OPTIMAL POWER FLOW USING POWER WORLD
SIMULATOR
Harprit kaur (student) and Y.S Brar(Professor)
Electrical Engineering department, Guru Nanak Dev
Engineering College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
{harpreet_kaur601& braryadwinder }@yahoo.co.in
Abstract - This paper presents an efficient approach to find
optimal power flow (OPF) determining the dispatch schedule of
power generators with minimum cost while satisfying the system
constraints like the upper and lower power and reactive power
generation limit, upper and lower voltage level limit, and line
flow limit using power world simulator. The minimization of the
generation cost will result to a lower cost of electricity paid by the
consumers. Power world simulator employs linear programming
method for finding optimal solution. The reactive power is
controlled by installing the shunt capacitors at the bus. The
proposed approach has been tested and examined on IEEE- 30
bus test system.
Keywords- Power world simulator, Optimal power flow, linear
programming.
I. INTRODUCTION
Generation and distribution of power must be accomplished at
minimum cost but with maximum efficiency. This involves the
real and reactive power scheduling of each power plant in such
a way as to minimize the total operating cost of the entire
network [3]. In other words, the generator’s real and reactive
power is allowed to vary within certain limits so as to meet a
particular load demand with minimum fuel cost. This is called
the Optimal Power Flow (OPF) or sometimes known as the
Optimal Power Dispatch or Economic Dispatch (ED) problem
[3].Optimal Power Flow (OPF) plays an important role in
power system operations and planning. In the normal
operating condition OPF is used to determine the load flow
solution which satisfies the system operating limits and
minimize the generation costs. In power system planning. OPF
is used for capacitor placement studies and transmission
capability studies. Different optimization techniques such as
lambda iteration method, gradient method, lagrangian
relaxation algorithm, Newton’s method, quadratic
programming (QP) , linear programming (LP) , interior point
(IP) method , dynamic programming (DP) , genetic algorithm
(GA) etc. have been used for solving OPF. All these methods
have their own advantages as well as disadvantages. Lambda
iteration method is not suitable for complex cost functions
because the adjustment of lambda is very difficult. Gradient
methods suffer from the problem of convergence in the
presence of inequality constraints. Newton’s method is faster
than gradient method and provides in one step results very
close to the minimum generation cost, but the main drawback
is that the method is very much sensitive to the selection of
initial conditions. QP does not require penalty factors or the
determination of the gradient step size but it has the
2010 IEEE Electrical Power & Energy Conference
978-1-4244-8188-0/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
Jaswinder Singh Randhawa (Lecturer)
Department of Computer application, Chandigarh
Engineering College, Mohali, Punjab, India
jaswinder317@gmail.com
disadvantages associated with the piece wise quadratic cost
approximation. LP approach provides optimal results in less
computational time but results are not very accurate due to
linearization of the problem. Interior point method is faster
than linear programming but it may provide infeasible solution
if the step size is not chosen properly.
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
Following the "classical" OPF formulation by Dommel and
Tinney [10]: a number of different methods have been
presented to solve the OPF problem.
A general minimization problem can be written in the
following form.
Minimize: f(x, u) (the objective function)
Subject to: h i(x,u ) = 0, i =1,2,3, . . . , m (equality
constraints)
g j (x,u) ≤ 0 , j =1 , 2,3 . . . , n (inequality
constraints)
Where f(x, u): objective function
h i(x, u): set of equality constraints
gj (x,u): set of inequality constraints
u and x represents a set of controllable
and dependent variables respectively.
The OPF problem can be defined by specifying the following
five attributes and can be explained as
1. Objective function
2. The controls
3. The dependent variables
4. The equality constraints
5. The inequality constraints
A. Objective function
In the solution of OPF, the main objective is to minimize total
operating costs of the system. In OPF, when the load is light,
the cheapest generators are always the ones chosen to run first.
As the load increases, more and more expensive generators
will then be brought in. Thus, the operating cost plays a very
important role in the solution of OPF. The amount of fuel or
input to a generator is usually expressed in Btu/hr (British
thermal units per hour) and its output in MW (Mega Watts).
Figure 1 shows a typical input-output curve of a generator,
also commonly known as the heat-rate curve.
 4. Generator bus voltage

C. Dependent Variables

These variables are the optimal power flow variables that are
not controlled. These include all type of variables that are free,
within limits, to assume value to solve the problem. The main
dependent variables are complex bus voltage angles and
magnitude.

D. Equality Constraints

The equality constraints of the OPF reflect the physics of the

Figure 1: Typical Input-output Curve of a Generator
It specifies the relationship between how much heat must be
input to the generator and its resulting MW output. In all
practical cases, the cost of generator i can be represented as
function of real power generation expressed in $/hr,
Ci = (ai+biPi +ci Pi2) * fuel cost (2.1)
Where Pi is the real power output of generator i, and ai, bi, ci
are the cost coefficients.
The incremental cost can be obtained from the derivative of Ci
(2.1) with respect to Pi,
dCi = (bi +2ci Pi)* fuel cost
dPi
Which is expressed in $/MWhr.
Typical incremental cost curve is shown below in figure 2 .
power system as well as the desired voltage set points
throughout the system. The physics of the power system are
enforced through the power flow equations which require that
the net injection of real and reactive power at each bus sum to
zero. This can be achieved by active and reactive power
analysis:
Pi =P Load + P Loss
Q i = Q Load + Q Loss
Where
Pi & Q i are the active and reactive power outputs.
P Load & Q Load are the active and reactive load power.
P Loss & Q Loss are the active and reactive power loss.
The power flow equations of the network can be given as:
G (V, δ) =0
Where
{Pi (V, δ) –Pi net
G (V, δ) = {Qi (V, δ) – Qi net
{Pm(V, δ)-Pmnet

Pi & Qi are the calculated real and reactive power at PQ bus

Pi net & Qi net are the specified real and reactive power for PQ
bus
V & δ are the magnitude and phase angle of voltage at
different buses.

E. Inequality constraints
Figure 2: Typical Incremental Cost Curve of a Generator
In a power system components and devices have operating
limits & these limits are created for security constraints. Thus
the required objective function can be minimized by
B. Control Variables maintaining the network components within the security limits.

The control variables in an optimal power flow problem are Inequality constraints.
the quantities whose value can be adjusted directly to help
minimize the objective function and satisfy the constraints. Pgi min ≤ Pgi ≤ Pgimax
The control variables can be given as: Qgimin ≤ Qgi ≤ Qgi max
∑Pgi -PD- PLoss = 0
1. Active power generation
Where Pgi is the amount of generation in MW at
2. Reactive power generation generator i.
Qgi is the amount of generation in MVAR at
3. Transformer tap ratio generator i.
The inequality constraints on voltage magnitude V of each PQ 11 30 MW
bus A
57%
12 Mvar 21

18 MW

Vi min ≤ Vi ≤ Vimax
MVA
11 Mvar
9 A
21%
30 Mvar A A
MVA
45 MW 39% A
37% A
9% 1%
8 MVA
MVA A
MVA
10 A
35 MW 8% 10%
MVA

min max
Where Vi & Vi are the minimum and maximum values
76 Mvar MVA
A
MVA
22
A 6 7%
MVA
22%

of voltages at bus i. 6 MW
MVA

A 2 Mvar 20 A
23 MW 52% 2 MW 10%
11 Mvar A
MVA
17 1 Mvar
MVA

7 55% 6 Mvar 9 MW
MVA 13 24
9 MW
The inequality constraints on phase angle δ of voltages at all
A
A
5% 7 Mvar
15% 10.0 Mvar 40 MW
A
4% MVA
A
MVA
45% 23 Mvar MVA

buses i
A A
A
14% 14% MVA
MVA 5 A
MVA
A 2%
47% 7% MVA
MVA 2 MVA 3 MW 23

δi min ≤δi ≤δi max

4 12 16 19 2 Mvar
50 MW A
A
47 Mvar 11% 34% 3 8 Mvar A
MVA
MVA 11 MW 13%
-5 Mvar A
MVA
10 MW
94 MW 22 MW 77 MW 8 MW 10% 3 Mvar
2 MW MVA
4 MW
19 Mvar 13 Mvar 2 Mvar
1 Mvar
lambda=6.84
min max 1 Mvar
Where δi & δi are the minimum and maximum values of
A
8% A
14 18
MVA 37% OPF
lambda= 4.40
2
MVA A
74% 6 MW 27%
A

phase angle at bus i.

MVA 2 Mvar MVA
A

1 4%
OPF MVA
3 MW profit = -1039.00 $/h
1
A
1 Mvar 3%
72 MW A
MVA MW generation = 232.26 MW
slack
-10 Mvar 15 6%

III. AUTOMATIC GENERATION CONTROL A

MVA MW load = 229.40 MW
16% cost/hr = 2627.68 $/hr
MW generation =72.39 MW 8 MW MVA

3 Mvar 25
cost/hr = 505.96 $/hr A
A
4%
A 5% MVA
18% MVA
profit/hr=-187.44 $/h A

Automatic Generation Control (AGC) forms an essential part

MVA
6%
27 MVA

MW load =69.00 MW 28 26
of power system operation and control of large interconnected 2 MW
29 A
4%
MVA
4 MW
2 Mvar

networks. This section gives a brief introduction on the basic 1 Mvar 11 MW

2 Mvar
30

concepts of AGC, which in this paper, is used in conjunction

A
7%
MVA

with OPF solutions. In practical cases, load is never constant

and it varies throughout the day. This causes the system Figure 3: IEEE 30 bus system oneline diagram considered for OPF.
frequency to change due to the imbalance between generation
and load. Since the exact forecast of load cannot be assured, it
is necessary, through AGC, to balance the generation and the
load so as to maintain the system frequency at its nominal
operating value, typically 50Hz or 60Hz .Each area has its
own control centre, where the AGC system continuously
monitors the system frequency and actual power flows in tie-
lines to neighboring areas. The net interchange of power over
tie -lines of an area is the algebraic difference between area
generation and area load. AGC then automatically changes
generators’ outputs to restore net interchange power to
scheduled values. This is to remove the Area Control Error
(ACE) so as to maintain the system frequency. The ACE is a
composite measure formed by the system frequency deviation
combined with the deviation from the scheduled net power
interchange. See books by Sadat [3], Grainger and Stevenson
[13] for detailed information. In Power World Simulator, when Figure 4: Area 1 composite incremental cost curve of 30- bus system.
the system is under OPF AGC control, all generators’ outputs Figure-4 shows composite incremental cost curve in area 1 of
are varied automatically by AGC in conjunction with the 30 bus system. For 75 MW of total generation in area 1,
solutions solved by the OPF algorithm to drive the ACE to incremental cost curve is 4.75$/MWhr.
zero regardless of the load conditions. This maintains the
system frequency while minimizing operating costs and
satisfying all necessary OPF constraints simultaneously.

IV. SIMULATION AND RESULTS

An IEEE 30-bus power system is considered for OPF

simulation. Figure-3 in this paper is from Power World
Simulator. IEEE- 30 bus system is divided into two areas. Area
1 contains generator 1 and area 2 contains generator
2,5,8,11,13. In this different cases of 30 bus system are
considered by varying MVAR load.

Figure 5: Area 2 composite incremental cost curve of 30- bus system.

Above Figure-5 indicates that for 220 MW total generation in Table 1: Showing change in cost of operation by varying the value of
capacitor in 30- bus system
area 2, there is an incremental cost of 6.5 $/MWhr.
Different cases LP cost ($) MVAR of Bus number
considered installed
capacitor
CASE 1: 3127.80 NIL NA
289.6 MW and
125.3 MVAR 3126.76 14 At bus 10

3130.17 17 At bus 10

3168.92 NIL NA
CASE 2 :
289.6 MW and 3168.67 5 At bus 7
199 MVAR
3168.49 10 At bus 7

3168.36 15 At bus 7

3168.27 20 At bus 7

3168.23 25 At bus 7

Figure 6: Area 1 Generator incremental cost curves of 30 bus system. 3168.24 30 At bus 7

3206.18 NIL NA
Figure -6 shows generator 1 incremental cost curve in Area 1 CASE 3:
in 30 bus system. The optimum value for operation of 289.6 MW and 3205.35 10 At bus 7
generator 1 is at 72.4 MW with incremental cost of 326.4 MVAR
4.4$/MWhr. Figure-7 represents incremental cost curves of 3204.63 20 At bus 7
various generators which are operating in area 2. Incremental
3204.25 30 At bus 7
cost (in $/MWhr) for various generators (2, 5, 8, 11, 13)
operating in area 2 are 6.84, 4.38, 4.74, 4.39 and 3203.93 40 At bus 7
4.55respectively. Figure-7 shows that generator 2 has
incremental cost of 6.84 $/MWH at 77.3 MW generation. 3204 50 At bus 7
Generator 5 has incremental cost of 4.38 $/MWH at 50 MW 3246.32 NIL NA
power generation. Generator 8 has incremental cost of 4.74 CASE 4 :
$/MWH at 35 MW power generation. Generator 11 has 289.6 MW and 3245.25 10 At bus 7
incremental cost of 4.39 $/MWH at 30 MW power generation. 364.8 MVAR
Generator 13 has incremental cost of 4.55 $/MWH at 40 MW 3244.38 20 At bus 7
power generation. 3243.82 30 At bus 7

3242.97 60 At bus 7

3243.56 65 At bus 7

3297.99 NIL NA
CASE 5 :
289.6 MW and 3296.95 10 At bus 7
425.35 MVAR
(Limits violation 3295.71 20 At bus 7
18.9 MVA)
3295.41 30 At bus 7

3295.33 50 At bus 7

3295.50 65 At bus 7

Table 1 shows how change in value of capacitor changes the

cost of operation of the system. It shows that if MVAR load is
changed from 125.3 MVAR to 199 MVAR there is change in
Figure 7: Area 2 generator incremental cost curves of 30 bus system LP cost by 41 $(without any capacitor installed in the system) .
If 14 MVAR capacitor is installed there is change in cost by
1.04 $ as shown in case 1of table 4.1. For load of 364.8
MVAR, there is saving of 3.35$ by installing 60 MVAR
capacitor. Further increase in value of capacitance increases
the cost. There is increase in cost by 40.14$, if MVAR limit
rises from 326.4 to 364.8. Limits were violated by 18.9 MVA
if MVAR limit was increased to 425.35.
Table 2: Cost coefficients of generators for IEEE 30-bus system
Generator a [$/MW2 Hr] b [$/MW Hr] c [$/hr]
1 0.0150 2.45
2 0.0225 3.51
5 0.0175 2.75
8 0.0130 3.89
11 0.0275 2.85
13 0.0165 3.3
Table 2 describes the cost coefficients of generators for IEEE
30 bus system used in the paper.
V. DISCUSSION
Some comments on proposed approach are as follow:
Power World Simulator employs a linear programming
(LP) OPF implementation. It determines the optimal
solution by iterating between solving a standard power
and then solving a linear program to change the system
controls to remove any limit violations.
Power World Simulator has been designed for use by
both technical and non-technical professionals involved
in the electricity business, and is excellent for
presentations to the customers, regulators, or colleagues.
During the course of the simulation, users get to not only
see the system Operation, but also to easily interact with
the system using a number of animated displays. In
addition, the loads can be set to change automatically.
It is now possible to optimally dispatch the generation in
an area or group of areas while simultaneously enforcing
the transmission line and interface limits. Simulator OPF
can then calculate the marginal price to supply electricity
to a bus (also known as the locational marginal price),
taking into account transmission system congestion.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this work, an attempt is made to find optimum power
solution for IEEE- 30 bus system. Different objectives are
considered to solve the problem and to minimize the cost of
operation. The proposed method is used to consider different
cases by varying MVAR load and the cost of operation is
compared by installing different values of capacitors. Larger
power systems can be considered in order to obtain more
realistic results. Larger systems will allow for better
flexibilities in OPF analysis. The OPF problem solved using
power world simulator has ability to display the OPF results
on system one-line diagrams and contour the results for ease
of interpretation. With power simulator, users can export the
OPF results to a spreadsheet, a text file, or a Power World
AUX file for added functionality.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
150
I express gratitude to Dr.YS Brar, Professor Department of
44.4
Electrical Engineering & Dean Students Welfare, GNDEC for
55 his intellectual support throughout the work. I am also
40.6 thankful to Jaswinder Singh, lecturer, Department of
Computer application, Chandigarh Engineering College,
75.6
Mohali, Punjab, India for providing the software without
905 which the work was impossible.
REFERENCES
[1] J. D. Glover and M. Sarma, “Introduction Power System Analysis &
Design, 2nd Edition ", PWS Publishing Company, Boston, 1994, pp. 1-12.
[2] R. H. Miller and J. H. Malinowski, “Economic Operation of Power
Systems,” Power System Operation, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1970, pp. 63-82.
[3] H. Sadat, Power System Analysis, McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1999.
[4] B. M. Weedy and B. J. Cory, “Basic Power-System Economics and
Management,” Electric Power Systems, 4th Edition, John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
New York, 1999, pp. 493-520.
[5] J. A. Momoh, R. J. Koessler and M. S. Bond, “Challenges to Optimal
Power Flow,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 12, No. 1, February
1997, pp. 444-455.
[6] R. C. Burchett, H. H. Happ, and K. A. Wirgau, “Large Scale Optimal
Power Flow,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-
101, No. 10, October 1982, pp. 3722-3732.
[7] M. Huneault and F. D. Galiana, “A Survey of the Optimal Power Flow
Literature,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 6, No. 2, May 1991,
pp. 762-770.
[8] D. I. Sun, B. Ashley, B. Brewer, A. Hughes and W. F. Tinney, “Optimal
Power Flow By Newton Approach,” IEEE Transaction on Power Apparatus
and Systems, Vol. PAS-103, No. 10, October 1984, pp. 2864- 2880.
[9] H. H. Happ, “Optimal Power Dispatch – A Comprehensive Survey,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-96, No. 3, May/June
1977, pp. 841-854.
[10] H. W. Dommel and W. F. Tinney, “Optimal Power Flow Solutions,”
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-87, October
1968, pp. 1866-1876.
[11] J. A. Momoh, M. E. El-Hawary and R. Adapa, “A Review of Selected
Optimal Power Flow Literature to 1993 Part I: Nonlinear and Quadratic
Programming Approaches,” IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, Vol. 14, No.
1, February 1999, pp. 96-104.
[12] J. A. Momoh, M. E. El-Hawary and R. Adapa, “A Review of Selected
Optimal Power Flow Literature to 1993 Part II: Newton, Linear
Programming and Interior Points Methods,” IEEE Transaction on Power
Systems, Vol. 14, No. 1, February 1999, pp. 105-111.
[13] J. J. Grainger and W. D. Stevenson, Power System Analysis, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1994.
[14] Empowering the Market – National Electricity Reform for Australia,
National Grid Management Council, December 1994.
[15] An Introduction To Australia’s National Electricity Market, National
Electricity Market Management Company Limited, March 2001.
[16] "Common Format for Exchange of Solved Load Flow Data," IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-92, 1973, pp. 1916-
25.
[17] Power World Simulator Version 7.0 User’s Guide, PowerWorld [22] D. G. Luenberger, Linear and Non-Linear Programming, Reading, MA:
Corporation, October 2000. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1984, pp. 295-392,423-450.
[18]“Power World Corporation Homepage,” PowerWorld Corporation, [23] H. W. Dommel and W. F. Tinney, "Optimal power flow solutions', lEEE
http://www.powerworld.com (current Sept. 19, 2001).. Tmns. on PAS, vol. 87, October 1969, pp.1866-1576.
[19] A. M. Sasson and H. M. Merrill, “Some Applications of Optimization [24]M .A .Pai, “Computer techniques in power system analysis”, by Mcgraw
Techniques to Power Systems Problems,” Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 62, hill company pp. 227-231.
No. 7, July 1974, pp. 959-972.
[20] H. H. Happ, “Optimal Power Dispatch,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-93, No. 3, May/June 1974, pp. 820-830.
[21] K. Y. Lee, Y. M. Park, and J. L. Ortiz, “Fuel-cost Minimization for both
Real and Reactive-power Dispatches,” IEE Proceedings, Vol. 131, Pt. C, No.
3, May 1984, pp. 85-93.