..

134
Fast Decoupled Load Flow:

IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 3, No. 2. May 1988

T h e Hybrid Model

K. Behnam-Guilani
I l l i n o i s Power Company

500 S . 27th S t r e e t
Decatur, IL 62525

This paper describes a load-flow model Abstract w h i c m l e a s t f i f t y percent f a s t e r than the t r a d i t i o n a l Fast Decoupled Load Flow model as described by S t o t t and Alsac. The paper i n v e s t i g a t e s the reasons for the speed-up relative t o the t r a d i t i o n a l Fast Decoupled' Load Flow and gives d e t a i l s of the model's performance. The performance of the model is invest i g a t e d by examining a number of power systems the l a r g e s t of w h i c h is a 1435-bus system. INTRODUCTION

lines a r e forced o u t of service i n a random manner. The process is based on the simulation o f a l a r g e number of scenarios each of which represents a snapshot of the system as i t i s exposed t o random occurrences of
generation and transmission outages. Each scenario i s then examined by a load-flow model [e]. In other words, modern system r e l i a b i l i t y s t u d i e s a r e based on l a r g e numbers of load-flow solutions each of which represents a d i f f e r e n t system i n terms of i t s topology and/or s t a t u s of i t s regulated buses. Thus, the use of the Fast Decoupled Load Flow i n modern system rel i a b i l i t y s t u d i e s r e q u i r e s the frequent updating of the two Jacobian-like matrices. The updating process requires a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of computer time. For t h a t reason, i t was decided t o i n v e s t i g a t e a l t e r n a t i v e load-flow models, as described i n the next section. However, before proceeding t o the next s e c t i o n , i t would be useful t o review some research which was reported while this p r o j e c t was i n progress. I n e a r l y 1986, Chan and Brandwajn 131 introduced two methods f o r updating t r i a n g u l a r f a c t o r i z e d matrices such a s B ' and B". These methods e f f e c t i v e l y re,solve the problem created by the need for updating B ( t o r e f l e c t topology change). The second matrix, B", should be updated i f any of the following occurs.

The f irs t generation of d i g i t a l computer models f o r solving the load-flow problem was introduced i n the 1950's. In the 1960's, these models were improved i n order t o study l a r g e r and more complex systems. In those earlier decades, the load-flow s t u d i e s required a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of computer m r y and execution time. These issues were addressed i n the e a r l y 1970's when S t o t t and Alsac introduced the Fast Decoupled Load Flow model [l].
The Fast Decoupled Load Flow (FDLF) model has been accepted by the power industry. This acceptance i s based on the f a c t t h a t t h e Fast Decoupled Load Flow model requires l e s s computer memory and f a r less execution time than the Newton-Raphson model. This model is f a s t , simple and r e l i a b l e . I t uses two f i x e d Jacobian-like matrices a s shown below:

1
2 3 4

- There is a topology change

- There i s - There is - There is

a Q-limit v i o l a t i o n a generator outage a newly-turned on generator.

B'AB = AP/V
B'Av
= ~qiv

p i s vector of a c t i v e power bus i n j e c t i o n s . q i s vector of r e a c t i v e power bus i n j e c t i o n s . v is vector of bus voltage magnitudes. e is vector of bus phase angles. B ' i s Jacobian-like matrix ( a c t i v e power). B" i s Jacobian-like a a t r i x ( r e a c t i v e power).

o f regulated buses. Both matrices must be updated when system topology changes ( l i n e outages). Changes in the s t a t u s of regulated buses a f f e c t the second matrix only.
Modern system r e l i a b i l i t y s t u d i e s a r e based on p r o b a b i l i s t i c methods. These methods d i r e c t l y account f o r the fact t h a t generating u n i t s and transmission

The Jacobian-like matrices a r e fixed a s long a s there is no change i n system topology and/or the s t a t u s

The two methods introduced by Chan and Brandwajn e f f e c t i v e l y resolve the topology change issue. One of the two methods can a l s o be used t o update B" i n order t o account for changes i n the bus s t a t u s (regulated or nonregulated). This method (known as PR1, f o r P a r t i a l r e f a c t o r i z a t i o n Method 1 ) is very e f f i c i e n t i f there a r e only a few buses t h a t change s t a t u s . For example, a s a load-flow problem i s i t e r a t i v e l y solved, the r e a c t i v e output of a few p l a n t s might v i o l a t e the MVAR l i m i t s of those p l a n t s ( 9 - l i m i t v i o l a t i o n ) . In such cases, those few p l a n t buses a r e deregulated and PRl i s used t o e f f i c i e n t l y update B". The 9-limit v i o l a t i o n issue, i n other words, i s a l s o e f f e c t i v e l y resolved. The e f f i c i e n c y of P R 1 i s inversely proportional t o the number of bus s t a t u s chanaes. As mentioned e a r l i e r , modern system r e l i a b i l i t y models account f o r random outages of generating units. This means t h a t i n such s t u d i e s , a l a r g e number of buses change s t a t u s . Some buses become deregulated because generators connected t o them a r e forced out of service. Many more buses become regulated because their associated generators are turned on i n order t o make up for the l o s s of t h e forced out generators. For t h i s reason, PR1 i s a r a t h e r i n e f f i c i e n t method f o r updating B". In such cases, B" would have t o be refactorized.

