Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Enhanced augmented Lagrange Hopfield network for constrained economic dispatch with prohibited operating zone

Vo Ngoc Dieu and Weerakorn Ongsakul

Abstract This paper proposes an enhanced augmented Hopfield Lagrange neural network (EALH) for solving constrained economic dispatch (CED) problem with units having prohibited operating zones (POZ). The EALH is an augmented Lagrange Hopfield neural network (ALH), a combination of continuous Hopfield neural network and augmented Lagrangian function as its energy function, enhanced by a heuristic search based algorithm to avoid prohibited zones. The problem with many search spaces due to POZ of units is solved by the EALH in three phases. In the first phase, the problem is solved by the ALH without POZ of units. In the second phase, a heuristic search procedure is conducted to find out the most feasible search space if the prohibited zones are violated. In the last phase, the ALH is applied to solve the problem with the new feasible search space. The proposed method is tested on various sample systems and compared to - iterative methods, Hopfield neural networks (HNNs), genetic algorithms (GAs), evolutionary programming (EP) methods, particle swarm optimization (PSO), and combined EP, tabu search (TS) and quadratic programming (ETQ) method. The results have shown that the proposed method is feasible and efficient and would be a competent method for solving CED problem with POZ of generating units. Keywords Augmented Lagrange Hopfield neural network, constrained economic dispatch, prohibited operating zones.
1

NOMENCLATURE


P Pi Pik Pikl Piku S Si ai, bi, ci Bij, B0i, B00 DRi Errmax i k M

slope of sigmoid function of continuous neurons; maximum tolerance for neural network; continuous neuron step updating sizes; multiplier neuron step updating sizes; penalty factor associated with power balance; Lagrangian multiplier associated with power balance; power mismatch between load demand and power supply; power contribution of unit i to spinning reserve by reducing its generation; the width of prohibited zone k of unit i; margin from operating point to lower bound of prohibited zone k of unit i; margin from operating point to upper bound of prohibited zone k of unit i; insufficient power to spinning reserve; power to be reduced satisfying spinning reserve of unit i; set of all online units; set of online units having prohibited zones; fuel cost coefficients for unit i; transmission loss formula coefficients; ramp down rate limit of unit i; maximum error of neural network; index of online units; index of prohibited operating zones; total number of decision spaces of units having

Mi N Nmax n ni PD PL Pikl, Piku Pi Pi0 Pimin, Pimax Si Simax SR Ui U URi Vi V Vi(0) V(0) xi

prohibited operating zones; priority index for the unit i based on its average fuel cost, in $/MWh; number of online units; maximum number of iterations; iterative index of neural network; number of prohibited zones of unit i; total load demand of the system, in MW; total network loss of the system, in MW; lower and upper bounds of the kth prohibited zone of unit i, in MW; output power of unit i, in MW; initial output power of unit i, in MW; lower and upper generation limits of unit i, in MW; spinning reserve contribution of unit i; maximum spinning reserve contribution of unit i; total spinning reserve requirement; input of continuous neurons corresponding to the outputs Vi; input of multiplier neuron corresponding to the output V; ramp up rate limit of unit i; output of continuous neuron i representing for output power Pi; output of multiplier neuron representing Lagrangian multiplier; initial value of Vi; initial value of V; fixed fraction of the maximum output of the unit i.

Vo Ngoc Dieu is with Energy Field of Study, School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand. E-mail: st100011@ait.ac.th. Weerakorn Ongsakul is with Energy Field of Study, School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand. Phone: 66-2-524-5421; Fax: 66-2-524-6589; E-mail: ongsakul@ait.ac.th, corresponding author.

1.

INTRODUCTION

In practical power systems, thermal generating units may have prohibited operating zones due to physical limitations on components of units. Therefore, a unit with prohibited zones, the whole operating region of the unit will be broken into several isolated feasible sub-regions. These isolated feasible sub-regions will form multiple decision spaces, where each of the decision

spaces can be either feasible or infeasible with respect to the system load demand and the optimal operation region will reside in one of the feasible decision spaces. As a result, the associated economic dispatch problem is a non-convex optimization problem and it is very challenging to be directly solved by conventional methods [1], [2]. Constrained economic dispatch (CED) problem with units having prohibited operating zones (POZ) is to minimize fuel cost of generating units while satisfying power balance, generation limits, prohibited operating zones, spinning reserve, and ramp rate constraints. The economic dispatch problem with POZ was solved by - iterative methods [1], [2], in which a small set of advantageous decision spaces is defined based on incremental cost after solution of the problem without POZ found by the - iterative method first, and then each of the advantageous decision spaces is solved again for optimal solution. The optimal solution from these methods is in the most advantageous decision space which has the smallest penalty cost among the defined set of advantageous decision spaces. These methods may not be applicable if the problem contains too many nonlinear constraints. Recently, meta-heuristic search methods have been applied for solving the economic dispatch with POZ such as Hopfield neural networks [3], [4], [5], genetic algorithms [6], [7], [8], evolutionary programming (EP) methods [9], [10], [11], and particle swarm optimization (PSO) [12], [13]. Improved Hopfield neural network (IHNN) was used for solving the problem in [4] with new mapping process for obtaining weights and biases using slack variable. Although this method has achieved fast solutions, obtained solutions are near optimum. Enhanced Hopfield neural network (EHNN) in [5] is a Hopfield network enhanced by a strategy for dealing with prohibited zones of units. The EHNN needs only one execution for the computational procedure, but it converges slowly due to the integrated strategy. Moreover, an unsuitable sigmoidal function adopted in the Hopfield models may suffer excessive numerical iterations, leading to huge calculations, and the optimal solution is sensitive to the selection of coefficients for energy function. In GA method [6], a penalty function was incorporated in the fitness function to handle prohibited zones of units. Lambda-based GA (LGA) in [7] and improved genetic algorithm (IGA) in [8] were also applied for solving the CED problem with POZ. The LGA used lambda-based encoding technique instead of unit-based encoding leading number of bits of chromosomes is independent to the number of units, so it can be applicable for large scale problem. The IGA is an attempt to improve convergence of the LGA by changing probabilities of mutation and crossover for each generation with new methodology in calculation of power loss. Though the GA methods have been employed successfully in complicated optimization problems, they still have some deficiencies in performance. This degradation in efficiency is apparent in applications to problems with the parameters being optimized are highly correlated where the crossover and mutation operations cannot ensure better fitness of offspring because chromosomes in the population have similar structures and its average fitness is high toward the end of the evolutionary process [14]. The EP techniques in [9], [10] incorporated prohibited zones in their fitness functions while the one used in [11] defined a small set of advantageous decision spaces like the - iterative methods in [1], [2], and each of them was solved by fast computation evolutionary programming algorithm (FCEPA). One disadvantage of EP in solving some of the multimodal optimization problems is its slow convergence to a near optimum and mutation is a key search operator, which generates new solutions from the current ones. Although the PSO technique can generate high-quality solutions within shorter calculation time and stable convergence characteristic than some other stochastic methods, it is still sensitive to the tuning of some weights or parameters.

Hybrid methods are also proposed for solving the economic dispatch with POZ. Integrated artificial intelligence (ETQ) [15] combing EP, tabu search (TS) and quadratic programming (QP) was also applied solving the problem. In this combined method, the problem is solved in two phases. In the first phase, a hybrid EP and TS is used to solve cost-curve-selection sub-problem, and in the second phase, a QP for economic dispatch problem. However, this method is still slow convergence due to combination of many methods, especially for large scale problems. In this paper, an enhanced augmented Lagrange Hopfield neural network (EALH) is proposed for solving the CED problem with POZ. The EALH is an augmented Lagrange Hopfield network (ALH) enhanced by heuristic search based algorithm to avoid prohibited zones. Initially, the ALH is used to solve the CED problem without prohibited zones. Then, a heuristic search procedure is conducted to find the most advantageous decision space if prohibited zones are violated. Finally, the ALH is applied for solving the CED problem with the prohibited zones handled by new generation limits. The advantage of the proposed method is that it is not necessary to find many advantageous decision spaces based on penalty cost. Moreover, the heuristic search used in the proposed method is very simple based on operating point of units. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed EALH, it is tested on various systems and compared to - iterative methods [1], [2], Hopfield neural networks [3], [4], [5], genetic algorithms (GAs) [6], [7], evolutionary programming (EP) methods [9], [10], [11], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [12], [13], and combined EP, tabu search (TS) and quadratic programming (ETQ) method [15]. The organization of this paper is follows. Section 2 addresses the formulation of constrained economic dispatch problem with prohibited operating zones. Augmented Lagrange Hopfield neural network for the problem is described in Section 3. Heuristic search based algorithm for repairing generation limits is followed in Section 4. Numerical results are presented in Section 5. Finally, the conclusion is given.

2.

PROBLEM FORMULATION

The objective of the CED problem with POZ is to minimize total cost of thermal generating units of a system over some appropriate period (one hour typically) while satisfying various constraints including power balance, generator power limits, prohibited zones, spinning reserve and ramp rate constraints. The CED problem with POZ is formulated as follows.

MinF = ai + bi Pi + ci Pi 2
i =1

(1)

subject to (a) power balance constraints

P P
i =1 i
N

PD = 0
N

(2)

PL = Pi Bij Pj + B0i Pi + B00


i =1 j =1 i =1

(3)

(b) generator operating limits

Pi min Pi Pi max ; i ( - )
(c) prohibited operating zone constraint
l Pi min Pi Pi1 u l Pik 1 Pi Pik ; i ; k = 2,, ni

(4)

(5a) (5b)

u Pini Pi Pi max

(5c)

follows.

(d) spinning reserve constraint

Si S R
i =1

(6)

where

S i = min Pi max Pi , S imax ; i ( - )

(bi + 2ciVi ) N = P + V + PL + PD Vi L 1 + U i i =1 Vi
N dU E =+ = PD + PL Vi dt V i =1

dU i E = dt Vi

(14)

(7) (8)

(15)

S i = 0 ; i
(e) ramp rate constraint

where, (9) (10) The algorithm for updating inputs of neurons is defined as follows.
N PL = 2 BijV j + Bi 0 Vi j =1

Pi Pi 0 URi , if generation increases Pi 0 Pi DRi , if generation decreases


i = 1,, N

(16)

It is obvious from the equation (5) that if a unit has ni prohibited zones, its entire operating region will be decomposed into (ni + 1) feasible sub-regions, leading multiple search spaces for the CED problem with POZ. The total number of decision spaces can be enumerated as follows.

U i( n ) = U i( n 1) i
( ( U n ) = U n 1) +

E Vi E V

(17)

(18)

M = (ni + 1)
i

(11)

From the equation (11), it is implied that, as number of units with POZ increase, the total number of decision spaces increases quite rapidly. To compute all those decision spaces, it may become unacceptably computational time for classical methods. Therefore, new approaches that can overcome the above difficulties are needed.

The outputs of continuous neurons representing for output power of units are limited by maximum and minimum values and calculated by a sigmoid function [17] as follows:

Vi = g (U i ) P high Pi low = i 2
where

[1 + tanh (U i )] + Pi low

(19)

3. AUGMENTED LAGRANGE HOPFIELD NEURAL NETWORK


In this section, augmented Lagrange Hopfield neural network (ALH) is applied to solve the CED problem without prohibited zones and spinning reserve. The augmented Lagrange function L of the problem is formulated as follows.

Pi high = min{Pi max , Pi 0 + URi } Pi low = max{Pi min , Pi 0 DRi }

(20) (21)

L = ai + bi Pi + ci Pi 2
i =1

)
(12)
2

and determines the shape of the sigmoid function. The shape of these functions is shown in Fig. 1. Since multiplier neurons are unconstrained outputs, the outputs are defined as below.

V = g (U ) = U

(22)

N N 1 + PL + PD Pi + PL + PD Pi i =1 i =1 2

To represent in augmented Lagrange Hopfield neural network, N continuous neurons and one multiplier neurons are required. The energy function E of the problem is formulated based on the augmented Lagrangian function in terms of neurons as follows.

E = a i + biVi + ciVi 2
i =1

)
2

N N 1 + V PL + PD Vi + PL + PD Vi i =1 i =1 2 V N Vi + g 1 (V )dV + g 1 (V )dV i =1 0 0

(13)

where the sums of integral terms are Hopfield terms where their global effect is a displacement of solutions toward the interior of the state space [16]. The dynamics of the ALH for updating neuron inputs are

Fig.1. Sigmoid function with different values of the slope. The dynamics cause the energy function (13) to be minimized with respect to continuous neurons. Consider the

effect of the change in continuous neuron i representing for output power of generating unit i on energy function E:

V( 0 ) =

dE E dVi = dt Vi dt
Substituting (19) into (23):

1 N

i =1

(23)

bi + 2ciVi ( 0 ) P 1 L Vi

(30)

dE E dg (U i ) E dg (U i ) dU i = = dt Vi dt Vi dU i dt
Substituting (14) into (24):

(24)

Termination criteria The algorithm of the ALH will be terminated when either the maximum error Errmax including both constraint and iterative errors is lower than a predefined tolerance or the maximum number of iterations Nmax is reached. Procedure of the ALH for the CED problem is as follows. Step 1: Select sigmoid function for continuous neurons and updating step sizes for all neurons of ALH. Initialize inputs and outputs of all neurons as in (29)-(30). Calculate dynamics of all neurons using (14)-(15). Calculate new inputs of all neurons using (17)(18). Calculate outputs of all neurons using (19)-(22). Determine maximum error Errmax of the ALH.

dg (U i ) dU i dE = dt dU i dt

(25) Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Step 6:

Since g(Ui) is a monotonically increasing function, the value of dE/dt is always negative. Therefore, the energy function of Hopfield network is minimized with respect to continuous neurons when these neurons change their status. On the other hand, for example, the effect of the multiplier neuron associated with power balance constraint on energy function is considered as follows.

dE E dV = dt V dt
Substituting (22) into (26):

(26)

Step 7: If Errmax< , go to Step 3. Otherwise, stop.

dE E dg (U ) E dU = = dt V dt V dt
Substituting (15) into (27):

4. HEURISTIC SEARCH FOR GENERATION LIMIT MODIFICATION


(27) After obtaining solution from the CED problem by ALH, the prohibited zones and spinning reserve constraint may be violated. A heuristic search algorithm is conducted to repair prohibited zones and spinning reserve constraint violations. The key point for solving the CED problem with POZ is to determine feasible operating zones for units. The more precious operating zones are found, the better solutions are obtained. In this paper, some simple heuristic search procedures are proposed to deal with the problem. Repair for prohibited zone violations When operating point of a unit is in one of its prohibited zones due to the solution of the CED problem, it is necessary move the operating point out of the prohibited zone by modifying the generation limits of units. A heuristic search algorithm is applied to modify generation limits for all units having prohibited zones. For the units having operating point without violating prohibited zones due to the solution of the CED problem, their new generation limits are fixed in those feasible operating zones. For the units having operating point violating prohibited zones, the margins from the operating point to lower and upper bounds of the prohibited zone should be calculated and compared together. If the former is smaller than the later, the upper limit of the unit will be fixed at the lower bound of the prohibited zone. In contrast, if the later is smaller than the former, the lower limit of the unit is fixed at the upper bound of the prohibited zone. An explanation of generation limit modification of prohibited zone k is given in Fig. 2. The lower and upper margins from the operating point obtaining from the CED problem to the lower and upper bounds of the prohibited zone are calculated.
l l Pik = Pi Pik ; i u u Pik = Pik Pi

dE dU = dt dt

(28)

The right hand side of the equation (28) shows that dE/dt is always positive, that means the energy function (13) is always maximized with respect to the change of multiplier neurons. Selection of parameters The proper parameter selection will guarantee fast convergence of the network. By experiments, the values of and are fixed at 106 and 10-3, respectively. The other parameters will vary depending on the data being processed. Too large values of i and will cause the network to behave like a discrete system producing values at the upper and lower limits of each neuron. In contrast, too small values of i and will cause the network to converge very slowly. Initialization The algorithm requires initial conditions for all neurons. In this paper, the initial outputs of neurons are selected as follows. For the continuous neurons representing for output power of units, the inputs are initiated by mean distribution [18] as follows.

Vi ( 0 ) = PD

Pi max

(29)

P
i =1

max

For the multiplier neuron associated with power balance constraint, the output is initialized by mean values as follows.

(31) (32)

F($/h) Pimin = Piku if Pikl > Pikl Pimax = Pikl if Pikl < Pikl

prohibited zones which are next to feasible operating zones of units after modified is calculated as follows.
u l Pik = Pik Pik ; i

(37)

Among the units satisfying Pik P, i , the unit with smallest Pik is chosen to modify generation limits to the new ones. The procedure for modification of generation limits satisfying load demand is as follows. Piku P(MW) Piku Step 2: Step 1: Calculate the amount of insufficient power as in (36). Calculate the width of each prohibited zone next to the feasible operating zone of all units having prohibited operating zones after modified to the new generation limits in (37). Choose a unit with the smallest Pik among the units satisfying Pik P. Change the operating zone of this unit to the next operating zone with higher generation limits.

Pikl

Prohibited zone Pikl Pi

Fig.2. Modification of generation limits of units. Step 3: The new generation limits are modified as follows.
l u l Pi max( new) = Pik if Pik < Pik ; i

(33)

Step 4:

or
l u u Pi min( new) = Pik if Pik > Pik ; i

(34)

The procedure generation limits modification of units violating prohibited zones is as follows. Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Make a list of all units having prohibited operating zones. Choose the first unit form the list. Check the operating point with their prohibited zones. If no prohibited zone is violated, fix the operating limits of the unit in this feasible operating zone and go to Step 7. Calculate lower and upper margins from (31) and (32). If lower margin is smaller than the upper margin, modify the maximum generation output power of the unit to the new value as in (33). Otherwise, modify the minimum generation output power of the unit to the new value as in (34). Eliminate the unit from the list. Choose the next unit in the list and go to Step 3. Repeat this step until the last unit in the list.

Reduce operating limits satisfying spinning reserve After obtaining solution from the CED problem by the ALH, the spinning reserve contributed by the units with no prohibited operating zone should be checked for violations. If the contributed spinning reserve of units does not satisfy the system spinning reserve, the amount of insufficient spinning reserve is calculated.

S = S R

(38)

To determine the new generation limits for units satisfying spinning reserve, a merit order is used [19].

Step 5: Step 6:

Mi =

Fi ( Pi ) Pi

; i ( - )
xi Pi , max

(39)

where the value of xi is chosen:

xi =

P 1 1 + i ,min P 2 i ,max

(40)

Step 7:

The units having no prohibited zone are classified into two categories. Category 1: the units whose contributions are at their maximum level satisfying:
max Pi max Pi S R

Changing operating limits satisfying load demand To find feasible solution for the problem, the system load demand must be satisfied.

(41)

Pi min PD Pi max
i =1 i =1

These units cannot contribute more power to spinning reserve requirement, so their new generation limits are defined as follows
max Pi max( new) = Pi max S R

(35)

(42) (43)

However, after repairing the prohibited zone violations, the condition (35) may not be satisfied in some cases. This happens when all units in system have prohibited operating zones or the output powers of units without prohibited operating zones in system are all fixed. Therefore, a heuristic search based algorithm is applied when the violation happens. If the load demand is higher than total maximum power supply of all units after modified to new generation limits, the amount of insufficient power is calculated.

Pi min( new) = Pi

Category 2: the units whose contributions are lower than their maximum level satisfying:
max Pi max Pi < S R

(44)

P = PD Pi max
i =1

(36)

These units can contribute more power to the spinning reserve requirement. Therefore, the units with highest Mi will be selected to increase their contribution to the spinning reserve requirement by fixing new maximum output power as in (42) so that the insufficient spinning reserve is satisfied. The contribution power is determined
max Pi = Pi ( Pi max S R )

The difference between maximum and minimum power of

(45)

and satisfying:

P S
iL i

(46)

where L is set of selected units to increase spinning reserve contribution. The procedure for reducing generation limits satisfying spinning reserve is as follows. Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Determine amount of insufficient power for spinning reserve requirement as in (38). Determine merit order of each unit having no POZ as in (39). Find the units whose contributions are at their maximum level and fix their new generation limits as in (42)-(43). Make a list of units whose contributions can be increased. Choose a unit with highest Mi, fix its new maximum limit as in (42) and calculate extra contribution Pi as in (45). If Pi < S, S = S - Pi and eliminate the unit from the list and return to Step 5. Stop the procedure.

Table 1 shows a comparison of fuel cost of the proposed method with LGA, evolutionary programming (EP), and twophase neural network (2PNN). The fuel cost obtained by the proposed method is better than that of LGA [7], EP [9] and 2PNN [20]. Table 1. Comparison of fuel cost for three-unit system Method P1 (MW) P2 (MW) P3 (MW) LGA [7] 194.265 50.000 79.627 323.892 24.011 3,737.167 2PNN [20] 165 113.4 34.0 312.45 12.45 3652.6 EP [9] 203.163 75.220 34.631 313.014 13.014 3,635.662 EALH

200.547 78.293 34.000 312.840 12.840 3,634.770

Step 4: Step 5:

Pi (MW)
PL (MW) Total cost ($/h)

Step 6: Step 7:

Overall procedure Overall procedure for the EALH for the constrained economic dispatch with prohibited operating zones is as follows. Step 1: Solve the constrained economic dispatch by the ALH without prohibited zones and spinning reserve. Check for prohibited zones violation of units with POZ. If there is no violation found, go to Step 8. Modify new maximum and minimum output power of units violating prohibited zones as in Section 4. Check total power supply against load demand. If the load demand is not satisfied, modify the generation limits to the new values as in Section 4. Solve the constrained economic dispatch again by the ALH with new generator operating limits. Check for spinning reserve violation of units. If no violation is found, go to Step 8. Modify the generation limits of units to the new values as in Section 4, and solve the final constrained economic dispatch problem by the ALH. Compute total cost and stop.

Case 2: four unit system The test system has four online units [1], in which units 1 and 2 have two prohibited zones and the rest has none. Load demand of the system is 1,375 MW and system spinning reserve is 200 MW. Power loss and ramp rate constraint are neglected. The solution from the proposed method is exactly the same as that of - iterative method [1] and EP [9], that is 16,223.213 ($/h). Case 3: five unit system The test system has five online units [2], in which units 1, 2, and 3 have prohibited zones, and units 4 and 5 do not. The units are to be dispatch to meet a system load demand of 1,175 MW. Power loss, spinning reserve and ramp rate constraints are neglected. As shown in Table 2, the cost obtained by the proposed method is exactly the same that of - iterative method [2] and very close to that of EP [9]. Table 2. Comparison of fuel cost for five-unit system Method P1 (MW) P2 (MW) P3 (MW) P4 (MW) P5 (MW) - iterative method [2] 238.33 210.00 250.00 238.33 238.33 1,174.99 11,492.51 EP [9] 240.00 210.00 250.00 223.07 251.93 1,175 11,493.23 EALH 238.34 210.00 250.00 238.33 238.33 1,175 11,492.51

Step 2: Step 3:

Step 4:

Step 5: Step 6: Step 7:

Step 8:

5.

NUMERICAL RESULTS

Pi (MW)
Total cost ($/h)

The proposed method is tested in various sample systems and results are compared to many other methods. The algorithm for solving the test systems is implemented on Matlab 6.5 platform and run on 1.1GHz Celeron, 128-MB of RAM PC. For stopping criteria, the tolerance of the ALH is set to 10-4. Case 1: three unit system The test system has three thermal units [7] with all units having prohibited zones. Power load demand is 300 MW with ramp rate constraint power loss included. Spinning reserve is neglected.

The 5-unit system above is considered in a different case that it operates in a different environment, where output of each of unit 4 and unit 5 is fixed to 320 MW and is not dispatchable in real time. The system load demand now is 1,552 MW. In this case, the proposed method gives a generation cost of 14,812.60 ($/h), which is exactly the same as solution of - iterative method [2] and EP [9].

Case 4: six unit system The test system consists of six generating units from [12], in which all units have prohibited zones to supply a load demand of 1,263 MW neglecting spinning reserve. Ramp rate constraint and power loss are included. Table 3. Comparison of fuel cost and CPU time for six-unit system Method P1 (MW) P2 (MW) P3 (MW) P4 (MW) P5 (MW) P6 (MW) GA [12] 474.8066 178.6363 262.2089 134.2826 151.9039 71.1812 1,276.03 13.0127 15,459 41.58 PSO [12] 447.4970 173.3221 263.4745 139.0594 165.4761 87.1280 1,276.01 12.9584 15,450 14.89 EALH 447.9422 173.6483 261.6353 39.4010 165.7642 87.4431 1,275.83 12.8341 15,448 0.007

Edited by Foxit Reader Copyright(C) by Foxit Corporation,2005-2010 For Evaluation Only.

Pi (MW)
PL (MW) Total cost ($/h) CPU time (s)

close to that of the other methods except EHNN [4]. Although the solution from the EHNN is slightly lower than that of the proposed method, power balance constraint in the EHNN is not satisfied, where 0.8 MW is not dispatched yet. Moreover, to show the effectives of the proposed method, the 15-unit system above with some modification of units data [6] is considered and the results obtained by the proposed method are compared to that of standard GA (SGA) [6], deterministic crowding GA (DCGA) [6], ETQ [15], classical EP (CEP) [10], fast EP (FEP) [10], and improved fast EP (IFEP) [10] as in Table 5. As shown in the Table 5, the cost from the proposed method is slightly lower than that from SGA and DCGA in [6], and close to that from the other methods. For CPU time, it may not be directly comparable between methods due to different computers, programming languages, and stopping criteria used. The CPU time from the ETQ [15] is based on 600 MHz Pentium III computer with 128-MB RAM on C programming language. There is no report of computer used in CEP, FEP and IFEP in [10]. The CPU time from the proposed method is faster than all the other methods. The 15-unit test system above including ramp rate constraint and power loss is also considered [12]. This system supplies to a load demand of 2,630 MW with no spinning reserve required. The solution comparison is given in Table 6, where the generation cost and CPU time from the proposed method are better than both GA and PSO in [12]. Table 5. Comparison of fuel cost and CPU time for 15-unit system with modified units data neglecting ramp rate constraint and power loss Method SGA [6] DCGA[6] ETQ [15] CEP [10] FEP [10] IFEP [10] EALH Total power (MW) 2,649.9 2,649.9 2,650 2,649.997 2,649.995 2,649.994 2,650 Fuel cost ($/h) 32,517.00 32,515.00 32,507.50 32,507.55 32,507.55 32,507.46 32,506.18 CPU time (s) 454.3 398.5 15.8 3.746 2.769 3.318 0.023

The generation cost and CPU time from the proposed EALH are compared to those of GA and PSO in [12]. The proposed method obtains better solution than both GA and PSO in [12] in both generation cost and CPU time. Note the CPU times of the GA and PSO in [12] are obtained from a Pentium III 550 PC with 256-MB RAM on Matlab programming language. Case 5: 15 unit system In this sample test system [1], there are 15 online units to supply a system load demand of 2,650 MW with a system spinning reserve requirement of 200 MW. Among all the online units, units 2, 5, 6 and 12 have prohibited zones. Power loss and ramp rate constraint are neglected. Table 4. Comparison of fuel cost for 15-unit system Method - iterative method [1] - iterative method [2] HNN [3] IHNN [4] EHNN [5] EP [9] PSO [12] FCEPA [11] EALH Total power (MW) 2,650 2,650 2,649.3 2,650 2,649.2 2,650 2,650 2,650 2,650 Fuel cost ($/h) 32,549.80 32,544.99 32,538.4 32,568.00

Table 6. Comparison of fuel cost and CPU time for 15-unit system with modified units data including ramp rate constraint and power loss Method Total power (MW) GA [12] PSO [12] 2,668.4 2,662.4 2,658.7 38.2782 32.4306 28.7430 33,113 32,858 32,639 43.31 26.59 0.044 Power loss (MW) Fuel cost ($/h) CPU time (s)

32,536.90 32,545.20 32,545 32,544.97 32,544.97

EALH

6.

CONCLUSION

The solution of the proposed method is shown in Table 4, where it is compared to that of - iterative methods [1], [2], HNN [3], IHNN [4], EHNN [5], EP [9], FCEPA [11]. From the Table 4, the solution obtained by the proposed method is slightly lower than that of - iterative method [1] and IHNN [3], and

In this paper, the enhanced augmented Lagrange Hopfield is simple and efficient for solving the constrained economic dispatch problem when some/all units have prohibited operating zones. Initially, the optimal solution without considering prohibited zones is obtained by the ALH. Then a heuristic search based algorithm is conducted to check for prohibited zone violations and find the most advantageous decision space. Finally, the ALH is applied again for finally optimal solution of

the problem. The proposed method is not necessary to find solutions of many feasible advantageous decision spaces due to prohibited zones of units as some other methods. Basically, only two executions of the ALH are needed, one for determining the optimal solution without considering the prohibited zones and the other for determining the optimal solution in the most advantageous decision space. Therefore, the proposed method has the observable advantage of efficiency in solving the CED with prohibited zones. The effectiveness of the proposed method has been tested validated on various systems by comparing with many other methods. The results obtained show that the proposed method is very promising to the large scale CED problems.

APPENDIX
The solutions of the proposed methods for various test systems are given in Tables 7, 8, and 9. Table 7. Solution for the four-unit system P1 (MW) 350.0006 P2 (MW) 360.0000 P3 (MW) 332.4997 P4 (MW) 332.4997

Table 8. Solution for the five-unit system in different environment operation P1 (MW) 375.0000 P2 (MW) 270.0001 P3 (MW) 267.0000 P4 (MW) 320.0000 P5 (MW) 320.0000

Table 9. Solutions for the 15-unit systems Pi(MW) Unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Original 450.0000 450.0000 130.0000 130.0000 335.0000 455.0000 465.0000 60.0000 25.0000 20.0000 20.0000 55.0000 25.0000 15.0000 15.0000 Modified units data 455.0000 455.0000 130.0000 130.0000 260.0000 460.0000 465.0000 60.0000 25.0000 20.0000 70.0001 65.0000 25.0000 15.0000 15.0000 Modified units data with ramp rate and power loss 455.0000 420.0000 130.0000 130.0000 180.0000 460.0000 430.0000 60.0000 25.0000 153.7429 80.0000 80.0000 25.0000 15.0000 15.0000

REFERENCES
[1] Lee, F. N. and Breipohl, A. M. 1993. Reserve constrained economic dispatch with prohibited operating zones. IEEE Trans. Power Systems 8(1): 246-254.

[2] Fan, J. Y. and McDonald, J. D. 1994. A practical approach to real time economic dispatch considering units prohibited operating zones. IEEE Trans. Power System 9(4): 17371743. [3] Su, C.-T. and Chiou, G.-J. 1995. A Hopfield network approach to economic dispatch with prohibited operating zones. Proc. of International Conference on Energy Management and Power Delivery 1: 382-387. [4] Yalcinoz, T.; Altun, H.; and Hasan, U. 2000. Constrained economic dispatch with prohibited operating zones: A Hopfield neural network approach. Proc. of 10th Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference, MeleCon May, Cyprus. [5] Su, C.-T. and Chiou, G.-J. 1997. An enhanced Hopfield model for economic dispatch considering prohibited zones. Electric Power Systems Research 42: 71-76. [6] Orero, S. O. and Irving, M. R. 1996. Economic dispatch of generators with prohibited operating zones: A genetic algorithm approach. IEE Proc. Gener., Transm., Distrib. 143(6): 529-533. [7] Chen, P.-H. and Chang, H.-C. 1995. Large scale economic dispatch by genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans. Power Systems 10(4): 1919-1926. [8] Baskar, G.; Kumarappan, N.; and Mohan, M. R. 2003. Optimal dispatch using improved -based genetic algorithm suitable for utility systems. Electric Power Components and Systems 31: 627-638. [9] Jayabarathi, T.; Sadavisam, G.; and Ramachandran, V. 1999. Evolutionary programming based economic dispatch of generators with prohibited operating zones. Electric Power Systems Research 52: 261-266. [10] Jayabarathi, T.; Jayaprakash, K.; Jekakumar, D. N.; and Raghunathan, T. 2005. Evolutionary programming techniques for different kinds of economic dispatch problems. Electric Power Systems Research 73: 169-76. [11] Somasundaram, P.; Kuppusamy, K.; and Kumudini Devi, R. P. 2004. Economic dispatch with prohibited operating zones using fast computation evolutionary programming technique. Electric Power Systems Research 70: 245-252. [12] Gaing, Z.-L. 2003. Particle swarm optimization to solving economic dispatch considering the generator constraints. IEEE Trans. Power Systems 18(3): 1187-1195. [13] El-Gallad, A.; El-Hawary, M.; Sallam, A.; and Kalas, A. 2002. Particle swarm optimizer for constrained economic dispatch with prohibited operating zones. Proc. of the 2002 IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical & Computer Engineering. [14] Fogel, D. B. 2000. Evolutionary computation: Toward a new philosophy of machine intelligence. 2nd ed, Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press. [15] Lin, W.-M.; Cheng, F.-S.; and Tsay, M.-T. 2001. Nonconvex economic dispatch by integrated artificial intelligence. IEEE Trans. Power Systems 16(2): 307-311. [16] van den Berg, J. and Bioch, J. C. 1993. Constrained optimization with a continuous Hopfield-Lagrange model. Technical report EUR-CS-93-10, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Comp. Sc. Dept., Faculty of Economics. [17] Park, J. H.; Kim, Y. S.; Eom, I. K.; and Lee, K. Y. 1993. Economic load dispatch for piecewise quadratic cost function using Hopfield neural network. IEEE Trans. Power Systems 8(3): 1030 1038. [18] Lin, C. E. and Viviani, G. L. 1984. Hierarchical economic dispatch for piecewise quadratic cost functions. IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems PAS-103(6): 1170-1175. [19] Momoh, J. A. 2001. Electric power system applications of optimization, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc. [20] Naresh, R.; Dubey, J. and Sharma, J. 2004. Two-phase neural network based modeling framework of constrained economic load dispatch. IEE Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib. 151(3): 373-378.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi