Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
CHAPTER 4
MAXIMUM LOADABILITY LIMIT
OF POWER SYSTEMS
4.1
INTRODUCTION
Power system stability is defined as the characteristics of a power
64
65
limit. This method is not suitable for large scale system (limited to 14 bus
system). Multi Agent Hybrid PSO (MAHPSO) has been developed and
applied to determine the maximum loadability limit by Shunmugalatha and
Mary Raja slochanal (2008). This MAHPSO has the advantages of both
HPSO and MAPSO. In this algorithm, the load is uniformly increased in all
the load buses until the voltage limits are violated.
Maximum loadability limit can be identified by using DE. DE
sometimes results in instability of performance. MDEPSO eliminates the
disadvantages of the DE. This chapter presents the application of DE,
MHPSO and MDEPSO algorithms to determine the maximum loadability
limit of power system. The results obtained using these algorithms are
compared with the results obtained by Continuation Power Flow (CPF).
4.2
Basic Principle
The continuation power flow analysis uses an iterative process
66
the exact solution (C) using a conventional power flow analysis with the
system load assumed to be fixed. The voltages for a further increase in load
are then predicted based on a new tangent predictor. If the new estimated load
(D) is now beyond the maximum load on the exact solution, a corrector step
with loads fixed would not converge; therefore, a corrector step with a fixed
voltage at the monitored bus is applied to find the exact solution(E). As the
voltage stability limit is reached, to determine the exact maximum load the
size of load increase has to be reduced gradually during the successive
predictor steps.
Figure 4.2
4.2.2
Mathematical Formulation
The basic equations are similar to those of a standard power flow
67
f ( ,| V |)
where
(4.1)
such that
0
where
critical
critical
represents the
critical load.
Equation (4.1) may be rearranged as
f ( ,| V |, ) 0
4.2.3
(4.2)
Predictor Step
In the predictor step, a linear approximation is used to estimate the
fV d | V | f d
(4.3)
68
unknown variable, one more equation is needed to solve the above equations.
This is satisfied by setting one of the components of the tangent vector to +1
or -1. This component is referred to as the continuation parameter.
Equation (4.3) now becomes
fV
d|V|
ek
(4.4)
where ek is a row vector with all elements equal to zero except for the Kth
element (corresponding to the continuation parameter) being equal to 1.
Initially, the load parameter
parameter and the corresponding component of the tangent vector is set to +1.
During the subsequent predictor steps, the continuation parameter is chosen to
be the state variable that has the greatest rate of change near the given
solution, and the sign of its slope determines the sign of the corresponding
component of the tangent vector. As the maximum load is approached, a
voltage will typically be the parameter with the largest change.
Once the tangent vector is found, the prediction for the next
solution is given by
|V|
| V0 |
0
d
d|V|
(4.5)
flow solution exists with the specified continuation parameter. If for a given
step size a solution cannot be found in the corrector step, the step size is
69
Corrector Step
In the corrector step, the original set of equations f( ,|V|, ) = 0 is
augmented by one equation that specifies the state variable selected as the
continuation parameter. Thus the new set of equations is
f ( ,| V |, )
lk
(4.6)
be solved using a slightly modified Newton Raphson power flow method. The
introduction of the additional equation makes the Jacobian non-singular at the
critical operating point.
4.3
Equality constraints
Power balance equation
(4.7)
70
n
Fpi
Pgi
Pdi | Vi |
| V j | | Yij | cos(
ij
(4.8)
(4.9)
j 1
where
Pdi
Pdo
n
Fqi
Q gi
Q di
| Vi |
| V j | | Yij | sin(
ij
j 1
2.
Pgi min
Pgi
Qgi min
Qgi
Pgi max
Qgi max
K1 * (1 / ) K 2 * (
Fpi2
Fqi2 )
(4.10)
4.4.1
MDEPSO Algorithm
The MDEPSO algorithm explained in chapter 2 is applied to
71
1.
ji,
i];
NP - Population size
n = number of buses.
2.
G
ji
3.
