Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DOI 10.1007/s00202-010-0179-x
ORIGINAL PAPER
Received: 24 February 2010 / Accepted: 28 September 2010 / Published online: 15 October 2010
Springer-Verlag 2010
Abstract This paper presents a novel approach to find optimum locations and capacity of flexible alternating current
transmission systems (FACTS) devices in a power system
using a multi-objective optimization function. Thyristor controlled series compensator (TCSC) and static var compensator (SVC) are the utilized FACTS devices. Our objectives are:
active power loss reduction, new introduced FACTS devices
cost reduction, voltage deviation reduction, and increase on
the robustness of the security margin against voltage collapse. The operational and controlling constraints, as well
as load constraints, are considered in the optimum allocation. A multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) is used
to approach the Pareto-optimal front (non-dominated) solutions. In addition, the estimated annual load profile has been
utilized in a sequential quadratic programming (SQP) optimization sub-problem to the optimum siting and sizing of
FACTS devices. IEEE 14-bus Network is selected to validate
the performance and effectiveness of the proposed method.
Keywords FACTS devices allocation
Multi-objective optimization Multi-objective genetic
algorithm
CMvar_SVCi
CMvar_TCSC j
dvi
DM
f1 , f2 , f3
JL
Ke
n facts , n plant
Plossi (x, u, z)
Ppeak (x, u, z)
TCSC , Q TCSC
Pinjf
injf
TCSC , Q TCSC
Pinjt
injt
P0 , Q 0
p f , q f , pt , q t
Symbols
A
Power plant installation cost in
($/kW)
B
Refundable investment rate in (percent)
BSVC j Susceptance of jth SVC in (pu)
M. Gitizadeh (B)
School of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
Shiraz University of Technology, Shiraz, Islamic Republic of Iran
e-mail: gitizadeh@sutech.ac.ir
Pm
, S limit
S initial
j
j
SSVCi
STCSC j
u
vi
viideal
x
Xc
X TCSCi
123
228
1 Introduction
These days, high efficiency, maximum reliability, and security in the design and operation of power systems are more
important than ever before. The difficulties in constructing
new transmission lines due to limits in rights for their paths
make it necessary to utilize the maximum capacity of transmission lines. Therefore, it is difficult to provide voltage stability, even in normal conditions. The fact that the main duty
of generation units is based on the active power generation
requirements rather than the reactive power compensation
makes the problem more serious.
Flexible alternating current transmission systems
(FACTS) devices, modern active and reactive power compensators can be considered as viable and feasible options for
satisfying the voltage security constraints in power systems,
since their response to perturbations in urgent circumstances
is fast, their performance in normal conditions is flexible, and
their operation can fit the dynamic situations.
It is well documented in the literature that the effectiveness of FACTS controllers mainly depends on their locations
[1]. According to the characteristics of FACTS devices, various criteria have been considered in the allocation problem.
Some of the reported objectives in the literature are: static
voltage stability enhancement [25], violation diminution of
the line thermal constraints [6], network loadability enhancement [7,8], loss reduction [9], voltage profile improvement
[7], power plants fuel cost reduction using optimal power
flow [10], and economical approach which has minimized
the overall system cost function [11]. It should be noted that
each of the mentioned objectives improves the power system
network operation and reaching these objectives is desirable
in all power system networks. But improvement in one objective does not guarantee the same improvement in others. For
instance, satisfying the voltage magnitude constraint does
not result in the satisfaction of the voltage stability requirement [12]. Also, it is obvious that the minimum power loss
leads to power system lines optimum operation, whereas it
may exacerbate the static voltage stability limit. Therefore,
none of the mentioned technical objectives can be neglected
in FACTS devices allocation. On the other hand, allocation of
the unlimited FACTS devices due to one or more objectives
without considering the cost of the devices can not be justified
despite the assumption in [7]. Therefore, both technical and
economical objectives should be involved in the FACTS allocation problem. In previous efforts to approach these objectives, some simplifications have been made such as allocation
based on decoupled active and reactive components [5], the
123
definition of the cost function without including the interest rate, and active power loss price [11]. In [13], although
a multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) approach has
been implemented for FACTS devices allocation, only two
objectives with different dimensions, including line overload
and voltage violation reduction, have been simplified and
augmented to constitute a single objective function. In addition, in economic objective function definition, the interest
rate has not been included. These assumptions cause some
problems such as the inability to use all achievable advantages of FACTS devices, impractical allocation results, and
inaccurate solution of the problem.
