Arab J Sci Eng

DOI 10.1007/s13369-017-2790-x

RESEARCH ARTICLE - SPECIAL ISSUE - COMPUTER ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE

A New Binary Variant of Sine–Cosine Algorithm: Development

and Application to Solve Profit-Based Unit Commitment Problem
K Srikanth Reddy1 · Lokesh Kumar Panwar2 · BK Panigrahi1 · Rajesh Kumar3

Received: 16 May 2017 / Accepted: 1 August 2017

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2017

Abstract The profit-based unit commitment (PBUC) pro-
cedure is a binary natured operational planning problem
of generation company (GENCO) in competitive electric-
ity market. The GENCO solves PBUC problem in day ahead
market of energy and reserve markets by commitment and
scheduling of thermal units with an objective of profit max-
imization for the set of given price and load forecasts.
Therefore, the solution quality and efficacy of PBUC opti-
mization problem play a vital role in ensuring maximum
returns to the GENCO. This paper presents a mathematical
model-inspired heuristic approach called binary sine–cosine
algorithm (BSCA) for solving PBUC problem. The SCA
algorithm is a heuristic approach that uses the fluctuating
nature of individual candidates/search agents in the search
space around the global solution. The fluctuating mecha-
nism is realized by using mathematical functions, i.e. sine
and cosine functions. The proposed binary approach of SCA
algorithm uses modified sigmoidal transformation function
for binary mapping of continuous real-valued search space
to binary counterpart. The efficacy of proposed approach in
terms of solution quality and convergence is demonstrated
using test system with different market participation poli-
cies. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of proposed
BSCA approach over existing approaches for solving PBUC.
Keywords Profit-based unit commitment (PBUC) ·
Heuristic optimization · Sine–cosine algorithm · Binary
sine–cosine optimization algorithm (BSCA) · Power system
operation · Electricity market
List of symbols
Sets and indices
l Hour of the scheduling day
j Conventional (coal fired) generator(s)
L Time horizon (24 h)
J Conventional generators set
NP Number of search agents
I Total number of iterations

B K Srikanth Reddy
srikanthkonda.eee@gmail.com Decision variables
Lokesh Kumar Panwar
lokesh.panwar28@gmail.com P jl Energy market schedule of jth thermal unit for lth
BK Panigrahi
hour (MW)
bijayaketan.panigrahi@gmail.com R lj Reserve market schedule of jth thermal unit for lth
Rajesh Kumar
hour (MW)
rkumar.ee@gmail.com lj ON/OFF state of jth thermal unit at lth hour
1 Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Delhi, New Delhi,
India Parameters
2 Center for Energy studies, IIT Delhi, New Delhi, India
3 Department of Electrical Engineering, MNIT Jaipur, Jaipur,
PLl System load at lth hour (MW)
l
Rreq Required system reserve for lth hour (MW)
India

123

P jmn Lower generation limit for jth thermal unit (MW)
P jmx Upper generation limit for jth thermal unit (MW)
ς lj Start-up cost for jth thermal unit at lth hour ($)
ς Hs Hot start-up cost of jth thermal unit ($)
j
ς Cs
j Cold start-up cost of jth thermal unit ($)
DTmin j Minimum down time of jth thermal unit (h)
UTmin j Minimum up time of jth thermal unit (h)
H joff Time(hours) for which jth thermal unit is OFF (h)
H jon Time(hours) for which jth thermal unit is ON (h)
R urj Ramp up rate of jth thermal unit (MW/h)
R drj Ramp down rate of jth thermal unit (MW/h)
H jCs Cold start hours of jth thermal unit (h)
l Spot price of energy market at lth hour ($/MWh)
δl Reserve market price at lth hour ($/MW)
λ Probability of contingency occurrence
1 Introduction
The renovated market structure of electricity sector from
vertically integrated to deregulated fashion has enabled the
competition between generation companies (GENCO). As
a result of which, the primary objective of the GENCO has
transformed from cost minimization strategy to profit maxi-
mization strategy [1] where the GENCO engages/schedules
its available generation resources in various services by
observing the prices of various services (energy/reserve/
regulation) in electricity market [2]. Therefore, the GENCO
in this scenario essentially acts as a price taker and opti-
mizes the generation schedules to maximize the profit [3].
The earlier methodology of market participation was con-
stricted to energy markets only. However, the same has been
extended to facilitate GENCO participation in energy as well
as ancillary markets [4]. The cost attributes of the reserve ser-
vice in ancillary market were partially included in the initial
phases of market model development [5]. Later, comprehen-
sive and accurate models to include the payment scenarios
corresponding to reserve participation were modelled and the
same are adopted in this work [6].
The scheduling problem of GENCO in restructured envi-
ronment is associated with two principle aspects. The first
step comprises resolving the commitment condition of avail-
able units, which is followed by the second step in which
the generation allocation and reserve capacity allocation of
committed units are determined. Thus, the objective of PBUC
problem is more complicated and nonlinear in nature when
compared to the traditional unit commitment counterpart.
Apart from the objective function, the differences between
traditional and PBUC problems also introduce changes in
constraint modelling. The constraints pertaining to reserve
and load satisfaction of the system act as generation capacity
123
Arab J Sci Eng
allocation in energy and reserve markets, whereas the oper-
ational constraints concerned to thermal unit such as ramp
rate up/down time constraints continue to take same effect
on the objective function. The quest for efficient solution
methodology for solving PBUC problem has accomplished
considerable attention in the past decade. As a result, many
optimization approaches are proposed to solve the PBUC
problem. The energy and reserve market participation of
GENCO is coordinated using the energy and reserve mar-
ket and requirement forecasts [7]. The same is performed
with the help of Lagrangian multiplier in the earlier stud-
ies [8]. However, issues with convergence of the nonconvex
PBUC problem are identified in the LR method. Later,
issue of convergence is effectively resolved using gradient-
based LR approach. However, the solution of gradient-based
approaches, being vulnerable to get trapped in local min-
ima, has been identified as a drawback. Consequently,
self-evolving/dynamic approaches such as genetic algorithm
(GA) and evolutionary programming are introduced, in
which more efficient constraint-handling technique is also
incorporated through heuristic adjustment [3]. Thereafter, the
evolutionary programming approaches are also used to fur-
nish the efficiency of LR-based approaches through hybrid
approaches such as Lagrangian relaxation–evolutionary pro-
gramming (LR-EP) [9] in which the LR multipliers are
updated dynamically using the evolutionary programming
approaches. Similarly, other hybrid approaches extended to
the use of GA to update the Lagrangian multipliers [10].
Later, tabu search (TS-IRP) is used for allocating energy and
reserve resources in various markets [11]. Thereafter, another
traditional approach using multiple integer programming is
developed to improve the PBUC solution compared to LR
[12]. However, the traditional approaches are associated with
computational burden at larger dimensions.
The recent literature showed the application of var-
ious heuristic approaches like particle swarm optimiza-
tion (PSO) [13], muller method (MM) [14], nodal ant
colony optimization (NACO) [15], parallel nodal ant colony
(PNACO) [16], gravitational search Lagrangian relaxation-
based artificial neural network (GSLRANN) [17], hybrid
Lagrangian relaxation–invasive weed optimization (LR-
IWO) [18], tabu search–evolutionary particle swarm opti-
mization (TS-EPSO) [19], particle swarm optimization–
dynamic programming (PSO-DP) [20], variable neighbour-
hood tabu search–parallel enhanced particle swarm opti-
mization with island model (VTS-PEPSO) [21], Lagrangian
relaxation–particle swarm optimization (LR-PSO) [22], par-
allel artificial bee colony (PABC) [23], multiagent system
(MAS) [6]-based approach, imperialist competitive algo-
rithm (ICA) [24], ant colony optimization (ACO) [25],
improved preprepared power demand (IPPD) [14], improved
Muller’s method [26], binary fish swarm algorithm (BFSA)
[27], to solve the PBUC problem.
Arab J Sci Eng

