8 views

Uploaded by ajitnav4381

- 47776816
- Dynamic stiffness optimization using Radioss.pdf
- Vol 14 No 2 - September 2014
- fwebtechnology
- Solving Optimization Problems Using the Matlab Opt
- Assignment Problem
- 06_chapter 1.pdf
- Journal-1 Online Optimal Control of Reactive Sources in Wind Power Plants.pdf
- Abstract, Acknowledgemen
- PO PL Livestock Input in Animal Production a Linear Programming Approach to the Ration Formulation
- Economic Dispath GSA
- 1209.3733Power generation research
- OPT Matlab[1]
- 0387306625 Bibliography
- OptimumT_Tutorial3
- Wcsmo6 Collard
- Exploiting the Natural Dynamics of Series Elastic Robots by Actuator-Centered Sequential Linear Programming
- A line search exact penalty method using steering rules
- Heuristic Optimization of Heat Exchangers Networks
- The Gaussian Hare and the Laplacian Tortoise

You are on page 1of 6

from EDSA – PALADIN DESIGNBASE

Andrea Demean#1, Adrian Tămaş*2

#

EnergoBit Clu-Npaoca

Parcul Industrial Tetarom I, str. Tăietura Turcului No. 47/11, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

1

andrea.demean@energobit.com

*

FDEE Electrica Distribuţie Transilvania Nord

str. Ilie Măcelaru 28A, Cluj-Napoca, 400380, Romania

2

adi.tamas@cj.electrica.ro

Abstract—In this paper a study electrical network of 110 kV • The security constrained optimal power flow problem in

and 220 kV equipments is simulated and optimized taking into which the reactive power resources are used to optimize

account the Optimization Objectives from EDSA Paladin system operation

DesignBase software’s Power System Optimization module The overall solution is achieved in an iterative method of

(PSO). The Optimization Objectives are: Minimization of System

Losses, Minimization of Generation Costs, Minimum Control

the investment and operation sub-problems. The investment

Adjustments, Minimization of Load Shedding and Optimization sub problem initially produces trial values for reactive

of Reactive Power Resources. resources. The effect of addition of these resources in terms

of operating feasibility is evaluated by the operating sub

I. INTRODUCTION problem. If operational constraints are not violated, then, the

In the latest years has been noticed a tendency to use more optimal solution has been found. Otherwise, information

and more performant softwares to model and analyze about problem infeasibility is fed back to the investment sub

electrical networks, capable of solving in a very short time problem to obtain a revised reactive resources planning. This

problems that otherwise are very time consuming. process continues until a feasible solution is found. When the

Also, power system optimization is an up-to-date problem, option for optimizing a base case objective function along

minimization of power losses in a given electrical network with reactive resources investment cost is considered, both

being one of the most important subjects for all distribution feasibility and the optimality criterions are tested before the

and transmission companies. iterative process is terminated. PSO solves the reactive power

In this paper the authors tried to optimize a study electrical resource planning sub problem by a mixed integer

network containing actual equipments from the Romanian programming method and the operation sub problem by an

power system with the help of EDSA Paladin DesignBase advanced nonlinear primal-dual interior point method.

software. If contingencies are to be considered, then, the operation

sub problem itself is further subdivided into base case and

II. SOLUTION ALGORITHM OF THE PSO PROGRAM contingency operation sub problems making the entire process

There are many standard OPF (optimal power flow) a three level hierarchical structure. To solve the pure SCOPF

objective functions that are commonly in use. Some of the problem (security constrained optimal power flow) a two level

more classical ones that are also supported by PSO are hierarchical structure is used consisting only of the operation

minimization of: sub problem.

• System Active Losses The PSO finds the optimal operation of a power system by

• Generation Cost (also known as economic dispatch) adjusting controllable quantities such that physical and

• Minimum System Adjustments to meet acceptable operational constraints are satisfied. Mathematically it can be

operating conditions (e.g. voltage profile, equipment expressed as follows:

overloading, etc.)

• Minimization of Load Shedding Minimize g ( z )

• Minimization of Cost of Reactive Power Resources subject to h( z ) = 0 (1)

The methodology implemented in PSO to solve the reactive L≤z≤U

power resource optimization problem alone or together with

the security constrained optimal power flow, is based on a g(z) is the objective function and h(z) is the equality

hierarchical decomposition of the original problem into two constraints. z is a vector that includes the independent (x) and

parts: control variables (u), i.e. z=[x,u]. The power flow equations

• The reactive power planning problem, where the

are given by h(z) and equipment limits and system operating

location and size of new reactive sources are limits are specified by L and U.

determined

140

2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MODERN POWER SYSTEMS MPS 2008, 12-14 NOVEMBER 2008, CLUJ-NAPOCA, ROMANIA

Equation (1) above, is general form of OPF in which the cost also known as economic dispatch (ED). PSO will assign

objective functions is minimized by adjusting the available the active power of each generator such that the total cost of

controls. generation is minimized while ensuring feasible system

The constraints in OPF include the followings: operation simultaneously for the normal state (base case) and

• Maximum and minimum voltage limits under contingency situations. It is important that realistic cost

• Equipments loading limits coefficient (cost of generation, RON/MW) for each of the

• Maximum and minimum active and reactive power generators are specified. Generation costs are considered to be

generation piece-wise linear in PSO.

• Maximum and minimum transformer tap positions

Optimization of a power system when outage of network C. Minimum System Adjustments

equipments is allowed is known as a security constrained In this option, PSO program finds a minimum number of

OPF. controls that should be readjusted in order to alleviate the

In most optimization software the inequality constraints are operational constraint violations. The violations include

converted into equality constraints. In linear programming, circuit overloads and voltage problems in the base case and

slack variables are used to convert any inequality constraints contingency configurations.

to equality constraints. PSO uses a nonlinear optimization

D. Minimization of Load Shedding

technique that employs barrier method (primal and dual) to

convert inequalities to equalities. Equation (1), then, is PSO minimizes load shedding in order to correct

reformulated as follows in the PSO implementation: operational constraint violations such as circuit overloads and

voltage problems. Candidate sites for load shedding may be

⎧ ⎫ specified individually by buses, by area or by zone.

Minimize ⎨ g ( z ) − μ ∑ log( z j − l j ) − μ ∑ log(u j − z j )⎬ Alternatively, PSO can find the most effective load shedding

⎩ j j ⎭ sites yielding the minimum load curtailment to ensure feasible

(2)

subject to h( z ) = 0 system operation simultaneously for the normal state (base

z − s1 = L case) and under contingency situations (maintaining

acceptable voltage profile and alleviating over loading

z − s2 = U situations) by adjusting the control settings.

E. Optimal Reactive Power Resource Allocation

where S1 and S2 are slack variables representing system and

equipments constraints. PSO will optimize the objective The PSO program can efficiently be used to optimize

function by adjusting the control setting of the equipments reactive power resources in complex power systems. The

(i.e., generator active power and voltage set-points, reactive power resource investment cost is assumed to be a

transformers tap positions, and voltage set-points of linear function of equipment size. [2]

switchable shunts). These controls can be optimized

IV. DESCRIPTION OF ELECTRICAL NETWORK EQUIPMENTS

separately or in any combination.

It should be noted that a power flow program solves The electrical network under study is a network with

equality constraints, h(z), defined in equation (1) above and equipments from 110 kV and 220 kV network, but in a

keep the equipment settings within their acceptable ranges configuration created especially for this study. [1].

(e.g. generator reactive power is in between maximum and The electrical network is formed by:

minimum reactive power generation). PSO solves complete • 3 hydro generators: two 90 MVA generators with 15.75

system of equations defined in (1) respecting constraints on kV rated voltage connected to the 220 kV network

system variables (e.g. bus voltages, power flows, etc.). through a 90 MVA transformer; and one 25.5 MVA

generator with 10.5 kV rated voltage connected to the

III. OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS SUPPORTED BY PSO 110kV network through a 25 MVA transformer.

The following objective functions are implemented in the • one 125 MVA thermo generator with 13.8 kV rated

PSO software: voltage connected to the 220 kV network through a 170

MVA transformer.

A. Minimization of Active Power Losses • 1 swing bus with 1000 MVA short circuit rating, being

In this mode, PSO computes optimal settings of the the connection point between the system and the 220

controls so that system active power losses are minimized and kV network under study.

at the same time ensure feasibility in the normal state (base • 7 loads: two loads (S3 and S4) at 110 kV with a total

case) and under contingency situations (maintaining rated active power of 102.5 MW and reactive power of

acceptable voltage profile and alleviating over loading 71.34 MVAr and five loads (S1, S2, S5, S6 and S7) at

situations). 220 kV voltage with a total rated active power of

333.22 MW and reactive power of 207.82 MVAr.

B. Minimum Generation Cost • The connection between the 110 kV and 220 kV

One of the most important objective functions supported by systems is made through four 200 MVA

PSO is determination of minimum active power generation Autotransformers (AT1, AT2, AT3 and AT4)

141

2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MODERN POWER SYSTEMS MPS 2008, 12-14 NOVEMBER 2008, CLUJ-NAPOCA, ROMANIA

• The 220 kV power lines have the following cross •Transformers loading constraints: 80% for the first 3

sections: 400 mm2 (L1) and 450 mm2 (L2, L3, L4, L6, studies and 70% for the last 2 studies.

L8, L9, L10, L11, L13), and the 110 kV power lines The Normal voltage limits are considered to be between the

have the following cross sections: 150 mm2 (L16) and minimum value of 0.95 pu and the maximum value of 1.05 pu

185 mm2 (L14, L15, L17). and the Emergency voltage limits are considered to be

The following loading constraints were taken into account: between the minimum value of 0.9 pu and the maximum value

• Feeder loading constraints: 95% of 1.1 pu.

A. Minimization of Active Power Losses

TABLE I

MINIMIZATION OF ACTIVE POWER LOSSES

Total System Losses Before Total System Losses After System Loss System Loss

No. Minimization of Active Power Losses

Optimization Optimization Reduction Reduction

[kW] [kW] [kW] [%]

A.1 With loading constraints 2316.26 1938.69 377.56 16.30

A.2 Without loading constraints 2316.26 1773.89 542.36 23.42

142

2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MODERN POWER SYSTEMS MPS 2008, 12-14 NOVEMBER 2008, CLUJ-NAPOCA, ROMANIA

TABLE I.2

OPTIMIZED GENERATOR ACTIVE POWER

Generator Active Generator Active Power After

Generator Generator Active Power After

No. Power Before Optimization, without loading Generation Cost

Name Optimization, with loading constraints

Optimization constraints

[MW] [MW] [MW] [RON/MW]

1 SURSA 234.62 216.24 250.62 250

2 GEN-1 70 69.781 48.978 100

3 GEN-2 70 68.514 49.049 100

4 GEN-3 47.5 67.963 79.192 200

5 GEN-4 20 19.31 18.807 100

Voltage corrections were made for SURSA, GEN-2 and When running the analysis with the loading constraints

GEN-3 and for other buses from the network, showing that applied, it was noticed that the feeder loading constraints were

the voltage values for these buses were outside the acceptable violated at one feeder, but there were no transformer loading

limits prior to the optimization process (0.95 pu and 1.05 pu). constraints violations.

B. Minimization of Generation Costs

TABLE II.1

MINIMIZATION OF GENERATION COSTS

Total System Total Total

Minimization Total System System System Saving in Saving in

Losses Generation Generation Cost

No. of Generation Losses After Loss Loss Generation Generation

Before Cost Before After

Costs Optimization Reduction Reduction Cost Cost

Optimization Optimization Optimization

[kW] [kW] [kW] [%] [RON/MWh] [RON/MWh] [RON/MWh] [%]

With loading

B.1 2316.26 2007.92 308.34 13.31 84154.5 82528.26 1626.24 1.93

constraints

Without

B.2 loading 2316.26 2226.96 89.3 3.86 84154.5 78225 5929.5 7.05

constraints

TABLE II.2

OPTIMIZED GENERATOR ACTIVE POWER

Generator Active Generator Active Power After

Generator Generator Active Power After

No. Power Before Optimization, without loading Generation Cost

Name Optimization, with loading constraints

Optimization constraints

[MW] [MW] [MW] [RON/MW]

1 SURSA 234.62 208.38 160.1 250

2 GEN-1 70 70.214 80.99 100

3 GEN-2 70 72.457 80.99 100

4 GEN-3 47.5 70.827 99.99 200

Voltage corrections were made for SURSA, GEN-2 and When running the analysis with the loading constraints

GEN-3 and for other buses from the network, showing that applied, it was noticed that the feeder loading constraints and

the voltage values for these buses were outside the acceptable transformer loading constraints were each violated at one

limits prior to the optimization process (0.95 pu and 1.05 pu). feeder and one transformer respectively.

C. Minimum Control Adjustments

TABLE III.1

MINIMUM CONTROL ADJUSTMENTS

Total System Losses Before Total System Losses After System Loss System Loss

No. Minimum Control Adjustments

Optimization Optimization Reduction Reduction

[kW] [kW] [kW] [%]

C.1 With loading constraints 2316.26 1979.66 336.59 14.53

C.2 Without loading constraints 2316.26 1944.11 372.15 16.07

143

2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MODERN POWER SYSTEMS MPS 2008, 12-14 NOVEMBER 2008, CLUJ-NAPOCA, ROMANIA

TABLE III.2

OPTIMIZED GENERATOR ACTIVE POWER

Generator Active Generator Active Power After Generator Active Power After

No. Generator Name Power Before Optimization, with loading Optimization, without loading Generation Cost

Optimization constraints constraints

[MW] [MW] [MW] [RON/MW]

1 SURSA 234.62 208.38 160.1 250

4 GEN-3 47.5 69.48 - 200

Voltage corrections were made for SURSA, GEN-2 and When running the analysis with the loading constraints

GEN-3 and for other buses from the network, showing that the applied, it was noticed that the feeder loading constraints were

voltage values for these buses were outside the acceptable violated at one branch, but there were no transformer loading

limits prior to the optimization process (0.95 pu and 1.05 pu). constraints violations.

D. Minimization of Load Shedding

TABLE IV.1

MINIMIZATION OF LOAD SHEDDING

Total System Losses Before Total System Losses After System Loss System Loss

No. Minimization of Load Shedding

Optimization Optimization Reduction Reduction

[kW] [kW] [kW] [%]

D.1 With loading constraints 2316.26 1841.20 475.05 20.51

D.2 Without loading constraints 2316.26 1810.13 506.12 21.85

TABLE IV.2

OPTIMIZED GENERATOR ACTIVE POWER

Generator Active Generator Active Power After Generator Active Power After

No. Generator Name Power Before Optimization, with loading Optimization, without loading Generation Cost

Optimization constraints constraints

[MW] [MW] [MW] [RON/MW]

1 SURSA 234.62 226.87 240.13 250

2 GEN-1 70 60.901 54.611 100

3 GEN-2 70 62.507 53.229 100

4 GEN-3 47.5 70.169 74.878 200

5 GEN-4 20 - 18.834 100

Voltage corrections were made for SURSA, GEN-2 and applied, the load which should be shed is S1 and the percent

GEN-3 and for other buses from the network showing, that load shedding is 2.1%. The load interruption cost will be

the voltage values for these buses were outside the acceptable 1269.0 RON/hour.

limits prior to the optimization process (0.95 pu and 1.05 pu). When running the analysis with the loading constraints

After running the optimization program it has been noticed applied, it was noticed that the feeder loading constraints were

that when feeder/transformer loading constraints are violated at one branch, and there were two transformer

loading constraints violations.

