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

net/publication/251955958

Test cases for unit commitment and hydrothermal scheduling problems

Article · July 2010

DOI: 10.1109/PES.2010.5589757

CITATIONS READS
17 386

1 author:

Andre Luiz Diniz

Eletrobras Cepel
30 PUBLICATIONS   406 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andre Luiz Diniz on 16 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Test Cases for Unit Commitment and
Hydrothermal Scheduling Problems
A. L. Diniz, Member IEEE
Abstract — Generation scheduling and other types of
optimization problems for hydrothermal systems have been
studied for more than 60 years. A large number of algorithms
and solving strategies have already been proposed in the
literature. Despite of this huge amount of publications, we still
lack the existence of standardized test systems that can be used
to benchmark the performance and solution quality of so many
proposed techniques. In this sense, this paper proposes some test
cases that can be used to unit commitment and hydrothermal
scheduling problems both in regulated and deregulated markets.
Electrical network data are taken from the 24, 57, 118 and 300-
bus IEEE-based test systems, which were fictitiously linked to a
set of up to 20 thermal units and more than 100 hydro units.
Hydro data are based on the real Brazilian system and include
cascaded reservoirs, water delay times, and hydro plants input-
output curves. Thermal data are taken from the literature.
Index Terms-- Hydrothermal scheduling, Unit commitment,
Test cases.
I. INTRODUCTION
H ydrothermal scheduling and other types of optimization
problems for hydrothermal systems have been studied
for more than 60 years. A large number of algorithms and
solving strategies have already been proposed in the
literature. For comprehensive surveys of short term
hydrothermal scheduling and unit commitment problems we
refer to [1]-[3]. Despite of this huge amount of publications,
we still lack the existence of standardized test systems that
can be used to benchmark the performance and solution
quality of so many proposed techniques. Each paper
considers its own system - that may differ significantly from
other papers’ test systems, which makes it very difficult to
perform a proper comparison between the different methods
that have been proposed.
In 2007 the IEEE Working group (WG) on Test Systems
for Economic Analysis was created, sponsored by IEEE
System Economics subcommittee [4]. The aim of this WG is
to provide validated test systems (or test cases) of electric
power systems for economic analysis, analogous to what had
been done previously for the IEEE reliability test systems
Task Force [5], [6]. This paper aims to contributing to this
WG, specifically in the topic of day ahead scheduling and
unit commitment data. In this sense, this paper proposes test
cases that can be used to unit commitment and hydrothermal
scheduling problems both in regulated and deregulated
A. L. Diniz is with CEPEL, the Brazilian Electric Power Research Center,
and UERJ – State University of Rio de Janeiro (contact: diniz@cepel.br)
978-1-4244-8357-0/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
1
markets.
Four test cases were created, whose transmission data are
taken from the 24, 57, 118 and 300-bus IEEE-based test
systems. Generation buses of each system were linked to a set
of hydro and thermal units. Hydro data are based on some
characteristics of the hydro plants of the real Brazilian system
and include, for example, cascaded reservoirs, water delay
times, and hydro plants input-output curves [7]. Most of the
thermal unit commitment data are taken from [8].
This paper is organized as follows: from sections II to IV
we describe the hydro data, thermal data, and transmission
data, respectively. Time and case-dependent data are
described in section V. In section VI we formulate the short
term hydrothermal scheduling problem as considered in this
paper. In section VII we present the hydro and thermal
configurations for each test case. The Appendix section lists
all hydro and thermal related data. Transmission system data
is given in [9]. Finally, in section VIII we state the
conclusions of this work and some recommendations for the
practical application of these test systems.
II. HYDRO DATA
In our test cases, hydro plants are labeled from 1 to NH
and are located in cascade along several river basins. Each
plant has a reservoir and a set of hydro units. In this sense,
hydro data can be divided into three types: topological data,
reservoir data, and hydro units data, which are described in
subsections A, B and C below.
A. Topological data
One reservoir may have more than one immediate
upstream plant, but has only one downstream plant, as
illustrated further from Fig. 1 to Fig 4. Topological data then
include:
• index of the next downstream plant Ji of each hydro plant i
• water delay time for each pair i and j of consecutive hydro
plants in a cascade ( τ i , Ji )
B. Reservoir data
Some reservoirs data are very specific to the Brazilian
system. In order to design test systems that may be useful for
a larger number of applications, this paper is restricted to the
more relevant and general data, as follows:
• Maximum storage capacity ( V ) of each reservoir (run-of-
the-river plants have a null regularization capacity);
 2