The development of sine–cosine optimization algorithm operation policies/methodologies. The strategies adopted for
is motivated by the stochastic movement and evaluation of energy and reserve payments are explained in the following
search agents in the search space until they approach the prox- subsections
imity of destination. The sine–cosine optimization algorithm A) Strategies for Reserve Payment Scenario 1
involves sine and cosine functions that dictate the search
This method provides reserve payments for GENCO for
agents distribution and movements around the destination.
reserve allocated only for the time that it is being called to
Therefore, the name sine–cosine algorithm is appended to the
serve. Therefore, revenue to GENCO is a function of proba-
approach. The other parameters of SCA decide the range of
bility that allocated reserve is called upon to serve. Therefore,
movement and random movements. The range of movement
the total revenue incurred by GENCO as a function of reserve
is deduced as a function of iteration to improve exploita-
deployment probability (λ) is given as follows.
tion of search space at starting and to aid the exploration
around destination at the end phase of search process. This  J 
L    
L 
J
paper presents a binary approach of SCA approach to solve RV = P jl l lj + λδl R lj lj (2)
binary natured problem such as profit-based unit commit- l=1 j=1 l=1 j=1
ment (PBUC) in which the thermal units occupy binary states.
The binary mapping of real-valued position to binary search To ensure sufficient revenue flows and utilization of the
space is carried out using modified variant of sigmoid transfer reserve allocation, it is a general practice to set the price of
function. reserve deployment higher than that of energy price. This
Rest of the paper is organized as follows: The objec- paper adopts one such setting in which the reserve deploy-
tive functions of the PBUC problem with different market ment price per unit of electricity (MW) harnessed from
operating policies are explained along with the associated allocated reserve equals to five times that of energy price.
constraints in Sect. 2. The theory of continuous/real-valued ⎧
SCA is presented, and proposed BSCA model is explained in ⎨ L  J 
2
 
Sect. 3. The implementation procedure of BSCA for PBUC profit = ai P jl + bi P jl + ci lj
⎩
is presented in Sect. 4. Thereafter, Sect. 5 presents the test l=1 j=1
⎫
system, parameter setting and test case description. In the L  J ⎬
same, simulation results for various test cases using BSCA + λδl R lj lj
are presented, discussed and compared with respect to solu- ⎭
l=1 j=1
tion quality and convergence characteristics. Finally, Sect. 5 ⎧
⎨ L  J     
concludes the paper with key findings of the work. − (1 − λ) Fc P jl lj
⎩
l=1 j=1
⎫
2 Problem Formulation       ⎬
+ λ Fc P jl + R lj lj + ς lj lj (3)
⎭
The scheduling events of the PBUC problem comprise com-
mitment assignment and generation allocation by GENCO
acting as price taker. The following subsections present the The total revenue and total cost of operation are represented
various costs and revenue flows associated with energy and by the first and second parts, respectively. The revenue com-
reserve scheduling by GENCO. prises two parts, energy and reserve payments, whereas the
total cost can be decomposed into three parts, viz. energy
2.1 Objective Function generation cost, reserve deployment cost and start-up cost,
while, being negligible when compared to the start-up cost,
The objective of GENCO in competitive market is different the shutdown cost of thermal unit is neglected in general. In
than that of vertically integrated power operations [6]. Thus, (3), ς lj is given as follows.
the objective of GENCO in competitive electricity market

signifies the profit maximization as given by ς Hs
j , DTmin
j ≤ H joff ≤ H jCs + DTmin
j
ς lj = (4)
ς Cs
j , H jCs + DTmin ≤ H joff
maximize profit = max. (TR − TC) (1) j

where TR and TC represent the cumulative total revenue
and cost incurred by GENCO while participating in various
markets offering different services, viz. energy and ancil-
lary services. The total cash flows, i.e. costs and revenues of
GENCO in electricity market, are influenced by the market
B) Strategies for Reserve Payment Scenario 2:
This method employs two mode reserve payments through
energy and capacity payments. The energy payments are pro-
vided for the portion of energy supplied by reserve when
called upon to serve, whereas for the time that the reserve

123
 Arab J Sci Eng

is procured, but not called upon to serve, capacity payment 2.2.2 Thermal Unit Constraints
is paid to GENCO. Therefore, the total revenue incurred by
GENCO through energy and ancillary service in Scenario 2 The commitment and de-commitment events and generation
is given by allocation of thermal units are restricted by their operational
J    constraints as follows.

L 
RV = P jl l lj a. Generation Limits/Bounds
l=1 j=1 For the reliable operation of generation units, the actual
generation at any time is scheduled with in the minimum and

L 
J
+ {(1 − λ) δl + r l } R lj lj (5) maximum generation limits as follows.
l=1 j=1
P jmn lj < P jl lj < P jmx lj (9)
The total cost for GENCO remains same as that of Scenario
1. Therefore, the total profit earned by GENCO in Scenario b. Minimum Up/Down Times
2 is given as follows. The mechanical and thermal stability aspects of ther-
⎧ mal power plant components restrict the time that elapses
⎨ L  J   
profit = P jl l lj between ON and OFF events. The status (ON/OFF) bit
⎩ assignment for thermal unit is constrained by minimum up
l=1 j=1
⎫ and down time limits of the corresponding thermal unit as
 L  J ⎬
given by
+ {(1 − λ) δl + r l } R lj lj
⎭  
⎧
l=1 j=1
1 − l+1
j UTmin
j ≤ H jon , i f lj = 1
(10)
⎨ L  J      l+1
 j DTmin ≤ H joff , i f lj = 0
j
− (1 − λ) Fc P jl lj
⎩
l=1 j=1
⎫ c. Ramp Up/Down Rates
      ⎬ The pace of ramping up and down the generation operation
+ λ Fc P jl + R lj lj + ς lj lj (6) of thermal generation is also controlled by ramp rates. The
⎭
maximum permissible hourly variation in thermal units is
limited by the ramp up and down rate limits as follows.
2.2 Constraints
P jmn,l < P jl < P jmx,l (11)
2.2.1 System Constraints
where
a. Load Constraint   
P jmn,l = max P jmn , P jl−1 − R dr
The load satisfaction constraint in PBUC problem can be   j  (12)
modelled as soft constraint, owing to the absence of load sat- P jmx,l = min P jmx , P jl−1 − R ur
j
isfaction on participating GENCO. Therefore, total genera-
tion of the PBUC is decided by profit maximization objective In equation (12), P jl−1 is the power generation of ith plant
and can be less than or equal to the forecasted/estimated load during (t − 1) th hour.
for a particular hour as given by
d. Initial States
J 
 
P jl lj = PLl ; ∀l ∈ L , lj ∈ [0, 1] (7) The initial status of thermal units at the start of scheduling
j=1
horizon influences various other parameters such as start-up
costs and constraints such as minimum up and down time.
b. Spinning Reserve Constraint Therefore, consideration of the same is inevitable for carryout
The spinning reserve enables reliable operation of power solution procedure of UC problem.
system by acting as backup against any scheduled/unseen
outage. Similar to the load constraint, the GENCO does not 3 Binary Sine–Cosine Algorithm (BSCA)
have any obligation to abide the reserve constraint, i.e it can
schedule its generators to supply less than or equal to pre- 3.1 Overview of SCA
dicted system reserve [6].
J   The search strategy of SCA approach falls into the category

P jmx − P jl lj = Rreq
l
; ∀ l ∈ L , lj ∈ [0, 1] (8) of any typical heuristic search process which is initiated
j=1 with random solution points in the search space and then

123
Arab J Sci Eng
approaching towards a better optimal position/location based
on interactions with other search agents as well as random
individual update [29]. The position update of individual
search agent in random and the best agent location direc-
tions marks the exploration and exploitation procedures,
respectively, for any population-based approaches. The ran-
domness in position update of individual is comparatively
less in exploitation phase than the exploration phase of
search process. The SCA is motivated by the same ran-
dom solution initialization followed by random exploration
before settling at global position through exploitation phase
of search process with minimal random movement of indi-
vidual search agents. The core optimization procedure of
SCA uses oscillatory nature of sine and cosine waveforms
to model the movement of individual search agents around
potential global solution. The exploitation of search space
around solution is realized using cyclic movement of agents
aided by sine and cosine functions, and thus, the name sine–
cosine algorithm is appended to the search process, whereas
the exploration of search space outside the reach of solution is
realized by using different random and adaptive parameters,
which are detailed in the following sections.
3.2 Continuous Valued SCA
The mathematical modelling of position update operation of
search agents of population depends on sine and cosine func-
tions to oscillate around current solution for better solution
quality as a part of exploitation, alongside random param-
eters that help in effective exploration of the search space
farther from the solution. The position update operation of
agents during  + 1th iteration is given as follows.
  
 
a+1 = a + μ1 × sin (μ2 ) × μ3 P − a  (13)
  
 
a+1 = a + μ1 × cosine (μ2 ) × μ3 P − a  (14)
where a is the position of search agent a in iteration , P+1
denotes the destination position during th iteration, a+1 is
the position of search agent a in iteration  + 1, μ1 , μ2 , μ3
are random numbers that are used to control exploration and
exploitation phases of search process. The selection of sine
and cosine functions for position update operation is aided by
another random number μ4 which is uniformly distributed
over 0 to 1 and the selection criteria are shown below.
   
a + μ1 × sin (μ2 ) × μ3P − a  , μ4 < 0.5
a+1 =
a + μ1 × cosine (μ2 ) × μ3 P − a  , μ4 > 0.5
(15)
The impact of random parameters μ1 toμ3 on search process
is explained in terms of exploration and exploitation aspects.
The random parameter μ1 determines the direction of search
process, i.e. whether to exploit the search space around des-
tination (the best location attained so far) for any possible
improvement in destination point or to explore the remaining
search space farther from the destination point for any pos-
sible new solution. When the random parameter μ1 > 0, the
agent is moved in a direction such that the distance between
current and destination points will increase and vice versa for
μ1 < 0. In order to balance the exploitation and exploration
effects of μ1 , it is adaptively tuned on the course of iterative
search process as shown below.
 
Q
μ1 = Q −  (16)
L
where Q is a constant number chosen in coherence with the
range of sine and cosine functions, L is the total/maximum
number of iterations,  is the iteration count. The adaptive
variation in μ1 assures the smooth transition among explo-
ration and exploitation aspects of the SCA search process.
Once the direction (towards or farther to destination posi-
tion) of movement for any agent a from current location is
decided, the amount/range of movement has to be decided.
The same can be realized by specifying the range of sine
and cosine functions. The range of random parameter μ2
decides how far the agent will traverse in a specified direction
(towards or farther to destination position). The higher range
can improve the exploration process early in the search pro-
cess for farther movement (with respect to destination point)
of the agent from current location. The third random variable
μ3 brings in the stochastic nature to the search process by
controlling the influence of the best solution/destination point
on individual location update. For either sides of threshold
value (constant, i.e. μ2 = 1), the random value can empha-
size (for μ2 > 1) or deemphasize (for μ2 < 1) the impact
of destination point on position update of individual search
agent. Thus, for emphasizing effect, the impact of destination
point (the best location) improves the exploitation properties
of the update mechanism and vice versa for deemphasizing
effect.
3.3 Binary Mapping of Continuous SCA
The transformation of real-valued continuous variant of SCA
to binary variant is required to solve binary natured unit
commitment problem. In the binary transformed variant, the
search space and position/location of search agents are rep-
resented in the form of binary strings. This paper investigates
the functionality and performance of different transfer func-
tions explained as follows.
A) Binary Mapping Using Tanh Transformation (BSCA 1)
The first of the binary mapping approaches employed is the
tangent hyperbolic transfer function and is expressed as fol-
lows.
123
 Arab J Sci Eng

 
0,  + 1)) > λ1
T ((  + 1)) > λ4
γ ( + 1) = (17) 0, A((
1, Otherwise γ ( + 1) = (23)
1, Otherwise
In (18), the tangent hyperbolic transfer function for real-
 + 1)) and In (24), arctan transfer function for real-valued continuous
valued continuous position is denoted by T ((  + 1)) and λ4 represents a
position is denoted by Ar ((
λ1 marks a random number uniformly distributed over 0 and
random number uniformly distributed over 0 and 1.
1.
     
 Ar  ( + 1) = arctan   ( + 1)
exp−((+1)) − 1

T ((+1)) 
= tanh((+1)) =  (18)  π 
2

exp−((+1)) +1 
=  arctan ( + 1) 
 (24)
π 2
B) Binary Mapping Using Sigmoidal Transformation
(BSCA 2)
The second binary mapping approach examined in this work 4 Implementation of BSCA for PBUC Problem
is sigmoidal transformation function, which is expressed as
follows. The implementation of proposed BSCA to solve PBUC
 problem is represented using a pseudocode in Algorithm 1.
 + 1)) > λ2
0, S((
γ ( + 1) = (19) The load satisfaction and reserve satisfaction constraints of
1, Otherwise
traditional UC problem are softened in PBUC problem as
In (20), sigmoidal transfer function for real-valued contin- expressed in (7) and (8). Therefore, the constraint handling
 + 1)) and λ2 marks a
uous position is denoted by S(( for thermal unit up and down time limits expressed in (10)
random number uniformly distributed over 0 and 1. is the only hard constraint in PBUC and is handled/repaired
using heuristic rule-based repairing strategy presented as a
1 pseudocode in Algorithm 3.
 + 1)) = sig((
S((  + 1)) =   (20)

1 + exp−((+1))

C) Binary Mapping Using Modified Sigmoidal Transforma- Algorithm 1: Solution methodology for UC with BSCA
tion (BSCA 3) 1: Read test system data and algorithm parameters
The third binary mapping approach analysed in this work 2: Initialize P sets of binary matrices with size of (N G × N H ) as
explained in Algorithm 2
is sigmoidal transformation function, which is expressed as 3: Check for minimum up and own time constraint satisfaction
follows. using Algorithm 3
 4: Perform economic load dispatch using lambda iteration
 + 1)) > λ3
0,
(( approach to find objective fitness satisfying load and reserve
γ ( + 1) = (21) constraints (7), (8)
1, Otherwise
5: Sort the fitness values to find the best fitness and corresponding
position vector P
In (22), modified sigmoidal transfer function for mapping the 6: Update the position vector (real valued) using sine–cosine
real-valued continuous position to binary position string is functions selected using random number μ4 as explained in
denoted by
(( + 1)) and λ3 represents a random number (15)
7: For each updated real value position update(  + 1), find
uniformly distributed over 0 and 1.

corresponding binary mapped variable γ i ( + 1) using
t

    1 transformations (any one) explained in (17)–(24)

 ( + 1) = sig2  ( + 1) =    8: For the updated binary vector, perform ELD to find objective
−10 
(+1) −0.5 value
1+e
9: Sort the objective fitness to find the best fitness (maximum
(22) profit) value and corresponding generation schedule
10: if  ≥ Lmax Exit the iterative update process and print the best
D) Binary Mapping Using Arctan Transformation (BSCA 4) fitness and corresponding generation schedule
The fourth binary mapping approach analysed in this work 11: Otherwise  =  + 1 and go to Step 6
is sigmoidal transformation function, which is expressed as
follows.

123
Arab J Sci Eng

123
 Arab J Sci Eng

5 Simulation Results and Discussion
The simulation experiments for the proposed BSCA
approaches have been modelled and executed in MATLAB
working on Intel core i7 processor with 3.65 MHz proces-
sor speed, 16 GB RAM. The test system with operating and
cost parameters, as presented in Table 1, has been considered
in this work [30]. The forecasted/estimated values of hourly
load, energy and reserve price considered for simulations are
presented in Table 2. The system carries a peak load of 1500
MW at 12th hour of the day and corresponding energy price
for the same hour being at its peak value of the day.
The efficacy of BSCA has been evaluated in this work
for three generic operations of competitive electricity mar-
ket [5]. The first case (Case 1) corresponds to energy only
participation of GENCO, whereas the second case (Case 2)
considers GENCO participation in both energy as well as
reserve markets. Again, two scenarios have been considered
in Case 2. Scenario 1 of Case 2 considers payment for reserve
only when it is being actually called upon serve. On the
other hand, Scenario 2 considers contractual payment for the
time the reserve being contracted irrespective of usage ratio.
Thus, GENCO in Scenario 2 receives two types of payments,
namely deployment and contract payments. The settings of
reserve deployment probability and reserve price vary with
scenario selected. The reserve deployment probability (r )
and reserve price (R P (t)) for payment Scenario 1 are 0.05
and 5 ∗ E P (t), respectively, whereas for payment Scenario
2, they are 0.005 and 0.01 ∗ E P (t), respectively [6].
5.1 Case 1: Scheduling in Energy Market Only
This case considers participation of GENCO solely in energy
market, and the revenue payments and associated profit of
Case 1 would be possibly lower than Scenario 1 and Sce-
nario 2. The identical trails of at least 30 are performed to
evaluate the efficacy of BSCA approaches in solving PBUC
problem for energy market participation. The convergence

Table 1 Unit cost and operating characteristics of test system

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10

Pmax (MW) 455 455 130 130 162 80 85 55 55 55

Pmin (MW) 150 150 20 20 25 20 25 10 10 10
a($/h) 1000 970 700 680 450 370 480 660 665 670
b($ /MWh) 16.19 17.26 16.60 16.50 19.70 22.26 27.74 25.92 27.27 27.79
Minup(h) 8 8 5 5 6 3 3 1 1 1
c($/MWh2 ) 0.00048 0.00031 0.002 0.00211 0.00398 0.00712 0.00079 0.00413 0.00222 0.00173
Min down(h)) 8 8 5 5 6 3 3 1 1 1
Hot start cost($) 4500 5000 550 560 900 170 260 30 30 30
Cold start cost($) 9000 10,000 1100 1120 1800 340 520 60 60 60
Cold start hour(h) 5 5 4 4 4 2 0 0 0 0
Initial status(h) 8 8 −5 −5 −6 −3 −3 −1 −1 −1

Table 2 Network and market parameters

Hour Load (MW) Reserve (MW) Energy Hour Load (MW) Reserve (MW) Energy price
price ($/MWh) ($/MWh)

1 700 70 22.15 13 1400 140 24.6

2 750 75 22 14 1300 130 24.5
3 850 85 23.1 15 1200 120 22.5
4 950 95 22.65 16 1100 110 22.3
5 1000 100 23.25 17 1050 105 22.25
6 1100 110 22.95 18 1000 100 22.05
7 1150 115 22.5 19 1200 120 22.2
8 1200 120 22.15 20 1400 140 22.65
9 1300 130 22.8 21 1300 130 23.1
10 1400 140 29.35 22 1100 110 22.95
11 1450 145 30.15 23 900 90 22.75
12 1500 150 31.65 24 800 80 22.55

123
Arab J Sci Eng

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 1 Convergence characteristics of BSCA models for Case 1. a Mean profit. b Best profit. c Worst profit. d Best fitness/profit distribution for
various BSCA variants

Table 3 Comparison of
Variant Best Average Worst Standard
different BSCA variants for
fitness/profit ($) fitness/profit ($) fitness/profit ($) deviation
Case 1
BSCA 1 107344.9 106760.3 106407.4 0.002004
BSCA 2 104379.6 103585 102972.3 0.003592
BSCA 3 107356.1 106955.8 106190.4 0.002608
BSCA 4 106778.6 106246.9 105175.3 0.004328

of all four variants in terms of the best, average and worst
fitness/profit value along with distribution of solutions is pre-
sented in Fig. 1. BSCA 3 performed better than other variants
in terms of the best (Fig. 1a) and average fitness (Fig. 1b)
value/profit ($). On the other hand, BSCA 1 attained the high-
est profit in the worst case scenario (Fig. 1c).
The convergence curves in various cases, i.e. the best, average
and worst fitness/profit values, reveal the faster convergence
of BSCA 4 (arctan function) over other variants of bina-
rization. However, the solution quality of BSCA 4 is much
poorer compared to the best performing variant of BSCA in
all cases. The solution distribution for the best fitness/profit
across all four variants shows the better distribution and
convergence of BSCA 1 and BSCA 3 over other two vari-
ants. The comparison of the best, worst and average fitness
value/profit across various BSCA variants is presented in

123
 Arab J Sci Eng

Table 4 Performance comparison of BSCA models to solve PBUC for in fitness value/GENCO profit. The commitment and power
Case 1 generation schedule corresponding to the best fitness/profit
Approach Profit ($) Improvement (%) is presented in Table 5.
TS-RP [11] 101086.00 6270.098
TS-IRP [11] 103261.00 4095.098 5.2 Case 2: Scheduling in Energy and Reserve
Muller Method [14] 103296.00 4060.098 Markets—Payment Scenario 1
ACO [25] 103890.00 3466.098
IPPD [14] 105549.00 1807.098 The participation of GENCO in both energy and the reserve
NACO [15] 105873.80 1482.298 markets would fetch higher profits compared to energy mar-
VTS-PEPSO [21] 105873.00 1483.098 ket only scheduling as examined in Case 1. The payment
PABC [23] 105878.00 1478.098 scenario is set with a reserve deployment price of five times
PNACO [16] 105942.00 1414.098 the energy price, and GENCO receives revenue for the
BFWA [30] 106850.69 505.4075 reserve deployed only, but not contracted reserve. The con-
BSCA 1 107344.9 11.23688 vergence characteristics of the best, average and worst fitness
BSCA 2 104379.6 2976.542
values for various proposed variants of BSCA for Case 2—
BSCA 3 107356.1 0
Scenario 1—are presented in Fig. 2. Similar to Case 1, the
average (Fig. 2a) and best fitness/profit (Fig. 2b) for BSCA 3
BSCA 4 106778.6 577.529
is higher compared to other BSCA variants. However, BSCA
Bold values represent the best performing algorithms 1 has performed comparatively to BSCA 3 in terms of the
Table 3 along with standard deviation. Also, the comparison best and worst fitness/profit (Fig. 2c) case with better conver-
for solution quality of BSCA with other existing approaches gence. Meanwhile, BSCA 4 continues to be faster variant in
is presented in Table 4 along with difference/improvement terms of convergence and BSCA 2 continued to show poor

Table 5 Commitment and scheduling of GENCO for Case 1 using BSCA

U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9 U10 Cost ($) Revenue ($) Profit ($)

1 455 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13683.13 15505 1821.87

2 455 295 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14554.5 16500 1945.5
3 455 395 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16301.89 19635 3333.11
4 455 455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17353.3 20611.5 3258.2
5 455 415 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 20072.77 23250 3177.229
6 455 455 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 20213.96 23868 3654.041
7 455 455 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 20213.96 23400 3186.041
8 455 455 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 20213.96 23036 2822.041
9 455 455 0 130 162 0 0 0 0 0 25759.81 27405.6 1645.79
10 455 455 130 130 162 68 0 0 0 0 30208.21 41090 10881.79
11 455 455 130 130 162 80 0 0 0 0 29047.98 42571.8 13523.82
12 455 455 130 130 162 80 0 0 0 0 29047.98 44689.8 15641.82
13 455 455 130 130 162 0 0 0 0 0 26851.61 32767.2 5915.59
14 455 455 130 130 130 0 0 0 0 0 26184.02 31850 5665.979
15 455 455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17353.3 20475 3121.7
16 455 455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17353.3 20293 2939.7
17 455 455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17353.3 20247.5 2894.2
18 455 455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17353.3 20065.5 2712.2
19 455 455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17353.3 20202 2848.7
20 455 455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17353.3 20611.5 3258.2
21 455 455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17353.3 21021 3667.7
22 455 455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17353.3 20884.5 3531.2
23 455 445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17177.91 20475 3297.09
24 455 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15427.42 18040 2612.58
Total 481138.8 588494.9 107356.09

123
Arab J Sci Eng
(a)
(c)
Fig. 2 Convergence characteristics of BSCA variants for Case 2, Scenario 1. a Average fitness/profit. b Best fitness/profit. c Worst fitness/profit.
d Best profit distribution in different trails
performance in terms of both solution quality and conver-
gence characteristics.
The distribution of individual solutions obtained through
independent identical runs of various BSCA variants for
Scenario 1 of Case 2 is presented in Fig. 2(d). It can
be observed that the distribution of solutions in BSCA 4
(which as shown faster convergence with respect to aver-
age fitness value) is better compared to other variants of
BSCA. However, the mean value of fitness is lower com-
pared to BSCA 1 and BSCA 3. The comparison of proposed
BSCA variants for solving PBUC problem with respect to
other existing approaches from the literature is presented in
Table 6, and the commitment and generation schedule which
is presented for energy and reserve market is presented in
Table 7.
(b)
(d)
5.3 Case 3: Scheduling in Energy and Reserve
Markets—Payment Scenario 2
The provision for GENCO to participate in both energy and
reserve markets is provided in this scenario also. However,
unlike Scenario 1, GENCO receives both energy and capacity
payments in this scenario for the deployment and contractual
time, respectively. The capacity payments are paid for con-
tractual time irrespective of the deployment time to cover
the operation and maintenance costs incurred for GENCO
in keeping the unit online. The capacity payments are made
at reserve price as given in Table 2, whereas the deploy-
ment payments are made to GENCO for the actual time of
reserve capacity and are paid at price called energy market
price. The settings of generation outage/reserve deployment
123
 Arab J Sci Eng

Table 6 Performance comparison of BSCA for Case 2 (payment Scenario 1)

Approach Best fitness ($) Mean fitness ($) Worst fitness ($) Time (Sec.) Std. Dev. Improvement in
fitness/profit
per day ($)

GSLRANN [17]* 60330 – – – – 50878

Pl [27] – 109825 NR 4.79 NR 1383
DP [27] NR 111230 NR 2671.39 NR −22
LR [27] NR 109525 NR 17.81 NR 1683
GA [27] 109814 109525 109213 21.24 NR 1394
BABC [27] 110286 110036 109776 47.52 NR 922
BFSA [27] 110908 110664 110412 14.1 NR 300
BSCA 1 111185 110535.2 109770.8 36.47 0.00353 23
BSCA 2 109986.2 109542.9 108984.3 38.73 0.002713 1221.8
BSCA 3 111208 110771.7 109753.9 34.86 0.003303 NA
BSCA 4 110357.2 109898.1 109634.4 30.21 0.001747 850.8
bold values represent the best performing algorithms

Table 7 Commitment and schedules of GENCO in energy/reserve market for Case 2 (payment Scenario 1)
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10 Cost ($) Revenue ($) Profit ($)

1 455/0 245/70 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 13743.62 15892.62 2149.009
2 455/0 295/75 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 14619.31 16912.5 2293.188
3 455/0 395/60 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 16353.73 19981.5 3627.774
4 455/0 455/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 17353.3 20611.5 3258.2
5 455/0 390/65 0/0 130/0 25/35 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 21570.9 23831.25 2260.351
6 455/0 455/0 0/0 130/0 60/102 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 21962.83 25830.22 3867.398
7 455/0 455/0 0/0 130/0 110/52 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 22930.87 26167.5 3236.625
8 455/0 455/0 130/0 130/0 30/120 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 25371.41 27244.5 1873.094
9 455/0 455/0 130/0 130/0 130/32 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 26215.74 29822.4 3606.655
10 455/0 455/0 130/0 130/0 162/0 68/12 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 29121.62 41178.05 12056.43
11 455/0 455/0 130/0 130/0 162/0 80/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 29047.98 42571.8 13523.82
12 455/0 455/0 130/0 130/0 162/0 80/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 29047.98 44689.8 15641.82
13 455/0 455/0 130/0 130/0 162/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 26851.61 32767.2 5915.59
14 455/0 455/0 130/0 130/0 130/32 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 26215.74 32046 5830.255
15 455/0 455/0 130/0 130/0 30/120 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 24271.41 27675 3403.594
16 455/0 440/15 0/0 130/0 25/90 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 20999.09 24000.38 3001.28
17 455/0 415/40 0/0 130/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 19547.32 22472.5 2925.184
18 455/0 455/0 0/0 130/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 20213.96 22932 2718.041
19 455/0 455/0 0/0 130/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 20213.96 23088 2874.041
20 455/0 455/0 0/0 130/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 20213.96 23556 3342.041
21 455/0 455/0 0/0 130/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 20213.96 24024 3810.041
22 455/0 455/0 0/0 130/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 20213.96 23868 3654.041
23 455/0 455/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 17186.54 20531.87 3345.334
24 455/0 345/80 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 15496.56 18491 2994.441
Total 518977.3 630185.6 111208.3

and reserve payment are considered to be r = 0.005 and solution distribution is presented in Fig. 3. While BSCA 4
RP (t) = 0.01 ∗ EP (t), respectively. continues to dominate the convergence in terms of fastness,
The convergence of the mean fitness, best fitness and BSCA 1 seems to have slowed down when compared to
worst fitness values for various BSCA variants along with Case 1 and Case 2—Scenario 1. Again, BSCA 3 resulted

123
Arab J Sci Eng
(a)
(c)
Fig. 3 Convergence characteristics of BSCA variants for Case 3. a Average fitness/profit. b Best fitness/profit. c Worst fitness/profit. d Distribution
of the best fitness/profit in different trails
in the best fitness value with respect to the average fit-
ness (Fig. 3a), best fitness (Fig. 3b) and worst fitness
(Fig. 3c) with slower convergence compared to other vari-
ants except BSCA 2, whereas BSCA continued to register
poor convergence and fitness value/profit compared to all
other variants of BSCA. The distribution of the indepen-
dent best solutions in identical trails for all the variants of
BSCA is presented in Fig. 3d. Among the same, BSCA 4
shows a good compromise between convergence and con-
sistency of individual trail solutions. The comparison of
BSCA variants to other existing approaches for Scenario
2 is presented in Table 8. The generation schedule corre-
sponding to the best solution/fitness value is presented in
Table 9.
(b)
(d)
6 Conclusion
In this paper, a meta-heuristic approach called binary sine–
cosine optimization algorithm is developed to solve profit-
based unit commitment problem in competitive electricity
market. The search strategy of sine–cosine algorithm using
oscillating nature of sine and cosine waves is illustrated first.
The same is followed by four variants of BSCA using various
transfer functions for binary mapping of real-valued search
space and solution vectors to represent the commitment sta-
tus of thermal units. The proposed BSCA approaches have
been applied to solve PBUC under various cases and payment
scenarios.
The BSCA variants have been simulated extensively, and
simulation results are presented, discussed and compared to
123
123
Table 8 Commitment and schedules of GENCO in energy/reserve market for Case 2 (payment Scenario 2)
Hour Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10 Total cost ($) Revenue ($) Profit ($)

1 455/0 245/70 0/0 0/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 13689.18 15667.03 1977.849
2 455/0 295/75 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 14560.98 16672.43 2111.444
3 455/0 395/60 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 16307.07 19779.84 3472.764
4 455/0 455/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 17353.3 20611.5 3258.2
5 455/0 390/65 0/0 130/0 0/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 21489.11 23492.96 2003.855
6 455/0 455/0 0/0 130/0 25/35 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 21870.54 25489.62 3619.083
7 455/0 455/0 0/0 130/0 60/102 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 22884.29 25997.26 3112.972
8 455/0 455/0 130/0 130/0 110/52 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 25262.45 26857.76 1595.314
9 455/0 455/0 130/0 130/0 30/120 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 26187.19 29716.24 3529.05
10 455/0 455/0 130/0 130/0 130/32 68/12 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 29109.55 41126.8 12017.25
11 455/0 455/0 130/0 130/0 162/0 80 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 29047.98 42571.8 13523.82
12 455/0 455/0 130/0 130/0 162/0 80 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 29047.98 44689.8 15641.82
13 455/0 455/0 130/0 130/0 162/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 26851.61 32767.2 5915.59
14 455/0 455/0 130/0 130/0 162/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 26187.19 31931.93 5744.735
15 455/0 455/0 0/0 0/0 130/32 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 17353.3 20475 3121.7
16 455/0 455/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 17353.3 20293 2939.7
17 455/0 455/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 17353.3 20247.5 2894.2
18 455/0 455/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 17353.3 20065.5 2712.2
19 455/0 455/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 17353.3 20202 2848.7
20 455/0 455/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 17353.3 20611.5 3258.2
21 455/0 455/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 17353.3 21021 3667.7
22 455/0 455/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 17353.3 20884.5 3531.2
23 455/0 445/10 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 17178.77 20498.77 3320.001
24 455/0 345/80 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 15434.33 18228.52 2794.184
Total 491287.9 599899.5 108611.5
Arab J Sci Eng
Arab J Sci Eng