E. Optimization of Reactive Power Resources

TABLE V.1.

OPTIMIZATION OF REACTIVE POWER RESOURCES

Optimization of Reactive Power Total System Losses Before Total System Losses After System Loss System Loss

No.

Resources Optimization Optimization Reduction Reduction

[kW] [kW] [kW] [%]

E.1 With loading constraints 2316.26 1834.07 482.18 20.82

E.2 Without loading constraints 2316.26 1810.58 505.67 21.83

144

2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MODERN POWER SYSTEMS MPS 2008, 12-14 NOVEMBER 2008, CLUJ-NAPOCA, ROMANIA

TABLE V.2

OPTIMIZED GENERATOR ACTIVE POWER

Generator Active Generator Active Power After Generator Active Power After

No. Generator Name Power Before Optimization, with loading Optimization, without loading Generation Cost

Optimization constraints constraints

[MW] [MW] [MW] [RON/MW]

1 SURSA 234.62 228.29 240.14 250

2 GEN-1 70 60.858 54.608 100

3 GEN-2 70 62.468 53.222 100

4 GEN-3 47.5 70.137 74.875 200

5 GEN-4 20 - 18.835 100

Voltage corrections were made for SURSA, GEN-2 and When running the analysis with the loading constraints

GEN-3, and for other buses from the network showing that applied, it was noticed that the feeder loading constraints were

the voltage values for these buses were outside the acceptable violated at one branch, and there were two transformer

limits prior to the optimization process (0.95 pu and 1.05 pu). loading constraints violations.

After running the optimization program it has been noticed

that when feeder/transformer loading constraints are applied it VI. CONCLUSION

is recommended to install reactive power compensators at the If no loading constrains are applied, power losses are

buses at which S2 and S3 loads are connected, The optimally minimized the most with Optimization Objective 1,

allocated reactive power is – 1.1 MVAr for S2 load and – 1.2 Minimization of Active Power Losses.

MVAr for S3 load. If feeder/transformer loading constrains are applied, power

losses are minimized the most with Optimization Objective 5,

Power System Optimization by Objectives Optimization of Reactive Power Resources.

It can be noticed that the most savings in generation costs

600

can be obtained if no feeder/transformer loading constrains

Reduction of Active Power Losses [kW]

400

REFERENCES

300 [1] Anderson, Paul M, Analysis of Faulted Power Systems, Wiley-

with loading constraints Interscience-IEEE, New York, 1995, p.487

200

without loading constraints

[2] EDSA Micro Corporation, Tutorial Power System Optimization, San

Diego, 2007

100

0

1. Min. of Active 2. Min. of 3. Minimum 4. Min. of Load 5. Optimization

Power Losses Generation Control Shedding of Reactive

Costs Adjustments Power

Resources

applied in the network

6000

Generation Cost Reduction

5000

4000

[RON/MWh]

3000

2000

1000

0

S1

with loading constraints

without loading constraints

Applied in the Electrical Network

145

- 47776816Uploaded byDRAHMED Habib
- Dynamic stiffness optimization using Radioss.pdfUploaded byGovindSahu
- Vol 14 No 2 - September 2014Uploaded byijcsbi
- fwebtechnologyUploaded bysharmila
- Solving Optimization Problems Using the Matlab OptUploaded byxelmerx
- Assignment ProblemUploaded byDrRitu Malik
- 06_chapter 1.pdfUploaded byadnantan
- Journal-1 Online Optimal Control of Reactive Sources in Wind Power Plants.pdfUploaded bypvhoan
- Abstract, AcknowledgemenUploaded bySolomon Mamo Banteywalu
- PO PL Livestock Input in Animal Production a Linear Programming Approach to the Ration FormulationUploaded byDionisio
- Economic Dispath GSAUploaded byMuh Ichsan Anugrah
- 1209.3733Power generation researchUploaded byRaheel Khan Bhittani
- OPT Matlab[1]Uploaded byNadia Dridi
- 0387306625 BibliographyUploaded byamr1287
- OptimumT_Tutorial3Uploaded byDavid López Almirall
- Wcsmo6 CollardUploaded byAnonymous LU3Dz3TKtV
- Exploiting the Natural Dynamics of Series Elastic Robots by Actuator-Centered Sequential Linear ProgrammingUploaded byLuis Sentis
- A line search exact penalty method using steering rulesUploaded byJohn Wu
- Heuristic Optimization of Heat Exchangers NetworksUploaded byendrajuwana
- The Gaussian Hare and the Laplacian TortoiseUploaded bynadamau22633
- 1-s2.0-S014206151530199X-mainUploaded byabidhusain
- sppu syllabus latestUploaded byYourfriend 2113
- Functionaly Graded Beam Parametric StudyUploaded byDaniel
- QM10_tif_ch07.docUploaded byLour Raganit
- Business Administrtion Operation Research.pdfUploaded byNagrathna Poojari
- IUST-v1n1p155-en.pdfUploaded byrafaelferro
- 2nd Term Quatitative TechniquesUploaded byShreedhar
- Chapter 8Uploaded byJunior Loarte Trujillo
- soal optimasiUploaded byJesica Elsi
- Albers - Types of Functional Relationships...Uploaded byknoedel_n

- UbiCC Bouzid BookChapter 494Uploaded byUbiquitous Computing and Communication Journal
- scattering in room acousticsUploaded bySpiros Loutridis
- Distributed Model Predictive ControlUploaded bymonacer_ericson
- An Advanced Method for Optimizing Packaging DesignUploaded byAltairEnlighten
- GOSET_2.6_Manual.pdfUploaded byHanen Mejbri
- Optimization using cst tool boxUploaded bytonyulucky
- 219Uploaded byieom2012
- Statistical Decision Theory for Quantum SystemsUploaded byfivehours5
- IJSIMM Citation List2013Uploaded byAnonymous JE5mZIuco
- 5-1-ViragZoltan-V5N1[1]Uploaded bypetronashscribdid
- Fast Mass SpringsUploaded bypicassaa
- Actix Troubleshooting and Optimizing UMTS NetworkUploaded bysomeguyinoz
- JOBPROFILE-Staff Reservoir Engineer (1)Uploaded byyemi
- takamatsu_ THE NATURE AND ROLE OF PROCESS SYSTEMS ERGINEERING.pdfUploaded byNardos Henok
- Econ 301 MT 1 notesUploaded byNicolle Yhap
- Timing ClosureUploaded byPrashanth Gundanna
- ANSYS Fluid Dynamics Update - ANSYSUploaded byBhaskar Nandi
- 26Uploaded byarsath
- portfolio optimizationUploaded byGaytri Aggarwal
- BandyHowtoBuildTradingSys.pdfUploaded byhaginile
- HW_F98Uploaded byMohammad Umair
- Ip Lecture 1Uploaded bySathish Kumar
- Optimal Rocker Arm DesignasdUploaded byShubham Deshmukh
- HDT topsoeUploaded byIsabel
- gurobiUploaded byZewum Ku
- ROEBEL_COMSOLUploaded byluis900000
- Open Sim Tutorial 3Uploaded byMohd Khairul Ikhwan Ahmad
- Unit 1 - NotesUploaded byAnas K Mak
- Intze Type Water TankUploaded byNitya Patel
- Gumbel SecoUploaded byMatheus S. Costa