Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Problems
T. Nagata, Member, IEEE, M. Ohono, non-Member, J. Kubokawa, Member, IEEE,
H. Sasaki, Member, IEEE and H. Fujita, Member, IEEE
(4) FAG notifies the status of all GAGs to the black board,
( )
T I
t 1
= min FC i pi ui + ST i ui 1 ui
t t t
sends the request message of the power regulation to
u , p t =1 i =1
t t
i i
DwAG or UpAG, and waits for the report from the
mobile agent concerned. The singleton design pattern (1)
t
[11] is adopted in the proposed system, because only one where C( pi , uti) corresponds to the total operational cost and
FAG can be exist on a center server connecting to other can be divided into each unit.
distributed servers. T I
(5) The message exchange between agents is performed by C( pti , uit ) = c i(pit ,u ti ) (2)
t =1 i =1
using a message object that is similar to KQML
In General, the mathematical formulation of UC problem
(Knowledge Query and Manipulation Language).
is to minimize two kinds of cost. The first term in (1)
indicates the production cost, which is directly related to the
The proposed multi-agent system has been implemented on a
fuel cost and is formulated as:
PC with Java language, and applied to a 10-unit model t
system. The result shows that the proposed system is able to FC i (pit ) = a i0 + ai1 pi + ai2 (pti )2 (3)
obtain solutions almost the same as the dynamic where aij is the coefficient of the fuel cost.
programming method [12], which minimizes the total The second term corresponds to the start-up cost for each
operational cost. The solution time is about 70 seconds unit. The cost of this term is related to the temperature of the
including the display of intermediate results (PC, 550MHz). boiler. The cooler the boiler temperature leads to the higher
the start-up cost. Therefore, the start-up cost of each unit can
II. FORMULATION OF THE UNIT COMMITMENT PROBLEM be simply defined as the following formulation.
HSC i if MDT i < DT i MDT i + CSH i
A. Explanation of Variables ST i = (4)
CSC i if DT i > MDT i + CSH i
To formulate the problem mathematically, the following
notation is introduced:
i : Index of generator ( i = 1,L, I ) b) Constraints
t : Index of period ( t = 1,L,T ) There are two types of constraints that must be satisfied by
l : Index of transmission line ( l = 1,L, L ) a UC schedule. Those affect units as a group is called
ui
t
: Commitment status (1 or 0) of unit i at period t system or coupling constraints while those constrain the
t operation of each unit individually are termed local or
pi : Power generation of unit i at hour t
horizontal constraints. Here, in the following constraints,
ci : Power system operating cost of unit i (5) and (6) are the system level, and (7) and (8) are the local
FCi : Fuel cost of unit i ($) level constraints.
ST i : Start-up cost of unit i ($) Supply and Demand Balance Constraint
t
D : Forecasted demand at period t (MW) This constraint ensures that the total power generation
R
t
: Spinning reserve at period t (MW) output is equal to the forecasted demand at each period.
I
p
max t
pi : Upper power limit of unit i (MW) i
D t = 0 t = 1,L, T (5)
min i=1
pi : Lower power limit of unit i (MW) Spinning Reserve Constraint
HSCi : Hot start cost of unit i ($) The spinning reserve constraint is necessary to maintain
CSC i : Cold start cost of unit i ($) the reliability of the power system. Normally, the spinning
MDT i : Minimum down time of unit i (h) reserve requirement is given by the ratio (%) of the total
MUT i : Minimum up time of unit i (h) demand at each period.
I
u
max
DT i : Time for which unit i has been off-line (h) t
pi Dt R t 0 t = 1,L, T (6)
i
CSH i : Cold start time of unit i (h) i=1
65
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE
Generation Lower and Upper Limit Constraints
The power generation output of each generation must be migrate
GAG
ranged between the lower and upper limits of generation
capacity. request/inform migrate
DwAG
min t max
u i pi pi u i pi
t t
(7) FAG GAG
Technical Constraints UpAG migrate
request/inform
The technical constraints of minimum start-up time and migrate
minimum shut-down time are considered in this research. GAG
Fig. 1 A multi-agent unit commitment system
III. UNIT COMMITMENT MULTI-AGENT SYSTEM
In this section, we explain an approach that achieves UC, A. Explanation of Composed Agent
as described previously, by using a multi-agent system. Fig. 1
shows the structure of the proposed multi-agent system for In the following, we explain about agents that comprise the
UC. This figure shows that the multi-agent system consists of proposed multi-agent system.
three generator agents (GAGs), a single facilitator agent
(FAG) and two types of mobile agent (DwAG and UpAG). (1) Decreasing production mobile agent (DwAG)
First, the objective function minimization can be achieved DwAG is produced and started up by FAG when the
by the mobile agent (UpAG or DwAG), which minimizes the demand shows a tendency to decrease. This agent migrates to
total operational cost. The mobile agent, which is requested GAG along the traveling route made by FAG, decides the
to make a schedule from FAG, goes around the traveling production schedule, and informs FAG. Here, the schedule is
route of the network, and decides the generation schedule by decided by performing a message exchange with GAGs.
using the strategy that each unit can generate power with up (2) Increasing production mobile agent (UpAG)
to its maximum value in the order of increasing the full-load UpAG is produced and started up by FAG when the
average production cost [12], which is adopted frequently in demand shows a tendency to increase. In the same manner as
actual UC with heuristic methods. The full-load average DwAG, this agent migrates to GAG along the traveling route
production cost is expressed as follows: made by FAG, decides the production schedule and informs
max FAG.
a i0 + ai1 pi
FLACi = max (8) (3) Facilitator agent (FAG)
pi FAG produces either DwAG or UpAG in response to the
From the above equation, the full-load average production condition in the decision making process (to satisfy demand-
cost is an approximation because it doesnt include the non- generation balance constraints at the consideration period).
linear fuel cost characteristic of the unit. Note that there is a Moreover, this agent determines the traveling route from the
case that doesnt have the cheapest operational cost at any units operational status registered on the Black Board, and
period, since each unit generates the power with maximum sends the message with the traveling route attached, which
output value in the ascending order of the full-load average starts the scheduling process, to the corresponding mobile
production cost in the proposed method. agent.
On the other hand, the system constraints (i.e., the supply (4) Generator agent (GAG)
and demand balance constraints, and the spinning reserve GAG is the agent corresponding to the generators / IPPs in
constraints) will be met after the mobile agent migrates to the electric power system. This agent has fixed data such as
GAG along the traveling route and negotiates with it. The unit name, the minimum and maximum power, the fuel cost
local constraints (i.e., the lower and upper limits, and the coefficient, and variable data such as the power production
minimum start-up time, the minimum shut-down time) will value and the status of the unit at the current time.
be satisfied by individual GAG. UC scheduling process is B. Explanation of Messages
started by informing scheduling request from FAG to either
DwAG or UpAG, and the concerned mobile agent decides The communication between agents in the system is based
the schedule by migrating to each GAG. Here, DwAG is on a message object similar to KQML, as shown in Fig 2. In
started up when the demand shows a tendency to decrease. this figure, each message consists of performative, contents,
On the contrary, UpAG is started up when the demand shows sender, receiver and arguments. Table 1 shows the major
a tendency to increase. performative and its meanings used in the proposed system.
66
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE
PerformativeContentsfrom Sender to GAG1
Receiver withArguments UpAG 150-600
500->600
Fig. 2 Structure of message object
migrate
TABLE 1 PERFORMATIVE AND ITS MEANING UpAG GAG2
UpAG 100-400
Performative Meanings FAG +200 0->200
67
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE
or DwGA depending on the power balance between
generation and demand at the next period, and starts it up. TABLE 4 SIMULATION RESULTS
(a) Case of ignoring the start-up cost and the technical constraints
In case of decreasing power generation agent DwAG is
GAG1 111111111111111111111111
produced and started up by FAG, the same processes as
GAG2 111111111111111111111111
increasing case are performed except for the traveling route.
When these steps are carried out over the time considered GAG3 000001111111111111111100
under the control of FAG, UC process is completed. GAG4 000111111111111111111100
Meanwhile, we can consider the above-mentioned processes GAG5 000000011111111000111000
as a contract of power trade (buying and selling) by GAG6 000000000111100000011000
negotiating between the mobile agent and GAGs. It is a key- GAG7 000000000011000000000100
point for the proposed system that orientates the distributed GAG8 000000000001000000000000
system to reflect uncertainty, such as the availability of GAG9 000000000000000000000000
generators and the amount of power generations for sale, by GAG10 000000000000000000000000
negotiating between agents.
Cost ($) $545,009 (+0.07%)
DP $544,636
V. SIMULATION
A. Simulation Conditions (b) Case of with the start-up cost and the technical constraints
GAG1 111111111111111111111111
In order to demonstrate the performance of the proposed
GAG2 111111111111111111111111
system, a prototype code has been implemented on PC with
Java language and applied to a 10-unit model system. The GAG3 000001111111111111111000
generator data and the forecasted demand data are shown in GAG4 000111111111111111111100
reference [7]. The traveling route is in the order of GAG 1, 2, GAG5 000000011111111000000000
4, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 corresponding to the full load GAG6 000000000111000000111000
average cost. In order to simplify the simulation, the spinning GAG7 000000000011100000011100
reserve constraints are removed. GAG8 000000000001000000010000
B. Simulation Results GAG9 000000000000000000010000
Table 4 shows the simulation results of a 10-unit model GAG10 000000000000000000000000
system over a 24-hour period. In this table, 0 and 1 denote Cost ($) $556,080 (+0.37%)
the off and on status respectively. We have compared the DP $554,041
proposed method with the dynamic programming method
(DP) [12] to confirm the accuracy of solutions. Table 4(b) shows the results in the case of considering both
First, table 4(a) shows the results in the case of ignoring the start-up cost and the technical constraints. The obtained
the start-up cost and the technical constraints (i.e., the result for the proposed method is 0.37% higher than the result
minimum start-up time and shut-down time). The on-off of DP method. There is a possibility to have lower total
status of UC obtained in this case is the same as the results of operational cost for the proposed method, if we apply proper
DP method. However, the total operational cost is 0.07% load dispatching method to the committed generators. The
higher than the result of DP method. This difference is owing half-toned part of the Table 4(b) indicates the difference
to the method of the load dispatching, that is, since the pro- between the proposed and DP method. These differences
posed method tries to allocate the generation up to the comes from the situation that, in the proposed system, the
maximum value of the on-line unit in order of traveling route, mobile agent tries to start up units along the traveling route
optimally economical loading dispatching is not always and migrates to the next GAG when the minimum down time
realized. If the proposed method is modified so that the is not satisfied, while DP method stores all available
mobile agent is able to decide the proper loading (i.e., solves transition paths at the forward process and selects the optimal
the economic load dispatching problem) after commitment path for the backward process. In other words, the proposed
status is fixed and informs the results to each GAG, it may method does not search all available transition paths.
achieve the same results as DP method. Although the proposed method could certainly add such
functions to the mobile agent, it is meaningless for the
problem of the practical size because it is anticipated easily
that the revised method falls into the situation such as the
curse of dimensionality of DP.
From the above results, it can be seen that the proposed
method can obtain solutions comparable to the results of DP
method, although there is room for improvement of the
proposed method. The computational time for a 10-unit over
a 24-hour period is about 70 seconds including the output of
68
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE
the intermediate results (PC, 550MHz). We have assumed [12] A.J.Wood, B.F.Wollenberg, Power Generation Operation and Control,
that GAG is placed on the server computer of each power John Willey & Sons, Inc. (1996)
VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have proposed an approach that models the
decision making process of UC with a multi-agent system
and implements it as the first step to examine the possibility
of using a distributed UC system in the new deregulated
electric power system business environment.
We have utilized three types of agent (a single Facilitator
agent, several Generator agents and two kinds of Mobile
agent) in the proposed multi-agent system. We have
confirmed that the obtained results are comparable to the
results of DP method for total operational cost minimization
problem. Therefore, though more detailed examination is
necessary in the future, this paper can be regarded as a
contribution to one way of implementing a distributed UC
multi-agent system.
In the future, we will expand the proposed system into a
new multi-agent system suitable to the new business
environment of the electric power system that not only
minimizes total operational cost but also takes into
consideration maximization of the profit of each power
producer.
69
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE