Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 20

International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems

Volume 9, Issue 4 2008 Article 5

Effect of Control Parameters on Differential Evolution based Combined Economic Emission Dispatch with Valve-Point Loading and Transmission Loss
Kamal K. Mandal N. Chakraborty

Jadavpur University, kkm567@yahoo.co.in Jadavpur University, chakraborty niladri2004@yahoo.co.in

Copyright c 2008 The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved.

Effect of Control Parameters on Differential Evolution based Combined Economic Emission Dispatch with Valve-Point Loading and Transmission Loss
Kamal K. Mandal and N. Chakraborty

Abstract
Differential evolution (DE) has been proved to be a powerful evolutionary algorithm for global optimization in many engineering problems. The performance of this type of evolutionary algorithms is heavily dependent on the setting of control parameters. Proper selection of the control parameters is very important for the success of the algorithm. Optimal settings of control parameters of differential evolution depend on the specic problem under consideration. In this paper, a study of control parameters on differential evolution based combined economic emission dispatch with valve-point loading and transmission loss is conducted empirically. The problem is formulated considering equality constraints on power balance and inequality constraints on generation capacity limits as well as the transmission losses and effects of valve point loadings. The feasibility of the proposed method is demonstrated on a fourteen-generator system. The results of the effect of the variation of different parameters are presented systematically and it is observed that the search algorithm may fail in nding the optimal value if the parameter selection is not done with proper attention. KEYWORDS: control parameters, differential evolution (DE), combined economic emission dispatch (CEED), price penalty factor

We would like to acknowledge and thank Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India for providing all the necessary help to carry out this work.

Mandal and Chakraborty: Effect of Control Parameters

Introduction

The Differential Evolution (DE) as proposed by Storn and Price [1] is a powerful optimization technique designed for global optimization. Besides its good convergence properties, main advantage of DE lies with its conceptual simplicity; ease of use and less number of control parameters. Like any other evolutionary algorithm, the success of DE is heavily dependent on setting of control parameters. It has three control parameters: (1) the population size N P (2) the mutation factor f m , which is a real-valued factor that controls the amplification of differential variation and (3) the crossover factor C R , which is also a real-valued factor that controls the crossover operation. One of the main problems in evolution strategies of DE is to choose the control parameters such that it exhibits good behavior i.e. it does not prematurely converge to a point that is not globally optimal or stagnate and has an acceptable rate of convergence toward the global optimum. Premature convergence may occur under different situations: the population has converged to local optimum of the objective function or the population has lost its diversity or the search algorithm proceeds slowly or does not proceed at all [2]. It is seen that DE may sometimes stops proceeding towards global optimum and stagnation occurs. Stagnation may occur under various situations: the population has not converge to a local optimum or any other point or the population is still remaining diverse and occasionally even if the new individuals may enter in to the population, the searching algorithm does not progress towards any better solutions [2]. The effectiveness, efficiency and robustness of the DE algorithm are sensitive to the setting of control parameters. The best setting for the control parameters depends on the problem in hand and requirement of computation time and accuracy [3]. Although, as reported in the literature, control parameters of DE are not difficult to choose [1], but rules for choosing control parameters are not general [1]. On the other hand, it is also reported that choosing proper control parameters for DE is more difficult than expected [4]. It is important to select optimal parameters for each problem separately and carefully to avoid premature convergence or even stagnation [2], [5], [6]. Brest et al. [7] assessed the selection of control parameter and reported that efficiency and robustness of DE algorithm are much more sensitive to the setting of mutation factor f m and crossover ratio C R than to the setting of the population size N P . Zaharie [8] discussed the relationship between control parameters of DE and the evolution of population variance and reported critical interval for control parameters of DE. Teo proposed a method of self-adapting population size in addition to self-adapting mutation factor and crossover ratio [9].

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008

International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 5

Setting of control parameters in evolutionary algorithms like DE can be classified into two categories: Parameter tuning and parameter control. Parameter tuning is the commonly practiced approach that is used in finding proper values for the parameters before the actual run of the algorithm. Then the algorithm is tested using these values, which remain fixed during the run. Generally, electric power plants are operated on the basis of least fuel cost strategies without considering the pollutants produced. However presently environmental management has topped the list of utility management concern [10] and it has become almost compulsory for electric utilities to reduce the pollution level below certain limit. By proper load allocation among the various generating units of the plants, the harmful effects of the emission of gaseous pollutants from power stations, particularly from thermal power stations, can be reduced. A revised power dispatch program is required in such cases that will consider both the generation cost and emission cost as the objective functions. One of the major complications in the above considerations is that the cost and emission functions are conflicting to each other. In other words, minimizing pollution increases cost and vice versa. Since the ideas of minimum cost and minimum emission dispatch are conflicting to each other, therefore the problem of choosing the least cost generation schedule with environmental objectives becomes much more complicated. In this paper, tests for various parameter settings of DE are conducted for the combined economic emission dispatch with generator constraints, valve-point loading and transmission loss. The influence of parameter settings of DE is tested on a fourteen-generator system and results are presented. Based on the results obtained, recommendations are suggested for the suitable range of control parameters of Differential Evolution for the present problem. 2 Problem formulation 2.1 Economy The pure Economic Load Dispatch (ELD) problem is one of the major problems in power system operation and planning. The classical ELD problem may be described by minimizing the total fuel cost of the generating units under several operating constraints. The fuel cost curve for any unit is assumed to be approximated by segments of quadratic functions of the active power output of the generator. For a given power system network, the problem may be described as optimization (minimization) of total fuel cost as defined by (1) under a set of operating constraints;

http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss4/art5

Mandal and Chakraborty: Effect of Control Parameters


n

FC(Pg ) = (ai Pi2 + bi Pi + ci


i=1

(1)

where FC( Pg ) is the total fuel cost of generation in the system ($/hr), ai ,bi ,ci are the fuel cost coefficients of the i th generating unit, Pi is power generated by the i th unit and n is the number of thermal units. The coefficients a i , bi and ci are generally obtained by curve fitting [11], [12]. However, for more practical and accurate modeling of fuel cost function, the above expression is to be modified suitably. Modern thermal power plants consist of generating units have multi-valve steam turbines in order to incorporate flexible operational facilities. The generating units with multi-valve turbines have very different cost curve compared with that defined by (1) and exhibit a greater variation in the fuel cost curves. Typically, ripples are introduced in to the fuel cost curve as each steam valve starts to operate. The valve-point effect may be considered by adding a sinusoidal function [13], [14] to the quadratic cost function described above. Hence, the problem described by (1) is revised as follows:
FCv (Pg ) = ai Pi2 + bi Pi + ci + | ei sin( f i (Pi,min Pi )) |
i=1 n

(2)

where FCv ( Pg ) is the total fuel cost of generation ($/hr) including valve point loading, ei , f i are the fuel cost coefficients of the i th generating unit reflecting the valve-point effect. The cost is minimized with the following generator capacities and active power balance constraints as;

Pi, min Pi Pi, max

(3)
(4)

Pi = PD + PL
i=1

where, Pi , min and Pi , max are the minimum and maximum power generation by i th unit respectively, PD is the total power demand and PL is the total transmission loss. The transmission loss PL can be calculated by using B matrix technique and is defined by (5) as

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008

International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 5
n n

PL = Pi Bij Pj
i =1 j =1

(5)

where Bij s are the elements of loss coefficient matrix B.


Emission

The solution of ELD problem will give the amount of active power to be generated by different units at a minimum fuel cost for a particular demand. But the amount of emission or emission cost is not considered in pure ELD problem. The amount of emission from a fossil-based thermal generator unit depends on the amount of power generated by the unit. Total emission generated also can be approximated as a quadratic function of the active power output of the generators. The emission dispatch problem can be described as the optimization (minimization) of total amount of emission release defined by (6) as
EC(Pg ) = i Pi2 + i Pi + i
i=1 n

(6)

where EC( Pg ) is total amount of emission (lb/hr), i , i , i are the emission coefficients of the i th unit subjected to the generator capacity and power balance constraints described by (3) and (4). i , i and i are generally obtained by curve fitting [11], [12].
Combined Economic and Emission Dispatch

The economic dispatch and emission dispatch are two different problems. Emission dispatch can be included in conventional economic load dispatch problems by the addition of emission cost to the normal dispatch cost. In this method different types of emissions are modeled as a cost in addition to the fuel cost. The bi-objective problem of combined economic emission dispatch (CEED) can be converted into single objective optimization problem by introducing a price penalty factor h [15] as follows: Minimize t = FCv (Pg ) + h EC(Pg )

(7)

where, t is the total operational cost of the system subject to the constraints
http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss4/art5 4

Mandal and Chakraborty: Effect of Control Parameters

defined by (3) and (4). Now, for a trade off between fuel cost and emission cost, (7) can be revised as (8) as Minimize t = w1 FCv ( Pg ) + w2 * h EC(Pg )

(8)

subjected to the constraints defined by (3) and (4). The weight factors w1 and w2 have many implications. For w1 = 1 and w2 = 0 the solution will yield results for pure economic dispatch. For w1 = 0 and w2 = 1 results for pure emission dispatch and for w1 = w2 = 1 results for combined economic emission dispatch can be obtained. The price penalty factor h can be found out by a practical method as discussed in [15]. The following steps can be used to find out the price penalty factor for a particular load. 1) Find out the average cost of each generator at maximum power output. 2) Find out the average emission of each generator at its maximum output 3) Divide the average cost of each generator by its average emission and thus hi is given as
FCv (Pi, max ) (Pi, max ) EC(Pi, max ) (Pi, max ) = hi i =1,......... n $ / lb ,

(9)

4) Arrange the values of price penalty factor in ascending order. 5) Add the maximum capacity of each unit ( Pi , max ) one at a time starting from the smallest hi unit until Pi , max PD is realized. 6) At this stage, hi associated with last unit in the process is the price penalty factor h for the given load. From the above description, it is clear that the value of the price penalty factor h is dependent on the total power demand and hence it will have different values for different power demand. It is also important to note that the value of the price penalty factor h will be the same for ELD, EED and CEED as long as the power demand is the same. With all these functions, the main objective of this study is to find the optimal values of control parameters for Differential Evolution (DE) based combined economic emission dispatch with above said constraints including the valve-point loading and transmission loss.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008

International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 5

Differential Evolution (DE)

DE or Differential Evolution belongs to the class of evolutionary algorithms [1], [16] that include Evolution Strategies (ES) and conventional Genetic Algorithms (GA). DE differs from the conventional genetic algorithms in its use of perturbing vectors, which are the difference between two randomly chosen vectors. DE is a scheme by which it generates the trial vectors from a set of initial populations. In each step, DE mutates vectors by adding weighted random vector differentials to them. If the fitness of the trial vector is better than that of the target vector, the target vector is replaced by the trial vector in the next generation. DE offers several strategies for optimization. They are classified according to the following notation such as DE/x/y/z, where x refers to the method used for generating parent vector that will form the base for mutated vector, y indicates the number of difference vector used in mutation process and z is the crossover scheme used in the cross over operation to create the offspring population [16], [17]. The symbol x can be rand (randomly chosen vector) or best (the best vector found so far). The symbol y, number of difference vector, is normally set to be 1 or 2. For cross over operation, a binomial (notation: bin) or exponential (notation: exp) operation is used. The version used here is the DE/rand/1/bin, which is described by the following steps. 3.1 Initialization The optimization process in DE is carried with four basic operations: initialization, mutation, crossover and selection. The algorithm starts by creating a population vector P of size NP composed of individuals that evolve over G generation. Each individual Xi is a vector that contains as many as elements as the problem decision variable. The population size NP is an algorithm control parameter selected by the user. Thus,

(G P (G) = X i(G) ,................................................., X N )


P

(10)
(11)

( (G X i(G) = X1,G) ,........................X D, i) i

i = 1,..............N P

The initial population is chosen randomly in order to cover the entire searching region uniformly. A uniform probability distribution for all random variables in assumed in the following as;

http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss4/art5

Mandal and Chakraborty: Effect of Control Parameters

X (j0i) = X min + j X max X min j j j ,

)
j [ 0 ,1 ]

(12)

where i = 1,....................N P and j = 1,....................D ; D is the number of decision or control variables, X min and X max are the lower j j and upper limits of the j the decision variables and is a uniformly distributed random number generated anew for each value of j. X (j 0i ) is the j th , parameter of the i th individual of the initial population. 3.2 Mutation Operation Several strategies of mutation have been introduced in the literature of DE [16]. The essential ingredient in the mutation operation is the vector difference. The mutation operator creates mutant vectors ( Vi ) by perturbing a randomly selected vector ( X k ) with the difference of two other randomly selected vectors ( X l and X m ) according to;
) (G Vi(G) = X (Gk + f m X l(G) X m )

(13)

where X k , X l and X m are randomly chosen vectors [ 1 ,......................, N P ] and k l m i . In other words, the indices are mutually different and also from the running index i. The mutation factor f m that lies within [0, 2] is a user chosen parameter used to control the perturbation size in the mutation operator and to avoid search stagnation. 3.3 Crossover Operation

In order to extend further diversity in the searching process, crossover operation is performed. The crossover operation generates trial vectors ( U i ) by mixing the parameter of the mutant vectors with the target vectors. For each mutant vector, an index q [ 1,.................N P ] is chosen randomly using a uniform distribution and trial vectors are generated according to;

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008

International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 5

V (G) , if C or j = q j R j, i (G) U j, i = , otherwise (G) X j, i

(14)

where i = 1,.................., N P and j = 1,................., D ; j is a uniformly distributed random number within [0, 1] generated anew for each value of j. The crossover factor C R [ 0, 1] is a user chosen parameter that controls the diversity of the population. X (j G ) , V j(,G ) and U (j G ) are the j th parameter of the i th target ,i i ,i vector, mutant vector and trial vector at G generation respectively. 3.4 Selection Operation

Selection is the operation through which better offspring are generated. The evaluation (fitness) function of an offspring is compared to that of its parent. The parent is replaced by its offspring if the fitness of the offspring is better than that of its parent, while the parent is retained in the next generation if the fitness of the offspring is worse than that of its parent. Thus, if f denotes the cost (fitness) function under optimization (minimization), then Ui(G) , if f Ui(G) f X i(G) = X (G) , otherwise i

X i(G+1)

( ) ( )

(15)

The optimization process is repeated for several generations. This allows individuals to improve their fitness while exploring the solution space for optimal values. The iterative process of mutation, crossover and selection on the population will continue until a user-specified stopping criterion, normally, the maximum number of generations allowed, is met. The other type of stopping criterion, convergence to the global optimum, is possible if the global optimum of the problem is available. 3.5 Constraint Handling

The success of any optimization method, such as DE, lies in the fact that how does it handle the constraints relating to the problem. Most of the evolutionary algorithms were originally developed to solve unconstrained optimization

http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss4/art5

Mandal and Chakraborty: Effect of Control Parameters

problems. However, over the last few decades, several methods have been proposed to handle constraints in evolutionary algorithms. Michalewicz et al presented a complete review of constrained optimization problems in evolutionary algorithms [18] and these methods of constraints handling can be grouped into four categories: methods based on preserving feasibility of solutions, methods based on penalty functions, methods which make a clear distinction between feasible and unfeasible solution and hybrid methods. The present work is based on strategy to generate and keep control variable in the feasible region [19]. This can be achieved as follows:
min if X (jG) X min X j, i j, i ,i X (jG) = ,i max if X (jG) X max j,i ,i X j, i (G) X j,i otherwise

(16)

where, i = 1,...................., N P and j = 1,..................., D . In other words, when the generated value is less than or equal to the minimum generating limit, it is set at the minimum. On the other hand, if the generated value is greater than or equal to the maximum generating limit, it is set at the maximum; otherwise the generated value is retained.
4 Results of Parameter Study

Combined economic emission dispatch (CEED) problems considering generator constraints, valve point effects and transmission loss have been used here for studying the effect of different parameter settings of differential evolution (DE). The test system considered in this paper consists of fourteen generators. The cost coefficients, generation limits and emission coefficients, valve point coefficients are derived from [20], [21] with modifications to incorporate valve-point loading and transmission losses. Those are shown in Table 1. The problem is solved as a combined economic emission dispatch one with w1 = 1 and w2 = 1 . Transmission loss is calculated using B-loss coefficient matrix according to (5). The main control parameters considered here are the mutation factor f m , the crossover ratio C R and the population size N P .

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008

International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 5

Table 1 Unit Data for Fourteen-Generator System with Valve Point Loading; a, b, c, e and f are Fuel cost coefficients. , and are Emission coefficients
Unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Pmin 150 150 20 20 150 135 135 60 25 25 20 20 25 15 Pmax 455 455 130 130 470 460 465 300 162 160 80 80 85 55 a 0.0050 0.0055 0.0060 0.0050 0.0050 0.0070 0.0070 0.0070 0.0050 0.0050 0.0055 0.0045 0.0070 0.0060 b 1.89 2.00 3.50 3.15 3.05 2.75 3.45 3.45 2.45 2.45 2.35 1.60 3.45 3.89 c 150 115 40 122 125 120 70 70 130 130 135 200 70 45 e 300 200 200 150 150 150 150 150 150 100 100 100 100 100 f 0.035 0.042 0.042 0.063 0.063 0..063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.016 0.031 0.013 0.012 0.020 0.007 0.015 0.018 0.019 0.012 0.033 0.018 0.018 0.030 -1.500 -1.820 -1.249 -1.355 -1.900 0.805 -1.400 -1.800 -2.000 -1.360 -2.100 -1.800 -1.810 -1.921 23.333 21.022 22.050 22.983 21.313 21.900 23.001 24.003 25.121 22.990 27.010 25.101 24.313 27.119

The study on the effect of different parameter settings of differential evolution (DE) is performed for a demand of 2000 MW. 4.1 Effect of varying Mutation factor - f m To check the effect of the mutation factor f m , it is varied from 0.95 to 0.05 in steps of 0.05. The crossover factor C R and the population size are set at 0.90 and 100 respectively following the recommendation from the literature [1], [4], [22], [23]. C R is set to a relatively higher value in order to have higher diversity in the population. It means that on an average 90% of the elements of the trial vectors are identical to the mutant vector that implies a high diversity for the present setting of C R . One hundred (100) independent runs are performed for every parameter combinations. Maximum number of iteration is set at 300. Table 2 shows the minimum cost, maximum cost, average cost, minimum emission, maximum emission, average emission and the average computation time. It is clearly seen that from Table 2 that both cost and emission increases for lower values as well as higher values of f m . For example, with f m = 0.1, the minimum cost and the minimum emission are found to be $10037.00 and 3738.30 lbs respectively, while the corresponding values with f m = 0.90 are $9740.00 and 3311.20 lbs respectively. Several tests were performed with higher number of iterations (up to 1000 in step of 100) for lower values of f m ( 0.15), but no improvement in results were observed. It seems that the vector could not reach the

http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss4/art5

10

Mandal and Chakraborty: Effect of Control Parameters

minimum value and got stuck somewhere on their way to the minimum with lower values and higher values of f m . This may be due to the fact that during the searching process the difference vector for the perturbation has decreased for too low values of f m . The values in the range of 0.45 f m 0.75 yields better results in terms of cost, emission and computation time. Also, it is observed that for higher values of f m ( 0.75), computation time increases to some extent. Optimum result is obtained with f m = 0.50, when minimum cost, minimum emission and computation time are found to be $ 9592.40, 3232.20 lbs and 16.2781 seconds respectively. Table 2 Effect of mutation factor f m on Combined Economic Emission Dispatch (CEED) with N P = 100 and C R = 0.90 for a demand of 2000 MW.
Value of fm Minimum 9701.20 9740.00 9693.60 9697.10 9648.70 9628.70 9598.10 9589.70 9596.50 9592.40 9615.50 9684.80 9764.50 9877.10 9935.50 9954.00 10137.00 10037.00 10159.00 Fuel Cost ($) Emission (lb) Average CPU Time (Sec.) Average 3436.20 3405.30 3401.80 3416.60 3394.10 3295.40 3219.30 3398.20 3249.60 3351.50 3376.20 3618.60 3801.70 3804.50 4040.30 4159.60 4156.30 4213.00 4339.80 37.2875 35.2766 34.6266 31.7796 25.7937 23.3687 20.0781 18.9016 17.0265 16.2781 15.3891 14.6078 14.7187 14.4813 14.6094 14.4594 14.0500 14.1531 14.3125

0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05

Maximum 10917.00 10215.00 1.0066.00 9994.20 9840.20 9872.90 9817.80 9856.40 9995.50 9845.90 10142.00 10090.00 10153.00 10659.00 10604.00 10452.00 10905.00 10962.00 11122.00

Average 10007.00 9903.10 9869.10 9817.60 9756.30 9720.30 9714.20 9691.30 9727.70 9644.80 9840.10 9860.30 9998.10 10208.00 10218.00 10187.00 10562.00 10550.00 10603.00

Minimum 3310.10 3311.20 3399.00 3380.10 3385.10 3287.90 3285.70 3285.50 3284.60 3232.20 3252.20 3425.70 3432.50 3405.70 3644.30 3777.90 3686.20 3738.30 3955.90

Maximum 4117.90 3566.20 3872.40 3556.80 3439.90 3341.00 3338.60 3693.10 3534.90 3430.80 3700.50 3839.50 4632.10 4039.10 4422.80 4430.20 4692.50 4859.80 4584.90

Thus, it is seen that for the present problem, the value of f m should not be smaller than a certain value (0.45) in order to find the minimum value. It is observed that smaller value of f m increases the chance of not finding the minimum at all.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008

11

International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 5

4.2 Effect of varying Crossover factor - C R To find the influence of the crossover factor C R , it is also varied from 0.95 to 0.05 in steps of 0.05. The mutation factor f m and the population size are set at 0.50 and 100 respectively following the result obtained above and recommendation from the literature. In this case also, one hundred (100) independent runs are performed for every parameter combinations and maximum number of iteration is set at 300. The results for different combination of parameter are shown in Table 3 in terms of the minimum cost, maximum cost, average cost and the average computation time. Table 3 Effect of crossover ratio C R on Combined Economic Emission Dispatch (CEED) with N P =100 and f m = 0.50 for a demand of 2000 MW.
Value of C R Minimum 9618.40 9592.40 9598.30 9596.90 9684.90 9614.80 9603.40 9639.10 9672.50 9677.70 9690.00 9615.70 9694.40 9660.50 9803.10 9740.40 9888.40 10028.00 10139.00 Fuel Cost ($) Emission (lb) Average CPU Time (Sec.) Average 3310.30 3351.50 3392.50 3365.10 3358.40 3313.30 3366.80 3381.80 3315.40 3393.10 3318.70 3307.30 3341.50 3356.60 3361.30 3381.90 3414.10 3561.00 3642.90 16.2984 16.2781 16.2781 16.0765 16.1297 16.6781 16.4156 16.4890 16.5687 17.9094 16.9797 17.6750 17.6640 20.4797 18.7765 19.0890 23.6359 28.0437 28.4640

0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05

Maximum 9783.80 9845.90 9821.80 10071.00 10188.00 10503.00 98710.00 10059.00 10058.00 10233.00 10235.00 10153.00 10136.00 10135.00 10320.00 10268.00 10528.00 10936.00 10492.00

Average 9684.90 9644.80 9690.80 9770.10 9736.20 9792.40 9723.50 9791.00 9725.80 9844.20 9769.10 9812.60 9793.50 9833.60 9976.80 9952.80 10132.00 10217.00 10339.00

Minimum 3262.90 3232.20 3287.10 3255.00 3261.05 3283.90 3289.90 3286.50 3291.50 3325.90 3382.90 3305.80 3293.90 3268.00 3288.60 3370.20 3350.00 3389.40 3442.40

Maximum 3533.90 3430.80 3446.30 3911.90 3572.50 3664.50 3340.20 3887.70 3642.40 3816.80 3518.30 3580.60 3815.10 3768.90 3900.70 3452.40 3773.60 3898.30 3940.30

From the Table 3, it is seen that for lower values of C R , the minimum cost, minimum emission and the computation time increase. For example, with C R = 0.1, the minimum cost, the minimum emission and the average computation time are found to be $10028.00, 3389.40 lbs and 28.0437 seconds respectively. In this
http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss4/art5 12

Mandal and Chakraborty: Effect of Control Parameters

case also, several tests were performed with higher number of iterations (up to 1000 in step of 100) for lower values of C R ( 0.10), but no improvement in results were observed. The values in the range of 0.30 C R 0.95 yields better results in terms of cost, emission and computation time. The optimum result is obtained with C R = 0.90, when the minimum cost, minimum emission and computation time are found to be $9592.40, 3232.20 lbs and 16.2781 seconds respectively. 4.3 Effect of varying Population size - N P

In order to obtain the effect of the population size N P , it is varied from 30 to 160 in steps of 10 considering the higher dimension (for the present case it is 14, explain earlier) of the problem under consideration. The mutation factor f m and the crossover factor C R are set at 0.50 and 0.90 respectively based on the process described in section 4.1 and 4.2. It this case also, one hundred (100) independent runs are performed for every parameter combinations and maximum number of iteration is set at 300. Table 4 Effect of Population size N P on Combined Economic Emission Dispatch (CEED) with C R = 0.90 and f m = 0.50 for a demand of 2000 MW.
Value of NP Minimum 10030.00 9884.10 9810.30 9864.70 9764.00 9698.50 9594.40 9592.40 9591.40 9592.40 9588.00 9593.70 9593.30 9592.70 Fuel Cost ($) Emission (lb) Average CPU Time (Sec.) Average 4178.70 3945.50 3743.80 3593.30 3447.20 3385.30 3298.30 3351.50 3306.30 3300.90 3248.30 3357.20 3253.20 3242.70 4.6703 6.5609 8.1410 10.6720 11.5310 13.1828 14.4984 16.2781 17.9687 19.7750 22.2343 27.7953 24.9750 26.6390

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Maximum 10945.00 10279.00 10284.00 10421.00 9943.00 10040.00 10052.00 9945.90 9970.00 9905.70 9929.40 9998.20 10009.00 9811.00

Average 10341.00 10082.00 10073.00 10014.00 9814.50 9741.30 9742.60 9644.80 9688.40 9695.50 9727.60 9762.30 9702.20 9659.10

Minimum 3342.00 3571.40 3486.40 3339.70 3257.70 3237.70 3275.90 3232.20 3238.20 3237.30 3233.60 3231.00 3231.20 3232.10

Maximum 4750.20 4499.40 4041.80 3962.10 3845.80 3649.80 3466.40 3430.80 3724.60 3691.10 3561.40 3717.30 3338.60 3360.10

