\documentclass{elektr}

\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
urlcolor=blue,
citecolor=blue}
\usepackage[all]{xy,xypic}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amssymb,amsmath,amsgen,amsopn,amsbsy,theorem,graphicx,epsfig}
\usepackage{eufrak,amscd,bezier,latexsym,mathrsfs,eurosym,enumerate}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{cleveref,multirow}
\usepackage[dvipsnames]{xcolor}
\usepackage[pagewise]{lineno}
\linenumbers

\yil{}
\vol{}
\fpage{}
\lpage{}
\doi{}

\title{Heuristic based binary Grasshopper optimization algorithm to solve unit

commitment problem}

\author[AUTHOR and AUTHOR and AUTHOR]{

\textbf{Muhammad SHAHID$^{1}$\thanks{[email protected]}~, Tahir Nadeem
MALIK$^{1}$, Ahsan SAID$^{2}$} \\
$^{1}$ Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Engineering and
Technology taxila, Pakistan \\ ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX\\
$^{2}$Maynooth University, Co. Kildare, Maynooth, Ireland,
\\ [1.8em]

\rec{.201}
\acc{.201}
\finv{..201}
}

\input{elksty.tex}

\setcounter{page}{1}
\begin{document}

\maketitle

\begin{abstract}The unit commitment problem in power system is a highly nonlinear,

non-convex, multi-constrained, complex, highly dimensional, mixed integer and
combinatorial generation selection problem. The phenomenon of committing and de-
committing represents a discrete problem that requires binary/discrete optimization
techniques to tackle with unit commitment optimization problem. The key functions
of the unit commitment optimization problem involve deciding which units to commit
and then to decide their optimum power (economic dispatch). This paper confers a
binary grasshopper optimization algorithm to solve the unit commitment optimization
problem under multiple constraints. The grasshopper optimization algorithm is a
metaheuristic, multiple solutions-based algorithm inspired by the natural swarming
behavior of grasshopper towards food. For solving the binary unit commitment
optimization problem, the real/continues value grasshopper optimization algorithm
is mapped into binary/discrete search-space by using an S-shaped sigmoid function.
The proposed algorithm is tested on IEEE benchmark systems of 4, 5, 6, 10, 20, 26,
40, 60, 80 and 100 generating units including the IEEE 118-bus system and the
results are compared with different classical, heuristics, metaheuristics, quantum,
and hybrid approaches. The results confer better performance of BGOA to solve the
unit commitment optimization problem.

\keywords{Heuristic, unit commitment, optimal scheduling, constraints handling,

power operation, grasshopper optimization algorithm.} \\
\end{abstract}

\section{Introduction}
\label{Int}

In a smart power system network, the increasing demand for energy is fulfilled by
different conventional (hydro, thermal and nuclear) and non-conventional (solar,
tidal and wind) energy resources. Also, the load demand curve is not constant but
changes with time along different peaks. Thus, it is an essential requirement of
the power system operation to optimally decide which unit (generator) to turn on
(committed) and which unit to turn off (de-committed). This whole optimal decision-
making process of on/off, committed/de-committed and selection/ not selection of
units under system, unit, network, security, environmental and cost constraints is
termed as unit commitment optimization problem. UC is important to thermal power
plants only, not for hydro and nuclear (baseload) power plants. So due to boiler
operational constraints, thermal units cannot be turned on immediately to fulfill
the power demand. The proper generator selection is an essential feature to fulfill
the load demand with ample reverse generating capacity in order to avoid
malfunctions and failures under severe conditions. The earliest techniques to solve
the UC optimization problem include classical, conventional, traditional and
gradient-based optimizer such as dynamic programming(DP) [1], Lagrangian
relaxation(LR), extended Lagrangian relaxation(ELR), dynamic programming Lagrangian
relaxation [2], mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) [3], Priority list approach
(PL) [4], branch and bound (BB).These techniques suffer from numerous iterations,
local optima stagnation, premature convergence, larger execution time and parameter
sensitivity. The heuristic and evolutionary techniques are based on mimicking
natural phenomena. These natures inspired algorithms are also adopted to optimize
the UC problem under different constraints. These heuristic techniques include
genetic algorithm (GA) which is based on the principle of biological evolution and
natural selection of genes for the survival of the fittest [5].

Ant colony optimization (ACO) [6] and particle swarm optimization (PSO) [7] mimics
the social interaction, behavior, and coordination among the swarms. There is an
extended list of nature inspired algorithms such as binary grey wolf optimization
algorithm (BGWO) [8], improve binary cuckoo search (IBCS) [9] etc. to solve the UC
optimization problem. Some hybrid approaches compromising of the benefits of both
heuristic and classical techniques such as Lagrangian relaxation PSO [10] and
Lagrangian relaxation GA [11] are developed to improve the solution quality of UC
optimization problem. With low population size evolutionary quantum approaches
improve the exploitation and exploration of the evolutionary techniques as compared
to the others evolutionary techniques. Hybridization of two natured inspired
algorithms such as PSO-GWO [12] is also investigated to UC optimization problem
for better solution quality.

Recently Seyedali Mirjalili proposed multi solutions based metaheuristic approach

named as grasshopper optimization algorithm (GOA) which mimics swarming behavior of
grasshopper in nature to solve the optimization problems. This is used to solve the
multiple real value and binary optimization problems such as optimal
reconfiguration for partial shaded photo voltaic array [13], frequency control of
the load for interconnected multi area micro grid power system by tuning the gains
of Fuzzy proportional integral derivative ( Fuzzy PID) controller through GOA [14],
economic load dispatch (ED) with renewable energy (wind mill) integration [15],
optimal selection of conductor for radial distribution system [16], optimal control
of voltage and frequency for an islanded micro grid [17], feature selection problem
and short term load forecasting specific to the region [18] etc. Inspired by the
successful applications of GOA and BGOA to research and industrial problems, this
paper proposes a binary grasshopper optimization algorithm to solve the
combinatorial generation selection problem with a better solution quality as
compared to the traditional GOA.

The paper is organized in such a way that section 2 and 3 explain UC formulation
including constraints. The principles of grasshopper optimizer and binary
grasshopper optimizer are described in section 4. Section 5 describes the BGOA-UC
approach. Section 6 presents the IEEE test systems, computational results,
performance, statistical significance and parametric analysis.
Conclusion and contributions are demonstrated in section 7.

\section{Unit commitment }
The power system includes hydro thermal coordination, load forecasting, unit
commitment, and economic dispatch. UC optimization problem is defined as the
optimal turn off and turn on the schedule of a set of generators to obtain a
minimum production cost for given power demand satisfying the physical and system
operational constraints. Production cost consists of fuel cost, shutdown cost, and
startup cost. Constraints that must be handled are:
(a) Total power of generated units should be equal to the power demand for the
given hour,
(b) In case of any shortfall of generated power, there should be a sufficient
amount of spinning reserve,
(c) Power for each generator should be within its minimum and maximum rating for a
given hour, (d) Every generating unit must satisfy the minimum uptime and minimum
downtime.

\section{Problem formulation }
The formulation of the UC binary minimization problem consists of a single
objective function and multiple constraints. The main objective of the problem is
to find out the optimal on/off the schedule of the generating units to obtain
minimum operating cost including fuel cost, shut down cost and start-up cost
subject to the power demand, generation limit, spinning reserve and minimum up and
downtime constraints within a specific time period.
Electricity generation cost is an essential index in the power sector. The highest
contribution to the operational cost for the power plant consists of fuel costs. In
order to minimize the tariff, the fuel cost should be minimized by allocating the
optimal power to the given generators. All the thermal committed units include the
cost in order to satisfy the minimum power limits and these on units are
economically dispatched to minimize the overall cost of the fuel. The calculation
of fuel cost is done on the basis of data given by the characteristics of
generating units. Price of fuel, heat rates, initial status, turn-on and turn-off
time are the characteristics, which are mathematically represented by a non-convex
and non-smooth quadratic equation with power output and without losses using
economic dispatch (ED) of the load as below equation:

\begin{equation}
\label{eq1}
F_i (P_{ih})=a_i P_i^2+b_i P_i+c_i
\end{equation}

Where $i$ is thermal unit index, $F_i=$fuel cost function, $P_i= $ power of ith
unit, $a_i,b_i,c_i= $fuel cost coefficients.
Startup cost represents the cost to restart a de-committed unit depending on the
committed and de-committed states of the unit. It varies with the temperature of
the boiler as a hot start, cold start and warm start (banking). when going back to
the committed state from the de-committed state, the startup cost also depends on
the de-committed hours of the unit. If de-committed hours of the unit are greater
than or equal to the cold startup hours after the minimum de-committed time, cold
start cost is related to the committed event. However, if the de-committed hours of
the unit are less than cold start-up hours, the hot start cost is related to the
committed event. The mathematical equation for the startup cost is given as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq2}
SUC_{ih}=\begin{cases} HSC_{i}; & for \, MDT_{i} \leq MDT_{i} ^{ON} \leq (MDT_{i}
+CSH_{i} )\\CSC_{i}; & for \, MDT_{i} ^{ON} > (MDT_{i}+CSH_{i} )\end{cases}
\end{equation}

Where $h$ is scheduling hour index, $SUC_{ih}$ is start-up cost, $CSH_{i}$and

$CSC_i$ are hot start and cold start cost, $ MDT_i $ and $MDT_i^{ON} $ are minimum
down time and continuously on time respectively.

In the proposed methodology to solve the UC optimization problem shutdown cost is

neglected, which is often given as a constant value for the de-committed status of
the corresponding unit.
The total cost of fuel (TC) for the specific interval h and on/off status of the
unit $i$ unit $U_{ih}$ include shutdown cost, startup cost and fuel cost is given
by the equation (3).

\begin{equation}
\label{eq2}
TC=\sum_{h=1}^{H}\sum_{i=1}^{N}F_{i}(P_{ih})*U_{ih}+SUC_{ih}(1-U_{i(h-1)})*U_{ih}
\end{equation}
Where N and H are total number of units and scheduling hours respectively.

\subsection{Constraints}

The maximum power of each generator is limited due to the corresponding thermal
consideration and cannot produce power more than its rated value. The minimum power
of each unit is limited due to the stability issue of the machine. For an optimal
operation of the given system, if the generated power of the unit is less than its
rated value $P_{min}$ then this unit cannot be put on the related bus bar. Thus
actual generated power of each unit should satisfy the generation limit as by
equation (4)
\begin{equation}
\label{eq2}
P_{imin}<P_{i}<P_{imax}
\end{equation}

Power balance or load balance constraint satisfaction requires the sum of generated
power of all the committing units at specific hour h should be greater than or
equal to the power demand at that specific hour h.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq2}
\sum_{i=1}^{N} P_{ih} U_{ih}\ge P_d
\end{equation}
Where $P_{imin} $ and $P_{imax}$ are minimum and maximum generation limits
respectively.
Power balance or load balance constraint satisfaction requires the sum of generated
power of all the committing units at specific hour h should be greater than or
equal to the power demand at that specific hour h.
Where $P_d$ is the system load.
Spinning reserve $SR_t$ requirement is implemented to satisfy the adequate online
capacity of a generation which is needed in case of running unit failure or sudden
increase of the load demand. This generated adequate power capacity is termed as
spinning reserve and mathematically represented by the given equation:

\begin{equation}
\label{eq2}
\sum_{i=1}^{N} P_{ih} U_{ih}\geq P_d +SR_{t}
\end{equation}

The switching states viz. committed and de-committed for the thermal generating
units in the total time range is constrained by considering the operating features
of the generating units. Due to the boiler operating characteristics, there must be
a predefined time horizon between committed and de-committed state.
A generating unit must remain committed for this specific time horizon when it is
ON termed as a minimum uptime.

\begin{equation}
T_{(i,h)}^{ON}\geq MUT_i
\end{equation}
A generating unit must remain de-committed (OFF) for the specific time horizon when
it is OFF termed as a minimum downtime.

\begin{equation}
T_{(i,h)}^{OFF}\geq MDT_i
\end{equation}

Where $T_{(i,h)}^{ON}$ and $T_{(i,h)}^{OFF} $ are continuously on and off time for
unit $i$. $MUT_i$ is the minimum up time.

At the start of organizing the time horizon UC optimization problem parameters like
uptime and downtime constraint, startup cost, etc. are affected by the committed
and de-committed status of the generating thermal units. Thus initial status for
every operating unit must take the previous day’s prior scheduling time horizon
into account in order to satisfy the minimum uptime and downtime.

\section{ Grasshopper Optimizer (GO)}

\subsection{ Overview of GO}
Grasshoppers are basically insects. Due to their severe damaging effect on
agriculture and crop production, they have often considered a pest. Their life-
cycle consists of three stages as egg, Nymph, and adult. There is no caterpillar
stage in their two-month whole life cycle due to incomplete metamorphosis. The
nymph stage is different from adults due to smaller size, no wings, and no
reproductive organs. They join to make the largest swarm in nature as compared to
other creatures. The swarming size of grasshoppers may be as large as the
continental scale. Nymph and adult both show the swarming behavior is the
interesting aspect of their swarm in nature. Billions of Nymph move just like
spinning cylinders and jump with a short distance. In their way, they eat all
agriculture and crop production.

Grasshoppers in their adult form make a huge swarm to travel a long distance. In
the nymph phase, small steps and slow movement is the main feature of the swarming
behavior (exploitation). In contrast, in the adult phase abrupt and long-range
movement is the main property of the swarming behavior (exploration). For nature-
inspired optimization algorithms; the searching process consists of two steps:
exploitation and exploration. Grasshoppers performed these two steps and target
seeking naturally. Their natural behavior to tackle optimization problems is
mathematically modeled by Seyedali Mirjalili [19]. He proposed a model in order to
simulate the attraction (exploitation) and repulsion (exploration) forces among the
grasshoppers. Exploitation takes place during the attraction forces towards a local
solution while repulsion forces cause to explore the search space to a global
optimum. In order to make a balance between exploitation and exploration,
Grasshopper optimizer (GO) is provided with an adaptive coefficient to change the
comfort zone for the grasshoppers.

\subsection{Continues values grasshopper optimization (GOA)}

The continuous-valued mathematical model of the swarming behavior of the
grasshoppers in nature to simulate the social interaction forces is given by
equation 9.
\begin{equation}
X_k=r_1 S_k+r_2 G_k+r_3 A_k
\end{equation}

Where k is the grasshopper index $X_k$ is the position, $S_k$ is the force of
social interaction (attraction or repulsion), $G_k$ is the force of gravity and
$A_k$ is the wind propagation of grasshopper $k$, $r_{1}$, $r_{2}$ and $r_{3}$ are
random numbers between [0, 1].Where the strength of social forces is given by the
function $S_k$
\begin{equation}
S_k=\sum_{l}^{N_{gs}} S_{f}(d_{kl})(\hat{d}_{kl})
\end{equation}

$d_{kl} $ is the distance between grasshopper $i$ and $k$ which is calculated as
$d_{kl} = |X_{l}-X_{k}|$, $N_{gs}$ is the total number of the grasshoppers (search
agents) and $\hat{d}_{kl}$ is the unit vector between grasshopper $i$ and $k$
\begin{equation}
\hat{d}_{kl}=\frac{X_l- X_k}{d_{kl}}
\end{equation}

Social forces are defined by $S_f$ function, calculated as

\begin{equation}
S_f=f e^{\frac{r}{l}}-e^{-r}
\end{equation}
$f$ is the intensity of attraction=0.5, $l$ is the length scale of attraction=1.5,
$f$ and $l$ change the social behavior (force of repulsion and attraction) of the
grasshoppers to a large extent. Comfort zone, repulsion region and attraction
region of the grasshoppers are significantly changed by $\f$ and $l$.
$G_k$ is calculated by the following equation:

\begin{equation}
G_k=-g \hat{e}_{g}
\end{equation}

Where g represents the gravitational constant and $\hat{e}_{g}$ indicates a unity

vector towards the center of the earth. The $A_k$ component of the equation (7) is
calculated by the following equation

\begin{equation}
A_k=\mu \hat{e}_{k}
\end{equation}

Where $\mu$ represents drift/flow constant and $\hat{e}_{k}$ is the unit vector
towards the wind flow direction.
Substituting the value of $S_{k}$, $G_{k}$ and $A_{k}$ in the equation in equation
(9)
\begin{equation}
X_k=\sum_{l}^{N_{gs}}S_{f}(X_{l}-X_{k})*\frac{X_{l}-X_{k}}{d_{kl}}-g\hat{e}_{g}+\mu
\hat{e}_{k}
\end{equation}

The above equation is used to simulate the interaction between grasshoppers in the
swarm. However, the above model cannot be used directly to simulation purposes due
to improper convergence. So the modified equation used for optimization is:
\begin{equation}
X^{d}_k=\alpha_{1}\bigg[\sum_{j=l}^{N_{gs}}\alpha_{2} \frac{u_{b}-l_{b}}{2}*S_{f}(|
X^{d}_{l}-X^{d}_{k}|)*\frac{X_{l}-X_{k}}{d_{kl}}\bigg]*\hat{T}_{d}
\end{equation}

Where $u_b$ represents upper bound, $l_b$ is the lower bound, $\hat{T}_{d}
$represents the best solution obtained so far $\alpha_1$ is just like an inertial
weight in particle swarm optimization (PSO)
in order to make a balance between exploitation and exploration around the
optimum target and $ \alpha_2 $ causes to decrease the comfort zone, repulsion
zone, and attraction zone. It reduces the comfort zone with proportional to
iterations as below equation
\begin{equation}
\alpha=\alpha_{max}-1\frac{\alpha_{max}-\alpha_{min}}{L}
\end{equation}
Where L is maximum number of iterations, $\alpha_{max}$ and $\alpha_{min}$ are set
as 1 and 0.00001 respectively.

\subsection{Binary values GO (BGOA)}

UC is a binary problem consisting of 1 and 0 states at each interval of time and
iteration. So, in order to optimize this problem real value search space and search
process to binary value mapping has to be done. In this BGOA the position vector of
search agents/grasshopper, search space and food location is mapped into the binary
value by an s-shaped sigmoid function. Due to easy computation and the ability to
differentiate across the entire domain, the sigmoid function is quite useful for
binary conversion. Equation (18) represents a simple s-shaped sigmoid function
proposed by Kennedy and Eberhart (1997).
\begin{equation}
T(\Delta X_{t})=\frac{1}{1+e^{-X_{t}}}
\end{equation}
$\Delta X_{t}=$ is velocity of a grasshopper for a specific iteration.
The position of each search agent will be updated according to the equation (19)
depending on the probability value of
$\Delta X_{t}$
\begin{equation}
X^{d}_{k+1}=\begin{cases} 1 & if \, r_{1}< T(X_{k+1} ^{d} )\\0 & if \, r_{1} \geq
T(X_{k+1} ^{d} )\end{cases}
\end{equation}

Where $X^{d}_{k+1}$ is $d_{kh}$ the dimension of the search agent in the next
iteration and $r_{1}$ is a random number [0, 1]
\section{BGOA implementation to UC optimization problem}
In this paper, the BGOA is used to obtain optimal feasible commitment scheduling of
thermal units. The power allocation among the committed thermal units through
economic dispatch (ED) is observed using the Quadratic Programming technique. The
generalized form for the UC optimization problem is shown by a flow chart in Fig.1.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=16.0cm]{Figure1.pdf}
 \caption{Flow chart of UC optimization problem by BGOA.}
\label{fig1}
\end{center}\vs{-4mm}
\end{figure}

A search agent represents a commitment schedule of a unit within a given time

horizon. Mathematically it is described in the form of integer matrix U with $N*H$
matrix. Where $u_i^t$ represents on/off status of ith unit at a time interval of t.
A random set of search agents is formed in this initial process. The element
$u_i^t$ is generated either 1 or 0 by a random function.
\begin{equation}
U=
\begin{bmatrix}
u_1^1 & u_1^2 & u_1^3 & … & u_1^T\\
u_2^1 & u_2^2 & u_2^3 & … & u_2^T\\
u_3^1 & u_3^2 & u_3^3 & … & u_3^T\\
… & … & …. & …. & …\\
… & … & …. & …. & …\\
u_N^1 & u_N^2 & u_N^3 & … & u_N^T
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}

The priority list for the UC optimization problem is based on fuel cost acquired
from full-load average production cost. The unit having the lowest cost value will
be at the highest priority. This unit scheduling may not be satisfied with the
minimum up and minimum downtime constraints. In order to determine the violation of
these constraints, on and off times of the given units should be computed by the
equation 21. In order to repair these types of constraints, heuristic adjustment is
used.

\begin{equation}
T^{t}_{i, on}=\begin{cases} T^{t-1}_{i, on}+1 & if \, u_{i}^{t}=1 \\0 & if \,
u_{i}^{t}=0\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation*}
T^{t}_{i, off}=\begin{cases} T^{t-1}_{i, off}+1 & if \, u_{i}^{t}=1 \\0 & if \,
u_{i}^{t}=0\end{cases}
\end{equation*}

The reliability of the system depends upon the spinning reserve and load demand
satisfaction. For all the tested system spinning reserve is $ 10\% $ and $5\%$.
Modification of the search agents in order to repair the minimum up and downtime
constraints may extend the spinning reserves of corresponding units.
Power is allocated to each committed unit through economic dispatch using Quadratic
programming.
The fitness of each search agent is calculated by equation 3. After the fitness
calculation, each search agent is sorted according to fitness values.
BGOA is used to update the position of each search agent.
Termination criteria are the number of iterations. Upon reaching the maximum number
of iterations optimal scheduling of the units with optimal power allocation is
obtained.

\section{Numerical results, comparison, and discussion}

The proposed BGOA is modeled to find the solution of UC optimization problem with
IEEE benchmark systems of 4 [20],5 [21],6 [21],10 [21],20 [20],26 [21],40 [20], 60
[20], 80 [20] and 100 [20] generating units including IEEE 118-bus system. 24 hour
time horizon is utilized for the 5 to 100 units while for 4-unit system 8 h time
horizon is used. MATLAB R2016a software is used to implement unit commitment
problem by grasshopper optimization with Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-4030 CPU @ 1.90GHz
processor. By observing the effect of changing population size on the total cost,
30 is chosen as the best population size. By observing optimality, the controlling
parameters $l$, $f$ and interval are set to 1.5, 0.5 and [0 2.079] respectively.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=14.0cm]{Figure2.pdf}
\caption{Convergence curves of IEEE unit systems.}
\label{fig1}
\end{center}\vs{-4mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=16.0cm]{Figure3.pdf}
\caption{Variations of total cost of different units with different
trials.}
\label{fig1}
\end{center}\vs{-4mm}
\end{figure}

\subsection{ Performance of BGOA for small test systems }

The small test system includes 4, 5, 6 and 10-unit systems. The best optimal
solution for IEEE 4, 5 and 6-unit system for 8 h and 12 h is obtained using BGOA
and its comparison with different approaches is described in table 6. Table 1 shows
the simulation results for the IEEE 10-unit system and its comparison is given in
the table 6. Their convergence characteristics and cost variation w.r.t different
trials are shown in Fig. 2 and 3 respectively.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Unit commitment of IEEE 10 unit systems by BGOA.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{10Unit.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab1}
\end{center}\vs{-4mm}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Unit commitment of IEEE 40 unit systems by BGOA.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{13.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab1}
\end{center}\vs{-4mm}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Unit commitment of IEEE 60 unit systems by BGOA.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{14.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab1}
\end{center}\vs{-4mm}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Unit commitment of IEEE 80 unit systems by BGOA.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l}
\includegraphics[width=13.0cm]{15.pdf}
\end{tabular}
 \label{tab1}
\end{center}\vs{-4mm}
\end{table}
\subsection{ Performance of BGOA for medium test systems}
20, 26, 40 and 60 unit systems are simulated and the results of 40 and 60 unit
systems are shown in the table 2 and 3 respectively. The simulation results show
feasible commitment and optimal power allocation as well. The comparison for
different approaches is given in table 6 for IEEE 20, 26, 40 and 60-unit system.
The results obtained and their comparison shows the best quality of the purposed
algorithm to tackle with the binary optimization problem.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Unit commitment of IEEE 100 unit systems by BGOA.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l}
\includegraphics[width=14.0cm]{100.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab1}
\end{center}\vs{-4mm}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Comparison of unit commitment best cost (\$) and elapsed time (Sec)
of IEEE test systems}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l}
\includegraphics[width=14.0cm]{Table6.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab1}
\end{center}\vs{-4mm}
\end{table}
\subsection{Performance of BGOA for large test systems}
For the 80 and 100-unit system, the optimal cost and convergence quality results
show as the number of units increasing the ability of BGOA to obtain the best
optimal solution enhances as shown in the tables 4 and 5 respectively. In order to
observe the proposed algorithm IEEE 118-bus system is also observed with better
results as compared to other techniques.

\section{Conclusion}
This study presents binary grasshopper optimization algorithm (BGOA) models to
obtain an optimal solution of UC optimization problem. The objective function of
the UC optimization problem is formulated as the cost function under the load
balance, generation limit, spinning reserve ($10\%$ and $5\%$), minimum up time
$\&$ minimum down time and de commitment constraints. Sigmoid function is used for
binary mapping. The simulation results of the small, medium and large unit systems
show the superiority and searching efficiency of the proposed algorithm as compared
to the other modern techniques. This approach can also be used to tackle profit
based unit commitment and multi objective such as reliability maximization and
emission reduction UC many other constraints optimization problem. The proposed
algorithm also has ability to better results of UC optimization problem with the
integration of renewable energy resources, security, ramp rate and many other
constraints.

\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{1} C.-C. Su and Y.-Y. Hsu, "Fuzzy dynamic programming: an application to
unit commitment," IEEE transactions on power systems, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1231-1237,
1991.

\bibitem{2} W. Ongsakul and N. Petcharaks, "Unit commitment by enhanced adaptive

Lagrangian relaxation," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 19, no. 1, pp.
620-628, 2004.
\bibitem{3} B. Venkatesh, T. Jamtsho, and H. Gooi, "Unit commitment-a fuzzy mixed
integer linear programming solution," IET Generation, Transmission \& Distribution,
vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 836-846, 2007.
\bibitem{4} T. Senjyu, K. Shimabukuro, K. Uezato, and T. Funabashi, "A fast
technique for unit commitment problem by extended priority list," IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 882-888, 2003.
\bibitem{5} S. A. Kazarlis, A. Bakirtzis, and V. Petridis, "A genetic algorithm
solution to the unit commitment problem," IEEE transactions on power systems, vol.
11, no. 1, pp. 83-92, 1996.
\bibitem{6} K. Vaisakh and L. Srinivas, "Evolving ant colony optimization based
unit commitment," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 2863-2870, 2011.
\bibitem{7} A. Saber, T. Senjyu, A. Yona, and T. Funabashi, "Unit commitment
computation by fuzzy adaptive particle swarm optimisation," IET Generation,
Transmission \& Distribution, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 456-465, 2007.
\bibitem{8} L. K. Panwar, S. Reddy, A. Verma, B. K. Panigrahi, and R. Kumar,
"Binary grey wolf optimizer for large scale unit commitment problem," Swarm and
Evolutionary Computation, vol. 38, pp. 251-266, 2018.
\bibitem{9} J. Zhao, S. Liu, M. Zhou, X. Guo, and L. Qi, "An Improved Binary Cuckoo
Search Algorithm for Solving Unit Commitment Problems: Methodological Description,"
IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 43535-43545, 2018.
\bibitem{10} H. H. Balci and J. F. Valenzuela, "Scheduling electric power
generators using particle swarm optimization combined with the Lagrangian
relaxation method," International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer
Science, vol. 14, pp. 411-421, 2004.
\bibitem{11} C.-P. Cheng, C.-W. Liu, and C.-C. Liu, "Unit commitment by
Lagrangian relaxation and genetic algorithms," IEEE transactions on power systems,
vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 707-714, 2000.
\bibitem{12} V. K. Kamboj, "A novel hybrid PSO–GWO approach for unit
commitment problem," Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1643-
1655, 2016.
\bibitem{13} A. Fathy, "Recent meta-heuristic grasshopper optimization
algorithm for optimal reconfiguration of partially shaded PV array," Solar Energy,
vol. 171, pp. 638-651, 2018.
\bibitem{14} D. K. Lal, A. K. Barisal, and M. Tripathy, "Load frequency
control of multi area interconnected microgrid power system using grasshopper
optimization algorithm optimized fuzzy PID controller," in 2018 Recent Advances on
Engineering, Technology and Computational Sciences (RAETCS), 2018, pp. 1-6: IEEE.
\bibitem{15} S. Hazra, T. Pal, and P. K. Roy, "Renewable Energy Based Economic
