00 upvote00 downvote

1 visualizações15 páginasancillary services

Jan 26, 2017

15325000701250231

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd

ancillary services

© All Rights Reserved

1 visualizações

00 upvote00 downvote

15325000701250231

ancillary services

© All Rights Reserved

Você está na página 1de 15

Publisher: Taylor & Francis

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,

37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uemp20

Power Flow Tracing Methods

H. Wu

a

a b

Department of Electrical Engineering , The Hong Kong Polytechnic University , Hong Kong

Published online: 19 Jun 2007.

To cite this article: H. Wu , C. W. Yu , N. Xu , X. J. Lin & W. H. Chen (2007) Analysis of Reactive Power Support

of Generators Using Power Flow Tracing Methods, Electric Power Components and Systems, 35:9, 1079-1092, DOI:

10.1080/15325000701250231

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15325000701250231

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained

in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no

representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the

Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and

are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and

should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for

any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of

the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic

reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any

form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://

www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1532-5008 print/1532-5016 online

DOI: 10.1080/15325000701250231

Using Power Flow Tracing Methods

Downloaded by [National Institute of Technology - Kurukshetra] at 08:06 11 January 2014

H. WU

Department of Electrical Engineering

Zhejiang University

Hangzhou, China and

Department of Electrical Engineering

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Hong Kong

C. W. YU

N. XU

X. J. LIN

W. H. CHEN

Department of Electrical Engineering

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Hong Kong

Abstract With the emergence of competitive electricity power markets, reactive

power ancillary services and reactive power markets have attracted attention from

researchers and system operators all over the world. Reactive power is an important

system support service for secure and reliable operation of power systems. Improper

management of reactive power can also hinder the operational efficiency of other

power markets. It has been recognized that the reactive power of a generator has

several roles, namely, supplying reactive demand, maintaining system security and

supporting its real power transmission. It is rational that the minimal reactive power

used to support its real power transmission should not receive financial compensation

in power markets. Hence, this component of reactive power can be regarded as the

minimal reactive power support of a generator. A reactive power optimization model

along with a power flow tracing based method is proposed in this article to tackle

this problem. The validity and rationality of the approach are verified using a simple

meshed 5-bus system.

Keywords reactive power ancillary service, reactive power support, transmission

open access

1. Introduction

Reactive power has profound effects on real energy transfers and on the security of

power systems, as it affects the voltage profile throughout the system. Reactive power

Received 22 August 2006; accepted 2 January 2007.

Address correspondence to Dr. H. Wu, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University,

Hangzhou, 310027, China. E-mail: vuhao@zjuem.zju.edu.cn

1079

1080

H. Wu et al.

electricity markets. The aims of this service are to maintain open access transmission,

support system security, supply reactive demand, and control system voltage [1]. A system

operator procures reactive power support service and pays the reactive power supplier

a certain monetary amount based on the marginal reactive power price or the allocated

reactive power cost, or using some other rules [28]. In market practice nowadays, the

amount of a generators reactive power that can be traded is usually considered as the

generators actual reactive power output, or the reactive power output beyond certain

mandatory operational ranges [9].

After further speculating on the roles of reactive power support from generators, [10]

and [11] proposed that the reactive power support of a generator has two components: the

component that helps to ship real power and the component that improves the reliability

of the system. It was suggested that only the second part of the reactive power output

should be compensated. Reference [12] demonstrated the concept of minimizing reactive

power support by two simple test systems, but encountered difficulties when applying

the method to complex systems. By using the concept and method from static voltage

stability theory, [13] proposed a method suitable for application to large-scale power

systems. The least reactive power support needed from a generator was evaluated as

the least amount of reactive power needed from this generator to maintain the same

degree of system security or margin. The reactive demands of loads are included in the

studies in [1113]. Similar treatment is also found in [14] where all components of the

reactive power flowing in a transmission branch are treated as a unity and is allocated to

generators according to certain rules.

This article proposes a methodology to assess a generators minimal reactive power

component that is used to ship its real power. This component of reactive power is

regarded as the minimal reactive power support of the generator and should not be paid

in a reactive power market. An optimum power flow (OPF) based optimization model

along with a power flow tracing based method is proposed to tackle the problem for

meshed power systems. Considering that supplying reactive demand of the loads is a

service but not a responsibility of generators in a power market, the reactive demand

of the loads are taken to be zero in the assessment. The article is organized as follows:

The methodology is given in Section 2. Some related aspects of the method are also

discussed. In Section 3 the validity and rationality of the approach are verified using a

simple meshed 5-bus system. Finally, Section 4 concludes the paper.

The proposed procedure to assess the minimal reactive power support of generators has

two main steps. In the first step, an optimization problem with the objective of minimizing

the total reactive power support of generators is solved. In the second step, the reactive

power support of generators is re-allocated according to their real power outputs using

certain criteria. The procedures are described in details below.

The optimization problem minimizes the total reactive power generation of generators

subject to the equality constraints of the power flow equations and the inequality constraints of basic system operation, such as voltage magnitude limits. This model can be

1081

min

jQg i j

(1)

i 2SG

s.t.:

Pg i

Pli

Vi

i 2 SB

(2)

i 2 SB

(3)

Qg i < Qg i < Q g i

i 2 SG

(4)

V i < Vi < V i

i 2 SB

(5)

Qg i

Qli

Vi

Vj .Gij sin ij

Bij cos ij / D 0

where Pg i and Qg i are the real power output and reactive power output of the generator

at bus i , respectively; Pli and Qli are the real power demand and reactive power demand

of the load at bus i , respectively; Vi is the voltage magnitude of bus i ; V i and V i are the

lower and upper voltage magnitude limits of bus i , respectively; ij is the difference in

the voltage angles between bus i and bus j ; Gij C jBij is the admittance between bus i

and bus j ; SB is the set of all buses; and SG is the set of all generators. Equations (2)

and (3) are power flow equations. Inequality (4) represents the generators reactive output

limits. Inequality (5) represents voltage magnitude limits. All real power outputs of the

generators are fixed except for one generator, which serves as the slack generator to make

good any losses in transmission. As a result, the real power flow pattern is obtained, and

the reactive power of a generator that is used to support its real power transmission can

be studied. The control or optimized variables are the reactive outputs of the generators.

Solving this model, the total minimal reactive power support of the generators can be

assessed. The following are some explanations of the model.

Objective Function. The objective function of the model is the summation of the absolute value of all reactive power produced or absorbed. Notice that there are no cost

related items, such as operating cost and lost opportunity cost, because the problem under study is the minimal reactive power support of generators which are not cost related.

There may be some cross-subsidies among generators. If some generators provide more

reactive power support, the others may provide less. However, under the equity principle,

each generator, no matter its capacity is large or small, should have the same priority to

provide less reactive power support in a power market. The simple summation of absolute

value of reactive power supports in (1) is an attempt to model this. It is easy to see that

when the reactive output limits are not violated, the Lagrange multipliers corresponding

to the reactive power flow equations are all 1.0 or 1.0 at the optimal solution, depending

if the generators are producing or absorbing reactive power. This characteristic can be

regarded as an indicator of equity.

Reactive Demand of the Load. The minimal reactive power support of a generator

should not include the reactive demand of the load because, in power markets, the loads

should pay for their reactive power demands and it is not mandatory for generators

to supply reactive loads. Therefore, Qli in Eq. (3) is set to zero when calculating the

minimal reactive support of generators.

1082

H. Wu et al.

Voltage and Line Current Limit. The voltage magnitude limits are regarded as compulsory constraints. Line current limits were not considered because the system operator

took the limits into account when dispatching the real power energy transactions.

Shunt Compensation. Shunt compensators are modeled implicitly in Eq. (3). They are

not modeled explicitly because it is assumed that, before analyzing the minimal reactive

power support of generators, the shunt compensators that are scheduled to operate have

been determined. One reason behind this assumption is that compensators and generators

may belong to different entities and, hence, it cannot be expected that compensators will

cooperate with generators to reduce the minimal reactive supports of the latter without

any economic incentives. Line charging reactive power can also be regarded as shunt

compensation and hence it is modeled similarly in Eq. (3).

On Load Tap Changer (OLTC) Transformer. OLTCs are assumed to be fixed in the

model. The reason is similar to that for shunt compensators, i.e., OLTCs may not cooperate with generators to reduce the minimal reactive support to the latter without any

economic incentives because OLTCs and generators may belong to different entities.

2.2. Solution Method

Models (1)(5) can be regarded as a nonlinear programming (NLP) problem with the

following general form:

min f .x/

(6)

s.t.: h.x/ D 0

(7)

(8)

(PCPDIPM) is used in this study to solve the above nonlinear programming problem.

Descriptions of the PCPDIPM for nonlinear programming problems can be obtained in

[15, 16].

2.3. Tracing Power Flow and Allocating Reactive Losses

Economic transactions are common in power markets. The generators and loads negotiate

the amount of electric power to be generated or taken and thus form bilateral or multilateral transactions. However, power flow in an electric power system is governed by

Kirchhoffs laws. The power flow due an economic transaction would distribute over

different routes that lead through the transmission network. Besides, the generation and

consumption of reactive power is balanced locally in power systems. It is not practical to

ship a large amount of reactive power in a power system over a long distance. Therefore,

the reactive power output of a generator may contain components that are used to support

real power transmission of other generators. To dictate the physical power flow of a power

system and to clearly determine the actual reactive power support needed for a particular

generator, power flow tracing methodologies need to be adopted here.

The power flow tracing methods proposed in [1719] are efficient means of finding

where the power comes from or flows to, who contributes the power, and what share each

contributor accounts for. This information is useful for power market problems because

1083

it separately identifies the contribution or consumption of the real or reactive power for

a particular generator or load.

As explained in Section 2.1, all reactive loads are set to zero. Therefore, the reactive

outputs of generators are used to support the transmission of real power and will be

dissipated in the network. Hence, the reactive power support of generators can be regarded

as supplying reactive losses to a power system. However in a power system, in addition

to generators, line charging capacitances and shunt capacitors can also supply reactive

losses. The reactive power tracing method proposed by Bialek [18] is used in this article

to identify the amount of the reactive loss of each transmission branch supplied by

generators. After that, a new problem of allocating reactive losses to generators is formed.

A simple and direct method of solving this problem is to allocate the branch reactive

loss to different generators according to the shares of the branch real power that the

generators account for. Again, the real power tracing method described in [18] is used to

identify the composition of the real power of each transmission branch and to determine

the real power contribution of each generator to each branch. It is assumed here that

reactive power losses are all incurred by the transmission of real power.

Just as there is no a unique method for allocating real power losses [2023], there are

also alternative methods for allocating reactive power losses. Two methods are proposed

here, namely, the proportional allocation method and the quadratic allocation method.

Their formulae are given in (9) and (10) below. Upon solving models (1)(5) and carrying

out the reactive power flow tracing procedure, the reactive loss of a branch b that are

g

supplied by all generators Qloss;b can be obtained. Assume that there are n components

of real power Pi (i D 1; : : : ; n) coming separately from n generators and denote the

gk

reactive loss allocated to generator k by Qloss;b .

Proportional Allocation. This is the most intuitive and straightforward approach that

results from the proportionality linear assumption.

gk

Qloss;b D Qloss;b

Pk

n

X

(9)

Pi

i D1

Note that the summation in the denominator is actually the real power flow of

branch b.

Quadratic Allocation. Since power losses increase quadratically with power flows, it is

also reasonable to use formula (10). A similar concept can be found in [20].

!

n

2

X

P

Pk2 C

2Pk Pi 2 k 2

Pk C Pi

i D1

gk

g

Qloss;b

D Qloss;b

(10)

!

2

n

X

Pi

i D1

This formula splits the cross term 2Pk Pi between generator i and generator k

into two different items that are proportional to the squares of these two real power

components.

Obviously, if the cross term is split equally, the result will be the same as that using

the proportional allocation method. After allocating the reactive losses of all branches,

1084

H. Wu et al.

the reactive power support of a particular generator is the sum of the reactive power

allocated to it.

2.4. Procedure to Assess the Minimal Reactive Power Support of Generators

As a summary, the following procedure to assess the minimal reactive power support of

a generator is given.

1. Solve models (1)(5) to get the state of the system at the optimal point. The

resulting reactive output of all generators is the total minimal reactive power

support of the generators.

2. Perform a reactive power flow tracing algorithm and determine the reactive loss

of each branch that comes from the generators.

3. Perform a real power flow tracing algorithm and determine the real power flow

composition of each branch.

4. Using Eqs. (9) or (10), allocate the reactive loss of each branch to generators

according to the real power flow composition of that branch.

5. Add up the allocated reactive losses of each generator accordingly. The sum is

the allocated minimal reactive power support of the generator.

3. Case Studies

3.1. A Simple 5-bus System

For illustrative purposes, a simple 5-bus system with two generators, three loads, and six

transmission lines is used. The topology, load demands, and real power generations of the

system are all shown in Figure 1. Table 1 gives the network parameters. All parameters

and values are in per unit.

Table 2 lists the results of three case studies. The differences among these cases lie

only in the values of the upper voltage magnitude limit. The upper voltage magnitude

limits of all buses in cases A, B, and C are set at 1.05 p.u., 1.07 p.u., and 1.10 p.u.

respectively, while the lower voltage magnitude limits are set at 0.95 p.u. in all three

cases.

The results show that the voltage magnitude at bus 1 is bound to the upper limit in all

three cases, and that the system real power losses Ploss and the reactive power output of

1085

Table 1

Network parameters for the 5-bus system

Line

no.

From

To

Resistance

(p.u.)

Reactance

(p.u.)

Line

charging

susceptance

(p.u.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

1

2

2

3

4

2

3

4

5

4

5

0.02

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.01

0.08

0.06

0.24

0.18

0.12

0.03

0.24

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.05

s1

generator 4 Qg4 decrease when the system upper voltage magnitude limit is relaxed. Qg1

,

s1

s2

s2

Qg4 , Qg1 , and Qg4 are the minimal reactive power support allocated to generators 1

and 4 using the proportional allocation method and the quadratic allocation method,

respectively. It can be seen that they are nearly the same in all case studies, respectively.

The error is within 5%. Therefore, the difference between the two allocation methods is

s1

s1

s2

s2

small. Also the sum of Qg1

and Qg4

, or Qg1

and Qg4

equals the sum of Qg1 and Qg4 .

As Qg1 is zero here, the sum therefore equals to Qg4 . Obviously, the allocated minimal

reactive power support decreases notably as the system upper voltage magnitude limits

increase, especially the amount of generator 1.

Table 3 gives the real power flow tracing results of the three case studies. Pg1 and Pg4

stand for the real power contributions that come from generators 1 and 4, respectively. It

can be seen that the real power flows are quite steady in all three cases. The differences

among them are less than 1%. However, as indicated in Table 2, the differences in the

reactive power flow are significant.

3.2.

In order to gain further insights into the characteristics of the proposed method and

the transportation of real power, the variations in the minimal reactive power support

Table 2

The results of three case studies

Variables

Case A

Case B

Case C

Variables

Case A

Case B

Case C

V1

V2

V3

V4

V5

Ploss

1.0500

1.0168

1.0296

1.0384

0.9826

0.1300

1.0700

1.0374

1.0488

1.0572

1.0039

0.1245

1.1000

1.0684

1.0777

1.0856

1.0357

0.1170

Qg1

Qg4

s1

Qg1

s1

Qg4

s2

Qg1

s2

Qg4

0.0000

0.1270

0.0689

0.0581

0.0715

0.0555

0.0000

0.1002

0.0511

0.0491

0.0532

0.0470

0.0000

0.0617

0.0271

0.0346

0.0285

0.0333

1086

H. Wu et al.

Table 3

The real power flow tracing results of three case studies

Case A

Case B

Case C

Load

no.

Demand

Pload

Pg1

Pg4

Pg1

Pg4

Pg1

Pg4

2

3

5

1.0

1.2

1.4

0.8997

0.3869

0.7538

0.1003

0.8131

0.6462

0.8994

0.3856

0.7537

0.1006

0.8144

0.6463

0.8990

0.3839

0.7535

0.1010

0.8161

0.6465

of generators under different conditions with varying bilateral transaction amounts are

studied in this section.

Assume that generator 4 and load 5 form a bilateral transaction. The system upper

and lower voltage magnitude limits are set at 1.1 p.u. and 0.9 p.u., respectively. With

the reactive demands of all the loads taken as zero, Figure 2(a) shows the changes

in the reactive power outputs and the minimal reactive power support allocated to

the generators when the amount of the bilateral transaction is varied. Qg1 is the actual reactive power output of generator 1; Qg1 -A1 is the minimal reactive power support allocated to generator 1 using the proportional allocation method; and Qg1 -A2

is the minimal reactive power support allocated to generator 1 using the quadratic allocation method. Similar notations apply to Qg4 , Qg4 -A1, and Qg4 -A2. Figure 2(b)

shows the variations in the system voltage profile against the real power taken from

bus 5.

Figure 2(a) shows that both the reactive output and the minimal reactive power

support of generators are zero when the real power taken from bus 5 is less than 1.2 p.u.,

and that the nodes voltages are not bounded to the system voltage magnitude limits.

When the real power taken from bus 5 is in the range of 1.2 to 1.8 per unit, generator 1

still does not produce any reactive power. However, the terminal bus of generator 1 hits

the system upper voltage limit. It is important to note that part of the reactive power

produced by generator 4 is used to support the real power transmission of generator 1.

When the real power taken from bus 5 is higher than 1.8 p.u., generator 1 begins to

produce reactive power and bus 4 also hits the upper voltage limit. The voltage of bus 5

drops gradually as the loading at bus 5 increases. When the power taken from bus 5

is 3.4 p.u., the voltage approaches the system low voltage limit (0.9 p.u). Beyond that

point, models (1)(5) cannot be solved.

The difference between the allocation results of the proportional method and quadratic

allocation method is small when the power taken from bus 5 is less than 2.0 p.u., but

becomes obvious when it is greater than 2.5 p.u.

Figure 3(a) shows the changes in the real power compositions of the loads when the

amount of the bilateral transaction is varied. PL2-G1 is the share of the real power of

load 2 that is supplied by generator 1, and similar explanations apply to other notations.

Obviously, as the real power of the bilateral transaction is increased, both generators

contribute more real power to load 5. At the same time, loads 2 and 3 receive more real

power from generator 4 and less real power from generator 1. Comparing with loads 2

and 3, load 5 is remote from generator 1. This explains the reason why the minimal

reactive power support of generator 1 increases although generator 1 is not involved in

the economic bilateral transaction.

1087

Figure 2. Relationship between the real power of the bilateral transaction and the (a) reactive

power support of generators and (b) system voltage magnitudes.

Figure 3(b) shows the relationship between the real power of the bilateral transaction

and the total reactive power that need to support the real power transmission of the generators. In addition to the reactive power from generators, the reactive power from line

charging capacitances is also allocated to generators 1 and 4, using a method similar to

step 4 of the procedure described in Section 2.4. Here, reactive charging power instead of

0

reactive loss of each branch is allocated to the generators. Qg1

-A1 is the total allocated

reactive power that is used to support the real power transmission of generator 1 using

0

0

the proportional allocation method. Similar explanations hold for Qg1

-A2, Qg4

-A1, and

1088

H. Wu et al.

Figure 3. Relationship between the real power of the bilateral transaction and the (a) real power

compositions of the loads and (b) total reactive power support of the generators.

0

Qg4

-A2. It can be observed that although generator 1 produces no reactive power when

the real power taken from bus 5 is less than 1.8 p.u., it gets significant reactive power

support from line charging capacitances. The reactive power support of generator 4 from

line charging capacitances is not as large as that to generator 1. As the real power of the

transaction becomes larger and larger, the total reactive support of generator 4 increases

rapidly and finally exceeds that for generator 1. Taking into account Figure 2(a), it can

be seen that generator 1 gets a significant amount of reactive power supports from both

1089

Figure 4. Relationship between the real power of the bilateral transaction and the (a) reactive

power support of generators and (b) the system voltage magnitudes.

generator 4 and line charging capacitances and, hence, can produce less reactive power.

Generator 4 not only gets much less reactive power support from line charging capacitances compared with generator 1 but also needs to support the real power transmission

of generator 1. Therefore, it needs to produce more reactive power.

Figures 4 and 5 show the results when generator 1 and load 5 form a bilateral

transaction. The system upper and lower voltage magnitude limits are 1.10 and 0.9,

1090

H. Wu et al.

Figure 5. Relationship between the real power of the bilateral transaction and the (a) real power

compositions of the loads and (b) total reactive power support of the generators.

respectively. These results are essentially similar to the results presented in Figures 2

and 3. Compared with Figure 2, it is interesting to note that generator 1 produces less

reactive power itself while gets more reactive power support from generator 4.

The above studies show that the proposed methodology can produce reasonable and

convincing results. Because of the local characteristic of reactive power, it is possible that

one generator is more efficient to producing reactive power than other generators from

the system viewpoint. Therefore, some methods of allocation must be applied to identify

1091

the contributions and responsibilities of each generator. Only on the basis of an equitable

criterion can a reactive power market possibly be set up. It is also found that power flow

due an economic transaction, following Kirchhoffs law, would distribute over different

routes that lead through the transmission network. As a result, assigning the minimal

reactive power support of a generator solely according to the real power output specified

by an economic contract may lead to misleading conclusions. Moreover, the method of

allocating reactive losses is not unique. Different methods of allocating reactive losses

may lead to slightly different amounts of reactive support of generators.

4. Conclusions

Reactive power from generators is critical to voltage security. A reactive power optimization model along with a power flow tracing based approach to assess the minimal

reactive power support of a generator that is used to support the generators real power

transmission has been established in this paper. Considering that supplying the reactive

demand of the load is a service and not a responsibility of the generators in a power

market, the reactive demands of the loads are taken to be zero in the evaluation. An optimization problem with the objective of minimizing the total reactive power support of

generators is firstly solved. Because the reactive demands are taken as zero, a correlation

exists between the reactive power support of generators and the reactive losses in the

network. Upon obtaining the solution for the minimal total reactive power support of the

generators, a reactive power flow tracing method is then used to identify the amount of

the reactive loss of each transmission branch that is supplied by the generators. After

that, a real power flow tracing method is used to allocate the reactive loss of the each

transmission branch to different generators according to two proposed criteria. Finally,

the minimal reactive power support of each generator can be evaluated by summing the

allocated reactive losses from all of the transmission branches. The calculated minimal

reactive power support of the generators can serve as a base for the clearing of a reactive

power market.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (PolyU 5215/03E) and the Research Committee of the Hong Kong

Polytechnic University (G-T618).

References

1. Trehan, N. K., Ancillary servicesreactive and voltage control, IEEE Power Engineering

Society Winter Meeting, Vol. 3, pp. 13411346, 2001.

2. Hao, S., and Papalexopoulos, A., Reactive power pricing and management, IEEE Trans.

Power Systems, Vol. 12, pp. 95104, February 1997.

3. Baughman, M. L., Siddiqi, S. N., and Zarnikau, J. W., Advanced pricing in electrical systems,

Part I: Theory, Part II: Implications, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 12, pp. 489502, February

1997.

4. Gil, J. B., Roman, T. G. S., Rios, J. J. A., and Martin, P. S., Reactive power pricing: A

conceptual framework for remuneration and charging procedures, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,

Vol. 12, pp. 483489, May 2000.

5. Bhattacharya, K., and Zhong, J., Reactive power as an ancillary service, IEEE Trans. Power

Syst., Vol. 16, pp. 294300, May 2001.

1092

H. Wu et al.

6. Da Silva, E. L., Hedgecock, J. J., Mello, J. C. O., and Da Luz, J. C. F., Practical cost-based

approach for the voltage ancillary service, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 16, pp. 806812,

November 2001.

7. Lin, X. J., David, A. K., and Yu, C. W., Reactive power optimization with voltage stability

consideration in power market systems, IEE Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 150, pp. 305

310, May 2003.

8. Zhong, J., and Bhattacharya, K., Toward a competitive market for reactive power, IEEE

Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 17, pp. 12061215, November 2001.

9. Zhong, J., and Bhattacharya, K., Reactive power management in deregulated electricity

marketsA review, IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, Vol. 2, pp. 12871292,

2002.

10. Xu, W., Zhang, Y., Da Silva, L. C. P., and Kundur, P., Assessing the value of generator

reactive power support for transmission access, IEE Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 148,

pp. 337342, July 2001.

11. Xu, W., Zhang, Y., Da Silva, L. C. P., Kundur, P., and Warrack, A. A., Valuation of dynamic

reactive power support services for transmission access, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 16,

pp. 719728, November 2001.

12. Da Silva, L. C. P., Zhang, Y., Xu, W., and Da Costa, V. F., Investigation on the dual functions of

generator reactive power support, IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, Vol. 3,

pp. 16161620, 2001.

13. Xu, W., and Wang, Y., An investigation on the reactive power support service needs of power

producers, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 19, pp. 586593, February 2004.

14. Chicco, G., Gross, G., and Tao, S., Allocation of the reactive power support requirements in

multi-transaction networks (republished), IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 17, pp. 12831289,

November 2002.

15. Quintana, V. H., Torres, G. L., and Medina-Palomo, J., Interior-point methods and their

applications to power systems a classification of publications and software codes, IEEE Trans.

Power Syst., Vol. 15, pp. 170176, February 2000.

16. Wei, H., Sasaki, H., Kubokawa, J., and Yokoyama, R., An interior point nonlinear programming for optimal power flow problems with a novel data structure, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,

Vol. 13, pp. 870877, August 1998.

17. Kirschen, D., Allan, R., and Strbac, G., Contributions of individual generators to loads and

flows, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 12, pp. 5260, February 1997.

18. Bialek, J., Tracing the flow of electricity, IEE Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 143,

pp. 313320, July 1996.

19. Wu, F. F., Ni, Y. X., and Wei, P., Power transfer allocation for open access using graph

theoryfundamentals and applications in systems without loopflow, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,

Vol. 12, pp. 95104, February 1997.

20. Exposito, A. G., Santos, J. M. R., Garcia, T. G., and Velasco, E. A. R., Fair allocation of

transmission power losses, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 15, pp. 184188, February 2000.

21. Gross, G., and Tao, S., A physical-flow-based approach to allocating transmission losses in a

transaction framework, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 15, pp. 631637, May 2000.

22. Conejo, A. J., Galiana, F. D., and Kochar, I., Z-bus loss allocation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,

Vol. 16, pp. 105110, February 2001.

23. Galiana, F. D., Conejo, A. J., and Kochar, I., Incremental transmission loss allocation under

pool dispatch, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 17, pp. 2633, February 2002.

## Muito mais do que documentos

Descubra tudo o que o Scribd tem a oferecer, incluindo livros e audiolivros de grandes editoras.

Cancele quando quiser.