Electric Power Systems Research, 26 (1993) 1-10 1

Optimal real and reactive power control using linear programming

Maurice K. Mangoli and Kwang Y. Lee*

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 (USA)
Young Moon Park
Department of Electrical Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 151 (South Korea)

(Received June 25, 1992)

Abstract

This paper develops an improved real and reactive power control technique using linear programming (LP)
for an integrated power system. The problem is decomposed into two subproblems comprising real (P) and
reactive power (Q) modules, and, using a unified approach, the real power generation, voltage magnitude,
and transformer tap settings are optimized. The objective function is the fuel cost which is minimized in
both the P and Q modules, subject to the operating constraints. The P - Q decomposition combined with the
LP formulation improve the computation speed. The paper has another advantage of using the same cost
objective function for both modules, unlike other conventional methods which use the power loss function
for the Q module. The LP formulation is used for both the P and Q optimization modules, utilizing the
revised simplex method which is normally available in a mainframe computer.

1. I n t r o d u c t i o n based on Lagrangian multipliers and then pro-

The reactive power planning problem is to
maintain the power system voltage profile within
the operating range. This is done by dispatching
the existing reactive power sources optimally
while minimizing the operation cost. Reactive
power planning was usually solved using trial
and error approaches, where a number of normal
loading and contingency conditions are evalu-
ated via load flows and, using engineering judge-
ments, VARs are allocated to correct any voltage
violations that may arise.
Peschon et al. [1] developed a method of mini-
mizing the system loss by a judicious selection of
reactive power injections into the system and
transformer tap settings. They also introduced a
suitable adjustment algorithm to drive the solu-
tion towards a possible optimal point. Dopazo et
al. [2] developed a method of minimizing the
production cost by coordinating real and reac-
tive power allocations in the system. The proce-
dure at first determines the real power dispatch
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed:
telephone (814) 865-2621, telefax (814) 865-7065, Email
kyl(~ ecl.psu.edu.
ceeds to optimize the reactive power al]ocati0n
by minimizing a system loss function using a
gradient approach. Dommel and Tinney [3] de-
veloped a general nonlinear optimization tech-
nique to determine the optimal power flow
solution using a nonlinear objective function of
production costs or losses. Hobson [4] developed
a method of finding the network constrained re-
active power control. He used incremental trans-
mission line and transformer models and lin-
earized network equations. Then the problem
was solved by a special linear programming tech-
nique by giving priorities to generators in the
system. This method seems to maintain only soft
limits on transformer taps, generator voltages,
g e n e r a t o r reactive power, etc. Mamandur and
Chenoweth [5] developed an efficient algorithm
suitable for system loss minimization which
simultaneously satisfies the network perfor-
mance constraints on the control variables. The
system state with the optimal (economic) real
power generation schedule is assumed to be done
elsewhere.
Lee et al. [6] analyzed the VAR planning prob-
lem by decomposing the problem into the real (P)
and reactive power (Q) subproblems. The real
power subproblem has the real power P as the

0378-7796/93/$6.00 ~ 1 9 9 3 - Elsevier Sequoia. All rights reserved

decision variable and the reactive power sub-
problem has the VAR Q and tap settings N as the
decision variables. The fuel cost function is then
optimized in both problems using the gradient
projection method (GPM). In their earlier work
[6], the Jacobian matrix resulting from the net-
work equations was partitioned in a different
way for the P and Q optimization problems. AI-
though, the fuel cost was the objective function
for the Q optimization problem, it was expressed
as a quadratic function of reactive power sup-
plies. These two factors were found to be the
primary sources of oscillations in the iterative
optimization procedure.
In this paper, (i) an augmented Jacobian ma-
trix is partitioned in a unified way so that the
resulting sensitivity matrices are made common
to both P and Q optimizations; (ii) the objective
function for the Q optimization problem is
defined by augmenting the fuel cost function
with the power balance equation; and (iii) the
voltage magnitudes and tap settings are used as
the control variables rather than reactive power
in the Q optimization problem. The Q optimiza-
tion becomes a linear formulation because of the
use of the bus voltage magnitudes as the control
variables. Consequently, this led to the develop-
ment of a linear programming (LP) formulation
to solve both the real (P) and reactive (Q) opti-
mizations instead of using the GPM. The method-
ology proposed allows several constraint viol-
ations to be considered simultaneously through
the intrinsic behavior of the LP method. The
solution of the linear or approximated linear
problem is obtained if it exists; otherwise, the
closest point to the desired constrained optimum
point is obtained at the nearest limit of the solu-
tions. The changes of the load voltages can be
made to be soft constraints, while the generator
bus voltages are hard constraints.
2. Optimal operation problem
An optimal operation problem is to minimize
the operation cost, which is the cost encountered
in producing energy to meet the demand within a
system. The policy is to reduce the amount of fuel
required to generate real power, while maintain-
ing an acceptable system performance in terms of
voltage profile and system security.
In order to enhance the computation efficiency
the problem is decomposed into two modules
comprising the real power (P) optimization and
reactive power (Q) optimization modules. In the
P module, the real power generation is optimized
by minimizing the incremental cost function, the
reactive power being adjusted as a dependent
variable due to the coupling. In the Q module the
optimal bus voltages and transformer tap set-
tings are obtained by minimizing an equivalent
cost function.
2.1. Problem formulation
The cost function is the fuel cost as a function
of real power generation, and the objective is to
minimize the fuel cost function:
minimize C(P~g) = f(P~g) (1)
subject to
g(Psg, Qs~c, N) = 0 (2a)
Qsgc < Qsgc < Osg~. (2b)
V_ <<.V<~ ~z
N <~N <<.2V
where the following nomenclature is used.
C(P~g) total fuel cost for generators
g(P~g) vector of power supply demand equa-
tions
N vector of tap settings
P~ vector of real power generations
Q.~gc vector of reactive power supplies
s, g, c indices for swing bus, other generator
buses, and buses with capacitive/induc-
tive compensators, respectively
V vector of bus voltage magnitudes
(.), (.) upper and lower limits, respectively
The objective function f(.) is the total power
production cost, or, more specifically, the sum-
mation of generator fuel costs. It is expressed in
terms of the control vector Peg, which is directly
usable in the P optimization module. In the Q
module, the Peg is replaced by control vectors
Q~gc and N by using a sensitivity relationship
obtained from the power balance equation (2a)
[6]. The use of Qsgc as control vector, however,
tends to create oscillation problems and thus an
improvement is made in this paper. Since the
reactive power Qsgc and the vector of bus voltage
magnitudes V are directly related to one another,
V is chosen as the control vector instead of Qsgc
in the Q module. This converts the Q optimiza-
tion to a problem with linear objective function
and linear constraints and thus the optimization
is faster and without oscillations.
2.2. Incremental cost function
For the purpose of economic dispatch the non-
linear cost function needs to be expressed in
terms of incremental variables. The cost function
C can be expressed as a quadratic function of
real power generations P~g:
C(P,g) = ~ (at~+ flkP~ + YkPk2) (3)
k=l
where ~k, ilk, and Yk are fuel cost coefficients, m is
the total number of generators, and Pk is the real
power o u t p u t of generator k.
The cost for an increased production can be
written as
C(P,g + AP~¢) = ~ [ah + flk(Pk + APk)
k=l
+ 7k(Pk + APk) ~]
= ~ ["k + flkPk + 7hPk 2
k=l
-(flj~ + 27kPk) APk + 7h APk 2] (4)
Subtracting (3) from (4), the incremental cost
function is obtained as
AC(APsg) = ~ (ilk + 27~Pk) APk + 7k APk 2 (5)
k=l
where APsg is the vector of changes in real power
generation P~g, and AC(.) is the incremental cost
function.
The cost function (5) is in a quadratic form and
can be optimized by a nonlinear optimization
technique such as the GPM [6]. In order to apply
linear programming the incremental cost can be
further approximated to the linear form
AC(AP~g) = ~ [ilk APh + 2(1 + Pk)Yk ARk] (6)
k=l
or, in a matrix form,
AC(APsg) = C. T AP~g (7)
where
Cp w=~ [fl~ + 271(1 + P ~ ) , . . . , J~m +27m( 1 +Pro)]
This cost function is directly usable in the P
optimization module since AP~g itself is the con-
trol vector in that module. In the Q optimization
module, however, APsg should be expressed as a
function of the Q optimization control vectors,
namely AQ~gc (or AV) and AN. In the earlier work
[6], AQ~g~ was used as a control vector for the Q
module. This resulted in a nonlinear objective
function, and the iterative optimization had no-
ticeable oscillations. Therefore, in this paper AV
will be chosen as a control vector instead of
AQs~c.
The main operation problem defined in (1) and
(2) will now be decomposed into P optimization
and Q optimization problems.
3. P-Q decomposition
A typical power system has a large number of
variables, and it will be difficult to solve it as one
whole system. In order to improve the computa-
tion efficiency we decompose it into two subprob-
lems, the real power (P) module and the reactive
power (Q) module. This reduces the number of
variables for optimization since in the P module
only APsg is optimized, whereas in the Q module
AV and AN are optimized.
The linear cost function (7) is to be mini-
mized while satisfying the power balance equa-
tion (2a), which is a set of nonlinear algebraic
equations in terms of vectors Psg, Q~gc or V,
and N. In order to decompose the opera-
tional problem, the power balance equation
needs to be linearized and expressed in terms
of the incremental variables APsg , AQ~gc or
AV, and AN. This will make it possible to
develop sensitivity relationships among the in-
cremental variables; the relationships will then
serve as constraints in the P and Q optimization
modules.
3.1. Unified Jacobian matrix
The power balance equation (2a) can be lin-
earized and expressed in the following matrix
form:
[AP]=J AV (8)
AQ AN
where J is the Jacobian matrix, and AP, AQ, A&
AV, and AN are the vectors of changes in bus
real power, bus reactive power, bus voltage an-
gles, bus voltage magnitudes, and transformer
tap settings, respectively.
The Jacobian J in (8) is partitioned as
[ Ae_s__] i i i i 1
/ /J21 ',J22 ',J23jJ24 /
I
F3g:|
...... I. (9)
A__%A
AQr J k-a; I-J-4; -J-4;J
where l and l' are the indices for all load buses E q u a t i o n (15) can also be w r i t t e n as
and for load buses which do not have reactive
compensating devices, respectively. (For nora- [1: - J A ] AP~, = SS (16)
tional brevity, these symbols s, g, c, l, and l' are where
also used for the maximum n u m b e r of corre-
sponding buses.) SS A_JR AV + J c AN (17)
The J a c o b i a n matrix in (9) unifies the two and APsg represents the vector of real power
J a c o b i a n matrices used for the P and Q opti- generations.
mization modules in the earlier w o r k [6]. This This sensitivity equation is the equivalent lin-
simplifies the decomposition and leads to a con- earized version of the general power b a l a n c e
sistent set of sensitivity matrices and a smooth equation (2a).
transition from the P optimization module to the Again from (9),
Q optimization module. By the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of
optimal ordering the J a c o b i a n matrix is normally AQs~. = J32 A~l + J33 AV + J34 AN (18)
sparse, where the sparsity is shown mostly in
S u b s t i t u t i n g for A~l from (13), (18) becomes
off-diagonal blocks. The following sensitivity
equations leading to decomposition do not de-
stroy the sparsity, b u t preserve it in its full AQ~c = J32J22 -1 LAP~ J
extent.
+ ( J , 3 - J22 1J23) AV
3.2. Sensitivity matrices ~-(J34 - J22 1J24) AN (19)
For the purpose of P Q decomposition the
following conditions can be used: and, using AP~ = 0,

APt = A~ = AQt. = 0 (10) AQ~gc = J , APg + JE AV + JF AN (20)

which will yield linearized constraints for the P where
and Q optimization modules.
By applying the decoupling condition ASs = 0 JD =~ 1st (m -- 1) columns of
in (9), J32J22-1: (m + l - l') × (m + l - 1)

AP~ = J,2 La~,J ÷ J~ AV + J,4 AN (11) JE =~ J33 - J32J22 1J23: (m + l - l') × (m + l)

Similarly, from (9), using the condition A~ = 0,
AplI=J22[A~g;+J2aAV+J24AN
From (12),
[n~gl ~[APgl--J23AV--J24AN
)
A¢~I~ -~ J22 -1 \ L A P ~]
Substituting this in (11),
JF ~ J34 - J32J22-'J24: (m + l - l') × Nt
The sensitivity equation (20) gives the values of
(12) the reactive p o w e r supplies w h e n e v e r the control
vectors for the P and Q optimization modules are
determined.
(13)
Finally, from (9), the reactive p o w e r change in
load buses is
AQr = J42 A5~l + J43 AV + J44 AN (21)

[Aal
AP~ = a12J22-' LAp~j+(J,3- J~Je~-'J~) AV
S u b s t i t u t i n g for A6gt from (13), (21) becomes
AQ~,= JG AP~ + J a AV + Ji AN (22)
+ (J~ - J,~J~-~J~4) AN (14)
where
Since AP~ --0 as noted in (10),
JG ~ 1st (m - 1) columns of
AP~ = J~ AP~ + J~ AV + J c AN (15)
J42J2,-l: l' × (m + I - l')
where
JH ~ J 4 s - - J42J22-1J2~ : l' × (m + l)
J~ ~ 1st (m - 1) elements of
J, =~ J44 - J42J29-1J24: l~ × Nt
Jl~Je~-l: 1 × (m + l - 1)
This sensitivity equation reflects the effect of
J~ ~ J13 - J ~ J ~ - ~ J ~ : 1 x (m + l)
the control vectors, APg, AV, and AN, on the
J c ~ Jl4 - J12J22 ~J24:1 × Nt reactive power in the load buses.
3.3. P optimization module
In this module the P optimization problem is
solved by minimizing the incremental cost func-
tion (7) as a function of the incremental change
in real power generation. Linear programming is
used to obtain the optimal values of the real
power generation subject to the operating con-
straints. For the P module using the decoupling
condition
AP~ = A~s = 0 (23)
by the incremental changes in voltage magnitude
and tap settings. A constraint for this module is,
from (27),
[1: - JA] APsg = JR AV + Jc AN (29)
Additional constraints are obtained from (9),
by using the decoupling conditions A~sg~= 0 and
AQr = 0 for the Q module:
AQsgc = J33 AV + J34 AN (30a)

the linearized constraints (16) and (20) are sim- 0 : J43 AV + J44 AN (30b)
plified as
The constraint (29) implies that when AV and
[1: - JA] AP.,g = SS (24) AN are adjusted in the Q optimization modules,
APsg will also be changed, which will then
and
change the incremental cost (26). Therefore, the
AQ~gc = JD APg (25) cost function for the Q module can be obtained
by augmenting the real cost function (26) with
The P optimization module then becomes
constraint (27):
minimize AC.(AP~g) = Cp T APsg (26)
ACq = ACp + ~([1: - JA] APsg - JR AV - ac AN)
subject to
(31)
[1: - JA] AP~g = SS (27)
where ~ is the Lagrange multiplier. Note that
AP~g ~ Psg <~AP~g has a physical meaning in that it represents
where the first-order sensitivity of the objective func-
tion (ACp) with respect to active constraint on
AV.~g = Vsg - Vsg APsg. Thus, its inclusion in the Q module objec-
tive function is to show the effects of the P
AP~g = Psg - P~g module.
Note in (31) that the variation
SS -~ JR AV + Jc AN
This is a linear programming (LP) optimiza- AC, + ~([1: - JA] APsg)
tion problem which can be solved by the revised
is assumed to be already optimized in the P
simplex method [10] to find the optimal solution
optimization module, and is thus a fixed constant
APsg. Another benefit of this P optimization mod-
in this Q optimization module. Additional mini-
ule is that, as a byproduct, it computes the
mization of (31) can be achieved by the changes
reactive power changes AQ~gc caused by the P
in A V and AN.
optimization as given by the sensitivity equation
Thus, from the constraints (29) and (30) and
(25).
the cost function (31), the Q optimization module
Finally, the solution of the P optimization
becomes
module is used to update P and Q as follows:
P~+~=P~+AP~ minimize ACq(AV, A N ) = -A(JR A V + Jc AN)

Qk÷~
SgC = Qs~c + A Q ~ (28) (32)
where k is the iteration number. subject to

3.4. Q optimization module J43 A V + J44 AN = 0 (33a)

After solving the P optimization module, the (33b)
AQsgc ~<J33 AV + J34 AN ~<AQsg c
load flow is run to fine tune the system operating
condition, and then it is followed by the Q opti- AN ~ AN <~AN (33c)
mization. In this Q optimization module, the in-
cremental cost function (26) is to be minimized AV<.AV~AV (33d)
where ACq(-) is the incremental operational cost age memory requirement. In order to use LP, a
for the reactive compensation, nonlinear objective function is approximated by
piecewise linear functions, then, using separable
AV=IY-V and AV = V - V
programming, the overall LP problem is solved.
= -
Although the method increases the number of
variables, for the P optimization module the
AQsg,. = Q~gc - Q~gc
number of control variables (real power genera-
AN=/V-N and AN=N-N tors) are normally few compared with the total
number of buses.
It may be noted that the cost function (32) is a
linear function in AV and AN, thus LP is easily 4.1. L P formulation for the P optimization module
applied instead of the GPM to find the optimal In order to apply LP to our problem, both the P
solution (AV and AN), which then gives the and Q optimization problems have to be put into
optimum reactive power supply AQsgc by the sen- standard nonnegative LP form, defined in (35)
sitivity equation (30a). and (36).
Finally, the solution of the Q optimization By defining X = A P s g , C = C~,, A = [1:--JA],
module is used to update Q, V, and N as follows: and b = SS, the LP formulation for the P module
Qk8 g+
c ~ = Qs~,c + AQ~c (34a) in (26)-(27) becomes
V h~ 1 = V k + A V t~ (34b) minimize Z - CTX (37)

N k+l = N k + AN k (34c) subject to

The computational sequence is shown in Fig. 1. AX ~<b (38)

_X ~<X < X (39)

4. Linear programming formulation

Since _X is negative and the simplex method
does not allow negative variables, new nonnega-
Both the P and Q optimization problems in tive variables are introduced:
(26)-(27) and (32)-(33), respectively, are already Y = X - _X, Y ~>0 (40)
in a linear programming form:
and
minimize Z = CTX (35)
Z = C TY + CT_X
such that
The new formulation then becomes
AX ~<b (36a)
minimize Z = CTy (41)
X ~>0 (36b)
subject to
The revised simplex method is preferred to the
A Y <~b'
standard simplex method because many large-
scale problems have 90% zero data (sparse) and o<.Y<.f
the revised simplex uses only nonzero elements. where
It has a smaller tableau, improving on the stor-
b'=b-AX_ and Y=/k'-X
IInhiatLoadflowI
4.2. L P formulation for the Q optimization module
By defining A V = X, and AN = X2, the LP for-
1 mulation for the Q module in (32)-(33) becomes
minimize Z = C1TX1 + C2TX2 (42)
Yes
subject to
A1X1 + A2X2 = 0 (43a)
AQs~c ~<A'IX1 + A~X2 ~ AQsgc (43b)
_X~~<X~ ~<.~ (43c)
Fig. 1. Flowchart for the optimal operation planning. _X2~<X2 ~<X2 (434)
 Perform an inihal loadflow
where Solution by NewtonRaphson
Method
C1 = -;tJB, C2 = - A J c
A1 = J43, A2 = J44, A'I = Js3, A~ = J34
~[Formulatethe sensitivitymatrices I
By changing variables using nonnegative vari-
ables, and letting
x • = [x~L x~ T]
1
Y = [X - X ]
Formulate the Linear Pro~'ammlng problem I
C ~ = [C, T C2 T]

[ A: A~] 1
Solve the LP problem to find optimal
g'= / g~ adjustment to control variables

[_-i, -A2J
b' = [0, AQ ~ g ~ T, --AQ~gcT] T -- A'X
~= I x - x ]
then the Q module becomes
minimize Z = CTy
subject to
A'Y~b'
O<Y<Y
These are the standard forms for the LP, appli-
cable in finding the minimal incremental cost,
and the optimal incremental real power genera-
tion, bus voltage, and transformer tap settings.
Conventional LP packages are easily available
and can be used. In this paper the IMSL DLPRS
subroutines have been used, where the revised
simplex method is implemented [7]. The con-
straint matrices have to be constructed for each
P and Q optimization to conform with the stan-
dard input format for DLPRS subroutines and
are updated after every P and Q optimization
module. The complete computation procedure is
shown in Fig. 2.
5. S i m u l a t i o n r e s u l t s
The optimal operation problem is solved for
sample systems using the linear programming
(LP) formulations. For comparison, the power
systems used in the paper are the 6-bus and the
modified IEEE 30-bus, which were also used in
the earlier work [6].
The problem is decomposed into two subprob-
lems, the P and Q modules, and each is solved
using LP. The LP code used is implemented in
the IMSL DLPRS subroutine that uses the re-
1
I'e o thelo o I
(44)
Fig. 2. F l o w c h a r t for the linear p r o g r a m m i n g for the P or Q
module.
(45a)
(45b) vised simplex method. The constraint matrices
are constructed and updated for each iteration. If
the limits of the control variables are exceeded,
then the nearest limits are used. Also, to limit
the oscillations in the variables, step values be-
tween 5% and 10% are used as the upper or
lower limits. This is necessary as it is undesirable
to allow large swings of real power and bus
voltage magnitudes which will affect the perfor-
mance of the generators. The results obtained
are compared with those of the GPM method
used in refs. 8 and 9.
5.1. The 6-bus system
The operational problem for the 6-bus system
was solved by the LP method. Figure 3 shows the
single-line diagram for the 6-bus system. The line
and generator data are given in ref. 6. Two shunt
capacitors are used to control the bus voltage
magnitudes at load buses 4 and 6.
The initial load flow is run when no reactive
compensation has been applied at the load buses
apart from the reactive generation at buses 1 and
2. It can be seen from Table 1 that load buses 3-6
all have undervoltages below the lower operat-
ing limit of 0.90p.u. The optimal power flow
(OPF) results for both methods are tabulated and
compared in Table 1. Column 4 shows the initial
load flow, column 5 the GPM results, and column
6 the LP results.

~ _ ~ S'C'I T2 _3
5 . 2 generations, are all within the operating limits
6- I I I
Fig. 3. Single-line diagram of the 6-bus system: 1 , . . . , 6, bus
numbers; G, generators; S.C., shunt capacitors; T, tap setting
transformers.
From an initial generation cost of 619.53
S/hour, the GPM gives a lower optimal operation
cost of 392.11 S/hour, compared with 395.78
S/hour for the LP method, with net savings of
58.0% and 56.5%, respectively. The difference
between the two methods is about 0.94%; this is
due to the linear approximation of the nonlinear
cost function in the LP. The real power loss by
LP is about 3.3% higher than that of the GPM,
both being within an acceptable range. Note that
both methods result in higher system loss com-
pared to the initial state, but the operation cost
is reduced since the objective of this methodol-
ogy is to minimize it, while other conventional
methods minimize the loss function.
The real power generation by LP at swing bus
1 is 1.1% more than that by the GPM, and both
methods have the same generation of 100 MW at
bus 2. The corresponding reactive power genera-
tions for the LP are more evenly distributed than
for the GPM. At the reactive compensated load
buses 4 and 6, the reactive power increase is
about 2.4% and 2.7%, respectively, being higher
for the LP.
The operating security constraints, that is,
voltage magnitudes, tap settings, and real power
for both methods. All undervoltages at the load
buses have been compensated by the reactive
shunt capacitors at buses 4 and 6 with 15.00 and
15.50 MVAR, respectively. Also, the transformer
tap settings on lines 4 and 7 are adjusted to 0.94
and 1.10 ratios, respectively, to improve the
voltages at uncompensated load buses 5 and 3.
The operation cost convergence is shown in
Fig. 4, where the LP method takes more itera-
tions, about 12, to reach the optimal value, com-
pared with 9 for the GPM; however, the average
computation time per iteration is shorter for the
LP than for the GPM.
5.2. The 30-bus system
The operational problem for the IEEE 30-bus
system was solved by the LP method, and the
results are compared with those of the GPM [8].
The line and generator data are given in ref. 6.
Figure 5 shows the single-line diagram of the
modified IEEE 30-bus system.
The initial load flow from Fig. 6 shows that the
voltage magnitudes at load buses 14-30 are all
below the lower operating limit of 0.95 p.u. This

TABLE 1. Summary of results for the 6-bus system a

Variable Limits Initial First Second

state study study
Lower Upper

P1 (MW) 0.0 100.0 94.836 52.786 53.368

P2 (MW) 0.0 100.0 50.000 100.000 100.000
Q1 (MVAR) -20.0 100.0 53.845 42.349 18.077
Q2 (MVAR) -20.0 100.0 25.193 8.733 23.737
V1 (p.u.) 1.00 1.10 1.000 0/~.0 1.090 ~ 1.000 0/~.0
V~ (p.u.) 1.00 1.15 1.000 [ - 5 . 0 5 1.145/15.60 1.150 [13.60
V~ (p.u.) 0.90 1.05 0.784 [-15.92 0.967 [ - 6.87 0.900/-8.45
V4 (p.u.) 0.90 1.05 0.883 [ - 11.24 1.003 [ - 5 . 0 0 0.957 [ - 6 . 1 8
V5 (p.u.) 0.90 1.05 0.820 [-15.28 0.998 •-2.63 0.952/-3.76
V6 (p.u.) 0.90 1.05 0.873 [-14.50 0.987/-6.13 0.946/-7.48
N4 0.90 1.10 1.025 0.913 0.938
N7 0.90 1.10 1.100 1.000 1.100
Qc4 (MVAR) 0.0 15.0 0.0 14.648 15.000
Qcs (MVAR) 0.0 15.5 0.0 15.092 15.500
Generation cost (S/h) 619.531 392.106 395.776
System loss (MW) 9.836 17.786 18.368

~First s t u d y - - w i t h both P and Q optimization using GPM; second study with both P and Q optimization using LP.
 650.00

600.00 27 28

550.00 i 25 I 26

23

~ 500.00
g
o "1~ 14 ----L- I ~ ~I$

450.00 "~-
0 " ~ " "-~,. " ' B
12-

400.00 . . ".~-...~..... _~.-~.._,~...~..#-.-~.-~.

o4~-e.~ Linear progromming

350.00 -=-:-:~-Orodient projection method

300.00 . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . I
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
No. of iterotions

Fig. 4. Convergence comparison of operation cost for the 6-bus

system using LP and the GPM.
Fig. 5. Single-line diagram of the modified IEEE 30-bus system.
indicates that the reactive generations are not
adequate, and more reactive power at the com- and the transformer tap settings are set opti-
pensated load buses is needed to improve the mally to improve the load bus voltage magni-
voltage profile. tudes. All load bus voltages are within the
The results of the optimal power flow are sum- operating range 0.95-1.05 p.u., varying from a
marized in Table 2, where the GPM results in minimum value of 0.95 p.u. at bus 30 to 1.03 p.u.
column 4 are compared with the LP results in at bus 4. This compares very well with those
column 5. The initial operation cost of 903.31 obtained by the GPM. The LP computation time
S/hour is improved to 840.32 S/hour for the LP is 5.30 s for nine iterations compared with 6.12 s
and 799.56 S/hour for the GPM, resulting in net for eight iterations by the GPM. This indicates
savings of 7.5% and 13.0%, respectively. The that the average computation time is shorter for
shunt capacitor banks installed at load buses the LP than for the GPM. From the operation

1.10

1.00 ~ 7 - -,~- . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _~"~-=-~..=-:- ~. = ~ . . : . . . . . . "_ :~___

-~ 0 . 9 0
...... •, /: \

&
o
e ~ . o ~ Before compensation
: : : : ~ After compensation
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.80

0.70 iii , l l l l l l l iii i i i i l l l l l , i l l i i i i i i i i l [ l ~ l i i i i i i i i i i i i 1 [ , 1 ~ 1 1 1

1.00 6.00 11.00 16.00 21.00 26.00 31.00
Bus Number

Fig. 6. voltage magnitude distribution for the modified IEEE 30-bus system before and after optimal power flow for peak load using
linear programming.
10

TABLE 2. Summary of results for modified IEEE 30-bus system ~' the optimization improved them to smaller val-
ues, thus enhancing the power system stability.
Variable Limits Initial First Second It was noted t h a t the new formulation using
state study study
Lower Upper
a unified J a c o b i a n matrix to compute sensitiv-
ity matrices improved the c o m p u t a t i o n time
P1 (MW) 50.0 200.00 99.905 177.870 235.615 compared with that of the earlier w o r k [6].
P2 (MW) 80.0 70.00 80.000 48.596 20.000 Also, comparing the LP with the G P M [8, 9]
P5 (MW) 15.0 50.00 50.000 21.373 10.000 with a similar formulation, it was found that
Ps (MW) 10.0 35.00 20.000 21.038 10.000
PlI (MW) 10.0 30.00 20.000 11.783 10.000
the LP has a faster c o m p u t a t i o n speed than
P~:3 (MW) 12.0 40.00 20.000 12.000 12.000 the GPM, making it a t t r a c t i v e for real-time
Q1 (MVAR) -20.0 200.0 0.000 5.788 6.046 application in economic dispatch, and reac-
Qz (MVAR) - 20.0 100.0 15.973 41.752 100.000 tive p o w e r and voltage control. The use of
Q5 (MVAR) - 15.0 80.0 44.132 22.639 35.609 the voltage m a g n i t u d e instead of the reac-
Qs (MVAR) -15.0 60.0 56.127 30.425 33.935
QI~ (MVAR) - 10.0 50.0 30.238 17.475 - 10.000
tive power as the control variable in the Q
Q13 (MVAR) -15.0 60.0 32.499 2 0 . 7 9 4 -13.704 module resulted in a linear formulation and
NI~ 0.90 1.10 1.00 1.053 0.903 r e d u c e d oscillations in the convergence charac-
N~2 0.90 1.10 1.00 0.969 1.094 teristics.
NI~ 0.90 1.10 1.00 1.045 1.0320
/~ 0.90 1.10 1.00 1.006 1.031
Qc~.~ (MVAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 3.941 5.793 h
Qdv (MVAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 4.652 15.749 b
Acknowledgement
Qc20 (MVAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 3.389 5.994b
Qc2~ (MVAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 4.118 16.626 b
Qc2:~ (MVAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 3.037 0.491 h This work has been supported in part by the
Qc24 (MVAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 4.582 6.283 b Allegheny Power System, Greensburg, PA, USA,
Qc29 (MVAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 3.287 2.699 b and by the Korean Electric Power Corporation,
Generation cost (S/h) 903.309 799.5601 840.315 Seoul, South Korea.
System loss (MW) 6.505 9.260 14.215

aFirst s t u d y - - w i t h both P and Q optimization using GPM;

second study with both P and Q optimization using LP.
bUsing 100 MVAR as the maximum of reactive power compensa-
tion.
results it is seen that the LP has a shorter com-
putation time, making it attractive for real-time
applications, while the GPM has a slightly lower
operation cost. It is also seen that both methods
improve the voltage profile to within the operat-
ing range. The LP dispatches more reactive com-
pensation than the GPM.
6. C o n c l u s i o n s
For the optimal operation of a power system,
an economic real and reactive dispatch problem
was solved by minimizing a fuel cost function. In
the P module optimal values of real power gener-
ation and in the Q module optimal values of bus
voltage magnitudes and transformer tap settings
were obtained. In addition, optimal values of
reactive power dispatched by the generators and
compensators were also obtained, Using load
flow to fine tune the P and Q results, the voltage
angles were also calculated and it was found that
References
1 J. Peschon, D. S. Piercy, W. F. Tinney and O. J. Tveit,
Optimum control of reactive power flow, I E E E Trans., P A S -
87 (1968) 40-48.
2 J. F. Dopazo, O. A. Klitin, G. W. Stagg and M. Watson, An
optimization technique for real and reactive power alloca-
tion, Proc. IEEE, 55 (1967) 1877 1885.
3 H. W. Dommel and W. F. Tinney, Optimal power flow solu-
tions, I E E E Trans., P A S - 8 7 (1968) 1866-1876.
4 E. Hobson, Network constrained reactive power control us-
ing linear programming, I E E E Trans., PAS-99 (1980) 868-
877.
5 K. R. C. Mamandur and R. O. Chenoweth, Optimal control of
reactive power flow for improvements in voltage profiles and
real power loss minimization, IEEE Trans., PAS.100 (1981)
3185 3194.
6 K. Y. Lee, Y. M. Park and J. L. Ortiz, United approach to
optimal real and reactive power dispatch, I E E E Trans.,
PAS-I04 (1985) 1147-1153.
7 I M S L User's Manual, F O R T R A N Subroutines for Mathemat-
ical Applications, Vol. 3, Version 1.0, Houston, TX, April
1987.
8 J. B. Kim, K. J. Kim and Y. M. Park, Optimal reactive power
planning, Part I Load level decomposition, Proc. I F A C
Syrup. Power Systems and Power Plant Control, Seoul, South
Korea, 1989, pp. 93 99.
9 M. K. Mangoli, Optimal reactive power planning, using de-
composition techniques, Ph.D. Thesis, Pennsylvania State
Univ., 1992.
10 M. S. Bazara and J. J. Jarvis, Linear Programming and
Network Flows, Wiley, New York, 1977.