760
2, May 1989
A GENERAL-PURPOSE VERSION OF THE FAST DECOUPLED LOADFLOW
Robert A.M. van Amerongen, nonmember
Delft University of Technology
Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Mekelweg 4, 2628 CD DELFT, the Netherlands
Abstract - This paper presents a new version of
the fast decoupled loadflow in that a more broad range
of power systems can be solved. The key lies in the
different way in which the resistances are ignored and
in a different iteration scheme. In the standard algo-
rithm the resistances are ignored while building the B'
loadflow matrix; this paper shows it is preferable
that the resistances are ignored in the B" matrix
. instead of the B' matrix. For normal test systems
there is hardly any difference in the number of itera-
tions, however, the new algorithm iterates faster if
one or more problematic R/X ratios are present. An
iteration scheme with strict successive P and Q itera-
tions prevents cycling convergence behaviour which can
be found in some low voltage systems. In this paper
the advantages of the new version (to be indicated
with the BX scheme) are demonstrated with runs on IEEE
test systems with both uniformly and nonuniformly
scaled resistances or reactances. R-scaling up to 3 is
always possible, sometimes values up to 5 can be used.
X-scaling of at least 0.1 is possible without losing
convergence and with iteration counts whichare signifi-
cantly lower than with the standard scheme.
Keywords: Electric Power Systems.
Loadflow Analysis.
INTRODUCTION
The loadflow calculation is one of the most
commonly used tools in power system engineering. For
that reason, the history of loadflow calculation is a
relatively long one. It started during the fifties [ I ]
with the methods now known as Gauss-Seidel and Ward-
Hale. Although very simple and reliable, both these
methods show exploding computation times when applied
to systems of increasing size. The Newton method [ 2 ]
was a landmark which, basically, comprises the
repeated solution of a large set of linear equations.
If these are solved, taking into account the sparsity
of the Jacobian matrix, the computation time increases
only linearly with the system size. The strong con-
vergence and the exploiting of the sparsity has made
this method up to now the most general one in use.
However, it was soon clear that the Jacobian was
only necessary to obtain convergence and did not
influence the final solution. The convergence is so
strong that approximations to this Jacobian are
possible without losing the overall convergence and at
the expense of only a relative small raise in the
number of iterations. All these efforts are devoted to
the avoidance of the recalculation and the refactoriza-
tion of the Jacobian. One of the most extreme versions
of such an approximated Newton method is the Fast
Decoupled Loadflow (FDL) [3]. It is characterized by a
88 SY 735-3 A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Power System Engineering Committee of
the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation
at the LEEE/PES 1988 Summer fleeting, Portland,
Oregon, July 24 - 29, 1988. Manuscript submitted
January 15, 1988; made available for printing
June 15, 1988.
0885-8950/89/0500-0760%01.00@ 1989 IEEE
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 4, No.
decoupling of the linearized loadflow equations with
constant loadflow matrices. This method is an alterna-
tive to the Newton method provided that three condi-
tions are met: first, the voltages are around their
nominal values, second, the angle differences across
the lines are small, and third, the R/X ratios are
small for all branches.
The first and the second condition are a serious
problem only in a very small number of cases. But the
third condition is rather crucial [4]. It constitutes a
limitation to the use of the FDL in that systems where
a small number of branches have relatively high
resistances or where the overall R/X ratio is not small
cannot be solved. The latter is found in low voltage
systems.
This limitation elicited research from many, all
with the intention to extend the use of the FDL so that
systems with high R/X ratios could be handled as well.
Series and parallel compensation [5,61 are such
methods. Each problematic branch is replaced by two or
three branches each with a sufficient low R/X ratio. It
thus changes the structure and expands the size of the
network and thus is best used in those cases where only
a few problematic branches are present. Super-decoup-
ling 171 applies rotations to the power flow equations
so that the transformed branch impedances are nearly
reactive. But the extent of this rotation is case
specific and thus a certain amount of problem-dependent
tuning is introduced. Beside that, during contingency
analysis the removal of a problematic line can neccesi-
tate the refactorization of matrices.
The only method, as far as we know, that maintains
the general frame of the fast decoupled loadflow, and
that tries to speed up the convergence in case of high
R/X ratio networks, is given in [e]. The modification
proposed is basically an adaption of the B' matrix
which is found solely experimentally. Normal cases
require a slightly higher number of iterations,
problematic cases, created by raising the resistances,
on the other hand, can be solved with much smaller
counts.
Any new FDL method that would be a candidate to
supersede the existing one as a more general version of
the FDL ought to be such that it will usually solve the
standard cases with the same speed, while the problema-
tic cases, for which the version is designed, can be
solved more economically. In this paper such a new
method will be given. It differs from the standard FDL
in rdspect to two points only: the handling of the
resistances when building the B' and the B" matrices
and the iteration scheme that is used. The FDL con-
verges at best if the resistances are ignored when
forming B'. We propose to disregard them in B"
instead of in B'. For the normal cases there is hardly
any difference in the number of iterations (although
the underlying convergence pattern has changed
drastically), but as soon as the R/X ratios are in-
creased, the new form will converge much faster than
the old one. However, in a small number of such cases,
a certain type of cycling behaviour occurs and the
number of iterations needed to solve the loadflow
raises far more than could be expected from the general
trend of the improved performance. This can be
prevented by enforcing strict successive P and Q
iterations. As a general iteration scheme it seems to
be the best as it will hardly change the number Of
iterations in the noncycling cases.

