Lecture 8A

Unit Commitment Part 1

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 1
 Data for example
Unit1  Min  150 MW
Max  600 MW
H1  5100  72 P1  000142 P12 MBtuh
Unit 2  Min  100 MW
Max  400 MW
H 2  3100  785P2  000194 P22 MBtuh
Unit3  Min  50 MW
Max  200 MW
H 3  780  797 P3  000482 P32 MBtuh
with fuel costs:
Fuel cost1  11RMBtu
Fuel cost 2  10RMBtu
Fuel cost 3  12RMBtu
What combination of on line units should be used to supply 550 MW?

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 2

Unit Combinations to supply 550 MW

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 3

Simple peak-valley load pattern

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 4

 “Shut-down Rule”
Optimum Combination
Load Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
1200 On On On
1150 On On On
1100 On On On
1050 On On On
1000 On On Off
950 On On Off
900 On On Off
850 On On Off
800 On On Off
750 On On Off
700 On On Off
650 On On Off
600 On Off Off
550 On Off Off
500 On Off Off

When load is above 1000 MW, run all three units; between 1000 MW
and 600 MW, run units 1 and 2; below 600 MW, run only unit 1.

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 5

Shut down Rule applied to load
pattern

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 6

 Constraints in Unit Commitment
• Spinning reserve: enough generation
operated below generator limit to allow
generators to rapidly make up loss of one or
more generators
• Thermal Generator constraints:
– Minimum up time
– Minimum down time
– Crew constraints

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 7

More unit commitment constraints
• Start up cost: the energy needed to bring a
large steam generator on line
• Hydro Constraints
• Generator “Must Run” constraints
• Fuel Constraints

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 8

Unit Commitment Solution Method
 We must establish a loading pattern for M periods.
 We have N units to commit and dispatch.
 The M load levels and operating limits on the N units are such that any one
unit can supply the individual loads and that any combination of units can also
supply the loads.
Next, assume we are going to establish the commitment by enumeration (brute
force). The total number of combinations we need to try each hour is,
C ( N 1)  C ( N  2)   C ( N  N  1)  C ( N  N )  2 N  1
where C ( N  j ) is the combination of N items taken j at a time. That is,
 N 
C( N  j)   
 ( N  j )j
j  1 2  3   j

For M=24 N (2 N  1) 24
5 62 1035
10 173  1072
20 312 10144
40 (Too big)

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 9

 Most used techniques
• Priority-list Schemes
• Dynamic Programming (DP)
• Lagrange Relaxation (LR)
• Integer Programming (IP)

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 10

 Priority List Solution
Full Load
Unit Average Production Cost ( R /MWh)
1 9.79
2 9.48
3 11.188
Unit R /MWh Min MW Max MW
Priority order
2 9.48 100 400
1 9.79 150 600
3 11.188 50 200
Min MW from Max MW
Combination Combination Combination
2 1 3 300 1200
2 1 250 1000
2 100 400

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 11

 Dynamic Programming Paths and
Unit Commitment
Each state represents a combination of generating
units supplying the load specified for that hour. Each
state has a production cost PCOST

PCOST
STATES

PCOST FCOST is the accumulated cost

to get to a state from the start
scost PCOST through optimum path leading
scost to that state
A dot represents one state
operating in one time period

TIME PERIODS

FCOST(end of path) =
PCOST(start of path) + SCOST(along path) +FCOST(start of path)

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 12

Dynamic Programming Solution

Schedule shown is: 111 interval 1, 110 interval 2, 100 interval 3, 101 interval 4

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 13

Path Multiplication

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 14

 Control paths enumeration using
reduced search range

Set {L}

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 15

 Recursive algorithm
Fcost ( K  I )  min[ Pcost ( K  I )  Scost ( K 1 L  K  I )  Fcost (K 1 L)] (5.1)
{L}

where
Fcost ( K  I )  least total cost to arrive at state ( K  I )
Pcost ( K  I )  production cost for state ( K  I )
Scost ( K  1 L  K  I )  transition cost from state ( K  1 L) to state ( K  I )
State ( K  I ) is the I th combination in hour K .

(K,I)

HOUR COMBINATION

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 16

 Flowchart

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 17

Dynamic Programming Example

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 18

Simplified generator cost function

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 19

Full set of unit combinations

a, 1=on
0=off

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 20

 Case 1, strict priority order

Case 2, complete enumeration

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 21

 Calculations
Sample Calculations for Case 1
Fcost ( J  K )  min[ Pcost ( J  K )  Scost ( J 1 L  J  K )  Fcost ( J  1 L)]
{L}

Allowable states are

{ }  {0010 011011101111}  {5121415}
In hour 0{L}  {12} , initial condition.
J  1  1st hour
K
Fcost (115)  Pcost (115)  Scost (012  115)
15
 9861  350  10211
14 Fcost (114)  9493  350  9843
12 Fcost (112)  9208  0  9208
J  2  2nd hour
Feasible states are {121415}  {K } , so X  3 . Suppose two strategies are
saved at each stage, so N  2 , and {L}  {1214} ,
K
Fcost (215)  min[ Pcost (215)  Scost (1 L  215)  Fcost (1 L)]
15 {1214}

(350  9208) 
 11301  min    20859
 (0  9843) 

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 22

 Results

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 23

Case 3: Using minimum shut down rules

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 24

 THANK YOU

© Bruce F. Wollenberg, University of Minnesota 25