Table 9 Performance comparison of proposed BSCA variants for Case 3. Richter Jr., C.W.; Sheble, G.B.: A profit-based unit commitment
2 (payment Scenario 2) GA for the competitive environment. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
15(2), 715–721 (2000)
Method Profit ($) Improvement in 4. Derakhshandeh, S.Y.; Golshan, M.E.H.; Masoum, M.A.S.: Profit-
fitness/profit per based unit commitment with security constraints and fair allocation
day ($) of cost saving in industrial microgrids. IET Sci. Meas. Technol.
7(6), 315–325 (2013)
Muller method 103280.00 5331.5
5. Tehzeeb-ul-Hassan, H.; Ahmad, A.: Profit based unit commitment
[14]
and economic dispatch of IPPs with new technique. Int. J. Electric.
NACO [15] 105565.00 3046.5 Power Energy Syst. 44(1), 880–888 (2013)
TS-EPSO [19] 106878.00 1733.5 6. Sharma, D.; Trivedi, A.; Srinivasan, D.; Thillainathan, L.: Multi-
PNACO [16]* 107045.35 1566.15 agent modeling for solving profit based unit commitment problem.
Appl. Soft Comput. 13(8), 3751–3761 (2013)
MOPSO [28] 106240 2371.5 7. Zhuang, F.; Galina, F.D.: Towards a more rigorous and practical
LR-IWO [18]* 107789.27 822.23 unit commitment by Lagrangian relaxation. IEEE Trans. Power
LR [8] 107870.05 741.45 Syst. 3(2), 763–772 (1988)
8. Virmani, S.; Adrin, E.C.; Imhof, K.; Mukherjee, S.: Implementa-
GA [3] 107885.80 725.7 tion of a Lagrangian relaxation based unit commitment problem.
Hybrid LR-EP [9] 107,838.57 772.93 IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 4(4), 1373–1380 (1989)
PSO [13] 107,838.57 772.93 9. Attaviriyanupap, P.; Kita, H.; Tanka, E.; Hasegawa, J.: A hybrid
LR-EP for solving new profit based uc problem under competitive
LR-PSO [22] 107,852.32 759.18
environment. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 18(1), 229–237 (2003)
LRGA [10] 107920.80 690.7 10. Yamin, H.Y.; Shahidehpour, S.M.: Unit commitment using a hybrid
DP-PSO [20]* 108044.8125 566.6875 model between lagrangian relaxation and genetic algorithm in com-
ICA [24] 107,682.00 929.5 petitive electricity markets. Electric Power Syst. Res. 68, 83–92
(2004)
CICA 3–Logistic 107,715.00 896.5 11. Victoire, T.A.A.; Jeyakumar, A.E.: Unit commitment by a tabu-
map [24] search-based hybrid-optimization technique. IEE Proc. Gener.
MAS [6]* 108083.91 527.59 Transm. Distrib. 152, 563–570 (2005)
BFWA [30] 108357.88 253.62 12. Li, T.; Shahidehpour, M.: Price based unit commitment: A case
of lagrangian relaxation versus mixed integer programming. IEEE
BSCA 1 108160.7 450.8 Trans. Power Syst. 20(4), 2015–2025 (2005)
BSCA 2 106112.2 2499.3 13. Raglend, I.J.; Raghuveer, C.; Avinash, G.Rakesh; Padhy, N.P.;
BSCA 3 108611.5 NA Kothari, D.P.: Solution to profit based unit commitment prob-
lem using particle swarm optimization. Appl. Soft Comput. 10(4),
BSCA 4 107494.8 1116.7
1247–1256 (2010)
* Verified using the schedules reported in articles 14. Chandram, K.; Subrahmanyam, N.; Sydulu, M.: Improved pre-
prepared power demand table and Muller’s method to solve the
profit based unit commitment problem. J. Electric. Eng. Technol.
the existing approaches. The convergence characteristics of 4(2), 159–167 (2009)
arctan transfer function are observed to be fastest among 15. Columbus, C.C.; Chandrasekaran, K.; Simon, S.P.: Nodal ant
all variants followed by tanh and modified sigmoidal trans- colony optimization for solving profit based unit commitment prob-
lem for GENCOs. Appl. Soft Comput. 12(1), 145–160 (2012)
fer functions, whereas sigmoidal transfer function has been
16. Columbus, C.C.; Simon, S.P.: Profit based unit commitment for
observed to have resulted in better solution quality com- GENCOs using parallel NACO in a distributed cluster. Swarm
pared to other variants. Meanwhile, arctan transfer function Evol. Comput. 10, 41–58 (2013)
attained a balance between convergence speed and solution 17. Amudha, A.; Rajan, C.C.A.: Integrating gradient search logistic
regression and artificial neural network for profit based unit com-
quality. On the other hand, simple sigmoidal transfer function
mitment. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 7(1), 90–104 (2014)
has shown poor convergence as well as solution quality. The 18. Sudhakar, A.V.V.; Chandram, K.; Laxmi, A.J.: Lagrange
comparison of proposed approaches with existing heuristic relaxation—Invasive weed optimization for profit based unit com-
and meta-heuristic approaches for different operating condi- mitment. In: Power India International Conference (PIICON), 2014
6th IEEE. Delhi, 1–6. (2014)
tions demonstrates the superiority in solving PBUC problem
19. Sriyanyong, P.: Application of particle swarm optimization tech-
of GENCO participation in perfectly competitive electricity nique to a profit-based unit commitment problem. In: 2nd Inter-
market. national Conference on Education Technology and Computer
(ICETC), pp. 1–6. (2010)
20. Shukla, A.; Lal, V. N.; Singh, S. N.: Profit-based unit commitment
References problem using PSO with modified dynamic programming. In: 2015
18th International Conference on Intelligent System Application to
1. Larsen, E.R.; van Ackere, A.; Dyner, I.: Introduction to the special Power Systems (ISAP), Porto, pp. 1-6. (2015)
issue: The deregulation of electricity markets. Soc. Econ. Plan. Sci. 21. Mori, H.; Okawa, K.: A New Meta-heuristic, Method for profit-
41(4), 269–271 (2007) based unit commitment under competitive environment, IEEE
2. Rudkevich, A.; Duckworth, M.: Strategic bidding in a deregulated Bucharest Power Tech Conference, pp. 1–6. (2009)
generation market: Implications for electricity prices, asset valua- 22. Balci, H.; Valenzuela, J.: Scheduling electric power generations
tion and regulatory response. Electr. J. 11(1), 73–83 (1998) using particle swarm optimization combined with the Lagrangian

123

relaxation method. Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. 14(3), 411–421
(2004)
23. Columbus, C.C.; Simon, S.P.: A profit based unit commitment:
A parallel ABC approach using a workstation cluster. Comput.
Electric. Eng. 38(3), 724–745 (2012)
24. Ghadi, M.J.; Baghramian, A.; Imani, M.H.: An ICA based approach
for solving profit based unit commitment problem market. Appl.
Soft Comput. 38, 487–500 (2016)
25. Vaisakh, K.; Srinivas, L.R.: Evolving ant colony optimization based
unit commitment. Appl. Soft Comput. 11(2), 2863–2870 (2011)
26. Chandram, K.; Subrahmanyam, N.; Sydulu, M.: New approach
with muller method for profit based unit commitment. In: Power
and Energy Society General Meeting—Conversion and Delivery
of Electrical Energy in the 21st Century, 2008 IEEE, Pittsburgh,
PA, pp. 1–8. (2008)
123
Arab J Sci Eng
27. Singhal, P.K.; Naresh, R.; Sharma, V.: Binary fish swarm algorithm
for profit-based unit commitment problem in competitive electric-
ity market with ramp rate constraints. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib.
9(13), 1697–1707 (2015)
28. Dhifaoui, C.; Guesmi, T.; Abdallah, H.H.: MOPSO approach to
solve profit based unit commitment problem (PBUCP). In: 2015 4th
International Conference on Systems and Control (ICSC), Sousse,
pp. 175–182. (2015)
29. Mirjalili, S.: SCA: A sine cosine algorithm for solving optimization
problems. Knowl. Based Syst. 96(15), 120–133 (2016)
30. Reddy, K.S.; Panwar, L.K.; Kumar, R.; Panigrahi, B.K.: Binary
fireworks algorithm for profit based unit commitment (PBUC)
problem. Int. J. Electric. Power Energy Syst. 83, 270–282 (2016)