Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

1

Solutions to Practical Unit Commitment


Problems with Operational, Power Flow and
Environmental Constraints
I. Jacob Raglend and Narayana Prasad Padhy1

power system operation and control, due to variation of load


Abstract—In this paper, an algorithm to solve environmental demand and non-storable nature of electrical energy, given the
constrained unit commitment problem (UCP) with operational hourly load forecasting over a period of a day or a week
and power flow constraints has been developed to plan an ahead, the system operators should schedule the on/off status
economic and secure generation schedule. Both Economic load as well as the real power outputs of the generating units to
dispatch (ELD) and Economic emission dispatch (EED) have meet the forecasted demand over the time horizon. The
been applied to obtain optimal fuel cost and optimal emission of
generating units for the entire time horizon. The unit
resultant Unit Commitment (UC) schedule should minimize
commitment solution for the environmental constrained problem the system production cost during the period while
has been formulated as a multiobjective problem by considering simultaneously satisfying the load demand, spinning reserve,
both ELD and EED simultaneously. The common economic ramp constraints and the operational constraints of the
emission dispatch (CEED) bi-objective problem is converted to individual unit. Scheduling the on and off times of the
single objective function by adding a price penalty factor. A generating units and minimizing the cost for the hourly
modified price penalty factor is proposed to solve this problem. generation schedule is the economics to save great deal of
The UCP solutions without operational and power flow money by turning units off (decommiting) when they are not
constraints are not practical due to secure operation of the power
needed. By incorporating UC schedule, the electric utilities
system network. This proposed algorithm introduces an efficient
unit commitment (UC) approach considering environmental may save millions of Dollars per year in the production cost.
constraints along with power flow constraints that obtains the The system security is still the most important aspect of
minimum operating cost satisfying both unit and network power system operation and cannot be compromised. UCP is
constraints. In the proposed model repeated optimal power flow an important optimization task in the daily operation planning
(OPF) for the satisfactory unit combinations under the given of modern power systems [1] - [3]. A survey of literature on
study period has been carried out to obtain UC solutions with the UC methods reveals that various numerical optimization
both operational and power flow constraints. This proposed techniques have been employed to approach the UC problem.
algorithm has been tested for environmental constrained UCP on
Traditional and conventional methodologies such as
IEEE 30 bus and Indian utility practical systems with and
without power flow constraints scheduled for 24 hours. The
exhaustive enumeration, priority listing, dynamic
solutions obtained are quite encouraging and useful in the programming, integer and linear programming, branch and
economic emission environment. The algorithm and simulation bound method, lagrangian relaxation, interior point
are carried through Matlab environment. optimization etc. are able to solve UCP with success in
varying degree [4] – [12].Gent and Lamont have started the
Index Terms—Economic dispatch, Combined economic early work on minimum emission dispatch [13]. Optimal
emission dispatch, Price penalty factor, Unit commitment, power dispatch problem considering practical constraints has
Dynamic programming, Netwon raphson, Lagrangian multiplier, been solved by Fletcher’s quadratic programming method
optimal power flow. [14]. Nanda, Hari and Kothari explore the feasibility of
developing a classical technique based on co-ordination
I. INTRODUCTION equations to solve Economic Emission load dispatch with line

E LECTRIC power is generally be higher during the day


time and early evening when industrial loads are high,
lights are on and so forth lower during the late evening
flow constraints [15]. Hota et al. proposed a sequential
quadratic programming technique to solve CEED problem by
assigning weighting factors for generation and emission cost
and early morning when most of the population is asleep. In functions [16]. Researchers proposed a price penalty factor
for solving the CEED problem which blends the emission
costs with the normal fuel costs [17]. In this paper a modified
1
Narayana Prasad Padhy is a visiting academic with the Department of
price penalty factor is introduced to find the exact economic
Electronics and Electrical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath, UK and emission fuel cost with respect to the load demand. In this
assistant professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute paper, the UCP is solved by considering both EED and ELD
of Technology, Roorkee, India-247667.(e-mail: nppeefee@iitr.ernet.in ) and I. with operational power flow constraints. The UC schedule for
Jacob Raglend is a research scholar in the Department of Electrical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India-247667(email:
the generating units considering only the unit constraints may
jacobdee@iitr.ernet.in). not satisfy the power flow constraints and leads to insecure

1-4244-0493-2/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE.


Authorized licensed use limited to: Chulalongkorn University. Downloaded on October 30, 2009 at 12:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2

operation of the network. So to obtain the practical UC Similarly the start down cost is described by
solutions the model must consider both the operational and SDit = kPGi (5)
power flow constraints. The unit commitment solution for a
system can be obtained with repeated OPF algorithms. where k is the proportional constant and the total production
Repeated optimal power flow for the satisfactory unit cost is optimized with the following constraints.
combinations under given study period be carried out to Equality Constraints:
obtain unit commitment solutions with unit and network Power balance
NG
constraints. This paper presents the UC schedule with CEED
for IEEE 30 bus systems and Indian utility practical system ∑P
i =1
Gi = PDt + PRt + PLt (6)
with and without power flow (PF) constraints scheduled for
24 hours. Inequality Constraints:
Minimum up-time
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION 0 < Tiu ≤ No. of hoursunits Gi has been on (7)
Unit commitment is an optimization problem of Minimum down-time
determining the schedule of generating units within a power 0 < Tid ≤ No. of hoursunits Gi has been off (8)
system with a number of constraints [2, 17]. For a given Maximum and minimum output limits on generators
power system network, the optimization cost of generation is
given by the following equation. PGimin ≤ PGi ≤ PGimax (9)
NG T Ramp rate limits for unit generation changes
TC = Min ∑∑ f i (FC , EC ) + STit + SDit (1) PGit − PGi (t −1) ≤ URi as generation increases (10)
i =1 t =1
Where PGi (t −1) − PGit ≤ DRi as generation decreases (11)
TC is the total production cost for the UC schedules. where
N G is the total number of generator units in the network. PDt - Demand at t th hour
FC and EC are total fuel cost and total emission of PRt - Spinning reserve
generators respectively.
Total fuel cost of generation FC in terms of control PLt - Total system losses
variables generator powers can be expressed as Tiu - Minimum up-time
NG
FC it (PGi ) = ∑ ci + bi PGi + ai PGi2 $ / hr (2) Tid - Minimum down-time
i =1
URi - Ramp-up rate limit of unit i (MW/h)
Where
ai , bi , ci are the cost coefficients of generator DRi - Ramp-down rate limit of unit i (MW/h)
Power Flow Equality Constraints:
PGi - Real Power generated by the ith generator Power balance equations
Total emission of generation EC can be expressed as Nb − −
NG PGi − PLi − ∑V V ( )
Yij cos θ ij − δ i + δ j = 0 (12)
EC it (PGi ) = ∑ α i + β i PGi + γ i PGi2
i j
lb / hr (3) j =1
i =1 Nb − −
Where QGi − Q Li + ∑ Vi V j ( )
Yij sin θ ij − δ i + δ j = 0 (13)
γ i , βi , αi are the emission coefficients. j =1
Power Flow Inequality Constraints:
STit - Start-up cost at tth hour ($/h)
th
PGimin ≤ PGi ≤ PGimax , i = 1,........, N G (14)
SDit - Start down cost at t hour ($/h)
QGimin ≤ QGi ≤ QGimax , i = 1,........, N G (15)
The start up cost is described by:
− min − max
STit = TSit Fit + (1 − e ( Dti ASit ) BSit Fit + MSit (4) −
Vi ≤ Vi ≤ Vi , i = 1,........, N L (16)
Where
TS it - Turbines start-up energy at ith hour (MBTu) φimin ≤ φi ≤ φimax (17)
th
Fit - Fuel input to the i generator
MVA f ij ≤ MVA f ijmax , i = 1,........., N TL (18)
th
Dit - Number of hours down at t hour where
th
AS it - Boiler cool-down coefficient at t hour N b - Number of total buses
BS it - Boiler start-up energy at tth hour ($/h) N G - Number of generator buses
th
MS it - Start-up maintenance cost at t hour ($/h) N L - Number of load buses

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chulalongkorn University. Downloaded on October 30, 2009 at 12:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3

N TL - Number of transmission lines A. Proposed Algorithm for Environmental Constrained UCP


with Operational and Power Flow Constraints
PGimin , PGimax - Minimum and maximum value of real power
• Initialize the unit characteristics for the N unit system
allowed at generator i. with system constraints.
min max
QGi , QGi - Minimum and maximum value of reactive • Find all the available states that satisfy the load demand
power allowed at generator i. for 24 hours. Each state corresponds to the “ON” and “OFF”
PGi , QGi - Real and reactive power generation at bus i conditions of the generator units and represented as 1 and 0.
• Calculate the transitional generation cost for the states
PLi , Q Li - Active and reactive power loss at bus i satisfying the system constraints on their transit from the
Vi - Voltage magnitude at bus i present stage to the succeeding stage with the help of
following steps
δ i - Voltage angle at bus i • For each satisfying state carry out the optimal power flow
Yij - ij-th elements of Y-bus matrix solution using a hybrid Lagrangian multiplier and Newton
Raphson power flow algorithms. Prepare the data base for the
MVA f ij - Apparent power flow from bus i to bus j system including line data, bus data, generator data and tap
MVA f ijmax - Maximum rating of transmission line setting of the transformers.
• Form Ybus using line resistance, reactance, and shunt
connecting bus i and j.
elements [21].
The bi-objective combined economic emission dispatch
problem is converted into single optimization problem by • Compute PGi and QGi for each load bus using (12, 13).
(k ) (k )
introducing the penalty factor h [18] as follows • Compute the Scheduled errors ∆PGi and ∆QGi for
NG T
TC= Min∑∑FCit (PGi ) +h*ECit (PGi) + STit + SDit $/ hr (19) each load from the following relation
i=1 t=1 ∆PGi(k ) = PGiSch − PGi(k ) (21)
subject to the power flow constraints of equations (6)-(18).
The price penalty factor h blends the emission with fuel cost ∆QGi( k ) = QGiSch − QGi(k ) (22)
and TC the total production cost in $/hr [19, 20]. The price • Using (12, 13) compute the elements of the Jacobian
penalty factor hi is the ratio between maximum fuel cost and matrix obtained from the partial derivatives with respect to
maximum emission of corresponding generator. ∆δ i(k ) and ∆ Vi(k ) .

hi =
(
FC PGimax ) , i = 1,2, L N G ⎡ ∆P ⎤ ⎡ J 1 J 2 ⎤ ⎡ ∆δ ⎤
(
EC PGimax ) (20) ⎢ ∆Q ⎥ = ⎢ J 3 J 4 ⎥ ⎢ ∆ V ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
(23)

To determine the price penalty factor for a particular load • The new voltage magnitudes and phase angles are
demand use the following steps computed using
1. Find the ratio between maximum fuel cost and
maximum emission of each generator.
δ i( k +1) = δ i(k ) + ∆δ i(k ) (24)
2. Arrange the values of price penalty factor in Vi(k +1) = Vi(k ) + ∆ Vi(k ) (25)
ascending order.
The process is continued until the residuals ∆PGi(k ) and
3. Add the maximum capacity of each unit PGi ( max
) one •
(k ) for all load buses are less than the specified
∆QGi
at a time, starting from the smallest hi unit until
tolerance ε .
∑ PGimax ≥ PD • Calculate the Bmn loss coefficients using the power flow
4. At this stage, hi associated with the last unit in the solutions.
process is the price penalty factor h for the given • After getting the loss coefficient perform economic
load. dispatch and emission dispatch i.e., the power generated in
This method gives the appropriate value of price penalty each ‘ON’ generator unit using Lagrangian multiplier method.
factor for the corresponding load demand. Hence a modified • Read the total demand, cost characteristics and MW
price penalty factor hm is introduced to give the exact limits along with loss co-efficients.The condition for optimum
dispatch
minimum dispatch solution. The first two steps for computing
dC i ∂ PL
the modified price penalty factor also remains the same as +λ = λ , i = 1K N G (26)
above. Then the modified price penalty factor is computed by dP Gi ∂ PGi
interpolating the values of hi for the last two units by ⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
satisfying the corresponding load demand. The introduction of ⎜ 1 ⎟ dC i = λ , i = 1, K , N G (27)
price penalty factor gives the environmental constrained UCP ⎜ ∂ PL ⎟ dP
⎜1− ⎟ Gi
solution with and without power flow constraints. ⎝ ∂ PGi ⎠

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chulalongkorn University. Downloaded on October 30, 2009 at 12:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4

dC i penalty price factor. The IEEE 30 bus system has six


Li = λ , i = 1, K , N G (28) generating units and the characteristics of generators, unit
dPGi constraints and the emission coefficients are given in
where Li is the penalty factor of plant i. Appendix B. The 75-bus Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board
(UPSEB) Indian Utility system with fifteen generating units is
• For an estimated value of λ, PGi are found from the cost
shown in Fig .3. The characteristics of generators, emission
quadratic function.
coefficients, and unit constraints are given in Appendix A. For
⎛ (k ) ⎞
⎜ λ (1 − B 0 i ) − β i − 2 λ (k ) ∑ B ij PGj(k ) ⎟ every hour, all the possible combinations that satisfy the load
⎜ ⎟
= ⎝ ⎠ demand and spinning reserve constraints are selected and
PGi(k )
j≠i
(29)
(
2 γ i + λ (k ) B ii ) these states are allowed to perform OPF. If it converges for
OPF, then store that state. Similarly all the states that satisfy
∆ P (k )
∆ λ (k ) = (k )
(30) OPF and demand on that hour are stored. This procedure has
⎛ dP Gi ⎞ to continue for the specified time horizon. Now select the
∑ ⎜⎝ dλ ⎠

state that possess minimum cost and satisfies the unit
λ( k +1) = λ( k ) + ∆λ(k )
constraints for the entire time horizon. Finally the complete
(31) unit commitment schedule with total minimum production
NG
∆ P (k ) = P Dt + P Lt(k ) − ∑ PGi(k ) (32) cost including the emission constraint has been obtained. The
i =1 network topology and the test data for the IEEE 30 bus
• Check the slack bus power generated from the cost system are given in http://
quadratic function and the slack bus power obtained from the www.ee.washington.edu/research/pstca. Unit commitment
power flow solution. If they lie with in a tolerance limit say schedule without power flow constraints may not be practical,
0.001, then find the generation cost using (2). If they are not since the states must include the system network losses and
with in the tolerance limit, then with the power generation also converge for optimal power flow. This is the reason for
obtained from economic dispatch using cost quadratic the cost being minimum when power flow constraints are not
equation is given as the P specified in the load flow analysis considered. Fig 1 and 2 shows the transitional generation cost
for the next iteration. for every hour with and without power flow constraints based
• Similarly the emission dispatch is determined from (3). on the price penalty factor (PPF) for IEEE 30 bus and Indian
Losses can be obtained from the new power flow solution and utility system. The solution results in this study indicate that
repeat the economic dispatch. the proposed algorithm is applicable to the day-ahead UC
• Check whether the slack bus power obtained from this calculation of large scale power systems. The total generation
economic dispatch and the slack bus power obtained from the cost obtained by modified penalty price factor hm gives
power flow solution are within the tolerance limit. accurate results than price penalty factor h.
• If they are within the tolerance limit, perform the load
flow with PGi obtained from economic dispatch and determine
the transitional cost by including the price penalty factor for
the corresponding load demand.
• Now tabulate all the transitional cost of the satisfying
states for each stage and choose the minimum transitional cost
for each stage that satisfy the unit constraints.
• Repeat the above steps for 24 hours with the generated
load profile.
• Calculate the total generation cost by the summation of
all the minimum transitional cost obtained between each stage
and print the results.
Fig. 1. Transitional cost for IEEE 30 bus system
III. SIMULATION AND RESULTS
The study has been conducted on IEEE 30 bus system and
Indian utility 75 bus system to illustrate the performance for
the environmental constrained UCP with operational and
power flow constraints. In the proposed approach, the UCP
schedule with minimum generation and cost of the generating
units were obtained in CEED with operational and power flow
constraints. The commitment schedules and the transitional
cost at each stage with and without power flow constraints for
the above cases are given from Table I to IV. Table V gives a
comparison of UCP with CEED results obtained with and
without operational and power flow constraints based on the Fig. 2. Transitional cost for Indian utility system

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chulalongkorn University. Downloaded on October 30, 2009 at 12:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5

TABLE I.
IEEE 30 BUS UC SCHEDULE WITHOUT AND WITH POWER FLOW CONSTRAINTS (PFC) WITH MODIFIED PRICE PENALTY FACTOR

Unit Minimum Minimum


Emission Unit Emission
Penalty status Fuel cost total Fuel cost total
Demand output status output
factor without $/hr operating $/hr operating
lb/hr with PFC lb/hr
PFC cost $/hr cost $/hr
166 2.7083 101100 371.5868 073.3098 670.1 101100 383.1527 76.6078 690.6
196 2.7985 101000 441.3113 086.3209 767.9 101100 465.1614 107.2830 765.4
229 2.9639 111000 506.3165 113.0660 1028.4 101100 561.6252 157.3960 1028.1
267 3.3151 111001 612.3155 169.3727 1286.8 111100 640.7015 180.9583 1427.6
283.4 3.4797 111001 657.3696 198.0643 1346.6 111100 690.2637 209.4508 1419.1
272 3.3653 111001 625.6587 175.6228 1216.7 111100 655.7792 188.3548 1289.6
246 3.1044 110001 578.5556 141.7408 1048.6 111100 580.1208 154.1772 1058.7
213 2.8837 110000 485.1874 089.1517 772.3 111100 488.9667 120.5906 836.7
192 2.7847 110000 430.9812 067.7910 619.8 111100 433.4472 104.5002 724.4
161 2.6936 110000 353.4515 043.6481 471.0 110100 374.2392 66.9930 584.7
147 2.5692 100000 334.5169 026.8197 463.4 110100 338.5361 59.2813 490.8
160 2.6907 100000 368.0000 040.2630 476.3 110100 371.6587 66.3749 550.3
170 2.7200 101000 373.9505 058.7087 646.6 110100 397.6675 73.0233 596.3
185 2.7641 101000 412.5206 073.7066 616.3 110100 437.5547 84.9648 672.4
208 2.8586 101000 473.2075 101.6410 763.8 110100 500.8114 107.9569 809.4
232 2.9790 111000 514.0841 116.1373 1047.1 110100 570.4942 138.3123 982.5
246 3.1044 110001 578.5556 141.7408 1161.6 111100 580.1257 154.1794 1171.8
241 3.0542 111000 537.5458 125.8026 1064.8 111100 565.9985 148.4276 1019.3
236 3.0040 111001 531.2294 135.3012 1050.7 111100 551.9839 142.9139 981.3
225 2.9439 111000 496.0009 109.0894 847.1 111100 521.5529 131.6186 909.0
204 2.8386 111000 442.6166 090.4108 699.3 111100 464.9371 113.1967 786.3
182 2.7553 111000 388.0821 074.8089 594.2 111100 407.6775 98.2587 678.4
161 2.6936 110000 353.4515 043.6481 501.0 110100 374.2387 66.9929 584.7
131 2.4198 111000 267.1394 054.2494 511.4 110100 298.8239 52.9253 426.9
Total generation cost 19671.66 $ / day 20484.48 $ / day

TABLE II.
IEEE 30 BUS UC SCHEDULE WITHOUT AND WITH POWER FLOW CONSTRAINTS (PFC) WITH PRICE PENALTY FACTOR
Demand Penalty factorUnit Fuel cost Emission Minimum Unit Fuel cost Emission Minimum
status $/hr output total status $/hr output total
without lb/hr operating with lb/hr operating
PFC cost $/hr PFC cost $/hr
166 2.7935 101100 371.5868 73.3098 676.4 101100 383.1516 76.6075 697.2
196 2.9940 101000 441.3113 86.3209 784.8 101100 465.1609 107.2828 786.4
229 2.9940 111000 506.3165 113.0664 1031.8 101100 561.6261 157.3964 1032.9
267 5.0009 111001 612.3155 169.3727 1572.3 111100 640.6999 180.9575 1732.6
283.4 5.0009 111001 657.3696 198.0643 1647.9 111100 690.2637 209.4508 1737.7
272 5.0009 111001 625.6587 175.6228 1503.9 111100 655.7739 188.3518 1597.7
246 5.0009 110001 578.5556 141.7408 1317.4 111100 580.1222 154.1779 1351.1
213 2.9940 110000 485.1874 89.1517 782.1 111100 488.9678 120.5908 850.0
192 2.7935 110000 430.9812 67.7910 620.4 111100 433.4498 104.5008 725.4
161 2.7935 110000 353.4515 43.6481 475.4 110100 374.2382 66.9928 591.4
147 2.6907 100000 334.5169 26.8197 466.7 110100 338.5379 59.2813 498.0
160 2.6907 100000 368.0000 40.2630 476.3 110100 371.6564 66.3745 550.2
170 2.7935 101000 373.9505 58.7087 651.0 110100 397.6648 73.0226 601.7
185 2.7935 101000 412.5206 73.7066 618.4 110100 437.5567 84.9654 674.9
208 2.9940 101000 473.2075 101.6415 777.5 110100 500.8072 107.9548 824.0
232 2.9940 111000 514.0841 116.1373 1048.8 110100 570.4922 138.3114 984.6
246 5.0009 110001 578.5556 141.7408 1430.4 111100 580.1256 154.1795 1464.2
241 5.0009 111000 537.5458 125.8026 1309.7 111100 565.9961 148.4265 1308.3
236 5.0009 111001 531.2294 135.3012 1320.9 111100 551.9846 142.9140 1266.7
225 2.9940 111000 496.0009 109.0894 852.6 111100 521.5525 131.6185 915.6
204 2.9940 111000 442.6166 90.4108 713.3 111100 464.9387 113.1972 803.9
182 2.7935 111000 388.0821 74.8089 597.1 111100 407.6771 98.2585 682.2
161 2.7935 110000 353.4515 43.6481 505.4 110100 374.2389 66.9929 591.4
131 2.6907 111000 267.1394 54.2494 526.1 110100 298.8225 52.9251 441.2
Total generation cost 21706.41 $ / day 22709.17 $ / day

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chulalongkorn University. Downloaded on October 30, 2009 at 12:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
6

TABLE III
UP 75 UC SCHEDULE WITHOUT AND WITH POWER FLOW CONSTRAINTS (PFC) WITH MODIFIED PRICE PENALTY FACTOR
Emissio Minimum Emissi
Fuel Fuel Minimum total
Penalty Unit status n total Unit status with on
Demand cost cost operating cost
factor Without PFC output operating PFC output
$/hr $/hr $/hr
lb/hr cost $/hr lb/hr
3352 1.0154 111110111111111 3815.1 4160.8 8070.1 111111111111111 4060.1 4330.6 8458
3384 1.0183 111110001111111 3864.7 4158.4 8209.1 111111111111111 4116.4 4374.9 8571
3437 1.0230 111110101111111 3952.7 4245.3 8365.6 111111111111111 4209.6 4436.1 8748
3489 1.0277 111110101111111 4039.8 4306.0 8464.9 111111111111111 4303.0 4514.9 8943
3659 1.0428 111110101111111 4331.1 4524.6 9049.6 111111111111111 4606.2 4682.8 9490
3849 1.0598 111110101111111 4664.9 4747.6 9696.5 111111111111111 4954.9 4875.0 10122
3898 1.0642 111110101111111 4751.4 4815.3 9875.8 111111111111111 5046.4 4940.6 10304
3849 1.0598 111110101111111 4664.9 4747.6 9696.5 111111111111111 4954.9 4875.0 10122
3764 1.0522 111110101111111 4513.7 4631.2 9386.8 111111111111111 4809.8 4798.9 9859
3637 1.0409 111110101111111 4292.8 4494.6 8971.2 111111111111111 4566.4 4656.7 9413
3437 1.0230 111110101111111 3952.7 4245.3 8295.6 111111111111111 4209.6 4436.1 8748
3384 1.0183 111110001111111 3864.7 4158.4 8149.1 111111111111111 4116.4 4374.9 8571
3357 1.0159 111110001111111 3820.3 4129.5 8015.3 111111111111111 4069.3 4345.0 8483
3394 1.0192 111110001111111 3881.2 4169.3 8130.4 111111111111111 4133.9 4386.2 8604
3616 1.0390 111110001111111 4256.4 4438.7 8868.3 111111011111111 4527.7 4610.6 9368
3828 1.0579 111110001111111 4627.3 4690.7 9589.8 111111011111111 4915.1 4821.0 10015
3828 1.0579 111110001111111 4627.3 4690.7 9589.8 111111011111111 4915.1 4821.0 10015
3786 1.0542 111110001111111 4552.6 4633.1 9436.8 111111011111111 4848.6 4798.5 9907
3659 1.0428 111110001111111 4331.1 4497.0 9020.7 111111011111111 4605.4 4660.6 9466
3458 1.0249 111110001111111 3987.6 4241.6 8334.8 111111011111111 4247.1 4452.6 8811
3394 1.0192 111110001111111 3881.2 4169.3 8130.4 111111011111111 4133.3 4362.9 8580
3334 1.0138 111110001111101 3786.4 4144.9 8048.6 111111011111111 4028.0 4282.1 8369
3329 1.0134 111110001111101 3778.2 4138.8 7972.3 111111011111111 4019.3 4275.9 8352
3348 1.0151 111110001111101 3809.6 4162.3 8034.5 111111011111111 4052.4 4299.6 8417
Total generation cost 209402.5 $ / day 219736.0 $ / day

TABLE IV.
UP 75 UC SCHEDULE WITHOUT AND WITH POWER FLOW CONSTRAINTS (PFC) WITH PRICE PENALTY FACTOR
Minimum Minimum
Emissi Emissi
Fuel total Fuel total
Penalty Unit status on Unit status with on
Demand cost operating cost operating
factor Without PFC output PFC output
$/hr cost $/hr cost
lb/hr lb/hr
$/hr $/hr
3352 1.0858 111110111111111 3815.1 4160.8 8363.0 111111111111111 4060.1 4330.6 8762
3384 1.0858 111110001111111 3864.7 4158.4 8489.9 111111111111111 4116.4 4374.9 8867
3437 1.0858 111110101111111 3952.7 4245.3 8632.2 111111111111111 4209.6 4436.1 9026
3489 1.0858 111110101111111 4039.8 4306.0 8715.3 111111111111111 4303.0 4514.9 9205
3659 1.0858 111110101111111 4331.1 4524.6 9244.0 111111111111111 4606.2 4682.8 9691
3849 1.0858 111110101111111 4664.9 4747.6 9819.9 111111111111111 4954.9 4875.0 10248
3898 1.0858 111110101111111 4751.4 4815.3 9979.9 111111111111111 5046.4 4940.6 10411
3849 1.0858 111110101111111 4664.9 4747.6 9819.9 111111111111111 4954.9 4875.0 10248
3764 1.0858 111110101111111 4513.7 4631.2 9542.3 111111111111111 4809.8 4798.9 10021
3637 1.0858 111110101111111 4292.8 4494.6 9173.1 111111111111111 4566.4 4656.7 9623
3437 1.0858 111110101111111 3952.7 4245.3 8562.2 111111111111111 4209.6 4436.1 9026
3384 1.0858 111110001111111 3864.7 4158.4 8429.9 111111111111111 4116.4 4374.9 8867
3357 1.0858 111110001111111 3820.3 4129.5 8304.1 111111111111111 4069.3 4345.0 8787
3394 1.0858 111110001111111 3881.2 4169.3 8408.3 111111111111111 4133.9 4386.2 8896
3616 1.0858 111110001111111 4256.4 4438.7 9076.1 111111011111111 4527.7 4610.6 9584
3828 1.0858 111110001111111 4627.3 4690.7 9720.5 111111011111111 4915.1 4821.0 10150
3828 1.0858 111110001111111 4627.3 4690.7 9720.5 111111011111111 4915.1 4821.0 10150
3786 1.0858 111110001111111 4552.6 4633.1 9583.3 111111011111111 4848.6 4798.5 10059
3659 1.0858 111110001111111 4331.1 4497.0 9213.9 111111011111111 4605.4 4660.6 9666
3458 1.0858 111110001111111 3987.6 4241.6 8593.2 111111011111111 4247.1 4452.6 9082
3394 1.0858 111110001111111 3881.2 4169.3 8408.3 111111011111111 4133.3 4362.9 8871
3334 1.0858 111110001111101 3786.4 4144.9 8347.0 111111011111111 4028.0 4282.1 8677
3329 1.0858 111110001111101 3778.2 4138.8 8272.1 111111011111111 4019.3 4275.9 8662
3348 1.0858 111110001111101 3809.6 4162.3 8329.0 111111011111111 4052.4 4299.6 8721
Total generation cost 214747.7 $ / day 225299.9 $ / day

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chulalongkorn University. Downloaded on October 30, 2009 at 12:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
7

constrained UCP by accommodating both unit and network


constraints. This algorithm would give realistic results as the
entire unit and network constraints are included. The
TABLE V
commitment schedule obtained by incorporating both network
TOTAL PRODUCTION COST FOR DIFFERENT CASE STUDIES
and unit constraints has been compared with the commitment
Total Total
production production cost Savings Savings schedule obtained without incorporating network constraints
Cases
cost with with modified in $/day in $/year based on the price penalty factor. Modified price penalty
PPF in $/day PPF in $/day factor has been applied to solve the UCP to get exact best
IEEE 30 solution for the corresponding load demands. The
bus
without
21706.41 19671.66 2034.75 742683.7 effectiveness of this method has been demonstrated on an
PFC IEEE 30 bus system and on Indian utility system and may also
IEEE 30 be extended to large systems. The results achieved are quite
bus with 22709.17 20484.48 2224.68 812011.8 encouraging and indicate the viability of the proposed
PFC technique to deal with future unit commitment problems.
UP75 bus
without 214747.7 209402.5 5345.2 1950998 G G G 70 72
G
52 48 49
G
11

PFC 6 5 7 3

51 40

UP75 bus
69
32 31 33 18 64

225299.9 219736.0 5563.8 2030787


with PFC 62 39 60
71 68
27 66 20
37

25
19

38 22
61
G 36
G 1

The platform used for the implementation of this proposed


59 58
26
14
57 17
43
53
G
approach is on INTEL[R], Pentium [R] 4 CPU 1.8 GHz, 256 29

8
G 23

G 9
46
2

75

MB of RAM and simulated in the MATLAB environment. G


4
34
10
G 74
35
16

The solution obtained using modified price penalty factor 30


56
28 54

24
G
12

gives exact solution and from Table V it is clear that a large 65


67
G
13
41 50

amount of saving is possible with this approach. The solution 21 63


47

42

results in this study indicate that the proposed algorithm is 55

G
15

applicable to the day-ahead UC calculation of large scale 45 73

44

power systems.
Fig. 3. One line diagram for Indian utility system
IV. CONCLUSION
This paper presents an approach to solve environmental
V. APPENDIX A
Ramp Min Min Shut Startup costs
Max Min. Cold Init.
Gen Level Up Down down
γ β α a b c Start unit
No (MW/ Time Time Cost Hot Cold
MW MW (Hr) status
Hr) (Hr) (Hr) ($) ($) ($)
1 1500 100 300 -0.81 0.0008 0.8140 0 3 2 50 3 4 70 176
0.0036 24.300
2 300 100 100 0.0035 -0.10 0.0014 1.3804 0 3 1 60 2 5 74 187
27.023
3 200 40 100 0.0330 -0.50 0.0016 1.5662 0 3 2 30 3 5 50 113
27.023
4 170 40 110 0.0034 -0.30 0.0016 1.6069 0 4 2 85 1 7 110 267
22.070
5 240 2 150 0.0380 -0.81 0.0016 1.5662 0 1 1 52 1 5 72 180
24.300
6 120 1 120 0.0330 -0.50 0.0018 1.7422 0 0 0 30 1 3 40 113
27.023
7 100 1 50 0.0034 -0.03 0.0018 1.7755 0 0 1 50 2 4 70 176
29.040
8 100 20 80 0.0039 -0.02 0.0018 1.7422 0 1 1 60 1 5 74 187
29.030
9 570 60 214 0.0030 -0.20 0.0012 1.1792 0 4 2 30 3 5 50 113
27.050
10 250 30 140 0.0034 -0.30 0.0017 1.6947 0 2 1 85 1 7 110 267
22.070
11 200 40 400 0.0034 -0.25 0.0016 1.6208 0 0 0 52 2 5 72 180
23.010
12 1300 80 260 0.0035 -0.03 0.0004 0.4091 0 3 1 30 1 3 40 113
21.090
13 900 50 380 0.0038 -0.41 0.0007 0.6770 0 3 2 50 2 10 70 176
24.300
14 150 10 80 0.0034 -0.20 0.0015 1.4910 0 2 1 60 1 5 74 187
23.060
15 454 20 160 0.0036 -0.10 0.0010 1.0025 0 1 1 30 0 5 50 113
29.000

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chulalongkorn University. Downloaded on October 30, 2009 at 12:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
8

APPENDIX B

Ramp Min Min Shut Startup costs


Max Min. Cold Init.
Gen Level Up Down down
γ β α a b c Start unit Col
No (MW/ Time Time Cost Hot
MW MW (Hr) status d
Hr) (Hr) (Hr) ($) ($)
($)
1 200 50 50 0.0126 -0.90 22.983 0.00375 2.0 0 1 1 50 2 -1 70 176

2 80 20 20 0.0200 -0.10 25.313 0.01750 1.7 0 2 2 60 1 -3 74 187

3 50 15 13 0.0270 -0.01 25.505 0.06250 1.0 0 1 1 30 1 2 50 113

4 35 10 9 0.0291 -0.005 24.900 0.00834 3.25 0 1 2 85 1 3 110 267

5 30 10 8 0.0290 -0.004 24.700 0.02500 3.0 0 2 1 52 1 -2 72 180

6 40 12 10 0.0271 -0.0055 25.300 0.02500 3.0 0 1 1 30 1 2 40 113

[18] P.S. Kulkarni, A.G. Kothari, D.P. Kothari, “Combined Economic and
Emission Dispatch using Improved Back Propagation Neural Network”,
V. REFERENCES
Int. Jour. Of Electrical Machines and Power Systems, vol. 28, pp. 31-44,
[1] Chuan-Ping Cheng, Chin-Wen Liu and Chun-Chang Liu, “Unit 2000.
Commitment by Lagrangian Relaxation and Genetic Algorithms”, IEEE [19] R. Gnanadass, Narayana Prasad Padhy, K. Manivannan, “Assessment of
Trans. On Power Systems, vol.15, no.2, pp. 707-714, May 2000. Available transfer Capability for Practical Power Systems with Combined
[2] N.P.Padhy, “Unit Commitment- A Bibliographical Survey”, IEEE Trans. Economic Emission Dispatch”, Electric Power System Research, vol. 69,
On Power Systems, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1196-1205, May 2004. pp. 267-276, 2004.
[3] Gerald B. Sheble and George N. Fahld, “Unit Commitment Literature [20] P. Venkatesh, R. Gnanadass, Narayana Prasad Padhy, “Comparison and
Synopsis”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol.9, pp.135-1205, Application of Evolutionary Programming Techniques to Combined
Feb. 1994. Economic Emission Dispatch with Line Flow Constraints”, IEEE Trans.
[4] R.M. Burns, C. A. Gibson, “Optimization of Priority Lists for a Unit On Power Systems, vol.18, no.2, pp. 688-697, May 2003.
Commitment Program”, IEEE / PES 1975 summer meeting, Paper A 75 [21] Hadi Sadat, “Power System Analysis”, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing
453-1. Company Limited, 2002.
[5] G.B.Sheble, “Solution of the Unit Commitment Problem by the method of
Unit Periods”, IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 257-260,
1990.
VI. BIOGRAPHIES
[6] T.S.Dillon, K.W. Edwin, “Integer Programming Approach to the Problem
of Optimal Unit Commitment with Probabilistic Reserve Determination”, Jacob Raglend received the Bachelors degree in
IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, vol. PAS-97, no. 6, pp. 2154-2166, 1978. Electrical Engineering from The Indian Engineering
[7] L.L.Garver, “Power Generation Scheduling by Integer Programming- College and the Masters degree in Power Systems
Development of Theory”, IEEE Trans. On power Systems, vol. 102, pp. Engineering from Annamalai University with first
730-735, 1963. class in 2000 and 2001 respectively. He is currently
[8] W.L.Synder Jr., H.D.Powell Jr., J.C. Rayburn, “Dynamic Programming pursuing the Ph.D. degree in the Department of
Approach to Unit Commitment”, IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, vol. 2, Electrical and Electronics Engineering , Indian
pp. 339-350, 1987. Institute of Technology, Roorkee, 247 667- India. His
[9] A.J.Wood, B.F.Wollenberg, “Power Generation, Operation and Control,” field of interest is unit commitment, power system
John Wiley & sons, Inc., 1996. restructuring and deregulation.
[10] P.G.Lowery, “Generation Unit Commitment by Dynamic Programming”
IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, vol. 102, pp. 1218-1225, 1983. Narayana Prasad Padhy, was born in India and
[11] Z. Ouyang, S.M. Shahidehpour, “An Intelligent Dynamic Programming received his Degree (Electrical Engineering), Masters
for Unit Commitment Application”, IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, vol. Degree (Power Systems Engineering) with Distinction
6, no. 3, pp. 1203-1209, 1991. and Ph.D., Degree (Power Systems Engineering) in
[12] A.I.Cohen, M.Yoshimura, “A Branch and Bound Algorithm for Unit the year 1990, 1993 and 1997 respectively in India.
Commitment”, IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, vol. PAS-102, no. 2, pp. Then he has joined the Department of Electrical
444-451, 1983. Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)
[13] M.R. Gent, John Wm. Lamont, “Minimum- Emission Dispatch”, IEEE India, as a Lecturer and Assistant Professor during
Trans. On PAS, vol. 90, pp. 2650-2660, 1971. 1998 and 2001 respectively. Presently he is working
[14] J. Nanda, D. P. Kothari, S. C. Srivastava, “New Optimal Power Dispatch as a Assistant Professor in the Department of
Algorithm using Fletchers Quadratic Programming method”, IEE Proc. Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) India, and also as a
Vol. 136, Pt. C. No. 3, pp. 153-161, 1989. Visiting Staff in the Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering,
[15] J. Nanda, L. Hari, M. L. Kothari, “Economic Emission Load Dispatch University of Bath, UK under Boyscast Fellowship.
with Line Flow Constraints using a Classical Technique”, IEE Proc. Vol. He taught course in Basic Electrical Engineering, Power Systems and
141, Pt. C. No. 1, pp. 1-10, 1994. Artificial Intelligence. He has published many research papers including a text
[16] P.K.Hota, R. Chakrabarti, P.K. Chattopadhyay, “Economic emission load book titled ‘Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Systems’ with Oxford
Dispatch with Line Flow Constraints using Sequential Quadratic University Press.in 2005. His field of interest is Power System Privatization,
Programming Technique”, Institution of Engineers (India), vol. 81, pp. 21- Restructuring and Deregulation, Transmission and Distribution network
25, 2000. charging, Artificial Intelligence Applications to Power System and FACTS.
[17] Yong Fu, Mohammad Shahidehpour, “Security Constrained Unit
Commitment with AC Constraints”, IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, vol.
20, no. 2, pp. 1001-1013, 2005.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chulalongkorn University. Downloaded on October 30, 2009 at 12:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.