See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264837675

Unit commitment - A survey and comparison of conventional and nature

inspired algorithms

Article  in  International Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation · January 2014

DOI: 10.1504/IJBIC.2014.060609

CITATIONS READS

29 1,942

2 authors:

Rammohan Mallipeddi Ponnuthurai N. Suganthan

Kyungpook National University Nanyang Technological University
136 PUBLICATIONS   4,779 CITATIONS    524 PUBLICATIONS   43,503 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evolutionary real-parameter single objective optimization View project

Evolutionary Dynamic Optimization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rammohan Mallipeddi on 20 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Bio-Inspired Computation, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2014 71

Unit commitment – a survey and comparison of

conventional and nature inspired algorithms

Rammohan Mallipeddi*
School of Electronics Engineering,
Kyungpook National University,
Daegu, 702 701, South Korea
E-mail: mallipeddi.ram@gmail.com
*Corresponding author

Ponnuthurai Nagaratnam Suganthan

School of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
Nanyang Technological University,
639 798, Singapore
E-mail: epnsugan@ntu.edu.sg

Abstract: Unit commitment problem (UCP) which has a significant influence on secure and
economic operation of power systems is considered to be one of the most difficult optimisation
problems due to the number/type of variables and constraints present. To provide quality
solutions to UCP several solution methodologies that include deterministic and stochastic search
algorithms have been proposed. Deterministic and stochastic algorithms have their own share of
advantages and disadvantages. In this paper, we provide a literature survey on the algorithms
developed for UCP and try to compare their performance on some standard benchmark problems
by taking the results from the literature. The literature survey along with the performance
comparison will be useful for the researchers in the area of power engineering.

Keywords: unit commitment; deterministic algorithms; particle swarm optimisation; PSO; ant
colony algorithms; bacterial foraging; differential evolution; evolutionary algorithms; genetic
algorithms; firefly algorithms; harmony search; simulated annealing.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Mallipeddi, R. and Suganthan, P.N. (2014)
‘Unit commitment – a survey and comparison of conventional and nature inspired algorithms’,
Int. J. Bio-Inspired Computation, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.71–90.
Biographical notes: Rammohan Mallipeddi is currently an Assistant Professor at School of
Electronics Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea. He received his
Masters and PhD in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore in 2006 and 2010, respectively. His research interests include evolutionary
computation, artificial intelligence, image processing, digital signal processing, robotics and
control engineering.
Ponnuthurai Nagaratnam Suganthan received his BA and MA in Engineering from Cambridge
University, UK. He obtained his PhD degree in 1996. He was a Researcher at the University of
Sydney and a Lecturer at the University of Queensland. Since 1999, he has been with NTU,
Singapore. He is on editorial board of Evolutionary Computation. He is an AE of IEEET
on Cybernetics, IEEET on Evolutionary Computation, Information Sciences and Pattern
Recognition. He is founding co-EiC of Swarm and Evolutionary Computation. His SaDE paper
won ‘IEEE-TEC’ outstanding paper award in 2012. His SCI indexed publications attracted over
1,000 SCI citations in year 2013 alone.

1 Introduction near their minimum generating limit during the off-peak

period. Therefore, it necessary to determine which units
In power systems, many utilities have daily load patterns
should be taken offline and for how long.
which exhibit extreme variation between peak and off-peak
UCP involves the hour-to-hour ordering of generating
hours because the demand for electricity is high during the
units on/off status in the system to match the anticipated
daytime than late evenings and early mornings (Ayoub and
load and to allow a safety margin. Once the status is
Patton, 1971; Kerr et al., 1966; Pang and Chen, 1976).
determined and security is ensured, economic dispatch (ED)
Maintaining sufficient generation to meet the peak
is performed where theloading on the individual generators
throughout the day may force some of the units to operate

