0 Suka0 Tidak suka

3 tayangan7 halamanModelo iterativos IEEE

Feb 17, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

Modelo iterativos IEEE

© All Rights Reserved

3 tayangan

Modelo iterativos IEEE

© All Rights Reserved

- mca305 (1)
- Math
- A suggestion of Optimization Process for Water Pipe Networks Design
- Artificial Variable Technique-big m Method
- Evans Analytics2e Ppt 13
- ZR-05-31
- Linear Programming
- LPmodelsbom1101.pdf
- 06494384
- Quantatative Methods Syl
- 0811.0077.pdf
- Solver_Notes
- Coop
- 157_37325_EA435_2013_4__2_1_Chap011
- Snower - Macro Economic Policy and the Optimal Destruction of Vampires
- 1220812105
- SCI2002 DiscreteOptimization De
- GeometriaPL
- 2. John Woodhouse.establishing a Risk Management Plan
- Kim 2016

Anda di halaman 1dari 7

Bus

Naren Bharatwaj. V, Student Member, IEEE, A. R. Abhyankar, Member, IEEE, P. R. Bijwe, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—Loss modelling in DCOPF has seen various versions energy prices but also performs congestion management in the

of implementation in literature. Each one of them strives to model most effective way.

the losses in the most accurate manner possible, depending on Calculation of LMP can be done using two different dis-

the methodology used and assumptions made, in order to obtain

locational marginal price (LMP). The methodology proposed in patch philosophies: ACOPF and DCOPF. Both have their

this paper is a variant of the iterative DC approach. In this advantages and short-comings. Some driving factors for the

model, the choice of slack bus changes the solution in terms of use of DCOPF in obtaining LMPs are its relative simplicity,

cost and LMPs. Instead of keeping β constant based on load speed of convergence and the availability of LMP components.

magnitude, it is shown that initializing the iterative algorithm by ACOPF, on the other hand, is complex compared to DCOPF.

appropriate slack distribution variable (β), and updated based

on dispatch obtained, a better solution can be obtained. This in- LMPs obtained from ACOPF need to be decomposed using

turn has an effect on the loss factors and Generation Shift Factor additional techniques. The individual components of LMP are

(GSF), which are a function of β. This leads to a different set of necessary for settlement in the market.

LMPs. With a suitable choice of β, a reasonable result in terms Even though the lossless DCOPF approach is simple to

of cost and closeness of LMPs with ACOPF can be obtained. formulate, it neglects losses on the whole. For a large power

Index Terms—DCOPF, Marginal Pricing, Loss Modelling, Loss system, the losses can be quite large and its impact on the

Distribution LMP can’t be ignored. Literature has focused on how best

to incorporate losses in the dispatch as well as calculation of

N OMENCLATURE LMP. Though a good amount of literature is available, only

those publications that are found relevant to the subject matter

Ci (P gi ) Cost of power production of generator i

under consideration are discussed next. In one of the first

P gi Power generation at bus i

models given in [2], the losses appear in the global power

P di Load demand at bus i

balance equation. However, no mention has been made on

PLoss Total active power loss

the location for loss distribution. Hence, all the losses will

LFi Loss factor at bus i

max be supplied by slack/reference bus, which makes the method

f lowL Vector of line power flow limits

slack dependent. Loss distribution has an effect on line power

GSF Generation Shift Factor

flows, which affects the LMP value. The seminal work for

Pg Vector of Power Generation

incorporating losses as part of the dispatch and its effect on

Pd Vector of Load Demand

line power flows was proposed in [2]. In this paper, a vector

P gimin Minimum limit for generation at bus i

loss distribution concept was proposed. The total losses in the

P gimax Maximum limit for generation at bus i

system was added as additional load to various buses using

D Loss Distribution Vector

this vector. While this method proposed a way to distribute

FND Vector of fictitious nodal demands

losses, the results were heavily dependent on the choice of

θ Vector of load angles

loss distribution vector (D).

X Reactance Matrix

Ref. [3] proposed an iterative technique that used DC loss

β Slack distribution variable

factors to incorporate losses. While this method provides more

xl Reactance of line l

accurate results, the results are dependent on the choice of

n Number of buses

slack bus. The DC loss factors are dependent on GSF , which

M Number of transmission lines

is again dependent on the choice of slack/reference bus. It

is because of this coupling that the results of this method

I. I NTRODUCTION are dependent on slack/reference bus. A hybrid version of

HE Locational Marginal Pricing (LMP) approach is an the methods proposed in [2] and [3] is proposed in [4]. In

T essential tool for settling transactions and is used for

market clearing in the North American power market [1].

2008, a matrix loss distribution for losses was proposed in

[5]. This method achieved enhanced power flow accuracy by

By obtaining a centralized dispatch schedule for the market distributing losses on a line to more than two buses. Another

participants, the LMP mechanism not only provides short-term benefit of this method is that the proportion of loss distribution

of one line can be different from another. However, the choice

Naren Bharatwaj. V (email: naren.bharatwaj@gmail.com), A. R. Ab- of this matrix (K) has to be trial and error. Further, this paper

hyankar (email: abhyankar@ee.iitd.ac.in), and P. R. Bijwe (email: prbi-

jwe@ee.iitd.ac.in) are with Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian focused more on proposing a method that is compatible with

Institute of Technology Delhi, NewDelhi, INDIA. FTRs and reference independency.

2

An iterative approach that uses AC loss factors evaluated II. I TERATIVE DC M ODEL

from NRLF Jacobian was proposed in [1]. This method In this section, we will look into the mathematical mod-

is similar to the iterative technique proposed in [3]. The elling of two methods that have used DC approximation for

calculation of loss factors is using ACPF instead of DC calculation of loss factors. It is assumed that the loads are

approximation. This method is reference independent. In 2011, inelastic and the objective function is cost minimization.

another reference independent method to calculate LMP was

proposed in [6]. This is a non-iterative technique that uses

A. Non-Iterative DCLF model

DC loss factors. The method aims to obtain reference inde-

pendent loss factors. These factors are evaluated on the lossless In [6], a non-iterative reference independent LMP de-

DCOPF snapshot or ACOPF. The main focus is on obtaining composition method is proposed that uses DC loss factors and

a reference independent value of the sensitivity of power flow distributed slack bus. This model is a hybrid version of the

on a line with power injection at a bus. When evaluating loss loss distribution vector (D) model [2] and the iterative DC

factors using DC approximation, this sensitivity is the GSF technique proposed in [3]. The mathematical formulation of

value (as seen in (14)) of bus i with various lines. [6] aims this model is given below.

to arrive at this value based on network topology and present

n

operating condition. Minimize Ci (P gi ) (1)

All the aforementioned methods can be classified as either i=1

on the use of AC loss factors or obtaining loss factors from P gi − P di = Ploss (2)

DC approximation. From the literature review, the following

conclusions can be drawn of what is expected of a model that Ploss = (LFi ) × (P gi − P di ) + offset term (3)

evaluates LMP using DCOPF. max

−f lowL ≤ GSF × D × Ploss ≤ max

f lowL (4)

1) Reference independent LMP components P gimin ≤ P gi ≤ P gimax (5)

2) Difference in congestion and loss components should be

same irrespective of choice of slack Where,

3) Consistency in financial settlements F N Di

Di = (6)

The proposed work in this paper is based on the iterative F N Di

DC model given in [3]. This algorithm is characterized by ∀i

iterative use of DC loss factor calculation. F N Di is given by (7).

Choosing a single slack bus has curse of arbitrariness in

F N Di = 0.5 × P lossl (7)

the choice of the same. Further, there could always be a

∀l∈NL

better solution obtained using another choice of slack bus.

The use of a distributed reference is not a new concept in where, NL is the subset of lines connected to bus i.

itself and has been used in [2], [4], [7], [8]. The reference The LMP decomposition for this optimization problem is

is distributed across all load buses. The basis for reference straight forward and is not described here. The arbitrariness

distribution is the load magnitude on that bus and hence the in the formation of D is overcome by making use of fictitious

name Distributed Load Reference (DLR). However, such a nodal demand (FND) to evaluate entries in D.

pre-fixed reference distribution may not give the most optimal

dispatch in terms of generation cost. Instead of pre-fixing the B. Iterative DC Model

distributed reference and keeping it constant throughout, we In this section, we will look into the mathematical modelling

propose the use of distributed slack bus to calculate GSF, of the iterative DC model proposed in [3]. In this model, first,

where the reference distribution is updated in every iteration a lossless DCOPF is solved to obtain the loss factors (LF) and

based on the dispatch obtained. It is proved through results that offset, which are then used in the main iteration as estimated

a compromise solution in terms of cost and closeness of LMPs values. The LFs and offset are updated after every iteration

can be obtained if reference distribution is updated iteratively. till convergence is reached. The mathematical formulation of

Thus, a pre-set rule of distributed slack bus is invoked and the this model is given below.

participation factor (β) is updated after every iteration. This

is the novelty of the proposed approach compared to prior art

n

[2], [4], [7], [8]. The participation factor (β) is initialized from Minimize Ci (P gi ) (8)

i=1

the lossless DCOPF snapshot.

Such that:

This paper is organized as follows. Section II delves into

P gi − P di = Ploss (9)

the mathematical modelling of two relevant methods given

in literature. Section III highlights the motivation for the

Ploss = (LFi ) × (P gi − P di ) + offset term (10)

proposed method and the mathematical model. Section IV

max max

provides the results on the PJM 5 bus system and the IEEE −f lowL ≤ GSF × (Pg − Pd − FND) ≤ f lowL

30 bus system. Section V concludes the paper. (11)

3

P gimin ≤ P gi ≤ P gimax (12) However, for a given set of power injections, the line flows

are unique.

Even though this model is more accurate in estimating the The calculation of loss factors using DC approximation is

losses, it has two drawbacks - 1) Decomposition of LMPs as follows.

into the respective components is not reference independent M

2) Arbitrariness in the form of choice of reference bus PLoss = f lowl2 × Rl (13)

Halving the losses occurring on a line and adding them l=1

as additional load to the buses connecting the line provides

a reasonable approximation in terms of power flow. The M

∂PLoss ∂

calculation of loss factors in this approach is using a DC = f lowl2 × Rl

approximation. It is proved in [3] that the summation of ∂Pi ∂Pi

l=1

product of loss factor and power injection produces double

M

∂

the system loss. = f lowl2 × Rl

∂Pi

The loss factors calculated using ACPF depend on the l=1

sensitivity calculated from the sensitivity matrix relating power

M

∂f lowl

injection and load angle. There is no direct relation between = Rl × 2f lowl ×

∂Pi

the loss factor and the GSF. However, since the DC approxima- l=1

⎛ ⎞

tion is a linear model to calculate loss factors, the loss factor M N

expression is a function of the GSF value. The loss factors LFi = 2 × Rl × GSFl−i × ⎝ GSFl−j × Pj ⎠

calculated using ACPF require the solution of converged power l=1 j=1

flow because they use the sensitivity from the last iteration (14)

Jacobian matrix. DC approximation, on the other hand, is From the above equations, it can be deduced that the LF

simpler to evaluate. However, methods that used DC loss value is a function of GSF , and GSF , a function of the

factors have their results dependent on choice of reference choice of slack bus. By choosing different slack buses, the

bus. The coupling between the GSF value and the LF is GSF values will change, but the flows will remain same for

the reason why the results are slack dependent. In [6], the a fixed set of injections. Since LF changes for change in

author attempts to obtain a reference independent sensitivity slack bus, the solution is different for different slack buses.

of line power flow with power injection at a bus. In the DC This is the primary reason why the DC iterative technique is

approximation, this sensitivity is the GSF value. GSF value slack dependent. In fact, any technique using DC loss factors

is further dependent on the choice of reference bus. Since is reference dependent. In a nutshell, a particular choice of

choice of slack/reference is arbitrary, we propose the use of reference bus would provide the best (or worst) solution in

distributed slack to calculate loss factors and thus LMPs. terms of closeness of LMPs to those calculated using ACOPF.

The use of distributed reference bus in calculation of On the other hand, some other choice of slack bus would

LMP is not a new concept in itself. Calculation of GSF provide best (or worst) solution in terms of social-welfare/cost.

using distributed reference is mentioned in [2] and [6]. Since Since the best choice of slack bus cannot be defined a priori,

the former uses fast de-coupled load flow for loss factor any arbitrary choice of reference bus may obtain the worst

calculation, the reference bus dependency is not primarily solution. A compromise can be obtained if distributed slack is

due to loss factors. The latter demonstrates the reference employed.

bus independency of the method by using distributed slack

formulation for calculation of GSF . The choice of slack

distribution variable (β) is made based on load magnitude at B. Proposed Method

buses. Being a non-iterative technique, the β values remain In the proposed method, the GSF values are calculated

fixed. In the proposed approach, a clear rationale is given for after every iteration. The β value for all generator buses is

the initial choice of β and it is updated after every iteration. calculated from the lossless DCOPF dispatch using (15) for

In the next section, we will look at how the DC loss factors the first iteration. Based on the dispatch obtained after the

are calculated and the coupling that exists between the GSF end of every iteration, the β value is updated. Hence, for the

value and the LF value. k + 1th iteration, dispatch results of k th iteration are used. k

is iteration index and i is bus index.

III. D ISTRIBUTED SLACK MODEL FOR CALCULATION OF

LF P gk

βik+1 = i (15)

A. Motivation P gik

∀i

The loss factors calculated in the iterative DC technique

are a function of Generation Shift Factors (GSF ). While The calculation of GSF for single slack bus is well known

evaluating the GSF , a slack/reference bus must be assumed and can be found in [9]. Instead of using a single slack for

that takes up the shift in generation. Since the choice of GSF calculation, the calculation for distributed slack is shown

reference bus is not unique, the set of GSFs obtained can have below.

many solutions depending upon the choice of reference bus. θ = X Pg − Pd (16)

4

n

Δθ = X ΔP (17) L= Ci (P gi ) −λ P gi − P di − Ploss

i=1

⎡ ⎤k+1 ⎡ ⎤k+1

Δθ1 −β1k ΔPi

M

N

− μfl GSFi−l (P gi − P di − F N Di ) − max

f lowL

⎢ .. ⎥ ⎢ .. ⎥

⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ . ⎥ l=1 i=1

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ Δθi ⎥ ⎢ΔPi − βik ΔPi ⎥ M

N

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ .. ⎥ ⎢ .. ⎥ − μbl −f lowL

max

− GSFi−l (P gi − P di − F N Di )

⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ . ⎥

⎢ ⎥ = X ⎢ ⎥ (18) l=1 i=1

⎢Δθm ⎥ ⎢ −β k ΔPi ⎥ (22)

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ m ⎥

⎢ Δθn ⎥ ⎢ −β k ΔPi ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ n ⎥ M

⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ .. ⎥

⎣ .. ⎦ ⎣ . ⎦ ∂L f

LM Pi = = λ−LFi ×λ+ μl − μl × GSFi−l

b

Δθz −βz ΔPi

k

∂P di

l=1

(23)

Δf lowlk+1 From (23), the LMP can be written in 3 distinct components

k+1

GSFi−l = (19)

ΔPik+1 namely:

LM Pie = λ

(Xmi − Xni )(1 − βik ) LM Pil = −LFi × λ

k+1

GSFi−l =

xl M

1 N (20) LM Pic = μfl − μbl × GSFi−l

+ × (Xnz − Xmz )βzk l=1

xl z=1

z=i

IV. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION

(21) ensures consistency in the generation shift.

The results of the proposed method have been obtained

on the PJM 5 bus system given in Figure 2 [3]. The results

βi = 1 (21) of the proposed method are compared with LMPs obtained

∀i

from ACOPF for closeness. A power factor of 0.95 lagging is

The algorithm of the iterative technique for calculation of assumed for all loads. The reactive power limits at generator

LMP is given in Fig. 1. The number of iterations of the buses are 150 MVar capacitive to 150 MVar inductive. Voltage

proposed method will be identical to the iterative technique limits at all buses are from 0.94 p.u. to 1.06 p.u. ACOPF is

proposed in [3]. implemented using Matpower [10]. Additionally, results are

also obtained on the IEEE 30 bus system.

A slightly modified version of the PJM 5 bus system [3]

is shown in Figure 2. The line parameters are given in Table

I and the generator bid prices and their quantity are given in

Table II.

TABLE I

L INE PARAMETERS

R(%) 0.281 0.304 0.064 0.108 0.297 0.297

X(%) 2.81 3.04 0.64 1.08 2.97 2.97

Limit (MW) 999 999 999 999 999 240

TABLE II

The lossless DCOPF solution is used to calculate β and G ENERATOR D ATA

GSF before the iterative procedure. Choosing β from the

lossless DCOPF approach is a reasonable assumption since it Generator G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

Pmax (MW) 110 100 520 200 600

is an optimal solution and is a good initial start. The problem Bid Price ($/MW) 14 15 30 35 10

formulation is identical to the one given in [3], except that

distributed slack is used to evaluate GSF and LF .

The Lagrangian (L) of the optimization problem in the Table III lists the results of the proposed method. These

iterative model is given below. include:

5

TABLE IV

% MD OF LMP S FOR ALL BUSES

1 0.359 0.402 0.313 0.434

2 0.158 0.651 0.419 1.087

3 0.046 0.390 0.559 0.777

4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Mean 0.113 0.289 0.258 0.460

STD 0.152 0.283 0.251 0.479

LM PiDC − LM PiAC

M DLMP (%) = × 100 (24)

LM PiAC

Fig. 2. PJM 5 bus system

Analogous to the comparison provided in [3], the system is

loaded from 1.0 p.u. to 1.3 p.u. in steps of 0.0005 p.u. The

1) Case1 provides results of the method proposed in [4] that mean of %M D is calculated for the proposed method and for

uses distributed reference bus to calculate GSF as given the single reference case when bus 4 is assumed as reference.

in [7], [8]. This plot is shown in Figure 3. It can be seen that for almost

2) Case2 initializes β with bus loads as reference weights all the loading levels, the mean value is lesser in the case

(i.e., 0.333, 0.333 and 0.333 respectively). β remains when β is updated every iteration than when using the single

fixed in the iterative process and is not updated [7], [8]. slack case. The two spikes at loading levels 1.089 and 1.194

3) Case3 updates β iteratively, as mentioned in the proposed are because of the difference in marginal generators between

method. ACOPF and DCOPF.

4) Case4 is the single slack case as given in [3]. A comparison of objective function values for 3 specific

loading cases are given in Table V. In the first column, for

a loading of 1.091 p.u., objective function value in Case1 is

TABLE III lesser than Case2. This trend is observed for system loading

R ESULTS OF DISTRIBUTED SLACK ON PJM 5 BUS SYSTEM

below 1.091. For a system loading of 1.0915 p.u., the cost is

LMPs in $/MW almost equal for Case1 and Case2. Beyond 1.092 p.u. loading,

Bus

1

Case1

15.847

Case2

15.854

Case3

15.840

Case4

15.859

ACOPF

15.790

the objective function value in Case2 has been observed to be

2 24.080 24.198 23.941 24.303 24.042 lesser than Case1. For all loading conditions, Case3 gives the

3 27.099 27.217 26.960 27.322 27.111

4 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000

least objective function value. From this, one can conclude that

5 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 continuous updation of β ensures a minimum cost solution

Obj. 13039.706 13039.754 13035.894 13037.947 13016.043

Func in $ compared to arbitrary choice of β. The objective function

value in Case4 is always higher than Case3 for all loading

conditions .Also, Case1 doesn’t always give the lesser cost

The results include the LMPs at all buses and the objective when compared with Case2, as observed for loading beyond

function value. It is seen that updation of β iteratively produces 1.092.

the least cost dispatch. The objective function value of Case2 TABLE V

is higher than Case1 because it is an iterative technique. The C OMPARISON OF O BJECTIVE F UNCTION VALUES

losses are better estimated in the iterative technique and a

Objective Function Loading

solution closer to ACOPF is desired. To measure the closeness in $ 1.091 1.0915 1.092

of LMPs of DCOPF with ACOPF, the Maximum Difference Case1 15398.612 15412.566 15426.520

given by (24), which has been used in [3], is evaluated for Case2 15398.621 15412.565 15426.508

Case3 15393.362 15407.309 15421.256

every bus for all four cases. These results are given in Table

Case4 15395.996 15409.940 15423.884

IV. The table also contains the mean and standard deviation

(STD) of %M D for all cases. It is seen that Case1 produces

the least mean and standard deviation values. When comparing

the iterative techniques, Case3 gives a better result of 0.258,

when compared to 0.289 of Case2, where β is taken randomly. B. IEEE 30 bus system

An important point to note that the least Mean and STD values The data for IEEE 30 bus system is taken from [10]. To

do not ensure least cost solution, as seen in Case1. The results obtain LMP differential across the system, the power flow on

of the iterative DC technique when β values are updated after line connecting buses 1 and 2 has been restricted to 50 MW.

every iteration is a trade-off between least cost solution and The LMP values for all buses on the IEEE 30 bus system

closeness with ACOPF LMPs. In the iterative technique, the is given in Table VI. The different cases are similar to the

losses are better estimated based on DC loss factors. ones described earlier. Since there are 6 generators buses, the

6

20

18

Single Slack

16 Distributed Slack

Mean LMP Difference %

14

12

10

0

1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3

Loading Level (in p.u. of base case)

TABLE VI

R ESULTS ON IEEE 30 B US SYSTEM

LMPs in $/MW

Bus Case1 Case2 Case3 Case4 ACOPF

Slack = 1 Slack = 2 Slack = 5 Slack = 8 Slack = 11 Slack = 13

1 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000

2 39.725 39.701 40.205 41.112 39.753 39.483 39.797 39.834 39.909 39.939

3 33.002 33.090 33.062 33.032 33.099 32.984 33.146 33.145 33.162 32.853

4 36.079 36.192 36.140 36.071 36.203 36.065 36.262 36.259 36.279 36.016

5 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000

6 37.886 38.019 37.921 37.775 38.028 37.887 38.112 38.099 38.067 37.865

7 39.036 39.141 39.028 38.848 39.144 39.054 39.189 39.177 39.150 39.031

8 38.145 38.298 38.149 37.913 38.304 38.166 38.453 38.363 38.324 38.122

9 37.665 37.800 37.694 37.532 37.809 37.671 37.888 37.912 37.813 37.657

10 37.549 37.685 37.574 37.404 37.693 37.556 37.770 37.813 37.678 37.546

11 37.665 37.800 37.694 37.532 37.809 37.671 37.888 37.912 37.813 37.657

12 36.689 36.804 36.756 36.696 36.815 36.671 36.879 36.841 37.000 36.661

13 36.689 36.804 36.756 36.696 36.815 36.671 36.879 36.841 37.000 36.661

14 37.406 37.569 37.395 37.117 37.574 37.434 37.618 37.573 37.706 37.378

15 37.626 37.801 37.595 37.262 37.804 37.667 37.847 37.816 37.879 37.619

16 37.315 37.459 37.332 37.135 37.466 37.327 37.528 37.531 37.524 37.293

17 37.618 37.767 37.623 37.397 37.773 37.637 37.840 37.865 37.778 37.613

18 38.140 38.342 38.062 37.602 38.342 38.208 38.378 38.366 38.343 38.171

19 38.293 38.500 38.206 37.722 38.499 38.366 38.536 38.538 38.468 38.339

20 38.133 38.324 38.071 37.656 38.325 38.192 38.372 38.384 38.295 38.166

21 37.948 38.116 37.923 37.613 38.120 37.985 38.182 38.213 38.079 37.971

22 37.930 38.096 37.907 37.602 38.100 37.966 38.163 38.193 38.063 37.952

23 38.076 38.273 38.007 37.570 38.273 38.139 38.314 38.285 38.287 38.114

24 38.358 38.561 38.278 37.811 38.560 38.428 38.607 38.586 38.516 38.439

25 38.189 38.366 38.148 37.792 38.368 38.235 38.440 38.375 38.309 38.294

26 38.853 39.080 38.731 38.148 39.076 38.947 39.125 39.050 38.968 39.061

27 37.818 37.959 37.834 37.639 37.966 37.830 38.062 37.977 37.923 37.905

28 38.100 38.251 38.107 37.880 38.258 38.119 38.348 38.317 38.278 38.087

29 38.814 39.031 38.708 38.173 39.028 38.898 39.089 38.990 38.911 39.028

30 39.472 39.738 39.286 38.526 39.729 39.604 39.768 39.659 39.563 39.809

Obj Func. in $ 6752.871 6752.635 6732.995 6727.920 6731.504 6752.443 6755.379 6752.710 6749.325 6730.100

TABLE VII

M EAN OF % MD VALUES FOR IEEE 30 BUS SYSTEM

Slack = 1 Slack = 2 Slack = 5 Slack = 8 Slack = 11 Slack = 13

Mean 0.161 0.350 0.277 0.948 0.357 0.149 0.498 0.469 0.429

STD 0.211 0.175 0.305 0.852 0.176 0.224 0.223 0.232 0.275

7

results for each bus chosen as reference are given. For Case1 fictitious nodal demands, change the generator dispatches.

and Case2 β is calculated using (25). Instead of keeping β constant throughout the iterative process

(as done in earlier approaches), if the participation is updated

P di

βi = (25) at the end of each iteration and is made proportional to

P di the dispatch obtained, it is shown through results that a

∀i good trade-off is possible in terms of the optimal value of

The least value of objective function is obtained when bus objective function and the closeness of LMPs with ACOPF.

1 is chosen as reference. However, as seen from Table VII, for This safeguards the scheme from making a worst choice of

this choice of reference bus, the mean value of %M D is higher slack bus. Results on 5 bus PJM system and the IEEE 30 bus

when compared with the proposed method. Least mean %M D system establish this fact.

is obtained when bus 5 is chosen as reference. However, the

objective function with this reference is $6752.443, which R EFERENCES

is higher than the proposed method and the case when bus [1] Z. Hu, H. Cheng, Z. Yan, and F. Li, “An iterative LMP calculation

1 is reference. The proposed method of iterative updation method considering loss distributions,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25,

of β provides a compromise solution for both aspects: least no. 3, pp. 1469 –1477, Aug. 2010.

[2] E. Litvinov, T. Zheng, G. Rosenwald, and P. Shamsollahi, “Marginal

cost dispatch and closeness of LMPs to those obtained using loss modeling in LMP calculation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 19,

ACOPF. no. 2, pp. 880 – 888, May 2004.

[3] F. Li and R. Bo, “DCOPF-based LMP simulation: Algorithm, compar-

ison with ACOPF, and sensitivity,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22,

C. Discussion no. 4, pp. 1475 –1485, Nov. 2007.

[4] F. Li, E. Litvinov, and T. Zheng, “A combined LMP model considering

As seen from the results, the choice of reference bus has reference independent decomposition and fictitious nodal demand,” in

an effect on the final solution in the iterative DC technique. Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2010 IEEE, Jul. 2010, pp.

The initial choice of β passed-on to the iterative process has 1 –5.

[5] V. Sarkar and S. Khaparde, “DCOPF-based marginal loss pricing with

a bearing on the final solution. Since there is subjectivity in enhanced power flow accuracy by using matrix loss distribution,” IEEE

this initial choice, it is calculated from the lossless DCOPF Trans. Power Syst., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1435 –1445, Aug. 2009.

solution, which is a good initial estimate. In the proposed [6] F. Li, “Fully reference-independent lmp decomposition using reference-

independent loss factors,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 81,

method, instead of a priori specification of β, it is made no. 11, pp. 1995 – 2004, 2011.

a function of previous iteration dispatch. It is calculated in [7] J. Zhu and K. Cheung, “Flexible simultaneous feasibility test in energy

an algorithmic way, rather than being hard-coded, previously market,” in Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2010 IEEE,

july 2010, pp. 1 –7.

done in [2] and [4]. [8] J. Zhu, Optimization of Power System Operation. Wiley-IEEE Press,

The choice of β should be based on what type of solution 2009.

one is interested in. It has been noticed that least cost solution [9] A. J. Wood and B. F. Wollenberg, Power Generation, Operation and

Control. John Wiley & Sons, 1996.

doesn’t necessarily lead to closeness of LMPs with ACOPF. [10] Matpower. [Online]. Available: http://www.pserc.cornell.edu/matpower/

The advantage of using a distributed reference is there is

no ambiguity in the choice of reference bus, which plays

a major role in LMP and its components. Even though the

solution of the iterative DC approach is dependent on the

choice of β, the arbitrariness is overcome by initializing it

based on lossless power flow dispatch, which is a reasonable

assumption. The authors are aware that this rule can still be Naren Bharatwaj. V (S’11) is currently working towards his Ph.D. degree

challenged. However, the results show that by invoking such in Electrical Engineering Department at IIT Delhi, India.

a rule and updating β iteratively, the solution is guarded from

being hit at the worst end because of wrong choice of reference

bus.

As can be seen from literature, most of the approaches are

aimed at having a reference independent decomposition. Use A. R. Abhyankar (M’04) is an Assistant Professor with Electrical Engi-

of DC loss factors makes this difficult. For such methods, use neering Department at IIT Delhi, India. His research interests include power

of distributed reference bus arrives at a compromised solution systems analysis, optimization and restructuring issues.

with ACOPF.

V. C ONCLUSION

P. R. Bijwe (SM’99) is a Professor with Electrical Engineering Department

This paper proposes the use of distributed slack bus in at IIT Delhi, India. His research interests include power system restructuring

the iterative DC technique to calculate LMPs. The earlier issues, power system analysis and optimization, distribution systems analysis

approaches have proposed non-updating participation factor and optimization.

based slack bus modelling instead of single slack bus. Since

iterative DCOPF technique churns out better solution as itera-

tions go by, the updated losses, which in turn act as additional

- mca305 (1)Diunggah olehkola0123
- MathDiunggah olehPranay Goswami
- A suggestion of Optimization Process for Water Pipe Networks DesignDiunggah olehjoreli
- Artificial Variable Technique-big m MethodDiunggah olehbrindhu
- Evans Analytics2e Ppt 13Diunggah olehqun
- ZR-05-31Diunggah olehumairned
- Linear ProgrammingDiunggah olehSiva Kuhan
- LPmodelsbom1101.pdfDiunggah olehFrances Mary Bareño
- 06494384Diunggah olehNamith Devadiga
- Quantatative Methods SylDiunggah olehNguyên Bùi
- 0811.0077.pdfDiunggah olehvamshi
- Solver_NotesDiunggah olehthewodros
- CoopDiunggah olehmesfin Demise
- 157_37325_EA435_2013_4__2_1_Chap011Diunggah olehcarlos
- Snower - Macro Economic Policy and the Optimal Destruction of VampiresDiunggah olehcaffeine42
- 1220812105Diunggah olehRavi Kumar Bandarulanka
- SCI2002 DiscreteOptimization DeDiunggah olehЛам Нгуен
- GeometriaPLDiunggah olehjhdmss
- 2. John Woodhouse.establishing a Risk Management PlanDiunggah olehali
- Kim 2016Diunggah olehaji wira sanjaya
- Untaroiu2010_Constrained Design Optimization of Rotor-tilting Pad Bearing SystemDiunggah olehheubme
- Solving the Problem of Multiple Travelling Salesman Problem Using Hybrid Gravitational AlgorithmDiunggah olehSEP-Publisher
- Optimization of Directional Overcurrent Relay Time Using Laplace Crossover Particle Swarm OptimizationDiunggah olehNicky Panida
- Zh 05110257261Diunggah olehAlion
- optcon13final[1]Diunggah olehRSGT
- 17066-Article Text-61651-1-10-20131119.pdfDiunggah olehAnand Sridhar
- Training Document V100R014C00 UMTS CCODiunggah olehImadeddine Berrabah
- good optimiz cr.pdfDiunggah olehDeepak Sharma
- A Solution Methodology of Bi-Level Linear Programming Based on Genetic AlgorithmDiunggah olehEng Ahmed Hagras
- LPDiunggah olehshamsukarim2009

- Relay Coordination GuideDiunggah olehShrimant Shanbhag
- PNNL-23039 v2Diunggah olehGabriel Felix
- Power Systems and Markets OperationsDiunggah olehGabriel Felix
- 36. a Dynamic Piecewise Linear Model for DC Transmission Losses in Optimal Scheduling ProblemsDiunggah olehGabriel Felix
- Webinar - Hazardous Area Classification in US and EuropeDiunggah olehGabriel Felix
- A Contigency Ranking Method for Voltage Stability in Real Time Operation of Power SystemsDiunggah olehGabriel Felix
- ATEX ClassificationDiunggah olehGabriel Felix
- Appleton_Guide_for_use_of_Electrical_Products_in_Hazardous_LocationsDiunggah olehshair Dill

- SQL for Testing ProfessionalDiunggah olehAnshuman Singh
- OTN Discussion Forums How to Check if 'PO Output ForDiunggah olehGch75
- Car Plate Recognition SystemDiunggah olehNg Tze Jia
- ReadmeDiunggah olehGuijarro Fornyka
- 3354 1 en GE030 ZtableSOItemConfigDiunggah olehpritambiswal
- Elasticsearch PyDiunggah olehs_prabhuanand
- Web XSS ElggDiunggah olehelizabeth
- Cyrus BeckDiunggah olehPriyanka Barua
- Microsoft Windows shortcut keys.pdfDiunggah olehBizura Saruma
- Big Cable GuideDiunggah olehd1sc0stu
- EasyLogic RangeDiunggah olehJuan Morales
- CCNA2 FinalDiunggah olehPostolica Cosmin George
- Fuzzy LogDiunggah oleheidermutum
- Data Resource managementDiunggah olehmaya_naughtydevil
- SOA-mid at tata motors.pdfDiunggah olehKhushboo Manish K
- DCS Migration RequirementsDiunggah olehramkrishnapasala
- Patent Landscape ReportDiunggah olehinfo6656
- GO BACK NDiunggah olehSaravanan Krishnadoss
- 5-BIU-KPI -2014-15Diunggah olehReuben Simon
- EU_PMS_PSUR_Requirements_MDRDiunggah olehNeelakandan R
- Genetic Approach to Parallel SchedulingDiunggah olehInternational Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR)
- CVN HungHaDiunggah olehanon-246656
- Writing Good CV MyThoughts 2018Diunggah olehPraveen Bachu
- Application Centric Infrastructure (ACI)Diunggah olehCisco IT
- 009 - Lungu, Velicanu, Botha.pdfDiunggah olehLenin Vincent
- amc13211Diunggah olehnhie12
- ACC and FLN Field Service Tool ManualDiunggah olehChancys Mbemba
- 26166_uploadTenderDiunggah olehpandhi2000
- MI0035-MQP[1].pdfDiunggah olehAjish Joseph
- Problem Set 15 SolutionsDiunggah olehFABIANCHO2210

## Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.

Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbit-penerbit terkemuka.

Batalkan kapan saja.