Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 917925

A dynamic programming based fast computation Hopfield neural

network for unit commitment and economic dispatch
S. Senthil Kumar a, , V. Palanisamy b
a

Department of Electrical Engineering, Government College of Engineering, Anna University, Salem 636011, India
b Government College of Technology, Anna University, Coimbatore 641013, India
Received 30 March 2006; received in revised form 8 July 2006; accepted 12 August 2006
Available online 18 September 2006

Abstract
This paper develops a new dynamic programming based direct computation Hopfield method for solving short term unit commitment (UC)
problems of thermal generators. The proposed two step process uses a direct computation Hopfield neural network to generate economic dispatch
(ED). Then using dynamic programming (DP) the generator schedule is produced. The method employs a linear inputoutput model for neurons.
Formulations for solving the UC problems are explored. Through the application of these formulations, direct computation instead of iterations
for solving the problems becomes possible. However, it has been found that the UC problem cannot be tackled accurately within the framework
of the conventional Hopfield network. Unlike the usual Hopfield methods which select the weighting factors of the energy function by trials, the
proposed method determines the corresponding factor using formulation calculation. Hence, it is relatively easy to apply the proposed method.
The Neyveli Thermal Power Station (NTPS) unit II in India with three units having prohibited operating zone has been considered as a case study
and extensive study has also been performed for power system consisting of 10 generating units.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Unit commitment; Economic dispatch; Hopfield network; Optimization; Dynamic programming

1. Introduction
The unit commitment problem schedules the available generators to meet the required load subject to various constraints.
The UC plays a major role in power systems operation and control. The unit commitment has commonly been formulated as
non-linear, mixed integer, large-scale combinatorial problem for
providing the best generating unit schedule and minimizing the
operating cost of power system. The economic dispatch problem
(EDP) optimally allocates the load demand among the running
units while satisfying the power balance equations and unit operating limits [1]. Reviews of unit commitment problem (UCP)
may be found in Ref. [2]. The solution methods being used to
solve the unit commitment problem can be divided into three
categories.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 94430 71585; fax: +91 42723 46152.
E-mail addresses: sengce2003@yahoo.com (S.S. Kumar),
vpsamyin@yahoo.co.in (V. Palanisamy).
0378-7796/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2006.08.005

Optimization method such as dynamic programming [3,4]

mixed integer programming, branch and bound [5] and
Lagrangian relaxation [6,7].
Heuristic methods such as priority list [8].
Artificial intelligence methods such as neural networks [9]
genetic algorithms [10,11], expert systems [12], simulated
annealing [13], evolutionary programming [14,15] and Tabu
search [16].
The dynamic programming method [3,4] based on a priority
list is flexible, but the computational time suffers from dimensionality. The shortcoming of branch and bound method [5] is
that the execution time increases rapidly for large-scale UC problem. The Lagrangian relaxation (LR) method [6,7] provides a
fast solution but it suffers from numerical convergence and solution quality. The priority list method [8] is simple and fast, but
the quality of final solution is quite far from the optimum.
With the advent of artificial intelligence approaches, genetic
algorithm (GA), evolutionary programming (EP), simulated
annealing (SA), Tabu search (TS) and expert systems (ES) have
been proposed to solve the UC problem. GA, EP and TS require

918

S.S. Kumar, V. Palanisamy / Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 917925

a considerable amount of computational time, especially for a

large system. One draw back of SA is that it takes much of CPU
time to reach a near global minimum.
Due to the use of the sigmoidal function in the conventional Hopfield method to solve UC problems, the numerical
iteration method is inevitably applied though the numerical
iteration method often suffers from large amount of computational requirement [17]. Further, adopting the modified sigmoidal function causes incorrect generation dispatch and selecting shape constant is troublesome.
To avoid the aforementioned problems, a linear model
describing the inputoutput relationship is proposed. The proposed method is different from all Hopfield methods previously reported. All previously presented Hopfield methods apply
the iterative procedures requiring a large quantity of computation to arrive at 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.
Determination of weighting factors is relatively simple for the
proposed analytic method, because the value of the corresponding factor is determined using straightforward calculation. It can
be determined regardless of the power mismatch and converging
speed selected.
The proposed dynamic programming based Hopfield neural network (DPHNN) is a hybrid of intelligence system and
traditional mathematical programming. With its two steps processing, the algorithm can benefit from the advantages of both
the methods. The proposed DPHNN method has been applied
to NTPS 7 unit system and 10 unit system. Computational
results from the proposed method are compared with other
methods.
2. Unit commitment problem
The unit commitment problem can be mathematically
described as follows:

2
Min Fi (Pit ) =
[(ai + bi Pit + ci (Pit ) )
t

+ STi,t (1 Ui,t1 )]Ui,t

(1)

where Fi (Pit ) is the generator fuel cost function in quadratic

form, ai , bi and ci the coefficients of unit i, Pit the power generation of unit i at time t and Ui,t is the on/off status of unit i at
time t.
Subject to the following constraints:

where PDt is the total load demand at time t, PLt the power
loss at time t, Bi the coefficients of power loss and N is the
total number of generator units.
(b) Spinning reserve constraint
PDt + Rt

N


Pi,max Ui,t 0

(4)

i=1

where Rt is spinning reserve constraint at time t.

(c) Generation limit constraint
Pi,min Pit Pi,max

(5)

where Pi,min is the minimum generation limit and Pi,max is

the maximum generation limit.
(d) Generation limits for units with prohibited zones.
There exist some prohibited operating zones [18] in the
cost curve due to steam valve operation or vibration or the
shaft bearing. Practically, it is very difficult to determine
the shape of the cost curve in the prohibited zone. Walters
and Sheble [19] model uses a rectified sinusoid function to
show the effects of a prohibited zone. The best economy is
achieved by avoiding operation in these areas. This paper
deals with this effect using an inequality constraint.
l
Pi,min Pi Pi,1

(j = 2, . . . , ni)

or

or

u
l
Pi,j1
Pi Pi,j

u
Pi,ni
Pi Pi,max i

(6)

l is lower bound of the jth prohibited zone in unit

where Pi,j
u
i, Pi,j the upper bound of the jth prohibited zone in unit i,
ni the number of prohibited zones in unit i, and is set of
all on-line units that have prohibited operating zones.
(e) Minimum up and down time constraint

if Ti,on < Ti,up

1,

if Ti,off < Ti,down

Ui,t = 0,
(7)

0 or 1, otherwise

where Ti,up is minimum up time, Ti,down the minimum down

time, Ti,on the continuously on time and Ti,off is the continuously off time of unit i.
(f) Start-up cost
STi,t = Soi [1 Di e(Ti,off /Ti,down ) ] + Ei

(8)

where Soi is cold start-up cost, Di and Ei are start-up cost

coefficients for unit i.
(g) Units initial status and
(h) Must run constraint.
3. Conventional Hopeld method

(a) Power balance constraint


Pit Ui,t = PDt + PLt

(2)

The Hopfield model is a mutual coupling neural network and

non-hierarchical structure. The dynamic characteristic of each
neuron can be described by the following differential equation

(3)


dUi
Tij Vj + Ii
=
dt

PL =

N

i=1

Bi Pi2

(9)

S.S. Kumar, V. Palanisamy / Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 917925

919

where Ui is the input of neuron i, Tij the interconnection conductance from the output of neuron j to the input of neuron i, Tii
the self conductance of neuron i, Ii the external input to neuron
i and Vj is the output of neuron j.
The energy function of the continuous Hopfield model can
be defined as
E=


1 
Tij Vi Vj
Ii V i
2
i

(10)

To solve the UC problem using Hopfield method, an energy

function including both power mismatch Pm , and total fuel cost
Fi is defined as follows:
2



A
E=
(PD + PL )
Pi
2
i


B
+
(ai + bi Pi + ci Pi2 )
2
i


A
B
2
Pm +
=
Fi
2
2

4. The proposed Hopeld method

(11)

where positive weighting factors A and B introduce the relative

importance of the respective associated terms. With the application of the conventional Hopfield method to the UC problem,
the power output value Pi can be represented using the output
Vi of neuron i with a modified sigmoidal function described as
follows:
Pi

Fig. 1. A modified sigmoidal function.

= gi (Ui )


1
Ui
=
(Pi,max Pi,min ) + Pi,min
1 + tanh
2
u0
(12)

The inputoutput relationship of a neuron is expressed by

a modified sigmoidal function in the conventional Hopfield
method. This type of inputoutput curve reveals saturation phenomena at its two ending regions, as shown in Fig. 1. The
saturation phenomena could result in incorrect dispatching levels for units during the iterating process. That is, a larger input
variation might result in a smaller output change, or vice versa,
as shown in Fig. 1, where
|Ui | > |Ui |

while

|Pi | < |Pi |

(18)

On the other hand, the selection of shape constant u0 results

either it is seen that in a much slower converging speed or
behaves as a two-value function. To avoid the two problems,
a novel linear model is proposed to describe the inputoutput
relationship for the neuron.
4.1. Neuron model and energy function

where u0 is the shape constant of the sigmoidal function. Comparing (10) with (11) the following expressions are obtained.

A linear inputoutput model, hi (Ui ), for a neuron can be written as

Tii = A Bci

(13)

Pi

Tij = A

(14)

Ii =

APD Bbi
2

(15)

(19)

where both C1i and C2i are constants, and

In proceeding to the numerical computation, the following

dynamic movement model will be used


(16)
Ui = Tij Pj + Ii t
j

Pi = gi (Ui )

= hi (Ui )


Ui Umin
=
(Pi,max Pi,min ) + Pi,min
Umax Umin
= C1i Ui + C2i Umin Ui Umax

(17)

where Ui is the differential variation of input Ui and t is the

differential variation of time.
The updating process using the above movement model for
each neuron is repeated until the energy function converges to
its minimum.

Pi,max Pi,min
Umax Umin
C2i = C1i Umin + Pi,min

C1i =

and
Pi = hi (Ui ) = Pi,max

Ui > Umax

(20)

Pi = hi (Ui ) = Pi,min

Ui < Umin

(21)

The linear inputoutput relationship of neuron i is shown in

Fig. 2. It is a piecewisely continuous and monotonously increasing function, i.e., hi (Ui ) 0 and the time derivative of the energy
function is less than or equal to zero, which can be proven as

920

S.S. Kumar, V. Palanisamy / Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 917925

Then, substituting Eq. (19) into Eq. (25), the dynamic equation becomes


B
dUi
= APm
[bi + 2ci (C1i Ui + C2i )]
dt
2
(26)

C
U
+
C
= 3i i
4i
where,
C3i
Fig. 2. The proposed linear inputoutput function.

C4i
follows. First, if the energy function is given as,

 

1
E=
Tij Pi Pj
Ii Pi
2
i

then its time derivative is

  
dE
1
dt

Tij Pj


dPi 
Ii

=
=

dt

dt

+ Pi

dPj
dt

hi (Ui )

(Tij Pj + Tji Pj ) + 2Ii

dUi
dt

(23)

2KAB Pm bi
2ci

(28)

where KAB = A/B.

It is especially worth noting that two weighting factors A and
B of the energy function used in the conventional model are now
replaced by the factor KAB . Therefore, difficulty of selecting the
weighting factors is naturally avoided for the proposed model.
Setting t = for (28), then

Thus dE/dt 0.

Pi () =

4.2. Computational expression

The proposed method employs the linear inputoutput model
instead of the sigmoidal function and obtains the results by
applying the straightforward computation instead of iterative
procedures. The dynamic equation of a neuron is given as

dUi
= Ii +
Tij pj .
dt

Solving Eq. (26), the neurons input function, Ui (t), is

obtained as




C4i
C4i
C3i t
e
(27)
+
Ui (t) = Ui (0) +
C3i
C3i
From Eq. (19)



2KAB Pm bi
eC3i t
Pi (t) = C1i Ui (0) + C2i
2ci

dt

dt


dPi 
dUi 
i

dPi
dt

 
 
1
dPi
2

(22)

= Bci C1i
Pi,max Pi,min
= Bci
U

Umin
max 
B
= APm
bi Bci C2i
2

(24)

Substituting Eqs. (13)(15) into Eq. (24), the dynamic equation becomes,


dFi
B
dUi
(25)
= APm
dt
2
dPi
The first term on the right side of the above equation bears no
relation to the power output of unit i. However, the second term
is related to the incremental cost associated with unit i. Hence,
the dynamic performances of the neurons will bring about such a
dispatching criterion that units with lower incremental cost have
a priority of further dispatching over units with higher incremental cost.