This result was found during a study which was
carried out to determine the extent to which all
approximations contribute to the overall convergence of
the FDL. Besides this reversal of the resistance hand-
ling there are more possible modifications to be made,
especially with respect to the transformer handling in
both B' and B". But these adaptions are only profitable
in a few special cases and thus can never be used in a
general purpose FDL. This study has been done strictly
as an experiment, any attempt to prove the validity of
the proposed modifications by setting them in an
analytical frame has failed; this paper will restrict
the treatment of this issue to the depicting of a few
characteristic convergence plots and some related
remarks only.
Therefore, the main part of the paper is devoted
to the presentation of test results. Two series of
tests have been made: one by raising the resistances
and one by lowering the reactances. Both uniform and
nonuniform scaling have been used. The created test
systems thus range from "normal" systems to systems
with the highest possible R/X ratios. The latter
comprisebothhiqh-loadedsystems, near to the limits of
voltage stability, and (very) low-loaded systems.
THE PROPOSED NEW FDL ALGORITHM
A derivation of any decoupled loadflow always
starts with the decoupling of the linearized loadflow
equations. In order to obtain this decoupling, two
conditions are assumed to have been satisfied: first,
the resistances of the branches are small with respect
to their respective reactances and, second, the angle
differences are small. On the decoupled loadflow
matrices, more approximations have to be made:
- several voltage magnitudes are set to l., others are
taken to the right-hand sides;
- the influence of the phase shifting effect of the
phase shifters is ignored while building the B"
matrix;
- the influence of the off-nominal tap ratios of the
transformers is ignored while forming the B' matrix.
This then results in the following sets of
equations to be solved:
AP/V = B'A@
AQ/V = B"AV
where
AP/v, AQ/V active and reactive power mismatches
vectors where each mismatch is divided
by its respective voltage modulus
B', B" constant loadflow matrices
A@, AV corrections to voltage arguments and
moduli
Both the loadflow matrices are derived from the
Jacobian matrix, but they can be seen as formed out of
the negated of the imaginary part of the admittance
matrix where:
- shunts are omitted while forming B' and are doubled
while forming B" (see also appendix 4 of reference
[61) ;
- the influence of the phase shifters is ignored while
forming the B" matrix and
- the influence of the off-nominal tap ratios is
ignored while forming the B' matrix.
Both loadflow matrices are built from network
elements. The final, and rather important, approxima-
tion that is to be made is concerned with the handling
of the branch resistances,anatliis is one ofthe topics
of this paper. In doing so, it is worthwhile to use the
761
following indication of the possible variants:
BB resistances are not ignored at a l l , and
thus the branch susceptances are used for both B'
and B". This form of the FDL usually suffers from a
bad convereence; unfortunately, it is still found
in the literature;
XB the resistances are ignored in the B' only so this
matrix is made of the branch reactances. This
version is the standard FDL and has excellent con-
vergence properties for the normal cases;
BX the resistances are ignored in the B" matrix only.
This version is the proposed new version. For normal
cases the iteration count will be like that of the
XB scheme, but for systems with a few or with
general high R/X ratios the number of iterations
needed to solve the loadflow is considerably smaller
than the number of the XB scheme;
xx the resistances are ignored in both B' and B"
matrices. This version will never be better than the
XB or BX scheme, but it is used in some of the com-
parisons for the sake of completeness.
The difference between XB and BX is concerned with
the treatment of the branch resistances only. The
structure of both B' and B" remains the same and the
symmetric property as well. For modified network
solutions any network change, regardless its complexi-
ty, can always be expressed as a rank-1 or a rank-2
modification. There is no difference between the
two schemes as far as this aspect is concerned.
The standard iteration scheme leaves the possibi-
lity to skip one or more P and/or Q iterations as soon
as the related power mismatches are converged. Such a
policy can create a cycling behaviour when BX is used.
To prevent this, a different iteration scheme is
preferable. This scheme solves the P and Q problems in
a strictly successive way. In the algorithm we used,
after each subsolution both P and Q are checked for
convergence. As soon as both are converged, the proce-
dure terminates.
TEST RESULTS
In this section some results are given with the
intention of demonstrating the profit that can be
gained by shifting from the XB to the BX scheme for
normal cases and for cases where high R/X ratios play
an important role. Further, the advantages of a solu-
tion scheme with strictly successive P and Q iteration
will be demonstrated.
The first test was designed to see how far the
resistances could be raised uniformly in the power
system in such a way that convergence is still
possible. This has been achieved by multiplying all of
the branch resistances with a scale factor ranging
from 0.5 up to the highest possible value. In the
table 1 the results are given. A comparison has been
made between the four variants as given in the
previous section, the Newton method and the method as
proposed by RajiCi6 and Bose [81. Clearly, the BB
scheme is never to be recommended, even for normal
resistance scale factors. The same remark can be made
for the XX scheme, although this scheme does not
perform as badly as the BB scheme. The only reasonable
comparison is the one between the XB and the BX
schemes. It can be summarized as follows:
- for the test systems under consideration and for
small-scale factors (up to 1.0) there is no need to
shift from XB to Bx, although the disadvantage of
the BX is relatively small.
- for higher-scale factors the number of iterations of
the two schemes deviate. The BX performs much better:
a reduction of the number of iterations is possible
762

Table 1. Iteration counts for several networks with Table 2. Iteration counts for several tolerances
uniformed scaled resistances for several (r-scale factor 2.0; tolerances in MW/Mvar;
r-scale factors (tolerance 0.01 MW/Mvar; classic iteration scheme).
classic iteration scheme).

no. of r-scale Newton fast decoupled loadflow 14 30 57 118

nodes factor BB XB BX xx (*) tol. XB BX XB BX XB BX XB BX
14 0.5 3 5- 5 4- 3 4- 3 4- 3 4.5 1.000 5-3 4-3 5- 3 3-2 4-3 4-3 5- 4 3-3
1.0 3 20-20 4- 4 5- 4 7- 6 4.5 0.100 7-4 5-4 8- 5 4-3 6-5 5-5 8- 6 5-4
1.5 3 nc 7- 5 6- 5 11-10 0.010 9-6 6-5 10- 7 5-4 9-7 7-8 11- 8 5-5
2.0 3 9- 6 6- 5 16-15 5.5 0.001 11-9 8-7 12-10 6-6 10-9 9-8 13-11 7-6
2.5 3 13- 9 6- 5 21-22
3.0 3 18-11 7- 6 nc 6.5
4.0 4 nc 14-13 10.5 system is moved towards its voltage stability limit.
5.0 nc nc The same R/X ratios can be created by lowering the
reactance, while still leaving the resistances unaffec-
30 0.5 3 5- 4 3- 3 4- 34- 3 4.5 ted. This type of experiment refers to relatively low-
1 .o 3 17-17 4- 3 5- 4 7- 6 5.0 loaded stable power systems. In the tables 3 and 4 the
1.5 3 nc 7- 5 5- 4 11-10 results are summarized.
2.0 3 10- 7 5- 4 17-16 5.5 The first of these tests (table 3) comprises the
2.5 3 14-11 5- 5 23-23 uniform scaling; we have restricted the comparison to
3.0 4 20-15 7- 7 nc 6.0 the XB and the BX scheme and to Newton only. During the
4.0 nc nc nc 37.5 test some cases showed an extreme form of cycling
behaviour. Dr. Stott pointed out that an iteration
57 0.5 3 5- 5 4- 3 4- 3 5- 5 5.0 scheme with strictly successive iterations does not
1.0 3 nc 5- 4 5- 4 10- 9 5.0 have such a bad convergence pattern. Therefore, in the
1.5 3 6- 5 6- 5 20-18 table all cases are given for both the FDL schemes and
2.0, 3 9- 7 7- 8 nc 6.0 for both the iteration schemes. Clearly, a shift from
2.5 3 11- 9 9-11 the XB scheme with the standard iteration scheme to
3.0 3 15-12 10- 9 7.5 the BX scheme with the new iteration scheme is always
4.0 4 nc 20-19 div to be recommended. R/X ratios can be raised with a
5.0 nc nc factor 10 and sometimes even more.
Table 4 shows the number of iterations needed with
118 0.5 3 5- 4 5- 4 5- 4 5- 4 5.0 different power mismatch requirements and for a scale
1.0 3 6- 5 5- 4 5- 4 6- 5 5.5 factor 0.1. Reference has been made to the standard
1.5 3 12-11 8- 6 5- 4 8- 7 case (scale factor 1.0). The raise in the number of
2.0 3 nc 11- 8 5- 5 12-11 7.5 iterations is fluent; the number of iterations raises
2.5 4 15-12 6- 6 15-15 nearly in line with the tolerance.
3.0 4 20-17 7- 7 20-19 8.5 As well as the uniform scaling there is also the
4.0 5 nc 16-16 nc 14.0 possibility of using a nonuniform scaling. This, thus,
5.0 nc nc can give insight into the behaviour of the FDL when
solving power systems where branches with a wide range
nc : divergence or too slow convergence (> 20 itera- of R/X ratios are present. In the first test branch
tions for Newton; > 60 half iterations for FDL) resistances were nonuniformly scaled and many loadflows
were run. For each loadflow the branch resistances are
(*): fast decoupled loadflow with the modification scaled by drawing the scale factor for each Branch
as proposed by RajiEie and Bose 181. No limita- resistance individually from a uniform distribution
tion to the number of iterations imposed; div: between 1 and a certain value s . This value s is raised
divergence. until at least one loadflow could not be solved within
the limit of 60 half iterations. For both XB (with the
ranging from 30% up to 62% (57 nodes and 118 nodes classic iteration scheme) and BX (with the new
respectively). iteration scheme) the mean iteration counts are given
- for all cases where a solution can be found with in table 5. The BX scheme permits scale factors
the Newton algorithm, a solution can be found with ranging from at least 4.0 up to 5.0. The range of
the BX scheme as well. With the exception of the 30 solvable loadflows has been extended; further, in all
nodes system the XB scheme fails under extreme condi- converging cases a reduction in the number of itera-
tions that are near to instability. tions can be achieved: usually more than 50%; the 57
- for small-scale and moderate-scale factors the BX node network lags behind as the reduction is only
scheme performs better than the scheme as proposed about 30%.
by RajiEii and Bose; only for high-scale factors does Finally, t.able 6 shows the results of nonuniform
BX become a loser. scaled reactances. In all cases individual R/X ratios
can be raised with a factor 12.5; the 57-node System
As will be shown in the next section, the con- even permits a raise with a factor 17.5.
vergence rate of the active and reactive power mis-
matches, measured during a full iteration, are globally SOME REMARKS 3N THE CONVERGENCE OF THE FDL
equal when the BX scheme is used and this will make the
number of iterations in the same range. This feature is The mechanism which causes the strong convergence
not exclusively related to the tolerance that is used. of the FDL is still unclear. The main problem is that
In table 2 the number of iterations are given for four factors add to this behaviour and that it is
several tolerances ranging from 1 MW/Mvar up to 0.001 hardly possible to qualify or quantify each of them.
MW/Mvar. The relative advantage of the BX scheme is The first factor is the approximations that have to be
equal for all tolerances. made in order to replace the Newton-iterate
These two tests have heen based on power systems
where problematic R/X ratios have been created by
raising the resistances. As the reactances remain the
same, the branch impedances raise and thus the power
 763

Table 3. Iteration counts for several networks with Table 5. Mean iteration counts for several networks
uniform scaled reactances for several with non-uniform scaled resistances
x-scale factors (tolerance 0.01 MW/Mvar). (tolerance 0.01 MW/Mvar).
nodes x-scale Newton FDL iteration schemes no. of no. of r-scale mean iteration counts
factor classic successive nodes cases factor (*I XB/classic BX/successive
XB BX XB BX
14 100 1.0 4.00- 4.00 5.00- 4.00
14 1.000 3 4- 4 5- 4 4- 4 5- 4 1.5 5.46- 4.03 5.99- 4.99
0.500 3 8- 6 7- 6 8- 7 7- 6 2.0 6.85- 5.04 6.00- 5.01
0.250 3 20-14 10- 9 20-19 10- 9 2.5 8.44- 6.39 6.02- 5.10
0.200 3 28-19 15-18(*) 28-27 11-10 3.0 10.32- 7.87 6.14- 5.27
0.166 3 nc 11-11 nc 11-11 3.5 12.56- 9.56 6.28- 5.47
0.125 3 16-18(*) 13-12 4.0 15.39-11.56 6.62- 5.85
0.111 3 16- 18 (*I 14-13 4.5 failed 7.21- 6.50
0.100 3 13-13 13-13 5.0 failed
0.083 3 nc nc
0.056 3 30 100 1.0 4.00- 3.00 5.00- 4.00
0.050 div 1.5 5.59- 4.26 5.00- 4.00
2.0 7.15- 5.48 5.00- 4.13
30 1.000 3 4- 3 5- 4 4- 3 5- 4 2.5 8.93- 7.04 5.12- 4.46
0.500 3 8- 6 6- 5 8- 7 6- 5 3.0 1.07- 8.81 5.26- 4.83
0.250 3 21-14 20-34(*) 21-20 8- 7 3.5 3.76-10.81 5.90- 5.28
0.200 3 30-19 8- 8 nc 8- 8 4.0 failed 6.81- 6.02
0.166 3 nc 9- 9 9- 9 4.5 failed
0.147 3 9-10 10-10
0.125 3 10-11 11-10 57 100 1.0 5.00- 4.00 5.00 -4.00
0.111 3 14-18 ( * ) 11-11 1.5 5.65- 4.88 5.00- 4.04
0.100 3 14-1 8 (*I 11-11 2.0 6.90- 5 . 5 1 5.86- 5.23
0.083 3 11-12 12-11 2.5 8.24- 6 . 6 6 6.74- 6.00
0.071 4 15-16 16-16 3.0 9.92- 8.02 7.47- 6.67
0.063 4 nc nc 3.5 11.73- 9.50 8.00- 7.15
0.056 nc 4.0 13.80-11.17 8.59- 7.75
4.5 16.24-13.00 9.36- 8.58
57 1.000 3 5- 4 5- 4 5- 4 5- 4 5.0 failed 10.60- 9.87
0.500 3 8- 6 7- 8 8- 7 7- 6 5.5 failed
0.250 3 19-13 11-11 19-18 12-11
0.200 3 27-19 *13-f3 27-26 14-13 118 50 1.0 5.00- 4.00 5.00- 4.00
0.166 3 nc 15-16 nc 16-16 1.5 6.64- 5.00 5.00- 4.00
0.125 3 19-23 22-21 2.0 8.44- 6.42 5.00- 4-02
0.111 3 21-23 25-24 2.5 10.62- 8.16 5.06- 4.78
0.100 4 23-27 28-27 3.0 13.44-10.36 5.76- 5.06
0.083 4 26-33 nc 3.5 16.84-13.16 6.14- 5.66
0.071 5 div 4.0 failed 6.94- 6.34
0.063 nc 4.5 8.00- 7.34
5.0 10.02- 9.54
118 1.000 3 5- 4 5- 4 5- 4 5- 4 5.5 failed
0.500 3 10- 7 5- 5 10- 9 5- 5
0.250 3 29-19 7- 6 29-28 7- 6 (*I: Each branch resistance is multiplied with a
0.200 3 nc 7- 8 nc 8- 7 number drawn from an uniform distribution from
0.166 3 9-10 9- 8 1 to s , where s is given in this column.
0.125 4 12-17(* 10- 9
0.111 4 10-10 10-10
0.100 4 12-12 12-12
0.083 6 nc nc
0.071 nc Table 6. Mean iteration counts for several networks
with non-uniform scaled reactances
nc : too slow convergence (> 60 half terations for (tolerance 0.01 MW/Mvar, successive
FDL, > 20 iterations for Newton). iterations scheme).
div: divergence. System
(number of cases)
.(*) : cases that show a "cycling" behaviour.
14 30 57 118
(100) (100) (100) (50)
Table 4. Iteration for several tolerances and x-scale
several networks (successive iteration factor( * )
scheme).
1.0 5.0-4.0 5.0- 4.0 5.0- 4 . 0 5.0-4.0
nodes 14 30 57 118 0.5 6.3-5.4 5.5- 4 . 9 5.3- 4 . 7 5.0-4.2
0.2 7.8-7.0 6.8- 6.0 7.6- 7.0 6.4-5.7
x-scale 1 . 0 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 9.3-8.4 8.8- 8 . 0 10.8-10.0 7.7-6.9
0.08 9.9-9.1 11.6-10.8 12.1-11.3 8.9-8.1
tolerance 0.067 failed 12.4-11.6 13.3-12.5 failed
in MW/Mvar 0.057 failed 14.4-13.6
0.050 failed
1.000 3-2 9- 9 3-2 6- 5 3-2 13-12 3-2 7- 7
0.100 4-3 11-11 4-3 9- 8 4-3 20-19 4-3 9- 9 (*) Each branch reactance is multiplied with a
0.010 5-4 13-13 5-4 11-11 5-4 28-27 5-4 12-12 number drawn from an uniform distribution from
0.001 6-5 16-15 6-5 15-15 6-5 nc 6-5 15-15 s to 1 , where s is given in this column.
764

by an iterate with a constant (Jacobian-like)matrix: and the observation that (4) cannot be used, led us to
conclude that the effects of the neglect of G and the
decoupling cancel out to some extent and that the
(3)
remaining part of the convergence restauration can be
found by adjusting the contents of B". From table 7 it
can be seen that, for the systems that are used, the
In this formulation B' and B" are as in the decoupled
formulation; G is a matrix that can be derived from the BX scheme converges on balance as fast as the coupled
loadflow. Any difference between Newton and the BX-FDL
real part of the network admittance matrix [ 9 ]
The second factor is the removal of the coupling is caused by the use of a state-independent Jacobian
matrices G from this formulation: and thus the first factor is the crucial one. All the
other approximations together hardly influence the
number of iterations. As the systems in this experiment
(4) are relatively highly loaded, the angle differences and
the voltage drops seem to be the main cause. For
different r-scale factors the same conclusions hold.
while the third factor is the use of the latest In low-loaded systems these effects are far less
available information of the voltages when the power present, so the number of iterations of the coupled
mismatches are calculated. This thus forms the BB loadflow stay close to Newton. The remaining factors
version of the FDL. The final adjustment can be made in together are not capable of making the performance of
B' and/or B". Stott & Alsag. and RajiEie & Bose changed BX-FDL comparable with this coupled version, although
B', in this paper the content of B" has been changed. the canceling out of effects and some restauration
Two tests have been done to get some insight into takes place as well. There is a gap, and this gap grows
how these factors do assert their influence. The as the R/X ratio raises.
results are summarized in tables 7 and 8. The coupled Although both types of systems are structurally
loadflow that is used is version (3). It was impossible different in their state, and the difference in the
to solve a loadflow with version (4). For both the number of iterations between Newton, on the one hand,
coupled and the decoupled loadflow there is the possi- and the best version of the FDL on the other hand, are
bility of using a certain variant of B' and B" and to be imputed to different causes, they both can best
these variants are indicated as in the previous be solved with the BX scheme instead of the XB scheme.
sections. Beside the iteration counts, the underlying convergence
pattern of the solution is changed drastically. To show
Table 7. Comparison of the number of iterations for this, figure 1 depicts some plots of the progress of
the coupled loadflow and the fast decoupled the solution if the FDL is applied to the 118 node
loadflow (r-scale factor: 2.0; mismatch system for the two schemes and for 3 scale factors.
tolerance 0.01 MW/Mvar). Figure la shows the pattern for the standard case
solved with the XB schgme. It shows the well-known
no. Newton coupl. loadflow fast decoupled loadflow convergence characteristic. The reactive-power mis-
nod. BB XB BX XX BB XB BX . XX matches are strongly reduced during the voltage
iteration but these are to a large extent destroyed
14 3 5 9 9 13 nc 9-6 6-5 16-15 during the subsequent active iteration. The active-
30 3 5 10 8 13 nc 10-7 5-4 17-16 power mismatches are reduced moderately; the influence
57 3 6 10 11 div nc 9-7 7-8 nc of a reactive solution is very small. When the BX
118 3 6 11 8 11 nc 11-8 5-5 12-11 scheme is used, things go differently. The reduction of
the reactive-power mismatches now is only moderate; the
nc : slow convergence; more than 60 half iterations. influence of the active part of the solution process is
diminished. The convergence behaviour of the active-
div: divergence. power mismatches is nearly the same as in the XB
scheme. The most obvious conclusion that is to be drawn
from figure lb is this: the cumulative error caused by
Table 8. Comparison of the number of iterations for all the approximation appears to be evenly distributed
the coupled loadflow and the fast decoupled among both parts of the solution procedure. In other
loadflow (x-scale factor 0.2; mismatch words: the convergence of both parts looks equal:
tolerance 0.01 MW/Mvar). moderate convergence and small influence between these
parts. This conclusion becomes especially clear around
no. Newton coupled loadflow fast dec. loadflow the final solution point.
BB XB BX XX XB BX When the resistances are increased, the XB scheme
shows decreasing convergence for two reasons: the
14 3 4 nc 14 nc 28-27 11-10 destroying influence of the angle changes on the
30 3 3 nc 12 nc 21-20 8- 7 reactive power mismatches will be increased while, on
57 3 5 nc 1 7 nc 27-26 14-13 the other hand, the convergence force of the active
118 3 5 nc 13 nc nc 8- 7 part is decreased (figure IC and le). The BX scheme is
to some extent affected by this change of the
nc: slow convergence; more than.60 half iterations resistances as well. The active-power mismatches will
for the FDL, more than 20 iterations for the be destroyed only to a small extent; the reactive-power
coupled loadflow. mismatches are reduced during both kinds of iterations.
This effect is shown in figure Id and especially in
figure If. As far as the convergence changes are
Not surprisingly, the coupled loadflow (3) can concerned, there is no difference between the types of
best be solved with the BB scheme. This is only logical the power systems as distinguished above.
as this variant directly follows from the usual If the R/X ratio is raised further, these effects
approximations to be made in order to get the constant, with the BX scheme will increase. The extent of
state-independent, Jacobian matrix. But the absolute destroying will be raised and the positive influence of
winner of the coupled loadfloh becomes the absolute the active solution on the reduction of the reactive
loser of the decoupled version. The further interpreta- mismatch as well. It is hardly possible to speak about
tion of the results is different for the r-scale=2 and "evenly distributed errors" any longer.
the x-scale=0.2 cases. However, as soon as a P iteration is skipped, this
In the first case, the necessary flight from BB behaviour changes. Cycling can occur; in figure 2 an

I
 765

I’ Q F Q P Q I ’ Q P

100.0 100.0

10.0 10.0
1.. 0 1.0
0.1
0.1
0.01 0.01

Piijure lb. BX sciierne

l’icmre l a . XI3 scheme
r-scale 1.0
r-scale 1.0

P 9 PO P 0 PO P

100.0 100.9

10.0 10.0

1 .0 1.0

0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

‘ I Yiyure l d . BX scheme
PiGure I C . XB scliene ,‘’ r-scale 1.5
r-scale 1.5

P Q P Q P Q P (2 P Q

100.0 100.1)
10.0 10.0

1.0 1.0
0.1 0.1

0.01 0.0

Figure l e . xs sc1iei::e /
lx

r - - s c a l e 2.0

F i g u r e 1. Convergence p a t t e r n of t h e FDL, XB and BX scheme: 118 nodes network; t o l e r a n c e 0.01 ‘MW/Mvar.

l a r g e s t a b s o l u t e active-power mismatch
- -
----- - l a r g e s t a b s o l u t e reactive-power mismatch

F i g u r e 2. Convergence p a t t e r n of t h e FDL with t h e BX scheme: 30 nodes network, x - s c a l e = 0.25

t o l e r a n c e 0.01 MW/Mvar
l a r g e s t a b s o l u t e active-power mismatch
- --
--- - - l a r g e s t a b s o l u t e reactive-power mismatch
766
extreme example of this phenomenon is given. It is
concerned with the 30-node network with the x-scale
factor 0.25 (see table 3). A repeating pattern of P-Q-Q
iterations will be established. During such a group of
iterations neither active nor reactive mismatches are
significantly reduced. It takes a long time before both
are satisfied. This problem is caused by the 8th
Q-iteration that destroys the reached active
convergence. If, on the other hand, an active iteration
was used, the reactive mismatch was reduced sufficient
and the loadflow solved. This is the reason why
successive iterations are so fruitfull. In other words:
a fixed P-Q iteration scheme guarantees a steady
reduction of both power mismatches and any infringement
leaves the possibility of a disturbance of this
behaviour. All the other cycling cases of table 3 show
basically the same features.
CONCLUSION
In this paper two small adjustments to the
standard FDL are proposed. With the first modification
(referred to as the BX scheme) systems with one or
more high R/X ratios can be solved with considerably
lower iteration counts than when using the standard
FDL. For the IEEE test systems resistances can be
scaled up with a factor up to 3.5; reactances can be
scaled down with a factor of at least 0.1. The range
of systems that can be solved with the FDL is extended
to low voltage systems that have R/X ratios up to 10.
In comparison with the old FDL version, cases with
"normal" R/X ratios can be handled at the same cost,
problematic cases can be handled more easily. During
the experiments some cases showed a very slow
convergence due to a cycling behaviour. This
phenomenon can be overcome by using the second
proposed modification: enforcing strictly successive
iterations. All cases can best be solved with this
iteration scheme as there is hardly any difference
between the two iteration schemes for the well behaved
cases as far as the number of iterations are concerned.
The effort to change an existing FDL program (with
the standard XB version) to include the new BX version
is minimal. The same applies to the change of the
iteration scheme.
In this paper the new type of decoupling has been
demonstrated to be very profitable for the fast
decoupled loadflow. It can be expected, although it
has still to be proved, that other applications of the
decoupling principle can gain as well. Likely
candidates are alrjorithm decoupled state estimators,
contingency ranking, network equivalencing, and so on.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
During a comprehensive correspondence, Dr. Brian
Stott has made many valuable remarks to this author
which sharpened his mind and which enhanced the range
of experiments on which the conclusions of this paper
are based. The author is much indebted to Dr. Stott.
REFERENCES
[I] Stott, B., "Review of Loadflow Calculation
Methods", Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 62, pp.
916-929, 1974.
[21 Tinney, W.F., C.E. Hart, "Power Flow Solution by
Newton's Method", IEEE Transactions on Poder
Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-86, pp.
1449-1460, 1970.
[3] Stott, B., 0. AlsaC, "Fast Decoupled Loadflow",
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems,
Vol. PAS-93, pp. 859-869, 1974.
[4] Wu, F.F., "Theoretical Study of the Convergence
of the Fast Decoupled Loadflow", IEEE Trans-
actions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol.
PAS-96, pp. 268-275, 1977.
[51 DyLiacco, T.E., K.A. Ramarao, discussion on
reference 4.
[61 Deckmann, S., A. Pizzolante, A. Monticelly,
B. Stott, 0. Alsas, "Numerical Testing of Power
System Load Flow Equivalents", IEEE Transactions
on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-99,
pp. 2292-2300, 1980.
[71 Haley, P.H., M. Ayres, "Super Decoupled Loadflow
with Distributed Slack BUS", IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-104,
pp. 104-113, 1985.
[U] RajifiE, D., A. Bose, "A Modification to the
Fast Decoupled Power Flow for Networks with High
R/X ratios", Proceedings of the PICA Conference
1987, pp. 360-363.
[91 Nagendra Rao, P.S., K.S. Prahasa Rao, J. Nanda,
"An Empirical Criterion for the Convergence of
the Fast Decoupled Load Flow Method", IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol.
PAS-103, pp. 974-981, 1984.
Robert A.M. van Amerongen was born
in Heemstede (the Netherlands) on
May 3, 1950. He studied electrical
engineering at the Delft
University of Technology, and
economics at the Erasmus
University Rotterdam and the
University of Amsterdam. He
received his MSC. Electrical
Engineering in 1978 and his
Master's in Economics in 1987.
In 1978 he entered the power system laboratory of
the TH Delft as a research assistent. Nowadays he is
responsible for education and research. His main areas
of interest are electric power-system analysis, in-
cluding network calculation and its applications,
optimization and estimation.
Discussion
S. K. Chang, V. Brandwajn, M. Gilles and F. Albuyeh (Systems
Control, Inc., Palo Alto, CA): The author is to be complimented for his
presentation of alternate forms of the Fast Decoupled Load Flow (FDLF).
Our conclusions from tests on several systems basically agree with the
author's claim that the BX scheme with strictly successive iterations is more
versatile and economical than the conventional one for solving the high R/X
ratio networks. Although no rigorous analysis is provided for explaining
this significant improvement, the proposed method will undoubtedly
become the standard for the new FDLF implementations. The author's
comments on the following remarks would be appreciated.
In general, the convergence rate of FDLF decreases as the P-Q coupling
increases. Appreciable P-Q coupling may occur on branches with high R/X
ratios or with heavy loadings. The new BX scheme is effective in solving
the high R/X ratio problem, however, it does not cope with the heavily
loaded systems well. Tests on a realistic system in which large angular
spreads, up to 40 degrees, exist on several EHV lines indicate that,
similarly to the conventional FDLF, the scheme suffers from the slow
convergence problem. Further investigation of the BX scheme in this regard
would be useful for most EMS applications where high branch R/X ratios
rarely occur.
Our experience with the XB scheme has been that improper inclusion of
the shunt susceptance in matrix B" can cause convergence difficulty,
especially for power systems with long EHV linedcables or off-nominal
transformers with significant leakage or magnetizing impedances. Interest-
ingly, the new BX scheme seems to be less sensitive to this problem, as our
test results would indicate. It would be enlightening if the author could give
some details about the B" formulation and the experience with it on various
systems.

Given the generality of the BX scheme for power flow solutions,
questions concerning its applicability for the sensitivity computation
naturally aris. Important practical applications utilizing the sensitivity
would include: error-feedback adjustments in power flow, optimal power
flow, Jacobian-based penalty factor computation, etc. A few of these
questions are as follows: What is the accuracy of the sensitivity computed
from the BX formulation, compared with that from XB scheme or Newton’s
Jacobian? Is it necessary to formulate to linearized incremental relation
between the state and the control variables using the BX form? What is the
effect of off-nominal transformer tap or shunt in B” on the derived reactive
sensitivity?
While the new BX scheme has demonstrated distinct advantages in
solving the high R/X ratio problem, its reasoning and applications,
nevertheless, merit further study. Our experience with the application of the
BX scheme to the decoupled Newton OPF, as well as the aforementioned
heavily loaded system, seems to indicate that the strength of the scheme is
not due to the compensation of P-Q coupling. Further experience will
contribute to better understanding of the method. Once again, we would like
to commend the author on an excellent and important paper.
Manuscript received August 4,1988
Brian Stott and Ongun Alsac (PCA Corporation, Mesa, Arizona): We are
very grateful to the author for giving us an early opportunity to try the BX
version of the fast decoupled algorithm.
Using this new version, we successfully solved extreme power-flow
cases that cause the XB version to diverge immediately. These problems
had R/X ratios of up to 13, which occur only in very low-voltage networks
or with ill-chosen equivalents. The numbers of iterations were reasonable
(say 10-15). As the paper states, in such cases the enforcement of strictly
successive P-Q iterations helps considerably (fist diagnosed for the XB
version many years ago by Dr. Charles Lynch).
We tested the BX version on many more normal practical power-flow
cases of up to 4000 buses. The XB version solved all of these in no more
than 5-6 iterations without controls, to 1 WM/Mvar mismatch, and the BX
version was almost as fast-converging. However, we later tried a 1500 bus
system with fairly high RIX ratios, brought to our attention by Dr. Rainer
Bacher, where the BX version takes more than 30 iterations, but the
standard XB version converges normally!
Nevertheless, the new BX version seems that it will offer considerable
advantages in most difficult cases, including the fact that it represents only
very minor changes to an existing fast decoupled program. Therefore we
expect it to become widely implemented and tested, where needed, within
the industry. We have already incorporated it as a switchable option in our
own production codes.
As an extra point, we have never experienced in practice the problem
implied in the paper’s introduction that the fast decoupled method’s validity
is limited to voltages around their nominal values. Even from a flat start, the
XB version has always performed in exemplary fashion where the eventual
solution has extremely low voltage solutions (e.g. down to 0.2 P.u.). These
situations can throw a flat-started coupled or decoupled Newton algorithm
completely off course.
For many users whose networks have high R/X ratios and can be solved
by the new version, the full (coupled) Newton method may become
superfluous as the main or backup algorithm. This represents a significant
alteration in power-flow technology. At the same time, we should not lose
sight of the fact that the coupled Newton method still has areas of relative
strength, such as with very large angles across lines and difficult controls.
including special control apparatus that strongly affects MW and Mvar
flows. However, the number of systems exhibiting these characteristics is in
a small minority.
The convergence characteristics of decoupled power flow have never
been amenable to rigorous mathematical analysis. Over the years, there
have been many attempts by ourselves and others to find, through a
combination of supposed theory and experiment, better versions that retain
the original advantages of the fast decoupled approach. It is easy to produce
versions that give improvements on some, but not all, power flow
problems. A rational theory has proved elusive. For example, one of the
more notable improvements to date [8] was achieved largely by a process of
trial-and-error.
Convergence in a block-successive nonlinear iteration process such as
that represented by any decoupled power flow is sensitive to the physical
and mathematical coupling between the subproblems. One approach is to
reduce this coupling by redefining one or both subproblems, but this is
likely to sacrifice some of the fast decoupled method’s desirable properties
[Al.
The author has well illustrated that it is essential to achieve the
767
appropriate matching between the convergence rates of the P and Q
subproblems. Each half-iteration addresses an incorrect subproblem. The P
mismatch equations contain temporarily fixed (incorrect) voltage magni-
tudes. The Q mismatch equations correspondingly have incorrect voltage
angles.
Oscillations, leading to slow overall convergence, are produced if either
of these incorrect subproblems is over- or under-converged at every step.
For example, overconvergence is caused by using a quadratic algorithm
(decoupled Newton) or by repeating the P or Q solutions (see the
experiments reported in the appendix of [l]), etc. Such oscillation increases
with the system’s P-Q coupling, which itself increases with branch RIX
ratios.
There are various ways of controlling the convergence rates of the
respective subproblems. For instance, relaxation factors have been tried,
but their experimentally chosen optimum values are found to change
considerably with the power system, its configuration and its loading.
The cornerstone of the fast decoupled method has always been that it
provides good automatic built-in under-relaxation (relative to decoupled
Newton), devoid of problem-dependent tuning parameters or complicated
algorithmic devices, and with Jacobian-matrix approximations that are
constant, symmetric, and of nodal structure.
The original experiments [ 11 concentrated on the most obvious simple
variants, of which the BB version was a prime initial candidate. As the
author demonstrates, the fact that this version gives relatively fast
convergence in each decoupled subproblem causes serious oscillation as
soon as the physical coupling becomes significant. It was felicitous, rather
than fundamental, that we found the variant B’ = 1/X to work generally
quite well, though as it later turned out not on high R/X-ratio problems.
The paper’s breakthrough is to discover the likewise appeallingly simple
BX fast decoupled version. This has re-emphasized the need for greater
insight into the mechanisms, in which the author’s tests and observations
have certainly shed important light on the decouple process.
There are surely other definitions of B’ and B” that on average work
together even better, while retaining the desirable properties of the fast
decoupled approach. It is an open question as to whether these can be
discovered less heuristically.
Further work is required to establish whether the new discovery
translates into improvements in other decoupled power system algorithms in
the presence of high R/X ratios. Present evidence suggests that the changes
are good in state estimation and in contingency analysis.
It should be emphasized, however, that algorithm decoupling in a power-
flow or other solution is somewhat different from model decoupling in
applications such as optimization and power flow equivalents. The function
of a matrix model is to represent the best possible approximations to the
power system sensitivities. In those modeling applications where decoupled
versions can be used (and this is by no means all cases, or on all power
systems), studies are needed to determine whether the BX model is superior
to the XB or other models.
Ref erence s
[A] J. Carpentier, “CRIC, A New Active-Reactive Decoupling Process in
Load Flows, Optimal Power Flows and System Control”, IFAC
Symposium on Power Systems & Power Plant Control, Beijing, pp.
65-70, Aug. 1986.
Manuscript received August 17, 1988
RAINER BACHER, Control Data Corporation, Minneapolis,
Minnesota: T h e author shows that new concepts in well known
areas of power system computation considered stable and well
defined, are still possible today.
T h e new schemes to form the B’ and B“ matrices were tested in our
current FDPF programs with various large networks. It was
observed that the FDPF results can be very sensitive to how B’ and
B “ are built. It is mainly for this reason and also to let the readers
know the exact base of the simultation results shown later, that some
tables are given below which describe how the B’ and B” matrices
have been built in the FDPF programs.
The line and transformer model used are shown in Figure 1.
T h e B B scheme has been chosen in Table I because the branch
resistances are not neglected in both B’ and B”. Each of the other
schemes can easily be derived by setting R..
‘J to zero (see Table 111).
768

Figure 1. Transformers and Line K- Representation

Table I: Elements used to form B' and B" for the BB scheme

B' B"

bii Line (i-j) =

bfi Transf. (i-j) = &,

1J IJ
bfi Transf. (i-j) ='

*(a) if tap on side i; (b) if tap on side j.

Table 11: Formation of B' and B" matrices

B' I B"

bi, Line (i-j)

Bij =
' [
bij Transf. (i-j)

Bfi = C. bfi Line (i-j) + C. bfi Transf. (i-j) E. bii Transf. (i-j)
E. b i Line (i-j) + JE1
B;i = JU + JE1 Yshuntj
J&'
+lo]
[Bfi (i=Slack) = [B&i=Slack or PV node) = 10

Table 111: Use of Zero Branch Resistance in the Four Schemes

B' B"

BB
BX
XB
xx
With Table 1 it is easy to derive the elements of the B' and €3'' It must be noted that doubling the shunt in Bii does usually not
matrices for the BB, BX, XB and X X schemes. The elements of B' improve convergence. Table 111 shows the differences between the
and B" are computed as shown in Table 11. four schemes regarding the use of the branch resistance.

