A Systematic Formulation Tightening Approach for Unit Commitment Problems

Unit Commitment is usually formulated as a Mixed Binary Linear Programming (MBLP) problem. When considering a large number of units, state-of-the-art methods such as branch-and-cut may experience difficulties. To address this, an important but much overlooked direction is formulation transformation since if the problem constraints can be transformed to directly delineate the convex hull in the data pre-processing stage, then a solution can be obtained by using linear programming methods without combinatorial difficulties. In the literature, a few tightened formulations for single units with constant ramp rates were reported without presenting how they were derived. In this paper, a systematic approach is developed to tighten formulations in the data pre-processing stage. The idea is to derive vertices of the convex hull without binary requirements. From them, vertices of the original convex hull can be innovatively obtained. These vertices are converted to tightened constraints, which are then parameterized based on unit parameters for general use, tremendously reducing online computational requirements. By analyzing short-time horizons, e.g., two or three hours, tightened formulations for single units with constant and generation-dependent ramp rates are obtained, beyond what is in the literature. Results based on the IEEE 118-bus and Polish 2383-bus systems demonstrate computational efficiency and solution quality benefits of formulation tightening. The approach is general and has great potential for tightening complicated MBLP problems in power systems and beyond.

[1]  Peter B. Luh,et al.  A Scalable Solution Methodology for Mixed-Integer Linear Programming Problems Arising in Automation , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering.

[2]  Yongpei Guan,et al.  Unified Stochastic and Robust Unit Commitment , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[3]  C. Gentile,et al.  Tighter Approximated MILP Formulations for Unit Commitment Problems , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[4]  Tongxin Zheng,et al.  Modeling MW-dependent ramp rate in the electricity market , 2014, 2014 IEEE PES General Meeting | Conference & Exposition.

[5]  A.J. Conejo,et al.  Modeling of start-up and shut-down power trajectories of thermal units , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[6]  Jianhui Wang,et al.  The Ramping Polytope and Cut Generation for the Unit Commitment Problem , 2018, INFORMS J. Comput..

[7]  M. Anjos,et al.  Tight Mixed Integer Linear Programming Formulations for the Unit Commitment Problem , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[8]  Peter B. Luh,et al.  Effective modeling and resolution of generation-dependent ramp rates for unit commitment , 2017, 2017 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting.

[9]  Yongpei Guan,et al.  Polynomial time algorithms and extended formulations for unit commitment problems , 2016, 1608.00042.

[10]  Alexander Schrijver,et al.  Combinatorial optimization. Polyhedra and efficiency. , 2003 .

[11]  Dick Duffey,et al.  Power Generation , 1932, Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers.

[12]  Aaas News,et al.  Book Reviews , 1893, Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal.

[13]  R. Stephenson A and V , 1962, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[14]  A. Bakirtzis,et al.  Optimal Self-Scheduling of a Thermal Producer in Short-Term Electricity Markets by MILP , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[15]  Philip G. Hill,et al.  Power generation , 1927, Journal of the A.I.E.E..

[16]  M. Carrion,et al.  A computationally efficient mixed-integer linear formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[17]  Laurence A. Wolsey,et al.  Integer and Combinatorial Optimization , 1988 .

[18]  Danna Zhou,et al.  d. , 1934, Microbial pathogenesis.

[19]  George B. Dantzig,et al.  Fourier-Motzkin Elimination and Its Dual , 1973, J. Comb. Theory A.

[20]  Peter B. Luh,et al.  A Systematical Approach to Tighten Unit Commitment Formulations , 2018, 2018 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM).

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

[22]  David G. Luenberger,et al.  Linear and nonlinear programming , 1984 .

[23]  Vladimir Gurvich,et al.  Generating All Vertices of a Polyhedron Is Hard , 2006, SODA '06.

[24]  Alper Atamtürk,et al.  A polyhedral study of production ramping , 2016, Math. Program..

[25]  E. Balas,et al.  Canonical Cuts on the Unit Hypercube , 1972 .

[26]  Santanu S. Dey,et al.  New Formulation and Strong MISOCP Relaxations for AC Optimal Transmission Switching Problem , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[27]  Yongpei Guan,et al.  A Polyhedral Study of the Integrated Minimum-Up/-Down Time and Ramping Polytope , 2016, 1604.02184.

[28]  Dimitri P. Bertsekas,et al.  Nonlinear Programming , 1997 .