Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Milano PDF
Milano PDF
E-mail: Federico.Milano@uclm.es
Spain
Biography
➠ Federico Milano received from the University of Genoa, Italy, the Electrical
Engineering degree and the Ph.D. degree in 1999 and 2003, respectively.
Contents
Background (I)
➠ A classical problem of circuit theory is to find all branch currents and all
node voltages of an assigned circuit.
➠ Typical input data are generator voltages as well as the impedances of all
branches.
Example 1 (I)
➠ Classical circuit problem.
ī1 ī2
1 2
jx12
jx13 jx23
+ +
v̄1 3 v̄2
− + −
v̄3 z̄3 ī3
−
0
Example 1 (II)
Example 1 (III)
➠ In vector form:
ī1 0 v̄1
ī2 = Ȳ + I 3 0 v̄2 = Ȳ tot v̄ (2)
0 1/z̄3 v̄3
Example 1 (IV)
Background (II)
Example 2 (I)
j x̄13 j x̄23
3
v̄3
s̄3
Example 2 (II)
ī = Ȳ v̄ (5)
which leads to write the power flow problem as the complex power
injections at buses:
∗ ∗
s̄ = V̄ ī = V̄ Ȳ v̄ ∗ (6)
➠ Rewriting (6):
∗
0 = s̄ − V̄ Ȳ v̄ ∗ (7)
Slack generator p, q v, θ
PV generator q, θ p, v
PQ load v, θ p, q
➠ The origins of the formulation of the power flow problem and the solution
based on the Newton’s method date back to the late sixties.
➠ Since then, a huge variety of studies have been presented about the
solution of the power flow problem, addressing:
➛ Well-conditioned case
➛ Ill-conditioned case
➛ Bifurcation point
➛ Non-physical solution
➛ Unsolvable case
Well-conditioned case
➠ The power flow solution exists and is reachable using a flat initial guess
(e.g., all load voltage magnitudes equal to 1 and all bus voltage angles
equal to 0) and a standard Newton’s method.
Ill-conditioned case
➠ The solution of the power flow problem does exist, but standard solvers
fail to get this solution starting from a flat initial guess.
➠ This situation is due to the fact that the region of attraction of the power
flow solution is narrow or does not contain the initial guess.
➠ In this case, the failure of standard power flow procedure is due to the
instability of the numerical method, not of the power flow equations.
Bifurcation Point
Non-physical Solution
Unsolvable Case
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 1
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 24
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 2
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 25
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 3
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 26
➠ The i-th iteration of the classical Newton’s method for (8) is as follows:
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 4
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 27
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 5
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 28
∠gy
∠gy
∠gy
y y
(b)
(a)
g(y) g(y)
∠gy ∠gy
y y
∠gy ∠gy
(c) (d)
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 6
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 29
➠ There are idiosyncratic cases for which the Newton’s technique fails to
converge.
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 7
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 30
➠ Unsolvable cases are better tackled using the continuation power flow
technique.
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 8
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 31
g(y) g(y)
∠gy ∠gy
∠αgy
y y
∠gy
(a) (b)
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 9
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 32
➠ One of the most relevant drawbacks of the Newton’s method is the need
of factorizing the full Jacobian matrix at each iteration.
➠ However, the Jacobian matrix factorization remains the most critical issue
of the Newton’s method (about 85% of the total CPU time for networks
with thousands of buses).
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 10
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 33
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 11
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 34
g(y) g(y)
∠g̃y
∠g̃y
y
y
(a) (b)
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 12
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 35
➠ The FDPF requires much more iterations than the NR method but proved
to be more robust.
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 13
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 36
Bus # Iter. # time [s] Iter. # time [s] Iter. # time [s]
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 14
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 37
Bus # Iter. # time [s] Iter. # time [s] Iter. # time [s]
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 15
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 38
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 16
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 39
Example 3 (I)
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 17
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 40
Example 3 (II)
➠ Region of attraction of the Newton’s method for a 2-bus system.
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 18
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 41
Los Alamos, June 29, 2010 Existing Power Flow Solution Methods - 19
Continuous Newton’s Method for Power Flow Analysis 42
ẏ = f˜(y) (12)
Equations (14) can thus be viewed as the ith step of the Euler’s forward
method where ∆t = 1.
➠ Furthermore, robust Newton’s methods are nothing but the ith step of the
Euler’s integration method where ∆t = α.
f˜y |0 = −I ny (19)
➠ Equation (19) implies that all eigenvalues of f˜y at the solution point are
equal to −1.
Example 4
➠ The previous result is straightforward for a scalar g(y), i.e. for y ∈ R and
g ∈ R, as follows:
˜ g(y)
ẏ = f (y) = − (20)
gy (y)
˜ gy (y) gyy (y)
⇒ fy (y) = − + 2 g(y) (21)
gy (y) gy (y)
gyy (y)
= −1 + 2 g(y)
gy (y)
➠ It is well-known that the forward Euler’s method, even with variable time
step, can be numerically unstable.
➠ Given the analogy between the power flow equations and an ODE
system, any well-assessed numerical method can be used for integrating
(16).
Runge-Kutta Formulas
k1 = f (x(i) ) (22)
k2 = f (x(i) + 0.5∆tk1 )
k3 = f (x(i) + 0.5∆tk2 )
k4 = f (x(i) + ∆tk3 )
x(i+1) = x(i) + ∆t(k1 + 2k2 + 2k3 + k4 )/6
Example 5 (I)
Example 5 (II)
➠ Comparison of methods for solving the power flow of the UCTE system.
Fast Decoupled PF - - -
Runge-Kutta method 10 13 16
Example 5 (III)
0.5
Iwamoto’s Method
0.45 Simple Robust Method
Runge−Kutta Formula
0.4
0.35
max{abs(∆ x(i))}
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Iteration
Example 5 (IV)
Conclusions
Contributions
➠ This talk has presented a continuous version of the Newton’s method for
solving the power flow problem.
Future Work
References
➠ Further insights and references to all topics covered in the talk can be
found in:
http://www.uclm.es/area/gsee/Web/Federico/publications.htm
Questions?