This investigation attempts to improve the previously
mentioned researches in the field of FACTS devices allocation in power systems. This is done by considering static voltage stability enhancement, power loss reduction, and
voltage profile improvement as the allocation objectives;
and that FACTS devices investment cost reduction considers interest rates, simultaneously. Therefore, multi-objective
optimization without simplification has been used in this
paper in an attempt to find a logical solution to the allocation problem. Despite previous works, and for approaching a
practical solution, estimated annual load profile has been considered for calculating power losses and voltage violation.
The utilized FACTS devices are thyristor controlled series
compensator (TCSC) and static var compensator (SVC).
Pareto [14] has proposed an optimal set, entitled a Paretooptimal set, in which every member of the set is considered to
be the best solution of the corresponding problem and other
design attributes cannot lead to a better solution. From the
perspective of optimality, it is sometimes interesting to find a
Pareto-optimal set of alternatives over the whole space of an
optimization problem. Note that without considering preference information to rank competing attributes, a solution in
a Pareto-optimal set is not believed to be superior compared
to others in the set.
Here, an approach based on multi-objective genetic
algorithm (MOGA) is used to compromise between contradictory objectives. The optimization procedure is capable of taking all the predetermined objective values defined
by the designer. In addition, in order to implement the
estimated annual load profile for accurately finding the optimum location and capacity of FACTS devices, sequential
quadratic programming (SQP) optimization sub-problem has
been used as a part of the overall optimization procedure
which is mainly based on MOGA.
The article is organized as follows: Sect. 2 is devoted to
the mathematical concept of the multi-objective allocation.
Section 3 describes the models of TCSC and SVC that have
been used for static security enhancement. The implemented
optimization procedure has briefly been described in Sect. 4.
The results achieved by applying the proposed method on
IEEE 14-bus Network are presented and analyzed in Sect. 5.
229
CMvar_TCSC j STCSC j
(2)
where SSVCi and STCSC j are complex powers of ith SVC and
jth TCSC, respectively, and CMvar_SVCi and CMvar_TCSC j
are the cost of one Mvar related to ith SVC and jth TCSC,
respectively and are determined as [11],
2
CMvar_TCSC = 1.5STCSC
713STCSC + 153750
2
CMvar_SVC = 0.3SSVC
305SSVC + 127380
(4)
S initial
j
jJL
limit
S
jJL j
jJL
S initial
j
jJL
Slimit
j
f 2 (x, u, z) = 1 S M =
(5)
(6)
Ki =
S limit
j
(3)
It is noted that the comparison between power loss cost reduction and devices investment cost should be carried out in the
same year as the allocation study. Therefore, after the calculation of power loss according to the load curve of the
mentioned year, other costs such as the necessary investment
of new devices and benefits from peak point power generation reduction on the basis of interest rate, life time of new
devices and power plants are combined in a single objective
function. This is carried out using K p and K i factors with
the following definitions,
(1 + B)n facts B
(1 + B)n facts 1
(1 + B)n plant B
Kp = A
(1 + B)n plant 1
jJL
iJL
vi v ideal dvi
i
V Di =
vi
iJL
(8)
Minimization of this objective function forces the voltages
to remain in the specified range.
In the proposed multi-objective optimization, some constraints such as compromising between active and reactive
powers of load buses, permitted range of active and reactive generating powers of power plants, allowed tap range
of transformers, maximum power transmission of lines, and
permitted range of FACTS devices have been considered.