2KAB Pm bi
2ci

(29)

Here, Pi () represents the optimal generation level for unit i,

which is the solution. Also from (29), it can be seen that Pi ()
is not related to parameters (Umax Umin ) and Pi (0), which is
reasonable and comprehensible, and actually is another merit of
the proposed model.
Applying (19) and (29) to (28) a more simple formula for the
generation is given as
Pi (t) = [Pi (0) Pi ()]eC3i t + Pi ()

(30)

The power mismatch Pm which is defined as the load demand

less the total generating power is expressed as
N


Pi () = PD Pm

(31)

i=1

Substituting (29) into (31) yields,


PD + 1/2 ni=1 (bi /ci )

Pm =
KAB ni=1 (1/ci ) + 1

(32)

S.S. Kumar, V. Palanisamy / Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 917925

921

Appropriately selecting KAB , a useful approximate formula

for Pm can be written as

PD + 1/2 ni=1 (bi /ci )

Pm =
(33)
KAB ni=1 (1/ci )
The expression (29), (30) and (32) together make the Hopfield
model for UC problems a direct computation not an iterative
method.
4.3. The solution steps
Step 1. Input the load data and generator data. Generate initial
feasible solution and set time j = 1.
Step 2. Generate possible combinations of generator schedule.
Step 3. Include up/down time constraint and find feasible combinations.
Step 4. Arbitrarily choose Pm , Umax , Umin .
Step 5. Calculate KAB using (32) and calculate C3i using (26)
and obtain economic dispatch.
Step 6.
a Compute generation level Pi () using (29) for all units that
have not yet finished dispatch.
b Check the unit generation limit constraints. If any unit violates
generation limits and generation limits of prohibited operating
zones go to Step 7; otherwise, go to Step 9.
Step 7.
a For each violated unit, apply (30) to compute time t (dimensionless variable) using initial feasible solution.
b From 7a, identify the unit which first reaches its generation
limit (i.e., the one with the smallest t computed in 7a), and
dispatch the identified unit to output its limiting power that it
hits.
c Exclude the identified unit mentioned in 7b from the system
which consists of units that have not yet completed dispatch.
d Subtract the limiting power mentioned in 7b from the total
load demand to become new total load demand.

Fig. 3. Flow chart of DPHNN algorithm.

Step 8. Go to Step 5.

5. Application example

Step 9. Save Nj least cost strategies and calculate transmission

power loss using (3).

5.1. Example 1

Step 10. If total time is reached and the solution is obtained,

go to Step 11; otherwise increment time and go to Step 5.
Step 11. Display the result and terminate the computation.
The flow chart of DPHNN algorithm is shown in Fig. 3.

To illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed method, an

NTPS system in India unit II is considered. The system consists
of 7 units with 3 units having prohibited operating zones. The
data for NTPS 7 unit system is given in Table 1. The load data
is given in Table 3. The economic dispatch for load demand of
755 MW is shown in the following example.

922

S.S. Kumar, V. Palanisamy / Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 917925

Table 1
Cost coefficient and prohibited operating zones of NTPS 7 unit system
Unit

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Pmin
(MW)

Pmax
(MW)

Running cost
ci (Rs)

bi (Rs/Wh)

ai

15
20
30
25
50
50
75

60
80
100
120
150
150
200

750
1250
2000
1600
1450
4950
4100

70
75
70
70
75
65
60

0.255
0.198
0.198
0.191
0.106
0.0675
0.074

Start-up cost
(Rs/Wh2 )

Soi (Rs)

Di (Rs)

Ei (Rs)

Minimum Minimum
up time down time
(s)
(s)

4250
5050
5700
4700
5650
14100
11350

29.5
29.5
28.5
32.5
32
37.5
32

10
10
10
9
9
4.5
5.5

1
1
1
1
5
5
6

It is assumed that unit 7 is a must run unit and therefore, the

power output of unit 7 is fixed at 200 MW and excluded from the
economic dispatch computation. To start with the computation,
first, arbitrarily select Pm , Umax and Umin as follow.
Pm = 0.01 MW,

Umax = 0.5,

Umin = 0.5.

The solution steps are briefly stated as follows:

1
1
1
1
5
5
6

Initial generation
P0 (MW)

Prohibited operating
zone (MW)

60
65
75
83
122
150
200

Nil
Nil
[45,50] [81,85]
[101,105]
[102,106] [135,140]
Nil
Nil

level Pi (0) of unit i be specified in accordance with the proportion

of that units maximum generation limit to the sum of all units
maximum generation limits, which is given by,


Pi,max
(1)
Pi (0) = PLD 
for i = 1 6 and j = 1 6
j Pj,max
(1)

Applying (30) the generation function Pi (t) is obtained.