• Fourth degree polynomials for the forebay level ( hup ) as a
function of storage (V) and for the tailrace level ( hdn ) as a
function of the sum of turbined (Q) and spillage (S)
outflows, as described in expressions (1) and (2):
hup = a0 + a1V + a 2V 2 + a3V 3 + a 4V 4 (1)
hdn = b0 + b1 D + b2 D 2 + b3 D 3 + b4 D 4 , (2)
where D = Q+S.
C. Hydro units data
These data comprise physical characteristics for each of
the nhi hydro units of a hydro plant i, as follows:
• upper bound for turbined outflow ( q ) and generation
( gh );
• penstock head losses (lh) in % of the net head;
• average generation efficiency (η), per unit of water head
and turbined outflow (MW/((m3/s).m)).
From these data we can compute the power generation gh
of a hydro unit as a multivariate function of its turbined
outflow q, the storage V in the reservoir, and the total plant
outflow Q+S, as follows:
gh = HPF (V , q, Q, S ) =
(3)
= min{gh ; η ρ q[hup (V ) − hdn (Q, S )] lh }.
The generation GH of the whole plant is given by the sum of
the generation of all its units:
nh i
(4)
∑
GH = gh
j =1
j
Hydro data can be further refined in order to express q ,
gh and lh as nonlinear functions of the water head [10], [11]
and η as a hill-shaped function of the net head and the
turbined outflow [12].
III. THERMAL DATA
In this paper the data for each thermal unit include:
• lower and upper bounds ( gt , gt ) for generation;
• thermal generation cost as a quadratic function of power
generation gt, as follows:
c( gt ) = c0 + c1 gt + c2 gt 2 ; (5)
• startup costs, as an exponential function of the time the
unit has been “off”:
( )
−β t
cst (toff ) = chot + (ccold − chot ) 1 − e off (6)
• minimum time the unit has to remain “on” before shutting
down (ton), and minimum time the unit has to remain “off”
(toff), before being started again;
• duration of the shutdown and startup processes (tdn and tup,
respectively);
of startup and shutdown curves is presented in [13], [14].
IV. TRANSMISSION NETWORK DATA
Transmission data are taken from the well known 24-bus,
57-bus, 118-bus and 300-bus IEEE test systems. In this paper
we focus on the necessary data for a dc representation of the
electrical network, as listed below:
• A set of buses, labeled from 1 to NB, and a set of NL
transmission lines. The extreme buses of each line i are
denoted by fr(i) and to(i) ;
• Reactance (x), resistance (r) and flow capacity ( f ) of
each line;
• Φ T i / Φ H i : index set of thermal / hydro plants connected to
each bus i;
V. TIME-DEPENDENT DATA
The data from sections IV to VI refer to static data related
to physical characteristics of the system. In this section we
list the set of data whose values are time-dependent, since
they may vary along the day, week or season of the year. In
the specific case of the STHTS problem considered in this
work, the following data are necessary:
• Time discretization: the horizon of study is divided into
T time steps, each one with duration Δti.
• Initial storage of the reservoirs;
t
• Water inflows I i to each hydro plant i at each time step t;
t
• load d i of each bus i at each time step t;
• Coordination with mid term planning is done by setting
storage limit targets ViT and ViT for the reservoirs at the
end of the time horizon; Alternatively, water values for the
reservoirs could be given [7].
VI. PROBLEM FORMULATION
This paper considers the network constrained short term
hydrothermal scheduling problem (STHTS), taking into all
physical and operation constraints described from sections II
to V. The aim is to determine the optimal generation of hydro
and thermal units of the system, taking into account several
physical and operational constraints on hydro units, thermal
units and transmission lines, and minimizing a given
objective function.
In the case of a cost minimization objective function, the
problem comprising all the data presented in the paper can be
formulated as follows:
∑∑ [c ( gt ) + u (1 − u ]
T NT
min i
t
i
t
i
t −1
i
t
)cst (toff i ) (7a)
t =1 i =1

• start-up and shut down curves [13]; s.t.

• maximum ramping constraint Δgt i . - electrical network constraints:
The ton and toff values are usually labeled in the literature as ∑ gt
j∈Φ T i
t
j + ∑ gh
j∈Φ T i
t
j + ∑f
k ∈Ω L i
t
fr ( k ) → to ( k ) = d it i=1,...NB (7b)
“up and down times”. However, we refer to them as “on” and
“off” times in order to distinguish from the tdn and tup times θ tfr ( i ) − θ tot ( i )
− fi ≤ fit = ≤ fi , i=1,...NL (7c),
related to startup and shutdown processes. A more detailed xi
explanation on these data is presented in [14]. A description
- hydro balance and hydro generation constraints:
 3

∑ (Q ), (7d) 1) Hydro configuration

t −τ j − i t −τ j − i
Vi t = Vi t −1 + I it − (Qit + S it ) + j + Sj
j∈M i The 12 hydro plants are spread through 3 cascades, as
ghit = HPFi (Vi t , Qit , S it ) for i =1,…,NH. (7e) shown in Figure 1 below. Triangles represent hydro plants
with regularization capacity and circles indicate run-of-the
- thermal operation constraints (min. up/down times and
river plants.
on/off times, ramp constraints):
0 ≤ gtit ≤ uit gti (7f)
6
⎧⎪uit − j ≤ 1 + uit − uit +1 , if j ≤ tiup 1
⎨ t+ j (7g) 7 8 9
⎪⎩ui ≤ 1 − uit + uit +1 , if j ≤ tidn 2
5
⎧⎪( xion ,t −1 − tion )(uit −1 − uit ) ≥ 0 3
10
⎨ off ,t − t iup −1 off t (7h)
⎪⎩( xi − ti )(ui − uit −1 ) ≥ 0 4
11
t −1
− Δgt i ≤ gt − gt ≤ Δgt i
t
i i
(7i)
12
- lower and upper bounds for variables:
Vi ≤ Vi t ≤ Vi , 0 ≤ Qit ≤ Qi , 0 ≤ S it ≤ S it , i=1,…,NH (7j) Figure 1 – Hydro plants configuration for the 24-bus STHTS test case.
- coupling constraints with mid-term scheduling: The connections of the hydro units to the buses of the
Vi T ≤ Vi T ≤ Vi T , i=1,…,NH. (7k) electrical network are shown in Table I.
TABLE I – CONNECTIONS OF THE HYDRO UNITS TO THE
where θ it is the phase angle of bus i at interval t; Mi is the set BUSES OF THE ELECTRICAL NETWORK- 24-BUS SYSTEM.

