You are on page 1of 6

2014 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTATION OF POWER, ENERGY, INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION (ICCPEIC)

978-1-4799-3826-1/14/$31.002014 IEEE
SOLUTION TO PROFIT BASED UNIT
COMMITMENT USING SWARM
INTELLIGENCE TECHNIQUE
C. Shanmuga sundaram
Research Scholar
Pondicherry University
Pondicherry
shanmeceee@gmail.com
M. Sudhakaran
Associate Professor
Pondicherry Engineering
college
Pondicherry
sudhakaran@pec.edu
R.Selvakumar
Student Member
Pondicherry
Engineering College
Pondicherry
R.G. Natarajan
Student Member
Pondicherry
Engineering College
Pondicherry
Abstract: This paper presents an application of swarm
intelligence technique for power system optimization.
Unit commitment is an important task for the optimal
allocation of the generating units for the economic
operations of the power system network. Solution to
the unit commitment (UC) problem in the
conventional market and profit based unit
commitment (PBUC) in restructured power market
have been solved using swarm intelligent techniques
and thereby finding the power output of each
generator available in the power system network. The
main objective of the unit commitment problem is to
minimize the total production cost for the generation
satisfying all its system constraints. In PBUC problem
the objective is to maximize the profit of the
generation companies with or without emission
limitation. In this paper, proposed method is tested on
IEEE 39 bus system with 10 generating units and
efficiency of the proposed algorithm is compared with
other swarm intelligence methods.
Key words: Profit based unit commitment, Deregulation,
Emission, Swarm intelligence, improved bee colony
algorithm.
I. INTRODUCTION
Unit commitment [1] is a non-linear mixed integer
problem which plays a vital role in power system
optimization and economic operation of the generating
units in the power system network. The main objective of
the unit commitment is to find the optimum allocation of
the generating units for a feasible operation of the power
system and economic load dispatch is done by finding
power output level of each generating units at minimum
production cost. Unit commitment problem is subjected to
various constraints like power balance constraints, ramp
rate limits, generator capacity limits, must run units,
minimum up and down time limits and spinning reserve
constraints.
The researches in the optimization of the power
system have been done by conventional optimization
methods such as priority list method [2], Lagrangian
relaxation method [3], branch and bound programming [4]
and dynamic programming method [5-7]. Various
assumptions are made in conventional methods which
have been failed to validate in many occasions. These
conventional methods have a complex mathematical
analysis and also has dimensional problem.
In recent years, application of natural metaphors has a
greater impact in power system optimization. A branch of
natural metaphors which is focused on insect behaviors
and interaction between other insects in the colony or
population is known as Swarm intelligence. Various
researches have been made on swarm intelligent
techniques like evolutionary programming [8], binary
coded firefly algorithm [9], particle swarm optimization
[10], and ant colony optimization algorithm [11]. The
population based swarm optimization methods results in
achieving optimum solution with lesser computational
time and it fails in achieving the global optimum solution
in the optimization process. In this paper a newly
developed swarm intelligence technique called improved
artificial bees colony algorithm (IABC)is employed to
solve the unit commitment problem [12-14].
In 1982 the process of unbundling starts in the power
industry. The entire power system has deformed and
restructured into different regions. This restructuring
process deregulated various policies for existing
monopoly utilities which is taken over by state
reformation act of 1989. In restructuring process the
power is traded through independent system operator
which acts as neutral organization for both generation
sector and distribution sector and it will not take part in
any of the market conditions [15]. The main objective for
the optimization in the restructured power market is to
maximize the profit of the generation companies for
which units have been scheduled to attain the objective
function known as the Profit Based Unit commitment
(PBUC). Chile is the first country to restructure the power
sector. England is the first country to start the power trade
through power pool in the year 1990. Later many
countries like Australia, USA and California states and
India also adapted the restructuring process in the power
industry.
The implementation of population based research in
profit based unit commitment (PBUC) includes shuffled
frog leaping algorithm [16], Muller method [17], ant
colony optimization [18], and tabu-search [19] have
258
SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, et.al.: SOLUTION TO PROFIT BASED UNIT COMMITMENT USING SWARM INTELLIGENCE TECHNIQUE

