Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PHD Thesis
PHD Thesis
A Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School
of Cornell University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Ray Daniel Zimmerman
January 1995
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Ray Daniel Zimmerman was born in Ephrata, PA on December 17,
1965. Four years later he moved with his family to a chicken farm in rural
Lancaster County, PA, where he lived until he began studying Electrical
Engineering in September of 1984. As an undergraduate at Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA, he participated in a cooperative education program which involved working for six month periods at each of the following
companies: IBM Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, Evaluation
Associates, Bala Cynwyd, PA, and UNISYS Corporation, Tredyffrin, PA.
He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from
Drexel University in June, 1989. In August of
the same year he began graduate studies in
Electrical Engineering at Cornell University in
Ithaca, NY, where he received a Master of Science degree in May, 1992, in the area of network
reconfiguration in electric power distribution
systems.
iii
to my wife, Esther
and my daughter, Ana
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Pero habiendo obtenido auxilio de Dios, persevero hasta el da de hoy. Hechos 26:22
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...............................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .....................................................................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xii
1
Introduction
1
1.1 Background.....................................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives and Contributions..........................................................................3
vi
vii
viii
Simulation Results
148
8.1 Summary of Algorithms Tested..................................................................150
8.1.1 Newton-Raphson Method...............................................................150
8.1.2 Implicit Zbus Gauss Method............................................................152
8.2 Description of Test Systems .......................................................................154
8.3 Power Flow Algorithms for Radial Systems (PARS) .................................155
8.3.1 Effect of Load Model and Load Factor on Convergence ...............160
8.3.2 Effect of System Size on Convergence...........................................163
8.4 Power Flow Algorithms for Weakly Meshed Systems (PAWMS)..............165
8.4.1 Effect of PARS Termination Criterion on Convergence.................166
8.4.2 Effect of Number of Loops on Convergence..................................168
8.4.3 Effect of Load Model on Convergence...........................................171
8.5 Summary.....................................................................................................172
Conclusions
175
9.1 Contributions...............................................................................................175
9.2 Future Work................................................................................................178
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................................180
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Mathematical Notation..............................................................................8
Bus Indexing Implementation.................................................................14
General Update Formulas .......................................................................17
Implementation of (2.2) ..........................................................................18
Implementation of (2.3) ..........................................................................18
General Branch Update Formulas...........................................................20
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
Table 3.10
Table 3.11
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
Table 6.7
Newtons Method....................................................................................86
Fast Decoupled Power Flow Algorithm for Radial Systems..................87
VI-DePARS Jacobian Formation.............................................................97
Jacobian Approximations for Transformers for VI-DePARS................106
Various Formulations for DePARS.......................................................110
I-DePARS Jacobian Formation .............................................................118
Jacobian Approximations for Transformers for I-DePARS ..................121
Table 7.1
Table 8.1
Table 8.2
Table 9.1
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Example of Bus & Lateral Indexing.......................................................10
Figure 2.2 Basic Building Block..............................................................................16
Figure 3.1 Grounded Wye Connected Load.............................................................24
Figure 3.2 Ungrounded Delta Connected Load........................................................26
Figure 3.3 Three-Phase Distribution Line Model ....................................................31
Figure 4.1 Norton Equivalent at Bus k.....................................................................46
Figure 4.2 Combine with Incoming Branch.............................................................47
Figure 4.3 Admittance Equivalent at Bus k .............................................................54
Figure 5.1 Single Feeder Example ...........................................................................59
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.4
Figure 6.5
Figure 6.6
Figure 7.1
Figure 7.2
Figure 7.3
Figure 7.4
Figure 8.1
Figure 8.2
Figure 8.3
Figure 8.4
Figure 8.5
Figure 8.6
Figure 8.7
Figure 8.8
Figure 8.9
Figure 8.10
Figure 8.11
Figure 8.12
Figure 8.13
Figure 8.14
Figure 8.15
Figure 8.16
xiii
Chapter 1
Introduction
The supply of electric power to homes, offices, schools, factories,
stores, and nearly every other place in the modern world is now taken for
granted. Electric power has become a fundamental part of the infrastructure of contemporary society, with most of todays daily activity based on
the assumption that the desired electric power is readily available. The
power systems which provide this electricity are some of the largest and
most complex systems in the world. They consist of three primary components: the generation system, the transmission system, and the distribution system. Each component is essential to the process of delivering power
from the site where it is produced to the customer who uses it.
1.1 Background
One of the most fundamental calculations related to any system is the
determination of the steady state behavior. In power systems, this calculation is the steady state power flow problem, also called load flow. It essen-
2
tially involves finding the steady state voltages at each node, given a
certain set of generation and loading conditions.
The majority of power flow algorithms in wide use in industry today,
most notably, the Newton-Raphson method and its variants [25; 28], have
been developed specifically for transmission systems which have a meshed
structure, with parallel lines and many redundant paths from the generation points to the load points. The Newton-Raphson method itself is computationally expensive for large systems, due primarily to the size of the
Jacobian and the resulting system of linear equations which must be
solved to find the Newton step. For transmission systems, some approximations can typically be made which allow for the decoupling of real and
reactive power from and voltage magnitude and angle, respectively. The
Jacobian can also be approximated by a constant matrix, resulting in the
fast-decoupled Newton method [26] which has proven to be a great
improvement over the standard Newton-Raphson power flow for many
cases.
The focus of this dissertation is on the solution of the power flow problem for the distribution system. Typically, a distribution system originates
at a substation where the electric power is converted from the high voltage
transmission system to a lower voltage for delivery to the customers.
Unlike a transmission system, a distribution system typically has a radial
topological structure. Unfortunately, this radial structure, along with the
higher resistance/reactance (R/X) ratio of the lines, makes the fast-decoupled Newton method unsuitable for most distribution power flow problems.
Since power flow is such a fundamental calculation for a power system, it is used in many applications in planning and operation. Some of the
3
optimization problems related to distribution automation, such as network
reconfiguration, service restoration, and capacitor placement, require the
solution of hundreds or even thousands of power flow problems. These
applications place two primary requirements on a distribution power flow
program. First, the modeling must reflect the actual behavior of the system
components. Second, the solution algorithm must be robust and efficient.
Various efficient distribution power flow algorithms which exploit the
radial structure have been proposed in the literature. These algorithms
can be classified into three groups:
network reduction methods [4]
backward/forward sweep methods [3; 11; 18; 19; 20; 23]
fast decoupled methods [12; 17; 32]
All of the proposed methods, as presented, have some limitations. Many
are only applied to single-phase representations of the network and cannot
handle unbalanced distribution systems or networks with a mixed number
of phases. Most of the methods are also proposed in the context of limited
network modeling. In particular, none of the algorithms in the literature
include modeling for transformers which are grounded on one side and
ungrounded on the other. Unlike the extension from a single-phase to a
three-phase representation, the addition of such modeling into the formulation is not straightforward. Line charging capacitance, cogeneration, and
general load models are also typically not considered.
4
takes into account the detailed and extensive modeling necessary for use in
the distribution automation environment of a real world power system.
A general framework was developed for each of the three classes of
existing algorithms, and a common set of network component models was
chosen. The general framework for each class helps in relating the proposed algorithms to one another and also reveals variations of each class
that have not previously been explored. Within each class, new algorithms
were developed and, where necessary, the existing algorithms were
extended to remove limitations and generalized to handle the following:
general radial structure1
unbalanced three-phase operation, including single-phase and
two-phase branches
general load models, including constant power, constant current,
and constant impedance loads, connected in wye or delta configurations
cogenerators
shunt capacitors
line charging effects
switches
three-phase transformers of various connection types
The basic problem framework and some common notation used
throughout the dissertation are introduced in Chapter 2. In Chapter 3,
detailed models for loads, shunt capacitors, cogenerators, distribution
lines, switches, and transformers are presented, along with some of the
specific equations needed to implement these models in the algorithms
which follow.
1 Some
5
Chapters 4, 5, and 6, respectively, discuss in detail the network reduction, backward/forward sweep, and fast decoupled algorithms. Each chapter presents first the basic concepts behind the corresponding class of
methods, then a detailed description of a specific algorithm in the respective class. Following this detailed description of the algorithm are some
comments on the implementation of the method. Each of the three classes
includes several variations which are discussed relative to the version presented in detail. Each of these chapters concludes with a discussion of the
convergence characteristics followed by some general comments. Chapter 5
and Chapter 6 include proofs of convergence for the respective algorithms.
Chapter 7 explores an extension of the radial power flow algorithms
discussed in the previous three chapters to handle weakly meshed systems
with certain modeling restrictions. The extension described is based on a
radial power flow solver imbedded within a compensation method. It
extends the formulation to address systems with loops, secondary sources,
and PV buses. The structure of the chapter is similar to the pattern of the
previous three, discussing the basic concepts, followed by a detailed
description of the algorithm, implementation notes, variations, and comments.
Each of the radial power flow algorithms, including all of the variations presented, along with the extensions to weakly meshed networks,
was implemented in a MATLAB program for testing. In addition, the Newton-Raphson and Implicit Zbus Gauss methods were implemented for comparison. Chapter 8 analyzes the relative performance of the various
methods on test systems ranging in size from 63 buses to over 1000 buses.
The effects of system size, load models, load factor, and number of loops in
6
the network are examined. The chapter ends with a summary of the simulation results and some general conclusions about the relative merits of the
different approaches.
The final chapter discusses the conclusions drawn from this work,
outlines a summary of the contributions made, and mentions some ideas
for possible areas of future research to extend the work in this dissertation.
Chapter 2
8
complex matrices A, X, and Y, and for functions f and g, will be used extensively throughout this dissertation.
Table 2.1 Mathematical Notation
The Expression:
Is Used To Denote:
x .* y
element-wise multiplication
x./ y
element-wise division
element-wise magnitude
x2
x = A\ y
X = A\Y
solution
f g( x)
The
9
unknowns corresponds to an entire lateral instead of an individual bus.
Such a formulation therefore calls for an appropriate lateral indexing to
order these equations and variables.
2.2.1
Indexing Scheme
10
19
10
(2,1,5)
(4,1,2)
(2,1,4)
(4,1,1)
(4,10,2)
17
(4,10,1)
(2,3,4)
16
(2,1,3)
(3,1,1)
(3,1,2)
(2,1,2)
(2,3,3)
(3,6,1)
(3,6,2)
11
(3,6,3)
(3,5,1)
(3,5,2)
(3,5,3)
12
(2,3,2)
(2,1,1)
(2,3,1)
Source
(1,1,0)
(4,8,1)
(4,9,1)
(4,8,2)
(4,9,2)
3
(1,1,1)
(1,1,2)
(1,1,3)
(1,1,4)
(1,1,5)
(1,1,6)
(3,2,1)
(3,2,2)
(3,2,3)
(3,2,4)
20
(1,1,7)
(2,2,1)
(2,2,2)
(3,3,3)
14
(3,3,2)
(3,3,1)
(4,2,1)
(4,3,1)
(4,2,2)
(4,3,2)
(2,2,3)
9
(4,4,1)
(2,2,4)
13
(3,4,1)
(3,4,2)
(3,4,3)
(3,4,4)
(4,4,2)
7
(2,2,5)
(4,5,1)
(4,6,1)
(4,7,1)
(2,2,6)
(4,5,2)
(4,6,2)
(4,7,2)
18
(3,2,5)
15
11
used for backward sweep type operations. If the laterals are sorted in
ascending order, the result is a breadth-first (BF) ordering, typically used
for forward sweep type operations.
The following shorthand notation will also be used when i is an
ordered pair referring to a lateral and k is an ordered triple referring to a
bus. Lateral i 1 refers to the parent of lateral i, and bus k 1 refers to
bus ks parent bus. Unless specified otherwise, bus k + 1 is used to refer to
the bus following bus k on the same lateral. This is consistent with using k
as a simple bus index, in other words letting k = n , which is done frequently throughout the following chapters. In this case, bus 0 of lateral i
refers to the bus on lateral i 1 from which lateral i emanates. For example, in the network in Figure 2.1, bus 0 of lateral (2,3) is also bus 4 of lateral (1,1). This notation is used in indexing voltages, currents, power flows,
impedances, etc.
2.2.2
Indexing Implementation
The network data which specifies the topology of the system is typically given as a list of branches with information on which two buses the
12
branch connects. In order to efficiently traverse a feeder, it is important to
store information with each bus k indicating the incoming branch, the bus
which follows bus k on the same lateral, the number of sub-laterals
branching off at bus k, and the first bus on each of these sub-laterals.
The first three of these quantities will be denoted inbranch(k),
next(k), and nsubs(k), respectively. The first bus on the sub-laterals
branching from bus k will be called subbus1(k,1), subbus1(k,2), ,
subbus1(k,nsubs(k)), respectively. Assuming the source bus is known,
these data structures can be built up, along with the ordered triples of the
previous section, during the process of a breadth-first search.
2.2.2.2
Breadth-First Search
1 How
many and which phases are present at each bus and branch and do they match.
13
bus k. If the bus at the other end of such a branch has not yet been visited
during the search,2 it is a child of bus k.
When the search is at bus k and all of bus ks children have been
found, the inbranch information can be set for each child. The value of
nsubs is typically set to one less than the number of children since one of
the children is generally selected to be the next bus on the same lateral
and the rest are assigned to the elements of subbus1.
The decision of which child, if any, is considered to be on the continuation of the same lateral and which children are considered to be on sub-laterals has a significant effect on the resulting bus and lateral indexing.
Since some of the power flow algorithms require that each lateral have at
most one transformer, a child whose inbranch is a transformer is never
assigned to next. Transformers are always assigned to a sub-lateral, even
if it leads to the buss only child. Similarly, if the branch leading to a child
of bus k has fewer phases than bus k, then the child is put on a sub-lateral.
This simplifies some of the implementation since it means that the phases
present are consistent throughout an entire lateral.
After setting the connectivity data structures at bus k, the buss
ordered triple is generated. This requires several counters to be maintained during the search process. First, l, m, and n are used to denote the
current level, lateral, and bus indices, respectively. The counters L, M l ,
and N l, m keep track of the number of levels encountered during the
search, the number of laterals on level l, and the number of buses on
lateral ( l, m ) , respectively. The algorithm used to generate the ordered triple for bus k is shown in Table 2.2.
2 i.e.
the branch is not the incoming branch of bus k (assuming a radial network).
14
Table 2.2 Bus Indexing Implementation
Algorithm for Setting Indices (l, m, n) for Bus k
if bus k is the source
set ( l, m, n ) = ( L, M 1, N 1, 1 ) = ( 1, 1, 0 )
otherwise (for all other buses)
set l to the level of ks parent bus
if bus k lies on the same lateral as its parent bus
set m to lateral index of ks parent bus
otherwise (it is the first bus on a new lateral)
increment l by 1
if this is the first level l lateral encountered
increment L by one (i.e. set L = l )
initialize M l = 0
end if
increment M l by 1 and set m = M l
initialize N l, m = 0
end if
increment N l, m by 1 and set n = N l, m
end if
set the index for bus k to ( l, m, n )
The index for the source is set directly to ( 1, 1, 0 ) . Each of the remaining buses falls into one of two classes based on whether it is the first bus on
a lateral or a continuation of a lateral previously encountered during the
search. For a bus k in the second class, the level and lateral indices, l and
m, are copied directly from the buss parent. For the first class, the level
index l is set to one more than that of the buss parent, and the lateral
counter for that level is incremented by one and assigned to the lateral
15
index m. Finally, in both cases, the bus counter for that lateral is incremented by one and assigned as the bus index n. Each time a new level l is
first encountered, L is incremented and assigned to l and the corresponding lateral counter M l is initialized to zero. Likewise, each time a new
level l lateral is first encountered, M l is incremented and assigned to m
and the corresponding bus counter N l, m is initialized to zero.
When the entire network has been traversed by the search, all connectivity structures have been built and all bus indices have been assigned.
These bus indices are then used to form a list of laterals in RBF3 order.
Each element of the list contains the first and last buses on the corresponding lateral. These elements are sorted in descending order according to the
indices associated with the corresponding buses, first by the lateral level,
then by the lateral index.
16
Bus k-1
(supplying)
Bus k
(receiving)
sub-laterals
Vk 1
Ik
I k
distribution line,
switch, or transformer
S k
Sk
I Gk
cogenerator
S Gk
I Ck
Vk
S Ck
shunt
capacitor
Ik + 1
Sk + 1
I Lk
S Lk
load
17
Each of the algorithms in these three classes depends on the ability to
compute the voltage and current (or power flow) at a given bus from the
corresponding quantities at an adjacent bus. Letting
wk =
Vk
Ik + 1
Vk
and u k =
Sk + 1
(2.1)
Direction of
Calculation
Update Formula
forward
w k = f k(w k 1)
(2.2)
backward
w k 1 = g k(w k)
(2.3)
forward
u k = e k(u k 1)
(2.4)
backward
u k 1 = h k(u k)
(2.5)
current
power flow
The functions f k and g k are inverses of each other and the functions
e k and h k are inverses of each other. Each of the four functions is determined by the respective load, shunt capacitor, cogenerator, and sub-laterals attached at bus k as well as the incoming distribution line, switch, or
transformer.
The implementation of each of the update formulas in Table 2.3 consists of a four step procedure. The steps for the implementation of (2.2) are
shown in Table 2.4. The backward calculation of (2.3) is accomplished by
the steps shown in Table 2.5. These steps are nearly the same as those in
Table 2.4, but in a different order. In the case of (2.4) and (2.5), where
18
Table 2.4 Implementation of (2.2)
Procedure
Details
see (2.20)
Details
see (2.20)
power flow is used instead of current, all of the Is in Tables 2.4 and 2.5 are
replaced by Ss.
2.3.1
4 The
11
12
21
Yk
22
Yk
Yk Yk
(2.6)
19
BR
as
follows:
Ik
Ik
11
12
21
Yk
22
Yk
Yk Yk
Vk 1
Vk
(2.7)
(2.8)
I k = ( Sk . / V k)
(2.9)
Once the voltage, V k or V k 1 depending on the direction of calculation, has been updated, the updated current can also be computed directly
from (2.7). If the power flow is needed it can be computed from the updated
current and voltage by one of the following:
S k = V k 1 .* I k
(2.10)
S k = V k .* I k
(2.11)
2.3.2
Application of KCL
The current or power flow component of the update formulas (2.2)(2.5) is based on the current or power lost in bus ks incoming branch and
the application of Kirchhoffs Current Law (KCL) at bus k. The application
of KCL at bus k requires the currents injected by cogenerators, shunt
20
Table 2.6 General Branch Update Formulas
Based
on
Direction of Function
Calculation
of
forward
V k 1, I k
current
backward
forward
V k, I k
V k 1, S k
power
flow
backward
V k, S k
Update Formula
12 1
11
V k = ( Y k ) ( I k Y k V k 1 )
(2.12)
21
22
I k = Y k V k 1 + Y k V k
(2.13)
21 1
22
V k 1 = ( Y k ) ( I k Y k V k )
(2.14)
11
12
I k = Y k V k 1 + Y k V k
(2.15)
12 1
11
V k = ( Y k ) ( ( S k . / V k 1 ) Y k V k 1 )
(2.16)
21
22
S k = V k .* ( Y k V k 1 + Y k V k )
(2.17)
21 1
22
V k 1 = ( Y k ) ( ( S k . / V k ) Y k V k )
(2.18)
11
12
S k = V k 1 .* ( Y k V k 1 + Y k V k )
(2.19)
j Ak
I j I k I k + 1 = 0 .
(2.20)
j Ak
S j Sk Sk + 1 = 0
(2.21)
Chapter 3
21
22
are always used for loads, shunt capacitors, and cogenerators, as shown in
Figure 2.2.
a
Bus voltages are typically the phase voltages V , V , and V referenced to ground. However, it is possible to have floating sections of the network in which there is no reference to ground. For example, there might be
a feeder connected to the secondary side of a grounded wye to delta transformer which has only ungrounded, i.e. delta connected, loads. The terms
grounded and ungrounded, respectively, will be used to distinguish
between parts of the network which have a reference to ground and those
floating sections which do not. Which buses are in grounded sections and
which are in ungrounded sections is determined according to the grounding of the transformer connections during the initial traversal of the network described in Section 2.2.2.2, Breadth-First Search. It is assumed
that any part of a network supplied through an ungrounded transformer
connection will be entirely ungrounded.1
In the ungrounded sections, to avoid arbitrarily picking a particular
phase as the voltage reference, the line-to-line voltages V
used. In this case, the third line voltage V
equal to ( V
ab
ca
ab
and V
bc
are
bc
1A
23
When computing power flows as opposed to currents, ground is used
a
a a
as a reference in grounded sections. For example, S = V I . However,
in ungrounded sections, the power used is that defined by the line-to-line
voltages V
ab
and V
bc
ab
bc
= V
ab a
(3.1)
bc b
(3.2)
= V I
ab
bc
+ S . Total
power flows must be calculated using a common voltage base. For example,
using phase c as a voltage reference, the total power can be computed as
S
total
= S
ac
bc
+S .
(3.3)
Each load could actually be a linear combination of these three types. In fact, it is
straightforward to generalize the model presented here to a current injection expressed as
an arbitrary function of voltage.
24
the following quantities from the bus voltage V k and the constant model
parameters:
admittance matrix Y Lk
injected current I Lk = Y Lk V k
injected power S
= V .* I
Lk
Lk
With a grounded wye connected load as shown in Figure 3.1, for each
p
S Lk , nom
S Lk , nom = S b
.
Lk , nom
(3.4)
S Lk , nom
Vk
V bk
a
Vk
b
I Lk
I Lk
S bLk
S aLk
I Lk
y bLk
c
S Lk
y aLk
y cLk
25
plex vectors of current, power, and admittance, respectively, where n is the
number of phases present. Note that I Lk and S Lk are injected quantities,
hence the negative sign in (3.5) and (3.6).
Table 3.1 Load Parameters from Nominal Loads
Connection
grounded
wye
V k, nom
a
V k, nom
b
V k, nom
c
V k, nom
ungrounded
delta
V ab
k, nom
bc
V k, nom
ca
V k, nom
where
U =
Load Type
Parameter Calculation
constant S
S Lk = S Lk , nom
(3.5)
constant I
I Lk = ( S Lk , nom . / V k, nom )
(3.6)
constant Z
y Lk = S Lk , nom . / V k, nom 2
(3.7)
constant S
S Lk = S Lk , nom
(3.8)
constant I
I Lk = ( S Lk , nom . / ( UV k, nom ) )
(3.9)
constant Z
y Lk = S Lk , nom . / UV k, nom 2
(3.10)
constant S
S Lk = S Lk , nom
(3.11)
constant I
I Lk = ( S Lk , nom . / V k, nom )
(3.12)
constant Z
y Lk = S Lk , nom . / V k, nom 2
(3.13)
1 1 0
0 1 1 .
1 0 1
Figure 3.2 shows an ungrounded delta connected load for which the
nominal power given is the power absorbed by the elements between each
phase. In this case, the nominal load is
ab
S Lk , nom
S Lk , nom = S bc
.
Lk , nom
ca
S Lk , nom
(3.14)
26
a
Vk
Vk
a
Vk
b
I Lk
I Lk
I Lk
bc
I Lk
S ab
Lk
ab
y Lk
I ab
Lk
bc
y bc
Lk
S ca
Lk
ca
y Lk
S Lk
I ca
Lk
3.1.1
27
grounded
wye
Vk
Load Type
Vk
c
Vk
ungrounded
delta
constant S
( S Lk . / V k 2 )
constant I
I Lk . / V k
constant Z
y Lk
constant S
( S Lk . / UV k 2 )
y Lk + y Lk
constant I
I Lk . / ( UV k )
y Lk
constant Z
y Lk
y Lk
constant S
( S Lk . / V k 2 )
ab
Vk
bc
Vk
3.1.2
U =
Admittance Matrix
Y Lk =
y aLk 0
constant I
constant Z
I Lk . / V k
y Lk
0 y bLk 0
Vk
where
Element
Admittance
y Lk =
0
ca
ab
0 y Lk
ab
ca
y Lk
ab
ab
y Lk
bc
bc
y Lk + y Lk
ca
bc
bc
y Lk
ca
y Lk
ca
y Lk + y Lk
ab
ca
y Lk + y Lk y Lk
ab
y Lk
bc
y Lk
1 1 0
0 1 1 .
1 0 1
28
Table 3.3 Current & Power Injected by Load
Connection
grounded
wye
Vk
a
Vk
b
Vk
c
Vk
Injected Current
I Lk =
Injected Power
Lk =
S
constant S
( S Lk . / V k )
S Lk
constant I
I Lk
constant Z
y Lk .* V k
constant S
( U [ S Lk . / ( UV k ) ] )
constant I
U I Lk
constant Z
Y Lk V k
Load Type
constant S
V k .* I Lk
ungrounded
delta
ca
S Lk
-----------------------ab
bc
Vk + Vk
ab
bc
ab
S Lk
--------ab
Vk
S Lk S Lk
-------- --------ab
bc
Vk
Vk
ab
Vk
bc
Vk
constant I
V k .* I Lk
ca
ab
ab
bc
V k .* I Lk
I Lk I Lk
I Lk I Lk
constant Z
where
U =
Y Lk V k
1 1 0
0 1 1 .
1 0 1
29
grounded sections of the network are wye connected and those in
ungrounded sections are three-phase and delta connected.
The constant model parameter, in this case, is the admittance y Ck
which is computed from the given nominal reactive power injection
Q Ck , nom . The nominal voltage V k, nom is the phase-to-ground voltage in
grounded sections and the full 3-dimensional line-to-line voltage for
ungrounded sections.3 The admittance y Ck is then given by
y Ck = jQ Ck , nom . / V k, nom 2 .
(3.15)
Vk
a
grounded
wye
ungrounded
delta
Vk
Y Ck =
I Ck =
S
Ck =
a
y Ck 0
b
Vk
c
Vk
V ab
k
V bc
k
b
y Ck
0
0
c
0 y Ck
ca
ab
Y Ck V k
V k .* I Ck
ca
y Ck + y Ck y Ck
ab
y Ck
bc
y Ck
b
c
bc
ca
V k, nom is V a
or V ab
, respectively.
k, nom V k, nom V k, nom
k, nom V k, nom V k, nom
30
loads with positive, as opposed to negative, real power injection. Others are
modeled as PV buses. This second type of cogenerator cannot be handled
directly by the radial power flow programs presented here. However,
Chapter 7 presents some extensions to the radial power flow methods
which do handle PV buses. Even in this case, each PV bus is treated as a
constant complex power element during any given iteration of the power
flow algorithm. It is therefore sufficient to present only the relevant formulas for constant PQ cogenerators.
Cogenerators in grounded sections of the system are assumed to be
wye connected, and in ungrounded sections they are assumed to be threephase and delta connected. Typically S Gk , the complex power supplied by
each element, is given and is used to compute the necessary admittance
matrix and injected current and power as shown in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Cogenerator Admittance, Current & Power Injection
Connection
Vk
Element
Admittance
y Gk =
grounded
wye
y Gk 0
Vk
b
Vk
c
Admittance
Matrix
Y Gk =
Vk
ab
Vk
y Gk
bc
Vk
ca
ab
( S Gk . / V k )
S Gk
ca
y Gk + y Gk y Gk
ab
y Gk
Injected
Power
S Gk =
b
y Gk
( S Gk . / V k 2 )
ungrounded
delta
Injected
Current
I Gk =
bc
y Gk
ca
S Gk
-----------------------ab
bc
Vk + Vk
ab
S Gk
---------
V ab
k
ab
S Gk
--------ab
Vk
bc
S Gk
--------V bc
k
V k .* I Gk
31
Bus k-1
(supplying)
Bus k
(receiving)
Vk 1
b
Vk
b
Vk
c
Vk
Series
Impedance
Vk 1
c
Vk 1
Zk
Shunt
Capacitance
1
--- Y
2 k
1
--- Y
2 k
Shunt
Capacitance
BR
Yk
4 The
1
Z k1 + --- Y k
2
=
Z k1
Z k1
Z k1
1
+ --- Y k
2
(3.16)
32
BR
variables yields the equations for voltage, current and power flow updates
given in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 Update Formulas for Distribution Lines
Function
of
V k 1, I k
V k, I k
V k 1, S k
V k, S k
Update Formula
1
V k = V k 1 + Z k --- Y k V k 1 I k
2
(3.17)
1
I k = --- Y k ( V k + V k 1 ) I k
2
(3.18)
1
V k 1 = V k + Z k --- Y k V k I k
2
(3.19)
1
I k = --- Y k ( V k + V k 1 ) I k
2
(3.20)
1
V k = V k 1 + Z k --- Y k V k 1 ( S k . / V k 1 )
2
(3.21)
1
S k = V k .* --- Y k ( V k + V k 1 ) ( S k . / V k 1 )
2
(3.22)
1
V k 1 = V k + Z k --- Y k V k ( S k . / V k )
2
(3.23)
1
S k = V k 1 .* --- Y k ( V k + V k 1 ) ( S k . / V k )
2
(3.24)
Otherwise, the section would not be ungrounded since the shunt capacitance of the
-model would give a reference to ground.
33
phase
denoted by Z k
rents.
a
Ik
Ik
c
Ik
a
a
Vk 1
Vk
phase
Vb Vb
= Zk
k1
k
c
c
Vk 1
Vk
line
(3.25)
, is a 2 x 2 matrix relating
Ik
b
Ik
ab
ab
Vk 1
line V k
= Zk
bc
bc
Vk 1
Vk
(3.26)
Zk
as follows:
1 phase
= 1 1 0 --- Z k
0 1 1 3
1 0
0 1 ,
1 1
(3.27)
1
where the factor of --- is due to the change of per unit voltage base.
3
34
Table 3.7 Update Formulas for Switches
Function
of
V k 1, I k
V k, I k
V k 1, S k
V k, S k
Update Formula
V k = V k 1
(3.28)
I k = I k
(3.29)
V k 1 = V k
(3.30)
I k = I k
(3.31)
V k = V k 1
(3.32)
S k = S k
(3.33)
V k 1 = V k
(3.34)
S k = S k
(3.35)
and
the
leakage
admittance.
This
admittance
matrix
for
transformer k6 is
BR
Yk
pp
ps
sp
Yk
ss
Yk
Yk Yk
(3.36)
6 The
35
transformer is ungrounded, such as a delta or ungrounded wye connection,
line-to-line voltages are used and the dimension of the admittance matrix
is reduced to 5 x 5. If both sides are ungrounded, line-to-line voltages are
BR
is 4 x 4.
In the following sections, the primary side taps for transformer k are
denoted by k , the secondary side taps by k , and the per unit leakage
admittance per phase by y k . The admittance matrices for common transformer connections are given in Table 3.8. To simplify the presentation of
the relevant update formulas, the various transformer types are divided
into three classes based on the grounding of their connections.
3.6.1
can be substituted into (2.7) to solve directly for the appropriate variables.
The resulting update formulas are given in Table 3.9.
3.6.2
36
Table 3.8 Admittance Matrices for Common Transformer Connections
Transformer Connection Type
Primary
Secondary
Grounded Wye
Grounded Wye
pp
ps
Yk
Yk
sp
ss
Yk
Yk
y 100
-----k2- 0 1 0
k
001
yk 1 0 0
----------k k 0 1 0
001
yk 1 0 0
----------k k 0 1 0
001
yk 1 0 0
---- k2 0 1 0
001
yk 2 1 1
--------3 k2 1 2 1
1 1 2
2 1
yk
------------------- 1 1
3 k k
1 2
yk
------------------- 2 1 1
3 k k 1 2 1
yk 2 1
---- k2 1 1
Grounded Wye
Ungrounded Wye
Grounded Wye
y 100
-----k2- 0 1 0
k
001
Delta
yk 1 0 1
----------k k 1 1 0
4
Ungrounded Wye
Grounded Wye
yk
----------k k
yk 2 1
---- k2 1 1
opposite of type 2
y
-----k2- 2 1
k 1 1
yk 2 1
----------k k 1 1
yk 2 1
----------k k 1 1
yk 2 1
---- k2 1 1
y
-----k2- 2 1
k 1 1
3 yk 1 0
----------------k k 0 1
3 yk 1 1
----------------k k 1 0
yk 2 1
---- k2 1 1
Ungrounded Wye
Delta
Delta
Grounded Wye
opposite of type 3
Delta
Ungrounded Wye
opposite of type 6
Delta
same as type 5
i.e.
1 0
0 1
1 1
swap
Delta
pp
Yk
and
ps
Yk
with
ss
Yk
and
sp
Yk
37
Table 3.9 Update Formulas for Class A Transformers
Function
of
V k 1, I k
V k, I k
V k 1, S k
V k, S k
Update Formula
ps 1
pp
V k = ( Y k ) ( I k Y k V k 1 )
(3.37)
sp
ss
I k = Y k V k 1 + Y k V k
(3.38)
sp 1
ss
V k 1 = ( Y k ) ( I k Y k V k )
(3.39)
I k = Y kpp V k 1 + Y kps V k
(3.40)
ps 1
pp
V k = ( Y k ) ( ( S k . / V k 1 ) Y k V k 1 )
(3.41)
ss
S k = V k .* ( Y sp
k V k 1 + Y k V k)
(3.42)
sp 1
ss
V k 1 = ( Y k ) ( ( S k . / V k ) Y k V k )
(3.43)
pp
ps
S k = V k 1 .* ( Y k V k 1 + Y k V k )
(3.44)
Ik = 0
(3.45)
For type 3 grounded wye to delta connections, the sum of the primary currents is related to the sum of the primary voltages as follows:
y
I k = -----k2- V k 1 ,
k
(3.46)
where V k 1 = V k 1 + V k 1 + V k 1 .
In attempting to solve for the secondary voltage V k , (2.7) yields
ps
pp
Y k V k = Ik Y k V k 1 ,
(3.47)
38
ps
satisfies the appropriate constraint above, in which case one of the three
rows of (3.47) becomes redundant. Using the notation from Table 2.1, the
solution to this equation can be written as in (3.50) in Table 3.10.
Consider trying to solve for the primary side voltage from the lower
half of (2.7).
sp
ss
Y k V k 1 = Ik Y k V k
(3.48)
sp
In this case, Y k is 2 x 3 and, consequently, the secondary voltage and current do not uniquely specify the primary voltage. It is only possible to solve
for V k 1 if it is assumed that some information is already given, such as
the sum of the primary side voltages V k 1 . If this information is given, the
solution to (3.48) can be written as in (3.52). In this case, w k used in (2.3)
must include V k 1 .
Vk
wk = V
k1
(3.49)
Ik + 1
So, for forward calculation, there is a constraint on the sum of the primary side currents. For backward calculation, information about the sum
of the primary side voltages must be available. Assuming these conditions
are met, the expressions for the updates can be written as shown in
Table 3.10.
39
Function
of
V k 1, I k
V k, I k , V k 1
V k 1, S k
Update Formula
ps
pp
V k = Y k \ ( I k Y k V k 1 )
(3.50)
sp
ss
I k = Y k V k 1 + Y k V k
(3.51)
V k 1 =
sp
ss
Ik Y k V k
111
Vk 1
(3.53)
ps
pp
V k = Y k \ ( ( S k . / V k 1 ) Y k V k 1 )
(3.54)
sp
ss
S k = V k .* ( Y k V k 1 + Y k V k )
(3.55)
V k 1 =
Yk
( Sk . / V k) Y k V k
111
Vk 1
ss
pp
ps
S k = V k 1 .* ( Y k V k 1 + Y k V k )
3.6.3
(3.52)
pp
ps
I k = Y k V k 1 + Y k V k
sp
V k, S k , V k 1
Yk
(3.56)
(3.57)
40
In this case, the constraint on the sum of the currents is on the sec
ondary side, i.e. on I k = I k + I k + I k , and thus affects the backward calculation. For the type 4 ungrounded wye to grounded wye case,
Ik = 0 .
(3.58)
For type 7 delta to grounded wye connections, the constraint on the current
I k = -----V
k2 k
(3.59)
sp
formers, (3.59) can be used to solve for V k from the sum of the secondary
must include I k .
Vk 1
wk 1 =
Ik
Ik
(3.60)
41
Function
of
V k 1, I k, I k
V k, I k
Update Formula
V k =
ps
V k, S k
pp
Ik Y k V k 1
(3.61)
k2
------I k
yk
111
sp
ss
I k = Y k V k 1 + Y k V k
(3.62)
sp
ss
V k 1 = Y k \ ( I k Y k V k )
(3.63)
pp
ps
I k = Y k V k 1 + Y k V k
(3.64)
ps
V k 1 , S k, I k
Yk
V k =
Yk
111
( Sk . / V k 1) Y k V k 1
pp
k2
------I k
yk
(3.65)
S k = V k .* ( Y sp
V k 1 + Y ss
V k )
k
k
(3.66)
V k 1 = Y sp
\ ( ( S k . / V k ) Y ss
V k)
k
k
(3.67)
pp
ps
S k = V k 1 .* ( Y k V k 1 + Y k V k )
(3.68)
Chapter 4
42
43
However, the Z-matrix methods do not directly exploit the radial topology
of the typical distribution network.
The network reduction methods presented in this chapter take advantage of the radial structure in the solution of the equivalent linear circuits. Instead of using general nodal or loop methods, network reduction
techniques are applied recursively to find a driving point linear equivalent
at each bus. These equivalents are then used to solve for the network voltages and currents. The acronym NR-PARS will be used to refer to the network reduction algorithms of this class.
A method proposed by Berg, Hawkins and Pleines [4] falls into the
NR-PARS class. This chapter proposes a more general approach which also
includes the comprehensive modeling presented in Chapter 3, Detailed
Component Models.
44
specific network reduction technique presented in this section is based on
Norton equivalent circuits and will be referred to simply as N-PARS.
4.1.1
Linearization
The first step of this algorithm is to replace all non-linear circuit element models by some linear equivalent. According to the models presented
in Chapter 3, Detailed Component Models, a distribution system can be
thought of as a radial interconnection of the elements shown in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Network Elements
Network Element
Element Type
source (substation)
Class
lines
switches
constant impedance
elements
transformers
linear
shunt capacitors
constant Z
loads
constant I
constant S
cogenerators
non-linear
All of the elements have a linear relationship between current and voltage,
except the constant complex power devices: cogenerators and constant PQ
loads. In this case, the current as a function of voltage is
I(V ) = ( S . / V ) ,
where S is the constant complex power.
(4.1)
45
The desired linear approximation to (4.1) would consist of a constant
current, a constant impedance, or a combination of the two. In other words,
the goal is to approximate (4.1) by a linear expression of the form
I (V ) = I + YV .
(4.2)
(4.3)
This simple constant current equivalent is then used to solve the resulting
linear system.
4.1.2
1 i.e.
46
1. Build the Norton equivalent at the bus.
2. Combine with the incoming branch.
First, the appropriate currents and admittances are summed to build
the Norton equivalent at bus k. Each bus could have one or more of the following connected in parallel:
load
shunt capacitor
cogenerator
Norton equivalent for outgoing branches
Ik
Vk
YEQk
IEQk
(4.4)
= Y Lk + Y Ck + Y EQj
(4.5)
I EQk
= I Lk + I Gk + I EQj
(4.6)
47
Table 4.3 Notation for (4.5) and (4.6)
Variable
Interpretation
From
Y Lk
admittance of constant
impedance load
Table 3.2
Y Ck
Table 3.4
I Lk
Table 3.3
I Gk
Table 3.5
Y EQj , I EQj
Table 4.4
network
connectivity
Ik
Ik
Vk 1
incoming
branch
Vk
YEQk
IEQk
Ik
Vk 1
YEQk
IEQk
48
branch. To accomplish this, (2.7) and (4.4) are combined so as to eliminate
the variables V k and I k , yielding the following expression of I k as a function of V k 1 .
11
12
22
12
[ Y k
22
(Yk
I k = [ Y k Y k ( Y k + Y EQk
)
+ Y EQk
)
21
Yk ] Vk 1
(4.7)
I EQk
]
This is in the same form as the relationship between current and voltage
for the combined Norton equivalent
I k = Y EQk V k 1 I EQk ,
(4.8)
making it possible to extract directly from (4.7) the expressions for Y EQk
and I EQk .
Table 4.4 gives the resulting formulas for each of the three types of
branches. Since a switch is modeled as a zero impedance connection, it is
not necessary to use (4.7). The parameters computed at bus k are not
changed by combining them with an incoming switch.
Table 4.4 Formulas for Combining with Incoming Branch
Branch Type
line
switch
Combination Formula
1
1
1
Y EQk = Z k1 + --- Y k Z k1 Z k1 + --- Y k + Y EQk
Z k1
2
2
1
1
I EQk = Z k1 Z k1 + --- Y k + Y EQk I EQk
(4.10)
Y EQk = Y EQk
(4.11)
I EQk = I EQk
(4.12)
pp
transformer
(4.9)
ps
ss
Y EQk = Y k Y k ( Y k + Y EQk
)
I EQk = Y kps ( Y ss
+ Y EQk
) 1 I EQk
sp
Yk
(4.13)
(4.14)
49
laterals and working back toward the main feeder. At each bus the procedure consists of two parts. First, all of the current sources and admittances
connected in parallel at the bus are summed together to give the Norton
equivalent at the bus for the part of the network supplied through that
bus. Then, this Norton equivalent is combined with the incoming branch to
determine the driving point Norton equivalent for that branch. At the end
of this second step of the algorithm, the driving point Norton equivalent for
the incoming branch of each bus is known. In other words, any branch and
the sub-network it supplies may be replaced by its Norton equivalent for
the purposes of computation.
4.1.3
The result of the second step of the algorithm given in Table 4.1 is
that, given the voltage at a bus, the current to each of its outgoing
branches can be easily computed from the corresponding driving point
equivalent. The third step of the algorithm is based on this result. It
involves starting at the source, where the voltage is known, and computing
voltages and currents toward the end buses.
Once again, the entire network is traversed, this time in the BF order
described on page 11 under Section 2.2.1, Indexing Scheme. As in the
previous step, at each bus there is a two part calculation to be performed.
First, the current is computed for the buss incoming branch, then the bus
voltage is updated. For bus k this means calculating I k then V k .
The new value of I k is computed directly from the voltage at bus k 1
and the Norton equivalent associated with the incoming branch of bus k.
The formula is given in (4.8) which is repeated here.
50
(4.15)
I k = Y EQk V k 1 I EQk
11
Y k V k = Ik Y k V k 1 .
(4.16)
12
and
Y EQk
. These parameters were computed in the previous step and can be
stored for each bus whose incoming branch is a transformer. Combining
the lower half of (2.7) with (4.4) by eliminating I k yields an equation
which is typically solvable for V k . For switches, since they are zero impedance, the voltage does not drop so V k can be taken directly from the value
at the parent bus. The resulting voltage update formulas for lines,
switches, and transformers are summarized in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Voltage Update Formulas
Branch Type
line
switch
transformer
(4.17)
Vk = Vk 1
(4.18)
ss
V k = ( Y k + Y EQk
)
sp
( I EQk
Y k V k 1)
(4.19)
51
4.1.4
Termination Criterion
4.2 Implementation
Several specific techniques can be used in the implementation of the
Norton reduction algorithm (N-PARS) to improve the efficiency and robustness.
4.2.1
Linearity Check
Alternatively, the termination criterion could be based on the norm of the mismatch
between the given power injection and the power injection computed from the voltage and
current injection at the current iteration.
52
4.2.2
The formulas given in (4.9) and (4.10) for combining the Norton equivalent at bus k with its incoming line involve two matrix inversions. Inversion of a matrix is an expensive operation in general, and may be illconditioned as well, depending on the matrix.
The formulas below offer a more efficient and robust implementation.
They are equivalent to (4.9) and (4.10) but require less computation (only
one inverse instead of two) and are better conditioned for some line parameters.
1
1
Y EQk = --- Y k + I + --- Y k + Y EQk
Z k
2
2
I EQk =
1
I + --- Y k + Y EQk
Z k
2
1
- Y + Y EQk
-2 k
I EQk
(4.20)
(4.21)
4.2.3
In the case where the circuit contains non-linear elements, the only
parameters which change from iteration to iteration are the currents
injected by these non-linear elements. In particular, as a new iteration
begins, only I Lk (for constant PQ loads) and I Gk in (4.6) take on new values based on the updated bus voltages. These changes affect only I EQk
and
ultimately I EQk , but not Y EQk
and Y EQk . These admittances remain constant throughout all iterations and therefore need not be recomputed. This
means that (4.5), (4.9), 3 (4.11), and (4.13) need only be computed once during the first iteration.
3 Or
53
A further savings in computation is achieved by storing the constant
coefficient of I EQk
4.3 Variations
There are other variations of the general network reduction power
flow method (NR-PARS) outlined in Table 4.1, Network Reduction
Method, on page 43. A method based on admittance equivalent only
(Y-PARS) was also implemented. Berg, Hawkins and Pleines initially presented a method based on this idea in [4], which has been extended to
include the more general modeling of Chapter 3.
Instead of Norton equivalent circuits, admittance equivalents are
used. The first step of the algorithm, linearization, now also includes converting constant current elements to their constant impedance equivalents. Constant current loads, constant PQ loads, and cogenerators are all
converted to the equivalent admittance via the formulas in Table 3.2 and
4 Or
54
Table 3.5. These admittances are summed together to form the admittance
equivalent at bus k.
Ik
YEQk
Vk
(4.22)
= Y Lk + Y Ck + Y Gk + Y EQj .
(4.23)
The formulas for combining the equivalent circuit at bus k with its incoming branch remain the same except that only the admittance formulas are
needed.
For the third step of the algorithm, calculating voltages and currents,
similar changes are made. For computing the new value of I k , (4.15)
becomes simply
I k = Y EQk V k 1 .
(4.24)
The formulas in Table 4.5 for updating the bus voltages remain the same
except for the case of transformers. For transformers, (4.19) is replaced by
ss
V k = ( Y k + Y EQk
)
sp
Yk Vk 1 .
(4.25)
55
Though the algorithm works fine, there seems to be little or no advantage of Y-PARS over N-PARS. It is slightly more efficient for the case
where iteration is not necessary. However, the set of systems for which
iteration is not required has now been reduced to cases with no cogenerators and only constant impedance loads. In the general iterative case, each
iteration requires all parameters to be recomputed. This is much more
computationally expensive than N-PARS implemented using the techniques described in Section 4.2.3, Storage of Intermediate Variables.
4.5 Comments
The power flow algorithms described in this chapter, particularly the
Norton reduction method (N-PARS), have several characteristics which
make them uniquely suited to certain situations. First of all, N-PARS is a
general method for solving the radial power flow problem which can handle
56
all of the transformer connection types listed in Table 3.8, Admittance
Matrices for Common Transformer Connections, on page 36. It is particularly efficient for networks which contain no constant PQ elements.
The equivalent circuit parameters themselves, computed during the
solution process, may be useful for certain applications. They could be
used, for example, to replace a section of the network with a simple equivalent linear model, while focusing on the effects of changes in another part
of the network.
Since the NR-PARS approaches exploit the radial structure of the network, the work required for each iteration is proportional to the number of
buses. If the number of iterations remains constant, the work grows linearly with the size of the system, making NR-PARS suitable for very large
scale systems.
Chapter 5
57
58
although most of the extension to three-phase is straightforward. In this
chapter, existing variations of the backward/forward sweep approach are
extended to handle the comprehensive modeling of Chapter 3, and some
new variations are introduced.
Backward Sweep:
Forward Sweep:
Using the boundary condition of zero current and power flow out of
the end of each lateral, the backward sweep computes the currents or
power flows injected into the beginning of each lateral as a function of the
end voltages. The forward sweep is a function of these currents or power
59
flows injected into each lateral, and computes the end voltages using the
specified source voltage as a boundary condition.
Table 5.2 Detail on Backward/Forward Sweeps
Backward Sweep
Forward Sweep
currents or power
flows injected into
each lateral
end voltages
end voltages
By:
current or power
flow summation
Based on boundary
condition:
zero current or
power flow out of
end of lateral
Update:
As a function of:
With
With
V0 = V0
VN
source
end bus
I1
IN + 1 = 0
Figure 5.1 Single Feeder Example
60
bus where lateral i branches off of lateral i 1 . The subscripts only refer to
the bus index and V 0 refers to the voltage as calculated from lateral i 1 .
5.1.1
Backward Sweep
Once the bus voltages are initialized, the algorithm begins with a
backward sweep, processing the laterals in the RBF 1 order. Each lateral is
traversed from the end bus toward the source and the currents and voltages are updated at each bus. At each bus k, the update formula (2.3) from
Table 2.3 is applied to compute the voltage and current at the previous bus.
w k 1 = g k(w k)
(5.1)
Details
First, the currents I Lk , I Ck , and I Gk , injected by a load, shunt capacitor, and cogenerator, respectively, are computed from the value of the bus
voltage V k at the current iteration. These injected currents are found
based on the appropriate equations from Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5.
1 See
61
The next step is to apply KCL at bus k to find the current I k injected
by bus k into its incoming branch. The application of KCL at bus k is
described in Section 2.3.2, Application of KCL, on page 19. In this case,
(2.20) is solved for I k to yield
I k = I Gk + I Ck + I Lk
j Ak
I j I k + 1
(5.2)
where the currents I j are the currents injected into sub-laterals branching
off from bus k, and I k + 1 is the current injected into the outgoing branch
leading to the next bus on the same lateral.
The third and fourth steps compute the voltage V k 1 and current I k
at the previous bus using the update formulas in Tables 3.6 through 3.11.
For each lateral, the backward sweep updates the current injected
into the lateral as a function of the end voltage. Using the notation from
the single feeder example in Figure 5.1, I 1 is updated as a function of V N .
Given the boundary condition I N + 1 = 0 and a value for V N , the update
formula (5.1) is applied recursively, starting at the end bus and ending at
the laterals supplying bus with w 0 , as shown in (5.3).
V
N
w N 1 = g N (w N ) = g N
0
V
N
w N 2 = g N 1(w N 1) = g N 1 g N
0
w0 =
V0
I1
(5.3)
V
N
= g 1(w 1) = g 1 g N 1 g N
0
62
I 1 = I 1(V N ) .
(5.4)
This value of the current is stored for use during the KCL calculation at
this laterals supplying bus during the current backward sweep and the
succeeding forward sweep. The upper half, which is the voltage part, is
V 0(V N ) , and is used only for mismatch calculation. At the solution, the
mismatch V 0(V N ) V 0 between the computed voltage V 0(V N ) and the
specified voltage V 0 must be zero.
To evaluate (5.4) for a given lateral, the currents injected into all of its
sub-laterals must be known, since they are needed for the application of
KCL in (5.2). This means the laterals must be processed in a specific order,
such as the RBF1 order used here. Since the level L laterals have no sublaterals, they are processed first. Next, the currents injected into the sublaterals of all level L 1 laterals are known, so the level L 1 laterals can
be processed. Each lateral is processed in this manner, starting with
level L, then moving to level L 1 , then L 2 , etc. Finally, the main feeder
is processed, completing the backward sweep. In the process, all voltages
and currents in the network are updated. In particular, the currents
injected into each lateral are updated as a function of the end voltages.
5.1.2
Forward Sweep
2 See
63
Each lateral is traversed from the supplying connection toward the
end bus. Once again, a voltage and current update are performed at each
bus. The corresponding update formula for forward calculation is
w k = f k(w k 1) ,
(5.5)
which is (2.2) from Table 2.3. The formula (5.5) is also implemented in four
steps. These steps are detailed in Table 2.4 which is repeated here as
Table 5.4 for convenience.
Table 5.4 Implementation of (5.5)
Procedure
Details
The first two steps are to compute the voltage V k and current I k at
the current bus from the voltage and current at the previous bus, V k 1
and I k , respectively. These updates are done according to the formulas
given in Tables 3.6 through 3.11.
The third step is to update the currents I Lk , I Ck , and I Gk injected by
a load, shunt capacitor, and cogenerator, respectively. These injected currents are updated from the bus voltage V k according to the appropriate
equations from Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5.
The last step is to apply KCL to update the current I k + 1 on the
branch going out to the next bus on the lateral. In this case, (2.20) of
Section 2.3.2, Application of KCL, is solved for I k + 1 , yielding
64
I k + 1 = I Gk + I Ck + I Lk
j Ak
I j I k .
(5.6)
The values for the currents I j injected into sub-laterals are those computed during the preceding backward sweep.
For each lateral, the forward sweep updates the end voltages as a
function of the currents injected into the beginning of each lateral. In the
notation of the single feeder example of Figure 5.1, V N is updated as a
function of I 1 . Given the boundary condition V 0 = V 0 and a value for I 1 ,
the update formula (5.5) is applied recursively starting at the laterals supplying bus and terminating at the end bus with w N as shown in (5.7).
0
w 1 = f 1(w 0) = f 1
I1
0
w 2 = f 2(w 1) = f 2 f 1
I1
wN =
VN
IN + 1
(5.7)
0
= f N (w N 1) = f N f 2 f 1
I1
(5.8)
This end voltage is stored for use during the next backward sweep. The
lower half of the function, I N + 1( I 1) , is used only as a mismatch. At the
solution, this current must be zero.
To evaluate (5.8) for a given lateral, the voltage at its supplying bus
must be known since it is needed for the first step in Table 5.4. This means
65
the laterals must be processed in a specific order, such as the BF2 order
used here. Since the source voltage is given, the main feeder is processed
first. Then, since the voltages at the supplying buses for all level 2 laterals
are known, the level 2 laterals can be processed, followed by level 3, etc.
Each lateral is processed in this manner until all the level L laterals have
been updated, completing the forward sweep. In the process, all voltages
and currents in the network are updated. In particular, all of the end voltages are updated as a function of the currents injected into each lateral.
5.1.3
Termination Criterion
66
5.2 Implementation
For the most part, the implementation of BFS-PARS is very straightforward. Special attention, however, is needed for laterals which contain
the class B and class C transformers. In particular, in step 3 of Table 5.3
and step 1 of Table 5.4 it is necessary to make some modifications to the
standard backward and forward sweeps described above. Consider lateral i
whose first bus k has a transformer as its incoming branch.3
5.2.1
Class B Transformers
Backward Sweep
In step 3 of Table 5.3, the primary voltage is being computed from the
secondary voltage and current. For class B transformers, the corresponding update formula is
V k 1 =
sp
Yk
111
ss
Ik Y k V k
Vk 1
(5.9)
3 Due
to the implementation explained in Section 2.2.2.2, Breadth-First Search, transformers always appear as the first branch on a lateral.
67
mate and is stored as V k 1 for use during the backward sweep. For the
first iteration, the initial primary voltage is used to compute V k 1 . For the
typical flat start, with all voltages assumed to be balanced 1 per unit, this
yields V k 1 = 0 .
For a lateral with a class B transformer, the typical backward sweep
I 1 = I 1
Vk 1
(5.10)
Forward Sweep
During the forward sweep, step 1 of Table 5.4 computes the secondary
voltage from the primary voltage and current. The corresponding update
formula for class B transformers is
ps
pp
V k = Y k \ ( I k Y k V k 1 )
(5.11)
68
for the secondary voltage V k only if the sum of the primary side currents
I k = I k
(5.12)
I k = I k -----k2- V k 1
k
(5.13)
I k 1
I k I k --------- 1
3
1
(5.14)
The modified update formula, including the adjustment to the primary side
current I k , can be written in a closed form as
I 1
ps
pp
k
V k = Y k \ I k -------- 1 Yk Vk 1 .
3
1
(5.15)
69
This small modification to I k allows the forward sweep to continue.
The typical forward sweep function of (5.8) is modified to reflect the impor
tance of the update to V k 1 which must be stored for the backward sweep.
VN
Vk 1
V N ( I 1)
V k 1( I 1)
(5.16)
5.2.2
Class C Transformers
Forward Sweep
For class C transformers, step 1 of Table 5.4 during the forward sweep
is similar to the backward sweep for class B transformers. The relevant
update formula is
70
ps
Yk
V k =
pp
Ik Y k V k 1
(5.17)
k2
------ I k
yk
111
from (3.61) in Table 3.11. Once again, additional information is needed for
the evaluation of V k in (5.17). This additional information at the secondary side of the transformer must come from the previous backward sweep.
Since the backward sweep is based on a boundary condition of zero end
current, it is current information that is available at the transformer secondary. As explained in Section 3.6.3, Class C: Ungrounded Primary
Grounded Secondary, this eliminates type 4 ungrounded wye to grounded
the previous backward sweep, the sum of the secondary side current I k is
available for the evaluation of (5.17). The typical forward sweep function of
(5.8), for a lateral with a class C transformer, becomes
VN
I
1
= V N
Ik
(5.18)
Backward Sweep
The backward sweep is similar to the forward sweep for class B transformers. The relevant update formula for step 3 of Table 5.3 is
sp
ss
V k 1 = Y k \ ( I k Y k V k )
(5.19)
71
from (3.63) in Table 3.11, which requires that the constraint in (3.59) be
satisfied. Since the secondary voltage and current sums computed in the
current backward sweep typically do not meet this constraint, some modification is required to proceed with the backward sweep. The forward sweep
k
V k = V k -----I
yk k
(5.20)
V k 1
V k V k ----------- 1
3
1
(5.21)
V k 1
k2
V k ------ I k 1
yk
sp
ss
= Y k \ I k Y k V k --------------------------- 1 .
(5.22)
tance of the update to I k which must be stored for the forward sweep.
I1
Ik
I 1(V N )
I k (V N )
(5.23)
72
Both the function and the independent variable V N are still 3 x 1. A three
dimensional mismatch is also formed by combining the constraint mis
5.3 Variations
There are many variations to the general BFS-PARS of Table 5.1 and
Table 5.2. Some are based on current and others on power flow. Some
update voltages during the backward sweep and some do not. Some update
currents or power flows during the forward sweep and some do not. The
naming convention used for the various methods indicates first the variables updated during the forward sweep, then those updated during the
backward sweep. V is used for voltage, I for current, and S for power flow.
5.3.1
VI-VI-PARS
VI-VI-PARS is the particular variation described in detail in the preceding sections. It is based on current and it updates both voltages and
currents in both the backward and forward sweeps.
73
5.3.2
VS-VS-PARS
VN
S
1
= V N
Ik
(5.24)
74
and (5.23) becomes
S1
Ik
S 1(V N )
I k (V N )
(5.25)
75
5.3.3
V-VI-PARS
5.3.4
V-VS-PARS
76
5.3.5
VI-I-PARS
5.3.6
VS-S-PARS
This is the power flow based version of VI-I-PARS. The forward sweep
is identical to that of VS-VS-PARS, but the backward sweep, like
VI-I-PARS, does not update voltages. Voltage values from the previous forward sweep are used where needed. Once again, no voltage mismatch is
available as a termination criterion for this method.
5.3.7
V-I-PARS
77
This method computes neither current nor voltage mismatches, and
the only convergence criterion available, of the three presented in
Section 5.1.3, Termination Criterion, is the one based on the difference in
voltage between iterations.
5.3.8
V-S-PARS
In
( k)
= I n + YV n
( k)
Ib
( k)
+ f (V n )
T ( k)
(5.26)
(5.27)
= A In
( k)
Vb
( k + 1)
Vn
(5.28)
= ZI b
( 0)
= Vn
( k + 1)
AV b
(5.29)
where the initial node voltages at each bus are set to the corresponding
source voltage. Combining these four equations gives an expression for the
78
Table 5.5 Notation for V-I-PARS Convergence Proof
Symbol
P(i)
P(i, j)
Q(i)
Interpretation
set of branches between bus i and the source
P(i) P( j)
set of buses supplied through branch i
di
bi
( k)
( k)
( k)
( k)
In
f (V )
Vn
Vb
Ib
In
Or,
V*
zi
yi
si
j P(i) } .
79
nodal voltages at iteration k + 1 as a function of the same voltages at
iteration k.
( k + 1)
( 0)
Vn
= Vn
( k)
AZA [ I n + YV n
( k)
+ f (V n ) ]
(5.30)
Vn
( k)
= V* + V n
(5.31)
Expressing the node voltage vector in this way for both iteration k and
iteration k + 1 , (5.30) becomes
( k + 1)
V* + V n
( 0)
= Vn
( k)
( k)
V* = V n
(5.33)
(5.33) can be subtracted from (5.32) to give an expression for the error at
iteration k + 1 as a function of the error at iteration k.
( k + 1)
V n
( k)
= AZA [ Y V n
( k)
+ f (V* + V n ) f (V* ) ]
(5.34)
( k)
( k)
(5.35)
80
( k)
AZA Y V n
T
= ------------------------------------------
AZA
Y .
( k)
V n
(5.36)
A simple bound on the ratio can be found by taking the product of the
T
(5.37)
This bound, however, is too loose and is not always satisfied in a typical
distribution system.
A better bound can be found by considering the norms of the matrices
T
AZ and A Y , since
T
AZA Y AZ A Y A Z A
Y .
(5.38)
The matrix AZ is simply the matrix A with each identity block in block
T
with each identity block in block row j replaced by y j . It was found that
using the infinity-norm yields a tighter bound than the 1-norm.
AZ
A Y
max
i
zk
k P ( i)
max
i
zk
k P ( i)
max
i
yk
k Q ( i)
yi
(5.39)
81
was significantly smaller than one, guaranteeing the linear convergence of
V-I-PARS on these systems.
If constant PQ loads and cogenerators are considered in the network,
then the ratio , as given in (5.35), can be bounded as follows:
T
( k)
(5.40)
where the first term has just been dealt with. In the second term, f (V* ) is
the nodal current injected by constant power devices at the solution, and
( k)
si
( k)
fi (V* + V n ) fi (V* ) = ------------------------------------ ---------------
( k)
[ V* ] i
[ V* + V n ] i
( k)
s i [ V n ] i
= ----------------------------------------------------( k)
[ V* ] i [ V* + V n ] i
(5.41)
si
( k)
--------------------------------------- [ V n ] i .
( k)
[ V* ] i [ V n ] i
For real systems, it is reasonable to assume that voltage magnitudes at the
solution and at each iteration4 are larger than 0.7 per unit, implying that
( k)
1
[ V* ] i [ V n ] i > --2
(5.42)
and therefore
( k)
( k)
fi (V* + V n ) fi (V* ) 2 s i [ V n ] i .
4 Assuming
(5.43)
a flat start, the assumption holds for the voltages at the first iteration. The
arguments following show a decrease in the magnitude of the error, indicating that voltages during subsequent iterations lie closer to the solution than the initial voltages did.
82
Let S be a diagonal matrix whose ith diagonal element is equal to
2 s i .5 Since the elements of A, and therefore of its transpose, are all positive, the following can be said about the second term of (5.40):
( k)
T
( k)
A f (V* + V n ) f (V* )
AZA [ f (V* + V n ) f (V* ) ]
AZ
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( k)
( k)
V
V n
n
T
( k)
A S V n
AZ -----------------------------------( k)
V n
(5.44)
AZ A S
The bound given in (5.39) then becomes
AZ
=
( A Y
max
i
zk
k P ( i)
+ A S
yi
+ 2 si
(5.45)
In words, this says that V-I-PARS will converge linearly if the product
of the following two terms is smaller than one. Roughly speaking, the first
term is the total impedance of the highest impedance path and the second
term is the total admittance to ground plus twice the total power injection
from all constant power devices.6 In a typical distribution system, all z i ,
y i , and s i are much smaller than one, yielding a value of which is also
smaller than one. When this condition holds, linear convergence from a flat
start is guaranteed.
The matrix S actually has units of admittance since the factor of 2 comes from an
inverse squared voltage quantity.
6 The seeming inconsistency in units is due to the hidden voltage units in the factor of 2.
83
5.5 Comments
The backward/forward sweep methods presented in this chapter are
applicable to most radial distribution networks. The one modeling limitation is that BFS-PARS cannot handle type 4 ungrounded wye to grounded
wye connected transformers.
Some general observations with regard to the many variations indicate two things. First, the methods based on current generally require less
computation per iteration than their power flow based counterparts. Second, the methods which do not update extra variables such as voltage during backward sweep and current/power flow during forward sweep, require
less computation per iteration.
Based on these two observations, V-I-PARS appears to be the most
attractive of the BFS-PARS class of algorithms presented, assuming that
the number of iterations required for convergence is comparable among the
various methods. The comparisons of the algorithms are investigated in
more detail in Chapter 8, Simulation Results.
It should also be noted that the amount of work per iteration is proportional to the number of buses. Therefore, if the number of iterations
remains constant, the computational complexity increases linearly with
the size of the network, making BFS-PARS suitable for very large radial
distribution systems.
