2013
DOI: 10.1109/jsyst.2013.2258747
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nonconvex Dynamic Economic Power Dispatch Problems Solution Using Hybrid Immune-Genetic Algorithm

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
49
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 80 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
0
49
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…14, No. 5,2018Because the mining parameters are numerical, real numbers were adopted in the following parts, and the monitoring value was divided into different intervals. …”
Section: Data Preprocessingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…14, No. 5,2018Because the mining parameters are numerical, real numbers were adopted in the following parts, and the monitoring value was divided into different intervals. …”
Section: Data Preprocessingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…combine immune algorithm and genetic algorithm into the immune genetic algorithm (IGA). Thanks to the unique concentration control function, the new algorithm outperforms immune algorithm and genetic algorithm in many aspects, such as the avoidance of local optimum trap, the maintenance of population diversity, and the accuracy of convergence results, as stated in [4][5][6]. So far, the IGA has been successfully applied in production system optimization, resource scheduling, allocation of water resources, etc.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Considering multiple steams valves in conventional thermal power plants, it is essential to model the effect of valve-points on fuel cost. Valve-points effect can be modeled by a sinusoidal term, which will be added to the quadratic cost function [27]. P min i is minimum power generation of thermal unit i.…”
Section: Objective Functionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to Table 5, the sum of power generation of four hydro units and three thermal plants meets the load demand during the scheduling time of the STHS problem. Proposed method provided the minimum fuel cost of $41,101.738, which is compared with simulated annealing (SA) [25], DE [11], chaotic artificial bee colony (CABC) [26], adaptive differential evolution (ADE) [23], RCGA [13], DE [10], SPPSO [12], RQEA [10], PSO [27], chaotic differential evolution (CDE) [23], clonal selection algorithm (CSA) [28], TLBO [29], TLBO [18], improved quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization (IQPSO) [30], quasi-oppositional teaching learning based optimization (QTLBO) [29], Improved differential evolution (IDE) [21], adaptive chaotic differential evolution (ACDE) [23], real coded chemical reaction based optimization (RCCRO) [22], differential real-coded quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm (DRQEA) [10], and adaptive chaotic artificial bee colony algorithm (ACABC) [26], quasi-oppositional group search optimization (QOGSO), as shown in Table 6. Results show that proposed method is better than previous methods used in the test system 2, case 1.…”
Section: Test Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Constraint (5) defines the CPPs operation cost. Constraint (6) defines the minimum and maximum outputs of the CPPs; and constraint (7) enforces the ramp-up and ramp-down limits [26,27]. Constraints (8), (9) and (10) preserve the logic of running, start up and shut down status changes.…”
Section: Model Formulationmentioning
confidence: 99%