This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.

Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY 1

Stochastic Multiperiod OPF Model of Power Systems

With HVDC-Connected Intermittent Wind Power
Generation
Abbas Rabiee and Alireza Soroudi

Abstract—This paper presents a new model for a stochastic mul- Angle difference between the fundamental line
tiperiod optimal power-flow (SMP-OPF) problem which includes current and line-to-neutral ac voltage (Radian).
an offshore wind farm connected to the grid by a line-commutated
converter high-voltage dc link. The offshore wind farm is com- Commutation resistances .
posed of doubly fed induction generators (DFIGs), and the DFIG’s
capability curve is considered in order to obtain a more realistic DFIG’s mutual/stator reactance (in per unit).
dispatch for wind farms. The uncertainties of wind power gener-
ation are also taken into account using a scenario-based approach DFIG’s rotor slip.
which can be adopted by the system operator to obtain the op- DFIG’s load angle (in radians).
timal active and reactive power schedules for thermal and wind
power generation units. To illustrate the effectiveness of the pro- DFIG’s rotor current (in per unit).
posed approach, it is applied on the IEEE 118-bus test system.
The obtained results demonstrate the capability of the proposed DC voltage magnitudes at the HVDC terminals
SMP-OPF model for the determination of the optimal operation of (in kilovolts).
power systems.
DC current carried by the HVDC link (in
Index Terms—HVDC, optimal power flow (OPF), sce- kiloamperes).
nario-based modeling, uncertainty, wind power.
Electricity price in scenario and time
($/MWh).
NOMENCLATURE Flow of th transmission line (in per unit).
Fuel cost coefficients of the th generation unit.
Ignition angle (in radians).
Active/reactive power of DFIG’s stator (in per
Ideal no-load voltage at the HVDC terminals
unit).
(in kilovolts).
Active/reactive power generation by the
Magnitude/angle of the th element of
thermal unit located in bus (in per unit).
admittance matrix (per unit/radians).
Active/reactive load in bus (in per unit).
Number of series-connected bridges in the
Active power flowing through the HVDC link HVDC terminal.
(in megawatts). Percent of available wind capacity in scenario
Active/reactive power of DFIG’s rotor (in per .
unit). Probability of scenario .
Active/reactive power output of DFIG (in per Rated active power output of DFIG (in
unit). megawatts).
Active/reactive power purchased from pool (in Ramp-up limit of the th thermal unit (in
per unit). MW/h).
Ramp-down limit of power generation of the
Manuscript received October 29, 2012; revised March 19, 2013; accepted th thermal unit (in MW/h).
April 14, 2013. Paper no. TPWRD-01164–2012.
A. Rabiee is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engi- Reactive power compensation at the ac side of
neering, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran (e-mail: rabiee@znu.ac.ir). HVDC terminals (in per unit).
A. Soroudi is with the Department of Renewable Energies and Environmental
Sciences, Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, Reactive power flowing into the ac side of the
Tehran, Iran (e-mail: soroudi@ut.ac.ir).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online HVDC link (MVAr).
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Resistance of the HVDC line .
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2013.2259600

0885-8977/$31.00 © 2013 IEEE

 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY
Set of network buses.
Shunt admittance of passive filters at the ac side
of HVDC terminals (in per unit).
Stator voltage/current of DFIG (in per unit).
Tap ratio of the HVDC feeding transformer.
Time interval/scenario/system buses index.
Voltage magnitude/angle in bus (in per
unit/radians).
I. INTRODUCTION
U TILIZATION of wind power generation technology is
taking substantial attention around the world due to the
economical and environmental concerns [1]. Due to the sto-
chastic nature of wind, the uncertainty modeling of wind power
generation is still an important issue in the operation of prac-
tical power systems [2]. One of the system operator’s objectives
is operating the system in a way that the total operation cost is
minimized for a given future horizon, while satisfying a set of
technical constraints. Such an optimization problem is called
multiperiod optimal power flow (MP–OPF) [3]. The aim of a
conventional MP–OPF problem is to find the steady-state op-
erating point of the power system which minimizes generation
cost or maximizes the social welfare and loadability, while sat-
isfying a set of technical constraints, such as power-flow equa-
tions, limits on generators’ active and reactive powers, line-flow
limits, and output of various compensating devices [3]–[5]. In
the stochastic version of MP–OPF (i.e., the SMP-OPF problem),
the aforementioned objectives and constraints are considered in
a probabilistic framework, by considering stochastic nature of
uncertainties.
In many countries, the best locations for onshore wind farms
(WFs) are already developed, and the utilities are turning to off-
shore sites. The main reason for this attraction is the availability
of enormous wind resources. The lack of obstacles, such as hills
and generally smooth surface of the sea, also make the offshore
wind power generation more reliable. The offshore wind farm is
generally located far away from the onshore grid. If the distance
is long or if the offshore wind farm is connected to a weak ac on-
shore grid, a high-voltage dc (HVDC) transmission system may
be a more suitable choice than the conventional high-voltage
ac transmission [6]. Two types of HVDC transmission topolo-
gies (i.e., HVDC with a voltage-source converter (VSC-HVDC)
using insulated-gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs) and line-com-
mutated converters HVDC (LCC-HVDC)) are available for off-
shore wind farm connectivity [7], [8]. Different OPF models
have been proposed in the literature to consider the impacts of
wind power generation. The previous studies for integration of
wind farms using HVDC links can be widely categorized based
on the considered objective functions and methodology point of
view: The objective functions cover a vast range of items such
as:
• opportunity cost of wind power shortage and surplus [9];
• cost of environmental benefit loss [9];
TABLE I
TAXONOMY OF THE MODEL USED FOR WIND POWER INTEGRATION IN OPF
• expected penalty cost for wind power curtailment [10];
• expected cost of calling up power reserves because of wind
power shortage [10];
• expected energy not supplied and total operating costs [11];
• location marginal prices and reserve costs [11];
• minimizing losses within the wind farm and the HVDC
transmission system and maximizing production output
[12];
• voltage regulation of the electrical grid [13].
The methodologies for connection of wind farms to ac sys-
tems are mainly VSC–HVDC and LCC–HVDC. LCC–HVDC
is the most popular and widespread technology around the world
[14]. The VSC–HVDC-based wind farm connection to ac sys-
tems has been implemented successfully by ABB and Siemens.
ABB has developed VSC-based HVDC under the trade name
HVDC-Light [15], [16]. Also, Siemens has developed VSC-
based HVDC under the trade name, HVDC-plus [17]. The LCC-
based HVDC transmission has lower converter cost and losses
than VSC-based HVDC [18]. One of the main features of wind
power generation is the intermittent nature of the power output
injected to the grid. This uncertainty can cause additional oper-
ating costs for energy procurement from hour/day-ahead mar-
kets. The proposed approaches for handling the uncertainty of
wind power generation are summarized as follows: Monte Carlo
[9], triangular approximate distribution (TAD) [11], and sce-
nario-based modeling [19], [20]. It should be noted that the
aforementioned approaches neglected the HVDC links as an in-
tegral part of many power systems for connecting the wind farm
to the network. Table I shows a taxonomy of proposed method-
ologies for wind power integration in OPF.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no reference has
provided the SMP–OPF formulation in the presence of the
HVDC–linked wind farm. The gap that this paper is trying to
fill is proposing such a comprehensive model. In this paper, a
comprehensive model for SMP–OPF is proposed, by including
the uncertain wind power generation. The offshore wind farms
are assumed to be of the doubly fed induction generator (DFIG)
type. These farms are connected to the ac transmission system
by LCC–HVDC links. Due to the importance of considering
reactive power requirements of converters at both sides of
the LCC–HVDC connection, capability curves of wind farm’s
DFIGs are also modeled. Considering the capability curves for
DFIGs, makes the obtained generation schedule more realistic.
The rest of this paper is set out as follows. Section II presents
problem formulation. Simulation results are presented in
Section III and, finally, Section IV summarizes the findings of
this work.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

RABIEE AND SOROUDI: STOCHASTIC MULTIPERIOD OPF MODEL OF POWER SYSTEMS 3

II. PROBLEM FORMULATION Equation (5) gives a vertical line at , in the

– plane. It is noteworthy that is the no-load re-
Load-flow equations of ac/dc networks, HVDC links’ steady-
active power absorption, which means that the DFIG becomes
state model, and characteristics of wind power generation are
unstable when the reactive power consumption is greater than
formulated in this section. The assumptions, decision variables,
the no-load reactive power [12].
constraints, and objective function of the proposed SMP–OPF
4) Total Capability Limit : By neglecting
are described as follows:
stator and rotor resistances, the rotor active power generation,
can be expressed as follows:
A. Decision Variables (DVs)
Two types of decision variables (DVs) are available for the (6)
problem. The first type is the hourly active power generation
schedule and terminal voltage of thermal units and tap settings The grid-side inverter of the DFIG is usually operating with
of HVDC links’ feeding transformers. These variables are de- a unity power factor [12]. Hence, the injected reactive power
termined based on a set of wind generation scenarios and re- from the rotor winding is zero
main the same for all scenarios. These types of variables are
(7)
called “here and now” variables. On the other hand, another
type of control variable exists which differs from one scenario The DFIG’s total active and reactive power generations are ob-
to another, such as terminal voltages and active/reactive power tained by adding rotor active/reactive powers to the stator ac-
output of WFs, transmitted power through HVDC links, etc. tive/reactive powers, as follows:
These types of variables are also called “wait and see” variables
[21]. (8)
(9)
B. Capability Curve of DFIG
By substituting the in (1) with the DFIG’s gird-side
By considering all quantities in per unit (p.u.) based on the
terminal quantities (i.e., obtained from (8) and (9)),
nominal ratings of each DFIG (i.e., nominal volt-ampere and
the stator current limits of DFIG are expressed as follows:
terminal voltage), the following constraints hold as follows.
1) Stator Current Limit: This limit models the stator heating (10)
due to the stator winding Joule losses. The relation between
stator voltage, current, and active/reactive power outputs can be (11)
expressed as follows [12]:
Similarly by substituting the in (4) with
(1) (obtained by (8) and (9)), the rotor current limit of DFIG is given
as
2) Rotor Current Limit: This limit considers the rotor heating
due to the rotor winding Joule losses. In per unit, the equations
of the active and reactive power outputs of the DFIG’s stator are
as follows [22]:

(2) (12)

Also, the stability limit (5) is redefined as follows:

The following relation between the active and reactive power
output of the stator is obtained from (2) and (3):
Equation (4) represents a circle with the center of
and a radius equal to
the – plane.
3) Steady-State Stability Limit: The steady-state stability
limit shows maximum reactive power absorption by the DFIG,
which is obtained when [6]. Therefore, from (2), this
limit is as follows:
(3)
(13)
Therefore, the maximum limit of DFIG’s reactive power output
is determined by the minimum of (10) and (12). Similarly, the
(4) minimum limit of DFIG’s reactive power output is obtained
from the maximum of (11) and (13) as follows:
(14)
in
(15)
5) Wind-Turbine Maximum/Minimum Active Power Output
Limit: The restrictions related to the maximum active power
available at the wind turbine are expressed as follows:

(5) (16)
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY

Fig. 1. Capability curve of DFIG, including the limits of stability and stator/
rotor currents, and wind turbine available capacity.

Fig. 3. Single-line diagram of the IEEE 118-node system.

TABLE II
TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WIND TURBINES
Fig. 2. One-line diagram of the wind farm connection using the LCC–HVDC
link.

The capability curve of the DFIG determines the feasible oper- TABLE III
ation regime in the – plane [22] as shown in Fig. 1. From WIND POWER GENERATION SCENARIOS
this figure, the feasible operating area in the – plane, is the
closed area specified by coordinates.

C. HVDC Modeling
The schematic of the LCC–HVDC link is depicted in Fig. 2.
The relationship between the ideal no-load voltage at the dc
sides of the LCC–HVDC link , and the ac-sides
voltages are as follows. For , i (r: Rectifier, i: Inverter)
[23]

(17) TABLE IV
DATA OF STUDIED HVDC LINKS

Due to the commutation overlap, the aforementioned dc voltage

drops, and the actual voltages at both dc terminals will be as
follows [23]:

(18)
(19)

Hence, the active power at the dc sides is given by

(20)

Besides, the power factors at the HV buses of the HVDC link’s

ac sides (i.e., buses and in Fig. 2) are calculated as follows:
(21)
Also, with losses neglected, the ac and dc active powers are
equal and the reactive power absorbed by the HVDC link at its
ac terminals is expressed as follows:
(22)
D. Uncertainty Modeling of Wind Power Generation
In this paper, a scenario-based model is used to describe the
wind power generation [20]. It is assumed that the probability
density function (PDF) of wind speed as well as the power
curve of the wind turbine is available. Using these data and
scenario generation technique (described in Appendix A), the
wind power generation is described and modeled in the pro-
posed SMP–OPF model.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
RABIEE AND SOROUDI: STOCHASTIC MULTIPERIOD OPF MODEL OF POWER SYSTEMS
Fig. 4. Schematic of the system under study.
E. Load-Flow Equations of the AC Network
The ac load balance equations for the th bus are as follows:
(23)
(24)
where and are injected active and reactive
powers, respectively, which are calculated as follows:
(25)
(26)
If bus is not connected to the pool market, then
and will be zero in (23) and (24).
The magnitude of voltage in each bus should remain be-
tween the safe operating limits during each scenario and time
(27)
The thermal limits of transmission lines should also be satisfied
(28)
F. Load-Flow Equations at the Interface of the AC/DC
Networks
LCC–HVDC converters consumes reactive power, for all
loading levels, and, hence, it is necessary to provide reactive
power compensating devices at the converter sites, to pre-
vent large reactive power flow from the ac network. Usually
capacitor banks, synchronous condensers, and static VAr
compensators (SVCs) are employed for this aim. The VAr
compensators are shown at the ac sides of the HVDC link
in Fig. 2. The passive filters are also connected to these ac
buses. According to Fig. 2, at the inverter side of the HVDC
connection (i.e., for ), the power balance equations of
ac/dc networks are as follows:
(29)
(30)
5
Similarly, for the rectifier side (i.e., for ), by neglecting
the active power losses of the transformers connecting the WF to
HVDC rectifier terminal, the power balance equations of ac/dc
networks are as follows:
(31)
(32)
where is the total reactive power injected from the
HV side of transformers connecting the WF to the HVDC link,
in scenario and time . The passive filters connected to the
HVDC rectifier and inverter ac terminals, are represented by
constant shunt admittance in (30) and (32).
G. Thermal Power Generation Constraints
The following constraints are considered in order to model
the cost and technical limits of thermal generation units [24]:
1) Total power production cost of thermal generation units:
the production cost is assumed to be quadratic as follows:
(33)
2) Generation limits of thermal units
(34)
(35)
where and are the maximum/min-
imum limits of active/reactive power outputs in the th
thermal unit.
3) Ramp-up and ramp-down constraints: the output-power
change rate of the thermal unit should be below the pre-
specified limits (ramp rates) to avoid damaging the boiler
and combustion equipment, stated as follows:
(36)
(37)
H. Objective Function
The objective function of SMP–OPF to be minimized is de-
fined as the total payment for energy procurement as follows:
Subject to: – (38)
The total cost in (38) is composed of two distinct terms. The
first term is related to the power purchased from the pool market,
and the second term is related to the operating cost of thermal
generation units over the entire operation horizon.
III. SIMULATION RESULTS
The proposed model for the SMP–OPF problem is exam-
ined on the IEEE 118-bus system as depicted in Fig. 3 [25].
This system consists of 54 generator buses and 186 transmis-
sion lines. The necessary data of this system including the data
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY
Fig. 5. Active power schedule of thermal generation units.
of loads, generating units, and transmission lines are given in
[26]. It is worth noting that the load level given in [26] is 20%
higher than the original value for this system, given in [27]. The
purchased power from the pool market is injected to the net-
work through the slack bus which is bus in this network.
Also, the electricity price in scenario and time (i.e., )
is assumed to be even during the operating horizon and equal to
U.S.$8/MWh.
In this study, two WFs are considered. Each WF consists of
500 DFIG-based wind turbines. The characteristics of each wind
turbine are given in Table II. In this paper, Rayleigh PDF is
utilized to describe the probabilistic nature of wind speed. The
value of scale index for the PDF at the location of both WFs
is 6.209 (see Appendix A). Using the technique described in
Appendix A, 12 scenarios are determined for wind power gen-
eration. These scenarios and their associated probabilities are
given in Table III.
It is observed from Table II that the total capacity of each WF
is 1000 MW, which is connected to the system via a 24-pulse
LCC–HVDC link. The HVDC links are bipolar with the rating
of 1000 MW, and 250 kV. The data of these dc links are de-