of hydro plants immediately upstream plant i; Ω L is the set plant # unit # bus # plant # unit # bus #
i

of all buses directly linked to bus i; u t

is the status 1 1 to 12 1 8 1 to 4 15
i
2 1 to 2 2 9 1 to 3 15
on ,t off ,t
(0:off;1:on) of the thermal unit and i; xi (resp. xi ) are 2 3 to 6 2 10 1 to 3 16
stage variables that represent the time length for which unit i 2 7 to 8 2 10 4 to 6 18
has been on (resp. off) at at time step t. 3 1 to 3 13 11 1 to 2 18
Examples of applications for similar problems can be 4 1 13 11 3 to 5 18
found in many papers, such as [8], [15]-[21]. Cost functions 5 1 to 3 15 12 1 to 2 21
and transmission / generation data may vary significantly
6 1 to 3 15 12 3 to 4 22
according to the set of constraints considered in each study.
7 1 to 2 13 12 5 to 6 23
VII. NUMERICAL DATA FOR EACH TEST CASE 2) Thermal configuration
In this section we present the hydro and thermal The thermal configuration is composed of units # 1, 3, 6,
configuration as well as time-dependent data for the 24, 57, 7, 8 and 9 of the ten-unit system presented in [8]. The
118 and 300-bus test systems. Data for all hydro and thermal connection of each thermal unit to the electrical network is
units are presented in Appendix A and B, respectively. presented in Table II.
Hydro data are based on some of the plants of the real
TABLE II – CONNECTION OF THE THERMAL UNITS TO THE
Brazilian system. Thermal data are based on the data BUSES OF THE ELECTRICAL NETWORK- 24-BUS SYSTEM.
provided in [8], which were augmented by including tup and Unit # bus # Unit # bus #
tdn times, ramp limits and startup / shutdown curves. Data
1 1 7 2
from [8] have already been used for several applications of
3 13 8 7
the thermal unit commitment problem, for example in [14],
[22]-[24]. Due to space limitations, transmission data are not 6 2 9 7

listed, but they can be obtained in [9]. 3) Time-dependent data

The complete set of data for all four test systems presented
in this paper will be available on the WG wiki page [25].
A. 24-bus STHTS data
This test case has a relatively large number of plants when
compared to the size of the electrical network. There are 12
hydro plants and 6 hydro units, for a transmission system
with 24 buses and 38 branches.
We propose a 1-day horizon with 24 hourly time steps.
Variants can be created with half-an-hour time steps and /or a
time horizon of up to 1 week.
Base-case values for the initial storage, final target
storages and water inflows to reservoirs are listed in Table
III. We consider the water inflow as constant during the day.
Dry and wet periods can be simulated by applying scaling
factors to these values. The initial status for each thermal unit
is shown in Table IV.
 4

TABLE VI – CONNECTION OF THE HYDRO UNITS TO THE

TABLE III –BASE-CASE VALUES FOR TIME-DEPENDENT RESERVOIR BUSES OF THE ELECTRICAL NETWORK- 57-BUS SYSTEM.
DATA – 24-BUS TEST SYSTEM.
initial storage Water inflow target storage (%) plant # unit # bus # plant # unit # bus #
plant #
(%) (m3/s) Min Max 14 1 to 2 3 16 1 to 2 8
1 61.1 480.0 60.0 63.0 14 3 to 4 3 16 3 to 6 8
2 90.0 65.0 89.0 91.0
15 1 to 2 1 17 1 to 2 12
3 - 10.0 - -
4 - 25.0 - - 15 3 to 4 1 17 3 to 4 12
5 50.0 50.0 50.0 51.0
6 74.0 140.0 74.0 75.0 2) Thermal configuration
7 80.0 20.0 80.0 82.0 The list of thermal units and their connection to the
8 50.0 200.0 52.0 54.0 electrical network are shown in Table VII.
9 65.0 170.0 62.0 67.0
10 54.0 65.0 54.0 56.0 TABLE VII – CONNECTION OF THE THERMAL UNITS TO THE
11 - 100.0 - - BUSES OF THE ELECTRICAL NETWORK- 57-BUS SYSTEM.
12 85.0 600.0 86.0 88.0 Unit # bus # Unit # bus #
TABLE IV –INITIAL STATUS FOR THE THERMAL UNITS – 24-BUS TEST CASE 1 2 6 9
unit init. gt # hrs unit init. gt # hrs 3 6 9 9
# status (MW) on/off # status (MW) on/off
3) Time-dependent data
1 on 150 24 7 off 0 2
Initial storage, final target storages and water inflows to
3 on 20 2 8 off 0 2 reservoirs are listed in Table VIII. The initial status for each
6 off 0 2 9 off 0 2 thermal unit is shown in Table IX.
Finally, base-case values for the load at each bus are TABLE VIII –BASE-CASE VALUES FOR TIME-DEPENDENT RESERVOIR
presented in [9]. The hourly load curve for a typical weekday DATA – 57-BUS TEST SYSTEM.
can be simulated for all test systems by applying to each bus plant #
initial storage Water inflow target storage (%)
the scaling factors shown in Table V (%) (m3/s) Min Max
14 90 200 90 91
TABLE V–LOAD CURVE FACTORS ALONG THE 24-HOUR HORIZON. 15 78 380 78.2 79.0
hour factor hour factor hour factor 16 - 410 - -
17 - 530 - -
1 0.884 9 1.009 17 1.019
2 0.850 10 0.996 18 1.254 TABLE IX –INITIAL STATUS FOR THE THERMAL UNITS – 57-BUS TEST CASE
3 0.795 11 0.976 19 1.386 unit init. gt # hrs unit init. gt # hrs
0.636 1.057 1.281 # status (MW) on/off # status (MW) on/off
4 12 20
0.875 1.137 1.208 1 off 0 1 6 off 0 1
5 13 21
0.832 1.044 0.985 3 off 0 1 9 off 0 1
6 14 22
7 0.921 15 1.093 23 0.873 C. 118-bus STHTS data
8 1.028 16 0.966 24 0.896
This test case has 10 hydro plants and 5 thermal units, and
B. 57-bus STHTS data an electrical network composed by 118 buses and 186 lines.
1) Hydro configuration
This second system is predominantly thermal: there are 4
The hydro configuration is shown in Fig. 3. The
hydro plants and 10 thermal units, and a network composed
connections to the electrical network are shown in Table X.
of 57 buses and 80 transmission lines.
1) Hydro configuration
This system has only one cascade, as shown in Fig. 2. 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20
14 15 16 17
21

Figure 2 – Hydro plants configuration for the 57-bus STHTS test case.
22
The connection of each hydro unit to the electrical
network is shown in Table VI. Figure 3 – Hydro plants configuration for the 118-bus STHTS test case.
 5

TABLE X– CONNECTION OF THE HYDRO UNITS TO THE

BUSES OF THE ELECTRICAL NETWORK- 118-BUS SYSTEM. 25 29
23
plant # unit # bus # plant # unit # bus #
13 1 to 2 80 17 1 to 2 59 24 26 30
13 3 to 4 80 17 3 tp 4 61
31
14 1 to 2 89 18 1 to 2 26 27
14 3 to 4 89 19 1 to 6 26
28 32
15 1 to 2 100 20 1 to 4 10
15 3 to 4 100 21 1 to 4 25 Figure 4 – Additional hydro configuration of the IEEE-300 bus test case
16 1 to 2 69 22 1 to 2 48 (besides those hydro plants in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3)
16 3 to 6 66 19 1 to 6 26 TABLE XIV - CONNECTION OF THE HYDRO UNITS TO THE
BUSES OF THE ELECTRICAL NETWORK- 300-BUS SYSTEM.
2) Thermal configuration
plant unit plant unit
Bus Bus
The list of thermal units and their connection to the # # # #
electrical network are shown in Table XI. 1 1 to 12 98 16 3 to 6 260
TABLE XI – CONNECTION OF THE THERMAL UNITS TO THE 2 1 to 2 149 17 1 to 2 212
BUSES OF THE ELECTRICAL NETWORK- 118-BUS SYSTEM. 3 to 4
2 3 to 6 155 17 217
Unit # bus # Unit # bus # 2 7 to 8 156 18 1 to 2 251
1 65 6 103 3 1 to 3 166 19 1 to 6 192
3 12 8 46 4 1 199 20 1 to 4 177
5 111 5 1 to 2 80 21 1 to 4 257
3) Time-dependent data 6 1 to 3 215 22 1 to 2 132
7 1 to 3 245 23 1 to 2 69
Initial storage, water inflows and final target storages to
reservoirs are listed in Table XII. The initial status for each 8 1 to 4 247 23 3 to 4 76
thermal unit is shown in Table XIII. 9 1 to 3 218 23 5 to 8 122
10 1 to 3 261 24 1 to 6 165
TABLE XII –BASE-CASE VALUES FOR TIME-DEPENDENT RESERVOIR
DATA – 118-BUS TEST SYSTEM. 10 4 to 5 262 25 1 to 4 131
initial storage Water inflow target storage (%) 10 6 221 26 1 to 4 169
plant #
(%) (m3/s) Min Max 1 to 5
11 1 to 2 220 27 170
13 60 164 60.7 61.5
11 3 to 5 253 27 6 to 10 170
14 90 197 90 91
15 78.4 385 76.3 77.0 12 1 to 6 255 28 1 to 3 200
16 - 409 - - 13 1 to 2 246 28 4 to 6 201
17 - 527 - -
13 3 to 4 248 28 7 to 9 206
18 59.5 130 59. 61.0
19 - 131 - - 14 1 to 2 249 28 10 to 12 209
20 - 177 - - 14 3 to 4 250 29 1 to 4 103
21 54 13 54 54 1 to 2 1 to 3
15 258 30 126
22 70 52 69.7 70.3
15 3 to 4 258 31 1 to 3 77
TABLE XIII –INITIAL STATUS FOR THE THERMAL UNITS – 57-BUS TEST CASE 16 1 to 2 259 32 1 to 3 120
unit init. gt # hrs unit init. gt # hrs
# status (MW) on/off # status (MW) on/off 2) Thermal configuration
1 off 0 2 6 off 0 2 There are 20 thermal units whose data were obtained by
3 on 20 6 8 off 0 2 duplicating the set of 10 thermal units shown in Table A.VI.
5 on 25 6 Connections to the electrical network are shown in Table XV.
TABLE XV –CONNECTION OF THE THERMAL UNITS TO THE
D. 300-bus STHTS data BUSES OF THE ELECTRICAL NETWORK- 300-BUS SYSTEM.

This is the largest case, composed of 32 hydro plants (with Unit # bus # gt gt
a total of 150 hydro units), 20 thermal units, and a network of
1,2 98 8,9,10,20 164
300 buses and 409 branches.
1) Hydro configuration 3 88 11,12 170
The hydro configuration is composed by all hydro plants 4 128 13 222
in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 in addition to the hydro plants from # 23 5,6 261 14,15,16,17 247
to 32 shown in Fig. 4 below. The connections to the electrical 7 125 18,19 293
network are shown in Table XIV.
 6

3) Time-dependent data TABLE A.I – TOPOLOGICAL DATA – HYDRO SYSTEM

Initial storage, average inflows and storage targets values plant τ i, J Vi plant τ i, J Vi
Ji i
nhi Ji i
nhi
for reservoirs 1 to 22 are the same as those applied for the 24- # (h) (hm3) # (h) (hm3)
bus and 118-bus test cases. The values for reservoirs 23 to 30 1 2 5 17000 12 17 - - - 4
are shown in Table XVI. 2 3 4 2600 8 18 19 2 3400 2
TABLE XVI –BASE-CASE VALUES FOR TIME-DEPENDENT RESERVOIR 3 4 2 - 3 19 20 1 - 6
DATA – 300-BUS TEST SYSTEM. 4 - - - 1 20 - - - 4
initial storage Water inflow target storage (%) 5 10 1 200 3 21 - - 150 4
plant # 6 7 1 10000 3 22 - - 1300 2
(%) (m3/s) Min Max
7 - - - 2 23 24 3 4000 8
23 20.0 590 20.0 21.0
8 10 1 12500 4 24 27 4 5500 6
24 12.0 330 12.0 13.0
9 10 1 1000 3 25 26 1 400 4
25 50.0 90 50.0 51.0
10 11 6 12400 6 26 27 2 200 4
26 40.0 210 40.0 41.0
11 12 5 - 5 27 28 5 9000 10
27 30.0 1400 30.0 32;0
12 - - 5000 6 28 - - 900 12
28 35.0 100 35.0 37.0
13 13 1 3500 4 29 30 10 2400 4
29 60.0 275 60.0 61.0
14 14 1 400 4 30 31 4 70 3
30 60.0 48 60.0 61.0
15 15 1 4000 4 31 32 3 2100 3
31 60.0 15 60.0 61.0
16 16 1 - 6 32 27 6 400 3
32 60.0 20 60.0 61.0
TABLE A.II – FOREBAY LEVEL POLYNOMIALS OF THE RESERVOIRS.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
V (hm3) => hup (m)
This paper proposed four test cases for unit commitment #
a0 a1 a2 a3 a4
(UC) and hydrothermal scheduling problems, based on the
1 7.5000e+02 1.8411e-03 -9.7744e-08 4.6757e-12 -9.7736e-17
IEEE 24-bus, 57-bus, 118-bus and 300-bus test systems. The
main purpose of these test cases is to allow a proper 2 6.5314e+02 6.5765e-03 -5.6850e-07 -1.4902e-11 9.1237e-15
comparison among different approaches to handle several 3 6.2250e+02 - - - -
hydrothermal scheduling related problems. Even though this 4 5.1200e+02 - - - -
paper is focused on the short term hydrothermal scheduling 5 6.9298e+02 2.1213e-02 -2.4442e-07 -2.7471e-08 -1.4200e-11
problem (STHTS) on a cost minimization framework, the 6 7.7550e+02 7.4797e-03 -7.5773e-07 5.9435e-11 -1.9786e-15
data presented here can be used for reliability and economic 5.7300e+02
7
analysis studies for hydrothermal systems, as well as
8 6.1499e+02 6.6293e-03 -5.3323e-07 3.7301e-11 -1.1245e-15
scheduling problems in deregulated systems [26], [27],
provided that related data are added to the problem. 9 5.6992e+02 3.9178e-02 -2.1947e-05 7.3933e-09 -
This work is intended to contribute to the IEEE Working 10 4.9499e+02 3.5941e-03 -2.6539e-07 1.7114e-11 -4.8453e-16
group (WG) on Test Systems for Economic Analysis, 11 4.3411e+02 - - - -
sponsored by IEEE System Economics subcommittee [4]. 12 3.9049e+02 2.3146e-03 -1.3781e-07 1.8157e-11 -1.2419e-15
Data for all these test cases will be available at the WG wiki 13 6.9999e+02 1.7200e-02 -2.8182e-06 4.6567e-10 -3.9528e-14
page [25]. 6.0200e+02 1.3914e-02 -2.1033e-06 - -
14
If necessary, further modifications in these test cases will
15 4.8094e+02 8.3694e-03 -1.0145e-06 1.6471e-10 -1.2729e-14
be done in order to adapt them to the needs of the many
16 3.9700e+02 - - - -
potential users and to motivate their widespread use. It is
important to make clear that the use of these test cases does 17 3.2500e+02 - - - -

not require that all features of the STHTS problem considered 18 3.0011e+02 1.8949e-02 -7.7661e-06 2.0558e-09 -2.1199e-13
in this paper must be taken into account. One can represent 19 2.7989e+02 - - - -
only the data and constraints that can be handled by his 20 1.8400e+02 - - - -
application. In this sense, it would be useful to derive several 21 8.2202e+02 3.3634-01 -2.7850e-03 1.6027e-05 -3.7995e-08
variants of each test case, obtained by weather or not 22 5.8404e+02 1.7542e-02 -1.0850e-05 5.4901e-09 -1.1547e-12
considering some of the aspects of the problem (with or 23 4.2621e+02 7.7381e-03 -1.5872e-06 2.3821e-10 -1.4826e-14
without UC constraints, with a DC or AC approach for the 24 3.7330e+02 2.5151e-03 -1.4946e-07 7.0983e-12 -
electrical network, with or without water delay times, and so 4.9320e+02 5.5064e-03 -9.7902e-09 -7.7966e-09 1.4546e-11
25
on). Each variant should be labeled properly in order to
26 4.6550e+02 7.7527e-03 -4.7736e-06 2.0896e-08 -3.9060e-11
identify which one is being considered in each application.
27 3.1398e+02 1.5885e-03 -6.9970e-08 3.4068e-12 -7.5036e-17
IX. APPENDIX 2.7700e+02 3.6697e-03 -4.7424e-07 1.2200e-10 -3.0704e-14
28
A. Hydro plants data
29 4.3943e+02 8.9155e-03 -4.0333e-06 1.3732e-09 -1.6982e-13
Table A.I lists the topological data, storage capacity and
30 4.2650e+02 1.7357e-02 -1.0233e-05 -1.5366e-08 -1.2149e-11
number of units of each hydro plant. Coefficients of the
31 3.7970e+02 2.1841e-03 -1.2786e-07 7.2738e-12 7.9277e-15
forebay and tailrace polynomials (1) and (2) for each
32 3.5600e+02 5.6617e-03 -8.0838e-07 -1.6166e-09 3.0731e-12
reservoir are listed in Tables A.II and A.III, respectively.
Data for each hydro unit are listed in Table A.IV.
 7

TABLE A.III – TAILRACE LEVEL POLYNOMIALS OF THE RESERVOIRS.

plant unit gh q lh η
D (hm3) => hdn (m)
# # # (MW) (m3/s) (%) (MW/(m3/s).m)
b0 b1 b2 b3 b4
6.7163e+02 1.0173e-03 -1.7997e-07 2.5132e-11 - 11 3 to 5 54 200 2.14 0.00893
1
2 6.1926e+02 1.7319e-03 -4.8919e-08 - - 12 1 to 2 150 240 1.24 0.00883

3 5.5671e+02 1.2216e-03 -7.5121e-08 2.1663e-12 - 12 3 to 4 180 240 1.24 0.00883

4 4.9420e+02 7.8165e-04 -1.0431e-07 - - 12 5 to 6 280 500 1.24 0.00883

6.2452e+02 1.7833e-03 -5.9841e-07 1.5994e-10 -1.9865e-14 13 1 to 2 420 370.0 1.90 0.00903
5
6.9329e+02 1.2572e-02 -1.2680e-05 8.5119e-09 -2.1422e-12 13 3 to 4 420 370.0 1.90 0.00903
6
7 5.4535e+02 1.6590e-02 -3.6417e-05 5.1249e-08 -2.6363e-11 14 1 to 2 350 350 1.90 0.00873

8 5.1931e+02 3.9399e-03 -3.5999e-07 4.3299e-11 -2.6000e-15 14 3 to 4 350 350 1.90 0.00873

5.1099e+02 1.6241e-02 -1.1829e-05 3.0805e-09 15 1 to 2 360 430 0.80 0.00883
9
4.3300e+02 1.5958e-03 -8.1773e-08 3.1735e-12 15 3 to 4 360 430 0.80 0.00883
10
3.9857e+02 2.1237e-03 -2.6822e-07 2.2918e-11 16 1 to 2 225 330 1.38 0.00922
11
16 3 to 6 175 320 1.38 0.00922
12 3.234599e+02 4.0499e-04 4.2000e-08 -2.0000e-12 2.9099e-17
6.0188e+02 1.1058e-03 4.2088e-07 -8.3115e-11 4.7611e-15 17 1 to 2 350 570 1.90 0.00873
13
4.9009e+02 6.0841e-05 2.9246e-07 -2.3201e-11 4.5645e-16 17 3 to 4 310 570 1.90 0.00873
14
3.9441e+02 2.1110e-03 -7.9230e-08 2.3515e-12 -2.7138e-17 18 1 to 2 79 230.0 2.40 0.00903
15
3.2183e+02 2.2809e-03 -1.4027e-07 3.8418e-12 -5.3630e-17 19 1 to 6 38 45.0 1.09 0.00893
16
2.5792e+02 6.2083e-04 -1.7184e-08 2.2826e-13 1.2170e-20 20 1 to 4 140 170.0 1.96 0.00883
17
2.7780e+02 5.5458e-03 -1.6359e-06 2.8092e-10 -1.6781e-14 21 1 to 4 70 11.0 1.64 0.00883
18
1.8137e+02 5.5720e-03 -1.6055e-06 2.8396e-10 -1.8106e-14 22 1 to 2 125 57.0 2.95 0.00922
19
9.1920e+01 5.4478e-03 -1.4621e-06 1.9309e-10 -9.6520e-15 23 1 to 2 180 400.0 0.84 0.00903
20
9.0700e+01 - - - - 23 3 to 4 180 400.0 0.84 0.00903
21
3.3510e+02 8.1666e-03 -5.6666e-06 0.00000e+00 - 23 5 to 8 170 420.0 0.84 0.00903
22
3.8109e+02 1.4052e-03 -2.0073e-08 1.0579e-13 - 24 1 to 6 200 520.0 1.80 0.00853
23
3.2312e+02 -4.5770e-04 3.9876e-07 -4.2210e-11 1.3986e-15 25 1 to 4 100 400.0 0.62 0.00873
24
4.6601e+02 8.7200e-04 -7.3800e-08 6.3400e-12 -1.9000e-16 26 1 to 4 80 550.0 1.10 0.00883
25
4.4607e+02 1.8988e-04 0.0000e+00 0.00000e+00 0.0000e+00 27 1 to 5 170 450.0 1.96 0.00883
26
2.7995e+02 4.2685e-05 4.2497e-08 -3.1011e-12 6.5561e-17 27 6 to 10 200 520.0 1.96 0.00883
27
2.5344e+02 5.7866e-04 1.4402e-08 -1.4155e-12 2.6090e-17 28 1 to 3 100 600.0 1.34 0.00883
28
4.2754e+02 -8.0521e-04 3.0806e-06 -1.3497e-09 1.9017e-13 28 4 to 6 125 650.0 1.34 0.00883
29
4.0394e+02 4.8027e-04 1.5553e-06 -8.1347e-10 1.2166e-13 28 7 to 9 150 700.0 1.34 0.00883
30
3.5800e+02 -2.4096e-04 5.5981e-07 -1.2308e-10 8.0305e-15 28 10 to 12 175 750.0 1.34 0.00883
31
3.2308e+02 4.3148e-03 -2.1333e-06 5.6789e-10 -5.3779e-14 29 1 to 4 40 220.0 0.93 0.00863
32
30 1 to 3 50 300.0 0.60 0.00873
TABLE A.IV – DATA FOR EACH HYDRO UNIT
31 1 to 3 90 400.0 1.27 0.00883
plant unit gh q lh η 1 to 3 120 480.0 1.20 0.00844
32
# # (MW) (m3/s) (%) (MW/(m3/s).m)

1 1 to 12 85 230 0.62 0.00903 B. Thermal units data

2 1 to 2 38 120 1.34 0.00863 Table A.V lists the thermal units data proposed in [8],
2 3 to 6 51 160 1.34 0.00863 augmented by startup/ shutdown times and ramping limits.
2 7 to 8 54 160 1.34 0.00863 Specific data for the startup / shutdown curves of the thermal
3 1 to 3 180 330 1.50 0.00834 units are presented in Table A.VI.
4 1 40 260 0.60 0.00873 TABLE A.V – GENERAL DATA FOR THE THERMAL UNITS

5 1 to 3 130 230 1.31 0.00903 Unit # 1 2 3 4 5

6 1 to 3 200 220 1.27 0.00903 gt (MW) 455 455 130 130 162
7 1 to 2 15 80 0.30 0.00863 gt
(MW) 150 150 20 20 25
8 1 to 4 300 290 1.20 0.00824
c0 ($/h) 1000 970 700 680 450
9 1 to 3 125 210 1.36 0.00922
c1 ($/MWh) 16.19 17.26 16.60 16.50 19.70
10 1 to 3 380 590 2.73 0.00912 c2 ($/MW2h) 0.00048 0.00031 0.002 0.00211 0.00398
10 4 to 6 380 590 2.73 0.00912 ton(h) 8 8 5 5 6
11 1 to 2 20 75 2.14 0.00893 toff(h) 8 8 5 5 6
 8

