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
and 220 kV equipments is simulated and optimized taking into
account the Optimization Objectives from EDSA Paladin
DesignBase software’s Power System Optimization module
(PSO). The Optimization Objectives are: Minimization of System
Losses, Minimization of Generation Costs, Minimum Control
Adjustments, Minimization of Load Shedding and Optimization
of Reactive Power Resources.
I. INTRODUCTION
In the latest years has been noticed a tendency to use more
and more performant softwares to model and analyze
electrical networks, capable of solving in a very short time
problems that otherwise are very time consuming.
Also, power system optimization is an up-to-date problem,
minimization of power losses in a given electrical network
being one of the most important subjects for all distribution
and transmission companies.
In this paper the authors tried to optimize a study electrical
network containing actual equipments from the Romanian
power system with the help of EDSA Paladin DesignBase
software.
II. SOLUTION ALGORITHM OF THE PSO PROGRAM
There are many standard OPF (optimal power flow)
objective functions that are commonly in use. Some of the
more classical ones that are also supported by PSO are
minimization of:
• System Active Losses
• Generation Cost (also known as economic dispatch)
• Minimum System Adjustments to meet acceptable
operating conditions (e.g. voltage profile, equipment
overloading, etc.)
• Minimization of Load Shedding
• Minimization of Cost of Reactive Power Resources
The methodology implemented in PSO to solve the reactive
power resource optimization problem alone or together with
the security constrained optimal power flow, is based on a
hierarchical decomposition of the original problem into two
parts:
• The reactive power planning problem, where the
location and size of new reactive sources are
determined
• The security constrained optimal power flow problem in
which the reactive power resources are used to optimize
system operation
The overall solution is achieved in an iterative method of
the investment and operation sub-problems. The investment
sub problem initially produces trial values for reactive
resources. The effect of addition of these resources in terms
of operating feasibility is evaluated by the operating sub
problem. If operational constraints are not violated, then, the
optimal solution has been found. Otherwise, information
about problem infeasibility is fed back to the investment sub
problem to obtain a revised reactive resources planning. This
process continues until a feasible solution is found. When the
option for optimizing a base case objective function along
with reactive resources investment cost is considered, both
feasibility and the optimality criterions are tested before the
iterative process is terminated. PSO solves the reactive power
resource planning sub problem by a mixed integer
programming method and the operation sub problem by an
advanced nonlinear primal-dual interior point method.
If contingencies are to be considered, then, the operation
sub problem itself is further subdivided into base case and
contingency operation sub problems making the entire process
a three level hierarchical structure. To solve the pure SCOPF
problem (security constrained optimal power flow) a two level
hierarchical structure is used consisting only of the operation
sub problem.
The PSO finds the optimal operation of a power system by
adjusting controllable quantities such that physical and
operational constraints are satisfied. Mathematically it can be
expressed as follows:
Minimize g ( z )
subject to h( z ) = 0 (1)
L≤z≤U
g(z) is the objective function and h(z) is the equality
constraints. z is a vector that includes the independent (x) and
control variables (u), i.e. z=[x,u]. The power flow equations
are given by h(z) and equipment limits and system operating
limits are specified by L and U.

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
objective functions is minimized by adjusting the available
controls.
The constraints in OPF include the followings:
• Maximum and minimum voltage limits
• Equipments loading limits
• Maximum and minimum active and reactive power
generation
• Maximum and minimum transformer tap positions
Optimization of a power system when outage of network
equipments is allowed is known as a security constrained
OPF.
In most optimization software the inequality constraints are
converted into equality constraints. In linear programming,
slack variables are used to convert any inequality constraints
to equality constraints. PSO uses a nonlinear optimization
technique that employs barrier method (primal and dual) to
convert inequalities to equalities. Equation (1), then, is
reformulated as follows in the PSO implementation:
⎧ ⎫
Minimize ⎨ g ( z ) − μ ∑ log( z j − l j ) − μ ∑ log(u j − z j )⎬
⎩ j j ⎭
(2)
subject to h( z ) = 0
z − s1 = L
z − s2 = U
where S1 and S2 are slack variables representing system and
equipments constraints. PSO will optimize the objective
function by adjusting the control setting of the equipments
(i.e., generator active power and voltage set-points,
transformers tap positions, and voltage set-points of
switchable shunts). These controls can be optimized
separately or in any combination.
It should be noted that a power flow program solves
equality constraints, h(z), defined in equation (1) above and
keep the equipment settings within their acceptable ranges
(e.g. generator reactive power is in between maximum and
minimum reactive power generation). PSO solves complete
system of equations defined in (1) respecting constraints on
system variables (e.g. bus voltages, power flows, etc.).
III. OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS SUPPORTED BY PSO
The following objective functions are implemented in the
PSO software:
A. Minimization of Active Power Losses
In this mode, PSO computes optimal settings of the
controls so that system active power losses are minimized and
at the same time ensure feasibility in the normal state (base
case) and under contingency situations (maintaining
acceptable voltage profile and alleviating over loading
situations).
B. Minimum Generation Cost
One of the most important objective functions supported by
PSO is determination of minimum active power generation
141
cost also known as economic dispatch (ED). PSO will assign
the active power of each generator such that the total cost of
generation is minimized while ensuring feasible system
operation simultaneously for the normal state (base case) and
under contingency situations. It is important that realistic cost
coefficient (cost of generation, RON/MW) for each of the
generators are specified. Generation costs are considered to be
piece-wise linear in PSO.
C. Minimum System Adjustments
In this option, PSO program finds a minimum number of
controls that should be readjusted in order to alleviate the
operational constraint violations. The violations include
circuit overloads and voltage problems in the base case and
contingency configurations.
D. Minimization of Load Shedding
PSO minimizes load shedding in order to correct
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.
Alternatively, PSO can find the most effective load shedding
sites yielding the minimum load curtailment to ensure feasible
system operation simultaneously for the normal state (base
case) and under contingency situations (maintaining
acceptable voltage profile and alleviating over loading
situations) by adjusting the control settings.
E. Optimal Reactive Power Resource Allocation
The PSO program can efficiently be used to optimize
reactive power resources in complex power systems. The
reactive power resource investment cost is assumed to be a
linear function of equipment size. [2]
IV. DESCRIPTION OF ELECTRICAL NETWORK EQUIPMENTS
The electrical network under study is a network with
equipments from 110 kV and 220 kV network, but in a
configuration created especially for this study. [1].
The electrical network is formed by:
• 3 hydro generators: two 90 MVA generators with 15.75
kV rated voltage connected to the 220 kV network
through a 90 MVA transformer; and one 25.5 MVA
generator with 10.5 kV rated voltage connected to the
110kV network through a 25 MVA transformer.
• one 125 MVA thermo generator with 13.8 kV rated
voltage connected to the 220 kV network through a 170
MVA transformer.
• 1 swing bus with 1000 MVA short circuit rating, being
the connection point between the system and the 220
kV network under study.
• 7 loads: two loads (S3 and S4) at 110 kV with a total
rated active power of 102.5 MW and reactive power of
71.34 MVAr and five loads (S1, S2, S5, S6 and S7) at
220 kV voltage with a total rated active power of
333.22 MW and reactive power of 207.82 MVAr.
• The connection between the 110 kV and 220 kV
systems is made through four 200 MVA
Autotransformers (AT1, AT2, AT3 and AT4)
 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
sections: 400 mm2 (L1) and 450 mm2 (L2, L3, L4, L6,
L8, L9, L10, L11, L13), and the 110 kV power lines
have the following cross sections: 150 mm2 (L16) and
185 mm2 (L14, L15, L17).
The following loading constraints were taken into account:
• Feeder loading constraints: 95%
•Transformers loading constraints: 80% for the first 3
studies and 70% for the last 2 studies.
The Normal voltage limits are considered to be between the
minimum value of 0.95 pu and the maximum value of 1.05 pu
and the Emergency voltage limits are considered to be
between the minimum value of 0.9 pu and the maximum value
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
GEN-3 and for other buses from the network showing, that
the voltage values for these buses were outside the acceptable
limits prior to the optimization process (0.95 pu and 1.05 pu).
After running the optimization program it has been noticed
that when feeder/transformer loading constraints are
E. Optimization of Reactive Power Resources
TABLE V.1.
OPTIMIZATION OF REACTIVE POWER RESOURCES
applied, the load which should be shed is S1 and the percent
load shedding is 2.1%. The load interruption cost will be
1269.0 RON/hour.
When running the analysis with the loading constraints
applied, it was noticed that the feeder loading constraints were
violated at one branch, and there were two transformer
loading constraints violations.

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