IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-104, No.
5, May 1985 1147
A UNITED APPROACH TO OPTIMAL REAL AND REACTIVE POWER DISPATCH
K.Y. Lee, Member IEEE
Department of Electrical Engineering
University of Houston - University Park
Houston, Texas 77004
Abstract - This paper presents a unified method
for optimal real and reactive power dispatch for the
economic operation of power systems. As in other
methods, the problem is decomposed into a P-
optimization module and a Q-optimization module, but in
this method both modules use the same generation cost
objective function. The control variables are
generator real power outputs for the real power module;
and generator reactive power outputs, shunt
capacitors/reactors, and transformer tap settings for
the reactive power module. The constraints are the
operating limits of the control variables, power line
flows, and bus voltages.
The optimization problem is solved using the
gradient projection method (GPM) which is used for the
first time in the power systems study. The GPM allows
the use of functional constraints without the need of
penalty functions or Lagrange multipliers among other
advantages.
Mathematical models are developed to represent the
sensitivity relationships between dependent and control
variables for both, real and reactive power,
optimization modules, and thus eliminate the use of B-
coefficients. Results of two test systems are
presented and compared with conventional methods.
I. INTRODUCTION
The optimal operation of a power system is
required to precede the optimal planning of facilities
or devices for the system. In general, these
facilities consist of generating plants, reacti-ve power
compensation, and transmission networks. Since the
optimal power flow method was first introduced by
Dommel and Tinney [11, many articles have appeared in
the literature on this subject [2-4].
The optimal power flow problem is to minimize the
fuel costs, system losses, or some other appropriate
objective function, while maintaining an acceptable
system performance in terms of limits on generator real
and reactive power outputs, outputs of compensating
devices, transformer tap settings, or bus voltage
levels, etc. When total fuel cost is minimized, the
optimal power flow results in an economic dispatch, and
in addition to optimally allocating real power
generation to units, determines the reactive power
output of generators and other var sources as well as
transformer tap settings.
In order to handle the large scale problems of
this nature, the idea of P-Q decomposition was applied
to the optimal power flow [5-71 , where the problem is
decomposed into the real power optimization problem (P-
problem) and the reactive power optimization problem
r(obrblem). The P-problem is to minimize the
84 SM 572-4 A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Power System Engineering Committee of
the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation
at the IEEE/PES 1984 Summer Meeting, Seattle,
Washington, July 15 - 20, 1984. Manuscript submit-
ted September 1, 1983; made available for printing
May 2, 1984.
0018-9510/85/0005-1 147$01.00© 1985 IEEE
Y.M. Park J.L. Ortiz, Member IEEE
production cost under the assumption that system
voltages are held constant, and the Q-problem is to
minimize the transmission loss under the assumption
that real power generation is held constant. Due to
the loose coupling between two problems, the sequential
optimization of these provided a considerable advantage
over the simultaneous optimization of all control
variables. It should also be noted that a number of
articles are devoted to the Q-problem alone for the
optimum control of reactive power flow [8-10].
The optimization problem is a general nonlinear
programming problem with nonlinear objective functions
and nonlinear functional equality and inequality
constraints. A typical approach is to augment the
constraints into objective function by using the
Lagrange multipliers [11] and/or penalty functions, and
to minimize the augmented objective function by using
one of the optimization schemes, such as the steepest
descent algorithm [1,7], or the sequential
unconstrained minimization technique (SUMT) [61 . Other
approaches are the use of linear programming
approximation to the nonlinear problem [8,10J, or the
use of the quadratic approximation to the objective
function in order to apply the quadratic programming
technique [12]. Due to the size of the problem as well
as the large number of functional inequality
constraints, improvement on computational efficiency
has been the thrust of most works.
This paper presents a new method for optimal real
and reactive power dispatch for economic operation of a
power system. The method is based upon three modules
coupled to each other. First, the P-optimization
module, which is equivalent to the conventional
economic load dispatch, optimally allocates the real
power generation among generators. The second module,
Q-optimization module, optimally determines the
reactive power output of generators and other var
sources as well as transformer tap settings. Finally,
the load-flow module is used to make fine adjustmentr
on the results of P- and Q-optimization modules. The
algorithm developed and presented here has the
following distinctive features and advantages:
(1) Unlike the usual approach of minimizing the
transmission loss [6,7,101, the total production
.cost (or fuel cost) is the objective function to
be minimized by both, P and Q, optimization
modules. This approach unifies two decoupled
optimization problems into one reference framework
and avoids the switching of objective functions
from one to another.
(2) Like the P-optimization module, the Q-optimization
module also allows an economic and efficient
division of real power generation between
generators. This additional benefit is, of
course, due to our choice of the objective
function mentioned above.
(3) The optimization problem is solved by the use of
the gradient projection method (GPM) [131, which
introduces several advantages over traditional
approaches. This method avoids the use of penalty
functions and/or calculation of Lagrange
multipliers [1,6,7], additionally, the step length
is calculated without the need of a linear search
algorithm as in other methods.
(4) Mathematical models are developed to represent the
sensitivity relationships between dependent and
1148
control variables for both optimization modules, Minimize
and thus eliminate the use of B-coefficients.
(5) Mathematical models are developed with a great C = f (P ) (3)
care in order to preserve the sparsity of
Jacobians, and thus the sparsity is fully utilized Subject to
in computing the sensitivity matrices.
(6) Since the Q-optimization module determines the P < P P
optimum reactive power allocation, all buses,
except the swing bus, are made to be the Q-type
sg sg sg
1I (4)
bus in the load flow module, where reactive power sg)
g(P9(sg) 0
(output from the Q-optimization module)
specified instead of voltage magnitude. The swing
bus voltage is not fixed, but is determined
optimally by the Q-optimization module.
is
H(6) . H
where
I
11. FORMULATION AND DECOMPOSITION OF THE PROBLEM
f ("): the total summation of generator fuel
The optimal real and reactive power dispatch costs of Eq. (l)expressed as a function
problem is mathematically defined as: of Psg