Emission Load Dispatch Using Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm," International
Journal of Swarm Intelligence Research (IJSIR), vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 38-57, 2019.
\bibitem{16} S. M. Ismael, S. H. A. Aleem, A. Y. Abdelaziz, and A. F. Zobaa,
"Optimal Conductor Selection of Radial Distribution Feeders: An Overview and New
Application Using Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm," in Classical and Recent
Aspects of Power System Optimization: Elsevier, 2018, pp. 185-217.
\bibitem{17} T. A. Jumani, M. W. Mustafa, M. M. Rasid, N. H. Mirjat, Z. H.
Leghari, and M. S. Saeed, "Optimal Voltage and Frequency Control of an Islanded
Microgrid using Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm," Energies, vol. 11, no. 11, p.
3191, 2018.
\bibitem{18} M. Barman, N. D. Choudhury, and S. Sutradhar, "A regional hybrid
GOA-SVM model based on similar day approach for short-term load forecasting in
Assam, India," Energy, vol. 145, pp. 710-720, 2018.
\bibitem{19} S. Saremi, S. Mirjalili, and A. Lewis, "Grasshopper optimisation
algorithm: theory and application," Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 105, pp.
30-47, 2017.
\bibitem{20} V. Kumar, D. J. N. C. Kumar, and Applications, "Binary whale
optimization algorithm and its application to unit commitment problem," pp. 1-29,
2018.
\bibitem{21} S. Khunkitti, N. R Watson, R. Chatthaworn, S.
Premrudeepreechacharn, and A. J. E. Siritaratiwat, "An Improved DA-PSO Optimization
Approach for Unit Commitment Problem," vol. 12, no. 12, p. 2335, 2019.
\bibitem{22} S. Khanmohammadi, M. Amiri, and M. T. J. E. Haque, "A new three-
stage method for solving unit commitment problem," vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 3072-3080,
2010.
\bibitem{23} H. H. Balci, J. F. J. I. J. o. A. M. Valenzuela, and C. Science,
"Scheduling electric power generators using particle swarm optimization combined
with the Lagrangian relaxation method," vol. 14, pp. 411-421, 2004.
\bibitem{24} S. A. Kazarlis, A. Bakirtzis, and V. J. I. t. o. p. s. Petridis,
"A genetic algorithm solution to the unit commitment problem," vol. 11, no. 1, pp.
83-92, 1996.
\bibitem{25} W. Ongsakul and N. J. I. T. o. P. S. Petcharaks, "Unit commitment
by enhanced adaptive Lagrangian relaxation," vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 620-628, 2004.
\bibitem{26} Y.-W. Jeong, W.-N. Lee, H.-H. Kim, J.-B. Park, J.-R. J. J. o. E.
E. Shin, and Technology, "Thermal unit commitment using binary differential
evolution," vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 323-329, 2009.
\bibitem{27} V. K. J. N. C. Kamboj and Applications, "A novel hybrid PSO–GWO
approach for unit commitment problem," vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1643-1655, 2016.
\bibitem{28} K. Juste, H. Kita, E. Tanaka, and J. J. I. T. o. P. S. Hasegawa,
"An evolutionary programming solution to the unit commitment problem," vol. 14, no.
4, pp. 1452-1459, 1999.
\bibitem{29} Y.-W. Jeong, J.-B. Park, S.-H. Jang, and K. Y. Lee, "A new
quantum-inspired binary PSO for thermal unit commitment problems," in 2009 15th
International Conference on Intelligent System Applications to Power Systems, 2009,
pp. 1-6: IEEE.
\bibitem{30} R. J. I. J. o. E. P. Jabr and E. Systems, "Rank-constrained
semidefinite program for unit commitment," vol. 47, pp. 13-20, 2013.
\bibitem{31} X. Yuan, H. Nie, A. Su, L. Wang, and Y. J. E. S. w. a. Yuan, "An
improved binary particle swarm optimization for unit commitment problem," vol. 36,
no. 4, pp. 8049-8055, 2009.
\bibitem{32} D. N. Simopoulos, S. D. Kavatza, and C. D. J. I. T. o. P. S.
Vournas, "Unit commitment by an enhanced simulated annealing algorithm," vol. 21,
no. 1, pp. 68-76, 2006.
\bibitem{33} L. K. Panwar, S. Reddy, and R. J. I. J. o. S. I. R. Kumar,
"Binary fireworks algorithm based thermal unit commitment," vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 87-
101, 2015.
\bibitem{34} L. K. Panwar, S. Reddy, A. Verma, B. K. Panigrahi, R. J. S.
Kumar, and E. Computation, "Binary grey wolf optimizer for large scale unit
commitment problem," vol. 38, pp. 251-266, 2018.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}