The goal of the problem is to find an optimum configuration,
*, among the feasible configurations, , through installing new devices or only on the basis of current devices in
such a way that all objective forces become optimum and the
defined nonlinear constraints are satisfied. The mathematical
description can be written as
min { f 1 (x, u, z), f 2 (x, u, z), f 3 (x, u, z)}
u, z
(9)
123
230
Vf
If
Yft
Ift
TCSC
Pinjf
TCSC
Qinjf
Yf0
Vt
I tf
It
Yt0
Bus t
Bus f
TCSC
Pinjt
TCSC
Qinjt
Vk
I SVC
(15)
BSVC
(16)
Also, in using [12], the following extra constraints are considered for determining the security margin, while t and f
belong to JL ,
3 TCSC and SVC models: modification on voltage
security equations
pf
g f = P0 f V f
+ Pinjf +
n
V f V j Y f j cos f j f j
j=1
There are two possible characteristics for TCSCs, capacitive and inductive, to increase or decrease the transmission
line reactance. These devices can cause an increase in the
transmission power capacity of lines, static voltage security
margin enhancement, voltage profile improvement, and
decreasing power loss (power division between parallel
lines). SVCs also have capacitive and inductive characteristics and are predominantly utilized to improve and amend
voltage in static and dynamic conditions, reduce reactive network power loss, and enhance the static voltage security margin. In order to use TCSCs and SVCs to satisfy the mentioned
allocation criteria, the injection power model and variable
susceptance model shown, respectively, in Figs. 1 and 2 have
been considered. Figure 1 shows a lumped model of compensated linek between buses t and f . The injected active
and reactive powers to the mentioned buses are as follows
[16]:
TCSC
= G f f V f2 + (G f t cos f t + B f t sin f t )V f Vt
Pinjf
(10)
Q TCSC
injf
B f f
V f2
+ (G f t
sin f t
B f t
cos f t )V f Vt
(11)
TCSC
= G tt Vt2 + (G t f cos t f + Btf sin t f )V f Vt
Pinjt
=0
(17)
p
gt = P0t Vt t + Pinjt +
n
Vt V j Yt j cos t j t j
j=1
=0
q
h f = Q 0 f V f f + Q injf +
n
(18)
V f V j Y f j sin f j f j
j=1
=0
q
h t = Q 0t Vt t + Q injt +
n
Vt V j Yt j sin t j t j
(19)
j=1
= 0[t, f ] JL
(20)
BSVC j
max
BSVC
j
j = 1, . . . , n SVC
(21)
(22)
(12)
Q TCSC
injt
Btt Vt2
+ (G t f
sin t f
Btf
cos t f )V f Vt
X c R(2X + X c )
=
2
(R + X 2 )(R 2 + (X + X c )2 )
X c (R 2 X (X + X c ))
=
(R 2 + X 2 )(R 2 + (X + X c )2 )
123
(23)
231
f2
33
3
2
1
1
(24)
Definition 2 Pareto Optimality: Vector X S is a Paretooptimal solution, if and only if there is no vector Y S,
for which F(Y ) = ( f 1 (Y ), f 2 (Y ), . . . , f k (Y )) dominates
F(X ) = ( f 1 (X ), f 2 (X ), . . . , f k (X )).
The space in R k is well-known as the Pareto-optimal frontier
, and is formed by the objective vectors of Pareto-optimal
solutions. Obviously any solution needs to be an element of
the Pareto-optimal set if possible. Other terminologies such
as non-dominated or efficient solutions are also used in literature instead of Pareto-optimal solutions. A graphical representation of this concept is depicted in Fig. 3.
In Fig. 3, f 1 , f 2 , . . . , f k will be used to denote the individual minima of each respective objective function, and the
utopian solution is defined as F = ( f 1 , f 2 , . . . , f k )T . As
F simultaneously minimizes all objectives, it is an ideal
solution that is rarely feasible.
