4.5 4.

Article

Kepler Algorithm for Large-Scale

Systems of Economic Dispatch with
Heat Optimization

Sultan Hassan Hakmi, Abdullah M. Shaheen, Hashim Alnami, Ghareeb Moustafa and Ahmed Ginidi

Special Issue
Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms
Edited by
Dr. Ameer Hamza Khan, Prof. Dr. Shuai Li and Dr. Danish Hussain

https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8080608
 biomimetics

Article
Kepler Algorithm for Large-Scale Systems of Economic
Dispatch with Heat Optimization
Sultan Hassan Hakmi 1 , Abdullah M. Shaheen 2, * , Hashim Alnami 1 , Ghareeb Moustafa 1, *
and Ahmed Ginidi 2

1 Electrical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia;
shhakmi@jazanu.edu.sa (S.H.H.); halnami@jazanu.edu.sa (H.A.)
2 Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Suez University, Suez P.O. Box 43221, Egypt;
ahmed.ginidi@eng.suezuni.edu.eg
* Correspondence: abdullah.mohamed.eng19@suezuni.edu.eg (A.M.S.); gmoustafa@jazanu.edu.sa (G.M.)

Abstract: Combined Heat and Power Units Economic Dispatch (CHPUED) is a challenging non-
convex optimization challenge in the power system that aims at decreasing the production cost
by scheduling the heat and power generation outputs to dedicated units. In this article, a Kepler
optimization algorithm (KOA) is designed and employed to handle the CHPUED issue under valve
points impacts in large-scale systems. The proposed KOA is used to forecast the position and
motion of planets at any given time based on Kepler’s principles of planetary motion. The large
48-unit, 96-unit, and 192-unit systems are considered in this study to manifest the superiority of
the developed KOA, which reduces the fuel costs to 116,650.0870 USD/h, 234,285.2584 USD/h, and
487,145.2000 USD/h, respectively. Moreover, the dwarf mongoose optimization algorithm (DMOA),
the energy valley optimizer (EVO), gray wolf optimization (GWO), and particle swarm optimization
(PSO) are studied in this article in a comparative manner with the KOA when considering the 192-unit
test system. For this large-scale system, the presented KOA successfully achieves improvements of
19.43%, 17.49%, 39.19%, and 62.83% compared to the DMOA, the EVO, GWO, and PSO, respectively.
Furthermore, a feasibility study is conducted for the 192-unit test system, which demonstrates the
Citation: Hakmi, S.H.; Shaheen, superiority and robustness of the proposed KOA in obtaining all operating points between the
A.M.; Alnami, H.; Moustafa, G.; boundaries without any violations.
Ginidi, A. Kepler Algorithm for
Large-Scale Systems of Economic Keywords: Kepler optimization algorithm; economic dispatch; valve point loading effect; large
Dispatch with Heat Optimization. 192-unit system; CHPUED
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
biomimetics8080608

Academic Editors: Ameer Hamza 1. Introduction

Khan, Danish Hussain and Shuai Li 1.1. Motivation of the Study

Received: 16 November 2023

Power and heat systems that are combined bear the responsibility of meeting both
Revised: 7 December 2023
electrical and heating demands, which contradicts the conventional methods of electricity
Accepted: 8 December 2023
generation. As a result, the goal of the combined heat and power economic dispatch issue
Published: 14 December 2023 is to minimize both the total cost of producing electrical power and heat under certain
operational restrictions, including the production attributes of combined power and heat
(CHP) units, the electrical power, the heat balance, the production capacities of heat-only
and power-only units, etc. [1]. Formally, the CHPUED problem under consideration can
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. be represented mathematically as a non-convex constrained optimization issue. By using
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. appropriate optimization techniques with the CHPUED issue, the ideal generation schedule
This article is an open access article
for power and heat can be established. One of the primary motivations for this study is the
distributed under the terms and
increasing demand for efficient and sustainable power generation in large-scale systems.
conditions of the Creative Commons
Also, the researchers recognize the need for advanced optimization algorithms that can
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
handle the challenges posed by large-scale systems and can incorporate heat optimization
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
aspects. Moreover, the inclusion of heat optimization in the study’s objectives highlights
4.0/).

Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8080608 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/biomimetics

Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 2 of 23

another important motivation. Heat optimization involves optimizing the utilization of

waste heat generated during power generation processes, thereby enhancing the overall
energy efficiency.

1.2. Literature Review

Economic load dispatch (ELD) is a crucial optimization problem in power systems that
aims to allocate the optimal power generation among multiple generating units to meet the
electricity demand at minimum cost while satisfying various operational constraints [2].
The objective of ELD is to determine the optimal power output for each generator, taking
into account factors such as fuel cost, transmission losses, and system constraints. The
goal is to minimize the total cost of generating electricity while ensuring that the power
supply remains reliable and stable [3]. ELD considers various parameters, including
the cost curves of generators, generation limits, ramp rates, transmission constraints,
and renewable energies [4]. In Ref. [5], the application of an enhanced particle swarm
optimizer was described for a dispatching model that takes into account various factors.
These include market power sales benefits, environmental benefits from grid-connected
operations, and system operation and maintenance costs. The objective of the model
was to optimize the benefits of a combined system consisting of wind, photovoltaic, and
concentrating solar power by optimizing its grid-connected performance. In Ref. [6],
the sparrow search algorithm was utilized to address the economic load dispatch (ELD)
problem in renewable integrated microgrids. The goal was to determine the optimal
power output of all distributed energy sources within the microgrid, considering renewable
sources, to meet the load demand at the lowest possible cost.
The initial attempts at addressing the CHPUED problem in the literature involved
using deterministic methods, which required investigating the solution space over a limited
number of repetitions, with the aid of a set of deterministic bounding procedures. The
CHPUED problem is divided into two subproblems as indicated in Ref. [1], with the power
and heat dispatches being handled separately by the Lagrangian relaxation approach. In
Ref. [5], a bi-level structure with lower and upper levels was used to tackle the CHPUED
issue. Additionally, in this study, the global limitations were managed at the top level,
and unit generation was achieved at the lower level. Another study [6] used Benders
decomposition to divide the CHPUED problem into a master problem and a sub-problem.
In each iteration, the master issue was first solved to determine the heat productions, and
the subproblem was then solved to produce the best power generation. Power dispatch
and unit commitment issues combine to form CHPUED [7]. Thus, inner and outer Bender
decompositions, in the two Benders decomposition techniques, were proposed. While the
outer inner problem addressed a power dispatch, the outer master problem resolved the
unit commitment problem by identifying the on/off status of each unit. Moreover, the
inner decomposition ensured constraint fulfillment. Other traditional methods used to
address the CHPUED problem in the literature included a branch-and-bound algorithm [8]
and mixed-integer nonlinear programming [9].
The CHPUED problem becomes a non-convex problem when it is defined within
the constraints of the valve point effect. Although the optimal solution is guaranteed by
traditional approaches, these might not be able to solve the non-convex CHPUED issue.
Metaheuristics carry out certain procedures that use their stochastic nature to investigate
the solution space. Although they cannot guarantee that they will be close to the global
optimum, they can nevertheless handle non-differentiable and non-convex problems and
are simple to employ [10–12]. Harmony search (HS), differential evolution (DE), particle
swarm optimization (PSO), and the genetic algorithm (GA) are some well-known examples
of metaheuristics algorithms. A self-adaptive real-coded genetic algorithm was used to
solve the non-convex CHPUED problem in Ref. [13]. In Ref. [14], PSO was utilized to
solve the CHPUED problem in order to minimize the total generation cost. However,
the application of PSO in this context has been limited to a small-scale system consisting
of only six units, comprising two generators, two heat-only units, and two power-only
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 3 of 23

units. Furthermore, the issue of transmission losses has not been considered, leading to
certain inconsistencies. Additionally, the validation of the PSO approach has not been
thoroughly discussed. The research conducted by [15] presented a novel approach to
address the CHPUED problem by introducing a modified version of the bat optimization
algorithm. This modified algorithm was designed to handle three distinct types of units
to minimize the operating costs. In [10], an elitist variant of the cuckoo search algorithm
has been applied for benchmark functions. In addition to this application, the elitist
cuckoo search has been dedicated to solving the CHPUED problem. On the other side, the
computational burden of 1000 iterations for the five- and seven-unit systems is considered,
which represents more than three times that of other methods [16] with 300 iterations.
Additionally, a new approach to constraint control with penalties is shown. Considering
several cases, the proposed method’s effectiveness is tested. In Ref. [17], a novel mutation
technique known as the Mühlenbein mutation is presented to increase convergence and
solution time. Real-coded GA is used to solve the CHPUED problem while taking into
account the transmission system losses and the valve point impact caused by the thermal
units. In Ref. [18], Cauchy distribution is used to increase the PSO’s efficiency in addressing
the CHPUED problem. Six separate test systems are used to validate the proposed method.
Another population-based metaheuristic, PSO with time-varying acceleration coefficients,
is utilized in Ref. [19] to solve the CHPUED issue, which includes generating constraints.
In [20], the CHPUED problem has been treated, including renewable wind energy in order
to overcome the intermittent renewable and load variations. In this study, it was solved by
the metaphor-less Rao-3 algorithm, which involves the reliance on metaphors to enhance
transparency, simplicity, and ease of understanding.
Along with these traditional stochastic optimization techniques, new metaheuristics
have also recently been used to tackle the CHPUED problem, which represents the subject
of this study. In [21], a non-convex CHPUED issue has been solved using a heap technique,
which is then tested on four separate case studies with 7, 24, 48, and 96 generating units.
However, the large 192-unit system has not been accounted for in this study. CHPUED,
as a non-convex optimization problem, is formulated in this manuscript and solved via
the Kepler optimization algorithm (KOA). In 2015 [22], an attempt to simulate the KOA in
a hybrid algorithm with the gravitational search algorithm (GSA) was introduced for
solving numerical benchmarks. This hybrid algorithm made use of only the first Kepler’s
law with high simplification. It mimicked his law by focusing the search on the sun position
by either multiplying it by a uniformly distributed pseudo-random number or by adding
a distance component between the sun position and each solution. In the presented study,
the KOA is developed in a complete optimization framework simulating different laws and
features regarding Kepler’s concept [23]. The KOA enables a more efficient exploitation
and exploration of the search space due to the candidate solutions’ (planets’) varying
distances from the sun at various times. Each planet in the KOA represents a candidate
solution with regard to the optimal solution (the sun), which is changed at random during
the optimization process. All the practical constraints of CHPUED are considered in this
paper. All operating points of different units are obtained between the boundaries without
any violations.

1.3. Paper Contributions

The main points of this manuscript are summarized as follows:
• A KOA is developed and applied for the non-convex CHPUED.
• Three large-scale systems of 48, 96, and 192 units are considered tests for evaluating
the effectiveness of the KOA.
• To assess the efficacy of the applied KOA, recent optimization algorithms are employed.
• To estimate the KOA’s superiority, comparisons are illustrated with various well-
known methodologies that have been presented in the scientific literature.
• To demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed KOA, a feasibility study is investigated.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 4 of 23

1.4. Paper Organization

The content of the paper is structured into five sections. The KOA algorithm is
introduced in Section 2. The CHPUED optimization model is formulated in Section 3.
Section 4 contains a detailed analysis and discussion of the numerical results for the three
case studies. The final conclusions are drawn in Section 5.

2. CHPUED Formulation
2.1. Objective
The major objective of the CHPUED challenge is to reduce the fuel expenses associated
with producing heat and electricity. As a result, CHPUED is described as an objective func-
tion that is subjected to a number of restrictions. Figure 1 displays a graphic representation
of the economic CHPUED issue including their participants.

Figure 1. Graphic representation of economic CHPUED issue.

As the major objective of CHPUED is to lessen the whole cost of heat and power
production, the whole cost target function (WCTF) can be described as the whole cost of
the power-only, power–heat amalgamation, and heat-only units [24] as depicted in the
following equation:

 pr1 ( N)ht CT2

 (2HT
( ht )  chp3 (
Npr N
Min , chp) chp
Min WCTF = ∑ CT1 ( PR ) +
i 1
i )+∑ CT3 1 j j ∑
1 k ( PRk , HTK ) ($/h) (1)
i =1 j =1 k =1
1( ) 2( )
pr
where the terms CT1i ( PRi ) and CT2 j ( HTjht ) demonstrate
3(
th
, the )i power-only and the j
th

chp chp
heat-only units’ cost, respectively, whilst the term CT3k ( PRk , HTk ) determines the
kth CHP. The symbols Nht and Npr depict the heat-only and power-only units’ number,
respectively, while Nchp illustrates the CHP units’ number. 1( ) 2( )
pr
The3 mathematical
( , ) ht
representation of three cost target functions CT1i ( PRi ), CT2 j ( HTj ),
chp chp
and CT3k ( PRk , HTk ) can be described as follows:
(1) CT1i of ith power units
1( ) 1( )2 2 3 sin( ( min
))
pr pr 2 p prmin pr
CT1i ( PRi ) = δ1i ( PRi ) + δ2i PRi + δ3i + λi sin(ρi ( PRi − PRi )) ($/h) (2)
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 5 of 23

(2) CT2j of jth heat units

2
CT2 j ( HTjht ) = γ1 j ( HTjht ) + γ2 j HTjht + γ3 j ($/h) (3)

(3) CT3k of kth CHP units

chp chp chp 2 chp chp 2 chp chp chp

CT3k ( PRk , HTk ) = α1k ( PRk ) + α2k PRk + α3k + α4k ( HTk ) + α5k HTk + α6k HTk PRk ($/h) (4)

where the elements (δ1i , δ2i , and δ3i ) and (γ1j , γ2j , and γ3j ) describe the ith power-only
and the jth heat-only units’ cost coefficients, while the elements (α1k , α2k , α3k , α4k , α5k
and α6k ) represent the kth CHP unit’s cost coefficients. The non-differentiability and
non-convexity of CHPUED, which signify the valve-point impacts, are determined by
sinusoidal terms, as explained in Equation (2) [25,26].

2.2. Constraints
The following constraints are taken into account when minimizing the specified
objective function. The balance among power generation and demand can be calculated
using Equation (5):
(1) Power balance constraint

Npr Nchp
pr chp
∑ PRi + ∑ PRk = PRdemand (5)
i =1 k =1

where PRdemand explains the power demand.

(2) Limits of power units’ capacity
prmin pr prmax
PRi ≤ PRi ≤ PRi i = 1, . . . , Npr , (6)

(3) Heat balance constraint

Nchp Nht
chp
∑ HTi + ∑ HTjht = HTdemand , (7)
i =1 j =1

where Hdemand proves thermal demand.

(4) Heat units’ generation limits

htmin
HTj ≤ HTjht ≤ HTjhtmax j = 1, . . . , Nht , (8)

(5) CHP capacity limits

chpmin chp chp chpmax chp

PRi ( HTi ) ≤ PRi ≤ PRi ( HTi ) i = 1, . . . , Nchp , (9)

chpmin chp chp chpmax chp

HTi ( PRi ) ≤ HTi ≤ HTi ( PRi ) i = 1, . . . , Nchp , (10)
where the heat and power unit boundaries are demonstrated by the superscripts
“min” and “max”.

3. Mathematical Model of KOA

The Kepler optimization algorithm (KOA), proposed in [23], is inspired from Kepler’s
laws for planetary motion. Each planet in the KOA acts as a candidate solution and can
be updated at random during the optimization process in relation to the best-possible
solution (the sun). A set of initial objects (possible solutions) containing stochastic orbitals
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 6 of 23

is used by the KOA to begin the search process. During this phase, each object is first
placed in an orbit at a random location. The KOA runs in iterations after assessing the
original set’s fitness until the termination condition is satisfied. Because iteration is a term
that is frequently used in solar system theory and cosmic cosmology, the term “time” is
used in the present study instead of the iteration. In the following section, the KOA will be
presented in six steps.

3.1. Step 1: Initialization Process

In this procedure, the decision parameters of an optimization issue, which are rep-
resented by a number of planets Np and called the population size, will be distributed at
random in Dim dimensions as follows:
→ → →
X i,j (0) = r1 × X j,up + X j,low (1 − r1 ), i = 1 : Np ; j = 1 : Dim (11)

where Xi,j signifies the ith candidate solution (planet); Np represents the number of candidate
solutions in the search space; Xj,low and Xj,up characterize the lower and upper limits of the
jth decision parameter, respectively; Dim denotes the issue dimension to be enhanced; and
r stands for a number randomly generated between 0 and 1.

3.2. Step 2: Calculating an Object’s Velocity

An object’s velocity is influenced by Vi (t) where it is in relation to the sun. In other
words, a planet moves faster when it is near to the sun and slower when it is farther away.
The sun’s gravity is quite powerful when an object is close to it, so the planet tries to
move faster to escape being drawn toward the sun. The weak gravity of the sun will force
an object’s velocity to slow down if it is distant from the sun. This behavior is mathemati-
cally described in Equation (12), which uses it to calculate an object’s velocity around the
sun using the vis viva equation. This equation has two parts as shown below:
 → → →

 ( X a − X i ) × r4 × H + F × U 2 × (1 − Ri−norm (t))
→ →

→


 ×(r3 X i,up − X i,low ) r 5 i f Ri−norm (t) > 0.5
Vi (t) = → → → → (12)
 (2 × r × X − X ) ρ + ( X − X ) ρ ∗
 4 i b a b
→ → →

→


+ F × U 1 × (1 − Ri−norm (t)) × ( X i,up − X i,low ) r 5 Else


where s
1 2
H= ( Ms + mi ) × µ(t) − + (13)
ai ( t ) + ε Ri ( t ) + ε
→
ρ = (r3 × (1 − r4 ) + r4 ) × U × H (14)

→
ρ ∗ = (r3 × (1 − r5 ) + r5 ) × (1 − U ) × H (15)
where Vi (t) represents the velocity of object i at time t; Xi characterizes an object i, whilst F
→
manifests an integer number chosen randomly that belongs to the set {−1, 1}; the symbol U
is a vector containing integer number randomly chosen which belongs to the set {0, 1}; r1 , r2 ,
r3 , r4 , and r5 denote random integer numbers uniformly distributed in the range [0, 1]; µ(t)
denotes the universal gravitational constant; Xa and Xb signify solutions that are selected
from the population at random; Ms and mi characterize the mass of Xs and Xi , respectively;
Ri(t) demonstrates the distance at time t among the best solution (Xs ) and the object (Xi ); ε
demonstrates a minimal value for avoiding a divide-by-zero mistake; and ai is the elliptical
orbit semimajor axis at time t of object i, and it is defined by Kepler’s third law as follows:

 13
T2

ai (t) = µ(t) × ( Ms + mi ) × i 2 × r3 (16)
4π
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 7 of 23

where Ti is an absolute value that is produced at random using the normal distribution to
represent the orbital period of object i. The semimajor axis of object i’s elliptical orbit is
considered in our proposed algorithm to steadily decrease over generations as the solutions
advance toward the region where the best overall solution is most likely to be discovered.
Ri−norm (t) denotes normalizing the Euclidian distance among Xs and Xi ; its definition is
as follows.
Ri−norm (t) = ( Ri (t) − Rmin (t))/( Rmax (t) − Rmin (t)) (17)

3.3. Step 3: Escaping from the Local Optimum

Most solar system objects rotate on their own axes and move in an anticlockwise
manner around the sun; however, certain objects move in a clockwise motion. This behavior
is used by the approach suggested to leave local optimal zones. The suggested KOA
simulates this behavior by employing a flag F that modifies the search direction such that
agents have a good chance of accurately scanning the search space.

3.4. Step 4: Updating Objects’ Positions

As previously explained, objects have their own elliptical orbit around the sun. Objects
rotate near the sun, becoming closer to it for a while and then moving farther from it. The
two main parts of the proposed KOA, which are the exploitation and exploration phases,
can simulate this behavior. The KOA searches for new locations near the best solutions
while employing solutions close to the sun more precisely and exploring things far from
the sun to locate new solutions. The fact that the objects are far from the sun throughout
the exploration phase shows that the suggested method efficiently explores the whole
search area.
The following equation is used to update the location of each object far from the sun
in line with the preceding steps:
→ → → → → →
X i (t + 1) = X i (t) + V i (t) × F + ( X s (t) − X i (t)) × U × ( Fgi (t) + |r |) (18)

where Xi (t + 1) stands for the new location at time t + 1 of an object I, while Xi (t) represents
the present location of the object i at time t; Vi (t) illustrates the velocity of object i that
is needed to transfer to the new location, Xs (t) manifests the best sun position which is
associated with the best solution that acquires the least fitness score, and F is demonstrated
as a flag to switch the search’s direction.
The term Fgi in the context of the Kepler optimization algorithm (KOA) represents the
attraction force between the sun (Xs ) and any planet (Xi ). This force is calculated based on
the universal law of gravitation and can be expressed using the following equation:
→ → →
Fgi (t) = r4 + µ(t) × ei × ( Mns × mni )/( Rni 2 + ε) (19)

where ei manifests the eccentricity of a planet’s orbit, which is a value between 0 and 1 that
was proposed to endow a stochastic characteristic to the KOA. Additionally, the normalized
values of mi and Ms can be defined by mni and Mns that demonstrate the mass of Xi and
Xs , respectively.
This equation is utilized to model the gravitational force between celestial bodies,
specifically the sun and the planets, as part of the algorithm’s calculations. The force is
an essential factor in determining the planetary motion and optimizing the trajectories of
the planets within the system. By incorporating the sun’s attraction force, the KOA can
simulate the gravitational interactions between celestial bodies and effectively optimize the
orbits and positions of the planets in the system being studied. This enables the algorithm
to provide accurate and efficient solutions for various astronomical and astrophysical
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 8 of 23

problems. The normalized values of mi and Ms can be mathematically represented by

Equations (20) and (21):

Np
Mns = r2 × ( f its (t) − worst(t))/ ∑ ( f itk (t) − worst(t)) (20)
k =1

Np
mni = ( f iti (t) − worst(t))/ ∑ ( f itk (t) − worst(t)) (21)
k =1

where worst(t) represents the solution candidate with the highest fitness score; fitk (t) indi-
cates the value of the fitness function regarding each location of the object k at the current
time t.
The Euclidian distance between Xs and Xi can be defined by the term (Rni ), as depicted
in Equation (22), which represents the normalized value of (Ri ).
v !
Dim
u
2
u
Rni (t) = k Xs (t) − Xi (t)k2 = t ∑ (Xs (t) − Xi (t)) (22)
j =1

To manage search accuracy, µ(t) is defined by Equation (23) as a function that expo-
nentially declines with time (t).

µ(t) = µo × e−(t/Tmax )γ (23)

where µo is an initial value; γ is a constant; and Tmax and t demonstrate the maximum
iterations’ number and current iteration number, respectively.

3.5. Step 5: Updating Distance with the Sun

The normal distance behavior, which normally fluctuates with time between the
planets and the sun, is simulated to further enhance the exploitation and exploration
operators of planets. The KOA will concentrate on optimizing the exploitation operator
when planets are near the sun and the exploration operator when the sun is far away. This
principle is represented mathematically as follows:

→ → → → → → → → → → →
    
1
X i (t + 1) = U 1 × X i (t) + 1 − U 1 × X i (t) + X a (t) + X s )/3 + (r×(1+r ×( a −1))) × ( X i (t) + X a (t) + X s )/3 − X b (t) (24)
e 4 2

where a2 defines a cyclic controlling parameter as manifested in Equation (25):

a2 = −(1 + t/Tmax ) (25)

3.6. Step 6: Elitism

This stage employs an elitist method in order to guarantee the optimal placements
for the sun and the planets. Equation (26) provides a summary of this process. Figure 2
describes in detail the flowchart of KOA.

→ → →
   
X i (t + 1) i f f it X i (t) ≥ f it X i (t + 1)

→ 
X i,new (t + 1) = (26)
 →

X i (t) Else
     
( 1) ( ) ( 1) 
 
 

 
, ( 1) 
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 9 of 23

 ()

Figure 2. Flowchart of KOA.

4. Performance of KOA on the CHPUED Issue

In this section, the proposed KOA is tested on large 48-unit, 96-unit, and 192-unit test
systems to demonstrate its efficacy and superiority when handing the CHPED issue.

4.1. The 48-Unit System

The system, in this instance, involves 48 total units, including 10 power–heat combina-
tion units, 12 power-only units, and 26 heat-only units. It is necessary, in this instance, to
provide 2500 MWth of heat and 4700 MW of power. Additionally, the valve-point impact
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 10 of 23

for power-only units is taken into account. The capacity limits of heat-only and power-only
units, as well as the cost coefficients of associated units, are taken from Reference [19].
Table 1 presents the test outcomes of all units obtained using the KOA.

Table 1. Test outcomes of all units for the 48-unit test system obtained using the KOA.

Unit KOA Unit KOA Unit KOA

Pg1 448.812 Pg22 109.8988 Hg31 40.81127
Pg2 299.5241 Pg23 77.46306 Hg32 26.16548
Pg3 150.1696 Pg24 40.16544 Hg33 111.9561
Pg4 159.738 Pg25 92.93015 Hg34 91.23516
Pg5 109.9199 Pg26 55.37272 Hg35 115.2107
Pg6 159.8738 Pg27 91.53579 Hg36 101.8837
Pg7 110.3709 Pg28 45.4442 Hg37 40.00348
Pg8 159.7404 Pg29 91.34668 Hg38 26.99712
Pg9 109.939 Pg30 53.92644 Hg39 418.7711
Pg10 77.48522 Pg31 11.89511 Hg40 59.99864
Pg11 77.51255 Pg32 48.56369 Hg41 59.99945
Pg12 94.00181 Pg33 93.75923 Hg42 119.9865
Pg13 92.45571 Pg34 58.81029 Hg43 119.9993
Pg14 448.9186 Pg35 99.55169 Hg44 418.9729
Pg15 224.4459 Pg36 71.14285 Hg45 59.99973
Pg16 225.5116 Pg37 10.01567 Hg46 59.99715
Pg17 109.8786 Pg38 50.40061 Hg47 119.9984
Pg18 109.877 Hg27 110.7085 Hg48 119.9969
Pg19 109.9607 Hg28 79.69631 Sum (Pg) 4700
Pg20 159.7711 Hg29 110.5908 Sum (Hg) 2500
Pg21 159.871 Hg30 87.02126 WCTF ($) 116,650.0870

The output power of the power-only units (MW) is reflected by parameters between
P1 and P104. P105 and P152 are the power outputs of CHP units in MW and H105 and
H152 relate to heat outputs of CHP units in MWth. Additionally, H153 and H192 are the
outputs of heat-only units in MWth. As can be seen in Table 1, the Sum (Hg) and Sum (Pg)
values satisfy the heat and power demands of 2500 MWth and 4700 MW, respectively. As
demonstrated from Table 1, the best cost value is identified by the KOA as 116,650.0870.
Additionally, all results are in the feasible zone, and several individual findings are put
exactly at the lower or higher bounds.
Figure 3 illustrates the suggested KOA’s convergence rates for the given system, where
the curve of the proposed KOA converges quickly. The proposed KOA requires around
2400 iterations to obtain the best solution. The results show that the proposed KOA has
outstanding convergence rates for the given large CHPUED system.
Table 2 presents a comprehensive comparison between the proposed KOA and various
other techniques reported in the literature. The comparison is conducted on a 48-unit
CHPUED test system. The techniques included in the comparison are supply–demand
optimization (SDO) [27], the multi-verse algorithm (MVA) [28], the gravitational search
algorithm (GSA) [29], civilized swarm optimization (CSO) incorporated Powell’s pattern
search (PPS) [30], gray wolf optimization (GWO) [28], the salp swarm algorithm (SSA) [31],
the GSO-based algorithm with ranger operators and modified scrounger (MGSO) [32],
CPSO [19], differential evolution (DE) [28], the crow search algorithm (CSA) [28], the
marine predator algorithm (MPA) [33], the jellyfish search optimizer (JFSO) [34], the manta
ray foraging algorithm (MRFA) [28], and PSO with time-varying acceleration coefficients
(PSO-TVAC) [19].
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 11 of 23

180,000.00

170,000.00

160,000.00
Costs ($/h)

150,000.00

140,000.00

130,000.00

120,000.00

110,000.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Iterations

Figure 3. Convergence rates of the proposed KOA for 48-unit CHPUED system.