Computational results for this stage (called stage 1) are shown
(1)
in Table 2. In Table 2, ti represents the time that unit is output
hits its generation limit, and it can be seen that unit 6 is the one
to hit its generation limit.

The load demand with loss PLD to be dispatched is

(1)

PLD = PLD P7 = 555 MW

Applying (32) (KAB )(1) = 4354.52
Applying (29) the optimal unit generation levels are computed
as
P1 () = 33.51 MW P2 () = 30.53 MW
P3 () = 43.15 MW P4 () = 44.74 MW
P5 () = 57.03 MW P6 () = 163.63 MW

Since unit 6 hit its generation limit, this is not a feasible

solution; a new dispatch is to be done. Let the initial generation

(2)

(1)

PLD = PLD P6 (1.34) = 405 MW

Similarly, in the succeeding computation of stages 25, the
generation level shown in Table 2 is obtained. Table 3 shows
economic dispatch and solution of UC for 24 h period. Fig. 4
shows the generation level in various stages of units 3 and 5 at
hour 1. A maximum of 6 stages of calculations is required every
hour to reach the optimum generation level of all the units.
In Table 3, the zero indicates that the respective unit is
switched off and various generation level based on economic
dispatch indicates that the respective unit is switched on. In the
simulation the reserve of 10% of load demand at all hours is

Table 2
Computational results
Stage

Unit
1

6
163.63
126.15
1.34

P()
P(0)
t

33.51
50.54

30.53
67.27

43.15
84.10

44.74
100.92

57.03
126.15

P()
P(t = 1.34)
t

23.19

85.27

31.25

124.37

55.73

P()
P(t = 1.21)
t

62.73

5
Final solution

P()
P(t = 1.71)
t

150
1.32

1.71
60

P()
60

1.21

82.73
84.83
1.84

28.72

54.75
63.43

40.33
47.92

65.09

77.73

65.09

77.73

74.81
120

2.12
80.13

107.07
120

107.07

150

S.S. Kumar, V. Palanisamy / Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 917925

923

Table 3
Generator schedule of 7 unit system
Hour

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Load (MW)

718
646
668
665
666
662
649
665
666
663
511
508
479
480
479
398
385
382
401
400
450
449
453
731

PLD (MW)

755
683
702
700
701
697
683
699
701
698
537
534
504
503
502
421
404
402
421
422
472
473
477
755

Spinning
reserve (MW)
105
77
78
80
79
83
77
81
79
82
63
66
56
57
58
49
46
48
49
48
58
57
53
105

Generation of thermal units (MW)

1

60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
0
0
52.144
51.85
51.557
0
0
0
0
0
60
60
60
60

65.09
66.566
0
0
0
0
66.566
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
65.09

77.73
0
80.824
80.312
80.568
79.544
0
80.056
80.568
79.8
73.428
72.382
0
0
0
0
79.355
78.658
0
0
0
0
0
77.726

120
82.094
83.787
83.256
83.521
82.459
82.094
82.99
83.521
82.725
0
0
0
0
0
87.293
0
0
87.293
87.65
84.081
84.438
85.865
80.574

107.07
124.34
127.39
126.43
126.91
125
124.34
125.95
126.91
125.48
113.57
111.62
101.86
101.15
100.44
133.71
124.64
123.34
133.71
134.35
127.92
128.56
131.13
121.6

150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
150

200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200

Total production cost (Rs) = 1,399,436.

met. To include transmission loss the B-coefficient loss formula

proposed by Yalcinoz et al. [20] is followed. The B-coefficient
are given by
B = [0.00081

Fig. 4. Trajectory of units 3 and 5 at hour 1.

0.00075

0.00063

0.00061

0.00041

0.00031

0.00025]

Transmission losses are calculated at the end of every period

and then assumed to be constant over the next period [20].
Table 3 shows the spinning reserve constraint, minimum up
time and minimum down time constraint for all the 24 intervals
are met. In Table 3 the maximum generation available for the
interval 310 is the same, which is favorable for large-scale
implementation.
Fig. 5 shows the sum of total number of units switched on
every hour for the proposed DPHNN method. From Table 3,
unit 6 is made to generate at their rated maximum generating
limit. Some units are assigned generation values that lie at the
Table 4
Comparison with LR, ALR and GA methods

Fig. 5. Number of units switched on during every hour for DPHNN.

System

Methods

Production
cost in PU

% Cost
saving

Execution
time (s)

NTPS 7 units

GA
LR
ALR
DPHNN

1
0.99942
0.99912
0.99787

0
0.058
0.088
0.213

213
138
4
4.5

10 units

GA
LR
ALR
DPHNN

1
0.99935
0.99926
0.99843

0
0.065
0.074
0.157

252
173
4.7
5.3

924

S.S. Kumar, V. Palanisamy / Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 917925

Table 5
Generator schedule of 10 unit system
Hour

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Load (MW)

700
750
850
950
1000
1100
1150
1200
1300
1400
1450
1500
1400
1300
1200
1050
1000
1100
1200
1400
1300
1100
900
800

PLD (MW)

729.38
781.05
884.47
990.96
1047.6
1150.5
1204.3
1258.8
1360.8
1466.5
1522.8
1580.1
1494.3
1375.6
1267.9
1111.4
1051
1146.4
1254
1460.6
1372.5
1167.6
958.07
847

Spinning
reserve (MW)
180.62
128.95
187.53
81.04
154.4
181.5
127.7
73.3
136.2
85.5
84.2
81.9
57.7
121.4
64.1
220.6
281
185.6
78
91.4
124.5
69.4
31.93
63

Generation of thermal units (MW)

1

10

455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455

274.38
326.05
404.47
455
437.58
410.45
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
371.36
310.98
406.45
455
455
455
455
455
392

0
0
0
0
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
0
0
0

0
0
25
80.962
25
25
34.342
88.755
145.83
162
162
162
162
160.56
97.883
25
25
25
83.983
162
157.45
162
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
80
80
80
80
20
0
0
0
0
0
80
20
70.577
48.069
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
25
25
48.064
27.311
25
0
0
0
0
0
25
25
25
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29.484
55
55
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.576
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.816
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total production cost ($) is 588,750.

boundary of the prohibited zones (unit 3 at hours 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and

unit 5 at hours 13, 14); but none of the generations lie inside the
prohibited zones. These facts validate the constraint handling
capacity of the technique in a large-scale problem.
The LR, augmented Lagrangian relaxation (ALR) and GA
methods have been implemented in C language for comparison
and DPHNN is implemented in MATLAB on 256 MB, 2.9 GHz,
Pentium IV personnel computer. As shown in Table 4, the total
production cost of DPHNN is shown to be less expensive than
those of LR, ALR and GA.
5.2. Example 2
The data for 10 unit system given in Ref. [7] were used to
find the optimum generator schedule. Unit 1 is a must run unit
running at its maximum generation for all the hours. Table 5
shows the economic dispatch and solution of UC for a 24 h
period. A maximum of eight stages of calculation is required
every hour to reach the optimum generation level of all the
units.
The results show that the DPHNN method gives a lower total
cost and takes less CPU time. The previously reported neural
network programs are system dependent, which means that an
ANN with its trained network for one system is not readily transferable to another system with a different configuration. The
training pattern developed for one system may not be suitable
for another system. This drawback is eliminated in the proposed
DPHNN, which does not require any training.

The B-coefficient loss formula employed in the paper is not

an accurate representation. However, there is no great difficulty
in making some changes in the formulations developed so that
the proposed approach can employ different loss representation
instead of the B-coefficient formula.
6. Conclusion
The paper develops a hybrid dynamic programming based
Hopfield neural network approach to unit commitment problem
which is extremely different from the hybrid methods previously
reported. From the results of the example, it is obvious that the
proposed analytic method is far superior to other methods previously presented. The proposed method is relatively simple,
straightforward and efficient. It also exhibits the ability to attain
power match to any extent required. The computational results
show that the saving in cost for DPHNN is superior and takes
less CPU time. Further, because the determination of the weighting factors of the energy function is unnecessary, the proposed
method is very easy to apply. The proposed model unlike other
neural network requires no training. The paper essentially aims
at proposing a new method for the UC problem of generation
system, and it has been successfully achieved.
In addition, the proposed DPHNN could be extended to solve
ramp rate or security constrained UC problems. To resolve the
ramp rate and security constrained problem by the proposed
method some endeavors still have to be made and are worth
pursuing in the future.

S.S. Kumar, V. Palanisamy / Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 917925

Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to the authorities of Government
College of Engineering, Salem for the facilities provided to carry
out this work.
References
[1] A.J. Wood, B.F. Wollenberg, Power Generation Operation and Control,
second ed., Wiley, New York, 1996.
[2] N.P. Padhy, Unit commitmenta bibliographical survey, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 19 (May) (2004) 11961205.
[3] W.L. Snyder, H.D. Powel, J.C. Rayburn, Dynamic programming approach
to unit commitment, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2 (May) (1987) 339350.
[4] W.J. Hobbs, G. Hermon, S. Warner, G.B. Sheble, An enhanced dynamic
programming approach for unit commitment, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 3
(August) (1988) 12011205.
[5] A.I. Cohen, M. Yoshimura, A branch and bound algorithm for unit commitment, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst. 102 (February) (1983) 444451.
[6] S. Dekrajangpetch, G.B. Sheble, A.J. Conejo, Auction implementation
problems using Lagrangian relaxation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 14 (February) (1999) 8288.
[7] W. Ongsakul, N. Petcharaks, Unit commitment by enhanced adaptive
Lagrangian relaxation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 19 (February) (2004)
620628.
[8] T. Senjyu, K. Shimalkumar, K. Vezato, T. Funabashi, A fast technique for
unit commitment problem by extended priority list, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 18 (May) (2003) 882888.
[9] H. Sasaki, M. Watanabe, R. Yokoyama, A solution method of unit commitment by artificial neural networks, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 7 (August)
(1992) 974981.
[10] C.P. Cheng, C.W. Liu, C.C. Liu, Unit commitment by annealing-genetic
algorithm, Electr. Power Energy Syst. 24 (2002) 149158.
[11] K.S. Swarup, S. Yamashiro, A genetic algorithm approach to generator unit
commitment, Electr. Power Energy Syst. 25 (2003) 679687.
[12] S.K. Tong, Shahidehpour, Z. Ouyang, A heuristic short term unit commitment, IEEE Trans Power Apparatus Syst. 6 (August) (1991) 12101216.

925

[13] A.H. Mantawy, L. Abdel-Magid Youssef, Z. Selim Shokri, A simulated

annealing algorithm for unit commitment, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 13
(February) (1998) 197204.
[14] A. Rudolf, R. Bayrleithner, A genetic algorithm for solving unit commitment problem of a hydro thermal power system, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
14 (November) (1999) 14601468.
[15] K.A. Juste, H. Kita, E. Tanaka, J. Hasegawa, An evolutionary solution to
the unit commitment problem, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 14 (November)
(1999) 14521459.
[16] A.H. Mantawy, L. Abdel-Magid Youssef, Z. Selin Shokri, Integrating
genetic algorithms, Tabu Search and simulated annealing for the unit commitment problem, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 14 (August) (1999) 829836.
[17] M.P. Walsh, M.J.O. Malley, Augmented Hopfield network for constrained
generator scheduling, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 14 (May) (1999) 765771.
[18] F.N. Lee, A.M. Breipohi, Reserve constrained economic dispatch with
prohibited operating zones, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 8 (February) (1993)
246254.
[19] C. Walters, G.B. Sheble, Genetic algorithm solution of economic dispatch
with valve point loading, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 8 (1993) 13251332.
[20] T. Yalcinoz, B.J. Cory, M.J. Short, Hopfield neural network approaches
to economic dispatch problems, Electr. Power Energy Syst. 23 (2001)
435442.
S. Senthil Kumar received the B.E. degree in electrical and electronics engineering from Government College of Technology, Coimbatore in 1995 and
M.E. degree in power systems from Anna University in 1998. He is currently
working towards his Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering at Anna University,
India. Since 2001 he has been with Government College of Engineering, Salem,
India, where he is currently lecturer in Electrical and Electronics Engineering
Department. His interest includes neural network, economic dispatch, unit commitment, optimization and power system.
V. Palanisamy received the B.E. degree in electronics and communication engineering from PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore in 1972, M.E. in communication systems in 1974 from Anna University and Ph.D. in Antenna Theory
in 1987 from IIT Karagpur, India. Since 1974 he has been working in various
capacities in Technical Education in Tamilnadu, and currently he is principal
of Government College of Technology, Coimbatore, India. His interest includes
neural network, fuzzy logic and optimization.