Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 697–707

Radial movement optimization (RMO) technique for solving unit

commitment problem in power systems

M. Vanithasri ∗ , R. Balamurugan, L. Lakshminarasimman

Department of Electrical Engineering, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar 608002, Tamil Nadu, India
Received 29 November 2016; accepted 22 May 2017
Available online 30 May 2017

Abstract
Unit commitment (UC) is one of the nonlinear optimization problems with linear and nonlinear constraints. In this work, radial
movement optimization (RMO) is employed to solve the optimal thermal unit commitment problem. Radial movement optimization
is a novel global optimization technique used to solve the complex optimization problems. In this work, 10, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100
unit systems are considered for implementing the RMO technique in the cost estimation of thermal unit commitment problems. The
simulation test results show economic results and good convergence, while satisfying the constraints of the objective function. The
results also show that the RMO algorithm outperforms the other algorithms like GA, PSO, DE etc. with minimum cost.
© 2017 Electronics Research Institute (ERI). Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Radial movement optimization; Optimization; Unit commitment; Thermal

1. Introduction

In electrical power systems, unit commitment (UC) problem is considered as a complex problem because of its
nonlinearity and it is a mixed-integer optimization problem. Unit commitment is a blend of generator scheduling
problem and the generation allocation problem. It deals with the optimum amount of time for which a generating
unit must be operated at a per hour basis in order to meet the load requirements effectively. With the help of this
optimization, it is possible to supply power with least possible losses and minimum fuel consumption, in order to
maximize the profit. Besides achieving minimum total production cost, a generation schedule needs to satisfy a number
of operating constraints. These constraints reduce freedom in the choice of starting-up and shutting-down of generating
units. The constraints to be satisfied are usually the status restriction of individual generating units, minimum up time,

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vanithasimman@gmail.com (V. M.).
Peer review under the responsibility of Electronics Research Institute (ERI).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesit.2017.05.003
2314-7172/© 2017 Electronics Research Institute (ERI). Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
698 V. M. et al. / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 697–707

minimum down time, capacity limits, generation limit for the first and last hour, limited ramp rate, group constraint,
power balance constraint, spinning reserve constraint, etc (Saravanan et al., 2013).
Regarding the power demand variations, the UC problem is to commit adequate units at appropriate time and with
enough generated power, economically. In addition, most of the unit types in the electric power systems are the thermal
units which cannot instantly turn on and produce power. Therefore, the UC problem must be solved in advance so that
enough producible power is always accessible to supply the system demand. Unit commitment problem is found to be
a complicated one because of large number of possible ON and OFF combinations of units in the power system over
a scheduling time horizon (Bukhari et al., 2016). Since the conventional approaches are insufficient for handling large
systems, number of metaheuristic techniques has been developed to solve the unit commitment problem.
So far, numerous techniques have been developed for finding optimal/near-optimal solutions. A detailed review
of the unit commitment problem and its solution methodology was given elsewhere (Saravanan et al., 2013). Those
techniques are categorized as: numerical optimization techniques, intelligent search algorithms and hybrid methods.
The numerical optimization techniques are: mixed-integer programming (MIP) (Viana and Pedroso, 2013), Lagrangian
relaxation (LR) (Benhamida and Abdelbar, 2010), Dynamic programming (Hobbs et al., 1988), Branch and Bound
(Cohen and Yoshimura, 1983), Benders’ decomposition (Niknam et al., 2009), Semi-definite programming (Mhanna
and Jabr, 2012), and second order cone programming (Quan et al., 2014). Khanmohammadi et al. (2010) and Amiri
and Khanmohammadi (2013) proposed primary approaches employing a modification process to improve the solution
qualities. But these methods have some drawbacks like local convergence, more computational time and solution far
away from optimal value.
In the past few years, many intelligent algorithms like, Genetic Algorithm (GA) (Dudek, 2013), Annular crossover
GA (Pavez-Lazo and Soto Cartes, 2011), particle swarm optimization (PSO) (Zhao et al., 2009), IPSO (Zhao et al.,
2009), Quantum-inspired PSO (Jeong et al., 2010), binary neighbourhood field optimization (Wu and Chow, 2013),
gravitational search algorithm (GSA) (Roy, 2013), GSA with local mutation (Yuan et al., 2014), invasive weed opti-
mization (Saravanan et al., 2014), shuffled frog leaping algorithm (Barati and Farsangi, 2014), firefly algorithm
(Chandrasekaran et al., 2013), differential evolution (DE) (Datta and Datta, 2012), quantum-inspired evolutionary
algorithm (Chung et al., 2011), artificial bee colony (ABC) (Chandrasekaran et al., 2012), and ant colony optimization
(ACO) (Vaisakh and Srinivas, 2011). The third category consists of the approaches that integrate different methods.
Some of them are: hybrid Taguchi-ant colony (Yuan Kang et al., 2013), expert system and elite PSO (Chen, 2012),
augmented Lagrange Hopfield network (Dieu and Ongsakul, 2011), metaheuristic search-based MILP (Rahman et al.,
2014), LR hybrid with evolutionary algorithm (Logenthiran and Woo, 2015), and LR and PSO (Yu and Zhang, 2014)
have been applied to solve UC.
In this paper, a simple and efficient stochastic optimization algorithm is employed to solve the unit commitment
problem in power systems. Radial movement optimization is applied to solve the unit commitment problem and the
results obtained are compared with various methods.

2. Unit commitment problem

2.1. Objective function

The objective of the unit commitment problem is the minimization of thermal cost for committed units over a
scheduling period T. It can be written as (Lakshminarasimman and Subramanian, 2008)

T Ng
Minimize F = {uit Ft (i, t) + SC (i, t)} (1)
t=1 i=1

where
uit —Operating status of the ith thermal unit at a time t
Ng—Number of generating units in the system
Ft —Total fuel cost and
SC—Start-up cost
The production cost can be expressed in a general quadratic form using cost coefficients of the thermal plant.
 V. M. et al. / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 697–707 699

2.2. System constraints

2.2.1. Load balance constraint

The load balance is written as
Ng
uit Pit = PDt (2)
i=1
Where PDt —total system demand at time t.

2.3. Spinning reserve constraint

During the operation of a power system, the spinning reserve must be available to minimize the probability of load
interruption. It is considered to be a pre-specified amount or a given percentage of the forecasted peak demand (Jeong
et al., 2009). It is given by
Ng
uit Pimax − PDt ≥ Rt (3)
i=1
where Rt—reserve requirement at time t.
The reserve requirement was 10% of the hourly load and the start-up cost was calculated as
⎧
⎨ HSC (i) , if md (i) ≤ Xoff ≤ md (i) + CST (i)
i
SC t) =
(i, (4)
⎩ off
CSC (i) , if Xi > md (i) + CST (i)
where CST is the cold starting hour.

2.4. Unit constraints

The generator capacity constraints are expressed as

uit Pimin ≤ Pit ≤ uit Pimax (5)
where min and max represent the minimum and maximum values.
The minimum uptime (mu) defined as the minimum number of hours for which a committed unit should be turned
on. It is represented as
mui ≤ Xion (6)
Minimum down time limit (md): It is defined as the minimum number of hours for which a de-committed unit
should be turned off. It is given as
off
mdi ≤ Xi (7)
where Xon and Xoff represent the duration for which the unit is continuously on and off respectively.

3. Radial movement optimization technique

An efficient tool, for global optimization of multivariable complex system, called radial movement optimization
(RMO) is developed by Rahmani and Yusof (2014). The swarm based stochastic optimization technique strikes simi-
larity with other evolutionary methods like PSO and differential evolution (DE). RMO is well explained in literature
(Rahmani and Yusof, 2014; Vanithasri et al., 2016).

3.1. Radial movement optimization for unit commitment problem

The RMO algorithm is used for solving the unit commitment problem. UC is a mixed integer non-linear optimization
problem which includes continuous variables (X) representing the generation schedules and discrete variables (Y)
representing the operating status of the thermal units. The RMO algorithm is modified to handle both these variables.
700 V. M. et al. / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 697–707

Therefore unit commitment problem is well suited for the application of mixed integer RMO algorithm. The different
steps involved in the RMO algorithm for solving the unit commitment problem are detailed below:

3.1.1. Step—1: initialization

The initial particles in the search space are randomly generated within their limits. The initial population is
represented as
Xi0 , Yi0 = (Xmin , Ymin ) + +Pi (Xmax − Xmin ) + round [Pi (Ymax − Ymin )] (8)
where round represents the nearest integer to the real number.
The population vector consists of both integer and discrete variables.

3.1.2. Step—2: generate the initial velocity vector

The velocity vector vij is randomly generated using the following equation
For integer variables representing on/off states of generator:
 
Vij = round rand (0, 1) × Vmax(j) (9)
For real variables representing the power generation:
Vij = rand (0, 1) × Vmax(j) for real variables (10)
where i = 1, 2, 3 . . ..m and j = 1, 2, 3 . . ..s, for integer; s + 1. . .. . .n for real

Xmax(j) − Xmin(j)
Vmax (j) = round for integer variables (11)
K
Xmax(j) − Xmin(j)
Vmax (j) = for real variables (12)
K
K is an integer number which is choosen judiciously. Xmax (j) and X min (j) are the minimum and maximum limits
of jth control variable respectively.

3.1.3. Step—3: locate the center point

The fitness of each particle in the population vector is estimated using the following equation
T Ns Nc
ψ= {u (i, t) FC (i, t) + SC (i, t)} + ∅|VIOLz | (13)
t=1 i=1 z=1

where Øz is the penalty factor.

The population vector which gives the minimum fitness value is chosen as the initial center point (Cp ) and it is the
gbest vector in the initial population.

3.1.4. Step—4: to find the radial movement

The radial movement of the particles from the center point Cp is given by
 
Uij = round W × Vij + center (j) (14)
 
Uij = W × Vij + center (j) (15)
W is the inertial weight which is calculated in each iteration using

Wmax − Wmin
W = Wmax − × Generation (16)
Generationmax
Wmax is fixed as 1 and Wmin is fixed as 0.
Here the particles are sprinkled. If any control variable in the population in the population vector Vij violates their
maximum or minimum limits then that variable is fixed at their violated limit.
 V. M. et al. / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 697–707 701

Table 1
Data for 10 unit UC problem.
Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Pmax (MW) 455 455 130 130 162 80 85 55 55 55

Pmin (MW) 150 150 20 20 25 20 25 10 10 10
a ($/h) 1000 970 700 680 450 370 480 660 665 670
B ($/MWh) 16.19 17.26 16.60 16.50 19.70 22.26 27.74 25.92 27.27 27.79
C ($/MW2 h) 0.00048 0.00031 0.002 0.00211 0.00398 0.00712 0.00079 0.00413 0.00222 0.00173
Min up (h) 8 8 5 5 6 3 3 1 1 1
Min down (h) 8 8 5 5 6 3 3 1 1 1
Hot start cost ($) 4500 5000 550 560 900 170 260 30 30 30
Cold start cost ($) 9000 10,000 1100 1120 1800 340 520 60 60 60
Cold start hours 5 5 4 4 4 2 2 0 0 0
Initial status 8 8 −5 −5 −6 −3 −3 −1 −1 −1

Table 2
Daily load demand (10 unit system).
Hour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Demand 700 750 850 950 1000 1100 1150 1200 1300 1400 1450 1500
Hour 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Demand 1400 1300 1200 1050 1000 1100 1200 1400 1300 1100 900 800

3.1.5. Step—5: evaluate the fitness of the particle and determine the new centre location
The fitness of each vector in the population Uij is evaluated. The particle which gives the minimum error is selected
as radial best (Rbest) vector. The new center location (center 1) is updated using the following equation
 
 

Center K+1 = round Center K + C1 Gbest − Center K + + C2 Rbest − Center K (17)
where K is the iteration number.
j = 1,2, . . ..s
j = 1,2, . . ..s + 1
The fitness of radial best vector is compared with the fitness of global best (Gbest) vector. If R best is better than
Gbest, Gbest is replaced by Rbest.
The convergence of radial movement optimization is improved by generating number of trial vectors around the
Gbest using
 
Vij = round (Gbest + unifrnd (0, 1) ∗ Ur1j − Ur2j )
(18)
i = 1, 2, . . .m; j = 1, 2, . . .n
where r1 and r2 are randomly selected vector which are mutually different from each other. The fitness of each vector
in Vij is evaluated and are compared with Gbest. If the fitness of trial vector is better than Gbest, trial vector replaced
the Gbest vector. This step is repeated for Nt times for each vector in every iteration.
The iteration is incremented by 1. The steps 1–4 is repeated for predefined iterations.

4. Results and discussion

In this study, unit commitment test systems comprising of 10-100 thermal units are considered as case studies. For
small-scale UC problem 10 unit test system is considered and for large-scale UC problem 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 unit
test systems are considered. The data for unit commitment problem are collected from the literature (Kazarlis et al.,
1996) and are tabulated in Tables 1 and 2. The unit commitment problems with 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 generating
units are duplicated by the amounts of ten units system, considering a time horizon of 24 h. The total number of
decision variables is 480 (i.e. 10 × 24 + 10 × 24) for 10 unit system, representing the generations of units and their
operating status (Lakshminarasimman and Subramanian, 2008). In this work, the duplicated test problems have 960,
1920, 2880, 3840 and 4800 binary variables for 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 unit system respectively. RMO technique
702 V. M. et al. / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 697–707

Fig. 1. Flowchart for solving unit commitment problem using RMO.

is employed to solve 10, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 generating units test system and the results are analyzed. In order
to establish the effectiveness of the RMO algorithm, the numerical results of the RMO technique is compared with
various metaheuristics techniques. The algorithm (Fig. 1) is applied in MATLAB (2011) and the simulation results are
presented in Tables 3 and 4. Simulation is performed in an Intel core i3 PU with 2 GB RAM.
The on/off status for the 10 unit system by RMO technique is shown in Table 3. The optimal power generation
outputs for 10 unit system are shown in Table 4. It is also found from Table 4 that the optimal results satisfy all
constraints. Hence, the RMO is successfully developed to solve the UC problem with 10 units. The power load demand
 V. M. et al. / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 697–707 703

Table 3
On/off status for 10 unit problem.

Table 4
Simulation result for 10 unit generating system.
Hours/units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 455 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 455 295 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 455 395 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 455 340 130 0 25 0 0 0 0 0
5 455 260 130 130 25 0 0 0 0 0
6 455 360 130 130 25 0 0 0 0 0
7 455 410 130 130 25 0 0 0 0 0
8 455 455 130 130 30 0 0 0 0 0
9 455 455 130 130 130 0 0 0 0 0
10 455 455 130 130 162 68 0 0 0 0
11 455 455 130 130 162 80 38 0 0 0
12 455 455 130 130 162 80 33 55 0 0
13 455 455 130 130 162 43 25 0 0 0
14 455 455 130 130 130 0 0 0 0 0
15 455 455 130 130 30 0 0 0 0 0
16 455 335 130 130 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 455 285 130 130 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 455 385 130 130 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 455 455 130 130 0 0 30 0 0 0
20 455 455 130 130 0 80 40 55 55 0
21 455 455 130 130 0 80 50 0 0 0
22 455 365 130 130 0 20 0 0 0 0
23 455 445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 455 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
704 V. M. et al. / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 697–707

Fig. 2. Power produced in 10 unit system in 24 h.

Table 5
Cost comparison for unit commitment problem for various generating units.
Techniques 10 20 40 60 80 100

GA (Damousis et al., 2002) 565,825 1,126,243 2,251,911 3,376,625 4,504,933 5,627,437

PSO (Dieu and Ongsakul, 2011) 564,212 1,125,983 2,250,012 3,374,174 4,501,538 5,625,376
IPSO (Dieu and Ongsakul, 2011) 563,954 1,125,279 2,248,163 3,370,979 4,495,032 5,619,284
DE (Kazarlis et al., 1996) 563,446 1,123,397 2,244,177 3,364,013 4,485,571 5,604,196
BF (Senjyu et al., 2006) 565,872 1,128,112 2,255,112 3,379,120 4,508,762 5,632,491
BCPSO (Senjyu et al., 2003) 563,947 1,123,781 2,266,040 3,373,258 4,498,037 5,600,975
ICGA (Vaisakh and Srinivas, 2011) 566,404 1,127,244 2,254,123 3,378,108 4,498,943 5,630,838
ICA (Vanithasri et al., 2016) 563,938 1,124,274 2,247,078 3,371,722 4,497,919 5,617,913
IQEA (Viana and Pedroso, 2013) 563,938 1,123,297 2,242,980 3,362,010 4,482,826 5,602,387
HAS (Wu and Chow, 2013) 565,827 1,127,177 2,250,968 3,375,138 4,500,745 5,622,350
ELRPSO (Yu and Zhang, 2014) 563,938 1,123,297 2,243,256 3,361,573 4,482,937 5,601,825
SF (Yu and Zhang, 2014) 563,865 1,122,622 2,242,178 3,363,491 4,485,633 5,605,189
EPL (Yuan Kang et al., 2013) 563,977 1,124,369 2,246,508 3,366,210 4,489,322 5,608,440
SPL (Yuan et al., 2014) 564,950 1,123,938 2,248,645 3,371,178 4,492,909 5,615,530
ATHS (Zhao et al., 2009) 563,938 1,123,297 2,242,957 3,361,748 4,482,417 5,601,651
RMO 558,578 1,122,535 2,240,054 3,354,166 4,471,835 5,600,028

shared for 24 h by the units 1–10 is shown in Fig. 2. From the figure it was observed that the unit 1 shares most of the
load and unit 10 shares no load. A maximum power of 10,920 MW is generated by Unit 1.
In order to identify the effectiveness of the RMO technique for large-scale power systems, the 10 units system is
duplicated to 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 units test systems. The duplicated system is composed of X copies of original
generators and the duplicated load which can be provided by generation in all copies. In this duplicated approach,
different copies are not isolated but are able to influence each other. The simulation results obtained for these duplicated
systems are compared with the results obtained by other methods and given in Table 5. The operating (ON/OFF) result
of RMO with a total operating cost of $558,578, 1,122,535, 2,240,054, 3,354,166, 4,471,835 and 5,600,028 for the 10,
20, 40, 60, 80 and 100-unit test system respectively. It is also found from Table 5, that the RMO gives the best optimal
results on nearly all test systems.
From Table 5 it was found that the costs obtained from the MRO, except 20 unit system, are less when compared
to other techniques like GA (Dudek, 2013), PSO, IPSO (Zhao et al., 2009), DE (Datta and Datta, 2012), Bacterial
foraging (BF) (Eslamian et al., 2009), binary clustered particle swarm optimization (BCPSO) (Chakraborty et al., 2012),
integer-coded genetic algorithm (ICGA) (Damousis et al., 2002), imperialistic competition algorithm (ICA) (Hadji
and Vahidi, 2012), quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm (IQEA) (Chung et al., 2011), harmony search algorithm
(HAS) (Pourjamal and Ravandanegh, 2013), Lagrangian relaxation and particle swarm optimization (ELRPSO) (Yu and
Zhang, 2014), straightforward (SF) (Hosseini et al., 2007), extended priority list (EPL) (Senjyu et al., 2003), stochastic
priority list (SPL) (Senjyu et al., 2006), Advanced three-stage pseudo-inspired weight-improved crazy particle swarm
optimization (ATHS) (Anup Shukla and Singh, 2016) irrespective of number of units.
 V. M. et al. / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 697–707 705

Fig. 3. Comparison of cost savings by RMO with best solution of ATHS for various unit systems.

Fig. 4. Convergence characteristics of RMO for UC problem (10 unit system).

Table 6
CPU execution time for RMO.
Unit Execution time, s

10 30.172
20 48.906
40 155.828
60 240.875
80 410.094
100 630.125

A comparison is made between the cost savings ($) obtained by the best solution of RMO and the best solution
obtained by the various algorithms given in Table 5 and it is shown in Fig. 3. From Fig. 3, it is observed that the cost
saving by RMO algorithm is significant on all the test systems. A maximum savings of $ 10,582 is attained by RMO
for 80 unit system when compared to the best solution of ATHS (Anup Shukla and Singh, 2016). Similarly, the cost
savings for 10 unit, 20 unit, 40 unit, 60 unit and 100 unit is $ 4868, $ 87, $ 2124, $7407 and $ 947, respectively.
Further, the cost savings shown in Fig. 3 is for 24 h only. Assuming the same savings for every day, than the estimated
savings over a period of one year for 10, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 unit systems will be $1,776,820, $ 31,755, $ 775,260,
$2,703,555, $3,862,430 and $ 346,385, respectively. It shows that the implementation of RMO can reduce a huge
amount in the Unit commitment problem.
The optimal convergence characteristic of RMO for 10 unit systems is shown in Fig. 4. From the figure it was
found that the results are converged at faster rate. It shows the effectiveness of RMO in solving the UC problem. The
average execution times for the different unit systems were given in Table 6. From the Table 6 it is found that the
706 V. M. et al. / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 697–707

average execution time is found to be low. Even though it may not be directly comparable due to variation of system
configuration or programming languages, but some observation can be attained.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, the RMO is effectively implemented to solve the unit commitment problem. The simulation result
reveals that the RMO is effective in searching global or near global optimal solution to the UC problem. The RMO
methodology is simple, easy and applicable for large-scale systems. The results obtained in this study for 10, 20,
40, 60, 80 and 100 unit system are compared with various techniques. The simulation results of RMO gives a total
operating cost of $558,578, $1,122,535, $2,240,054, $3,354,166, $4,471,835 and $5,600,028 for the 10, 20, 40, 60, 80
and 100-unit test system respectively. From the results, it is observed that the RMO gives economical solution for large
scale UC problem compared to all other methods reported in the literature, within a reasonable computational time.
Also the results show a faster convergence to the solution. Hence RMO based optimization is a promising technique
for solving complicated optimization problems in power systems.

References

Amiri, M., Khanmohammadi, S., 2013. A primary unit commitment approach with a modification process. Appl. Soft Comput. 13, 1007–1015.
Anup Shukla, S.N., Singh, S.N., 2016. Advanced three stage pseudo inspired weight improved crazy particle swarm optimization for unit commitment
problem. Energy 96, 23–36.
Barati, M., Farsangi, M.M., 2014. Solving unit commitment problem by a binary shuffled frog leaping algorithm. IEEE Gener. Transm. Distrib. 8,
1050–1060.
Benhamida, F., Abdelbar, B., 2010. Enhanced Lagrangian relaxation solution to the generation scheduling problem. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 32, 1099–1105.
Bukhari, S.B.A., Ahmad, A., Raza, S.A., Siddique, M.N., 2016. A ring crossover genetic algorithm for the unit commitment problem. Turk. J. Electr.
Eng. Comput. Sci. 24, 3862–3876.
Chakraborty, S., Ito, T., Senjya, T., Saber, A.Y., 2012. Unit commitment strategy of thermal generators by using advanced fuzzy controlled binary
particle swarm optimization algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 43, 1072–1078.
Chandrasekaran, K., Hemamalini, S., Simon, S.P., Padhy, N.P., 2012. Thermal unit commitment using binary/real coded artificial bee colony
algorithm. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 84, 109–119.
Chandrasekaran, K., Simon, S.P., Padhy, N.P., 2013. Binary real coded firefly algorithm for solving unit commitment problem. Inf. Sci. 249, 67–84.
Chen, P.H., 2012. Two level hierarchical approach to unit commitment using expert system and elite PSO. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 27, 780–789.
Chung, C., Yu, H., Wong, K.P., 2011. An advanced quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm for unit commitment. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 26,
847–854.
Cohen, A.I., Yoshimura, M.A., 1983. A branch and bound algorithm for unit commitment. IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. 2, 444–451.
Damousis, I.G., Bakirtzis, A.G., Dokopoulos, P.S., 2002. A solution to the unit commitment problem using integer coded genetic algorithm. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 19, 1165–1172.
Datta, D., Datta, S.A., 2012. A binary-real coded differential evaluation for unit commitment problem. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 42, 517–524.
Dieu, V.N., Ongsakul, W., 2011. Augmented Lagrange Hopfield network based Lagrangian relaxation for unit commitment. Int. J. Electr. Power
Energy Syst. 33, 522–530.
Dudek, G., 2013. Genetic algorithm with binary representation of generating unit start up and shut down times for the unit commitment problem.
Expert Syst. Appl. 40, 6080–6086.
Eslamian, M., Hosseinian, S.H., Vahidi, B., 2009. Bacterial foraging based solution to the unit commitment problem. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 24,
1478–1488.
Hadji, M.M., Vahidi, B.A., 2012. Solution to the unit commitment problem using imperialistic competition algorithm. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 27,
117–124.
Hobbs, W.J., Hermon, G., Warner, S., Shelbe, G., 1988. An enhanced dynamic programming approach for unit commitment. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 3, 1201–1205.
Hosseini, S.H., Khodaei, A., Aminifar, F., 2007. A novel straightforward unit commitment method for large scale power system. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 22, 2134–2143.
Jeong, Y.W., Park, J.B., Jang, S.H., Lee, K.Y., 2010. A new quantum-inspired binary PSO: application to unit commitment problems for power
systems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 25, 1486–1495.
Jeong, Y.W., Park, J.B., Shin, J.R., Lee, K.Y., 2009. A thermal unit commitment approach using an improved quantum evolutionary algorithm.
Electr. Power Compon. Syst. 37, 770–786.
Kazarlis, S.A., Bakirtzis, A.G., Petridis, V., 1996. A genetic algorithm solution to the unit commitment problem. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 11, 83–92.
Khanmohammadi, S., Amiri, M., Haque, M.T., 2010. A new three stage method for solving unit commitment problem. Energy 35, 3072–3080.
Lakshminarasimman, L., Subramanian, S., 2008. Applications of differential evolution in power system optimization. In: Chakraborty, U.K. (Ed.),
Advances in Differential Evolution, SCI 143, pp. 257–273.
 V. M. et al. / Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology 5 (2018) 697–707 707

Logenthiran, T., Woo, W.L., 2015. Lagrangian relaxation hybrid with evolutionary algorithm for short-term generation scheduling. Int. J. Electr.
Power Energy Syst. 64, 356–364.
Mhanna, S., Jabr, R., 2012. Application of semidefinite programming relaxation and selective pruning to the unit commitment problem. Electr.
Power Syst. Res. 90, 85–92.
Niknam, T., Khodaei, A., Fallahi, F., 2009. A new decomposition approach for the thermal unit commitment problem. Appl. Energy 86, 1667–1674.
Pavez-Lazo, B., Soto Cartes, J., 2011. A deterministic annular crossover genetic algorithm optimisation for the unit commitment problem. Expert
Syst. Appl. 38, 6523–6529.
Pourjamal, Y., Ravandanegh, S.N., 2013. HAS based solution to the UC problem. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 46, 211–220.
Quan, R., Jian, J.B., Mu, Y.D., 2014. Tighter relaxation method for unit commitment based on second-order cone programming and valid inequalities.
Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 55, 82–90.
Rahman, D.F., Viana, A., Pedroso, J.P., 2014. Metaheuristic search based methods for unit commitment. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 59, 14–22.
Rahmani, Rasoul, Yusof, Rubiyah, 2014. A new simple, fast and efficient algorithm for global optimization over continuous search space problems:
radial movement optimization. Appl. Math. Comput. 248, 287–300.
Roy, P.K., 2013. Solution of unit commitment problem using gravitational search algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 53, 85–94.
Saravanan, B., Das, S., Sikri, S., Kothari, D., 2013. A solution to the unit commitment problem—a review. Front. Energy 7, 223–236.
Saravanan, B., Vasudevan, E., Kothari, D., 2014. Unit commitment problem solution using invasive weed optimization algorithm. Int. J. Electr.
Power Energy Syst. 55, 21–28.
Senjyu, T., Miyagi, T., Saber, A.Y., Urasaki, N., Funabashi, T., 2006. Emerging solution of large-scale unit commitment problem by stochastic
priority list. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 76, 283–292.
Senjyu, T., Shimabukuro, K., Uezato, K., Funabashi, T., 2003. A fast technique for unit commitment problem by extended priority list. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 18, 882–888.
Vaisakh, K., Srinivas, L., 2011. Evolving ant colony optimization based unit commitment. Appl. Soft Comput. 11, 2863–2870.
Vanithasri, M., Balamurugan, R., Lakshminarasimman, L., 2016. Modified radial movement optimization (MRMO) technique for estimating the
parameters of fuel cost function in thermal power plants. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 19, 2035–2042.
Viana, A., Pedroso, J.P., 2013. A new MILP-based approach for unit commitment in power production planning. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.
44, 997–1005.
Wu, Z., Chow, T.W., 2013. Binary neighbourhood field optimisation for unit commitment problems. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 7, 298–308.
Yu, X., Zhang, X., 2014. Unit commitment using Lagrangian relaxation and particle swarm optimization. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 61,
510–522.
Yuan Kang, W., Chih Cheng, H., Chun Liang, L., 2013. Resolution of the unit commitment problems by using the hybrid Taguchi-ant colony system
algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 49, 188–198.
Yuan, X., Ji, B., Zhang, S., Tian, H., Hou, Y., 2014. A new approach for unit commitment problem via binary gravitational search algorithm. Appl.
Soft. Comput. 22, 249–260.
Zhao, B., Guo, C.X., Bai, B.R., Cao, Y.J., 2009. Improved particle swarm optimization algorithm for unit commitment. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 28, 482–490.