Table 2. Comparison of the proposed KOA with the reported techniques for 48-unit system.

Improving Standard
Optimizer Min (WCTF ($)) Average Average Worst
Percentages Deviation (Std)
KOA 116,650.0870 - 117,104.5447 117,104.5447 117,915.5359 298.8796
CPSO [19] 120,918.9 3.660% - - - tt -
PSO-TVAC [19] 118,962.5 1.982% - - - -
MRFA [28] 117,336.9 0.589% - - - -
MVA [28] 117,657.9 0.864% - - - -
SSA [31] ff
120,174.1 3.021% - - - -
MPA[33] 116,860.6 0.180% - - - -
GSA [29] 119,775.9 2.680% - - - -
CSA [28] 122,953.5 5.404% - - - -
MGSO [32] 117,366.09 0.614% - - - -
DE [28] 120,482.7 3.286% - - - -
GWO [28] 122,583.3 5.086% tt - - - -
CSO and PPS [30] 117,367.09 0.615% - - - -
JFSO [34] 117,365.09 0.613% - - - -

Table 2 clearly demonstrates that the proposed KOA outperforms all the other op-
timizers in terms of performance and cost. It attains the most favorable results among
the compared techniques, making it the superior choice for CHPUED optimization. The
KOA exhibits the lowest minimum, standard deviation, average, and worst values of
116,650.0870, 298.8796, 117,104.5447, and 117,915.5359, respectively, as indicated in Table 2.
This table clearly shows that the proposed KOA has the best performance and the low-
est cost of these optimizers. Moreover, this comparison validates the proposed KOA’s
tt
efficacy and superiority when used with CHPUED. Furthermore, the proposed KOA also re-
ceives the lowest minimum, standard deviation, average, and worst values of 116,650.0870,
298.8796, 117,104.5447, and 117,915.5359 $, as shown in Table 2. Consequently, the proposed
KOA has greater robustness than the techniques that have been reported. Based on the
best attained costs, the proposed KOA shows improvements of 3.660%, 1.982%, 0.589%,

ffi
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 12 of 23

0.864%, 3.021%, 0.180%, 2.680%, 5.404%, 0.614%, 3.286%, 5.086%, 0.615% and 0.613%, re-
spectively, compared to the following algorithms and optimization methods: CPSO [19],
PSO-TVAC [19], MRFA [28], MVA [28], SSA [31], MPA [33], GSA [29], CSA [28], MGSO [32]
DE [28], GWO [28], CSO, PPS [30] and JFSO [34]. These statistics further reinforce the
robustness of the proposed KOA compared to the reported techniques.
The comprehensive analysis presented in Table 2 serves to validate the efficacy and
superiority of the proposed KOA specifically when applied to the CHPUED problem. Its
exceptional performance, combined with the lowest cost values, establishes the KOA as the
most reliable and effective optimization approach within the context of CHPUED.

4.2. The 96-Unit System

The system, in this instance, involves 96 total units, including 24 power–heat combina-
tion units, 52 power-only units, and 20 heat-only units. It is necessary, in this instance, to
provide 5000 MWth of heat and 9400 MW of power. Additionally, the valve-point impact
for power-only units is taken into account. The capacity limits of heat-only and power-only
units, as well as the cost coefficients of associated units, are taken from Reference [24].
Table 3 presents the test outcomes of all units obtained using the KOA.

Table 3. Test outcomes of all units for the 96-unit test system obtained using the KOA.

Unit KOA Unit KOA Unit KOA Unit KOA

Pg1 538.7944 Pg32 110.0436 Pg63 10.02797 Hg70 21.0867
Pg2 299.6272 Pg33 110.3995 Pg64 48.32375 Hg71 109.8662
Pg3 151.2914 Pg34 110.1027 Pg65 82.02374 Hg72 88.07219
Pg4 109.8576 Pg35 159.8276 Pg66 44.18677 Hg73 123.5494
Pg5 109.9343 Pg36 78.60966 Pg67 85.76875 Hg74 99.22525
Pg6 109.8765 Pg37 77.69705 Pg68 73.52597 Hg75 41.11163
Pg7 160.1471 Pg38 57.87178 Pg69 10.29498 Hg76 28.39532
Pg8 110.2941 Pg39 94.20503 Pg70 37.45466 Hg77 408.4901
Pg9 110.342 Pg40 359.9866 Pg71 90.09144 Hg78 59.94804
Pg10 81.05786 Pg41 149.6621 Pg72 55.19146 Hg79 59.99218
Pg11 78.13509 Pg42 149.9737 Pg73 114.497 Hg80 119.9246
Pg12 92.73616 Pg43 110.1571 Pg74 68.07549 Hg81 119.9496
Pg13 92.42638 Pg44 110.1453 Pg75 12.65002 Hg82 410.5949
Pg14 628.4539 Pg45 159.932 Pg76 53.60396 Hg83 59.97848
Pg15 224.6278 Pg46 111.2773 Hg53 124.1457 Hg84 59.97649
Pg16 224.6525 Pg47 160.9166 Hg54 81.36933 Hg85 119.9758
Pg17 109.9961 Pg48 110.255 Hg55 132.9305 Hg86 119.9933
Pg18 159.7635 Pg49 79.55363 Hg56 79.41519 Hg87 405.6305
Pg19 161.739 Pg50 77.98886 Hg57 41.42439 Hg88 58.02127
Pg20 159.8074 Pg51 92.93884 Hg58 31.21828 Hg89 59.99075
Pg21 110.7902 Pg52 92.42203 Hg59 109.8515 Hg90 119.9301
Pg22 110.1921 Pg53 115.5219 Hg60 88.44604 Hg91 119.9778
Pg23 40.25017 Pg54 47.40113 Hg61 131.9541 Hg92 411.7448
Pg24 77.45754 Pg55 131.1481 Hg62 92.84449 Hg93 59.9785
Pg25 93.03079 Pg56 45.14028 Hg63 39.99935 Hg94 59.98367
Pg26 93.02481 Pg57 13.32731 Hg64 26.01246 Hg95 119.9128
Pg27 269.3372 Pg58 59.77202 Hg65 105.3056 Hg96 119.8671
Pg28 224.586 Pg59 90.13865 Hg66 78.57885 Sum (Pg) 9400
Pg29 299.8866 Pg60 55.61345 Hg67 107.3423 Sum (Hg) 5000
Pg30 109.851 Pg61 129.425 Hg68 103.879 WCTF ($) 234,285.3
Pg31 160.1618 Pg62 60.70201 Hg69 40.11558

H1 and H24 relate to heat outputs of CHP units in MWth, P53 and P76 are the power
outputs of CHP units in MW, and between H25 and H44 are the outputs of heat-only units
in MWth. The output power of the power-only units (MW) is reflected by the parameters
between P1 and P52. Additionally, Sum (Hg), Sum (Pg), and WCTF stand for the total
heat production (MWth), total power generation (MW), and total generation costs ($) of
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 13 of 23

thermal electrical and energy, respectively. As can be seen in Table 3, the Sum (Hg) and Sum
(Pg) values satisfy the heat and power demands of 5000 MWth and 9400 MW, respectively.
The best cost value is identified by KOA as 234,285.3. Additionally, all results are in the
feasible zone, and several individual findings are put exactly at the lower or higher bounds.
Additionally, the standard HBA, the standard JSA, and the proposed HBJSA effectively
achieve all constraints with 100% accuracy, as illustrated in Table 3.
Figure 4 illustrates the suggested KOA’s convergence rates for the given system, where
the curve of the proposed KOA converges quickly. The proposed KOA requires around
2700 iterations to obtain the best solution. The results show that the proposed KOA has
outstanding convergence rates for the given large CHPUED system.

330,000.00

320,000.00

310,000.00

300,000.00

290,000.00
Costs ($/h)

280,000.00

270,000.00

260,000.00

250,000.00

240,000.00

230,000.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Iterations

Figure 4. Convergence rates of the proposed KOA for 96-unit CHPUED system.

A comparison between the proposed KOA and other reported techniques is depicted
in Table 4. The reported techniques that are employed for the 96-unit CHPUED test
system are the whale optimization algorithm (WOA) [24], supply–demand optimization
(SDO) [27], the marine predator algorithm (MPA) [33], the improved MPA (IMPA) [33],
the heap technique (HT) [34], the jellyfish search optimizer (JFSO) [34], hybrid HTJFSO
(HHTJFSO) [34], the manta ray foraging algorithm (MRFA) [28], weighted vertices opti-
mization and PSO (WVO-PSO) [35], and PSO with time-varying acceleration coefficients
(PSO-TVAC) [19]. This table clearly shows that the proposed KOA has the best performance
and the lowest cost of these optimizers. Moreover, this comparison validates the proposed
KOA’s efficacy and superiority when used with CHPUED. Furthermore, the proposed
KOA also receives the lowest minimum, standard deviation, average, and worst values
of 234,285.2584, 761.7006, 235,683.2917, and 236,929.2188. Consequently, the proposed
KOA has greater robustness than the techniques that have been reported. Based on the
best attained costs, the proposed KOA derives improvements of 0.423%, 0.349%, 0.235%,
1.030%, 0.416%, 0.853%, 2.072%, 1.588%, 2.807% and 0.811%, respectively, compared to
the following algorithms and optimization techniques: JFSO [34], HT [34], HHTJFSO [34],
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 14 of 23

WOA [24], IMPA [33], MPA [33], PSO-TVAC [19], WVO-PSO [35], WVO [35] and SDO [27].
These statistics further reinforce the robustness of the proposed KOA compared to the
reported techniques.

Table 4. Comparison of the proposed KOA with the reported techniques for 96-unit system.

Improving
Optimizer (WCTF ($/h)) Average Worst Std
Percentages
KOA 234,285.2584 - 235,683.2917 236,929.2188 761.7006
JFSO [34] 235,277.05 0.423% 236,688.7625 237,940.189 859.1088
HT [34] 235,102.65 0.349% 236,853.3030 239,119.459 1594.7970
HHTJFSO [34] 234,836.04 0.235% 235,646.1289 236,967.064 764.9310
WOA [24] 236,699.15 1.030% 237,431.4678 238,877.049 971.5473
IMPA [33] 235,260.3 0.416% - - -
MPA [33] 236,283.1 0.853% - - -
PSO-TVAC [19] 239,139.5018 2.072% - - -
WVO-PSO [35] 238,005.79 1.588% - - -
WVO [35] 240,861.3210 2.807% - - -
SDO [27] 236,185.18 0.811% - - -

The extensive examination depicted in Table 4 provides substantial evidence to support

the effectiveness and superiority of the proposed Kepler optimization algorithm (KOA)
in addressing the CHPUED problem. The remarkable performance of the KOA, coupled
with its cost-effectiveness, solidifies its position as the most dependable and efficient
optimization approach for CHPUED applications.

4.3. The 192-Unit System

The system, in this instance, involves 192 total units, including 48 power–heat combi-
nation units, 104 power-only units, and 40 heat-only units. It is necessary, in this instance, to
provide 10,000 MWth of heat and 18,800 MW of power. Additionally, the valve-point impact
for power-only units is taken into account. The capacity limits of heat-only and power-only
units, as well as the cost coefficients of associated units, are taken from Reference [24].
Table 5 presents the obtained objective costs of the proposed KOA, the dwarf mongoose
optimization algorithm (DMOA) [36], the energy valley optimizer (EVO) [37], GWO and
PSO. The best cost value is identified by the KOA as 487,145.2. As demonstrated from
Table 5, KOA acquires a value of 487,145.2, whereas the DMOA [36], the EVO [37], GWO,
and PSO have values of 581,798, 572,324.8, 678,051.9, 793,224.8, respectively. According
to the obtained costs, the presented KOA successfully achieves improvement of 19.43%,
17.49%, 39.19% and 62.83% compared to the DMOA, the EVO, GWO and PSO, respectively.

Table 5. Obtained costs of the KOA, DMOA, EVO, GWO, and PSO for the large 192-unit system.

Algorithm DMOA EVO GWO PSO KOA

WCTF ($) 581,798 572,324.8 678,051.9 793,224.8 487,145.2
Improving Percentages 19.43% 17.49% 39.19% 62.83% -

Also, the detailed test outcomes of all units obtained using the applied algorithms
are tabulated in Appendix A. The output power of the power-only units (MW) is reflected
by parameters between P1 and P104. P105 and P152 are the power outputs of CHP units
in MW and H105 and H152 relate to heat outputs of CHP units in MWth. Additionally,
H153 and H192 are the outputs of heat-only units in MWth. As can be seen in Table 5, the
Sum (Hg) and Sum (Pg) values satisfy the heat and power demands of 10,000 MWth and
18,800 MW, respectively.
Figure 5 illustrates the convergence rates of the KOA, the DMOA, the EVO, GWO,
and PSO for the given system, where the curve of the proposed KOA converges quickly.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 15 of 23

Regarding Figure 5, Table 6 presents the detailed setting of parameters for the applied
algorithms. As shown in Figure 5, the proposed KOA requires around 1500 iterations
to obtain the best solution. The results show that the proposed KOA has outstanding
convergence rates over the DMOA, the EVO, GWO, and PSO for the given large CHPUED
system. It can be seen from Figure 5 that the DMOA and EVO seem to have a line
convergence characteristic from the first to the last iteration. To clarify this point, a close
zooming vision is displayed for the convergence rates of each individual applied algorithm
in Figure 6. As shown in Figure 6b, the DMOA does not show a line characteristic, but
on the contrary, it shows a gradual decrease in the objective. Compared to the KOA
in Figure 6a, the proposed KOA shows a smooth converging feature, while the DMOA
convergence is unsmooth like stairs. On the other side, the EVO starts searching and
finding solutions to minimize the objective. Unfortunately, it derives a straight line after
approximately half of the iterations’ journey. This indicates that this method is stuck in
a local minimum. This analysis illustrates the significant convergence characteristics of the
proposed KOA against the DMOA, the EVO, GWO, and PSO.

Figure 5. Convergence rates of the proposed KOA, DMOA, EVO, GWO, and PSO for the 192-unit
CHPUED system.

Table 6. Setting of parameters for the applied algorithms for the large 192-unit system.

Algorithm Parameter Settings

µo = 0.1; γ = 15; number of solutions = 100;
KOA
maximum number of iterations = 3000.
number of babysitters = 3; number of alpha group = 97; number of scouts = 97;
DMOA babysitter exchange parameter = 431; alpha female—vocalization = 2;
number of solutions = 100; maximum number of iterations = 3000.
EVO number of solutions = 100; maximum number of iterations = 3000.
GWO number of solutions = 100; maximum number of iterations = 3000.
cognitive parameter (c1) = 2; social parameter (c2) = 2; number of solutions = 100;
PSO
maximum number of iterations = 3000.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 16 of 23

(a) Proposed KOA (b) DMOA

(c) PSO (d) EVO

(e) GWO

Figure 6. Convergence rates of each individual applied algorithm for the 192-unit CHPUED system.

To display the simulation time, Table 7 records the average time per each iteration
of the proposed KOA for all cases. As shown in this table, the simulation time for the
large-scale system of 192 units is 0.1399 s, where it records 0.0952 for the 48-unit system
with time increased by more than 32%. The more the scalability of the case study under
investigation increases, the more simulation time is required. By utilizing the well-known
Big O notation, the computational complexity of the applied algorithm can be estimated by
multiplying the number of design variables, number of solutions and maximum number of
iterations. Based on that, the computational complexity for each case study is recorded in
Table 8.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 17 of 23

Table 7. Simulation time of the proposed KOA for all cases.

Case Study Average Time Per Iteration (Seconds)

48-unit CHPUED system 0.0952
96-unit CHPUED system 0.0981
192-unit CHPUED system 0.1399

Table 8. Computational complexity of the applied algorithm.

Computational
Test Case Dimension Number of Solutions Maximum Number of Iterations
Complexity
48-unit test system 60 100 3000 O (1,800,000)
96-unit test system 120 100 3000 O (3,600,000)
192-unit test system 240 100 3000 O (7,200,000)

4.4. Feasibility Study for 192-Unit System

A feasibility study is conducted for the 192-unit test system when applying the KOA.
Figures 7–10 display the operating points related to power-only units, CHP units and
heat-only units, respectively. As illustrated, all operating points are found between the
boundaries of power-only, heat-only, and CHP units. These results demonstrate the ef-
fectiveness of the proposed KOA in obtaining practical feasible solutions without any
violations. All results are in the feasible zone, and several individual findings are put ex-
actly at the lower or higher bounds. Furthermore, as shown in Figures 7–10, the proposed
KOA completely and accurately satisfies all criteria.

Figure 7. Operating points related to power-only units.

Figure 8. Operating points related to CHP units in terms of their output power.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 18 of 23

Figure 9. Operating points related to CHP units in terms of their output heat.

Figure 10. Operating points related to heat-only units.

4.5. Discussion
In the previous subsections, the proposed KOA is tested on large 48-unit, 96-unit,
ff
and 192-unit test systems. Different remarks are discussed, which are summarized in the
following paragraphs.
Tables 1 and 3 and Appendix A provide a comprehensive depiction of the operating
points of the power-only, CHP, and heat-only units for all units in the three investigated
ff
systems. These tables effectively describe and demonstrate that the operating points of all
units, which are categorized as power-only, CHP, and heat-only, are maintained within the
specified limits. This serves as evidence that the proposed KOA successfully preserves the
operating points within the defined boundaries.
The convergence rates of the suggested KOA are visualized in Figures 3, 4 and 6 for
the three investigated systems. These figures vividly illustrate the high-quality and rapid
response of the KOA’s convergence rates. The plots demonstrate the algorithm’s ability to
ffi
quickly converge toward optimal solutions, indicating its efficiency ff
and effectiveness.
Tables 2, 4 and 5 present various comparisons between the proposed KOA and other
reported techniques for the three investigated systems. The extensive analysis provided in
ff
these tables showcases the exceptional performance and cost-effectiveness of the proposed
KOA when compared to alternative methods. The KOA not only achieves superior results
in terms of CHPUED optimization, but it also exhibits greater robustness compared to its
counterparts. These findings strongly validate the credibility and value of the proposed
KOA as an efficient andffi reliable optimization solution for CHPUED applications.
For the large 192-unit test system, a feasibility study is conducted and analyzed
using Figures 7–10. These figures demonstrate that all operating points fall within the
boundaries of power-only, heat-only, and CHP units. The results illustrate the effectiveness
of the proposed KOA in obtaining practical and feasible solutions while ff avoiding any
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 19 of 23

violations. All the obtained results lie within the feasible zone, and several individual
findings precisely align with the lower or upper bounds. Furthermore, as depicted in
Figures 7–10, the proposed KOA satisfactorily fulfills all the defined criteria, demonstrating
its accuracy and compliance with the given constraints.

