COMPREHENSIVE DISTRIBUTION POWER FLOW: MODELING, FORMULATION, SOLUTION ALGORITHMS AND ANALYSIS

A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulllment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

by Ray Daniel Zimmerman January 1995

 Ray Daniel Zimmerman 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

COMPREHENSIVE DISTRIBUTION POWER FLOW: MODELING, FORMULATION, SOLUTION ALGORITHMS AND ANALYSIS
Ray Daniel Zimmerman, Ph.D. Cornell University 1995 The objective of this work was to develop a formulation and an efcient solution algorithm for the distribution power ow problem which takes into account the detailed and extensive modeling necessary for use in the distribution automation environment of a real world electric power distribution system. The formulations for the three classes of existing algorithms for radial systems were generalized and were extended to handle the comprehensive modeling already presented in the context of more traditional but less efcient methods, such as Newton-Raphson and Implicit Zbus Gauss. The modeling includes unbalanced three-phase, two-phase, and single-phase branches, constant power, constant current, and constant impedance loads connected in wye or delta formations, cogenerators, shunt capacitors, line charging capacitance, switches, and three-phase transformers of various connection types. The three classes of algorithms explored are: network reduction methods, backward/forward sweep methods, and fast decoupled methods. Within each of the three classes, new algorithms were developed and existing methods were extended to include the comprehensive modeling of the general formulation. Proofs of convergence for the backward/forward sweep and fast decoupled methods are also provided.

In addition to the radial algorithms, the compensation method used to handle weakly meshed systems was generalized to encompass three-phase networks with loops, multiple sources, and three-phase PV buses. This compensation method can be applied in conjunction with any of the radial power ow solvers. Termination of the radial solver, at each iteration, is based on an adaptive criterion. A generalized correction step for the compensation method was also developed. All of the proposed methods were evaluated and compared on various test systems based on data from real distribution systems. The test systems range in size from 63 buses to over 1000 buses. The most efcient algorithm in each class was shown to require signicantly less computation than both the Newton-Raphson and the Implicit Zbus Gauss methods, with the backward/forward sweep and fast decoupled methods typically showing an improvement of more than a factor of three.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Ray Daniel Zimmerman was born in Ephrata, PA on December 17, 1965. Four years later he moved with his family to a chicken farm in rural Lancaster County, PA, where he lived until he began studying Electrical Engineering in September of 1984. As an undergraduate at Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA, he participated in a cooperative education program which involved working for six month periods at each of the following companies: IBM Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, Evaluation Associates, Bala Cynwyd, PA, and UNISYS Corporation, Tredyffrin, PA. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Drexel University in June, 1989. In August of the same year he began graduate studies in Electrical Engineering at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, where he received a Master of Science degree in May, 1992, in the area of network reconguration in electric power distribution systems.

iii

to my wife, Esther and my daughter, Ana

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Pero habiendo obtenido auxilio de Dios, persevero hasta el da de hoy. Hechos 26:22

I would like to express my appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Hsiao-Dong Chiang, for his support and direction for this work. I would also like to thank Dr. James S. Thorp and Dr. Lloyd N. Trefethen for serving on my committee. My appreciation also goes to Gary Darling of New York State Gas & Electric and Matt Downey of Rochester Gas & Electric for providing the data used for testing the methods developed in this work. Several friends have been helpful throughout the various stages of this work, whether through discussions of technical issues or simply with helpful perspective on the process of getting a doctorate. In particular, I would like to acknowledge Guerney Hunt, Jen-Lun Yuan, Yi-Jen Chiu, Jianzhong Tong, and Karen Nan Miu. A special thanks to Karen for taking the time to read this dissertation and make helpful comments to improve its readability. I would also like to express my appreciation to Ernie for his help in proofreading. Most of all, I appreciate the constant support of my family, especially during the nal months of writing. Quisiera agradecer primero a Esther por su amor y apoyo constante. Y gracias, Anita, por el nimo que me das solo verte crecer cada da. Gracias tambin por ser la compaerita de mam durante este tiempo difcil.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...............................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .....................................................................................................v TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................x LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background.....................................................................................................1 1.2 Objectives and Contributions..........................................................................3 Basic Problem Framework 7 2.1 Mathematical Notation....................................................................................7 2.2 Bus and Lateral Indexing................................................................................8 2.2.1 Indexing Scheme.................................................................................9 2.2.2 Indexing Implementation..................................................................11 2.2.2.1 Connectivity Data Structures................................................11 2.2.2.2 Breadth-First Search .............................................................12 2.3 Basic System Model .....................................................................................15 2.3.1 Voltage and Current/Power Flow Update for Branch k ...................18 2.3.2 Application of KCL ..........................................................................19 Detailed Component Models 21 3.1 Load Model...................................................................................................23 3.1.1 Admittance Matrix for the Load .......................................................26 3.1.2 Current and Power Injected by the Load ..........................................27 3.2 Shunt Capacitor Model .................................................................................28 3.3 Cogenerator Model .......................................................................................29 3.4 Distribution Line Model ...............................................................................31 3.5 Switch Model................................................................................................33 3.6 Transformer Model.......................................................................................34 3.6.1 Class A: Primary and Secondary both Grounded or both Ungrounded ..........................................35 3.6.2 Class B: Grounded PrimaryUngrounded Secondary ....................35 3.6.3 Class C: Ungrounded PrimaryGrounded Secondary ....................39

vi

Network Reduction Power Flow Algorithms for Radial Systems (NR-PARS) 42 4.1 Detailed Solution Algorithm.........................................................................43 4.1.1 Linearization .....................................................................................44 4.1.2 Build Driving Point Equivalents.......................................................45 4.1.3 Calculate Voltages and Currents.......................................................49 4.1.4 Termination Criterion .......................................................................51 4.2 Implementation .............................................................................................51 4.2.1 Linearity Check.................................................................................51 4.2.2 Improved Line Update......................................................................52 4.2.3 Storage of Intermediate Variables ....................................................52 4.3 Variations......................................................................................................53 4.4 Convergence Analysis ..................................................................................55 4.5 Comments .....................................................................................................55 Backward/Forward Sweep Power Flow Algorithms for Radial Systems (BFS-PARS) 57 5.1 Detailed Solution Algorithm.........................................................................58 5.1.1 Backward Sweep...............................................................................60 5.1.2 Forward Sweep .................................................................................62 5.1.3 Termination Criterion .......................................................................65 5.2 Implementation .............................................................................................66 5.2.1 Class B Transformers........................................................................66 5.2.1.1 Backward Sweep...................................................................66 5.2.1.2 Forward Sweep .....................................................................67 5.2.2 Class C Transformers........................................................................69 5.2.2.1 Forward Sweep .....................................................................69 5.2.2.2 Backward Sweep...................................................................70 5.3 Variations......................................................................................................72 5.3.1 VI-VI-PARS .......................................................................................72 5.3.2 VS-VS-PARS......................................................................................73 5.3.3 V-VI-PARS ........................................................................................75 5.3.4 V-VS-PARS........................................................................................75 5.3.5 VI-I-PARS .........................................................................................76 5.3.6 VS-S-PARS ........................................................................................76 5.3.7 V-I-PARS...........................................................................................76 5.3.8 V-S-PARS ..........................................................................................77 5.4 Convergence Analysis ..................................................................................77 5.5 Comments .....................................................................................................83

vii

Fast Decoupled Power Flow Algorithms for Radial Systems (DePARS) 84 6.1 Detailed Solution Algorithm.........................................................................85 6.1.1 Reduced Power Flow Equations.......................................................87 6.1.1.1 Single Feeder ........................................................................88 6.1.1.2 General Radial Structure.......................................................89 6.1.1.3 Class B and Class C Transformers........................................93 6.1.2 Update of Independent Variables......................................................94 6.1.2.1 Structure of the System Jacobian..........................................95 6.1.2.2 Numerical Properties of the System Jacobian ....................100 6.1.2.3 Transformers.......................................................................103 6.1.2.4 Solving for the Update........................................................107 6.1.3 Termination Criterion .....................................................................107 6.2 Implementation ...........................................................................................109 6.3 Variations....................................................................................................110 6.3.1 VI-DePARS .....................................................................................111 6.3.2 VS-DePARS.....................................................................................111 6.3.3 I-DePARS........................................................................................112 6.3.3.1 Reduced Power Flow Equations.........................................113 6.3.3.2 Update of the Independent Variables..................................116 6.3.3.3 Implementation ...................................................................120 6.3.4 S-DePARS .......................................................................................122 6.4 Convergence Analysis ................................................................................123 6.5 Comments ...................................................................................................126 Power Flow Algorithms for Weakly Meshed Systems (PAWMS) 127 7.1 Detailed Solution Algorithm.......................................................................128 7.1.1 Loop Breakpoint Creation...............................................................130 7.1.2 Breakpoint Voltage Mismatch........................................................131 7.1.3 Breakpoint Impedance Matrix ........................................................132 7.1.4 Breakpoint Injections......................................................................134 7.1.5 Multiple Sources.............................................................................135 7.1.6 PV Buses.........................................................................................136 7.1.7 Summary.........................................................................................140 7.1.8 Termination Criterion .....................................................................140 7.2 Implementation ...........................................................................................141 7.2.1 Modeling Limitations and Simplifying Assumptions.....................141 7.2.2 Termination of Radial Power Flow.................................................141 7.3 Variations....................................................................................................142 7.3.1 Power Injection for Loop Breakpoints............................................143 7.3.2 Correction Step ...............................................................................144 7.4 Comments ...................................................................................................146

viii

Simulation Results 148 8.1 Summary of Algorithms Tested..................................................................150 8.1.1 Newton-Raphson Method...............................................................150 8.1.2 Implicit Zbus Gauss Method............................................................152 8.2 Description of Test Systems .......................................................................154 8.3 Power Flow Algorithms for Radial Systems (PARS) .................................155 8.3.1 Effect of Load Model and Load Factor on Convergence ...............160 8.3.2 Effect of System Size on Convergence...........................................163 8.4 Power Flow Algorithms for Weakly Meshed Systems (PAWMS)..............165 8.4.1 Effect of PARS Termination Criterion on Convergence.................166 8.4.2 Effect of Number of Loops on Convergence..................................168 8.4.3 Effect of Load Model on Convergence...........................................171 8.5 Summary.....................................................................................................172 Conclusions 175 9.1 Contributions...............................................................................................175 9.2 Future Work................................................................................................178

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................................180

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Table 3.10 Table 3.11 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 7.1 Mathematical Notation..............................................................................8 Bus Indexing Implementation.................................................................14 General Update Formulas .......................................................................17 Implementation of (2.2) ..........................................................................18 Implementation of (2.3) ..........................................................................18 General Branch Update Formulas...........................................................20 Load Parameters from Nominal Loads...................................................25 Load Admittance.....................................................................................27 Current & Power Injected by Load.........................................................28 Shunt Capacitor Admittance, Current & Power Injection ......................29 Cogenerator Admittance, Current & Power Injection ............................30 Update Formulas for Distribution Lines.................................................32 Update Formulas for Switches................................................................34 Admittance Matrices for Common Transformer Connections ...............36 Update Formulas for Class A Transformers...........................................37 Update Formulas for Class B Transformers ...........................................39 Update Formulas for Class C Transformers ...........................................41 Network Reduction Method....................................................................43 Network Elements...................................................................................44 Notation for (4.5) and (4.6).....................................................................47 Formulas for Combining with Incoming Branch....................................48 Voltage Update Formulas .......................................................................50 Backward/Forward Sweep Method.........................................................58 Detail on Backward/Forward Sweeps.....................................................59 Implementation of (5.1) ..........................................................................60 Implementation of (5.5) ..........................................................................63 Notation for V-I-PARS Convergence Proof............................................78 Newtons Method....................................................................................86 Fast Decoupled Power Flow Algorithm for Radial Systems..................87 VI-DePARS Jacobian Formation.............................................................97 Jacobian Approximations for Transformers for VI-DePARS................106 Various Formulations for DePARS.......................................................110 I-DePARS Jacobian Formation .............................................................118 Jacobian Approximations for Transformers for I-DePARS ..................121 Power Flow Algorithms for Weakly Meshed Systems........................129

Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 9.1

Summary of Distribution Power Flow Algorithms...............................151 Summary of Test Systems ....................................................................154 Summary of Radial Power Flow Algorithms........................................176

xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Example of Bus & Lateral Indexing.......................................................10 Figure 2.2 Basic Building Block..............................................................................16 Figure 3.1 Grounded Wye Connected Load.............................................................24 Figure 3.2 Ungrounded Delta Connected Load........................................................26 Figure 3.3 Three-Phase Distribution Line Model ....................................................31 Figure 4.1 Norton Equivalent at Bus k.....................................................................46 Figure 4.2 Combine with Incoming Branch.............................................................47 Figure 4.3 Admittance Equivalent at Bus k .............................................................54 Figure 5.1 Single Feeder Example ...........................................................................59 Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 6.4 Figure 6.5 Figure 6.6 Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 Figure 7.3 Figure 7.4 Figure 8.1 Figure 8.2 Figure 8.3 Figure 8.4 Figure 8.5 Figure 8.6 Figure 8.7 Figure 8.8 Figure 8.9 Figure 8.10 Figure 8.11 Figure 8.12 Figure 8.13 Figure 8.14 Figure 8.15 Figure 8.16 Single Feeder Example ...........................................................................88 Voltage Mismatch Calculation ...............................................................90 Structure of System Jacobian for VI-DePARS ........................................99 Approximation to the System Jacobian for VI-DePARS.......................108 Current Mismatch Calculation..............................................................114 Structure of System Jacobian for I-DePARS ........................................119 Loop Breakpoint ...................................................................................129 Effect of Breakpoint Creation Method on Convergence ......................131 Secondary Source Breakpoint...............................................................136 Effect of Power vs. Current Injection on Convergence........................144 Iterations Required by Each Algorithm................................................156 Linear vs. Quadratic Convergence........................................................157 Total Flops for Each Algorithm............................................................158 Normalized Flops vs. Algorithm...........................................................159 Effect of Load Model on Number of Iterations ....................................161 Effect of Load Model on Number of Flops ..........................................161 Effect of Load Factor on Number of Iterations ....................................162 Effect of Load Factor on Number of Flops...........................................163 Effect of System Size on Number of Iterations ....................................164 Effect of System Size on Number of Flops ..........................................165 Total PARS Iterations for Adaptive vs. Single Iterations .....................167 Total Number of Flops for Adaptive vs. Single Iterations....................167 Number of Iterations vs. Number of Loops..........................................169 Number of Flops vs. Number of Loops ................................................169 Overall Comparison of Iteration Counts...............................................170 Overall Comparison of Flop Counts.....................................................171 xii

Figure 8.17 Convergence of V-I-PAWMS for Various Load Models.......................172 Figure 8.18 Effect of Load Model on Number of PARS Iterations..........................173 Figure 8.19 Effect of Load Model on Number of Flops ..........................................173

xiii

Chapter 1

Introduction
The supply of electric power to homes, ofces, schools, factories, stores, and nearly every other place in the modern world is now taken for granted. Electric power has become a fundamental part of the infrastructure of contemporary society, with most of todays daily activity based on the assumption that the desired electric power is readily available. The power systems which provide this electricity are some of the largest and most complex systems in the world. They consist of three primary components: the generation system, the transmission system, and the distribution system. Each component is essential to the process of delivering power from the site where it is produced to the customer who uses it.

1.1 Background
One of the most fundamental calculations related to any system is the determination of the steady state behavior. In power systems, this calculation is the steady state power ow problem, also called load ow. It essen-

2 tially involves nding the steady state voltages at each node, given a certain set of generation and loading conditions. The majority of power ow algorithms in wide use in industry today, most notably, the Newton-Raphson method and its variants [25; 28], have been developed specically for transmission systems which have a meshed structure, with parallel lines and many redundant paths from the generation points to the load points. The Newton-Raphson method itself is computationally expensive for large systems, due primarily to the size of the Jacobian and the resulting system of linear equations which must be solved to nd the Newton step. For transmission systems, some approximations can typically be made which allow for the decoupling of real and reactive power from and voltage magnitude and angle, respectively. The Jacobian can also be approximated by a constant matrix, resulting in the fast-decoupled Newton method [26] which has proven to be a great improvement over the standard Newton-Raphson power ow for many cases. The focus of this dissertation is on the solution of the power ow problem for the distribution system. Typically, a distribution system originates at a substation where the electric power is converted from the high voltage transmission system to a lower voltage for delivery to the customers. Unlike a transmission system, a distribution system typically has a radial topological structure. Unfortunately, this radial structure, along with the higher resistance/reactance (R/X) ratio of the lines, makes the fast-decoupled Newton method unsuitable for most distribution power ow problems. Since power ow is such a fundamental calculation for a power system, it is used in many applications in planning and operation. Some of the

3 optimization problems related to distribution automation, such as network reconguration, service restoration, and capacitor placement, require the solution of hundreds or even thousands of power ow problems. These applications place two primary requirements on a distribution power ow program. First, the modeling must reect the actual behavior of the system components. Second, the solution algorithm must be robust and efcient. Various efcient distribution power ow algorithms which exploit the radial structure have been proposed in the literature. These algorithms can be classied into three groups: network reduction methods [4] backward/forward sweep methods [3; 11; 18; 19; 20; 23] fast decoupled methods [12; 17; 32] All of the proposed methods, as presented, have some limitations. Many are only applied to single-phase representations of the network and cannot handle unbalanced distribution systems or networks with a mixed number of phases. Most of the methods are also proposed in the context of limited network modeling. In particular, none of the algorithms in the literature include modeling for transformers which are grounded on one side and ungrounded on the other. Unlike the extension from a single-phase to a three-phase representation, the addition of such modeling into the formulation is not straightforward. Line charging capacitance, cogeneration, and general load models are also typically not considered.

1.2 Objectives and Contributions

The objective of this work was to develop a formulation and an efcient solution algorithm for the distribution power ow problem which

4 takes into account the detailed and extensive modeling necessary for use in the distribution automation environment of a real world power system. A general framework was developed for each of the three classes of existing algorithms, and a common set of network component models was chosen. The general framework for each class helps in relating the proposed algorithms to one another and also reveals variations of each class that have not previously been explored. Within each class, new algorithms were developed and, where necessary, the existing algorithms were extended to remove limitations and generalized to handle the following: general radial structure1 unbalanced three-phase operation, including single-phase and two-phase branches general load models, including constant power, constant current, and constant impedance loads, connected in wye or delta congurations cogenerators shunt capacitors line charging effects switches three-phase transformers of various connection types The basic problem framework and some common notation used throughout the dissertation are introduced in Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, detailed models for loads, shunt capacitors, cogenerators, distribution lines, switches, and transformers are presented, along with some of the specic equations needed to implement these models in the algorithms which follow.

1 Some

existing methods only handle a main feeder with laterals.

5 Chapters 4, 5, and 6, respectively, discuss in detail the network reduction, backward/forward sweep, and fast decoupled algorithms. Each chapter presents rst the basic concepts behind the corresponding class of methods, then a detailed description of a specic algorithm in the respective class. Following this detailed description of the algorithm are some comments on the implementation of the method. Each of the three classes includes several variations which are discussed relative to the version presented in detail. Each of these chapters concludes with a discussion of the convergence characteristics followed by some general comments. Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 include proofs of convergence for the respective algorithms. Chapter 7 explores an extension of the radial power ow algorithms discussed in the previous three chapters to handle weakly meshed systems with certain modeling restrictions. The extension described is based on a radial power ow solver imbedded within a compensation method. It extends the formulation to address systems with loops, secondary sources, and PV buses. The structure of the chapter is similar to the pattern of the previous three, discussing the basic concepts, followed by a detailed description of the algorithm, implementation notes, variations, and comments. Each of the radial power ow algorithms, including all of the variations presented, along with the extensions to weakly meshed networks, was implemented in a MATLAB program for testing. In addition, the Newton-Raphson and Implicit Zbus Gauss methods were implemented for comparison. Chapter 8 analyzes the relative performance of the various methods on test systems ranging in size from 63 buses to over 1000 buses. The effects of system size, load models, load factor, and number of loops in

6 the network are examined. The chapter ends with a summary of the simulation results and some general conclusions about the relative merits of the different approaches. The nal chapter discusses the conclusions drawn from this work, outlines a summary of the contributions made, and mentions some ideas for possible areas of future research to extend the work in this dissertation.

Chapter 2

Basic Problem Framework

The distribution power ow problem is the problem of nding the operating point of a distribution network at steady state under given conditions of load and cogeneration. This involves, rst of all, nding all of the bus voltages. From these voltages, it is possible to directly compute currents, power ows, system losses and other steady state quantities. This chapter presents some of the fundamental concepts which are general in nature and apply to all or at least several of the approaches discussed in later chapters.

2.1 Mathematical Notation

Since this dissertation deals with three-phase unbalanced power ow, vectors are typically used to represent voltages, currents, power ows, and admittances. Many of the formulas presented in this work can be expressed more clearly and compactly by using certain notational conventions. The conventions shown in Table 2.1 for complex vectors x and y, for

8 complex matrices A, X, and Y, and for functions f and g, will be used extensively throughout this dissertation. Table 2.1 Mathematical Notation The Expression: x .* y x./ y x x x2 x = A\ y X = A\Y x x f g( x)
The

Is Used To Denote: element-wise multiplication element-wise division element-wise complex conjugate element-wise magnitude element-wise squared magnitude

solution to the equation Ax = y to the equation AX = Y

solution

computed value, as opposed to given value constant parameter, as opposed to a variable function composition, f ( g( x))

notation A 1 is not used since it is restricted to cases where A is square and non-singular. The \ notation is used only when the corresponding equation produces a unique solution. In other words, if A is not a square non-singular matrix, then A must have more rows than columns and the corresponding equation must have the appropriate number of redundant rows.

2.2 Bus and Lateral Indexing

In most typical power ow formulations, a set of equations and unknowns is associated with each bus in the network, and these equations and unknowns are organized by a particular bus ordering. Because of the radial structure of the systems under consideration, the number of equations and variables can be reduced so that each set of equations and

9 unknowns corresponds to an entire lateral instead of an individual bus. Such a formulation therefore calls for an appropriate lateral indexing to order these equations and variables.

2.2.1

Indexing Scheme

A radial system can be thought of as a main feeder with laterals. These laterals may also have sub-laterals, which themselves may have sub-laterals, etc. First, the level of lateral i is dened as the number of laterals which need to be traversed to go from the end of lateral i to the source. For example, the main feeder would be level 1, its sub-laterals would be level 2, their sub-laterals level 3, etc. Second, the laterals within level l are indexed according to the order seen during a breadth-rst traversal of the network. Each lateral can be uniquely identied by an ordered pair ( l, m ) where l is the lateral level and m is the lateral index within level l. Third, buses are indexed within each lateral, starting with the rst bus on the lateral, so that each bus is uniquely identied by an ordered triple ( l, m, n ) where n is the bus index. The ordered triple ( l, m, n ) refers to the nth bus on the mth level l lateral. The source is given an index of ( 1, 1, 0 ) . The number of levels in a network will be denoted by L, the number of laterals on level l by M l , and the number of buses on lateral ( l, m ) by N l, m . Figure 2.1 shows an example of this indexing scheme on a sample 63-bus system. The boxed numbers show the reverse breadth-rst (RBF) ordering of the laterals found by sorting the lateral indices in descending order, rst by level, then by lateral index. The RBF ordering is typically

10

19 (2,1,5) (2,1,4)

10 (4,1,2) (4,1,1) 17 (2,3,4)

1 (4,10,2) (4,10,1)

(2,1,3)

16 (3,1,1) (3,1,2) (2,3,3) (2,3,2) (4,8,1) (3,6,1) (3,5,1) (3,6,2) (3,5,2)

11 (3,6,3) (3,5,3) 12 (4,9,1) (4,9,2)

(2,1,2)

(2,1,1) Source (1,1,0) (1,1,1) (1,1,2) (2,2,1) (1,1,3)

(2,3,1)

(4,8,2) 3 2 (1,1,6)

(1,1,4)

(1,1,5)

20 (1,1,7)

(2,2,2)

(3,2,1)

(3,2,2)

(3,2,3)

(3,2,4)

(3,2,5) 15

(4,2,1) (3,3,3) 14 (3,3,2) (3,3,1) (2,2,3) (4,2,2) 9 (4,4,1) (4,4,2) 7 (2,2,5) (2,2,6) 18 6 (4,5,1) (4,5,2) 5 (4,6,1) (4,6,2) (2,2,4) (3,4,1) (3,4,2) (3,4,3)

(4,3,1) (4,3,2) 8 13 (3,4,4) (4,7,1) (4,7,2) 4

Figure 2.1 Example of Bus & Lateral Indexing

11 used for backward sweep type operations. If the laterals are sorted in ascending order, the result is a breadth-rst (BF) ordering, typically used for forward sweep type operations. The following shorthand notation will also be used when i is an ordered pair referring to a lateral and k is an ordered triple referring to a bus. Lateral i 1 refers to the parent of lateral i, and bus k 1 refers to bus ks parent bus. Unless specied otherwise, bus k + 1 is used to refer to the bus following bus k on the same lateral. This is consistent with using k as a simple bus index, in other words letting k = n , which is done frequently throughout the following chapters. In this case, bus 0 of lateral i refers to the bus on lateral i 1 from which lateral i emanates. For example, in the network in Figure 2.1, bus 0 of lateral (2,3) is also bus 4 of lateral (1,1). This notation is used in indexing voltages, currents, power ows, impedances, etc.

2.2.2

Indexing Implementation

All of the algorithms discussed in Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 use the ordering of the buses and laterals presented in the previous section. They also require the ability to traverse any given lateral from its source to its end bus or vice versa. Certain data structures are therefore needed in the program to store information about connectivity and ordering. Also required is a process by which this information is generated from the original network data. 2.2.2.1 Connectivity Data Structures

The network data which species the topology of the system is typically given as a list of branches with information on which two buses the

12 branch connects. In order to efciently traverse a feeder, it is important to store information with each bus k indicating the incoming branch, the bus which follows bus k on the same lateral, the number of sub-laterals branching off at bus k, and the rst bus on each of these sub-laterals. The rst three of these quantities will be denoted inbranch(k), next(k), and nsubs(k), respectively. The first bus on the sub-laterals branching from bus k will be called subbus1(k,1), subbus1(k,2), , subbus1(k,nsubs(k)), respectively. Assuming the source bus is known, these data structures can be built up, along with the ordered triples of the previous section, during the process of a breadth-rst search. 2.2.2.2 Breadth-First Search

The initial traversal of the network is done via a breadth-rst search algorithm. This traversal can be useful for many things such as detecting isolated sub-networks, checking the consistency of the phase data,1 and marking sections of the network as grounded or ungrounded. However, the primary purpose is to build up the connectivity data structures and assign the bus and lateral indices. It should be noted that a depth-rst search works equally well for building the connectivity data structures and indexing the buses. The breadth-rst approach was chosen for convenience in dealing with weakly meshed networks as discussed in Chapter 7. The breadth-rst search, as described in [22], requires the ability to nd all of the children associated with a given node of the tree. Since the connectivity structures are not yet available, the children of bus k must be found via brute force by searching all branches for those connected to

1 How

many and which phases are present at each bus and branch and do they match.

13 bus k. If the bus at the other end of such a branch has not yet been visited during the search,2 it is a child of bus k. When the search is at bus k and all of bus ks children have been found, the inbranch information can be set for each child. The value of nsubs is typically set to one less than the number of children since one of the children is generally selected to be the next bus on the same lateral and the rest are assigned to the elements of subbus1. The decision of which child, if any, is considered to be on the continuation of the same lateral and which children are considered to be on sub-laterals has a signicant effect on the resulting bus and lateral indexing. Since some of the power ow algorithms require that each lateral have at most one transformer, a child whose inbranch is a transformer is never assigned to next. Transformers are always assigned to a sub-lateral, even if it leads to the buss only child. Similarly, if the branch leading to a child of bus k has fewer phases than bus k, then the child is put on a sub-lateral. This simplies some of the implementation since it means that the phases present are consistent throughout an entire lateral. After setting the connectivity data structures at bus k, the buss ordered triple is generated. This requires several counters to be maintained during the search process. First, l, m, and n are used to denote the current level, lateral, and bus indices, respectively. The counters L, M l , and N l, m keep track of the number of levels encountered during the search, the number of laterals on level l, and the number of buses on lateral ( l, m ) , respectively. The algorithm used to generate the ordered triple for bus k is shown in Table 2.2.
2 i.e.

the branch is not the incoming branch of bus k (assuming a radial network).

14 Table 2.2 Bus Indexing Implementation Algorithm for Setting Indices (l, m, n) for Bus k if bus k is the source set ( l, m, n ) = ( L, M 1, N 1, 1 ) = ( 1, 1, 0 ) otherwise (for all other buses) set l to the level of ks parent bus if bus k lies on the same lateral as its parent bus set m to lateral index of ks parent bus otherwise (it is the rst bus on a new lateral) increment l by 1 if this is the rst level l lateral encountered increment L by one (i.e. set L = l ) initialize M l = 0 end if increment M l by 1 and set m = M l initialize N l, m = 0 end if increment N l, m by 1 and set n = N l, m end if set the index for bus k to ( l, m, n ) The index for the source is set directly to ( 1, 1, 0 ) . Each of the remaining buses falls into one of two classes based on whether it is the rst bus on a lateral or a continuation of a lateral previously encountered during the search. For a bus k in the second class, the level and lateral indices, l and m, are copied directly from the buss parent. For the rst class, the level index l is set to one more than that of the buss parent, and the lateral counter for that level is incremented by one and assigned to the lateral

15 index m. Finally, in both cases, the bus counter for that lateral is incremented by one and assigned as the bus index n. Each time a new level l is rst encountered, L is incremented and assigned to l and the corresponding lateral counter M l is initialized to zero. Likewise, each time a new level l lateral is rst encountered, M l is incremented and assigned to m and the corresponding bus counter N l, m is initialized to zero. When the entire network has been traversed by the search, all connectivity structures have been built and all bus indices have been assigned. These bus indices are then used to form a list of laterals in RBF3 order. Each element of the list contains the rst and last buses on the corresponding lateral. These elements are sorted in descending order according to the indices associated with the corresponding buses, rst by the lateral level, then by the lateral index.

2.3 Basic System Model

For the purposes of power ow studies, a radial distribution system can be modeled as a network of buses connected by distribution lines, switches, or transformers to a voltage specied source bus. Each bus may also have a corresponding load, shunt capacitor, and/or cogenerator connected to it. The model can be represented by a radial interconnection of copies of the basic building block shown in Figure 2.2. Since a given branch may be single-phase, two-phase, or three-phase, each of the labeled quantities is, respectively, a complex scalar, a 2 x 1, or a 3 x 1 complex vector. Figure 2.2 establishes a consistent notation, which will be used extensively throughout this dissertation, for the voltages, currents, and power ows
3 See

page 9 under Section 2.2.1, Indexing Scheme.

16

Bus k-1 (supplying)

Bus k (receiving) sub-laterals

Vk 1

Ik Sk

distribution line, switch, or transformer

I k

Vk

Ik + 1 Sk + 1

S k

I Gk cogenerator

S Gk

I Ck

S Ck

I Lk load

S Lk

shunt capacitor

Figure 2.2 Basic Building Block related to a given bus k. V is used to denote voltage, I to denote current, and S to denote power ow. The dotted lines from the cogenerator, shunt capacitor, and load to ground are to indicate that these elements may be connected in an ungrounded delta conguration. The radial structure implies that there are no loops in the network and each bus is connected to the source via exactly one path. It is this structure that makes possible the three classes of power ow algorithms discussed in this dissertation. The rst is based on the network reduction methods presented in Chapter 4. The remaining two involve updating voltages, currents, and power ows along the paths from the source to the end buses. These are the backward/forward sweep and fast decoupled algorithms discussed in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, respectively.

17 Each of the algorithms in these three classes depends on the ability to compute the voltage and current (or power ow) at a given bus from the corresponding quantities at an adjacent bus. Letting wk = Vk Ik + 1 and u k = Vk Sk + 1 , (2.1)

these update formulas can be expressed mathematically by the equations in Table 2.3 for each of four different cases. Table 2.3 General Update Formulas Based on Direction of Calculation forward current backward forward power ow backward Update Formula w k = f k(w k 1) w k 1 = g k(w k) u k = e k(u k 1) u k 1 = h k(u k) (2.2) (2.3) (2.4) (2.5)

The functions f k and g k are inverses of each other and the functions e k and h k are inverses of each other. Each of the four functions is determined by the respective load, shunt capacitor, cogenerator, and sub-laterals attached at bus k as well as the incoming distribution line, switch, or transformer. The implementation of each of the update formulas in Table 2.3 consists of a four step procedure. The steps for the implementation of (2.2) are shown in Table 2.4. The backward calculation of (2.3) is accomplished by the steps shown in Table 2.5. These steps are nearly the same as those in Table 2.4, but in a different order. In the case of (2.4) and (2.5), where

18 Table 2.4 Implementation of (2.2) Procedure 1 2 3 4 Compute V k from V k 1 and I k . Compute I k from V k , V k 1 and I k . Compute I Gk , I Ck , and I Lk from V k . Compute I k + 1 via KCL at bus k. Details see Tables 3.6 - 3.11 see Tables 3.6 - 3.11 see Tables 3.3 - 3.5 see (2.20)

Table 2.5 Implementation of (2.3) Procedure 1 2 3 4 Compute I Gk , I Ck , and I Lk from V k . Compute I k via KCL at bus k. Compute V k 1 from V k and I k . Compute I k from V k 1 , V k and I k . Details see Tables 3.3 - 3.5 see (2.20) see Tables 3.6 - 3.11 see Tables 3.6 - 3.11

power ow is used instead of current, all of the Is in Tables 2.4 and 2.5 are replaced by Ss.

2.3.1

Voltage and Current/Power Flow Update for Branch k

The voltage updates, as detailed in Tables 3.6 - 3.11, depend only on the parameters of the branch itself and the voltage and injected current (or power) at one end of the branch. Typically, the parameters of bus ks incoming branch4 can be represented by an admittance matrix, expressed in a general form as
BR Yk

Yk Yk
21 Yk

11

12

22 Yk

(2.6)

4 The

incoming branch of bus k will also be referred to as branch k.

19 The voltages and currents at either end of branch k are related by Y k follows: Ik Ik Yk Yk
21 Yk 11 12 BR

as

Vk 1 Vk

22 Yk

(2.7)

From (2.7), V k can be calculated in the forward direction as a function of V k 1 and I k or V k 1 can be calculated in the backward direction as a function of V k and I k . If power ow is being used instead of current, the following are substituted for I k and I k , respectively: I k = ( Sk . / V k 1) I k = ( Sk . / V k) (2.8) (2.9)

Once the voltage, V k or V k 1 depending on the direction of calculation, has been updated, the updated current can also be computed directly from (2.7). If the power ow is needed it can be computed from the updated current and voltage by one of the following: S k = V k 1 .* I k S k = V k .* I k (2.10) (2.11)

The resulting general branch update formulas are summarized in Table 2.6.

2.3.2

Application of KCL

The current or power ow component of the update formulas (2.2)(2.5) is based on the current or power lost in bus ks incoming branch and the application of Kirchhoffs Current Law (KCL) at bus k. The application of KCL at bus k requires the currents injected by cogenerators, shunt

20 Table 2.6 General Branch Update Formulas

Based on Direction of Function Calculation of forward current backward V k, I k V k 1, I k Update Formula
12 1 11 V k = ( Y k ) ( I k Y k V k 1) 21 22 Ik = Y k V k 1 + Y k V k 21 1 22 V k 1 = ( Y k ) ( I k Y k V k) 11 12 Ik = Y k V k 1 + Y k V k 12 1 11 V k = ( Y k ) ( ( Sk . / V k 1) Y k V k 1) 21 22 S k = V k .* ( Y k V k 1 + Y k V k ) 21 1 22 V k 1 = ( Y k ) ( ( Sk . / V k) Y k V k) 11 12 S k = V k 1 .* ( Y k V k 1 + Y k V k )

(2.12) (2.13) (2.14) (2.15) (2.16) (2.17) (2.18) (2.19)

forward power ow backward

V k 1, S k

V k, S k

capacitors, and loads, represented by I Gk , I Ck , and I Lk , respectively. Each of these quantities is a function of V k and is hence designated with a tilde. It also requires the currents I j injected into sub-laterals branching off from bus k. Here j A k and A k is the set of buses adjacent to bus k on sub-laterals. KCL at bus k can then be written as I Gk + I Ck + I Lk

j Ak

I j I k I k + 1 = 0 .

(2.20)

In the case where power ow is used there is an analogous equation expressing the conservation of complex power at bus k. S Gk + S Ck + S Lk

j Ak

S j Sk Sk + 1 = 0

(2.21)

Chapter 3

Detailed Component Models

In any problem where mathematics and numerical algorithms are used to analyze a physical system, the results are only as accurate as the mathematical models used. In power systems analysis, the solutions found by any power ow algorithm are only useful to the user if they provide results which are meaningful with respect to some real system. It is therefore important to model each component of the system as accurately as possible. On the other hand, care must be taken to avoid using models which are overly detailed and therefore either computationally impractical or unusable due to unavailability of parameter data. The algorithms presented in this dissertation are based on models which attempt to meet these two requirements. Most are based on standard three-phase models as presented in [2; 8; 10]. This chapter describes in detail the models used for loads, shunt capacitors, cogenerators, distribution lines, switches, and transformers. These models provide relationships between the relevant voltages, currents, and power ows. By convention, injected currents and power ows

21

22 are always used for loads, shunt capacitors, and cogenerators, as shown in Figure 2.2. Bus voltages are typically the phase voltages V , V , and V referenced to ground. However, it is possible to have oating sections of the network in which there is no reference to ground. For example, there might be a feeder connected to the secondary side of a grounded wye to delta transformer which has only ungrounded, i.e. delta connected, loads. The terms grounded and ungrounded, respectively, will be used to distinguish between parts of the network which have a reference to ground and those oating sections which do not. Which buses are in grounded sections and which are in ungrounded sections is determined according to the grounding of the transformer connections during the initial traversal of the network described in Section 2.2.2.2, Breadth-First Search. It is assumed that any part of a network supplied through an ungrounded transformer connection will be entirely ungrounded.1 In the ungrounded sections, to avoid arbitrarily picking a particular phase as the voltage reference, the line-to-line voltages V used. In this case, the third line voltage V equal to ( V
c a ab bc ca ab a b c

and V

bc

are

is redundant since it is always

+ V ) , and the dimension of the equations is reduced by

one. Similarly, the current in one of the phases is redundant since I = ( I + I ) , so typically only phase a and phase b currents are used for calculation.
b

sub-network, supplied through an ungrounded transformer connection, which does have some grounded elements could be handled by the network reduction methods of Chapter 4, though the details of such a case are not discussed. In their current forms, however, the methods of Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 are unable to handle this case.

1A

23 When computing power ows as opposed to currents, ground is used a a a as a reference in grounded sections. For example, S = V I . However, in ungrounded sections, the power used is that dened by the line-to-line voltages V
ab

and V

bc

, and the currents I and I . S

ab

= V

ab a

(3.1) (3.2)

bc

= V I

bc b

It is important to note that, although it is possible to calculate total power ows in grounded sections of the network by the sum S + S + S , the total power ow in an ungrounded section is not equal to S
ab a b c

+ S . Total

bc

power ows must be calculated using a common voltage base. For example, using phase c as a voltage reference, the total power can be computed as S
total

= S

ac

+S .

bc

(3.3)

3.1 Load Model

The model used for loads is a exible one. It includes constant complex power, constant current, and constant impedance types.2 Three-phase loads can be balanced or unbalanced and can be connected in a grounded wye conguration or an ungrounded delta conguration. It is also possible to have single-phase or two-phase grounded loads. Typically, the load values are given as nominal power delivered to the load and must be converted into the appropriate constant model parameters. Depending on the type of power ow algorithm being utilized, it may be necessary to compute

Each load could actually be a linear combination of these three types. In fact, it is straightforward to generalize the model presented here to a current injection expressed as an arbitrary function of voltage.

24 the following quantities from the bus voltage V k and the constant model parameters: admittance matrix Y Lk injected current I Lk = Y Lk V k injected power S = V .* I
Lk k Lk

With a grounded wye connected load as shown in Figure 3.1, for each phase p, the parameter S Lk , nom is given. This is the nominal complex power absorbed by the element connected between phase p and ground. In other words, for a three-phase load, the nominal load is S Lk , nom S Lk , nom = S b . Lk , nom S Lk , nom
c a p

(3.4)

Vk

Vb k I Lk Sb Lk Sa Lk ya Lk
a

Vk I Lk
b

c c

I Lk

yb Lk S Lk yc Lk
c

Figure 3.1 Grounded Wye Connected Load

These values are converted to the appropriate constant model parameters I Lk , S Lk , or y Lk , according to the type of load and the nominal voltage V k, nom , using the equations in Table 3.1. I Lk , S Lk , and y Lk are n x 1 com-

25 plex vectors of current, power, and admittance, respectively, where n is the number of phases present. Note that I Lk and S Lk are injected quantities, hence the negative sign in (3.5) and (3.6). Table 3.1 Load Parameters from Nominal Loads
Connection V k, nom Load Type constant S grounded wye constant I
a V k, nom b V k, nom

Parameter Calculation S Lk = S Lk , nom I Lk = ( S Lk , nom . / V k, nom ) y Lk = S Lk , nom . / V k, nom 2 S Lk = S Lk , nom I Lk = ( S Lk , nom . / ( UV k, nom ) ) y Lk = S Lk , nom . / UV k, nom 2 S Lk = S Lk , nom I Lk = ( S Lk , nom . / V k, nom ) y Lk = S Lk , nom . / V k, nom 2
* * *

(3.5) (3.6) (3.7) (3.8) (3.9) (3.10) (3.11) (3.12) (3.13)

constant Z constant S constant I constant Z

V k, nom

ungrounded delta V abnom k, V k, nom V k, nom 1 1 0 0 1 1 . 1 0 1

ca bc

constant S constant I constant Z

where

U =

Figure 3.2 shows an ungrounded delta connected load for which the nominal power given is the power absorbed by the elements between each phase. In this case, the nominal load is S Lk , nom S Lk , nom = S bc . Lk , nom S Lk , nom
ca ab

(3.14)

26
a

Vk

Vk I Lk S ab Lk
ab y Lk a

Vk I Lk
b

c c

I Lk

I Lk y bc Lk S ca Lk
ca y Lk

bc

S Lk

bc

I ab Lk

I ca Lk

Figure 3.2 Ungrounded Delta Connected Load In the conversion from the nominal load to the appropriate constant model parameters shown in (3.8)-(3.13) in Table 3.1, the voltages used are phaseto-ground or line-to-line voltages, respectively, depending on whether the load is in a grounded or ungrounded section of the network.

3.1.1

Admittance Matrix for the Load

Some power ow algorithms require an admittance equivalent for each load. For constant impedance loads, the admittance matrix can be built directly from the constant element admittances y Lk given. For constant current or constant PQ loads, equivalent admittances y Lk for each element are computed rst. These admittances are equivalent in the sense that they yield the appropriate current or power ow, respectively, at the given bus voltage. Table 3.2 gives the element admittance equivalents and the admittance matrix for each load and connection type.

27

Table 3.2 Load Admittance

Connection Vk Load Type Element Admittance y Lk = ( S Lk . / V k 2 ) I Lk . / V k y Lk ( S Lk . / UV k 2 ) I Lk . / ( UV k ) y Lk ( S Lk . / V k 2 ) I Lk . / V k y Lk y Lk + y Lk y Lk y Lk
ca ab ca ab

Admittance Matrix Y Lk = ya 0 Lk 0

constant S grounded wye constant I Vk

c a b

0 yb 0 Lk 0 0 y Lk y Lk y Lk + y Lk y Lk
bc ab bc ab c

constant Z constant S constant I

Vk Vk

y Lk y Lk y Lk + y Lk
bc ca bc

ca

ungrounded delta Vk
ab bc

constant Z constant S constant I constant Z

y Lk + y Lk y Lk y Lk
ab

ca

ab

ca bc

Vk

y Lk

where

U =

1 1 0 0 1 1 . 1 0 1

3.1.2

Current and Power Injected by the Load

Some power ow algorithms require the computation of the current or power injected by the load at bus k based on the bus voltage V k . Table 3.3 shows how the injected current and power can be computed from the voltage and the load parameters for each of the different cases. Some of the calculations are based on the admittance matrix from Table 3.2.

28 Table 3.3 Current & Power Injected by Load

Connection Vk Load Type constant S grounded wye constant I
a Vk b Vk c Vk

Injected Current I Lk = ( S Lk . / V k ) I Lk y Lk .* V k ( U [ S Lk . / ( UV k ) ] )
T

Injected Power S Lk = S Lk V k .* I Lk

constant Z constant S constant I constant Z

U I Lk Y Lk V k
ca S Lk -----------------------ab bc Vk + Vk ab ab S Lk --------ab Vk

V k .* I Lk

ungrounded delta Vk
ab

bc

constant S

S Lk S Lk --------- --------ab bc Vk Vk I Lk I Lk I Lk I Lk constant Z Y Lk V k

ab bc ca ab

bc Vk

V k .* I Lk

constant I

where

U =

1 1 0 0 1 1 . 1 0 1

3.2 Shunt Capacitor Model

Shunt capacitors, often used for reactive power compensation in a distribution network, are modeled as constant capacitance devices. As with loads, they can be connected in a grounded wye conguration or an ungrounded delta conguration as shown in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2, respectively. In fact, they are treated in exactly the same way as a purely reactive constant impedance load. It is assumed that shunt capacitors in

29 grounded sections of the network are wye connected and those in ungrounded sections are three-phase and delta connected. The constant model parameter, in this case, is the admittance y Ck which is computed from the given nominal reactive power injection Q Ck , nom . The nominal voltage V k, nom is the phase-to-ground voltage in grounded sections and the full 3-dimensional line-to-line voltage for ungrounded sections.3 The admittance y Ck is then given by y Ck = jQ Ck , nom . / V k, nom 2 . (3.15)

From y Ck it is possible to compute the necessary admittance matrix and injected current and power as shown in Table 3.4. Table 3.4 Shunt Capacitor Admittance, Current & Power Injection
Connection Vk
a

Admittance Matrix Injected Current Injected Power Y Ck = I Ck = S Ck = y Ck 0 0 0

ca b y Ck a

grounded wye

Vk

0 0
c

b Vk c Vk

0 y Ck
ab ca bc

Y Ck V k

V k .* I Ck

ungrounded delta

V ab k V bc k

y Ck + y Ck y Ck y Ck
ab

y Ck

3.3 Cogenerator Model

Depending on its particular control parameters, a cogenerator in a distribution system may be set to output power at either a constant power factor or a constant terminal voltage. In other words, some cogenerators are modeled as constant complex power elements, treated as constant PQ
3 i.e.
b c bc ca V k, nom is V a or V ab , respectively. k, nom V k, nom V k, nom k, nom V k, nom V k, nom

30 loads with positive, as opposed to negative, real power injection. Others are modeled as PV buses. This second type of cogenerator cannot be handled directly by the radial power ow programs presented here. However, Chapter 7 presents some extensions to the radial power ow methods which do handle PV buses. Even in this case, each PV bus is treated as a constant complex power element during any given iteration of the power ow algorithm. It is therefore sufcient to present only the relevant formulas for constant PQ cogenerators. Cogenerators in grounded sections of the system are assumed to be wye connected, and in ungrounded sections they are assumed to be threephase and delta connected. Typically S Gk , the complex power supplied by each element, is given and is used to compute the necessary admittance matrix and injected current and power as shown in Table 3.5. Table 3.5 Cogenerator Admittance, Current & Power Injection
Connection Vk Element Admittance y Gk = Admittance Matrix Gk = Y y Gk 0 0 0 ( S Gk . / V k 2 ) ungrounded delta Vk
ab b y Gk a

Injected Current I Gk =

Injected Power Gk = S

grounded wye

Vk
c

0 0 y Gk
ca S Gk -----------------------ab bc Vk + Vk ab S Gk --------- V ab k ab S Gk --------ab Vk c

b Vk

( S Gk . / V k )

S Gk

Vk

V k .* I Gk

y Gk + y Gk y Gk
ab y Gk bc y Gk

ca

ab

ca

bc Vk

bc S Gk --------V bc k

31

3.4 Distribution Line Model

The model used to represent a distribution line connecting two buses is the standard -model shown in Figure 3.3. The impedance of distribu-

Bus k-1 (supplying) Vk 1 Vk 1 Vk 1

c b a

Bus k (receiving) Series Impedance Zk Shunt Capacitance 1 -- Y 2 k 1 -- Y 2 k Shunt Capacitance Vk b Vk c Vk

a

Figure 3.3 Three-Phase Distribution Line Model

tion line k4 is represented as a series impedance Z k , and the line charging effects are divided between the two shunt arms, each with an admittance of Y k 2 . The impedance Z k and the admittance Y k are both n x n complex matrices, where n is the number of phases in the line. The branch admittance matrix for this model is 1 Z k 1 + -- Y k 2 =
Zk1 Zk1 Zk1

BR Yk

1 + -- Y k 2

(3.16)

4 The

distribution line entering bus k.

32 Substituting this value for Y k

BR

in (2.7) and solving for the appropriate

variables yields the equations for voltage, current and power ow updates given in Table 3.6. Table 3.6 Update Formulas for Distribution Lines

Function of

Update Formula

V k 1, I k

1 V k = V k 1 + Z k -- Y k V k 1 I k 2 1 I k = -- Y k ( V k + V k 1 ) I k 2 1 V k 1 = V k + Z k -- Y k V k I k 2 1 I k = -- Y k ( V k + V k 1 ) I k 2 1 V k = V k 1 + Z k -- Y k V k 1 ( S k . / V k 1 ) 2 1 S k = V k .* -- Y k ( V k + V k 1 ) ( S k . / V k 1 ) 2 1 V k 1 = V k + Z k -- Y k V k ( S k . / V k ) 2 1 S k = V k 1 .* -- Y k ( V k + V k 1 ) ( S k . / V k ) 2

(3.17) (3.18) (3.19) (3.20) (3.21) (3.22) (3.23) (3.24)

V k, I k

V k 1, S k

V k, S k

For a three-phase line in an ungrounded section of the network, the line charging effects are assumed to be negligible5 so Y k is set to zero. The series impedance Z k is reduced to 2 x 2 for use with the line-to-line voltages. The series impedance Z k which is given is a 3 x 3 matrix expressed in per unit based on the nominal phase-to-ground voltages. This matrix,

Otherwise, the section would not be ungrounded since the shunt capacitance of the -model would give a reference to ground.

33 denoted by Z k rents. Ik
c a b phase

, relates the phase-to-ground voltages to the phase cur-

Ik Ik

a a Vk 1 Vk phase Vb Vb = Zk k1 k c c Vk 1 Vk
line

(3.25)

The desired series impedance, denoted by Z k

, is a 2 x 2 matrix relating

the line-to-line voltages to the phase currents as follows: Ik

a

b Ik

ab ab Vk 1 line V k = Zk bc bc Vk 1 Vk

(3.26)

This impedance is expressed in per unit based on the nominal line-to-line voltage and can be computed from Z k
line phase

as follows: 1 0 0 1 , 1 1

Zk

1 phase = 1 1 0 -- Z k 0 1 1 3

(3.27)

1 where the factor of -- is due to the change of per unit voltage base. 3

3.5 Switch Model

Sectionalizing switches are modeled as branches with zero impedance. For a switch between bus k 1 and bus k, the voltage and current (or power ow) at bus k can be computed directly from the voltage and current (or power ow) at bus k 1 and vice versa from the formulas given in Table 3.7, with no need to express the model using an admittance matrix.

34 Table 3.7 Update Formulas for Switches

Function of

Update Formula

V k 1, I k

Vk = Vk 1 Ik = Ik Vk 1 = Vk Ik = Ik Vk = Vk 1 Sk = Sk Vk 1 = Vk Sk = Sk

(3.28) (3.29) (3.30) (3.31) (3.32) (3.33) (3.34) (3.35)

V k, I k

V k 1, S k

V k, S k

3.6 Transformer Model

Three-phase transformers are modeled by an admittance matrix which depends upon the connection type, the primary and secondary side taps, and the leakage admittance. This admittance matrix for

transformer k6 is
BR Yk

Yk Yk
sp Yk

pp

ps

ss Yk

(3.36)

For a grounded wye to grounded wye transformer, this is a 6 x 6 complex matrix relating primary and secondary side currents and primary and secondary side phase-to-ground voltages. In the case where one side of the

6 The

transformer entering bus k.

35 transformer is ungrounded, such as a delta or ungrounded wye connection, line-to-line voltages are used and the dimension of the admittance matrix is reduced to 5 x 5. If both sides are ungrounded, line-to-line voltages are used on both sides and the dimension of Y k
BR

is 4 x 4.

In the following sections, the primary side taps for transformer k are denoted by k , the secondary side taps by k , and the per unit leakage admittance per phase by y k . The admittance matrices for common transformer connections are given in Table 3.8. To simplify the presentation of the relevant update formulas, the various transformer types are divided into three classes based on the grounding of their connections.

3.6.1

Class A: Primary and Secondary both Grounded or both Ungrounded

The simplest class of transformer connections will be presented rst. This is the class of transformers which are either grounded on both sides or ungrounded on both sides. This includes connection types 1, 5, 6, 8, and 9. In this case, each submatrix of Y k
BR

is square and non-singular so (3.36)

can be substituted into (2.7) to solve directly for the appropriate variables. The resulting update formulas are given in Table 3.9.

3.6.2

Class B: Grounded PrimaryUngrounded Secondary

The second class of transformer connections to be presented is the class of transformers with grounded primary side and ungrounded secondary side. This includes connection types 2 and 3. For these transformers, the voltage, current, and power ow on the primary side are three-dimensional quantities, but on the secondary side they are two-dimensional quantities. There is a constraint, however, on the primary side currents

36 Table 3.8 Admittance Matrices for Common Transformer Connections

Transformer Connection Type Primary Secondary Yk
pp sp

Yk

ps ss

Yk

Yk

yk 1 0 0 ----- 0 1 0 2 k 001 1 A Grounded Wye Grounded Wye yk 1 0 0 ----------- 0 1 0 k k 001 yk 2 1 1 --------- 1 2 1 2 3 k 1 1 2 yk ------------------- 2 1 1 3 k k 1 2 1 yk 1 0 0 ----- 0 1 0 2 k 001 yk ----------- 1 0 1 k k 1 1 0 4 C Ungrounded Wye Grounded Wye

yk 1 0 0 ----------- 0 1 0 k k 001 yk 1 0 0 ----- 0 1 0 2 k 001 2 1 yk ------------------- 1 1 3 k k 1 2 yk ----- 2 1 2 k 1 1 yk ----------k k 1 0 0 1 1 1

Grounded Wye

Ungrounded Wye

Grounded Wye

Delta

yk ----- 2 1 2 k 1 1

opposite of type 2 yk ----- 2 1 2 k 1 1 yk ----------- 2 1 k k 1 1 yk ----- 2 1 2 k 1 1 3 yk 1 0 ---------------k k 0 1 yk ----- 2 1 2 k 1 1

Ungrounded Wye Ungrounded Wye yk ----------- 2 1 k k 1 1 yk ----- 2 1 2 k 1 1

Ungrounded Wye

Delta 3 yk 1 1 ---------------k k 1 0

7 8 9
i.e.

C A A swap
pp Yk

Delta Delta Delta and

ps Yk

Grounded Wye Ungrounded Wye Delta with

ss Yk

opposite of type 3 opposite of type 6 same as type 5

and

sp Yk

, respectively, then swap k with k .

37 Table 3.9 Update Formulas for Class A Transformers

Function of

Update Formula

V k 1, I k

ps 1 pp V k = ( Y k ) ( I k Y k V k 1) sp ss Ik = Y k V k 1 + Y k V k sp 1 ss V k 1 = ( Y k ) ( I k Y k V k) pp ps Ik = Y k V k 1 + Y k V k ps 1 pp V k = ( Y k ) ( ( Sk . / V k 1) Y k V k 1)

(3.37) (3.38) (3.39) (3.40) (3.41) (3.42) (3.43) (3.44)

V k, I k

V k 1, S k

S k = V k .* ( Y sp V k 1 + Y ss V k ) k k
sp 1 ss V k 1 = ( Y k ) ( ( Sk . / V k) Y k V k) pp ps S k = V k 1 .* ( Y k V k 1 + Y k V k )

V k, S k

which effectively restricts it to two degrees of freedom. This constraint can be expressed in terms of the sum of the currents on the primary side, denoted by I k = I k + I k + I k . For the type 2 grounded wye to ungrounded wye case, the primary currents must sum to zero. Ik = 0
a b c

(3.45)

For type 3 grounded wye to delta connections, the sum of the primary currents is related to the sum of the primary voltages as follows: yk I k = ----- V k 1 , 2 k where V k 1 = V k 1 + V k 1 + V k 1 . In attempting to solve for the secondary voltage V k , (2.7) yields Y k V k = Ik Y k V k 1 ,
ps pp a b c

(3.46)

(3.47)

38 where Y k is 3 x 2. This equation has a unique solution for V k only if I k

ps

satises the appropriate constraint above, in which case one of the three rows of (3.47) becomes redundant. Using the notation from Table 2.1, the solution to this equation can be written as in (3.50) in Table 3.10. Consider trying to solve for the primary side voltage from the lower half of (2.7). Y k V k 1 = Ik Y k V k
sp sp ss

(3.48)

In this case, Y k is 2 x 3 and, consequently, the secondary voltage and current do not uniquely specify the primary voltage. It is only possible to solve for V k 1 if it is assumed that some information is already given, such as the sum of the primary side voltages V k 1 . If this information is given, the solution to (3.48) can be written as in (3.52). In this case, w k used in (2.3) must include V k 1 . Vk wk = V k1 Ik + 1 So, for forward calculation, there is a constraint on the sum of the primary side currents. For backward calculation, information about the sum of the primary side voltages must be available. Assuming these conditions are met, the expressions for the updates can be written as shown in Table 3.10. (3.49)

39

Table 3.10 Update Formulas for Class B Transformers

Function of

Update Formula

V k 1, I k

ps pp V k = Y k \ ( I k Y k V k 1) sp ss Ik = Y k V k 1 + Y k V k sp 1

(3.50) (3.51)

V k, I k , V 1 k

Vk 1 =

Yk

Ik Y k V k Vk 1

ss

(3.52)

111
pp ps Ik = Y k V k 1 + Y k V k

(3.53) (3.54) (3.55)

ss

V k 1, S k

ps pp V k = Y k \ ( ( Sk . / V k 1) Y k V k 1) sp ss S k = V k .* ( Y k V k 1 + Y k V k ) sp 1

V k, S k , V 1 k

Vk 1 =

Yk

( Sk . / V k) Y k V k Vk 1

(3.56)

111

pp ps S k = V k 1 .* ( Y k V k 1 + Y k V k )

(3.57)

3.6.3

Class C: Ungrounded PrimaryGrounded Secondary

The third class consists of transformers with ungrounded primary side and grounded secondary side. This includes connection types 4 and 7. Transformers in this class have two-dimensional quantities for the voltage, current, and power ow on the primary side, but three-dimensional quantities on the secondary side.

40 In this case, the constraint on the sum of the currents is on the secondary side, i.e. on I k = I k + I k + I k , and thus affects the backward calculation. For the type 4 ungrounded wye to grounded wye case, Ik = 0 .
a b c

(3.58)

For type 7 delta to grounded wye connections, the constraint on the current is related to the sum of the secondary voltages V k = V k + V k + V k . yk I k = -----V k 2 k
sp a b c

(3.59)

Since Y k is 3 x 2, the appropriate constraint above must be satised in order to solve (3.48) for the primary voltage V k 1 . The solution can be expressed as in (3.63) in Table 3.11. Forward calculation with transformers of class C is similar to backward calculation with class B transformers. In this case, Y k is 2 x 3 and more information is needed to solve for a unique secondary voltage V k from the primary voltage and current. If the sum of the secondary voltage V k is known, that is sufcient to specify the secondary voltage completely. However, in the power ow algorithms proposed in this dissertation, it is actually current information, rather than voltage information, which is available at the secondary side. For type 7 delta to grounded wye transformers, (3.59) can be used to solve for V k from the sum of the secondary current I k , allowing V k to be expressed as in (3.61). Here w k 1 of (2.2) must include I k . Vk 1 wk 1 = Ik Ik
ps

(3.60)

41 For type 4 ungrounded wye to grounded wye connections, I k gives no information about V k , so algorithms based on forward calculation using this formulation cannot handle this type of transformer connection. To summarize, the update formulas for class C transformers apply only to type 7 connections. In this case, there is a constraint on the sum of the secondary side currents for backward calculation. For forward calculation, it is necessary to have available the sum of the secondary side currents. Under these conditions, the voltage, current, and power ow updates can be expressed as shown in Table 3.11. Table 3.11 Update Formulas for Class C Transformers

Function of

Update Formula

V k 1 , I k, I k

Vk =

Yk

ps

Ik Y k V k 1
2 k -----I k yk

pp

(3.61)

111

sp ss Ik = Y k V k 1 + Y k V k sp ss V k 1 = Y k \ ( I k Y k V k) pp ps Ik = Y k V k 1 + Y k V k 1

(3.62) (3.63) (3.64)

pp

V k, I k

V k 1 , S k, I k

Vk =

Yk

ps

( Sk . / V k 1) Y k V k 1
2 k -----I k yk

(3.65)

111

S k = V k .* ( Y sp V k 1 + Y ss V k ) k k V k, S k V k 1 = Y sp \ ( ( S k . / V k ) Y ss V k ) k k
pp ps S k = V k 1 .* ( Y k V k 1 + Y k V k )

(3.66) (3.67) (3.68)

Chapter 4

Network Reduction Power Flow Algorithms for Radial Systems (NR-PARS)

The solution to the power ow problem is typically viewed as the solution to a set of power balance equations. It is possible, however, to look at the problem from a circuit theory point of view. The distribution system, in this context, is a circuit with one compound (three-phase) voltage source, many constant impedance elements, and possibly some constant current elements and some elements with a non-linear relationship between voltage and current (the constant power elements). If each non-linear element is replaced by a linear element which is equivalent in some sense, the new system can be solved using the standard methods of nodal or loop analysis for linear circuits. Recomputing the linear equivalents at the new solution and repeating yields a basic iterative method for solving the distribution power ow problem. In fact, this is exactly the idea behind some of the Z-matrix methods in [9; 10; 25; 27].

42

43 However, the Z-matrix methods do not directly exploit the radial topology of the typical distribution network. The network reduction methods presented in this chapter take advantage of the radial structure in the solution of the equivalent linear circuits. Instead of using general nodal or loop methods, network reduction techniques are applied recursively to nd a driving point linear equivalent at each bus. These equivalents are then used to solve for the network voltages and currents. The acronym NR-PARS will be used to refer to the network reduction algorithms of this class. A method proposed by Berg, Hawkins and Pleines [4] falls into the NR-PARS class. This chapter proposes a more general approach which also includes the comprehensive modeling presented in Chapter 3, Detailed Component Models.

4.1 Detailed Solution Algorithm

The general algorithm (NR-PARS), shown in Table 4.1, consists of three basic steps which are repeated until convergence is achieved. The Table 4.1 Network Reduction Method NR-PARS - The Algorithm Initialize all bus voltages. 1 2 3 Linearize system based on current bus voltages. Build driving point equivalent circuit at each bus. Compute all voltages & currents.

Repeat steps 1 to 3 until convergence is achieved.

44 specic network reduction technique presented in this section is based on Norton equivalent circuits and will be referred to simply as N-PARS.

4.1.1

Linearization

The rst step of this algorithm is to replace all non-linear circuit element models by some linear equivalent. According to the models presented in Chapter 3, Detailed Component Models, a distribution system can be thought of as a radial interconnection of the elements shown in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Network Elements Network Element source (substation) lines switches transformers shunt capacitors constant Z loads constant I constant S cogenerators constant current sources constant complex power elements non-linear constant impedance elements linear Element Type constant voltage sources Class

All of the elements have a linear relationship between current and voltage, except the constant complex power devices: cogenerators and constant PQ loads. In this case, the current as a function of voltage is I(V ) = ( S . / V ) , where S is the constant complex power. (4.1)

45 The desired linear approximation to (4.1) would consist of a constant current, a constant impedance, or a combination of the two. In other words, the goal is to approximate (4.1) by a linear expression of the form I(V ) = I + YV . (4.2)

Unfortunately, (4.1) is not complex differentiable so it is not possible to use a truncated Taylor series to nd Y and I in (4.2). Instead, Y is set to 0 and the current voltage is used to compute the equivalent injected current. I = (S . / V) (4.3)

This simple constant current equivalent is then used to solve the resulting linear system.

4.1.2

Build Driving Point Equivalents

The second step of the algorithm is to build up the driving point reduced equivalent circuit at each bus. Specically, the driving point Norton equivalent circuits are constructed for the sending end of the incoming branch of each bus. In other words, for each bus, the Norton equivalent is constructed for the buss incoming branch combined with the sub-network supplied through that branch. Since the networks being dealt with are multi-phase1 networks, these are compound Norton equivalents where an admittance matrix is used to represent the constant impedance part and a vector to represent the current injections. The laterals are processed starting at the end buses and working backward toward the source in the RBF order described on page 9 under Section 2.2.1, Indexing Scheme. For each bus this process consists of two parts:

1 i.e.

single-phase, two-phase, and three-phase.

46 1. Build the Norton equivalent at the bus. 2. Combine with the incoming branch. First, the appropriate currents and admittances are summed to build the Norton equivalent at bus k. Each bus could have one or more of the following connected in parallel: load shunt capacitor cogenerator Norton equivalent for outgoing branches

Ik Vk YEQk IEQk

Figure 4.1 Norton Equivalent at Bus k Using the notation from Figure 4.1, the current I k is written as a function of the bus voltage V k . I k = I EQk Y EQk V k The two parameters of the Norton equivalent are given by Y EQk = Y Lk + Y Ck + Y EQj
j

(4.4)

(4.5)

I EQk = I Lk + I Gk + I EQj
j

(4.6)

where the meaning of each variable is given in Table 4.3.

47 Table 4.3 Notation for (4.5) and (4.6) Variable Y Lk Y Ck I Lk I Gk Y EQj , I EQj j Interpretation admittance of constant impedance load admittance of shunt capacitor current injection of constant current or constant PQ load current injection of cogenerator Norton equivalent for incoming branch of bus j index of bus at receiving end of an outgoing branch of bus k From Table 3.2 Table 3.4 Table 3.3 Table 3.5 Table 4.4 network connectivity

Secondly, this Norton equivalent at bus k is combined with the buss incoming branch as illustrated in Figure 4.2. The parameters Y EQk and I EQk are computed from their primed values and the parameters of the

Ik Vk 1 incoming branch

Ik Vk YEQk IEQk

Ik Vk 1 YEQk IEQk

Figure 4.2 Combine with Incoming Branch

48 branch. To accomplish this, (2.7) and (4.4) are combined so as to eliminate the variables V k and I k , yielding the following expression of I k as a function of V k 1 . I k = [ Y k Y k ( Y k + Y EQk )
12 [ Y k 22 (Yk 11 12 22 1 1

Yk ] Vk 1 I EQk ]

21

(4.7)

+ Y EQk )

This is in the same form as the relationship between current and voltage for the combined Norton equivalent I k = Y EQk V k 1 I EQk , (4.8)

making it possible to extract directly from (4.7) the expressions for Y EQk and I EQk . Table 4.4 gives the resulting formulas for each of the three types of branches. Since a switch is modeled as a zero impedance connection, it is not necessary to use (4.7). The parameters computed at bus k are not changed by combining them with an incoming switch. Table 4.4 Formulas for Combining with Incoming Branch
Branch Type Combination Formula
1 1 1 Y EQk = Z k 1 + -- Y k Z k 1 Z k 1 + -- Y k + Y EQk Z k 1 2 2 1 1 I EQk = Z k 1 Z k 1 + -- Y k + Y EQk I EQk 2

(4.9) (4.10) (4.11) (4.12)

line

switch

Y EQk = Y EQk I EQk = I EQk Y EQk = Y k Y k ( Y k + Y EQk )

pp ps ss 1

transformer

Yk

sp

(4.13) (4.14)

ps I EQk = Y k ( Y ss + Y EQk ) 1 I EQk k

To summarize, the driving point Norton equivalent is computed for the incoming branch of each bus starting with the most deeply nested sub-

49 laterals and working back toward the main feeder. At each bus the procedure consists of two parts. First, all of the current sources and admittances connected in parallel at the bus are summed together to give the Norton equivalent at the bus for the part of the network supplied through that bus. Then, this Norton equivalent is combined with the incoming branch to determine the driving point Norton equivalent for that branch. At the end of this second step of the algorithm, the driving point Norton equivalent for the incoming branch of each bus is known. In other words, any branch and the sub-network it supplies may be replaced by its Norton equivalent for the purposes of computation.

4.1.3

Calculate Voltages and Currents

The result of the second step of the algorithm given in Table 4.1 is that, given the voltage at a bus, the current to each of its outgoing branches can be easily computed from the corresponding driving point equivalent. The third step of the algorithm is based on this result. It involves starting at the source, where the voltage is known, and computing voltages and currents toward the end buses. Once again, the entire network is traversed, this time in the BF order described on page 11 under Section 2.2.1, Indexing Scheme. As in the previous step, at each bus there is a two part calculation to be performed. First, the current is computed for the buss incoming branch, then the bus voltage is updated. For bus k this means calculating I k then V k . The new value of I k is computed directly from the voltage at bus k 1 and the Norton equivalent associated with the incoming branch of bus k. The formula is given in (4.8) which is repeated here.

50 I k = Y EQk V k 1 I EQk (4.15)

The second part, updating the bus voltage V k , is dependent on V k 1 , I k , and the parameters of the branch. The upper portion of (2.7) gives Y k V k = Ik Y k V k 1 .
12 12 11

(4.16)

If Y k is square and non-singular this is sufcient, as in the case of a distribution line. However, for some transformer types Y k is 2 x 3, and more information is needed: specically, information about the part of the network connected to the secondary side of the transformer. This information is available in the form of the Norton equivalent at bus k, that is, I EQk and Y EQk . These parameters were computed in the previous step and can be stored for each bus whose incoming branch is a transformer. Combining the lower half of (2.7) with (4.4) by eliminating I k yields an equation which is typically solvable for V k . For switches, since they are zero impedance, the voltage does not drop so V k can be taken directly from the value at the parent bus. The resulting voltage update formulas for lines, switches, and transformers are summarized in Table 4.5. Table 4.5 Voltage Update Formulas Branch Type line switch transformer Voltage Update Formula 1 V k = V k 1 Z k I k -- Y k V k 1 2 Vk = Vk 1 V k = ( Y k + Y EQk )
ss 1 12

(4.17) (4.18)

( I EQk Y k V k 1 )

sp

(4.19)

51

4.1.4

Termination Criterion

The three steps, linearization, building driving point equivalents, and computing voltages and currents, are repeated until convergence is achieved. The algorithm is terminated when the norm of the change in voltage from one iteration to the next is smaller than some predened tolerance.2

4.2 Implementation
Several specic techniques can be used in the implementation of the Norton reduction algorithm (N-PARS) to improve the efciency and robustness.

4.2.1

Linearity Check

It is conceivable that some networks do not contain any cogenerators or constant PQ loads. In this case, the circuit is already a linear circuit. Not only is the rst step of the algorithm, linearization, unnecessary, but there is no need to iterate. The circuit is solved directly in one iteration. In the implementation, a check for non-linear components can be performed at the beginning. If none are found, the program proceeds directly to Norton reduction and terminates after one iteration. Without this check, the program would do two iterations and nd that there is no change between iterations. The consequence of implementing this check is a 50% savings in computation for linear networks.

Alternatively, the termination criterion could be based on the norm of the mismatch between the given power injection and the power injection computed from the voltage and current injection at the current iteration.

52

4.2.2

Improved Line Update

The formulas given in (4.9) and (4.10) for combining the Norton equivalent at bus k with its incoming line involve two matrix inversions. Inversion of a matrix is an expensive operation in general, and may be illconditioned as well, depending on the matrix. The formulas below offer a more efcient and robust implementation. They are equivalent to (4.9) and (4.10) but require less computation (only one inverse instead of two) and are better conditioned for some line parameters. 1 1 Y EQk = -- Y k + I + -- Y k + Y EQk Z k 2 2 I EQk = 1 I + -- Y k + Y EQk Z k 2
1

1 -- Y k + Y EQk 2 I EQk

(4.20) (4.21)

Here I is the appropriately sized identity matrix.

4.2.3

Storage of Intermediate Variables

In the case where the circuit contains non-linear elements, the only parameters which change from iteration to iteration are the currents injected by these non-linear elements. In particular, as a new iteration begins, only I Lk (for constant PQ loads) and I Gk in (4.6) take on new values based on the updated bus voltages. These changes affect only I EQk and ultimately I EQk , but not Y EQk and Y EQk . These admittances remain con stant throughout all iterations and therefore need not be recomputed. This means that (4.5), (4.9), 3 (4.11), and (4.13) need only be computed once during the rst iteration.

3 Or

(4.20) in actual implementation.

53 A further savings in computation is achieved by storing the constant coefcient of I EQk in (4.10)4 and (4.14). This reduces the second step of the algorithm to a simple summation of the injected currents at a bus and matrix-vector multiplication to combine with the buss incoming branch. Saving these intermediate quantities and avoiding the recomputation of the admittances is somewhat analogous to factoring Ybus only once and saving it in a factored form in an Implicit Zbus Gauss type of power ow algorithm such as those used in [9; 10; 27]. A more intelligent implementation could even detect areas of the network which do not contain constant PQ elements and only perform the updates on the areas with quantities which actually change.

4.3 Variations
There are other variations of the general network reduction power ow method (NR-PARS) outlined in Table 4.1, Network Reduction Method, on page 43. A method based on admittance equivalent only (Y-PARS) was also implemented. Berg, Hawkins and Pleines initially presented a method based on this idea in [4], which has been extended to include the more general modeling of Chapter 3. Instead of Norton equivalent circuits, admittance equivalents are used. The rst step of the algorithm, linearization, now also includes converting constant current elements to their constant impedance equivalents. Constant current loads, constant PQ loads, and cogenerators are all converted to the equivalent admittance via the formulas in Table 3.2 and

4 Or

(4.21) in actual implementation.

54 Table 3.5. These admittances are summed together to form the admittance equivalent at bus k.

Ik Vk YEQk

Figure 4.3 Admittance Equivalent at Bus k

Using the notation from Figure 4.3, the current I k is written as a function of the bus voltage V k and, since the model only includes admittances, (4.4) becomes I k = Y EQk V k and (4.5) becomes Y EQk = Y Lk + Y Ck + Y Gk + Y EQj .
j

(4.22)

(4.23)

The formulas for combining the equivalent circuit at bus k with its incoming branch remain the same except that only the admittance formulas are needed. For the third step of the algorithm, calculating voltages and currents, similar changes are made. For computing the new value of I k , (4.15) becomes simply I k = Y EQk V k 1 . (4.24)

The formulas in Table 4.5 for updating the bus voltages remain the same except for the case of transformers. For transformers, (4.19) is replaced by V k = ( Y k + Y EQk )
ss 1

Yk Vk 1 .

sp

(4.25)

55 Though the algorithm works ne, there seems to be little or no advantage of Y-PARS over N-PARS. It is slightly more efcient for the case where iteration is not necessary. However, the set of systems for which iteration is not required has now been reduced to cases with no cogenerators and only constant impedance loads. In the general iterative case, each iteration requires all parameters to be recomputed. This is much more computationally expensive than N-PARS implemented using the techniques described in Section 4.2.3, Storage of Intermediate Variables.

4.4 Convergence Analysis

The convergence characteristics of N-PARS are exactly the same as those of the familiar Z-matrix methods, including the Implicit Zbus Gauss method [9; 10; 27]. Both N-PARS and the Z-matrix methods repeatedly solve the linear circuit obtained by replacing all constant PQ devices with their equivalent current injections at each iteration. In a circuit with no constant power components, the solution is therefore obtained in a single iteration and convergence is not an issue. For the more general case, including constant power devices, convergence behavior is discussed in [25]. The general conclusion is that convergence is best when load powers are small, a condition which is met by the typical distribution system.

4.5 Comments
The power ow algorithms described in this chapter, particularly the Norton reduction method (N-PARS), have several characteristics which make them uniquely suited to certain situations. First of all, N-PARS is a general method for solving the radial power ow problem which can handle

56 all of the transformer connection types listed in Table 3.8, Admittance Matrices for Common Transformer Connections, on page 36. It is particularly efcient for networks which contain no constant PQ elements. The equivalent circuit parameters themselves, computed during the solution process, may be useful for certain applications. They could be used, for example, to replace a section of the network with a simple equivalent linear model, while focusing on the effects of changes in another part of the network. Since the NR-PARS approaches exploit the radial structure of the network, the work required for each iteration is proportional to the number of buses. If the number of iterations remains constant, the work grows linearly with the size of the system, making NR-PARS suitable for very large scale systems.

Chapter 5

Backward/Forward Sweep Power Flow Algorithms for Radial Systems (BFS-PARS)

One of the distinguishing features of the radial distribution network is that there is a unique path from any given bus back to the source. This is the key feature exploited by the backward/forward sweep class of algorithms (BFS-PARS) presented in this chapter. These methods are based on updating voltages and currents (or power ows) along these unique paths. There are many variations to BFS-PARS. This chapter will rst present in detail a fairly general one, VI-VI-PARS, then discuss several possible modications which lead to the other variations. Several methods based on the backward/forward sweep concept have been proposed by others [3; 11; 18; 19; 20; 23]. In general, however, the approaches proposed in the literature do not include the comprehensive modeling covered by the general framework presented in this chapter. In fact, none of the methods proposed in [3; 11; 18; 19; 20; 23] handle transformers of type 2, 3, 4, or 7. In addition, [3; 19; 20; 23] only propose single-phase implementations,

57

58 although most of the extension to three-phase is straightforward. In this chapter, existing variations of the backward/forward sweep approach are extended to handle the comprehensive modeling of Chapter 3, and some new variations are introduced.