G
i
];
fitness1 f (x iG )
4.
DE operator:
i)
x i'G
D
ji
ii)
D
i
PSO operator
i)
Choose XG ([ |Vji|;
ii)
i])
ji;
as present particle.
x iG
[ | VjiG |;
if f (x iG ) < f (x 'G
i )
G
ji
G
i
];
72
x i'G
else pbest i
[ | VjiD |;
D
ji
D
i
];
x "G
i
x "G
i
v)
x Gi
veiG
[ | VjiPSO |;
PSO
ji
PSO
i
];
6.
then x iG
G
else if f (x iG ) f (x 'G
f (x "G
i )
i ) then x i
else x iG
x "G
i
[ | VjiPSO |;
PSO
ji
x iG
1
PSO
i
x i'G
[ | VjiG |;
[ | VjiD |;
G
ji
G
i
;
D
ji
];
D
i
];
];
7.
8.
4.4.2
MHPSO Algorithm
1.
73
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
4.5
7.
8.
CASE STUDY
To validate the proposed algorithms, they are applied to determine
74
Case1:
shared only
by slack bus
without
considering Qlimit)
CPF
MHPSO
Bus
No
Magnitude
Angle
pu
deg
pu
1.0500
0.0000
1.0500
DE
Magnitude
Angle
Magnitude
Angle
deg
pu
deg
pu
deg
1.0500
0.0000
1.0500
0.0000
1.0500
0.0000
-59.558
1.0500
-56.035
1.0500
-55.892
1.0500
-57.8973
1.0700
-71.063
1.0700
-67.339
1.0700
-67.190
1.0700
-69.3221
0.7921
-52.460
0.8079
-49.715
0.8085
-49.601
0.7991
-51.2281
0.7331
-65.403
0.7510
-62.057
0.7517
-61.925
0.7420
-63.8389
0.9029
-75.939
0.9067
-72.267
0.9068
-72.118
0.9047
-74.2610
(p.u)
1.9104
Magnitude Angle
MDEPSO
1.9183
1.9184
1.9312
75
Figure 4.3
Case 2:
buses also. Hence when the demand increases the generation is also equally
increasing, thus the increase in load is shared by all the generators. The above
said algorithms are applied. The reactive power limits at generator buses are
not considered here. Table 4.2 gives the bus voltages and the maximum
loadability limit obtained using each algorithm. Figure 4.4 shows the
convergence characteristics of each evolutionary algorithm. Table 4.8 gives
the statistical performances of maximum loadability limit for DE, MDEPSO
and MHPSO algorithms.
76
Table 4.2
Bus
no
MHPSO
DE
MDEPSO
deg
p.u
deg
p.u
deg
p.u
Deg
1.0500
0.0
1.0500
0.0
1.0500
0.0
1.0500
0.0
1.0500
-34.211
1.0500
-33.4664
1.0500
-33.489
1.0500
-33.449
1.0700
-39.539
1.0700
-38.674
1.0700
-38.674
1.0700
-71.063
0.7256
-44.077
0.7297
-57.158
0.7298
-57.158
0.7296
-52.460
0.6142
-58.155
0.6221
-57.158
0.6224
-57.158
0.6220
-65.403
0.8238
-56.149
0.8259
-55.278
0.8260
-55.278
0.8259
-75.928
(pu)
Figure 4.4
3.4492
3.4517
3.45191
3.45199
77
Case 3:
constraints. If the limits are violating, the difference between the calculated
value and boundary limit is added in the objective function. CPF, DE,
MDEPSO and MHPSO algorithms are applied to determine the maximum
loadability limit. The results are given in Table 4.3. Convergence
characteristics of evolutionary algorithms are given in Figure 4.5. Statistical
performances are given in Table 4.9.
Table 4.3
MHPSO
DE
MDEPSO
p.u
deg
p.u
deg
p.u
deg
p.u
deg
1.0500
0.0000
1.0500
0.0000
1.0500
0.0000
1.0500
0.0000
0.8006
-20.5634
0.7925
-20.6493
0.7980
-20.6379
0.7986
-20.6207
0.7653
-29.1921
0.7615
-29.3755
0.7621
-29.3526
0.7629
-29.3125
0.7421
-22.3109
0.7392
-22.4255
0.7396
-22.4141
0.7402
-22.3912
0.6606
-30.1203
0.6565
-30.3209
0.6571
-30.2980
0.6580
-30.2579
0.6448
-36.9443
0.6402
-37.2250
0.6409
-37.1906
0.6419
-37.1333
(p.u)
1.0121
1.01310
1.01317
1.01329
78
Figure 4.5
79
applied to determine the maximum loadability limit. Table 4.4 shows the
maximum loadabilty limit and the bus voltages obtained at the maximum
loading point. Figure 4.6 shows comparative convergence characteristics
obtained using Evolutionary algorithms. Table 4.10 gives the statistical
measures.
The total increase in demand obtained by MDEPSO algorithm is
3.6912 p.u and using CPF algorithm the value is only 3.4169 p.u. CPF
algorithm says that a maximum load of 341.69 MW can be added in the power
system. From MDEPSO, it is suggested that an additional load of 27.43 MW
can be rised in the power system without affecting the stability of the system.
Compared to CPF, the percentage rise of maximum loadability limit obtained
by MDEPSO is 8 and by MHPSO and DE are 0.3 and 1 respectively.
80
Table 4.4
Bus
No
MHPSO
DE
Magnitude
p.u
MDEPSO
Angle
Angle Magnitude
deg
deg
p.u
1
2
3
4
1.0600
1.0450
0.9419
0.9293
0.0000
-13.8197
-20.4184
-25.3533
1.0600
1.0450
0.9831
0.9710
0.0000
-9.2819
-13.7051
-16.8449
1.0600
1.0450
0.9874
0.9750
0.0000
-8.6756
-12.8233
-15.7180
1.0600
1.0450
0.9715
0.9590
0.0000
-10.8228
-16.0542
-19.7613
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.0100
0.9433
0.9589
1.0100
0.9584
0.9105
-28.5883
-29.7193
-30.0917
-32.1142
-43.0589
-49.6410
1.0100
0.9755
0.9794
1.0100
0.9852
0.9374
-20.7582
-19.7613
-20.9759
-21.2338
-27.0951
-31.1631
1.0100
0.9777
0.9810
1.0100
0.9874
0.9385
-19.7025
-18.4160
-19.7106
-19.7856
-25.2243
-29.3103
1.0100
0.9667
0.9743
1.0100
0.9703
0.9150
-23.3995
-23.1818
-24.1157
-24.8950
-32.4809
-37.6719
11
12
13
1.0820
0.9696
1.0710
-43.0577
-46.9195
-46.9189
1.0820
0.9926
1.0710
-26.3445
-29.5359
-28.9171
1.0820
0.9961
1.0710
-24.1911
-27.5352
-26.8731
1.0820
0.9784
1.0710
-31.6673
-35.1680
-34.5555
14
15
16
0.9173
0.8912
0.9245
-50.7096
-51.3141
-49.4004
0.9426
0.9229
0.9524
-31.7590
-31.9939
-30.5100
0.9510
0.9282
0.9529
-29.4133
-29.6156
-28.8145
0.9236
0.8994
0.9294
-37.5917
-37.9928
-37.0990
17
18
19
20
21
0.9059
0.8588
0.8538
0.8630
0.8093
-50.3286
-54.2820
-54.7042
-53.9227
-51.9185
0.9325
0.8879
0.8819
0.8907
0.9032
-31.3637
-33.6899
-33.9993
-33.5466
-32.2861
0.9339
0.8920
0.8854
0.8937
0.9025
-29.5720
-31.3963
-32.0607
-31.7542
-30.3651
