You are on page 1of 9

Electrical Power and Energy Systems 25 (2003) 679687 www.elsevier.

com/locate/ijepes

Review

A genetic algorithm approach to generator unit commitment


K.S. Swarupa,*, S. Yamashirob
b a Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras 600036, India Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Kitami Institute of Technology, 165, Koen-Cho, Kitami, Hokkaido 090-8507, Japan

Abstract Application of genetic algorithms for the solution of unit commitment with detailed problem formulation, solution methodology and representation is described in this paper. New Encoding and Representation strategy is proposed that can handle large systems with an improvement in solution and faster convergence. The unit commitment problem is formulated as the minimization of the performance index, which is the sum of objectives (fuel cost, startup cost) and constraints (minimum up time (MUT), minimum down time (MDT), spinning reserve). Solution methodology and Simulation Results are provided for a 10-generator unit commitment problem for 24 h duration. q 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Power system optimization; Economic dispatch; Unit commitment; Genetic algorithms

1. Introduction Operational planning tasks of power systems such as unit commitment consist of solving a combinatorial optimization problem. These types of problems belong to the class of NP-complete problems and an enormous amount of computation is necessary to solve such problems. Unit commitment is an important optimization tool in the daily operation of power systems, which determines the ON and OFF status, as well as the real power outputs, of the generators. The schedule minimizes the system operating cost over a planning horizon of one day to a week, while respecting the physical, operational and contractual constraints [1 4]. Unit commitment of power system is basically concerned with the scheduling of the generating units to meet the forecasted demand over a given period of time, subjected to the start-up and shutdown times of the generating units. The objective is to minimize the total cost of production while satisfying the start-up and shut-down time constraints. It is also dened as the process of determining the generating units to be put into service and their duration for a particular scheduling period. The units thus committed must meet the system load and reserve requirements at minimum operation cost subjected to several system and operational constraints. The system constraints relate to the load demand and spinning reserve, whereas the operational constraints relate to satisfying the minimum up and down time constraints. To meet the system load, economic
* Corresponding author.

dispatch is carried out to optimally allocate the load demand among the running units while satisfying both the power balance equations and unit operating limits. The maximum power generation that is available both from the running and reserve units after satisfying the load demand constitutes the spinning reserve. The reserve units are either put ON or OFF accordingly so as to satisfy the demand with spinning reserve and minimize excess reserve requirements. The solution of unit commitment is a complex optimization problem. It is conveniently formulated as a mixed integer programming problem, typically involving thousands of integer variables and a wide spectrum of equality, inequality and logical constraints. Many solution methodologies have been proposed in the literature for the unit commitment problem [5,6]. Among them, the Lagrangian Relaxation based approaches have shown considerable promise. In solving the unit commitment problem, generally two basic decisions are involved, namely the unit commitment (uc) decision and the economic dispatch (ed) decision. The unit commitment decision involves the determination of the generating units to be running during each hour of the planning horizon, considering system capacity requirements, including the reserve, and the constraints on the start up and shut down of units. The economic dispatch decision involves the allocation of the system demand and spinning reserve capacity among the operating units during each specic hour of operation. As these two decisions are interrelated, the unit commitment problem generally embraces both these decisions. The objective is to obtain an overall least cost solution for operating the power system over the scheduling horizon.

0142-0615/03/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0142-0615(03)00003-6

680

K.S. Swarup, S. Yamashiro / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 25 (2003) 679687

In addition the uc and ed decisions are conicting, wherein the satisfaction of one results in the violation of the other. The aim is to nd the best if not a set of nearly best possible solutions conrming both the decisions. This paper describes the application of the genetic algorithms for the solution of the unit commitment problem in achieving the above objectives.

2. Genetic algorithms Genetic algorithms are adaptive search techniques based on the principles and mechanisms of natural selection and survival of the ttest from natural evolution [2]. By simulating natural evolution, a genetic algorithm can effectively search the problem domain and easily solve complex problems. The genetic algorithm operates as an iterative procedure on a xed size of population or pool of candidate solutions. The candidate solutions represent an encoding of the problem into a form that is analogous to the chromosomes of biological systems. Each chromosome represents a possible solution for a given objective function. Associated with each chromosome is a tness value, which determines its ability to survive and produce offspring. Genetic algorithms belong to the class of probabilistic algorithms, yet very different from random algorithms as they combine elements of directed search and stochastic search. Due to this, genetic algorithms are more robust than existing directed search methods. Thus genetic algorithms are suitable for combinatorial optimization, of which unit commitment is a typical example.

providing feasible solutions to the problem. However, exact satisfaction of constraints may be difcult in arriving at an optimal solution [11]. A modied approach to the solution of unit commitment problem using genetic algorithm is proposed in this paper. Improvement in both the computation time and quality of solution can be obtained by this approach. Lambda-iteration method is recursively used here for economic dispatch for various generating unit schedules (ON and OFF) obtained by the genetic algorithm. The solution methodology by the GA approach is formulated by considering objectives and constraints in the total objective function (TOF). Some constraints are externally satised, while other constraints are modeled as transformed objectives. Genetic algorithms can be employed either to obtain the best or the set of nearly best possible solutions of the unit commitment problem. Improvement in both the computation time and quality of solution can be obtained by this approach. Salient features of this approach are 1. A new method of representing the chromosomes for encoding the problem is proposed. 2. Feasible strings (generation . load reserve) are considered for economic dispatch and genetic operation 3. Randomized bit operators are employed for satisfying the time dependent (MUT/MDT) constraints The major difference between the present and other approaches [7 10], is that optimization is achieved through feasible solutions in the present approach, while optimization through infeasible solutions leading to a nal feasible solution constitutes the methodology of other approaches. Details of the present approach in comparison with other approaches are presented in a latter section. The major advantage of the present approach is that at any instant of time during GA simulation, the result obtained is a feasible solution satisfying the generation load balance constraint and MUT/MDT constraints.

3. Unit commitment application Applications of genetic algorithms to unit commitment problem have been earlier proposed by various researchers [7 10], most of them differing in the method of representation, decoding and evaluation. Moreover, very little information and results are available regarding the handling of constraints (ex, MUT and MDT) and other objectives. Application of genetic algorithms for the solution of a basic unit commitment problem without MUT and MDT constraints and spinning reserve proposed by the authors is provided in Refs. [12,13]. Handling of MUT/MDT constraints and spinning reserve requirement increases the complexity of problem formulation and solution methodology. Consideration of constraints in the problem formulation in obtaining a complete UC solution is presented. Genetic algorithms are probabilistic algorithms, which work well and efciently for optimization of complex objective functions without constraints [2] (unconstrained optimization). The presence of binding constraints reduces the efciency and thus the search process of the genetic algorithm. Constraints (problem dependent and independent) can be formulated as penalty objective functions,

4. Formulation of the proposed approach The general formulation of unit commitment problem is given by Minimize
T X N X j1 i1

ai bi Pij ci P2 ij

T X N X j1 i1

si di 1 2 e2Ti;j

OFF

= ti

1 Subject to
n X i1

Pi; j 2 PD; j 0

2 3

TiON ; j . MUTi

K.S. Swarup, S. Yamashiro / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 25 (2003) 679687

681

TiOFF ; j . MDTi
N X i1

4 5

Pmax i; j $ PD;j PR;j

where
T X N X j1 i1 T X N X j1 i1 n X i1

ai bi Pij ci P2 ij FC; F uel C ost:

s i d i 1 2 e 2 T i ; j

OFF

=ti

SUC; Start U p C ost:

Pi; j 2 PD; j 0 8 9

PV; Power V iolation powerbalance:


T X j1 T X j1 N X i1

but practically when generation load balance is not included in the earlier stage, the rest of the solution procedure has no meaning, in other words, it is an apparent solution. Consequent evaluations of operating startup cost are not valid. Exact solution is only obtained at the end, when the power balance relation is satised. Major drawback of this type of procedure is that only the nal solution provides the feasible (maybe optimal) solution. Since the genetic algorithm takes several generations or evolutions for obtaining a globally optimal solution, one may have to wait till the completion of the simulation. Several methods using parallel computation and algorithms (parallel genetic algorithms) have been proposed to handle this limitation. In this research, a new approach has been proposed which results in reduced formulation and computation requirement. Valid assumptions are made to simplify the problem formulation. The assumptions are Considering the spinning reserve as an objective rather than a constraint. (ii) Performing economic dispatch (power balance, Eq. (2)) prior to genetic operation. (iii) Obtaining an MUT and MDT feasible solution. Problem modication and reduction with these assumptions is described below. (i) When the spinning reserve requirement is considered as an objective, the problem modies to Minimize TOFi
hrs X n X l1 i1

lTiON ; j 2 MUTi l $ 0 MUC; MU T C onstraint lTiOFF ; j 2 MDTi l $ 0 MDC; MDT C onstraints: Pmax i; j $ PD; j PR; j SR; Spinning Reserve:

(i)

10

11

and N number of units T scheduling period in (h) Pi ;j power generation of unit i for hour j (MW) ai ; bi ; ci fuel cost coefcients si ; di ; ti startup cost coefcients PD; j demand for hour j TiON ; j unit ON time of unit i for hour j (h) TiOFF unit OFF time of unit i for hour j (h) ;j MUTi minimum up time (h) MDTi minimum down time (h) Pmax i; j maximum generation of unit i (MW) PR; j spinning reserve for hour j (MW)

ai bi Pli ci P2 li

8 9 T X N <X = 2TiOFF = t i si d i 1 2 e ; j W1 :j1 i1 ; W2 Subject to (N X


i1

) Pmax i; j 2 PD ; j PR ; j 12

5. Complexity reduction Consideration of the equality relation plays an important role in the GA approach. In most of the approaches [7 11] used, the equality relation is included into the TOF while gradually arriving at an feasible solution (generation . load) from an infeasible solution (generation , load). In the case of an infeasible solution, the string is either corrected or rejected from the population pool. So far attempt had been made to achieve power balance by modeling the constraint as an objective and reducing the violation to the best possible minimum value. Theoretically this may be feasible,

hrs X n X l1 i1

Pi;l 2 PD 0

T ON . MUT T OFF . MDT where W1 and W2 are the weight coefcients for the Spinning reserve and the equality constraint satisfaction. The TOF (ii) If the power balance relation (economic dispatch) is satised prior to genetic operation, the problem reduces to

682

K.S. Swarup, S. Yamashiro / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 25 (2003) 679687

Minimize TOFi
hrs X n X l1 i1

ai bi Pli ci P2 li

8 9 T X N <X = 2TiOFF = t si d i 1 2 e ; j i W1 :j1 i1 ; W2 Subject to T ON . MUT T OFF . MDT (iii) Further if the MUT and MDT constraints (MUC and MDC) are initially satised, similar to power balance (PV), to provide an feasible solution, the problem nally reduces to Minimize TOFi
hrs X n X l1 i1

(N X
i1

) Pmax i; j 2 PD ; j PR ; j 13
Fig. 1. Representation strategy.

feasible solution so far and other less priority (ordered) chromosomes correspond to the next best feasible solutions. This provides the uses with the choice of selection an solution with regard to other objectives.

6. Encoding strategy Several methods of representation of the chromosomes are in use, the popular being the string catenation method presented in Refs. [2,7 10]. A new strategy for reduced representation is employed, which consists of storing a chromosome as a matrix of units and hours, as shown in Fig. 1. This representation can handle large number of units and duration periods, which is not possible with earlier approaches.

ai bi Pli ci P2 li

8 9 T X N <X = OFF si di 1 2 e2Ti; j =ti W1 :j1 i1 ; W2 (N X


i1

) Pmax i; j 2 PD ; j PR ; j 14 7. Fitness function The tness function for the minimization problem is given generally as the inverse of the objective function. In this case the tness function is given by the relation FTi 1 1 TOFi 15

The nal problem formulation given in Eq. (8) consists of minimizing an objective function, for which the genetic algorithm is very good at. These assumptions are made to simplifying the problem and to satisfy the constraints externally (outside the genetic algorithm loop). The resulting advantages with this type of representation are 1. The solution obtained by the genetic algorithm at any and every stage is feasible. Therefore further consequent evaluations (objective functions and constraints) based on power generations from economic dispatch are valid (not apparent). 2. Reduced complexity of problem formulation. The TOF consists of objectives and constraint transformed objectives. The genetic algorithm has the task of only minimizing the objective functions, for which is it very good at, neglecting the related constraints. 3. The population pool consists of feasible solutions, thus providing an best and a set of nearly best solutions. With the set offeasible solutions, the chromosome with the minimum value of performance index (TOF) corresponds to the best

