2014 International Conference on Control, Instrumentation, Energy & Communication
Impact of Demand Side Management On Unit
Commitment Problem
Manisha Govardhan
Department of Electrical Engineering
S.V. National Institute of Technology,
Surat, India
manishagovardhan@yahoo.com
Abstract— Growing energy demand and its remedial solution is a
great challenge of power industries. This paper deals with
demand side management in unit commitment using two essential
approaches of energy balance (i.e. energy shifting) and load
reduction during peak hours. Demand side management is a
crucial job of reshaping the inconsistent load demand either by
shifting demand from peak period to off-peak or low load period
or reducing load demand during peak period. This ultimately
results in energy saving and cost reduction of a system. A test
system of 26 generating units is considered for simulation study
using gbest artificial bee colony algorithm. The test results
confirm significant savings in cost and energy consumption while
peak load demand is reduced.
Keywords- Demand response (DR); Demand side management
(DSM); Gbest artificial bee colony algorithm (GABC); Unit
commitment (UC) .
I. INTRODUCTION
Demand side management (DSM) is a dynamic solution
against emergent energy demand and fuel price, concern for
climate change and seasonal uncertainty in load demand.
Basically, DSM has been classified as direct load control
(DLC), indirect load control and local energy storage [1]. DLC
permits utility to regulate isolated customer’s load demand
independently; indirect DLC involves customer participation
for their load demand deviations according to the change in
electricity price and local energy storage allows both customer
and utility to preserve energy during off-peak and low load
period and utilize the same during peak period.
DSM also has a great influence on deregulated electricity
market [2]. In general, electricity price is low during off-peak
and low load period and high during peak period. DSM
encourages end user entities to shift their load demand from
peak to off-peak period or reduce energy consumption during
peak period which in turn results in energy saving and cost
reduction.
Furthermore with DSM policies, optimal scheduling of
generated power is also again a challenging task. Hence the
goal of this paper is to solve UC problem considering DSM.
UC can be specifically outlined as a large-scale, nonlinear,
mixed integer combinatorial optimization problem which
involves two critical sub-problems of power industry namely
unit commitment (UC) and economic load dispatch (ELD). UC
decides on/off status of generating units and ELD distributes
978-1-4799-2044-0/14/$31.00©2014IEEE
446
Ranjit Roy
Department of Electrical Engineering
S.V. National Institute of Technology,
Surat, India
rr@eed.svnit.ac.in
generated power among the committed units while satisfying
several constraints.
Recently, many demand response program has been reported
for DSM. Furthermore, a few demand response based unit
commitment (DRUC) models are discussed in literature. A
model of emergency demand response (EDRP) and
interruptible load contracts (ILC) in UC problem is proposed in
[3] to minimize the energy consumption during the critical or
peak period of the day. The study has been carried out with a
load demand of Iranian grid and developed EDRP cost
component added to generation cost. Another UC problem
associated with DR program model (UCDR) to study the
environment and an economic effect of DR program is
suggested in [4]. These DRUC models have considered the cost
of DR in addition with the total cost.
This paper considers direct load control (DLC) approach in
which operator autonomously decides for load flattening and
cost reduction. Two basic approaches of energy balance and
peak load clipping is considered to enhance the load demand
profile and then UC problem has been solved with modified
load profile [5]. Gbest Artificial Bee Colony algorithm has
been executed for simulation study of 26 generating units test
system.
The construction of this paper is as follows: structure of UC
with DSM policies and associated constraints has been
described in Section II. Section III conveys brief introduction
of Gbest Artificial Bee Colony algorithm. The results for
different test cases are discussed and compared in Section IV.
Finally, conclusion is drawn in Section V.
II. UC PROBLEM FORMULATION WITH DSM
A. Demand Side Management
Two different strategies of DSM namely energy balance
and peak load saving has been employed and their effect on
load demand profile has been studied [5]. This study is carried
out with the assumption that DSM has been performed by
system operator at remote end. From earlier energy demand
and electricity price statistics, operator autonomously imposes
varying energy supply according to the change in electricity
price to enhance load profile and system cost.
a) Energy balance: The significance of energy balance is to
shift load demand from a peak period to low and off-peak
 2014 International Conference on Control, Instrumentation, Energy & Communication
period to balance energy consumption of an entire day with
noticeable cost benefit.
If energy price (EP) of a day is known then the operator
assumes average energy price as a reference energy price
(EPref) to calculate new load demand after implementing DSM
as shown in Figure 1. If EP of particular hour is less than
EPref, then operator tends to increase load demand with an
increment of Dup and if EP is higher than EPref, then the
operator will decrease the load demand by Ddown as shown in
Figure 1(a). The new load demand after implementing DSM is
obtained as follows [5]:
PL new( h ) = PL ( h ) + Dup ( h ) if EP( h ) < EPref
PL new( h ) = PL ( h ) − Ddown ( h ) if EP( h ) > EPref
where Dup and Ddown are the upward and downward limits of
load demand variation from the base load demand
respectively. Moreover, to maintain consistent load profile
Dup and Ddown should sustain within specified limit. For
energy balance of a complete day following criteria must
satisfy [5].
H H (2)
447
As a result of energy balance and peak load saving DSM
policies, system operator tends to modify the original load
demand using equation (1) and (3) respectively to obtain the
consistent load demand with reduced system cost.
B. System objective
Cost minimization is an ultimate goal of solving UC
problem with appropriate scheduling of generated power
among all committed units while handling several fundamental
constraints. The total cost (TC) is an accumulation of fuel cost
(FC), start-up cost (STC) and shut down cost (SDC). Shut
down cost is a constant value and assuming zero in this study.
(1)
Therefore the final objective function to be minimized is
formulated as [6]:
N H
min TC = ¦¦[ FCi ( Pi ( h ) ) + STCi (1 − ui ( h−1) )]ui ( h ) (4)
i =1 h =1
where FCi(Pi(h)) is fuel cost of unit i at hour h, N is number of
thermal units and H is total scheduled time horizon.
The fuel cost function of a thermal unit can be expressed in
quadratic polynomial form as:
(5)
FC (P ) = a + b (P ) + c (P ) 2
i i ( h) i i i ( h) i i ( h)