Chapter 6
84
85
numerical structure of the new formulation to further reduce the computation required for each iteration, in the spirit of the standard fast decoupled
method for meshed transmission systems. This class of algorithms will be
referred to as fast Decoupled Power flow Algorithms for Radial Systems or
DePARS.
This chapter presents four main variants of DePARS. The first of the
four methods, VI-DePARS, is a generalization of the method proposed in
[32] and will be presented in detail. The other variations, one of which is
an extension of the methods proposed in [12], will then be discussed with
respect to VI-DePARS.
86
Table 6.1 Newtons Method
Solution of F( x) = 0 by Newtons Method
1
Set i = 0 .
Evaluate F
Stop if F
( i)
( i)
( i)
( i)
= F(x
( i)
some tolerance .
( i)
( i)
Solve J
Let x
( i + 1)
).
( 0)
= F
= x
( i)
+s
F
x
.
x
( i)
( i)
The DePARS approach is also based on the Newton method. Like the
traditional fast decoupled method, it exploits the numerical structure of
the Jacobian to greatly reduce the computation required by step 5 and
step 6 in Table 6.1. However, DePARS also uses a different formulation of
the power flow equations which exploit the radial topological structure of
the network resulting in a reduced number of equations and unknowns.
Table 6.2 gives a high level view of DePARS and its basic steps.
Steps 5, 6, and 7 from the original Newton method have been simplified
and grouped together into step 2 of DePARS. At the right side of Table 6.2
the details have been kept general enough to cover all four variations of
the method. The first option in each step, however, is the one used by
VI-DePARS, which will be the focus of the remainder of this section.
87
Table 6.2 Fast Decoupled Power Flow Algorithm for Radial Systems
DePARS - The Algorithm
6.1.1
(6.1)
88
6.1.1.1
Single Feeder
V0 = V0
VN
source
end bus
I1
IN + 1 = 0
Figure 6.1 Single Feeder Example
Using the same procedure used by BFS-PARS in Section 5.1.1, Backward Sweep, on page 60, all of the voltages and currents are updated by
applying (2.3) from Table 2.3 at each bus, starting at the end bus and moving toward the source. This procedure is written in a closed form in (5.3)
which is repeated here for convenience.
V
N
w N 1 = g N (w N ) = g N
0
V
N
w N 2 = g N 1(w N 1) = g N 1 g N
0
w0 =
V0
I1
(6.2)
V
N
= g 1(w 1) = g 1 g N 1 g N
0
Here both the source voltage V 0 and the source current I 1 are
expressed as functions of the end voltage V N . For BFS-PARS, the current
89
I 1(V N ) is of primary interest, since it is used during the forward sweep to
update the end voltage V N . For VI-DePARS, the voltage V 0(V N ) is of primary importance, since it is used for mismatch calculation.
At the solution, the difference between the calculated source voltage
V 0(V N ) and the specified source voltage V 0 must be zero. The power flow
equations can therefore be written
F (V N ) = V 0(V N ) V 0 = 0 .
(6.3)
This is a reduced formulation of the power flow problem for a single feeder
which has only three complex equations and three complex unknowns, or
six real equations and six real unknowns. The dimension of this set of nonlinear equations is independent of the number of buses on the lateral and
is a factor of N smaller than the traditional formulation.
6.1.1.2
V
N
= g1 g N 1 g N
0
(6.4)
After all level L laterals have been updated, the currents injected into
the sub-laterals of each level L 1 lateral are known (the I 1 recently cal-
90
culated via (6.4) for level L laterals), hence the level L 1 laterals can be
updated in the same way. Next the level L 2 laterals are updated, and so
on, until the main feeder has been updated. This is the same RBF1 order of
processing the laterals used by the backward sweep of BFS-PARS.
The current I 1 injected into lateral i is needed for doing the update of
lateral i 1 . The voltage V 0 is needed for mismatch calculation. This voltage mismatch calculation for each lateral can be completed once all the laterals have been updated by taking the difference between the two voltages
computed for each branching bus. Suppose lateral i branches off of
lateral i 1 at bus q as shown in Figure 6.2. The value of the voltage at
lateral i
bus N
xi = V N
V q
lateral i 1
from source
bus q
Vq
bus q computed from the end voltage of lateral i will be denoted V q( x) and
corresponds to V 0(V N ) from the single feeder example. Here x is a vector
1 See
91
containing the end voltages of all laterals and x i denotes the end voltage
V N for lateral i. These x i are put into x in RBF1 order.
x ( L, M
x =
V ( L, M
L)
x ( l, m )
x ( 1, 1 )
L,
N L, M )
V ( l, m, N
l, m )
V ( 1, 1, N
1, 1 )
(6.5)
(6.6)
Note that V q( x) is not actually constant except when i is the main feeder
and q is the source bus, i.e. the last set of equations when in RBF1 order.
The function F i does not depend on all elements of x, but only on the voltages of end buses supplied through bus q. This relationship will be seen
92
more clearly in Section 6.1.2.1, Structure of the System Jacobian, especially in Figure 6.3 which illustrates the sparsity structure of the system
Jacobian.
Taking (6.6) for each lateral and combining these equations in RBF1
order,
F ( L, M
F =
L)
F ( l, m )
(6.7)
F ( 1, 1 )
yields the new reduced power flow equations which can be expressed compactly as
F ( x) = 0 .
(6.8)
Assuming real and imaginary parts are separated, for a system with
M laterals, (6.8) is a set of 6M non-linear equations in 6M real unknowns.
This is also assuming that all buses are three-phase; single and two-phase
laterals would reduce these numbers accordingly.
The reduced power flow equations for VI-DePARS are expressed
mathematically by the non-linear set of equations in (6.8). The evaluation
of these equations is performed by traversing each lateral in RBF1 order,
updating voltages and currents via (6.4), then computing the voltage mismatches via (6.6).
93
6.1.1.3
and current are functions of the w k of (3.49) which includes V k 1 , the sum
of the voltages at the primary side of the transformer, not just the two
dimensional secondary voltage V k . This is described in Section 5.2.1.1,
Backward Sweep, on page 66. In this case, the independent variable x i
associated with lateral i is
xi =
VN
(6.9)
Vk 1
The variable x which contains the end voltages of all laterals will also con
tain V k 1 for laterals with class B transformers. This allows (6.6) to still
be used in its present form.
For a lateral with a class C transformer, (6.4) remains unchanged,
although the voltage update formula used is the one in (5.22) which
includes the modified secondary voltage. The mismatch function in (6.6) is
a set of two equations in three unknowns. The additional equation
required to solve the problem is obtained by setting to zero the secondary
side constraint mismatch presented in Section 5.2.2.2, Backward Sweep,
as (5.20).
2 Due
to the implementation explained in Section 2.2.2.2, Breadth-First Search, transformers always appear as the first branch on a lateral. So, although the more general
notation is used here, restricted only to one transformer per lateral, in practice k = 1 and
k1 = q.
94
2
k
V k( x) = V k -----I = 0
yk k
(6.10)
F i( x) =
V q( x) V q( x)
V k( x)
= 0.
(6.11)
With these small changes in the independent variable and the mismatch computed for laterals with class B and class C transformers, respectively, the compact form of the reduced power flow equations in (6.8) can
still be used.
6.1.2
The second step of DePARS, after the evaluation of the power flow
equations, is to update the independent variables, that is, the elements of
x. In the case of VI-DePARS, these are the voltages V N at the ends of the
laterals.3 In the standard Newton method, this involves the following three
steps:
1. Evaluate the Jacobian at the current solution.
2. Solve a linear system of equations to find the update step.
3. Add the update step to the current solution.
The system Jacobian J ( x) for the reduced set of power flow equations
in (6.8) is
3 For
laterals with class B transformers this also includes V k 1 , the sum of the voltages
at the primary side of the transformer.
95
J ( x) =
F
x
(6.12)
(6.13)
g k
V k
Gk =
=
wk
I k
V k
V k 1
Ik + 1
.
I k
I k + 1
(6.14)
The system Jacobian for this simple single feeder case gives the sensitivity of the calculated source voltage mismatch to variations in the end
96
voltage. It can be written, using the chain rule, as the product of the
branch Jacobians from the source bus to the end bus
g
V 0
V 0
F
J (V N ) =
=
=
G2 G N 1 N ,
V N
V N
w1
V N
(6.15)
where the first term in the product is just the upper half of G 1 and the last
term is the left half of G N .
Extending this to the general radial structure, each block element of
the system Jacobian can be expressed, using the chain rule, as a product of
branch Jacobians along the path between the supplying bus of lateral i and
the end bus of lateral j. If lateral i branches off from its parent lateral at
bus q and the end bus of lateral j is bus n, then changes in x j at bus n can
only affect the mismatch F i at bus q if bus n is supplied through bus q. In
other words, if bus q does not lie on the path between bus n and the source,
then F i x j = 0 . This determines the sparsity structure of the system
Jacobian J ( x) .
If bus q does lie on the path between bus n and the source, then the
corresponding block element F i x j is non-zero and fits into one of the
four categories listed in Table 6.3. In order to simplify the presentation, the
equations given in Table 6.3 are for the case with no class B or class C
transformers present.
The first type of non-zero blocks are those on the block diagonal of the
system Jacobian. These diagonal blocks are formed via (6.16) in a manner
analogous to the single feeder case in (6.15). The second type is the set of
non-zero blocks above the diagonal and is similar to the first except that
q + 1 refers to the bus following bus q on lateral j, hence it is V q that is
affected instead of V q . For non-zero blocks of type 3 and type 4, let bus p
97
Table 6.3 VI-DePARS Jacobian Formation
Non-Zero Blocks of the System Jacobian for VI-DePARS
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
i is a direct
sub-lateral of j
j is supplied
through i
j is supplied
through i 1
source
source
source
source
q
q +1
q +1
q
i&j
wq + 1
i
j
non-zero blocks
above diagonal
F i
=
x j
F i
q +1
i
j
diagonal blocks
(all non-zero)
q +1 p 1
(6.16)
Gq + 2 Gn 1
g n
V n
where q + 1
refers to the
first bus on
lateral i and
F i
V q
=
wq + 1
wq + 1
where q + 1
refers to the
bus following q
on lateral j and
F i
V q
=
wq + 1
wq + 1
approximately
identity
approximately
minus identity
p 1
p
n
i
j
non-zero blocks
below diagonal
F i
=
x j
F i
(6.17)
Gq + 2 G p 2
g p 1
wq + 1
I p
g
I
p G p + 1 Gn 1 n
w p
V n
where q + 1
refers to the
first bus on
lateral i and
F i
V q
=
wq + 1
wq + 1
where q + 1
refers to the
bus following q
on lateral j and
F i
V q
=
wq + 1
wq + 1
approximately
zero
98
be the first bus on lateral j. These types are comprised of the non-zero
blocks below the diagonal and require products of branch Jacobians from
more than one lateral. In the examples shown, the path from bus q to bus n
includes only two laterals, but in general there could be more. If, for example, this path included four laterals and the first bus on each new lateral
encountered along this path were labelled consecutively as p 1 , p 2 , and
p 3 , then (6.17) would look like the following:
g p 1
F i
F i
1
=
Gq + 2 G p 2
1
x j
wq + 1
I p
1
g
I p1
p2 1
Gp + 1 Gp 2
1
2
w p
I p
1
2
g
I p2
p3 1
G p2 + 1 G p3 2
w p
I p
2
3
I p3
g
G p + 1 Gn 1 n
3
w p3
V n
(6.18)
99
xj
1
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fi
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
100
6.1.2.2
If one or both sides of the branch are in an ungrounded section of the network, this
dimension is reduced to 10 x 10 or 8 x 8, respectively. Note that it is necessary to separate
each complex variable into two real variables in order to differentiate to find the true
branch Jacobian.
101
tively tedious. However, some reasonable approximations can be made by
examining the relative magnitudes of certain quantities when expressed in
per unit.
For the incoming branch of bus k, the branch Jacobian G k contains
the sensitivities of V k 1 and I k to small changes in V k and I k + 1 . Suppose this branch is a switch, modeled as a zero impedance connection. In
this case, small changes in V k cause identical changes in V k 1 and small
changes in I k + 1 cause identical changes in I k . In other words, the diagonal blocks of G k are identity blocks. The off-diagonal block based on the
sensitivity of V k 1 to I k + 1 is a zero block since changes in I k + 1 have no
effect on the voltage V k 1 . The other off-diagonal block is nearly zero as
well, under the assumption that the admittances and power injections of
loads, shunt capacitors, and cogenerators are small relative to voltage
magnitudes when expressed in per unit. From the KCL equation in (5.2) it
can be seen that V k does have a small effect on the currents injected by
loads, shunt capacitors, and cogenerators. However, assuming the admittance or power parameters are small with respect to voltage, the sensitivity of I k , and therefore of I k also, to V k can be neglected. This is
equivalent to approximating loads, shunt capacitors, and cogenerators by
their corresponding current injections. For a switch, then, the branch Jacobian G k can be approximated by the appropriately sized identity matrix.5
Using I to denote an identity block
Gk I 0 .
0 I
5
(6.19)
When using this approximation, it is not necessary to split up complex variables into
two real variables. Hence, for a three-phase branch in a grounded section of the network
G k is a 6 x 6 identity matrix.
102
If bus ks incoming branch is a distribution line modeled as described
in Section 3.4, Distribution Line Model, then the numerical properties of
(3.19) and (3.20) from Table 3.6 must be examined in order to derive an
approximation for G k . For practical distribution lines the elements of the
line impedance matrix Z k and the line charging admittance matrix Y k are
typically small with respect to voltage magnitudes when expressed in per
unit. When differentiating, under this assumption, the last term of (3.19)
and the first term of (3.20) can be neglected. This is equivalent to approximating the distribution line as a zero impedance branch with no charging.
As with the switch, this implies that the branch Jacobian G k can be
approximated by the appropriately sized identity matrix.5
In a system with only lines and switches but no transformers, each
branch Jacobian can be approximated by an identity matrix. Voltages and
currents are essentially decoupled from one another. It is important to note
that these approximations are only for simplifying the Jacobian used to
compute the update step in Newtons method. They have no effect on the
final solution, which is still based on the full models described in
Chapter 3, Detailed Component Models.
The diagonal blocks of the system Jacobian are under type 1 in
Table 6.3 and are formed via (6.16). Using the identity approximations for
the branch Jacobians yields an identity block in the system Jacobian as
well.
F i
I 0 I 0 I 0 I
x j
0 I
0 I
0
= I
(6.20)
103
Type 2 non-zero blocks, those above the diagonal, are formed by the
same equation except that the first term has a negative sign, resulting in a
negative identity block in the system Jacobian.
F i
I 0 I 0 I 0 I
x j
0 I
0 I
0
(6.21)
= I
Using the identity approximation to the branch Jacobian in (6.17) for
type 3 non-zero blocks yields
F i
I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 I I 0 I 0 I
x j
0 I
0 I
I
0 I
0 I
0
= I 0 0 0 I I
I
0
(6.22)
= 0
Here the result is a zero block in the system Jacobian. This is due to the
fact that the only coupling between the voltages involved is through the
current I p , but the approximation decouples voltages and currents. The
only difference for type 4 non-zero blocks is a leading negative sign. These
blocks can therefore also be approximated by zero. The last row of
Table 6.3 summarizes these approximations.
6.1.2.3
Transformers
Building non-zero blocks of the system Jacobian which involve transformers is somewhat more complicated. First, note that there can be no
transformers on the relevant part of lateral j for a type 2 non-zero block, so
the approximations for these blocks are never affected by transformers.
104
Second, note that if a transformer is approximated by its ideal equivalent with no leakage admittance, then currents are completely decoupled
from voltages and vice versa. Changes in secondary voltage have no effect
on primary current and changes in secondary current have no effect on primary voltage. This means that the off-diagonal blocks of G k can be approximated by a zero block for a transformer.
Given that a transformer always appears as the first branch on the
lateral,6 the lower right block of G k is not even used in the formation of the
system Jacobian for type 1 blocks since the first term of (6.16) includes
only the left half of G k . The same is true about the first term of (6.17) for
type 3 and type 4 blocks. In fact, for a network with a transformer entering
bus p, the identity approximations for the lines and switches disappear
and (6.17) becomes
F i
I 0 0 0 I p I
x j
I
0
I p + 1
(6.23)
= 0.
Even without knowing the value of I p I p + 1 these sub-diagonal blocks
can still be approximated by zero. This means that it is not necessary to
evaluate the lower right block of G k for a transformer since it is never used
in the formation of the approximated system Jacobian.
The only non-zero blocks of the approximated system Jacobian
affected by transformers are the type 1 diagonal blocks. Suppose bus k7 is
the first bus on lateral i and its incoming branch is a transformer. The
6 See
7 Here
105
diagonal element in block row i can be approximated by the upper left
block element of G k .
F i
V k 1 0 I 0 I 0 I
x j
0 I
0 I
0
V k
(6.24)
V k 1
=
V k
= (Yk ) Yk .
xi
V k
(6.25)
For class B transformers, g k is a function of V k 1 as well as V k . Differentiating (3.52) of Table 3.10 gives the relevant expression:
V k 1 V k 1
F i
=
xi
V k V
k1
sp
Yk
111
ss
Y k
(6.26)
F i
xi
V k 1
V k
V
k
V k
sp
Y k
ss 1 2 1 1
\ Y k --- 1 2 1
3
1 1 2
(6.27)
Table 6.4 shows, for each transformer type, the constant matrix
depending only on k and k which results from the evaluation of (6.25),
106
Table 6.4 Jacobian Approximations for Transformers for VI-DePARS
Transformer Connection
Type
Primary
F i
xi
Secondary
k 1 0 0
------ 0 1 0
k
001
k 1 0
-----k 0 1
Ungrounded
Wye
Ungrounded
Wye
Ungrounded
Wye
Delta
Delta
Ungrounded
Wye
k
------------ 21
3 k 1 1
Delta
Delta
k 1 0
-----k 0 1
sp 1
(Yk )
k 1 1
-----------3 k 1 2
ss
Yk
2 k k 1
------------ ------------- --3 k 3 k 3
2
Grounded Wye
k k 1
------------ ------------- --3 k 3 k 3
Ungrounded
Wye
sp
Yk
Y ss
k
111
Grounded Wye
0
0
1
k 2 k 1
------------ ------------- --3 k 3 k 3
k
-----k
1
0 --3
k 1
------ --k 3
Delta
k k 1
--------- --------- --k k 3
4
Ungrounded
Wye
Grounded Wye
not applicable
sp
Delta
Grounded Wye
Y k
ss 1 2 1 1
\ Y k --- 1 2 1
3
1 1 2
2 k k k
---------- --------- --------3 k 3 k 3 k
k 2 k k
--------- ---------- --------3 k 3 k 3 k
1
107
(6.26), and (6.27). The appropriate constant matrix from the table is used
to replace the identity block on the diagonal of the approximated system
Jacobian for a lateral with a transformer.
6.1.2.4
( i)
( i)
from
J(x
( i)
)s
( i)
= F(x
( i)
).
(6.28)
( i)
via a simple
6.1.3
Termination Criterion
The power flow equations F ( x) are evaluated to determine the mismatch for each iteration of DePARS. This mismatch is used to update the
value of x for the next iteration. These two steps are repeated until convergence is achieved. Once the norm of the mismatch F ( x) becomes smaller
than some tolerance it can be said that the algorithm has converged.
108
xj
1
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fi
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
109
It is also possible to use the termination criterion used for the network reduction methods of Chapter 4. This approach requires that the
norm of the difference in bus voltages between iterations be smaller than a
given tolerance.
6.2 Implementation
In many respects DePARS is very similar to the backward/forward
sweep methods of Chapter 5. The function evaluation for VI-DePARS in
the implementation is, in fact, the same routine as the one used for backward sweep in VI-VI-PARS and V-VI-PARS. In the fast decoupled method,
the end voltages are updated directly via an approximate Newton step as
opposed to the complete forward sweep used in the backward/forward
sweep methods.
Because of the simple structure of the approximated Jacobian, it is
not even necessary to explicitly form the matrix. Once the mismatches F i
have been calculated, the update step for each lateral can be computed
directly as
si = si 1 F i
(6.29)
(6.30)
for laterals with transformers. Here s i 1 refers to the update step for
lateral i 1 , the parent of lateral i. The calculation of the update steps
must therefore proceed in BF8 order, starting with the main feeder. The
8 See
110
term ( F i x i ) 1 can be computed beforehand for each lateral with a
transformer.
Since the package used for the implementation had built-in sparse
matrix routines which were smart enough to do the block backward substitution automatically, the approximate Jacobian was formed explicitly.
This allowed for the flexibility of plugging it directly into an existing standard Newton solver routine without sacrificing efficiency.
6.3 Variations
There are four main variations to the generic DePARS given in
Table 6.2. The first two methods, VI-DePARS and VS-DePARS, use a backward sweep for function evaluation and an approximate Newton update to
the independent variables in place of the forward sweep of BFS-PARS. The
last two methods, I-DePARS and S-DePARS, use a forward sweep for function evaluation and the approximate Newton step is in place of a backward
sweep. Table 6.5 summarizes the four variations.
Table 6.5 Various Formulations for DePARS
Algorithm
Based
on
VI-DePARS
current
VS-DePARS
power
flow
I-DePARS
current
S-DePARS
power
flow
Independent
Variable
Function
Evaluated
voltage at end of
each lateral
voltage mismatch at
each laterals source
current at each
laterals source
current mismatch at
end of each lateral
power mismatch at
end of each lateral
111
6.3.1
VI-DePARS
6.3.2
VS-DePARS
9 This
112
and VS-VS-PARS described in this section are also relevant to the differences between VI-DePARS and VS-DePARS.
Since this method computes the same mismatch as a function of the
same variables, the same approximate Jacobian can be used. An extensive
analysis of the branch Jacobians, now based on h k from (2.5), lead to the
same approximations yielding the same approximate system Jacobian.
6.3.3
I-DePARS
In the single feeder example of Figure 6.1, there are two boundary
conditions: the source voltage is a specified constant and the end current is
zero. The first two variations of DePARS are based on using the boundary
condition at the end of the lateral to compute backward toward the source,
obtaining a voltage mismatch at the source as a function of the end voltage. I-DePARS takes the opposite approach. The source voltage boundary
condition is used to calculate in the forward direction to obtain a current
mismatch at the end of the lateral as a function of the current injected at
the source.
In this case, the independent variables are the currents injected into
the beginning of each lateral. The function evaluation is equivalent to a
forward sweep and the approximate Newton update of the independent
variables is in place of a backward sweep. In fact, the routine used to do
the function evaluation is the same as the one used for the forward sweep
of VI-VI-PARS and VI-I-PARS, which is described in detail in Section 5.1.2,
Forward Sweep.
113
6.3.3.1
0
w 1 = f 1(w 0) = f 1
I1
w 2 = f 2(w 1) = f 2 f 1 V 0
I1
wN =
VN
IN + 1
(6.31)
0
= f N (w N 1) = f N f 2 f 1
I1
(6.32)
114
lateral i
bus N
I N + 1
bus k
xi = Ik
lateral i 1
from source
Vq
bus q = k 1
x ( L, M L )
x =
x ( l, m )
x ( 1, 1 )
I ( L, M L, 1 )
=
I ( l, m , 1 )
(6.33)
I ( 1, 1, 1 )
(6.34)
115
Taking (6.34) for each lateral and combining these equations in RBF1 order
as in (6.7) yields the new reduced power flow equations which can be still
be expressed compactly as
F ( x) = 0 .
(6.35)
Note that the implementation of (6.35) in this case requires that the laterals be evaluated in BF8 order, not in the order they appear in F and x.10
As with VI-DePARS, a class B or class C transformer entering bus k
causes the variables or mismatch functions for lateral i to change slightly
from the standard I k and I N + 1 . For a lateral with a class B transformer,
the voltage update formula used is the one in (5.15) which includes the
modified primary current. The mismatch function in (6.34) is a set of two
equations in three unknowns. The additional equation required to solve
the problem is obtained by setting to zero the primary side constraint mismatch presented in Section 5.2.1.2, Forward Sweep, as (5.12) or (5.13).
For type 2 grounded wye to ungrounded wye transformers, (5.12) gives
I k( x) = I k = 0
(6.36)
I k( x) = I k -----k2- V k 1 = 0 .
k
(6.37)
10 The
I N + 1( x)
I k( x)
= 0.
(6.38)
ordering of F and x need only satisfy the constraint that they be sorted by lateral
level. RBF order was chosen primarily for consistency with VI-DePARS.
116
For a class C transformer entering bus k, the secondary voltage and
xi =
Ik
Ik
(6.39)
The variable x, which contains the currents injected into all laterals, will
also contain I k for laterals with class C transformers. This allows (6.34) to
be used in its present form.
With these small changes in the mismatch and the independent variable for laterals with class B and class C transformers, respectively, the
compact form of the reduced power flow equations in (6.35) can still be
used.
6.3.3.2
(6.40)
117
Gk =
f k
wk 1
V k V k
V k 1 I k
=
.
I k + 1 I k + 1
V k 1 I k
(6.41)
Suppose lateral j branches off of its parent at bus q and lateral is end
bus is bus n.11 If bus q does not lie on the path from the source to bus n,
then the corresponding block element F i x j of the system Jacobian is a
zero block. If bus q does lie on the path from the source to bus n, then the
corresponding block is non-zero. Table 6.6 summarizes the formation of the
non-zero blocks of the system Jacobian. In order to simplify the presentation, the equations given in Table 6.6 are for the case with no class B or
class C transformers present. This leads to the structure shown in
Figure 6.6 for the sample radial network shown in Figure 2.1 on page 10.
This structure is the transpose of the Jacobian structure for VI-DePARS
shown in Figure 6.3.
For lines and switches, the branch Jacobian in (6.41) can once again
be approximated by an identity matrix, under the same assumptions about
the relative magnitudes of per unit circuit parameters and per unit voltages. Following a development similar to that of Section 6.1.2.2, Numerical
Properties
of
the
System
Jacobian,
and
Section 6.1.2.3,
118
Table 6.6 I-DePARS Jacobian Formation
Non-Zero Blocks of the System Jacobian for I-DePARS
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
j is a direct
sub-lateral of i
i is supplied
through j
i is supplied
through j 1
source
source
source
source
q
q +1
q +1
q
i&j
wn 1
i
j
non-zero blocks
below diagonal
F i
=
x j
I n + 1
q +1
i
j
diagonal blocks
(all non-zero)
q +1 p 1
(6.42)
Gn 1 Gq + 2
f q + 1
Iq
where q + 1
refers to the
first bus on
lateral j
where q + 1
refers to the
bus following q
on lateral i
approximately
identity
approximately
minus identity
p 1
p
n
i
j
non-zero blocks
above diagonal
F i
=
x j
I n + 1
wn 1
(6.43)
Gn 1 G p + 1
f p
V p 1
f
V p 1
G p 2 Gq + 2 q + 1
w p 2
Iq
where q + 1
refers to the
first bus on
lateral j
where q + 1
refers to the
bus following q
on lateral i
approximately
zero
119
xj
1
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fi
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
120
F i I k
ss
ps 1
------------- = Y k ( Y k )
xi
I k
F i
xi
I k
-------------
I k
I
-------k-
I k
F i
I k
------------
xi
I k
(6.44)
2 1 1
ss ps
1
Y k Y k \ --- 1 2 1
3
1 1 2
1
I k
ss
- = Y k
-----------
I k
(6.45)
ps
Yk
111
10 0
01 0
k2
0 0 -----yk
(6.46)
When (6.44), (6.45), and (6.46) are evaluated for each transformer
type, the result is a constant matrix depending only on k and k as
shown in Table 6.7. The appropriate constant matrix from the table is used
to replace the identity block on the diagonal of the approximated system
Jacobian for a lateral with a transformer.
These approximations lead to a lower block triangular matrix which
means that, for I-DePARS, the update step in (6.28) can be solved efficiently by block forward substitution.
6.3.3.3
Implementation
s j Fi
j
(6.47)
121
Table 6.7 Jacobian Approximations for Transformers for I-DePARS
Transformer Connection
Type
F i
xi
Primary
Secondary
Grounded
Wye
Grounded
Wye
k 1 0 0
------ 0 1 0
k
001
Ungrounded
Wye
Ungrounded
Wye
k 1 0
-----k 0 1
Ungrounded
Wye
Delta
Delta
Ungrounded
Wye
k 1 1
-----------3 k 1 2
Delta
Delta
k 1 0
-----k 0 1
Grounded
Wye
Ungrounded
Wye
ps
Yk
2 1 1
1
\ --- 1 2 1
3
1 1 2
1
Grounded
Wye
k
------------ 21
3 k 1 1
2 k k k
------------ ------------- ------------3 k 3 k 3 k
ss
Y k
ps 1
ss
Y k ( Y k )
k 2 k k
------------ ------------- ------------3 k 3 k 3 k
Delta
------ 0 --------kk
k
k k
--------- ------ 0
k k
1
Ungrounded
Wye
C
7
Delta
Grounded
Wye
Grounded
Wye
not applicable
ss
Y k
ps
Yk
111
10 0
01 0
k2
0 0 -----yk
k k 1
-------- --------- -----3 k 3 k 3
k 2 k 1
-------- ---------- -----3 k 3 k 3
2 k k 1
------------- --------- -----3 k 3 k 3
122
for laterals without transformers, and
F i 1
s F
si =
j
i
xi
j
(6.48)
for laterals with transformers. Here s j refers to the update step for
lateral j, where j is a sub-lateral of lateral i. The calculation of the update
steps must therefore proceed in RBF1 order.
One disadvantage to I-DePARS as compared to VI-DePARS is the
availability of a good starting value for the independent variable x. For
VI-DePARS the end voltages are set directly to balanced 1 per unit. However, some computation is required to find an initial value for the currents
injected into each lateral. This is typically done by current summation during some type of backward sweep such as the one used in V-I-PARS.
6.3.4
S-DePARS
123
The approximate Jacobian for S-DePARS is identical to that of
I-DePARS. The update step in the Newton method can therefore be solved
by a block forward substitution.
( i)
( i)
( i)
= F
( i)
(6.49)
( i)
( i)
= F
( i)
( i)
+r
( i)
(6.50)
r
( i)
-------------- ,
( i)
F
where {
( i)
(6.51)
( i)
( i)
method is locally and linearly convergent. This result is stated and proved
as Theorem 2.3 in [14]. Using the present notation, this theorem asserts
the following:
124
( i)
max
Assume that
< t < 1 . There exists > 0 such that, if
( 0)
x
x , then the sequence of inexact Newton iterates
( i)
{ x } converges to x . Moreover, the convergence is linear in
the sense that
x
where y
( i + 1)
t x
( i)
(6.52)
J ( x) y .
For the fast decoupled methods presented here, the update step can
be expressed as the solution to
( i)
( i)
J s
= F ,
(6.53)
( i)
( i)
( i)
J ,
(6.54)
( i)
( i)
( i)
= F
= J
( i)
( i)
( i)
+ J
( i)
( i)
(6.55)
( i)
( i)
( i)
r
J s
-------------- = ----------------------------.
( i)
( i)
F
Js
12 Or,
(6.56)
for I-DePARS and S-DePARS, the transpose of the matrix shown in Figure 6.4.
125
For a network with only grounded wye to grounded wye transformers some
conclusions can be drawn about the size of this residual under the following assumptions:
All voltage magnitudes are close to 1 per unit.
All transformer tap ratios are close to one.
All per unit network parameters13 are small compared to voltage
magnitudes (i.e. they are 1 ).
Given these assumptions, J is of the form shown in Figure 6.4,14
where all diagonal terms are equal to or nearly equal to one and the offdiagonal non-zero terms are equal to minus one. The matrix J
( i)
in the
residual term is the difference between the true Jacobian, whose structure
is shown in Figure 6.3, and J . This elements of this matrix are all small
compared to one. This implies that
( i)
( i)
J s
---------------------------- 1,
( i)
J s
hence
( i)
(6.57)
( i)
J s - < ( i ) < 1 ,
---------------------------( i)
J s
(6.58)
thereby completing the proof that DePARS is a locally and linearly convergent inexact Newton method.
13
This includes all line and transformer impedances, line charging admittances, shunt
admittances, constant Z load admittances, constant PQ load power injections, and cogenerator power injections.
14 Figure 6.6 for I-DePARS and S-DePARS.
126
6.5 Comments
As with the backward/forward sweep methods of Chapter 5, the fast
decoupled methods are applicable to a wide range of radial distribution
networks. The one modeling limitation of the general DePARS formulation
is that it does not include type 4 ungrounded wye to grounded wye transformers. One variation, S-DePARS, is further restricted to transformers of
types 1, 5, and 9, all of which have identical connection and grounding on
both primary and secondary sides.
As with BFS-PARS, the power flow based variations typically require
more computation per iteration than their current based counterparts.
Considering this difference and the fact that S-DePARS is limited to only
three types of transformer connections, VI-DePARS and I-DePARS appear
to be the most attractive of the four fast decoupled methods. VI-DePARS
has the added advantage of readily available initial values for the independent variable x.
As with NR-PARS and BFS-PARS, the amount of computation
required per iteration is proportional to the number of buses. For a constant number of iterations for convergence, the computational complexity
increases linearly with the size of the system, making DePARS effective for
very large radial distribution networks.
Chapter 7
127
128
Apart from handling cases with loops, the compensation method also
makes it possible to solve systems with more than one voltage controlled
bus. These can be secondary sources with both voltage magnitude and
angle specified, or PV buses which specify voltage magnitude and real
power injection. First, the method of dealing with loops is described in
detail, followed by the modifications necessary for secondary sources and
PV buses.
129
Table 7.1
Break loops.
Form and factor breakpoint impedance matrix.
Initialize breakpoint injections, initialize PARS.
1
primary
source
primary
source
rest of network
rest of network
bus q
bus q
loop j
loop j
bus k
bus k
bus k
I BPj
I BPj
negative path
I BPj
positive path
130
7.1.1
The primary issue in converting the meshed system to a radial network is the choice of the loop breakpoint locations. As shown in Figure 7.1,
each loop can be divided into two pieces, both of which are supplied
through some common bus q. The positive path refers to the path between
bus q and the breakpoint bus k, and the negative path is the path between
bus q and the artificial bus k . Some of the power supplied to the loop
through bus q will enter through the positive path and some through the
negative path depending on the branch impedances and the distribution of
the loads on the loop. For good convergence, the breakpoint location for a
loop should be chosen so as to minimize the breakpoint current I BPj .
Although it is not possible to choose a priori the breakpoint location
which will result in the smallest breakpoint current I BPj , it is easy to see
that a depth-first approach to finding and breaking loops would be a worst
case. In this case, the loop is detected after traversing the entire loop in
one direction and arriving again at bus q, which becomes the site of the
breakpoint. All of the load on the entire loop would be put on the negative
path and none on the positive path. Not only would this approach make it
difficult to estimate reasonable initial values for the breakpoint injections,
it would also cause unnecessary convergence problems for the radial power
flow solver due to the potentially tremendous load on one lateral.
Figure 7.2 shows that a much more reasonable and successful method
is to use a breadth-first approach to detecting and breaking loops. In this
case, both the positive and negative paths are traversed simultaneously
and the breakpoint is chosen as the bus farthest from the source. If bus k is
visited twice, coming from two different directions, a loop has been
131
1e+0
1e-1
1e-2
Breadth-First
1e-3
Depth-First
1e-4
1e-5
1e-6
1e-7
1e-8
1e-9
0
10
15
20
25
Iterations
30
35
40
45
7.1.2
132
resulting breakpoint voltages are then used to compute the mismatch for
each loop j with breakpoint k.
V BPj = V k V k
(7.1)
(7.2)
E BP 2
F BP 2
(7.3)
E BPnlp
F BPnlp
This is a (6 nlp) x 1 real vector, where nlp is the number of loops in the
network.
7.1.3
In order to update the breakpoint injections in a way which eliminates the breakpoint voltage mismatches, it is necessary to know the corresponding sensitivity information. A linear approximation to these
sensitivities is given by the breakpoint impedance matrix Z BP . For a
three-phase system, Z BP is a real, non-sparse, square matrix of dimension
(6 nlp).
133
Let each complex three-phase current I = C + jD also be represented
by a 6 x 1 vector of its real and imaginary parts, however, with the imaginary part negated.
I =
C
D
(7.4)
The reason for this separation into real and imaginary parts will be seen
clearly in Section 7.1.6, PV Buses. The breakpoint currents I BPj for each
loop j are then combined to form the (6 nlp) x 1 real breakpoint injection
vector
C BP 1
D BP 1
C BP 2
I BP =
D BP 2
(7.5)
C BPnlp
D BPnlp
The breakpoint impedance matrix Z BP is an approximation of the
sensitivity of V BP to changes in I BP . This relationship can be written
V BP = Z BP I BP
(7.6)
134
For diagonal blocks where i = j , Z BPij is the sum of the branch
impedances in loop i.
For off-diagonal blocks where i j , the magnitude of Z BPij is the
sum of the impedances of branches common to loops i and j. The
sign is negative if the loops have opposite direction and positive if
they have the same direction.1
To be consistent with the representations of voltage and current in (7.2)
and (7.4), the branch impedances Z = R + jX are represented as
Z =
R X
X R
(7.7)
(7.8)
and its triangular factors L BP and U BP stored for later use in solving for
I BP from (7.6).
7.1.4
Breakpoint Injections
The second part of each iteration of PAWMS is to update the breakpoint current injections. This involves solving for I BP from the set of linear equations in (7.6) via backward and forward substitution using the
triangular factors from (7.8).
I BP = U BP \ ( L BP \ V BP )
(7.9)
(7.10)
The direction of a loop is arbitrarily defined to be toward the source on the positive
path and away from the source on the negative path. This is also the convention used for
the direction of the breakpoint current as shown in Figure 7.1.
135
These new current injections are used with positive and negative signs,
respectively, at the corresponding breakpoint buses k and k during the
next radial power flow update.
7.1.5
Multiple Sources
V BPj = V k
Vk .
(7.11)
136
secondary
+
source
I BPj
primary
source
bus k
secondary
+
source
I BPj
primary
source
bus k
bus k
loop j
loop j
rest of network
rest of network
positive path
7.1.6
PV Buses
2 See
137
tions and a change of basis for voltage and current vectors V and I, and
impedance matrices Z, as given in (7.2), (7.4), and (7.7).
Define a rotation matrix U to rotate phases b and c by 120 and -120,
respectively,
1 0 0
U = 0 0 ,
0 0 2
where =
2
j -----e 3
(7.12)
1
3
= --- + j ------- , and note that
2
2
U 1
1 0 0
= U = 0 2 0 .
0 0
(7.13)
(7.14)
I UI
(7.15)
Z UZU 1
(7.16)
138
1
E V = V 1
1
(7.17)
0
F 0
0
(7.18)
If V is the voltage of a PV bus and I is the corresponding current injection, the change in complex power injection S = P + jQ can be
expressed in terms of V and the change in I , and separated into is real
and reactive parts as follows:
S = V .* I
= V .* ( UU I )
= UV .* ( UI )
= V .* I
(7.19)
= ( E + jF ) .* ( C jD )
=
( E .* C + F .* D ) + j ( F .* C E .* D )
P
(7.20)
Q D .
(7.21)
If Z BPij is a sensitivity matrix relating the breakpoint voltage mismatch V BPi for loop i to the breakpoint current injection I BPj for loop j,
then ZBPij is the corresponding sensitivity matrix for VBPi and IBPj .
This is shown by the following equation where the subscripts have been
dropped to simplify the presentation.
139
V =
=
=
=
UV
UZ I
UZU 1 UI
Z I
(7.22)
(7.23)
C
D
(7.24)
If loop j is due to a PV bus, the approximations from (7.20) and (7.21) are
applied and, since the real power injection is fixed, P is zero so only the
second block column is needed.
E X ( D ) X Q
F
R
R
(7.25)
If both loops are due to PV buses, both sets of approximations apply and
the relevant equation is
V E X ( D ) X Q .
(7.26)
specified
V k ) .* Ek . / V k .
(7.27)
This gives the change in the real part of Vk due to the difference between
the specified and calculated values of the voltage magnitudes, assuming
the angle is left as calculated.
140
7.1.7
Summary
F1
7.1.8
X13
X23
C1
C2
F2
E3
X33
(7.28)
Q 3
Termination Criterion
141
7.2 Implementation
Since the compensation method used to eliminate breakpoint voltage
mismatches is independent of the radial power flow algorithm used to compute these mismatches, this independence was preserved in the implementation. The program was structured in a way which allows any of the
variations of NR-PARS, BFS-PARS, or DePARS to be used as the radial
solver.
7.2.1
7.2.2
142
power flow convergence criterion, a completely converged result may not be
necessary, especially in the first several iterations of PAWMS. In fact, in
some cases, a single iteration of the radial power flow may be sufficient to
achieve satisfactory convergence for PAWMS.
As implemented, the program allows for three possible modes of operation. In addition to converged sets and single iterations of the radial
power flow, an adaptive method is also included. This adaptive strategy is
based on a heuristic which attempts to set the tolerance for the radial
power flow for a given iteration such that the breakpoint voltage mismatches computed are only as accurate as necessary.
Using the maximum change in bus voltage as the mismatch for the
radial solver, a tolerance of 10 n typically results in bus voltages accurate
to about 10 ( n + 1 ) . This is generally sufficient for the computation of
breakpoint mismatches on the order of 10 n . An estimate of the breakpoint
voltage mismatch at the next iteration can therefore be used as a reasonable tolerance for the current radial power flow. This estimate is readily
computed from the current breakpoint voltage mismatch and the current
rate of convergence, as calculated from the current and previous mismatches. This is the approach used by the adaptive method implemented
in the program.
7.3 Variations
Several modifications to the basic PAWMS presented here have been
considered. They are based primarily on the various approaches presented
in [23], [19], and [20] for single-phase power flow in weakly meshed systems.
143
7.3.1
(7.29)
Vk + Vk
= ---------------------- .* IBPj
2
In practice, this produces much better results than the more obvious
update
S = C jD ,
(7.30)
144
1e+0
I = I
U (=C
+ jD )
U(C'+jD')
Vk
V=k +
(V1+V2)/2
S = S
------------------- .* I*
2
conj(I)
1e-1
1e-2
1e-3
S = S
C
= C'-jD'
jD
1e-4
1e-5
1e-6
1e-7
1e-8
1e-9
0
10
15
20
25
Iterations
7.3.2
Correction Step
145
First consider the correction for NR-PARS and BFS-PARS. This voltage correction step adjusts the bus voltages to reflect the change in the
breakpoint injections according to the method presented in [20]. A backward/forward sweep of the radial network is performed with:
all loads, shunts, and cogenerators disconnected
breakpoint injections set to their incremental values (the change
in injection just computed)
source voltage set to zero
The bus voltages computed from this process are incremental values
reflecting the change in bus voltages due to the change in breakpoint injection. These incremental voltages are added to the bus voltages from the
previous radial power flow iteration, resulting in a better starting point for
the new radial power flow.
For VI-DePARS and VS-DePARS, each iteration consists of a mismatch evaluation followed by an update to the end voltages. The voltage
correction step described above can be used to calculate the incremental
voltages. In this case, it is only necessary to add the incremental values to
the end voltages since they are used to update all other bus voltages in the
succeeding mismatch evaluation.
When using I-DePARS and S-DePARS, the breakpoint injections are
updated immediately following a function evaluation. Each iteration of the
radial power flow then begins with the update to the independent variables, based on the mismatch from the previous iteration, and ends with
the evaluation of a new mismatch. It is convenient to switch this order
from that used by the other two DePARS methods above to allow for a mismatch correction to adjust for the change in breakpoint injections.
146
The effect of a change in the injection at a particular breakpoint then
is simply to increase the corresponding laterals mismatch by the amount
of the change. The only other detail is that, for I-DePARS, incremental
power injections are converted to their approximate current equivalents3
before adding them to the appropriate mismatch. Likewise, for S-DePARS,
incremental current injections are converted to their approximate power
equivalents.3
The effect of adding a correction step to PAWMS is to improve the
overall convergence characteristics of the algorithm. Using the correction
step typically reduces the total number of radial power flow iterations
required to solve the weakly meshed power flow.
7.4 Comments
For a distribution system with a small number of loops, secondary
sources, and PV buses, the size of the breakpoint impedance matrix is relatively small. The computation involved in forming and factoring the matrix
is still relatively small compared to the work required for the solution of
the radial system. However, as the number of loops grows, the computational burden associated with the breakpoint impedance matrix grows.
Since Z BP is, in general, not necessarily sparse, at some point, as the number of loops increases, the work associated with Z BP becomes so large that
it is more efficient to use a general nodal approach, such as the traditional
Newton-Raphson or Implicit Zbus Gauss methods. For this reason, PAWMS
is well suited to weakly meshed systems, but less well suited to the highly
connected structure of a typical transmission network.
3 Based
147
Another issue raised by extending a radial power flow technique to
handle weakly meshed systems is that of the existence and uniqueness of
solutions. According to [13], a typical radial distribution network always
has a unique feasible power flow solution. On the other hand, it is a wellknown fact that a meshed transmission network may have many feasible
steady-state equilibrium points or none at all. The solution found by
PAWMS for a weakly meshed distribution network may therefore not be a
unique feasible solution. Presumably, choosing a different initial value for
the breakpoint injections could result in a different solution to the power
flow problem. Furthermore, divergence of the algorithm in certain cases
could be due to the lack of a feasible solution.
Chapter 8
Simulation Results
All of the algorithms under consideration were implemented in a program written for MATLAB.1 The program reads the network data once
from a text file and then stores it in binary format for later use. After reading the network data, either from the original text file or from the binary
file, the network is traversed as described in Section 2.2.2.2, BreadthFirst Search. During this traversal the nodes and laterals are indexed,
data is verified for consistency, and sections are marked as grounded or
ungrounded. Since it is common to all of the methods, this preprocessing
step is omitted from the comparison of computational effort associated
with each algorithm.
MATLAB is a high-level interpreted language designed with matrix
manipulation in mind. The version used for this implementation,
version 4, includes sparse matrix storage and manipulation as built-in
functions. These capabilities made it an attractive choice for quick implementation and testing of ideas during the stage of algorithm development.
1 MATLAB
148
149
For the analysis of the algorithms, the interpreted nature of MATLAB
makes it ideal for observing the behavior of individual parameters. On the
other hand, an interpreted language is usually quite a bit slower in execution than the compiled languages typically used for power flow, such as
Fortran or C. For this reason, MATLAB is probably not the language of
choice for a program intended for use in industry. On a sufficiently fast
workstation, however, computation time for this implementation was not a
problem even with networks of more than 1000 buses.
The goal of this analysis of the results of the MATLAB simulation is to
draw some meaningful conclusions about the behavior of the algorithms in
a compiled language, such as Fortran or C. This entails comparisons of the
effectiveness of each of the algorithms presented in Chapter 4 through
Chapter 7 relative to one another and relative to other relevant power flow
algorithms.
For this purpose, computation time in MATLAB is nearly meaningless. In MATLAB, solving a set of linear equations is a built-in function and
therefore executes at approximately the same speed as Fortran or C. Simple loops, however, are many times slower since each line is interpreted
each time through the loop. Consequently, the run time of an algorithm in
MATLAB may be completely unrelated to the run time of the same algorithm in Fortran or C. The number of floating point operations (flops)
required, though not a perfect measure, is chosen as a much better indicator of relative run time in a compiled language.
150
8.1.1
Newton-Raphson Method
151
Table 8.1 Summary of Distribution Power Flow Algorithms
ID
Class
traditional
algorithms,
standard Ybus
formulation
2
3
linear
network
reduction
(NR-PARS)
Algorithm
NewtonRaphson
Implicit
Zbus Gauss
Fwd
Swp
Bwd
Swp
not
applicable
V, I
Y, I
Y-PARS
V, I
VI-VI-PARS
V, I
V, I
V-VI-PARS
V, I
V, I
V, S
V, S
V, S
V, S
VI-DePARS
direct
V, I
VS-DePARS
direct
V, S
I-DePARS
V, I
direct
S-DePARS
V, S
direct
7
8
9
10
VI-I-PARS
back/forward V-I-PARS
sweep
(BFS-PARS) VS-VS-PARS
V-VS-PARS
11
VS-S-PARS
12
V-S-PARS
13
14
15
16
fast
decoupled
(DePARS)
[25], [28]
general
meshed
all types
N-PARS
[27], [9],
[10]
[4]
[18]
radial
structure
only
(or
weaklymeshed
using
PAWMS)
[23], [11]
[3]
all except
type 4
[19], [20]
[17], [32]
types 1, 5, 9
[12]
All
each bus by constant power elements, let I bus be the vector of net current
injection by constant current elements, and let Y bus be the bus admittance
matrix containing all constant impedance elements. The power balance
equation can then be written in terms of the bus voltage vector V.
S bus = V .* ( Y bus V I bus )
(8.1)
The power flow problem is to find a bus voltage vector V which satisfies this power balance. Roughly speaking, the Newton-Raphson method
[25; 28] solves this problem by setting the power mismatch function
152
F (V ) = V .* ( Y bus V I bus ) S bus = 0
(8.2)
to zero and solving for the roots via Newtons method.2 To be more accurate, the set of equations given to Newtons method consists of only the
rows of (8.2) associated with the load buses. Similarly, the unknowns are
the bus voltages at the load buses, since the source voltage is assumed to
be given.
8.1.2
The Implicit Zbus Gauss method [27; 9; 10] also uses a standard Y bus
formulation. At all times, the state of a power system must satisfy
Kirchhoffs current law at every bus. This constraint can be expressed as
I = Y bus V
(8.3)
where I is the vector of current injected by all constant current and constant power elements. The voltage and current vectors are separated into
two parts, the first corresponding to the source and the second corresponding to the remaining buses.
I1
I2
Y 11 Y 12 V 1
Y 21 Y 22 V 2
(8.4)
In this case, the power flow problem is to solve for V 2 , given the
source voltage V 1 . If the circuit contains no constant power elements, I 2 is
a known constant injection and V 2 can be found directly from the lower
part of (8.4).
1
V 2 = Y 22
( I 2 Y 21 V 1 )
2 See
(8.5)
153
This is a simple linear circuit solution via a nodal method. If the network
contains constant power devices, they can be linearized by replacing them
with equivalent current injections based on an estimate of the bus voltages. In this case, the current injection I 2 becomes a function of the bus
voltage vector V 2 .
1
V 2 = Y 22
( I 2(V 2) Y 21 V 1 )
(8.6)
154
Transformers
Power Input
P
(kW)
Real
Minimum
Power
Voltage
Q
Loss
Magnitude
(kVAR)
63
135
32
710.4
-276.8
1.04%
0.98 p.u.
125
249
26
1673.9
-650.7
1.74%
0.97 p.u.
204
348
101
1154.2
-115.0
2.49%
0.93 p.u.
242
423
66
4007.7
1676.8
2.13%
0.94 p.u.
380
754
97
4524.6
1187.1
0.74%
0.98 p.u.
446
811
123
6807.7
2042.5
2.58%
0.94 p.u.
293
829
85
29,277.2 11,214.7
1.34%
0.91 p.u.
552
1031
139
4696.7
830.6
2.34%
0.89 p.u.
599
1063
149
3962.8
-1603.9
1.88%
0.94 p.u.
396
1133
108
29,116.3
9757.4
2.15%
0.99 p.u.
1064
1976
284
18,405.0
7799.9
2.95%
0.87 p.u.
With
3 New
155
are derived from models provided by Rochester Gas & Electric in NY.
Except for the tests which explicitly examine the effect of the load model,
all of the tests are run with a random mixture of approximately equal
numbers of constant PQ, constant current, and constant impedance loads.
156
Newton-Raphson
Test System B
Y-PARS
VI-VI-PARS
V-VI-PARS
VI-I-PARS
V-I-PARS
VS-VS-PARS
V-VS-PARS
VS-S-PARS
V-S-PARS
VI-DePARS
VS-DePARS
I-DePARS
S-DePARS
6
Iterations
10
12
157
I-DePARS
1e+0
1e-1
N-PARS
1e-2
V-I-PARS
1e-3
VI-DePARS
1e-4
Newton-Raphson
1e-5
1e-6
1e-7
1e-8
1e-9
1e-10
1e-11
1e-12
1
4
Iterations
158
Newton-Raphson
N-PARS
Y-PARS
VI-VI-PARS
V-VI-PARS
Test System J
VI-I-PARS
Test System B
V-I-PARS
VS-VS-PARS
V-VS-PARS
VS-S-PARS
V-S-PARS
VI-DePARS
VS-DePARS
I-DePARS
S-DePARS
0.01
0.1
1
Floating Point Operations (Mflops)
10
159
N-PARS
VI-VI-PARS
V-VI-PARS
VI-I-PARS
V-I-PARS
VS-VS-PARS
V-VS-PARS
VS-S-PARS
V-S-PARS
Test System J
Test System B
VI-DePARS
VS-DePARS
I-DePARS
S-DePARS
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Floating Point Operations (normalized)
3.5
160
the fast decoupled class, I-DePARS appears most attractive. In fact, due to
the limitations on the types of transformers handled by S-DePARS, it is
unable to solve test system J and is therefore also removed from further
consideration.
8.3.1
From Figure 8.4, the current based methods appear to perform better
than the corresponding power based methods, and I-DePARS appears to be
more efficient than VI-DePARS, despite the fact that the starting point for
VI-DePARS is available without any computation. However, before eliminating the power based methods or VI-DePARS from further consideration,
the effect of load models and load factor are examined.
First consider the effect of different load models as illustrated in
Figure 8.5 and Figure 8.6. For a network with no constant power loads
(and no cogenerators), both Implicit Zbus Gauss and N-PARS require a single iteration since the system is linear, making N-PARS the method of
choice. For BFS-PARS and DePARS, considering all of the load models, the
results show a maximum of one iteration difference between the current
based methods and their power flow based counterparts. Even when
requiring an extra iteration, Figure 8.6 shows that the current based
methods require fewer flops than the corresponding power based methods.
The superiority of the current based methods does not seem to be affected
by the load model.
Consider the effect of increasing the load, for a mixed load model, by
multiplying all loads in the base case by a scalar load factor. Figure 8.7
shows the Newton-Raphson method to be least affected by high load fac-
161
12
10
8
6
Constant PQ
Constant I
Constant Z
Mixed
2
0
10
Constant PQ
1
Constant I
Constant Z
Mixed
0.1
162
Newton-Raphson
100
V-S-PARS
VS-DePARS
90
80
N-PARS
70
V-I-PARS
60
VI-DePARS
50
I-DePARS
40
30
20
10
0
Load Factor
163
V-I-PARS
VI-DePARS
V-S-PARS
VS-DePARS
N-PARS
3
0.5
1.5
2
Load Factor
2.5
3.5
8.3.2
164
It is well-known that the number of iterations required by the Newton-Raphson method is typically not affected by the size of the power system. Figure 8.9 shows that, although there is variation in the number of
Newton-Raphson
20
0.5
N-PARS
18
V-I-PARS
0.55
16
I-DePARS
0.6
14
Minimum |V|
0.65
12
Size of Systems
Tested
0.7
10
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
0
500
1000
1500
Size of System (# of nodes)
2000
iterations required for the different size systems, there seems to be no correlation between the system size and the number of iterations for any of
the algorithms tested. Since the analysis has shown that the number of
iterations is affected by load factor, it seems reasonable to conclude that
differences in loading could account for the variation in number of iterations from one test system to another. Assuming the minimum voltage
magnitude in the system gives some indication of the loading of the sys-
165
tem, the shape of the minimum voltage curve in Figure 8.9 seems to confirm this conjecture.
Aside from the variation in number of iterations caused by loading
differences, the number of flops required by each algorithm grows approximately linearly with the number of nodes in the system, as illustrated in
Figure 8.10.
Implicit Zbus
Gauss
2.5
N-PARS
V-I-PARS
I-DePARS
Size of Systems
Tested
1.5
0.5
0
0
500
1000
Size of System (# of nodes)
1500
2000
166
and the open/closed status of some of the switches is changed to create
loops in the system.
The implementation of PAWMS used for the results presented here
includes the extra correction described in Section 7.3.2, Correction Step.
It was found that this correction step nearly always reduced the total number of flops required for convergence. Sometimes adding this correction
turned a divergent case into a convergent one. In particular, some of the
DePARS methods did not converge without this step.
8.4.1
4 One
PAWMS iteration refers to one iteration of the outer loop, i.e. one breakpoint injection update.
167
V-I-PAWMS
(Adaptive)
45
35
V-I-PAWMS
(Single
Iterations)
30
I-DePAWMS
(Adaptive)
40
I-DePAWMS
(Single
Iterations)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
Number of Loops
15
20
Figure 8.11 Total PARS Iterations for Adaptive vs. Single Iterations
2
1.8
Adaptive
1.6
Single Iterations
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
Number of Loops
15
20
Figure 8.12 Total Number of Flops for Adaptive vs. Single Iterations
168
and therefore performs more correction steps than the adaptive mode. The
results for N-PAWMS and VI-DePAWMS are not shown, but are quite similar with a slightly higher number of flops required for the adaptive mode.
For I-DePAWMS, however, Figure 8.11 shows an enormous increase in
the number of PARS iterations required when the number of loops is
increased beyond about eight. This is due to an increase in the number of
PAWMS iterations caused by inaccurate breakpoint voltage mismatches
being used for the calculation of the breakpoint injection update. The number of required flops also increases dramatically. The adaptive mode does
not suffer from this problem since the breakpoint voltages are always
solved to the necessary precision.
The adaptive mode then is a safer approach, particularly for
I-DePAWMS, where the number of flops required is often significantly less
than for single iteration mode. For the other methods tested, N-PAWMS,
V-I-PAWMS, and VI-DePAWMS, the number of flops for the two modes are
typically comparable. For this reason, the adaptive mode is used throughout the remaining tests.
8.4.2
169
Implicit Zbus
Gauss
35
N-PAWMS
30
V-I-PAWMS
25
VI-DePAWMS
I-DePAWMS
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
Number of Loops
15
20
Implicit Zbus
Gauss
N-PAWMS
2.5
V-I-PAWMS
VI-DePAWMS
2
I-DePAWMS
1.5
0.5
0
0
10
Number of Loops
15
20
170
This is because the size of the breakpoint impedance matrix, and therefore
the work involved in factoring it, continues to grow. In the case of the
Implicit Zbus Gauss method, the increase is more slight and is probably
due to the extra non-zeros in Y bus and the extra fill-in during factoring.
Because of this slower increase in flops as the loops are increased, Implicit
Zbus Gauss becomes more attractive, compared to the methods based on
PAWMS, as the number of loops becomes large. In this test, however, even
with 19 loops, V-I-PAWMS is slightly more efficient than Implicit Zbus
Gauss.
Considering the overall performance of the various methods on cases
with 3 to 19 loops, illustrated in Figure 8.15, shows that the total number
of PARS iterations for I-DePAWMS is the worst of the algorithms tested.
However, due to its cheaper radial power flow iteration and cheaper correc-
Newton-Raphson
19 loops
15 loops
11 loops
7 loops
N-PAWMS
3 loops
V-I-PAWMS
VI-DePAWMS
I-DePAWMS
10
20
30
40
50
Iterations
60
70
80
90
171
tion step, Figure 8.16 shows that it is only marginally worse than
V-I-PAWMS in terms of overall flop count. Here the flop counts have been
normalized for each case so that the total for V-I-PAWMS is equal to one.
Not surprisingly, N-PAWMS and VI-DePAWMS are less efficient, falling in
the same range as Implicit Zbus Gauss in terms of total number of flops.
N-PAWMS
V-I-PAWMS
19 loops
15 loops
11 loops
VI-DePAWMS
7 loops
3 loops
I-DePAWMS
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Floating Point Operations (normalized)
1.6
1.8
8.4.3
A case with 19 loops was used to study the effects of various load models on the convergence of V-I-PAWMS and I-DePAWMS. As shown in
Figure 8.17, the convergence of PAWMS is approximately linear for each of
the load models tested. Of the three models tested, the constant current
load model offers the best convergence. This is reasonable since the true
172
1e+0
1e-1
Constant PQ
1e-2
Constant I
1e-3
Constant Z
1e-4
Mixed
1e-5
1e-6
1e-7
1e-8
1e-9
1
5
6
Iterations
10
8.5 Summary
All of the results given in this chapter and the conclusions drawn from
them are based on the MATLAB implementation and the test systems
described. Much of the code was reused from one algorithm to the next and
it is possible that any given algorithm may not have been implemented in
173
Constant PQ
I-DePAWMS
V-I-PAWMS
Constant I
Constant Z
Mixed
10
15
20
25
Iterations
Constant PQ
I-DePAWMS
Constant I
V-I-PAWMS
Constant Z
Mixed
0.5
1
1.5
2
Floating Point Operations (Mflops)
2.5
174
the most efficient manner. A different implementation could yield slightly
different results. In particular, an analysis of the run time of a Fortran or
C implementation could produce results which differ from the conclusions
drawn from the flop counts given by the MATLAB implementation.
Most of the qualitative results, however, should be similar. For radial
power flow, N-PARS is clearly the better of the two network reduction
methods. For the backward/forward sweep and fast decoupled methods,
the variations based on current typically require less computation than
those based on power flow. At very high load factors, however, this is not
always true. In general however, for the typical power flow cases tested,
V-I-PARS and I-DePARS were superior to the other BFS-PARS and
DePARS methods, respectively. They also proved to be quite comparable to
one another in performance, showing significant improvements over the
traditional methods based on a Y bus formulation.
For weakly meshed systems, the adaptive mode was chosen as the
best choice for the termination criterion for the radial power flow solver.
Out of the PAWMS methods, V-I-PAWMS and I-DePAWMS offered the best
performance, showing a significant improvement over Implicit Zbus Gauss
for networks with a small number of loops. As the number of loops
increases, the more general Y bus formulation shows little increase in computation and the PAWMS approach loses its advantage due to the increasing size of the breakpoint impedance matrix.
Chapter 9
Conclusions
The objective of this work was to develop a comprehensive formulation and an efficient solution algorithm for the distribution power flow
problem which takes into account the detailed and extensive modeling necessary for use in the distribution automation environment of a real world
power system. This objective was achieved through extensions and generalizations of existing power flow algorithms as well as through the development of new methods.
9.1 Contributions
A general framework was developed which encompasses existing
radial power flow algorithms. This framework consists of the three main
classes of algorithms summarized in Table 9.1. Within each class, the
existing methods were generalized and extended to include more comprehensive modeling, and new algorithms for each class were introduced.
175
176
Table 9.1 Summary of Radial Power Flow Algorithms
Number of
Variations
Number of
New Variations
Class of Algorithm
The
177
respective classes and have very similar computational requirements
which are significantly less than those of N-PARS. Both V-I-PARS and
I-DePARS, however, are restricted to systems which do not have any type 4
ungrounded wye to grounded wye transformer connections.
All three methods, N-PARS, V-I-PARS, and I-DePARS, require significantly less computation than the traditional Newton-Raphson or Implicit
Zbus Gauss methods. Proofs of convergence have been given for the backward/forward sweep and fast decoupled algorithms, indicating that they
are locally and linearly convergent. Furthermore, the simulation results
indicate that the number of iterations required for convergence is not a
function of the system size. Therefore, since the amount of work for each
iteration is proportional to the size of the system, the computational burden of each algorithm grows only linearly with the size of the system, making them suitable for very large distribution systems.
In order to solve weakly meshed systems, various extensions were
also made to the compensation method, previously applied only in conjunction with various backward/forward sweep methods. The general structure
proposed, with certain modeling restrictions, includes the following contributions:
general three-phase radial power flow
general correction step
secondary sources
three-phase PV buses
adaptive mode of radial power flow termination
178
Out of the PAWMS methods, V-I-PAWMS and I-DePAWMS offer the best
performance, showing a significant improvement over Implicit Zbus Gauss
for networks with a small number of loops.
179
remove the limitations discussed in Section 7.2.1, making it possible to
handle systems with a mixture of grounded and ungrounded sections.
One common use of a power flow algorithm is to study various possible contingencies to determine the most profitable configuration for the
operation of the network. In such an application, the contingencies are typically specified with respect to some base case. If the power flow solution
for the base case is known, it may not be necessary to run a complete power
flow for each contingency. It is possible that the concepts behind the proposed algorithms could be applied to compute partial or approximate
power flow solutions for the contingencies, given the base case solution.
The exploration of this possibility might yield more efficient approaches to
contingency analysis in distribution systems.
One of the most obvious ways of building upon the work presented in
this dissertation is to convert the MATLAB program, used for the study of
the algorithms, to a compiled C or C++ program suitable for everyday use
in by a power engineer in industry. Such a program could be a very useful
tool for many applications in distribution planning and operation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
181
182