The above discussion i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t the methods presented i n [3] e f f e c t i v e l y resolve the updating problem associated w i t h B ' . However, t h e updating problem associated w i t h B" (when random generator outages a r e modeled) remains unresolved. I t is imporThis paper was sponsored by the IEEE Power E g n e i g Society niern t a n t t o model random generator outages i n r e l i a b i l i t y for presentation at the IEEE Power Industry Computer Applicas t u d i e s . Consequently, i t is important t o resolve the tion Conference,Montreal, Canada,May 18-21,1987. Manuscript updating problem associated with B". Therefore, i t was was published in the 1987 PICA Conference Record. decided t o i n v e s t i g a t e a1 t e r n a t i v e load-flow models, as 0885-8950/88/05oOa734so1 .WO 1988 IEEE

735

described i n the next section.

NODAL ITERATIVE MODEL

'

r e a c t i v e network model ( 5 ) has an acceptable convergence c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . T h i s discovery led t o the development of the hybrid model a s discussed i n the next s e c t i o n .

A promising solution t o the matrix updating problem appeared t o be the Nodal I t e r a t i v e Model [ 4 j because i t does not use Jacobian o r Jacobian-like matrices. Instead, i t uses the following r e l a t i o n s h i p :

THE HYBRID MODEL

n= 1

V is complex voltage Y i s admittance matrix * is the conjugate function

The purpose of t h i s study was t o resolve the matrix updating problem which was discussed e a r l i e r . A this study was i n progress, Chan and Brandwajn s introduced two methods t h a t e f f e c t i v e l y resolve the updating problem associated w i t h the a c t i v e network of the Fast Decoupled Load Flow model ( 1 ) . The previous s e c t i o n discusses a model which does not have the matrix updating problem, but cannot be used because i t s a c t i v e network model ( 4 ) i s slow t o converge. The next logical s t e p i s t o create a hybrid model by combinin the a c t i v e network of the Fast Decoupled Load Flow (17 w i t h the r e a c t i v e network of the Nodal I t e r a t i v e Model ( 5 ) . The r e s u l t a n t model which i s shown below is the Hybrid version of Fast Decoupled Load Flow Model ( t h e Hybrid model f o r s h o r t ) .
B'AB
=

This model does not use Jacobian-like matrices, t h e r e f o r e , the matrix updating problem mentioned e a r l i e r would not occur w i t h this model. However, t h i s model is extremely slow t o converge ( p a r t l y because i t does not use Jacobian-like matrices) and, t h e r e f o r e , not s u i t a b l e for our purpose. As a next s t e p , w decoupled the Nodal I t e r a t i v e e Model and investigated i t s performance. That model i s defined by the following re1 ationships.

Ap/V

(6)

n+m
v, =
N
(7)

n=l
8 = ,

nm
bmn vn

n=l nm
(4)

L
n=l nm

The Hybrid model has the p o s i t i v e a t t r i b u t e s of the FDLF model ( f a s t , simple, and r e l i a b l e ) w i t h the added advantage t h a t i t resolves the matrix updating problem. Further, a s the study r e s u l t s (presented i n the next s e c t i o n ) show, the Hybrid model is faster than the FOLF model even i f B" is not updated.
RESULTS

The study r e s u l t s a r e given a s p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i butions of the following quotients.

v, =

njcm

1
N
n=l

(5)

Number of i t e r a t i o n s of the FDLF model = Number of i t e r a t i o n s of the Hybrid model

bmn bel ow.

CPU time of the FDLF model = CPU time of the Hybrid model

n;tm
The above eauations were derived from the basic equations f o r ' a c t i v e and r e a c t i v e power flows in a transmission l i n e . In deriving ( 4 ) i t was assumed t h a t t h e angular d i f f e r e n c e between any two connected buses is small enough so t h a t the cosine of the angular d i f f e r e n c e could be assumed t o be u n i t y and the sine equal t o t h e angular d i f f e r e n c e when the l a t t e r i s described i n radians. N assumptions were made i n o deriving ( 5 ) .

The performance o f the discussed method was evaluated by examining four power systems which a r e defined

System

Lines
20 320 1,435 20 25 496 2,475 22

Generators
5 33

5
2
9 45

1
2 3 4

1 8
245 0

218
4

LTC = Load-Tap-Changing Transformer OFF = Fixed-Tap Off-Nominal Turns Ratio Transformer

The Decoupled Nodal I t e r a t i v e Model a l s o proved t o be a slow-to-converge model. However, this investigat i o n was not a t o t a l l o s s since i t was discovered t h a t the reason f o r this slowness is the a c t i v e network model which i s described by ( 4 ) . In o t h e r words, the

The l a s t system is a d i f f i c u l t - t o - s o l v e (illconditioned) system. I t was used t o test the performance of the Hybrid Model w i t h regard t o i l l conditioned systems (Figure 1 ) .

736
faster than the t r a d i t i o n a l Fast Decoupled Load Flow model ( t h e average r-value i s 1.5).
t

-P

I8
6

7
17 6

16 15 14 13 12 9

probability (%I

0
L
19

6
SQ

--I2
10

I6

15

@I 1

11 10 9-

I!

I -

I .

876-

Figure 1. The Ill-Conditioned System

5The 20-Bus System The study r e s u l t s f o r t h e 20-bus system are shown i n Figure 2. The r e s u l t s are i n t h e form o f t h e probab i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the r-values. As Figure 2 shows, t h e average r-value i s approximately 1.5 which means t h a t the FDLF model required 1.5 times as many i t e r a t i o n s as t h e Hybrid model. It can be estimated t h a t t h e average s-value f o r t h i s system i s approximately 1.3 since one i t e r a t i o n o f the Hybrid model takes approximately f i f t e e n percent more time than one i t e r a t i o n o f t h e FDLF model.
43-

21-

7
0.9 1.1 1.3 15 1.7 1.9 21

r-value

2.3

Figure 3. Probability Distribution for the 320-Bus System

I probability (%I

The 1435-Bus System Figure 4 shows t h e p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e s-values f o r t h e 1435-bus system. As Figure 4 i n d i cates, t h e Hybrid model i s approximately f i f t y percent f a s t e r than t h e FDLF model.
11 -,

16

1
0.9 1.0 1.1 1 2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 22 2.3 2.4

;b {
15 14 13 12 11 10 98-

probability (%I

7-

654321-

Figure 2. Probability Distribution for the 20-Bus System

The 320-Bus System Figure 3 shows t h e study r e s u l t s f o r t h e 320-bus system. This system i s a reduced model which represents downstate X l l i n o i s and t h e surrounding regions. The study r e s u l t s f o r t h i s system i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e Hybrid model converges approximately f i f t y percent

o f
1 1.5
2

s-value

25

Figure 4. Probability Distribution for the 1435-Bus System

737
As discussed e a r l i e r , t h e purpose o f t h i s study was t o develop a load-flow model t h a t m i t i g a t e s the m a t r i x updating problem. That i s t o say, a load-flow model t h a t would be f a s t e r than t h e FDLF model because i t would n o t r e q u i r e m a t r i x updating. As i t turned out, t h e developed model ( t h e Hybrid model) i s f a s t e r than the FDLF model even when m a t r i x updating i s n o t needed (Figure 4). If m a t r i x r e f a c t o r i z a t i o n i s required, t h e Hybrid model becomes approximately one hundred percent f a s t e r than t h e FOLF model, as shown i n Figure 5. That f i g u r e shows t h e p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e s-values f o r t h e 1435-bus system when B" i s r e f a c t o r i z e d . B" i s r e f a c t o r i z e d because, as mentioned e a r l i e r , p a r t i a l updating techniques are i n e f f i c i e n t when a l a r g e number o f buses change r e g u l a t i o n status. probability (%) r e s u l t s i n a hard-to-solve system. Figure 6 shows the p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e r-values f o r the illconditioned system. As Figure 6 shows, the Hybrid model performed a t l e a s t as w e l l as the FDLF model. 26

probability

(%)

13 -

B is refactorized '

l2

11 -

1
-

10

9076-

5-

432-

07 .

0 4

1 . 1

1.3

15 .

17 .

r-value

1.9

2 1

Figure 6. Probability Distribution for the Ill-Conditioned System

10 7

1.2

16 .

20

2 4

2 0

s-value

DISCUSSION

Figure 5. Probability Distributioin for the 1435-Bus System Figure 5 represents a bimodal d i s t r i b u t i o n . The f i r s t d i s t r i b u t i o n i s centered a t 1.5 and t h e second a t 2.3. There are two p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s because there & r e two types o f load-flow runs ( t h a t produced Figure 5). The f i r s t type used a f l a t s t a r t whereas the second type used a basecase f o r the i n i t i a l conditions. A load-flow r u n t h a t uses a f l a t s t a r t genera l l y requires more s o l u t i o n time than cne t h a t uses a basecase. Since t h e r e f a c t o r i z a t i o n time f o r B" i s fixed, i t s impact on t h e p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n of the s-values i s t o d i v i d e i t i n t o two parts. The d i s t r i b u t i o n on the l e f t represents the load-flow runs t h a t were based on a f l a t s t a r t and t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n on the r i g h t represents the load-flows t h a t were based on a basecase. Special Cases
I t i s t r a d i t i o n a l t o examine the robustness o f a load-flow model by applying i t t o a hard-to-solve ( i l l conditioned) system. The il1-ccndi t i o n e d system used i n t h i s study had a predominantly r a d i a l topology (weakly-interconnected) and a t y p i c a l c i r c u i t parameters (see APPENDIX A.). Furthermore, i t s generation and l o a d busses were n o t dispersed. This combination

The presented data i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e Hybrid model i s approximately f i f t y percent f a s t e r than the FDLF model. When the Hybrid model i s used i n modern r e l i a b i l i t y studies, where generator outages are randomly modeled, t h e speed-up i s close t o one hundred percent. W have i d e n t i f i e d f o u r reasons f o r the speed-up. e Those reasons are given below. F i r s t , the r e a c t i v e network o f the Pybrid model (7) r e q u i r e s l e s s CPU time than t h a t o f t h e FDLF model (2). More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the r e a c t i v e network o f the Hybrid model requires approximately one t h i r d o f the CPU time required by t h e r e a c t i v e network o f t h e FDLF model (see APPENDIX B f o r f u r t h e r information). Second, because o f the above, one can a f f o r d t o execute ( 7 ) more o f t e n than (6). This approach can be advantageous e s p e c i a l l y when LTC adjustments are made. The procedure i s described beTow. FORTRAN Statement CALL CALL CALL CALL SOLVE LTC SOLVE AF Descri p t i on solve (7) make LTC adjustments solve (7) compute accelerating factors

Subroutine AF computes accelerating f a c t o r s f o r changi n g t h e tap s e t t i n g s o f t h e LTC's, as shown below.

138

IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems,

[2]

F i s the a c c e l e r a t i n g f a c t o r

Monte Carlo Method for Simultaneous Import C a p a b i l i t y Planning." Proceedings o f 13th Inter-RAM, pp. 130-134, June

pp. 859-869, May 1974,., K. Behnarn-Guilani, A

VS i s the s e t voltage value f o r the LTC

Vk i s the LTC voltage a t i t e r a t i o n k

1986.
K. Chan and V. Brandwajn, " P a r t i a l M a t r i x R e f a c t o r i z a t i on .I' I EEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, pp.193-200, February 1986. [4] A. F. Glimn and 6. bl; Stagg, "Automatic CalculaA I E E Transactions on PAS, t i o n s o f Load Flows. pp. 817-825, October 1957.

[3]

S.

The tap s e t t i n g s f o l l o w i n g manner.

tk

f o r the LTC's i s computed i n the

tk-l = -F*(Vk

VS)

The above equation i s s i m i l a r t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p given i n [l] w i t h t h e exception t h a t [l] f i x e s t h e value o f F a t u n i t y . The procedure o u t l i n e d above allows F t o vary and thus accelerates t h e convergence process. Third, t h e Fast Decoupled Load Flow model can have many i t e r a t i v e schemes. Some examples are: Scheme
i ii iii

APPENDIX A The following t a b l e s f u r t h e r d e f i n e t h e illconditioned system. TABLE I Bus Data For t h e I l l - C o n d i t i o n e d System Bus MW-Generation MW-Load MVAR-Load

Description

(l0,lV) (1) and (2) are solved a t the same r a t e . (19,2V) (2) i s solved twice as o f t e n as (1). (20,lV) (1) i s solved twice as o f t e n (2).

1
S t o t t and Alsac i n v e s t i g a t e d these schemes and selected the f i r s t scheme as the most e f f i c i e n t [l]. Instead o f being bound by a predetermined (user-defined) scheme such as i, ii, o r iii, t h e Hybrid model i s designed t o dynamically s e l e c t t h e scheme which i s most e f f i c i e n t f o r the case t h a t i t i s solving. The s e l e c t i o n technique i s based on the observation t h a t as t h e i t e r a t i v e s o l u t i o n progresses, t h e two networks ( a c t i v e and r e a c t i v e ) become t r u l y decoupled. That i s t o say, f u r t h e r v a r i a t i o n s i n voltage magnitudes would have no impact on t h e phase angle c a l c u l a t i o n s and v i c e versa. A t t h a t stage, the convergence t e s t o f t h e two networks can a l s o be decoupled. I n other words, when one of the two networks converges, i t i s excluded from f u t u r e iterations. The preceding discussion describes three o f t h e f o u r f a c t o r s which make t h e Hybrid model f a s t e r than t h e FDLF model. The speed-up a t t r i b u t a b l e t o those f a c t o r s i s approximately f i f t y percent. The f o u r t h f a c t o r makes t h e l a r g e s t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the speed-up. I t increases t h e speed-up t o approximately one hundred percent. This happens when random generator outages a r e taken i n t o account. Which means t h a t B" needs t o be r e f a c t o r i z e d . Since the Hybrid model does n o t use B", i t becomes approximately t w i c e as f a s t as t h e FDLF model. This l a s t p o i n t i s r a t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t . A large p o r t i o n o f load-flow studies are performed i n r e l i a b i l i t y studies. There i s a d e f i n i t e need t o represent random generator outages i n such studies. The savings represented by t h e Hybrid model can, therefore, be substantial. CONCLUSIONS -~ The Hybrid Fast Decoupled Load Flow model i s a t l e a s t f i f t y percent f a s t e r than the t r a d i t i o n a l Fast Decoupled Load Flow model. A useful f e a t u r e o f t h i s model i s t h a t i t does n o t use the m a t r i x E " , thus a d d i t i o n a l speed-up i s obtained when B" needs t o be r e f a c t o r i z e d . For t h a t reason, i t i s e s p e c i a l l y s u i t able f o r modern system r e l i a b i l i t y studies. This model has been incorporated i n t o a p r o b a b i l i s t i c c o s t / b e n e f i t model. The r e s u l t s have been p o s i t i v e . REFERENCES 2

0
The Swing Bus 0

150
0

30
0

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia
19 20

0 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0

0 380
0

0 20 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 1c 0 10 0 10
TABLE I 1

0 60 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 20 0 0

L i n e Data For The I l l - C o n d i t i o n e d System From

3
2
3 4 15 5 17 14 9 14 12 13 15 10 11 12 13 19 19 20 19 20
20

& &
0.50 5.00 0.11 1.52 5.00 10.00 2.00 4.00 20.00 20.00 3.00 4.00 30.00 40.00 0.10 3.00 0.10 1.00 0.50 5.00 0.50 6.00 0.15 1.50 0.50 5.00 0.00 30.00 2.00 40.00 0.00 '15.00 5.00 10.00 60.00 80.00 0.00 5.00 0.6'2 8.00 60.00 60.00 5.00 0.50

Chy;r-;g
6 30 50 20 0 20 0 30 0 10 6 0 10 0 6 0 0 0 0 10 0 20

R y ;i

a
9

1 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 6 7

250 350 200 300 500 400 400 300 600 200
200

[l]

B. S t o t t and 0. Alsac, "Fast Decoupled Load Flow."

10 11 11 15 16 16 17 17 18

400 200 200 250 209 150 600 300 250

250

300

.*

739
APPENDIX E?

This appendix contains a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n about the r e a c t i v e network of t h e FDLF model which i s defined by ( 2 ) and t h a t o f the Hybrid model which i s defined by (7). As mentioned e a r l i e r , t h e Hybrid model i s f a s t e r than the EDLF model p a r t l y because (7) r e q u i r e s about one t h i r d of the CPU time required by (2). An explanation f o r the d i f f e r e n c e i n CPU time requirements i s given below. The two r e a c t i v e networks are s i m i l a r i n the sense t h a t i n both cases one has t o loop over sets o f comparable computations. The number o f times t h a t one loops over t h e s e t o f computations l a r g e l y defines the CPU time requirements. L e t parameters N2 and N7 show the number o f t i n e s t h a t one loops over the computations i n ( 2 ) and (7), respectively. The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e shows N2 and N7 f o r the t h r e e systems discussed e a r l i e r . TABLE I Data on N2 and N7 Buses
20 320 1,435

N2 i s defined by the number o f nonzero elements i n B". N7 i s defined by the number o f l i n e s connected t o nonregulated buses. As the t a b l e shows, N2 i s about three times l a r g e r than N7 and ( l a r g e l y ) for t h a t reason, (7) r e q u i r e s much less CPU time than (2). The value o f N2 depends on the optimal ordering r o u t i n e which i s used before B" i s p u t i n i t s f i n a l ( t r i a n g u l a r i z e d ) form. W used an e optimal ordering r o u t i n e which was developed a t t h e Bonneville Power Administration. I t i s known as BPA Scheme 2. The subroutines which perform t h e t r i a n g u l a r i z a t i o n and the forward-backward s u b s t i t u t i o n were developed by researchers a t The U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas a t Arlington. A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on the s t r u c t u r e s o f these models i s shown below. I t i s noted t h a t (7) i s executed more o f t e n than ( 2 ) as shown below, and as discussed e a r l i e r . That i s one reason f o r the f a s t e r r a t e o f convergence f o r the Hybrid model. Other reasons are the method used f o r a d j u s t i n g t h e t a p s e t t i n g s f o r LTC (discussed e a r l i e r ) and (possibly) t h e f a c t t h a t (7) i s derived w i t h o u t making any assumptions regarding l i n e conductances , voltage magnitudes , and angular differences. I n d e r i v i n g (2) f o r the FDLF model, O R t h e o t h e r hand, l i n e conductances a r e ignored, voltage magnitudes are assumed t o be one per u n i t , and angular differences are assumed t o be small.

Lines
25 496 2,475

N2 78 2,192 14,316

N7 35 837 3,977

N2f N7 2.2 2.6 3.6

Reactive Network Chart f o r t h e FDLF Model

CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL

QE
AIQOFF AIQLTC DELTA SOLVE LTC TEST

Compute r e a c t i v e power i n j e c t i o n s f o r each bus. Make adjustments f o r f i x e d - t a p off-nominal transformers. Make adjustments f o r load-tap-changing transformers. Find d e l t a q, the e r r o r i n r e a c t i v e power i n j e c t i o n s . Solve (2) Make LTC adjustments. Perform convergence t e s t . Reactive Network Chart f o r the Hybrid Model

CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL

RECALL PIQOFF AIQLTC SOLVE LTC RECALL AIQOFF AIQLTC SOLVE AF RECALL PIQOFF AIQLTC QE DELTA PV . TEST

Recall defined r e a c t i v e power i n j e c t i o n s f o r each bus. Make adjustments f o r fixed-tap off-nominal transformers. Make adjustments f o r load-tap-changing transformers. Solve ( 7 ) Make LTC adjustments. Recall defined r e a c t i v e power i n j e c t i o n s f o r each bus. Make adjustments f o r f i x e d - t a p off-nominal transformers. Make adjustments f o r load-tap-changing transformers. Solve ( 7 ) Compute LTC t a p - s e t t i n g a c c e l e r a t i n g factors. Recall defined r e a c t i v e power i n j e c t i o n s f o r each bus. Make adjustments f o r fixed-tap off-nominal transformers. Make adjustments f o r load-tap-changing transformers. Compute r e a c t i v e power i n j e c t i o n s f o r each bus. Find d e l t a q, t h e e r r o r i n r e a c t i v e power i n j e c t i o n s . Adjust computed voltages t o r e f l e c t d e l t a q. Perform convergence t e s t .

740
Discussion
Adam Semlyen (University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada): I would like to congratulatethe author for his very interestingpaper. In my opinion, it represents an important advance in the. sequence of practical power flow computation methods: Gauss-Seidel, Newton-Raphson, and the Fast Decoupled Load Flow. The new hybrid method brings the Gauss-Seidel approach again in the forefront due to the fact that, in decoupled form, the Q-V part is not afflicted by the notoriously slow convergence which characterizes the Gauss-Seidel power flow in its classical complex form. The author has demonstrated this by numerous examples. I would like to suggest the following explanation of the fact that the reactive part of the Gauss-Seidel equations (6) and (7) converges much faster than the active part. Intuitively, this is due to the fact that the voltages at many buses (the voltage controlled buses) are kept constant. Formally, the argument for better convergence is based on the improved diagonal dominance of the resultant system matrix. To see this, we rewrite equation (6) in the form

B Stott and 0. Alsac (Power Computer Applications, Mesa, AZ): The . main idea in the new Hybrid method is attractively simple to grasp and apply, and its reported performance is impressive. If the method were to work as claimed on a sufficiently wide range of power systems, it would have considerable.potential for practical application. The possibilities include moderate-accuracy solutions in on-line ac contingency analysis, representinggenerator var l i t s and perhaps utilizing concentric relaxation [Al. We have devoted some effort to analyzing and testing the method. The paper has not been too helpful in this exercise. Its performance results consist almost entirely of timing comparisons between the Hybrid and fast decoupled methods. Critical details of the respective methods tested, including typical numbers of active and reactive iterations and convergence criteria, are not mentioned at all. Speed comparisons are sensitive to many factors, particularly implementation efficiencies. A cornerstone of the new methods claimed attractiveness is that a Hybrid reactive iteration is about three times as fast as a fast decoupled one. Our own multiplication-addition counts and timing tests show this ratio instead to be around 1.5. Therefore our suspicion, reinforced by several misinterpretations in the paper, is that a very poor quality fast dewupled version was used. Notwithstanding, there can still be useful areas of application for the Hybrid method, provided that it converges well. In an attempt to assess this convergence, we have performed a series of tests on the method without control adjustments, on a number of large normal North American systems. We tried different schemes for automatically determining the number of reactive solutionsat each step, and Gauss-Seidel acceleration with experimentally optirmzed factors. Solutions were made from both flat and good voltage starts, and converged to 1 MW/ Mvar mismatch accuracy at each bus. The fast decoupled method took from two to five P and Q iterations on the problems. The Hybrid method also converged in every case. On particularly benign problems, it took around twice these numbers of iterations. However, on most it took much more, with correspondingly greater overall computing times. The papers 20-bus system did appear to be somewhat illconditioned to the Hybrid method, but not to the fast decoupled, which solved it with 1 pu generator voltages in four iterations. We did not perform tests with control adjustments, since their details tend to obscure the basic properties of the methods. This may already have happened in the papers comparisons. Perhaps the fastdemupled convergence was badly retarded by the LTC and var limit logic used? In a matrixbased approach like the fast decoupled, relatively sophisticated techniques are used to minimize the number of extra iterations required for adjustments (seefor example PI). In some applications, the main advantage of the new method over more traditional decoupled versions-the absence of a factorized reactive matrix-will become a distinct drawback. This applies to areas such as security optimization, where approximate network sensitivities are calculated from the B or similar decoupled matrix factors. On a more general note, an important principle highlighted by the paper is that the coupling from active to reactive power is strong, while the reverse is weak. This has also recently been exploited in the CRIC formulation [C], which could easily be incorporated intothe Hybrid method. A related issue is sensitivity to X/R ratios, where there might be some advantage. Overall, however, the Hybrid versions practical usefulness seems to hinge mainly on whether each Gauss-SeideJ reactive iteration has a sufficiently competitive voltage convergence rate. Our present limited results are not too encouraging, but we look forward to the results of testing by others. It would be very helpful if the author could explain in his closure more precisely the details of his version and its performance.
References
J. Zaborsky, K. W. Whang, and

n#m

n#m

In equation (a) the right hand side is constant during the iterations. If we now subtract from (a) its expression after convergence, we obtain

n+m

n#m

where E represents the error at a given iteration step. Diagonal dominance can be assessed directly from equation (b) by comparing the coefficient of e,, with the sum of the absolute values of the coefficients of e,. Two factors are of significance here: the fact that the number of coefficients bmnis reduced since the generator buses are not included in the summation, and the effect of the load. The first effect enhances the diagonal dominance, while a reactive load reduces it. These are the theoretical results. Do the experimental (i.e., computational) results confirm that a larger proportion of generator buses tends to improve the convergence, while a larger reactive load tends to slow it down? The authors comments on these matters would be much appreciated.

K. Prasad, Fast contingency evaluation using concentric relaxation, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-99, pp. 28-36, JadFeb. 1980. S. K. Chang and V. Brandwajn, Adjusted Solutions in Fast Decoupled Load Flow, Proc. IEEE PICA Conference, pp. 347353, May 1987. J. Carpentier, CRIC, a new active reactive coupling process in load flows, optimal load flows and system control, Proc. IFAC Symposium on Power Systems and Power Plant Control, pp. 6570, Bcijing, Aug. 1986.

S K. Chang and V. Brandwajn (Systems Control, Inc., Palo Alto, CA): . For more than a decade, the Fast Decoupled Load Flow (FDLF) has been acknowledged in the power industry as an extremely efficient and reasonably reliable load flow method. Therefore, any new method that has the potential to be at least 50 percent faster than the FDLF deserves to be investigated closely. An experimental code employing the proposed hybrid model was written by the discussers and tested on several systems ranging from 30 to 1600 buses. Based upon the test results, we would l i e to offer the following comments: 1) The proposed hybrid method is faster than the conventional GaussSeidel (Glimn and Stagg) method. 2) Test results indicate that the hybrid model indeed converges faster than the FDLF, if the convergencetest is based on voltage changes, only. At the solution point, however, Mvar mismatches at some buses can be unacceptably large, up to a few hundred Mvars with a voltage tolerance of O.ooO1 per unit, and the voltages themselves can be quite different from those calculated by the Newton-Raphson method or FDLF. An improved solution can be obtained by adding an inner iteration loop for equation ( ) 7. Additional improvements are possible, for example, by an appropriate ordering of the calculations for equation (7). However, a significant additional computational burden will result. 3) It is well known that the convergence of the nodal iterative method depends on the use of acceleration factors. Our experience has shown that the hybrid method does not alleviate this problem. Consequently, the convergence characteristics of the hybrid method are system dependent, which could affect detrimentally the usefulness of the method. 4) The efficiency of the partial refactorizationmethods depends to a great degree on the particular implementation and data structures. In our experience, the CPU time for the update of the matrix B can vary as much as 1:4 depending on the particular implementation. 5 ) In view of points 2) through 4), we feel the hybrid method may not be as efficient and reliable as the paper would indicate.

741 We would appreciate the authors comments on our discussion as well as

some additional implementation de#aik.

those discussions are worth repeating. The basic advantage of the Hybrid moeel can be traced to the decoupling of the Nodal Iterative moeel ( 3 ) . The decoupling cf ( 3 ) made it possible to see that the slowness of ( 3 ) is due to its active netvork mo2el ( 4 ) . On the other hand, its reactive network nodel (5) displayed good convergence characteristics. This is due to the presence of regulated buses which serve as anchors embedded within the state vector, thus, greatly localizing the Q-V relationship. The above explanation can be used to clarify sone of the comments made by the discussors. Further comments are offered below.
1.
F . L. Alvarado

F
TLh k a

L AhrJo (The University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI): .

impaM paper, a final verdict on which will have to -= . by orhers. However, several ideas that have been CLt ommunity for some years lend this paper credence. m d rrrStbc potential merits of ti paper in the light of some hs mb -y the author in an attempt tosbed light idothe merits dBagofthemethod. Tbt maS d hitations of the fast deunpkd u&od am well known. 0 0 brlacc. ooc m y say that, when applicrble, t & fasl cksuupled method is pabpr tbt fastest known reliable MPM for solving the power flow problem. Tbt nmrber of itedoos reqtitd by the fast decoupled method is macorks. of sysian site. The Gauss-Seidel method, on rhis ha bgn discredited for many years as a usful techniqrw for the sohaioo of the power flow problem in large sysram. Tbc masm for this, as mrrectly perceived by the author, is that axrcctiom proppgae slowly through the network, wt the net result that ih d c r b

-=-,

increases drastically with system size. the oumbcr o f &-two key issues of the paper are that the amount of computation for each iteration of the fast decoupled power flow grows with system size, and that the convergence of the Q-V portion of the Gauss-Seidel method is quite good and dependent of network size. Let us examine both of these ideas. The first idea is justified empirically by the author in the paper. It could have also been justified simply by citing [All. In this reference it is established that, even though the ratio of number of branches to number of buses is independent of system size, the amount of computation required for factorization and repeat solution grows faster than linearly (but less than quadratically) with system size. Furthermore, the rate of growth is influenced by the sparsity preserving ordering scheme used. For typical power system matrices using Tinney Scheme 2 ordering, the growth of computation for factorization of typical sparse matrices seems to be, according to [All, of order n1.4, and the growth of computation for the repeat solution step (a most important quantity in the fast decoupled methods) grows as n1.2. Experimentation subsequent to [All has indicated that these numbers are a little too large for actual power system sparse matrices, but that the fundamental idea remains valid. Thus, this is in independent verification.of the observation in the paper that the solution for V from the B matrix will grow with system size. The second key idea in the paper is that the Q- V portion of the GaussSeidel method actually works quite well. Recent evidence by others [A2], including unpublished evidence by this discusser, lends credence to the idea that for most systems Q-V effects are limited to a small portion of the system. In situations where this is true, the fact that changes propagate slowly with the Gauss-Seidel method would not be as important, because these changes would not normally propagate very far, thus lending additional credence to the authors contention. Under what conditions is this last assumption true? The reason Q-V disturbances do not propagate far is that most systems have voltage support buses distributed throughout the system. Generally, a change in voltage will propagate in any direction only as far as the nearest PV bus not at its limit. This observation immediately implies a possible limitation of the authors method to systems with reasonably adequate voltage support. Under conditions of system stress, where many PV buses may reach a limit, this discusser would expect the authors method effectiveness to suffer. This is n0t.a discredit to the worthiness of the method, merely an attempt to understand its potential limitations. Does the author have any comments on this observation? References [All F. L. Alvarado, Computational Complexity in Power Systems, IEEE Trans. Power App. Sysf., August 1976, pp. 1028-1037. [A21 M. Lauby, T. Mikolinnas, and N. Reppen, Contingency Selection of Branch Outages Causing Voltage Problems, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., Vol. PAS-102, December 1983, pp. 3899-3904.
K. Behnam-Guilani:

I agree with the discussors observation that in the absence of regulated buses, the performance of the Hybrid model will suffer. The Hybrid model, therefore, should not be used for examining--for example--a distribution system or any system that has very few regulated buses.
7
I.

B.

Stott and 0. Alsac

The question of the quality of the FDLF model (which was used as a benchmark) is highly relevant. I have, therefore, provided the discussors with a copy of the benchmark (the FDLF model) so that they could test its quality. We hope to report our findings in the near future. The discussors have reported that their version of the Hybrid model took around twice the number of iterations (relative to the FDLF model) to converge. During private discussions, I have received similar comments from other iesearchers. The discrepancy, I believe, is due to the difference in the methods used to adjust the computed voltages to reflect the error in reactive power injection. The computed voltages are adjusted in two steps. First, the error in reactive power injection is divided by the diaqonal element to form the preliminary adjustment. Second, the preliminary adjustment is modified to reflect the preliminary adjustments of the neighboring buses, as shown below.
J: I,: DV1: DV2:

buses that are connected to b u s I line number preliminary voltage adjustment secondary voltage adjustment 3: ljne susceptance D: the diagonal element of b u s I TEMP = 0.0 DO 10 I1 = Il,I2 TEYP = TEMP + DVl (J) x D ( I , ) CONTINUF DV2(I) = DVl(1) + TFVP/E(I) v(r) = V(I) + D V ~ ( I )
J = InAB(11) L = LAT,(II)

10

I thank the discussors for their insighfull comments. At the PICA meetinq, A. Semlyen and I--and later, F. L. Alvarado and I--privately discussed the advantages ana disadvantages of the Hybrid model. 1 believe

The above computations make the voltage adjustments quasi-simultanecus.

? P m

142

It is noted that the simultaneity of adjustment is not as important in reactive network computations as it is in active network computations because of the localized nature of the Q-V relation. The last point is confirmed by F. L. Alvarado's discussion.
3.
A.

model used the same convergence criterion, i.e., error in the active and reactive power injections. Therefore, it is not possible to have the large mismatches (at any bus) that the discussers have experienced. The Hybrid model has been used to analyze a number of power systems. It has consistently been faster than the FDLF model. It, therefore, is unlikely that the Hybrid model is a systemdependent model. The absence of the matrix B" in the Hybrid model would be an advantage only if a large number of buses change regulation status. In such cases, the matrix B" would be literally refactorized. When the above is not the case, the advantage of the Hybrid model (relative to the FDLF model) would be reduced.

Semlyen

The mathematical interpretation, provided by the discussor, offers an interesting explanation of the Hybrid model's characteristics. I agree with the discussor that the presence of generator buses (regulated buses) improves the performance of the Hybrid model. The discussor's second point refers to the possible relation between the magnitude of reactive loads and the rate of convergence. I have not noticed a significant correlation between the magnitude of the reactive loads and the rate of convergence.
4.
S.

K. Chang and V. Brandwajn

Both the FDLF model and the Hybrid

I appreciate the comments and the test results provided by the discussors and look forward to similar future exchanges.