Copyright © 2014 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

72 R. Mallipeddi and P.N. Suganthan
is adjusted to achieve minimum production cost on
minute-to-minute basis. So the general objective of UCP is
to minimise system total operating cost while satisfying
different constraints (Padhy, 2004).
Therefore, UCP can be considered as two linked
optimisation problem: unit scheduling (generators
allocation) and ED (generation allocation). the unit
scheduling sub-problem is an on/off or 0/1 combinatorial
optimisation problem and a feasible unit schedule must
satisfy the forecasted load demand, system spinning
reserve requirements, and the constraints on the startup and
shut down times during each planning period. ED
sub-problem is a constrained non-linear optimisation
problem. Therefore, UCP is a non-linear, high dimensional,
mixed-integer combinatorial optimisation problem with
both binary/integer (unit status variable) and continuous
(unit output power) variables. In addition, the number of
combinations grows exponentially for a large scale system.
In literature, several solution methodologies to solve the
UCP have been proposed and compared with one another.
However, some of the comparisons are not fair because the
algorithms that are used for comparison are not simulated
under similar conditions. In this paper, we provide a survey
of the different UCP solution techniques present in the
literature and try to compare their performance on a
standard benchmark problem by collecting the simulation
results from the respective publications.
The remaining of the paper is organised as follows. UCP
problem statement is presented in Section 2. A literature
review on the solution methodologies to solve UCP is
presented in Section 3. Section 4 summarises the results
collected from the different publications on the benchmark
problem. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2 Unit commitment problem
Unit commitment (UC) is a very significant optimisation
task, as an optimal commitment scheduling can save huge
amount of costs to electric utilities and improve reliability
by keeping proper spinning reserves. UCP is defined as
determining the generator start-up and shut-down schedules
to meet the forecast load demand and spinning reserve over
a scheduling period so that the total production cost is
minimised while satisfying various system and unit
constraints (Padhy, 2004).
The objective of UCP is to minimise the total production
costs, that comprise the following, over the scheduling
horizon (Kazarlis et al., 1996):
1 Fuel costs: input/output curves normally modelled as
quadratic polynomials (Afkousi-Paqaleh et al., 2010;
Padhy, 2004) using heat rate and fuel price information.
2 Start-up costs: depends on the number of hours during
which the unit has been off. The most commonly used
functions to describe the start-up cost are the
exponential (when cooling) and the two-valued
(hot start/cold start, when banking) stair case function
(Simopoulos et al., 2006a; Valenzuela and Smith,
2002).
3 Shut-clown costs: primarily composed of labour and
maintenance costs. Thus, the shut-down costs are
defined as a fixed cost for each unit per shut-down or
assumed to be constant.
Depending on the nature of the power system, UCP is
subject to many constraints which must be satisfied during
the optimisation process. In UCP literature, the constraints
which are commonly employed are:
1 System constraints:
a System power balance: The generated power from
all committed units must be sufficient enough to
meet the system power demand and losses.
b System reserve requirements: Spinning reserve
requirements are necessary in the operation of a
power system so as to minimise the probability of
load interruption due to certain equipment outages.
The reserve is considered to be a pre-specified
amount or a given percentage of the forecasted
demand.
2 Unit constraints:
c Unit initial conditions: the initial status at the start
of the scheduling period must be taken into
account.
d Unit high and low MW limits (economic,
operating) or generation power limits: each unit
has generation range defined by the minimum and
maximum generation limits.
e Unit minimum up/down times (MUT/MDT): a unit
must be on/off for a certain number of hours before
it can be shut down/brought online.
f Unit ramp rate limits: due to the mechanical
characteristics and thermal stress limitations of a
generating unit, the operating range of all online
units is restricted by their corresponding ramp-rate
limits.
Constraints (a) and (b) are called system or coupling
constraints and correspond to all units of the system.
Constraints (c) to (h) are called local constraints and
correspond to individual units.
In UCP, incorporating the MUT/MDT constraints
complicates the problem and results in the rise of operating
fuel costs. In addition, since the UC schedule is based on
forecasted load and spinning reserve requirements
incorporating the spinning reserve constraint also changes
the on/off schedule of units; more units are to be operated to
satisfy this constraint. Therefore, the main issues in UCP are
complexity (high dimensions) of search space, generation of
initial feasible schedules, MUT/MDT and spinning
reserve constraint handling, calculations of non-linear ED
sub-problem, handling of non-convexity in ED sub-problem
due to valve point effects.
 Unit commitment
3 Optimisation methodologies
The scope of UCP vary strongly from utility to utility
depending on the mix of units and operating constraints
employed (Le et al., 1983b; Lee et al., 1991). Therefore,
various approaches that range from highly complex and
theoretically complicated methods to simple rule-of thump
methods (Padhy, 2004) have been developed to solve UCP.
In power engineering, it is a standard practice to
represent the unit characteristic by a quadratic function
which is convex in nature. The convex problem can be
solved using conventional optimisation techniques such as
λ-iteration method and Newton method. However, large
units with multi-valve steam turbines exhibit a large
variation in this characteristic; as a result non-convexity
appears which cannot be handled by conventional
derivative-based optimisation approaches like λ-iteration.
The non-linear characteristics of generators consist of
prohibited zones, ramp rate limits, and non-smooth or
non-convex cost functions. Dynamic programming (DP),
non-linear programming, and mix integer programming (IP)
have been proposed in the literature to address this issue.
However, these methods suffer from the curse of
dimensionality especially in dealing with modern power
systems with large number of generators. Moreover, some
assumptions may be needed in order to decrease the search
space and avoid getting stuck in a local optimum. Recently,
artificial intelligence techniques such as genetic algorithms
(GA) are becoming increasingly popular due to their ability
to handle the non-linearities and discontinuities commonly
present in the power systems.
The solution methods being used to solve the UCP can
be categorised as:
• classical/deterministic approaches
• non-classical/stochastic approaches
• hybrid techniques based on classical and non-classical
approaches.
3.1 Classical/deterministic approaches
The most commonly used classical approaches to solve
UCP are exhaustive enumeration (brute force technique),
priority list (PL), dynamic programming (DP), branch and
bound (B&B), Lagrange relaxation (LR), and integer/mixed
integer programming (IP/MIP) methods.
3.1.1 Exhaustive enumeration and PL
Enumeration is a method where all possible combinations of
the generating units are enumerated and the combination
that with least operation cost is chosen as the optimal
solution (Haraet al., 1966; Kerr et al., 1966). Enumeration is
capable of providing an accurate solution but is not suitable
for a large size utility.
PL mimics the scheduling practices followed by system
operators and arrange the generating units in ascending
order of the unit operational cost characteristics. Based on
the predetermined order, the most economic base load units
73
are committed first and the peaking units at the end to meet
the load demand (Lee, 1988). PL method is very fast but
highly heuristic and produces schedules with relatively
higher operation cost.
Extended PL (EPL) is a modified version of PL
(Senjyu et al., 2003) that consists of two steps:
1 neglecting the operational constraints, some initial UC
schedules are produced by PL method
2 unit schedule is modified using problem specific
heuristics to fulfil operational constraints.
In EPL, the ED is performed only on the feasible schedules
using the λ-iteration method.
In stochastic priority list (SPL) (Senjyu et al., 2002),
ignoring the constraints some initial UC schedules are
generated using PL with linear time complexity. Then,
plurality of solutions, generated by priority-based stochastic
window system, are included for multi-directional search.
Excess units are added with predefined probability
distribution to avoid overlooking a desired solution during
repeated search. The initial schedules are then modified
gradually using the problem specific heuristics to fulfil
constraints. To reduce calculations, heuristics are repeatedly
applied only to the potential solutions, which are expected
to improve. Besides, a sign vector is introduced to reduce
ED overhead recalculations. SPL method provides a
satisfactory solution in terms of both cost and execution
time compared to the PL method.
3.1.2 Dynamic programming
DP can handle problems of a variety of sizes and can be
easily modified to model characteristics of specific utilities
(Kazarlis et al., 1996; Lee, 1991; Padhy, 2004). In addition,
it is relatively easy to add constraints that affect solution
quality (Lee et al., 1994). In Lowery (1966) and Pang et al.
(1981), the authors analysed the feasibility of using DP for
UCP and demonstrated that simple straightforward
constraints are adequate to produce a usable optimum
operating policy with less computational time. To save
computational time, DP algorithm in which individual units
are assigned status restriction in a given hour and are
classified into groups to minimise the number of unit
combinations was proposed (Snyder et al., 1987).
However, in DP it is difficult to include constraints that
affect single-unit operation over time (Guy, 1971). In other
words, DPs requirement to limit the UCs considered at any
hour and its suboptimal treatment of MUT/MDT and
time-dependent startup costs (Chaa-An et al., 1998) are its
disadvantages.
3.1.3 Branch and bound
B&B incorporates all time-dependent constraints and does
not require a priority ordering of units (Cohen and
Yoshimura, 1983). B&B approach involves the repeated
application of:
74 R. Mallipeddi and P.N. Suganthan
1 part of the solution space in which the optimal solution
is known to lie is partitioned into subsets.
2 subset in which all the elements violate the constraints
is eliminated from further consideration (fathomed).
3 an upper bound on the minimum value of the objective
function is computed.
4 for the subsets still under consideration, lower bounds
on the value of the objective function are computed.
A subset is fathomed, if its lower bound exceeds the upper
bound of the minimisation problem, since the optimal
decision variable cannot lie in that subset. Convergence
takes place when a single subset of decision variables
remain, and the upper and lower bounds are equal for that
subset.
3.1.4 Lagrangian relaxation
LR provides a flexible solution to the conventional UCP
(Merlin and Sandrin, 1983), and is much more beneficial for
utilities with a large number of units as the degree of
sub-optimality goes to zero as the number of units increases
(Nieva et al., 1987). It has also the advantage of being easily
modified to model characteristics of specific utilities. It is
relatively easy to add unit constraints. However, the main
disadvantage of LR is its inherent sub-optimality.
In adaptive LR (ALR) (Ongsakul and Petcharaks, 2004),
UCP is solved by relaxing or temporarily ignoring the
coupling constraints and attempting to reach the constrained
optimum by maximising the Lagrangian. Enhanced adaptive
LR (ELR) (Ongsakul and Petcharaks, 2004) consists of
ALR and a heuristic search. ALR is enhanced by new on/off
decision criterion, new initialisation and adaptive
adjustment of Lagrangian multipliers, unit classification and
identical marginal unit decommitment. After obtaining the
ALR best feasible solution, the heuristic search consisting
of unit substitution and unit decommitment is used to fine
tune the solution. In Ongsakul and Petcharaks (2004), the
authors also implemented as DP-based LR (DPLR) to
compare the performance of ELR. Unlike ELR, DPLR uses
single-unit DP to determine the optimal path instead of new
on/off decision criteria. In addition, DPLR does not employ
features such as identical marginal unit decommitment, unit
classification and the heuristic search.
3.1.5 Integer, mixed integer and linear programming
In Dillon et al. (1978), an IP approach based on the
extension and modification of the B&B method was
proposed. The formulation was based on the definition of
three sets of binary variables to model the startup,
shutdown, and on/off states for each unit and every time
period (Dillon et al., 1978). In mixed integer programming
(MIP) approach, UCP is solved by rejecting the infeasible
subsets and reducing the search space. Therefore, MIP is
computationally feasible for realistic systems. In contrast to
LR, MIP guarantees convergence to the optimal solution in
a finite number of steps while providing a flexible and
accurate modelling framework. In addition, during the
search, information on the proximity to the optimal solution
is available (Carrion and Arroyo, 2006). Therefore, given
the schedules generated during the Lagrangian iterations, an
improved or optimal schedule was found by solving a
mixed-integer program with non-linear constraints using
B&B (Takriti and Birge, 2000).
In realistic power systems comprising several tens of
generators, the formulation mentioned above (Dillon et al.,
1978) require a large number of binary variables. Thus, the
resulting MIP problems might be computationally intensive
as the computation time increases exponentially with the
size of the binary variables (Xie and Chiang, 2010). In
Carrion and Arroyo (2006), the authors proposed an
