This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

**Optimal Power Flow (OPF) model by using the optimization
**

toolbox provided by Matlab. For the OPF model solution it is

only required to be defined into two separated M files: i) the

given objective function and ii) the equality and inequality

constraints sets, without the need of defining associated Gradient

and Hessian expressions required by gradient search-based

algorithms. Therefore the complexity degree related to the

proposed OPF model implementation is similar to that required

by commercial specialized packages for solving optimization

models, but with the advantage that Matlab is commonly the

available software for research and academic purposes in electric

engineering. This hugely reduces the time to the implementation,

and for obtaining results, of a conventional OPF analysis of

electric energy systems.

The prowess and numerical accuracy of the proposed

implementation are demonstrated on the WSCC 3-machine, 9-

bus test system and the Mexican 46-machine, 190-bus test system.

Index Terms— Electric energy systems, steady state, power

flow, optimal power flow, optimization, Matlab.

I. INTRODUCTION

onventional power flow has been the analysis tool that is

routinely executed in control centers to assess the system

steady state operating condition [1]. However, opposite to

Optimal Power Flow (OPF) analysis, power flow analysis

cannot deal with economic and security aspects in a unified

reference frame. The concept of optimal power flow,

introduced by Dommel and Tinney in the early 1960's [2], has

received great attention since its early application to power

systems analysis [3]. OPF is a nonlinear optimization problem,

where a specific objective function must be optimized while

satisfying operational and physical constraints of the electric

power system [4]. A large variety of optimization techniques

have been employed to solve OPF problems, such as linear,

nonlinear, quadratic, mixed integer programming, interior-

point methods and Newton-based methods [2], [3] and [5].

From the power systems planning viewpoint the OPF

model solution provides the optimal settings for the variables

of a power network [2]. From the power system operation and

control viewpoints, an OPF solution gives an answer to adjust

A. Pizano-Martínez and E.A. Zamora-Cárdenas are with the

Department of Electromechanical Engineering, Instituto Tecnológico Superior

de Irapuato, at Guanajuato, México. (e-mail: alpizano@itesi.edu.mx;

eazamora@itesi.edu.mx).

C.R. Fuerte-Esquivel is with the Faculty of Electrical Engineering,

Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, 58030 Morelia, México

(cfuerte@umich.mx).

J. Segundo-Ramírez is with Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosi,

Centro de Investigación y Estudios de Posgrado de la Facultad de Ingeniería

(CIEP-FI). (e-mail: j2ramirez@hotmail.com).

available controls in order to meet the energy demand in the

most economically manner while keeping within bounds all

the constraints imposed on the system. OPF studies are being

used more and more by engineers, but further applications

ranging from planning, operation and control of modern power

systems are of great interest and must be investigated [6]. In

order to speed up the research of such those applications,

researchers have put attention on commercial software

packages for solving a large variety of OPF models.

Nowadays the commercial software packages commonly

used to solve OPF models are AMPL [7] and GAMS [8]. On

the one hand, by way of example, AMPL software has been

employed to; solve a OPF model with complementary

constraints [9], identify and analyze saddle-node bifurcations

and limit-induced bifurcations of power systems [10], solve

different OPF models used to investigate the effects of

reactive power limit modeling on Maximum System Loading

and Active and Reactive Power Markets [11]. More recently,

AMPL has been applied to solve a OPF model that considers

voltage stability constraints in order to control voltage stability

of power systems [12], among other applications. On the other

hand, GAMS software has been employed to; solve a voltage

stability constrained OPF from a market-clearing point of

view [13], compute the solution of a OPF model of FACTS

systems with static security constraints [14] and solve a

transient stability constrained OPF model [15].

This paper presents implementation and solution of a

conventional OPF model by using the optimization toolbox of

Matlab [16]. Section II of the paper shows the general OPF

formulation. The power system components modeling and the

explicit OPF formulation are presented in Section III. The

computational implementation of the OPF model is described

in Section IV. The prowess of the proposed implementation is

illustrated by means of numerical examples in Section V. The

work conclusions are given in Section VI.

