You are on page 1of 7

858 IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 3, No.

3, August 1988

C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e Adjustment i n Load Flows

G.A. Maria A.H. Yuen J.A. Findlay

O n t a r i o Hydro

Abstract 1. Transformer t a p ,
A l i n e a r programming t y p e approach i s used t o a d j u s t
2. BUS v o l t a g e ( i f f i x e d as l o n g as t h e generator
all adjustable load flow variables to respect MVar stays w i t h i n l i m i t s ) .
s p e c i f i e d c o n s t r a i n t s . The technique i s a p p l i c a b l e t o
t h e Newton coupled and decoupled as w e l l as t h e f a s t 3. Generator MVar ( i f f i x e d as l o n g as the bus
decoupled l o a d f l o w s . The coordinated adjustment o f v o l t a g e stays w i t h i n l i m i t s ) .
a l l a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s Improves t h e convergence o f
t h e l o a d f l o w program and r e s u l t s i n a r e d u c t i o n i n 4. Slack bus generation.
t h e number o f i t e r a t i o n s w i t h minimal i n c r e a s e i n t h e
computation r e q u i r e d by each i t e r a t i o n . No change t o This 1s a l o a d f l o w mathematical f o r m u l a t i o n and may
t h e s t r u c t u r e (Newton) [ o r s t r u c t u r e and values ( f a s t
n o t match t h e normal power system o p e r a t i n g a c t i v i t i e s .
decoupled)] o f t h e Jacobian r e s u l t when c o n s t r a i n e d
variables v i o l a t e t h e i r l i m i t s . The v a r i a b l e s e t The a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s a r e assumed c o n s t a n t u n t i l
remains t h e same throughout a l l o f t h e i t e r a t i o n s . t h e associated c o n s t r a i n e d v a r i a b l e s exceed t h e
This a l g o r i t h m was implemented i n t h e O n t a r i o Hydro specified l i m i t s . When t h i s happens, t h e a d j u s t a b l e
energy management system. Test r e s u l t s show a v a r i a b l e s a r e changed u n t i l t h e c o n s t r a i n e d v a r i a b l e s
c o n s i d e r a b l e r e d u c t i o n i n t h e number o f i t e r a t ons and a r e back w i t h i n l i m i t s . If i n d o i n g t h a t , t h e
computation saving when major adjustments t o the a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s reach t h e i r s p e c i f l e d l i m i t s .
adjustable Variables are required. they a r e f i x e d a t t h e l i m i t and t h e associated
c o n s t r a i n e d v a r i a b l e s a r e allowed o u t s i d e t h e i r
l i m i t s . A warning may be issued t o i n d i c a t e v i o l a t i o n
INTRODUCTION o f t h e s p e c i f i e d l i m i t s . Some v a r i a t i o n on t h e above
c o n t r o l s (more than one generator MVar c o n t r o l l i n g t h e
The f o l l o w i n g automatic adjustments t o achieve v o l t a g e a t a remote bus and more than one t r a n s f o r m e r
f e a s i b l e s o l u t i o n s i n l o a d f l o w programs a r e i use i n controlling the voltage at a l o a d bus) were
utilities: implemented b u t w i l l n o t be discussed here t o keep t h e
a n a l y s i s simple.
1. Use o f t h e generator MVar t o m a i n t a i n i t s
t e r m l n a l v o l t a g e o r a remote bus v o l t a g e w i t h i n The two standard approaches used i n e x i s t i n g l o a d
specified l i m i t s . V a r i a t i o n I n t h e generator flows when a c o n s t r a i n e d v a r i a b l e v i o l a t e s i t s l i m i t s
MVar i s l i m i t e d by i t s e x c i t a t i o n and thermal are:
capabilities.
1. F i x the constrained variable a t the violated
2. Use o f t h e t r a n s f o r m e r variable tap t o maintain limit and allow the associated adjustable
i t s MVar f l o w o r a l o a d bus v o l t a g e w i t h i n v a r i a b l e t o change by m o d i f y i n g t h e v a r i a b l e
specified l i m i t s . The v a r i a t i o n i n the tap 1s s e t . This i n v o l v e s adding one column and one row
l i m i t e d by t h e range o f t h e t a p changer. t o t h e Jacobian o r changing one column [l]
depending on t h e a d j u s t a b l e / c o n s t r a i n e d v a r i a b l e .
3. Use o f phase s h i f t e r t a p t o m a i n t a i n t h e r e a l
power f l o w i n t h e phase s h i f t e r w i t h i n s p e c i f i e d 2. Use s e n s i t i v i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s t o modify the
limits. The v a r i a t i o n I n t h e t a p I s l i m i t e d by adjustable variable i n order t o b r i n g the
t h e range o f t h e t a p changer. constrained variables w i t h i n l i m i t s [ Z ] .
4. Use o f swing buses i n t h e d i f f e r e n t areas to The f i r s t approach r e q u i r e s t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e
c o n t r o l t h e n e t exchange between areas. s t r u c t u r e and values used i n t h e Jacobian. Both
approaches do n o t m a i n t a i n s t r i c t f e a s i b t l i t y b u t
l h e v a r i a b l e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e above f o u r c o n t r o l s a r e a l l o w c o n s t r a i n t s t o be v i o l a t e d b e f o r e e n f o r c i n g them
d i v i d e d i n t o a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s and c o n s t r a i n e d i n the following Iteration. A l l violated constraints
variables. For t h e purpose o f t h i s paper, t h e a r e enforced and c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t no longer need
adjustable variables are: enforcement a r e released i n groups. These approaches
w i l l f i n a l l y i d e n t i f y t h e b i n d i n g s e t b u t they take
many i t e r a t i o n s t o do i t . I n general, t h e second
approach w i l l t a k e more i t e r a t i o n s than t h e f i r s t b u t
does n o t r e q u i r e Jacobian m o d i f i c a t i o n s .

Special a l g o r i t h m s t o a d j u s t phase s h i f t e r and


transformer taps have been reported in the
a 7 SM 485-6 4 p a p e r recommended a n d a p p r o v e d l i t e r a t u r e . They i n c l u d e :
by t h e ZEEE Power S y s t e m E n g i n e e r i n g Committee of
t h e I E E E Power Z n g i n e e r i n g S o c i e t y f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n 1. A d j u s t t h e taps a t each i t e r a t i o n : : 4 ] :
a t t h e I E E E / P E S 1987 S m m e r M e e t i n g , San F r a n c i s c o ,
C a l i f o r n i a , J u l y 12 - 1 7 , 1987. " l a n u s c r i p t s u b m i t t e d +new I +old a (pspec - p ) ,
?lay 6 , 1986; made a v a i l a b l e f o r p r i n t i n g J u n e 18, 1957.
pew = told t b (vspec - p). o r

0885-8950/88/08OO-0858$01 .OOO1988 IEEE


859

tnew = t o l d t c ( Q S P ~-C Q ) , J1 A60 = AP (1)

a, b, and c a r e a c c e l e r a t i o n f a c t o r s . Where

2. Augment t h e Jacobian t o i n c o r p o r a t e taps [3]. J1 i s t h e Jacobian w i t h e n t r i e s equal as.


ap

3. Replace t h e t r a n s f o r m e r s and phase s h i f t e r s w i t h A60 i s t h e change I n v o l t a g e angles, and


P and Q i n j e c t i o n s a t t h e i r t e r m i n a l s and
f o r m u l a t e a subproblem t o compute values f o r t h e AP i s t h e a c t i v e power I n j e c t i o n r e s i d u e a t a l l
taps [ 4 ] . buses. The r e f e r e n c e bus v o l t a g e a n g l e and r e s i d u e
a r e excluded.
The f i r s t approach I s simple t o implement, does n o t
r e q u i r e any m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e Jacobian o r v a r i a b l e Now l e t us assume t h a t a r e g u l a t i n g t r a n s f o r m e r I s
set, b u t r e q u i r e s many i t e r a t i o n s t o e n f o r c e t h e connected t o Buses 1 and k ( F i g u r e 1). The r e g u l a t i n g
limits. The second approach r e q u i r e s l e s s i t e r a t i o n s t r a n s f o r m e r i s assumed t o have b o t h phase s h i f t i n g and
t o enforce the l i m i t s , but requires a m o d i f i c a t i o n t o magnitude t a p changing c a p a b i l i t i e s . The phase
t h e Jacobian. s h i f t i n g a n g l e i s ( 6 i k ) and t h e magnitude t a p
setting i s ( t i k ) . The e q u a t i o n f o r t h e r e a l power
None of the above approaches coordlnate the f l o w i n the transformer i s :
enforcement o f c o n s t r a l n t s . A l l v t o l a t e d Constrained
v a r i a b l e s a r e p u t a t t h e v i o l a t e d l i m i t s and taps a r e
adjusted i n d i v i d u a l l y . This i s done w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o Pik = v: ttk Yik cos at - v i vk Y
i k tik
t h e I n t e r a c t i o n between changes i n t h e d i f f e r e n t taps
and f i x i n g o f t h e d i f f e r e n t c o n s t r a i n e d v a r i a b l e s .

The proposed approach has t h e f o l l o w i n g f e a t u r e s :

1. The s t r u c t u r e (Newton) and t h e s t r u c t u r e and


values ( f a s t decoupled) o f t h e Jacobian do n o t
change t h r o u g h o u t t h e computation.

2. The v a r t a b l e s e t does n o t change throughout t h e


computation.

3. Enforcement o f a l l c o n s t r a l n t s i s coordlnated.

4. I f a f e a s i b l e s o l u t i o n e x l s t s , t h e s o l u t i o n can
be made feasible after each iteration.'
Enforcement o f c o n s t r a i n t $ may be suspended f o r ! Figure 1
t h e f i r s t few i t e r a t i o n s t o a v o i d divergence.
D u r i n g t h e r e a l power i t e r a t i o n , t h e magnitude t a p i s
Each j t e r a t l o n c o n s i s t s o f two steps. The f i r s t s t e p fixed. The phase s h i f t e r t a p may change t o keep
i s t h e same as t h e normal load f l o w i t e r a t i o n u s i n g (Pik) within its limits. For each r e g u l a t t n g
e x a c t l y t h e same Jacobian m a t r i x , s e t o f v a r i a b l e s , t r a n s f o r m e r w i t h v a r i a b l e phase s h i f t i n g angle, an
and power i n j e c t i o n r e s i d u e i n t h e r i g h t hand side. a d d i t i o n a l row and column i s I n c l u d e d i n t h e Jacobian.
D u r i n g t h i s step, t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s a r e h e l d
constant. The second s t e p uses a l i n e a r p r o g r a m l n g The r e a l Power exchange between areas i s c o n t r o l l e d by
t y p e technique t o compute t h e changes t o t h e s h i f t i n g g e n e r a t i o n between two swing buses (one i n
a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s necessary t o remove a l l s e c u r i t y each a r e a ) . For each c o n t r o l l e d r e a l power exchange.
violations. The impact o f these changes on t h e s e t o f an a d d i t i o n a l row and column I s i n c l u d e d i n t h e
computed v a r i a b l e s ( v o l t a g e magnitude and a n g l e s ) i s Jacobian.
computed. The a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s and t h e s e t o f
computed v a r i a b l e s a r e m o d i f i e d . The b a s i c r e a l power I t e r a t i o n e q u a t i o n i s :

A l l t h e a n a l y s i s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s deals w i t h
the decoupled Newton approach. Extending t h i s l f - ? r i
a n a l y s i s t o t h e coupled Newton and t h e f a s t decoupled
1s s t r a 1gh t f orwa r d .
THE REAL POWER ITERATION
Where
The proposed technique can handle a l l t h e r e a l
power a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s n o r m a l l y a v a i l a b l e I n load A61 i s t h e change i n t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s
flows used by u t i l i t i e s . The f o l l o w i n g two a d j u s t a b l e (phase s h i f t i n g angles and swing bus g e n e r a t i o n ) ,
v a r i a b l e s a r e t h e most cormnon ones and a r e considered
here: AP: I s t h e r e q u i r e d change t o b r i n g t h e c o n s t r a i n e d
1. The phase s h i f t e r t a p used t o c o n t r o l I t s r e a l v a r i a b l e s (phase s h i f t e r flows and r e a l power exchange
power f l o w . between areas) w i t h i n l i m i t s .

2. The swing buses used to control real power


exchange between areas.

With a l l phase s h i f t e r taps and swing bus g e n e r a t i o n


f i x e d , t h e r e a l power Newton i t e r a t i o n takes t h e form:
860

During t h e first step of t h e Iteration, 861 1s number of solves to compute [J;’ A ~ I and a
assumed zero ( t h e a d j u s t a b l e V a r i a b l e s a r e f i x e d ) .
The above e q u a t i o n reduces t o t h e o r i g i n a l r e a l power number Of sparse v e c t o r m u l t i p l i c a t i o n s t o compute
f l o w i t e r a t i o n o f t h e decoupled Newton approach. [B, JT’ All. Advantage can be taken o f the
J1 88, = AP (4) f a c t t h a t A1 i s sparse and o n l y a few elements o f
the solution are required. This l a s t computation
approach may be more convenient i f t h i s c o n s t r a i n t
The s o l u t i o n o f t h e above e q u a t i o n ( s t e p one) r e s u l t s enforcement is used as an add on t o an e x i s t i n g l o a d
i n an incremental change (Aeo). f l o w program.

%ew = cold + (5)


THE R E A C T I V E POWER ITERATION
The second s t e p s t a r t s w i t h t h e new v o l t a g e angles
(enew). I t has t h e f o l l o w i n g two o b j e c t i v e s : The proposed technique can handle a l l r e a c t i v e
power a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s n o r m a l l y a v a i l a b l e i n load
1. Compute t h e change t o t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s f l o w s used by u t i l i t i e s . The f o l l o w i n g a d j u s t a b l e
(891) t o keep t h e r e a l power f l o w i n t h e v a r i a b l e s a r e t h e most common ones and a r e considered
phase s h i f t e r s and t h e r e a l power exchange here:
between areas w i t h i n l i m i t s .
1. The t r a n s f o r m e r tap is used to control its
2. A d j u s t t h e bus v o l t a g e angles so t h a t t h e r e a c t i v e power.
combined e f f e c t o f t h e changes t o t h e a d j u s t a b l e
v a r i a b l e s and t h e bus v o l t a g e angles w i l l p r o t e c t 2. The t r a n s f o r m e r t a p is used to control the
the r e a l power i n j e c t i o n r e s i d u e r e d u c t i o n v o l t a g e o f a l o a d bus.
achieved i n t h e f i r s t step.
3. The v o l t a g e a t t h e generator bus t e r m i n a l o r a
Assuming t h a t t h e l i n e a r i z a t i o n o f Equation ( 3 ) i s remote bus i s used t o c o n t r o l t h e MVar o u t p u t o f
s t i l l v a l i d , t h e e q u a t i o n t o be solved i n t h e second t h e generator.
step i s :
4. The generator MVar i s used t o c o n t r o l t h e v o l t a g e
a t i t s t e r m i n a l bus o r a t a remote bus.

A l i s t o f t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s and t h e associated
c o n s t r a i n e d v a r i a b l e s f o r t h e above f o u r c o n t r o l s i s
shown i n l a b l e [ l ] .

The above l i n e a r i z a t i o n assumption w i l l be v a l i d i f Adjustable Variables Constrained V a r i a b l e s


t h e Incremental change t o t h e v o l t a g e angles computed
i n s t e p one ( b e g ) and t h e a l l o w a b l e m o d i f i c a t i o n Transformer t a p Transformer r e a c t i v e f l o w
to the adjustable variables (A+]) are small. Transformer t a p l o a d bus v o l t a g e
Large incremental changes t o t h e v o l t a g e angles
(Aeo) a r e n o r m a l l y encountered i n t h e f i r s t few
iterations. Step two should be suspended i f t h e
maximum change i n v o l t a g e angles computed i n step one
I Generator o r remote bus
voltage
Generator MVar
I Generator MVar

Generator o r remote bus


i s beyond a s p e c i f i e d l i m i t . Large m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o voltage
t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s (A+]) a r e n o t common i n
t h e p r a c t i c a l use o f load f l o w s and can be e a s i l y
overcome by imposing an upper l i m i t t o t h e s i z e o f t h e
changes a l l o w e d I n one i t e r a t i o n . Table 1

The changes t o t h e bus v o l t a g e angles and t h e With a l l t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s f i x e d , the reactive


a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s i s obtained by r e d u c i n g Equation Power Newton i t e r a t i o n takes t h e form:
( 6 ) to:
J2 A V O = AQ (9)
AB1 = --JY’ A1 A+1 and (7)
Where

D
1
A+1 =
1
APf J2 is the Jacobian with entries equal %,
Where A V O i s t h e incremental change i n v o l t a g e magnitude
and AQ i s t h e r e a c t i v e power i n j e c t i o n r e s i d u e a t
D1 = [Cl - B1 JY’ A l l t h e f i x e d MVar buses. A l l buses w i t h f i x e d v o l t a g e
magnitude (when t h e v o l t a g e magnitude i s an a d j u s t a b l e
Equation ( 8 ) above formulates a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n v a r i a b l e ) a r e excluded from t h e A V O a r r a y . All
between t h e change I n t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s and t h e buses w i t h v a r i a b l e MVar (when generator MVar i s a
c o n s t r a i n e d v a r i a b l e s . Equation ( 7 ) i s used t o a d j u s t c o n s t r a i n e d v a r i a b l e ) a r e excluded from t h e AQ a r r a y .
t h e bus v o l t a g e angles (e) t o r e f l e c t t h e changes i n
t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s (A+1). The r e a c t i v e f l o w i n the regulating transformer o f
Figure (1) i s :
l h e f a c t o r s o f t h e sparse m a t r i x J1 a r e r e q u i r e d f o r
step one. The m a t r i x [ D l ] and these f a c t o r s can be
obtained by t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e lower h a l f o f J1
and 81 i n t h e augmented m a t r i x o f Equation ( 3 ) . A
l e s s e f f i c i e n t approach t o compute [ D 1 ] uses a
861

D u r l n g t h e r e a c t i v e power I t e r a t i o n , t h e phase The above e q u a t l o n can be reduced t o :


s h i f t i n g tap i s flxed. The magnitude t a p may change
t o keep t h e r e a c t i v e f l o w l n t h e t r a n s f o r m e r o r t h e
v o l t a g e a t a load bus w i t h i n l l m t t s . The above
e q u a t i o n i s used t o compute t h e e f f e c t o f changing t h e
magnitude t a p on t h e t r a n s f o r m e r r e a c t l v e f l o w and and
i n j e c t i o n a t Buses i and k. For each r e g u l a t i n g
D2 be2 = AP:
t r a n s f o r m e r used t o c o n t r o l i t s own f l o w o r a l o a d bus
v o l t a g e , a row and column appears i n t h e Jacobian.
where
The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e g e n e r a t o r MVar and i t s
t e r m i n a l ( o r remote bus) v o l t a g e I s w e l l known. For
each g e n e r a t o r o r remote bus v o l t a g e used t o c o n t r o l
0, = [C2 - B
2
J - l A2]
2
t h e g e n e r a t o r MVar and f o r each g e n e r a t o r MVar used t o
c o n t r o l I t s own t e r m i n a l o r remote bus v o l t a g e , a row
Equatlons (14) and ( 1 5 ) a r e s i m i l a r t o Equatlons ( 7 )
and column appears i n t h e Jacoblan.
and (8) f o r t h e r e a l power i t e r a t i o n . They a r e used
The b a s l c r e a c t i v e power I t e r a t i o n e q u a t i o n w i l l be f o r t h e same purpose and computed I n a s l m l l a r way.
changed t o :

ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTRAINTS

The c o n s t r a l n t s enforcement f o r t h e r e a l / r e a c t i v e
power f l o w problem i s f o r m u l a t e d as f o l l o w s :

Where and
A412 i s t h e change I n t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s
(magnitude tap, g e n e r a t o r o r remote bus v o l t a g e , and
g e n e r a t o r MVar),
Where
LIP! is the required change in the constrained
varlables (transformer r e a c t i v e power, load bus AP: and AP: a r e changes corresponding t o t h e lower
voltage, generator War, and g e n e r a t o r o r remote bus
voltage), and upper l i m i t s f o r t h e c o n s t r a i n e d v a r l a b l e s .

The change i n t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s , 89, is


assigned a v a l u e based on t h e f o l l o w i n g r u l e s :

1. The a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s a r e equal t o t h e i r
p r e f e r r e d / g i v e n i n i t i a l values as l o n g as t h e
I n t h e computation o f t h e above d e r l v a t l v e s , t h e o n l y corresponding c o n s t r a l n e d v a r i a b l e s s t a y w l t h l n
independent v a r i a b l e s a r e v o l t a g e magnltudes and 1i m i t s .
taps.
When computlng A2 and C 2 above, t h e d e r l v a t i v e s o f 2. The change i n t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s I s l i m i t e d
by t h e s p e c l f l e d l i m t t s ( i f any).
(9) and (P$ wrt the generator
Var e n t r l e s o f (g2) and a l l zeros except f o r t h e 3. I f one o f t h e a d j u s t a b l e o r t h e corresponding
corresponding e n t r y i n (Q)where t h e d e r i v a t i v e i s one. c o n s t r a i n e d v a r i a b l e s has t o v i o l a t e i t s l i m i t s ,
the constralned variable I s allowed t o v i o l a t e
D u r i n g t h e f i r s t step o f t h e I t e r a t i o n , 892 I s i t s limit. The a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s a r e n o t
assumed zero ( t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s a r e f i x e d ) . allowed t o v i o l a t e t h e i r l i m i t s under any
The above e q u a t i o n reduces t o t h e o r i g i n a l r e a c t i v e condittons.
power f l o w e q u a t i o n used I n t h e decoupled Newton
approach. The dual l i n e a r p r o g r a m i n g technique i s n o r F l l y used
t o mlnlmize a l l n e a r cost function subject t o a set o f
J2 AVO = AQ linear constraints. The l l n e a r p r o g r a m i n g process
s t a r t s w i t h n ( t h e number o f s t a t e v a r i a b l e s )
The s o l u t l o n o f t h e above e q u a t i o n ( s t e p one) r e s u l t s c o n s t r a i n t s i n t h e b a s i s enforced a t t h e l i m i t t h a t
i n an I n c r e m e n t a l change t o t h e v o l t a g e magnitude minimizes t h e c o s t f u n c t i o n . A t each I t e r a t i o n . an
(Avo) * o u t o f t h e b a s i s c o n s t r a i n t v i o l a t l o n i s removed by:
1. Moving one o r more b a s i s c o n s t r a i n t s t o a
d i f f e r e n t l l m i t and/or,

F o l l o w i n g s i m i l a r argument t o t h a t used i n t h e r e a l 2. removing one b a s i s c o n s t r a i n t f r o m t h e b a s i s and


power l t e r a t l o n s e c t i o n . t h e e q u a t l o n t o be s o l v e d i n b r l n g l n g I n t h e v i o l a t e d hon-basis c o n s t r a i n t .
step two i s :
The b a s i s c o n s t r a i n t s i n v o l v e d I n t h e above process
a r e chosen i n such a way t h a t t h e v i o l a t i o n i s removed
w i t h minimum i n c r e a s e t o t h e c o s t f u n c t i o n .
A v a r i a t i o n on t h e dual LP technique i s used here. I t
has no c o s t f u n c t l o n and t h e two sets o f c o n s t r a l n t s
[ E q u a t i o n ( l a ) ] have equal number o f c o n s t r a i n t s . One
862

s e t c o n t a i n s t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s l i m i t s and t h e a l l constrained variables.


other set contains the constrained variables l i m i t s .
The process s t a r t s w i t h a l l a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s I n (c) If t h e s w i t c h l n g o f t h e l i m i t s ( f r o m lower
t h e b a s i s a t t h e i r p r e f e r r e d / g i v e n I n i t i a l values. t o upper o r upper t o lower) o f t h e
The a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e and t h e a s s o c i a t e d c o n s t r a i n e d constrained variable i n the basis w i l l
v a r i a b l e a r e t r e a t e d as a p a i r . One o f them w i l l bring the adjustable variable closer t o
always be i n t h e b a s i s and t h e o t h e r w i l l be o u t s i d e i t s p r e f e r r e d / g i v e n i n i t i a l value, s w i t c h
the basis. The v i o l a t i o n o f t h e non-basis c o n s t r a i n t t h e l i m i t s and update t h e c o n s t r a i n e d
w i l l be removed by changing t h e associated b a s i s variables.
constraint l i m i t or replacing i t w i t h the violated
non-basis c o n s t r a i n t . The f o l l o w i n g procedure i s used (d) I f t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e v i o l a t e s any o f
t o remove a l l v i o l a t i o n s : i t s l i m i t s . brtng i t i n t o the basis a t
t h a t l i m i t and remove t h e corresponding
(1) For a l l Constrained V a r l a b l e s Out o f t h e Basts constrained variable. Adjust all
constrained variables.
(a) Compute t h e value o f t h e c o n s t r a i n e d
v a r i a b l e corresponding t o t h e a d j u s t a b l e The f o l l o w i n g a c t i v i t i e s a r e required i n t h e above
variable a t i t s preferred/given i n i t i a l steps :
value.
1. Replace a b a s i s c o n s t r a i n t w i t h t h e associated
(b) I f the constrained variable i s w i t h i n non-basis c o n s t r a i n t .
l i m i t s , move t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e t o
i t s preferred/given i n i t i a l value and 2. Adjust the basis constraint l i m i t s .
adjust a l l constrained variables.
3. Compute t h e s e n s i t i v i t y o f t h e c o n s t r a i n e d
(c) I f the constrained variable i s outside i t s v a r i a b l e t o changes i n t h e a s s o c i a t e d a d j u s t a b l e
l i m i t s , compute t h e r e q u i r e d change i n t h e va r iab1e.
adjustable variable that w i l l bring i t
within l i m i t s . 4. Adjust a l l the constrained variables.

(i) I f t h e r e q u i r e d change w i l l cause Formulas used t o p e r f o r m t h e above a c t i v i t i e s are


the adjustable variable t o v i o l a t e g i v e n I n t h e appendix.
i t s limits, f i x the adjustable
v a r i a b l e a t t h a t l i m i t and a d j u s t The above process w i l l c o n t i n u e u n t i l no changes i n
a l l constrained variables. t h e b a s i s v a r i a b l e s o r t h e i r l i m i t s a r e r e q u i r e d . The
a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s a r e a d j u s t e d by t h e r e s u l t i n g
(ii) I f t h e r e q u i r e d change w i l l n o t A+. The bus v o l t a g e magnitudes and angles a r e
cause t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e t o a d j u s t e d u s i n g Equations ( 7 . 14).
violate its limits, move the
adjustable variable out of the
b a s i s and move t h e c o n s t r a i n e d RESULTS
v a r i a b l e i n t o t h e b a s i s and f i x i t
a t the violated l i m i t . Adjust a l l The 230/500 kV O n t a r i o Hydro network and an
constrained variables. equivalent for t h e 115 kY and n e i g h b o u r i n g systems was
used t o t e s t t h e proposed technique. The main
(2) For A l l A d j u s t a b l e V a r i a b l e s Out o f t h e Basis attributes o f t h e t e s t network are:

(a) Compute t h e value o f t h e c o n s t r a i n e d - Network: 702 buses, 1 225 branches


v a r i a b l e corresponding t o t h e a d j u s t a b l e m in 1x1 = 0.0004 IlMX 1x1 = 4.659
variable a t i t s preferred/given i n i t i a l max I R / x l = 0.9.
value.
- S t a r t i n g c o n d i t i o n s : F l a t s t a r t except f o r t h e
(b) If the constrained variable i s w i t h i n generator bus voltages which a r e s e t a t t h e des red
l i m i t s , move i t o u t o f t h e b a s l s and move voltage.
the adjustable variable i n t o the basis a t
i t s p r e f e r r e d / g i v e n i n i t i a l value. A d j u s t

Decoupl ed Oecoupled Modified


Oecoupl ed Newton Decoupled
With LP Newton
Number of i t e r a t i o n s 15 5 5
Computatlon r e q u i r e d
o p t i m a l o r d e r i n g (0.3) 2 2 2
f a c t o r i z a t i o n (0.1 2 10 6
Jacobian update (0.14) 10 6
RHS (0.09) 30 10 10
LP c o n t r o l a d j u s t
(O.-i) - 1 1
F/B Subst. (0.051 30 12 12
t o t a l computation t i m e
i n CPU seconds
( u n i v a c 1180 - 3.5 M I P S ) 4.65 5 .OO 3.80
863

- Convergence c r l t e r l a : Maxlmum power l n j e c t l o n t h e Jacoblan I n t h e Newton load f l o w when t h e maxlmum


r e s l d u e = 2 MW and 2 W a r . change I n t h e v o l t a g e magnitude and angles i s l e s s
t h a n 0.05 pu/radlan, has n e g l l g l b l e Impact on t h e load
- Controls: to facllltate comparlson w l t h the f l o w convergence and saves computer t i m e r e q u l r e d t o
e x l s t l n g l o a d f l o w i n t h e O n t a r l o Hydro EMS, t h e b u i l d and f a c t o r l z e t h e Jacoblan. Thls I s s p e c l a l l y
o n l y c o n t r o l s used a r e t h e g e n e r a t o r s ’ bus v o l t a g e convenient for the proposed adjustable control
whlch a r e used t o c o n t r o l t h e g e n e r a t o r s W a r . The m o d i f i c a t i o n approach s i n c e no changes t o t h e Jacobian
number o f c o n t r o l s l s 70. a r e r e q u l r e d when t h e c o n s t r a l n e d v a r i a b l e s v i o l a t e
Four d l f f e r e n t l o a d f l o w technlques were compared: their llmlts. An o p e r a t o r l o a d f l o w program was
lmplemented u s l n g t h e m o d i f l e d decoupled Newton
1. Fast decoupled w l t h s e n s l t l v l t l e s : technique. The program computes (among o t h e r t h i n g s )
t h e r e q u l r e d changes t o t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r l a b l e s when
The f a s t decoupled load f l o w w i t h a d j u s t a b l e s l m u l a t e d changes a r e a p p l l e d t o t h e power system.
varlables modlfled using s e n s i t l v l t l e s [ 2 ] ( e x i s t i n g
load f l o w I n t h e O n t a r l o Hydro EMS). References

