 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Optimum generation scheduling incorporating wind energy using HHO–IGWO algorithm
Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology volume 10, Article number: 1 (2023)
Abstract
Recently, renewable energy participation is gaining importance in the existing power system. However, the large penetration of these renewable energy sources into the existing power system network may cause an imbalance in supply and demand response. Unit commitment is the decisionmaking process in which generating units are turned ON and OFF at the hourly interval as per the load demand under certain constraints to provide economic scheduling. Thus, an advanced intelligent approach is needed to cope with this combined unit commitment problem with a large penetration of intermittent sources. This paper offers the solution to optimal scheduling by implementing the hybrid Harris Hawks optimizer algorithm (HHO–IGWO). Standard IEEE systems with 10, 19, 20, and 40 units are simulated. Further, to test the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method, a comparative analysis for a 10, 20, and 40unit system has also been performed with penetration. The comparative analysis reveals that proposed is more efficient in tackling unit commitment problem in the presence of wind as renewable energy source.
Introduction
Electric power plays a vital role in the development, modernization, and progress of upgraded technology. Conventional energy sources such as coal, oil, and gas are rapidly exhausting. The systematic management of the generation schedule within the constraints comes under the category of unit commitment. Unit commitment problem is a complex problem where the generation schedule is planned well in advance with sufficient spinning reserve to satisfy sudden increase in demand [1]. Sustainable power sources such as wind and solar are gaining more significance as these sources are inexhaustible and provide economic operation. Wind energy is getting more attention in the power sector, as wind power helps to reduce the burden on conventional fuels and also decreases environmental pollutants. But, due to the stochastic nature of wind energy, constant power is not available at all times, which results in even more complexity. As the manual calculations require large amounts of computation time to solve unit commitment problems involving wind power, a computerbased system used to solve UC problems not only enhances the computational capability but also improves solution efficiency and reliability with a proper logical approach.
Optimization is the process in which a particular objective function is solved by applying a defined algorithm to get the optimal solution. Over a few decades, several heuristics and metaheuristics have been built by researchers to handle various optimization problems using globally accepted algorithms, such as binary bat algorithm [2], salp swarm algorithm [3], ant colony optimization [4], shuffled frog leaping algorithm [5], biogeographybased optimization [6], gravitational search algorithm [7], differential evolution algorithm [8], particle swarm optimization [9]. Baldwin et al. [10] were the first who published a paper in the field of unit commitment in the year 1959. Priority method, dynamic programming, Lagrange relaxation, and branch & bound methods are the foremost methods to solve the unit commitment problem. Afterward, new optimization methods such as genetic algorithm, simulated annealing, analytical hierarchy process, and particle swarm optimization were implemented by researchers to solve the unit commitment problem more precisely. Recently, due to the introduction of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, the load demand on conventional sources has reduced to a large extend. Some technical findings related to thermalwind commitment are discussed as follows:
Dieu et al.[11] have presented a primary generating schedule excluding startup and shunt down constraints that is updated by IPL and ALH to resolve ramp rate constraint commitment. The hybrid algorithm is found to be effective in providing increased spinning reserve. Yuan et al. [12] proposed the IBPSO method in which unit characteristics are enhanced by using BPSO for tackling unit commitment problem and heuristic lambdaiteration method for economic load dispatch problem. Tan et al. presented a solution for optimal allocation and sizing of renewable DG sources in various distribution networks by the ant lion optimization algorithm (ALOA) [13]. Entezariharsini et al. elaborated impacts of increased wind power in terms of the level of penetration. Stochastic programming including wind power uncertainty is presented to minimize the annual operational cost of generators [14]. Bhadoria et al. utilized the inherent property of moths to converge toward the light to solve the economic load dispatch problem with due consideration of renewable energy sources [15]. Anand et al. have combined the exploration capability of particle swarm optimizer (PSO) and exploitation competency of sine–cosine algorithm (SCA) to form hybrid civilized swarm optimization algorithm. Reddy et al. [16] have presented sigmoid and tangent hyperbolic transfer functions and applied three binary gray wolf optimizer (BGWO) models to solve the profitbased selfscheduling problem of generation. Suresh et al. have modeled a hybrid system consisting of wind and solar by implementing probability distribution methods using diverse probability.