alternative mixed-integer linear formulation of the UCP
(MILP-UC), requiring a single set of binary variables
(one per unit and per period). Unlike previous MILP
approaches (Dillon et al., 1978), the lower number of binary
variables in MILP-UC yields a reduction in the
computational time. Moreover, MILP-UC accurately
models thermal UC states, inter-temporal constraints, and
time-dependent startup costs, thereby improving the
modelling capabilities (Carrion and Arroyo, 2006).
UCP can be solved using a linear programming either by
decomposing the whole problem into sub problems with
help of Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition principle and then
solving each sub-problem using linear programming or by
directly using revised simplex technique (Sheble and Fahd,
1994).
3.2 Non-classical approaches
In the last decade, there has been a significant growth in the
application of non-classical approaches such as expert
systems (ES), artificial neural networks (ANNs), fuzzy logic
(FL), swarm intelligence (SI) and evolutionary algorithms
(EAs) to solve the UC problem.
3.2.1 Expert systems
ES, an intelligent computer program, makes use of the
knowledge and inference procedures to solve problems that
require significant human expertise (Castillo and Alvarez,
1991). Generally, ES extract the knowledge from human
experts in the domain and attempt to emulate their
methodology and performance (Wong and Doan, 1991).
However, unlike a human being, ES cannot learn from their
own experience; but encodes the extracted knowledge in a
formal language (Lee et al., 1991).
To assist inexperienced power system operators, an
ES-based consultant that combines the knowledge of the
UC programmer and an experienced operator was proposed
in Mokhtari et al. (1988). The authors estimate that
300 rules would be required to satisfy all operational
requirements but employs 56 rules for experimentation. In
Ouyang and Shahidehpour (1990), an ES consisting of a
commitment schedule database, a dynamic load pattern
matching process, and an interface optimisation process was
proposed.
 Unit commitment
3.2.2 Artificial neural networks
ANNs are intended to model the behaviour of biological
neural networks and to take advantage of their inherent
parallel processing ability. In Sasaki et al. (1992), UCP is
solved using a Hopfield neural network (HNN) where the
inequality constraints are handled by the dedicated neural
network instead of including them in the energy function.
Once the states of generators are determined, their outputs
are adjusted according to the priority order. ANN model
that considers ramp-rate constraints was proposed in Wang
and Shahidehpour (1993).
However, it has been found that UCP cannot be handled
accurately within the framework of the conventional HNN.
So, an augmented network architecture with a new form of
interconnection between neurons, giving a more general
energy function containing both discrete and continuous
terms was proposed (Walsh and O’Malley, 1997).
An improved HNN method that uses
1 a new mapping process
2 a computational method for obtaining the weights and
biases
3 a slack variable technique for handling inequality
constraints was proposed in Yalcinoz et al. (1999).
In Liang and Kang (2000), UCP was successfully solved
using an extended mean field annealing neural network
approach.
3.2.3 Fuzzy systems
According to Zadeh, as complexity rises precise statements
lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precisions.
UC is a complex decision-making process (Chowdhury and
Billinton, 1990) where the appropriate units to be operated
during different hours are identified and their outputs
scheduled to meet a predicted demand, such that the
operating cost is minimised. However, the uncertainty in
demand and generating unit outages raises the issue on how
to tackle UCP when the demand and other variables are
imprecise (Le et al., 1983a; Mazumdar and Kapoor, 1995).
Researchers have observed that stochastic models are better
than deterministic models under uncertainty (Takriti et al.,
1996).
A rational model that considers the outage of thermal
units and the uncertainty of the demand was proposed in
Tong and Shahidehpour (1990). In Zhai et al. (1994), a
method for analysing the effect of load uncertainty, which is
the probability of having insufficient commitment capacity
to compensate for unit failures and/or unanticipated load
variation was proposed. It was demonstrated that the
application of FL to the UCP allows a qualitative
description of the system’s behaviour, characteristics, and
response without the need for exact mathematical
formulations (Saneifard et al., 1997).
75
3.2.4 Swarm intelligence
Swarm-based systems, inspired by the behaviour of some
social living beings (such as ants, termites, birds, and fishes)
have remarkable features such as self-organisation and
decentralised control leading to an emergent behaviour
(Panigrahi, 2014; Parpinelli and Lopes, 2011). Ant colony
optimisation (ACO) inspired by the foraging behaviour of
ants (Abdelaziz et al., 2012) and particle swarm
optimisation (PSO) (Ali et al. 2012; García-Gonzalo and
Fernández-Martínez, 2012) motivated by the coordinate
movement of fish schools and bird flocks are two most
popular swarm-based algorithms to solve combinatorial
optimisation problems such as UCP (Sisworahardjo and
El-Keib, 2002). Recently, swarm-based algorithms such as
cuckoo search (El-Fergany and Abdelaziz, 2014; Layeb,
2011), bacterial foraging (BF), firefly (FF) (Galvez and
Iglesias, 2014), membrane computing (Jiang et al., 2012)
are becoming popular.
In Sum-Im and Ongsakul (2003), an algorithm where
the initial unit schedules are obtained using ACO and ED
sub-problem is solved by the λ-iteration method was
proposed. In Shi et al. (2004), ACO with random
perturbation behaviour (RPACO) was proposed to obtain
optimal UC with probabilistic spinning reserve. In Saber
and Alshareef (2008), a memory-bounded ACO (MACO)
was proposed to overcome the computer memory limit
requirements while solving a large scale UCP. MACO also
employs a heuristic to enhance local search.
In Zwe-Lee (2003),a binary PSO (BPSO) was used to
solve the combinatorial unit on/off scheduling problem
for operating fuel and transition costs while the ED
sub-problem is solved using the λ-iteration method. An
improved PSO algorithm (IPSO) which utilises the
information present in more particles to control the process
of mutation operation was proposed in Zhao et al. (2006).
IPSO adopts the orthogonal design to generate initial
population that are scattered uniformly over feasible
solution space. Furthermore, in IPSO the on/off decision
variables are relaxed and are handled using a penalty
function which transforms the problem to a non-linear
continuous variable optimisation. To assure convergence a
new adaptive strategy for choosing parameters was also
proposed.
In Lee and Chen (2007), the authors proposed method
referred to as iteration PSO that provides a quality solution
in terms of total production cost and improves the
computation efficiency by incorporating a new index,
called iteration best. In Yuan et al. (2009), an improved
BPSO (IBPSO) was proposed where PSO is improved
using PL and heuristic search to handle MUT/MDT
constraints.
In Wang and Singh (2009), a reliability-based constraint
is introduced into the UCP formulation to enhance system
robustness in the presence of generator outages and is
solved using a mixed binary- and real-coded PSO.
Enhanced PSO (EPSO) which is implemented in three
stages was proposed in Yuan et al. (2011). Neglecting the
MUT/MDT constraints, discrete BPSO (DBPSO) based on
76 R. Mallipeddi and P.N. Suganthan
PL is applied for unit scheduling initially. Then, heuristic
search strategies are used to handle the MUT/MDT and
decommit excess spinning reserve units. Finally, λ-iteration
method is adopted to solve ELD.
Based on the concept of adaptive search space
dimension, a variable-dimension approach implemented in
PSO (VD + PSO) (Pappala and Erlich, 2010) was
proposed. The optimisation process starts with an
arbitrary problem dimension, adapts with respect to the
swarm progress and finally selects the optimal dimensional
space.
As mentioned earlier (Damousis et al., 2004), integer
coding helps in improving robustness and reducing the
execution times due significant reduction in the
chromosome size compared to the usual binary coding.
Also, generating unit MUT/MDT constraints can be directly
coded in the chromosome avoiding the use of many penalty
functions which distort the search space. In Eslamian et al.
(2009), integer-code algorithm BF algorithm is used to
solve UCP problem.
In UCP, multiple objectives which are conflicting in
nature such as the fuel cost and reliability are to be
met. In Chandrasekaran and Simon (2013), an optimal
deviation-based binary real coded FF (BRCFF) algorithm
tuned fuzzy membership function is applied to
multi-objective UCP. The ON/OFF status of the generating
units is obtained by binary coded FF and ED is solved by
real coded firefly. The conflicting functions are formulated
as a single objective function using fuzzy weighted optimal
deviation. The fuzzy membership design variables are tuned
using real coded FF; thereby the requirement of expertise
for setting these variables is eliminated.
3.2.5 Evolutionary algorithms
Recently, stochastic and parallel search algorithms based on
natural selection and natural attract much attention in
solving problems such as UCP, due to their ability to handle
non-convex fuel cost functions with non-linear constraints.
Some of the most commonly used algorithms (Padhy, 2004)
are tabu search (TS), simulated annealing (SA), GA,
evolutionary programming (EP), differential evolution (DE)
(Noman and Iba, 2011) etc.
In Mantawy et al. (1998b), UCP is divided into two sub
problems: a combinatorial optimisation problem which is
solved using TS and a non-linear programming problem
which is solved using a quadratic programming (QP)
routine. In addition, the authors propose new rules to obtain
randomly feasible solutions faster.
In Zhuang and Galiana (1990), SA was used to generate
feasible solutions randomly so that moving along these
solutions using a strategy leads to a global minimum with
high probabilities. The method assumes no specific problem
structures and is highly flexible in handling UC constraints.
In Wong (1998), an enhanced SA was proposed in which
the solutions are generated in the neighbourhood of the
current one and the extent of perturbation of the solutions is
decreased with decreasing temperature to ensure that the
candidate solutions produced are feasible during the
solution process.
For both small and large size UCPs, the feasibility of
genetic approach was been examined in Dasgupta and
McGregor (1994). In Ma et al. (1995), GA with a forced
mutation operator was proposed and tested using two
different coding schemes. In addition, it was observed that
the two-point crossover operation is considerably more
efficient than the single-point crossover commonly used in
GAs. In addition, the effects of GA’s control variables on
convergence were extensively studied.
In Orero and Irving (1996), an enhanced GA
incorporating sequential decomposition logic for faster
search mechanism was proposed. The method relies on the
selection and grading of the penalty functions to allow the
fitness function to differentiate between good and bad
solutions. The method guarantees the production of
solutions that do not violate system or unit constraints, so
long as there are enough generators available in the
selection pool to meet the required load demand.
GA using varying quality function (VQF) technique and
problem specific operators was proposed in Kazarlis et al.
(1996). The proposed GA employs binary encoding and
manages to locate the exact global solution with the help of
VQF. In addition, the method employs a non-linear
transformation for fitness scaling and new operators such as
swap-mutation and swap-window hill-climb.
GA based on unit characteristic classification (GAUCC
or UCC-GA) for generating initial populations to meet the
load was proposed in Senjyu et al. (2002). To handle
MUT/MDT constraints new mutation and crossover
operators were introduced. In the proposed method, units
are classified into several groups depending upon their
MUT/MDT constraints and a penalty term is added to the
total cost for each violated constraint.
In Damousis et al. (2004), GA that uses integer coding
and new genetic operators referred to as integer-coded GA
(ICGA) was proposed. Integer coding results in the
reduction of chromosome size and allows the non-linear
MUT/MDT constraints to be directly coded in the
chromosome. Therefore, the use of many penalty functions
can be avoided.
In Sun et al. (2006), a matrix real-coded GA (MRCGA)
that employs a real number matrix representation was
introduced. In MRCGA, the search performance is
improved through a window mutation and a mechanism to
repair the chromosome so that the UC schedule satisfies unit
and system constraints.
GA based on floating point representation was proposed
in Dang and Li (2007) which is referred to as floating-point
genetic algorithm (FPGA). FPGA employs encoding and
decoding schemes to handle MUT/MDT constraints.
GAs with domain-specific operators (Gil et al., 1996),
encoding strategies (Swarup and Yamashiro, 2002) and
parallel implementations (Hong-Tzer et al., 1997) have also
been proposed to solve UCP.
EP where initial solutions are generated randomly and
then evolved through selection, competition, and random
 Unit commitment
changes was employed to solve UCP in Juste et al. (1999).
In Haoyong and Xifan (2002), a cooperative coevolutionary
algorithm which is an extension of the traditional EP
(Venkatesh et al., 2003) was proposed.
In Patra et al. (2008), DE algorithm with two different
variable encodings namely binary and integer (Damousis et
al., 2004) is used to solve UCP and analyse the effect of
ramp constraints.
A discrete binary DE (DBDE) combined with PL and
heuristic search strategies to handle constraints effectively
was proposed in Yuan et al. (2009). The proposed method is
implemented in three stages:
1 neglecting MUT/MDT constraints, unit scheduling is
performed using PL
2 repairing strategies are used to handle the MUT/MDT
constraints and decommit excess spinning reserve units
3 heuristic unit substitution search and grey zone
modification algorithm are used to improve optimal
solution further.
Quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm (QEA) is based
on the concept and principles of quantum computing
(Kuk-Hyun and Jong-Hwan, 2002). In QEA, the basic
information unit is a quantum bit (Q-bit), which represents
all the deterministic states in a probabilistic way. In Lau et
al. (2009), QEA is employed to solve UCP (QEA-UC) and
is found to be more efficient than other methods due to its
ability to perform well with relatively small population
sizes. Due to the linear relationship between the scale of
UCP and computing time, QEA-UC has potential to be
applied to practical UCPs. In order to greatly increase the
practicability and the robustness of QEA-UC, an improved
QEA (IQEA-UC) was proposed in Chung et al. (2011). In
QEA-UC, all the Q-bit individuals are initialised with the
same value without considering any prior knowledge of
UCP and the characteristics of the generator units while
IQEA-UC (Chung et al., 2011) employs PL and a special
Q-bit expression. In QEA-UC, the optimisation process is
carried on by a group-search while IQEA-UC employs both
single-search and group-search. A multi-observation
approach is also incorporated into the single-search stage to
further improve the searching ability.
In Afkousi-Paqaleh et al. (2010), a stochastic algorithm
conceptualised using the musical process of searching for a
perfect state of harmony, referred to as harmony search
algorithm (HAS) is employed to solved UCP.
In Ebrahimi et al. (2011), a new integer-coded EA
known as shuffled frog leaping algorithm (SFLA) which is
based on observing, imitating, and modelling the behaviour
of a group of frogs when searching for the location that has
the maximum amount of available food (Eusuff et al., 2006)
is used to solve the UCP.
Aninteger-coded optimisation technique inspired by the
imperialistic competition (Atashpaz-Gargari and Lucas,
2007) referred to as Imperialistic competition algorithm
(ICA) was used to solve UCP with a new initialisation
method based on PL (Hadji and Vahidi, 2012).
77
Greedy randomised adaptive search procedure
(GRASP) is a meta-heuristic algorithm which is based on a
philosophy slightly different from standard meta-heuristics.
In GRASP, the decisions taken when building a solution are
somehow adapted according to decisions previously
taken. The dynamic learning-process often leads to very
good solutions. In Viana et al., 2003), the robustness and
effectiveness of GRASP in handling centralised UCP was
demonstrated through computational results.
3.3 Hybrid approaches
Recently hybrid techniques that combine the advantages of
two or more solution approaches are being employed to
solve many difficult engineering problems such as UCP.
The objective of hybrid approaches is to speed up the
convergence and to get better quality of solution compared
with single approaches.
From the review presented above, it can be observed
that some of the algorithms are simple but suboptimal while
some are complex but accurate. Therefore, to achieve
further improvement more than one algorithms which
complement one another are being merged to form hybrid
models (Ouyang and Shahidehpour, 1992b). Some of the
hybrid methods are summarised below.
• Fuzzy linear optimisation formulation using a MILP
routine (Venkatesh et al., 2007): In this approach, the
startup cost is modelled using linear variables. The
fuzzy formulation provides modelling flexibility,
relaxation in constraint enforcement and allows the
method to seek a practical solution. The use of MILP
technique makes the solution method rigorous and fast.
• Mixed-integer non-linear programming (MINLP)
(Xie and Chiang, 2010): consists of three key steps:
1 a transformed problem formulation based on a
mixed-integer convex programming (MICP)
2 an improved solution method (combination of
B&B and interior point method)
3 some accelerating strategies to speed up.
• Hybrid ANN-DP (Ouyang and Shahidehpour, 1992a):
Based on the load profile, ANN is used to generate a
preschedule. A dynamic search is performed at those
stages where the commitment states of some of the
units are not certain.
• DP-based HNN (Kumar and Palanisamy, 2007):
Generator scheduling problem is solved using DP and
generation scheduling problem is solved using HNN.
• Fuzzy DP (Chung-Ching and Yuan-Yih, 1991): Errors
in the forecasted load are considered and membership
functions are derived for the load demand, the total
cost, and the spinning reserve using fuzzy set notations.
With the membership functions at hand, a recursive
algorithm is used to identify the decision with highest
78 R. Mallipeddi and P.N. Suganthan
membership value. Fuzzy DP demonstrates superior
performance compared to the conventional DP
approach but requires more computer time.
• SA and QP (Mantawy et al., 1998a): New rules for
randomly generating initial feasible UC schedules were
described. SA is used to solve the generator scheduling
sub-problem while QP is used to solve the ED sub-
problem. The proposed method has strong features like
being independent of the initial solution and
mathematical complexity but requires more CPU time.
• Enhanced SA (Simopoulos et al., 2006b): SA is used
for generator scheduling while dynamic ED method is
used to incorporate the ramp rate constraints. New rules
for tuning the control parameters of SA are also
presented.
• ES supplementing mathematical programming
(Tong et al., 1991): ES performing a blind search
within a large set of possible solutions is replaced by a
clever search within a small set in conjunction with a
mathematical programming technique. With one of the
previous schedules as the starting point, a new schedule
that would satisfy the present load requirements can be
obtained by a rule-based approach which employs a PL
scheme.
• ES and DP (Salam et al., 1991): ES is used as a
preprocessor as well as a postprocessor to the truncated
DP-based UC program to obtain an operationally
feasible and/or preferable solution. The operator’s
interaction with the ES is minimised by transferring all
the relevant data and results of the UC program to the
ES as a knowledge base. Some of the complex
operating constraints that are not violated frequently
and/or are difficult to include in the UC program are
enforced by the ES.
• Hybrid ES and DP (Kothari and Ahmad, 1995): The
output scheduling of DP is enhanced by supplementing
it with a rule-based ES. The system limits the number
of constraints and also checks the possible constraint
violations in the generated schedule. ES communicates
with the operator in a friendly manner and hence the
program parameters can be adjusted to have an
operationally acceptable optimal schedule.
• Evolving ANN (Wong et al., 2000): UCP is solved
using a NN whose weights and interconnections are
evolved using GA. This approach prevents the
stagnation during training and converges to global
minimum for a given range of space and results in
lower training error.
• A three-stage method (THS) (Khanmohammadi et al.,
2010): The three steps include:
1 a primal schedule of unit status is obtained
2 operating units are assigned hourly values by
performing ED using a PSO and Nelder-Mead
(NM) hybrid algorithm
3 a solution modification process (SMP) is employed
to enhance the solution.
• Integration of GA, TS and SA (Mantawy et al.,
1999): The algorithm is mainly based on GA,
while TS is used to generate new members of GA
population. SA is used to accelerate the
convergence of GA by testing all the GA members
after each reproduction of a new population.
• Multistage NN-ES (Ouyang and Shahidehpour, 1992b):
NNs are used at the preprocessor and postprocessor
stages. The operating constraints are presented as
heuristic rules and a feasible solution is obtained
through inference in real-time.
• GA-based NN and DP (Jier and Ching-Lien, 1997): A
set of feasible UC schedules are generated by genetic-
enhanced NN and are optimised by using DP.
• GA and LR (LRGA) (Chuan-Ping et al., 2000): GA is
incorporated into LR to update the Lagrangian
multipliers and improve the performance of LR. The
method is easy to implement and better in convergence.
• Annealing-genetic (AG) algorithm (Cheng et al., 2002):
GA is incorporated into SA to improve the performance
of SA interns of computational time and the quality of
solution on a of a large scale system.
• Seeded memetic algorithm (SMA) (Valenzuela and
Smith, 2002): In the proposed approach, memetic
algorithm (MA)is formed by GA and local search.
Further, the best solution obtained from the LR method
is used as a seed to the MA.
• PL and EA (PLEA) (Srinivasan and Chazelas, 2004):
EA with problem specific heuristic and genetic
operators is employed. Initial population of EA is
seeded with good solutions obtained using PL to
improve the convergence speed and efficiency.
• PSO combined with LR (PSO-LR) (Balci and
Valenzuela, 2004): UCP is divided into sub problems
and each sub-problem is solved using DP. Lagrangian
multipliers are updated by PSO.
• PSO and sequential QP-based (SQP) TS (Victoire and
Jeyakumar, 2005): Initial feasible UC schedules are
generated using TS while the non-linear ED
sub-problem is solved using hybrid PSO-SQP.
 Unit commitment
• Hybrid PSO (HPSO) (Ting et al., 2006): A combination
of BPSO and real-coded PSO (RCPSO) where BPSO is
used to solve unit scheduling problem and RPSO is
used to solve the ED sub-problem.
• Two-fold SA (Saber et al., 2007): A combination of SA
and FL where SA probabilities are obtained from fuzzy
membership function. In addition, the initial feasible
UC schedules are generated by PL and are modified by
de-composed SA using a bit flipping operator.
• EP-based TS (Rajan and Mohan, 2004): The UC
schedule is formed by committing all the units
according to their initial status (‘flat start’) and is coded
using a string of symbols. The parents are obtained
from a predefined set of solutions using TS. Then, a
random recommitment is carried out with respect to the
unit’s minimum downtimes, and the selection is done
using EP.
• PSO-based SA (PSO-B-SA) (Sadati et al., 2007):
In PSO-B-SA, the unit scheduling sub-problem is
solved using BPSO while ED is solved by using real
valued PSO.
• Fuzzy adaptive PSO (FAPSO) (Saber et al., 2007):
In FAPSO, a fuzzy adaptive criterion based on the
diversity of the fitness is employed to set PSO inertia
weight and is dynamically adjusted using the fuzzy
IF/THEN rules.
• Quantum-inspired BPSO (QBPSO) (Yun-Won et al.,
2010): QBPOS uses a Q-bit individual for the
probabilistic representation of a particle, thereby
replacing the velocity update procedure in the
traditional PSO. Therefore, in QBPSO, an inertia
weight factor and two acceleration coefficients are
replaced by a single factor, rotation angle, when
modifying the position of particles. To improve the
conventional rotation gate for the Q-bit individual
update, a new rotation gate with two effective
techniques was proposed. QBPSO can obtain an
efficient balance between exploration and exploitation
with a smaller population size and shorter computation
time. Furthermore, the rule-based heuristic constraint
treatment techniques are adopted to effectively satisfy
the MUT/MDT and spinning reserve constraints.
• Local search (LS) methods to improve LR (LRLS)
(Seki et al., 2010): To improve the feasible solution
obtained by LR, LS methods with two types of
neighbourhoods were presented. One-unit (LS1)
neighbourhood is defined as the feasible set in which
the schedule (ON-OFF state) of all units except one are
fixed, while the two-unit neighbourhood (LS2) is
defined as the feasible set in which the schedules of all
units except two are fixed. The neighbourhood search
can then be executed by solving the one or two unit
UCPs, which are efficiently solved by DP if no
ramp-rate limit constraint exists. In addition, the
proposed method evaluates two strategies:
79
1 first admissible move strategy: search in the
neighbourhood by some order of and move to the
first found better solution.
2 best admissible move strategy: find all better
solutions in the neighbourhood and move to the
best solution.
LS1 based on the first admissible move strategy is
referred to as LS1-first and the LS1 based on the best
admissible move strategy as LS1-best.
• ES and elite PSO (ES-EPSO) (Po-Hung, 2012):
ES-PSO is a two-level hierarchical approach where ES
handles all constraints and is used as a pre-dispatch tool
to create a robust swarm. Then, ES and EPSO are
combined to seek the optimal solution. In ES-EPSO,
the execution time grows approximately linearly, rather
than geometrically, with the problem size.
4 Comparison of solution methodologies on
benchmark problem
As mentioned in the previous sections, quite a few numbers
of algorithms have been proposed to solve UCP. In UCP,
the quality of the solution depends on a number of factors
such as the number and type of constraints, the amount of
spinning reserve used etc. In addition, to demonstrate the
performance of the proposed algorithms a variety of
benchmark functions have been used. The most commonly
used benchmark system is a 10-unit system and its multiples
(20-, 40-, 60-, 80- and 100-unit systems) for a 24-hr
scheduling (Juste et al., 1999). The main objective of this
paper is to provide a proper comparison between different
algorithms on the above mentioned benchmark problem by
taking the results from the literature. The motivation of this
comparison is based on some of the following unfair
comparisons done in the literature.
1 In Pappala and Erlich (2010), the proposed PSO+VD
uses 5% spinning reserve but its performance is
compared with ICGA, PSO-LR, EP and MA that use
10% as spinning reserve. Similarly in Wang and Singh
(2009), the proposed MIPSO uses 5% spinning reserve
and is compared with methods that use 10% spinning
reserve.
2 ES-PSO (Po-Hung, 2012) mentions that they consider
ramp constraints for Tai power system benchmark
problem but do not mention about the 10-unit system
and its multiples. However, the performance of the
10-unit system and its multiples is compared with both
methods such as MILP-UC, MILP-3, MILP-3R
(Carrion and Arroyo, 2006) that use ramp constraints
and methods such as EP (Juste et al., 1999) that do not
use ramp constraints on a similar scale.
3 BF (Eslamian et al., 2009) consider ramp constraints
but compares with methods such as LR and GA
(Kazarlis et al., 1996) that does not consider ramp
constraints.
80 R. Mallipeddi and P.N. Suganthan

4 SFLA (Ebrahimi et al., 2011) and ICA (Hadji and
Vahidi, 2012) do not consider ramp rate constraint but
compares with BF (Eslamian et al., 2009) that uses
ramp rates.
Table 1 provides a brief description of the different
algorithms used for comparison. Table 1 also presents the
system specifications and environments on which the
specific algorithm is simulated. Tables 2 and 3 summarise
the performance of the algorithms on the benchmark
problems by using constraints (a) to (e) and spinning reserve
of 10%. Tables 4 and 5 summarise the performance of the
algorithms on the benchmark problems by using constraints
(a) to (f) and spinning reserve of 10%. Tables 6 summarise
the performance of the algorithms on the benchmark
problems by using constraints (a) to (e) and spinning reserve
of 5%. In Tables 2 to 6, the best cost (B), worst cost (W)
and mean cost (M) are presented in dollars while average
time (AT) is presented in seconds. In Tables 1 to 6 blanks
spaces indicates that the information is not available from
the publications.

Table 1 Details of the algorithms used for comparison

Algorithm Brief algorithm description System specifications Environment #Trials

EPL (Senjyu et al., 2003)
SPL (Senjyu et al., 2006)
MICP (Xie and Chiang, 2010)
MILP-UC (Carrion and
Arroyo, 2006)
MILP-3 (Carrion and
Arroyo, 2006)
MILP-3R (Carrion and
Arroyo, 2006)
DP (Kazarlis et al., 1996)
LR (Kazarlis et al., 1996)
LR (Valenzuela and Smith,
2002)
LR (Seki et al., 2010)
LRLS (Seki et al., 2010)
ALR (Ongsakul and
Petcharaks, 2004)
ELR (Ongsakul and
Petcharaks, 2004)
DPLR (Ongsakul and
Petcharaks, 2004)
EP (Juste et al., 1999)
SA (Simopoulos et al., 2006a)
GA (Kazarlis et al., 1996)
GA (Valenzuela
and Smith, 2002)
Extended priority list Intel Pentium IV, 1.5 GHz Linux -
Ver. 2.2.18 gcc
Stochastic priority list Intel Pentium IV, 1.5 GHz, Ver. 2.91.66 10
128 MB RAM
Mixed-integer convex programming + PC, 2.40 GHz, 2 GB RAM MATLAB
Branch and bound + Interior point method +
Acceleration strategies
Mixed integer linear programming with one Dell Power Edge 6600, CPLEX 9.0 and
set of binary variables 2 Processors, 1.60 GHz, MINOS 5.51
2 GB RAM
MILP-UC and two additional sets of binary
variables
MILP-3 and additional equality constraints
related to the three sets of binary variables
Dynamic programming  
Lagragian relaxation Dell, Dim 4100, 1 GHz
Sun Ultra 2 dual, 200 MHz 10
Pentium IV, 2.53 GHz, 2 MATLAB 6.5
GB RAM
LR combined with local search
Adaptive Lagragian relaxation Pentium IV, 1.6 GHz
Enhanced adaptive Lagragian relaxation
Dynamic programming-based Lagragian
relaxation
Evolutionary programming HP C60 Workstation, 20
160 MHz
Enhanced simulated annealing Pentium IV Fortran 77
Genetic algorithm HP Apollo 720, 50 MHz 20
Sun Ultra 2 dual, 200 MHz 10
 Unit commitment
Table 1 Details of the algorithms used for comparison (continued)
Algorithm
LRGA (Chuan-Ping et al.,
2000)
BCGA (Damousis et al., 2004)
ICGA (Damousis et al., 2004)
FPGA (Dang and Li, 2007)
GAUCC or UCC-GA
(Senjyu et al., 2002)
MA (Valenzuela
and Smith, 2002)
SMA (Valenzuela
and Smith, 2002)
IQEA (Jeong et al., 2009)
QIEA or QEA-UC
(Lau et al., 2009)
IQEA-UC
(Chung et al., 2011)
PSO (Zhao et al., 2006)
IPSO (Zhao et al., 2006)
HPSO (Ting et al., 2006)
MIPSO (Wang and Singh,
2009)
IBPSO (Yuan et al., 2009)
BPSO (Yun-Won et al., 2010)
EPSO (Yuan et al., 2011)
PSO-LR (Balci and
Valenzuela, 2004)
QIPSO or QBPSO
(Yun-Won et al., 2010)
ES-EPSO (Po-Hung, 2012)
VD + PSO (Pappala and
Erlich, 2010)
HSA (Afkousi-Paqaleh
et al., 2010)
BCDE (Patra et al., 2008)
ICDE (Patra et al., 2008)
DBDE (Yuan et al., 2009)
BF (Eslamian et al., 2009)
ICA (Hadji and Vahidi, 2012)
SFLA (Ebrahimi et al., 2011)
THS (Khanmohammadi et al.,
2010)
GRASP (Viana et al., 2003)
PLEA (Srinivasan and
Chazelas, 2004)
BRCFF (Chandrasekaran
and Simon, 2013)
81
Brief algorithm description System specifications Environment #Trials
GA incorporated into LR to update the PC 486DX2-66 Turbo C 20
Lagrangian multipliers
Binary-coded genetic algorithm Intel Pentium IV 1.6 GHz 10
Integer-coded genetic algorithm Intel Pentium IV 1.6 GHz 10
Floating-point genetic algorithm PII, 300 MHz, 10
PC-100 128 MB RAM
GA based on unit characteristic classification 20
for generating initial populations
Memetic algorithm (GA + Local search) Sun Ultra 2 dual, 10
200 MHz
Seeded memetic algorithm (LR + GA + Local
search)
Improved quantum evolutionary algorithm Pentium IV, 2.0 GHz 30
Quantum-inspired evolutionary Intel PC, 2.39 GHz, MATLAB 30
algorithm + λ-iteration 1.99 GB RAM
Advanced QEA based on PL-based Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.66 50
initialisation and special Q-bit expression GHz, 1.95 MB RAM
Particle swarm optimisation Pentium IV, 2.0 GHz MATLAB 6.5 50
Improved particle swarm optimisation
Hybrid PSO (Binary PSO + Real coded PSO) Visual Basic 100
Mixed binary- and real-coded PSO
Improved binary Pentium IV, 105 GHz PC, Visual C++ 6.0 10
PSO + Priority list + λ-iteration 128 MB RAM
Binary PSO Pentium IV, 2.0 GHz 50
Enhanced PSO (DBPSO + PL + Heuristics Pentium IV, 2.0 GHz, Visual C++ 6.0 30
search to repair constraints + λ-iteration) 128 MB RAM
PSO combined with Lagragian relaxation Dell Dim 4100, 1 GHz 10
Quantum-inspired binary particle swarm Pentium IV, 2.0 GHz 50
optimisation
Expert system + Elite PSO Intel 2 Quad, 2.4 GHz 20
Variable dimension approach + PSO -
Harmony search algorithm Dell Inspiron 640 m, MATLAB 100
2.0 GHz, 1 GB RAM
Binary coded differential evolution
Integer coded differential evolution
Discrete binary differential evolution Pentium IV, 2.40 GHz, Visual C++ 6.0 20
256 MB RAM
Bacterial foraging algorithm Intel Pentium IV 2.0
GHz, 512 MB RAM
Imperialistic competitive algorithm Intel Pentium IV 2.0
GHz, 512 MB RAM
Shuffled frog leaping algorithm Pentium IV, 2.0 GHz, MATLAB 10
512 MB RAM
Three-stage (THS) method 10
(PSO + NM + SMP)
Greedy random adaptive search procedure Pentium III, 500 MHz PC C++ 5
PL-based EA AMD Athlon Xp2400 20
Binary real coded fire fly algorithm Pentium IV, 3.2 GHz, 30
2 GB RAM
82 R. Mallipeddi and P.N. Suganthan

Table 2 Reported results on 10-, 20- and 40-unit systems with constraints (a) to (e) and 10% spinning reserve

Algorithm B M W AT B M W AT B M W AT
# Units 10 20 40
EPL (Senjyu 563,977 0.72 1,124,369 2.97 2,246,508 11.9
et al., 2003)
SPL (Senjyu 564,950 7.24 1,123,938 16.32 2,248,645 46.32
et al., 2006)
DP (Kazarlis 565,825
et al., 1996)
LR (Kazarlis 565,825 1,130,660 2,258,503
et al., 1996)
LR (Valenzuela 566,107 566,493 566,817 54 1,128,362 1,128,395 1,128,444 108 2,250,223 2,250,223 2,250,223 224
and Smith, 2002)
LR (Seki et al., 568,356 2.2 1,129,666 4.1 2,256,384 8.1
2010)
LRLS1-first 564,970 2.5 1,125,141 4.7 2,244,541 10.3
(Seki et al., 2010)
LRLS1-best 564,970 2.8 1,125,064 504 2,242,968 13.5
(Seki et al., 2010)
ALR (Ongsakul 565,508 3.2 1,126,720 12 2,249,790 34
and Petcharaks,
2004)
ELR (Ongsakul 563,977 4 1,123,297 16 2,244,237 52
and Petcharaks,
2004)
DPLR (Ongsakul 564,049 108 1,128,098 299 2,256,195 1,200
and Petcharaks,
2004)
EP (Juste et al., 564,551 565,352 566,231 100 1,125,494 1,127,257 1,129,793 340 2,249,093 2,252,612 2,256,085 1,176
1999)
SA (Simopoulos 565,828 565,988 566,260 3.35 1,126,251 1,127,955 1,129,112 16.80 2,250,063 2,252,125 2,254,539 88028
et al., 2006a)
GA (Kazarlis 565,825 570,032 221 1,126,243 1,132,059 733 2,251,911 2,259,706 2,697
et al., 1996)
GA (Valenzuela 565,866 567,329 571,336 113 1,128,876 1,130,160 1,131,565 374 2,252,909 2,262,585 2,269,282 1,600
and Smith, 2002)
LRGA 564,800 518 1,122,622 1,147 2,242,178 2,165
(Chuan-Ping
et al., 2000)
BCGA 567,367 3.7 1,130,291 15.9 2,256,590 63.1
(Damousis
et al., 2004)
ICGA (Damousis 566,404 7.4 1,127,244 22.4 2,254,123 58.3
et al., 2004)
FPGA (Dang and 564,094 566,675 569,237 1,124,998 1,128,311 1,130,327 2,248,235 2,255,898 2,261,964
Li, 2007)
GAUCC (Senjyu 563,977 565,606 85 1,125,516 1,128,790 255 2,249,715 2,256,824 614
et al., 2002)
MA (Valenzuela 565,827 566,453 566,861 84 1,127,254 1,128,824 1,130,916 287 2,252,937 2,262,477 2,270,361 1,063
and Smith, 2002)
SMA (Valenzuela 566,686 566,787 567,022 61 1,128,192 1,128,213 1,128,403 113 2,249,589 2,249,589 2,249,589 217
and Smith, 2002)
Notes: Best cost (B), worst cost (W), mean cost (M) and average time (AT).
 Unit commitment 83

Table 2 Reported results on 10-, 20- and 40-unit systems with constraints (a) to (e) and 10% spinning reserve (continued)

Algorithm B M W AT B M W AT B M W AT
# Units 10 20 40
IQEA (Jeong 563,977 563,977 563,977 15 1,123,890 1,124,320 1,124,504 42 2,245,151 2,246,026 2,246,701 132
et al., 2009)
QEA-UC 563,938 563,969 564,672 19.23 1,123,607 1,124,689 1,125,715 27.69 2,245,557 2,246,728 2,248,296 43.13
(Lau et al., 2009)
IQEA-UC 563,938 563,938 563,938 34 1,123,297 1,123,436 1,123,832 98 2,242,982 2,243,429 2,244,851 146
(Chung et al.,
2011)
PSO 564,212 564,579 565,783 1,125,983 1,131,054 2,250,012 2,257,146
(Zhao et al., 2006)
IPSO 563,954 564,162 564,579 1,125,279 1,127,643 2,248,163 2,252,117
(Zhao et al., 2006)
HPSO 563,942.3 564,772.3 565,785.3
(Ting et al., 2006)
IBPSO 563,977 564,155 565,312 27 1,125,216 1,125,448 1,125,730 55 2,248,581 2,248,875 2,249,302 110
(Yuan et al.,
2009)
BPSO 563,977 563,977 563,977 1,123,783 1,124,242 1,124,294 2,243,210 2,244,634 2,245,982
(Yun-Won et al.,
2010)
EPSO (Yuan 563,537 564,206 564,266 7 1,123,773 1,125,513 1,127,070 16 2,244,772 2,248,741 2,251,241 36
et al., 2011)
PSO-LR 565,869 566,793 4.2 1,128,072 9.1 2,251,116 21.3
(Balci and
Valenzuela, 2004)
QBPSO 563,977 563,977 563,977 18 1,123,297 1,123,981 1,124,294 50 2,242,957 2,244,657 2,245,941 158
(Yun-Won
et al., 2010)
ES-EPSO 563,938 563,942 563,977 12 1,123,003 1,123,474 1,124,540 19 2,242,167 2,243,517 2,246,305 42
(Po-Hung, 2012)
HAS 563,977 564,311 564,935 2.62 1,124,713 1,126,398 1,126,728 24 2,248,740 2,255,093 2,258,624 78
(Afkousi-Paqaleh
et al., 2010)
BCDE (Patra 563,977 54.60 1,123,297 692 2,242,713 1,604
et al., 2008)
ICDE (Patra 563,977 80 1,123,297 541 2,242,713 811
et al., 2008)
DBDE (Yuan 563,977 564,028 564,241 3.6 1,123,998 1,124,339 1,124,539 71.4 2,245,631 2,245,877 2,246,457 153.4
et al., 2009)
ICA (Hadji and 563,938 48 1,124,274 63 2,247,078 151
Vahidi, 2012)
SFLA 564,769 35 1,123,261 16 2,246,005 22
(Ebrahimi
et al., 2011)
THS 563,937.26 564,040.30 64,320.61 1,124,490 1,124,803 1,124,995
(Khanmohammadi
et al., 2010)
PLEA 563,977 565,451 1,124,295 - 1,126,446 2,243,913 2,247,495
(Srinivasan and
Chazelas, 2004)
BRCFF
(Chandrasekaran
and Simon, 2013)
Notes: Best cost (B), worst cost (W), mean cost (M) and average time (AT).
84 R. Mallipeddi and P.N. Suganthan

Table 3 Reported results on 60-, 80- and 100-unit systems with constraints (a) to (e) and 10% spinning reserve

Algorithm B M W AT B M W AT B M W AT
# Units 60 80 100
EPL (Senjyu 3,366,210 23 4,489,322 44.4 5,608,440 64.5
et al., 2003)
SPL (Senjyu 3,371,178 113.85 4,492,909 215.77 5,615,530 374.03
et al., 2006)
DP (Kazarlis
et al., 1996)
LR (Kazarlis 3,394,066 4,526,022 5,657,277
et al., 1996)
LR (Valenzuela 3,374,994 3,374,994 3,374,994 335 4,496,729 4,496,729 4,496,729 446 5,620,305 5,620,305 5,620,305 626
and Smith, 2002)
LR (Seki 3,378,966 12.3 4,501,589 16.7 5,627,932 21.3
et al., 2010)
LRLS1-first 3,365,025 15.8 4,483,169 25.8 5,602,342 36.7
(Seki et al.,
2010)
LRLS1-best 3,361,244 25.8 4,482,403 39.7 5,600,457 61.9
(Seki et al.,
2010)
ALR (Ongsakul 3,371,188 67 4,494,487 111 5,615,893 167
and Petcharaks,
2004)
ELR 3,363,491 113 4,485,633 209 5,605,678 345
(Ongsakul and
Petcharaks,
2004)
DPLR 3,384,293 3,199 4,512,391 8,447 5,640,488 12,437
(Ongsakul and
Petcharaks,
2004)
EP (Juste 3,371,611 3,376,255 3,381,012 2,267 4,498,479 4,505,536 4,512,739 3,584 5,623,885 5,633,800 5,639,148 6,120
et al., 1999)
SA (Simopoulos 4,498,076 4,501,156 4,503,987 405.01 5,617,876 5,624,301 5,628,506 696.43
et al., 2006a)
GA (Kazarlis 3,376,625 3,384,252 5,840 4,504,933 4,510,129 10,036 5,627,437 5,637,914 15,733
et al., 1996)
GA (Valenzuela 3,377,393 3,394,044 3,401,847 3,889 4,507,692 4,525,204 4,552,982 6,995 5,626,362 5,669,362 5,690,086 15,068
and Smith, 2002)
LRGA 3,371,079 2,414 4,501,844 3,383 5,613,127 4,045
(Chuan-Ping
et al., 2000)
BCGA 3,382,913 137 4,511,438 257 5,637,930 397
(Damousis et al.,
2004)
ICGA 3,378,108 117.3 4,498,943 176 5,630,838 242.5
(Damousis et al.,
2004)
FPGA (Dang 3,368,375 3,380,879 3,390,386 4,491,169 4,507,981 4,519,684 5,614,357 5,634,711 5,655,291
and Li, 2007)
GAUCC 3,375,065 3,382,886 1,085 4,505,614 4,527,847 1,975 5,626,514 5,646,529 3547
(Senjyu et al.,
2002)
MA 3,388,676 3,394,830 3,408,275 2,772 4,501,449 4,527,779 4,545,305 5,145 5,640,543 5,665,803 5,698,039 10,463
(Valenzuela and
Smith, 2002)
Notes: Best cost (B), worst cost (W), mean cost (M) and average time (AT).
 Unit commitment 85

Table 3 Reported results on 60-, 80- and 100-unit systems with constraints (a) to (e) and 10% spinning reserve (continued)

Algorithm B M W AT B M W AT B M W AT
# Units 60 80 100
SMA 3,370,595 3,370,820 3,371,272 576 4,494,214 4,494,378 4,494,439 664 5,616,314 5,616,699 5,616,900 1,138
(Valenzuela and
Smith, 2002)
IQEA (Jeong 3,365,003 3,365,667 3,366,223 273 4,486,963 4,487,985 4,489,286 453 5,606,022 5,607,561 5,608,525 710
et al., 2009)
QEA-UC 3,366,676 3,368,220 3,372,007 54.34 4,488,470 4,490,128 4,492,839 66.42 5,609,550 5,611,797 5,613,220 79.98
(Lau et al., 2009)
IQEA-UC 3,362,507 3,363,458 3,365,270 191 4,484,088 4,485,680 4,488,155 235 5,603,355 5,605,200 5,607,281 293
(Chung et al.,
2011)
PSO (Zhao et al., 3,374,174 3,382,921 4,501,538 4,513,725 5,625,376 5,641,378
2006)
IPSO (Zhao et al., 3,370,979 3,379,125 4,495,032 4,508,943 5,619,284
2006)
HPSO (Ting et al.,
2006)
IBPSO 3,367,865 3,368,278 3,368,779 172 4,491,083 4,491,681 4,492,686 235 5,610,293 5,611,181 5,612,265 295
(Yuan et al., 2009)
BPSO 3,363,649 3,365,301 3,367,171 4,487,388 4,488,725 4,489,793 5,608,172 5,609,705 5,611,005
(Yun-Won et al.,
2010)
EPSO (Yuan 3,364,250 3,368,686 3,371,783 54 4,487,742 4,491,749 4,494,032 71 5,608,055 5,608,055 5,619,445 91
et al., 2011)
PSO-LR 3,376,407 36.0 4,496,717 54.3 5,623,607 73.0
(Balci and
Valenzuela, 2004)
QBPSO 3,361,980 3,363,763 3,365,707 328 4,482,085 4,485,410 4,487,168 554 5,602,486 5,604,275 5,606,178 833
(Yun-Won et al.,
2010)
ES-EPSO 3,362,084 3,364,719 3,368,112 56 4,481,863 4,483,992 4,487,569 113 5,602,039 5,603,815 5,606,491 162
(Po-Hung, 2012)
HAS 3,371,064 3,385,929 3,387,745 157 4,495,414 4,513,114 4,521,066 233 5,615,407 5,644,408 5,655,318 316
(Afkousi-Paqaleh
et al., 2010)
BCDE 3,361,913 1,748 4,493,927 1,898 5,615,097 2,020
(Patra et al., 2008)
ICDE (Patra et al., 3,361,913 1,700 4,493,927 1,821 5,615,097 2,250
2008)
DBDE (Yuan 3,366,502 3,367,166 3,367,612 257 4,488,225 4,489,253 4,490,252 377.3 5,608,603 5,609,174 5,610,160 485
et al., 2009)
ICA (Hadji and 3,371,722 366 4,497,919 994 5,617,913 1,376
Vahidi, 2012)
SFLA (Ebrahimi et 3,368,257 28 4,503,928 38 5,624,526 50
al., 2011)
THS
(Khanmohammadi
et al., 2010)
PLEA (Srinivasan 3,363,892 3,369,524 4,487,354 4,495,737 5,607,904 5,613,081
and Chazelas,
2004)
BRCFF 5,601,298 945
(Chandrasekaran
and Simon, 2013)
Notes: Best cost (B), worst cost (W), mean cost (M) and average time (AT).
86 R. Mallipeddi and P.N. Suganthan

Table 4 Reported results on 10-, 20- and 40-unit systems with constraints (a) to (f) and 10% spinning reserve

Algorithm B M W AT B M W AT B M W AT
# Units 10 20 40
MICP (Xie and Chiang, 2010) 564,178 6 1,123,522 19 2,244,145 54
MILP-UC (Carrion and Arroyo, 2006)
MILP-3 (Carrion and Arroyo, 2006)
MILP-3R (Carrion and Arroyo, 2006)
BCDE (Patra et al., 2008) 565,540 1,126,385 2,247,999
ICDE (Patra et al., 2008) 565,540 1,126,385 2,247,999
BF (Eslamian et al., 2009) 565,872 80 1,128,112 210 2,255,112 510
GRASP (Viana et al., 2003) 565,825 5.7 1,128,160 190.3 2,259,340 503.7
Notes: Best cost (B), worst cost (W), mean cost (M) and average time (AT).

Table 5 Reported results on 60-, 80- and 100-unit systems with constraints (a) to (f) and 10% spinning reserve

Algorithm B M W AT B M W AT B M W AT
# Units 60 80 100
MICP 3,363,408 152 4,484,140 401 5,605,466 1,062
(Xie and Chiang, 2010)
MILP-UC (Carrion and 5,605,189 123
Arroyo, 2006)
MILP-3 (Carrion and 5,612,129 324
Arroyo, 2006)
MILP-3R (Carrion and 5,606,877 409
Arroyo, 2006)
BCDE (Patra et al., 2008) 3,367,656 4,502,186 5,626,162
ICDE (Patra et al., 2008) 3,367,656 4,502,186 5,626,162
BF (Eslamian et al., 2009) 3,379,120 1,100 4,508,762 2,600 5,632,491 4,700
GRASP (Viana et al., 2003) 3,383,184 879.3 4,525,934 1,102.7 5,668,870 1,464
Notes: Best cost (B), worst cost (W), mean cost (M) and average time (AT).

Table 6 Reported results with constraints (a) to (e) and 5% spinning reserve

Algorithm # Units B M W AT
VD + PSO 10
(Pappala and Erlich, 2010) 20 1,123,792
40 2,247,213
60 3,372,006
80 4,492,633
100 5,617,204
THS (Khanmohammadi et al., 2010) 10 557,676.81 557,769.29 557,987.03
MIPSO (L. Wang and Singh, 2009) 10 572,075 9.6
Notes: Best cost (B), worst cost (W), mean cost (M) and average time (AT).

From the results present in Tables 2 and 3, it can be
observed that IQEA-UC performs better than others on 10-,
40- and 60-unit systems. On 20-unit system its performance
is comparable to best algorithm which is SFLA. However,
as system size increases ES-PSO shows better performance
compared to IQEA-UC. As mentioned in the literature, a
comparison between the performance of single approaches
and hybrid approaches shows the superior performance of
hybrid approaches. The improvement in the performance
becomes more significant as the size of the problem
increases.
In Tables 4 and 5, some algorithms report only the best
results while some report only the average cost. However,
most of the algorithms provide the best results. From the
results, it is clear that MICP is better than all the algorithms
for 10-, 20-, 40-, 60- and 80-unit system. On 100-unit
system MILP-UC outperforms MICP.
 Unit commitment
In Table 6, it is not possible to compare the performance
of the algorithms. However, with the limited results
available the THS algorithm performs better than MIPSO
on 10-unit system with 5% spinning reserve.
As summarised in Table 1, each algorithm is evaluated
on different computational resources and platforms.
Therefore, it is not fair to comment on the time complexity
of the algorithms.
5 Conclusions
In this paper, we provided a literature review on the
different solution techniques that have been proposed to
solve UCP. We summarise the experimental results
collected from various publications on a standard
benchmark problem to compare the performance of the
different algorithms. The literature survey and the
experimental results summarised can help future researches
to compare the performance of their algorithms with the
literature in a better way.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Kyungpook National
University Research Fund, 2013 (2014).
References
Abdelaziz, A.Y., Osama, R.A. and Elkhodary, S.M. (2012)
‘Application of ant colony optimization and harmony search
algorithms to reconfiguration of radial distribution networks
with distributed generations’, Journal of Bioinformatics and
Intelligent Control, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.86–94.
Afkousi-Paqaleh, M., Rashidinejad, M. and
Pourakbari-Kasmaei, M. (2010) ‘An implementation of
harmony search algorithm to unit commitment problem’,
Electrical Engineering, Vol. 92, No. 6, pp.215–225.
Ali, L., Sabat, S.L. and Udgata, S.K. (2012) ‘Particle swarm
optimisation with stochastic ranking for constrained
numerical and engineering benchmark problems’,
International Journal of Bio-inspired Computation, Vol. 4,
No. 3, pp.155–166.
Atashpaz-Gargari, E. and Lucas, C. (2007) ‘Imperialist
competitive algorithm: an algorithm for optimization inspired
by imperialistic competition’, Paper presented at the IEEE
Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 25–28 September.
Ayoub, A.K. and Patton, A.D. (1971) ‘Optimal thermal generating
unit commitment’, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, Vol. 90, No. 4, pp.1752–1756.
Balci, H.H. and Valenzuela, J.F. (2004) ‘Scheduling electric power
generators using particle swarm optimization combined with
the Lagrangian relaxation method’, Int. J. Appl. Math.
Comput. Sci., Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.411–421.
Carrion, M. and Arroyo, J. M. (2006) ‘A computationally efficient
mixed-integer linear formulation for the thermal unit
commitment problem’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
Vol. 21, No. 3, pp.1371–1378.
Castillo, E. and Alvarez, E. (1991) Expert Systems: Uncertainty
and Learning, Computational Mechanics Publications, UK.
87
Chaa-An, L., Johnson, R.B., Svoboda, A.J., Chung-Li, T. and
Hsu, E. (1998) ‘A robust unit commitment algorithm for
hydro-thermal optimization’, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.1051–1056.
Chandrasekaran, K. and Simon, S.P. (2013) ‘optimal deviation
based firefly algorithm tuned fuzzy design for multi-objective
UCP’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 28, No. 1,
pp.460–471.
Cheng, C.P., Liu, C.W. and Liu, C.C. (2002) ‘Unit commitment by
annealing-genetic algorithm’, International Journal of
Electrical Power & Energy Systems, Vol. 24, No. 2,
pp.149–158.
Chowdhury, N. and Billinton, R. (1990) ‘Unit commitment in
interconnected generating systems using a probabilistic
technique’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 5,
No. 4, pp.1231–1238.
Chuan-Ping, C., Chih-Wen, L. and Chun-Chang, L. (2000) ‘Unit
commitment by Lagrangian relaxation and genetic
algorithms’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 15,
No. 2, pp.707–714.
Chung-Ching, S. and Yuan-Yih, H. (1991) ‘Fuzzy dynamic
programming: an application to unit commitment’,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 6, No. 3,
pp.1231–1237.
Chung, C.Y., Han, Y. and Kit Po, W. (2011) ‘An advanced
quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm for unit
commitment’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 26,
No. 2, pp.847–854.
Cohen, A.I. and Yoshimura, M. (1983) ‘A branch-and-bound
algorithm for unit commitment’, IEEE Power Engineering
Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.34–35.
Damousis, I.G., Bakirtzis, A.G. and Dokopoulos, P.S. (2004)
‘A solution to the unit-commitment problem using
integer-coded genetic algorithm’, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.1165–1172.
Dang, C. and Li, M. (2007) ‘A floating-point genetic algorithm for
solving the unit commitment problem’, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 181, No. 3, pp.1370–1395.
Dasgupta, D. and McGregor, D.R. (1994) ‘Thermal unit
commitment using genetic algorithms’, IEE Proceedings on
Generation, Transmission and Distribution, Vol. 141, No. 5,
pp.459–465.
Dillon, T.S., Edwin, K.W., Kochs, H.D. and Taud, R.J. (1978)
‘Integer programming approach to the problem of optimal
unit commitment with probabilistic reserve determination’,
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems,
Vol. 97, No. 6, pp.2154–2166.
Ebrahimi, J., Hosseinian, S.H. and Gharehpetian, G.B. (2011)
‘Unit commitment problem solution using shuffled frog
leaping algorithm’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.573–581.
El-Fergany, A. and Abdelaziz, A. (2014) ‘Reactive power
compensation in distribution networks using cuckoo search
algorithm’ (accepted, in press) International Journal of
Bio-inspired Computation.
Eslamian, M., Hosseinian, S.H. and Vahidi, B. (2009) ‘Bacterial
foraging-based solution to the unit-commitment problem’,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 24, No. 3,
pp.1478–1488.
Eusuff, M., Lansey, K. and Pasha, F. (2006) ‘Shuffled
frog-leaping algorithm: a memetic meta-heuristic for discrete
optimization’, Engineering Optimization, Vol. 38, No. 2,
pp.129–154.
88 R. Mallipeddi and P.N. Suganthan
Galvez, A. and Iglesias, A. (2014) ‘New memetic self-adaptive
firefly algorithm for continuous optimization’
(accepted, in press) International Journal of Bio-inspired
Computation.
García-Gonzalo, E. and Fernández-Martínez, J.L. (2012) ‘A brief
historical review of particle swarm optimization (PSO)’,
Journal of Bioinformatics and Intelligent Control, Vol. 1,
No. 1, pp.3–16.
Gil, E., Bustos, J. and Rudnick, H. (2003) ‘Short-term
hydrothermal generation scheduling model using a genetic
algorithm’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 18,
No. 4, pp.1256–1264.
Guy, J.D. (1971) ‘Security constrained unit commitment’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. 90,
No. 3, pp.1385–1390.
Haoyong, C. and Xifan, W. (2002) ‘Cooperative coevolutionary
algorithm for unit commitment’, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.128–133.
Hara, K., Kimura, M. and Honda, N. (1966) ‘A method for
planning economic unit commitment and maintenance of
thermal power systems’, IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. 85, No. 5, pp.427–436.
Hong-Tzer, Y., Pai-Chuan, Y. and Ching-Lien, H. (1997)
‘A parallel genetic algorithm approach to solving the unit
commitment problem: implementation on the transputer
networks’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 12,
No. 2, pp.661–668.
Jeong, Y-W., Park, J-B., Shin, J-R. and Lee, K.Y. (2009)
‘A thermal unit commitment approach using an
improved quantum evolutionary algorithm’, Electric Power
Components and Systems, Vol. 37, No. 7, pp.770–786.
Jiang, K., Song, B., Shi, X. and Song, T. (2012) ‘An overview of
membrane computing’, Journal of Bioinformatics and
Intelligent Control, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.17–26.
Juste, K.A., Kita, H., Tanaka, E. and Hasegawa, J. (1999)
‘An evolutionary programming solution to the unit
commitment problem’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.1452–1459.
Kazarlis, S.A., Bakirtzis, A.G. and Petridis, V. (1996) ‘A genetic
algorithm solution to the unit commitment problem’, Power
Systems, IEEE Transactions on, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.83–92.
Kerr, R.H., Scheidt, J.L., Fontanna, A.J. and Wiley, J.K. (1966)
‘Unit commitment’, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, Vol. 85, No. 5, pp.417–421.
Khanmohammadi, S., Amiri, M. and Tarafdar Haque, M. (2010)
‘A new three-stage method for solving unit commitment
problem’, Energy, Vol. 35, No. 7, 3072–3080.
Kothari, D.P. and Ahmad, A. (1995) ‘An expert system approach
to the unit commitment problem’, Energy Conversion and
Management, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp.257–261.
Kuk-Hyun, H. and Jong-Hwan, K. (2002) ‘Quantum-inspired
evolutionary algorithm for a class of combinatorial
optimization’, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary
Computation, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp.580–593.
Kumar, S.S. and Palanisamy, V. (2007) ‘A dynamic programming
based fast computation Hopfield neural network for unit
commitment and economic dispatch’, Electric Power Systems
Research, Vol. 77, No. 8, pp.917–925.
Lau, T.W., Chung, C.Y., Wong, K.P., Chung, T.S. and Ho, S.L.
(2009) ‘Quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm approach
for unit commitment’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.1503–1512.
Layeb, A. (2011) ‘A novel quantum inspired cuckoo search for
knapsack problems’, International Journal of Bio-inspired
Computation, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp.297–305.
Le, K.D., Day, J.T., Cooper, B.L. and Gibbons, E.W. (1983a)
‘A global optimization method for scheduling thermal
generation, hydro generation, and economy purchases’, IEEE
Power Engineering Review, Vol. 3, No. 7, pp.25–26.
Le, K.D., Day, J.T., Cooper, B.L. and Gibbons, E.W. (1983b)
‘A global optimization method for scheduling thermal
generation, hydro generation, and economy purchases’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. 102,
No. 7, pp.1986–1993.
Lee, F.N. (1988) ‘Short-term thermal unit commitment – a new
method’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 3,
No. 2, pp.421–428.
Lee, F.N. (1991) ‘The application of commitment utilization factor
(CUF) to thermal unit commitment’, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.691–698.
Lee, F.N., Chen, Q. and Breipohl, A. (1991) ‘Unit commitment
risk with sequential rescheduling’, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.1017–1023.
Lee, F.N., Huang, J. and Adapa, R. (1994) ‘Multi-area unit
commitment via sequential method and a DC power flow
network model’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.279–287.
Lee, T-Y. and Chen, C-L. (2007) ‘Unit commitment with
probabilistic reserve: an IPSO approach’, Energy Conversion
and Management, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.486–493.
Liang, R.H. and Kang, F.C. (2000) ‘Thermal generating unit
commitment using an extended mean field annealing neural
network’, IEE Proceedings on Generation, Transmission and
Distribution, Vol. 147, No. 3, pp.164–170.
Lowery, P.G. (1966) ‘Generating unit commitment by dynamic
programming’, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, Vol. 85, No. 5, pp.422–426.
Ma, X., El-Keib, A.A., Smith, R.E. and Ma, H. (1995) ‘A genetic
algorithm based approach to thermal unit commitment of
electric power systems’, Electric Power Systems Research,
Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.29–36.
Maifeld, T.T. and Sheble, G.B. (1996) ‘Genetic-based unit
commitment algorithm’, Power Systems, IEEE Transactions
on, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.1359–1370.
Mantawy, A.H., Abdel-Magid, Y.L. and Selim, S.Z. (1998a)
‘A simulated annealing algorithm for unit commitment’,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 13, No. 1,
pp.197–204.
Mantawy, A.H., Abdel-Magid, Y.L. and Selim, S.Z. (1998b)
‘Unit commitment by tabu search’, IEE Proceedings on
Generation, Transmission and Distribution, Vol. 145, No. 1,
pp.56–64.
Mantawy, A.H., Abdel-Magid, Y.L. and Selim, S.Z. (1999)
‘Integrating genetic algorithms, tabu search, and simulated
annealing for the unit commitment problem’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.829–836.
Mazumdar, M. and Kapoor, A. (1995) ‘Stochastic models for
power generation system production costs’, Electric Power
Systems Research, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.93–100.
Merlin, A. and Sandrin, P. (1983) ‘A new method for unit
commitment at Electricite De France’, IEEE Transactions
on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. 102, No. 5,
pp.1218–1225.
 Unit commitment
Moghimi Hadji, M. and Vahidi, B. (2012) ‘A solution to the unit
commitment problem using imperialistic competition
algorithm’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 27,
No. 1, pp.117–124.
Mokhtari, S., Sing, J. and Wollenberg, B. (1988) ‘A unit
commitment expert system power system control’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.272–277.
Nieva, R., Inda, A. and Guillen, I. (1987) ‘Lagrangian reduction of
search-range for large-scale unit commitment’, IEEE Power
Engineering Review, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp.52–52.
Noman, N. and Iba, H. (2011) ‘Constrained differential
evolution for economic dispatch with valve-point effect’,
International Journal of Bio-inspired Computation, Vol. 3,
No. 6, pp.346–357.
Ongsakul, W. and Petcharaks, N. (2004) ‘Unit commitment by
enhanced adaptive Lagrangian relaxation’, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.620–628.
Orero, S.O. and Irving, M.R. (1996) ‘A genetic algorithm for
generator scheduling in power systems’, International
Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, Vol. 18,
No. 1, pp.19–26.
Ouyang, Z. and Shahidehpour, S.M. (1990) ‘Short-term unit
commitment expert system’, Electric Power Systems
Research, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1–13.
Ouyang, Z. and Shahidehpour, S.M. (1992a) ‘A hybrid artificial
neural network-dynamic programming approach to unit
commitment’, Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, Vol. 7,
No. 1, pp.236–242, doi: 10.1109/59.141709.
Ouyang, Z. and Shahidehpour, S.M. (1992b) ‘A multi-stage
intelligent system for unit commitment’, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.639–646.
Padhy, N.P. (2004) ‘Unit commitment-a bibliographical survey’,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 19, No. 2,
pp.1196–1205.
Pang, C.K. and Chen, H.C. (1976) ‘Optimal short-term thermal
unit commitment’, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, Vol. 95, No. 4, pp.1336–1346.
Pang, C.K., Sheble, G.B. and Albuyeh, F. (1981) ‘Evaluation of
dynamic programming based methods and multiple area
representation for thermal unit commitments’, IEEE Power
Engineering Review, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.32–32.
Panigrahi, B.K. (2014) ‘Bio-inspired optimization for
economic load dispatch: a review’, International Journal of
Bio-inspired Computation, (accepted, in press).
Pappala, V.S. and Erlich, I. (2010) ‘A variable-dimension
optimization approach to unit commitment problem’,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 25, No. 3,
pp.1696–1704.
Parpinelli, R.S. and Lopes, H.S. (2011) ‘New inspirations in
swarm intelligence: a survey’, Int. J. Bio-Inspired Comput.,
Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.1–16.
Patra, S., Goswami, S.K. and Goswami, B. (2008) ‘Differential
evolution algorithm for solving unit commitment with
ramp constraints’, Electric Power Components and Systems,
Vol. 36, No. 8, pp.771–787.
Po-Hung, C. (2012) ‘Two-level hierarchical approach to unit
commitment using expert system and elite PSO’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.780–789.
Rajan, C.C.A. and Mohan, M.R. (2004) ‘An evolutionary
programming-based tabu search method for solving the unit
commitment problem’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.577–585.
89
Saber, A.Y. and Alshareef, A.M. (2008) ‘Scalable unit
commitment by memory-bounded ant colony optimization
with local search’, International Journal of Electrical Power
& Energy Systems, Vol. 30, Nos. 6–7, pp.403–414.
Saber, A.Y., Senjyu, T., Yona, A. and Funabashi, T. (2007) ‘Unit
commitment computation by fuzzy adaptive particle swarm
optimisation’, IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution,
Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.456–465. doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd:20060252.
Saber, A.Y., Senjyu, T., Yona, A., Urasaki, N. and Funabashi, T.
(2007) ‘Fuzzy unit commitment solution – a novel twofold
simulated annealing approach’, Electric Power Systems
Research, Vol. 77, No. 12, pp.1699–1712.
Sadati, N., Hajian, M. and Zamani, M. (2007) ‘Unit commitment
using particle swarm-based-simulated annealing optimization
approach’, Paper presented at the IEEE Swarm Intelligence
Symposium, 1–5 April.
Salam, M.S., Hamdan, A.R. and Nor, K.M. (1991) ‘Integrating an
expert system into a thermal unit-commitment algorithm’,
Generation, Transmission and Distribution, IEE Proceedings
C, 138, No. 6, pp.553–559.
Saneifard, S., Prasad, N.R. and Smolleck, H.A. (1997) ‘A fuzzy
logic approach to unit commitment’, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.988–995.
Sasaki, H., Watanabe, M., Kubokawa, J., Yorino, N. and
Yokoyama, R. (1992) ‘A solution method of unit commitment
by artificial neural networks’, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.974–981.
Seki, T., Yamashita, N. and Kawamoto, K. (2010) ‘New local
search methods for improving the Lagrangian-relaxation-
based unit commitment solution’, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.272–283.
Senjyu, T., Miyagi, T., Saber, A. Y., Urasaki, N. and Funabashi, T.
(2006) ‘Emerging solution of large-scale unit commitment
problem by stochastic priority list’, Elect. Power Syst. Res.,
Vol. 76, No. 5, pp.283–292.
Senjyu, T., Shimabukuro, K., Uezato, K. and Funabashi, T. (2003)
‘A fast technique for unit commitment problem by extended
priority list’, Paper presented at the Power Engineering
Society General Meeting, IEEE, July.
Senjyu, T., Yamashiro, H., Uezato, K. and Funabashi, T. (2002)
‘A unit commitment problem by using genetic algorithm
based on unit characteristic classification’, Paper presented at
the Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, IEEE.
Sheble, G.B. and Fahd, G.N. (1994) ‘Unit commitment literature
synopsis’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 9,
No. 1, pp.128–135.
Shi, L., Hao, J., Zhou, J. and Xu, G. (2004) ‘Ant colony
optimization algorithm with random perturbation behavior to
the problem of optimal unit commitment with probabilistic
spinning reserve determination’, Electric Power Systems
Research, Vol. 69, Nos. 2–3, pp.295–303.
Jier, H.S. and Ching-Lien, H. (1997) ‘Application of genetic-based
neural networks to thermal unit commitment’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.654–660.
Simopoulos, D.N., Kavatza, S.D. and Vournas, C.D. (2006a) ‘Unit
commitment by an enhanced simulated annealing algorithm’,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 21, No. 1,
pp.68–76.
Simopoulos, D.N., Kavatza, S.D. and Vournas, C D. (2006b) ‘Unit
commitment by an enhanced simulated annealing algorithm’,
Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, Vol. 21, No. 1,
pp.68–76, doi: 10.1109/tpwrs.2005.860922.
90 R. Mallipeddi and P.N. Suganthan
Sisworahardjo, N.S. and El-Keib, A. A. (2002) ‘Unit commitment
using the ant colony search algorithm’, Paper presented
at the Large Engineering Systems Conference on Power
Engineering.
Snyder, W.L., Powell, H.D. and Rayburn, J.C. (1987) ‘Dynamic
programming approach to unit commitment’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.339–348.
Srinivasan, D. and Chazelas, J. (2004) ‘A priority list-based
evolutionary algorithm to solve large scale unit commitment
problem’, Paper presented at the International Conference on
Power System Technology, 21–24 November.
Sum-Im, T. and Ongsakul, W. (2003) ‘Ant colony search
algorithm for unit commitment’, Paper presented at the
IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology,
10–12 December.
Sun, L., Zhang, Y. and Jiang, C. (2006) ‘A matrix real-coded
genetic algorithm to the unit commitment problem’, Electric
Power Systems Research, Vol. 76, Nos. 9–10, pp.716–728.
Swarup, K.S. and Yamashiro, S. (2002) ‘Unit commitment
solution methodology using genetic algorithm’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.87–91.
Takriti, S. and Birge, J.R. (2000) ‘Using integer programming
to refine Lagrangian-based unit commitment solutions’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.151–156.
Takriti, S., Birge, J.R. and Long, E. (1996) ‘A stochastic model for
the unit commitment problem’, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.1497–1508.
Ting, T.O., Rao, M.V.C. and Loo, C.K. (2006) ‘A novel approach
for unit commitment problem via an effective hybrid particle
swarm optimization’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.411–418.
Tong, S.K. and Shahidehpour, S.M. (1990) ‘Hydrothermal unit
commitment with probabilistic constraints using segmentation
method’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 5,
No. 1, pp.276–282.
Tong, S.K., Shahidehpour, S.M. and Ouyang, Z. (1991)
‘A heuristic short-term unit commitment’, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.1210–1216.
Valenzuela, J. and Smith, A. (2002) ‘A seeded memetic algorithm
for large unit commitment problems’, Journal of Heuristics,
Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.173–195.
Venkatesh, B., Jamtsho, T. and Gooi, H.B. (2007) ‘Unit
commitment – a fuzzy mixed integer Linear Programming
solution’, IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution,
Vol. 1, No. 5, pp.836–846.
Venkatesh, P., Gnanadass, R. and Padhy, N.P. (2003) ‘Comparison
and application of evolutionary programming techniques to
combined economic emission dispatch with line flow
constraints’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 18,
No. 2, pp.688–697.
Viana, A., de Sousa, J. and Matos, M. (2003) ‘Using GRASP to
solve the unit commitment problem’, Annals of Operations
Research, Vol. 120, Nos. 1–4, pp.117–132.
Victoire, T.A.A. and Jeyakumar, A.E. (2005) ‘Unit commitment
by a tabu-search-based hybrid-optimisation technique’, IEE
Proceedings on Generation, Transmission and Distribution,
Vol. 152, No. 4, pp.563–574.
Walsh, M.P. and O’Malley, M.J. (1997) ‘Augmented Hopfield
network for unit commitment and economic dispatch’,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 12, No. 4,
pp.1765–1774.
View publication stats
Wang, C. and Shahidehpour, S.M. (1993) ‘Effects of ramp-rate
limits on unit commitment and economic dispatch’,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 8, No. 3,
pp.1341–1350.
Wang, L. and Singh, C. (2009) ‘Unit commitment considering
generator outages through a mixed-integer particle swarm
optimization algorithm’, Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 9,
No. 3, pp.947–953.
Wong, K.P. and Doan, K. (1991) ‘Artificial intelligence algorithm
for daily scheduling of thermal generators’, Generation,
Transmission and Distribution, IEE Proceedings C, Vol. 138,
No. 6, pp.518–534.
Wong, M.H., Chung, T.S. and Wong, Y.K. (2000) ‘An evolving
neural network approach in unit commitment solution’,
Microprocessors and Microsystems – Embedded Hardware
Design, pp.251–262.
Xie, Y-G. and Chiang, H-D. (2010) ‘A novel solution
methodology for solving large-scale thermal unit commitment
problem’,. Electric Power Components and Systems, Vol. 38,
No. 14, pp.1615–1634.
Yalcinoz, T., Short, M.J. and Cory, B.J. (1999, 1999) ‘Application
of neural networks to unit commitment’, Paper presented at
the IEEE Africon.
Wong, S.Y.W. (1998) ‘An enhanced simulated annealing approach
to unit commitment’, International Journal of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp.359–368.
Yuan, X., Nie, H., Su, A., Wang, L. and Yuan, Y. (2009) ‘An
improved binary particle swarm optimization for unit
commitment problem’, Expert Systems with Applications,
Vol. 36, No. 4, pp.8049–8055.
Yuan, X., Su, A., Nie, H., Yuan, Y. and Wang, L. (2009)
‘Application of enhanced discrete differential evolution
approach to unit commitment problem’, Energy Conversion
and Management, Vol. 50, No. 9, pp.2449–2456.
Yuan, X., Su, A., Nie, H., Yuan, Y. and Wang, L. (2011) ‘Unit
commitment problem using enhanced particle swarm
optimization algorithm’, Soft Computing, Vol. 15, No. 1,
pp.139–148.
Yun-Won, J., Jong-Bae, P., Se-Hwan, J. and Lee, K.Y. (2010)
‘A new quantum-inspired binary PSO: application to
unit commitment problems for power systems’,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 25, No. 3,
pp.1486–1495.
Zhai, D., Breipohl, A.M., Lee, F.N. and Adapa, R. (1994)
‘The effect of load uncertainty on unit commitment risk’,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 9, No. 1,
pp.510–517, doi: 10.1109/59.317572
Zhao, B., Guo, C.X., Bai, B.R. and Cao, Y.J. (2006) ‘An improved
particle swarm optimization algorithm for unit commitment’,
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems,
Vol. 28, No. 7, pp.482–490.
Zhuang, F. and Galiana, F.D. (1990) ‘Unit commitment by
simulated annealing’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.311–318.
Zwe-Lee, G. (2003) ‘Discrete particle swarm optimization
algorithm for unit commitment’, Paper presented at the Power
Engineering Society General Meeting, IEEE, 13–17 July.