With Tables I, I1 and 111 and Figure 1 it should be clear how the B'
and B" diagonal and off-diagonal elements were built.
The FDPF results of the (old) X B scheme and the (new) BX scheme
have been compared by using three large networks (models of
realistic systems):
Network A: 900 busses, 1280 branches
Network B: 1500 busses, 2000 branches
Network C: ZOO0 busses, 2750 branches
Table IV gives the percentage of the number of branches within a
certain R/X-range for these three networks.
Table IV: Number of Branches Within a Certain R/X Range for
the Test Networks (in %).
R../X..
U 4
~~ ~
Network A
Network B 2.0
Network C
All three networks were started from a "flat-start" voltage profile. In
network C, area interchange, MVar-limiting for generator units,
voltage control by transformer taps were activated during the FDPF.
Networks A and B were run without any "local" controls. Table V
summarizes the number of iterations per case.
Table V: Number of Active/Reactive Iterations with the X B and
B X Scheme
I NetworkA I Network B I NetworkC
N ewBX
OldXB I 6A-6R
6A-6R I SA-5R
32A-31R I 17A-18R
14A-13R
Network A did not show any overall convergence change, network
B went from good (XB-scheme) to very bad convergence (in the
new B X scheme). Moreover, from Table IV, this network B is the
one with the worst R/X ratios and surprisingly, the new B X scheme
fails t o provide a better solution. Network C, however, showed
considerably better convergence with the new BX scheme.
Since tests with the n e w schemes were started, network B
consistently showed convergence problems with any scheme
different than the old X B scheme. However, tests with other
networks usually showed improvements with the new B X scheme
as compared to the other schemes.
From these results it must be concluded that any scheme other than
the X B should only be used with great care. Nevertheless, more
insight into the FDPF has been provided by this paper. However, it
still remains to be explained why certain cases converge better, some
worse with the difference schemes.
Considering these results, could the author please comment on a
"usage" scheme such as
- try B X in first n iterations
- then change to X B if not converged.
Could some a-priori analysis of the network data help to detect
which scheme should be used?
Manuscript received August 19, 1988.
769
J. Nanda, D. P. Kothari (Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India)
and S. C. Srivastava (Engineers India Ltd. New Delhi, India): We wish to
commend the author for his valuable contribution in providing a new
version of the fast decoupled load flow (FDLF) method and presenting
many interesting results obtained on IEEE test systems. We would like to
make the following comments.
We had also studied the relative importance and weightages of various
additional assumptions, such as omission of series resistance, shunts
and transformer taps from network model in forming [B'] on the
convergence property of FDLF solution for both well behaved and ill-
conditioned systems [I]. We had observed that omission of line series
resistance while forming the elements of [B'] plays a vital role in
reducing the number of iterations for the FDLF solution. However,
we did not investigate the effect of omission of line series resistance
from [B"] on the convergence property and in this context the
author's findings are revealing. However, we have doubt regarding
whether the findings can be claimed to be general. The IEEE test
systems investigated apparently have lines with low B/G (line shunt
susceptance to line conductance) ratio and the results may not hold
good for systems having large line B/G ratio, i.e. indicating large line
charging capacitances.
The author in his model has considered the omission of only line
series resistance while forming [B "I. It will be interesting to know the
effect of omission of other elements such as shunt susceptances,
transformer taps etc. from the network model in forming [B "1 only or
both [B'] and [B"] on the convergence property.
The potential of the new method has been tested on only a particular
type of ill-conditioning depicting type of ill-conditioning depicting
large RIX ratio of lines. It has been observed that the load flow
techniques in general show poor convergence in case of other ill-
conditioned situations or operating conditions such as presence of
capacitive series branches in the system, line outages in the system or
heavily loadedhght loading conditions in the system etc. How will be
proposed new version of FDLF model behave in such system
conditions? Also how will the new method behave in handling
adjusted solution involving handling of limits on reactive power
generations. transformer taus etc.
4. iiow for the scaling of line 'series resistances or reactances is justified
to simulate ill-conditioned situations? It would be more useful, if the
author provides results for a typical practical system for which the
FDLF method of Stott and Alsac failed to provide solution where as
the author's new version provided a converged solution.
Once again we congratulate the author for his very interesting paper.
Reference
[I] J. Nanda, D. P. Kothari and S . C. Srivastava, "Some Important
Observations on Fast Decoupled Load Flow Algorithm", Proceedings
of the IEEE, Vol. 75, No. 5 , May 1987, pp. 732-733.
Manuscript received August 22, 1988.
ROBERT VAN AMERONGEN: we very much a p p r e c i a t e the
c o n t r i b u t i o n s made by t h e discussion participants. I t
i s good t o see t h a t t h e y l a r g e l y confirm t h e main
result o f the p a p e r , and t o f i n d t h a t these
c o n t r i b u t i o n s show t h a t o n l y minimal e f f o r t is
r e q u i r e d t o produce a new l o a d flow a l g o r i t h m code.
To overcome any m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , i t should be note!
t h a t i n t h e s i m u l a t i o n s t h a t we d i d c a r r y o u t the B
and B" m a t r i c e s were b u i l t a c c o r d i n g t o the f o r m u l a s
a s g i v e n by Dr. Bacher, w i t h one e x c e p t i o n : we
r i g o r o u s l y doubled both t h e branch shunts and the
nedal shunts w h i l e forming t h e diagonal e n t r i e s o f
B . Further a l l computations were done i n double
p r e c i s i o n a r i t h m e t i c , t h e r e f o r e , any nonconvergent,
but r e a l i s t i c , case i s due s o l e l y t o t h e decoupled
algorithm i t s e l f .
One c o u l d a s k whether the s e r i e s o f t e s t s t h a t we
p r e s e n t e d i s s u f f i c i e n t t o c l a i m any g e n e r a l i t y . Both
t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the systems and t h e a d a p t a t i o n
t o o b t a i n high R/X r a t i o s a r e d i s p u t a b l e . To p a r t i a l -
710
l y overcome t h e l a t t e r o b j e c t i o n , two s e r i e s o f t e s t s
were c a r r i e d o u t : one by r a i s i n g t h e r e s i s t a n c e and
one by l o w e r i n g t h e reactance. The f i r s t s e r i e s
produces r e s u l t s which a r e t o o p e s s i m i s t i c because
t h e system i s brought t o approach i t s v o l t a g e s t a b i l -
i t y l i m i t , w h i l e t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e second a r e t o o
o p t i m i s t i c because t h e r e i s h a r d l y any impedance l e f t
i f t h e X's become t o o s m a l l . The t a b l e s c l e a r l y
r e f l e c t t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s . As l o n g as t h e r e i s no
reasonable e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e FDLF
massive t e s t i n g on a v a r i e t y o f systems i s r e q u i r e d .
In t h i s r e s p e c t t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s made by t h e d i s -
cussion p a r t i c i p a n t s have been h e l p f u l .
Many o t h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f B'
and/or B" a r e p o s s i b l e and were t r i e d : d i f f e r e n t
h a n d l i n g o f t r a n s f o r m e r t a p - s e t t i n g , v o l t a g e magnitu-
des and so on, b u t t h e y d i d n o t show a general im-
provement. T h i s i s n o t t o say t h a t f o r i n d i v i d u a l