5.1 Detailed Solution Algorithm

The general algorithm (BFS-PARS), shown in Table 5.1, consists of two basic steps, backward sweep and forward sweep, which are repeated until convergence is achieved. The backward sweep is primarily a current or power ow summation with possible voltage updates. The forward sweep is primarily a voltage drop calculation with possible current or power ow updates. Table 5.1 Backward/Forward Sweep Method BFS-PARS - The Algorithm Initialize all bus voltages. 1 2 Backward Sweep: Forward Sweep: Sum currents or power ows (and possibly update voltages). Calculate voltage drops (and possibly update currents/power ows).

Repeat steps 1 and 2 until convergence is achieved.

Using the boundary condition of zero current and power ow out of the end of each lateral, the backward sweep computes the currents or power ows injected into the beginning of each lateral as a function of the end voltages. The forward sweep is a function of these currents or power

59 ows injected into each lateral, and computes the end voltages using the specied source voltage as a boundary condition. Table 5.2 Detail on Backward/Forward Sweeps Backward Sweep Update: As a function of: By: Based on boundary condition:
With With

Forward Sweep end voltages currents or power ows injected into each lateral voltage drop calculation specied source voltage

currents or power ows injected into each lateral end voltages current or power ow summation zero current or power ow out of end of lateral

optional voltage updating. optional current/power ow updating.

The specic method presented in this section (VI-VI-PARS) is based on current (as opposed to power ow), and updates both current and voltage in each of the backward and forward sweeps. Figure 5.1 shows a single feeder example system with notation that will be useful for describing the backward and forward sweeps. This notation will also be used for a general lateral i, where bus zero is not the source in a strict sense but rather the

V0 = V0 source I1 Figure 5.1 Single Feeder Example

VN end bus IN + 1 = 0

60 bus where lateral i branches off of lateral i 1 . The subscripts only refer to the bus index and V 0 refers to the voltage as calculated from lateral i 1 .

5.1.1

Backward Sweep

Once the bus voltages are initialized, the algorithm begins with a backward sweep, processing the laterals in the RBF 1 order. Each lateral is traversed from the end bus toward the source and the currents and voltages are updated at each bus. At each bus k, the update formula (2.3) from Table 2.3 is applied to compute the voltage and current at the previous bus. w k 1 = g k(w k) (5.1)

This update formula, repeated here in (5.1), is implemented according to the four steps detailed in Table 2.5, which is also repeated here as Table 5.3 for convenience. Table 5.3 Implementation of (5.1) Procedure 1 2 3 4 Compute I Gk , I Ck , and I Lk from V k . Compute I k via KCL at bus k. Compute V k 1 from V k and I k . Compute I k from V k 1 , V k and I k . Details see Tables 3.3 - 3.5 see (2.20) and (5.2) see Tables 3.6 - 3.11 see Tables 3.6 - 3.11

First, the currents I Lk , I Ck , and I Gk , injected by a load, shunt capacitor, and cogenerator, respectively, are computed from the value of the bus voltage V k at the current iteration. These injected currents are found based on the appropriate equations from Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5.

1 See

page 9 under Section 2.2.1, Indexing Scheme.

61 The next step is to apply KCL at bus k to nd the current I k injected by bus k into its incoming branch. The application of KCL at bus k is described in Section 2.3.2, Application of KCL, on page 19. In this case, (2.20) is solved for I k to yield I k = I Gk + I Ck + I Lk
j Ak

I j I k + 1

(5.2)

where the currents I j are the currents injected into sub-laterals branching off from bus k, and I k + 1 is the current injected into the outgoing branch leading to the next bus on the same lateral. The third and fourth steps compute the voltage V k 1 and current I k at the previous bus using the update formulas in Tables 3.6 through 3.11. For each lateral, the backward sweep updates the current injected into the lateral as a function of the end voltage. Using the notation from the single feeder example in Figure 5.1, I 1 is updated as a function of V N . Given the boundary condition I N + 1 = 0 and a value for V N , the update formula (5.1) is applied recursively, starting at the end bus and ending at the laterals supplying bus with w 0 , as shown in (5.3). V N w N 1 = g N (w N ) = g N 0

V N w N 2 = g N 1(w N 1) = g N 1 g N 0 V0 I1 V N = g 1(w 1) = g 1 g N 1 g N 0

(5.3)

w0 =

The lower half of the composite function g 1 g N 1 g N , which yields w 0 , is the desired current as a function of the end voltage and will be denoted

62 I 1 = I 1(V N ) . (5.4)

This value of the current is stored for use during the KCL calculation at this laterals supplying bus during the current backward sweep and the succeeding forward sweep. The upper half, which is the voltage part, is V 0(V N ) , and is used only for mismatch calculation. At the solution, the mismatch V 0(V N ) V 0 between the computed voltage V 0(V N ) and the specied voltage V 0 must be zero. To evaluate (5.4) for a given lateral, the currents injected into all of its sub-laterals must be known, since they are needed for the application of KCL in (5.2). This means the laterals must be processed in a specic order, such as the RBF1 order used here. Since the level L laterals have no sublaterals, they are processed rst. Next, the currents injected into the sublaterals of all level L 1 laterals are known, so the level L 1 laterals can be processed. Each lateral is processed in this manner, starting with level L, then moving to level L 1 , then L 2 , etc. Finally, the main feeder is processed, completing the backward sweep. In the process, all voltages and currents in the network are updated. In particular, the currents injected into each lateral are updated as a function of the end voltages.

5.1.2

Forward Sweep

The second half of each iteration of the BFS-PARS algorithm is the forward sweep which starts at the source and moves toward the end buses. During the forward sweep, the laterals are processed in the BF2 order.

2 See

page 11 under Section 2.2.1, Indexing Scheme.

63 Each lateral is traversed from the supplying connection toward the end bus. Once again, a voltage and current update are performed at each bus. The corresponding update formula for forward calculation is w k = f k(w k 1) , (5.5)

which is (2.2) from Table 2.3. The formula (5.5) is also implemented in four steps. These steps are detailed in Table 2.4 which is repeated here as Table 5.4 for convenience. Table 5.4 Implementation of (5.5) Procedure 1 2 3 4 Compute V k from V k 1 and I k . Compute I k from V k , V k 1 and I k . Compute I Gk , I Ck , and I Lk from V k . Compute I k + 1 via KCL at bus k. Details see Tables 3.6 - 3.11 see Tables 3.6 - 3.11 see Tables 3.3 - 3.5 see (2.20) and (5.6)

The rst two steps are to compute the voltage V k and current I k at the current bus from the voltage and current at the previous bus, V k 1 and I k , respectively. These updates are done according to the formulas given in Tables 3.6 through 3.11. The third step is to update the currents I Lk , I Ck , and I Gk injected by a load, shunt capacitor, and cogenerator, respectively. These injected currents are updated from the bus voltage V k according to the appropriate equations from Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5. The last step is to apply KCL to update the current I k + 1 on the branch going out to the next bus on the lateral. In this case, (2.20) of Section 2.3.2, Application of KCL, is solved for I k + 1 , yielding

64 I k + 1 = I Gk + I Ck + I Lk

j Ak

I j I k .

(5.6)

The values for the currents I j injected into sub-laterals are those computed during the preceding backward sweep. For each lateral, the forward sweep updates the end voltages as a function of the currents injected into the beginning of each lateral. In the notation of the single feeder example of Figure 5.1, V N is updated as a function of I 1 . Given the boundary condition V 0 = V 0 and a value for I 1 , the update formula (5.5) is applied recursively starting at the laterals supplying bus and terminating at the end bus with w N as shown in (5.7). V0 w 1 = f 1(w 0) = f 1 I1 V0 w 2 = f 2(w 1) = f 2 f 1 I1 wN = VN IN + 1 V0 = f N (w N 1) = f N f 2 f 1 I1 (5.7)

The upper half of the composite function f N f 2 f 1 , which yields w N , is the desired end voltage as a function of the current injected into the lateral and will be denoted as V N = V N ( I 1) . (5.8)

This end voltage is stored for use during the next backward sweep. The lower half of the function, I N + 1( I 1) , is used only as a mismatch. At the solution, this current must be zero. To evaluate (5.8) for a given lateral, the voltage at its supplying bus must be known since it is needed for the rst step in Table 5.4. This means

65 the laterals must be processed in a specic order, such as the BF2 order used here. Since the source voltage is given, the main feeder is processed rst. Then, since the voltages at the supplying buses for all level 2 laterals are known, the level 2 laterals can be processed, followed by level 3, etc. Each lateral is processed in this manner until all the level L laterals have been updated, completing the forward sweep. In the process, all voltages and currents in the network are updated. In particular, all of the end voltages are updated as a function of the currents injected into each lateral.

5.1.3

Termination Criterion

The backward and forward sweeps are repeated until convergence is achieved. There are several ways of detecting convergence. The voltage mismatches V 0(V N ) V 0 at the beginning of each lateral, calculated during the backward sweep, must be zero at the solution. Likewise, the cur rent mismatches I N + 1( I 1) at the ends of the laterals, computed during the forward sweep, must also be zero. Requiring that the norm of either of these mismatches be smaller than some tolerance is a suitable termination criterion. It is also possible to use the termination criterion used for the network reduction methods of Chapter 4. This approach requires that the norm of the difference in bus voltages between iterations be smaller than a given tolerance. In fact, this is the only one of the three approaches which is suitable for some of the variations of BFS-PARS.

66

5.2 Implementation
For the most part, the implementation of BFS-PARS is very straightforward. Special attention, however, is needed for laterals which contain the class B and class C transformers. In particular, in step 3 of Table 5.3 and step 1 of Table 5.4 it is necessary to make some modications to the standard backward and forward sweeps described above. Consider lateral i whose rst bus k has a transformer as its incoming branch.3

5.2.1

Class B Transformers

Transformers of class B have three dimensional voltages and currents on the primary side, while these quantities at the secondary side are two dimensional. These transformers are described in detail in Section 3.6.2, Class B: Grounded PrimaryUngrounded Secondary, where the relevant update formulas are given in Table 3.10. 5.2.1.1 Backward Sweep

In step 3 of Table 5.3, the primary voltage is being computed from the secondary voltage and current. For class B transformers, the corresponding update formula is Vk 1 = Yk
sp 1

Ik Y k V k
Vk 1

ss

(5.9)

111

from (3.52) in Table 3.10. As explained in Section 3.6.2, Class B: Grounded PrimaryUngrounded Secondary, it is only possible to solve for V k 1 if it

to the implementation explained in Section 2.2.2.2, Breadth-First Search, transformers always appear as the rst branch on a lateral.

3 Due

67 is assumed that some information is already given, such as the sum V k 1 of the primary side voltages. Since (5.9) assumes that V k 1 is available, BFS-PARS must provide a reasonable estimate which becomes more accurate at each iteration as the algorithm moves toward convergence. The sum of the primary side voltage computed during the previous forward sweep provides such an estimate and is stored as V k 1 for use during the backward sweep. For the rst iteration, the initial primary voltage is used to compute V k 1 . For the typical at start, with all voltages assumed to be balanced 1 per unit, this yields V k 1 = 0 . For a lateral with a class B transformer, the typical backward sweep function of (5.4) is a function of V k 1 as well as V N . V N I1 = I1 Vk 1 (5.10)

Since, in this case, V N is 2 x 1, this is still a 3 x 1 function of three variables. 5.2.1.2 Forward Sweep

During the forward sweep, step 1 of Table 5.4 computes the secondary voltage from the primary voltage and current. The corresponding update formula for class B transformers is
ps pp V k = Y k \ ( I k Y k V k 1)

(5.11)

from (3.50) in Table 3.10. As explained in Section 3.6.2, Class B: Grounded PrimaryUngrounded Secondary, this formula yields a unique solution

68 for the secondary voltage V k only if the sum of the primary side currents I k meets the appropriate constraint in (3.45) or (3.46). Since the primary side current computed during the forward sweep does not, in general, satisfy the appropriate constraint, I k must be modied to meet the constraint before using it in (5.11). The value used in (5.11) should be as close to the computed I k as possible while meeting the necessary constraint. A reasonable approximation to this closest point can be found by adding or subtracting equal values from each element of I k to satisfy the constraint. This is done by computing the constraint mismatch, which is I k = I k

(5.12)

for type 2 grounded wye to ungrounded wye transformers and yk I k = I k ----- V k 1 2 k (5.13)

for type 3 grounded wye to delta transformers. A third of this mismatch is then subtracted from each element of I k to give a new I k which satises the relevant constraint and can be used in (5.11) to compute V k .
I k 1 I k I k -------- 1 3 1

(5.14)

The modied update formula, including the adjustment to the primary side current I k , can be written in a closed form as 1 pp = Y ps \ I I k Vk k k -------- 1 Y k V k 1 . 3 1

(5.15)

69 This small modication to I k allows the forward sweep to continue. The typical forward sweep function of (5.8) is modied to reect the importance of the update to V k 1 which must be stored for the backward sweep. VN Vk 1

V N ( I 1) V k 1 ( I 1)

(5.16)

Again, this is still a three dimensional function of three variables. A three dimensional mismatch can also be formed by taking the constraint mis match I k along with the current I N + 1( I 1) out of the end of the lateral,

which in this case is 2 x 1. The relatively small adjustment to the primary side current, shown in (5.14), produces secondary side voltages and currents which are consistent with the primary side current constraint. During the succeeding backward sweep, these updated voltages produce a primary side current which more closely meets the constraint.

5.2.2

Class C Transformers

Transformers of class C have three dimensional voltages and currents on the secondary side, while these quantities at the primary side are two dimensional. These transformers are described in detail in Section 3.6.3, Class C: Ungrounded PrimaryGrounded Secondary, where the relevant update formulas are given in Table 3.11. 5.2.2.1 Forward Sweep

For class C transformers, step 1 of Table 5.4 during the forward sweep is similar to the backward sweep for class B transformers. The relevant update formula is

70

Vk =

ps Yk

Ik Y k V k 1
2 k ----- I k yk

pp

(5.17)

111

from (3.61) in Table 3.11. Once again, additional information is needed for the evaluation of V k in (5.17). This additional information at the secondary side of the transformer must come from the previous backward sweep. Since the backward sweep is based on a boundary condition of zero end current, it is current information that is available at the transformer secondary. As explained in Section 3.6.3, Class C: Ungrounded Primary Grounded Secondary, this eliminates type 4 ungrounded wye to grounded wye transformers which have no direct relationship between I k and V k . Consequently, (5.17) is only valid for type 7 delta to grounded wye transformers and the rest of this discussion of the handling of class C transformers will be restricted to this type. Since it was computed during the previous backward sweep, the sum of the secondary side current I k is available for the evaluation of (5.17). The typical forward sweep function of (5.8), for a lateral with a class C transformer, becomes I 1 = V N Ik

VN

(5.18)

where V N is 3 x 1, I 1 is 2 x 1, and I k is a scalar. 5.2.2.2 Backward Sweep

The backward sweep is similar to the forward sweep for class B transformers. The relevant update formula for step 3 of Table 5.3 is
sp ss V k 1 = Y k \ ( I k Y k V k)

(5.19)

71 from (3.63) in Table 3.11, which requires that the constraint in (3.59) be satised. Since the secondary voltage and current sums computed in the current backward sweep typically do not meet this constraint, some modication is required to proceed with the backward sweep. The forward sweep requires an accurate value for I k so it is stored as is and the voltage V k is chosen for adjustment. First, a constraint mismatch is computed.
2 k V k = V k ----- I k yk

(5.20)

A third of this mismatch is then subtracted from each element of V k to give a new value which satises (3.59) and can be used to solve for V k 1 in (5.19).
V k 1 V k V k ---------- 1 3 1

(5.21)

The modied update formula, including the adjustment to the secondary side voltage V k , can be written in a closed form as
2 k V k ----- I k 1 yk sp ss = Y k \ I k Y k V k --------------------------- 1 . 3 1

Vk 1

(5.22)

This small change in V k allows the backward sweep to continue. The typical backward sweep function of (5.4) is modied to reect the importance of the update to I k which must be stored for the forward sweep. I1
Ik

I 1(V N ) I k (V N )

(5.23)

72 Both the function and the independent variable V N are still 3 x 1. A three dimensional mismatch is also formed by combining the constraint mismatch V k of (5.20) with the two dimensional voltage mismatch at the beginning of the lateral, V 0(V N ) V 0 . The relatively small adjustment to the secondary side voltage, shown in (5.21), produces primary side voltages and currents which are consistent with the secondary side constraint. During the next forward sweep these updated currents produce a secondary voltage which more closely meets the constraint.

5.3 Variations
There are many variations to the general BFS-PARS of Table 5.1 and Table 5.2. Some are based on current and others on power ow. Some update voltages during the backward sweep and some do not. Some update currents or power ows during the forward sweep and some do not. The naming convention used for the various methods indicates rst the variables updated during the forward sweep, then those updated during the backward sweep. V is used for voltage, I for current, and S for power ow.

5.3.1

VI-VI-PARS

VI-VI-PARS is the particular variation described in detail in the preceding sections. It is based on current and it updates both voltages and currents in both the backward and forward sweeps.

73

5.3.2

VS-VS-PARS

VS-VS-PARS modies the VI-VI-PARS approach, presented in detail in foregoing sections of this chapter, by using power ow rather than current. The approach presented in [3] is based on the same idea. The backward sweep computes the power ow injected into each lateral as a function of the end voltages by starting with the boundary condition of zero power ow out of the end of the laterals. The forward sweep starts with the specied source voltage as a boundary condition and computes the end voltages as a function of the power injected into each lateral. At each step of the algorithm, where a current is used in VI-VI-PARS, the corresponding power ow is used in VS-VS-PARS. The update function used at each bus during the backward sweep is (2.5) instead of (2.3), and for the forward sweep it is (2.4) instead of (2.2). The class B and class C transformers are the only exception to the change from current to power ow. They are still handled exactly as described in Section 5.2.1, Class B Transformers, and Section 5.2.2, Class C Transformers. Due to the fact that the constraints are constraints on current and voltage, power ows are converted to the equivalent currents and these currents are used as described. For instance, for class B transformers during the forward sweep these currents are adjusted as in (5.14). Likewise, the power at the secondary of class C transformers during the backward sweep is converted to the equivalent current and stored for use during the forward sweep. Hence, (5.18) becomes S 1 = V N Ik

VN

(5.24)

74 and (5.23) becomes S1 Ik

S 1(V N ) I k (V N )

(5.25)

There are two essential differences between VS-VS-PARS and VI-VI-PARS. One difference has to do with computational efciency. VS-VS-PARS typically requires more computation than VI-VI-PARS. Only certain parts of the calculation, such as the computation of the power and current injections, respectively, for constant PQ loads are more efcient in VS-VS-PARS. Even in networks with all constant PQ loads these gains are more than offset by the increase in computation for other operations such as voltage drop calculation. The other essential difference in VS-VS-PARS is that the current injected into each lateral ( S 1 . / V 0 ) changes from the time S 1 is computed during the backward sweep to the time S 1 is used during the forward sweep. In VI-VI-PARS the current I 1 is held constant between the time it is computed in the backward sweep and the time it is used in the forward sweep. In VS-VS-PARS, it is the power S 1 that is held constant and the current I 1 changes depending on the change in the voltage. Although this does not seem to have a signicant effect on convergence, the sequence of iterates does differ for the two algorithms. The voltage mismatch at the beginning of each lateral calculated during the backward sweep is the same as the voltage mismatch computed by VI-VI-PARS. The forward sweep yields power mismatches at the end of each lateral instead of current mismatches.

75

5.3.3

V-VI-PARS

This variation is identical to VI-VI-PARS in the backward sweep. The forward sweep updates only voltages. A method based on a slightly modied version of this idea was proposed in [18]. Table 5.4 shows the procedure performed at each bus during the forward sweep when both voltages and currents are updated. In V-VI-PARS, steps 2, 3, and 4 are not performed. The value used for I k in step 1 is the value computed during the previous backward sweep. For this method, it is necessary to store this current for each bus during the backward sweep. For VI-VI-PARS, it is only necessary to store the currents injected into each lateral, not the currents at each bus. For class B transformers it is still necessary to modify I k during the forward sweep according to (5.14) in order to satisfy the appropriate constraint in (3.45) or (3.46). Since the currents are not updated in the forward sweep, the current mismatch at the end of each lateral is not available as a termination criterion for this method.

5.3.4

V-VS-PARS

V-VS-PARS is the power ow based counterpart to V-VI-PARS. The backward sweep is identical to that of VS-VS-PARS and the forward sweep updates only voltages based on the power ow values S k computed during the backward sweep. Since no power ows are updated during the forward sweep, there are no power mismatches available at the ends of the laterals for use as a termination criterion.

76

5.3.5

VI-I-PARS

The forward sweep in this variation is identical to that of VI-VI-PARS. The backward sweep, however, does not update voltages, only currents. In Table 5.3, which details the procedure at each bus during the backward sweep, step 3 is skipped. For step 4, I k is computed using values of voltage computed in the previous forward sweep. For class C transformers, it is still necessary to modify the secondary voltage V k during the backward sweep according to (5.21) in order to satisfy the constraint in (3.59). Since no voltages are updated during the backward sweep, the voltage mismatch at the beginning of each lateral is not available as a termination criterion for this method.

5.3.6

VS-S-PARS

This is the power ow based version of VI-I-PARS. The forward sweep is identical to that of VS-VS-PARS, but the backward sweep, like VI-I-PARS, does not update voltages. Voltage values from the previous forward sweep are used where needed. Once again, no voltage mismatch is available as a termination criterion for this method.

5.3.7

V-I-PARS

V-I-PARS uses the backward sweep of VI-I-PARS, which updates only currents, and the forward sweep of V-VI-PARS, which updates only voltages. The methods proposed in [11] and [23] are based on this concept of simple current summation in the backward sweep and voltage drop calculation in the forward sweep.

77 This method computes neither current nor voltage mismatches, and the only convergence criterion available, of the three presented in Section 5.1.3, Termination Criterion, is the one based on the difference in voltage between iterations.

5.3.8

V-S-PARS

V-S-PARS is the power ow based counterpart to V-I-PARS, using the backward sweep of VS-S-PARS and the forward sweep of V-VS-PARS. This method uses simple power ow summation for the backward sweep and voltage drop calculation for the forward sweep, which is also the basis for the methods proposed in [19] and [20].

5.4 Convergence Analysis

In this section, the convergence of V-I-PARS is considered for a distribution system with no ungrounded sections. Some necessary notation for the proof is given below in Table 5.5. With this notation, the backward sweep can be summarized by the following two equations: In
( k)

= I n + YV n Ib
( k)

( k)

+ f (V n )

( k)

(5.26) (5.27)

= A In

T ( k)

The forward sweep can be summarized by the following two equations: Vb Vn

( k + 1) ( k + 1)

= ZI b
( 0)

( k)

(5.28)
( k + 1)

= Vn

AV b

(5.29)

where the initial node voltages at each bus are set to the corresponding source voltage. Combining these four equations gives an expression for the

78 Table 5.5 Notation for V-I-PARS Convergence Proof Symbol P(i) P(i, j) Q(i) di bi Vn Vb Ib
( k) ( k)

Interpretation set of branches between bus i and the source P(i) P( j) set of buses supplied through branch i number of elements in P(i) number of elements in Q(i) vector of node voltages at iteration k vector of branch voltages drops at iteration k vector of branch currents at iteration k vector of node current injections at iteration k vector of node current injections from constant current loads vector of node current injections from constant PQ elements, as a function of voltage V vector of node voltages at the solution impedance matrix for branch i total admittance to ground at bus i, including line charging, shunt capacitors, and constant impedance loads block diagonal matrix of branch impedances z i block diagonal matrix of bus admittances to ground y i matrix with an identity block in each block row i and block column j for all ( i, j ) in { ( i, j ) i Q( j) } complex power injection from constant PQ elements at node i
j P(i) } .

( k) ( k)

In

In f (V ) V* zi yi Z Y A si
Or,

equivalently, for all ( i, j ) in { ( i, j )

79 nodal voltages at iteration k + 1 as a function of the same voltages at iteration k. Vn

( k + 1)

= Vn

( 0)

AZA [ I n + YV n

( k)

+ f (V n ) ]

( k)

(5.30)

If the node voltage vector at the solution is V* , the node voltage at iteration k can be expressed as a sum of the solution plus the error. Vn
( k)

= V* + V n

( k)

(5.31)

Expressing the node voltage vector in this way for both iteration k and iteration k + 1 , (5.30) becomes V* + V n
( k + 1)

= Vn

( 0)

AZA [ I n + Y ( V* + V n ) + f (V* + V n ) ] . (5.32)

( k)

( k)

Since the solution is a xed point of (5.30), that is, V* = V n

( 0)

AZA [ I n + YV* + f (V* ) ] ,

(5.33)

(5.33) can be subtracted from (5.32) to give an expression for the error at iteration k + 1 as a function of the error at iteration k. V n
( k + 1)

= AZA [ Y V n

( k)

+ f (V* + V n ) f (V* ) ]

( k)

(5.34)

To prove linear convergence of V-I-PARS, it is sufcient to show that the ratio of the error magnitudes is smaller than one. Specically, if it can be shown that AZA [ Y V n + f (V* + V n ) f (V* ) ] = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ < 1 , ( k) V n then V-I-PARS converges linearly. First, consider the case with no constant power devices in the network. In this case,
T ( k) ( k)

(5.35)

80 AZA Y V n T = ------------------------------------------- AZA Y . ( k) V n

T ( k)

(5.36)

A simple bound on the ratio can be found by taking the product of the norms of the individual matrices A, Z, A , and Y. For each of the p-norms, where p is 1, 2, or innity, this product is equal to A Z A
T T

Y = ( max b j ) ( max d j ) ( max z j ) ( max y j ) .

j j j j

(5.37)

This bound, however, is too loose and is not always satised in a typical distribution system. A better bound can be found by considering the norms of the matrices AZ and A Y , since AZA Y AZ A Y A Z A
T T T T

Y .

(5.38)

The matrix AZ is simply the matrix A with each identity block in block column j replaced by z j . Likewise, the matrix A Y is just the matrix A
T T

with each identity block in block row j replaced by y j . It was found that using the innity-norm yields a tighter bound than the 1-norm. AZ A Y
T

max i

zk zk

k P ( i)

max i

yk

k Q ( i)

(5.39)

max i

k P ( i)

yi

It is easy to see that, in a typical system, this is much smaller than the bound given in (5.37), since not all load magnitudes are equal to the maximum value and not all of the branch impedances along the highest impedance path are equal to the maximum branch impedance. In fact, in all of the available cases based on data from real systems, this quantity

81 was signicantly smaller than one, guaranteeing the linear convergence of V-I-PARS on these systems. If constant PQ loads and cogenerators are considered in the network, then the ratio , as given in (5.35), can be bounded as follows: AZA [ f (V* + V n ) f (V* ) ] AZA Y + -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- , ( k) V n
T T ( k)

(5.40)

where the rst term has just been dealt with. In the second term, f (V* ) is the nodal current injected by constant power devices at the solution, and f (V* + V n ) is the injection at iteration k. At a particular node i, the magnitude of the difference between the two injections is si si ( k) fi (V* + V n ) fi (V* ) = ------------------------------------- -------------- ( k) [ V* ] i [ V* + V n ] i s i [ V n ] i = ----------------------------------------------------( k) [ V* ] i [ V* + V n ] i si ( k) --------------------------------------- [ V n ] i . ( k) [ V* ] i [ V n ] i For real systems, it is reasonable to assume that voltage magnitudes at the solution and at each iteration4 are larger than 0.7 per unit, implying that
( k) 1 [ V* ] i [ V n ] i > -2 ( k) ( k)

(5.41)

(5.42)

and therefore fi (V* + V n ) fi (V* ) 2 s i [ V n ] i .

4 Assuming

( k)

( k)

(5.43)

a at start, the assumption holds for the voltages at the rst iteration. The arguments following show a decrease in the magnitude of the error, indicating that voltages during subsequent iterations lie closer to the solution than the initial voltages did.

82 Let S be a diagonal matrix whose ith diagonal element is equal to 2 s i .5 Since the elements of A, and therefore of its transpose, are all positive, the following can be said about the second term of (5.40):
T ( k) A f (V* + V n ) f (V* ) AZA [ f (V* + V n ) f (V* ) ] AZ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( k) ( k) V n V n T ( k)

A S V n AZ -----------------------------------( k) V n AZ A S The bound given in (5.39) then becomes AZ =

T

( k)

(5.44)

( A Y

+ A S

max i

k P ( i)

zk

yi
i

+ 2 si
i

(5.45)

In words, this says that V-I-PARS will converge linearly if the product of the following two terms is smaller than one. Roughly speaking, the rst term is the total impedance of the highest impedance path and the second term is the total admittance to ground plus twice the total power injection from all constant power devices.6 In a typical distribution system, all z i , y i , and s i are much smaller than one, yielding a value of which is also smaller than one. When this condition holds, linear convergence from a at start is guaranteed.

The matrix S actually has units of admittance since the factor of 2 comes from an inverse squared voltage quantity. 6 The seeming inconsistency in units is due to the hidden voltage units in the factor of 2.

83

5.5 Comments
The backward/forward sweep methods presented in this chapter are applicable to most radial distribution networks. The one modeling limitation is that BFS-PARS cannot handle type 4 ungrounded wye to grounded wye connected transformers. Some general observations with regard to the many variations indicate two things. First, the methods based on current generally require less computation per iteration than their power ow based counterparts. Second, the methods which do not update extra variables such as voltage during backward sweep and current/power ow during forward sweep, require less computation per iteration. Based on these two observations, V-I-PARS appears to be the most attractive of the BFS-PARS class of algorithms presented, assuming that the number of iterations required for convergence is comparable among the various methods. The comparisons of the algorithms are investigated in more detail in Chapter 8, Simulation Results. It should also be noted that the amount of work per iteration is proportional to the number of buses. Therefore, if the number of iterations remains constant, the computational complexity increases linearly with the size of the network, making BFS-PARS suitable for very large radial distribution systems.

Chapter 6

Fast Decoupled Power Flow Algorithms for Radial Systems (DePARS)

One of the most widely used power ow algorithms throughout the power industry is the fast decoupled Newton method proposed in 1974 in [26]. This method exploits some of the numerical properties of the standard power ow formulation to make simplifying assumptions which allow signicant savings in computation over the standard Newton method. Unfortunately, this approach is not typically suitable for radial distribution networks. There are often ill-conditioning problems due to the formulation and, in addition, the assumptions necessary for the simplications used in the standard fast decoupled Newton method are often not valid for these types of systems. Some work, however, has been done to address these problems [16; 31; 21]. This chapter explores a class of algorithms which exploits the radial topological structure to reduce the number of equations and unknowns in the formulation. These algorithms also take advantage of the special

84

85 numerical structure of the new formulation to further reduce the computation required for each iteration, in the spirit of the standard fast decoupled method for meshed transmission systems. This class of algorithms will be referred to as fast Decoupled Power ow Algorithms for Radial Systems or DePARS. This chapter presents four main variants of DePARS. The rst of the four methods, VI-DePARS, is a generalization of the method proposed in [32] and will be presented in detail. The other variations, one of which is an extension of the methods proposed in [12], will then be discussed with respect to VI-DePARS.

6.1 Detailed Solution Algorithm

The standard fast decoupled methods used in transmission systems are based on the well-known Newtons method [28] for solving a non-linear set of equations. In this case, the non-linear equations being solved are the power balance equations which specify that, at each bus, the complex power generated, minus the power absorbed by load, must equal the power injected into the rest of the network. In a distribution system with one source bus and many load buses, the traditional power ow formulation would have six equations for each load bus, balancing the real and reactive part of the power at each of the three phases. The traditional fast decoupled method for transmission systems improves on the standard Newton method, shown in Table 6.1, by making simplifying approximations which reduce the computational burden for step 5 and step 6.

86 Table 6.1 Newtons Method Solution of F( x) = 0 by Newtons Method 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Choose an initial guess for the solution, x Set i = 0 . Evaluate F Stop if F
( i) ( 0)

= F(x

( i)

).

( i)

some tolerance .
( i)

Evaluate the Jacobian, J

( i) ( i) ( i)

F x

.
x
( i)

Solve J Let x

= F
( i)

. .

( i + 1)

= x

+s

( i)

Let i = i + 1 and go to step 3.

The DePARS approach is also based on the Newton method. Like the traditional fast decoupled method, it exploits the numerical structure of the Jacobian to greatly reduce the computation required by step 5 and step 6 in Table 6.1. However, DePARS also uses a different formulation of the power ow equations which exploit the radial topological structure of the network resulting in a reduced number of equations and unknowns. Table 6.2 gives a high level view of DePARS and its basic steps. Steps 5, 6, and 7 from the original Newton method have been simplied and grouped together into step 2 of DePARS. At the right side of Table 6.2 the details have been kept general enough to cover all four variations of the method. The rst option in each step, however, is the one used by VI-DePARS, which will be the focus of the remainder of this section.

87 Table 6.2 Fast Decoupled Power Flow Algorithm for Radial Systems DePARS - The Algorithm Initialize end voltages. or Initialize currents or power ows injected into each lateral. Compute voltage mismatch at each laterals source. or Compute current or power ow mismatch at end of each lateral. Update end voltages. or Update currents or power ows injected into each lateral.

Initialize independent variables:

Evaluate power ow equations:

Compute updated solution:

Repeat steps 1 to 2 until convergence is achieved. For VI-DePARS, the independent variables are the voltages at the end of each lateral. The power ow equations state that the voltage mismatch at the beginning of each lateral, calculated as a function of the end voltages, must be zero at the solution. If this mismatch is not zero it can be used to update the end voltages for the next iteration.

6.1.1

Reduced Power Flow Equations

The traditional power ow problem can be expressed mathematically as a non-linear set of equations of the form F ( x) = 0 . (6.1)

This section presents a reduced set of non-linear equations which can be expressed in the same form.

88 6.1.1.1 Single Feeder

Consider rst a network consisting of a single three-phase lateral with N load buses, as shown in Figure 6.1. The traditional formulation of the power ow equations would have 6N real equations and 6N real unknowns. However, it is not necessary to solve such a large system of nonlinear equations just to nd all of the steady-state bus voltages. Specifying V N also determines the remaining voltages and currents in the system.

V0 = V0 source I1 Figure 6.1 Single Feeder Example

VN end bus IN + 1 = 0

Using the same procedure used by BFS-PARS in Section 5.1.1, Backward Sweep, on page 60, all of the voltages and currents are updated by applying (2.3) from Table 2.3 at each bus, starting at the end bus and moving toward the source. This procedure is written in a closed form in (5.3) which is repeated here for convenience. V N w N 1 = g N (w N ) = g N 0

V N w N 2 = g N 1(w N 1) = g N 1 g N 0 V0 I1 V N = g 1(w 1) = g 1 g N 1 g N 0

(6.2)

w0 =

Here both the source voltage V 0 and the source current I 1 are expressed as functions of the end voltage V N . For BFS-PARS, the current

89 I 1(V N ) is of primary interest, since it is used during the forward sweep to update the end voltage V N . For VI-DePARS, the voltage V 0(V N ) is of primary importance, since it is used for mismatch calculation. At the solution, the difference between the calculated source voltage V 0(V N ) and the specied source voltage V 0 must be zero. The power ow equations can therefore be written F (V N ) = V 0(V N ) V 0 = 0 . (6.3)

This is a reduced formulation of the power ow problem for a single feeder which has only three complex equations and three complex unknowns, or six real equations and six real unknowns. The dimension of this set of nonlinear equations is independent of the number of buses on the lateral and is a factor of N smaller than the traditional formulation. 6.1.1.2 General Radial Structure

To generalize this formulation to handle an arbitrary radial structure, rst note that the voltage mismatch at the beginning of any lateral can be computed as a function of the end voltage, as in (6.3), if the currents injected into each sub-lateral are known. These currents are necessary for the application of KCL at the branching buses. In a system with L levels of laterals, the level L laterals have no sub-laterals and can therefore be updated rst. For each lateral V 0 and I 1 are computed as functions of the end voltage V N as follows: V0 I1 V N = g1 g N 1 g N 0 (6.4)

After all level L laterals have been updated, the currents injected into the sub-laterals of each level L 1 lateral are known (the I 1 recently cal-

90 culated via (6.4) for level L laterals), hence the level L 1 laterals can be updated in the same way. Next the level L 2 laterals are updated, and so on, until the main feeder has been updated. This is the same RBF1 order of processing the laterals used by the backward sweep of BFS-PARS. The current I 1 injected into lateral i is needed for doing the update of lateral i 1 . The voltage V 0 is needed for mismatch calculation. This voltage mismatch calculation for each lateral can be completed once all the laterals have been updated by taking the difference between the two voltages computed for each branching bus. Suppose lateral i branches off of lateral i 1 at bus q as shown in Figure 6.2. The value of the voltage at lateral i bus N xi = V N

Vq from source bus q lateral i 1 Vq

Figure 6.2 Voltage Mismatch Calculation

bus q computed from the end voltage of lateral i will be denoted V q( x) and corresponds to V 0(V N ) from the single feeder example. Here x is a vector

1 See

page 9 under Section 2.2.1, Indexing Scheme.

91 containing the end voltages of all laterals and x i denotes the end voltage V N for lateral i. These x i are put into x in RBF1 order. x ( L, M x =
L)

V ( L, M =

L,

N L, M )

x ( l, m ) x ( 1, 1 )

V ( l, m, N V ( 1, 1, N

l, m )

(6.5)

1, 1 )

To compute V q , it is necessary to use x instead of just V N since V q is affected by the currents injected into the sub-laterals of lateral i and these currents in turn are functions of the end voltages of the corresponding sub laterals. In fact, V q is a function of the voltages of all end buses supplied through lateral i, not just of its own end voltage. The other value of V q corresponds to the specied source voltage V 0 from the single feeder example and will be denoted V q( x) . This is the voltage at bus q, as computed from the end voltage of lateral i 1 . Once again, the variable x is used since V q is a function of the voltages of all end buses supplied through the section of lateral i 1 beyond bus q, not just of the end bus of lateral i 1 itself. Subtracting the two voltages V q( x) and V q( x) yields an equation similar to (6.3) for lateral i starting at bus q, but V N is replaced by the vector x of the end voltages of all laterals. F i( x) = V q( x) V q( x) = 0 (6.6)

Note that V q( x) is not actually constant except when i is the main feeder and q is the source bus, i.e. the last set of equations when in RBF1 order. The function F i does not depend on all elements of x, but only on the voltages of end buses supplied through bus q. This relationship will be seen

92 more clearly in Section 6.1.2.1, Structure of the System Jacobian, especially in Figure 6.3 which illustrates the sparsity structure of the system Jacobian. Taking (6.6) for each lateral and combining these equations in RBF1 order, F ( L, M F =
L)

F ( l, m ) F ( 1, 1 )

(6.7)

yields the new reduced power ow equations which can be expressed compactly as F ( x) = 0 . (6.8)

Assuming real and imaginary parts are separated, for a system with M laterals, (6.8) is a set of 6M non-linear equations in 6M real unknowns. This is also assuming that all buses are three-phase; single and two-phase laterals would reduce these numbers accordingly. The reduced power ow equations for VI-DePARS are expressed mathematically by the non-linear set of equations in (6.8). The evaluation of these equations is performed by traversing each lateral in RBF1 order, updating voltages and currents via (6.4), then computing the voltage mismatches via (6.6).

93 6.1.1.3 Class B and Class C Transformers

If lateral i, emanating from bus q on lateral i 1 , has a class B or class C transformer as the incoming branch of bus k,2 the corresponding equations in (6.4), and consequently in (6.6), may take on a slightly different form. For a class B transformer entering bus k, the primary voltage and current are functions of the w k of (3.49) which includes V k 1 , the sum of the voltages at the primary side of the transformer, not just the two dimensional secondary voltage V k . This is described in Section 5.2.1.1, Backward Sweep, on page 66. In this case, the independent variable x i associated with lateral i is VN Vk 1

xi =

(6.9)

The variable x which contains the end voltages of all laterals will also contain V k 1 for laterals with class B transformers. This allows (6.6) to still be used in its present form. For a lateral with a class C transformer, (6.4) remains unchanged, although the voltage update formula used is the one in (5.22) which includes the modied secondary voltage. The mismatch function in (6.6) is a set of two equations in three unknowns. The additional equation required to solve the problem is obtained by setting to zero the secondary side constraint mismatch presented in Section 5.2.2.2, Backward Sweep, as (5.20).

to the implementation explained in Section 2.2.2.2, Breadth-First Search, transformers always appear as the rst branch on a lateral. So, although the more general notation is used here, restricted only to one transformer per lateral, in practice k = 1 and k1 = q.

2 Due

94
2 k V k( x) = V k ----- I k = 0 yk

(6.10)

This mismatch is a function of x, since the secondary voltage and current sums are functions of x. In this case, the function F i( x) of (6.6), used to compute the mismatch for lateral i, becomes V q( x) V q( x) V k( x)

F i( x) =

= 0.

(6.11)

With these small changes in the independent variable and the mismatch computed for laterals with class B and class C transformers, respectively, the compact form of the reduced power ow equations in (6.8) can still be used.

6.1.2

Update of Independent Variables

The second step of DePARS, after the evaluation of the power ow equations, is to update the independent variables, that is, the elements of x. In the case of VI-DePARS, these are the voltages V N at the ends of the laterals.3 In the standard Newton method, this involves the following three steps: 1. Evaluate the Jacobian at the current solution. 2. Solve a linear system of equations to nd the update step. 3. Add the update step to the current solution. The system Jacobian J ( x) for the reduced set of power ow equations in (6.8) is

laterals with class B transformers this also includes V k 1 , the sum of the voltages at the primary side of the transformer.

3 For

95 F x

J ( x) =

(6.12)

and has a special numerical structure which can be exploited to greatly reduce the computation involved in nding a good update step. 6.1.2.1 Structure of the System Jacobian

Since the function F consists of the mismatch functions F i for each lateral i, and the variable x is made up of the individual x i associated with each lateral i, the system Jacobian can be thought of in terms of block elements associated with a pair of laterals. The block element F i x j , in block row i and block column j, is the sensitivity of the mismatch at lateral i to changes in the independent variables corresponding to lateral j. First consider a single feeder system where the mismatch function is F (V N ) as given in (6.3). The Jacobian for this simple system is just a single block element and can be expressed using the chain rule and the branch Jacobians. The branch Jacobian G k for bus ks incoming branch is the Jacobian of the branch update equation in (2.3) from Table 2.3. This branch update function is w k 1 = g k(w k) and therefore the branch Jacobian is V k 1 g k V k Gk = = wk I k V k V k 1 Ik + 1 . I k I k + 1 (6.13)

(6.14)

The system Jacobian for this simple single feeder case gives the sensitivity of the calculated source voltage mismatch to variations in the end

96 voltage. It can be written, using the chain rule, as the product of the branch Jacobians from the source bus to the end bus g F = V 0 = V 0 G G J (V N ) = N , 2 N 1 V V N V N w1 N (6.15)

where the rst term in the product is just the upper half of G 1 and the last term is the left half of G N . Extending this to the general radial structure, each block element of the system Jacobian can be expressed, using the chain rule, as a product of branch Jacobians along the path between the supplying bus of lateral i and the end bus of lateral j. If lateral i branches off from its parent lateral at bus q and the end bus of lateral j is bus n, then changes in x j at bus n can only affect the mismatch F i at bus q if bus n is supplied through bus q. In other words, if bus q does not lie on the path between bus n and the source, then F i x j = 0 . This determines the sparsity structure of the system Jacobian J ( x) . If bus q does lie on the path between bus n and the source, then the corresponding block element F i x j is non-zero and ts into one of the four categories listed in Table 6.3. In order to simplify the presentation, the equations given in Table 6.3 are for the case with no class B or class C transformers present. The rst type of non-zero blocks are those on the block diagonal of the system Jacobian. These diagonal blocks are formed via (6.16) in a manner analogous to the single feeder case in (6.15). The second type is the set of non-zero blocks above the diagonal and is similar to the rst except that q + 1 refers to the bus following bus q on lateral j, hence it is V q that is affected instead of V q . For non-zero blocks of type 3 and type 4, let bus p

97 Table 6.3 VI-DePARS Jacobian Formation Non-Zero Blocks of the System Jacobian for VI-DePARS Type 1 i and j are the same lateral Type 2 i is a direct sub-lateral of j Type 3 j is supplied through i Type 4 j is supplied through i 1

source

source

source

source

q q +1 q +1 q i&j n i j q +1 i j q q +1 p 1 q n p i j p 1 n

diagonal blocks (all non-zero) F i = x j F i wq + 1

non-zero blocks above diagonal (6.16) F i = x j F i

non-zero blocks below diagonal (6.17) Gq + 2 G p 2 g p 1

Gq + 2 Gn 1

g n

V n

wq + 1 I p g I p G p + 1 Gn 1 n w p V n where q + 1 refers to the rst bus on lateral i and F i V q = wq + 1 wq + 1

where q + 1 refers to the rst bus on lateral i and F i V q = wq + 1 wq + 1 approximately identity

where q + 1 refers to the bus following q on lateral j and F i V q = wq + 1 wq + 1 approximately minus identity

where q + 1 refers to the bus following q on lateral j and F i V q = wq + 1 wq + 1

approximately zero

98 be the rst bus on lateral j. These types are comprised of the non-zero blocks below the diagonal and require products of branch Jacobians from more than one lateral. In the examples shown, the path from bus q to bus n includes only two laterals, but in general there could be more. If, for example, this path included four laterals and the rst bus on each new lateral encountered along this path were labelled consecutively as p 1 , p 2 , and p 3 , then (6.17) would look like the following: g p 1 F i F i 1 = Gq + 2 G p 2 1 x j wq + 1 I p 1 p g p 1 I 1 2 Gp + 1 Gp 2 1 2 w p I p 1 2 g p 1 I p2 3 G p2 + 1 G p3 2 w p I p 2 3 I p3 g G p + 1 Gn 1 n 3 w p3 V n

(6.18)

For a general radial distribution network, the structure of the system Jacobian is determined by the RBF1 order of the equations and variables and the application of the rules in Table 6.3 for the non-zero blocks. This Jacobian structure is illustrated in Figure 6.3 for the sample radial network shown in Figure 2.1 on page 10. As was mentioned earlier, a given F i does not depend on all elements of x. The non-zero blocks in block row i correspond to the x j on which F i depends. For lateral i branching off of bus q, block row i will have non-zero elements in the block columns corresponding to the laterals whose end buses are supplied through bus q.

99

zero block element non-zero block element of Type 1 non-zero block element of Type 2 non-zero block element of Type 3 non-zero block element of Type 4

xj
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Fi

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Figure 6.3 Structure of System Jacobian for VI-DePARS

100 6.1.2.2 Numerical Properties of the System Jacobian

The process of building the system Jacobian requires the application of (6.16) or (6.17) for each non-zero block as determined by the topology of the network. Each non-zero block is a product of branch Jacobians which must be evaluated rst. The branch Jacobian G k of (6.14) relates the sensitivity of voltages and currents at bus k 1 to small variations in the voltages and currents at bus k. For a three-phase branch, it is typically a 12 x 12 real matrix.4 Even for a very simple distribution line represented with the standard -model, each element of the matrix is a very complex expression depending not only on the parameters of the line but also on any load, shunt capacitor, or cogenerator at bus k. For a transformer the expression can be even more complicated. To include in a computer program an analytical expression for each of the 144 terms of each variation of the branch Jacobian is not practical due to the number of different expressions and their extreme complexity. The building of the true system Jacobian via products of true branch Jacobians is therefore not a viable option either. Some numerical approximation is needed. In order to determine the numerical structure of the system Jacobian it is necessary to rst examine carefully the numerical properties of the branch Jacobians for each type of branch. Deriving an analytical expression for each element and analyzing it to determine which terms can be neglected and what approximations can be made would also be prohibi-

If one or both sides of the branch are in an ungrounded section of the network, this dimension is reduced to 10 x 10 or 8 x 8, respectively. Note that it is necessary to separate each complex variable into two real variables in order to differentiate to nd the true branch Jacobian.

101 tively tedious. However, some reasonable approximations can be made by examining the relative magnitudes of certain quantities when expressed in per unit. For the incoming branch of bus k, the branch Jacobian G k contains the sensitivities of V k 1 and I k to small changes in V k and I k + 1 . Suppose this branch is a switch, modeled as a zero impedance connection. In this case, small changes in V k cause identical changes in V k 1 and small changes in I k + 1 cause identical changes in I k . In other words, the diagonal blocks of G k are identity blocks. The off-diagonal block based on the sensitivity of V k 1 to I k + 1 is a zero block since changes in I k + 1 have no effect on the voltage V k 1 . The other off-diagonal block is nearly zero as well, under the assumption that the admittances and power injections of loads, shunt capacitors, and cogenerators are small relative to voltage magnitudes when expressed in per unit. From the KCL equation in (5.2) it can be seen that V k does have a small effect on the currents injected by loads, shunt capacitors, and cogenerators. However, assuming the admittance or power parameters are small with respect to voltage, the sensitiv ity of I k , and therefore of I k also, to V k can be neglected. This is equivalent to approximating loads, shunt capacitors, and cogenerators by their corresponding current injections. For a switch, then, the branch Jacobian G k can be approximated by the appropriately sized identity matrix.5 Using I to denote an identity block Gk I 0 . 0 I
5

(6.19)

When using this approximation, it is not necessary to split up complex variables into two real variables. Hence, for a three-phase branch in a grounded section of the network G k is a 6 x 6 identity matrix.

102 If bus ks incoming branch is a distribution line modeled as described in Section 3.4, Distribution Line Model, then the numerical properties of (3.19) and (3.20) from Table 3.6 must be examined in order to derive an approximation for G k . For practical distribution lines the elements of the line impedance matrix Z k and the line charging admittance matrix Y k are typically small with respect to voltage magnitudes when expressed in per unit. When differentiating, under this assumption, the last term of (3.19) and the rst term of (3.20) can be neglected. This is equivalent to approximating the distribution line as a zero impedance branch with no charging. As with the switch, this implies that the branch Jacobian G k can be approximated by the appropriately sized identity matrix.5 In a system with only lines and switches but no transformers, each branch Jacobian can be approximated by an identity matrix. Voltages and currents are essentially decoupled from one another. It is important to note that these approximations are only for simplifying the Jacobian used to compute the update step in Newtons method. They have no effect on the nal solution, which is still based on the full models described in Chapter 3, Detailed Component Models. The diagonal blocks of the system Jacobian are under type 1 in Table 6.3 and are formed via (6.16). Using the identity approximations for the branch Jacobians yields an identity block in the system Jacobian as well. F i I 0 I 0 I 0 I x j 0 I 0 I 0 = I

(6.20)

103 Type 2 non-zero blocks, those above the diagonal, are formed by the same equation except that the rst term has a negative sign, resulting in a negative identity block in the system Jacobian. F i I 0 I 0 I 0 I x j 0 I 0 I 0 = I Using the identity approximation to the branch Jacobian in (6.17) for type 3 non-zero blocks yields F i I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 I I 0 I 0 I x j 0 I 0 I I 0 I 0 I 0 = I 0 0 0 I I I 0 = 0 Here the result is a zero block in the system Jacobian. This is due to the fact that the only coupling between the voltages involved is through the current I p , but the approximation decouples voltages and currents. The only difference for type 4 non-zero blocks is a leading negative sign. These blocks can therefore also be approximated by zero. The last row of Table 6.3 summarizes these approximations. 6.1.2.3 Transformers (6.22)

(6.21)

Building non-zero blocks of the system Jacobian which involve transformers is somewhat more complicated. First, note that there can be no transformers on the relevant part of lateral j for a type 2 non-zero block, so the approximations for these blocks are never affected by transformers.

104 Second, note that if a transformer is approximated by its ideal equivalent with no leakage admittance, then currents are completely decoupled from voltages and vice versa. Changes in secondary voltage have no effect on primary current and changes in secondary current have no effect on primary voltage. This means that the off-diagonal blocks of G k can be approximated by a zero block for a transformer. Given that a transformer always appears as the rst branch on the lateral,6 the lower right block of G k is not even used in the formation of the system Jacobian for type 1 blocks since the rst term of (6.16) includes only the left half of G k . The same is true about the rst term of (6.17) for type 3 and type 4 blocks. In fact, for a network with a transformer entering bus p, the identity approximations for the lines and switches disappear and (6.17) becomes F i I 0 0 0 I p I x j I 0 I p + 1 = 0. Even without knowing the value of I p I p + 1 these sub-diagonal blocks can still be approximated by zero. This means that it is not necessary to evaluate the lower right block of G k for a transformer since it is never used in the formation of the approximated system Jacobian. The only non-zero blocks of the approximated system Jacobian affected by transformers are the type 1 diagonal blocks. Suppose bus k7 is the rst bus on lateral i and its incoming branch is a transformer. The
6 See

(6.23)

7 Here

Section 2.2.2.2, Breadth-First Search. k is also equal to q + 1 in the gure for type 1 blocks in Table 6.3.

105 diagonal element in block row i can be approximated by the upper left block element of G k . F i V k 1 0 I 0 I 0 I x j 0 I 0 I 0 V k V k 1 = V k

(6.24)

This relationship between secondary and primary voltages, however, depends on the connection type. For class A transformers, this partial derivative is computed from (3.39) of Table 3.9 and yields F i V k 1 sp 1 ss = (Yk ) Yk . xi V k

(6.25)

For class B transformers, g k is a function of V k 1 as well as V k . Differentiating (3.52) of Table 3.10 gives the relevant expression: V k 1 V k 1 F i = xi V k V k1
sp Yk 1 ss

0 0 1 (6.26)

Y k 0

111

For class C transformers, the corresponding block diagonal element of the approximated Jacobian consists of the partial derivatives of (5.22) and (6.10). V k 1 V k V k V k ss 1 2 1 1 \ Y k -- 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1

F i xi

sp Y k

(6.27)

Table 6.4 shows, for each transformer type, the constant matrix depending only on k and k which results from the evaluation of (6.25),

106 Table 6.4 Jacobian Approximations for Transformers for VI-DePARS

Transformer Connection Type Primary Secondary F i xi k 1 0 0 ----- 0 1 0 k 001 k 1 0 ----k 0 1 (Yk )
sp 1

Grounded Wye Grounded Wye

5 A

Ungrounded Wye Ungrounded Wye Delta

Ungrounded Wye Delta Ungrounded Wye Delta Yk

ss

k ------------ 1 1 3 k 1 2 k ------------ 2 1 3 k 1 1 k 1 0 ----k 0 1 2 k k 1 ------------ ------------ -- 3 k 3 k 3

Delta

Grounded Wye

Ungrounded Wye
sp 1

k k 1 ------------ ------------ -- 3 k 3 k 3 Yk Y ss k 0 0 0 0 1 k 2 k ------------ ------------ 1 - -3 k 3 k 3 k ----k 0 1 0 -3 k 1 ----- -- k 3

111

Grounded Wye

Delta

k k 1 -------- -------- -- k k 3 4 Ungrounded Wye Grounded Wye not applicable ss 1 2 1 1 \ Y k -- 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 k k k --------- -------- -------3 k 3 k 3 k k 2 k k -------- --------- -------3 k 3 k 3 k 1 1 1

C 7 Delta Grounded Wye

Y k

sp

107 (6.26), and (6.27). The appropriate constant matrix from the table is used to replace the identity block on the diagonal of the approximated system Jacobian for a lateral with a transformer. 6.1.2.4 Solving for the Update

The approximation to the system Jacobian is a block upper-triangular matrix as shown in Figure 6.4 for the sample radial network of Figure 2.1 on page 10. Neglecting the near zero type 3 and type 4 blocks below the diagonal is essentially saying that the mismatch for lateral i depends only on the end voltages of laterals i and i 1 . Typically, each iteration i of the Newton method requires the evaluation of the system Jacobian J ( x the update step s
( i) ( i)

) and its factorization for the solution of

from J(x
( i)

)s

( i)

= F(x

( i)

).

(6.28)

However, when using the approximation to J described above, the matrix is constant and need not be reevaluated at each iteration. Furthermore, due to its block upper-triangular structure, it is not necessary to factor the matrix. Instead, (6.28) can be solved very efciently for s block backward substitution.
( i)

via a simple

6.1.3

Termination Criterion

The power ow equations F ( x) are evaluated to determine the mismatch for each iteration of DePARS. This mismatch is used to update the value of x for the next iteration. These two steps are repeated until convergence is achieved. Once the norm of the mismatch F ( x) becomes smaller than some tolerance it can be said that the algorithm has converged.

108

zero block element identity block (or from Table 6.4) negative identity blocks

xj
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Fi

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Figure 6.4 Approximation to the System Jacobian for VI-DePARS

109 It is also possible to use the termination criterion used for the network reduction methods of Chapter 4. This approach requires that the norm of the difference in bus voltages between iterations be smaller than a given tolerance.

6.2 Implementation
In many respects DePARS is very similar to the backward/forward sweep methods of Chapter 5. The function evaluation for VI-DePARS in the implementation is, in fact, the same routine as the one used for backward sweep in VI-VI-PARS and V-VI-PARS. In the fast decoupled method, the end voltages are updated directly via an approximate Newton step as opposed to the complete forward sweep used in the backward/forward sweep methods. Because of the simple structure of the approximated Jacobian, it is not even necessary to explicitly form the matrix. Once the mismatches F i have been calculated, the update step for each lateral can be computed directly as si = si 1 F i for laterals without transformers, and F i 1 ( si 1 F i) si = xi (6.30) (6.29)

for laterals with transformers. Here s i 1 refers to the update step for lateral i 1 , the parent of lateral i. The calculation of the update steps must therefore proceed in BF8 order, starting with the main feeder. The

8 See

page 11 under Section 2.2.1, Indexing Scheme.

110 term ( F i x i ) 1 can be computed beforehand for each lateral with a transformer. Since the package used for the implementation had built-in sparse matrix routines which were smart enough to do the block backward substitution automatically, the approximate Jacobian was formed explicitly. This allowed for the exibility of plugging it directly into an existing standard Newton solver routine without sacricing efciency.

6.3 Variations
There are four main variations to the generic DePARS given in Table 6.2. The rst two methods, VI-DePARS and VS-DePARS, use a backward sweep for function evaluation and an approximate Newton update to the independent variables in place of the forward sweep of BFS-PARS. The last two methods, I-DePARS and S-DePARS, use a forward sweep for function evaluation and the approximate Newton step is in place of a backward sweep. Table 6.5 summarizes the four variations. Table 6.5 Various Formulations for DePARS Algorithm VI-DePARS VS-DePARS I-DePARS S-DePARS Based on current power ow current power ow Independent Variable voltage at end of each lateral current at each laterals source power ow at each laterals source Function Evaluated voltage mismatch at each laterals source current mismatch at end of each lateral power mismatch at end of each lateral

111

6.3.1

VI-DePARS

VI-DePARS is the variation presented in detail in Section 6.1, Detailed Solution Algorithm. It computes voltage mismatches at the beginning of each lateral as a function of the end voltages and is based on current as opposed to power ow. This is the algorithm presented in [32] for networks which have only type 1 grounded wye to grounded wye transformers. The approach proposed in [17] is based on a similar idea. For a system consisting of a single feeder, it is equivalent to VI-DePARS, using (6.29) to update the end voltages directly from the voltage mismatch at the source. However, in the extension to a general radial structure, instead of updating the end voltage of all laterals at each iteration, the equations associated with each lateral are solved one by one to completion. Once convergence is achieved for all level l laterals, the level l 1 are solved. When all the laterals have been solved the process is repeated. This nested looping, of course, is inefcient and, fortunately, not necessary, as has been shown.

6.3.2

VS-DePARS

VS-DePARS is the power ow based counterpart to VI-DePARS. It uses the same independent variables and the mismatches computed are still the voltage mismatches at the beginning of each lateral. The function evaluation, however, is based on the backward sweep used by VS-VS-PARS described in Section 5.3.2.9 Many of the differences between VI-VI-PARS

9 This

backward sweep is also used by V-VS-PARS of Section 5.3.4.

112 and VS-VS-PARS described in this section are also relevant to the differences between VI-DePARS and VS-DePARS. Since this method computes the same mismatch as a function of the same variables, the same approximate Jacobian can be used. An extensive analysis of the branch Jacobians, now based on h k from (2.5), lead to the same approximations yielding the same approximate system Jacobian.

6.3.3

I-DePARS

In the single feeder example of Figure 6.1, there are two boundary conditions: the source voltage is a specied constant and the end current is zero. The rst two variations of DePARS are based on using the boundary condition at the end of the lateral to compute backward toward the source, obtaining a voltage mismatch at the source as a function of the end voltage. I-DePARS takes the opposite approach. The source voltage boundary condition is used to calculate in the forward direction to obtain a current mismatch at the end of the lateral as a function of the current injected at the source. In this case, the independent variables are the currents injected into the beginning of each lateral. The function evaluation is equivalent to a forward sweep and the approximate Newton update of the independent variables is in place of a backward sweep. In fact, the routine used to do the function evaluation is the same as the one used for the forward sweep of VI-VI-PARS and VI-I-PARS, which is described in detail in Section 5.1.2, Forward Sweep.

113 6.3.3.1 Reduced Power Flow Equations

For a single lateral, the branch update function f k of (2.2) is applied repeatedly starting from the source and moving toward the end of the lateral as shown in (6.31). V0 w 1 = f 1(w 0) = f 1 I1 w 2 = f 2(w 1) = f 2 f 1 V 0 I1 wN = VN IN + 1

(6.31)

V0 = f N (w N 1) = f N f 2 f 1 I1

The lower half of the composite function f N f 2 f 1 is used as the mismatch function for the lateral. F ( I 1) = I N + 1( I 1) = 0 (6.32)

To extend this to a general radial structure, note that the voltage V 0 must be known in order to apply (6.31). This implies that lateral i 1 must be evaluated before lateral i. The BF 8 order used by the standard forward sweep, described in Section 5.1.2, Forward Sweep, meets this requirement. Suppose bus k is the rst bus on lateral i as shown in Figure 6.5. The current I N + 1 at the end of lateral i is computed as a function of I k and V q , and will be written I N + 1( x) , where x is the vector containing the currents injected into all laterals and x i denotes the current I k injected into lateral i. These x i are put into x in RBF1 order.

114

lateral i bus N IN + 1

bus k xi = Ik from source lateral i 1 Vq bus q = k 1

Figure 6.5 Current Mismatch Calculation

x ( L, M L ) x = x ( l, m ) x ( 1, 1 ) =

I ( L, M L, 1 ) I ( l, m , 1 ) I ( 1, 1, 1 ) (6.33)

To compute I N + 1 , it is necessary to use x instead of just I k since I N + 1 also depends on the currents injected into the sub-laterals of i. Furthermore V q is affected by the currents injected into the sub-laterals of lateral i 1 which are closer to the source. Because of this, I N + 1 is a function of the currents injected into all sub-laterals which branch off of the path between the source and the end of lateral i. This yields an equation similar to (6.32) for lateral i whose end bus is bus N, where I 1 is replaced by the vector x of the currents injected into all laterals. F i( x) = I N + 1( x) = 0 (6.34)

115 Taking (6.34) for each lateral and combining these equations in RBF1 order as in (6.7) yields the new reduced power ow equations which can be still be expressed compactly as F ( x) = 0 . (6.35)

Note that the implementation of (6.35) in this case requires that the laterals be evaluated in BF8 order, not in the order they appear in F and x.10 As with VI-DePARS, a class B or class C transformer entering bus k causes the variables or mismatch functions for lateral i to change slightly from the standard I k and I N + 1 . For a lateral with a class B transformer, the voltage update formula used is the one in (5.15) which includes the modied primary current. The mismatch function in (6.34) is a set of two equations in three unknowns. The additional equation required to solve the problem is obtained by setting to zero the primary side constraint mismatch presented in Section 5.2.1.2, Forward Sweep, as (5.12) or (5.13). For type 2 grounded wye to ungrounded wye transformers, (5.12) gives I k( x) = I k = 0 and for type 3 grounded wye to delta transformers, (5.13) gives yk I k( x) = I k ----- V k 1 = 0 . 2 k (6.37)

(6.36)

This mismatch is a function of x since the primary voltage and current sums are functions of x. In this case, the mismatch function F i( x) becomes F i( x) = I N + 1( x) I k( x) = 0. (6.38)

ordering of F and x need only satisfy the constraint that they be sorted by lateral level. RBF order was chosen primarily for consistency with VI-DePARS.

10 The

116 For a class C transformer entering bus k, the secondary voltage and current are functions of the w k 1 of (3.60) which includes I k , the sum of the currents at the secondary side of the transformer, not just the two dimensional primary current I k . This is described in Section 5.2.2.1, Forward Sweep, on page 69. In this case, the independent variable x i associated with lateral i is Ik Ik

xi =

(6.39)

The variable x, which contains the currents injected into all laterals, will also contain I k for laterals with class C transformers. This allows (6.34) to be used in its present form. With these small changes in the mismatch and the independent variable for laterals with class B and class C transformers, respectively, the compact form of the reduced power ow equations in (6.35) can still be used. 6.3.3.2 Update of the Independent Variables

As with the formulation for VI-DePARS, the elements of the system Jacobian can be formed via the chain rule as the product of branch Jacobians. The branch Jacobian G k for I-DePARS is the Jacobian of the branch update function in (2.2) from Table 2.3. This branch update function is w k = f k(w k 1) and the branch Jacobian is therefore (6.40)

117

Gk =

f k wk 1

V k V k V k 1 I k = . I k + 1 I k + 1 V k 1 I k

(6.41)

Suppose lateral j branches off of its parent at bus q and lateral is end bus is bus n.11 If bus q does not lie on the path from the source to bus n, then the corresponding block element F i x j of the system Jacobian is a zero block. If bus q does lie on the path from the source to bus n, then the corresponding block is non-zero. Table 6.6 summarizes the formation of the non-zero blocks of the system Jacobian. In order to simplify the presentation, the equations given in Table 6.6 are for the case with no class B or class C transformers present. This leads to the structure shown in Figure 6.6 for the sample radial network shown in Figure 2.1 on page 10. This structure is the transpose of the Jacobian structure for VI-DePARS shown in Figure 6.3. For lines and switches, the branch Jacobian in (6.41) can once again be approximated by an identity matrix, under the same assumptions about the relative magnitudes of per unit circuit parameters and per unit voltages. Following a development similar to that of Section 6.1.2.2, Numerical Properties of the System Jacobian, and Section 6.1.2.3,

Transformers, leads to similar approximations. The type 3 and type 4 blocks, now above the diagonal, are approximated by zero, the type 2 blocks below the diagonal are approximated by negative identity, and the diagonal type 1 blocks, except when dealing with transformers, are approximated by identity blocks.
11 Here

i and j are exchanged from the scenario used in Table 6.3.

118 Table 6.6 I-DePARS Jacobian Formation Non-Zero Blocks of the System Jacobian for I-DePARS Type 1 i and j are the same lateral
source

Type 2 j is a direct sub-lateral of i

source

Type 3 i is supplied through j

source

Type 4 i is supplied through j 1

source

q q +1 q +1 q i&j n i j q +1 i j q q +1 p 1 q p n i j p 1 n

diagonal blocks (all non-zero) F i = x j I n + 1 wn 1

non-zero blocks below diagonal (6.42) F i = x j I n + 1 wn 1

non-zero blocks above diagonal (6.43) Gn 1 G p + 1 f p

Gn 1 Gq + 2

f q + 1 Iq

V p 1 f V p 1 G p 2 Gq + 2 q + 1 w p 2 Iq where q + 1 refers to the rst bus on lateral j where q + 1 refers to the bus following q on lateral i

where q + 1 refers to the rst bus on lateral j approximately identity

where q + 1 refers to the bus following q on lateral i approximately minus identity

approximately zero

For a lateral i, with a transformer entering bus k,2 the corresponding diagonal block is approximated by one of the following three expressions for class A, class B, and class C transformers, respectively.

119

zero block element non-zero block element of Type 1 non-zero block element of Type 2 non-zero block element of Type 3 non-zero block element of Type 4

xj
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Fi

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Figure 6.6 Structure of System Jacobian for I-DePARS

120 F i I k ss ps 1 ------------ = Y k ( Y k ) xi I k I k ------------ I k I k ------- I k 2 1 1 ss ps 1 Y k Y k \ -- 1 2 1 3 = 1 1 2 1 1 1

1

(6.44)

F i xi

(6.45)

F i I k ------------ xi I k

I k ss ------------ = Y k I k

Yk

ps

111

10 0 01 0 2 k 0 0 ----yk

(6.46)

When (6.44), (6.45), and (6.46) are evaluated for each transformer type, the result is a constant matrix depending only on k and k as shown in Table 6.7. The appropriate constant matrix from the table is used to replace the identity block on the diagonal of the approximated system Jacobian for a lateral with a transformer. These approximations lead to a lower block triangular matrix which means that, for I-DePARS, the update step in (6.28) can be solved efciently by block forward substitution. 6.3.3.3 Implementation

As with the other variations of DePARS, the Jacobian need not be formed explicitly due to the simple structure of the approximated Jacobian. Once the mismatches F i have been calculated, the update step for each lateral can be computed directly as si =

s j Fi
j

(6.47)

121 Table 6.7 Jacobian Approximations for Transformers for I-DePARS

Transformer Connection Type Primary Grounded Wye Ungrounded Wye Ungrounded Wye Delta Secondary Grounded Wye Ungrounded Wye Delta Ungrounded Wye Delta Y k ( Y k )
ss ps 1

F i xi k 1 0 0 ----- 0 1 0 k 001 k 1 0 ----k 0 1 k ------------ 2 1 3 k 1 1 k ------------ 1 1 3 k 1 2 k 1 0 ----k 0 1 2 k k k ------------ ------------ -----------3 k 3 k 3 k

ps Yk

5 A

Delta

Grounded Wye

Ungrounded Wye

ss Y k

2 1 1 1 \ -- 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1

k 2 k k ------------ ------------ -----------3 k 3 k 3 k 1 1 1

1 3 Grounded Wye Delta

k k ----- 0 -------k k k k -------- ----- 0 - k k 1 1 1

Ungrounded Wye

Grounded Wye ss Y k

not applicable k k 1 -------- -------- ----- 3 k 3 k 3 k 2 k 1 -------- --------- ----- 3 k 3 k 3 2 k k 1 ------------ -------- ----- 3 k 3 k 3

C 7 Delta

Grounded Wye

Yk

ps

111

10 0 01 0 2 k 0 0 ----yk

122 for laterals without transformers, and F i 1 s F si = i xi j j (6.48)

for laterals with transformers. Here s j refers to the update step for lateral j, where j is a sub-lateral of lateral i. The calculation of the update steps must therefore proceed in RBF1 order. One disadvantage to I-DePARS as compared to VI-DePARS is the availability of a good starting value for the independent variable x. For VI-DePARS the end voltages are set directly to balanced 1 per unit. However, some computation is required to nd an initial value for the currents injected into each lateral. This is typically done by current summation during some type of backward sweep such as the one used in V-I-PARS.

6.3.4

S-DePARS

S-DePARS is the power ow based counterpart to I-DePARS and is a generalization of the reduced power ow equations and fast decoupled algorithm for radial systems rst proposed in [12]. This approach is restricted to transformers of types 1, 5, and 9 which have the same connection on both primary and secondary. For an ideal transformer, there is no change in power from the primary to the secondary so an identity block is used for the corresponding diagonal block of the system Jacobian. Unfortunately, for the other transformer connection types there is no simple way to approximate the Jacobian, so they have not been included in this formulation.

123 The approximate Jacobian for S-DePARS is identical to that of I-DePARS. The update step in the Newton method can therefore be solved by a block forward substitution.

6.4 Convergence Analysis

In this section, it will be shown that the fast decoupled algorithms described here fall into the class of inexact Newton methods discussed in [14]. In the classical Newtons method shown in Table 6.1, the update step s
( i)

at iteration i is the solution to J

( i)

( i)

= F

( i)

(6.49)

In the inexact Newton methods, the corresponding equation is J

( i)

( i)

= F
( i)

( i)

+r

( i)

(6.50)

where the size of the residual r

is restricted so that the relative residual

is bound by some forcing sequence. Specically, r ( i) -------------- , ( i) F where { .

( i) ( i) ( i)

(6.51)

} is a forcing sequence which is uniformly less than one. Here

n

denotes an arbitrary norm in I . Notice that the special case where R 0 gives the exact Newtons method. A sequence { x
( i)

} of iterates produced by the inexact Newton

method is locally and linearly convergent. This result is stated and proved as Theorem 2.3 in [14]. Using the present notation, this theorem asserts the following:

124 Assume that < t < 1 . There exists > 0 such that, if ( 0) x x , then the sequence of inexact Newton iterates ( i) { x } converges to x . Moreover, the convergence is linear in the sense that x where y
J ( i + 1) ( i) max

t x

( i)

(6.52)

J ( x) y .

For the fast decoupled methods presented here, the update step can be expressed as the solution to ( i) = F ( i) , Js
( i)

(6.53)

where J is the constant approximation, shown in Figure 6.4,12 to the Jacobian J . With the denition J
( i)

( i)

J,

(6.54)

(6.53) can be rewritten in the form of the inexact Newton equation of (6.50), J
( i)

( i)

= F
( i)

( i) ( i)

+ J .

( i)

( i)

(6.55)

where the residual is r

( i)

= J

To prove that DePARS is, in fact, an inexact Newton method, and therefore locally and linearly convergent, it remains to be shown that there is some sequence {
( i)

} , uniformly less than one, which bounds the rela-

tive residual. This relative residual can now be expressed as r J s -------------- = ---------------------------- . ( i) s ( i) F J
( i) ( i) ( i)

(6.56)

12 Or,

for I-DePARS and S-DePARS, the transpose of the matrix shown in Figure 6.4.

125 For a network with only grounded wye to grounded wye transformers some conclusions can be drawn about the size of this residual under the following assumptions: All voltage magnitudes are close to 1 per unit. All transformer tap ratios are close to one. All per unit network parameters13 are small compared to voltage magnitudes (i.e. they are 1 ). Given these assumptions, J is of the form shown in Figure 6.4,14 where all diagonal terms are equal to or nearly equal to one and the offdiagonal non-zero terms are equal to minus one. The matrix J
( i)

in the

residual term is the difference between the true Jacobian, whose structure is shown in Figure 6.3, and J . This elements of this matrix are all small compared to one. This implies that J s ---------------------------- 1 , ( i) Js hence
( i) ( i) ( i)

(6.57)

can be chosen such that

( i) J s ---------------------------- < < 1 , ( i) Js ( i) ( i)

(6.58)

thereby completing the proof that DePARS is a locally and linearly convergent inexact Newton method.

This includes all line and transformer impedances, line charging admittances, shunt admittances, constant Z load admittances, constant PQ load power injections, and cogenerator power injections. 14 Figure 6.6 for I-DePARS and S-DePARS.

13

126

6.5 Comments
As with the backward/forward sweep methods of Chapter 5, the fast decoupled methods are applicable to a wide range of radial distribution networks. The one modeling limitation of the general DePARS formulation is that it does not include type 4 ungrounded wye to grounded wye transformers. One variation, S-DePARS, is further restricted to transformers of types 1, 5, and 9, all of which have identical connection and grounding on both primary and secondary sides. As with BFS-PARS, the power ow based variations typically require more computation per iteration than their current based counterparts. Considering this difference and the fact that S-DePARS is limited to only three types of transformer connections, VI-DePARS and I-DePARS appear to be the most attractive of the four fast decoupled methods. VI-DePARS has the added advantage of readily available initial values for the independent variable x. As with NR-PARS and BFS-PARS, the amount of computation required per iteration is proportional to the number of buses. For a constant number of iterations for convergence, the computational complexity increases linearly with the size of the system, making DePARS effective for very large radial distribution networks.

Chapter 7

Power Flow Algorithms for Weakly Meshed Systems (PAWMS)

The previous chapters have dealt with electric distribution systems with a radial topological structure. The algorithms developed and presented in these chapters are specic to networks which do not contain any loops. This chapter investigates an approach for extending these radial algorithms to handle systems with a limited number of loops. The resulting class of algorithms will be referred to as Power ow Algorithms for Weakly Meshed Systems, or PAWMS. The approach taken by PAWMS requires that the meshed system be converted to a radial structure by breaking each of the loops. The current or power injections at each breakpoint are adjusted in order to balance the voltages at either side using a compensation method [30]. Variations of this method have been presented in [23], [19], and [20] for single-phase networks, and more recently in [11] for three-phase systems. The approach presented here generalizes these to work with the various three-phase radial power ow algorithms presented in this dissertation.

127

128 Apart from handling cases with loops, the compensation method also makes it possible to solve systems with more than one voltage controlled bus. These can be secondary sources with both voltage magnitude and angle specied, or PV buses which specify voltage magnitude and real power injection. First, the method of dealing with loops is described in detail, followed by the modications necessary for secondary sources and PV buses.

7.1 Detailed Solution Algorithm

Since PAWMS is based on a radial power ow solver, the weakly meshed system must rst be converted to a radial structure. This is done by choosing a bus for each loop to serve as the breakpoint. Figure 7.1 shows a system with a loop containing bus k. This loop can be broken by splitting bus k to create a new articial bus k . The solution of the original meshed network is equivalent to the solution of the resulting radial system under the constraints that V k = V k and the current injection at bus k is the negative of the injection at bus k. The actual creation of the articial buses to break the loops is performed once during the initialization process. The algorithm, after initialization, consists of two steps which are repeated until convergence is achieved, as shown in Table 7.1. First, the breakpoint voltages are updated via a radial power ow method. Then, the current injections, I BPj at bus k and I BPj at bus k , are adjusted according to the breakpoint voltages in order to eliminate any mismatch. The adjustment is based on the sensitivity of the breakpoint voltage mismatch to changes in the breakpoint current injections. This sensitivity is approximated by the breakpoint

129 Table 7.1 Power Flow Algorithms for Weakly Meshed Systems PAWMS - The Algorithm Break loops. Form and factor breakpoint impedance matrix. Initialize breakpoint injections, initialize PARS. 1 2 Update PARS, compute breakpoint voltage mismatch. Update breakpoint injections.

Repeat steps 1 and 2 until convergence is achieved.

primary source

primary source

rest of network
bus q

rest of network
bus q

loop j bus k I BPj negative path

loop j

bus k I BPj

bus k I BPj positive path

Figure 7.1 Loop Breakpoint impedance matrix Z BP , which is a constant linear approximation to the sensitivity matrix. Since it is constant, it is necessary to form and factor Z BP only once during the initialization of the algorithm.

130

7.1.1

Loop Breakpoint Creation

The primary issue in converting the meshed system to a radial network is the choice of the loop breakpoint locations. As shown in Figure 7.1, each loop can be divided into two pieces, both of which are supplied through some common bus q. The positive path refers to the path between bus q and the breakpoint bus k, and the negative path is the path between bus q and the articial bus k . Some of the power supplied to the loop through bus q will enter through the positive path and some through the negative path depending on the branch impedances and the distribution of the loads on the loop. For good convergence, the breakpoint location for a loop should be chosen so as to minimize the breakpoint current I BPj . Although it is not possible to choose a priori the breakpoint location which will result in the smallest breakpoint current I BPj , it is easy to see that a depth-rst approach to nding and breaking loops would be a worst case. In this case, the loop is detected after traversing the entire loop in one direction and arriving again at bus q, which becomes the site of the breakpoint. All of the load on the entire loop would be put on the negative path and none on the positive path. Not only would this approach make it difcult to estimate reasonable initial values for the breakpoint injections, it would also cause unnecessary convergence problems for the radial power ow solver due to the potentially tremendous load on one lateral. Figure 7.2 shows that a much more reasonable and successful method is to use a breadth-rst approach to detecting and breaking loops. In this case, both the positive and negative paths are traversed simultaneously and the breakpoint is chosen as the bus farthest from the source. If bus k is visited twice, coming from two different directions, a loop has been

131

1e+0 1e-1 1e-2 Breadth-First 1e-3 1e-4 1e-5 1e-6 1e-7 1e-8 1e-9 0 5 10 15 20 25 Iterations 30 35 40 45 Depth-First

Figure 7.2 Effect of Breakpoint Creation Method on Convergence detected and an articial bus k is created. One of the branches entering bus k is removed and connected as the incoming branch of the new bus k . The loop breakpoint creation process is easily included in the initial traversal of the network during bus and lateral indexing as described in Section 2.2.2.2, Breadth-First Search. Using this approach, it is reasonable to set the initial values of the breakpoint injections to zero.

7.1.2

Breakpoint Voltage Mismatch

At each iteration of PAWMS, the breakpoint voltages V k and V k are updated, via one of the radial power ow algorithms of the previous chapters, based on the current value of the breakpoint injections. This could take the form of a complete power ow solution for the radial system or alternatively, one or several iterations of a radial power ow solver. The

132 resulting breakpoint voltages are then used to compute the mismatch for each loop j with breakpoint k. V BPj = V k V k (7.1)

Each complex three-phase voltage V = E + jF can be represented by a 6 x 1 vector containing its real and imaginary parts. V = E F (7.2)

The breakpoint voltage mismatch vector V BP is formed by combining the mismatches V BPj for each loop j as follows: E BP 1 F BP 1 V BP = E BP 2 F BP 2 E BPnlp F BPnlp This is a (6 nlp) x 1 real vector, where nlp is the number of loops in the network. (7.3)

7.1.3

Breakpoint Impedance Matrix

In order to update the breakpoint injections in a way which eliminates the breakpoint voltage mismatches, it is necessary to know the corresponding sensitivity information. A linear approximation to these sensitivities is given by the breakpoint impedance matrix Z BP . For a three-phase system, Z BP is a real, non-sparse, square matrix of dimension (6 nlp).

133 Let each complex three-phase current I = C + jD also be represented by a 6 x 1 vector of its real and imaginary parts, however, with the imaginary part negated. I = C D (7.4)

The reason for this separation into real and imaginary parts will be seen clearly in Section 7.1.6, PV Buses. The breakpoint currents I BPj for each loop j are then combined to form the (6 nlp) x 1 real breakpoint injection vector C BP 1 D BP 1 C BP 2 I BP = D BP 2 C BPnlp D BPnlp The breakpoint impedance matrix Z BP is an approximation of the sensitivity of V BP to changes in I BP . This relationship can be written V BP = Z BP I BP (7.6) (7.5)

The matrix Z BP consists of 6 x 6 block elements Z BPij corresponding to loops i and j. These blocks can be constructed directly according to the following observations:

134 For diagonal blocks where i = j , Z BPij is the sum of the branch impedances in loop i. For off-diagonal blocks where i j , the magnitude of Z BPij is the sum of the impedances of branches common to loops i and j. The sign is negative if the loops have opposite direction and positive if they have the same direction.1 To be consistent with the representations of voltage and current in (7.2) and (7.4), the branch impedances Z = R + jX are represented as Z = R X X R (7.7)

Since Z BP is constant, it is only formed once at the beginning of the algorithm. It can also be factored once via LU decomposition as Z BP L BP U BP (7.8)

and its triangular factors L BP and U BP stored for later use in solving for I BP from (7.6).

7.1.4

Breakpoint Injections

The second part of each iteration of PAWMS is to update the breakpoint current injections. This involves solving for I BP from the set of linear equations in (7.6) via backward and forward substitution using the triangular factors from (7.8). I BP = U BP \ ( L BP \ V BP ) (7.9)

The appropriate element I BPj is then added as a correction to the current value of the injection for loop j. I BPj I BPj + I BPj
1

(7.10)

The direction of a loop is arbitrarily dened to be toward the source on the positive path and away from the source on the negative path. This is also the convention used for the direction of the breakpoint current as shown in Figure 7.1.

135 These new current injections are used with positive and negative signs, respectively, at the corresponding breakpoint buses k and k during the next radial power ow update.

7.1.5

Multiple Sources

Throughout the preceding chapters of this dissertation, it has always been assumed that the network under consideration has a single voltage specied bus denoted as the source. The compensation method used to deal with loops in a system can also be applied to the problem of multiple sources. In a network with multiple sources, one of them is arbitrarily chosen as the primary source and is used as the source for the purposes of the radial load ow algorithms. Each of the other secondary sources is treated as a normal load bus with an extra current injection. For a secondary source at bus k, the voltage constraint creates a loop j through ground, which can be broken as shown in Figure 7.3. In this case, the articial bus k need not be created explicitly. The voltage mismatch V BPj for a secondary source at bus k is simply V BPj = V k
specified

Vk .

(7.11)

The corresponding breakpoint current injection I BPj is the current injected into the system at bus k by the secondary source. Although the negative path of a loop formed by a secondary source has no impedance, the formation of the breakpoint impedance matrix Z BP does not change from the method described above for simple loops.

136

secondary + source I BPj bus k loop j

primary source I BPj

secondary + source bus k bus k loop j

primary source

rest of network

rest of network

positive path

Figure 7.3 Secondary Source Breakpoint

7.1.6

PV Buses

Some cogenerators are modeled as devices which deliver a specied real power while maintaining a given voltage magnitude.2 This describes the typical PV bus used for generator buses in transmission systems. As with a secondary source, the voltage constraint at the PV bus can be viewed as creating an articial loop through the primary source. The sensitivity of the voltage at the PV bus to the current injection is given by the same breakpoint impedance matrix. However, only the voltage magnitude is specied and the current injection must be constrained so as to keep the real power injection constant. The breakpoint impedance matrix must therefore be modied to express directly the sensitivity of the voltage magnitude to the reactive power injection for PV buses. This requires some additional approxima-

2 See

Section 3.3, Cogenerator Model, on page 29.

137 tions and a change of basis for voltage and current vectors V and I, and impedance matrices Z, as given in (7.2), (7.4), and (7.7). Dene a rotation matrix U to rotate phases b and c by 120 and -120, respectively, 1 0 0 U = 0 0 , 0 0 2 where =
2 j -----e 3

(7.12)

1 3 = -- + j ------ , and note that 2 2 U 1 1 0 0 = = U 0 2 0 . 0 0 (7.13)

For 3 x 1 complex vectors V and I, and 3 x 3 complex matrix Z, let V UV I UI Z UZU 1 (7.14) (7.15) (7.16)

This set of denitions corresponds to a change of basis or rotation of the phase b and phase c voltages and currents. Assuming a three-phase network with a balanced 1 per unit primary source and no phase shifts, the magnitude of each element of V is equal to the magnitude of the corresponding element of V and is therefore close to 1 per unit. The angles of the elements of V , however, are all nearly zero, leading to the following approximations to the real and imaginary parts of V = E + jF .

138

1 E V = V 1 1 0 F 0 0

(7.17)

(7.18)

If V is the voltage of a PV bus and I is the corresponding current injection, the change in complex power injection S = P + jQ can be expressed in terms of V and the change in I , and separated into is real and reactive parts as follows: S = V .* I = V .* ( UU I ) = UV .* ( UI ) = V .* I = ( E + jF ) .* ( C jD ) = ( E .* C + F .* D ) + j ( F .* C E .* D ) P Q (7.19)

Applying the approximations to E and F from (7.17) and (7.18) yields P C Q D . (7.20) (7.21)

If Z BPij is a sensitivity matrix relating the breakpoint voltage mismatch V BPi for loop i to the breakpoint current injection I BPj for loop j, then Z is the corresponding sensitivity matrix for V and I . BPij BPi BPj This is shown by the following equation where the subscripts have been dropped to simplify the presentation.

139 V = = = =

UV UZ I UZU 1 UI Z I

(7.22)

This complex equation can be represented by the following real equation: E = R X C F X R D (7.23)

If loop i is due to a PV bus, the approximations from (7.17) and (7.18) are applied and only the rst block row of (7.23) is considered since there is no constraint on the voltage angles. V E = R X C D (7.24)

If loop j is due to a PV bus, the approximations from (7.20) and (7.21) are applied and, since the real power injection is xed, P is zero so only the second block column is needed. E X ( D ) X Q F R R (7.25)

If both loops are due to PV buses, both sets of approximations apply and the relevant equation is V E X ( D ) X Q . (7.26)

The value actually used for the voltage magnitude mismatch at a PV bus k is E = ( V k k
specified

V k ) .* E . / V k . k

(7.27)

This gives the change in the real part of V due to the difference between k the specied and calculated values of the voltage magnitudes, assuming the angle is left as calculated.

140

7.1.7

Summary

To yield a unied approach for dealing with loops, secondary sources, and PV buses, a change of basis is made according to (7.14)-(7.16) for all breakpoint voltages, all breakpoint current injections, and all branch impedances used in the formation of the breakpoint impedance matrix, now denoted Z . With the inclusion of PV buses, the matrix Z is BP BP formed as before, with the exception of block rows and columns corresponding to PV buses. These block rows contain only the rows corresponding to E (the rst three), and the block columns contain only the columns corresponding to Q (the last three). Each additional loop or secondary source adds six rows and columns to Z , while a PV bus only adds three. BP A simple example of a system with one loop, one secondary source, and one PV bus illustrates the structure of the breakpoint mismatch and injection vectors and the breakpoint impedance matrix. E 1 F 1 F 2 E 3 R11 X11 R12 X12 X13 X23 X33 C 1 C 2 Q 3 (7.28)

X11 R11 X12 R12 R13 D 1 X12 R12 X22 R22 R23 D 2 R13 X13 R23 X23

E = R12 X12 R22 X22 2

7.1.8

Termination Criterion

At each step of PAWMS, the breakpoint current injection is updated according to the breakpoint voltage mismatch. Convergence is achieved and the algorithm terminated when the norm of this mismatch is reduced below a pre-determined constant tolerance.

141

7.2 Implementation
Since the compensation method used to eliminate breakpoint voltage mismatches is independent of the radial power ow algorithm used to compute these mismatches, this independence was preserved in the implementation. The program was structured in a way which allows any of the variations of NR-PARS, BFS-PARS, or DePARS to be used as the radial solver.

7.2.1

Modeling Limitations and Simplifying Assumptions

The algorithm used to form the breakpoint impedance matrix is based closely on the one from [20]. Since this method builds the matrix directly from sums of branch impedances, it is not suited to loops which contain some grounded and some ungrounded sections. For this reason, the implementation was restricted to networks with only type 1 grounded wye to grounded wye transformers. To simplify the code, the following additional assumptions were made. All loops, including those formed by secondary sources and PV buses, are three-phase only. This eliminates the need to deal with different dimensions for breakpoint voltages and injections. It is also assumed that no two loops result in a breakpoint at the same bus, preventing the need for a variable number of breakpoint injection vectors for any given bus.

7.2.2

Termination of Radial Power Flow

Each iteration of PAWMS requires the computation of the breakpoint voltage mismatch via one of the radial power ow algorithms presented in previous chapters. However, depending on the tolerance used for the radial

142 power ow convergence criterion, a completely converged result may not be necessary, especially in the rst several iterations of PAWMS. In fact, in some cases, a single iteration of the radial power ow may be sufcient to achieve satisfactory convergence for PAWMS. As implemented, the program allows for three possible modes of operation. In addition to converged sets and single iterations of the radial power ow, an adaptive method is also included. This adaptive strategy is based on a heuristic which attempts to set the tolerance for the radial power ow for a given iteration such that the breakpoint voltage mismatches computed are only as accurate as necessary. Using the maximum change in bus voltage as the mismatch for the radial solver, a tolerance of 10 n typically results in bus voltages accurate to about 10 ( n + 1 ) . This is generally sufcient for the computation of breakpoint mismatches on the order of 10 n . An estimate of the breakpoint voltage mismatch at the next iteration can therefore be used as a reasonable tolerance for the current radial power ow. This estimate is readily computed from the current breakpoint voltage mismatch and the current rate of convergence, as calculated from the current and previous mismatches. This is the approach used by the adaptive method implemented in the program.

7.3 Variations
Several modications to the basic PAWMS presented here have been considered. They are based primarily on the various approaches presented in [23], [19], and [20] for single-phase power ow in weakly meshed systems.

143

7.3.1

Power Injection for Loop Breakpoints

It is possible to use power injection instead of current injection at the loop breakpoints. This, obviously, does not affect the treatment of PV buses and, in fact, has no effect for secondary sources as well, since their voltages are xed. For a simple loop j with breakpoint k, however, the voltage mismatch is used to compute a correction to the injected current which is converted to a correction to the injected power according to the following equation: V k + V k S BPj = --------------------- .* I BPj 2 V + V k k = --------------------- .* IBPj 2 In practice, this produces much better results than the more obvious update S = C jD , as shown in Figure 7.4. For a system with a mixed load model, there is little difference in performance between the method based on breakpoint power injection and that based on current injection. In general, using current injection yields equivalent or slightly better convergence results. The largest difference is seen in a system with purely constant current loads, and no shunt components or cogenerators. In this case, the current-based PAWMS converges in a single iteration since the network is linear and the breakpoint impedance matrix is the exact sensitivity matrix. (7.30)

(7.29)

144

1e+0 1e-1 1e-2 1e-3 1e-4 1e-5 1e-6 1e-7 1e-8 1e-9 0 5 10 Iterations 15 20 25
I = I ( C + jD ) U = U(C'+jD') V + V k k S = S = (V1+V2)/2 * -------------------- .* I 2 conj(I) S = S = jD C C'-jD'

Figure 7.4 Effect of Power vs. Current Injection on Convergence

7.3.2

Correction Step

In each iteration of PAWMS, the breakpoint injections are updated. In the basic PAWMS presented above, the radial power ow iteration immediately following this breakpoint update uses, as its initial condition, the result of the iteration preceding the update. This method can be improved by updating this initial condition to reect the changes in the breakpoint injections. For NR-PARS and BFS-PARS, the initial condition is specied by the bus voltages. The voltages at the end of each lateral are sufcient to specify the initial condition for VI-DePARS and VS-DePARS. For the other two fast decoupled methods, I-DePARS and S-DePARS, the initial condition is comprised of the currents or powers, respectively, injected into the beginning of each lateral.

145 First consider the correction for NR-PARS and BFS-PARS. This voltage correction step adjusts the bus voltages to reect the change in the breakpoint injections according to the method presented in [20]. A backward/forward sweep of the radial network is performed with: all loads, shunts, and cogenerators disconnected breakpoint injections set to their incremental values (the change in injection just computed) source voltage set to zero The bus voltages computed from this process are incremental values reecting the change in bus voltages due to the change in breakpoint injection. These incremental voltages are added to the bus voltages from the previous radial power ow iteration, resulting in a better starting point for the new radial power ow. For VI-DePARS and VS-DePARS, each iteration consists of a mismatch evaluation followed by an update to the end voltages. The voltage correction step described above can be used to calculate the incremental voltages. In this case, it is only necessary to add the incremental values to the end voltages since they are used to update all other bus voltages in the succeeding mismatch evaluation. When using I-DePARS and S-DePARS, the breakpoint injections are updated immediately following a function evaluation. Each iteration of the radial power ow then begins with the update to the independent variables, based on the mismatch from the previous iteration, and ends with the evaluation of a new mismatch. It is convenient to switch this order from that used by the other two DePARS methods above to allow for a mismatch correction to adjust for the change in breakpoint injections.

146 The effect of a change in the injection at a particular breakpoint then is simply to increase the corresponding laterals mismatch by the amount of the change. The only other detail is that, for I-DePARS, incremental power injections are converted to their approximate current equivalents3 before adding them to the appropriate mismatch. Likewise, for S-DePARS, incremental current injections are converted to their approximate power equivalents.3 The effect of adding a correction step to PAWMS is to improve the overall convergence characteristics of the algorithm. Using the correction step typically reduces the total number of radial power ow iterations required to solve the weakly meshed power ow.

7.4 Comments
For a distribution system with a small number of loops, secondary sources, and PV buses, the size of the breakpoint impedance matrix is relatively small. The computation involved in forming and factoring the matrix is still relatively small compared to the work required for the solution of the radial system. However, as the number of loops grows, the computational burden associated with the breakpoint impedance matrix grows. Since Z BP is, in general, not necessarily sparse, at some point, as the number of loops increases, the work associated with Z BP becomes so large that it is more efcient to use a general nodal approach, such as the traditional Newton-Raphson or Implicit Zbus Gauss methods. For this reason, PAWMS is well suited to weakly meshed systems, but less well suited to the highly connected structure of a typical transmission network.
3 Based

on balanced 1 per unit voltages.

147 Another issue raised by extending a radial power ow technique to handle weakly meshed systems is that of the existence and uniqueness of solutions. According to [13], a typical radial distribution network always has a unique feasible power ow solution. On the other hand, it is a wellknown fact that a meshed transmission network may have many feasible steady-state equilibrium points or none at all. The solution found by PAWMS for a weakly meshed distribution network may therefore not be a unique feasible solution. Presumably, choosing a different initial value for the breakpoint injections could result in a different solution to the power ow problem. Furthermore, divergence of the algorithm in certain cases could be due to the lack of a feasible solution.

Chapter 8

Simulation Results
All of the algorithms under consideration were implemented in a program written for MATLAB.1 The program reads the network data once from a text le and then stores it in binary format for later use. After reading the network data, either from the original text le or from the binary le, the network is traversed as described in Section 2.2.2.2, BreadthFirst Search. During this traversal the nodes and laterals are indexed, data is veried for consistency, and sections are marked as grounded or ungrounded. Since it is common to all of the methods, this preprocessing step is omitted from the comparison of computational effort associated with each algorithm. MATLAB is a high-level interpreted language designed with matrix manipulation in mind. The version used for this implementation, version 4, includes sparse matrix storage and manipulation as built-in functions. These capabilities made it an attractive choice for quick implementation and testing of ideas during the stage of algorithm development.
1 MATLAB

is a trademark of The MathWorks, Inc.

148

149 For the analysis of the algorithms, the interpreted nature of MATLAB makes it ideal for observing the behavior of individual parameters. On the other hand, an interpreted language is usually quite a bit slower in execution than the compiled languages typically used for power ow, such as Fortran or C. For this reason, MATLAB is probably not the language of choice for a program intended for use in industry. On a sufciently fast workstation, however, computation time for this implementation was not a problem even with networks of more than 1000 buses. The goal of this analysis of the results of the MATLAB simulation is to draw some meaningful conclusions about the behavior of the algorithms in a compiled language, such as Fortran or C. This entails comparisons of the effectiveness of each of the algorithms presented in Chapter 4 through Chapter 7 relative to one another and relative to other relevant power ow algorithms. For this purpose, computation time in MATLAB is nearly meaningless. In MATLAB, solving a set of linear equations is a built-in function and therefore executes at approximately the same speed as Fortran or C. Simple loops, however, are many times slower since each line is interpreted each time through the loop. Consequently, the run time of an algorithm in MATLAB may be completely unrelated to the run time of the same algorithm in Fortran or C. The number of oating point operations (ops) required, though not a perfect measure, is chosen as a much better indicator of relative run time in a compiled language.

150

8.1 Summary of Algorithms Tested

The simulations performed involve 16 different algorithms which can be classied into the following four categories: traditional algorithms for the standard Y bus formulation (NewtonRaphson, Implicit Zbus Gauss) network reduction methods (NR-PARS) backward/forward sweep methods (BFS-PARS) fast decoupled methods (DePARS) These algorithms are summarized in Table 8.1. The rst class, included for the sake of comparison, consists of standard power ow methods applied to the traditional power ow formulation for general meshed systems. The remaining three classes are for radial networks only and are collectively referred to as PARS (Power ow Algorithms for Radial Systems). Each variation of PARS can be extended, as described in Chapter 7, to solve the power ow for weakly meshed networks. When a particular version of PARS is used in conjunction with these extensions, the PARS in the name of the algorithm is simply changed to PAWMS (Power ow Algorithms for Weakly Meshed Systems). Since the two traditional distribution power ow algorithms tested, Newton-Raphson and Implicit Zbus Gauss, have not been discussed in previous chapters, each of them will be described briey.

8.1.1

Newton-Raphson Method

The traditional formulation of the distribution power ow problem is a set of power balance equations at each load bus as a function of the bus voltages. Let S bus be the vector of net power injected into the system at

151 Table 8.1 Summary of Distribution Power Flow Algorithms

ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
All Only

Class traditional algorithms, standard Ybus formulation linear network reduction (NR-PARS)

Algorithm NewtonRaphson Implicit Zbus Gauss N-PARS Y-PARS VI-VI-PARS V-VI-PARS

Fwd Swp

Bwd Swp

Network Transformer Related Structure Connections Refs general meshed all types [25], [28] [27], [9], [10]

not applicable

V, I V, I V, I V V, I V V, S V V, S V direct direct V, I V, S

Y, I Y V, I V, I I I V, S V, S S S V, I V, S direct direct types 1, 5, 9 [12] radial structure only (or weaklymeshed using PAWMS) all except type 4 [18] [23], [11] [3] [4]

VI-I-PARS back/forward V-I-PARS sweep (BFS-PARS) VS-VS-PARS V-VS-PARS VS-S-PARS V-S-PARS VI-DePARS fast decoupled (DePARS) VS-DePARS I-DePARS S-DePARS

[19], [20] [17], [32]

except ungrounded wye to grounded wye connections. those with identical connection and grounding on both primary and secondary sides.

each bus by constant power elements, let I bus be the vector of net current injection by constant current elements, and let Y bus be the bus admittance matrix containing all constant impedance elements. The power balance equation can then be written in terms of the bus voltage vector V. S bus = V .* ( Y bus V I bus ) (8.1)

The power ow problem is to nd a bus voltage vector V which satises this power balance. Roughly speaking, the Newton-Raphson method [25; 28] solves this problem by setting the power mismatch function

152 F (V ) = V .* ( Y bus V I bus ) S bus = 0 (8.2)

to zero and solving for the roots via Newtons method.2 To be more accurate, the set of equations given to Newtons method consists of only the rows of (8.2) associated with the load buses. Similarly, the unknowns are the bus voltages at the load buses, since the source voltage is assumed to be given.

8.1.2

Implicit Zbus Gauss Method

The Implicit Zbus Gauss method [27; 9; 10] also uses a standard Y bus formulation. At all times, the state of a power system must satisfy Kirchhoffs current law at every bus. This constraint can be expressed as I = Y bus V (8.3)

where I is the vector of current injected by all constant current and constant power elements. The voltage and current vectors are separated into two parts, the rst corresponding to the source and the second corresponding to the remaining buses. I1 I2 Y 11 Y 12 V 1 Y 21 Y 22 V 2 (8.4)

In this case, the power ow problem is to solve for V 2 , given the source voltage V 1 . If the circuit contains no constant power elements, I 2 is a known constant injection and V 2 can be found directly from the lower part of (8.4).
1 V 2 = Y 22 ( I 2 Y 21 V 1 )

(8.5)

2 See

Table 6.1, Newtons Method, on page 86.

153 This is a simple linear circuit solution via a nodal method. If the network contains constant power devices, they can be linearized by replacing them with equivalent current injections based on an estimate of the bus voltages. In this case, the current injection I 2 becomes a function of the bus voltage vector V 2 .
1 V 2 = Y 22 ( I 2(V 2) Y 21 V 1 )

(8.6)

The Gauss method can be applied to solve this equation by repeatedly updating V 2 , evaluating the right hand side using the most recent value of V 2 . When the change in V 2 between iterations is smaller than some tolerance the algorithm is terminated. This is called a Zbus method since it is
1 equivalent to repeatedly multiplying by the impedance matrix Y 22 . In

practice, since this matrix is not sparse, it is not necessary or desirable to explicitly form it, hence the implicit in the name of the algorithm. Instead, Y 22 is factored once via an LU decomposition and its factors are stored. The evaluation of the right hand side of (8.6) then consists of computing I 2(V 2) and doing a backward and forward substitution using the factored matrix. The primary differences between the implementation used for the tests presented in this chapter and the version described in [9] and [10] are the following. In this implementation, all constant impedance elements, including transformers, shunt capacitors, and constant impedance loads, are included in Y bus . It is possible to include transformers without encountering the ill-conditioning problems mentioned in [10] since this implementation is based on only solving for line-to-line voltages in ungrounded sections of the network.

154

8.2 Description of Test Systems

A variety of test systems were used to evaluate the performance of the power ow algorithms under consideration. Table 8.2 gives a summary of the test systems used. Networks G and J originate from two different modTable 8.2 Summary of Test Systems
ID Buses Nodes Laterals A B C D E F G H I J K
With

Transformers 1 6 6

Power Input P (kW) 710.4 1673.9 1154.2 4007.7 4524.6 6807.7 4696.7 3962.8 29,116.3 18,405.0

Real Minimum Power Voltage Q Loss Magnitude (kVAR) -276.8 -650.7 -115.0 1676.8 1187.1 2042.5 830.6 -1603.9 9757.4 7799.9 1.04% 1.74% 2.49% 2.13% 0.74% 2.58% 1.34% 2.34% 1.88% 2.15% 2.95% 0.98 p.u. 0.97 p.u. 0.93 p.u. 0.94 p.u. 0.98 p.u. 0.94 p.u. 0.91 p.u. 0.89 p.u. 0.94 p.u. 0.99 p.u. 0.87 p.u.

63 125 204 242 380 446 293 552 599 396 1064

135 249 348 423 754 811 829 1031 1063 1133 1976

32 26 101 66 97 123 85 139 149 108 284

29,277.2 11,214.7

mixed load model.

els (J more detailed) of NYSEGs3 distribution system in Elmira, NY. Test system J uses the peak loading data from the summer of 1993, and is the primary set of data used for the analysis. Unless specically indicated, the results presented are from test system J. The other systems are used to study the behavior of the algorithms in relation to the size of the system being solved. The data from these systems

3 New

York State Gas & Electric.

155 are derived from models provided by Rochester Gas & Electric in NY. Except for the tests which explicitly examine the effect of the load model, all of the tests are run with a random mixture of approximately equal numbers of constant PQ, constant current, and constant impedance loads.

8.3 Power Flow Algorithms for Radial Systems (PARS)

This section examines the performance of each of the power ow algorithms described in this dissertation as applied to strictly radial systems. As certain variations of the algorithms are found to be inferior, they are then excluded from further tests and analysis. First, consider a comparison of the number of iterations required by the various algorithms to solve test systems B and J for a mixed load model, as shown in Figure 8.1. With a few exceptions, the algorithms require between about ve and ten iterations to converge. The NewtonRaphson method on average requires fewer iterations due to its quadratic convergence property. The remaining algorithms exhibit what appears to be linear convergence. Figure 8.2 illustrates this difference for a representative subset of the methods. It should be noted that the number of iterations required by Implicit Zbus Gauss and N-PARS are always identical since both methods solve the same linear approximation to the circuit at each iteration. Despite its superior performance with regard to number of iterations, Figure 8.3 shows that the total number of ops required by the NewtonRaphson method is approximately an order of magnitude greater, on average, than required by the remaining methods. In the network reduction

156

Newton-Raphson

Implicit Zbus Gauss Test System J N-PARS Test System B

Y-PARS

VI-VI-PARS

V-VI-PARS

VI-I-PARS

V-I-PARS

VS-VS-PARS

V-VS-PARS VS-S-PARS

V-S-PARS

VI-DePARS

VS-DePARS

I-DePARS

S-DePARS

6 Iterations

10

12

Figure 8.1 Iterations Required by Each Algorithm

157

I-DePARS 1e+0 1e-1 1e-2 1e-3 1e-4 1e-5 1e-6 1e-7 1e-8 1e-9 1e-10 1e-11 1e-12 1 2 4 Iterations 3 5 N-PARS V-I-PARS VI-DePARS Newton-Raphson

Figure 8.2 Linear vs. Quadratic Convergence class of algorithms, Y-PARS performs signicantly worse than N-PARS, as expected, and is therefore not considered in further comparisons. Figure 8.4 excludes Newton-Raphson and Y-PARS and normalizes the number of ops with respect to V-I-PARS, showing more clearly the comparison for the remaining methods. N-PARS requires fewer ops per iteration and therefore fewer total ops than the Implicit Zbus Gauss method. For the backward/forward sweep methods, updating voltages during backward sweep and currents or power ows during forward sweep on seems to hurt the overall performance. Doing both actually increases the number of iterations required. So the winners in current and power based backward/ forward sweep methods are V-I-PARS and V-S-PARS, respectively. In the remaining tests, BFS-PARS will be restricted to these two variations. In

158

Newton-Raphson

Implicit Zbus Gauss

N-PARS

Y-PARS

VI-VI-PARS

V-VI-PARS Test System J VI-I-PARS Test System B

V-I-PARS

VS-VS-PARS

V-VS-PARS VS-S-PARS

V-S-PARS

VI-DePARS

VS-DePARS

I-DePARS

S-DePARS

0.01

0.1 1 Floating Point Operations (Mflops)

10

Figure 8.3 Total Flops for Each Algorithm

159

Implicit Zbus Gauss

N-PARS

VI-VI-PARS

V-VI-PARS

VI-I-PARS

V-I-PARS

VS-VS-PARS

V-VS-PARS

VS-S-PARS

V-S-PARS

Test System J Test System B

VI-DePARS

VS-DePARS

I-DePARS

S-DePARS

0.5

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Floating Point Operations (normalized)

3.5

Figure 8.4 Normalized Flops vs. Algorithm

160 the fast decoupled class, I-DePARS appears most attractive. In fact, due to the limitations on the types of transformers handled by S-DePARS, it is unable to solve test system J and is therefore also removed from further consideration.

8.3.1

Effect of Load Model and Load Factor on Convergence

From Figure 8.4, the current based methods appear to perform better than the corresponding power based methods, and I-DePARS appears to be more efcient than VI-DePARS, despite the fact that the starting point for VI-DePARS is available without any computation. However, before eliminating the power based methods or VI-DePARS from further consideration, the effect of load models and load factor are examined. First consider the effect of different load models as illustrated in Figure 8.5 and Figure 8.6. For a network with no constant power loads (and no cogenerators), both Implicit Zbus Gauss and N-PARS require a single iteration since the system is linear, making N-PARS the method of choice. For BFS-PARS and DePARS, considering all of the load models, the results show a maximum of one iteration difference between the current based methods and their power ow based counterparts. Even when requiring an extra iteration, Figure 8.6 shows that the current based methods require fewer ops than the corresponding power based methods. The superiority of the current based methods does not seem to be affected by the load model. Consider the effect of increasing the load, for a mixed load model, by multiplying all loads in the base case by a scalar load factor. Figure 8.7 shows the Newton-Raphson method to be least affected by high load fac-

161

12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Constant PQ Constant I Constant Z Mixed

Figure 8.5 Effect of Load Model on Number of Iterations

10

Constant PQ 1 Constant I Constant Z Mixed

0.1

Figure 8.6 Effect of Load Model on Number of Flops

162

Newton-Raphson 100 V-S-PARS VS-DePARS N-PARS V-I-PARS VI-DePARS I-DePARS 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Load Factor

Figure 8.7 Effect of Load Factor on Number of Iterations tors in terms of required iterations. It also appears that the power based BFS-PARS and DePARS methods require fewer iterations at high load factors than their current based versions. It should be noted, however, that all seven of the algorithms shown in Figure 8.7, including Newton-Raphson, diverged when the load factor was increased to 3.75. Looking at the number of ops required by each algorithm reveals that, in spite of the larger number of iterations required by the current based methods at high load factors, the number of ops required is still smaller until the load factor reaches approximately three. It is only beyond this point, indicated by the arrows in Figure 8.8, that the power based methods show any real advantage.

163

V-I-PARS VI-DePARS

V-S-PARS
4

VS-DePARS N-PARS

0.5

1.5 2 Load Factor

2.5

3.5

Figure 8.8 Effect of Load Factor on Number of Flops It could be argued that, since the base case load is already a peak loading condition, the number of typical power ow cases where power based methods are better than current based methods is insignicant. Though it is not shown in the plot, the curve for I-DePARS falls between V-I-PARS and VI-DePARS at each load factor, making it the best of the DePARS methods below a load factor of about three.

8.3.2

Effect of System Size on Convergence

An important requirement for any power ow algorithm is that it scale well to very large systems. In order to examine the performance of algorithms proposed in this dissertation, all of the test systems listed in Table 8.2 were used. Along with Newton-Raphson and Implicit Zbus Gauss, only the best version of each class of PARS was evaluation in this test.

164 It is well-known that the number of iterations required by the Newton-Raphson method is typically not affected by the size of the power system. Figure 8.9 shows that, although there is variation in the number of

Newton-Raphson 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 500 1000 1500 Size of System (# of nodes) N-PARS V-I-PARS I-DePARS Minimum |V| Size of Systems Tested 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 2000

Figure 8.9 Effect of System Size on Number of Iterations

iterations required for the different size systems, there seems to be no correlation between the system size and the number of iterations for any of the algorithms tested. Since the analysis has shown that the number of iterations is affected by load factor, it seems reasonable to conclude that differences in loading could account for the variation in number of iterations from one test system to another. Assuming the minimum voltage magnitude in the system gives some indication of the loading of the sys-

165 tem, the shape of the minimum voltage curve in Figure 8.9 seems to conrm this conjecture. Aside from the variation in number of iterations caused by loading differences, the number of ops required by each algorithm grows approximately linearly with the number of nodes in the system, as illustrated in Figure 8.10.

2.5

Implicit Zbus Gauss N-PARS

V-I-PARS I-DePARS

1.5

Size of Systems Tested

0.5

0 0 500 1000 Size of System (# of nodes) 1500 2000

Figure 8.10 Effect of System Size on Number of Flops

8.4 Power Flow Algorithms for Weakly Meshed Systems (PAWMS)

The system used to test the extension of the radial power ow algorithms to handle weakly meshed systems is derived from the same data as test system J. For these tests, some transformer types have been changed

166 and the open/closed status of some of the switches is changed to create loops in the system. The implementation of PAWMS used for the results presented here includes the extra correction described in Section 7.3.2, Correction Step. It was found that this correction step nearly always reduced the total number of ops required for convergence. Sometimes adding this correction turned a divergent case into a convergent one. In particular, some of the DePARS methods did not converge without this step.

8.4.1

Effect of PARS Termination Criterion on Convergence

As mentioned in Section 7.2.2, Termination of Radial Power Flow, the program, as implemented, allows for three modes of operation with regard to the termination criterion for PARS during each iteration of PAWMS.4 The adaptive mode typically results in the same number of iterations of PAWMS as the case where converged sets of PARS solutions are used at each PAWMS iteration. The adaptive method, however, requires fewer overall iterations of the radial power ow. In comparing the adaptive method with the mode which performs a single iteration of PARS for each breakpoint injection update, consider Figure 8.11 which shows the total number of PARS iterations for each case. For V-I-PAWMS, the adaptive method typically requires a few more total PARS iterations than the single iteration approach. However, Figure 8.12 shows that the total number of ops is nearly the same for both modes. This is because the single iteration mode requires more PAWMS iterations

PAWMS iteration refers to one iteration of the outer loop, i.e. one breakpoint injection update.

4 One

167

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0

V-I-PAWMS (Adaptive) V-I-PAWMS (Single Iterations) I-DePAWMS (Adaptive) I-DePAWMS (Single Iterations)

10 Number of Loops

15

20

Figure 8.11 Total PARS Iterations for Adaptive vs. Single Iterations

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 5 10 Number of Loops 15 20 Adaptive Single Iterations

Figure 8.12 Total Number of Flops for Adaptive vs. Single Iterations

168 and therefore performs more correction steps than the adaptive mode. The results for N-PAWMS and VI-DePAWMS are not shown, but are quite similar with a slightly higher number of ops required for the adaptive mode. For I-DePAWMS, however, Figure 8.11 shows an enormous increase in the number of PARS iterations required when the number of loops is increased beyond about eight. This is due to an increase in the number of PAWMS iterations caused by inaccurate breakpoint voltage mismatches being used for the calculation of the breakpoint injection update. The number of required ops also increases dramatically. The adaptive mode does not suffer from this problem since the breakpoint voltages are always solved to the necessary precision. The adaptive mode then is a safer approach, particularly for I-DePAWMS, where the number of ops required is often signicantly less than for single iteration mode. For the other methods tested, N-PAWMS, V-I-PAWMS, and VI-DePAWMS, the number of ops for the two modes are typically comparable. For this reason, the adaptive mode is used throughout the remaining tests.

8.4.2

Effect of Number of Loops on Convergence

As the number of loops in the network is increased, the number of total radial power ow iterations typically settles to some constant number, as illustrated in Figure 8.13. The number of iterations required by the Implicit Zbus Gauss method also settles on some constant. Figure 8.14 shows the relationship between the number of loops in the system and the number of ops required for each algorithm. Although the number of iterations stops growing with the number of loops, the number of ops does not.

169

35 30

Implicit Zbus Gauss N-PAWMS V-I-PAWMS

25 20 15 10 5 0 0

VI-DePAWMS I-DePAWMS

10 Number of Loops

15

20

Figure 8.13 Number of Iterations vs. Number of Loops

Implicit Zbus Gauss N-PAWMS

2.5

V-I-PAWMS VI-DePAWMS

2 I-DePAWMS 1.5

0.5

0 0 5 10 Number of Loops 15 20

Figure 8.14 Number of Flops vs. Number of Loops

170 This is because the size of the breakpoint impedance matrix, and therefore the work involved in factoring it, continues to grow. In the case of the Implicit Zbus Gauss method, the increase is more slight and is probably due to the extra non-zeros in Y bus and the extra ll-in during factoring. Because of this slower increase in ops as the loops are increased, Implicit Zbus Gauss becomes more attractive, compared to the methods based on PAWMS, as the number of loops becomes large. In this test, however, even with 19 loops, V-I-PAWMS is slightly more efcient than Implicit Zbus Gauss. Considering the overall performance of the various methods on cases with 3 to 19 loops, illustrated in Figure 8.15, shows that the total number of PARS iterations for I-DePAWMS is the worst of the algorithms tested. However, due to its cheaper radial power ow iteration and cheaper correc-

Newton-Raphson 19 loops Implicit Zbus Gauss 15 loops 11 loops N-PAWMS 7 loops 3 loops V-I-PAWMS

VI-DePAWMS

I-DePAWMS

10

20

30

40 50 Iterations

60

70

80

90

Figure 8.15 Overall Comparison of Iteration Counts

171 tion step, Figure 8.16 shows that it is only marginally worse than V-I-PAWMS in terms of overall op count. Here the op counts have been normalized for each case so that the total for V-I-PAWMS is equal to one. Not surprisingly, N-PAWMS and VI-DePAWMS are less efcient, falling in the same range as Implicit Zbus Gauss in terms of total number of ops.

Implicit Zbus Gauss

N-PAWMS

V-I-PAWMS

19 loops 15 loops

VI-DePAWMS

11 loops 7 loops

I-DePAWMS

3 loops

0.2

0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Floating Point Operations (normalized)

1.6

1.8

Figure 8.16 Overall Comparison of Flop Counts

8.4.3

Effect of Load Model on Convergence

A case with 19 loops was used to study the effects of various load models on the convergence of V-I-PAWMS and I-DePAWMS. As shown in Figure 8.17, the convergence of PAWMS is approximately linear for each of the load models tested. Of the three models tested, the constant current load model offers the best convergence. This is reasonable since the true

172

1e+0 1e-1 Constant PQ 1e-2 Constant I 1e-3 1e-4 1e-5 1e-6 1e-7 1e-8 1e-9 1 2 3 4 5 6 Iterations 7 8 9 10 Constant Z Mixed

Figure 8.17 Convergence of V-I-PAWMS for Various Load Models breakpoint sensitivity matrix is not affected by the presence of constant current loads. The corresponding plot for I-DePAWMS is quite similar, though each case requires a few more PARS iterations as illustrated by Figure 8.18. In spite of the extra iterations, Figure 8.19 indicates that the number of ops required is only slightly higher than for V-I-PAWMS.

8.5 Summary
All of the results given in this chapter and the conclusions drawn from them are based on the MATLAB implementation and the test systems described. Much of the code was reused from one algorithm to the next and it is possible that any given algorithm may not have been implemented in

173

Constant PQ

I-DePAWMS Constant I V-I-PAWMS

Constant Z

Mixed

10 Iterations

15

20

25

Figure 8.18 Effect of Load Model on Number of PARS Iterations

Constant PQ

I-DePAWMS Constant I V-I-PAWMS

Constant Z

Mixed

0.5

1 1.5 2 Floating Point Operations (Mflops)

2.5

Figure 8.19 Effect of Load Model on Number of Flops

174 the most efcient manner. A different implementation could yield slightly different results. In particular, an analysis of the run time of a Fortran or C implementation could produce results which differ from the conclusions drawn from the op counts given by the MATLAB implementation. Most of the qualitative results, however, should be similar. For radial power ow, N-PARS is clearly the better of the two network reduction methods. For the backward/forward sweep and fast decoupled methods, the variations based on current typically require less computation than those based on power ow. At very high load factors, however, this is not always true. In general however, for the typical power ow cases tested, V-I-PARS and I-DePARS were superior to the other BFS-PARS and DePARS methods, respectively. They also proved to be quite comparable to one another in performance, showing signicant improvements over the traditional methods based on a Y bus formulation. For weakly meshed systems, the adaptive mode was chosen as the best choice for the termination criterion for the radial power ow solver. Out of the PAWMS methods, V-I-PAWMS and I-DePAWMS offered the best performance, showing a signicant improvement over Implicit Zbus Gauss for networks with a small number of loops. As the number of loops increases, the more general Y bus formulation shows little increase in computation and the PAWMS approach loses its advantage due to the increasing size of the breakpoint impedance matrix.

Chapter 9

Conclusions
The objective of this work was to develop a comprehensive formulation and an efcient solution algorithm for the distribution power ow problem which takes into account the detailed and extensive modeling necessary for use in the distribution automation environment of a real world power system. This objective was achieved through extensions and generalizations of existing power ow algorithms as well as through the development of new methods.

9.1 Contributions
A general framework was developed which encompasses existing radial power ow algorithms. This framework consists of the three main classes of algorithms summarized in Table 9.1. Within each class, the existing methods were generalized and extended to include more comprehensive modeling, and new algorithms for each class were introduced.

175

176 Table 9.1 Summary of Radial Power Flow Algorithms Class of Algorithm Network Reduction (NR-PARS) Backward/Forward Sweep (BFS-PARS) Fast Decoupled (DePARS)
The

Number of Variations 2 8 4

Number of New Variations 1 4 3

best variation in this class is new.

In particular, the general formulation includes: general radial structure unbalanced three-phase operation, including single-phase and two-phase branches general load models, including constant power, constant current, and constant impedance loads, connected in wye or delta congurations cogenerators shunt capacitors line charging effects switches three-phase transformers of various connection types Some of the extensions required by the above list are straightforward. The handling of general transformer connections, however, required signicant modications to the existing methods. In the rst class of algorithms, the network reduction methods or NR-PARS, the method based on Norton equivalent reductions (N-PARS) proved to be the best. This method is capable of handling all nine of the transformer connection types listed in Table 3.8. In the second and third classes, V-I-PARS and I-DePARS offer the best performance in their

177 respective classes and have very similar computational requirements which are signicantly less than those of N-PARS. Both V-I-PARS and I-DePARS, however, are restricted to systems which do not have any type 4 ungrounded wye to grounded wye transformer connections. All three methods, N-PARS, V-I-PARS, and I-DePARS, require signicantly less computation than the traditional Newton-Raphson or Implicit Zbus Gauss methods. Proofs of convergence have been given for the backward/forward sweep and fast decoupled algorithms, indicating that they are locally and linearly convergent. Furthermore, the simulation results indicate that the number of iterations required for convergence is not a function of the system size. Therefore, since the amount of work for each iteration is proportional to the size of the system, the computational burden of each algorithm grows only linearly with the size of the system, making them suitable for very large distribution systems. In order to solve weakly meshed systems, various extensions were also made to the compensation method, previously applied only in conjunction with various backward/forward sweep methods. The general structure proposed, with certain modeling restrictions, includes the following contributions: general three-phase radial power ow general correction step secondary sources three-phase PV buses adaptive mode of radial power ow termination

178 Out of the PAWMS methods, V-I-PAWMS and I-DePAWMS offer the best performance, showing a signicant improvement over Implicit Zbus Gauss for networks with a small number of loops.

9.2 Future Work

As with any work of research, there is always more that can be done. Aside from further testing of the code and the algorithms as they stand, there are several extensions and modications which can be explored. These include: expand network modeling remove limitations on formulation explore possibilities for improved contingency analysis implement for industry use Though the modeling presented in this dissertation is quite general, there are certainly improvements that can be made. As monitoring devices become cheaper, more detailed information will become available on the behavior of the components of a distribution system. In particular, with more data it may be possible to use more accurate load models which are not combinations of constant power, constant current, and constant impedance. The inclusion of core loss in the transformer models is also important for some applications, but was not included in this formulation due to a lack of veriable data. The automatic tap changes of voltage regulators might also be considered. Further extensions to the formulation of PAWMS could be explored as well. In particular, it may be possible to extend the current formulation to

179 remove the limitations discussed in Section 7.2.1, making it possible to handle systems with a mixture of grounded and ungrounded sections. One common use of a power ow algorithm is to study various possible contingencies to determine the most protable conguration for the operation of the network. In such an application, the contingencies are typically specied with respect to some base case. If the power ow solution for the base case is known, it may not be necessary to run a complete power ow for each contingency. It is possible that the concepts behind the proposed algorithms could be applied to compute partial or approximate power ow solutions for the contingencies, given the base case solution. The exploration of this possibility might yield more efcient approaches to contingency analysis in distribution systems. One of the most obvious ways of building upon the work presented in this dissertation is to convert the MATLAB program, used for the study of the algorithms, to a compiled C or C++ program suitable for everyday use in by a power engineer in industry. Such a program could be a very useful tool for many applications in distribution planning and operation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] [2] [3] J. Arrillaga and C. P. Arnold, Computer Analysis of Power Systems, John Wiley & Sons, 1990. J. Arrillaga, C. P. Arnold, and B. J. Harker, Computer Modelling of Electrical Power Systems, John Wiley & Sons, 1983. M. E. Baran and F. F. Wu, Optimal Sizing of Capacitors Placed on a Radial Distribution System, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 4, No. 1, January 1989, pp. 735-742. R. Berg, Jr., E. S. Hawkins, and W. W. Pleines, Mechanized Calculation of Unbalanced Load Flow on Radial Distribution Circuits, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-86, No. 4, April 1967, pp. 415-421. A. R. Bergen, Power Systems Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986. H. E. Brown, G. K. Carter, H. H. Happ, C. E. Person, Power Flow Solution by Impedance Matrix Iterative Method, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-82, April 1963, pp. 1-10. H. E. Brown, G. K. Carter, H. H. Happ, C. E. Person, Z-Matrix Algorithms in Load-Flow Programs, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-87, No. 3, March 1968, pp. 807-814. M. S. Chen and W. E. Dillon, Power System Modeling, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 62, No. 7, July 1974, pp. 901-915. T. H. Chen, M. S. Chen, K. J. Hwang, P. Kotas, and E. Chebli, Distribution System Power Flow Analysis - A Rigid Approach, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1991, pp. 11461152.

[4]

[5] [6]

[7]

[8] [9]

[10] T. H. Chen, Generalized Distribution Analysis System, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Arlington, May 1990. [11] C. S. Cheng and D. Shirmohammadi, A Three-Phase Power Flow Method for Real-Time Distribution System Analysis, IEEE/PES 1994 Summer Meeting, San Francisco, CA, July 1994, 94 SM 603-1 PWRS. 180

181

[12] H. D. Chiang, A Decoupled Load Flow Method for Distribution Power Networks: Algorithms, Analysis and Convergence Study, Electrical Power & Energy Systems, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 1991, pp. 130-138. [13] H. D. Chiang and M. E. Baran, On the Existence and Uniqueness of Load Flow Solution for Radial Distribution Power Networks, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, Vol. 37, No. 3, March 1990, pp. 410-416. [14] R. S. Dembo, S. C. Eisenstat, and T. Steihaug, Inexact Newton Methods, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, Vol. 19, No. 2, April 1982, pp. 400-408. [15] G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 1989. [16] S. Iwamoto and Y. Tamura, A Load Flow Calculation Method for IllConditioned Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No. 4, April 1981, pp. 1736-1743. [17] W. H. Kersting and D. L. Mendive, An Application of Ladder Network Theory to the Solution of Three-Phase Radial Load-Flow Problems, IEEE/PES 1976 Winter Meeting, New York, NY, January 1976, A 76 044-8. [18] W. H. Kersting and W. H. Phillips, A Radial Three-phase Power Flow Program for the PC, Conference paper, presented at 1987 Frontiers Power Conference, Stillwater, OK, October 1987. [19] G.X. Luo and A. Semlyen, Efcient Load Flow for Large Weakly Meshed Networks, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 5, No. 4, November 1990, pp. 1309-1316. [20] D. Rajicic, R. Ackovski, R. Taleski, Voltage Correction Power Flow, IEEE/PES 1993 Summer Meeting, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, July 1993, 93 SM 570-2. [21] D. Rajicic and A. Bose, A Modication to the Fast Decoupled Power Flow for Networks with High R/X Ratios, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 3, No. 2, May 1988, pp. 743-746. [22] R. Sedgewick, Algorithms, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1983.

182

[23] D. Shirmohammadi, H. W. Hong, A. Semlyen, and G. X. Luo, A Compensation-based Power Flow Method for Weakly Meshed Distribution and Transmission Networks, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 3, No. 2, May 1988, pp. 753-762. [24] G. W. Stagg and A. H. El-Abiad, Computer Methods in Power System Analysis, New York: McGraw Hill, 1968. [25] B. Stott, Review of Load-Flow Calculation Methods, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 62, No. 7, July 1974, pp. 916-929. [26] B. Stott and O. Alsa, Fast Decoupled Load Flow, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-93, May/ June 1974, pp. 859-869. [27] D. I. H. Sun, S. Abe, R. R. Shoults, M. S. Chen, P. Eichenberger, and D. Farris, Calculation of Energy Losses in a Distribution System, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-99, No. 4, July/August 1980, pp. 1347-1356. [28] W. F. Tinney and C. E. Hart, Power Flow Solution by Newtons Method, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-86, No. 11, November 1967, pp. 1449-1460. [29] W. F. Tinney and J. W. Walker, Direct Solutions of Sparse Network Equations by Optimally Ordered Triangular Factorization, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 55, No. 11, November 1967, pp. 18011809. [30] W. F. Tinney, Compensation Methods for Network Solutions by Optimally Ordered Triangular Factorization, Proceedings of the PICA Conference, Boston, MA, May 24-26, 1971, pp. 123-127. [31] S. C. Tripathy, G. D. Prasad, O. P. Malik, and G. S. Hope, Load Flow Solutions for Ill-Conditioned Power Systems by a Newton-Like Method, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-101, No. 10, October 1982, pp. 3648-3657. [32] R. D. Zimmerman and H. D. Chiang, Fast Decoupled Power Flow for Unbalanced Radial Distribution Systems, IEEE/PES 1995 Winter Meeting, New York, NY, January 1995, 95 WM 219-6 PWRS.