Unit Commitment with ACOPF Constraints: Practical Experience with Solution Techniques

This paper summarizes practical experiences of solving the UC problem with AC optimal power flow constraints using three main approaches: 1) solving a MINLP with commercial solvers, 2) an outer approximation approach with Successive Linear Programming (SLP), and 3) a Second Order Cone Programming (SOCP) approximation. We show a comprehensive review of each approach, including main characteristics and drawbacks. Although non-linear solvers have improved their performance in recent years, our results suggest that the binary nature of the variables in the UC problem still increases the solution time up to 75 times in comparison to a relaxed version of the UC. SLP approaches have shown a good behavior finding integer feasible solutions, however, the solution times are almost twofold the ones obtained for the MINLP. SOCP is a promising approach because it improves almost 6 times the approximation made by the classic DC approach. Nevertheless, its solving times are comparable to those found using the MINLP. Finally, parallel computing techniques could improve the performance of each approach in order to make them more computationally efficient for large-scale UC problems.

[1]  Lisa Tang,et al.  Examination of Three Different ACOPF Formulations With Generator Capability Curves , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[2]  R. Jabr Radial distribution load flow using conic programming , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[3]  R. Jabr Optimal Power Flow Using an Extended Conic Quadratic Formulation , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[4]  Ignacio E. Grossmann,et al.  An improved piecewise outer-approximation algorithm for the global optimization of MINLP models involving concave and bilinear terms , 2008, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[5]  Cesar A. Silva-Monroy,et al.  The Unit Commitment Problem With AC Optimal Power Flow Constraints , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[6]  Steven H. Low,et al.  Convex Relaxation of Optimal Power Flow—Part I: Formulations and Equivalence , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems.

[7]  A. M. Geoffrion Generalized Benders decomposition , 1972 .

[8]  Paula A. Lipka,et al.  A Successive Linear Programming Approach to Solving the IV-ACOPF , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[9]  Omprakash K. Gupta,et al.  Branch and Bound Experiments in Convex Nonlinear Integer Programming , 1985 .

[10]  Suvrajeet Sen,et al.  A State Transition MIP Formulation for the Unit Commitment Problem , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[11]  Steven H. Low,et al.  Convex Relaxation of Optimal Power Flow—Part II: Exactness , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems.

[12]  Jesús María Latorre Canteli,et al.  Tight and compact MILP formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem , 2013 .

[13]  Ignacio E. Grossmann,et al.  An outer-approximation algorithm for a class of mixed-integer nonlinear programs , 1987, Math. Program..

[14]  Sven Leyffer,et al.  Solving mixed integer nonlinear programs by outer approximation , 1994, Math. Program..

[15]  Hadrien Godard,et al.  SDP resolution techniques for the optimal power flow with unit commitment , 2017, 2017 IEEE Manchester PowerTech.

[16]  Santanu S. Dey,et al.  Strong SOCP Relaxations for the Optimal Power Flow Problem , 2015, Oper. Res..