IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 8, No.

3, August 1993 1341

EFFECTS OF RAMP-RATE LIMITS ON UNIT COMMITMENT
AND ECONOMIC DISPATCH
C. Wang, Member S. M. Shahidehpour, Senior Member
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Illinois Institute of Technology
Chicago, Illinois 60616
ABSTRACT
This paper proposes an algorithm to consider the ramp
characteristics in starting up and shutting down the generat-
ing units as well as increasing and decreasing power generation.
In power system generation scheduling, a number of studies have
focused upon the economical aspects of the problem under the
assumptions that the changes in the generating capacity follow
a step function characteristic and unit generation can be ad-
justed instantaneously. Even though these hypotheses greatly
simplify the problem, they do not reflect the actual operating
processes of generating units. The use of ramp-rate constraints
to simulate the unit state and generation changes is an effec-
tive and acceptable approach in the view of theoretical devel-
opments of industrial processes. Since implementing ramprate
constraints is a dynamic process, dynamic programming (DP)
is a proper tool to treat this problem. In order to overcome the
computational expense which is the main drawback of DP, this
study initially employs artificial intelligence techniques to pro-
duce a unit commitment schedule which satisfies all system and
unit operation constraints except unit ramprate limits. Then,
a dynamic procedure is used to consider the ramp properties
as units are started up and shut down. According to this ad-
justment, maximum generating capabilities of units will change
with the unit operation status instead of following a step func-
tion. Finally, a dynamic dispatch procedure is adopted to obtain
a suitable power allocation which incorporates the unit generat-
ing capability information given by unit commitment and unit
ramping constraints, as well as the economical considerations.
Two examples are presented to demonstrate the efficiency of the
method.
Keywords- Ramp Rates, Unit Commitment, Dynamic Dis-
patch, Artificial Neural Networks, Heuristics.
1. INTRODUCTION
There are two tasks considered in power system generation
scheduling. One is the unit commitment which determines the
unit start up and shut down schedules in order to minimize the
system fuel expenditure. The other is the economic dispatch
which assigns the system load demand to the committed gen-
erating units for minimizing the power generation cost. The
economic operation attracts a great deal of attention as a mod-
est reduction in percentage fuel cost leads to a large saving in the
system operation cost. Many studies for power system genera-
tion scheduling have successfully applied various mathematical
algorithms such as Lagrangian relaxation [1,2], dynamic pro-
gramming [3,4], and artificial intelligence techniques e.g., expert
systems [ 5, 6] , artificial neural networks (ANN) [7,8], etc. The AI
techniques have incorporated the practical operational policies
in the mathematical techniques to improve the system models
considerably. The mechanism of ANN simulates the learning
92 SM 413-5 PWRS A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Power System Engineering Committee of
the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation
at the IEEE/PES 1992 Summer Meeting, Seattle, WA,
July 12-16, 1992. Manuscript submitted January 28,
1992; made available for printing May 13, 1992.
process of the human brain. One class of ANN learns the knowl-
edge through examples, or training facts, composed of various
inputs and their corresponding outputs. The extent of the in-
telligibility of ANN depends upon the diversity of the training
facts. For an input which is not in the training facts, the trained
ANN can estimate an output based on its previous knowledge
about the problem.
A number of studies [l-81 dealing with the unit commitment
problem have held the assumption that the unit generating ca-
pability follows a step change from zero to the rated capacity
and vice versa. In fact, when a unit is in the start up process,
a pre-warming process must be introduced in order to prevent
a brittle failure. Therefore, because of the unit physical limita-
tions, the unit generating capability increases as a ramp func-
tion. In contrast, using a step function for representing changes
in the generating capability, all processes are initiated as the
unit achieves its rated capacity which represents an unrealistic
treatment of the energy, especially when the unit start up is a
long process. Similarly, when a unit is in the shut down pro-
cess, it will take a while for the turbine to cool down. Before
the unit generating capability decreases to its lower limit, the
residual energy is to be used to meet the load demand, which
is contrary to the case where the changes in unit generating ca-
pacity are modelled as a step function. In the past, ramping
process was considered in the economic dispatch denoted as a
dynamic dispatch [9-111. In order to satisfy the ramping con-
straints, a dynamic process was performed in conjunction with
the economic dispatch. Reference [9] has proposed a practical
and efficient method to calculate a suboptimal generation sched-
ule for a system with ramping constraints.
This paper considers the inclusion of ramping constraints
in both unit commitment and economic dispatch. Since DP is
a time consuming algorithm, this study avoids the use of DP
to compute the generation schedule. Three steps are used to
complete the task of generation scheduling. First, the ramping
constraints in the unit commitment are relaxed, so that the unit
commitment problem would merely employ step functions for
representing the generating capability. In order to expedite the
execution, an ANN is used to generate a possible unit commit-
ment schedule and a heuristic procedure is employed to modify
the unit commitment to achieve a feasible and near optimal so-
lution. Then, a dynamic adjusting process is adopted for the
resulting unit commitment schedule in order to incorporate the
ramping constraints. Finally, a dynamic dispatch is performed
to obtain a suitable unit generation schedule.
2. MATHEMATICAL MODEL
The objective of the generation scheduling problem is to
minimize the system operation cost. This cost includes the fuel
cost for generating power and the start up cost over the en-
tire study time span, while satisfying the system operating con-
straints, e.g., power balance, spinning reserve requirements, unit
generation limits, min up/down times, ramp-rate limits, etc.
The list of symbols used in this paper is as follows:
F: total operation cost of the entire system
Pi@): power generation of unit i at hour t
N,: total study time span in hours
N : total number of units
I;(t ): commitment state of unit i at hour t (1 or 0)
F,(P;(t)): fuel cost of unit i when generating power is
0885-8950/93$03.00 0 1992 IEEE
_.. ~-
1342
SI(X*?ff (t - 1)):
D( t ) :
Pi :
- Pi:
R( t ) :
T0"l"ff:
I
'T; :
C:(t ):
URi :
DR,:
UH,:
DH,:
The objective of
N, N
equal to P,(t)
time duration for which unit i has been on/off
at hour t
start up cost of unit i after Xloff(t - 1) hours
Of f
system load demand at hour t
rated upper generation limit of unit i
rated lower generation limit of unit i
system spinning reserve requirement at hour t
minimum up/down time of unit i
time constant in the start up cost function for
unit i
constrained generating capability of unit i at
hour t
ramp-up rate limit of unit i (MW/h)
ramp-down rate limit of unit i (MW/h)
ramp-up time of unit i (h)
ramp-down time of unit i (h)
the problem is to minimize,
F =
C[ I i ( t ) Fi ( Pi ( t ) ) +Ii(t)(l - I l ( t - l ))sl (xpff(t - l))]
t =l i =l
(1)
The constraints for the problem are:
1) System power balance
N
Cpi ( t ) =~ ( t > t = 1, ..., N, (2)
i=l
2) System spinning reserve requirements
N
PiIi(t) 2 D( t ) +R(t) t =1,. . . , Nt
(3)
i= 1
3) Unit generation limits
pi 5 Pi(t) 5 Ci (t ) i =1,. . . , N
(4)
t =1, ..., Nt
4) Unit minimum up/ down times
[XPn(t - 1) - Ttn] * [I& - 1) - Ii(t)] 2 0
[XIoff(t - 1) - Tfff] * [Ii (t ) - I,(t - l)] 2 0
( 5 )
(6)
5 ) Ramprate limits for unit constrained generating capability
as unit i starts up (7)
as unit i shuts down (8)
C,(t) - Ci(t - 1) 5 UR;
Ci(t - 1) - Ci(t) 5 DR,
6) Ramprate limits for unit generation changes
Pi(t) - Pi(t - 1) 5 UR, as generation increases (9)
Pi(t - 1) - Pi(t) 5 DRi as generation decreases (10)
Since eqns. (7-8) and (9-10) are dynamic constraints
for unit commitment and economic dispatch, respectively, it is
necessary to formulate algorithms which consider these charac-
teristics properly.
3. SOLUTION METHOD
The generation scheduling problem considered in this paper
is solved by two separate procedures which deal with unit com-
mitment and economic dispatch, respectively. For the unit com-
mitment, wetrain an ANN according to the available knowledge
for the optimal unit commitment schedules which correspond
to typical system load curves. Then, for a given load profile,
the ANN will generate a unit commitment schedule which may
represent an infeasible but close to the optimal solution. In or-
der to generate a feasible solution, a heuristic method is used
to adjust the ANN unit commitment schedule according to the
system operating experience[l2]. After obtaining an economical
unit commitment schedule, which satisfies the system operat-
ing Constraints except the ramping limits, a dynamic adjusting
procedure is adopted to incorporate the ramp-rate constraints.
There are four possible unit state trajectories between two adja-
cent hours which are staying decommitted (0 -+ 0), starting up
(0 -+ l), shutting down (1 -+ 0) and staying committed (1 +1).
Because of ramping, the last three cases may require additional
adjustments. In unit commitment, ramping up a unit at ith
hour may affect the unit combinations at hours i +1, . . . , Nt.
Since wedo not include the effect of ramping up a unit at a cer-
tain hour on the unit combinations of the later hours, the unit
commitment schedule will be a suboptimal solution.
The economic dispatch is based on the outcome of the unit
commitment. The fundamental idea for considering ramping
limits in adjusting the unit power generation is similar to that of
the unit commitment. For the last hour of the study time span,
the X method is used to calculate the power generation of every
committed unit. Based upon the power generation schedule at
i t h hour, the X method is applied to dispatch the load demand
at ( i - 1)t h hour. If some of the unit generation changes at (i -
1)th hour exceed their ramp-rates as compared with the results
of the i t h hour, we fix those changes at their reachable limits
and dispatch the remaining required power generation optimally
among the available units. Again, since wedo not coordinate the
power generation over the entire study time span, the generation
schedule is suboptimal. However, the adopted approach is much
faster than those with optimal solutions [12-141.
The reason for adjusting the unit commitment and genera-
tion schedule from t.he last hour to the first hour of the study is
to generate a feasible solution. If wemodify the solution from
the first hour to the last hour in the course of incorporating
the ramping limits, the best unit combination or load dispatch
may result in an infeasible solution for the following hours, as
wecannot look into the load demand for the future hours [ll].
3.1 Uni t Commi tment by Relaxing
Rampi ng Constrai nts
If the ramping constraints of the unit commitment prob-
lem, that is, eqns. (7) and (8 described in Section 2 are re-
In this regard, when a unit starts up, its generating capability
is assumed to increase immediately from zero to PI. Likewise,
when a unit shuts down, its generating capability jumps from
PI to zero spontaneously. Therefore, C,(t) in eqn. (4) is always
equal to PI when unit i is on. There are several available meth-
ods which have implemented this type of constraints, including
the Lagrangian relaxation, dynamic programming, AI methods,
etc. From our experience, those approaches which exploit ar-
tificial intelligence techniques usually require shorter execution
time and can provide satisfactory results as long as the trend in
the behavior of the system is well documented. In this paper,
weadopt the ANN approach enhanced by heuristics to generate
the unit commitment schedule for a given system.
laxed, then eqns. (1-6) form a 2 asic unit commitment problem.
In implementing the ANN technique, the daily load curves
of a system generally are classified into several categories, e.g.,
load curves for weekdays, weekends, holidays, Christmas, etc.
Within each category, available load curves are slightly differ-
ent and generally correspond to similar unit commitment sched-
ules[7]. The training facts are a set of load curve - unit commit-
ment pairs which include several cases in every category. The
unit commitment schedules used as training facts are obtained
by rigorous methods, e.g., Lagrangian relaxation. The input to
the trained ANN is a daily load profile and the output of the
ANN is the corresponding unit commitment schedule. So, if
1343
the given load curve is one of the training facts, the ANN can
quickly generate an optimal unit commitment schedule. If the
given load curve belongs to one of the categories but is slightly
different from the training facts, the ANN generates a fair esti-
mate of the unit commitment schedule. If the given load curve
differs significantly from the training load curves in the avail-
able categories, the ANN output may be a sub-optimal unit
commitment schedule. As time goes on, we can improve the
ANN outcome by carefully analyzing the system and classifying
the categories to cover a wide range of system loads.
Since there are limited training facts representing the char-
acteristics of load curves in each category, a given load curve may
be close but different from the trainingfacts, so the unit commit-
ment schedule identified by ANN may be an infeasible solution.
In this regard, a heuristic approach is adopted for adjusting the
ANN outcome to achieve a feasible and optimal solution. The
system deficiency and surplus capacities are defined as follows:
H1:
H2:
H3:
H4:
H5:
H6:
H7:
H8:
N N
PiIi(t) <CP i ( t ) I i ( t ) +R(t) (11)
(12)
i=l i =l
N N
CFi I i ( t ) - CP i ( t ) I i ( t ) - R(t) 2 mini[Fi]
i =l i =l
The heuristics used in this study are listed below:
If deficiency exists at hour t , list all the shut down units
in an ascending average incremental cost order denoted by
Oplist.
Omit the units from the Oplist which cannot be committed
at hour t because of their minimum down time require-
ments.
Commit units on the Oplist sequentially until deficiency
either becomes zero or reaches its minimum negative value.
If surplus exists at hour t , list all the committed units in
a descending average incremental cost order denoted by
Lplist.
Omit those units from the Lplist which cannot be shut down
at hour t because of their minimum up time constraints.
Shut down units given in the Lplist sequentially until
surplus either becomes zero or reaches its minimum non-
negative value.
If a unit is on for certain hours, then off and on again, we
may compare its operation cost with that of maintaining
this unit in operation continuously, in order to save the
start up cost.
In a period T, compare the total operation cost of commit-
ted small-capacity units with that of a large-capacity unit
which is not in operation. If wecan preserve the spinning
reserve requirements, the replacement may be cost efficient.
An oDtimal or near oDtimal unit commitment schedule is
now obtafned which satisgees all system constraints except the
ramp-rate limits. By implementing the following procedures, the
unit commitment schedule will be adjusted to meet the ramping
requirements.
3.2 Dynami c Adj ustment for I ncorporati ng
Rampi ng Constrai nts i nto Uni t Commi tment
The unit i constrained generating capability, Ci(t), which
changes abruptly as the unit starts up or shuts down, was used
in Section 3.1 and is shown in Fig. 1. Because of the ramp-
rate limits, Ci (t) must be modified as shown in Fig. 2. It is
necessary, at this time, to explain the adopted ramping policy
as a unit starts up/shuts down. In Fig. 2, as an example, unit
i is shut down at hour m and started up at hour n. After hour
rn, it is unnecessary for unit i to contribute to the capacity of
the system, so Cj (t), t >m should be less than pi in order
"it
rn hour
Fig. 1 Unit maximum generating capability
modeled as a step function
C
i ,
+
hour
Fig. 2 Unit maximum generating capability
modeled as a ramp function
to minimize the operating cost of unit i. In this regard, the
required time for ramping down unit i at hour m is equal to
t l . Since the study time interval is one hour in this paper, the
constrained generating capability of unit i at hour m is equal to,
At hour n, unit i has started up. In order to preserve the security
of the system, a conservative policy is employed which ramps up
this unit UH; hours earlier and assumes C; ( n) =pi.
It ha.s been shown in Fig. 2 that unit states a.t later hours
will affect the decision made for previous hours and sometimes,
in order to let unit generating capacity reach a certain point at
specific hours, it is necessary to start up units at earlier hours[9].
In this regard, weadjust the unit commitment schedule from the
last hour to the first hour, while the unit combination at the last
hour is the same as that obtained in Section 3.1.
Wenow proceed to determine the unit states I ; ( t ) and unit
constrained genera.ting capability C; ( t ) at hour t , t <Nt under
the assumption that Ii (t +1) and Ci(t +1) are known. There
are only four possible cases for a unit state changing from hour
t to hour t +1.
Case 1: I , ( t ) =Ii(t +1) =0
any changes to unit i at hour t .
Case 2: I ; ( t ) =0,
are two situations which are to be considered.
In this ca.se, C, (t ) =C, ( t +l ) =0, it is unnecessary to make
I ; ( t +1) =1 and UH; 2 2
This means the unit i is to start up at hour t +1. There
a. As shown in Fig. 3, the period between last shut down to
the present start up, K hours, is longer than the sum of the
unit minimum down time and ramp-up time. That is,
Hence, wecan apply the adopted rampin up policy directly
to this situation. For the hour h, h E fn, t +11, where n
is as shown in Fig. 3, the constrained generating capability
becomes,
C, ( h) =min{P,, UR; * ( h - n) } h E [n, t +11
(15)
and if C, ( h) 2 E, , the commitment state changes to on,
where I , ( h) =1.
b. As shown in Fig. 4, the period between last shut down to
the present start up, K hours, is shorter than the sum of
the unit minimum down time and ramp-up time. That is,
1344
C i , excess energy Ei (t)
Fig. 3 Ramping up unit i as the minimum shut
down constraint is satisfied
C h excess energy Ei (t)
Fig. 4 Running unit i continuously in order to
preserve minimum shut down constraints
hour
In this situation, it is impossible to let unit i shut down
at hour m and start up again at hour t +1, since it would
violate the minimum down time constraint. So, unit i will
run continuously from hour m to hour t+ 1 by changing
the constrained generating capability to Pi as illustrated in
Fig. 4. Therefore, I i ( h) , h E [m, t ] changes to 1 and the
constrained generating capability is adjusted to,
C, ( h) =P, h E [m, tl (17)
In both situations, comparing with the step function oper-
ation, unit i generates excessive energy during hour t , shown as
shaded areas in Figs. 3 and 4, which is equal to,
where E, ( t ) is the excessive energy generated by unit i during
ramping up at hour t .
Case 3: I l ( t ) =1, I z ( t +1) =0 and DH, 2 2
If unit i is asked to shut down at hour t +1, based on the
adopted ramping down policy after hour t +1, the constrained
generating capability of unit i should be less than E, , that is,
Ci (h) =Pi - DR, * ( h - TI )
h E [n, t ] (19)
Ci(t +1) =Pi - DRi * ( t +1 - R.) 5 Pi
where R. is as shown in Fig. 5 . As represented by the shaded
area in Fig. 5 , unit i will generate less energy than that of step
functions during hour t , which is equal to,
where L; t ) is the energy that unit i does not supply during
ramping 6 own at hour t .
y T*, h ~ r
pi . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . _ . . . . _ . . .
b- DHi 4
Fig. 5 Ramping down unit i to be shut down
at hour t+l
Case 4: I z ( t ) =I t ( t +1) =1
(1) If C, ( t ) =C,(t +1) =P, , which means that unit i is in
the steady operating status (not in the process of ramping
up/down), then there is no change in the generating energy
of unit i during hour t , as shown in Fig. 6(a).
(2) If C,(t) <C,(t +l), then unit i is in the process of ramp
ing up, as in Fig. 6(b). Therefore, the excessive energy
generated by unit i can be calculated by using eqn. (18).
(3) If C, (t ) >C,(t +l), then unit i is in the process of ramping
down, as in Fig. 6(c). Therefore, unit i generates less en-
ergy than that of the step function operation, and the lower
energy can be calculated by eqn. (19).
(4 (b) (c)
Fig. 6 Three possible situations when unit i
is on during hour t
At hour t , after weanalyze all the units according to the
above rules, wecalculate the net gcnerating energy change as,
N N
AE( t ) = E, ( t ) - L, ( t )
2 = 1 i= 1
and perform the following adjustments accordingly:
1. If
1%'
I z ( t ) C, ( t ) <D( t ) +R( t ) or AE( t ) <0
2= 1
then there exists a capacity or energy deficiency at hour t .
List all the peaking units, which satisfy C, ( t ) =0 and the
minimum down time requirements, in an ascending ramp-
up time ( UH, ) order denoted by Uplist. Commit the first
unit in the Uplist according to the rules given in Case 2 and
goto eqn. (21).
2. If
N
Iz(t)Cz(t) - D( t ) - R( t ) >zGo$nzt 8{~l
t =1
and AE( t ) > min { P, }
i c o n uni i s
then there exist capacity and energy surplus at hour t . i st
- .
all the peaking units, which satisfy C, ( t ) =P, and minimum
up time requirement, in an ascending ramp-down time order
denoted by Dnlist. Decommit the first unit in the Dnlist
according to the rule given in Case 3 and goto eqn. (21).
3. If neither of the above situations occurs after ramping mod-
ifications at hour t , then wehave obtained the unit commit-
ment schedule at hour t . The same procedure would apply
to hours t - 1, t - 2 ..., until the first hour is reached.
It is necessary to point out that peaking units, rather than
the more economical units which have longer ramping up/down
times, are used in compensating for the deficiency or surplus
caused by the unit ramping characteristics. As wewould require
a short period of compensation, units with lower operating costs
and longer ramping up/down times are not efficient and may not
be regarded as economical for this purpose.
1345
3.3 Dynamic Dispatch
If we do not consider the unit ramping in the economic
dispatch of a system which consists of thermal units, the eco-
nomic dispatch can be implemented by the X method at each
hour. In reality, a turbine with a high temperature and pres-
sure state would require additional time to increase or decrease
its power generation. A dynamic dispatch considers additional
constraints, eqns. (9) and (lo), for economic dispatch, similar to
that of implementing ramping limits in unit commitment. First,
the X method is used to dispatch the power generation among
the committed units at the last hour. It should be emphasized
that the upper generating limit of a unit at a certain hour is
equal to the constrained generating capability of the unit at this
time, C,(t), which is obtained by ramping the unit, instead of
the rated capacity p, . Generally, after calculating the genera-
tion schedule at hour t +l, the economic dispatch at hour t can
be considered as follows:
Step 1: Use the X method to dispatch the load demand among
the committed generating units by neglecting the ramp
ing properties.
Step 2: For every committed unit, check the following condi-
tions:
a. If P,(t) >P,(t +1) and P,(t) - P,(t +1) >DR,, then
the required reduction in the power generation of unit z
is beyond its ramp-rate limit. Fix the power generation
of unit z within its limit,
and let this unit out of coordination. GO to Step 1.
b. If P,(t) <P,(t +1) and P,(t +1) - Pt ( t ) >YR,! then the
required additional power generation of unit z 1sbeyond
its ramp-rate limit. Fix the power generation of unit 2
within its limit,
and let this unit out of coordination. Go to Step 1.
c. If -uR, 5 Pt ( t ) - Pl ( t +l ) _< DR,, thenunit igeneration
is at its optimal operating status. Proceed to check the
next committed unit.
Step 3: Once all unit generations are checked and adjusted to
meet the system constraints, the generation schedule at
hour t will be formed. Carry out the same procedure to
the previous hour t - 1.
P,(t) =P,(t +1) +DR, (22)
P,(t) =Pz(t +1) - UR: (23)
Fig. 7 presents the outline of the proposed method for
the power system generation scheduling problem. It should be
emphasized that the heuristic techniques emulate the process
followed by the mathematical techniques which are enhanced by
the human operators intuition for a least cost operation of a
large scale power system. The reason various rule-based and
heuristic methods are introduced by different investigators for
studying unit commitment is that the rigorous mathematical
techniques require a significant amount of computation time.
We can implement the rigorous techniques off-line and use its
output as training facts for ANN or improvising rule-based ap-
proaches. In this respect, the proposed heuristic techniques can
provide a satisfactory and economically viable unit commitment
schedule (7,121 for a certain load curve, and the corresponding
final solution will be either optimal or quite close to optimal.
Since the ramping limits are incorporated by dynamic adjust-
ment instead of global optimization, the final solution is subop-
timal. The start up cost is considered when a unit is required to
shut down and start up again. As shown in Fig. 4, if the initial
unit commitment indicates that the unit will be shut down for a
short period, the ramping characteristics mandate the continu-
ous operation of the unit to save the start up cost. On the other
hand, if a unit is to be shut down for a long period of time as
shown in Fig. 3, even when the ramping limits are considered
it is more economical to shut the unit down for a while to save
the operation cost, which may be more expensive than the start
up cost. In this regard, the solution obtained is satisfactory.
/Read in data]
+
Give the load curve to ANN and
generate a unit Commitment
schedule
+
se the heuristics to modify the unit
It =Nt -11
.
l i = i +11
AE(t ) =zEi ( t ) - ZLi ( t )
I
+
spinning reserve, or
Start up some peaking units to
compensate the deficiency and AE(t ) have surplus ?
Do committed unit capaci
A.
k=k+l and let unit i
out of dispatch
r v
Fig. 7 The outline of the proposed method
1346
16 I 25.0 1 100.0 I 0.00598 I 18.2000 I 218.7752 142.,348
17 I 54.25 I 155.0 I 0.00463 I
4. COMPUTATION RESULTS
A system with 26thermal units is used to test the efficiency
and reliability of the proposed method. The relationship of a
unit fuel cost with the unit power generation is described by a
quadratic function and the unit start up cost is an exponential
function of the time that the unit has been shut down, that is,
(24) F;(P;(t )) =a;P;(t )2 +b;P;(t) +c;
i =1,. . . , N
t = 1 , ..., Nt
I
The unit characteristics are given in Tables l (a) and l(b). The
program is written in C which runs on an IBM PC/386. Two
examples are discussed below.
The load demand in the first study case is given in Table
2. The system spinning reserve is based on the capacity of the
largest online unit. Table 3 is the optimal unit commitment
schedule without considering the ramping limits. Table 4 is the
final unit commitment schedule which satisfies all the system
operating constraints. The asterisk indicates that the unit is in
the process of ramping up or down, and the unit constrained
generating capability is not equal to the unit rated capacity.
According to Table 3, at hour 23, unit 16 is off but needs to
Table l (a) Generating units capacity and coefficients
68.95
140.0
100.0
Table l(b) Generating units operating and ramp limits
min init.
down cond. UH, DH, UR, DR,
(h) (h) (h) (h) (MW/h) (MW/h)
0 -1 0 0 48.0 60.0
n -1 1 n w 5 70.0
min init.
(h) (h) (h) (h) (MW/h) (MW/h
0 -1 0 0 48.0 60.0
down cond. (I DH, UR,
n I -1 I 1 I n I ~5 1 70n II
10--13 I 3 I -2 I 3 I 2 I 1 I 38.5
11 14--16 I 4 I -2 I -3 I 2 I 2 I 51.0 74.0
It II
24 10
start up at hour 24. Since unit 16 is shut down for only two
hours and its minimum down time and ramp-up time are two
hours each, it will be impossible to shut down this unit at hour
22. Accordingly, unit 16 will run continuously and generate
excess energy at hour 23, as shown in Table 4.
Unit 22 is on at hour 23, but is asked to shut down at hour
24. Since unit 22 needs two hours to ramp down, weshould let
unit 22 to ramp down at hour 22. So, the constrained generatin
capability of unit 22 at hour 23 is equal to 197MW - 99MW/h
l h =98MW, and hence the energy generated by unit 22 during
f
Table 2 Load demand in case study 1
Table 3 Unit commitment schedule without ramping
limits in case study 1
- -
hour
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-
- -
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
1110000
1111011
11 10000
1 1 10000
0000000
unit ( 1
001111
001111
001111
001111
001111
001111
001111
001111
001111
001111
101111
001111
001111
001111
--- 26)
1001111000111
1001111000111
1001111000111
1001111000111
1001111000111
1101111000111
1101111100111
1101111111111
1111111111111
1111111111111
1111111111111
1111111111111
1111111111111
1111111111111
11111000011111111111111111
11110110011111111111111111
00000000011111111111111111
00000000011111111111111111
00000000011111111111111111
11100000011111111111111111
11000000011111101111111111
o n o o o o o o o i i o o i o o i i i i i i i i i i
00000000011001011111100111
Table 4 Final unit commitment in case study 1
- -
hour
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-
- -
unit ( 1 --- 26 )
00000000011111001111000111
00000000011111001111000111
00000000011111001111000111
00000000011111001111000111
00000000011111* 01l 11* 00111
00000000011111101111* * * 111
000000000111111011111* * 111
000000000111111* 1111l l l l l l
00000000011111111111111111
11100000011111111111111111
11110111011111111111111111
11100000011111111111111111
11100000011111111111111111
00000000011111111111111111
11111000011111111111111111
11110110011111111111111111
00000000011111111111111111
00000000011111111111111111
00000000011111111111111111
00000000011111111111111111
11100000011111111111111111
~1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 * ~1 1 1 1 l l l l l l
11111111111/ 010/ 11111* * 111
00000000011001011111100111
1. * indicates the unit is in the process of ram in upldown
2. underline indicates the unit state is modifiel &er the
inclusion of the ramping limits
1347
Table 6 Unit commitment schedule without ramping
hour 23 will be less than that of the system modeled as a step
function. The same situation occurs to unit 23.
After ramping up/down units at hour 23 as necessary, the
on units are not able to supply the required energy, that is
AE( t ) <0. Therefore, peaking units 1 through 9 and 12 are
started up to compensate for the energy deficiency. Final unit
combinations at hour 23 are shown as in Table 4. Figs. 8 and 9
illustrate the constrained generating capability and power gen-
eration of unit 23 over the entire time span, respectively, where
the bold line is the result with ramping limits and the fine line
is the solution without ramping limits. By including ramping
limits at every hour, each unit will have more states. Without
ramping limits, as weapply DP to search for the optimal solu-
tion, the cost is 0.235% less than that of our final solution which
uses peaking units to compensate for deficiencies. However, the
DP computation, even without ramping limits, is very expensive
and requires 8.5 minutes while the proposed method needs only
12 seconds to find the final results. The salient advantage of the
method presented in this study is that the approach can find an
acceptable solution rather quickly for a practical system with
ramping limits.
The second example corresponds to a day in which the load
demand is fairly smaller than the system generating capacity,
so there are more medium size units to start up and shut down
with characteristics between peaking and base units. The load
demand is as given in Table 5. Tables 6 and 7 are the unit
commitment schedules corresponding to the without and with
ramping limits, respectively. As shown in Table 7, in order to
satisfy the minimum up time constraint, unit 11has to be on for
three hours. Figs. 10 and 11show the constrained generating
capability and power generation of units 14, 21 and 23, respec-
tively, where the bold lines represent the ramping property and
the fine lines are the solutions for units modeled as step func-
tions. The proposed method takes 14 seconds to complete. In
comparison, using DP to solve the same problem results in a
0.097% saving in the system operation cost with 7.7 minutes of
execution.
Ci (MW)
- -
hour
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
- -
Table
- -
hour
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
- -
limits in case study 2
unit ( 1 --- 26 )
00000000010000001111000111
00000000010001001111000111
00000000010001001111000111
00000000010001001111000111
00000000010001001111000111
00000000010001001111000111
00000000010001001111100111
n n n o o o o o o ~ o o o ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
00000000010001111111111111
11110000010001111111111111
00000000010001111111111111
11100000010001111111111111
00000000010001111111111111
00000000010001111111111111
n n n n n n n n n i n n o l l o l l l l l l l l l l
00000000010001101111111111
00000000010001111111111111
n n n n n n n n n i n n n l l l l l l l l l l l l l
00000000010001111111111111
00000000010001101111111111
00000000010001001111110111
00000000010010001111100111
Final unit commitment in case study 2
unit ( 1 --- 26 )
0000000001000*001111000111
00000000010001001111000111
O O O O O O O O Q l O O O l O O l l l l O O O l l l
00000000010001001111000111
00000000010001001111*00111
00000000010001001111* * * 111
000000000100010011111**111
00000000010001**1111llllll
00000000010001111111111111
11110000010001111111111111
00000000010001111111111111
11100000010001111111111111
00000000010001111111111111
00000000010001111111111111
000000000100011/1111111111
000000000100011~1111111111
000000000100011/1111l11111
00000000010001111111111111
00000000010001111111111111
0000000001*001111111111111
i o o o o o o o o i i o o i 1 * l l l l l l l l l l
i i i i i i i i o i ~ o * 1 * o 1 1 1 1 l l l l l l
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 0 ~ * 0 0 1 1 1 1 l l O l l l
00000000010010001111100111
Fig. 8 Maximum generating capability of unit 23
Pi (MW)
1. * indicates the unit is in the process of ram in upldom
2. underline indicates the unit state is modifiei &er the
inclusion of the ramping limits
Ci (MW)
Fig. 9 Power generation of unit 23
Table 5 Load demand in case study 2
2260 2180
1710 2190 1910
2060 16 2130 24 1650
8 12 1 6 20 24 hour
(b) unit 21
Cj (MW)
(c) unit 23.
Fig. 10 Maximum generating capability of
units 14, 21 and 23
1348
Pi (MW)
1 n n t
t r \ I
. .
Pi (MW)
..--.
( b ) unit 21
Pi (MW)
a 12 16 20 24 hour
(c) unit 23
2ool 100 I
J I I I
4 a 12 16 20 24;our
(c) unit 23
Fig. 11 Power generation of units 14, 21 and 23
5. CONCLUSION
An approach is considered for incorporating unit ramping
characteristics in unit commitment and economic dispatch pro-
cesses. The basic idea in the proposed method is to utilize the
optimal information obtained by the traditional methods which
do not include the ramping limits, and use dynamic adjusting
procedures to incorporate ramping constraints. In order to meet
the load demand at later hours, sometimes it may be necessary
to ramp up generating units earlier because of the ramp-rate re-
strictions. In this regard, when wediscuss the effect of ramping
limits, weconsider the unit combinations from the last hour to
the first hour. Even though the final result is a suboptimal solu-
tion, since wedo not consider the effect of ramping up a unit at
an earlier hour on the unit combinations of the later hours, the
proposed method requires much smaller execution time and pro-
duces a reasonable solution. In this study, ANN and a heuristic
method are adopted to generate the optimal unit commitment
schedule for a given load curve without considering the unit
ramping characteristics. Then, beginning with the last hour,
the ramping property of each unit is incorporated into the unit
commitment schedule. Finally, a dynamic dispatch procedure is
employed to produce a power generation schedule which applies
the X method to each hour, and forces the ramprate constraints
on the power generations of two adjacent hours. A system with
26 thermal units is used to demonstrate the efficiency of the
proposed method. The experiments indicate that the method is
very fast and can generate satisfactory results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to appreciate the discussions and
insight provided by Dr. J . K. Delson of the Applied Analytics
Associates.
REFERENCES
[l] Cohen, A. I., Wan, S. H., A Method for Solving the Fuel
Constrained Unit Commitment Problem, IEEE Trans. on
Power Systems, Vol. PWRS-2, pp. 608-614, Aug. 1987.
(21Tong, S. K., Shahidehpour, S. M., An Innovative Approach
to Generation Scheduling in Large-scale Hydro-thermal
Power System with Fuel Constrained Units, IEEE Trans.
on Power Systems, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 665-673, May 1990.
131Pang, C. K., Chen, H. C., Optimal Short-Term Thermal
Unit Commitment, IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and
Systems, Vol. PAS-95, No.4, pp.1336-1346, J ul./Aug. 1976.
[4] Van Den Bosch, P. P. J ., Honderd, G., A Solution of
the Unit Commitment Problem via Decomposition and Dy-
namic Programming, IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus
and Systems, Vol. PAS-104, No.7, pp.16841690, J ul. 1985.
[5] Mokhtari, S., Singh, J ., Wollenberg, B., A Unit Commit-
ment Expert System, Proceedings of the PICA87, pp. 188-
196, 1987.
[6] Osaka, S., et al, Development of the Expert System for
Operation Planning of Power System, International Work-
shop on Artificial Intelligence for Industrial Application,
1988.
[7] Wang, C., Ouyang, Z., Shahid;hpour, S. M., Unit Com-
mitment by Neural Networks, Proceedings of the 1990
American Power Conference, Vol. 52, pp. 245-250, April
1990.
[8] Ouyang, Z., Shahidehpour, S. M., Divakaruni, S. M., A
Generation Scheduling Decision Supported by Neural Net-
works, Proceedings of the EPRI Conference on Decision
Support Methods for the Electric, Power Industry, Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, May 1990.
191Wood, W. G., Spinning Reserve Constrained Static and
Dynamic Economic Dispatch, IEEE Trans. on Power Sys-
tems, Vol. PAS-101, No. 2, pp. 381-388, Feb. 1982.
[lo] Innorta, M. e t ul, Security Constrained Dynamic Dispatch
of Real Power for Thermal Groups: IEEE Trans. on Power
Systems, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 774-781, May, 1988.
[ll] Cohen, A. I., Modeling Unit Ramp Limitations in Unit
Commitment, Proceeding of the 10th Power Systems Com-
putation Conference, pp. 1107-1114, Graz, Austria, August
[12] Tong, S. K., Shahidehpour, S. M., Ouyang, Z., A Heuristic
Short-Term Unit Commitment, IEEE Trans. on Power
Systems, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 1210-1216, Aug. 1991.
[13] Patton, A. D., Dynamic Optimal Dispatch of Real Power
for Thermal Generating Units, Proceedings of the 8th
Power Industry Computer Applications Conference,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, J une 4-6, 1973.
(141 Ross, D. W., Kim, S., Dynamic Economic Dispatch of
Generation, IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Sys-
tems, Vol. PAS-99, No. 6, pp. 2060-2068, Nov/Dec 1980.
[15] Wang, C., Shahidehpour, S. M., Adapa, R., Multi-Area
Unit Commitment with RampRate Limits, Proceedings
of 1992 American Power Conference, Chicago, April, 1992.
[16] Wong, K. P., Doan, K., A Recursive Economic Dispatch
Algorithm for Assessing the Costs of Thermal Generator
Schedules, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 7, No. 2,
pp. 577-583, May 1992.
19-24, 1990.
BIOGRAPHIES
Chunyan Wang was born on Feb. 27, 1965 in China. She re-
ceived her BS and MS in Electrical Engineering from Tsinghua
University in 1986 and 1988 respectively. She is currently a PhD
student in the ECE Dept. at IIT. Her research interests include
the application of artificial intelligence to large-scale power sys-
tems operation and planning.
S. M. Shahidehpour received his PhD in Electrical Engineer-
ing from the University of Missouri-Columbia in 1981. He joined
the University of Michigan-Dearborn in 1981 where he received
the Distinguished Faculty Award in 1983. Hehas been with the
Illinois Institute of Technology since 1983, where he is currently
a Professor in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Depart-
ment. He received the 1990 Excellence in Teaching Award at
IIT, as well as the 1990 C. Holmes MacDonald Outstanding
Young Electrical Engineering Professor Award. He is a Senior
Member of the IEEE and the Associate Director of the American
Power Conference.
Discussion
M. E. El-Hawary (Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax,
N.S. Canada): This is an interesting paper in that it combines a
number of techniques in an innovative manner to treat the issue
of ramp rate limits in generation scheduling. The authors re-
sponse to the following queries would be appreciated:
- In the introduction, the authors correctly point out that
modest reductions in percentage fuel cost lead to a large
saving in the system operating costs. This seems to be
contradicted by the authors assertion that their proposed
technique is superior to that of the Dynamic Programming
approach on the basis of computational speed, even though
there is a loss in economy of 0.235% in Case 1, and 0.097%
in Case 2. Given that in practice, the 24 hour-ahead schedul-
ing problem is solved off-line, the importance of the speed
advantage appears to be superficial. Under what operating
conditions, should one prefer the proposed method to that of
Dynamic Programming.
- The unit characteristics for the test systemgiven by Tables
l(a) and l(b) do not appear to list the start up cost parame-
ters of equation (25). Would the authors provide a reference
to these values.
- Unit 9 appears to be committed only for one hour in the
final schedule of both cases. From the characteristic parame-
ters of Table l(a), this unit has the highest linear coefficient
b, but not the highest quadratic coefficient c . Would the
authors give a justification of this result.
- The authors advocate use of ANN to find the commitment
schedule by what might be referred to as a template match-
ing approach. Although the process is documented in [71, it
might be worthwhile to summarize its salient features in the
closure.
In closing, this is a worthwhile contribution.
Manuscri pt recei ved August 3, 1992
Xiaohong Guan and Peter B. Luh (University of Connecticut,
Storrs, CT): The authors should becongratulated on their efforts for
applying artificial intelligent techniques to unit commitment
problems with ramp rate constraints. In this paper, an artificial
neural network method with heuristics is first used to generatesub-
optimal schedules based on different load patterns without
considering ramp rate constraints. Then a dynamic procedureis used
to consider the ramp rate properties as units arestarted up and shut
down. Finally, a dynamic dispatch procedure is adopted to obtain
power allocation which incorporates the unit capacities and the
ramping constraints. The authors comments on the following
questions will beappreciated
1. Based on the authors experience, how many load patterns
are needed in order to get good sub-optimal schedules for the
problemtested? As the time horizon and number of units
increase, how would the number of necessary load patterns
increase? Would it increase exponentially?
In the first stage wherethe ramping constraints are relaxed,
someof the efforts to makethe solutions feasible may not be
necessary, since the solutions may becomeinfeasible again
when the ramping constraints are considered. Would it be
better to incorporate major ramping effects into the feasibility
heuristics at the first stage?
2.
1349
uni t r amp- r at es l i mi t s on bot h uni t commi t ment and
economi c di spat ch probl ems. Pract i cal and
met hodol ogi cal aspect s of t hi s probl em have been
al ready recogni zed and research ef f ort s are qui t e
j ust i f i ed. However , to eval uat e advant ages and
weaknesses of proposed appr oach we ask aut hor s to
cl ari f y and comment on next poi nt s:
1. I n case t hat the ANN gener at es an i nf easi bl e
sol ut i on a heur i st i c pr ocedur e i s empl oyed to modi f y
t he obt ai ned uni t commi t ment . I t seems t hat t hi s
procedure can f ai l to f i nd a f easi bl e sol ut i on.
Descri bed pr ocedur e goes t hrough commi t ment changes
at hour t ( st ep H2 or H5) i n order to meet a f easi bl e
sol ut i on. But , i t can cause the f easi bi l i t y probl ems
at some ot her t i me i nt erval s due to up and down t i me
l i mi t s of the ( del commi t t ed uni t s.
2. Af t er i mpl ement i ng the procedure f or i ncorporat i ng
rampi ng const r ai nt s expl ai ned i n 3.2 i t can happen
t hat obt ai ned modi f i ed commi t ment agai n l eads to a
i nf easi bl e sol ut i on. I n such case i n t hi s paper t he
commi t ment or decommi t ment of peaki ng uni t s i s
consi dered. However , i f peaki ng uni t s are properl y
commi t t ed at t hat hour t hen some of cycl i ng uni t s
have to be ( de) commi t t ed. Thi s can cause t hat at some
ot her hour s necessary condi t i ons f or sol ut i on
exi st ence can be vi ol at ed.
3. The approach to pri mal probl emsol ut i on i s based
on economi c di spat chi ng procedure st art i ng f rom t he
l ast hour to the f i rst hour of the st udy hor i zon to
gener at e a f easi bl e sol ut i on. Unf ort unat el y t he
proposed appr oach general l y does not end up wi t h a
f easi bl e sol ut i on. To i l l ust rat e t hat concer n assume
t hat t here ar e two uni t s bot h wi t h t he upper and
l ower gener at i on l i mi t s of 200 and 100 MW
respect i vel y. Ramp- down rat e l i mi t s are 50 MW/ h f or
t he f i rst uni t and 20 MW/ h f or the second one. Syst em
demands at hour s t , t - 1 and t - 2 are 320, 270 and 200
MW. I f the f uel cost charact eri st i cs are i dent i cal
t hen t he economi c di spat ch sol ut i on wi l l yi el d an
even di spat ch at al l hours. I t can be shown t hat the
proposed backward appr oach l eads to an i nf easi bl e
sol ut i on at hour ( t - 2) . Namel y, the economi c di spat ch
sol ut i on at hour t yi el ds 160 MW f or each uni t . At
hour ( t - 1 ) t he economi c di spat ch r equi r es 135 MW to
be del i vered f rom bot h uni t s whi ch i s i nf easi bl e
regardi ng the r amp- down rat e of the second uni t . That
means t hat t he gener at i on of t hat uni t wi l l be f i xed
at 140 MW and consequent l y the generat i on of the
f i rst uni t wi l l be 130 MW. Fur t her at hour ( t - 2) t he
economi c di spat ch sol ut i on i s 100 MW f or each uni t .
Due to t he r amp- down r at e t he generat i on l evel of t he
second uni t wi l l be f i xed at 120 MW whi ch l eads to
the i nf easi bl e gener at i on of t he f i rst uni t . On t he
ot her hand i f one st ar t s wi t h generat i on l evel s of
180 and 140 MW respect i vel y at hour t the f easi bl e
sol ut i ons at hour ( t - I ) wi l l be 150 and 120 and
f i nal l y at hour ( t - 2 ) the f easi bl e sol ut i on i s 100 MW
f or each uni t . I t shoul d be not i ced t hat the appr oach
present ed i n ref . 1111 r egar dl ess f orward or backward
pr ocedur e can correct l y be appl i ed to the uni t
r amp- r at es consi derat i on.
4. Uni t r amp- r at es ar e model ed as l i near ones i n t hi s
paper. I t seems t hat nonl i near charact eri st i cs ar e of
more pract i cal i nt erest and t heref ore t hei r t reat ment
i s more i mport ant .
Manuscri pt recei ved August IO, 1992.
Manuscri pt recei ved August 13, 1992.
S. RuZi C and N.RajakoviC ( Uni versi t y of Bel gr ade,
Yugosl avi a) : The aut hor s are to be commended on C. Wan@; and S.M. Shahi dehpour-The authors would like
wri t i ng an i nt erest i ng and t i mel y paper deal i ng wi t h to thank the discussers for their interest in this paper, and for
1350
their thoughtful and stimulating discussion. The following com-
ments are provided in response to their questions:
Xianhong Guan and Peter B. Luh:
1. The training set used in this study consists of 30 load pat-
terns and their corresponding optimal unit commitments.
The load patterns represent the typical daily load profiles
on weekdays, Saturdays, Sundays at different seasons, hol-
idays, special hot or cold days, and so on. For a forecasted
load pattern, which will be classified in one of the possi-
ble categories, an estimated commitment schedule will be
generated by the trained ANN. The load patterns are in-
dependent of the number of units, and for a certain time
horizon there are specific load patterns in every category. It
is our experience that as wereasonably increase the training
examples and the possible categories in a given time hori-
zon, the solution accuracy will improve. It is also evidenced
by case studies in the paper that weneed additional train-
ing examples in order to improve the solution as compared
with that of dynamic programming. However, additional
examples and categories will require additional memory and
training time.
2. The reason for obtaining a feasible commitment schedule
at first stage is that the ramping modification is based on
an economically viable commitment schedule at the iirst
stage of the process. In order to accommodate the unit
ramping characteristics, the schedule is adjusted by using
peaking units to compensate for the infeasibility caused by
the ramping processes. The procedure will introduces errors
if the schedule at the first stage is infeasible.
M. E. El-Eawary:
- As discussed in the introduction of the paper, the short-
term generation scheduling will provide significant incen-
tives for the economic operation of the system as docu-
mented in studies based on Lagrangian relaxation, dynamic
programming, AI techniques, and so on. In order to make
the enumeration process more practical for limited com-
puter resources, analytical methods such as dynamic pro-
gramming employ various procedures for limiting the search.
The improper choice of search parameters may lead to the
failure of the optimization process. There are no specific
techniques available for pre-determining the appropriate set
of parameters that would generate a feasible solution. A
heuristic method based on AI can overcome such problems,
e.g., by introducing a hybrid AI-analytical method for pre-
venting infeasibilities [A], or utilizing AI in obtaining a fea-
sible sub-optimal solution which can be refined further in a
multi-stage approach [12]. In should be emphasized that the
training scheme for ANN plays a significant role in achiev-
ing the reasonable solution and its optimality. If ANN is
trained via a small set of examples, it would be possible
that the scheduling output represent a less economical SO-
lution, as indicated by the case studies in the paper. This
drawback can be remedied by introducing additional train-
ing examples. In practical studies, the application of ANN
will eliminate the blind search as part of the dynamic pro-
gramming process for the short-term generation scheduling
in different circumstances. In this respect, we would not
need large computation facilities to obtain the schedule in
an uncertain environment representing load changes, unit
availability, and so on.
- The start-up parameters are given in [B].
- The quadratic coefficient c is relatively small compared with
b in the given system, i.e., the linear coefficient b plays a
more significant role in unit economical considerations. In
this respect, unit 9 with a large b coefficient is committed
for one hour in the final solution.
- Weshould add to our earlier comments that the flexibility
and the learning capability of the AI approaches will provide
a means of improving the scheduling approach as additional
cases are experienced by power system operators [A]. In this
capacity, ANN can be refined to further optimize the soh-
tion. New constraints and system conditions can be easily
added to the package and through appropriate training, it
can be customized for a specific utility application.
S. Ruzic and N. Rajakovic:
1. The heuristic procedure implemented in 3.1 provides a fea-
sible unit commitment schedule for initial solutions in our
study. The general features of this approach is discussed
in [12], as H2 or H5 consider minimum up/down time con-
straints. We have to clarify a missing point in H2 that
wewill omit units from Oplist which cannot be committed
at hour t because of their minimum up/down time require-
ments. In other words, if unit i is supposed to be committed
at hour t , it must be required by the load pattern to remain
committed for its minimum up time period. A similar anal-
ogy applies to H5.
2. According to the available policies for the operation of power
systems, peaking units are generally the last ones to be com-
mitted in meeting the system load demand. So, there will
be a rare possibility in practical cases for committing peak-
ing units while other cycling units with more expensive start
up costs are being decommitted. The proposed method fol-
lows the common experience in system operation in which
the peaking units are usually utilized to compensate for
power violations in the supplying the load.
3. It is generally conceivable that various optimization tech-
niques would not respond properly to some specific cases.
For the particular example considered in the discussion in
which two generators have identical operating characteris-
tics, with the exception that the ramping rate of one gen-
erator is 2.5 times faster than that of other, the proposed
method cannot generate a feasible power generation sched-
ule at hour t - 2. One possible strategy for enhancing the
proposed method is that whenever a feasible solution can-
not be found at hour t , wetreat the results of the X method
as the fmal solution at that hour. Then, weperform Step 2
in the reverse time order to obtain a feasible schedule from
hour t to hour Nt. Finally, beginning at hour t - 1, wecarry
out the procedure described in 3.3. If the feasible solution
cannot be found at a certain hour, we would repeat the
procedure for a feasible schedule. The procedure in [l l ] is
based on the Lagrangian relaxation approach which essen-
tially follows a different technique for considering ramping
characteristics.
4. Since the proposed method uses a dynamic adjusting proce-
dure to consider the unit ramping characteristics, it would
be possible to incorporate the ramp-rate as a nonlinear func-
tion in the proposed process.
The heuristic methods will provide an opportunity to emulate
human operators experience with a specific power system in
refining the existing procedures. These methods generally en-
hance the existing analytical procedures by shedding lights on
many hidden spots which may otherwise remain as bottlenecks
in optimizing a constrained large scale system. Weare currently
addressing additional techniques for generalizing the proposed
method in practical cases.
[A] Ouyang, Z., and Shahidehpour, S.M., A Hybrid Artifi-
cial Neural Networks-Dynamic Programming Approach to Unit
Commitment, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 7,
No. 1, pp. 236-242, Feb. 1992
[B] OuyFg, Z., and Shahidehpour, S.M., A Heuristic Multi-
Area Unit Commitment with Economic Dispatch, IEE Pro-
ceedings, Part C, Vol. 138, No. 3, pp. 242-252, May 1991
Manuscri pt recei ved September 30, 1992.