rived from [23], and are given in Table IV. As shown in Fig. 4,
WF-1 and WF-2 are connected to buses and , respec-
tively. It is noteworthy that these buses are selected arbitrarily
in this study. In practice, there may be several areas in a system,
which are potentially suitable for establishing wind farms. In
this case, one may use a proper algorithm to select the best lo-
cation for installing wind farms [20]. For the sake of brevity,
three load levels are considered for each day
as 90%, 100%, and 80% of the peak value. The duration of each
period is assumed to be 8 h. The value of peak demand is as-
sumed to be 5090.4 MW. Also, it is assumed that the total load
of each period is distributed based on the initial load share of
each bus, as given in [26]. The proposed algorithm is imple-
mented in the general algebraic modeling system (GAMS) [28]
environment and solved by the CONOPT solver [29].
Optimal active power generation schedules of generation
buses for all intervals are given in Fig. 5. The given schedules
are such that the total cost imposed [i.e., (38)] for the operation
of the system in the presence of uncertain wind power gen-
eration is minimized. Thermal generating units are the main
sources of reactive power support in most power systems. The
reactive power output of a thermal generating unit strongly
Fig. 6. Optimal schedule of active power flow of HVDC links.
depends on the magnitude of its terminal voltage which is deter-
mined as the output of the proposed SMP–OPF. As mentioned
before, active power outputs and terminal voltages of thermal
generation units are “here and now” control variables and the
obtained optimal schedules for these variables are the same for
all scenarios. The total cost of thermal generation units (for the
entire studied horizon) is equal to U.S.$161704.554, whereas
the cost paid for power procurement from the pool market is
equal to U.S.$4242.288.
The tap settings of transformers at both sides of the HVDC
links are given in Table V, for all time intervals. These optimal
settings ensure optimal flow of energy from the WFs to the ac
network, and proper voltage level in the ac and dc sides of the
HVDC links. Tap settings of HVDC feeding transformers are
also “here and now” control variables (i.e., their values are the
same for all scenarios in each interval). The optimal schedule
of active power flowing through both HVDC links is depicted
in Fig. 6. Further, the optimal reactive power absorbed by both
HVDC links is described in Fig. 7. Besides, the optimal schedule
of dc and ac terminal voltages for HVDC links is illustrated in
Figs. 8 and 9, respectively.
For the sake of briefness and more clarity, only the sched-
ules of scenarios – are given in these figures. It is observed
from Fig. 6 that HVDC-1 is loaded lightly, in comparison to
HVDC-2. This is due to the capacity limit of the transmission
line , (between buses and ), which connects bus
to the ac network. But for HVDC-2, bus is connected to the
system by several transmission lines (i.e., the lines
, and ), and, hence, sufficient
capacity is available for the transmission of generated power of
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
RABIEE AND SOROUDI: STOCHASTIC MULTIPERIOD OPF MODEL OF POWER SYSTEMS
Fig. 7. Optimal schedule of absorbed reactive power by HVDC links.
Fig. 8. Optimal schedule of dc terminal voltages for HVDC links.
Fig. 9. Optimal schedule of ac terminal voltages for HVDC links.
TABLE V
TAP SETTINGS OF HVDC LINKS
WF-2. Also, active and reactive power generation of WF-1 and
WF-2 for all wind scenarios in the studied horizon are provided
in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively.
The optimal values of active power to be purchased from
the pool market are depicted in Fig. 12. It is observed from
this figure that if the available wind power capacity in a sce-
nario is low, then more power should be procured from the bal-
ancing/hourly-ahead pool market to compensate this shortage.
For example, the highest values of purchased power from the
pool market occur in scenario , where the available wind
power generation capacity is assumed to be zero (see Table III).
One concern which may arise is the number of scenarios, es-
pecially when the system is of high dimension. In this case, the
CPU time that is needed to solve the problem might be rele-
vant. In order to decrease the computational burden, some sce-
7
Fig. 10. Optimal schedule of active power for wind farms.
Fig. 11. Optimal schedule of reactive power for wind farms.
Fig. 12. Optimal values of active power to be purchased from the pool market.
nario reduction techniques are developed which may be used
to solve this problem [30]. The aim of the proposed approach
is to minimize the overall imposed cost of active power gen-
eration. Although voltage and reactive power limits are con-
sidered in the proposed SMP–OPF, the proposed SMP–OPF is
not voltage-stability-constrained OPF. It provides a cost-effi-
cient approach for the active power schedule in ac/dc power
systems with stochastic wind power generation capacity. The
proposed model can be extended to include other technical con-
straints (such as voltage stability [31]), generation technologies
(PV cells, hydrounits [32], etc.), and other uncertain parameters
(like private sector investment decisions) in future work.
IV. CONCLUSION
This paper presents a comprehensive SMP-OPF model which
describes a power system with uncertain wind power injections
through LCC–HVDC connections. The objective function of
this SMP–OPF is defined as minimization of the operation cost
of the system in the presence of intermittent renewable energy
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY

resources, such as wind farms (WFs). One of the aims consid-

ered in the objective function is to minimize the expected cost of
power procurement from the pool market, due to the wind power
generation fluctuations. Also, the scenario-based approach is
utilized to model the uncertainty of wind power generation. One
of the features of the proposed SMP–OPF is scheduling both
“here and now” and “wait and see” control variables for a given
operation horizon.
The proposed approach is implemented on the IEEE 118-bus
test system to demonstrate its applicability. Two offshore WFs
are considered in the study, which are connected to the on-
shore ac power network through LCC–HVDC links. It is ob-
served from the numerical results that the availability of trans-
mission network capacity at the interface of ac/dc networks is Fig. 13. Wind turbine power versus rotor angular speed characteristics at three
a key factor affecting the utilization of WF’s power generation wind speeds .
ability. Besides, in scenarios with lower available capacity of
wind power generation, the power procurement from the pool
market is higher to keep the balance between hourly generation
and demand.

APPENDIX A
WIND GENERATION UNCERTAINTY MODELING [33]
It is assumed that if the PDF of wind speed is of Rayleigh
type and is available in the region under study, then

Fig. 14. Three distinct rotor speed control regions of the system.
(39)

The probability of falling into scenario and the corresponding Thus, the generated power of the wind turbine in scenario
wind speed is calculated as follows: is determined using its power curve as follows: a

if or
(40) if
else
(41) (42)