8. Algorithm overview New solution methodology with modied representation using genetic algorithms is proposed. The general schedule of a unit commitment problem consists of units and hours represented as columns and rows. The rows represent time dependent functions, while the columns represent unit dependent functions. Unit dependent functions correspond to economic dispatch decisions, while the time dependent functions correspond to unit commitment decisions. Unit dependent functions are (1) fuel cost, (2) power balance, (3) spinning reserve and (4) unit rated limits. Time dependent functions are (5) MUT, (6) MDT and (7) startup cost. The objectives are 1, 3, 7, while the constraints are 2, 4, 5, 6. The problem formulation consists of minimizing the objectives while satisfying the constraints. With reduced

K.S. Swarup, S. Yamashiro / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 25 (2003) 679687

683

formulation, the performance index of the genetic algorithm consists of minimizing the objectives (fuel cost, startup cost and spinning reserve) while satisfying the constraints (MUT and MDT). Since constraint handling is a difcult task in genetic algorithms, the constraints MUT and MDT are externally handled using randomized bit operators. Genetic algorithm approach to unit commitment consists of two important stages namely: (1) economic dispatch and (2) genetic operation, which are performed recursively till a feasible solution satisfying all the constraints with a minimum performance index is obtained. Economic dispatch stage is performed either or only once during the initial stage in earlier mentioned approaches. However, genetic operation on the population may change the ON OFF states of the units, resulting in the violation of the equality constraint relation. Performing economic dispatch prior to genetic operation would ensure the satisfaction of the equality constraint and then minimization proceeds though genetic operation on the strings. An associated advantage with this approach is that, during any stage of the GA simulation process, the solution obtained is a feasible one, as the equality constraint is satised. Further reduction in the objective function at each generation step with the satisfaction of the equality condition would only provide an improvement in the solution. Repeating this process would lead to the optimum solution. The proposed approach using genetic algorithm shown in Fig. 2, where the working of each blocks of the owchart are described in detail.

In block 1, in the initial stage, random unit commitment schedules of N L matrix consisting of bits 0 and 1 are randomly generated, where N is the number of generating units and L is the number of hours of load. In block 2, the randomly generated strings are tested for the minimum load (with spinning reserve) satisfaction by the selected units. This stage would ensure that only feasible strings are considered for unit commitment schedule. Each string is decoded and economic dispatch is performed (using lambda iteration method) for each hour so that the total load demand is satised (block 3). This stage represents the satisfaction of the equality constraint (power balance relation equation (2)) and as a result, the relation can be eliminated from the TOF formulation. The present approach is different from other approaches [5 9] where the equality constraint is included into the TOF and GA simulation carried out to satisfy the equality relation, which is time consuming and requires the simulation to be completed to obtain an feasible solution. Genetic operation is performed on the population of chromosomes (block 4). In the decoding stage (block 5), the strings are checked for any infeasible solution (generation , load) obtained by genetic operation. The infeasible strings are corrected or replaced by feasible strings (generation . load). The evaluation of the objective function is carried out at this stage. This process (blocks 2 5) is repeated till no further improvement is obtained, as represented by the terminating condition.

9. Signicant features 1. Feasible unit commitment schedules. Feasible strings satisfying the relation (generation . load spinning reserve) are considered prior to economic dispatch, initially a random population of chromosomes are generated. In any particular population, for any hour the generation may be insufcient to supply the load, which is an infeasible solution. Such solutions are discarded and feasible solutions, which have ample generation to supply the load, are considered. Excess generation is reduced by considering the minimization of the objective (spinning reserve). 2. Economic dispatch performed prior to genetic operation. Economic dispatch for random feasible solution is initially performed to provide the objectives and constraints in the TOF. Since the genetic algorithm basically only determines the ON OFF states of the units, it uses the TOF measure as a means to decide the tness of the chromosome solutions. In order to provide the genetic algorithm with a tness function (inverse of the TOF), economic dispatch is carried out prior to Genetic Operation. However if economic dispatch is to be included into the genetic operation, there exists no such measure (TOF) to determine the tness of chromosomes. 3. Randomized bit operators employed for arriving at an early solution. Random bit operators are employed to

Fig. 2. Flow chart of the proposed genetic algorithm approach to unit commitment.