4.2 Optimization approach
Pareto-optimal front solutions, for compromising between
conflicting objectives, can be obtained using multiobjective genetic algorithm. A genetic algorithm is a search
technique based on a specific class of evolutionary
algorithms. It is capable of solving various kinds of constrained/unconstrained optimization problems in which the
objective function is discontinuous, non-differentiable,
stochastic, or highly nonlinear. Standard optimization
algorithms such as gradient based methods are not appropriate for such problems. GAs use operators inspired by evolutionary biology such as mutation, natural selection, and
crossover [20].
2
1
f1
123
232
f2
10
4
1
2
4
3
1
1
5 Results
1
f1
Fig. 5 Ranking based on Pareto-optimal storing
FACTS_NUM
FACTS Type
FACTS_NUM
FACTS Value
FACTS_NUM
FACTS Location
123
233
Begin
S1L2,
No
Yes
Stop criteria
satisfied?
Show results
End
14
12
11
10
9
7
Parameters
Values
0.81, 2,136 h
1.00, 2,832 h
0.90, 4,392 h
Interest rate
15%
Ke
0.1 $/kW h
150 $/kW
30 years
each load level based on solution number five have been presented. These results confirm that better system performance
could be achieved in all load levels after installing allocated
devices. It can be seen that in Table 4, after optimum allocation and installation of two FACTS devices based on fifth
Pareto-optimal solution, the cost of installation will be optimized to 1.0078 pu. In other words, reducing the cost of
the system performance (0.733% loss reduction and 0.033%
123
234
Table 2 Pareto-optimal
solutions and their
corresponding objective values
Number
Mvar
L2
L3
3.925
SVC
8.96
SVC
112.2
10
SVC
7.97
2
3
1.0108
1.1802
TCSC
0.1632 1.0009
14
10
11
TCSC
0.3961
TCSC
4.196
TCSC
3.929
TCSC
3.833
4
5
6
7
SVC
5.833
SVC
134.36
SVC
4.407
SVC
6.67
TCSC
0.420
9
8
10
1.0286
1.0078
1.2365
1.0832
1.0000
Initial solution
1.0000
0.2
2.5
Third Objective: Z
Third Objective
2
1.5
1
0.5
0.15
0.1
0.05
X: 1.008
Y: 0.668
Z: 0.0865
0
0.7
0
0.7
0.65
1.6
0.6
1.4
0.55
Second Objective
0.69
1.06
1.02
0.67
1.2
0.5
1.04
0.68
First Objective
Second Objective: Y
1
0.66
0.98
First Objective: X
123
235
Table 3 Optimum results in each load level based on the fifth pareto-optimal solution
Load levels
Before allocation
L1
L2
After allocation
L3
L1
Reduction in %
L2
L3
L1
L2
L3
Lossa (LSi )
0.0862
0.1339
0.1073
0.0855
0.1330
0.1065
0.812
0.672
0.746
2.1841
2.7239
2.4383
2.1834
2.7230
2.4375
0.032
0.033
0.033
Voltage deviation
0.0621
0.0292
0.0468
0.0429
0.0158
0.0277
30.92
45.89
40.81
Before allocation
Objective values
After allocation
Reduction in %
Lossa
0.3274
0.3250
0.733
2.7239
2.7230
0.033
Costb
0.85
1.0078
1SM
0.6714
0.5
0.6679
0.5213
VDi
0.1381
0.0865
37.36
Voltage Magnitude
1.06
1.055
1.05
1.045
1.04
1.035
Before Allocation
1.03
After Allocation
1.025
1.02
1.015
3
10 11 12 13 14 15
Bus Number
considerations. One of these considerations is using the estimated annual load curve, which makes the allocation more
accurate. In contrast to some previous researches, the cost
objective function is considered along with other objectives to reach a precise and practical solution. In addition, the MOGA method has been utilized to find the
Pareto-optimal solutions which help the designer to select
the best compromise between conflicting objectives based
on his/her preferred goals, even if the problem is nonconvex. According to the obtained results on the IEEE
14-bus network, the mentioned method results in the
satisfaction of such allocation objectives as power loss reduction, investment cost reduction, security margin improvement, and voltage violation alleviation. It is also concluded
that the investment of the FACTS devices is reduced to
0.78% of initial system cost due to providing better performance for the system. Besides, the cost reduction of peak
point power generation in this study implies that power
plant expansion, providing the demand load, can be postponed.
Acknowledgments The author would like to acknowledge the financial support from Fars Regional Electric Company (FREC is one of the
sixteen major RECs in Iran). The author also appreciates Dr. A. Salehi,
A. Sadrzadeh, and J. Zeraatpisheh for their guidelines
Appendix A
6 Conclusion
In this paper a novel approach has been proposed to determine the optimum type, amounts and locations of TCSCs
and SVCs based on a multi-objective function. In this
method the allocation problem is investigated with practical
123
236
Bus number
Initial conditions
Initial MVar
Voltage
Bus power
Mag (pu)
Final
bus
R
(pu)
X
(pu)
P (MW)
Q(MVar)
1.06
1.045
4.983
21.7
12.7
1.01
12.725
94.2
19
1.018
10.313
47.8
3.9
1.02
8.774
7.6
1.6
1.07
14.221
11.2
7.5
1.062
13.36
1.09
13.36
1.056
14.939
29.5
16.6
19
10
1.051
15.097
5.8
11
1.057
14.791
3.5
1.8
12
1.055
15.076
6.1
1.6
13
1.05
15.156
13.5
5.8
14
1.036
16.034
14.9
Ang (pu)
B
(pu)
TAP
position
Bus
MVar limits
MW limits
Min.
Min.
Max.
Specified voltage
Max.
2a
0.01938
0.05917
0.0528
300
40
50
140
0.05403
0.22304
0.0492
150
40
1.01
0.04699
0.19797
0.0438
150
24
1.07
0.05811
0.17632
0.034
150
24
1.09
0.05695
0.17388
0.0346
150
0.06701
0.17103
0.0128
150
0.01335
0.04211
150
0.20912
60
0.978
0.55618
36
0.969
0.25202
80
0.932
11
0.09498
0.1989
60
12
0.12291
0.25581
45
13
0.06615
0.13027
45
0.17615
45
0.11001
60
10
0.03181
0.0845
45
14
0.12711
0.27038
45
10
11
0.08205
0.19207
45
12
13
0.22092
0.19988
45
13
14
0.17093
0.34802
45
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
In this table, in the case of Branch 12, the presented data are for the
combination of the two parallel lines
8.
References
1. Okamoto H, Kurita A, Sekine Y (1995) A method for identification
of effective locations of variable impedance apparatus on enhance-
123
9.
1.045
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
237
17. Ambriz-Perez H, Acha E, Fuerte-Esquivel CR (2000) Advanced
SVC model for Newton-Raphson load flow and Newton optimal
power flow studies. IEEE Trans Power Syst 15:129136
18. Andersson J (2001) Multi-objective optimization in engineering
design applications to fluid power systems. Linkping Studies in
Science and Technology, Dissertations No. 675
19. Popov A (2005) Users manual of genetic algorithms for optimization programs for MATLAB
20. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic Algorithms in search, optimization,
and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading
21. Fonseca CM, Fleming PJ (1998) Multi-objective optimization and
multiple constraint handling with evolutionary algorithms - Part I:
a unified formulation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst
Humans 28:2637
22. Gill PE, Murray W, Wright M (1981) Practical optimization. Academic Press, London
23. Kosterev DN, Mittelstadt WA, Mohler RR, Kolodziej WJ
(1996) An application study for sizing and rating controlled and
conventional series compensation. IEEE Trans Power Delivery
11:11051111
24. Freris LL, Sasson AM (1968) Investigation of the load flow problem. IEE Proc 115:14591469
123