UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

NAME: TEBOGO NGWAKO

STUDENT ID: 201803252
EEB 465: ANALYSIS OF POWER SYSTEMS
LAB 1: POWER FLOW STUDIES

1
Contents
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................................3
THEORY .......................................................................................................................................................................5
GAUSS-SEIDEL.......................................................................................................................................................5
NEWTON RAPHSON METHOD ............................................................................................................................8
FAST DECOUPLED POWER FLOW METHOD ................................................................................................. 10
OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................................................................................. 11
EQUIPMENT/APPARATUS ...................................................................................................................................... 11
PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................................... 12
DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................................................................. 17
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................... 17
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................ 18

2
ABSTRACT
The importance of load flow studies in power systems cannot be overstated. Power engineers utilize load
flow as a tool for planning, determining the best operating for a power system, and transferring power
across utilities. The goal of the experiment is to determine the difference between the Gauss-Seidel,
Newton-Rapson, and Fast Decoupled Power methods.
An analysis of a 26-bus power system will be presented, as well as comparisons of the three load flow
analysis methods. The respective methods were implemented with the help of a code in the MATLAB
software package. The outcomes were documented, and the approaches were weighed and contrasted.
The Newton Rapson approach was shown to be the most accurate when compared to other ways, followed
by the Fast Decoupled Power Flow method and finally the Gauss Seidel method. The Newton Rapson
method required less iterations for all bus systems, hence it was deemed the most efficient.

INTRODUCTION
The power-flow study, also known as a load-flow study, is a numerical examination of the flow of electric
power in an interconnected system in power engineering. A power-flow study focuses on many aspects of
AC power characteristics, such as voltages, voltage angles, real power, and reactive power, and typically
uses simplified notations such as a one-line diagram and per-unit system. It examines power systems in
their usual steady-state state of operation.
Power flow studies are very helpful when making future plans by considering and analyzing various
hypothetical situations related to electricity. For example, if the transmission line is to be removed from the
system for maintenance, is the remaining line capable of serving the load without exceeding its rated value,
a load flow study will answer this.
According to [1], Through load flow studies we can get information about the voltage level (V) and the
voltage phase angle (δ) on each bus under steady-state conditions. This is important because the magnitude
of the bus voltage must be maintained within a defined limit. After the bus angle and voltage level are
calculated using the power flow, the magnitude and deviation of the reactive (Q) and real (P) power through
each line can be calculated. Also based on the difference between the power flow at the sending and
receiving ends, the losses in each line can also be calculated. In addition, we can also find out more and
less load status. Power flow solutions are essential for continuous evaluation of power system performance
so that appropriate control measures can be taken if required.
The objective of load flow calculations is to determine the steady-state operating characteristics of the
power system for a given load and generator real power and voltage conditions. Once we have this
information, we can calculate easily real and reactive power flow in all branches together with power losses.
So therefore, we can conclude that the load flow studies are commonly used to investigate:
 Component or circuit loading
 Bus voltage profiles (magnitude, phase angle, etc.)
 Real and reactive power flow
 Power system losses
 Proper transformers tap settings
Conducting a load flow study using multiple scenarios helps to ensure that the power system is adequately
designed to satisfy desired performance criteria for the most economical expenditure of initial capital
investment and future operating costs.

3
The load flow study involves the following three general steps:
1. Modelling of power system components and network.
2. Development of load flow equations.
3. Solving the load flow equations using numerical techniques.
Methods in Load Flow Analysis
There are three methods for calculating the power systems data:

1. GAUSS-SEIDEL SYSTEM
2. NEWTON–RAPHSON METHOD
3. FAST DECOUPLED LOAD FLOW SYSTEM
Ways to Perform Load Flow Studies
There are two ways to perform load flow studies
1. Mathematical Analysis
2. Software Analysis

4
THEORY
GAUSS-SEIDEL
According to [2], Gauss-Seidel System is one of the most common types of analysis. The advantages of
this system are its simplicity in operation, limited computational power required, and less time to complete.
However, its slow rate of convergence results in many iterations. A greater number of buses increases these
iterations.
• Load bus- active and reactive powers are known, the voltage magnitude and the phase angle are
unknown
• Generator bus – also known as voltage controlled bus, the real power and voltage magnitude are
known and phase angle and reactive power are unknown.
• The power flow equation at a node /bus is as follows:

Ii  yi0Vi1  yi1(Vi V1)  yi2(Vi V2) .....yin(Vi Vn )

 (yi0  yi1  yi2 ...yin)Vi  yi1V1  yi2V2 .... yinVn
Ii Vi yij yijVj , j  i
n n

j0 j1

In a typical bus system the real and reactive power at bus Ii is

Pi  jQi Vi Ii*

Ii  Pi  *jQi
Vi
Substituting Ii in the last equation will give us:

Pi  jQi V n y  n y V , j  i
i  ij  ij j
Vi* j0 j1

From above equation, the mathematical formulation of power flow problem results in a system of nonlinear
equation which must be solved by iteration methods. The power flow study is necessary to solve a set of
nonlinear equations shown above for two unknown variables at each bus. In G-S method, the equation
above is solved for Vi and iterative sequence becomes:

Pschi  jQi sch  n y V (k)

V *(k)  ij j
V 
k1 i j1
, j i
y
i n
ij
j0

And Yij is the actual admittance in per unit.

The power is generally given in complex form:

Si  Pi  jQi Vi Ii*

5
The inductive power taken by the load is jQ. If the load is seen as source then +jQ becomes –jQ, negative
reactive power equation is.

Si  Pi  jQi Vi Ii*

Ii  Pi *jQ
Vi
Note that if the bus we are working is a load bus, +jQ becomes –jQ that
Therefore our previous formula changes to:

Si  Pi  jQi Vi Ii*,i 1,2,3....N

Ii  Pi  *jQi
Vi
General equation for Ibus is therefore:

i  jQi
Ii  * YiiVi YikVk , k  i
N
P
Vi k1

In Gauss-Seidel method, voltage can be found by:

Pi  jQi 
  *  YikVk 
N
Vi (i1) 1
Yii  Vi k1,ki 
Yii is self-admittance and is sum of all the admittance connected to bus i and Yik is admittance between bus
i and k in pu.
Pi and Qi are net real and reactive power express in pu

Si  Pi  jQi Vi Ii*,i 1,2,3....N

For load buses where where real and reactive power is flowing away from the bus Pi and Qi, they have
negative values. And to solve for P and Q we have the following:

  

Pi  Vi Vi Yii YikVk 
(i1)*(i)  *(i)
N
(i) 


 
k1
ki 

  
(i1) 
Qi  Vi Vi Yii YikVk 
*(i)  *(i)
N
(i) 


 
k1
ki 

For voltage controlled buses, where Pi and |Vi| are specified Qi (i+1) is solved and then Vi(i+1) is solved.
However since |vi| is specified, only the imaginary part of Vi(i+1) is retained and the real part is selected
such:

6
 e(i1)  Vi 2 ( fi(i1) )2
• Where ei and f i are real and imaginary component of Vi(i+1) in iterative sequence
• We can accelerate the rate of convergence by applying the acceleration factor  which is chosen
between 1.3 – 1.7
• Therefore the equation can be shown as follows:

Vi (i1) Vii (Vical Vii )

7
NEWTON RAPHSON METHOD
Newton–Raphson method is a more sophisticated method, using the quadratic convergence, and can be
used for more complex situations. This method takes fewer iterations to reach convergence, and therefore
also takes less computer time. It also is more accurate since it is less sensitive to complicating factors such
as slack bus selection or regulation transformers. One disadvantage is that programming can be complicated
and requires a large computer memory.
It is an iterative process in which a set of non-linear simultaneous equations is approximated into a set of
linear simultaneous equations using Taylor’s series expansion. In an N-bus bar power system there are n
equations for active power flow 𝑃𝑖 and n-equations for reactive power flow 𝑄𝑖 . The number of unknowns
are 2(n-1) because the voltage at the slack or swing bus is known and is kept constant both in magnitude
and phase.
According to [4,] it is an iterative procedure that uses Taylor's series expansion to approximate a collection
of non-linear simultaneous equations into a set of linear simultaneous equations.
There are n equations for active power flow P i and n-equations for reactive power flow Q i in an N-bus bar
power system.
Because the voltage at the slack or swing bus is known and kept constant in amplitude and phase, the
number of unknowns is 2(n-1). As in G-S, the current entering bus I;

Ii Vi yij yijVj , j  i

n n

j0 j1
Which can be re-written as:

Ii  YijVj
N

j1

The complex power at bus i is given by:

Pi  jQi Vi *Ii

If we replace Ii in the equation above then

Pi  jQi  Vi i Yij Vj ij  j

N

j1

Real and imaginary power equations are as follows:

Pi  Vi Vj Yij cos(

N
ij  j i )
j1

Qi  Vi Vj Yij sin(ij  j i )

N

j1

These again are set of non-linear equations in terms of independent variables voltage magnitude |V| and
phase angle in radians.

8
 We have two equations for each load bus from equations Pi and Qi and one equation for generator bus
that is for Qi
If we expand Pi and Qi in Taylor series about the initial estimate and neglecting higher order terms it
will results in a set of linear equations described in the Jacobian matrix.

 P2(k) P2(k) P2(k) ... P2(k) 

  .
n V2
.
Vn 
 P2   . 2
(k)
. .(k) . . .(k)  2 
(k)
 
 .   Pn ... Pn Pn ... Pn  . 
(k) (k)

Vn  n(k) 

 P3(k)   2 . .
n V2
 (k)    (k)  
Q2  Q2 ... Q2(k) Q2(k) ... Q2(k) V2 (k) 
Vn  . 
 .   2 . .
n V2
 (k)   .
Qn   (k) . . (k) .(k) . . (k) Vn (k) 
Q Qn Qn ... Qn  
 n ... .
n V2
.
Vn 
 2
• We assume bus 1 to be slack bus as we did with G-S method.
• The above matrix is called Jacobian and it gives linearised relationship between small changes
in voltage angle and voltage magnitude with small changes in real and reactive power.
• Elements of a Jacobian matrix are partial derivatives of the Pi and Qi equations obtained above.
The general Jacobian matrix is therefore:

P J1 J2  

Q  J J V 
   3 4 
For Gen buses, the voltage magnitude are known. If m-buses of the system are gen bus, m equations
involving dQ and dV and corresponding columns of Jacobian are eliminated.
The procedure to follow when solving N-R power flow:
1. For load bus, where P and Q are specified, initial voltage magnitude and phase angle are set to the
Vi 1  0
(0) (0)

slack bus values and angle i

2. For the generator bus where voltage magnitude and P are specified, the phase angle are set to equal
to slack bus angle = 0
3. For load bus, Pi and Qi are calculated from relevant formula (f and g equations)
4. For Gen bus Pi and Qi and calculated from same equations as above.
5. The elements of Jacobian matrix (J1, J2, J3 and J4) are calculated
6. The linear equations are solved
7. The new voltage magnitude and phase angle are also computed from equations above (t) and (u)

8. The process is continued until

Pi(k) and Qi(k) in equation (r) and (s) are less than specified
accuracy i.e.

9
FAST DECOUPLED POWER FLOW METHOD
Main advantage of this method is that it uses less computer memory. The speed of calculation is 5x faster
than the Newton–Raphson method, making it a popular choice for real-time management of power grids.
However, it can be less accurate since assumptions are used to obtain fast calculations. Since it is more
difficult to change this computer program to look for other problems such as power system security or flow,
its scope is limited.
The Fast-decoupled method is a derivative of Newton-Raphson technique which is designed in polar
coordinates with some approximations that results in a fast algorithm for load flow solution. Though this
method requires more iterations than the Newton- Raphson method, but still consumes significantly less
time per iteration and a solution to load flow problem is obtained quickly. According to [5], this method
finds numerous applications in contingency analysis where numerous outages are to be simulated or a load
flow solution is required for on-line control. In high voltage transmission systems, the voltage angles
between adjacent buses are relatively small. In addition, X/R ratio is high. These two properties result in a
strong coupling between real power and voltage angle and between reactive power and voltage magnitude.
In contrary, the coupling between real power and voltage magnitude, as well as reactive power and voltage
angle, is weak. Considering adjacent buses, real power flows from the bus with a higher voltage angle to
the bus with a lower voltage angle. Similarly, reactive power flows from the bus with a higher voltage
magnitude to the bus with a lower voltage magnitude.
Fast-decoupled power flow technique includes two steps:
 Decoupling real and reactive power calculations.
 Obtaining of the Jacobian matrix elements directly from the Y-bus.
As the size of matrix becomes very large for a big bus system so for faster and less memory allocation, we
prefer decoupled load flow where we take P independent of V and Q Independent of δ, and thus those
Jacobian elements are taken as zero.
Advantages
 The convergence is faster than other methods.
 The memory requirement is very less than the other methods like as Newton Raphson method,
Gauss-Seidel method, etc.
 This method is less complicated than other methods, therefore it is more easy method to calculate
the power flow.
 The number of iteration and size of equation used is less.
Disadvantages
 Take more iterations though time needs for each iteration is less than NR method
 The accuracy of the fast-decoupled load flow is mainly dependent on three factors:
 System size and structure;
 Convergence tolerances; and
 Level of system Loading
Particularly in large systems with heavy loading the relatively small error in the state variables may cause
larger errors in real and reactive power flow, but these errors are small in comparison with the line ratings.

10
OBJECTIVES
 Compute load flow analysis of power systems using newton-Raphson, gauss-seidel and fast
decouple method using matlab.
 To demonstrate the differences amongst the Gauss-Seidel, Newton Raphson, and Fast decoupled
method.
 Compare the accuracy and effectiveness of the mentioned analysis methods.

EQUIPMENT/APPARATUS
 Computer Equipped with MATLAB Package

PROCEDURE
Both the 3-bus system (fiqure1) and the 26-bus system (fig 1.0) had their power system parameters inserted
into pre-written matlab algorithms.The program was ran, and the voltage phasor values at load buses 2 and
3 were calculated to four decimal places. The real and reactive powers of the slack bus were also recorded.
The program was changed to assess load flow in each of the three load-flow approaches we mentioned
earlier. The number of iterations required to assess each approach was recorded, and the convergence
characteristics were noted. The system parameters for the 26-Bus system indicated below were entered into
the matlab program in the correct order. The program was executed, and the phasor values of all generator
and load buses' voltages were determined. The real and reactive powers of the slack bus were also recorded.
Results for all the methods (Newton-Raphson, Gauss-Siedel and fast decouple) from both the systems were
recorded and analyzed accordingly.

Figure 1.0

11
RESULTS
GENERAL CODE FOR POWER SYSTEM FLOW SOLUTION:
GAUSS SEIDEL:
clear all:
basemva = 100; accuracy = 0.001; accel = 1.8; maxiter = 100;

% 3 BUS SYSTEM BY BEREL

% Bus Bus Voltage Angle ---Load---- -------Generator----- Static Mvar
% No code Mag. Degree MW Mvar MW Mvar Qmin Qmax +Qc/-Ql
busdata=[1 1 1.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2 0 1.0 0.0 256.6 110.2 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
3 0 1.0 0.0 138.6 45.2 0.0 0.0 0 0 0];

% Line code
% Bus bus R X 1/2 B = 1 for lines
% nl nr p.u. p.u. p.u. > 1 or < 1 tr. tap at bus nl
linedata=[1 2 0.02 0.04 0.0 1
1 3 0.01 0.03 0.0 1
2 3 0.0125 0.025 0.0 1];

lfybus % form the bus admittance matrix

lfgauss % Load flow solution by Gauss-Seidel
busout % Prints the power flow solution on the screen
lineflow % Computes and displays the line flow and losses

OUTPUT:

12
NEWTON-RAPHSON OUTPUT:

FAST DECOUPLED POWER FLOW METHOD OUTPUT:

Power Flow Solution by Fast Decoupled Method

Maximum Power Mismatch = 0.000769519
No. of Iterations = 12

Bus Voltage Angle ------Load------ ---Generation--- Injected

No. Mag. Degree MW Mvar MW Mvar Mvar

1 1.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 409.505 189.042 0.000

2 0.982 -3.503 256.600 110.200 0.000 0.000 0.000
3 1.001 -2.862 138.600 45.200 0.000 0.000 0.000

Total 395.200 155.400 409.505 189.042 0.000

13
POWER FLOW SOLUTION BY GAUSS-SEIDEL METHOD FOR 26 BUS SYSTEM

Power Flow Solution by Gauss-Seidel Method

Maximum Power Mismatch = 8.70135e-05
No. of Iterations = 37

Bus Voltage Angle ------Load------ ---Generation--- Injected

No. Mag. Degree MW Mvar MW Mvar Mvar

1 1.025 0.000 51.000 41.000 719.536 224.003 4.000

2 1.020 -0.931 22.000 15.000 79.000 125.355 0.000
3 1.035 -4.213 64.000 50.000 20.000 62.976 0.000
4 1.050 -3.582 25.000 10.000 100.000 49.226 2.000
5 1.045 1.129 50.000 30.000 300.000 124.466 5.000
6 0.999 -2.573 76.000 29.000 0.000 0.000 2.000
7 0.994 -3.204 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
8 0.997 -3.299 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
9 1.009 -5.393 89.000 50.000 0.000 0.000 3.000
10 0.989 -5.561 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
11 0.997 -3.218 25.000 15.000 0.000 0.000 1.500
12 0.993 -4.692 89.000 48.000 0.000 0.000 2.000
13 1.014 -4.430 31.000 15.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
14 1.000 -5.040 24.000 12.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
15 0.991 -5.538 70.000 31.000 0.000 0.000 0.500
16 0.983 -5.882 55.000 27.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
17 0.987 -4.985 78.000 38.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
18 1.007 -1.866 153.000 67.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
19 1.004 -6.397 75.000 15.000 0.000 0.000 5.000
20 0.980 -6.025 48.000 27.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
21 0.977 -5.778 46.000 23.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
22 0.978 -6.437 45.000 22.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
23 0.976 -7.087 25.000 12.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
24 0.968 -7.347 54.000 27.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
25 0.974 -6.775 28.000 13.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
26 1.015 -1.803 40.000 20.000 60.000 32.706 0.000

Total 1263.000 637.000 1278.536 618.731 25.000

14
POWER FLOW SOLUTION BY NEWTON-RAPHSON METHOD FOR 26 BUS SYSTEM

Power Flow Solution by Newton-Raphson Method

Maximum Power Mismatch = 3.18289e-10
No. of Iterations = 6

Bus Voltage Angle ------Load------ ---Generation--- Injected

No. Mag. Degree MW Mvar MW Mvar Mvar

1 1.025 0.000 51.000 41.000 719.534 224.011 4.000

2 1.020 -0.931 22.000 15.000 79.000 125.354 0.000
3 1.035 -4.213 64.000 50.000 20.000 63.030 0.000
4 1.050 -3.582 25.000 10.000 100.000 49.223 2.000
5 1.045 1.129 50.000 30.000 300.000 124.466 5.000
6 0.999 -2.573 76.000 29.000 0.000 0.000 2.000
7 0.994 -3.204 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
8 0.997 -3.299 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
9 1.009 -5.393 89.000 50.000 0.000 0.000 3.000
10 0.989 -5.561 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
11 0.997 -3.218 25.000 15.000 0.000 0.000 1.500
12 0.993 -4.692 89.000 48.000 0.000 0.000 2.000
13 1.014 -4.430 31.000 15.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
14 1.000 -5.040 24.000 12.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
15 0.991 -5.538 70.000 31.000 0.000 0.000 0.500
16 0.983 -5.882 55.000 27.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
17 0.987 -4.985 78.000 38.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
18 1.007 -1.866 153.000 67.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
19 1.004 -6.397 75.000 15.000 0.000 0.000 5.000
20 0.980 -6.025 48.000 27.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
21 0.977 -5.778 46.000 23.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
22 0.978 -6.437 45.000 22.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
23 0.976 -7.087 25.000 12.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
24 0.968 -7.347 54.000 27.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
25 0.974 -6.775 28.000 13.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
26 1.015 -1.803 40.000 20.000 60.000 32.706 0.000

Total 1263.000 637.000 1278.534 618.791 25.000

15
POWER FLOW SOLUTION BY FAST DECOUPLED METHOD FOR 26 BUS SYSTEM
Power Flow Solution by Fast Decoupled Method
Maximum Power Mismatch = 0.000749008
No. of Iterations = 21

Bus Voltage Angle ------Load------ ---Generation--- Injected

No. Mag. Degree MW Mvar MW Mvar Mvar

1 1.025 0.000 51.000 41.000 743.259 237.835 4.000

2 1.020 -0.966 22.000 15.000 79.000 92.129 0.000
3 1.035 -4.291 64.000 50.000 20.000 56.003 0.000
4 1.055 -3.786 25.000 10.000 100.000 47.953 2.000
5 1.025 0.853 50.000 30.000 300.000 155.253 5.000
6 0.993 -2.743 76.000 29.000 0.000 0.000 2.000
7 1.002 -3.446 22.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
8 1.003 -3.502 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
9 1.015 -5.603 89.000 50.000 0.000 0.000 3.000
10 0.992 -5.767 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
11 0.994 -3.333 25.000 15.000 0.000 0.000 1.500
12 0.997 -4.888 89.000 48.000 0.000 0.000 2.000
13 1.014 -4.517 31.000 15.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
14 1.002 -5.151 24.000 12.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
15 0.993 -5.664 70.000 31.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
16 0.984 -6.020 55.000 27.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
17 0.986 -5.042 78.000 38.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
18 1.005 -1.926 153.000 67.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
19 1.002 -6.555 75.000 15.000 0.000 0.000 5.000
20 0.983 -6.219 48.000 27.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
21 0.975 -5.928 46.000 23.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
22 0.979 -6.653 45.000 22.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
23 0.978 -7.358 25.000 12.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
24 0.968 -7.525 54.000 27.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
25 0.974 -6.629 28.000 13.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
26 1.015 -1.909 40.000 20.000 60.000 36.159 0.000

Total 1285.800 637.000 1302.259 625.331 24.500

16
DISCUSSION
According to the results, the Newton-Raphson method requires fewer iterations than the other methods in
terms of number of iterations, accuracy, and power mismatch. For example, in the 26-bus system, the
Newton-Raphson method requires only 6 iterations, while the Fast-decoupled and Gauss-Seidel methods
require 21 and 37 iterations, respectively.
This is due to the Gauss Seidel method's slow rate of convergence, which necessitates a significantly higher
number of iterations to obtain a solution than the Newton-Raphson method, which has quadratic
convergence characteristics and is the best of all methods in terms of convergence, followed by the fast
decouple, which is simply a simplification of the Newton Raphson.
Furthermore, the number of iterations for the Gauss Seidel and rapid decoupling methods grows in lockstep
with the number of buses in the network, whereas the number of iterations for the Newton Raphson
technique remains nearly constant regardless of system size.
The accuracy of the Newton-Raphson method and the Fast-Decoupled Method differs just little; however,
the Gauss-Seidel method deviates significantly from the two, making it less accurate.
As seen by the comparison of the 3 bus and 26 bus systems, the Newton Raphson approach requires 3 to 5
iterations to obtain an appropriate solution for a large system. When comparing maximum power
mismatches, the Newton-Raphson approach outperforms the Gauss-Seidel and rapid decoupled methods in
terms of precision and accuracy.
As seen by the comparison of the 3 bus and 26 bus systems, the Newton Raphson approach requires 3 to 5
iterations to obtain an appropriate solution for a big system. When comparing maximum power mismatches,
the Newton-Raphson approach outperforms the Gauss-Seidel and rapid decoupled methods in terms of
precision and accuracy. The quick couple, on the other hand, suffers fewer losses than the other two
approaches, with the Gauss-Seidel method suffering the most.

CONCLUSION
It was discovered that the Newton Raphson approach had fewer iterations than the Gauss Seidel method,
and that the Fast-decoupled method was significantly faster than the Newton Raphson method, with more
iterations.
Matlab was used to run all the simulations, which were done for both the 3 bus and 26 bus systems. This
research concludes that, for the same values of |V|, angle, active and reactive power, the Gauss- Seidel
technique requires more iterations than the other standard load flow methods listed above. For a smaller
number of iterations, the Newton Raphson approach outperforms the GS method. With the fewest number
of iterations, the Fast Decoupled technique produces results that are nearly identical to those achieved by
Newton-Raphson method.

17
REFERENCES
[1] Grainger, J.; Stevenson, W. (1994). Power System Analysis. New York: McGraw–Hill.
ISBN 0-07-061293-5.
[2] Gauss, Carl Friedrich (1903), Werke (in German), vol. 9, Göttingen: Köninglichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
[3] Sauer, Timothy (2006). Numerical Analysis (2nd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. p. 109. ISBN
978-0-321-78367-7.
[4] Andersson, G: Lectures on Modelling and Analysis of Electric Power Systems Archived 2017-
02-15 at the Wayback Machine
[5] Behnam-Guilani, K. Fast decoupled load flow. United States: N. p., 1988. Web.
doi:10.1109/59.192929.
[6] J. Arockiya, Xavier Prabhu (2016). "Design of electrical system based on load flow analysis
using ETAP for IEC projects". Power Systems (ICPS): 1–6. doi:10.1109/ICPES.2016.7584103.
ISBN 978-1-5090-0128-6.
[7] Bober, W. (2013). Introduction to Numerical and Analytical Methods with MATLAB for
Engineers and Scientists. CRC Press. p. 517.

18