where are the starting and ending points of the wind
speed’s interval defined in scenario , respectively. A typical
wind turbine output power versus rotor angular speed is de-
picted in Fig. 13 [34]. The operating strategy of the wind tur-
bine is to match the rotor speed to generate power continuously
close to the points (which changes with the wind speed).
This can be done with a variable-speed system design and oper-
ation, which is utilized in the DFIG-based wind farms, around
the world [34]. For extracting the maximum possible power,
the turbine must operate at the peak power point at all wind
speeds. In Fig. 13, this occurs at points
in wind speeds , respectively. The common
factor among the peak power production points , 196–201, Feb. 2000.
and is the constant high value of tip speed ratio (TSR).
Thus, the speed and power controls in wind power systems have
three distinct regions as shown in Fig. 14, where the solid curve
is the power and the dotted curves, and the rotor power coeffi-
cient [35].
where are the cut-in/cut-out/rated speed of the
wind turbine (in meter per second), respectively.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Soroudi, “Possibilistic-scenario model for dg impact assessment
on distribution networks in an uncertain environment,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1283–1293, Aug. 2012.
[2] K. Heussen, S. Koch, A. Ulbig, and G. Andersson, “Unified system-
level modeling of intermittent renewable energy sources and energy
storage for power system operation,” IEEE Syst. J., vol. 6, no. 1, pp.
140–151, Mar. 2012.
[3] N. Alguacil and A. Conejo, “Multiperiod optimal power flow using
benders decomposition,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, no. 1, pp.
[4] T. Amraee, A. Ranjbar, B. Mozafari, and N. Sadati, “An enhanced
under-voltage load-shedding scheme to provide voltage stability,”
Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 77, no. 8, pp. 1038–1046, 2007.
[5] A. Rabiee and M. Parniani, “Voltage security constrained multi-period
optimal reactive power flow using benders and optimality condition
decompositions,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 696–708,
May 2013.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
RABIEE AND SOROUDI: STOCHASTIC MULTIPERIOD OPF MODEL OF POWER SYSTEMS
[6] M. Montilla-DJesus, D. Santos-Martin, S. Arnaltes, and E. Castron-
uovo, “Optimal operation of offshore wind farms with line-commu-
tated HVDC link connection,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 25,
no. 2, pp. 504–513, Jun. 2010.
[7] J. Arrillaga, Y. Liu, and N. Watson, Flexible Power Transmission: The
HVDC Options. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2007.
[8] B. Franken and G. Andersson, “Analysis of HVDC converters con-
nected to weak ac systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 5, no. 1, pp.
235–242, Feb. 1990.
[9] L. Shi, C. Wang, L. Yao, Y. Ni, and M. Bazargan, “Optimal power
flow solution incorporating wind power,” IEEE Syst. J., vol. 6, no. 2,
pp. 233–241, Jun. 2012.
[10] R. Jabr and B. Pal, “Intermittent wind generation in optimal power flow
dispatching,” IET Gen., Transm. Distrib., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 66–74, 2009.
[11] P. Yu and B. Venkatesh, “A practical real-time opf method using
new triangular approximate model of wind electric generators,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 2036–2046, Nov. 2012.
[12] M. Montilla-DJesus, D. Santos-Martin, S. Arnaltes, and E. Castron-
uovo, “Optimal reactive power allocation in an offshore wind farms
with LCC-HVDC link connection,” Renew. Energy, vol. 40, no. 1, pp.
157–166, 2012.
[13] A. Tapia, G. Tapia, and J. Ostolaza, “Reactive power control of wind
farms for voltage control applications,” Renew. Energy, vol. 29, no. 3,
pp. 377–392, 2004.
[14] R. Torres-Olguin, M. Molinas, and T. Undeland, “Offshore wind farm
grid integration by VSC technology with LCC-based HVDC transmis-
sion,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 899–907, Oct.
2012.
[15] K. Eriksson, “Operational experience of HVDC light,” in Proc. 7th Int.
Conf. AC-DC Power Transm., 2001, pp. 205–210.
[16] ABB, Tech. Rep., Feb. 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.abb.
com/abblibrary/DownloadCenter/?showresultstab=true&catego-
ryid=9AAC30300394
[17] S. D. Wright, A. L. Rogers, J. F. Manwell, and A. Ellis, “Transmission
options for offshore wind farms in the United States,” in Proc. Amer.
Wind Energy Assoc. Annu. Conf.–Transm. Options Offshore Wind
