.014

in [1] the corresponding values of P3 (263.9171 for GSO and

263.9079 for CQGSO) were pasted instead of them in typesetting
process. Considering the corrected value of the P1 in [2], it can
be observed that the obtained results are feasible and do not
violate any constraints. The obtained results satisfy the ramp-rate
(Max(150,440 120) P1 = 447.076770
 Min(455,440 + 80))and
load balance constraints (Pload = Pi PL = 1263 MW). Table 1
shows the results of this test system with different precision
levels, i.e., decimal places. In this Table the obtained results
of MATLAB code for output of the generators and total cost
(with 15 decimal places) are truncated to 4, 7 and 10 decimal
places.
3. 20-Unit test system
The respectful discussers have found that there are 0.0002 and
0.0001 MW power balance mismatch in the results of the20-unit
test case. We should mention that these mismatches are raised
from rounding the power outputs to 4 decimal places. However
we have presented the obtained results with rounding the results
to 7 and 10 decimal places in Table 1. As it can be observed
from this table, the obtained results with the proposed algorithms do not have power mismatch and the presented total cost
in [1] can be obtained by truncating the total cost to 4 decimal
digits.

344

M. Moradi-Dalvand et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 108 (2014) 340344

Table 1a
Representation of the obtained results for 6-unit test case with different precision levels.
Unit

GSO
Results presented
in [1]

1*
2
3
4
5
6
Total power
Total cost
*

CQGSO
Results with 7
decimal places

Results with 10
decimal places

Results presented
in [2]

Results with 7
decimal places

Results with 10
decimal places

447.0722
173.1811
263.9171
139.0505
165.5743
86.6208

447.0721543
173.1811430
263.9170988
139.0504578
165.5743327
86.6207956

447.0721542514
173.1811429697
263.9170987534
139.0504577785
165.5743327268
86.6207955647

447.0768
173.2418
263.9079
139.0529
165.6013
86.5357

447.0767698
173.2417988
263.9078752
139.0528959
165.6012516
86.5356792

447.0767698000
173.2417987865
263.9078751509
139.0528959059
165.6012516494
86.5356791884

1275.416
15,442.6607

1275.4159821
15,442.6607086

1275.4159820445
15,442.6607085944

1275.4163
15,442.66

1275.416271
15,442.6608220

1275.4162704811
15,442.6608220157

With the corrected outputs presented in [2].

Table 1b
Representation of the obtained results for 20-unit test case with different precision levels.
Unit

GSO
Results presented
in [1]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Total power
Total cost

CQGSO
Results with 7
decimal places

Results with 10
decimal places

Results presented
in [1]

Results with 7
decimal places

Results with 10
decimal places

512.6382
169.1817
126.8581
102.8404
113.6931
73.4903
115.1345
116.4033
100.4915
106.0393
150.3287
292.7353
119.1552
30.899
115.8099
36.2584
66.8621
87.9949
100.821
54.334

512.6381732
169.1817262
126.8581232
102.8404059
113.6930530
73.4902667
115.1344654
116.4033252
100.4914805
106.0392906
150.3286856
292.7353022
119.1551886
30.8989622
115.8098505
36.2583896
66.8621270
87.9949245
100.8209794
54.3340017

512.6381732492
169.1817262284
126.8581231871
102.8404059008
113.6930529657
73.4902667228
115.1344654234
116.4033252408
100.4914805155
106.0392906006
150.3286856261
292.7353022227
119.1551885525
30.8989622299
115.8098505084
36.2583896331
66.8621270149
87.9949245013
100.8209794230
54.3340017424

512.7303
169.0263
126.8806
102.8723
113.6836
73.5741
115.3037
116.409
100.4303
106.0581
150.2337
292.7813
119.1165
30.8431
115.8179
36.2542
66.8611
87.9696
100.8088
54.3106

512.7302938
169.0262925
126.8805988
102.8722978
113.6835992
73.5740978
115.3036937
116.4089897
100.4302963
106.0580918
150.233693
292.7812959
119.116492
30.843095
115.817899
36.2541989
66.8610941
87.9695975
100.8087953
54.3105927

512.7302938375
169.0262924910
126.8805987774
102.8722978107
113.6835992100
73.5740978479
115.3036937115
116.4089896833
100.4302962502
106.0580917923
150.2336929572
292.7812958911
119.1164920477
30.8430949975
115.8178990058
36.2541988529
66.8610940848
87.9695975392
100.8087953142
54.3105926981

2591.9687
62,456.6332

2591.9687215
62,456.6332053

2591.9687214886
62,456.6332052574

2591.9650
62,456.6330

2591.9650048
62,456.6330164

2591.9650048003
62,456.6330164208

References
[1] M. Moradi-Dalvand, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, A. Naja, A. Rabiee, Continuous
quick group search optimizer for solving non-convex economic dispatch
problems, Electric Power Systems Research 93 (December) (2012) 93105.

[2] Erratum to Continuous quick group search optimizer for solvingnon-convex

economic dispatch problems [Electr. Power Syst. Res. 93 (2012) 93105],
Electric Power Systems Research, in press.