cases a d i f f e r e n t s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f t h e l o a d f l o w
m a t r i c e s i s p o s s i b l e , b u t i t c l e a r l y does n o t s a t i s f y
one of t h e b a s i c requirements o f any f a s t decoupled
a l g o r i t h m : t h a t o n l y one v e r s i o n i s capable o f s o l v -
i n g t h e w i d e s t range o f systems. We o n l y found t h e
general improvement when u s i n g t h e d i f f e r e n t R-hand-
1i n g .
O r . S t o t t made some comments on t h e c a p a b i l i t y o f t h e
FDLF i n s o l v i n g power systems r u n n i n g f a r below t h e
nominal v o l t a g e s . Perhaps, t h i s phenomenon can be
e x p l a i n e d as f o l l o w s : an e x a c t d e r i v a t i o n o f b o t h B'
and B" shows t h a t t h e l a t t e r i s f u l l y independent o f
v o l t a g e l e v e l s , t h a t i s , t h e nominal v o l t a g e assumpt-
i o n does n o t need t o be made t o o b t a i n B". However,
t h e B' s t i l l r e q u i r e s t h i s assumption. Therefore, t h e
voltage l e v e l plays i t s r o l e although o n l y i n the
a c t i v e power/angle sphere. I f i t has t u r n e d o u t t h a t
l o w v o l t a g e s do n o t d e v a s t a t e t h e converging behav-
i o u r , so much t h e b e t t e r .
The o t h e r b a s i c requirement, r e l a t i v e small angles
across t h e branches, appears t o be u n a f f e c t e d , as D r .
Chang r e p o r t e d . We a r e d o u b t f u l as t o whether a
d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n would be p o s s i b l e , f o r a l l t h e
schemes t h a t m i g h t be p o s s i b l e e q u a l l y d i s r e g a r d t h e
i n f l u e n c e o f angle spreads. (See t h i s paper's remarks
on t h e convergence, and e s p e c i a l l y t h e s t e p from ( 2 )
to (3).).
Becaus.e t h e nominal v o l t a g e requirement has been
shown t o be simmered down, and because t h e R/X
r e s t r i c t i o n has i n t h e main been removed, i t seems
t h a t t h e small angle s h i f t requirement i s t h e o n l y
one which can make any decoupled a l g o r i t h m u n s u i t -
able.
Perhaps t h e r e i s a r e s t r i c t i o n t o t h e BX-scheme which
has up t o now remained undiscovered. I t has t o do
w i t h t h e shunts. We w i l l p r e s e n t t h i s t o p i c i n r e l a t -
i o n t o t h e q u e s t i o n s t h a t have been r a i s e d on t h e
m o d e l l i n g aspect o f shunts w h i l e forming B", on t h e
i n f l u e n c e o f t h e shunts on t h e convergence o f t h e new
BX-scheme i t s e l f , and on t h e comparative convergence
s e n s i t i v i t y o f t h e shunt m o d e l l i n g i n t h e two
schemes.
Throughout we doubled t h e shunt c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o B " .
T h i s s t r a t e g y was based on t h e ascertainment t h a t a
shunt's r e a c t i v e power depends q u a d r a t i c a l l y on i t s
v o l t a g e and, thus, t h e d e r i v a t i v e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e
v o l t a g e e x h i b i t s a f a c t o r 2 . ( T h i s f a c t o r i s produced
irrespective o f the defining function; the factor
does n o t appear i f one f o l l o w s t h e o r i g i n a l setup o f
t h e FDLF where i n an e a r l y stage some approximations
have been made.).
We made an e r r o r i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n
should l e a d t o a d o u b l i n g o f t h e shunts w h i l e f o r m i n g
B", f o r t h i s would be c o r r e c t o n l y i f t h e convergence
speed o f t h e FDLF i s l i k e t h e convergence speed o f
t h e Newton-load f l o w and t h a t , c l e a r l y , i s n o t t h e
case. Ifone s t i l l i n s i s t s upon d o u b l i n g , one c r e a t e s
a discrepancy: t h e shunts t r y t o make t h e FDLF con-
v e r g i n g a t Newton-speed w h i l e t h e remainder o f t h e
system cannot f o l l o w t h i s speed. The e x t e n t t o which
t h e r e i s a gap between t h e speeds i s l a r g e l y governed
by t h e i g n o r e d c o u p l i n g , i . e . , t h e r e s i s t a n c e s . I n
t h i s r e s p e c t P r o f . Nanda's remark on t h e B/G r a t i o i s
o f interest.
The asynchronism o f t h e convergences can be overcome
by f o r c i n g t h e shunts t o c o n t r i b u t e l e s s t h a n t h e y
n o r m a l l y would. A r e d u c t i o n o f t h e shunt c o n t r i b u t i o n
by simply i g n o r i n g t h e d o u b l i n g f a c t o r i s o n l y l o g i c -
a l . However, i t i s an open q u e s t i o n as t o whether
t h i s i s t h e o n l y p o s s i b i l i t y a v a i l a b l e , n o t t o ment-
i o n t h e b e s t choice.
We have t r i e d , w i t h a few experiments, t o c r e a t e a
s u b s t r u c t u r e t o t h i s i n t u i t i v e arguing. We found t h a t
i n a l l cases ( c r e a t e d by a r t i f i c i a l l y r a i s i n g shunts)
t h e double-shunt model must be abandoned and t h e
s i n g l e - s h u n t i s u s u a l l y t o be p r e f e r r e d . I n one case
s e t t i n g t h e s h u n t - c o n t r i b u t i o n t o o n l y 50% o f i t s
value gave a s l i g h t advantage over any o t h e r s e t t i n g .
F u r t h e r , we found, i n accordance w i t h Dr. Chan's
comment, t h e XB scheme t o be more s e n s i t i v e t h a n t h e
BX-scheme, f i n a l l y we d e t e c t e d one case where t h e BX-
scheme converged o n l y a f t e r a c o n s i d e r a b l e number o f
i t e r a t i o n s whereas t h e XB-scheme q u i c k l y produced t h e
sol u tion.
Although most o f t h e cases were t o some e x t e n t unre-
a l i s t i c , i t seems t h a t t h e occurrence o f l a r g e shunts
r e q u i r e s more a t t e n t i o n t h a n thought e a r l i e r ; i n any
case, t h e paper's emphatic remark on doubled shunts
must be withdrawn.
The main requirement on t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f B' and
B" i s t h a t a s t a b l e convergence p a t t e r n be created,
w i t h which a s o l u t i o n i s guaranteed. F u r t h e r , t h e
number o f i t e r a t i o n s may n o t be t o o h i g h . I n a l g o -
r i t h m d e c o u p l i n g t h e c o r r e c t and s t a b l e convergence
i s t h e c r u c i a l p o i n t . C u r i o u s l y , such a s p e c i f i c a t i o n
can be o b t a i n e d o n l y i f b o t h B' and B" p u r p o s i v e l y
d e v i a t e f r o m t h e H and L m a t r i c e s t h a t a r e used i n
Newton's method. ( R e f e r t o t h e remarks on t h e double
shunts).
With model decoupling one i s i n search o f a s e n s i t i -
v i t y r e l a t i o n t h a t w i l l s t a y c l o s e t o Newtons J a c o b i -
an m a t r i x . Having s a i d t h e above, i t i s c l e a r t h a t
t h e b e s t s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r B' and B" under such c i r -
cumstances can be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from those f o r
a l g o r i t h m decoupling. We have no experience w i t h
model decoupl i n g , and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n s , t h a t d i f f e r s
from standard p r a c t i c e , consequently, we cannot
comment on t h e q u e s t i o n s i n t h i s regard.
Many o f t h e q u e s t i o n s t h a t have been r a i s e d a r e due
t o t h e main problem w i t h t h e a l g o r i t h m decoupling:
t h e r e i s h a r d l y any knowledge on why t h e a l g o r i t h m
b a s i c a l l y works w e l l , and, i n r e s p e c t t o t h i s paper,
why t h e BX-scheme i s u s u a l l y t o be p r e f e r r e d o v e r t h e
XB-scheme i n t h e cases w i t h h i g h R/X r a t i o networks.
A t t h e moment i t seems h a r d l y p o s s i b l e t o g i v e any
p l a u s i b l e answer t o , f o r i n s t a n c e , q u e s t i o n s on t h e
"usage" scheme o r a - p r i o r i a n a l y s i s o f network d a t a
f o r those cases where t h e BX-scheme i s d o u b t f u l (Dr.
Bacher), n o r i s i t r e a l l y p o s s i b l e t o comment on
o t h e r r e f i n e m e n t s i n t h e B' and B" s p e c i f i c a t i o n s as
suggested by P r o f . Nanda.
Manuscript received October 3, 1988.