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008

13

International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 5

The results for different combinations are presented in Table 4. It is seen that convergence rate is 100% above a value of N P = 80. However, computation time increases gradually along with population size. The optimum result is obtained with N P = 100, when the minimum cost, emission and computation time are found to be $9592.40, 3232.20 lbs and 16.2781 seconds respectively. 4.4. Results of Combined Economic Emission Dispatch (CEED) Control parameters of DE were selected through the process as above and the optimal parameters as obtained are N P =100, f m = 0.50 and C R = 0.9. Maximum iteration was set at 300. Table 5 shows the results for optimized cost, generation schedule, penalty factors, losses, emission output and computation time for combined economic emission dispatch (CEED) with a demand of 1500 MW, 2000 MW and 2500 MW. Table 5 Solution for Fourteen Generator system for Combined Economic Emission Dispatch (CEED) with N P = 100, C R = 0.90 and f m = 0.50
Generation of Units (MW) P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 Total Generation (MW) Losses (MW) Penalty Factor (h) CPU Time (Sec). Iterations Fuel Cost ($/hr) Emission (lb/hr) 1500 150.20 150.23 96.51 120.01 150.10 135.25 135.07 60.59 125.10 139.09 58.77 79.97 64.07 52.95 1517.88 17.88 1.2191 36.2812 300 6869.90 1340.20 Demand (MW) 2000 239.76 150.01 95.21 119.75 199.86 284.59 234.86 159.73 124.89 137.32 66.65 79.95 84.97 52.43 2029.98 29.98 1.5299 16.2736 300 9592.40 3232.20 2500 329.53 219.54 129.99 120.06 249.75 384.25 284.43 209.56 161.74 159.89 79.95 79.93 84.84 52.65 2546.11 46.11 1.5716 18.3542 300 12871.00 6316.30

http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss4/art5

14

Mandal and Chakraborty: Effect of Control Parameters

It is important to note that the process takes longer time when the demand is near minimum or maximum limits. For example, the CPU time is 36.2812 sec. and 18.3542 sec. with a demand of 1500 MW and 2500 MW respectively, whereas it is 16.2736 sec. with a demand of 2000 MW as shown in Table 5.This is due to the fact that the algorithm takes more time for generating initial set of feasible solutions satisfying constraints near the lower and upper generation limits.
5 Conclusion

The success of DE is heavily dependent on setting of control parameters. Optimal settings of the control parameters of DE depend on the specific optimization problem in hand. In this paper, a parameter study of control parameters of differential evolution (DE) is conducted for combined economic emission dispatch with generator constraints, valve-point loading and transmission loss. The effect of variation of all the three control parameters of DE i.e. NP, fm and CR are investigated and the results are presented. It is seen that premature convergence and even stagnation can occur due to wrong parameter selection. Based on the results obtained, recommendations are suggested for the range of control parameters of DE.
Appendix A: List of Symbols
FC( Pg )

: total fuel cost of generation in the system ($/hr) : fuel cost coefficients of the i th generating unit : power generated by the i th unit : number of thermal units : total fuel cost of generation in ($/hr) including valve point loading : fuel cost coefficients of the i th generating unit reflecting valve-point : minimum power generation by i th unit : maximum power generation by i th unit : total power demand : total transmission loss : elements of loss coefficient matrix B : total amount of emission (lb/hr) : emission coefficients of the i th unit
15

ai ,bi , ci Pi n FCv ( Pg ) ei , f i effect Pi , min


Pi , max

PD PL Bij
EC( Pg )

i ,i , i

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008

International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 5

t w1 , w2

: total operational cost of the system : weight factors

References

Storn R.and Price K., Differential evolution: a simple and efficient adaptive scheme for global optimization over continuous spaces, Technical Report TR-95-012, Berkeley, USA: International Computer Science Institute, 1995. [2] Lampinen J. and I. Zelinka (2000), On Stagnation of the Differential Evolution Algorithm, in Osmera P.(ed), Proc. of MENDEL 2000, 6th International Mendel Conference on Soft Computing, pp. 76-83. [3] Liu J.and Lampinen J., On Setting the Control Parameter of the Differential Evolution Method, In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Soft Computing (MENDEL 2002), pages 1118, 2002. [4] Gamperle R., Muller S. D., and Koumoutsakos P., A Parameter Study for Differential Evolution, in Advances in Intelligent Systems, Fuzzy Systems, Evolutionary Computation, A. Grmela and N. Mastorakis, Eds. WSEAS Press, 2002, pp. 293298. [5] Zielinski K., Weitkemper P., Laur R.and Kammeyer K., Parameter study for differential evolution using power allocation problem including interference cancellation, Proceedings of IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2005, pp. 185764. [6] Ronkkonen J, Kukkonen S. and Price KV. Real-parameter optimization with differential evolution, Proceedings of IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. Edinburgh, UK; 2005, pp. 50613. [7] Brest J., Zumer V. and Maucec M. S., Self-Adaptive Differential Evolution Algorithm in Constrained Real-Parameter Optimization, 2006 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre Hotel, Vancouver, BC, Canada July 16-21, 2006, pp.910-926. [8] Zaharie D, Critical Values for the Control Parameter of the Differential Evolution Algorithms, MENDEL 2002, 8th International Conference on Soft Computing (Matousek R. and Osmera P. eds). University of Technology, Brno (2002), pp.62 67. [9] Teo J., Exploring dynamic self-adaptive populations in differential evolution, Soft Computing - A Fusion of Foundations, Methodologies and Applications, 2005. DOI: 10.1007/s00500-005-0537-1. [10] IEEE Current Operating Problems Working Group, Potential Impacts of Clean Air Regulations on System Operations, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. PWRS-10, (1995), pp. 647654.

[1]

http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss4/art5

16

Mandal and Chakraborty: Effect of Control Parameters

[11] Wong, K.P and Yuryevich, J., Evolutionary Programming Based Algorithm for Environmentally Constrained Economic Dispatch, IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, Vol. 13.No.2, May (1998), pp 301. [12] Ramanathan, R., Emission constraints economic dispatch, IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, vol. 9, No. 4, November (1994), pp. 1994 2000. [13] Park, J. B., Lee, K.S., Shin, J.R. and Lee, K.Y., A Particle swarm optimization for solving the economic dispatch with nonsmooth cost functions, IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, Vol. 20.No.1, February (2005), pp34-42. [14] Walters, D. C. and Sheble, G. B., Genetic algorithm solution of economic dispatch with the valve point loading, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, Vol. 8, August (1993), pp. 13251332. [15] Kulkarni, P. S., Kothari, A. G., and Kothari, D. P., Combined economic and emission dispatch using improved backpropagation neural network, Electric Power Components and System, vol. 28, (2000), pp. 3144. [16] K. Price, Differential Evolution: A Fast and Simple Numerical Optimizer, Biennial Conference of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society. NAFIPS. 19-22 Jun 1996, pp. 524-527. [17] Storm R.and Price K., Differential Evolution - A simple and efficient adaptive scheme for global optimization over continuous spaces, Journal of Global Optimization, 1997, vol. 11, Dordrecht, pp. 341- 359. [18] Michalewicz Z. and Schoenauer M., Evolutionary Algorithms for Constrained Optimization Problems, Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1996, pp. 1-32. [19] Lampinen J., A constraint Handling Approach for the Differential Evolution Algorithm, Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC '02, Volume 2, 2002, pp. 1468-73. [20] P. Venkatesh, Ganandass R. and Padhy N.P., Comparison and application of evolutionary programming techniques to combined economic emission dispatch with line flow constraints, IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, Vol. 18, No.2, May (2003), pp. 688697. [21] Gaing Zwe-Lee, Particle swarm optimization to solving the economic dispatch considering the generator constraints, IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, Vol. 18, No.3, August (2003), pp. 11871195. [22] Storn, Rainer (1996), On the usage of differential evolution for function optimization, In the proceedings of Biennial Conference of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS 1996), Berkeley, pp. 519523.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008

17

International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 5

[23] Lampinen J. and Storn R., Differential Evolution, In New Optimization Techniques in Engineering, G. C. Onwubolu and B. Babu, Eds. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2004, pp. 123166.
Biographies

K. K. Mandal was born in Calcutta, India on 25th December, 1964. He received the B.E Degree in Electrical Engineering from Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India in 1986 and M.E Degree from Allahabad University, Allahabad, India in 1998. His employment experience includes Indian Telephone Industries, National Institute of Technology, Durgapur, India. He is presently working as a Reader in the Department of Power Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India. His present research interest includes Power Economics, Deregulated Electricity Industry and Power Electronics. N. Chakraborty was born in Kolkata, India on 27th August, 1964. He received his Bachelor of Electrical Engineering in 1986 and Masters of Electrical Engineering in 1989 from Jadavpur University, Kolkata. He was awarded with the D.I.C from Imperial College, London, U.K. and Ph.D Degree from University of London in 1999. At present he is a professor in the Department of Power Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata. His fields of research interest include Power and Energy Economics, Applied Superconductivity and Environmental Measurements and Analysis.

http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss4/art5

18