0.9088
0.8536
0.8454
0.8560
0.8769
-38.1188
-40.0669
-40.5596
-40.1356
-39.2991
22
23
24
25
0.8034
0.8225
0.7653
0.6035
-54.6429
-52.6429
-56.5050
-63.8561
0.8999
0.8720
0.8417
0.7676
-32.3835
-33.4435
-34.0394
-36.3255
0.8984
0.8711
0.8272
0.7137
-30.4187
-30.6843
-31.5161
-33.1667
0.8729
0.8433
0.8089
0.7374
-39.4653
-40.1700
-41.7628
-45.0058
26
27
28
29
0.4937
0.5887
0.8971
0.6782
-73.3844
-61.6674
-31.8736
-41.5548
0.6959
0.7794
0.9489
0.6485
-38.6173
-35.8385
-21.2681
-41.1670
0.5436
0.7611
0.9501
0.6647
-34.4404
-32.6384
-19.6754
-36.6030
0.6360
0.7735
0.9397
0.6722
-49.2743
-43.3156
-25.1127
-49.9504
30
0.6023 -43.4150
0.14237
(pu)
0.6171 -44.0260
0.1429
0.6400
-38.0903
0.1437
0.6424 -52.5975
0.1538
81
Figure 4.6
Case 2:
is included in generator
buses also. Hence when the demand increases the generation is also equally
increasing, thus the increase in load is shared by all the generators. The above
said algorithms are applied. The reactive power limits at generator buses are
not considered here. Table 4.5 gives the bus voltages and the maximum
loadability limit obtained using each algorithm. Figure 4.7 shows the
convergence characteristics of each evolutionary algorithm discussed in this
thesis. The statistical measures are given in Table 4.11. The total increase in
demand obtained by CPF is 349.2 MW. The maximum increase in demand
obtained by MDEPSO is 387.6 MW. Compared to CPF, the percentage rise of
maximum loadability limit is 11. The maximum increase in demand obtained
82
by MHPSO is 3.36 MW. This gives 0.9% rise in demand than CPF. DE gives
0.8% higher maximum loadability than CPF.
Table 4.5
Bus
no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
(pu)
CPF
Voltage
Angle
pu
deg
1.0600
0.0000
1.0450 -13.3327
0.9417 -20.4775
0.9294 -25.3419
1.0100 -27.3988
0.9454 -29.6047
0.9591 -29.6104
1.0100 -31.6788
0.9591 -43.0062
0.9131 -50.4603
1.0820 -41.3331
0.9702 -47.3205
1.0710 -46.1975
0.9144 -51.6807
0.8896 -52.4256
0.9231 -50.2713
0.9064 -51.2739
0.8516 -55.9951
0.8462 -56.4821
0.8568 -55.5597
0.8748 -52.9470
0.8702 -53.2908
0.8307 -56.0811
0.7920 -57.7083
0.6927 -63.3290
0.585
-63.3290
0.7163 -71.8660
0.9097 -59.9199
0.5908 -71.9119
0.5559 -76.0544
0.1455
MHPSO
Voltage
Angle
pu
deg
1.0600
0.0000
1.0450
-8.8063
0.9684 -11.9404
0.9560 -14.5703
1.0100 -20.7525
0.9575 -18.0424
0.9690 -20.1165
1.0100 -20.6092
0.8886 -22.6776
0.7522 -22.5974
1.0820 -25.0783
0.9103 -20.2024
1.0710 -18.9076
0.8409 -20.8671
0.8071 -19.1711
0.7982 -19.7040
0.7398 -21.6635
0.7432 -18.8789
0.7169 -19.6696
0.7203 -20.1394
0.6919 -21.5088
0.6873 -21.1765
0.7021 -18.6726
0.6420 -20.1108
0.6345 -25.3877
0.5847 -26.8430
0.7061 -31.3350
0.9241 -19.7154
0.6200 -36.0619
0.5396 -43.9630
0.1469
DE
MDEPSO
Voltage
Angle
Voltage
Angle
pu
deg
pu
deg
1.0600
0.0000
1.0600
0.0000
1.0450
-8.4683 1.0450
-9.4480
0.9794 -11.4476 0.9565 -12.6852
0.9667 -13.9744 0.9372 -15.7105
1.0100 -20.6322 1.0100 -22.0817
0.9697 -16.9079 0.9428 -19.1768
0.9741 -19.5836 0.9590 -21.3312
1.0100 -19.0565 1.0100 -21.7437
0.9216 -19.5493 0.8246 -25.6627
0.8122 -20.5749 0.6288 -29.1349
1.0820 -20.0306 1.0820 -26.7399
0.9369 -20.8556 0.8310 -26.9633
1.0710 -20.5806 1.0710 -26.6368
0.8785 -20.7181 0.7189 -25.8403
0.8511 -19.9675 0.6500 -23.6345
0.8437 -20.1050 0.6998 -26.5862
0.8019 -20.2827 0.6245 -28.6532
0.7910 -18.2544 0.4551 -16.7532
0.7682 -18.2544 0.4004 -15.8480
0.7726 -18.3976 0.4203 -18.3461
0.7629 -20.0477 0.5598 -29.2724
0.7603 -19.9217 0.5550 -28.9802
0.7831 -19.5894 0.5488 -23.2907
0.7335 -20.1967 0.5026 -27.6337
0.7409 -23.5772 0.5532 -33.7017
0.6761 -22.0703 0.4308 -31.7017
0.7920 -26.9347 0.6732 -37.0646
0.9476 -18.2601 0.9155 -20.8728
0.7275 -31.5126 0.6244 -44.0833
0.6891 -35.5291 0.5604 -51.8297
0.1467
0.1615
83
Figure 4.7
Case 3:
constraints. If the limits are violating, the difference between the calculated
value and boundary limit is added in the objective function. CPF, DE
MDEPSO algorithms are applied to determine the maximum loadability
limits. The results are given in Table 4.6. Convergence characteristics of
evolutionary algorithms are given in Figure 4.8. Statistical measures are given
in Table 4.12. CPF shows that an additional load of 165 MW can be added in
the power system. Compared to CPF, the percentage rise in the maximum
loadability limit obtained by MHPSO is 1. By DE this value is increased to
33.57% and MDEPSO provides 41.39 % rise in maximum loadability limit.
84
Table 4.6
Bus
CPF
No. Magnitude Angle
(p.u)
(deg)
MHPSO
Magnitude Angle
(p.u)
(deg)
DE
Magnitude Angle
(p.u)
(deg)
MDEPSO
Magnitude Angle
(p.u)
(deg)
1
2
3
4
1.0600
0.9570
0.8634
0.8243
0.0000
-9.3162
-14.6505
-18.5409
1.0600
0.5008
0.5001
0.5907
0.0000
-63.7816
-51.1135
-53.8580
1.0600
0.5003
0.5001
0.5917
0.0000
-58.9027
-46.0342
-48.6406
1.0600
0.5006
0.5001
0.5794
0.0000
-62.6360
-49.4052
-52.1677
5
6
0.8560
0.8009
-24.0355
-22.3854
0.5956
0.6896
-66.6349
-55.4737
0.6469
0.6936
-62.3931
-50.4821
0.6421
0.6598
-66.2478
-53.7296
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0.8115
0.7972
0.7948
0.7660
0.8534
0.8037
0.8436
0.7643
-24.1100
-23.8350
-34.8186
-41.0925
-34.8186
-38.4741
-38.4741
-42.2728
0.6479
0.8311
0.6868
0.6780
0.6888
0.6717
0.6869
0.6799
-58.4932
-58.3213
-48.5295
-49.6697
-44.5245
-50.0879
-48.5409
-50.5119
0.6708
0.8198
0.6999
0.6903
0.7050
0.6738
0.6847
0.6879
-54.0198
-52.8703
-44.6281
-45.5289
-41.2043
-43.3157
-41.1099
-42.6410
0.6498
0.7419
0.6646
0.6615
0.6599
0.6726
0.6848
0.6855
-57.6491
-55.5153
-48.8877
-50.7507
-44.6124
-49.4436
-47.1902
-49.7930
15
16
0.7489
0.7702
-42.8400
-40.9722
0.6807
0.6776
-49.9905
-49.8072
0.6789
0.6879
-43.6261
-43.5243
0.6815
0.6664
-50.3918
-49.4874
17
18
0.7584
0.7216
-41.8660
-45.8480
0.6730
0.6926
-49.8301
-49.4749
0.6866
0.6691
-45.0589
-44.3568
0.6557
0.6755
-50.2313
-51.0361
19
20
0.7167
0.7252
-45.4699
-45.4642
0.6963
0.6962
-49.4749
-49.2285
0.6656
0.6723
-44.8859
-45.0462
0.6646
0.6644
-51.3871
-51.1647
21
22
0.7384
0.7371
-43.1437
-43.3385
0.6614
0.6642
-49.4061
-49.0795
0.6837
0.6866
-45.6621
-45.4671
0.6511
0.6545
-51.2229
-51.1820
23
24
25
26
27
0.7145
0.6949
0.6647
0.6037
0.6488
-45.4470
-46.3179
-48.2774
-53.0673
-45.3209
0.6752
0.6619
0.6751
0.6641
0.6836
-49.2514
-47.9164
-42.1525
-38.6517
-42.9202
0.6875
0.6874
0.7208
0.7367
0.7214
-43.6628
-44.1410
-40.7938
-39.8225
-41.1259
0.6896
0.9710
0.7143
0.7258
0.7129
-50.6866
-51.4473
-51.0617
-51.8280
-51.4972
28
29
30
0.7725
-24.7375
0.6204
-52.6204
0.5956
-55.6342
0.0691
(pu)
0.7200
-53.1361
0.6914
-40.6169
0.6692
-40.6513
0.0617
0.7287
-48.6550
0.7213
-38.8760
0.7054
-41.1787
0.0923
0.6895
-52.2452
0.7153
-52.0144
0.6927
-55.3949
0.0977
85
Figure 4.8
From the Tables 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6, it is evident that, the evolutionary
algorithms are superior to CPF. Among the evolutionary algorithms,
MDEPSO gives higher maximum loadabilty limit. Statistical performances
show that MDEPSO is consistent than DE and MHPSO. Compared to 6 bus
system, the standard deviation for 30 bus system is higher. Some of the trials
are not able to provide the optimum results.
Table 4.7
Algorithm
Standard
Best
Worst
Mean
MHPSO
1.9183
1.6534
1.8294
0.1320
DE
1.9184
1.5850
1.7834
0.1708
MDEPSO
1.9185
1.9184
1.9185
3.1623*10-5
Deviation
86
Table 4.8
Best
Worst
Mean
Standard
Deviation
MHPSO
3.4517
3.2140
3.3354
0.1083
DE
3.4519
3.2367
3.3853
0.1027
MDEPSO
3.4520
3.4234
3.4491
0.0090
Algorithm
Table 4.9
Algorithm
Best
Worst
Mean
Standard
Deviation
MHPSO
1.0131
1.0122
1.0126
4.6476*10-4
DE
1.0132
1.0129
1.0131
1.3943*10-4
MDEPSO
1.0133
1.0132
1.0133
2.8460*10-5
Table 4.10
Algorithm
Best
Worst
Mean
Standard
Deviation
MHPSO
0.1429
0.1401
0.1409
0.0012
DE
0.1437
0.1122
0.1237
0.0159
MDEPSO
0.1538
0.1235
0.1485
0.0093
87
Table 4.11
Algorithm
Best
Worst
Mean
Standard
Deviation
MHPSO
0.1469
0.1108
0.1342
0.0111
DE
0.1467
0.1134
0.1286
0.0128
MDEPSO
0.1615
0.1435
0.1543
0.0093
Table 4.12
Algorithm
4.6.
Best
Worst
Mean
Standard
Deviation
MHPSO
0.0617
0.0234
0.0500
0.0184
DE
0.0923
0.0548
0.0613
0.0114
MDEPSO
0.0977
0.0856
0.0929
0.0048
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, DE, MHPSO and MDEPSO algorithms have been