Farms United States, 2002, pp. 1–12.
[18] S. K. Chaudhary, R. Teodorescu, and P. Rodriguez, “Wind farm grid
integration using VSC based HVDC transmission—An overview,” in
Proc. IEEE Energy 2030 Conf., Nov. 2008, pp. 1–7.
[19] T. Amraee, A. Soroudi, and A. Ranjbar, “Probabilistic determination
of pilot points for zonal voltage control,” IET Gen., Transm. Distrib.,
vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2012.
[20] Y. Atwa and E. El-Saadany, “Probabilistic approach for optimal allo-
cation of wind-based distributed generation in distribution systems,”
IET Renew. Power Gen., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 79–88, Jan. 2011.
[21] X. Liu, “Economic load dispatch constrained by wind power avail-
ability: A wait-and-see approach,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 1, no.
3, pp. 347–355, Jul. 2010.
[22] D. Santos-Martin, S. Arnaltes, and J. R. Amenedo, “Reactive power
capability of doubly fed asynchronous generators,” Elect. Power Syst.
Res., vol. 78, no. 11, pp. 1837–1840, 2008.
[23] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control. New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill, 1994.
9
[24] B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, A. Rabiee, and M. Ehsan, “Time-varying
acceleration coefficients ipso for solving dynamic economic dispatch
with non-smooth cost function,” Energy Convers. Manage., vol. 56,
pp. 175–183, 2012.
[25] T. Amraee, A. Ranjbar, R. Feuillet, and B. Mozafari, “System protec-
tion scheme for mitigation of cascaded voltage collapses,” IET Gen.,
Transm. Distrib., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 242–256, 2009.
[26] Mar. 19, 2013. Alireza soroudi, Iran. [Online]. Available:
https://sites.google.com/site/alirezasoroudi/IEEE118Bus.xlsx
[27] R. Zimmerman, C. Murillo-Sánchez, and R. Thomas, “Matpower:
Steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power sys-
tems research and education,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 26, no. 1,
pp. 12–19, Feb. 2011.
[28] A. Brook, D. Kendrick, and A. Meeraus, “Gams, a user’s guide,” ACM
SIGNUM Newslett., vol. 23, no. 3–4, pp. 10–11, 1988.
[29] A. Drud, “Conopt: A large-scale grg code,” ORSA J. Comput., vol. 6,
no. 2, pp. 207–216, 1994.
[30] J. M. Morales, S. Pineda, A. J. Conejo, and M. Carrion, “Scenario re-
duction for futures market trading in electricity markets,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 878–888, May 2009.
[31] D. L. H. Aik and G. Andersson, “Power stability analysis of multi-
infeed HVDC systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 13, no. 3, pp.
923–931, Jul. 1998.
[32] G. Andersson, R. Atmuri, R. Rosenqvist, and S. Torseng, “Influence of
hydro units’ generator-to-turbine inertia ratio on damping of subsyn-
chronous oscillations,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-103,
no. 8, pp. 2352–2361, Aug. 1984.
[33] A. Soroudi and M. Afrasiab, “Binary pso-based dynamic multi-objec-
tive model for distributed generation planning under uncertainty,” IET
Renew. Power Gen., , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 67–78, Mar. 2012.
[34] M. R. Patel, Wind and Solar Power Systems: Design, Analysis, and
Operation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 2005.
[35] M. Stiebler, Wind Energy Systems for Electric Power Generation.
New York: Springer, 2008.
Abbas Rabiee received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from Iran
University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, in 2006, and the M.Sc.
and Ph.D. degrees in electrical power engineering from Sharif University of
Technology (SUT), Tehran, Iran, in 2008 and 2013, respectively.
Currently, he is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Zanjan, Zanjan. Iran. His research interests include
power system operation and security, and the application of optimization tech-
niques in power system operation.
Alireza Soroudi received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in electrical engineering
from Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 2002 and 2003, respec-
tively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from Sharif University
of Technology and the Grenoble Institute of Technology (Grenoble-INP),
Grenoble, France, in 2011.
Currently, he is with the Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, Uni-
versity of Tehran, Tehran. His research interests are smart grids, power system
planning, as well as uncertainty modeling and optimization methods.