II. GENERAL OPTIMAL POWER FLOW MODEL

Conventional OPF is considered as a non-linear

programming problem where the objective is to minimize a

given cost function subjected to a finite set of equality and

inequality constraints. The general OPF general formulation is

given by,

Minimize ( ) f y (1)

Subject to ( ) = 0 h y (2)

( ) ≤ 0 g y (3)

≤ ≤ y y y (4)

where f(y) is a real-valued objective function in

n

(f: ℜ

n

→ℜ

1

)

C

Conventional Optimal Power Flow Analysis

Using the Matlab Optimization Toolbox

A. Pizano-Martínez, C. Fuerte-Esquivel, E. A. Zamora-Cárdenas, and J. Segundo-Ramírez

XII Reunión de Otoño de Potencia, Electrónica y Computación, INTERNACIONAL ROPEC'2010

ISBN:

978-607-95476-1-5

Artículo aceptado por el comité revisor de la ROPEC 2010 para ser presentado como ponencia oral 189

to be minimized, h(y) is a set of r real-valued functions in

n

(h: ℜ

n

→ℜ

r

) corresponding to equality constraints representing

both power flow mismatch equations and control equations,

g(y) is a set of m real-valued functions in

n

(g: ℜ

n

→ℜ

m

)

representing the set of inequality constraint functions which

prevents the dispatching of generation that otherwise will lead

to violations of system limits. The vector of system variables

y∈S⊆ℜ

n

, in the search space S, includes the set of sv state

variables x (x∈ℜ

sv

) and the set of cv control variables u

(u∈ℜ

cv

), with lower and upper limits represented by y and y ,

respectively. A point y in S that satisfies the set of equality and

inequality constraints is a feasible point y

F

, the infinite set of

feasible points defines the feasible region F. A feasible point

F

y is the optimum point y

*

sought if there is a neighborhood

N of y

*

such that f(y

*

) ≤ f(y) for any y∈N∈F. The set of

inequality constraints consisting of those variables and

functions explicitly enforced to specified values at any stage

of the search of y

*

, and it is called active set A. The set of

inequality constraints that are active at the optimum solution is

called binding set B. All equality constraints are regarded as

active at any feasible point since they must be satisfied

unconditionally at the optimal solution y

*

of (1)-(4).

III. POWER SYSTEM AND OPTIMAL POWER FLOW EXPLICIT

MODELING

In order to present the explicit structure of the OPF

mathematical model, the previous general formulation (1)-(4)

is developed according to the specific optimization model

considered in this work. The explicit OPF formulation is given

in polar coordinates and according to the model of each power

system component, as follows.

A. Power system Modelling

The most common components of a power system are

generators, loads, shunt compensation elements, transmission

lines and transformers. These elements are modeled as given

below [17].

1) Generators

The generator is modeled as a controllable source of

complex power,

gi gi gi

S P jQ = + (5)

where P

gi

and Q

gi

are the active and reactive power generation

levels, with lower and upper bounds

gi

Q ,

gi

P and

gi

P ,

gi

Q ,

respectively. Since most of the based load of a power system

is provided by thermal units, they are considered in this work,

such that the active power production cost is described by the

following quadratic function,

2

( ) ( ) ( )

gi i i gi i gi

C P a b P c P = + + (6)

where a

i

, b

i

and c

i

are the cost curve coefficients for the

generation bus i. The voltage magnitude V

i

upper and lower

bounds for the generation bus i are

gi

V and

gi

V , respectively.

2) Loads

The power demand is considered as constant complex

power consumption,

li li li

P jQ = + S (7)

where P

li

and P

li

are the active and reactive power at each load

bus i. The upper and lower bounds of the voltage magnitude V

i

for the load substation are

li

V and

li

V , respectively.

3) Shunt Compensation Element

Shunt elements are mathematically described by means of a

magnitude voltage dependent complex power,

inj inj

shi i i

P jQ = + S (8)

The terms

inj

i

P and

inj

i

Q are the active and reactive power

injections, respectively, through the shunt compensation

admittance connected at the compensated bus i,

2 inj

i i i

P V G = (9)

2 inj

i i i

Q V B =− (10)

where V

i

is the voltage magnitude at the compensation node

with upper and lower limits

shi

V and

shi

V , respectively. The

compensation admittance is Y=G+jB, where G and B are the

shunt conductance and suceptance of the shunt compensator.

4) Transmission Lines

The transmission lines are represented by the π equivalent

circuit of Fig. 1, where I

j

and E

j

are the injected current and

voltage phasors at node i (i=k,m). R, L and B

c

are the series

resistance, series inductance and the shunt suceptance. The

current-voltage relation of the equivalent circuit is given by,

k kk km k

m mk mm m

=

I Y Y E

I Y Y E

(11)

where,

( )

2

kk mm km kk kk

Bc

j G jB = = + = + Y Y y (12)

km mk km km km

G jB = = − = + Y Y y (13)

2 2

( )

km

R

G

R L ω

=

+

;

2 2

( )

km

L

B

R L

ω

ω

= −

+

(14)

The power injected at node i through the transmission

element connected between nodes i and j , where i=k;m,

j=k,m, i≠j, is mathematically described as follows,

* *

( )

i i i i i i ii i ij j

P jQ = + = = + S E I E Y E Y E (15)

Applying the Euler’s identity to the voltage phasors E

i

and E

j

,

and then separating into real and imaginary parts, we obtain,

2

( ) ( )

inj

i i ii i j ij i j ij i j

P V G VV G Cos B Sin θ θ θ θ = + − + −

(16)

2

( ) ( )

inj

i i ii i j ij i j ij i j

Q V B VV G Sin B Cos θ θ θ θ = − + − − −

(17)

Fig. 1. Equivalent circuit of the transmission line

5) Conventional Transformers

In order to be able of simulating networks with transformers

having changers at off nominal tap ratio position at either

primary or secondary side, the two winding transformer is

XII Reunión de Otoño de Potencia, Electrónica y Computación, INTERNACIONAL ROPEC'2010

ISBN:

978-607-95476-1-5

Artículo aceptado por el comité revisor de la ROPEC 2010 para ser presentado como ponencia oral 190

modeled with complex taps on both primary and secondary

windings. The magnetizing branch non-linearity under

saturated conditions is also considered in the model to account

for the core losses. The schematic equivalent circuit is shown

in Fig 2.

The primary winding is represented as an ideal transformer

having complex tap ratios T

v

:1 and T

i

:1 in series with the

impedance Z

p

, where T

v

=T

i

*=T

v

∠φ

tv

. The * denotes the

conjugate operation. Also, the secondary winding is

represented as an ideal transformer having complex tap ratios

U

v

:1 and U

i

:1 in series with the impedance Z

s

, where U

v

=U

i

*=

U

v

∠φ

uv

. The transfer admittance matrix relating the primary

voltage V

p

and current I

p

to the secondary voltage V

s

and

current I

s

in the two-winding transformer is given by [17],

P PP PS PP PS P

S SP SS SP SS S

G G B B

j

G G B B

= +

I V

I V

(18)

where

2

2 2

1( 1) 2 2

1 2

v

PP

F U R F R

G

F F

+ +

=

+

;

2

2 2

1 2 2( 1)

1 2

v

PP

F R F U R

B

F F

− +

=

+

2

2 2

1( 3) 2 4

1 2

v

SS

F T R F R

G

F F

+ +

=

+

;

2

2 2

1 4 2( 3)

1 2

v

SS

F R F T R

B

F F

− +

=

+

( )

2 2

1 1

1cos( ) 2sin( ) 1 2

PS v v

G T U F F F F φ φ =− + +

( )

2 2

1 1

2cos( ) 1sin( ) 1 2

PS v v

B T U F F F F φ φ = + +

( )

2 2

2 2

1cos( ) 2sin( ) 1 2

SP v v

G T U F F F F φ φ =− + +

( )

2 2

2 2

2cos( ) 1sin( ) 1 2

SP v v

B T U F F F F φ φ = + +

2 2

1

1 R

v S v P eq

F T R U R = + + ;

2 2

1

2

v S v P eq

F T X U X X = + +

1 0 0

R ( ) ( )

eq P S P S P S S P

R R X X G R X R X B = − − −

1 0 0

( ) ( )

eq P S P S P S S P

X R R X X B R X R X G = − + −

0 0

1

S S

R R G X B = − ;

0 0

2

S S

R R B X G = −

0 0

3

P P

R R G X B = − ;

0 0

4

P P

R R B X G = −

1 tv uv

φ φ φ = − ;

2 uv tv

φ φ φ = −

The active and reactive power injections at node i through

the transformer connecting nodes i and j, where i=p,s, j=p,s,

i≠j, are respectively computed by using (16) and (17), but

using conductances and suceptances of (18).

Fig. 2. Equivalent circuit of the two winding transformer

B. OPF Explicit Model

The OPF explicit formulation readily derives from the

previous power system model.

1) Objective Function

The objective function f(y

*

) is the minimization of the total

active power generation cost. According with (6), the

objective function is formulated as follows,

2

1

( ) ( ) ( )

g

N

i i g i i g i

i

f a b P c P

=

= + +

∑

y (19)

where a

i

, b

i

and c

i

are the cost curve coefficients for the

generation bus i. N

g

is the number of generators, whose

individual generation power level is P

gi

.

2) Equality Constraints

In order to represent the steady state, the energy balance of

the power system must be unconditionally satisfied. This is

enforced by means of the active and reactive power balance at

each bus according to the following equality constraint set,

0,

1,2,...,

( ) ,

1,2,..., |

0

gi li inj i

j i b

b g

gk lk inj k

j k

P P P

i N

k N k N

Q Q Q

∈

∈

− − = ¦ ¹

=

¦ ¦

=

´ `

= ∉

− − =

¦ ¦

¹ )

∑

∑

h y (20)

where N

b

is the number of buses. The active and reactive

power levels, P

gj

and Q

gj

, respectively, are provided by the

generation controllable sources at the generation bus j(j=i,k),

as indicated by (5). The active P

lj

and reactive Q

lj

power loads

are the complex power consumption, as given by (7). ∑

j∈i,k

is

the set of nodes adjacent to node j, whilst P

inj j

and Q

inj j

are

active and reactive power flows injected at bus j through the

network elements, according to (9), (10), (16) and (17) . It is

very important to point out that the generated reactive power

Q

gi

is a function of the system variables and does not have a

scheduled value, therefore the reactive power balance

constraint can be only stated for non generation buses (k∉N

g

).

However, the reactive power balance at generation buses is

achieved according to the procedure applied to handle the

reactive generation limits, as explained below.

3) Inequality Constraints

Physical and operating limits constrain the practical steady

state operation of power systems components. The physical

and operating limits of generators and substations are

mathematically described by the following inequality sets,

1,2,...,

,

1,2,...,

gi gi gi g

b j j j

P P P i N

j N V V V

¦ ¹ ≤ ≤ =

=

´ `

= ≤ ≤

¹ )

Y (21)

{ }

( ) , 1,2,...,

gi gi gi g

Q Q Q i N = ≤ ≤ = g y (22)

It must be pointed out that the active power generation P

gi

and all the bus magnitude V

j

limits are simply inequality

constraint on variables, whilst the generator reactive power

limits are modeled as a set of functional inequality constraints.

In other words, the reactive power generation level Q

gi

in (22)

is from (17) and (20), as given by the following function,

2

( ) ( )

gi li i ii i j ij i j ij i j

j i

Q Q V B VV G Sin B Cos θ θ θ θ

∈

= + − + − − −

∑

(23)

The relation (23) means that the reactive power balance

generation bus i is always achieved when the generator is

inside its reactive generation limits. When the generator hits

either its lower Q

gi

or upper

gi

Q bound the inequality

constraint (22) is activated by the optimization algorithm, it

XII Reunión de Otoño de Potencia, Electrónica y Computación, INTERNACIONAL ROPEC'2010

ISBN:

978-607-95476-1-5

Artículo aceptado por el comité revisor de la ROPEC 2010 para ser presentado como ponencia oral 191

then automatically becomes into an equality constraint in

order to enforce the reactive power generation level Q

gi

to be

the violated limit

v

gi

Q ,

0

v

gi gi

Q Q − = (24)

where Q

gi

is defined by (23). Note that constraint (24) not only

avoids the violation of the reactive power generation limits,

but also represents the reactive power balance equation.

IV. OPTIMAL POWER FLOW PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION

The explicit OPF model (19)-(22) is implemented into a

computational algorithm in order to be solved by means of the

optimization toolbox of Matlab [16]. From an optimization

point of view, the OPF model represents a continuous non

linear constrained optimization problem, which can be solved

by using the function “fmincon” of that optimization toolbox.

The function uses a Sequential Quadratic Programming

optimization algorithm, started with input/output arguments to

configure the optimization parameters, set the model to be

optimized and display information.

A. Arguments of the fmincon Function

As any Matlab function, the fmincon function deals with

both input I

A

and output O

A

arguments. The general form of

this function is,

[ ] fmincon( )

A A

= O I (25)

where I

A

and O

A

are sets of input and output arguments,

respectively. Tables I and II briefly show and describe the

main elements of these argument sets according to the order

they must be provided to the fmincon function. Details of the

parameters opt∈I

A

and output∈O

A

are given in [16].

B. OPF Computational Algorithm Implementation

In order to implement a general OPF program for digital

computer, the OPF model is solved by using the fmincon

function, which is executed according to the computational

procedure described in Fig. 3. The proposed OPF

computational implementation starts reading the power system

data and convergence tolerance. The power system data are

converted to pu in order to normalize the system quantities,

but also to avoid optimization scaling problems. The system

variables are initialized as follows, nodal voltage magnitudes

V are set to 1pu and angles θ are set to 0 rad, as in

conventional power flow analysis. The active power

generation levels P

g

are initialized according to a network

lossless Economic Dispatch (ED) analysis. This analysis is

formulated as a nonlinear programming problem, where the

objective function (19) is the considered in the OPF model, the

single equality constraint is the active power balance between

the total generation and the total load, whilst the inequality

constraints only correspond with the generation active power

limits. The constraints and the objective function

TABLE I

DESCRIPTION OF THE INPUT ARGUMENTS IA

Name Description

@fun

The handle of the M-function file containing the objective function,

in our case; @(X)objfun_OPF(X)

X The vector containing the numerical value of the initial condition of

system variables θ, V and Pg, i.e. X =[θ

0

, V

0

, Pg

0

]

A

All these parameter are not of interest in this work, they refer to

linear equality and inequality constraints. They simply are set as

empty arguments ([ ]).

B

Aeq

Beq

Lb

Vector of lower bounds value of variables, in this work applied to

the sets V and Pg

Up

Vector of upper bounds value of variables, in this work applied to

the sets V and Pg

nlcon

The handle of the M-function file containing the non linear equality

and inequality functional constraints, here; @(X)constraints_OPF(X)

opt

This structure provides optional parameters for the optimization

process, which are set by means the optimset function of Matlab

TABLE II

DESCRIPTION OF OUTPUT ARGUMENTS OA

Name Description

X

This vector contains the numeric value of the system variables at the

OPF model solution, and is the same vector considered in IA

(see Table 1)

fval Value of the objective function at the solution X

eflag

Describes the exit condition of fmincon; if eflag>0, the convergence

was reached. If eflag=0, the maximum number of iteration was

exceeded. If eflag <0, there was not convergence

output

Structure that contains information of the optimization process

results

λ Vector of Lagrangian multipliers at the solution X

Gra Value of the Gradient of the objective function at the solution X

Hess Value of the Hessian of the objective function at the solution X

Fig. 3. OPF computational algorithm

are written in two separated Matlab functions (M1 and M2),

which are called by the fmincon function executed from the

implemented ED function.

The vector of initial conditions X is then passed to the

implemented OPF function, where the fmincon function is

newly executed to obtain the solution of the OPF model. The

OPF constraints (20)-(22) are written in another Matlab

function (M3) called by fmincon, along with the objective

function (19) written in M2, from the implemented OPF

function. The optimal solution X is used to compute the

network active and reactive power flows, which are finally

reported in a text file and on the computer display.

V. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

In order to illustrate numerically the prowess of the

implementation proposed in Section IV to carry out the OPF

analysis, the IEEE 3-machine 9-bus test system [18], the 10-

XII Reunión de Otoño de Potencia, Electrónica y Computación, INTERNACIONAL ROPEC'2010

ISBN:

978-607-95476-1-5

Artículo aceptado por el comité revisor de la ROPEC 2010 para ser presentado como ponencia oral 192

machine 39-bus New England system [19] and a 49-machine

190-bus model of the Mexican system are considered in the

numerical examples [20]. The design of the numerical

examples and the conventional OPF analysis results are given

below.

A. Three- Machine, Nine-Bus System

This section presents the results for the IEEE 3-machine 9-

bus test system obtained by the proposed OPF implementation

model. For the study the convergence tolerance for the

fmincon function was set to 1x10

-6

. The voltage magnitude

limits for all nodes are set to 0.95≤V

i

≤1.05 pu, the reactive

power limits for all generators were set to -20≤Q

gi

≤20 MVAR,

whilst the active power lower limits for generators connected

to nodes 1, 2 and 3 are 0≤P

g1

≤200MW, 0≤P

g2

≤ 150MW and

0≤P

g3

≤100MW, respectively. The cost functions of generators

were taken from [21]. Taking into account parameters and

system data from [18, pp.171-172], the optimum steady-state

operating point OP is computed by conventional OPF analysis

in a CPU time of 4.26sec. The optimal active and reactive

power dispatches and cost are shown in Table III.

The Table III shows that all voltage magnitudes, active and

reactive power generation levels are inside limits. However, it

must be pointed out that because of the voltage magnitudes of

nodes 1, 2 and 9 hit their upper limits, the corresponding

inequality constraints were activated and belong to the binding

set B, therefore they have a value equal to the violated limit.

The total generation costs obtained by the proposed

implementation are compared to those obtained using different

OPF methods reported in the literature in Table IV. The

generation cost obtained by the proposed implementation

compare well with those reported in [22] and [15], where

Newton’s method and GAMS are used to solve the OPF

model, respectively. The cost reported in [23] is slightly

higher; despite they use an evolutionary algorithm.

TABLE III

OPERATING POINT COMPUTED BY OPF FOR THE NINE-BUS SYSTEM

Node V(pu) θ (deg) Pgi (MW) Qgi (MVAR)

1 1.05 0.000 105.92 17.30

2 1.05 2.613 113.05 4.77

3 1.04 2.539 99.25 -15.56

4 1.04 -3.196

5 1.02 -6.104

6 1.03 -5.098

7 1.05 -1.064

8 1.04 -3.004

9 1.05 -0.515

Total Generation Cost 1,132.18 ($/hr)

TABLE IV

COMPARISON OF TOTAL GENERATION COSTS OF THE 9-BUS SYSTEM

OPF Approaches

Proposed [22] [23] [15]

Cost ($/hr) 1, 132.18 1, 132.18 1,132.30 1,132.18

B. New England System

The data of this system were taken from pp. 224-226 of

[18], whilst generator cost curves are as reported in Table III

of [21]. The generators active and reactive power limits are set

as indicated in columns 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Table V. The steady

state voltage magnitude limits for generation and load nodes

are set to 0.95≤V

gi

≤1.09 pu and 0.95≤V

li

≤1.07 pu, respectively.

The steady state operating point OP is computed by the

implemented OPF in a CPU time of 14.89 sec, the optimum

complex power dispatch and total generation cost

corresponding to this optimal point are given in Table V.

The resulting active and reactive power dispatches are

inside limits, however the reactive output powers of generators

connected at nodes 30 and 37 were set to their corresponding

violated limit.

The total generation costs obtained by the proposed

implementation are compared to those obtained using different

OPF methods reported in the literature in Table VI. These

comparisons indicate that the most economic dispatch is the

one obtained by the proposed implementation.

TABLE V

GENERATORS RATINGS AND OPF DISPATCH OF THE NEW ENGLAND SYSTEM

Node

MW Limits MVAR Limits OPF Dispatch

Lower Upper Lower Upper MW MVAR

30 0 350 140 400 240.13 140.00

31 0 650 -100 300 566.48 293.04

32 0 800 150 300 641.13 206.98

33 0 750 0 250 631.93 145.08

34 0 650 0 167 510.60 124.54

35 0 750 -100 300 654.03 195.00

36 0 750 0 240 560.07 115.69

37 0 700 0 250 535.88 0.00

38 0 900 -150 300 832.73 20.48

39 0 1200 -100 300 966.42 -28.71

Total Generation Cost 60,908.54 ($/hr)

TABLE VI

COMPARISON OF TOTAL GENERATION COSTS OF THE NEW ENGLAND SYSTEM

OPF Approaches

Proposed [23] [15]

Cost ($/hr) 6,0908.54 60,936.51 60,918.66

C. 46- Machine, 190-Bus Mexican Power System

The implemented computational algorithm analysis is

applied to carry out the OPF analysis on a Mexican

Interconnected Power System (MIS) equivalent model that

consists of 190 buses, 46 generators, 90 loads and 265

transmission lines operating at voltage levels ranging from

400 kV to 115 kV [18]. The schematic diagram of this system

is shown in Fig. 4.The voltage magnitude limits for all nodes

are set to 0.94≤V

i

≤1.07 pu, whilst the active and reactive

power limits for all generators were set to 0≤P

gi

≤1250 MW

and -250≤Q

gi

≤350 MVAR, respectively. The OPF analysis

computes an optimal steady state operating point with total

generation cost of 21138.54$/hr. There is not active and

reactive power limits violations, and only eight magnitude

voltages hit their limits. The CPU time required to carry out

the OPF solution was of 545sec.

XII Reunión de Otoño de Potencia, Electrónica y Computación, INTERNACIONAL ROPEC'2010

ISBN:

978-607-95476-1-5

Artículo aceptado por el comité revisor de la ROPEC 2010 para ser presentado como ponencia oral 193

Fig.4. Schematic diagram of the Mexican interconnected power system [20].

Fig.5. Optimal Active Power Dispatches.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

A new computational implementation of a conventional

OPF model has been presented. The prowess of this proposal

has been demonstrated by means of numerical examples. The

numerical results obtained by the proposed implementation

compare well with those reported in the literature. As it would

be expected, the fmincon function of Matlab does not run too

fast, this might be because of the gradient vector and hessian

matrix elements associated with the optimization model are

obtained numerically, i.e., they are not provide by the user.

However, this fact allows to undergraduate and graduate

students, as well as researchers, speeding up the OPF models

implementation and in getting of research results, since avoids

the need of developing complex programming routines, but

overall circumvents the difficulty of clearing hidden

programming errors, which result in saving a lot of very

valuable time.

VII. REFERENCES

[1] B. Stott, “Power system dynamic respond calculations”. Proc. of the

IEEE, Special Issue on Computers in Power System Operations, Vol. 67,

No. 2, pp. 219-241, Feb. 1979.

[2] M. Huneault and F. D. Galiana, "A survey of the optimal power flow

literature". IEEE Trans. on Power Syst., Vol.6, No.2, pp.762-770, May

1991.

[3] J.A. Momoh, "Optimal Power Flow with Multiple Objective Functions".

Proc. of the 1989 IEEE North American Power Symposium, pp.105-108.

[4] J. A. Momoh, M.E. El-Hawari, and R. Adapa, “A review of selected

optimal power flow literature to 1993: part I: nonlinear and quadratic

programming approaches”. IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.

96-104, February 1999.

[5] J. A. Momoh, M.E. El-Hawari, and R. Adapa, “A review of selected

optimal power flow literature to 1993 part II: Newton, linear

programming and interior point methods”. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,

Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 105-111, February 1999.

[6] J.A. Momoh, R.J. Koessler, M.S. Bond, B. Stott, and D. Sun, A.

Papalexopoulos and P. Ristanovic, “Challenges to optimal power flow”.

IEEE Trans. Power Syst. Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 444-455, Feb. 1997.

[7] KNITRO. [Online]. Available: http://www.ziena.com.

[8] A. S. Drud, GAMS/CONOPT, ARKI Consulting and Development,

Bagsvaerdvej 246A, DK-2880 Bagsvaerd, Denmark, 1996, available at

http://www.gams.com/.

[9] W. Rosehart, C. Roman, and Antony Schellenberg, “Optimal Power

Flow with Complementary Constraints”. IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol.

20, No. 2, pp. 813-822, May 2005.

[10] R. J. Avalos, C.A. Cañizares, F. Milano, and A. J. Conejo, “Equivalency

of Continuation and Optimization Methods to Determine Saddle-Node

and Limit-Induced Bifurcations in Power Systems”. IEEE Trans. on

Circuits and Systems, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 210-223, January 2009.

[11] B. Tamimi, C.A. Cañizares, and S. Vaez-Zadeh, “Effect of Reactive

Power Limit Modeling on Maximum System Loading and Active and

Reactive Power Markets” IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems, Vol. 25,

No. 2, pp. 1106-1116, May 2010.

[12] V.J. Gutierrez-Martinez, C.A. Cañizares, C.R. Fuerte-Esquivel, A.

Pizano-Martínez, and X. Gu, “Neural-network security-boundary

constrained optimal power flow”. Transactions on Power Systems, 2010.

[13] F. Milano, C. A. Cañizares, and A. J. Conejo, "Sensitivity-Based

Security-Constrained OPF Market Clearing Model". Proc. of the 2006

IEEE PES Power Systems Conference & Exhibition, pp.418-427.

[14] R. Zárate-Miñano, A. J. Conejo, and F. Milano, “OPF-based security

redispatching including FACTS devices”. IET Generation, Transmission

& Distribution, vol.2, no.6, pp. 821-833, 2008.

[15] R. Zárate-Miñano, T. Van Cutsem, F. Milano and A. J. Conejo,

“Securing transient stability using time-domain simulations within an

optimal power flow”. IEEE Trans. on Power Syst., vol.25, no.1, pp. 243-

253, Feb. 2010.

[16] The MathWorks, Inc., “Matlab Optimization Toolbox,” Users Guide

Version 2, available at http://www.mathworks.com.

[17] E. Acha, C. R. Fuerte Esquivel, H. Ambriz Pérez, C. Angeles Camacho:

FACTS: Modelling and Simulation in Power Networks. John Wiley and

Sons, 2004.

[18] P. W. Sauer and M. A. Pai. Power System Dynamics and Stability.

Prentice-Hall, 1998.

[19] M. A. Pai, Energy Function Analysis for Power System Stability.

Kluwer, 1989.

[20] A. R. Messina and V. Vittal. “Assessment of nonlinear interaction

between nonlinearly coupled modes using higher order spectra”. IEEE

Trans. on Power Syst., vol.20, no.1, pp. 375-383, Feb. 2005.

[21] T. B. Nguyen and M. A. Pai. “Dynamic security-constrained

rescheduling of power systems using trajectory sensitivities”. IEEE

Trans. on Power Syst., vol.18, no.2, pp. 848-854, May 2003.

[22] Pizano-Martínez A., Fuerte-Esquivel C.R., and Ruiz-Vega D., “Global

Transient Stability-Constrained Optimal Power Flow using SIME

Sensitivity analysis,” IEEE-PES General Meeting,, 25-29, July, 2010,

Minneapolis, USA, 8 pages.

[23] H.R. Cai, C.Y. Chung, and K.P. Wong, “Application of differential

evolution algorithm for transient stability constrained optimal power

flow,” IEEE Trans. on Power Syst., Vol.23, No.2, May 2008.

VIII. BIOGRAPHIES

Alejandro Pizano-Martinez received his Ph.D. degree from Universidad

Michoacana, México in 2010. Currently, he is Associated Professor at

Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Irapuato (ITESI), México.

Claudio R. Fuerte-Esquivel (M’1991, SM’04) received his Ph.D. degree

from the University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK in 1997. Currently, he is

Professor at Universidad Michoacana, México.

Enrique A. Zamora Cárdenas received his BEng degree (Hons) from

University of Colima, México in 2001, and his M.Sc. degree from

Universidad Michoacana, México, in 2004. He is currently working towards

his Ph.D. degree at Universidad Michoacana. He is also Associated Professor

at Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Irapuato (ITESI), México.

Juan Segundo-Ramirez recived his Ph.D from UMSNH in 2010. He is

currently with Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosi, Centro de

Investigación y Estudios de Posgrado de la Facultad de Ingeniería (CIEP-FI).

XII Reunión de Otoño de Potencia, Electrónica y Computación, INTERNACIONAL ROPEC'2010

ISBN:

978-607-95476-1-5

Artículo aceptado por el comité revisor de la ROPEC 2010 para ser presentado como ponencia oral 194

by Masud Alam

A. Pizano-Martínez, C. Fuerte-Esquivel, E. A. Zamora-Cárdenas, and J. Segundo-Ramírez

A. Pizano-Martínez, C. Fuerte-Esquivel, E. A. Zamora-Cárdenas, and J. Segundo-Ramírez

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd