You are on page 1of 6

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

Power System Optimization Using PSO Program


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.

Fig. 1. The electrical network under study

V. POWER SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDIES WITH PSO PROGRAM


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]

500 are applied.


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

Fig 2. Power System Optimization by Optimization Objectives

Generation Cost Reduction with or without loading contraints


applied in the network

6000
Generation Cost Reduction

5000

4000
[RON/MWh]

3000

2000

1000

0
S1
with loading constraints
without loading constraints

Fig 3. Generation Cost Reduction with or without Loading Constraints


Applied in the Electrical Network

145