¦D up ( h ) = ¦ Ddown ( h ) where i, bi and ci are fuel cost coefficients of unit i.

h =1 h =1 The start-up cost of unit i is defined as [7]:
off
/τ i ) (6)
STCi = α i + β i (1 − e (Ti )
where Į is hot start-up cost, ȕ is cold start-up cost and IJ is
cooling time constant of a unit.
C. Constraints
1) Power balance consrtaint:
The summation of total power generation of all
committed units must be equal to the load demand at
that particular interval h.
N (7)
(a)
¦P
i =1
i ( h) * ui(h) = PLnew(h)
where Pi(h) is generated power output and ui(h) is
ON/OFF status of a unit i at hour h (ON=1 and OFF=0)
and PLnew(h) is modified load demand after
implementing DSM at hour h.
2) Spining reserve (SR) constraint:
Sufficient spinning reserve (SR) is required to maintain
system reliability.
N (8)
(b)
¦P i =1
i
max
* ui (h) ≥ PLnew(h) + SR( h)
Fig. 1 (a) Load demand variation for energy balance
(b) Load demand variation for peak saving 3) Generation limit constraint:
Power generation of each generating unit must be
max min
b) Peak load saving: The cause of this strategy is to reduce within its maximum (Pi ) and minimum (Pi ) range.
load demand during peak hours. Here, operator will decrease min max (9)
Pi ≤ Pi ≤ Pi
load demand during peak period only (i.e. EP>EPref) and load
demand will remain unchanged during off-peak period (i.e. 4) Minimum up/down time constraint
EP<EPref) as shown in Figure 1(b). The new load demand for The unit has to remain ON/OFF for predefined time
period before any transition occurs.
peak load saving is as follows [5]:
Ti on • MUTi and Ti off • MDTi (10)
PL new( h ) = PL ( h ) − Ddown ( h ) if EP( h ) > EPref (3)
where MUT and MDT are minimum up time and
off
minimum down time of a unit i respectively . Ti and
 2014 International Conference on Control, Instrumentation, Energy & Communication 448
on are extracted from [7,10]. The 24 hours load demand
Ti are duration of unit i being continuously off and
on respectively. considered from [7] is presented in Table III. The energy price
5) Initial status (IS) for 24 hour period taken from [11] is shown in Figure 2. This
Before starting scheduling of thermal units, initial study has assumed 10% spinning reserve for system reliability
condition of each unit must consider. [12]. The variation of Dup and Ddown is restricted to 5% of
base load to avoid corkscrew demand profile. The parameter
III. GBEST ABC ALGORITHM settings for GABC algorithm are: Population=100, onlooker
Gbest Artificial Bee Colony (GABC) optimization bees=200, maximum iteration=200.
algorithm has been employed to solve unit commitment 45
problem with two DSM policies in this paper. The brief
introduction of the algorithm is revealed in this section. 40

35
The ABC focuses on a cluster of honeybees and their food

EP ($)
finding habits. The bees are mainly classified into three groups 30
namely employed bees, onlookers and scouts [8]. In ABC, bees
fly to hunt food in multidimensional search space. Some bees 25

seek food source depending on their prior experience and

20
some find arbitrarily without using any experience. Employed
bees convey their food information to the onlooker bees. The 15
onlookers choose good food sources from those founded by 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (hour)
16 18 20 22 24

employed bees and they further search food source nearby the Fig. 2 Hourly Energy price
selected food source. If there is no enhancement in the food
source then scout bees fly and discover the new food source TABLE I GENERATION CAPACITY AND COST COEFFICIENTS
randomly without using experience. The algorithm steps are Unit Pmin Pmax a b c
(MW) (MW) ($/MW2) ($/MW) ($)
[9]: 1 2.4 12.0 0.02533 25.5472 24.3891
2 2.4 12.0 0.02649 25.6753 24.4110
Initialization 3 2.4 12.0 0.02801 25.8027 24.6382
Initial population P= [P1, P2, P3,…Pn] of randomly 4 2.4 12.0 0.02842 25.9318 24.7605
distributed solution is generated from the multi-dimensional 5 2.4 12.0 0.02855 26.0611 24.8882
6 4.0 20.0 0.01199 37.5510 117.5551
search space, where n is the size of optimized parameters and 7 4.0 20.0 0.01261 37.6637 118.1083
P1, P2, P3,…Pn are possible candidate solutions and each 8 4.0 20.0 0.01359 37.7770 118.4576
solution vector is specified as Pi= [P1,i P2,i P3,i … Pj,i ...Pn,i]. 9 4.0 20.0 0.01433 37.8896 118.8206
10 15.2 76.0 0.00876 13.3272 81.1364
Employed bee phase 11 15.2 76.0 0.00895 13.3538 81.2980
12 15.2 76.0 0.00910 13.3805 81.4681
Update process is carried out for each candidate solution Pi.
13 15.2 76.0 0.00932 13.4073 81.6259
In this process a new food source vi is given by: 14 25.0 100.0 0.00623 18.0000 217.8952
15 25.0 100.0 0.00612 18.1000 218.3350
vi j = Pi j + φi j ( Pij − Pkj ) + Ψij ( y j − Pi j ) (11) 16
17
25.0
54.25
100.0
155.0
0.00598
0.00463
18.2000
10.6940
218.7752
142.7348
18 54.25 155.0 0.00473 10.7154 143.0288
where φi j is a random number between -1 to 1, j € {1,2…n} 19 54.25 155.0 0.00481 10.7367 143.3179
20 54.25 155.0 0.00487 10.7583 143.5972
and Pk signifies the another randomly selected solution from 21 68.95 197.0 0.00259 23.0000 259.1310
the population. Ψi j is a random number between 0 to C and 22 68.95 197.0 0.00260 23.1000 259.6490
23 68.95 197.0 0.00263 23.2000 260.1760
C is a positive constant. yj denotes the jth element of global best 24 140.0 350.0 0.00153 10.8616 177.0575
solution. After completion of this phase the best obtained 25 100.0 400.0 0.00194 7.4921 310.0021
solution is stored. 26 100.0 400.0 0.00195 7.5031 311.9102

TABLE II OPERATING PARAMETERS OF GENERATING UNITS

Onlooker phase Unit MUT (h) MDT (h) IS (h) Į ($) ȕ ($) IJ
Each onlooker bee selects a food source according to the 1-5 0 0 -1 0 0 1
probability value pi = fit i / ¦ n fit n where fit indicates the 6-9
10-13
0
3
0
-2
-1
3
20
50
20
50
2
3
fitness value of the solution. All onlooker bees further hunts for 14-16 4 -2 -3 70 70 4
the better food source in the neighborhood of the selected food 17-20 5 -3 5 150 150 6
21-23 5 -4 -4 200 200 8
source according to (11).
24 8 -5 10 300 200 8
Scout phase 25-26 8 -5 10 500 500 10
If the solution is not upgraded for certain trials, the scout TABLE III HOURLY LOAD DEMAND
bees generate a new random food source and repeat the search Hour Demand Hour Demand Hour Demand
process. (MW) (MW) (MW)
1 1700 9 2540 17 2550
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 2 1730 10 2600 18 2530
3 1690 11 2670 19 2500
This study considers 26 unit test system for solving UC 4 1700 12 2590 20 2550
problem with DSM policies. The cost coefficients and other 5 1750 13 2590 21 2600
essential data of generating units given in Table I and Table II 6 1850 14 2550 22 2480

7 2000
8 2430
Three different cases are considered as follows:
Case 1: This case is considered as a base case. In this case
classical unit commitment problem is solved with base load
demand without implementing DSM policy.
Case 2: This case implements energy balance policy of DSM
to reshape the uneven load profile. The new load demand
(PLnew) after incorporating DSM is obtained from (1) while
satisfying (2). Then the UC objective function is solved to
achieve minimum generation cost.
Case 3: This case is solved with peak saving policy of DSM.
In this case, the modified load demand for solving UC is
calculated from (3).
The load demand variations for three cases are shown in
Figure 3 which shows that the load profile of case 2 is
increased during low EP period and decreased during high EP
period whereas load demand for case 3 is decreased during
high EP period and rest of the time it is following the base
load demand. The summarized results are given in Table IV.
2800
Case 1
Case 2
2600 Case 3
Load demand (MW)
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
0 2 4 6
Fig. 3 Load demand variation for different cases
TABLE IV SUMMARIZED RESULT TABLE
Cases FC ($) STC ($)
1 729644.0
2 726843.6
3 711617.7
It is clear from the result table that after implementation of
DSM policies, system operator acquires noticeable profit with
enriched load profile. With energy balance policy, operator
receives a profit of $2429.4 with equal energy consumption
compared to base case. In peak saving policy, operator can
manage profit of $17957.8 with decreased energy consumption.
It seems DSM policy of peak saving proves better than energy
balance with enhanced load profile.
Generation scheduling for base case with associated fuel
and start-up cost is shown in Table V and corresponding
convergence characteristics of GABC is shown in Figure 4.
6
x 10
18
16
14
12
Fuel cost
10
0
0 20 40
Fig. 4 Convergence characteristics of GABC for base case
2014 International Conference on Control, Instrumentation, Energy & Communication 449
15 2620 23 2200 V. CONCLUSION
16 2650 24 1840
Demand side management has become proficient tool for
optimum energy consumption with uniform load profile and
profit maker for system operator and consumer. This paper
addresses unit commitment (UC) problem using gbest artificial
bee colony algorithm (GABC) after implementing two DSM
policies namely energy balance and peak saving. Energy
balance policy has involved shifting of load demand from high
energy price to low energy price with same energy
consumption throughout a day. While peak saving considers
load demand reduction during peak hours to attain cost
benefit. The simulation outcomes confirms that peak saving
DSM policy yields better load profile with reduced energy
consumption and cost saving in unit commitment problem.
REFERENCES
[1] K-H Ng, and G.B. Shable,“Direct load Control- A Profit Based Load
Management Using Linear Programming,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 13, no.2, pp. 688-694, May 1998.
[2] T. Logenthiran, D. Srinivasan, and T.Z. Shun,“Demand Side
Management in Smart Grid Using Heuristic Optimization, ” IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, vol.3, no.3, pp. 1244-1252, September 2012.
[3] M.M. Sahebi, E.A. Duki, M. Kia, A. Soroudi, and M.Ehsan,
“Simultaneous emergency demand response programming and unit
commitment programming in comparison with interruptible load
contracts,” IET Gener Trans Distrib, vol. 6, pp. 605-611, March 2012.
[4] A. Abdollahi, M. Moghaddam, M. Rashidinejad, and M.K. Sheikh-El-
Eslami, “Investigation of economic and environmental –driven demand
response measures incorporating uc, ” IEEE Transc Smart Grid, vol. 3,
pp. 12-25, March 2012.
[5] K. Dietrich, J.M. Lattore, L. Olmos, and A. Ramos, “Demand Response
in an Isolated System With High Wind Integration, ” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol.27, no.1, pp. 20-29, February 2012.
[6] T. Senjyu, T. Miyagi, and A. Saber, “Emerging Solution of Large-Scale
Unit Commitment Problem by Stochastic priority List,” Journal of
Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 76, pp. 283-292, March 2006.
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 [7] C. Wang, and S.M. Shahidehpour, “Effects of Ramp-rate limits on Unit
Time (hour) Commitment and Economic Dispatch, ” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.8,
no.3, pp. 1341-1350, August 1993.
[8] B. Basturk, and D. Karaboga, “An Artificial Bee Colony (ABC)
Algorithm for Numeric function Optimization,” IEEE Swarm
TC ($) Savings ($) Intelligence Symposium May 12-14, 2006, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
1848.8 731492.9 - [9] Guopu Zhu, and Sam Kwong, “Gbest-guided Artificial Bee Colony
2219.8 729063.5 2429.4 Algorithm for Numerical Function Optimization,” Int. Jour. of Applied
1917.4 713535.1 17957.8 Mathematics and Computation, vol. 217, pp. 3166-3173, December
2010.
[10] S.O. Orero, and M.R. Irving, “Large Scale Unit Commitment using a
Hybrid Genetic Algorithm, ” Journal of Elect. Power and Energy Syst.,
vol.19, no.1, pp. 45-55, January 1997.
[11] D.S. Krischen, G. Strbac, P. Cumperayot, and Dilemar de Paiva Mendes,
“Factoring the Elasticity of Demand in Electricity Prices, ” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol.15, no.2, pp. 612-617, May 2000.
[12] M.E. Nazari, M.M. Ardehali, and S. Jafari, “Pumped-Storage Unit
Commitment with Considerations for Energy Demand, Economics and
Environmental Constraints, ” Journal of Energy, vol.35, pp. 4092-4101,
July 2010.
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Number of iterations
 2014 International Conference on Control, Instrumentation, Energy & Communication 450