684

K.S. Swarup, S. Yamashiro / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 25 (2003) 679687

obtain a feasible solution at an early stage. These are mainly used to satisfy MUT and MDT constraints, in random fashion.

10. Randomized bit operators Random bit operators are heuristic operators used for the satisfaction of a certain criteria in the performance index. These are used before genetic operation to manipulate bit positions such as to reduce the time dependent constraint violations and to reduce the complexity of the solution procedure. These operators are of two types namely the bit and string operators. The bit operator changes the bit positions to that of a more regular form, i.e. change bit 010 to 000 or 101 to 111, with a certain amount of probability. For instance, bits 011 can be changed to bits 000 (probability of 25%) or 111 (probability of 75%) and similarly bits 100 to 000 (probability of 75%) or 111 (probability of 25%). These are similar to heuristic rules employed with a certain amount of probability to assist the GA to arrive at a solution early. The string operator, on the other hand, has the task of rearranging the bits from bit operator to satisfy the MUT and MDT constraints, thus providing a feasible solution. The purpose of these operators is to assist the genetic algorithm in arriving at a solution at an early stage. The absence of these operators would not prohibit the genetic algorithm from arriving at an optimal solution. However, since a genetic algorithm takes many generations for convergence and may require a signicant number of populations for arriving at an optimal solution, inclusion of these bit operators, in a probabilistic fashion, would only assist in obtaining the optimal solution sooner without sacricing the quality of the solution. Illustration of randomized bit operators. Randomized bit operators, described above, are used to demonstrate the satisfaction of the MUT and MDT constraints, while providing an feasible solution for economic dispatch and spinning reserve. Table 1 shows the role of the randomized bit operators. The notations IN, MU, MD, TV represent initial
Table 1 Role of randomized bit operators in UC schedule Unit IN MU MD Without any operators 123456789012345678901234 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 7 6 23 23 3 3 4 3 3 10 7 6 6 1 3 3 4 3 3 4 5 6 3 3 2 3 4 4 2 111111111111111111111111 111111011101111111111111 111111111111111101010111 111110111111111110110101 111011111110001111110111 111010001111001111110101 011101101111011110111110 011111101110000110011100 011010101111010110111110 011111101111011111111110 TV 0 55 45 55 6 15 17 36 43 4

status, Minimum Up Time, Minimum Down Time and Total Violation, respectively. The BIT OPERATOR satises the constraints to a larger extent, while the STRING OPERATOR eliminates any violation that may exist. In this process, excess units are committed to provide a feasible solution for economic dispatch and spinning reserve. The excess generation accounting for spinning reserve is treated as an objective, which is to be minimized by the GA during the process of optimization.

11. Detailed algorithmic structure Fig. 3 shows the detailed ow chart for the genetic algorithm approach to unit commitment using randomized bit operators. The working of the modied GA approach to unit commitment is divided into ve blocks (I V). Random generation of initial population consists of block I. In block II, these populations are subjected to randomized bit operators. Block III consists of checking the feasibility of solution (generation spinning reserve . load), which might have been affected by the randomized bit operators. A feasible string is thus generated and ELD is carried out to balance the load with generation. Excess generation contributes to spinning reserve. Objective functions are evaluated at this stage. In block IV, a comparison is made between the past and present generation to select the population with the improved value to TOF, a process termed as elitist strategy in GA terminology. A check for any further improvement in the TOF is performed to either terminate the simulation or repeat the process from blocks II to V. Block V consists of genetic operation, where two methods, namely priority list [11] and conventional method [5], are employed in the population formation for better solution. In the priority list method, a priority list solution (that is MUT/MDT infeasible) is included into the population pool; genetic operation on the population of chromosomes would provide a solution that is both feasible and optimal. In the conventional method, new population contains offsprings of earlier generation and evolution proceeds till an optimal feasible solution is obtained.

With bit operator only 123456789012345678901234 111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111000111 111111111111111111111111 111111111111000111111111 111000000111000111111111 111111111111111111111111 111111111111000111111000 111000111111000111111111 111111111111111111111111 TV 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 9 18 0

With bit and string operator 123456789012345678901234 111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111 111111111111000111111111 111000000111000111111111 111111111111111111111111 111111111111000011111000 111000011111111111111111 111111111111111111111111 TV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

K.S. Swarup, S. Yamashiro / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 25 (2003) 679687

685

12. Numerical results The GA simulation program is written in C running on a HP-UX 9000 EWS. Table 2 shows the solution obtained by the GA for population size of 30 for 300 generations with crossover and mutation probabilities of 0.8 and 0.03, respectively. The computation time was 75.33 s for 300 generations. The population size and the maximum number of generations were arbitrarily selected to study the simulation result and the performance of GA. Operation, startup costs, spinning reserve for the 24-h period, unit ON/OFF schedule and generation supplying the load are also provided. Table 3 provides the hourly schedule for the units in terms of MUT and MDT violations. The sum of the MUT and MDT violations, denoted by UDTV (Up Down Time Violation) is zero. The nal schedule satises the MUT and MDT constraints and has a minimum value of total operating cost. Tables 2 and 3 provide the hourly and unit representations of the nal unit commitment schedule. Performance of the GA for 300 iterations in terms of convergence of the TOF (maximum, average and minimum) is shown in Fig. 4. The minimum (best) value of the TOF is used for evaluation at every evolution. Fig. 5 shows the minimum generation, load and spinning reserve obtained by the GA approach. Spinning reserve of 100 MW for every hour was specied in this simulation.

Fig. 3. Detailed ow chart of the genetic algorithm approach to unit commitment.

Table 2 GA simulation results with spinning reserve of 100 MW Hour Operation cost ($) Startup cost ($) Schedule 1234567890 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Total 17458.13 35787.63 55864.52 77608.34 100227.26 124501.59 149651.62 175746.97 203875.98 234219.20 265897.44 298967.66 329310.88 357439.91 383535.25 406935.41 429554.31 453828.66 479924.00 510267.22 538396.25 561716.38 582669.31 601871.75 601871.75 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 1100000000 1100000000 1100000000 1110000000 1110000000 1111000000 1111100000 1111100000 1111100000 1111111100 1111111100 1111111110 1111110000 1111110000 1111110000 1111100000 1111100000 1111100000 1111110000 1111111000 1111110000 1110000000 1100000000 1100000000 Generation schedule (MW) P1 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 7869.00 P2 245 295 395 365 415 385 435 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 335 415 385 455 455 455 455 445 345 P3 0 0 0 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 0 0 P4 0 0 0 0 0 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 0 130 130 130 130 0 0 0 P5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 130 162 162 162 162 130 30 0 0 0 30 162 130 0 0 0 P6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 80 80 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 P7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 700.00 750.00 850.00 950.00 1000.00 1100.00 1150.00 1200.00 1300.00 1400.00 1450.00 1500.00 1400.00 1300.00 1200.00 1050.00 1000.00 1100.00 1200.00 1400.00 1300.00 1100.00 900.00 800.00 910.00 910.00 910.00 1040.00 1040.00 1170.00 1332.00 1332.00 1332.00 1555.00 1555.00 1610.00 1412.00 1412.00 1412.00 1332.00 1332.00 1332.00 1412.00 1500.00 1412.00 1040.00 910.00 910.00 210.00 160.00 60.00 90.00 40.00 70.00 182.00 132.00 32.00 155.00 105.00 110.00 12.00 112.00 212.00 282.00 332.00 232.00 212.00 100.00 112.00 2 60.00 10.00 110.00 Load (MW) Max gen (MW) Spn res (MW)

686 Table 3 Final unit commitment schedule Unit number

K.S. Swarup, S. Yamashiro / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 25 (2003) 679687

Hourly schedule 123456789012345678901234

Up down times and schedule INS 21 21 21 23 23 26 25 25 8 8 MUT 1 1 1 3 3 6 5 5 8 8 MDT 1 1 1 3 3 6 5 5 8 8 UDTV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Startup cost ($)

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

000000000000000111000000 000000000111000111000000 000000000111111000000000 000111000111111111111000 000111111111111111111000 111111111111111111111100 111111111111111111111100 111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111

60.00 120.00 60.00 1040.00 340.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Maximum iteration: 300; total cost: $609998.62; operation cost; $608378.62; MUT/MDT viol: 0.00 h; startup cost: $1620.00; spinning reserve: 7869.00 MW.

Fig. 4. GA performance for 300 generations with a population size of 30 chromosomes.

Fig. 5. Generation with spinning reserve.

K.S. Swarup, S. Yamashiro / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 25 (2003) 679687 Table A1 Generator system operation data Unit No. Generation limits Pmin 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 250.00 120.00 75.00 75.00 50.00 50.00 25.00 30.00 20.00 15.00 Pmax 520.00 320.00 200.00 280.00 150.00 150.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 Fuel cost coefcients a 105.00 49.00 82.00 72.00 29.00 100.00 32.00 40.00 25.00 15.00 b 1.395 1.264 1.214 1.350 1.540 1.329 1.500 1.350 1.500 1.400 c 0.00130 0.00290 0.00150 0.00260 0.00210 0.00140 0.00380 0.00390 0.00400 0.00510 10 7 6 23 23 3 3 4 3 3 Initial status Up down times MUT 10 7 6 6 1 3 3 4 3 3 MDT 4 5 6 3 3 2 3 4 4 2 520.00 320.00 200.00 0.00 0.00 150.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 Initial power Startup cost coefcients

687

a
60.00 50.00 70.00 30.00 30.00 80.00 12.00 25.00 15.00 15.00

d
207.00 137.00 157.00 146.00 130.00 202.00 100.00 110.00 123.00 123.00

t
11.00 7.00 9.00 6.00 5.00 11.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Table A2 Load hour data for 24 h Hour 1 2 3 4 Load 1517.00 1426.00 1368.00 1328.00 Hour 5 6 7 8 Load 1317.00 1351.00 1398.00 1351.00 Hour 9 10 11 12 Load 1317.00 1293.00 1238.00 1226.00 Hour 13 14 15 16 Load 1203.00 1180.00 1170.00 1136.00 Hour 17 18 19 20 Load 1113.00 1079.00 1034.00 1022.00 Hour 21 22 23 24 Load 1010.00 1058.00 1124.00 1517.00

13. Conclusions Application of the genetic algorithm for the solution of the unit commitment problem is demonstrated in this paper. A new strategy is employed for representing chromosomes and encoding the problem search space. This representation can handle large systems (with large number of units and duration periods) with great exibility and modularity. The TOF is formulated as the minimization of the objective functions (fuel cost, start up cost, spinning reserve) and constraints (MUT and down time violation). Power balance equality constraint is satised prior to GA operation, and thus eliminated from the TOF formulation. This ensures a feasible solution during every stage of the GA simulation. Randomized bit operators (heuristic) are employed for satisfaction of the minimum up-down time constraints and for faster convergence. Testing and validating this approach to different unit commitment problems are in progress.

References
[1] Wood A, Wollenberg BF. Power generation operation and control, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1996. [2] Goldberg DE. Genetic algorithms in search optimization and machine learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1989. [3] Kerr RH, Scheidt JL, Fontana AJ, Wiley JK. Unit commitment. IEEE Trans Power Apparatus Syst 1966;PAS-85(5):417 21. [4] Lee FN. Short term thermal unit commitment: a new method. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1988;3(2):4217. [5] Cohen AI, Sherkat VR. Optimization-based methods for operations scheduling. Proc IEEE 1987;75(12):157481. [6] Sheble GB, Fahd GN. unit commitment literature synopsis. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1994;9(1):12835. [7] Dasgupta D, McGregor DR. Thermal unit commitment using genetic algorithms. IEE ProcGener Transm Distrib 1994;141(5):459 65. [8] Kazarlis SA, Bakirtzis AG, Petridis VA. Genetic algorithm solution to the unit commitment problem. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1996;11(1): 8391. [9] Maifeld T, Sheble GB. Genetics-based unit commitment. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1996;11(3):1359 65. [10] Orero SO, Irving MR. Large scale unit commitment using a hybrid genetic algorithm. Electr Power Energy Syst 1997;19(1):4555. [11] Xiaomin B, Shaidehpour SM. Extended neighborhood search algorithm for constrained unit commitment. Electr Power Energy Syst 1997;19(5):34956. [12] Swarup KS, Yamashiro S. Unit commitment solution using a genetic algorithm. Int Conf Electr Engng, Matsue, Japan 1997;Jan:3740. [13] Wong KP, Wong YW. on Thermal generator scheduling using hybrid genetic/simulated annealing approach. IEE ProcGener Transm Distrib 1995;142(4):273 380.

Appendix A Table A1 Table A2