COMPENSATION METHODS FOR NETWORK SOLUTIONS BY OPTIMALLY ORDERED TRIANGULAR FACTORIZATION
William F. Tinney
Bonneville Power Administration
Abstract-The compensation theorem is applied in conjunction
with ordered triangular factorization of the nodal admittance matrix to
simulate the effect of changes in the passive elements of the network on
the solution of a problem without changing the factorization. The
scheme includes network elements with mutual impedances. Compared
with impedance matrix methods which are ordinarily used for power
system applications, this method, which permits exploitation of
matrix sparsity, always requires less computer storage and, with few
exceptions, is much faster.
INTRODUCTION
Optimally ordered triangular factorization is more efficient than
matrix inversion for direct solution of most power network problems
because it permits exploitation of matrix sparsity. I Traditionally power
network analysis has been based on the nodal impedance matrix, an
explicit inverse that is always full. The nodal admittance matrix in
triangular factored form, which is extremely sparse, can be used to solve
any problem that can be solved with the impedance matrix. It always
requires less computer storage, an advantage that increases as the square
of problem size. Unless the given nodal current vector is extremely
sparse as in the short circuit problem where it contains only one non-
zero term, the factorization approach is also much faster. Therefore,
every effort should be made to further enhance the factorization
approach.
The impedance matrix approach is enhanced by various algorithms
for efficient modification of the matrix to reflect changes in the net-
work or to produce the effect of network changes on the solution
without actually modifying the matrix itself.2'3'4 In the factorization
approach there is no need for a counterpart to the impedance matrix
modification schemes. Only a partial refactorization is required for
most network changes and a complete factorization of a typical power
network admittance matrix involves less computation than modifying
the corresponding impedance matrix for the change of one network
element. There is a counterpart in the factorization approach, however,
which produces the effect of network changes on the solution without
changing the factorization to include the network changes. The purpose
of this paper is to describe this useful extension of the factorization
approach.
The impedance matrix modification schemes, including the adap-
tations which affect only the solution, are special applications of the
standard matrix inversion modification methods.5 They are direct
consequences of linearity and certain other properties of network equa-
tions. They could be derived from a purely mathematical viewpoint
without invoking any network concepts. The compensation theorem
(also known as substitution theorem) of network theory, which is mere-
ly another statement of the same properties, can also be used to
derive the same results.6 It is used as the basis for explaining the
-methods in this paper because it focuses attention on the voltage and
current vectors rather than the admittance matrix or impedance matrix,
neither one of which actually exist in the factorization approach.
The compensation theorem states, in effect, that a passive network
element can be replaced by an active element that causes the same
network response. This means that in the nodal formulation of a net-
Paper 71 C 26-PWR-XI-A, recommended and approved by the Power System
Engineering Committee of the IEEE Power Society for presentation at the 1971
PICA Conference, Boston, Mass., May 24-26, 1971. Manuscript submitted
September 14, 1970; made available for printing June 8, 1971.
123
work problem a current source can be substituted for a passive branch
element without affecting the voltages or currents in the network. This
makes it possible to use the original factorization of the admittance
matrix of a network to obtain solutions to problems involving network
changes.
The proper choice between refactorizing or using the compensa-
tion method depends on the conditions of the problem. In general, the
compensation method is more efficient than refactorizing when the
network changes are temporary; i.e., the changes made in one case of a
series of problems involving the same network must be restored for
the next case.
In this paper the compensation method is described exclusively in
terms of a nodal formulation of the electric network problem. The
basic principle, of course, applies to all linear algebraic equations. Any
analogous nodal formulation could be handled by the algorithms
described in this paper by making the appropriate substitutions in the
equations. The compensation method can also be applied with triangu-
lar factorization of the matrix of a mesh formulation of the network
problem, but this is not covered in this paper.
This paper is not aimed at any particular application. The com-
pensation method is used in several programs at Bonneville Power
Administration including a fast linearized power flow outage analysis
and an electromagnetic transient analysis program. The method is
planned for use in on-line security monitoring. It is potentially useful in
any application involving linear network equations. It can also be ex-
tended to handle certain kinds of non-linearities.8
REVIEW OF TRIANGULAR FACTORIZATION
Triangular factorization with exploitation of matrix sparsity has
been covered in detail in other papers. 1,9,10,11,12,13,14,1 5 It will be
reviewed here only briefly. The compensation method will be explained
in terms of the nodal admittance formulation indicated by Eq. (1).
[Y] [VI- [I] = (1)
where [Y] is an n x n nodal admittance matrix, [VI is a column vector
of node-to-datum voltages and [I] is a column vector of nodal currents.
[Y] can be factored into the product of a lower triangular matrix [LI
and an upper unit triangular matrix [U] by Gaussian elimination.
[LI] [uJ [V] = [i]
(2)
Eq. (2) can be solved directly in two steps as indicated by Eqs. (3a) and
(3b).
[LJ [Vj =
[I] (3a)
[U][V]= [V'] (3b)
The lower triangular system defined by Eq. (3a) is first solved for the
vector (V'] by forward substitution. Then [V] is found by backward
substitution in Eq. (3b). When [Y] is symmetric, only [L] is needed
as it can be used to produce the back substitution as well as the forward
substitution. When the sparsity of [Y] is fully exploited by optimal
ordering and the computer program processes and stores only non-zero
terms, the triangular factorization scheme give the most efficient direct
solutions possible for most problems. In this the inverse matrix, (which
in this example would be the nodal impedance matrix) does not exist
and the compensation method, which is normally described in terms of
an explicit inverse, must be mbodified accordingly.
PROBLEM DEFINITION
It is assumed that the nodal admittance matrix of a network is
already in triangular factored form as indicated in Eq. (2) and that
solutions of [VI for any vector [I] can be obtained by Eq. (3).
Solutions are wanted for situations involving changes in the passive
elements of the network. It is desired to effect these changes by the
compensation method rather than by modifying the factorization. The
compensation method permits the simultaneous introduction of the
effect of one or more network branches at a time; the branches may
be independent or have mutual impedances between them or other
branches in the network.
Eq. (4) expresses the relationship between the admittance Y of a
branch in the original network, the admittance Y' that is desired in the
branch and the admittance AY which, if connected in parallel with Y,
would produce the net effect of Y'.
Ay = y - y
Thus, to effectively remove Y and create an open circuit, AY = -Y. If
there is no branch in the original network between the node pair in
question, then Y = 0 and AY = Y'. The same relationship cail also be
expressed in terms of branch impedances, but the equation is more
(4)
complicated and cannot be generalized to include mutually coupled
branches as conveniently as the admittance expression. In the following
discussion branch admittances and impedances are both used depending
on the situation.
Eq. (4) may be generalized for any number of branches by intro-
ducing matrix notation. Let [YB1 be the branch admittance submatrix
of the set of branches in the original network that are to be modified
simultaneously, [Y'B1 the branch admittance submatrix of the same
set of branches after the desired modification and [AYB] the branch
admittance submatrix of the branches which must be simulated by the
compensation method to produce the desired effect on the solution.
For a situation involving b branches, each of these matrices would be
b x b. With these definitions the following relationship is obtained:
[ BJ =
L BJ (5)
It is assumed that [Y'BI can be readily determined from the con-
ditions of the problem and that [YB' is available from the source data
of the original nodal admittance matrix.
COMPENSATION METHOD
Single Branch Without Mutual Coupling
The compensation method can be understood by viewing the net-
work as a generalized Thevenin equivalent.7 Assume that it is desired
to produce the effect of a single branch without mutual coupling that
is to be connected between nodes k and m of a network. The network
is excited by a nodal current vector [1(0)]. The voltage solution vector
[V(o)1 corresponding to [1(0)] for the original condition of the net-
work without the added branch can be obtained directly from the
factorized matrix as indicated in Eq. (3). The open circuit voltage
Vkm(O) across nodes k and m is then found from
V(0)
km
V(0)
k
- V()
mp
*In Eq. (10) lkm should be regarded as a dimensionless scale factor; otherwise,
the equation is not dimensionally correct.
124
where Vk(o) and Vm(O) are elements of (V(o)]. The superscript (o)
identifies vectors and elements of vectors corresponding to the nodal
current vector [J(O)].
In order to find the impedance of the original network as it would
be measured between nodes k and m it is necessary to compute
another direct solution by Eq. (3). This time a voltage vector [V(km)I
is obtained corresponding to a current vector [J(km)]. [,(km)] con-
tains +1 as element k and - 1 as element m; all other elements are zero.
(If node m is the reference node, then all elements are zero except k
which is +1.) This is equivalent to connecting a current source of one
unit between nodes k and m and finding the network voltage response.
Since unit current is used, the impedance ZT of the network between
nodes k and m is then obtained from
ZT Vk -V (7)
where Vk(km) and Vm(km) are elements of [V(km)].
The network may now be viewed as a Thevenin equivalent as
shown in Fig. (1 a).
T
LILk lki
mC k
Fig. (la) Fig. (lb) Fig. (lc)
Compensation Method Viewed as Thevenin Equivalent
If an impedance Z is connected between nodes k and m as indicated in
Fig. (lb), the current lkm flowing through it may be calculated. (The
subscript km refers to a current entering the network at node k and
emerging at node m. Its direction in the external branch is from m to k).
If a current source of lkm is used to replace Z as shown in Fig. (1 c) the
voltage Vkm between nodes k and m is unaffected.
Eq. (8a) expresses the voltage Vkm between nodes k and m in
terms of the current lkm and the impedance Z. Eq. (8b) expresses
the same voltage in terms of lkm and the Thevenin equivalent.
v -z Ik (8a)
V
krl. +_O) Z I
-
=
kin TI km. (8b)
Eliminating Vkm gives an explicit equation for lkm.
7(o)
I - (9)
T +
Since 'km has the same effect on the network as Z, the desired solu-
tion [V] can be obtained from Eq. (10)*.
(10)
[v _ Lv()J + Ikm [(knri)]
It will be noted in Eq. (9) that when ZT = IZ, km becomes in-
finite. This corresponds to resonance between the network and the
added branch. This condition will always occur if the change caused by
the added branch impedance would separate the network into two
completely disconnected parts. If the network is still connected by a
(6) common reference node after the changes, lkm will be finite. Any con-
dition that causes ZT + Z to approach zero could cause difficulty. Such
conditions will usually indicate an error in problem formulation.
In actual application the value of Z is determined such that it
produces a desired effect. It can be computed as the reciprocal of AY
from Eq. (4) except for a short circuit. For a short circuit Z = 0 and
Eq. (4) is not needed.
After obtaining [V(o)], succeeding cases involving only a change lz,21 =
zkmtkm zkm,ij
of single branch can be obtained at the expense of one node voltage
Z..
lj,km
Z
ij ilo.. (12)
vector solution by Eq. (3) for [V(km)] per case. If each case involves a L -j
change in [I(°)] as well as a network change, then two voltage vector
The elements of [ZT] can be obtained from two voltage solutions,
solutions per case are required. Compared with the computation to
obtain [V(o)] and [V(km)i the computation of lkm is negligible. If
[V(km)] and [v(iib, corresponding to the current vectors [,(km)] and
several solutions are wanted for different changes in the same branch,
[I(ij)]. [,(km)] has + 1 as element k, - 1 as element m and zeros else-
where; [1(ii)] has + 1 as element i, - 1 as element j and zeros elsewhere.
the single solution [V(km)] can be used for each of them; only a new
Ikm for each change of branch impedance value must be computed for Zkm vk(km)
n,kmm-k _V;
- im)
use in Eq. (10) to find each new solution. L

The compensation method for a single branch can be interpreted

graphically as shown in Fig. (2). The line with slope ZT represents the km, ij Ik m
in ( 1j) (13)
Thevenin impedance. Its intercept on the Vkm axis, Vkm(O), is the
open circuit voltage across nodes k and m when the network is excited
by l1(0)]. Its intercept on the Ikm axis gives the value of current to
Zij,kma v i(ki) - k)
simulate a short circuit. The line with slope - Z represents the value of
impedance whose effect is to be simulated by the compensation Zajsij Vi j
method. The value of lkm corresponding to the intersection of the line
ZT and Z is the current for simulating the effect of Z. A pair of matrix equations for the two branches corresponding to
the pair of scalar equations (8a) and (8b) for a single branch can now be

Vkm written.

Sv13 i Ikm} (14a)

i i

[,(o)l
[Vkm km Zkm ,kIan km,mj
1i km (14b)

j j kI--m 1j

t a r'- ZT t tan (-z) ]km Eqs. ( 14a) and (14b) are rewritten as ( 1 5a) and ( 1 5b) using matrix
symbols.
[vJ = - B¾I1 LIB[ (1 5a)
[v = yL4o) + [ZT [LI ( l5b)
Eliminating [VBI gives [1B] directly.
Fig. 2. Graphical Interpretation of Compensation Method
['BI = -LLZTJi + z L (16)
Eq. (16) is the matrix equivalent of the Eq. (9) for a single
Multiple Branches Without Mutual Coupling branch.
Any condition that causes [[ZT] + [ZB]] to become singular
The method for a single branch can be extended to multiple would probably correspond to a mistake in problem formulation. For
uncoupled branches. In order to simplify notation, the method will be example, if the network changes were the removal of a group of branch-
explained for only two branches. The extension from two to any num- es that would separate the network into two parts [[ZT] + [ZB]]
ber of branches follows directly. would be a null matrix.
It is assumed that it is desired to introduce the simultaneous The elements Ikm and Iij of [IB] provide the needed scale factors
effect of adding two branch elements by the compensation method. to obtain the desired solution as indicated in Eq. (17).
The branches are to be added between node pairs km and ij and are to
have impedances of Zkm and Zuj The two equivalent open circuit
voltages are_ obtained from the base case solution [V(o)] as indicated
[VI = LV(o)] + I Lv(kn)j + i
LV(i) (17)
by Eq. (I 1). The extension to any number of uncoupled branches is obvious.
V(o) V(°) The only significant computation is obtaining the voltage vectors. The
km =
k(o) m inverse indicated in Eq. (16) is only symbolic. The equation should be
solved by Gaussian elimination. Usually each additional branch requires
VeO) =
V(O) -VSo
v. (°)(1) one additional voltage solution. An exception occurs when the branches
involved form a loop. For example, only two solutions are required for
Instead of a scalar impedance to represent the network as for a the three branches of a pi-section with legs connected to datum. If the
single branch, a 2 x 2 branch impedance matrix [ZT] as indicated in arcatrave of the pi is between nodes k and m, only the voltage solutions
Eq. (12) is needed. for the legs of the pi, [V(k)] and [V(m)], corresponding to current
125
vectors [I(k)] and [I(m)j are needed. [I(k)] has a + I as element k and
zeros elsewhere; [U(m)] has + I as element m and zeros elsewhere. The
third solution [V(km)I corresponding to the arcatrave is obtained by
subtracting [V(m)] from [V(k)]. If b branches involved in the com-
pensation method form a loop, only b - 1 nodal voltage solutions are
required since the voltage vector across one node pair can be obtained
as the negative sum of the others.
Branches with Mutual Coupling
Application of the compensation method is more complicated
when one or more of the branches whose effects are to be simulated
have mutual as well as self impedances. The relationships indicated by
Eqs. (15) and (16) still apply but there are other differences. These
differences will be indicated by an example.
Suppose it is desired to effect the removal (or any other modifi-
cation) of a branch that has a mutual impedance between itself and
another branch in the network. Adding a branch in parallel with the
original branch having the negative of the self impedance of the origi-
nal branch will not cancel the mutual effects of the original branch. In
this situation, it is necessary to resort to Eq. (5) to determine the change
in branch self and mutual admittances that must be made to cancel
both the self and mutual effects of the branch in question. As might be
expected, the cancellation of the coupled branch cannot be effected by
a single current source, but requires two current sources and conse-
quently two nodal voltage solutions. For this example, the matrices
of Eq. (5) have the following definitions:
[YB] is the original 2 x 2 branch admittance submatrix of the
branch which is to be removed and the branch with which it is mutual-
ly coupled.
[YB'] is the same branch admittance submatrix after the branch
in question is removed. It is a 2 x 2 matrix with elements equal to zero
except for the diagonal entry representing the self admittance of the
retained branch.
[AYBI is the branch admittance submatrix representing the
changes in admittance that must be effected to cancel the self and
mutual effects of the branch in question. The matrix [ZB] of Eq. (16)
can be found from Eq. ( 18).
(18)
LZB] 'YJ-
The two elements of the vector IVB(o)] of Eq. (16) can be de-
termined from Eq. (1 1). The 2 x 2 matrix [ZTI can be determined from
Eq. (13) after obtaining nodal voltage solutions corresponding to unit
currents injected in turn across each of the node pairs of the two
branches. After solving Eq. (16) for the two element vector [IB', the
desired solution [V] can be obtained from Eq. (17).
The procedure would have been exactly the same if both branches
were to be removed. The only difference would be that in this case
[AYB] would have been equal to [YB] since [YB'] of Eq. (5) would
have been a 2 x 2 null matrix. In using the compensation method to
effect the modification of a branch with mutual coupling, it is necessary
to take into account all of the self and mutual admittances affected by
the coupling. For example, if a branch is coupled with a second branch
that in turn is coupled with a third branch, then in using the compensa-
tion method to effect a change in any one of the branches it is necessary
to take into account the resulting change in the 3 x 3 branch admittance
submatrix of these three mutually coupled branches. Any change in
impedance of any branch of a mutually coupled group affects the en-
tire branch admittance submatrix of the group.
Programming Considerations
In determining whether to use the compensation method or to
refactorize, it is necessary to consider the following requirements:
126
1) the time required to refactorize for the particular changes involved,
2) the time required to make one nodal voltage solution, 3) the number
of network branches involved in each solution. Ordinarily, only a part
of the original factorization has to be modified to reflect a network
change. If the original factorization has to be restored after the change,
however, the time for its refactorizing should be doubled. The fore-
going requirements can be determined accurately for a specific
problem and approximately for a general class of problem.
For a typical single phase power network with a symmetric nodal
admittance matrix, the time required to factor the entire matrix is only
about five times that required for one nodal voltage solution. There-
fore, the compensation method could be more efficient if the number of
nodal voltage solutions needed to effect the network change were five
or less. If restoration of the original factorization were also necessary,
then the compensation method could be more efficient up to ten nodal
voltage solutions. If the admittance matrix were asymmetric, these
figures could be doubled. It should be noted that for typical power
network problems the time required for a complete refactorization is
only a fraction of the time required to modify a corresponding im-
pedance matrix for the change of a single branch.
When several branch changes are involved in one case, it is neces-
sary to compute and store one additional nodal voltage solution for
each branch involved. Since [L] and [U] are extremely sparse and
stored compactly, and the nodal voltage solution vectors are full, the
storage of these vectors can considerably increase the overall storage
requirement. Thus there may also be a trade-off between storage and
speed in deciding between the compensation method and refactorizing.
It is necessary to compute and store all of the nodal voltage vectors
because some elements of each vector are needed for evaluating [ZT].
In obtaining the final solution indicated by Eq. (17), these vectors could
be summed up one at a time, but since they are needed in the preceding
step to compute [ZT], it would be wasteful not to save them.
The sparsity of vectors of the form [I(km)J can be exploited to
some extent by omitting all of the forward solution operations in-
dicated in Eq. (3a) that correspond to the leading segment of zero
elements in the vector. Usually, it will be more efficient to compute all
of the nodal voltage solution vectors simultaneously, rather than suc-
cessively, as this saves repeating indexing operations.
Basic Algorithm for General Case
The basic algorithm for the general case of any number of branch
changes in any number of mutually coupled groups can now be out-
lined. A subscript or superscript of the form kmi is now used to indicate
the general node pair. The index i takes on all integer values from 1 to
b, where b is the total number of branches involved in the change,
either directly or through mutual coupling. Thus b vectors of the form
[V(kmi)] are needed. The matrices [YB1, [ZB], [ZT] are b x b and
the vectors [IB] and [VB(o)] have b elements. The steps of the
algorithm are as follows:
(1) Compute the nodal voltage solution [V(o)] corresponding to
the given vector [1(0)] using Eq. (3).
(2) Compute [AYB] for the network change conditions desired
using Eq. (5).
(3) Compute [ZB] using Eq. (18).
(4) Compute b equivalent voltage sources Vkmi(o), i = 1, 2, . . . b,
using Eq. (6). These are the elements of the b-vector VB(o).
(5) Compute b nodal voltage solution vectors [V(kmi)], i = 1,
2, . .. b, using Eq. (3). (For each of these b solutions the current vector
[Ikmil has + 1 as element k and - 1 as element m and zero's elsewhere.)
(6) Compute the elements of [ZTJ using elements of the vectors
[V(kmi)] as indicated in Eq. (13).
(7) Solve for the vector of branch currents [IBJ that produces
the effect of the desired network changes using Eq. (16).
(8) Using the elements Ikmi of [IB] substitute in Eq. (19) to
obtain the desired nodal voltage solution [V].

LV] = [V(°)] + Ikmi [V(i)j+ Ik 2
[Vtk20
(19)
+ ...I Lv(lkGb)j
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
(1) The compensation method can be applied in conjunction
with optimally ordered triangular factorization of the nodal admittance
matrix of a network to simulate the effect of network changes on the
voltage solution without changing the factorization.
(2) Any value of impedance including open and short circuits can
be simulated.
(3) Changes involving any number of passive network elements,
mutually coupled or uncoupled, can be handled by the same algorithm.
(4) The method is best suited for applications involving only a
few temporary network changes because refactorizing is comparatively
fast.
(5) The compensation method further enhances the superiority
of the factorization approach over impedance matrix methods.
REFERENCES
[11 W. F. Tinney and J. W. Walker, "Direct solution of sparse network
equations by optimally ordered triangular factorization," Proc.
IEEE, Vol. 55, pp. 1801-1809, Nov. 1967.
[2] T. E. DyLiacco and K. A. Ramarao, "Short-circuit calculations for
multi-link switching and end faults," IEEE Trans., Power Ap-
paratus and Systems, PAS-89, pp. 1226-1237, July/August, 1970.
[31 D. K. Reitan and K. C. Kruenpel, "Modification of the bus
impedance matrix for system changes involving mutual couplings,"
Proc. IEEE (letters), Vol. 57, pp. 1432-33, August 1969.
[4] J. 0. Starry and H. E. Brown, "An improved method of incorpo-
rating mutual couplings in single-phase short-circuit calculations,"
IEEE Trans., Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-89, pp. 71-
77, January, 1970.
[5] A. S. Householder, Principles of Numerical Analysis, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1953, pp. 79-83.
[6] H. H. Skilling, Electrical Engineering Circuits, John Wiley, New
York, 1965, pp. 373-374.
[7] IBID., pp. 367-370.
[8) H. W. Dommel, "Non-linear and time-varying elements in digital
simulation of electromagnetic transients," paper submitted to
PICA Conference, Boston, May 24-26, 1971.
[9] N. Sato and W. F. Tinney, "Techniques for exploiting the sparsity
of the network admittance matrix," IEEE Trans. Power Ap-
paratus and Systems, Vol. 82, pp. 944-950, December 1963.
[10] J. Carpentier, "Ordered eliminations," Proc. Power System Com-
putation Conf (London), 1963.
[11] H. Edelmann, "Ordered triangular factorization of matrices,"
Proc. Power System Computation Conf (Stockholm), 1966.
127
Discussion
Albert H. Schmidt, Jr. (Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colo. 80225):
The author should be congratulated for writing a paper that so clearly
explains the ease with which the network model can be compensated
to reflect a temporary change in the system when the YBUS factoriza-
tion approach is used for the network solution.
As one listens to proponents of impedance matrix miethods, it
appears that they generally feel the ZBUS approach should be used in
order to allow changes to be made easily. Also, some of them are
realizing that the YBUS approach preserves sparsity but think that the
[L] ] U] factorization destroys much of it. This paper explodes both
of these myths. While the main point of the paper is to explain how
easily changes can be handled, the author does point out that when
[Y] is symmetric, so is [L] [U], and only [L] need be saved for
repeat solutions.
The author also has shown how trivial it is to find any element of
ZBUS that is needed from YBUS without giving up sparsity, thus
getting the best of both approaches. This should be very useful for
fault studies.
We have been using the methods developed by the author and his
colleagues at the Bureau of Reclamation now for several years and are
pleased with the results. Would the author indicate his feelings
toward using this compensation method in a transient stability pro-
gram to implement the branch switching and reclosing that follows a
fault? Perhaps if there is automatic relaying of branches with the
possibility of multiple switching, it would still be faster to refactor the
new YBUS.
Manuscript received June 10, 1971.
W. F. Tinney: Mr. Schmidt's discussion focuses attention on the choice
between using the sparsity approach with a factored YBUS and the
explicit inverse approach with ZBUS. A comparison of actual opera-
tion counts for almost any power system application shows a large
advantage for the sparse matrix approach. A possible exception is the
fault problem where the current vector has only one non-zero term. In
this case there is a trade off decision. For small networks ZBUS is
better. For large networks, where the storage of ZBUS becomes dif-
ficult, the factored YBUS is better because it permits the solution of
random faults in a network at least ten times as large as with ZBUS.
Anyone undertaking the development of a new fault program should
consider using the sparse matrix approach and the compensation
scheme described in this paper.
The factored YBUS is used as a basis for the iterative network
solution in some transient stability programs. Although the compensa-
tion scheme described in this paper could be used to simulate the
switching events in transient stability, it is usually better to refactor
YBUS because the switched condition remains in effect for enough
repeat solutions to be considered as a permanent network change.
Many variations and extensions of the compensation method are
readily apparent. The main purpose of the paper was to draw attention
to the basic idea.
Manuscript received July 6, 1971.