Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scope of stationary multi-objective evolutionary optimization: a case study on a hydro-thermal power dispatch problem

  • Published:
Journal of Global Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many engineering design and developmental activities finally resort to an optimization task which must be solved to get an efficient and often an intelligent solution. Due to various complexities involved with objective functions, constraints, and decision variables, optimization problems are often not adequately suitable to be solved using classical point-by-point methodologies. Evolutionary optimization procedures use a population of solutions and stochastic update operators in an iteration in a manner so as to constitute a flexible search procedure thereby demonstrating promise to such difficult and practical problem-solving tasks. In this paper, we illustrate the power of evolutionary optimization algorithms in handling different kinds of optimization tasks on a hydro-thermal power dispatch optimization problem: (i) dealing with non-linear, non-differentiable objectives and constraints, (ii) dealing with more than one objectives and constraints, (iii) dealing with uncertainties in decision variables and other problem parameters, and (iv) dealing with a large number (more than 1,000) variables. The results on the static power dispatch optimization problem are compared with that reported in an existing simulated annealing based optimization procedure on a 24-variable version of the problem and new solutions are found to dominate the solutions of the existing study. Importantly, solutions found by our approach are found to satisfy theoretical Kuhn–Tucker optimality conditions by using the subdifferentials to handle non-differentiable objectives. This systematic and detail study demonstrates that evolutionary optimization procedures are not only flexible and scalable to large-scale optimization problems, but are also potentially efficient in finding theoretical optimal solutions for difficult real-world optimization problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Basu M. (2005). A simulated annealing-based goal-attainment method for economic emission load disptch of fixed head hydrothermal power systems. Electr. Pow. Energy Syst. 27(2): 147–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bazaraa M.S., Sherali H.D. and Shetty C.M. (2004). Nonlinear Programming: Theory and Algorithms. Wiley, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bector C.R., Chandra S. and Dutta J. (2005). Principles of Optimization Theory. Narosa, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  4. Clarke, F.H.: Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis. Wiley-Interscience (1983)

  5. Deb K. (2000). An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 186(2–4): 311–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Deb K. (2001). Multi-objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  7. Deb K. and Agrawal R.B. (1995). Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space. Complex Syst. 9(2): 115–148

    Google Scholar 

  8. Deb K., Agrawal S., Pratap A. and Meyarivan T. (2002). A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6(2): 182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Deb K. and Goyal M. (1996). A combined genetic adaptive search (GeneAS) for engineering design. Comput. Sci. Infor. 26(4): 30–45

    Google Scholar 

  10. Deb K., Gupta H.: Searching for robust Pareto-optimal solutions in multi-objective optimization. In: Proceedings of the Third Evolutionary Multi-Criteria Optimization (EMO-05) Conference (Also Lecture Notes on Computer Science 3410), pp. 150–164 (2005)

  11. Deb K., Reddy A.R. and Singh G. (2003). Optimal scheduling of casting sequence using genetic algorithms. J. Mater. Manuf. Process. 18(3): 409–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Deb, K., Srinivasan, A.: innovization: Innovating design principles through optimization. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2006), pp. 1629–1636. The Association of Computing Machinery (ACM), New York (2006)

  13. Fletcher R. and Reeves C.M. (1964). Function minimization by conjugate gradients. Comput. J. 7: 149–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fonseca, C.M., Flemming, P.J.: Genetic algorithms for multi-objective optimization: formulation, discussion, and generalization. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 416–423 (1993)

  15. Fox R.L. (1971). Optimization Methods for Engineering Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  16. Goldberg, D.E.: Computer-Aided Gas Pipeline Operation Using Genetic Algorithms and Rule Learning. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dissertation Abstracts International 44(10), 3174B (University Microfilms No. 8402282) (1983)

  17. Goldberg D.E. (1989). Genetic Algorithms for Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  18. Goldberg, D.E.: The Design of Innovation: Lessons from and for competent genetic algorithms. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2002)

  19. Goldberg D.E., Deb K. and Clark J.H. (1992). Genetic algorithms, noise, and the sizing of populations. Complex Syst. 6(4): 333–362

    Google Scholar 

  20. Goldberg, D.E., Samtani, M.P.: Engineering optimization via genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Electronic Computations, ASCE, pp. 471–482 (1986)

  21. Grefenstette J.J. (ed.): Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Genetic Algorithms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah (1985)

  22. Grefenstette, J.J. (ed.): Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Cambridge, MA, USA, July 1987. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1987)

  23. Harik G., Cantú-Paz E., Goldberg D.E. and Miller B.L. (1999). The gambler’s ruin problem, genetic algorithms, and the sizing of populations.. Evol. Comput. J. 7(3): 231–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Holland J.H. (1962). Outline for a logical theory of adaptive systems. J. ACM 9(3): 297–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Holland J.H. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. MIT Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  26. Horn, J., Nafploitis, N., Goldberg, D.E.: A niched Pareto genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization. In: Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. pp. 82–87 (1994)

  27. Michalewicz Z. (1992). Genetic Algorithms  +  Data Structures  =  Evolution Programs. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  28. Michalewicz, Z.: A survey of constraint handling techniques in evolutionary computation methods. In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming, pp. 135–155. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)

  29. Miettinen K. (1999). Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization. Kluwer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mühlenbein H. and Schlierkamp-Voosen D. (1993). The science of breeding and its application to the breeder genetic algorithm (bga). Evol. Comput. 1(4): 335–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Orero S.O. and Irving M.R. (1998). A genetic algorithm modeling framework and solution technique for short term optimal hydrothermal scheduling. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 13(2): 501–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rao, S.S.: Genetic algorithmic approach for multiobjective optimization of structures. In: Proceedings of the ASME Annual Winter Meeting on Structures and Controls Optimization, vol. 38, pp. 29–38 (1993)

  33. Rashid A.H.A. and Nor K.M. (1991). An efficient method for optimal scheduling of fixed head hydro and thermal plants. IEEE Trans. PWRS 6(2): 632–636

    Google Scholar 

  34. Reklaitis G.V., Ravindran A. and Ragsdell K.M. (1983). Engineering Optimization Methods and Applications. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rockafellar R.T. (1970). Convex Analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rudolph G. (1994). Convergence analysis of canonical genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 5(1): 96–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Schaffer, J.D.: Some Experiments in Machine Learning Using Vector Evaluated Genetic Algorithms. PhD thesis, Vanderbilt University, Nashville (1984)

  38. Shukla, P., Deb, K.: Comparing classical generating methods with an evolutionary multi-objective optimization method. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO-2005), pp. 311–325. Lecture Notes on Computer Science 3410 (2005)

  39. Sinha N., Chakraborty R. and Chattopadhyay P.K. (2003). Fast evolutionary programming techniques for short-term hydrothermal scheduling. Electric Pow. Syst. Res. 66: 97–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Srinivas N. and Deb K. (1994). Multi-objective function optimization using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms. Evol. Comput. J. 2(3): 221–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Strang G. (1980). Linear Algebra and its Applications. Academic Press, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wolpert D.H. and Macready W.G. (1977). No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 1(1): 67–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wong K.P. and Wong Y.W. (1994). Short-term hydrothermal scheduling part i: simulated annealing approach. IEE Proc. Gener. Trans. Distrib 141(5): 497–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wood, A.J., Woolenberg, B.F.: Power Generation, Operation and Control. John-Wiley & Sons (1986)

  45. Yang J.S. and Chen N. (1989). Short-term hydrothermal co-ordination using multipass dynamic programming. IEEE Trans. PWRS 4(3): 1050–1056

    Google Scholar 

  46. Zaghlool, M.F., Trutt, F.C.: Efficient methods for optimal scheduling of fixed head hydrothermal power systems. IEEE Trans. PWRS 3(1) (1988)

  47. Zoutendijk G. (1960). Methods of Feasible Directions. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, 208016, India

    Kalyanmoy Deb

Authors
  1. Kalyanmoy Deb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kalyanmoy Deb.

Additional information

Kalyanmoy Deb, Deva Raj Chair Professor.

Currently a Finland Distinguished Professor, Department of Business Technology, Helsinki School of Economics, 00101 Helsinki, Finland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Deb, K. Scope of stationary multi-objective evolutionary optimization: a case study on a hydro-thermal power dispatch problem. J Glob Optim 41, 479–515 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-007-9261-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-007-9261-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation