Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur

Renewable Energy






Project Report on
UNIT COMMITMENT WITH V2G USING PSO




By:
LOKESH KUMAR PANWAR
(2013PCV5172)
SRIKANTH REDDY K
(2013PCV5163)





TO:

Dr. RAJESH KUMAR
Associate Professor,
Department of Electrical Engineering,
Adjunct Associate Professor,
Centre of Energy and Environment,
MNIT JAIPUR


CONTENTS

S.NO CHAPTER PAGE NO.
1 INTRODUCTION 3
2 VEHICLE TO GRID MODELLING 14
3 OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES 21
4 SIMULATION AND RESULTS 27

























CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
Unit commitment (UC) is an optimization problem used to determine the
operation schedule of the generating units at every hour interval with varying loads under different
constraints and environments.
Many algorithms have been invented in the past five decades for optimization of the UC problem,
but still researchers are working in this field to find new hybrid algorithms to make the problem more
realistic. The importance of UC is increasing with the constantly varying demands. Therefore, there is an
urgent need in the power sector to keep track of the latest methodologies to further optimize the working
criterions of the generating units. In this chapter focuses on providing a clear idea of the latest techniques
employed in optimizing UC problems for both stochastic and deterministic loads.

1.1-Introduction: The unit commitment (UC) problem deals with the optimum amount of time for which a
generating unit must be operated at a per hour basis in order to meet the load requirements effectively. With
the help of this optimization, it is possible to supply power with least possible losses and minimum fuel
consumption, in order to maximize the profit. Besides achieving minimum total production cost, a
generation schedule needs to satisfy a number of operating constraints. These constraints reduce freedom in
the choice of starting-up and shutting-down of generating units. The constraints to be satisfied are usually
the status restriction of individual generating units, minimum up time, minimum down time, capacity limits,
generation limit for the first and last hour, limited ramp rate, group constraint, power balance constraint,
spinning reserve constraint, etc. The high dimensionality and combinatorial nature of the UC problem
curtails the attempts to develop any rigorous mathematical optimization method capable of solving the
whole problem for any real-size system.

1.2-General background about UC: The off-peak and on-peak demands of electricity may vary for
different purposes. If the units consumed are properly monitored, it may be possible to save some units
when the demand is less, for instance the load is lesser at night compared to the day time. Thus, the main
objective of this paper is to plan the operating time of different generating units such that it satisfies
constraints. The UC problem is applied for both deterministic and stochastic loads
[1]
. The deterministic
approach provides the definite and unique conclusions. However, the results obtained for stochastic loads
may not be exact. For the deterministic loads data envelopment analysis (DEA), the principal component
analysis (PCA) approach is employed. DEA is a nonparametric method, in which first the input and output
variables are defined. In the PCA, the numbers of variables used are reduced to the minimum. However, in
stochastic models, the constraints are changed into determinate constraints and then the formulation can be
solved by any of the usual algorithms. The various kinds of objective functions for various environments are
as follows.


1.2.1-Conventional fuel based environment
[2]
: In Eq. (1), there are three costs to minimize. The first one
is P(i, t) which is generation of unit i at time t, and C(P(i, t)) is fuel cost of unit i at time t. The second one is
the start-up cost and the third, shutdown cost.

[C-i-(P(i, t))I(i, t) +SU(i, t) +SD(i, t)]
0
=1

=1
. . (1)

1.2.2- Stochastic environment
[3]
: Stochastic environment is one in which randomness is included either in
the objective function or to the constraints. In Eq. (2), the second part creates randomness due to the addition
of wind generation. Nowadays, uncertainty occurs in power systems due to the large scale integration of
renewable resources like solar, wind, EV etc. Hence, the demand and supply may also differ for the
successful and reliable operation of the system within an uncertain environment which is also called a
stochastic environment.
[C-i-(P(i, t))I(i, t) +SU(i, t) +SD(i, t)]

=1

=1
+(

(, ) (, ))

=1

=1
. . . (2)

Objective function (2) consists of operation and start-up/ shutdown (STSD) costs of thermal generators, as
well as the expected wind power spillage.

1.2.3 Profit based environment
[4]
: The profit based environment is one in which the main objective is to
maximise the profit of an individual generation company. The UC schedule has an indirect effect on the
price and a direct effect on the average cost, thus it is an important part of any bidding strategy. Also there is
flexibility in the UC schedule. Objective function (3) can be defined by maximising F(i,t) which is the profit
of the GENCO.
max F(i, t)
t i
(3)
where F(i,t) = Revenue cost.

1.2.3.1-Time based constraint for UC: Under this constraint, the main challenge is to minimize the time
taken to obtain the optimal architecture. The time constrained UC (TCUC) problem comprises of non-linear
constraints such as the minimum up and down time for each unit
[5]
. Once the unit is running, it should not
be turned off immediately, and when it is turned off, there is a minimum time before which it cannot be
turned back on. Thus to meet this constraint, the operation scheduling should be done according to the up-
time and down-time of the generating units. Here the stopping criterion, Total CPU time greater than or
equal to Allowed time is added to stop the algorithm exactly at a moment where the total CPU time taken
exceeds the allowed time
[6]
.


1.2.3.2- Emission based constraint for UC: More than 50 percent of the emission comes from the fossil
fuel based power systems [7]. Hence it can be concluded that the maximization of the profit of GENCOs and
the minimization of the emissions are two conflicting objectives. Therefore, a multi-objective approach can
be followed to achieve sub-optimal solutions if not optimal solutions [1]. If both the cases are considered, it
will lead to a small saving of cost which will bring down the fuel consumption and hence the emission rate.

1.2.3.3- Fuel based constraint for UC: The present scenario requires efficient power generation by
utilizing the resources properly. The cost of fuel is also a major economic concern. During off-peak load
conditions, if the generating units can be managed, then fuel requirements will be able to be reduced.

1.2.4-Ramp based constraint: The ramp based constraint determines the maximum range, by which the
power generated can be increased in a particular duration of time.
P(i, t) P(i, t 1) UR(i)
P(i, t 1) P(i, t) DR(i)
where UR(i) and DR(i) are the maximum ramp-up and ramp-down rates of unit i.


1.2.5 Transmission constraint: With the UC schedule, GENCOs have to satisfy customer load demands
and maintain transmission flows and bus voltages within permissible limits. It is not possible to satisfy all
these constraints using a single optimization technique, therefore a hybrid algorithm approach can be used to
achieve it.

1.2.6 Spinning reserve: The spinning reserve is the unused capacity, which can be activated on decision of
the system operator and which is provided by devices that are synchronized to the network and able to affect
the active power.

1.2.7 System operating system requirements: The system operating reserve requirement (R0) gives the
time required for the quick start capability of a particular unit from the off state. During the on time, it will
consider the spinning reserve capacity.


1.3-UC problem solving techniques: UC is the problem of determining the schedule of generating units
within a power system subject to device and operating constraints. Several optimization techniques have
been applied to find the solution to the thermal UC problem. The solutions available are classified into
conventional techniques, non-conventional techniques and hybrid algorithm.


1.3.1 Conventional techniques: Conventional techniques include exhaustive enumeration, priority listing,
dynamic programming, branch and bound, integer programming, simulated annealing, Lagrangian
relaxation, tabu search, and interior point optimization.
The exhaustive enumeration method is the simplest of the combinatorial optimization techniques.
The principle of this method is to evaluate all combinations of the discrete variables. It assures the global
optimum of the objective function, but the computational time is very huge
[8]
. Branch and bound (BB or
B&B) is a general algorithm for finding optimal solutions of various optimization problems, especially in
discrete and combinatorial optimization. This method was first proposed by Land and Doig
[9]
. Dynamic
programming is a methodical procedure, which systematically evaluates a large number of possible
decisions in a multi-step problem. When the existing conventional dynamic programming method is utilized,
although its solution is correct and has the optimal value, it takes a lot of memory and takes a lot of time in
getting an optimal solution
[10]
. Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) helps reduce the solution
significantly and also the nonlinear constraints can be easily linearised. The MILP UC function developed
by Chang et al.
[11]
can be used for very large systems which also supports bidding strategies in the power
market.
The stimulated annealing (SA) method facilitates in searching the work space rapidly, but it does not
work properly in the case of wide temperature variation. In the original SA method, a large share of the
computation time was spent in randomly generating and evaluating solutions that turned out to be infeasible
[12]
. In order to improve the performance, a hybrid of SA and local search was developed in 2003 by
Purushothama et al.
[13]
and the results were verified using C++. This simple modification makes it possible
to reduce the number of iterations required at each temperature, and it generates solutions with lower cost
than that obtained by using previous algorithms. Lagrangian relaxation was first applied to UC in 1977 by
Muckstadt et al.
[14]
. The problem is formulated in terms of a cost function, that is the sum of terms each
involving a single unit, a set of constraints involving a single unit, a set of coupling constraints (the
generation and reserve requirements), one for each hour in the study period, involving all units. When the
Lagrangian relaxation based methods are applied to solve power system UC, the identical solutions to the
sub problems associated with identical units may cause the dual solution to be far away from the optimal
solution
[15]
. Tabu search is based on the hill climbing method that iteratively evaluates a best solution each
time the neighborhood is updated and it stops if the solution is not improved to minimise the cost function.
The major drawbacks are that it gets stuck in the local minima. To overcome the problems above, the
parallel tabu search (PTS) is developed
[16,17]
. The idea makes it possible to find out the better solution from
different directions
[18]
.

1.3.2 Non conventional (Non classical) techniques: In Expert systems, for a particular load pattern, a
priority list based heuristic model in the form of interface rules has been proposed by Ouyang et al.
[19]
. An
expert system consisting of dynamic load pattern matching interface and a commitment schedule database

has been designed by Ouyang et al.
[20]
. In Fuzzy system, the use of fuzzy logic in the UC problem was
demonstrated by Saneifard et al.
[21]
. Using this, the characteristics of the system and the response can be
found out without any mathematical calculations. Unexpected load variation leads to insufficient
commitment capacity, therefore Zhai et al.
[22]
has demonstrated a technique for examining the effect of load
variation on UC. The Hopfield neural network was used by Sasaki et al.
[23]
to solve UC problems and it
obtained satisfying results, but the accuracy was a major concern. An extension of the mean field annealing
neural network approach was demonstrated by Liang and Kang
[24]
. Walsh and Mallry
[25]
designed a new
way of interconnecting neurons to produce an energy equation involving both discrete and continuous terms.
Kurban and Filik
[26]
proposed a method to reduce the production cost by combining load forecasting with
UC problem using artificial neural network (ANN) model with auto regression (AR) in 2008. The Ant
system was developed by Salam et al.
[15]
and is based on the idea that a colony of ants is able to succeed in
a task to find the shortest path between the nest and food source. This path is reinforced and many ants
follow the trail to achieve the shortest path. The genetic algorithm (GA) is a general purpose, simple and
robust, stochastic and parallel search method based on the mechanics of natural selection and natural
genetics.
The GA works with a population of chromosomes. A chromosome is a string of bits 0 and 1. Ma et
al.
[27]
suggested an improved GA method using C++ compilation in 2011. This method was tested using
C++ on a 6 unit system over a scheduling period of 6 hours. Abookazemi and Mustafa
[28]
developed a
parallel structure to handle the infeasibility problem in a structured and improved GA which provides an
effective search and therefore greater economy in 2009. This method was developed and tested by using C#
program. Tests have been performed on 10 and 20 units systems over a scheduling period of 24 hours.
Atashpaz-Gargari et al.
[29]
first introduced the imperialistic competition algorithm (ICA) in 2007. In the
ICA, the initial population individuals (countries) are in two types: imperialists and colonies that all together
form some empires. The imperialistic competitions among these empires converge to a state, in which there
exists only one empire.

1.3.3 Hybrid algorithms developed (employing both classical and non classical methods):

1.3.3.1 Hybrid priority list ant: Withironprasert et al.
[30]
devised a new method hybrid ant system priority
list (HASP), in which there are many units with different paths that can be selected at hour t. At this stage,
mth ant probabilistically selects unit i and commits it as 1 status for satisfying the UC constraints. AS
search space for priority list method, considering size of UC search space, the maximum number of paths to
be selected by mth ant at hour t of the proposed approach is N, which is equal to the number of units, while
the maximum number of paths to be selected by using AS algorithm without the priority list method
[31]
is
2N 1 combinations. It is clear that the search space of N is much smaller than 2N 1 combinations, so that
the UC search space based on the proposed approach is significantly reduced This method has greater
flexibility and achieves greater economic saving whereby saving computational time. Sum-im T and

Ongsakul tested their algorithm with 10 unit system and got their total operating cost as $564324 for 24
hours. Also they validate their results by comparing them with LR ($565825), GA ($565825), evolutionary
programming (EP) ($564551) and ICGA ($566404).

1.3.3.2 Hybrid ant colony optimization: Yu et al.
[32]
suggested a hybrid method of ant colony optimization
(ACO) and lambda iteration method for the UC problem in 2010. The ACO algorithm is used to optimize
the on/off status planning of units in the upper level, and the lambda iteration method is used to optimize
economic load dispatch in the lower level. To verify the effectiveness of the method proposed, it is applied
to a test system
[33]
that consists of 10 units. For the systems of 20, 40 and 60 units, the basic 10 unit system
is duplicated. The proposed method provides better results than the GA, EP and PL. For a 10 unit system the
total operating cost was $562989 as compared to $564950 (PL), $565825 (GA) and $564551 (EP).

1.3.3.3 Hybrid Lagrangian relaxation: The hybrid Lagrangian relaxation method (LR) was devised by
Zhang et al
[34]
. The advantages of LR in dealing with large-scale power systems and GA in making up the
shortage of Dynamic Programming are used. By using Lagrangian multipliers to relax system-wide demand
and reserve constraints, the UC problem is decomposed and converted into a two-level optimization
problem. The optimal commitment of a single unit is solved by using GA in the low-level problem.
Crossover and mutation are very important operations on which the convergence of the GA depends. It has
good convergent rate and was faster, and provides high quality solution. The developed algorithm was tested
with 10 unit system and the total operating cost was $557726.4, which was comparatively less when
compared to $565825 (LR), $565825 (GA) and $564551 (EP).

1.3.3.4 Hopfield neural network: Kumar and Palanisamy devised a method that employs a linear input-
output model for neurons, which is extremely different from all Hopfield methods previously reported as the
previous methods apply the iterative procedures requiring a large quantity of computation to converge to
accurate solutions. However, based on the formulations developed, the proposed method computes its
solutions analytically, and no iteration is needed in the solving process. Consequently, computational efforts
are greatly reduced which was demonstrated by its use in the 10- and 20-unit systems. Although it works on
a neural network, it does not require any training. It requires 32 times less CPU time than the LR
[35]
.
Therefore, for a 10-unit system, the total operating cost was $564959 as compared to $565508 (ALR),
$565825 (GA) and $565475 (LR).


1.3.3.5 Hybrid EP and particle swarm optimization (PSO): This hybrid intelligence technique proposed
by Lal raja Singh and Christober Asir Rajan
[36]
in June 2001 for UCP utilizes PSO algorithm and EP. PSO
is used to determine the units and their optimum generation schedule for a particular demand with minimum

cost. Evolutionary programming (EP) assisted by PSO is used to determine the UC that minimizes the cost
for different possible demands. Therefore, for a 7-unit NTPS, the total operating cost (in p.u.) is 0.7516 as
compared to 0.93690 (PSO), 0.97483 (LR) and 0.93461 (EP).

1.3.3.6 Hybrid GA: Chang and Luo
[37]
used the binary-coded genetic algorithm incorporating a priority list
ordering scheme to solve the unit scheduled decision. The genetic algorithm incorporates the solution
produced by the priority list unit scheduled as part of its initial population; this injects domain knowledge
into its search space. Since the merit order unit scheduled forms part of the initial population, the hybrid
genetic algorithm is guaranteed to provide a global solution. The feasibility of the proposed method was
demonstrated for a 10-unit system, and the result is a hybrid GA (HGA) that produced better results than
those obtained by the simple GA (SGA), PSO and BPSO. Therefore for a 10-unit system, the total operating
cost is $556760 as compared to $565804 (BPSO), $581450 (PSO) and $609023 (SGA).

1.3.3.7 Hybrid PSO: Alshareef devised an advanced PSO, in which some parts of PSO are modified (e.g.,
includes bacterial foraging operations) to converge the system in 2011. Besides, a repair method is applied
for the fast convergence of the system. The hybrid PSO was tested on a 135-unit system for a scheduling
period of 24 hours. The execution time is growing rapidly considering the size of the problem
[38]
.

1.3.3.8 Hybrid fuzzy logic: The hybrid fuzzy logic was developed by Mantawy and Abdel-Magid
[39]
in
2002, in which the UCP is formulated in a FL (fuzzy logic) frame to deal with the uncertainties in the load
demand. The SA algorithm is used to solve the combinatorial optimization of the UCP. This hybrid fuzzy
logic was tested with a 10-unit system and a total operating cost of $536260 was obtained which validated
the result with $536622 (SA).
1.3.3.9 Hybrid ACO Lagrange: The hybrid ACO Lagrange methodology proposed by Nascimento et al.
[40]

in 2011 was proven to be competitive in relation to the optimization techniques biologically inspired in the
behavior of the ant colony found in literature, conciliating quality solutions and a reduced colony; the use of
Lagrange multipliers associated with discrete variables of the Thermal UC problem act as a source of
information for the ant colony algorithm. However, the computational simulation time increases
considerably, making this alternative unfeasible, mainly in medium-to-large sized systems and/or with large
programming periods. The hybrid ACO Lagrange methodology was proven to be competitive in relation to
the optimization techniques biologically inspired in the behavior of the ant colony found in literature,
conciliating quality solutions and a reduced colony. It was tested with a 10-unit system and the total
operating cost is $563937 and this cost is less when compared to $564049 (ACSA), $563977 (DACO) and
$563977 (RACO).


1.3.3.10 Shuffled frog leaping algorithm: The shuffled frog leaping algorithm (SFLA) was developed by
Ebrahimi et al.
[41]
in 2011. The SFLA is a metaheuristic optimization method which is based on observing,
imitating, and modeling the behavior of a group of frogs when searching for the location that has the
maximum amount of available food. The SFLA has been applied to ten up to 100 generating units,
considering oneday and seven-day scheduling periods. The most important merit of the SFLA is its high
convergence speed. The simulation results of the SFLA have been compared with the results of the
algorithms, such as Lagrangian relaxation, genetic algorithm, particle swarm optimization, and bacterial
foraging
[14]
. Therefore, for a 10-unit system, the total operating cost is $564769 as compared to $566404
(ICGA), $564842 (BF) and $565475 (LR).

1.3.3.11 Fuzzy tuned PSO (FTPSO): PSO is the mathematical modeling and simulation of the food
searching activities of a flock of birds. Each particle moves with a different velocity towards the optimal
point. The velocity of a particle is calculated by three components: inertia, cognitive, and social. The
particles move around the multidimensional search space until they find the optimal solution. A fuzzy
system is utilized to tune the inertia weight and learning factors with the best fitness (BF). This FTPSO has
been applied to a 10- and 20-bus system in MATLAB and is proven to increase the reliability of the system.
It is faster than ACO and BP and is capable of solving both small scale and large scale problems
[42]
.
Therefore for a 10-unit system, the total operating cost is $557952 as compared to $565825 (GA),
$564551(EP) and $ 565475 (LR).

1.3.3.12 Memetic algorithm: A memetic algorithm (MA) is a hybrid computational model of two sources.
The first source is modeled by a GA that mimics biological or Darwinian evolution and the second source is
modeled by a local search algorithm that mimics cultural evolution or the evolution of ideas. The unit of
information in a GA is termed as a gene whereas in a MA it is termed as a meme. Genes are improved by
crossover and mutation operators that are part of a GA and memes are improved by a local search operator.
This method is useful for the price based UC
[43]
. The method has been implemented on test systems of up to
110 units and the results show that in every case examined the MA converges to higher profit price based
UC (PBUC) schedules than the genetic algorithm, the simulated annealing, and the Lagrangian relaxation
method. Therefore for a 10-unit system, the average profit was $1899.39 as compared to $1898.85 (SA) and
$1899.21 (GA).

1.3.3.13 Binary/Real coded PSO: The PSO can produce higher quality solution within a short interval of
time and stable convergence characteristic than other stochastic optimization methods. The PSO model
consists of a swarm of particles moving in a D-dimensional real-valued space of possible problem solutions
[44]
. In this particular algorithm, the tanh function is implemented to enhance the particle searching
performance of binary PSO. The binary/real coded PSO methodology is tested and validated on a 3-, 17-,

26- and 38-generating unit system for 24 hour scheduling and hence it is concluded that it can be
implemented for a large scale power system. The algorithm was tested for a 38 unit system and the total
operating cost (in million Dollars) is 196.10 as compared to 196.73 (FAPSO), 207.8 (SA) and 209 (LR).

1.4 Environments for UC:
1.4.1 Price based UC: In PBUC, satisfying hourly loads is no longer a restriction and the objective is to
maximize the payoff. Thus in the price based approach, the deciding parameter resulting in the on/off state
of a generating unit would be the price including the fuel purchase price, energy sale price and so on. Li and
Shahidehpour
[45]
suggested the use of mixed integer programming as compared to Lagrangian method for
the PBUC problem. In the present context, it is more advisable to go for individual UC separately based on
the market forecasted price and then combine these individual schedules to optimize the scheduling of the
whole group of generators
[46]
.

1.4.2 Profit based UC: In todays competitive scenario, GENCOs are no longer bound to serve the given
demand in the open electricity market. The problems under a deregulated environment are more complex
and competitive than traditional problems. GENCOs solve economic dispatch and UC not to minimize the
total production cost as before, but for maximizing their own profit. Many evolutionary programming
models were developed in the literature for profit based UC
[47]
.GENCOs can now consider a schedule that
produces less than the predicted load demand but creates a maximum profit.

1.4.3 Security based UC: Under this constraint the main objective is not only to minimize the generation
production cost but also to meet the other constraints for the overall operating period
[48]
. The security based
UC planning involves determining whether a generating unit is functioning efficiently, accordingly the
decision has to be taken, that it should be turned on or off at a particular time. Despite market related
pressures, system security should always be the foremost priority. While formulating the solution, power
flow constraints and generator maintenance constraints should be taken into consideration.

1.5 UC in deregulated environment: In the present scenario of deregulated markets, it is required from the
GENCOs to submit their power bids separately. Each bid consists of a cost function and a set of parameters
that define the operative limits of the generating unit
[49]
. Cost suboptimal solutions that result in lower
prices may exist and therefore the applicability of cost minimization UC models for power pool auctions is
questioned
[46]
. In Aug. 2001, Madrigal and Quintana
[50]
investigated the existence, determination and
effects of competitive market equilibrium on UC power pool auctions to avoid the conflict of interest and
revenue deficiency. A new formulation to the UC problems suitable for an electric power producer in a
deregulated market has been provided by Valenzuela and Mazumdar
[51]
and Lasen et al.
[52]
in 2001.




References:
1. Catalao J P S, Mariano S J P S, Mendes V M F, Ferreira L A F M. Profit based unit commitment with emission limitation: A
multiobjective approach. In: Proceedings of IEEE Power Tech. Lausanne, Switzerland, 2007, 14171422
2. Lu B, Shahidehpour M. Unit commitment with flexible generating units. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2005, 20(2):
10221034
3. Wang Y, Xia Q. A novel security stochastic unit commitment for wind thermal system operation. In: Proceedings of 4th
International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and Power Technologies (DRPT). Weihai, China,
2011, 386393
4. Raglend I J, Kumar R, Karthikeyan S P, Palanisamy K, Kothari D P. Profit based unit commitment problem under deregulated
environment. In: Proceedings of 2009 Power Engineering Conference Australasian Universities (AUPEC 2009). Adelaide,
Australia, 2009, 16
5. Zendehdel N, Karimpour A, Oloomi M. Optimal Unit Commitment using equivalent linear minimum up and down time
constraints. In: Proceedings of 2008 IEEE 2nd International Power and Energy Conference (PECon 2008). Johor Bahru, Malaysia,
2008, 10211026
6. Tan T S, Huang G B. Time constrain optimal method to find the minimum architectures for feedforward neural networks.
In:Wang L P, Rajapakse J C, Fukeshima K, Lee S Y, Yao X, eds. Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Neural
Information Processing (ICONIP02). Singapore, 2002
7. Catalo J P S, Mariano S J P S, Mendes V M F, Ferreira L A F M. Short term scheduling of thermal units: emission constraints
and trace off curves. European Transactions on Electrical Power, 2008, 18(1): 114
8. Moussouni F, Tran T V, Brisset S, Brochet P. Optimization methods. 2007-05-30, http://l2ep.univ-
lille1.fr/come/benchmarktransformer_ fichiers/Method_EE.htm
9. Land A H, Doig A G. An automatic method of solving discrete programming problems. Econometrica, 1960, 28(3): 497520
10. Singhal P K, Sharma R N. Dynamic programming approach for large scale unit commitment problem. In: Proceedings of
International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies. Katra, Jammu, 2011, 714717
11. Chang G W, Tsai Y D, Lai C Y, Chung J S. A practical mixed integer linear programming based approach for unit
commitment. In: Proceedings of IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting. Piscataway, USA, 2004, 221225
12. Wong S Y W. An enhanced simulated annealing approach to unit commitment. International Journal of Electrical Power &
Energy Systems, 1998, 20(5): 359368
13. Purushothama G K, Jenkins L. Simulated annealing with local searchA hybrid algorithm for unit commitment. IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, 2003, 18(1): 273278
14. Ebrahimi J, Hosseinian S H, Gharehpetian G B. Unit commitment problem solution using shuffled frog leaping algorithm.
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2011, 26(2): 573581
15. Salam S. Unit commitment solution methods. Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 2007,
26: 320 325
16. Mori H, Hayashi T. An efficient method for capacitor placement with parallel tabu search. In: Proceedings of the 1997
International Conference on Intelligent System Applications to Power Systems Seoul, Korea, 1997, 387391
17. Mori H, Hayashi T. New parallel tabu search for voltage and reactive power control in power systems. In: Proceedings of
IEEE ISCAS98. Monterey, USA, 1998, 431434
18. Mori H, Matsuzaki O. A parallel tabu search approach to unit commitment in power systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE
International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Tokyo, Japan, 1999, 509514
19. Ouyang Z, Shahidehpour S M. An intelligent dynamic programming for unit commitment application. IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, 1991, 6(3): 12031209
20. Ouyang Z, Shahidehpour S M. Short-term unit commitment expert system. Electric Power Systems Research, 1990, 20(1):1-
13
21. Saneifard S, Prasad N R, Smolleck H A. A fuzzy logic approach to unit commitment. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
1997, 12 (2): 988995
22. Zhai D, Breipohl A M, Lee F N, Adapa R. The effect of load uncertainty on unit commitment risk. IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, 1994, 9(1): 510517
23. Sasaki H, Watanabe M, Kubokawa J, Yorino N, Yokoyama R. A solution method of unit commitment by artificial neural
networks. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 1992, 7(3): 974981
24. Liang R H, Kang F C. Thermal generating unit commitment using an extended mean field annealing neural network. IEEE
Proceedings on Generation Transmission Distribution, 2000, 147(3): 164170
25. Walsh M P, OMalley M J. Augmented hopfield network for unit commitment and economic dispatch. IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, 1997, 12(4): 17651774

26. Kurban M, Filik U B. Unit commitment scheduling by using the autoregressive and artificial neural network models based
short-term load forecasting. In: Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power
Systems. Rincon, USA, 2008, 15
27. Ma R, Huang Y M, Li M H. Unit commitment optimal research based on the improved genetic algorithm. In: Proceedings of
2011 International Conference on Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation. Shenzhen, China, 2011, 291294
28. Abookazemi K, Mustafa M W. Unit commitment optimization using improved genetic algorithm. In: Proceedings of IEEE
Bucharest Power Technology Conference, Bucharest, Romania, 2009, 16
29. Atashpaz-Gargari E, Hashemzadeh F, Lucas C. Imperialist competitive algorithm: An algorithm for optimization inspired by
imperialistic competition. In: Proceedings of IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. Singapore, 2007, 46614667
30. Withironprasert K, Chusanapiputt S, Nualhong D, Jantarang S, Phoomvuthisarn S. Hybrid ant system/priority list method for
unit commitment problem with operating constraints. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology.
Gippsland, Australia, 2009, 16
31. Sum-im T, Ongsakul W. Ant colony search algorithm for unit commitment. In: Proceedings of 2003 IEEE International
Conference on Industrial Technology. Maribor, Slovenia, 2003, 7277
32. Yu D R, Wang Y Q, Guo R. A Hybrid Ant Colony Optimisation Algorithm based lambda iteration method for unit
commitment. In: Proceedings of IEEE Second WRI Global Congress on Intelligence Systems. Wuhan, China, 2010, 1922
33. Kazarlis S, Bakirtzis A, Petridis V. A genetic algorithm solution to the unit commitment problem. IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, 1996, 11(1): 8392
34. Zhang X H, Zhao J Q, Chen X Y. A hybrid method of lagrangian relaxation and genetic algorithm for solving UC problem. In:
Proceedings of International Conference on Sustainable Power Generation and Supply. Nanjing, China, 2009, 16
35. Kumar S S, Palanisamy V. A new dynamic programming based hopfield neural network to unit commitment and economic
dispatch. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, 2006, 887892
36. Lal raja Singh R, Christober Asir Rajan C. A hybrid approach based on EP and PSO for proficient solving of unit commitment
problem Indian Journal of Computer Science and Engineering, 2011, 2(3): 281294
37. Chang W P, Luo X J. A solution to the unit commitment using hybrid genetic algorithm. In: Proceedings of 2008 IEEE Region
10 Conference, Hyderabad, India, 2008, 16
38. Alshareef A. An application of artificial intelligent optimization techniques to dynamic unit commitment for the western area
of Saudi Arabia. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Computational Intelligence, Communication Systems and
Networks, Bali, Indonesia, 2011, 1721
39. Mantawy A H, Abdel-Magid Y L. A new fuzzy unit commitment model and solution. In: Proceedings of 14th Power System
Computation Conference (14th PSCC), Sevilla, Spain, 2002, 16
40. Nascimento F R, Silva I C, Oliveira E J, Dias B H, Marcato A L M. Thermal unit commitment using improved ant colony
optimization algorithm via lagrange multipliers. In: 2011 IEEE Conference on Power Technology, Trondheim 2011, 15
41. Eusuff M M, Lansey K E, Pasha F. Shuffled frog-leaping algorithm: A memetic meta-heuristic for discrete optimization.
Engineering Optimization, 2006, 38(2): 129154
42. Kumar C, Alwarsamy T. A novel algorithm unit commitment problem by a fuzzy tuned particle swarm optimization.
European Journal of Scientific Research, 2011, 64(1): 157167
43. Dimitroulas D K, Georgilakis P S. A new memetic algorithm approach for the price based unit commitment problem. Applied
Energy, 2011, 88(12): 46874699
44. Chandrasekaran K, Simon S P. Binary/real coded particle swarm optimization for unit commitment problem. In: Proceedings
of International Conference on Power, Signals, Controls and Computation (EPSCICON). Kerala, India, 2012, 16
45. Li T, Shahidehpour M. Price based unit commitment: a case of Langrangian relaxation versus mixed integer programming.
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2005, 20(4): 20152025
46. Pokharel B K, Shreshtha G B, Lie T T, Fleten S E. Price-based unit commitment for GENCOs in deregulated markets. In:
Proceedings of IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting. San Francisco, USA, 2005, 428433
47. Richter C W, Sheble G B. A profit-based unit commitment GA for the competitive environment. IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, 2000, 15(2): 715721
48. Collett R, Quaicoe J. Security constrained unit commitment using particle swarms. In: Proceedings of IEEE Canadian
Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering. Ottawa, Canada, 2006, 1125 1129
49. Padhy N P. Unit commitment problem under deregulated environmentA literature review. In: Proceedings of IEEE Power
Engineering Society General Meeting. Toronto, Canada, 2003, 10881094
50. Madrigal M, Quintana V H. Existence and determination of competitive equilibrium in unit commitment power pool auctions:
Price setting and scheduling alternatives. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2001, 16(3): 380388
51. Valenzuela J, Mazumdar M. Making unit commitment decisions when electricity is traded at spat market prices. In:
Proceedings of IEEE Power Engineering SocietyWinter Meeting. Columbus, USA, 2001, 1: 15091512
52. Lasen T J, Wangensteen I, Gjengedal T. Sequential timestep unit commiunent. In: Proceedings of IEEE Power Engineering
Society Winter Meeting. Columbus, USA, 2001, 15241529

CHAPTER-2
VEHICLE TO GRID POWER
2.1. The concept of V2G:
The basic concept of V2G is that they were charged and discharged to the grid when parked as they
were used for transportation for only 4% of time and the remaining 96% time they can be used for secondary
purpose like power scheduling since they were parked [1]. To minimize the cost of dispatch of overall
system charging is done at low/off peak hours and discharged when peak power hours are encountered. The
V2G can be from Plug-in-hybrid EDVs, Fuel cell EDVs with gaseous fuel and hybrid EDV with ICE and
battery.
The EDV should contain three essential elements in order to participate in either V2G or G2V
application they were namely (1). Special converter topologies that allow the power flow between EDV and
grid (2). Communication system with in the EDV and with local grid operator to schedule the charging and
discharging the EDV effectively and reliably (3).controls for on-board control of EDV power sources like
battery SOC, fuel level etc. In most of the cases the convertor topologies required for V2G and vice-versa
are in built in the vehicle and a part of tariff includes cost of those. There are two modes of power transfers
in the system equipped with EDV namely one way which flows from generating stations to the users and
two way in which power flows from and to the EDV or vehicle fleets schematic of the system is shown in
fig.1 depicting the power flows.



Fig. 1. Schematic of power and communication systems for V2G and G2V power flow [2].


2.1.1. Battery EDVs:
These store energy electrochemically and several types of batteries are available which can be
equipped into the EDV. Lead-acid batteries are the cheapest option whereas Ni-Mh batteries provide
relatively long life with moderate cost compared to lead-acid batteries. Long life Li-ion batteries are
becoming popular and reasonably comparative costly with Ni-Mh batteries but they were yet be
standardized in the safety point of view.
2.1.2. Fuel cell EDVs:
Fuel cell EDVs typically store energy in molecular hydrogen (H2), which feeds into a fuel cell along
with atmospheric oxygen, producing electricity with heat and water as by-products. Multiple options for on-
board storage or production of hydrogen are under development, including

Pressurizing the H2 gas, binding it to metals, and on-board production of H2 from natural gas,
methanol, gasoline or another fuel. Currently, distribution infrastructure, on-board storage of hydrogen, and
conversion losses are all substantial problems that leave open the question as to whether fuel cell light
vehicles will be practical and cost-effective[3,4].

2.1.3. Hybrid EDVs:

Contemporary hybrid vehicles use an internal combustion (IC) engine whose shaft drives a
generator. A small battery buffers the generator and absorbs regenerative braking. The battery and generator
power one or more electric motors that drive the wheels, possibly in conjunction with direct shaft power
from the IC engine [5]. More conceptually, a hybrid has one power system with large energy storagefor
rangeand a second with high power output and discharge-recharge capabilityfor acceleration and
regenerative braking.












2.2. Power Markets:
Based on the operating mechanism, time of operation the power markets are classified into four
major types base load, peak shaving, spinning reserves, regulation [6,7]. Of these markets spinning reserves
and regulation were been critical since they have to have a quick response time thus effecting the system
stability. The control of these will be done by grid operator however the terminology differs from country
to country.

2.2.1. Base load power:
Base load power plants provides power throughout the day irrespective of load. Normally plants with
low kWh price like nuclear and thermal units were operated as base load power plants.
Due to high cost of kWh compared to that of existing plants V2G is not an attractive choice for acting as
base load power plant.

2.2.2 Peak power:
Peak power comes into picture when the load is low or high w.r.t the base load like hot summers and
cold winters. This type of markets usually employs buying power at off pea time and selling it during the
peak hours. This gives an opportunity for thermal units to operate at maximum/optimum efficiency at off
peak times and avoids turning on the expensive small units like gas plants at peak hours. V2G gives an
attractive option for these as large number of EDVs are available during peak power hours i.e. summer
afternoons and winter nights.

2.2.3. Spinning reserves:
This is referred to the surplus capacity that could be turned on for short duration like 10 to 15
minutes in case extra demand is requested by the grid operator. Normally 10 to 15 % of total capacity is set
as reserve. High the spinning reserve higher will the reliability. The EDVs at parking can provide an option
for spinning reserves as they can incur some revenue without actually the energy being spent.

2.2.4. Regulatory services:
These services are important in supplying the balancing power between load and base load powers
there by regulating the frequency of the system. These are in general called more frequently (400 times a
day) for shorter durations(less than a minute per call) compared to that of spinning reserves. Regulation can
be up (where the load is more than generation) or down (where the load is less than generation).




In the EDVs fuel cell systems are not suitable for regulation down services. The actual power
dispatched is just a fraction of power capacity and time it is contracted for as given in following equation,
which is dispatch to contract ratio

Where Rd-c is the dispatch to contract ratio (no dimension) , Edisp is the dispatched power (MWh), Pcontr
is the contracted power (MW) and tcontr is the contract time. Its estimation is around 0.1.
2.3.1. Power capacity of V2G:
There are two factors which will affect the capacity of V2G power namely (1). Line limited capacity
and (2). Capacity limited by vehicles stored energy.

=
Where Pline is expressed in kW and V is supply voltage and A is maximum current carrying capacity of
line. Typical values of 250V and 50A are considered which gives a limit of 15kW as the Pline.

2.3.2. Power limited by vehicles stored energy:
A part form the line capacity the EDV capacity is also limited by the available on board stored
energy that could be dispatched. The capacity limit by storage can be calculated by dividing the energy
available divided by the dispatch time where the available energy is given by energy stored less used energy
and energy required to drive multiplied by conversion efficiency.



Where Pvehicle capacity of vehicle, Es is on board storage, dd is driven distance since the battery is last
charged and drb is he distance to be driven following the V2G operation and veh is the conversion
efficiency of fuel (miles per kWh) which is 2.86 miles/kWh and inv is the inverter efficiency of 90%. The
values of dd and drb depends on the driving patterns in this paper dd is considered as 32 miles and drb of 16
miles is taken as average.



2.4. Revenue versus cost of V2G:
The economic value of V2G is the revenue minus the cost.

2.4.1. Revenue equations:
The values and formulas for calculating the revenue and cost depends on the type of market that the
energy is sold into. Revenue is simply the energy multiplied with time of dispatch.

=

1
=

1

On an annual basis, peak power revenue is computed by summing up the revenue for only those hours that
the market rate (pel) is higher than the cost of energy from V2G (cen, discussed later).

For spinning reserves there exists two types of revenues capacity payment and energy payment.
Capacity payment refers to the payment made for the contract on hourly basis even though EDV is not
discharged. Energy payment refers to the payment for actual used energy. Capacity payment is made on
MW-h i.e one MW capacity contract for one hour (note MWh is for used energy whereas MW-h is for
capacity).

= (

) +(

1
)

Where Pcap is the capacity price $/Kw-h and Pe1 is the electricity price $/kWh,

total time for which

the capacity is available and plugged in. For spinning reserves the Edisp can be calculated as sum of all
dispatches,

=1


Where Ndisp is the number of dispatches, Pdisp is power per dispatch and tdisp is the time per dispatch. A
typical spinning reserves contract sets a maximum of 20 dispatches per year and a typical dispatch is 10 min
long, so the total Edisp will be rather small.
For regulation services also there would be two types of revenues as in case of spinning reserve.
Typically it may have as many as 400 to 500 dispatches per day.

=

+
1

2.4.2. Cost Equations:
The cost for EDV during V2G operation consists of three component (1). Energy purchase cost
(charging, hydrogen or gasoline) (2) Wear of converters and battery (3) capital cost. On annual basis cost
can be expressed as

=

Where C total cost per year,

is the cost of energy per unit (kWh),

is the energy dispatched per year

and

annualized capital cost.

is the energy cost which includes two terms one for energy purchased and other for degradation cost of
converters and battery/ ICE / Fuel cell thus is given as follows

Where

is the cost of energy purchase (electricity for battery EDVs, hydrogen for fuel cell EDVs and
gasoline + electricity for hybrid EDVs),

is the conversion efficiency of fuel/storage to electricity or

vice-versa and

is the degradation cost of battery/fuel cell/ICE due to V2G use. Thus

thus gives the

cost of energy per kWh whatever the vehicle category. The degradation cost of battery can be found by
dividing the cost of battery by total energy throughput of battery along the life.

=

Where

is the cost of battery per kW and

is the life time throughput energy (both charged and

discharged energies are to be considered i.e total processed energy). Thus

is given as follows

= Lc Es DoD

Where

is the lifetime given as number of cycles at a given depth of discharge (DOD) per cycle and Es is
the energy storage of battery in kWh. DOD of 80% is considered here to define cycle life and lifetime
throughput.




The capital cost of battery and other essentials that are need for V2G application but not driving are
considered on annual basis which is given as follows, CRF is the capital recovery factor

1 (1 + )

where

is the annual cost and Cc is the capital cost, d is the discount rate and n is the lifetime.


Issues need to be addressed w.r.t the costing:
1.Degradation costing:
The degradation cost per kWh is defined for a particular DOD but in actual case the things are
different, since the number of cycles and DOD are not linear rather exponential cost of degradation depends
on the DODend. For example from a 100kWh battery 40kWh is discharged. There are two cases,
1. If the DODin is 90% and DODend is 50% i.e (90-50/100)*100kWh energy is drawn i.e 40kWh
2. Ifthe DODin is 50% and DODend is 10% i.e (50-10/100)*100kWh energy is drawn i.e. 40kWh
In the two cases same amount of energy is drawn but the second case will have more degradation so the Cd
would also be high for second case.

2. Energy lost due to battery degradation
Costing for degradation is done which is for replacement of battery but for every cycle some amount
of capacity is lost. From the next cycle onwards the amount of energy that the battery can store will store
also reduces. This should also the compensated in cost since the degradation cost is for battery replacement
and not for this energy lost due to the degradation. This cost can be formulated as follows

( )

Where Cde is the cost of energy lost due to degradation,

is the capacity (kWh) lost for particular

discharge, N is the nominal number of cycles and Nu is the number of used cycles and Cpe is the nominal
cost of energy purchase cost.





References:

[1] W. Kempton, J. Tomic, S. Letendre, A. Brooks, T. Lipman, Vehicleto-grid power: Battery, hybrid and fuel cell vehicles as
resources for distributed electric power in California, Davis, CA, Institute of Transportation Studies, Report # IUCD-ITS-RR 01-
03, 2005.
[2] W. Kempton and J. Tomic, Vehicle to grid fundamentals: Calculating capacity and net revenue, Journal of Power Sources,
vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 268-279, 1 Jun 2005.
[3] National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs, By the
Committee on Alternatives and Strategies for Future Hydrogen Production and Use,
National Research Council, Report, 2002, p. 394.
[4] Daniel Sperling, James S. Cannon, The Hydrogen Energy Transition: Moving Toward the Post-petroleum Age in
Transportation, Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam & Boston, 2004.
[5] M. Duvall, Infrastructure roadmap for plug-in hybrid electric vehiclesupdate, in: Presentation at National Electric
Transportation Infrastructure Working Council (IWC), EPRIIWC Hybrid Electric Vehicle Working Group, San Francisco, CA, 6
October, 2004.
[6] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (US), Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Remedying Undue Discrimination through
Open Access Transmission Service and Standard Electricity Market Design, Docket No. RM01-12-000, Washington, DC, 31 July,
2002.
[7] North American Electric Reliability Council, NERC Operating Manual, Princeton, NJ, 21 November, 2002.


























Chapter-3
Optimization Techniques

3.1-PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION:
Particle swarm optimization
[1,2]
, first introduced by Kennedy and Eberhart, is one of the heuristic
optimization algorithms which is derived from the social-psychological theory. PSO has been found to be
robust for solving problems featuring non-linearity and non-differentiability, multiple optima and high
dimensionality through adaptation. It has several advantages over other optimization algorithms such as easy
to implement and potential to achieve a high-quality solution with stable convergence characteristic.
PSO does not use any evolutionary operator to manipulate the individual as in other evolutionary
computational algorithms. Instead, each individual in PSO flies in the search space with a velocity which is
dynamically adjusted according to its own flying experience and its companions' flying experience. Each
individual is treated as a volume-less particle in a d-dimensional search space. Each particle keeps track of
its coordinates in the problem space which are associated with the best solution (fitness) it has achieved so
far. This value is called pbest. Another best value that is tracked by the global version of the particle swarm
optimizer is the overall best value and its location obtained so far by any particle in the population. This
location is called gbest. At each time step, the particle swarm optimization concept consists of velocity
changes of each particle toward its pbest and gbest locations. Acceleration is weighted by a random term
with separate random numbers being generated for acceleration toward pbest and gbest locations. For
example, the i th particle is represented as x=(xi1,xi2,.xid) in the d-dimensional space. The best
previous position of the ith particle is recorded and represented as pbest=(pbesti1, pbesti2
pbestid). The index of the best particle among all the particles in the population is represented by the gbestd .
The rate of position change (velocity) for particle i is represented as v=(vi1,vi2,..vid). The
modified velocity and position of each individual particle can be calculated using the current velocity and
the distance from pbestid to gbestd which is shown in the following formula.

v
i,d
k+1
= wv
i,d
k
+c
1
rand
1
(pbest
i,d
k
x
i,d
k
) +c
2
rand
2
(gbest
d
k
x
i,d
k
) . . (1)

x
i,d
k+1
= x
i,d
k
+v
i,d
k+1
. . . (2)

where, v
i,d
k
is the velocity of individual i at iteration k ,v
d
min
v
i,d
k
v
d
max
, w is the inertia weight
factor, c1 and c2 are the acceleration constants, rand1 and rand2 are the uniform random number between 0
and 1, x
i,d
k
is the current position of individual i at iteration k, pbesti is the particle best of individual i and
gbest is the generation best of the group


In the above procedures the parameter v
max
determines the resolution or fitness with which regions
between the present position and target position are searched. If v
max
is too high, particles may fly past the
good solutions. If v
max
is too small, particles may not explore sufficiently beyond local solutions. In
previous experience with PSO, v
max
was often set at 10-20% of the dynamic range of the variable on each
dimension. The constants c1 and c2 represent the weighting of the stochastic acceleration terms that pull each
particle toward pbest and gbest positions. Low values of c1 and c2 allow particles to roam far from target
regions before being tugged back. On the other hand, high values result in abrupt movement toward or past
the target regions. Hence, the acceleration constants c1 and c2 were often set to be around 2.0 according to
past experiences. For a suitable selection of inertia weight w, the equation (3) provides a balance between
global and local exploration, and exploitation. As originally developed, w often decreases linearly from
about 0.9 to 0.4 during a run. In general, the inertia weight w is set according to the following equation.

w = w
max

w
max
w
min
Iter
max
Iter . . (3)

where , Itermax is the maximum iteration number (generations), Iter is the current iteration number
and, wmax and wmin are the maximum and minimum values of inertia weight respectively.


3.2-QUANTUM-INSPIRED BPSO ALGORITHM
[3]
:
The proposed QBPSO combines the conventional BPSO with the concept of quantum computing such as a
quantum bit and superposition of states. It adopts a Q-bit individual for the probabilistic representation,
which replaces the velocity update procedure in the conventional PSO. It combines the advantages of both
quantum theory and classical PSO and achieves a better balance between exploration and exploitation of the
solution space and obtains better solutions, even with a small population, compared with the conventional
PSOs, thus well solving the combinatorial optimization problems.

In the proposed QBPSO, the position vector of the ith particle is updated by probability of |

|
2

stored in the ith Q-bit individual and a Q-bit may be in any superposition of the two states: 0 and 1. The state
of a Q-bit is represented as follows:
|

|0 +

|1, |

|
2
+|

|
2
= 1 (4)

Where

and

are complex numbers that specify the probability amplitudes of the corresponding states.
Here |

|
2
|

|
2
are the probability that the Q-bit is in 1 state and 0 state respectively.




(A) The QBPSO procedure is as follows:
a) Q-bit initialization:

0
of all Q-bit individuals are set to be 1/ 2 , which means a Q-bit individual
can be all possible states with the same probability. The jth element of the ith particle takes a value by the
following:

x
ij
= {
1 if rn
ij
< |
ij
|
2
0 other
(5)

Where i=1,2,,NP, j=1,2,,n. Here, rnij is the uniformly distributed random number between [0, 1] and
NP is the population size.
The initial Pbest of each particle is set as its initial position, and the initial Gbest is determined as the
position of the particle with the minimum cost.
b) Q-bit update through the rotating gate:
z = z
max
(z
max
z
min
)
k
iter
max
. . (6)

+1
= {
1

) +
2

)} . . (7)

Where z takes the value of 0.01 ~ 0.05 , itermax is the maximum iteration number and k is the current
iteration number.
1
and
2
are obtained as follows:

1i
= {
1 other
0 if f(x
i
) f(Pbest
i
)
. (8)

2i
= {
1 other
0 if f(x
i
) f(Gbest)
. (9)

A new Q-bit can be computed by the following:
(

+1

+1
) = [
cos(

+1
) sin(

+1
)
sin(

+1
) cos(

+1
)
] (

). . (10)

c) The position vectors of the particles update by (5).
d) Pbest and Gbest update:
f(x) = {
x
i
k+1
, if f(x
i
k
) f(Pbest
i
k
)
Pbest
i
k
, other
. . (11)

In addition, Gbest
k+1
is the optimal value among

.
e) Stopping criteria: the algorithm is end when the iteration reaches a pre-specified maximum iteration.



(B) Heuristic Adjusted Regulations:
Using the QBPSO to determine the unit operation states must consider system spinning reserve and
minimum up/down time constraints, otherwise the solutions may be infeasible due to the randomness of
QBPSO. Therefore, the following adjusted rules are imposed on the particles:

Step 1: Check up/down spinning reserve constraints: For the intervals when the system reserve
constraints are violated, sort all the units which are at the 0 state according to the priority list, that
is, the ascending order of the average full-load cost. Then, take out the units in turn and let it start
until the load demands and spinning reserve constraints are satisfied.

Step 2: Check minimum up/down time constraints: In order to ensure reserve constraints not violated
again, just start units. The operations are as follows: First, for every particle, find the change
moments of the unit state during the scheduling period, that is, to search for the 01 and 10
combinations in the row vector. Second, calculate the continuous uptime before the state of the unit
changes (for the 10 combination) and continuous shutdown time (for the 01 combination). Third,
compare the continuous up/down time with the minimum up/down time of the unit. If the former is
larger, then go to seek the next change moment; otherwise, make up its up/down time to at least the
minimum up/down time of the unit.

Step 3: Check excessive spinning reserve: Step 2 obviously will produce excessive spinning reserve
which is inefficient, thus it is necessary to close the excessive units. The operations are as follows:
At first, sort all the units which are at the 1 state according to the above-mentioned priority table in
the reverse order. Then, take out the first unit and close it, judging whether all the units at the 1
state meet the reserve constraints and the shutdown request. If both are met, shut it down and take
out the next one and do the same thing until the reserve constraints are violated if one more unit is
shut down.

Step 4: Check the minimum up/down time constraints again according to step 2.








(C) Overall Solution Procedure:
Based on the determination of unit operation states in the outer layer, the article uses the primal-dual interior
point method for the inner-layer load economic dispatch problem because of its fast calculation speed and
good numerical stability. As a result, the specific procedures of the proposed algorithm for unit commitment
problem are as follows:

Step 1: Initialize the Q-bits corresponding to the optimized thermal units.
Step 2: Create the position vectors of the particles by (5), and then produce the initial population
matrixes ( N T ssize ) representing unit on/off states, where ssize is the population size.
Step 3: Adjust the population matrix according to the heuristic adjusted regulations in the second part
of the section and produce new population matrixes satisfying the constraints.
Step 4: Use quadratic function for load economic dispatch of every unit in system at every interval.
Step 5: Calculate the fitness of every particle using the objective function. According to the
operators demand, generation costs and (or) emissions are considered in the fitness function.
Step 6: Evaluate all particles in the population. The initial Pbest of each particle is set as its initial
position, and the initial Gbest is determined as the position of the particle with minimum cost.
Step 7: Update the Q-bits according to (10).
Step 8: Produce the next population by (5).
Step 9: Stopping Criteria: The proposed QBPSO algorithm is terminated if the iteration reaches a
pre-specified maximum iteration.


















References:
[1] M. Clerc and J. Kennedy, "The particle swarm: Explosion stability and convergence in a multi-dimensional complex space,"
IEEE Trans. On Evol. Comput., pp.58-73, 2002.
[2] J. Kennedy and R. C, Eberhart, "A Discrete Binary Version of the Particle Swarm Algorithm," Proceedings of the Conference
on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Piscataway, pp.4104-4108, 1997.
[3] Xiaoshan Wu, Buhan Zhang, Kui Wang, Junfang Li, and Yao Duan, A Quantum-inspired Binary PSO Algorithm for Unit
Commitment with Wind Farms Considering Emission Reduction. IEEE PES ISGT ASIA 2012















































CHAPTER-4
SIMULATION AND RESULTS
All the simulations were carried out using MATLAB (7.10.0).A 10 unit system with 10% of the load
is considered as spinning reserve. It is assumed that the cold startup cost is double that of hot startup cost
and no shutdown cost. Load and the plant data is taken form [1]. Load has two peaks at hours 12PM and
20PM which is depicted in following figure.



If the unit commitment is done on hourly basis with all the constraints satisfying for the particular
error some of the constraints were being violated in the later hours of commitment which is 20
th
hour in with
respect to the given load and plant constraints. This is avoided by optimizing the unit commitment globally
i.e. the violation of constraints in the later hours is also considered there by avoiding the constraint violation
and attaining the best possible solution. As a thumb rule large and cheap units are turned on in the initial
hours so that there exists flexibility and constraint satisfaction is not a problem in later stages/ hours.


0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
p
o
w
e
r
(
M
W
)
Hour
Load profile
load with out reserve
load with 10% spinning reserve


Unit Commitment Reserve for 24 hours:
The following figure shows the on/off schedule of 10 units for 24 hours. It can be seen that during
the peak hour (12
th
hour) all the units are on and units 1,2are on for all 24 hours which confirms that chap
and large units suits as base load plants.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
P
o
w
e
r
Hour
Unit Commitment
U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9 U10
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
P
o
w
e
r
(
M
W
)
Hour
Spinning Reserve


Load Sharing:
The equality constraint for load is satisfied for every hour with 100% accuracy unlike the base paper
in which equality constraint is violated in some hours (14 hours out of 24 hours were fall short by 0.1MW
each adding up to 1.4 MW in 24 hours) which may bring some difference in the total cost. First and second
plants status is on from the previous hour so no costs are incurred for them for first hour. In every hour
maximum load is shared by the base load plants i.e. 1 and 2 which gives the minimum cost whereas smaller
and costly (8
th
, 9
th
, 10
th
units). Load sharing between 10 units for 24 hours for the best case (PSO) is given as
follows:







Comparison of cost for Dynamic Programming, Genetic Algorithm, Pattern Search and Particle
Swarm Optimization:

Method
Best cost ($) Worst ($) Average ($)

Dynamic
programming
571778 N/A N/A

Genetic Algorithm
568954 571504 569450

Pattern Search
569500 N/A N/A
Particle Swarm
Optimization
564640 570149 566685

Parameter values and convergence of PSO for UC:
Parameters values are swarm size=30, MaxIter=3000, trust parameters c1=1.4 and c2=2.6. Initial
values for pbest and gbest should be high so that the convergence direction is towards the optimal value
otherwise particles may trap at the initial states if they were assigned with very low values.




Iterations
C
O
S
T
($)

References:
[1]. Ahmed Yousuf Saber and Ganesh Kumar Venayagamoorthy ,Optimization of Vehicle-to-Grid Scheduling in Constrained
Parking Lots, IEEE transactions on smart grid, 2009.