[10] E. C. Finardi, E. L. da Silva, C. Sagastizábal, “Solving the unit

Unit # 1 2 3 4 5 commitment problem of hydropower plants via lagrangian relaxation and
tup(h) 4 4 3 3 2 sequential quadratic programming”, Computational and Applied
tdn(h) 4 4 3 3 2 Mathematics, v. 24, n. 3, pp. 317-341, Sept. 2005.
[11] S. Soares, C. T. Salmazo, “Minimum loss predispatch model for
chot($) 4500 5000 550 560 900 hydroelectric power system”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., v. 12, n. 3, pp. 1220-
ccold($) 9000 10000 1100 1120 1800 1228, Aug. 1997.
[12] A. L. Diniz, P. P. I. Esteves, C. Sagastizábal, “A Mathematical Model
Δgt i (MW/h) 75 100 40 80 70 for the Efficiency Curves of Hydroelectric units”, IEEE PES General
Meeting, Tampa, FL, June 2007.
Unit # 6 7 8 9 10 [13] Arroyo, J.M., Conejo, A.J., “Modeling of start-up and shut-down
power trajectories of thermal units”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
gt (MW) 80 85 55 55 55 Vol. 19, No. 3, Aug. 2004, pp 1562-1568.
[14] Martinez, M.G., Diniz, A.L., Sagastizábal, C., “A comparative study
gt 20 25 10 10 10 of two forward dynamic programming techniques for solving local thermal
(MW)
unit commitment problems”, Proceedings of the 16th Power Systems
c0 ($/h) 370 48 660 665 670 Computation Conference, Glasgow, Scotland, Jul 2008.
c1 ($/MWh) 22.26 27.74 25.92 27.27 27.79 [15] T. Ohishi, S. Soares, M. F. H. Carvalho, “A short-term hydrothermal
scheduling approach for dominantly hydro systems”, IEEE Trans. Power
c2 ($/MW2h) 0.00712 0.00079 0.004133 0.00222 0.00173 Syst., v. 6, n. 2, pp. 637-643, May 1991.
ton(h) 3 3 1 1 1 [16] F. J. Heredia, N. Nabona, “Optimum short-term hydrothermal
scheduling with spinning reserve through network flows”, IEEE Trans.
toff(h) 3 3 1 1 1 Power Syst., v. 10, n. 3, pp. 1642-1651, Aug. 1995.
up
t (h) 2 2 2 2 1 [17] Guan, X., Ni, E., Li, R., Luh, P.B., “An optimization-based algorithm
for scheduling hydrothermal power systems with cascaded reservoirs and
tdn(h) 2 2 2 2 1
discrete hydro constraints”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., v. 12, n. 4, pp. 1775-
chot($) 170 260 30 30 30 1780, Nov. 1997.
ccold($) 340 520 60 60 60 [18] S. Al-Agtash, “Hydrothermal scheduling by augmented lagrangian:
consideration of transmission constraints and pumped-storage units”, IEEE
Δgt i (MW/h) 30 20 15 15 10 Trans. Power Syst., v. 16, n. 4, pp. 750-756, Nov. 2001.
[19] A. Belloni, A. L. Diniz, M. E. P. Maceira, C. A. Sagastizabal, “Bundle
TABLE A.VI. – STARTUP /SHUTDOWN CURVES FOR THE THERMAL UNITS. relaxation and primal recovery in unit commitment problems. The Brazilian
Unit # curve t=1 t=2 t=3 t=4 case”, Ann. Oper. Res., v.120, n. 1-4, pp. 21-44, 2003.
[20] E. Gil, J. Bustos, H. Rudnick, “Short term hydrothermal generation
startup 25 50 75 150
1 and 2 scheduling model using a genetic algorithm”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., v. 18,
shutdown 150 100 50 0 n. 4, pp. 1256-1264, 2003.
startup 5 10 20 - [21] Y. Fu, S.M. Shahidehpour, Li, Z., “Security-constrained unit
3 and 4
shutdown 20 10 0 - commitment with AC constraints”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., v. 20, n.2, pp.
startup 10 25 - - 1001-1013, May 2005.
5 and 7 [22] W. Ongsakul, N. Petcharaks, “Unit commitment by enhanced adaptive
shutdown 25 0 - -
lagrangian relaxation”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, v. 19, n. 1, pp.
startup 10 20 - -
6 620-628, Feb. 2004.
shutdown 20 0 - - [23] D. N. Simopoulos, S. D. Kavatza, C. D. Vournas, “Unit commitment
startup 5 10 - - by an enhanced simulated annealing algorithm”, IEEE Transactions on
8 and 9
shutdown 10 0 - - Power Systems, v. 21, n. 1, pp. 68-76, Feb. 2006.
startup 10 - - - [24] T. Senjyu, T. Miyagi, A. Y. Saber, N. Urasaki, T. Funabashi,
10 “Emerging solution of large-scale unit commitment problem by stochastic
shutdown 0 - - -
priority list”, Elect. Power Syst. Res., v. 76, n. 5, pp. 283-292, Jan. 2006.
X. REFERENCES [25] Wiki Page of the WG on Test Systems for Economic Analysis:
www.ieee-tea.ethz.ch.
[1] G. B. Sheble, G. N. Fahd, “Unit commitment literature synopsis”, [26] S. Granville, G. C. Oliveira, L. M. Thome, N. Campodonico, M. L.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., v. 9, n. 1, pp. 128-135, Feb. 1994. Latorre, M. V. F. Pereira, and L. A. Barroso, “Stochastic optimization of
[2] S. Sen, D. P. Kothari, “Optimal thermal generating unit commitment: transmission constrained and large scale hydrothermal systems in a
a review”, Int. J. Elect.. Power Energ. Syst., v. 20, n. 7, pp. 443-451, 1998. competitive framework,” IEEE PES General Meeting., Toronto, Can, 2003.
[3] N. P. Padhy, “Unit commitment-a bibliographical survey”, IEEE [27] T. Li, S. M. Shahidehpour, “Price-based unit commitment: a case of
Trans. Power Syst., v. 19, n. 2, pp. 1196-1205, May 2004. lagrangian relaxation versus mixed integer programming”, IEEE
[4] Zhang, X-P., Schaffner, C.S. (Chairs), “Minutes of the Working Transactions on Power Systems, v. 20, n. 4, pp. 2015-2025, Nov. 2005.
Group meeting on Test Systems for Economic Analysis, 2007, 2008 and
2009”, available in http://www.ieee-tea.ethz.ch/wiki/WG_meetings. XI. BIOGRAPHIES
[5] [RTS79] IEEE Reliability Test System Task Force of Applications of Andre Luiz Diniz received the BSc. in Civil Engineering at the Federal
Probability Methods Subcommittee, "IEEE reliability test system," IEEE University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) in 1996, the MSc. in Operations
Trans. Power Appar. Syst, v. 98, No. 6, Nov./Dec. 1979, pp 2047-2054. Research at COPPE/UFRJ in 2000, and the DSc. in optimization at COPPE
[6] [RTS96] IEEE Reliability Test System Task Force of Applications of / UFRJ in 2007. Since 1998 he has been a researcher at CEPEL, the
Probability Methods Subcommittee, "IEEE reliability test system-96," IEEE Brazilian Electrical Power Research Center, where he has been working in
Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 14, No. 3, Aug. 1999, pp 1010-1020. mathematical models for the mid term and short term hydrothermal
[7] A.L. Diniz, , M.E.P. Maceira, , “A four-dimensional model of hydro scheduling, including hydro and thermal unit commitment. He is also
generation for the short-term hydrothermal dispatch problem considering assistant professor at the Institute of Mathematics and Statistics at the State
head and spillage effects”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., v. 23, n.3, pp. 1298- University of Rio de Janeiro, UERJ.
1308, Aug. 2008.
[8] S. A. Kazarlis, A. G. Bakirtzis, V. Petridis, “A genetic algorithm
solution to the unit commitment problem”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., v. 11, n.
1, pp. 83-92, Feb. 1996.
[9] Power systems test cases archive, available on
http://www.ee.washington.edu/research/pstca/.

View publication stats