J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res.

, 3(12)119-133, 2013 ISSN 2090-4304

Journal of Basic and Applied
© 2013, TextRoad Publication Scientific Research
www.textroad.com

Modeling of Existing and Candidate Hydro Power Plants Generation

Expansion Planning using Wien Automatic System Planning-IV Model
F. Shinwari 1, Dr. M. Akbar 2, K. Khan 3, Dr. G.Y. Chohan 4, J. A. Zia 5, N. Ahmed6
and F. Ahmad7
1, 4
Faculty of Engineering and Technology, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7
Department of Engineering, National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad, Pakistan
Received: August 23 2013
Accepted: September 22 2013

ABSTRACT

This paper follows comprehensive methodology for overcoming energy crisis in Pakistan. Pakistan’s existing and
candidate hydro power plants potential is taken into account for Power Generation Expansion Planning. The
modeling of hydro power plants is carried out in a more significant way for long term expansion time 2013-2035.
Several energy parameters are understood by cogent and impeccable correlation between Loss of Load Probability,
Forced Outages and Energy Not Served Costs etc. Moreover, the simulated results obtained from the above
modeling procedure were evaluated with a help of characteristics of hydropower plants. Characteristics of hydro
power plants include forecasted inflow of energy, storage capacity, average minimum generation, operation and
maintenance costs etc. The hydro power plants model achieves the objective function of least cost plan using
WASP-IV. It adopts linear programming, dynamic programming and regression analysis techniques to find
objective function. Furthermore, Capacity Generation Mix Supply is prepared for the projected demand of energy.
The research is characterized as flexible, generalized and more significant as compared to other system models.
KEYWORDS: Forced Outage, Reserve Margins, Loss of Load Probability (LOLP), Energy Not Served Costs and
Capacity Generation Mix Supply.

INTRODUCTION

To overcome Energy requirement is the most vital task for eliminating great number of predicaments. There
are many energy resources such like conventional and non conventional. The conventional energy sources are fossil
fuel that couldn’t be replenished. The non-conventional energy is renewable source energy. Hydro can be taken as a
non-conventional energy source. Pakistan’s existing power sector has 21103 MW of installed capacity in 2012.
Hydro power plants installed capacity is 6,654 MW. Hydro power plants have a capacity up-to 100000 Mega Watt
in Pakistan. Although there are many energy resources but Hydro power remains unique amongst all the energy
resources. It has limited bottlenecks compared to other environmental polluting resources. Hydro power is
considered green energy resource sustaining the marine life, agriculture sector and clean water storage.
As there are numerous methodologies adopted to perform Power Generation Expansion [1]. It is done so due to
the shortage of electricity demand and substantial increase in the population. There is a need to install new power
plants to overcome the energy demand. Our cynosure in this research paper is the hydro power plants. The paper
comprises the modeling techniques using WASP-IV model for Power Generation Expansion Planning (PGEP) [2].
Several characteristics are modeled for hydro power plants that are required following some necessary calculations.
After achieving desired modeled results, they are given to WASP-IV model modules. It follows the dynamic and
linear programming techniques to generate many optimized number of configurations which prepares least cost
expansion plan along with other energy parameters.
This paper is divided into four sections. First section gives the proposed structure of research methodology
using WASP-IV model. Second section consists of energy parameters modeling along with existing and candidate
hydro power plants. Third and fourth section provides simulated results, in depth analysis and conclusion along with
the future prospects.

Related Work
Several models are applied [3 and 4], but each model has its own limitation regarding its expansion time, cost
and expansion plants etc. Further, it finds the most significant least cost generation expansion for the given time
period of 2013-2035. So here we develop models that match the energy demand projections with generation mix
supply with focus on hydro power plants, for the years 2013-2035. Our research modeling of hydro power plants

*
Corresponding Author: Dr. G.Y. Chohan, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, International Islamic University,
Islamabad, Pakistan. [email protected]

119
 Shinwari et al.,2013

focuses on the existing hydro power plants as well as candidate hydro power plants (to be added in the future
expansion generation). These primitive models have certain limitations with respect to their time and energy
parameters sensitivity analysis that are based on optimization techniques.

Motivation
The modeling of existing and candidate hydro power plants for Pakistan is of paramount significance. In
Pakistan, there is a lot of hydro potential. It is considered to be green energy resource. If it is utilized to the fullest,
Pakistan can revive its economic conditions sufficiently. Moreover, it will help to diminish our problems linked to
the certain economic parameters. So the contribution of cost effective Hydro Power Plants to Pakistan’s Power
Sector will lead to optimized solution of energy crisis. It is done with a help of Power Generation Expansion
Planning.

1. Proposed Flow Chart of the Model

1.1 WASP-IV Simulation Flow Chart

First of all the several papers relevant to our research were studied for developing strong cogent and
impeccable literature review. The data was collected regarding modeling of hydro power plants in WASP-IV model.
Further the data was implemented in the model to get optimized simulated results. Analysis and conclusion were
based on their in depth sensitivity analysis.
System modeling for power generation expansion is carried out via WASP-IV Model. The research and system
modeling of hydro power plants is based upon the flow chart given below in figure.1 [2].

Figure.1 “WASP-IV computer code Flow Chart”

The above flow chart for our research shows that the input data is collected and modeled, and then given to
LoadSy, FixSy and VarSy module. After execution it generates large number of configurations by ConGen module.
These configurations are then merged and simulated by MerSim module. The DynPro module follows the dynamic
programming methodology for cost optimization. It repeats the process until the desired least cost expansion is
achieved. In ReproBat module, the optimized results are generated in “.rep” file.
2. System Modeling of Hydro-Thermal Power Plants
2.1 Energy Factors and Functions
2.1.1 Optimization Cost Function
The cost function to be optimized in WASP-IV [2] is given by equation 1, the basic minimized cost
function is represented depending on certain constraints as described below:
Bj = ∑ [I⎺(j, t) − S⎺(j, t) + F⎺(j, t) + L⎺(j, t) + M⎺(j, t) + O⎺(j, t)]…….. (1)
Where:

120
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(12)119-133, 2013

Bj is the main objective function along with the expansion plan j, and t is the time in years (e-g; 1, 2, ... ,
T), T shows the length of the study period (total number of years), and the bar over the symbols represent the
discounted values to a reference date at a given discount rate i. The function in equation (1) shows capital
investment costs (I), fuel costs (F), salvage value of investment costs (S), fuel inventory costs (L), non-fuel
operation, maintenance costs (M) and cost of the energy not served (O). Those functions are further dependant on
other variable factors.

2.1.2 Forced Outage Rate

The forced outage rate (FOR) of each generating unit is essential in calculating the risk index. The forced
outage rate is defined as in equation. 2:
FOH
FOR = ∗ 100 (%) … … … … … … … … (2)
FOH + SH
Where, FOH = Forced Outage Hours
SH = Service Hours
Numerous factors have effect on FOR of generating units which can vary the numbers. These factors include
unit size, fuel type, duty cycle, and operational and maintenance practices. There can be significant variation in FOR
values from different sources. They are governed by a combination of factors. So it is difficult to explain variation in
values. Moreover, the values of FOR should be obtained from a large enough sample over a long period of time so
as to represent the expected value of reliability with a reasonable degree of accuracy, for reliability evaluation and
generation planning purposes.

2.1.3 Reliability Criteria Factors

The timing of new capacity additions required in the future is determined by the reliability criterion. At present
our country is experiencing huge shortage of power, reliability of system is not a primary concern for Pakistan. It is
therefore planned to add capacity to meet demand requirements at a lower but acceptable reliability level. It is
important to consider proper reliability criterion to decide the capacity addition requirement every year over the
planning horizon. Two reliability criteria are commonly used for development of generation expansion plans. These
are as follows:
Loss of Load Probability (LOLP): LOLP is the risk associated with having insufficient Generation to meet the
forecasted load demand. It is generally expressed in hours/years.
Expected Un-served Energy (EUE): Energy measurement, which is not supplied in expected terms over the year is
EUE. It is usually expressed in GWh per year.

2.1.4 Loss of Load Probability (LOLP) Analysis and Addition of Peaking Units
The risk associated with insufficient generation to meet the load, is calculated as a Loss of Load Expectancy
(LOLP) in days per year or hours per year. As an option, peaking plants are added automatically in such a way that
the system reliability is at least equal to a given reliability index.
The interval load duration curves technique is generally done for LOLP analysis. The maintenance of the hydro
units is done deterministically and the maintenance of the thermal units is scheduled either manually or
automatically. To schedule maintenance automatically [5], the program starts by scheduling the units in descending
order of size and locating maintenance in interval having the highest reserve. If the unit requires more than one
interval of maintenance then consecutive intervals with the highest reserve are located in order to schedule unit
maintenance.
Starting with the original load duration curve and using the following recursive formula, we convolve each unit
with the load duration curve as given in equation 3. with the help of [6].
ELDCi (x) = pi. ELDC(i − 1)(x) + qi. ELDC(i − 1)(x − Ci)…………… (3)
As qi is Forced Outage Rate (FOR) of the i-th unit.
pi = 1 - qi, it is the availability rate of i-th unit.
ELDCi (x)is Equivalent Load Duration Curve after convolution of the ith unit.
Ci is the capacity of the ith unit.
The loss of load probability for a system having n units with total installed capacity, C, is shown in
equation 4.
LOLP = ELDCn(C) ………………… (4)
Peaking units are added until the desired reliability is achieved incase LOLP is greater than the system
designed criteria. When the annual LDC is used, an approximation is made for the maintenance of units. For
calculating LOLP, the firm capability of the hydro is usually used, but the other capabilities can be examined if

121
 Shinwari et al.,2013

desired. The module uses the load duration curves [7] to calculate the risk associated with having Expected Un-
served Energy Costs. The energy produced by the thermal units can be calculated by either one of two ways [6]:

1. Simplified Method
This method is illustrated in the following figure.2. The energy produced by a unit is the area under the
duration curve. The unit capacity is de-rated by the unit forced outage rate and to account for unit maintenance, the
unit capability is also generally de-rated by the planned outage rate.

Figure.2 “Energy produced under the load duration curves”

The de-rated capacity (Di) is given by equation.5 below:

= [1 − ( + )]…………….(5)
Where,
Ci is the unit net capacity, PORi is the planned outage rate and FORi is the forced outage rate.

2. Probabilistic Method
The method takes the outage rate of the unit into account probabilistically as illustrated in the following
figure.3. In the LOLP analysis, each unit is convolved with the load duration curve using the recursive formula
given in equation (1). When a unit is stacked, the load level increases by the unit size for a duration proportional to
the forced outage rate of the unit and to the time the unit is used in that load state.

Figure.3 “Energy produced by unit i, area under the load duration curve by unit availability”

122
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(12)119-133, 2013

The energy produced by unit i (Ei) is the area under the load duration curve multiplied by the unit
availability. It is given by equation. 6. in [6].
= ∫( ) ( − 1)( ) …………………… (6)

Where Qi and Qi-1 are the load levels at which the unit is stacked.

There will always be some un-serviced energy on a probabilistic basis. After stacking the n available
thermal units having a total capacity of C, the expected un-serviced energy (UE) is given by equation. 7:

= ∫ ( ) …………………… (7)
Whereas PL is the peak load.
Unit maintenance is treated either automatically or manually as described in the LOLP Analysis.

2.1.5 Energy-not-served costs

The energy not served costs are given by equation. 8 below [2]:
. , ,
( , ) = ( + 1) ∗∑ ( + ∗ ( ) + ∗ ( ) ]*N(t,h)*αh…………(8)
where: a, b, and c are constants ($/kWh) given as input data.
N(t,h) is the amount of energy-not-served (kWh) for the hydro-condition h in year t and EAt is the necessary
energy demand (kWh) of the system in year t.
As stated in equation 1, the cost components of the objective function (Bj) are presented in a simplified form.
In fact, the above expressions have been derived considering each expansion candidate as a single unit (hydro,
thermal or nuclear etc) whereas in WASP-IV the expansion candidates are defined as plants and the number of units
(or projects) from each plant to be added in each year is to be determined by the WASP study.

2.2 Modeling of Hydro Power Plants

The modeling of hydro power plants involves two types of modeling. First of all we performed the
modeling of Existing hydro power plants and secondly, modeling of Candidate hydro power plants. While modeling
the hydro power plants, many insufficiencies were encountered regarding their characteristics so they are dealt with
their evaluated parameters. The modeling of hydro power plants was carried out with the help of [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
and 14].
2.2.1 Modeling of Existing Hydro Power Plants
The existing hydro power plants that are already installed in Pakistan up till the year 2012 are shown in the
figure.2.3. The existing installed hydro capacity is 6935 MW. Furthermore, Minimum generation (Giga Watt-hour),
average capacity and fixed operation and maintenance cost ($/KWh-month) are accumulated. The table 2.1 shows
Existing Hydro Power Plants.
Table 2.1 Existing Hydro Power Plants
Existing Hydro Power Plants
Hydro Power Plants Plant Capacity
Small Hydro 122
Chashma 184
Jagran 30
Malakand III 81
Mangla 1000
Warsak 243
Tarbela 3478
Ghazi Barotha 1450
Jinnah 96
Allai Khwar 121
Duber Khwar 130
Total Installed Capacity = 6935 MW
(Hydro Power Plants)

The necessary parameters such as inflow energy and live storage capacity [15, 16, 17, 18 and 19] are
converted to Inflow energy (GWh/period) and Storage Capacity (GWh) as seen in figure.2.3 with the help of [20 and
21].

123
 Shinwari et al.,2013

Characteristics of Existing Hydro Power Plants

The modeling of Existing hydro power plants for FixSys Module is carried out on the basis of their
characteristics and parameters as discussed in [ 22, 23 and 24 ], vis-à-vis as the thermal power plants; the
characteristics were evaluated with the help of their parameters and [25, 26, 27 and 28].
The characteristics of existing hydro power plants for FixSys Module are evaluated and shown in table. 2.2.

Table. 2.2 Modeling Characteristics of Existing Hydro Power Plants

Characteristics of Existing Hydro Plants for FixSys Module
Hydro Power Plant =Small Hydro
Installed Capacity (MW) =122 MW
Storage Capacity (GWh) = 227.894 GWh
Fixed O& M Costs = 0.0025
( $/KWh-month )

Inflow Energy (GWh) Min. Generation (GWh) Average Capacity (MW)

Period 1 443.93 GWh 74.25 GWh 91.5 MW
Period 2 443.93 GWh 74.25 GWh 91.5 MW

The characteristic of existing hydro power plants are:

 Installed Capacity (MW)
 Storage Capacity (GWh)
 Fixed Operation and Maintenance costs ($/KWh-month)
 Inflow Energy (GWh)
 Minimum Generation (GWh)
 Average Capacity (MW)
One of the parameters such as, installed capacity (MW) of the existing hydro power plants is given in [6] along
with its other parameters i-e; Annual Firm Energy, and Fixed Operation and Maintenance costs in US $/KWh-year
(to be converted into US $/KWh-month). Average Capacity (MW) is assumed to be 75% of the installed capacity.
And the Minimum Generation (GWh) is half of the firm annual energy. Moreover, it is calculated for a period (six
months) as defined in the beginning by the user. The inflow energy and storage capacity etc are modeled with the
help of [22, 29, 30 and 31].

2.2. 2 Energy Conversion Parameters

Before calculating the modeling parameters of hydro power plant, one must know the energy conversion
parameters as shown in table.2.3, evaluated in Microsoft Excel with the help of [23, 30, 32, 33, and 34].

Table. 2.3 Energy Conversion Parameters designed for WASP-IV model

Energy Conversion Parameters
1 cusec = 1.98 AF/day
1cusec = 0.028317 m3/sec
1 AF/year = 0.00138127 cusec
1m3/sec =12674.88AF/period
1 MCM/day = 454.22306 KW (KWh/h)
1 MCM /day = 454.22306 MW (MWh/h)
1 MCM/day = 0.45422306 GWh/h
1 MAF = 1233.481 m3 /day
1 AF /day = 0.01428 m3 / sec
0.005556 MCM/period = 0.018926 GWh/day

It is not possible to measure the amount of water flowing into the rivers and dams with such an great quantity.
So there are certain measuring techniques to measure the immense amount of water. It is measured in cusec, m3/sec
or MAF (Million Acre Feet). The basic and common unit which enables us to measure the water flow is so called
'cusec'. It means that one cubic foot water flows in a second or twenty eight liters of water per second. The water
quantity is measured in terms of acre foot which means the quantity of water required to flood one acre of level
ground to a depth of one Foot. For very large quantities of water the term million acre feet (MAF) is used which
equals to million acre feet. In case of hydro power plants, if one cusec of water is dropped from a height of 100 feet
then it has potential energy to generate nearly 8.5 KW of electrical power.

124
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(12)119-133, 2013

2.2.3 Calculation of Storage Capacity (GWh)

The storage capacity (GWh) required in FixSys module for Hydro power plants is calculated for each existing
hydro power plant. The calculation is carried out for already installed hydro power plants in Pakistan via their water
flow energy parameters as discussed in energy conversion parameters. The live storage capacity of each hydro plant
is converted into MCM (Million Cubic Meter) according to its desired time period. And then from Million Cubic
Meter (MCM) it is converted into the desired storage capacity (GWh) [35] and [36]. The conversion is performed in
Microsoft excel as seen in table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Calculation of Storage Capacity (GWh)

Calculation of Storage Capacity (GWh)
0.00018 MAF = 0.222027 MCM 0.0055556 MCM = 0.000105 GWh
X (Enter value) 7.2 = 8881.063 MCM 8881.063 MCM = 168.1185 GWh

2.2.4 Calculation of Inflow Energy (GWh/period)

The Inflow energy (GWh) is evaluated with the help of conversion of water flow for each hydro power plant as
in table 2.5. The water flow for hydro power plants is either given in cusecs or m3/sec [37] and [38], then m3/sec
(cubic meter /second) is converted to AF/sec (Acre Foot/ second). After converting the energy parameters with
different escalating factors, MCM/period (Million Cubic Meter /period), we convert it to the inflow energy Gega
Watt-hour/Period (GWh/period).

Table. 2.5 Calculation of Inflow Energy (GWh)

Calculation of Inflow Energy (GWh)
1 cusec = 0.028317 m3/sec 1m3/sec =12674.88AF/period
1428 cusecs = 40.43668 m3/sec 40.43 m3/sec =506995.2 AF/period

180 AF/period = 0.222027 MCM/period 0.005556 MCM/period = 0.000105 GWh/period

506995.2 AF / period = 625.3689 MCM/period 625.3689 MCM/period = 11.83823 GWh/period

When all the characteristics of existing hydro power plants are modeled for each hydro power plant in a
FixSys Module, we model candidate hydro power plants.

2.2.5 Modeling of Candidate Hydro Power Plants

After achieving characteristics of existing hydro power plants, we calculate the characteristics of candidate
hydro power plants. They are evaluated with the help of their parameters. The Candidate hydro power plants are
future hydro power plants which are to be added in the future time span as defined for power generation expansion
period. The Capacity (MW) of candidate hydro power plants which are to be installed in future in their respective
years is 38298 MW. Furthermore, Minimum generation (GWh), average capacity and fixed operation and
maintenance costs ($/KWh-month) are also accumulated as in [9, 39, 40 and 41].
The characteristics of candidate hydro power plants are same as of existing hydro power plants. The
characteristics are in table. 2.6. For each candidate hydro power plant, their necessary parameters are also evaluated.

Table 2.6 Modeling Characteristics of Candidate Hydro Power Plants for VARSYS Module
Characteristics of Candidate Hydro Power Plants for VARSYS Module
Hydro Power Plant = Khan Khwar

Installed Capacity (MW) = 172 MW

Storage Capacity (GWh) = 49.03457 GWh

Fixed O& M Costs = 1.175

( $/KWh-month )
Inflow Energy (GWh) Min. Generation (GWh) Average Capacity (MW)
Period 1 10.3584 GWh 26.25 GWh 137.6 MW
Period 2 10.3584 GWh 26.25 GWh 137.6 MW

The table. 2.7 shows the candidate hydro power plants which are to be added in future along with their
parameters i-e; live storage capacity (MAF) and Inflow energy (m3/sec) as discussed earlier for existing hydro
power plants and further can be studied in [42, 43, 44 and 45].

125
 Shinwari et al.,2013

Table 2.7 Candidate Hydro Power Plants

Candidate Hydro Power Plants
Hydro Power Plants Plant Hydro Power Plants Plant
Capacity Capacity
(MW) (MW)
Taunsa 120 Yugo 520
Khan Khwar 172 Dasu 4320
Neelum Jhelum 969 Bunji 7100
Diamer Basha 4500 Akhori 600
Golen Gol 106 Lower Spat Gah 496
Kurram Tangi 83 Palas Valley 665
Tarbela 4 Ext 960 Pattan 2800
Doyian 490 Thakot 2800
Keyal Khwar 122 Dudhnial 800
Phander 80 Yulbo 3000
Basho 26 Tungas 2200
Harpo 33 Skardu 1650
Lawi 70 Kalabagh 2776
Total Installed Capacity of Candidate Hydro Power Plants = 38198
Similarly the candidate hydro power plants characteristics are evaluated in Microsoft excel.

3. Implementation
In FixSy and VarSy module existing and candidate hydro power plants are defined by clicking “Add Plant”.
All existing and committed hydro power plants are defined in the FixSy and VarSy module. There are two types of
hydro power plants i-e Type-A and Type-B. For each type of hydro power plant, Operation and Maintenance Costs
are defined. Moreover, it specifies year of operation in which hydro power plant is to be operated, installed capacity
(MW), Storage Capacity (GWh) of hydro power plant, Inflow Energy i-e the energy which relies on the water flow
to the dams, Minimum Generation from the hydro power plant and Average Capacity (MW) that a hydro power
plant produces. All these mentioned parameters are modeled with the help of [14, 46 and 47] for each existing hydro
power plant as shown in figure.4 for WASP-IV Module.

Figure.4 “Existing and Candidate Hydro Power Plants Characteristics in FixSy Module”

These are the characteristics of Existing and Candidate Hydro power plants which are given to FixSy and
VarSy Module of WASP-IV after modeling several parameters of all the hydro power plants.
The ConGen Module is configuration generator. It generates many optimized configurations for all the hydro
thermal power plants defined in the VarSy Modules. In Congen Module, it requires minimum and maximum reserve
margins for all the power plants and critical hydro condition which is already defined in common case data. During
power generation expansion, all the candidate power plants are in the row. Below lies the previous year of expansion
and current year of expansion. Numerical values in the boxes represent number of units of the power plants either to
be added or are already added.
Once the configurations of all the power plants are generated then they are merged into each other for further
operations research. The characteristics of MerSim Module are base year, number of Fourier coefficients, spinning
reserves requirements either variable or constant, group limitation calculations, loading order of plants during

126
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(12)119-133, 2013

simulations and calculations that are based upon plant by plant and unit by unit loading order, spinning reserve
contribution by Hydro power plants i-e Type A and Type B. As in variable spinning reserves requirements, SPNRES
is calculated as a function of the largest unit capacity block already loaded (CAP) and the period peak load (PKMW)
in equation.1.
SPNRES = SPNVAL ∗ CAP + PEAKF ∗ PKMW …….(1)

Multiplier coefficients SPNVAL and PEAKF are user defined multiplier coefficients also we define Data for Future
Years adopting the data collection methodologies similar to [48].

4. RESULTS

The results are generated in .rep batch file of WASP-IV for each module. In Microsoft Excel, the
characteristics of existing and candidate hydro power plants are also evaluated for FixSys and VarSys module of
WASP-IV. Each cell is pre-defined with the formula. And it recalls the values from many other cells in the
Microsoft excel where necessary calculations are carried out. In such a way, great number of existing and candidate
hydro power plants calculations is achieved in a very efficient way.
Table 4.1 and 4.2 shows the evaluated characteristic of existing and candidate hydro power plants which are to
be installed in Pakistan for period 2013-2035.

Characteristics of Existing Hydro Power Plants

Table 4.1 Characteristics of Existing Hydro Power Plants

Characteristics of Existing
Hydro Power Plants
Hydro Power Plant Fixed O & M Costs Min. Generation Average Capacity Storage Capacity Inflow
Capacity Energy
Plants (MW) $/KWh-month (GWh) (MW) MW (GWh)
Small Hydro 122 0.0025 74.25 91.5 227.894 443.93
Chashma 184 0.0125 179.5 138 16.811 439.97
Jagran 30 0.0083333 18.25 22.5 28.01 9.48
Malakand III 81 0.0083333 49.25 60.75 31.28 11.96
Mangla 1000 0.0016667 639.75 750 31.989 128.22
Warsak 243 0.0041667 128.5 182.25 0.5907 144.72
Tarbela 3478 0.0033333 1673 2608.5 226.026 1760.049
Ghazi Barotha 1450 0.0091667 873.5 1087.5 170.4535 473
Jinnah 96 0.0083333 32 72 67.2474 2173.92
Allai Khwar 121 0.0083333 40 90.75 284.86 5.62
Duber Khwar 130 0.0083333 46.75 97.5 2.1715 7.3988
Installed Capacity = 6935
(Hydro Power Plants) MW

Characteristics of Candidate Hydro Power Plants

Table 4.2 “Characteristics of Candidate Hydro Power Plants”

Characteristics of Candidate
Hydro Power Plants
Hydro Power Plant Capacity Fixed O & M Costs Average Min. Generation Storage Inflow
Capacity Capacity Energy
Plants $/ KWh-month (MW) (GWh)/period (GWh)
(MW) (GWh)/period
None None None None None None None
Khan Khwar 172 1.175 137.6 26.25 49.03457 10.3584
Neelum Jhelum 969 0.575 775.2 286.25 107.409 91.74631
Diamer Basha 4500 1.45 3600 841 182.128 96.77
Golen Gol 106 1.025 84.8 21 46.69 8.8786
Kurram Tangi 83 4.55 66.4 43.75 19.38 873.95
Tarbela 4 Ext 960 0.625 768 250 142.43 218.71
Munda 740 1.025 592 262.25 13.057 60.96
Keyal Khwar 122 1.683333 97.6 27 168.11 6.511029
Phander 80 0.733333 64 19 7.004 11.83823

127
 Shinwari et al.,2013

Basho 26 1.158333 20.8 8 175.123 1.035845

Harpo 33 1.108333 26.4 11.25 133.0938 1.627757
Lawi 70 2.5 56 19.75 112.079 5.919117
Dasu 4320 1.508333 3456 1255.75 26.85 769.4852
Bunji 7100 0.491667 5680 2156.75 203.1432 562.3161
Akhori 600 4.583333 480 85.25 256.84 1036.437
Lower Spat Gah 496 1.758333 396.8 173 121.41 8.8786
Palas Valley 665 1.433333 532 233.5 49.03 465.83
Pattan 2800 1.816667 2240 957 25.68 667
Thakot 2800 1.816667 2240 957.75 21.01 858.727
Dudhnial 800 1.9 640 244 23.34 86.41911
Yulbo 3000 2.858333 2400 875.75 2.8 292.9931
Tungas 2200 2.425 1760 675.75 1.167 287.6691
Skardu 1650 6.341667 1320 499 123.75 281.454
Yugo 520 7.316667 416 147.75 91.74 100
Kalabagh 2776 0.775 2220.8 2315 142.3 327.9191
Taunsa 120 1.891667 96 128 74.71 447
Doyian 490 1.091667 392 423.25 109.744 554.325
Total Installed 38198 MW
Capacity (MW) =

The nominal installed capacities (MW) for hydro power plants are shown in figure.5accordance to their
fuel types.

Figure.5 “Nominal Capacities of Hydro Power Plants”

The ConGen module of WASP-IV generates the minimum and maximum number of configurations along with
their reserve margins percentage for each expansion year in figure.6. Total 4745 no. of configurations are generated
for all the expansion years. Amongst them, 1068 number of configurations are generated for hydro power plants for
expansion time period.

128
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(12)119-133, 2013

Figure.6 “Configurations generated for each year of power generation expansion”

MerSim simulates system operations for each configuration and for each period in the year and each
hydrological condition (merges and simulates). It determines energy generated by each generating unit in each
period, capacity factors, fuel costs, operation and maintenance costs, LOLP (with maintenance), Energy not served.
It utilizes the methodology of the loading order, spinning reserves, probabilistic simulation and then saves previous
calculations for further results.
The figure.7 displays the result of annual addition during Power Generation Expansion Period (PGEP) along
with the Loss of Load Probability (%) for each expansion year. LOLP (%) decreases, as the expansion year proceeds
further. It is due to satisfying the reliability criteria. The total capacity to be installed in future 2013-2035 is 85119
MW. During expansion time period; 47 hydel power plant units are to be installed as shown in figure.7.

Figure.7 “Optimized Solution achieved by showing the Annual Addition of Hydro Power Plants
for the PGEP period”

129
 Shinwari et al.,2013

The Energy not Served (ENS) in GWh, Loss of Load Probability (%), Reserve Margins (%), Hydro power
plants installed capacity is given in figure.8. The Energy Not Served and LOLP (%) decreases as the reserve
margins (%) increases.

Figure.8 “Nominal Capacity (MW) for Hydro during PGEP along with Energy Not Served, Loss of Load Probability
(%), and Reserves (%)”

The expected generation by plant type (GWh) for hydro power plants is given by figure.9 below.

Figure.9 “Expected Generation by Plant Type (GWh)”

The total domestic and foreign cost for hydro power plants is 5552 Million US $ as shown in figure.10.

Figure.10 “Expected Cost (Million US $) of total Domestic and Foreign for Hydro Power Plants”

130
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(12)119-133, 2013

5. Analysis and Conclusion

After achieving our results, we conclude the research findings based upon on their in depth analysis. The
existing and candidate power plants were reckoned to meet the energy demand by satisfying the reliability criteria.
All the characteristics of hydro power plants were counted. Further, the power generation expansion was carried out.
It involves the state-of-the-art modeling technique using WASP-IV model.
The desired research on modeling hydro power generation expansion plan for 2013-2035 is significant in
several ways. It meets the required energy demand (GWh), calculating all the costs by adopting optimal trajectory
path using dynamic programming, Loss of Load Probability, Energy not Served, setting up required reserve margins
(MW).
After attaining crucial results, more significant analysis and conclusion can be drawn regarding Pakistan’s
power sector. It adheres to accomplish the different concocted hydro power plants’ installed capacity (MW) for
future expansion time period, as given in table. 5.1

Table. 5.1 Future Installed Electricity Generation Capacity

Year 2013 2020 2025 2030 2035
Total Installed Capacity Hydro (MW) 6727 15750 29104 43230 47750

5.1Generation Mix Supply

Figure.11 represents Generation Capacity Mix Supply. It is the most optimized and feasible generation
expansion attained by our research ascertains for the power generation expansion plan (year- 2013-2035).

The share of hydro power plants along with their respective year of generation expansion is also evaluated
in (MW). Power Generation Expansion Planning (PGEP) for the years 2013-2035 exhibits 47750 MW for Hydro (44
%).

Figure.11 “Generation Capacity Mix Supply for Pakistan 2013-2035 by their Fuel Types in Mega Watt (MW)”

Future Work Prospects

Other group limits can be imposed on the annual electricity generation. Hydro power plants can be integrated
with existing and candidate thermal power plants of Pakistan. Increase in the number of periods in a year, can
substantially increase the accuracy of Power Generation Expansion. And alternate modeling simulation softwares
could be used such as LEAP, EnergyPlan etc. to get load and energy demand forecast on weekly basis.

Acknowledgment
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in this research.

REFERENCES

[1] Muhammad Fahad Shinwari, Muhammad Latif , Naveed Ahmed, Hassan Humayun, Dr. I.M Qureshi, Dr. Ihsan
ul Haq and Dr. Yasin Chohan, “ Optimization Model using WASP-IV for Pakistan’s Power Plants Generation
Expansion Plan”, IOSR-JEEE, Vol.3, Issue. 2, PP. 39-49, Nov. 2012.
[2] International Atomic Energy Agency, ―Wien Automatic System Planning (WASP) package - A computer code
for power generating system expansion planning, version WASP-IV user’s manual, IAEA, Vienna, 2006.
[3] S. Jebaraj and S. Iniyan, “A review of energy models”, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 10, PP.
281-311, 2006.
[4] R. B. Hiremath, S. Shikha and N. H. Ravindranath, “Decentralized energy planning; modeling and application”,
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 11, PP. 729-752, 2007.

131
 Shinwari et al.,2013

[5] M. Nejati, N. Amjady, H. Zareipour, "A New Stochastic Search Technique Combined with Scenario Approach
for Dynamic State Estimation of Power Systems", IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 27, Issue. 4, PP.
2093 – 2105, January 2012.
[6] Generation Planning, National Transmission and Despatch Company Limited, Pakistan, 2011.
[7] Wang, B.; Li, Y. and Watada, J., "Supply Reliability and Generation Cost Analysis Due to Load Forecast
Uncertainty in Unit Commitment Problems", IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 23, Issue. 3, PP. 2242 –
2252, August 2013.
[8] Prakash Thimmapuram, Thomas D. Veselka, Vladimir Koritarov, Sónia Vilela, Ricardo Pereira and Rui
Figueiredo Silva, “ Modeling Hydro Power Plants in Deregulated Electricity Markets: Integration and
Application of EMCAS and VALORAGUA”, UChicago Argonne, LLC, Operator of Argonne National
Laboratory, Argonne, 2006.
[9] Robert, G. ; EDF Hydro Eng. Centre, Le Bourget du Lac, France and Michaud, F , “Hydro power plant modeling
for generation control applications”, IEEE, ACC Conference, PP. 2289 – 2294, June 2012
[10] Gyan Ranjan Biswal, R. P. Maheshwari and M. L. Dewal, “Modeling, Control, and Monitoring of S3RS-Based
Hydrogen Cooling System in Thermal Power Plant”, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 59,
PP.562-570, Jan. 2012.
[11] Noor Azliza B.T Ibrahim, “Modeling of Micro Hydroelectric system Design”, MS Thesis, University Tun
Hussein Onn, Malaysia, July 2012.
[12] I. Khan, A. Mahmood, N. Javaid, S.Razzaq, R.D. Khan, M. Ilahi, “Home Energy Management Systems in
Future Smart Grids”, Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research , Vol.3, PP. 1224-1231, 2013.
[13] N. Javaid, M. Ilahi, R. D. Khan, L. Ali, U. Qasim and Z. A. Khan, “Evaluating Wireless Reactive Routing
Protocols with Linear Programming Model for Wireless Ad-hoc Networks”, Journal of Basic and Applied
Scientific Research, Vol. 3, PP. 1170-1181, 2013.
[14] Levron, Y.; Guerrero, J.M. and Beck, Y., "Optimal Power Flow in Microgrids with Energy Storage", IEEE
Transactions on Power System, Vol. 28, Issue. 3, PP. 3226 - 3234, August 2013.
[15] Deependra Kumar Jha, Naoto Yorino, Yoshifumi Zoka, Yutaka Sasaki, Yuki Hayashi, Kazunoni Iwata and
Ryuji Oe, “Backward Search Approach to Incorporate Excess Stream Inflows in SDP Based Reservoir
Scheduling of Hydropower Plants”, IEEE, PP. 1-6, Hiroshima, Japan, 2009.
[16] Kai Heussen, Stephan Koch, Andreas Ulbig and Goran Andersson, “Energy Storage in Power System
Operation: The Power Nodes Modeling Framework”, IEEE, PP. 1-8, 2010.
[17] Sachin Mishra, S.K. Singal and D.K. Khatod,, “Effect of Variation of Penstock Parameter on Mechanical
Power”, International Journal of Energy Sciences, IJES, Vol.2, Issue. 3, PP. 110-114, 2012.
[18] A. Motamedi, H. Zareipour, W. D. Rosehart, "Electricity Price and Demand Forecasting in Smart Grids", IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, Vol.3, No. 2, PP. 664-674, June 2012.
[19] Skoulikaris, Ch., Ganoulis, J., and J.M. Monget, “Integrated modeling of a new dam: a case study from the
“HELP” Mesta/Nestos River”, 18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress, Cairns, PP. 13-17, July 2009.
[20] Fredrik Olsson and Mark Pearson, “Modeling the total inflow energy to hydropower plants- a study of Sweden
and Norway”, Lund University, March 2005.
[21] Rajib Datta and V. T. Ranganathan, “A Method of Tracking the Peak Power Points for a Variable Speed Wind
Energy Conversion System”, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 18, Issue. 1, PP. 163-168, Mar.
2003.
[22] Poullikkas A., “Implementation of distributed generation technologies in isolated power systems”, Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 11, PP. 30-56, 2007.
[23] Shyh-Jier Huang, “Application of Genetic Based Fuzzy Systems to Hydroelectric Generation Scheduling”,
IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 14, No. 3, PP. 724-730, September 1999.
[24] E. D. Castronuovo and J. A. P. Lopes, “On the optimization of the daily operation of a wind-hydro power
plant,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 19, No. 3, PP. 1599–1606, Aug. 2004.
[25] Hubert Abgottspon, “Mid-Term Hydro Power Planning for Energy and Ancillary Services”, Master’s Thesis,
Zurich, 2009.
[26] A. Hainoun, “Construction of the hourly load curves and detecting the annual peak load of future Syrian
electric power demand using bottom-up approach”, ELSEVIER, International Journal of Electrical Power &
Energy Systems, Vol. 31, Issue 1, PP. 1-12, January 2009.
[27] G. C. Bakos, “Feasability study of a hybrid wind-hydro power-system for low-cost electricity production,”
Appl. Energy, Vol. 72, no. 3/4, PP. 599–608, 2002.

