2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.12.091
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A hybrid genetic algorithm and bacterial foraging approach for dynamic economic dispatch problem

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
18
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 83 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
18
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…These methods include various algorithms: genetic algorithm (GA) [4], Evolutionary Programming (EP) [5], Tabu Search [6], and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [3,7] etc. For calculation simplicity, current ways are used the second order fuel value functions that involve approximation and constraints area unit which is handled singly, though generally valve-point effects area unit thought-about.…”
Section: Eld Problem Formulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These methods include various algorithms: genetic algorithm (GA) [4], Evolutionary Programming (EP) [5], Tabu Search [6], and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [3,7] etc. For calculation simplicity, current ways are used the second order fuel value functions that involve approximation and constraints area unit which is handled singly, though generally valve-point effects area unit thought-about.…”
Section: Eld Problem Formulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The best solution obtained for this system is shown in Table 3. The performance of the proposed method is compared with adaptive particle swarm optimization (APSO) algorithm [20], simulated annealing (SA) algorithm [19], artificial immune system (AIS) [21], Maclaurin series-based Lagrangian (MSL) method [22], GA [23], PSO [23], artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm [23], time varying acceleration coefficients improved particle swarm optimization (TVAC-IPSO) [24], hybrid immune-genetic algorithm (HIGA) [2] and hybrid genetic algorithm and bacterial foraging (HGABF) [25]. This comparison is shown in Table 4.…”
Section: Test System 1: 5-unit Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The performance of the proposed method is compared with evolutionary programming (EP) [26], hybrid evolutionary programming and sequential quadratic programming (EP-SQP) [26], modified EP-SQP (MHEP-SQP) [26], GA [23], PSO [23], ABC [23], improved PSO (IPSO) [27], Enhanced crossentropy (ECE) [28], AIS [21], enhanced bee swarm optimization (EBSO) [8], HIGA [2], enhanced adaptive particle swarm optimization (EAPSO) [29] and HGABF [25]. This comparison is shown in Table 5.…”
Section: Test System 2: 10-unit Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…24 hours) at minimum generation cost taking into consideration the ramp rate limits of the thermal generating units [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Several researchers have devoted their efforts to propose optimization methods and techniques for solving the DED problem with different objectives and constraints such as linear programming [15]; Lagrangian relaxation [16]; quadratic programming [17]; dynamic programming [18]; evolutionary programming [19]; particle swarm optimization [20]; artificial bee colony algorithm [21]; genetic algorithm [22]; simulated annealing [23]; artificial immune system [24]; differential evolution [25]; enhanced cross-entropy [26]; imperialist competitive algorithm [27]; harmony search [6,28]; Quasi-oppositional group search optimization [9]; Crisscross optimization algorithm [1], hybrid evolutionary programming and SQP [19]; hybrid particle swarm optimization and SQP [29]; hybrid differential evolution and SQP [29]; hybrid barebones particle swarm optimization [30]; hybrid genetic algorithm and bacterial foraging approach [31]; hybrid weighted probabilistic neural network and biogeography based optimization [32].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%