incorporated but these algorithms have suffered due to
high computational time and many times failed to achieve
the global optimum solution and results in sub-optimal
solution. In this paper PBUC problem is solved without
violating its functional constraints and effectiveness of the
proposed algorithm is validated by comparing with other
methods addressed in the literature.
The operation of the thermal generating units leads to
an imbalance in the environment due to emission of
harmful green house gases like sulfur hexafluoride,
methane , carbon dioxide and hydro fluorocarbons. The
Kyoto protocol [20] introduced a new constraint for the
emission of green house gases regarding the operation of
the thermal units. Nanda et al. took the problem same as
before one to minimize the emission with the line flow
constraints [21]. Gent and Lamont [22] had done a
research on the minimization of the emission limitations.
This emission limitation is done with characteristic
equations based on the emission co-efficient of the
generating units. The tests are carried out in profit based
unit commitment with same case study and the results
with emission limitation obtained by the proposed method
are compared with the other swarm intelligent techniques
addressed in the literature.

Table 1 FORECASTED DEMAND AND SPOT PRICE
Hr
(h)
Load
(MW)
Price
(Rs./Mw h)
Hr
(h)
Load
(MW)
Price
(Rs./Mw h)
1 700 996.75 13. 1400 1107
2 750 990 14. 1300 1102.5
3 850 1039.5 15. 1200 1012.5
4 950 1019.25 16. 1050 1003.5
5 1000 1046.25 17. 1000 1001.25
6 1100 1032.75 18. 1100 992.25
7 1150 1012.5 19. 1200 999
8 1200 996.75 20. 1400 1019.25
9 1300 1026 21. 1300 1039.5
10 1400 1320.75 22. 1100 1032.75
11 1450 1356.75 23. 900 1023.75
12 1500 1424.25 24. 800 1014.75

II. FORMULATION OF PBUC PROBLEM

A. OBJ ECTI VE FUNCTI ON
The primary objective of the unit commitment
problem is to minimize the total production cost of the
generating units and establish the optimal schedule for the
generating units satisfying all its system constraints. In
deregulated power market unit commitment is known as
PBUC problem. The main objective of the PBUC problem
is to maximize the profit of the generation companies
without violating all its functional constraints. These can
be mathematically represented as,

Max PF = RV-TC ----[]
Where,
[

-----[]
TC = [() [( )]

---- []


B. POWER DEMAND CONSTRAI NT
In conventional power market the equality
constraints states that total generation must be equal to
sum of the forecasted demand for that hour and total
transmission losses which mathematically defined as,

--------[]
In deregulated power market generation need not
necessarily meet the total forecasted demand for that hour
it may less than or equal to sum of the total load demand
and transmission losses without violating the generator
constraints which is given by,

------- []
C. GENERATOR LI MI T CONSTRAI NT
Each generating units available in the power
system network will have a limit on the maximum
generation and minimum generation limits for optimum
operation of the system which is mathematically defined
as,



------ []

D. RAMP RATE CONSTRAI NT
The transition of the power output level of each
generating units for corresponding variation of loads on
each hour is limited by ramp rate of the generating units
which is mathematically given by,
Up ramp limit:


()

------[]
Down ramp limit:

()

------[]

E. MI NI MUM UP AND DOWN TI ME CONSTRAI NT
A generating unit must be in ON/OFF status for a
minimum duration before shutting down or restarting
particular units, respectively which is given as,
Up-ramp rate

-----[]

Down-ramp rate

-----[]

Table II CONTROL PARAMETERS
Sl.no variable specifications
1. No of units 10
2. No of hours 24
3. Pop size 10
4. iterations 100
5. Unemployed bees 10
6. On looker bees 4
7. Scout bee 1

III. IMPROVED ARTIFICIAL BEE COLONY
ALGOITHM
Improved artificial bees colony (IABC) is derived
and modified from artificial bees colony developed by
Dervis Karaboga in 2005. Improved artificial bees colony
algorithm is developed to solve the unit commitment
problem in the power system. The proposed method is
based on the interaction of bees with other bees in the
colony.
259
2014 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTATION OF POWER, ENERGY, INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION (ICCPEIC)



In the IABC system the entire population is
classified into three different groups namely employed
bees, onlooker bees (unemployed bees) and scout bee.
Each group of bees has different method of searching
their food. The amount of food sources collected by the
bees is termed as the nectar and food sources collected by
each bee are known as aptness of the solution. Employed
bees search their food source with the help of their
previous Knowledge but onlooker bees search their food
by just with the help of employed bees present in hive or
colony. Scout bee normally called as queen bee will
search food spontaneously without any previous
knowledge it will usually around ten percent of the total
population in the colony. During initialization all the bees
in the colony develop the initial state of population. Then
for optimization modification needs to be made each bee
in the colony. After generating the initial population the
employed bees modifies the current position and finds the
evaluates the new aptness and its effectiveness will be
calculated by the probabilistic function given by the Eq.
(11) if the nectar amount of the new food sources is better
or higher than the old one then bee remembers new value
of food source.

------[]
Where aptness
i
is the quality of the food source i
and N
e
is number of food sources available in the colony.
Once employed bee made their modification
process onlooker starts modification of position
depending on the hive mates with the help of an Eq. (12)
and finds new value of food source and quality of the food
source is compared with old one and stores the efficient
one using the above mentioned probabilistic function and
the best one is stored in the memory.

) -----[]
where m and j are randomly chosen indexes.
Though the value of m is randomly chosen it should not
be equal to the value of i. If there is no improvement in
the food sources after predetermined trails then best
solution is termed as scout bee and declares the food
source as abandoned.
Table III GENERATOR EMISSION CO-EFFICIENTS
Units i (ton/h) i (ton/MW h) i (ton/MW
2
h)
1 10.33908 -0.24444 0.00312
2 10.33908 -0.24444 0.00312
3 30.03910 -0.40695 0.00509
4 30.03910 -0.40695 0.00509
5 32.00006 -0.38132 0.00344
6 32.00006 -0.38132 0.00344
7 33.00056 -0.39023 0.00465
8 35.00056 -0.39524 0.00465
9 36.00012 -0.39864 0.00470
10 33.00056 -0.39023 0.00465





IV. Proposed IABC algorithm for UC problem

Step1: Initialization
Initialize the IABC control parameters such as
colony size, number of employed and unemployed bees
and maximum cycle number (MCN)
Step 2: Initial generation of binary strings
In the initial stage it is an infeasible to generate
an optimal solution satisfying all its functional constraints.
Initial commitment schedule is generated for the
population size of N in binary status. To determine the
ON/OFF status of the generating units a randomly
generated value r is compared with the values of

. If
the value of

is higher than the randomly chosen value


then unit status is ON otherwise its OFF. The value of

is found with a help of an Eq. (13)


(

)
(

)
(

)
------[]
Step 3: Average full load production cost estimation
For achieving optimum schedule least cost
generating unit must be declared as must run units for the
entire time horizon. For finding the must run unit the full
load average production (FLAPC) cost of each unit is
estimated. The FLAPC is defined as net heat rate at the
full load power output level.
Step4: Repair mechanism for constraint management
After making an initial schedule the bits for the
first hour in the scheduling time are made according to the
initial status of the generating units and forecasted
demand for that particular hour. Once commitment
schedule is made for entire time horizon it is subjected to
various constraints and if any violation is there in
constraints proper repair mechanism is applied and
modified binary string for the total population size is
generated.
Step 5: Economic load dispatch (ELD)
Once unit commitment schedule is done using
the binary strings then economic load dispatch is done
without violating generator capacity limits and other
functional constraints.
Step 6: Evaluation of Aptness of the solution
An aptness function is given by the Eq. (14)
Aptness= [1-%cost] -----[]




-----[]
Where min and max cost are global minimum
and maximum cost within the entire population and string
cost is the corresponding bees cost in the population. The
bee which has highest aptness value is declared as best
bee among the population and bee with lowest aptness
value is termed as worst bee in the population.
Step 7: Position modification by Employed bees
Employed bees are employed for the
modification in the position with the help of Eq. (16) and
new position is checked for the constraints. If there is no
violation in its constraints and economic load dispatch is
260
SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, et.al.: SOLUTION TO PROFIT BASED UNIT COMMITMENT USING SWARM INTELLIGENCE TECHNIQUE

done for new population. Once ELD is done aptness of
the food source is compared with old solution and best
solution is stored using a greedy selection technique.

) ------[]
Step 8: Involvement of onlooker bees
The onlooker bee evaluates the aptness of the
solution taken by employed bees and chooses a nectar
amount based on the probabilistic function in the Eq. (17)

------[]
Step 9: Modification of position by onlooker bees
After recruiting onlooker bees it modifies the
position with the help of the nest mates and modification
of position is similar to the employed bee and new value
of food source is checked for constraints. If there is any
violation proper repair mechanism is applied and
economic load dispatch is done. Same selection technique
is applied for selecting the best value of food source.
Step 10: Introduction of Scout bee
Once nectar amount of the food sources is not
improved by predetermined trails, then food sources are
declared as abandoned source and bee with the minimum
production cost is termed as scout bee.
Step 11: Process of Termination
Memorize the best solution in each cycle count
and increment cycle count and check for maximum cycle
number. If MCN is achieved terminate the process and
record the best solution for the entire scheduled time
horizon. Otherwise the process is repeated.
Table IV COMPARISON OF RESULTS
Traditional UC
Sl.
no
Method Total cost
(Rs.)
Emission
(Kg)
1. EP [8] 25404795.00 -
2. BRCFF [9] 25377165.00 -
3. HPSO [10] 25377390.0 -
4. IABC 24990526.3 27609.10
PBUC
Sl.
no
Method PROFIT
(Rs.)
Emission
(Kg)
1. SFLA [16] 4744910.1 26617.57
2. Muller method [17] 4648320.0 -
3. ACO [18] 4675050.0 -
4. IABC 4834334.3 26550.68

Table V TEST DATA (IEEE-39 BUS SYSTEM)

Table VI
SIMULA
TION
RESULT
S FOR
TRADITI
ONAL
UC BY
PROPOS
ED
METHO
D


Power generations of units (MW)
Fuel cost
(Rs.)
Startup
cost
(Rs.)
Total cost
(Rs.)
Revenue
(Rs.)
Profit
(Rs.)
Emission
(ton)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
455 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 614968.2 0 614968.2 697725 82756.8 682.766
2 455 295 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 654167.7 0 654167.7 742500 88332.3 754.784
3
455 395 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 732769.2 0 732769.2 883575 150805.8 945.620
4 455 455 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 837288.9 7650 844938.9 968287.5 123348.6 1112.325
5
455 455 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 10 920272.95 1350 921622.95 1046250 124627.05 1143.147
6 455 455 0 130 0 60 0 0 0 0 986683.95 25200 1011883.95 1136025 124141.05 1174.735
7
455 455 110 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 1023540.75 24750 1048290.75 1164375 116084.25 1200.093
8
455 455 130 130 30 0 0 0 0 0 1085915.7 40500 1126415.7 1196100 69684.3 1240.043
9 455 455 130 130 130 0 0 0 0 0 1177373.7 0 1177373.7 1333800 156426.3 1256.951
10
455 455 130 130 162 0 68 0 0 0 1315509.75 1350 1316859.75 1849050 532190.25 1304.859
11 455 455 130 130 162 80 38 0 0 0 1375761.15 7650 1383411.15 1967287.5 583876.35 1325.289
Particulars G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10
Pmax(MW) 455 455 130 130 162 80 85 55 55 55
Pmax(MW) 150 150 20 20 25 20 25 10 10 10
Ai($/MWh
2
) 0.0004 0.0003 0.002 0.0021 0.0039 0.0071 0.0079 0.0022 0.0017 0.0041
bi($/MWh) 16.19 17.26 16.6 16.5 19.7 22.36 27.74 27.27 27.79 25.92
ci 1000 970 700 680 450 370 480 665 670 660
MUT(h) 8 8 5 5 6 3 3 1 1 1
MDT(h) 8 8 5 5 6 3 3 1 1 1
Up Ramp(MW) 100 100 130 130 162 80 85 55 55 55
Down
Ramp(MW)
120 120 130 130 162 80 85 55 55 55
start up cost ($) 4500 5000 550 560 900 170 260 30 30 30
Initial status(h) 8 8 -5 -5 -6 -3 -3 -1 -1 -1
261
2014 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTATION OF POWER, ENERGY, INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION (ICCPEIC)


