Optimal Power Flow Intro

Introduction
to Optimal
Power Flow
Outline
• Introduction to the optimal power flow problem
 Motivation
 Basic formulation
 Challenges and solution techniques
• Security constrained optimal power flow
 DC formulation
 Solution by relaxation
 Examples
Motivation
l
• Recall the economic dispatch problem F  min  Ci  gi 
i 1
l
Subject to: g
i 1
i  d  dloss  0
gimin  gi  gimax ; i  1... l

Minimizing the cost of electricity generation required to supply the
load and losses within operation limits of the available system
generators.
• There is definitely more to power system operations planning than
minimizing the cost of generation!
Motivation‐ Continued
There are many good reasons to subject the generation dispatch to the
entire set of power flow equations
• Losses are modelled and minimized exactly.
• It is possible to further impose limits on
 Generator reactive and apparent power outputs
 Voltage magnitudes at generation and load buses.
 Line flows either in terms of active (MW) and apparent (MVA) power as well
as current (A).
• It is possible to model operation under contingent conditions –
preventive dispatch. That is, impose security constraints.
Motivation‐ Continued
There are many good reasons to subject the generation dispatch to the
entire set of power flow equations
• Include all the other network control variables as part of the
optimization goal.
 Generator voltages
 Tap changing transformer tap positions
 Quadrature booster (phase‐shifting transformer) tap positions
 Switched capacitor settings
 Static VAR and synchronous condenser reactive power injections
 Load shedding
 DC line flows
Applications
Power flow problems in which some quantities are optimized subject to
network constraints are called Optimal Power Flow (OPF) problem
• Calculate the optimal generation dispatch and control variables minimizing
operation cost whilst meeting all transmission system limits
• Provide a preventive dispatch when security constraints are included
• Provide sets of corrective measures in emergency situations
• Provide periodical voltage/ reactive power optimization
• Determine the maximum stress a system can withstand in planning studies
(e.g. maximum loadability)
• Perform power system economic analyses‐ determining bus incremental
costs
Control & State Variables and Parameters
We distinguish two basic categories in OPF problems
• Variables
 Control Variables (denoted by the vector u)
 Offer degrees of freedom to optimized power system operation
 Can be modified through human or machine intervention
 Examples: generation set‐points, tap changer positions, reactive output from SVCs
 State Variables (denoted by the vector x)
 Arise in modelling the physical response of the power system to control inputs
 Cannot be acted upon directly by human or machine intervention
 Examples: bus voltages (magnitude and angle) and line flows
• Parameters (denoted by the vector y)
 Characterize the technical and economic structure of the power system
 Assume known and constant
 Examples: generation costs, transmission line parameters, etc.
Basic Formulation
min f  u, x, y 
u
Subject to:
G  u, x, y   0
H  u, x, y   0
f(.) is the objective function
 Any Examples?
G(.) represents the constraints imposed by the network power flow
H(.) represents all other constraints imposed on control and state variables
• Any examples on constraints on control variables?
• Any examples on constraints on state variables?
Other Choices for OPF: Minimum Losses
min (Pg  Pd )
Pg ,V pv ,t
Subject to Pg  Pd  G p (t, Vpv , Vpq , , y)  0

Qg  Q d  Gq (t, Vpv , Vpq ,  , y)  0
H (Pg , Qg , t, Vpv , Vpq , , y)  0
• Equivalent to minimizing the net system active power injection
• Pg , Vpv and t are control variables
• Vpq and θ are state variables
• Pd , Qd are parameters
• H(.) includes restrictions on voltage, line flows, active/reactive power generations
Other Choices for OPF: SCOPF
min f(Pg (0), y(0))
Pg (k),V (k),t
Subject to: (for k = 0,1,…K)
Pg (k)  Pd (k)  G p (t, V(k), (k), y(k))  0
Qg (k)  Qd (k)  Gq (t, V(k), (k), y(k))  0
H (Pg (k), Qg (k), V(k), (k), y(k))  0
• Minimizing system pre‐contingency generation cost f(Pg (0), y(0)) using active/reactive
dispatch and tap/phase changers such that
 Active and reactive power will balance in both pre (k = 0) and post (k = 1… K)
contingency conditions
 All generation and network limits are met under pre and post contingency conditions
• Contingency conditions are modelled through the parameters y(k)
Other Choices for OPF: Max. power transfer
min  
 , Pg ,V pv ,t
Subject to Pg   Pd  G p (t, Vpv , Vpq ,  , y)  0

Qg  Qd  Gq (t, Vpv , Vpq , , y)  0
H (Pg , Qg , t, Vpv , Vpq ,  , y)  0
• Maximizing the system loading for a given demand pattern

 The loading coefficient λ is increased until load flow or other limits are
attained
 The active/reactive power dispatch and tap/phase changer settings are
adjusted accordingly
Other Choices for OPF: DC OPF
min f  Pg , y 
Pg
Subject to Pg  Pd  B /  0
H (Pg ,  , y)  0
• Minimizing the generation dispatch cost subject to

 DC power flow equations (no reactive power balance)
 Other line flow and generator dispatch constraints
• Can be easily extended to a security constrained version as will be seen later
Challeneges of the OPF
Solving practical OPF problems is difficult because:
• Active power systems are very large
 Dimensionality
• OPF problems are intrinsically nonlinear and nonconvex because of
AC power flow equations
 Multiple optimal solutions
 Slow solution convergence, even divergence
• Many control variables are not continuous‐valued (e.g. tap changer
position or breaker states are integer or binary in nature)
 Require mixed‐integer solution technique
 An optimal solution can be guaranteed only by exhaustive enumeration
Solution Methods
• Gradient method
• Newton’s method
• Linear programming and interior point method (LP‐IP)
Solution Methods‐ Relaxation
The concept of relaxation is critical in facilitating the solution of large scale
OPF problems
Definition (Relaxation)
• We say we are solving a relaxation of an OPF if we solve the same OPF
while ignoring some of the complicating aspects of the original problem
• If problem A/ is a relaxation of the minimization problem A then
Feasible space (A)  Feasible space (A / )
Minimum (A)  Minimum (A / )
• Examples of relaxation include:
 Ignore some of the problem’s original constraints
 Letting discrete‐valued control variables assume any value of subsets on the real
line.
Solution methods: Successive relaxation
• The main idea is to solve a relaxed OPF and then add violated
constraints one‐by‐one
• Results in having to solve sequences of smaller‐scale problems which
are likely much simpler to solve than the full problem
• Choosing a good initial relaxation is not straightforward
 A “tight” relaxation may require few iterations, but requires carrying many
constraints which may be non‐binding
 A “loose” relaxation may require many more iterations
 Striking a proper balance is the key to acceptable solution speed
 Expert knowledge of the problem is useful in formulating good relaxations
• Quite useful with security‐constrained OPFs
 Known as simultaneous feasibility test (SFT) in practice
SCOPF
Recall and reformulate SCOPF min f  Pg (0) 
Pg (k)  Pd (k)  G p (V(k),  (k), k)  0
Qg (k)  Qd (k)  Gq (V(k), (k), k)  0
H (Pg (k), Qg (k), V(k),  (k), k)  0
• Minimizing system pre‐contingency generation cost f(Pg (0)) such that

 Active and reactive power will balance in both pre (k = 0) and post (k = 1… K)
contingency conditions
 All generation and network limits are met under pre and post contingency conditions
• Purely preventive control approach!
DC SCOPF
• Study the SCOPF in linear form only
 Simple, can be worked out by hand
 Neglects reactive power balance and bus voltage magnitudes
 Widely used in the industries
 Easy to implement and solve using off‐the‐shelf (commercial) software
Formulation of DC SCOPF
Pg (k)  Pd (k)  B / (k) (k)  0
C (k) (k)  f max  0
C (k) (k)  f min  0
H (Pg (k), k)  0
 r (k)  0
• Minimize the pre‐contingency generation dispatch cost subject to
 Active power balance at every bus
 Line flow limits (sending and receiving)
 All other generation dispatch constraints
 Fix the reference bus angle to zero
For all pre and post contingency scenarios (k = 0,1, … K )
Solution by relaxation
Basic procedure
• Solve an economic dispatch ignoring network constraints and
contingent states
• Calculate the line flows in the intact network using a DC power flow
• Correct line flow violations in the intact network one‐by‐one by re‐
dispatching generators in the most economic way
• Correct post‐contingency security violations one‐by‐one by re‐
dispatching generators in the most economic way
Fundamental principle: Use pre‐calculated linear shift factors to model
the effects of the changes in generation and network topology on all
line flows
Generation Shift Factors (GSF)
Definition
A generation shift factor ℎ is the ratio of the power flow in line 𝑙 with respect to
the power injection at bus 𝑖. Mathematically, we have
∆𝑓
ℎ
∆𝑃
Out of necessity imposed by the power balance requirement, the change in
generation to be compensated by an equal and opposite change in generation at
the reference bus.
In the limit as ∆𝑃 → 0, we have
𝜕𝑓
ℎ
𝜕𝑃
Generation shift factors ‐ Usage
• The goal is to determine how changes in the generation pattern can
lead to changes in the network pattern
• For example, what would happen to the flow in line 𝑙 if the
generation at bus 𝑖 were suddenly disconnected?
 Assume that the lost generation is picked up by the generation at the
reference bus
 If the generator was originally providing 𝑃 , then the change in injection as
bus 𝑖 is ∆𝑃 𝑃
 The resulting flow in any line 𝑙 would then be
𝑓 𝑓 ℎ ∆𝑃 𝑓 ℎ 𝑃
where 𝑓 are the pre‐outage line flows in lines 𝑙 = 1,2, … L
Generation shift factors ‐ Usage
• In general, when the impact of simultaneous shifts in generation all buses
are considered,
𝑓 𝑓 ℎ ∆𝑃
• We note that ∆𝑃 ∑ ∆𝑃 and ℎ 0
• In vector matrix notation, 𝐟 𝐟𝟎 𝐇∆𝐏
• Recall that, ℎ 𝑏 𝑋 𝑋
𝐟
• In matrix form, 𝐇 𝑪𝜽 𝑪𝑿
𝐏 𝐏
where we recall that 𝐟 𝑪𝜽 and 𝑪 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔 𝒃 𝑨
Line Outage Distribution Factors
Definition
The line outage distribution factor 𝑑 | is the ration of the change in
flow in line 𝑙 following the outage of line k (∆f ) to the pre‐outage flow
in the line k (f )
∆f
𝑑|
f
Hence, if the line flows on lines 𝑙 and k are known (f and f ), the post‐
contingency flow on line 𝑙 following the failure of line k is
𝑓 𝑓 𝑑| f
Line Outage Distribution Factors: Usage
Line outage distribution factors have two main uses
• Rapidly detect post outage line flow violations
 No need to form matrices B’(k) and C(k) for each contingency k = 1,…K
 The information provided by the pre‐outage case k = 0 is enough
 No need to recalculate (B’)‐1 for each contingency
• Form “compensated generation shift factors” used in determining
marginal flow contributions of generators on remaining lines when a
line in out of service
 Will be later used to compute optimal generation dispatch
corrections in making system secure from overloads.
Line Outage Distribution Factors: Modeling
There are two ways of modeling line outages
• Calculate matrices B’(k) and C(k) for each line outage (k=1,…,K) and
solve for the corresponding power flow solutions
 Tedious and time consuming
• Mimic the fact that no power flows on an outaged line using artificial
power injections at both its ends
 No need to drop the line from the various healthy network representations
and compute k‐versions of them.
Which one to choose?
Model outage of line k (linking bus n and bus m)
using artificial power injections
• Pre‐outage, non‐zero fk = Pnm is flowing
Model outage of line k using artificial power
injections
• Post‐outage, CBs interrupt power flow such
that 𝑃nm = 0
• As CBs operate, the topology of the
network changes
• Line k is completely isolated from the rest
of the network and no current flows
through the CBs
Pn
Model outage of line k using artificial power
injections
• Injecting the appropriate equal and
opposite power at buses n and m, can
Pnm mimic network conditions with line k on
outage
𝑃
• If ΔPn = ‐ ΔPm = there is still no
current flowing through the CBs even
though they are closed
• From the network’s point of view it is as if
the line is disconnected
Pm
By injecting ΔPn and ΔPm , we have
∆𝜃 𝑋 ∆𝑃 𝑋 ∆𝑃
∆𝜃 𝑋 ∆𝑃 𝑋 ∆𝑃
Hence, by superposition, the post‐contingency flow 𝑃 is the sum of the pre‐
contingency flow Pnm and those created by the injections ΔPn and ΔPm
𝑃nm 𝑃 𝑏 ∆𝜃 ∆𝜃
𝑃 𝑏 𝑋 𝑋 2𝑋 ∆𝑃
∆𝑃 𝑃 1 𝑏 𝑋 𝑋 2𝑋
Define sensitivity factor ∅ | which tells us the impact on the angle at bus i when line

k is dropped
∆
∅|
We consider four separate cases
 Buses n and m are not the reference buses
 Bus n is the reference bus
 Bus m is the reference bus
 Bus i is the reference bus (trivial case ∅ | = 0)
When buses m and n are not the reference buses
i
 i | nm 
Pnm
X in Pn  X im Pm

Pnm
Pn
 ( X in  X im )
Pnm
( X in  X im )

1  bk (X nn  X mm  2 X nm )
Other two cases
When bus n is the reference When bus m is the reference
i
 i | nm 
Pnm i
 i | nm 
X im Pm Pnm
 X in Pn
Pnm 
Pnm
Pn
  X im X in
Pnm 
1  bk X nn
 X im

1  bk X mm
Line Outage Distribution Factors: Calculation
We recall the definition of line outage distribution factor 𝑑 | applicable to line 𝑙 (linking
buses i and j) when line k is out
f l bl (i   j )
d l |k  0 
fk f k0
 i   j 
 bl  
 Pnm 
 bl ( i | nm   j | nm )
For the special case where neither i nor j is the reference bus
X in  X im  X jn  X jm
d l | k  bl
1  bk (X nn  X mm  2 X nm )
Compensated Generation Shift Factors
What if we want to know the impact on the flow in line l when modify
the generation at bus i when line k is opened?
The flow in line l is influenced by the change in injection at i, ΔPi
 Directly through hli
 Indirectly through the power flowing in line k, which affects the flow in i
when it is out
That is
fl  hli Pi  d l | k f k
f k  hki Pi
But since , we get
f l  (hli  d l | k hki )Pi
Compensated Generation Shift Factors
Definition
𝜓 |
The compensated generation shift factor is the sensitivity of the
flow in line l to changes in power injection at bus i under the outage of
line k
f l
 l i|k   hli  d l | k hki
Pi k
Application: Optimal correction of generation dispatches to avoid post‐
outage overloads
Example: 3‐bus, 4‐line Network
Line data (Sbase = 100 MVA)
Line no, l bl (p u) fl max (MW)
1 5 100
2 5 100
3 5 60
4 5 80
Generator data
Gen no. gi min (MW) gi max (MW) Ci ($/MWh)
1 100 250 20
2 20 100 40
3 0 50 50 What is the most economic N‐1 secure
dispatch assuming we approximate the
network with a DC power flow?
Solution‐ Relaxation Approach
• Handling the full mathematical program corresponding to this OPF
would not be simple
• Solving a relaxation of an OPF requires solving the same OPF while
ignoring some of the complicating aspects (constraints) of the original
problem
The basic procedure:
contingent states
• Correct line flow violations in the intact network by redispatching
generators in the most economic way
• Correct post‐contingency security violations by redispatching
generators in the most economic way
contingent states
min F = 20g1 + 40g2 + 50g3
subject to
g1 + g2 + g3 = 250 = Pdem
g1 100
gi min (MW) gi max (MW)
‐g1 ‐250
g2 20 100 250
‐g2 ‐100 20 100
g3 0 0 50
‐g3 ‐50
contingent states
 Since generator 1 is the cheapest
we maximize its output
 By inspection, we get
 g1[0] = 230 MW
 g2[0] = 20 MW
 g3[0] = 0 MW
F[0] = 5400 $/h
In the g2‐g3 plane we only have
upper/ lower generation limits
 By inspection, B’ and C matrices are
5 5 0
 15  10 5  5
  5 0 
B '   10 15 5 C  
5 0 5 
 5 5 10   
0 5 5 
 Assigning Bus 1 as the reference bus, the X and H matrices are
0 0.4 0.2 
0 0 0  0 0.4 0.2 
X  0 0.08 0.04  H  
0 0.2 0.6 
0 0.04 0.12   
 0 0.2 0.4 
 The bus voltage angles corresponding to the economic dispatch are
0 0 0   2.3   0 
 0  XP 0  0 0.08 0.04   1.8   0.164 
   
0 0.04 0.12   0.5  0.132 
 The corresponding line flows are
0 0.4 0.2   82 
0 0.4  2.3  
0.2   1.8   82 

f = C  HP  100 
0 0 0
   66 
0 0.2 0.6 
   0.5  
0 0.2 0.4    16 
 Line 3 is overloaded!
How can we mitigate this
overload ?
 We will redispatch the generation
ensuring that f3 60 MW
 In other words, we will “tighten”
the relaxation
• Correct the line flow violations in the intact network by redispatching generations
in the most economic way
 How do we tighten the relaxation to impose f3 60 MW ?
o We determine the effect of redispatching on f3 through generation shift factors h3i
f 3  f 3[0]  h31P1  h32 P2  h33 P3
o That is f3  f3[0]  h31 (g1  g1[0] )  h32 (g 2  g[0]

2 )  h33 (g 3  g 3 )
[0]
 66  0.2(g 2  20)  0.6(g3  0)

 70  0.2 g 2  0.6 g 3
70  0.2g 2  0.6g3  60
o We append the constraint to relieve flow limit violation in line 3
• Correct the line flow violations in the intact network by redispatching generations
in the most economic way
 The tighter version of the economic dispatch is
min F = 20g1 + 40g2 + 50g3
subject to
2g2 + 6g3 100
g1 + g2 + g3 = 250 = Pdem
g1 100
‐g1 ‐250
g2 20
‐g2 ‐100
g3 0
‐g3 ‐50
• Correct the line flow violations in the intact network by redispatching
generations in the most economic way
 In the g2‐g3 plane, we see
o Upper/lower generation limits
o The flow limit on line 3 cutting off
the previous solution
 Which generator should we use to
relieve this overload?
Generator Rate of g2 (MW) g3 (MW) Cost of line
providing line relief relief ($/h)
relief (MW/MW)
2 ‐0.2 50 0 600
3 ‐0.6 20 10 300
 We choose the cheaper option
where generator 3 provides relief
 The optimal dispatch is now
 g1[1] = 220 MW
 g2[1] = 20 MW
 g3[1] = 10 MW
 F[1] = 5700 $/h
 Verify that this dispatch meets all line
flow limits
 Indeed!
 What is cost of imposing the line
flow limits?
• Correct post‐contingency security violations by redispatching generations in
the most economic way
 We perform N‐1 security analysis
 Take lines out one at a time and evaluate corresponding impacts on remaining
lines
 Can we do so without recalculating everything ?
 Yes! Using line outage distribution factors, dl|k
 Starting with line 1, we find the immediate impact of losing this line using the
factors dl|k for K =1 and l = 2, 3, 4
• Correct post‐contingency security violations by redispatching generations in
the most economic way
 First we get for buses i = 1, 2, 3 and n =1 and m=2, the values of 𝜑 |
1|12  0
 X 22
 2|12   0.1333
1  b1 X 22
 X 32
3|12   0.0667
1  b1 X 22
 And then the line outage distribution factors dl|1 , l = 2, 3, 4
d 2|1  b2 (1|12  2|12 )  0.6667
d3|1  b3 (1|12  3|12 )  0.3333
d 4|1  b4 (2|12  4|12 )  0.3333
 We then find flows associated to the
failure of line k = 1 (or equally k =2)
 For example, in l = 2 (or equally l =1)
f 2|1  f 2[1]  d 2|1f1[1]
 80  0.6667x 80
=133.3 MW > f 2max
 Similarly, for in l = 3 and 4
f 3|1  86.7 MW > f 3max

 Post‐ contingency overloads on
f 4|1  46.7 MW  f max
4 lines 2 and 3
 Likewise, we find flows associated to the
failure of line k = 3
 For example, in l = 1 (or equally l =2)
f1|3  f1[1]  d3|1f3[1]
 80  0.5 x 60
=110MW > f 2max
 Similarly, for in l = 4
f 4|3  40 MW < f 4max

 Overloads on line 1 and 2
 How do we mitigate these overloads?
 We redispacth the generation ensuring that f2 100 MW and f23 60
MW when lines 1 (or equally 2) are taken out
To mitigate the effect of line contingency k on line l, we impose, using
compensated generation shift factors
l
f̂ l  f l|k   l i | k Pi  f lmax
i 1
where is the flow on line l
f| after the failure of line k prior to redispatching
 The outage of line k =1 (or k =2), implies two flow violations. One on l = 2
(l =1) and the other on l = 3
 Starting with k = 1 and l =2 , we have
f̂ 2  f 2|1   21|1 (g1  g1[1] )  22|1 (g 2  g 2[1] )  23|1 (g 3  g3[1] )  f 2max
 2 i |1
 So, we need to calculate the values of for i = 1, 2, and 3
2 1
 21|1  0  22|1    23|1  
3 3
 Hence, with k =1 and l =2 ,we have
2 1
f̂ 2  133.33  (g 2  20)  (g 3  10)
3 3
 Limiting the line flow to 100 MW and simplifying, we obtain
2 g 2  g3  150
 What next?
 We add this constraint to the original economic dispatch along with
the constraint limiting the pre‐fault flow on line 3
That is min F = 20g1 + 40g2 + 50g3
subject to
2g2 + g3 ≥ 150
2g2 + 6g3 ≥ 100
g1 + g2 + g3 = 250
g1 ≥ 100
‐g1 ≥ ‐250
g2 ≥ 20
‐g2 ≥ ‐100
g3 ≥ 0
‐g3 ≥ ‐50
The “tighter” optimal dispatch is now
 g1[2] = 175 MW
 g2[2] = 75 MW
 g3[2] = 0 MW
 F[2] = 6500 $/h
 Verify that the pre‐fault limits are satisfied
 Is the l =2 post‐fault flow due to the failure
of line k =1 within limits?
 Now looking at the effect of the failure of line k =1 (or k =2 ), on line l = 3
f̂ 3  f 3|1  31|1 (g1  g1[1] )  32|1 (g 2  g 2[1] )  33|1 (g 3  g3[1] )  f3max

 So, we need to calculate the values of for i
𝜓 | = 1, 2, and 3
1 2
 31|1  0  32|1    33|1  
3 3
 Limiting the post‐fault flow to 60 MW thus requires
g 2  2 g3  120
min F = 20g1 + 40g2 + 50g3
subject to
g2 + 2g3 ≥ 120
2g2 + g3 ≥ 150
2g2 + 6g3 ≥ 100
g1 + g2 + g3 = 250
g1 ≥ 100
‐g1 ≥ ‐250
g2 ≥ 20
‐g2 ≥ ‐100
g3 ≥ 0
‐g3 ≥ ‐50
Another “tighter” optimal dispatch is now
g1[3] = 160 MW
g2[3] = 60 MW
g3[3] = 30 MW
F[3] = 7100 $/h
 Verify that the pre‐fault limits are
satisfied
 Is the l =3 post‐fault flow due to the
failure of line k =1 (k =2) within limits?
 Lastly, looking at the effect of the failure of line k =3 on line l = 1 (or equally l =2 )

f̂1  f1|3  11|3 (g1  g1[1] )  12|3 (g 2  g 2[1] )  13|3 (g 3  g3[1] )  f1max
 We calculate the values of for i
𝜓 | = 1, 2, and 3
1 1
 11|3  0  12|3    13|3  
2 2
 Limiting the post‐fault flow to 100 MW thus requires
g 2  g3  50
min F = 20g1 + 40g2 + 50g3
subject to
g2 + g3 ≥ 50
g2 + 2g3 ≥ 120
2g2 + g3 ≥ 150
2g2 + 6g3 ≥ 100
g1 + g2 + g3 = 250
g1 ≥ 100
‐g1 ≥ ‐250
g2 ≥ 20
‐g2 ≥ ‐100
g3 ≥ 0
‐g3 ≥ ‐50
 What is the optimal dispatch here?
 It is the same as we found by correcting for the loss of line 1 (or equally 2)!
 Constraints on post‐fault flows in line 1 and 2 after the loss of line 3 are
inactive
 That is, they are redundant
 So is the pre‐fault flow limit on line 3!
Observation
We call the failure of line 1 (or equally 2) an umbrella contingency
because it covers for other, less stringent, failures
 Is the final economic dispatch • Pre‐fault limits √
secure with respect to
 Pre‐fault line flow limits?
 Post‐fault line flow limits?
• Post‐fault flows: Loss of line 1 or 2 √
 Is the final economic dispatch
• Post‐fault flows: Loss of line 3 √
• Post‐fault flows: Loss of line 4 √
 All limits are met! The algorithm
terminates
 What is the cost of security?

Optimal Power Flow Intro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optimal Power Flow Intro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

gimin  gi  gimax ; i  1... l

Subject to Pg  Pd  G p (t, Vpv , Vpq , , y)  0

Subject to Pg   Pd  G p (t, Vpv , Vpq ,  , y)  0

• Maximizing the system loading for a given demand pattern

• Minimizing the generation dispatch cost subject to

• Minimizing system pre‐contingency generation cost f(Pg (0)) such that

Define sensitivity factor ∅ | which tells us the impact on the angle at bus i when line

o That is f3  f3[0]  h31 (g1  g1[0] )  h32 (g 2  g[0]

 66  0.2(g 2  20)  0.6(g3  0)

f 3|1  86.7 MW > f 3max

f 4|3  40 MW < f 4max

f̂ 2  f 2|1   21|1 (g1  g1[1] )  22|1 (g 2  g 2[1] )  23|1 (g 3  g3[1] )  f 2max

f̂ 3  f 3|1  31|1 (g1  g1[1] )  32|1 (g 2  g 2[1] )  33|1 (g 3  g3[1] )  f3max

 Lastly, looking at the effect of the failure of line k =3 on line l = 1 (or equally l =2 )

You might also like