GDDP: Generalized Dual Dynamic Programming Theory
This document presents theoretical considerations about the solution of dynamic optimization problems integrating the Benders Theory, the Dynamic Programming approach and the concepts of Control Theory. The so called Generalized Dual Dynamic Programming Theory (GDDP) can be considered as an extension of two previous approaches known as Dual Dynamic Programming (DDP): The first is the work developed by Pereira and Pinto [3–5], which was revised by Velásquez and others [8,9]. The second is the work developed by Read and others [2,6,7].
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- J.F. Benders, Partitioning procedures for solving mixed variables programming problems, Numerische Mathematik 4 (1962) 238–252.Google Scholar
- P.D. Casseboom and E.G. Read, Dual dynamic programming for coal stockpiling, Proc. Operations Research Society of New Zealand (1987) 15–18.Google Scholar
- M.V.F. Pereira, Stochastic operation scheduling of large hydroelectric systems, Electric Power and Energy Systems 11(3) (1989) 161–169.Google Scholar
- M.V.F. Pereira and L.M.G. Pinto, Stochastic optimization of a multi-reservoir hydroelectric system: A decomposition approach, Water Resources Research 21 (1985) 779–792.Google Scholar
- M.V.F. Pereira and L.M.G. Pinto, Multi-stage stochastic optimization applied to energy planning, Mathematical Programming 52 (1991) 359–375.Google Scholar
- E.G. Read, A dual approach to stochastic dynamic programming for reservoir scheduling, in: Dynamic Programming for Optimal Water Resources Systems Analysis, ed. A.O. Esogbue (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989) pp. 361–372.Google Scholar
- E.G. Read and J.A. George, Dual dynamic programming for linear production/inventory systems, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 19(11) (1990) 29–42.Google Scholar
- J.M. Velásquez, Objeciones a la programación dinámica dual, Mundo Eléctrico Colombiano, No. 30 (1997).Google Scholar
- J.M. Velásquez, P.J. Restrepo and R. Campo, Dual dynamic programming: A note on implementation, Water Resources Research 35(7) (1999) 2269–2271.Google Scholar