12
455 455 130 130 162 80 78 0 0 10 1468725.3 1350 1470075.3 2136375.01 666299.71 1360.819
13
455 455 130 130 162 68 0 0 0 0 1293624.45 0 1293624.45 1549800 256175.55 1298.869
14 455 455 0 130 162 80 0 0 0 18 1226836.35 1350 1228186.35 1433250 205063.65 1264.729
15
455 455 0 130 160 0 0 0 0 0 1075364.55 0 1075364.55 1215000 139635.45 1212.283
16 455 455 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 10 908781.75 1350 910131.75 1053675 143543.25 1182.793
17
455 455 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 878250.15 0 878250.15 1001250 122999.85 1124.716
18 455 455 0 130 0 60 0 0 0 0 986683.95 7650 994333.95 1091475 97141.04 1174.735
19
455 455 115 130 0 20 25 0 0 0 1117218.6 36450 1153668.6 1198800 45131.39 1255.686
20
455 455 130 130 0 80 85 10 0 55 1404633.15 2700 1407333.15 1426950 19616.85 1330.442
21 455 455 130 130 0 80 50 0 0 0 1222638.75 0 1222638.75 1351350 128711.25 1265.011
22
455 455 60 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 985425.75 0 985425.75 1136025.01 150599.26 1177.176
23 455 400 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 845356.95 0 845356.95 921375 76018.05 978.833
24
455 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 693434.7 0 693434.7 811800 118365.3 842.402
24831226.3 24990526.3 29312100 4321573.67 27609.10