2. Fast decoupled w l t h l l n e a r D r o g r a m l n g : 1. W.F. Tlnney, and C.E. Hart, “Power Flow SOlUtlOn
by Newton’s Method,.’’ IELE Trans on PAS pp 1449 -
The f a s t decoupled load flow with adjustable 1460, November 1967.
varlables modifled using the proposed llnear
p r o g r a m i n g approach. 2. 6. S t o t t , and 0. Alsac, *Fast Decoupled
Loadflow.’ I E E E Trans on PAS, pp 659 - 669. May
3. Decoupled Newton w l t h l l n e a r p r o g r a m i n g : 1974.
The decoupled Newton w l t h a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s 3. N.M. Peterson, and W.S. Meyer, 'Automatic
m o d l f l e d u s l n g t h e proposed l i n e a r p r o g r a m l n g Adjustment o f Transformer and Phase S h i f t e r Taps
approach. l n t h e Newton Powerflow,‘ I E E E Trans on PAS,
pp 103 - 106. February 1971.
4. M o d i f l e d decoupled Newton:
4. J. Mescua, *A Decoupled Method f o r Systematic
Same as ( 3 ) above w l t h t h e Jacoblan updated o n l y I f Adjustments o f Phase S h i f t i n g and Tap Changing
t h e maximum adjustment t o t h e v o l t a g e magnitudes o r Transformers,* I E E E PES 1985 W i n t e r meeting, New
angles l s g r e a t e r than 0.05 pu/radlan. York, NY February 3 - 6, 1965.
A number o f snapshots o f t h e O n t a r l o Hydro system were 5. 6. S t o t t , and E. Hobson, “Power System S e c u r i t y
o b t a i n e d and m o d i f i e d so t h a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f C o n t r o l C a l c u l a t l o n Using L i n e a r P r o g r a m i n g ,
changes t o t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r l a b l e s were r e q u l r e d . P a r t I , ” IELE PES S u m e r meeting, Mexico C i t y ,
Table ( 2 ) shows a comparlson between t h e f o u r l o a d J u l y 1 7 - 22. 1977.
f l o w approaches f o r a case t h a t r e q u l r e d 11 v o l t a g e
adjustments w t t h a maxlmum adjustment o f 0.01 pu.
These adjustments a r e consldered r e l a t i v e l y small. In APPENDIX
o t h e r cases, where t h e r e q u l r e d adjustment l s I n t h e
o r d e r o f 0.25 pu, t h e f a s t decoupled w l t h s e n s l t l v l t y The l l n e a r p r o g r a m l n g l i k e t e c h n l q u e s t a r t s w l t h
adjustment needed more than 35 l t e r a t l o n s to a l l the adjustable varlable constralnts I n the basls.
converge. The number o f l t e r a t l o n s and t h e r e q u l r e d The l n i t l a l b a s l s e q u a t l o n 1s:
computatlon t i m e f o r t h e o t h e r t h r e e load f l o w s stayed
approximately constant a t the values shown I n (A+)O = Lo A1
Table ( 2 ) . I n a l l t e s t cases, adjustments t o t h e
a d j u s t a b l e v a r l a b l e s a r e performed o n l y when t h e Lo I s t h e p r e f e r r e d / g l v e n l n l t i a l values f o r t h e
maxlmum change I n t h e v o l t a g e magnitude, r e s u l t i n g a d j u s t a b l e v a r l a b l e s and Bo 1 s t h e u n l t y m a t r l x .
from Step (1). I s l e s s t h a n 0.01 pu. The m o d l f l e d The b a s i s e q u a t l o n a v a i l a b l e a t t h e ( K - 1 ) t h I t e r a t t o n
decoupled Newton and t h e f a s t decoupled w l t h LP is:
c o n s l s t e n t l y outperformed t h e o t h e r two load flows.
The computatlon s a v i n g r e s u l t l n g f r o m r e p l a c t n g t h e A2
* f a s t decoupled
w l t h s e n s l t l v l t l e s ” w l t h t h e m o d i f i e d decoupled Newton D u r l n g t h e K t h I t e r a t i o n one element i n LK-l w l l l
o r t h e f a s t decoupled w l t h LP ranges between OX (when change and one row o f may be r e p l a c e d by an
t h e r e a r e no changes t o t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r l a b l e s ) t o lncomlng c o n s t r a l n t . Assuming t h e lncoming c o n s t r a l n t
about 70% (when t h e r e a r e major changes t o t h e 1s:
adjustable varlables). The convergence r a t e o f t h e
load flows u s l n g t h e proposed c o n s t r a l n t enforcement Aj A@ = L j A3
technique i s s l m i l a r t o t h e convergence r a t e o f t h e
u n c o n s t r a i n e d load flows. The i n v e r s e o f t h e new basis m a t r i x i s o b t a i n e d by t h e
t r a n s f o r m a t l o n [SI:

CONCLUSION
A4
A f a s t r e l l a b l e approach was developed t o m o d i f y t h e Where EK i s a u n l t y m a t r i x except f o r i t s l t h row
a d j u s t a b l e v a r l a b l e s l n a l o a d f l o w program. Thls ( i i s t h e index o f t h e r e p l a c e d row i n t h e b a s i s
approach l s a p p l l c a b l e t o t h e decoupled and coupled m a t r i x ) . The n o n - t r i v i a l row o f EK l s equal t o :
Newton l o a d flows and t h e f a s t decoupled l o a d f l o w .
No changes t o t h e Jacobian a r e r e q u i r e d when
constralned varlables v i o l a t e t h e i r l l m l t s . Changes - SK/Sf
t o t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r l a b l e s a r e c o o r d i n a t e d t o reduce
t h e number o f l t e r a t l o n s . It was found t h a t f i x i n g
A5
864

and
(-l).
sK The elements
K
i s t h e same as S w i t h i t s iB e n t r y r e p l a c e d by
o f L K - ~ are changed to reflect
I t I S easy t o show t h a t t h e s e n s i t l v l t y of t h e
c o n s t r a i n e d v a r i a b l e t o changes i n t h e a d j u s t a b l e
the prevailing basis l i m i t s . The a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s is the j n v e r s e O f the corresponding
a t t h e K t l ~i t e r a t i o n a r e computed u s l n g t h e e q u a t i o n : Of LEK]-’ when the ‘Onstrained Is
In the basis and the inner Droduct o f the
c o r r e s onding row of [ D ] and t h e cor’responding column
(bI$)K = [Ed(]-’ LK
of when t h e a d j u s t a b l e v a r i a b l e i s i n the
basis.
The c o n s t r a i n e d v a r i a b l e s a r e equal t o D(A+)K.

b a s i s . The amount of computation i n t h e above process


i s p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e number o f n o n t r i v i a l rows.

Discussion preferred/given initial values. From this point of view, the authors
algorithm is an approximate but very fast solution to the quadratic
programming problem
George Angelidis and Adam Semlyen (University of Toronto, Toronto,
ON, Canada): We would like to congratulate the authors for their approach
in handling the difficult problem of control variable adjustment in security
5
mind+ 1 (A4 -@)‘ W(A4 -s)
constrained power flows. Their LP-oriented method seems fast and efficient
and it can also be applied to other problems where feasibility adjustment s.t. A P ; S D A ~ ~ S A P ;
with respect to inequality constraints is needed. Although the method uses
the concept of a basis and updating techniques similar to those in dual linear ~ 4 A$~c abh
5
programming, it is quite different and, we believe, should be given another
name. where W may be taken as the identity matrix.
In dual LP, the objective function is used as a criterion for the The authors’ comments on the above discussion would be greatly
identification of the nonbasic variable that will become basic. This appreciated.
corresponds to a constraint that will be become inactive. In the authors’ Manuscript received July 27, 1987.
algorithm, this constraint is already known once the basic variable that will
become nonbasic has been identified. This is because the two sets of
constraints (16) are handled as a pair, realizing that a violation of a
constrained variable can be relieved by the movement of its corresponding
adjustable variable only. This is reflected in the strong diagonal dominance
G. A. Maria, A. H. Yuen, and J. A. Findlay: The authors wish to thank
the discussers for their interest in the paper. The difference between the
of matrix D. Therefore, there is no need for an objective function.
proposed constraint enforcement technique and the dual LP is as described
However, the exchange of constraints in the active set is predetermined. In
dual LP, the usage of the objective function ensures convergence if a by the discussers. We did not experience any cycling in any of the test runs
solution exists. In the authors’ algorithm, step (1)-(c)-(i) ensures that a we made. The inconsistency described by the discussers is related to the use
solution exists. However, it is not clear if cycling is possible or not. of the two terms “basis” and “basic.” We use the word basis to mean
There seems to be an inconsistency in the way the term “basis” is used in active constraint which corresponds to nonbasic in the simplex method. The
the authors’ algorithm. In the simplex method, it is the nonbasic variables word basis is used in the dual LP and is used here because of the similarities
that are fixed, corresponding to the active constraints. The basic variables between the dual LP and proposed technique.
are calculated in terms of the nonbasic ones. In the authors’ algorithm, it Two of the load flow specifications are
seems that the basic variables are fixed. We would appreciate it if the 1) The adjustable variable must stay at the preferred value unless by doing
authors would clarify this point. so the corresponding constraint will be violated.
Besides constraints (16), the authors seem to use another set of 2) If the adjustable variable must be moved away from its preferred value,
“constraints” which are notexplicitly fmulated. These are equality the movement must be kept to a minimum.
constraints of the type Aqbk = where Abk is the change needed for the
kth adjustable variable to reach its preferredlgiven initial value. These The proposed algorithm satisfies these specifications correctly and fast.
constraints are enforced if possible. Otherwise, they are ignored. The The quadratic programming formulation is an approximation of these
authors’ strategy for enforcing those constraints expresses the implicit specifications and will take more time to compute.
objective to maintain the adjustable variables as close as possible to their Manuscript received August 31, 1987.