Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Power System Analysis: Newton-Raphson Power Flow
Power System Analysis: Newton-Raphson Power Flow
Lecture 13
Newton-Raphson Power Flow
Tom Overbye and Ross Baldick
1
Announcements
• Homework 10 is: 3.49, 3.55, 3.57, 6.2, 6.9, 6.13,
6.14, 6.18, 6.19, 6.20; due 11/17. (Use infinity
norm and epsilon = 0.01 for any problems
where norm or stopping criterion not
specified.)
• Homework 11 is 6.24, 6.26, 6.28, 6.30, 6.38,
6.42, 6.43, 6.46, 6.49, 6.50; due Tuesday 11/22.
Note that HW is due on Tuesday because
Thanksgiving is on Thursday.
• 2
Dishonest Newton-Raphson
Since most of the time in the Newton-Raphson iteration is
spent dealing with the Jacobian, one way to speed up the
iterations is to only calculate (and factorize) the Jacobian
occasionally:
– known as the “Dishonest” Newton-Raphson or Shamanskii method,
– an extreme example is to only calculate the Jacobian for the first
iteration, which is called the “completely dishonest Newton-
Raphson” or chord method.
(v) 1
x ( v 1) x (( x (v) 2
) - 2)
2 x (0)
4
Dishonest N-R Example, cont’d
( v 1) (v) 1 (v ) 2
x x (0) (( x ) - 2)
2x
Guess x (0) 1. Iteratively solving we get
x ( v ) (honest) x ( v ) (dishonest)
0 1 1 We pay a price
1 1.5 1.5 in increased
2 1.41667 1.375 iterations, but
with decreased
3 1.41422 1.429
computation
4 1.41422 1.408 per iteration
5
Two Bus Dishonest ROC
Region of convergence for different initial
guesses for the 2 bus case using the Dishonest N-R
Red region
converges
to the high
voltage
solution,
while the
yellow region
converges
to the low
voltage
solution
6
Honest N-R Region of Convergence
Maximum
of 15
iterations
7
Decoupled Power Flow
The “completely” Dishonest Newton-Raphson
(chord), where we only calculate the Jacobian
once, is not usually used for power flow
analysis. However several approximations of
the Jacobian matrix are used that result in a
similar approximation.
One common method is the decoupled power
flow. In this approach approximations are used
to decouple the real and reactive power
equations.
8
Coupled Newton-Raphson Update
Standard form of the Newton-Raphson update:
P ( v ) P ( v )
θ ( v )
θ V P ( x ( v ) ) (v)
f ( x )
Q ( v ) Q (v)
V
(v)
Q ( x (v)
)
θ V
P2 ( x ( v ) ) PD 2 PG 2
(v )
where P( x ) .
P (x( v ) ) P P
n Dn Gn
Note that changes in angle and voltage magnitude
both affect (couple to) real and reactive power. 9
Decoupling Approximation
P ( v ) Q ( v )
Usually the off-diagonal matrices, and
V θ
are small. Therefore we approximate them as zero:
P ( v )
0
θ θ (v)
P ( x ( v ) )
(v)
f ( x (v)
)
Q V ( v )
( v
Q( x ) )
0 V
Then the update can be decoupled into two separate updates:
( v ) 1 ( v ) 1
(v) P (v) (v) Q (v)
θ P ( x ), V Q ( x ).
θ V
10
Off-diagonal Jacobian Terms
So, angle and real power are coupled closely, and
voltage magnitude and reactive power are coupled closely.
Justification for Jacobian approximations:
1. Usually r x, therefore Gij Bij
2. Usually ij is small so sin ij 0
Therefore
Pi
Vi Gij cosij Bij sin ij 0
Vj
Qi
Vi V j Gij cos ij Bij sin ij 0
θ j 11
Decoupled N-R Region of
Convergence
12
Fast Decoupled Power Flow
By further approximating the Jacobian we obtain a
typically reasonable approximation that is
independent of the voltage magnitudes/angles.
This means the Jacobian need only be built and
factorized once.