TABLE V GENERATION SCHEDULING FOR BASE CASE USING GABC

Hour H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13
Load 1700 1730 1690 1700 1750 1850 2000 2430 2540 2600 2670 2590 2590
U1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0
U2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0
U3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0
U4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0
U5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0
U6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
U7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
U8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
U9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
U10 31.3 49.7 35.0 71.8 15.2 49.6 62.4 76.0 76.0 63.6 76.0 57.6 54.5
U11 19.9 40.2 29.4 65.8 59.2 55.2 33.7 39.6 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 71.5
U12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.3 36.9 57.7 71.7 76.0 49.6 76.0 59.0 75.5
U13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.7 61.3 17.3 19.8 0.0 0 76.0 40.8
U14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.7 36.8 83.2 86.6 77.3 100.0 91.5
U15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.3 93.7 93.4 89.8 81.4 93.5 96.0
U16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 0
U17 108.7 155.0 119.1 68.8 69.6 140.6 149.0 155.0 142.1 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0
U18 118.0 140.8 117.9 138.2 110.8 142.5 139.9 150.4 129.5 142.1 155.0 155.0 154.2
U19 118.6 93.3 155.0 105.8 149.8 146.8 132.9 155.0 103.4 155.0 155.0 154.8 155.0
U20 153.3 100.9 83.5 99.5 155.0 80.6 93.7 124.2 155.0 138.8 155.0 155.0 155.0
U21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 190.9 107.8 173.4 158.6 179.0 190.6
U22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.1 98.2 151.0 68.9 68.9 129.7
U23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 129.5 68.9 143.2 110.0 70.5
U24 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0
U25 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0
U26 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0
FC 18493 18930 18403 18702 19320 20719 23786 33427 36253 37437 38715 36384 36661
STC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.60 86.82 261.05 818.08 349.00 0.0 0.0 74.32 0.0
TC 18493 18930 18403 18702 19401 20805 24047 34245 36602 37437 38715 36458 36661

Hour H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24
Load 2550 2620 2650 2550 2530 2500 2550 2600 2480 2200 1840
U1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
U2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
U3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
U4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
U5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
U6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
U7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
U8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
U9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
U10 67.2 64.1 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 67.5 74.6 64.8 61.9 20.6
U11 45.7 76.0 76.0 76.0 70.9 75.4 76.0 72.2 51.8 65.8 55.3
U12 50.1 39.1 56.0 63.3 76.0 70.4 76.0 76.0 75.8 45.2 68.5
U13 69.1 73.1 76.0 76.0 15.2 76.0 76.0 76.0 58.0 37.0 15.6
U14 100.0 75.6 95.9 42.9 100.0 100.0 91.2 81.2 63.8 35.5 0.0
U15 84.8 100.0 100.0 73.6 99.1 91.2 97.7 57.7 99.5 56.04 0.0
U16 100.0 100.0 98.7 53.6 37.8 100.0 69.5 73.3 87.1 61.0 0.0
U17 155.0 155.0 155.0 118.6 150.4 153.7 155.0 155.0 129.7 154.7 107.3
U18 155.0 155.0 140.1 153.0 155.0 94.4 139.7 155.0 148.3 148.8 127.8
U19 144.1 150.8 155.0 155.0 128.3 155.0 134.5 155.0 155.0 155.0 139.6
U20 128.2 154.4 73.6 155.0 147.1 155.0 155.0 152.0 155.0 155.0 155.0
U21 122.9 188.7 131.3 69.2 167.0 93.0 151.9 113.6 151.1 73.9 0.0
U22 68.9 68.9 69.1 179.6 88.0 109.6 68.9 116.7 89.8 0.0 0.0
U23 108.9 68.9 197.0 108.0 68.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
U24 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0
U25 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0
U26 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 Total
FC 35969 37115 38542 35993 35699 34207 35439 37219 33995 27687 20550 729644
STC 97.54 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.99 0.0 0.0 0.0 1848.83
TC 36066 37115 38542 35993 35699 34207 35439 37299 33995 27687 20550 731492.9