Table VII SIMULATION RESULT FOR PBUC BY PROPOSED METHOD


Power generations of units (MW)
Fuel cost
(Rs.)
Startup
cost (Rs.)
Total cost
(Rs.)
Revenue
(Rs.)
Profit
(Rs.)
Emission
(ton)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 455 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 614968.515 0 614968.515 697725 82756.49 682.7661
2 455 295 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 654168.015 0 654168.015 742500 88331.99 754.7841
3 455 395 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 732769.515 0 732769.515 883575 150805.5 945.6201
4 455 455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 780060.015 0 780060.015 927517.5 147457.5 1090.073
5 455 455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 780060.015 0 780060.015 952087.5 172027.5 1090.073
6 455 455 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 908781.75 25200 933981.75 1074060 140078.3 1153.230
7 455 455 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 908781.75 0 908781.75 1053000 144218.3 1153.230
8 455 455 130 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 1038912.75 24750 1063662.75 1166198 102535.3 1216.386
9 455 455 130 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 1038912.75 0 1038912.75 1200420 161507.3 1216.386
10 455 455 130 130 162 0 0 0 0 0 1207381.5 40500 1247881.5 1759239 511357.5 1276.892
11 455 455 130 130 162 80 0 0 0 0 1306212.3 7650 1313862.3 1915731 601868.7 1300.403
12 455 455 130 130 162 80 0 0 0 0 1306212.3 0 1306212.3 2011041 704828.7 1300.403
13 455 455 130 130 162 68 0 0 0 0 1293624.45 0 1293624.45 1549800 256175.6 1300.403
14 455 455 0 130 162 0 0 0 0 0 1077250.5 0 1077250.5 1325205 247954.5 1213.735
15 455 455 0 130 100 0 0 0 0 0 1019436.75 0 1019436.75 1154250 134813.3 1213.735
16 455 350 0 130 100 0 0 0 0 0 936742.50 0 936742.50 1038623 101880.5 943.59
17 400 400 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 912240.00 0 912240.00 1001250 89010.0 892.19
18 455 455 0 130 60 0 0 0 0 0 986580.9 0 986580.9 1081553 94972.1 1103.81
19 455 455 0 130 160 0 0 0 0 0 1075364.865 0 1075364.86 1188810 113445.1 1213.735
20 455 455 0 130 162 0 0 0 0 1077250.5 0 1077250.5 1225139 147888.5 1213.735
21 455 455 0 130 162 0 0 0 0 0 1077250.5 0 1077250.5 1249479 172228.5 1213.735
22 455 455 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 908781.75 0 908781.75 1074060 165278.3 1154.934
23 455 445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 772168.5 0 772168.5 921375 149206.5 1064.438
24 455 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 658091.7 0 658091.7 811800 153708.3 842.4021
23072004.1 23170104.1 28004438 4834334.3 26550.68


V. CONCLUSION
In this paper application of newly developed
swarm intelligence based algorithm for solving the unit
commitment problem in conventional market and profit
based unit commitment in deregulated power market. This
swarm intelligence method is based on interaction and
behavioral characteristics of bees in the colony. The
effectiveness of the suggested algorithm is tested on
standard IEEE-39 bus system with 10 generating units.
From the obtained results it is inferred that this algorithm
is more efficient and results in quicker in achieving the
global optimum solution. The validation is verified with
other algorithms addressed in this literature. Moreover
this algorithm can be extended to the larger systems in the
power system network. The platform used for the solving
the unit commitment problem by improved artificial bees
colony algorithm is on windows 8 core i5 with 4 GB
RAM and MATLAB software version 7.10 is used for
simulation.





VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are very grateful and express their sincere
gratitude to the authorities of the Pondicherry Engineering
College for extending all facilities to complete this work.

VII. REFRENCES

1. Padhy NP. Unit commitmenta bibliographical survey. IEEE
Trans Power Syst 2004;19(2):1196205.

262
SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, et.al.: SOLUTION TO PROFIT BASED UNIT COMMITMENT USING SWARM INTELLIGENCE TECHNIQUE
2. Senjyu T, Shimabukuro K, Uezato K,Funabashi T. A fast
technique for unit Commitment problem by extended priority list.
IEEE Trans Power Syst 2003;18(2): 8828.
3. Bavafa M, Navidi N, Monsef H. A new approach for profit based
unit commitment using Lagrangian relaxation combined with ant
colony search algorithm. Proc IEEE UPEC 2008:16.
4. C.L. Chen, S.C. Wang, Branch-and-bound scheduling for thermal
generating units, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 8 (1993) 184189.
5. Snyder WL, Powell HD, Rayburn JC. Dynamic programming
approach to unit commitment. IEEE Trans Power Syst
1987;2(2):33950.
6. Su CC, Hsu YY. Fuzzy dynamic programming: an application to
unit commitment. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1991;6(3):12317.
7. Ouyang Z, Shahidehpour SM. An intelligent dynamic
programming for unit commitment application. IEEE Trans Power
Syst 1991;6(3):12039.
8. Weerakorn Ongsakul, Nit Petcharaks. Unit commitment by
enhanced adaptive lagrangian relaxation. IEEE Trans Power Syst
004;19(1):6208.
9. K. chandrasekaran, S.P.simon. network and reliability constrained
unit commitment problem using binary real coded firefly
algorithm. Int J Electr Power Energy syst 2012;43:921-932.
10. Ting TO, Rao MVC, Loo CK. A novel approach for unit
commitment problem via an effective hybrid particle swarm
optimization. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2006;21(1):4118.
11. S.P. Simon, N.P. Padhy, R.S. Anand, An ant colony system
approach for unit commitment problem, Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 28 (2006) 315323.
12. D.Karaboga, An Idea Based on Honey Bee Swarm for Numerical
Optimization, Technical Report- TR06, Erciyes University,
Engineering Faculty, Computer Engineering Department, 2005.
13. D.Karaboga, B.Basturk, Artificial Bee Colony (ABC)
Optimization Algorithm for Solving Constrained Optimization
Problems, LNCS: Advances in Soft Computing: Foundations of
Fuzzy Logic and Soft Computing, Vol.4529, 2007, pp.789-798.
14. B. Basturk, D. Karaboga, An Artificial Bee colony (ABC)
algorithm for numeric function optimization, in: Proceedings of the
IEEE swarm intelligence Symposium 2006, Indianapolis, Indiana,
USA, 2006, pp. 1214.
15. Shahidehpour SM, Yamin HY, Li Z. Market operations in electric
power systems. John Wiley and Sons; 2002.
16. T.Venkastesan, M.Y.Sanavullah, SFLA approach to solve PBUC
problem with emission limitation, Int J Electrical power and energy
syst. 46(2013) 1-9333
17. K. Chandram, N. Subrahmanyam and M. Sydulu, New approach
with Muller method for Profit Based Unit Commitment, in Proc.
IEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Jul. 2008, pp. 1
8.
18. C. Christopher Columbus, K. Chandrasekaran and Sishaj P. Simon,
Nodal ant colony optimization for solving profit based unit
commitment problem for GENCOs," Applied Soft Computing.,
vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 145160, Jan. 2012.
19. T. A. A. Victoire and A. E. Jeyakumar, Unit commitment by a
tabu-search-based hybrid-optimisation technique, in Proc. IEE
Conf. Generation, Transmission and Distribution, Jul. 2005, Vol.
152, no. 4.
20. Catala JPS, Mariano SJPS, Mendes VMF, Ferreira LAFM. Short-
term scheduling of thermal units: emission constraints and trade-
off curves. Eur Trans Electr Power 2008;18:114.
21. Nanda J, Hari L, Kothari ML. Economic emission load dispatch
with line flow constraints using a classical technique. IEEE Proc
Part C 994; 141 (1): 1 10.
22. Gent MR, Lamont John Wm. Minimum-emission dispatch. IEEE
Trans PAS 1971;90:265060.
23. Wood,A.J and Wollenberg,B.F. 1996. Power generation, operation
& control. 2

nd ed., New York: John Wiley.&sons
BIOGRAPHIES
C.Shanmugasundaram received the B.E degree from Annamalai
University, Tamilnadu, India in 1998 and his M.tech degree (High
Voltage Engineering) from SASTRA University, Tanjore, India in 2001.
He has an academic experience of 14 years in the Department of
Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Puducherry, India. Currently he
is doing his research (Ph.d) in part-time from Pondicherry Engineering
College. His current research interests are Power systems and Electrical
Machines. Presently he is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Electrical and Electronics Engineering in Manakula Vinayagar Institute
of Technology,Puducherry, India.
Dr.M.Sudhakaran completed B.E Electrical and Electronics
Engineering in Government College of Engineering affiliated to MS
University, Tirunelveli, India in 1997 and M.E Power System
Engineering in Thiagarajar College of Engineering affiliated to MK
University, Madurai in 1998. He has done his Ph.D work in Power
system Operation and Control obtained his degree from MK university
in 2004. He has 15 years of teaching and research experience in
Electrical engineering. There are 2 research scholars completed their
Ph.D under his supervision and 5 more scholars pursuing their research
work. There are 25 journal papers and 36 conference papers to his credit.
Currently he is working as Associate Professor in Department of EEE,
Pondicherry Engineering College, India.
263