This approach is known as the fast decoupled power
flow (FDPF)
FDPF uses the same mismatch equations as standard
power flow so it should have same solution if it
converges
The FDPF is widely used, particularly when we only
need an approximate solution.
13
FDPF Approximations
The FDPF makes the following approximations:
1. Gij 0
2. Vi 1 (for some occurrences),
3. sin ij 0 cos ij 1
Then: θ( v ) B 1diag{| V |( v ) }1 P( x ( v ) ),
B 1diag{| V |( v ) }1 Q( x ( v ) )
(v)
V
Where B is just the imaginary part of the Ybus G bus jB bus ,
except the slack bus row/column are omitted. That is,
B is B bus , but with the slack bus row and column deleted.
Sometimes approximate diag{| V |( v ) } by identity. 14
FDPF Three Bus Example
Use the FDPF to solve the following three bus system
Line Z = j0.07
One Two
200 MW
100 MVR
Line Z = j0.05 Line Z = j0.1
Three 1.000 pu
200 MW
100 MVR 34.3 14.3 20
Ybus j 14.3 24.3 10
20 10 30
15
FDPF Three Bus Example, cont’d
34.3 14.3 20
24.3 10
Ybus j 14.3 24.3 10 B
10 30
20 10 30
0.0477 0.0159
B 1
0.0159 0.0389
Iteratively solve, starting with an initial voltage guess
(0) (0)
2 0 V 2 1
V 1
3 0 3
(1)
2 0 0.0477 0.0159 2 0.1272
3 0
0.0159 0.0389 2
0.1091
16
FDPF Three Bus Example, cont’d
(1)
V 2 1 0.0477 0.0159 1 0.9364
V 1 0.0159 0.0389 1 0.9455
3
Pi ( x ) n P P
Vk (Gik cosik Bik sin ik ) Di Gi
Vi k 1 Vi
(2)
2 0.1272 0.0477 0.0159 0.151 0.1361
3 0.1091 0.0159 0.0389 0.107 0.1156
(2)
V 2 0.924
V
3 0.936
0.1384 0.9224
Actual solution: θ V
0.1171 0.9338
17
FDPF Region of Convergence
18
“DC” Power Flow
The “DC” power flow makes the most severe approximations:
– completely ignore reactive power, assume all the voltages are always
1.0 per unit, ignore line conductance
This makes the power flow a linear set of equations, which can
be solved directly:
θ B 1 P
19
DC Power Flow Example
20
DC Power Flow 5 Bus Example
MVA MVA
360 MW A
520 MW
0 Mvar
MVA
0 Mvar
slack
1.000 pu 1.000 pu A A
1.000 pu 80 MW
0.000 Deg -4.125 Deg MVA MVA
-1.997 Deg 0 Mvar
1.000 pu
0.524 Deg
1.000 pu Two
-18.695 Deg
800 MW
0 Mvar
Notice with the dc power flow all of the voltage magnitudes are
1 per unit.
21
Power System Control
A major problem with power system operation is
the limited capacity of the transmission system
– lines/transformers have limits (usually thermal)
– no direct way of controlling flow down a transmission line
(e.g., there are no low cost valves to close to limit flow,
except “on” and “off”)
– open transmission system access associated with industry
restructuring is stressing the system in new ways
We need to indirectly control transmission line flow
by changing the generator outputs.
22
Indirect Transmission Line Control
What we would like to determine is how a change in
generation at bus k affects the power flow on a line
from bus i to bus j.
The assumption is
that the change in
generation at bus k
is matched by an
opposite change at
the slack bus.
23
Power Flow Simulation - Before
•One way to determine the impact of a generator change
is to compare a before/after power flow.
•For example below is a three bus case with an overload.
131.9 MW
124%
One Two
0 MW
64 MVR 24
Power Flow Simulation - After
•Increasing the generation at bus 3 by 95 MW
(and hence decreasing generation at the slack
bus 1 by a corresponding amount), results in a
31.3 MW drop in the MW flow on the line from
bus 1 to 2. 101.6 MW
100%
One Two