5. Conclusions
5.1. Paper’s Findings
In this study, the KOA is developed for the non-convex CHPUED issue. Kepler’s laws
of planetary motion serve as the main source of inspiration for the KOA. According to Ke-
pler’s laws, four operators—position, gravitational force, mass, and orbital velocity—affect
how planets move around the sun. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed KOA
methodology, three test CHPUED systems are chosen, which are 48, 96, and 192-unit sys-
tems. Additionally, new optimizers are introduced for the large 192-unit test system, which
are the DMOA, the EVO, GWO, and PSO. A feasibility study is conducted, which demon-
strates the superiority and robustness of the proposed KOA. Furthermore, the proposed
KOA delivers the lowest overall cost values for the three test systems when compared with
various well-known methodologies that have been presented in the scientific literature and
the new approaches that are implemented for the first time in this research.

5.2. Future Works

The proposed Kepler optimization algorithm (KOA) demonstrates significant potential
for effectively addressing the CHPUED problem in large-scale systems. There is room for
further enhancement in the system’s performance.
• One potential area of enhancement is to upgrade the model by incorporating external
market signals.
• Integrating external factors and signals from the market can help determine the optimal
dispatch scenario.
• The constraints of the transmission losses can be considered, which add more com-
plexity to the study.
• The scope of the work can be expanded by incorporating the emission dispatch of
thermal units.
• Considering the environmental impact and emissions of the thermal units can lead to
more sustainable and environmentally friendly dispatch solutions.
• The integration of renewable energies should be considered for future extensions of
the work, promoting a greener and more sustainable energy mix.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.G.; Methodology, A.M.S.; Software, A.M.S.; Validation,

A.M.S.; Formal analysis, A.G.; Investigation, H.A. and A.G.; Data curation, S.H.H.; Writing—original
draft, A.G.; Writing—review & editing, H.A.; Visualization, G.M.; Supervision, S.H.H. and G.M. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research is funded by the Deputyship for Research & Innovation, Ministry of Education
in Saudi Arabia.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research & Inno-
vation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia for funding this research work through the project
number ISP23-122.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. There are no financial competing
interest.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 20 of 23

Appendix A
Tables A1 and A2 record the detailed test outcomes of all units obtained using the
applied algorithms for the 192-unit system. Table A1 displays the output electrical powers
from power-only units regarding the KOA, the DMOA, the EVO, GWO, and PSO. Also,
Table A2 displays the output electrical and heat powers from CHP and heat-only units
regarding the KOA, the DMOA, the EVO, GWO, and PSO.
Table A1. Output electrical powers from power-only units regarding KOA, DMOA, EVO, GWO, and
PSO for the 192-unit system.

Unit DMOA EVO GWO PSO KOA Unit DMOA EVO GWO PSO KOA
Pg1 174.4182 448.799 628.4634 539.1442 629.1331 Pg61 62.98548 127.446 160.1939 60 110.3749
Pg2 244.4594 319.5189 8.117312 360 300.1081 Pg62 94.045637 73.04489 48.89186 40 78.26122
Pg3 246.9179 224.7471 85.90084 359.9992 224.2466 Pg63 95.095479 82.58672 76.54153 40 84.58004
Pg4 163.9458 70.75565 131.4979 60 110.3729 Pg64 116.50456 58.24736 64.01384 55 92.5379
Pg5 127.0533 114.4128 174.8349 179.9989 109.9616 Pg65 112.32882 92.2212 115.9772 120 94.09216
Pg6 97.80373 110.3963 109.8681 60 159.7144 Pg66 386.54269 628.3049 635.5608 1.6574276 180.5931
Pg7 82.64369 136.3851 151.7705 60 110.5713 Pg67 219.58848 123.3935 4.23799 360 224.9961
Pg8 122.0835 90.59523 62.34392 180 109.7013 Pg68 178.59082 175.2344 310.7114 0 225.5173
Pg9 165.1865 104.3483 159.8432 180 110.1922 Pg69 179.71952 126.2191 126.4011 100.46434 110.8168
Pg10 89.35626 85.93036 70.06314 40 78.27927 Pg70 100.59707 137.768 78.02074 180 110.6743
Pg11 84.92388 85.12978 96.43349 120 43.99838 Pg71 81.052792 137.9082 155.4551 60 110.4331
Pg12 98.99822 88.60448 118.4218 55 92.8743 Pg72 120.96628 113.491 65.80614 180 160.4197
Pg13 94.462 96.68395 85.69435 55 92.79832 Pg73 139.2029 133.8202 160.5635 180 110.4285
Pg14 425.6213 263.8784 628.0853 680 450.1082 Pg74 127.74529 122.1182 175.8073 60.036551 111.1456
Pg15 233.561 149.756 330.4895 0 227.5378 Pg75 58.032026 89.98149 79.68891 120 93.31288
Pg16 168.8089 153.1829 359.9657 0 224.0146 Pg76 50.446032 70.14322 88.16762 76.721665 77.00711
Pg17 132.6032 91.9275 159.9322 180 110.0895 Pg77 75.188085 95.22196 75.94925 55 84.51632
Pg18 90.41802 111.1778 167.999 65.02851 109.5931 Pg78 75.090964 66.16529 119.7468 120 92.51662
Pg19 152.9372 103.9256 170.1467 60 110.5872 Pg79 396.90259 448.9468 628.5149 679.99984 451.8399
Pg20 113.8235 135.956 108.5677 60 160.5694 Pg80 54.831829 156.3718 299.5566 0 76.45995
Pg21 102.4749 152.448 61.09929 180 111.0999 Pg81 192.45143 141.0076 357.2925 0 150.0747
Pg22 116.5048 136.4479 107.4706 180 160.08 Pg82 137.34809 111.0114 139.106 60 132.3369
Pg23 98.57747 77.61179 95.16397 120 76.57349 Pg83 102.39792 124.031 92.66801 160.82869 170.2779
Pg24 69.99943 69.24365 69.49135 120 115.0327 Pg84 124.88114 149.3372 72.11485 180 110.7002
Pg25 74.98295 58.11324 118.7751 55 97.8527 Pg85 140.97606 113.9025 113.3606 179.97632 160.294
Pg26 107.4874 93.90026 62.83023 120 93.89541 Pg86 98.353789 158.0664 157.7157 60 111.7676
Pg27 130.2818 393.9314 628.8686 0 448.5537 Pg87 82.70602 104.2559 61.37461 60 136.1275
Pg28 202.8742 251.2048 4.105242 360 227.8284 Pg88 70.062991 99.80671 74.94761 120 115.7378
Pg29 101.974 224.3351 309.367 0 299.847 Pg89 101.70538 91.36633 45.4811 120 88.38295
Pg30 149.0897 107.5555 161.4966 60 110.2662 Pg90 96.584487 59.95746 63.64475 120 108.3084
Pg31 124.6886 138.9449 160.8727 180 111.8424 Pg91 92.112756 91.97635 94.04333 55 92.86743
Pg32 93.87523 110.1144 95.53187 180 160.1724 Pg92 646.61874 110.7548 678.4753 680 539.4136
Pg33 78.43197 151.2344 70.05601 180 162.0457 Pg93 256.19755 223.3503 302.8407 357.30215 225.2475
Pg34 154.356 109.3927 68.09066 167.6068 80.54356 Pg94 220.09345 184.7615 1.312341 0 157.8272
Pg35 86.91799 114.6454 107.543 180 110.7539 Pg95 113.48862 106.7757 126.5713 180 110.1955
Pg36 102.368 63.95323 42.15703 40 77.67327 Pg96 93.56559 159.4062 155.0532 180 110.6043
Pg37 85.88163 74.68514 45.2863 40.3999 77.37991 Pg97 153.0745 133.3575 142.1973 65.613323 110.3772
Pg38 90.14782 91.10007 73.3533 57.69111 92.37051 Pg98 91.853495 97.28445 71.5857 61.951258 159.7578
Pg39 106.8801 96.7277 83.8524 120 92.36988 Pg99 105.02995 130.9669 161.0273 180 159.6356
Pg40 537.0964 353.6418 0 0 269.7407 Pg100 107.11788 124.7339 159.7256 180 109.8936
Pg41 226.4437 317.6857 0 7.252238 149.7111 Pg101 87.902036 83.01983 88.0214 120 87.91491
Pg42 196.0879 148.9983 1.939074 359.9946 299.1913 Pg102 72.763196 87.04375 53.99422 120 78.05281
Pg43 136.7817 141.4821 66.73899 60.12266 159.7018 Pg103 88.142268 87.24567 119.919 55 92.51872
Pg44 62.4416 137.3353 146.7645 60.02225 109.5677 Pg104 101.25252 99.1737 62.69223 120 93.32982
Pg45 80.90206 93.01569 171.1177 180 110.3502 Pg105 184.28464 150.6826 210.538 136.23557 88.70108
Pg46 130.3269 139.3121 109.8648 60 159.8408 Pg106 61.687297 72.20073 103.9249 125.8 59.9183
Pg47 148.1692 109.4169 135.5804 60 109.9596 Pg107 139.87923 132.0641 100.0922 129.94934 114.4677
Pg48 108.8255 131.6218 158.033 60 115.596 Pg108 101.89348 63.19561 79.98875 60.779838 49.69122
Pg49 60.06298 43.3716 53.12575 40 80.30361 Pg109 15.867864 31.36009 29.45192 33.066112 12.32701
Pg50 50.61262 77.5151 70.16409 120 52.28408 Pg110 66.056337 79.13215 37.64521 81.821153 58.4113
Pg51 79.94245 83.08679 60.41968 120 93.1087 Pg111 147.16246 138.5883 111.4306 247 190.3511
Pg52 97.30817 68.1 75.10253 87.41094 95.29422 Pg112 74.170207 92.37211 44.82001 44.277967 93.70398
Pg53 352.3213 448.4259 628.8927 679.9969 359.0342 Pg113 134.13176 165.2974 212.0918 147.7214 130.6392
Pg54 160.1921 150.6065 24.29994 0 74.73825 Pg114 78.339142 76.64612 47.54094 125.8 70.07984
Pg55 338.1157 155.9095 0.016443 0 225.1658 Pg115 34.486175 28.88131 34.25237 60 14.32984
Pg56 117.1937 128.2089 178.8473 60 109.797 Pg116 81.471568 89.49547 54.88681 105 49.16335
Pg57 104.443 162.2053 60.65029 180 159.9216 Pg117 178.77234 156.8938 205.7086 211.52341 116.8013
Pg58 83.74165 158.3383 162.6725 180 109.8658 Pg118 68.201565 78.05904 46.15124 125.8 50.50524
Pg59 107.3655 110.4594 72.58097 60 110.0816 Pg119 182.59667 178.6734 116.2796 208.65061 142.3482
Pg60 127.2445 109.6603 142.5323 60 109.4778 Pg120 96.392192 88.2642 54.64609 125.8 94.62255
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 21 of 23

Table A2. Output electrical and heat powers from CHP and heat-only units regarding KOA, DMOA,
EVO, GWO, and PSO for the 192-unit system.

Unit DMOA EVO GWO PSO KOA Unit DMOA EVO GWO PSO KOA
Pg121 46.02383 29.3764 28.42926 20.77384 30.97887 Hg134 19.85664 14.6324 6.080416 0 25.88826
Pg122 81.91063 78.77847 37.69174 104.7777 39.40866 Hg135 87.6911 118.0721 0.286583 0 158.9446
Pg123 154.5708 183.7391 185.5751 104.2847 139.0125 Hg136 2.362165 70.79715 5.456858 0 86.28956
Pg124 58.05261 58.466 55.06693 125.8 72.83244 Hg137 116.8887 57.96175 0.036243 0 120.7795
Pg125 96.61376 132.3242 105.6578 101.5627 112.6719 Hg138 99.47672 89.91044 0.419529 92.00018 113.2803
Pg126 100.9668 90.37526 45.05289 48.94307 60.97844 Hg139 22.01637 7.048723 33.90125 44.64996 40.9007
Pg127 24.82604 34.28892 27.31897 20.4968 36.45769 Hg140 17.93339 24.31242 22.88953 0 21.52482
Pg128 89.81316 66.96374 38.96679 58.13628 47.02069 Hg141 110.6448 75.9682 0.004297 135.4516 142.0406
Pg129 158.1581 177.8827 193.223 131.0643 110.6598 Hg142 4.608817 42.24832 95.49187 0 96.56051
Pg130 57.72706 57.7503 53.81889 125.8 52.14506 Hg143 43.61712 65.07744 0.002121 0 106.3423
Pg131 180.7866 134.9287 110.2631 167.5046 184.2545 Hg144 80.59267 86.44938 81.43766 0 105.7199
Pg132 97.75464 72.69634 62.23115 92.44643 41.51712 Hg145 31.65104 23.16603 52.01338 0 39.85337
Pg133 16.4573 39.7243 27.21387 20.30628 18.17227 Hg146 11.1955 21.857 0.014052 0 27.14903
Pg134 51.8256 59.58369 43.36524 105 48.08117 Hg147 124.0557 80.31409 1.030762 133.9085 145.2778
Pg135 133.7342 126.1696 104.0743 247 177.8935 Hg148 53.37894 77.98092 132.4316 0 120.2272
Pg136 53.75736 70.05483 66.04534 62.12208 53.19527 Hg149 111.1171 69.60678 0.080402 0 106.5817
Pg137 186.328 160.1726 106.0133 247 109.8631 Hg150 76.90896 76.83802 61.43779 77.63081 111.0589
Pg138 81.15719 57.42499 54.55075 60.01059 84.42479 Hg151 43.16865 32.22891 12.89287 44.51353 52.44464
Pg139 33.65432 40.93528 20.1056 21.06007 12.26503 Hg152 29.58749 25.5232 0.643083 31.89515 40.30933
Pg140 73.72299 72.46381 49.46903 35 42.41974 Hg153 492.3627 577.014 925.105 1397.152 354.035
Pg141 162.5896 151.2043 146.9895 135.9768 147.785 Hg154 34.75965 33.51306 59.69694 60 59.91993
Pg142 71.31964 67.96666 64.26362 125.8 65.17869 Hg155 16.07438 51.50848 59.94694 60 59.83564
Pg143 171.6939 110.9543 111.3473 233.3459 83.79595 Hg156 63.97824 70.72145 0.902541 120 119.5585
Pg144 74.93626 84.43365 48.01269 44.00456 75.66889 Hg157 79.19911 49.06161 2.204878 0 119.9105
Pg145 42.10098 34.04034 38.92032 60 10.26045 Hg158 620.9072 685.6878 909.6608 0 356.0761
Pg146 78.11662 81.77873 35.49127 105 50.79323 Hg159 23.35992 36.49364 0.132797 60 59.7823
Pg147 138.7505 181.9151 134.0777 152.7939 153.2985 Hg160 42.2545 21.84263 58.04509 60 59.93881
Pg148 98.76258 67.52022 106.5738 125.8 92.43806 Hg161 65.53427 85.31346 119.9548 120 119.6182
Pg149 123.4756 138.6376 120.5755 246.9105 84.26077 Hg162 88.75652 59.12272 119.9832 120 32.51809
Pg150 100.8023 92.11579 57.43339 43.09641 81.89629 Hg163 593.1704 557.3912 910.0227 1552.225 451.6828
Pg151 47.5644 49.11082 39.03834 21.99167 39.08587 Hg164 40.84546 28.39691 6.243836 0 59.93934
Pg152 71.07851 73.09166 35.52999 62.7455 79.6928 Hg165 26.72567 40.88351 1.255413 0 59.82737
Hg105 143.0187 142.1079 177.43 135.7857 108.7822 Hg166 59.93746 67.65058 0.096145 0 119.9096
Hg106 90.88735 79.54195 130.1675 0 92.10741 Hg167 108.2142 103.2702 0.040991 120 119.8066
Hg107 126.5657 129.3163 0.000412 132.2196 123.4405 Hg168 651.7794 522.4332 906.7537 0 363.8524
Hg108 69.20408 94.21251 109.3067 92.84554 83.27392 Hg169 10.41676 45.48739 6.791869 60 59.87452
Hg109 31.29471 25.45084 0 49.28014 40.97655 Hg170 13.80173 32.38762 1.068761 60 59.89786
Hg110 30.37513 22.48432 0.134585 41.0851 30.57175 Hg171 87.94417 77.85746 8.44×10−05 120 117.9236
Hg111 103.5517 115.8397 0.92819 9.79×10−05 165.9765 Hg172 86.86305 55.04469 5.058568 120 119.6775
Hg112 97.67907 47.03794 9.108935 7.216803 120.0454 Hg173 737.661 585.6358 920.5892 0 357.0134
Hg113 127.911 152.0281 178.3112 135.6339 132.3767 Hg174 7.250124 18.07854 0.274126 60 59.97047
Hg114 78.25294 66.01586 0.887772 4.642805 100.8766 Hg175 46.82325 26.62512 0.685941 60 59.89434
Hg115 39.48022 28.2455 0.111545 0 41.79333 Hg176 104.8884 84.52888 20.36861 0 119.7378
Hg116 16.99868 41.49891 27.29432 0 26.38251 Hg177 59.65188 72.10567 119.9272 120 114.6435
Hg117 88.30371 100.3173 174.6643 177.7991 124.3396 Hg178 716.495 602.1813 907.8548 0 387.0579
Hg118 56.75794 55.3174 0.059311 0 84.03871 Hg179 50.7917 27.42597 3.635189 60 59.92259
Hg119 136.3953 134.5814 3.576152 176.4035 139.0128 Hg180 25.99096 59.86144 13.01303 60 59.87757
Hg120 94.99244 102.3033 0.2653 0 122.1011 Hg181 106.4563 119.7318 0.001621 120 119.9104
Hg121 13.33646 25.92046 0.414366 43.82525 40.565 Hg182 43.1831 47.23645 0.604342 120 119.8964
Hg122 27.42141 24.99265 1.737371 0.141283 21.96434 Hg183 528.5626 765.2542 907.7043 1465.766 354.6583
Hg123 63.13502 112.5775 163.3978 0 137.3244 Hg184 41.81199 47.29115 0.444441 0 59.7352
Hg124 35.0343 56.9659 87.60028 31.82819 103.3148 Hg185 48.15765 32.108 2.205178 60 36.09575
Hg125 73.4311 59.39658 0.75323 0 122.4838 Hg186 49.18479 97.81689 0.038816 120 119.7626
Hg126 57.58084 90.97783 1.747817 0 93.08094 Hg187 88.52079 40.21094 0 120 114.5619
Hg127 7.690224 25.85509 0.069185 0 51.25276 Hg188 739.6827 757.5151 899.629 1401.145 400.6007
Hg128 20.55402 26.5521 0.001147 30.13535 25.26957 Hg189 50.24342 38.4695 59.96731 60 23.89247
Hg129 99.64527 113.7313 167.7151 132.7904 121.0729 Hg190 34.05605 26.36133 59.97419 0 59.967
Hg130 66.35591 87.23498 0 0 85.29981 Hg191 106.9444 119.9435 119.9653 0 119.9612
Hg131 141.8201 58.84182 0.001814 153.311 162.7133 Hg192 57.37515 75.64223 120 120 119.7678
Hg132 102.1795 59.0631 0.032602 118.7186 54.42837 Sum (Pg) 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800
Hg133 22.77924 16.49257 7.884998 0 43.44979 Sum (Hg) 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
WCTF ($) 581,798 572,324.8 678,051.9 793,224.8 487,145.2

References
1. Henwood, T.G.M.I. An algorithm for combined heat and power economic dispatch. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 1996, 11, 1778–1784.
[CrossRef]
2. Singh, N.; Chakrabarti, T.; Chakrabarti, P.; Margala, M.; Gupta, A.; Praveen, S.P.; Krishnan, S.B.; Unhelkar, B. Novel Heuristic
Optimization Technique to Solve Economic Load Dispatch and Economic Emission Load Dispatch Problems. Electronics 2023, 12,
2921. [CrossRef]
3. Tai, T.C.; Lee, C.C.; Kuo, C.C. A Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimization Algorithm Using Robust Learning Mechanism for Large Scale
Economic Load Dispatch with Vale-Point Effect. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2727. [CrossRef]
4. Mulo, T.; Syam, P.; Choudhury, A.B. Hybrid and Modified Harmony Search Optimization application in economic load dispatch
with integrated renewable source. Electr. Eng. 2023, 105, 1923–1935. [CrossRef]
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 22 of 23

5. Sashirekha, A.; Pasupuleti, J.; Moin, N.H.; Tan, C.S. Combined heat and power (CHP) economic dispatch solved using Lagrangian
relaxation with surrogate subgradient multiplier updates. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2013, 44, 421–430. [CrossRef]
6. Abdolmohammadi, H.R.; Kazemi, A. A Benders decomposition approach for a combined heat and power economic dispatch.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 71, 21–31. [CrossRef]
7. Sadeghian, H.R.; Ardehali, M.M. A novel approach for optimal economic dispatch scheduling of integrated combined heat and
power systems for maximum economic profit and minimum environmental emissions based on Benders decomposition. Energy
2016, 102, 10–23. [CrossRef]
8. Rong, A.; Lahdelma, R. An efficient envelope-based Branch and Bound algorithm for non-convex combined heat and power
production planning. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 183, 412–431. [CrossRef]
9. Kim, J.S.; Edgar, T.F. Optimal scheduling of combined heat and power plants using mixed-integer nonlinear programming. Energy
2014, 77, 675–690. [CrossRef]
10. Yang, Q.; Gao, H.; Dong, N.; Liu, P. An elitist cuckoo search algorithm for combined heat and power economic dispatch. Int. J.
Prod. Res. 2023. [CrossRef]
11. Basu, M. Bee colony optimization for combined heat and power economic dispatch. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 13527–13531.
[CrossRef]
12. Zou, D.; Li, S.; Kong, X.; Ouyang, H.; Li, Z. Solving the combined heat and power economic dispatch problems by an improved
genetic algorithm and a new constraint handling strategy. Appl. Energy 2019, 237, 646–670. [CrossRef]
13. Subbaraj, P.; Rengaraj, R.; Salivahanan, S. Enhancement of combined heat and power economic dispatch using self adaptive
real-coded genetic algorithm. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, 915–921. [CrossRef]
14. Sadek, S. Economic Dispatch of Combined Heat and Power Systems using Particle Swarm Optimization. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Bus. Sci.
2023, 4, 100–109. [CrossRef]
15. Dinh, B.H.; Nguyen, T.T.; Quynh, N.V.; Van Dai, L. A novel method for economic dispatch of combined heat and power generation.
Energies 2018, 11, 3113. [CrossRef]
16. El-Sehiemy, R.; Shaheen, A.; Ginidi, A.; Elhosseini, M. A Honey Badger Optimization for Minimizing the Pollutant Environmental
Emissions-Based Economic Dispatch Model Integrating Combined Heat and Power Units. Energies 2022, 15, 7603. [CrossRef]
17. Haghrah, A.; Nazari-Heris, M.; Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. Solving combined heat and power economic dispatch problem using real
coded genetic algorithm with improved Mühlenbein mutation. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 99, 465–475. [CrossRef]
18. Nguyen Trung, T.; Vo Ngoc, D. Improved Particle Swarm Optimization for Combined Heat and Power Economic Dispatch. Sci.
Iran. 2016, 23, 1318–1334. [CrossRef]
19. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B.; Moradi-Dalvand, M.; Rabiee, A. Combined heat and power economic dispatch problem solution using
particle swarm optimization with time varying acceleration coefficients. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2013, 95, 9–18. [CrossRef]
20. Kaur, P.; Chaturvedi, K.T.; Kolhe, M.L. Economic Dispatch of Combined Heat and Power Plant Units within Energy Network
Integrated with Wind Power Plant. Processes 2023, 11, 1232. [CrossRef]
21. Shaheen, A.M.; Elsayed, A.M.; Elattar, E.E.; El-Sehiemy, R.A.; Ginidi, A.R. An Intelligent Heap-Based Technique with Enhanced
Discriminatory Attribute for Large-Scale Combined Heat and Power Economic Dispatch. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 64325–64338.
[CrossRef]
22. Sarafrazi, S.; Nezamabadi-Pour, H.; Seydnejad, S.R. A novel hybrid algorithm of GSA with Kepler algorithm for numerical
optimization. J. King Saud Univ.-Comput. Inf. Sci. 2015, 27, 288–296. [CrossRef]
23. Abdel-Basset, M.; Mohamed, R.; Azeem, S.A.A.; Jameel, M.; Abouhawwash, M. Kepler optimization algorithm: A new meta-
heuristic algorithm inspired by Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2023, 268, 110454. [CrossRef]
24. Nazari-Heris, M.; Mehdinejad, M.; Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B.; Babamalek-Gharehpetian, G. Combined heat and power economic
dispatch problem solution by implementation of whale optimization method. Neural Comput. Appl. 2019, 31, 421–436. [CrossRef]
25. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B.; Rabiee, A.; Soroudi, A. Nonconvex dynamic economic power dispatch problems solution using hybrid
immune-genetic algorithm. IEEE Syst. J. 2013, 7, 777–785. [CrossRef]
26. Chen, X. Novel dual-population adaptive differential evolution algorithm for large-scale multi-fuel economic dispatch with
valve-point effects. Energy 2020, 203, 117874. [CrossRef]
27. Ginidi, A.R.; Elsayed, A.M.; Shaheen, A.M.; Elattar, E.E.; El-Sehiemy, R.A. A Novel Heap based Optimizer for Scheduling of
Large-scale Combined Heat and Power Economic Dispatch. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 83695–83708. [CrossRef]
28. Shaheen, A.M.; Ginidi, A.R.; El-Sehiemy, R.A.; Ghoneim, S.S.M. Economic Power and Heat Dispatch in Cogeneration Energy
Systems Using Manta Ray Foraging Optimizer. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 208281–208295. [CrossRef]
29. Beigvand, S.D.; Abdi, H.; La Scala, M. Combined heat and power economic dispatch problem using gravitational search algorithm.
Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2016, 133, 160–172. [CrossRef]
30. Narang, N.; Sharma, E.; Dhillon, J.S. Combined heat and power economic dispatch using integrated civilized swarm optimization
and Powell’s pattern search method. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 2017, 52, 190–202. [CrossRef]
31. Shaheen, A.M.; El-Sehiemy, R.A. A Multiobjective Salp Optimization Algorithm for Techno-Economic-Based Performance
Enhancement of Distribution Networks. IEEE Syst. J. 2021, 15, 1458–1466. [CrossRef]
32. Davoodi, E.; Zare, K.; Babaei, E. A GSO-based algorithm for combined heat and power dispatch problem with modified scrounger
and ranger operators. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 120, 36–48. [CrossRef]
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 608 23 of 23

33. Shaheen, A.M.; Elsayed, A.M.; Ginidi, A.R.; EL-Sehiemy, R.A.; Alharthi, M.M.; Ghoneim, S.S. A novel improved marine predators
algorithm for combined heat and power economic dispatch problem. Alexandria Eng. J. 2021, 61, 1834–1851. [CrossRef]
34. Ginidi, A.; Elsayed, A.; Shaheen, A.; Elattar, E.; El-Sehiemy, R. An Innovative Hybrid Heap-Based and Jellyfish Search Algorithm
for Combined Heat and Power Economic Dispatch in Electrical Grids. Mathematics 2021, 9, 2053. [CrossRef]
35. Dolatabadi, S.; El-Sehiemy, R.A.; GhassemZadeh, S. Scheduling of combined heat and generation outputs in power systems using
a new hybrid multi-objective optimization algorithm. Neural Comput. Appl. 2020, 32, 10741–10757. [CrossRef]
36. Moustafa, G.; El-Rifaie, A.M.; Smaili, I.H.; Ginidi, A.; Shaheen, A.M.; Youssef, A.F.; Tolba, M.A. An Enhanced Dwarf Mongoose
Optimization Algorithm for Solving Engineering Problems. Mathematics 2023, 11, 3297. [CrossRef]
37. Azizi, M.; Aickelin, U.; Khorshidi, H.A.; Baghalzadeh Shishehgarkhaneh, M. Energy valley optimizer: A novel metaheuristic
algorithm for global and engineering optimization. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 226. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.