132
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(12)119-133, 2013

[28] Khodayar, M.E.; Shahidehpour, M. and Wu, L., "Enhancing the Dispatchability of Variable Wind Generation
by Coordination With Pumped-Storage Hydro Units in Stochastic Power Systems", IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, Vol. 28, Issue.3, PP. 2808 - 2818 , August 2013.
[29] Francine Menzel, Gaianê Sabundjian and Rita de Cássia Mutarelli, “Study of The Environmental Costs to
Nuclear Power Plants using the Program Simpacts”, International Nuclear Atlantic Conference – INAC,2011
[30] Paul Denholm and Gerald L. Kulcinski, “Life Cycle Energy requirements and greenhouse gas emission from
large scale energy storage systems”, ELSEVIER, Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 45, Issue. 13-14,
PP. 2153-2172, August 2004.
[31] Kollas I.G. and Mirasgedis S., “Health and Environmental Impacts of the Hydroelectric Fuel Cycle”, Int. J.
Risk Assessment and Management, Vol. 3, PP. 23-40, March 2002.
[32] Hongqing Fang, Long Chen, Nkosinathi Dlakavu and Zuyi Shen, “Basic Modeling and Simulation Tool for
Analysis of Hydraulic Transients in Hydroelectric Power Plants”, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion,
Vol. 23, Issue. 3, PP. 834-841, Sept. 2008.
[33] N. Javaid, S. Hayat, M. Shakir, M. A. Khan, S. H. Bouk, Z. A. Khan, “Energy Efficient MAC Protocols in
Wireless Body Area Sensor Networks-A Survey”, Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, Vol. 3, PP.
770-781, 2013.
[34] L. Vega, “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion”, Encyclopedia of Energy Technology and the Environment,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2005.
[35] Surface Water Storage and Hydro Power, Handbook on Water Statistics of Pakistan, PP. 109-115.
[36] Ayaz Ahmed, Henna Iftikhar and G.M. Chaudhry, “Water Resources and conservation Strategy of Pakistan”,
PP. 1-17, 2009.
[37] Izhar-ul-Haq, “Hydro Power Potential of Pakistan”, Pakistan.
[38] Optimal Control of Multiple Reservoirs System under Water Scarcity by Iftikhar Ahmed, Institute of geology,
2009.
[39] Milanovic, J.V. and Mat Zali, S., "Validation of Equivalent Dynamic Model of Active Distribution Network
Cell", IEEE Transactions on Power System, Vol. 28, Issue. 3, PP. 2101 - 2110, August 2013.
[40] Naveed Ahmad, Mureed Hussain, Naveed Riaz, Fazli Subhani, Sajjad Haider, Khurram. S. Alamgir and Fahad
Shinwari, “Flood Prediction and Disaster Risk Analysis using GIS based Wireless Sensor Networks, A
Review”, of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, Vol. 3, Issue. 8, PP. 632-643, August 2013.
[41] Amita Mahor and Saroj Rangnekar,, “Short Term Optimal Generation Scheduling of narmada Cascaded Hydro
Electric System”, Hydro Nepal, Issue. 7, PP. 71-80, July 2010.
[42] Deane, J.P.; McKeogh, E. and Gallachoir, B.P.O., "Derivation of Intertemporal Targets for Large Pumped
Hydro Energy Storage with Stochastic Optimization", IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 28, PP. 2147
- 2155, August 2013.
[43] C. Bueno and J. Carta,, “Technical economic analysis of wind-powered pumped hydro-storage systems. Part II:
Model application to the island of El Hierro”, Solar Energy, Vol. 78, no. 3, PP. 396–405, 2005.
[44] United States Department of Energy, National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, November 2002.
[45] Randi Cameron Field, “Multi-Objective Optimization of Folsom Reservoir Operation”, Master of Science
Thesis , University of California, September 2007.
[46] G. N. Bathurst and G. Strbac, “Value of combining energy storage and wind in short-term energy and balancing
markets”, Electric Power Syst. Res., Vol. 67, Issue. 1, PP. 1–8, 2003.
[47] A. B. Alaya, A. Souissi, J. Tarhouni and K. Ncib, “Optimization of Nebhana Reservoir Water Allocation by
Stochastic Dynamic Programming”, Water Resources Management, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The
Netherlands, Vol. 17, PP. 259-272, 2003.
[48] Muhammad Fahad Shinwari, Naveed Ahmed, Hassan Humayun, Ihsan ul Haq, Sajjad Haider and Atiq ul
Anam, “Classification Algorithm for Feature Extraction using Linear Discriminant Analysis and Cross-
correlation on ECG Signals”, SERSC-IJAST (Korea), Vol. 48, PP. 149-162, Nov. 2012.

133