These optimization methods are found to be efficient in solving complicated generation scheduling issues. But, one of the major issues with these techniques is their inefficiency in finding local optimal points during the search process. Eventually, the NoFreeLunch theorem permits the design of new algorithms as no single algorithm is efficient enough to solve all optimization issues. This motivates us to solve the combinational unit commitment problem using a hybrid variant of Harris Hawks optimizer (HHO) and an improved gray wolf optimizer (IGWO).This paper offers the solution to the unit commitment problem incorporating wind by using the proposed HHO–IGWO algorithm. Standard IEEE systems consisting of small, medium, and large systems, which include 10, 19, 20, and 40 units, are simulated in MATLAB software using a hybrid HHO–IGWO algorithm with and without wind penetration. The unit commitment problem formulation with wind penetration is discussed in the subsequent section.
Construction of unit commitment problem
Unit commitment problem is an optimization problem in which, the generated power is systematically distributed for a forecasted load to minimize the overall cost of power generation while satisfying all equality and inequality constraints. The major objective of unit commitment problem is selecting a proper generating schedule to minimize the total power generation cost. The total fuel cost \(F_{{\text{T}}}\) is determined using Eq. (1) by summing up the generation cost of each unit for a defined time interval [17].
where \(a_{i} ,\,b_{i} \,{\text{and}}\,c_{i}\) are the fuel cost function expressed in $/h, $/MWh, and $/MWh^{2} respectively.
Mathematically, startup cost \({\text{STC}}_{i}\) [18] is expressed as the sum of Hot startup cost \(\left( {{\text{HSc}}_{i,h} } \right)\) and \(\left( {{\text{CSc}}_{i,h} } \right)\) ith unit respectively.
The power balance is achieved when overall generation meets the allocated load as expressed in Eq. (3) [19],
For arbitrary free unit power outputs, within minimum and maximum power limit,
\({\text{PG}}_{i}^{\min } \le \,{\text{PG}}\, \le \,{\text{PG}}_{i}^{\max } \,\,(i = 1,2, \ldots ,N\,\,\,;\,\,h = 1,2, \ldots ,H)\,\,\), it is assumed that the Rth reference unit power output is constrained by the power balance Eq. (4) [19].
In order to mitigate unpredictable disturbances such as sudden load demand or unexpected tripping of lines or generators, some additional generation capacity must be readily available. This additional generation capacity is referred to as spinning reserve. Due to wind penetration, some additional power is accessible from this renewable energy source. This additional power contributed by wind energy results in reducing the liability on thermal units. Equation (6) signifies that the total available generation should always be equal to or greater than sum of load demand and spinning reserve [19].
Generators cannot be turnon and turnoff instantly. Minimum up time \(\left( {{\text{MUT}}} \right)\) is the time to set a generating unit online after it has already been shut down [19].
Similarly, the minimum down time \(\left( {{\text{MDN}}} \right)\) is the amount of time for which a particular unit should be kept in off condition before putting it online [19].
Mathematical modeling of uncertainties of wind power
Wind power can be evaluated by probability distribution function which is mathematically represented as,
As the power generated by wind is an uncertain due to the randomness of wind speed, which is mathematically described as [15],
From Eq. (9), when wind speed v^{h} is less than or equal to minimum rated velocity, wind power is zero. The probability of wind power being 0, p_{wr} be calculated as per Eqs. (10) and (11) respectively [20].
The probability density function \(\left( {{\text{pdf}}} \right)\) in Eq. (12) [20] depends upon \(v_{{{\text{in}}\,\,}} {\text{and}}\,v_{r}\) due to randomness in wind speed.
Since output power delivered by wind generator is never remains constant and continuously fluctuates over an entire period, exact wind power extrapolation is not possible. The subsequent section presents mathematical formulation of HHO–IGWO.
Mathematical formulation of hybrid HHO–IGWO algorithm
HHO has inherent proficiency of proper balance between intensification and diversification. Studies revealed that slow convergence gives rise to reduced computational efficiency. The HHO algorithm does not need initial values for the judgment variables and exploit a stochastic indiscriminate search instead of using gradient search [21]. In Eq. (13a), when \(q\, \ge \,0.5\) or perch on randomly on tall trees and modeled as in Eq. (13b) for \(q\, < \,0.5\) [22].
where \(X({\text{itn}} + 1)\) is the Hawks position in ensuing iteration \(\left( {{\text{itn}}} \right)\), \(X_{{{\text{rand}}}} ({\text{itn}})\) is randomly selected Hawks, corresponding to the vectors \(r_{1} ,\,r_{2} ,\,r_{3} ,\,r_{4} ,\,{\text{and}}\,q\) are random values in between (0, 1) and these are modified in each iteration between upper bound \(\left( {{\text{Ub}}} \right)\) and lower bound \(\left( {{\text{Lb}}} \right)\). \(X_{{{\text{prey}}}} \left( {{\text{itn}}} \right)\) denotes the position of prey.\(X_{m} \left( {{\text{itn}}} \right)\) epitomizes the mean position of Hawks which is determined using Eq. (14) [23].
Changeover from exploration to exploitation phase depends upon the fugitive energy of the target, assessed using Eqn. (15) [23].
where \(E_{A}\) is evading energy of the prey, \(E_{0}\) is the initial energy of the prey changing randomly between (− 1, 1) and \({\text{itn}}_{\max }\) is maximum iterations. Equation (16) is used to determine the upgraded position of Hawks. The successful capture relies on attacking strategies of Hawks and escaping nature of prey depending upon change of escape (r). Hawks perform a soft besiege for \(r \ge 0.5\& \left E \right \ge 0.5\) [24].
where \(\Delta X({\text{itn}})\) is the variance between current location of prey and locality of Hawks at iteration \({\text{itn}}\). J = 2(1 − r) is the Jump energy which modifies randomly in every iteration. \(r_{5}\) is the random numeral in the range (0, 1). The tired target fails to escape and Hawks perform hard besiege as modeled in Eq. (18). Hawks perform a hard besiege for \(r \ge 0.5\& \left {\,E\,} \right < 0.5\) [24].
where \(Y\) and \(Z\) are the positions based on soft besiege.
The \(L_{F} \left( D \right)\)based designs which follow the certain rule [25]. At this stage, the prey has enough energy and besiege during this phase depends on levy flight (LF) concept as modeled in Eq. (21) [25]. Hawks perform a soft besiege through rapid dives for \(\left {\,E\,} \right \ge 0.5\,\,\& r < 0.5\).
where \(Y\) and \(Z\) are the positions based on hard besiege.
The Hawks are very close to prey and perform hard besiege as modeled in Eq. (24). Hawks perform hard besiege through rapid dives for \(\left {E\,} \right < 0.5\,\,\& r < 0.5\).
where \(Y^{\prime }\) and \(Z^{\prime }\) are the positions based on hard besiege.
Updating \(X\left( {{\text{iter}} + 1} \right)\) by improved gray wolf optimizer (IGWO)
At this stage, a weighted average of alpha, beta, and delta wolfs is evaluated and then best individual is assigned a weight, obtained by multiplying its corresponding vectors ‘A’ and ‘C’. The best fitness value of gray wolves depends upon the fitness value evaluated as ‘a’ shown in eqn. (25). Mathematically, \((\overrightarrow {{G_{w} }} )\& \overrightarrow {W}_{{G({\text{itn}} + 1)}}\) vectors are defined through Eqn. (27) to (28) [25].
The extreme search process takes place and various fitness values for \((\overrightarrow {{W_{\alpha } }} )\), \((\overrightarrow {{W_{\beta } }} )\) and \((\overrightarrow {{W_{\delta } }} )\) are updated using Eqs. (31), (33) and (35).The final position for capturing the prey is evaluated by Eq. (36).
The pseudocode of the proposed metaheuristic algorithm has been depicted in the flowchart as shown in Fig. 1. In this study, sequential hybridization is utilized for initializing gray wolf position, and thereafter, updated gray wolf positions are more intensively explored by the search agents.
Implementation of proposed HHO–IGWO algorithm for unit commitment problem
The HHO–IGWO method is a metaheuristic algorithm that has an excellent ability of exploration and exploitation and effectively utilized to solve the unit commitment problem [26].
Pseudocode to repair spinning reserve, MDT, MUT, constraints
Once a unit is started, it should not be turned off immediately before reaching MUT. This is required to satisfy economic, mechanical, and design limitations. Similarly, any unit which is once decommitted should not put online immediately. The HHO–IGWO algorithm may sometimes perform unenviably to satisfy the spinning reserve constraint. However, some repair in minimum up/down constraint, excessive spinning reserve is needed. The flowchart for spinning reserve repairing is illustrated in Fig. 2.
Decommitting of excess of units
During the repair process of MDT/MUT and spinning reserve, some of the units may get unnecessarily ON. To avoid this situation that could result in an excessive cost for running those units, some of the units need to be shut down. Figure 3 shows the flowchart for decommitting excessive spinning reserve. Figure 4 shows the flowchart of entire process of commitment using HHO–IGWO.
Results and discussion
In this section, the test results of standard IEEE with 10, 19, 20 and 40 thermal units along with wind penetration are analyzed. The test systems are simulated in MATLAB 2018a Windows 10, CPU@2.10Ghz4 GB RAM Core i5. To check the performance of the HHO–IGWO method for solving the optimal scheduling, the standard test system of IEEE is taken into consideration. Table 1 illustrates generation scheduling for 10 generating units, and Table 2 shows generation scheduling for 10 generating units with wind penetration. From Tables 1 and 2, it can be seen that the cost of generation with thermal units is 563435.9964 $ per hour, and the cost of generation for the same number of units with wind penetration is 492400.2699 $ per hour. This suggests that there is a costsaving of 71,035.7265($/hr) and for 8760 h per year the total saving in cost is 622272964.14($/year).
Table 3 illustrates generation scheduling for 19 generating units with 10% SR for thermalwind system. The cost of generation with thermal units is 207001.8242 $ per hour, and the cost of generation for the same number of units with wind penetration is 196723.619 $ per hour. This suggests that there is a costsaving of 10,278.2052($/hr) and for 8760 h per year the total saving in cost is 90037077.552($/year).
Table 4 illustrates generation schedule for 20 generating units with wind penetration. The cost of generation with thermal units is 1127513.692$ per hour, and the cost of generation for the same number of units with wind penetration is 1052906.5262 $ per hour. This suggests that there is a costsaving of 71,954.1638($/hr) and for 8760 h per year the total saving in cost is 630318474.888($/year).
In Tables 5 and 6 illustrates generation schedule for 40 generating units with wind penetration. The cost of generation with thermal units is 2249657.3623 $ per hour. From Table 6, it can be seen that the cost of generation for the same number of units with wind penetration is 2172361.1608 $ per hour. This suggests that there is a costsaving of 77,296.2015($/hr) and for 8760 h per year the total saving in cost is 67714725.14($/year).
Table 7 illustrates percentage costsaving for 10, 19, 20, and 40 units with wind using hHHO–IGWO. It shows with 10unit system, there is % costsaving of 12%. For 19 units, there is a % costsaving of 4.90%. For 20 units, there is a % costsaving of 6.5% while in case of 40 units, 3.2% costsaving is noted. It is observed that proposed algorithm is efficient in solving unit commitment problem with more precision and accuracy.
Table 8 shows a cost comparison of 10 units (10% SR) for power generation with wind penetration. In Table 8, best, worst, and mean values for various methods are presented. Results illustrated in Table 8 reveal that the proposed method is more effective in solving unit commitment problem as compared to other known techniques.
Table 9 shows a cost comparison of 20 units (10% SR) for power generation with wind penetration. In Table 9, best, worst, and mean values for various methods are presented. Results illustrated in Table 8 show that HHO–IGWO gives total generation cost wind penetration as 1,052,906.52$ which is less than BMFOSIG, hGWORES, and GWO methods. The comparative analysis reveals that proposed method is efficient in resolving unit commitment problem with large wind penetration.
Similarly, Table 10 illustrates a cost comparison of 40 units (10% SR) for power generation with wind penetration. Results illustrated in Table 8 show that HHO–IGWO gives total generation cost wind penetration as 1,052,906.52$ which is less than BMFOSIG and hGWORES methods. This suggests that that the proposed method is more effective in solving unit commitment problem when compared to other competent methods.
Conclusion
In this research work, a novel hybrid optimization technique based on the integration of HHO and IGWO has been utilized effectively to solve the UC problem. Four standard IEEE test systems are simulated with due effect of wind power penetration into the existing conventional thermal system consisting of 10, 19, 20, and 40 units. The analysis shows that the proposed hybrid metaheuristic algorithm is efficient to provide a cost effective solution for handling the unit commitment problem. Further, to investigate the validity of the proposed algorithm, a comparative analysis for a 10, 20, and 40unit system with wind penetration is also been performed. The comparative study reveals that the proposed algorithm is a promising technique to solve the UC problem with renewable energy penetration.
Availability of data and materials
The data sets used and/or analyzed during current research study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Abbreviations
 \(a_{i} ,\,b_{i} \,{\text{and}}\,c_{i}\) :

Fuel cost coefficients
 \({\text{CS}}(h)\) :

Cold starting hour of the ith unit
 \({\text{CSc}}_{i,h}\) :

Cold startup cost
 \(D_{L}\) :

Demand at ‘h’ hour
 \(F_{{\text{T}}}\) :

Total fuel cost
 \({\text{itn}}_{\max }\) :

Maximum iterations
 \(N\) :

Number of generators
 \({\text{MUT}}\) :

Minimum up time
 \({\text{MDT}}\) :

Minimum down time
 \(P_{{{\text{g}}\,{\text{max}}\,(i)}}\) :

Maximum generation by ith unit
 \(P_{{{\text{g}}\,{\text{min}}\,(i)}}\) :

Minimum generation by ith unit
 \(P_{{\rm g}\,(i)}\) :

Minimum generation by ith unit
 \(P_{g}^{w}\) :

Power contributed by renewable energy
 \(P_{R(h)}\) :

Output power available at Rth unit at ‘h’ hours
 \({\text{STC}}_{i}\) :

Startup cost of ith generating unit
 \({\text{SDC}}_{i}\) :

Shutdown cost of ith generating unit
 \({\text{SR}}_{(h)}\) :

Spinning reserve at ‘h’ hour
 \(T_{i,h}^{{{\text{ON}}}}\) :

Time for which ith unit is continuously ON
 \(T_{i,h}^{{{\text{OFF}}}}\) :

Time for which ith unit is continuously OFF
 \(U_{i,h}\) :

Status of ith unit
References
Padhy NP (2004) Unit commitment: a bibliographical survey. IEEE Trans Power Syst 19(2):1196–1205. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2003.821611
Nidhi, Reddy S, Kumar R, Panigrahi BK (2018) Binary bat search algorithm for unit commitment problem in power system. In: 2017 IEEE international WIE conference on electrical and computer engineering (WIECONECE), pp 121–124, https://doi.org/10.1109/WIECONECE.2017.8468909
Mirjalili S, Gandomi AH, Mirjalili SZ, Saremi S, Faris H, Mirjalili SM (2017) Salp Swarm algorithm: a bioinspired optimizer for engineering design problems. Adv Eng Softw 114:163–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.07.002
Sumim T, Ongsakul W (2003) Ant colony search algorithm for unit commitment. IEEE Int Conf Ind Technol 1(i):72–77. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIT.2003.1290244
Anita JM, Raglend IJ (2013) Solution of emission constrained unit commitment problem using shuffled frog leaping algorithm. In: Circuits, power and computing technologies (ICCPCT), 2013 international Conference on, 2013, pp 93–98
Hasan Z, ElHawary ME(2016) Unit commitment incorporating wind energy by BBO and GA. In: 2016 IEEE electrical power and energy conference (EPEC), https://doi.org/10.1109/EPEC.2016.7771710.
Roy PK (2013) Solution of unit commitment problem using gravitational search algorithm. Electr Power Energy Syst 53:85–94
Kamboj VK, Bath SK, Dhillon JS (2017) A novel hybrid DE–random search approach for unit commitment problem. Neural Comput Appl 28(7):1559–1581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s0052101521244
Gaddam RR, Jain A, Belede L (2013) A PSO based smart unit commitment strategy for power systems including solar energy, pp. 531–542, https://doi.org/10.1007/9788132210382
Baldwin CJ, Dale KM, Dittrich RF (1959) A study of the economic shutdown of generating units in daily dispatch. Trans Am Inst Electr Eng Part III Power Appar Syst 78(4):1272–1282. https://doi.org/10.1109/AIEEPAS.1959.4500539
Dieu VN, Ongsakul W (2008) Ramp rate constrained unit commitment by improved priority list and augmented Lagrange hopfield network. Electr Power Syst Res 78(3):291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2007.02.011
Yuan X, Nie H, Su A, Wang L, Yuan Y (2009) An improved binary particle swarm optimization for unit commitment problem. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):8049–8055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.047
Tan WS, Shaaban M (2016) A hybrid stochastic/deterministic unit commitment based on projected disjunctive MILP reformulation. IEEE Trans Power Syst 31(6):5200–5201. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2016.2521326
Entezariharsini A, Ghiasi SMS, Mehrjerdi H (2018) Effects of penetration level and location of wind turbines on shadow prices and congestion of transmission lines. J Renew Sustain Energy 10(1063/1):5033948
Bhadoria A, Kamboj VK, Sharma M, Bath SK (2018) A solution to nonconvex/convex and dynamic economic load dispatch problem using Moth flame optimizer. Ina Lett 3(2):65–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s4140301800343
Reddy SK, Panwar LK, Panigrahi BK, Kumar R, Alsumaiti A (2019) Binary grey wolf optimizer models for profit based unit commitment of pricetaking GENCO in electricity market. Swarm Evol Comput 44:957–971
Saber AY, Venayagamoorthy GK (2010) Intelligent unit commitment with vehicletogrid: a costemission optimization. J Power Sour 195(3):898–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2009.08.035
Saber AY, Venayagamoorthy GK (2012) Resource scheduling under uncertainty in a smart grid with renewables and plugin vehicles. IEEE Syst J 6(1):103–109. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2011.2163012
Bhadoria A, Kamboj VK (2018) Optimal generation scheduling and dispatch of thermal generating units considering impact of wind penetration using hGWORES algorithm. Appl Intell. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1048901813259
Bhadoria A, Marwaha S, Kamboj VK (2020) BMFOSIG: a novel binary moth flame optimizer algorithm with sigmoidal transformation for combinatorial unit commitment and numerical optimization problems. Springer, Singapore
Bednarz JC (1988) Cooperative hunting in Harris’ Hawks (Parabuteo unicinctus). Science (80) 239(4847):1525–1527. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.239.4847.1525
Heidari AA, Mirjalili S, Faris H, Aljarah I, Mafarja M, Chen H (2019) Harris Hawks optimization: algorithm and applications. Futur Gener Comput Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.02.028
Dhawale D, Kamboj VK (2020) HHHO–IGWO: a new hybrid harris Hawks optimizer for solving global optimization problems. In: 2020 international conference on computation, automation and knowledge management (ICCAKM), pp 52–57, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCAKM46823.2020.9051509
Dhawale D, Kamboj VK, Anand P (2021) An improved chaotic Harris Hawks optimizer for solving numerical and engineering optimization problems, no. 0123456789. Springer, London
Heidari AA, Mirjalili S, Faris H, Aljarah I, Mafarja M, Chen H (2019) Harris Hawks optimization: algorithm and applications. Futur Gener Comput Syst 97:849–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.02.028
Dhawale D, Kamboj VK (2020) An effective solution to unit commitment problem in presence of sustainable energy using hybrid Harris Hawk’s optimizer. In: 2020 international conference on decision aid sciences and application (DASA), Vol. 2, pp 469–472, https://doi.org/10.1109/DASA51403.2020.9317057
Zhao B, Guo CX, Bai BR, Cao YJ (2006) An improved particle swarm optimization algorithm for unit commitment. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 28(7):482–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2006.02.011
Bayraktar Z, Komurcu M, Bossard JA, Werner DH (2013) The wind driven optimization technique and its application in electromagnetics. IEEE Trans Antennas Propag 61(5):2745–2757. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAP.2013.2238654
Juste KA, Kita H, Tanaka E, Hasegawa J (1999) An evolutionary programming solution to the unit commitment problem. IEEE Trans Power Syst 14(4):1452–1459. https://doi.org/10.1109/59.801925
Govardhan M, Roy R (2015) Economic analysis of unit commitment with distributed energy resources. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 71:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.01.028
Dey B, Bhattacharyya B, Raj S, Babu R (2020) Economic emission dispatch on unit commitmentbased microgrid system considering wind and load uncertainty using hybrid MGWOSCACSA. J Electr Syst Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43067020000236
Acknowledgements
The corresponding author wishes to thank Dr. O.P. Malik, Professor Emeritus, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, CANAD for continuous support, guidance, encouragement and for providing advance research facilities for postdoctorate research at the University of Calgary, Alberta, CANADA.
Funding
The funding for this research activity is supported by Mitacs Elevate, Canada under the Project Number: IT21647.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
DD analyzed and interpreted the data regarding the scheduling of each power generating units for 24 h duration and also drafted the work or substantively revised it and act as major contributor in writing the manuscript. VK has made substantial contribution in research design and developed the entire MATLAB software for the HHOIGWO to solve the commitment and generation scheduling and dispatch problem of electric power system. PA contributed in renewables data analysis and overall reformation of the work. All authors have read and approved the manuscript, and the content of the manuscript has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Dhawale, D., Kamboj, V.K. & Anand, P. Optimum generation scheduling incorporating wind energy using HHO–IGWO algorithm. Journal of Electrical Systems and Inf Technol 10, 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s4306702200067w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s4306702200067w