Minimize 2. Q-Optimization Subproblem (Module)

C = f(P sg,Q9 ,n) (1) Minimize

(5)
Subject to
CQ fQ(Qsgcn)
=

P .P .P Subject to
sg sg sg
Q sgc .<Q sgc . Q
Q .Q .Q sgc sgc
sqc sgc
n < n <n (6)
(2)
n 5! n -, n

v -vV(P sg ,Q sgc ,n) . V

v. V(Qsgc,n).V 1
-
H(V) < H -
g(P sg ) = O
where
H(V,6) < H
fQ(@): the total summation of generator fuel
where
costs of Eq. (1) expressed as a function
of Qsgc and n.
P vector of real power of generators (g) It is noted that in the P-optimization module Q
sg
including the swing bus generator(s). behaves as dependent variables, while in the a-
Q: vector of reactive power of generators optimization P is dependent variable. However, both
sgc
(g) including the swing
generator(s), and other reactive power
bus
cost functions,sgf
(1) and f (0), are derived from the
same cost function in Eq. (1).
compensating devices (c) such as shunt Since the P- and Q-optimization modules are
capacitors or reactors. mutually dependent, and each gives, apprriximate optimum
n: vector of off-nominal tap settings of values in the intermediate stages, the two modules are
LTC. alternately iterated until an optimum is 6btained and
V: vector of bus voltage magnitudes. each module is immediately followed by the load-flow
9g(* ) :. real power supply and demand balance calculation module which makes fine adjustments on the
equation. approximate results as shown in Figure 1.
H(l,): vector of transmission line flows. As mentioned previously, one of the major
6: vector of bus voltage angles. differences of the presented method is that, like the
( 7), ( ): the upper and lower limits, P-optimization module, the Q-optimization module also
respectively. uses the total fuel cost f ,() as the objective
function. It is obvious that adopting fQ(") as the
Here the objective function f(-) is the total
power production cost, or more specifically the total
summation of generator fuel costs. It is noted that V objective function would be more realistic and
is a dependent variable depending on control variables reasonable than using transmission losses *as we find in
P , Q , and n. The consideration of line flow conventional approaches [6,7,101, since minimizing the
power production cost is more economical than
co.stra%i s is optional. In some cases only certain minimizing system losses.
transmission lines, where overloads are suspected, Without loss of generality, it is assumed that the
could be considered to avoid unnecessary restrictions ost function in Eq. (1) is given by the total
that increase computation time. summation of generator fuel costs which can be
For the computational efficiency the original expressed as the quadratic function of generating power
problem in Eqs. (1) and (2) can be decomposed into the Pk for all kEG:
following two subproblems:
C(P sg ) =
i (ak+bbkPk+ckP)
kkkkk
(7)
1. P-Optimization Subproblem (Module) kE:G
 1149
where IV. P-OPTIMIZATION MODULE
G: set of indices of generator buses The nodal difference equation for the bus powers
including the swing bus. can be expressed in matrix form as

This cost function can be approximated in the 2nd order =I J I(11)

Taylor series expansion as AQ

where
AV-
C(Psg+P ) =
k [(a+bkPk+ckPk)+(bk+2ckPk)APk +ckAP] J: Jacobian matrix
AP: vector of changes in bus real powers
Subtracting Eq. (7) from Eq. (8), we get the AQ: vector of changes in bus reactive powers
incremental cost A6: vector of changes in bus voltage angles
AV: vector of changes in voltage magnitude
(9)
AC(AP 5sg A
kE:G
[(b+2c
k kPk)AkckAPkI The Jacobian J in Eq. (11) is partitioned as

AP AS6
or, in matrix form
AC(AP ) = 3 AP +APT YpAP (10) 9
sg P sg sg Ps APi -L. - - -- -

where AQS
AQg
p - [bI+2cIPj,b2+2c2P2 *...bm+2cmPm] AQc 12..3.. AV
AQ , AV,
=p- diag.Ac1,c2,... ,cmI (12)
m: total number of generator buses where
APsg: vector of changes in real power
generations Psg. s,g,c: indices for swing bus, other generator
buses, and reactive-power compensating
An important point associated with the cost device buses, respectively.
function is the fact that Eq. (10) is directly usable 9,V: indices for all load buses, and the load
in the P-optimization module since AP itself is the buses which do not have reactive power
decision variable in that module. In the Q- compensating devices, respectively.
optimization module, however, AP should be expressed
as a function of the Q-optimizaivon control variables Although more exact decomposition can be realized
AQs and An. This will be shown later. by setting
AP = AV = A65 = AQ = O , (13)

it was found that the condition At =0 destroys the

sparsity property of Jacobian maarices. For that
reason and considering the fact that the calculated
values of AQ , in the P-optimization module are close
to zero, the condition A 0, = 0 is relaxed. A complete
discussion on the use of the conditions in Eq. (13) is
presented in Appendix A.
The use of conditions of Eq. (13) into Eq. (12)
yields the following mutual dependency among real
generating powers:
Ap = J AP (14)
s A g
where J is defined in Appendix A. It is noted that
the relation in Eq. (14) replaces the conventional
supply and demand balance equation based on the B-
coefficient method.
Consequently, from Eqs. (10) and (14) the P-
optimization subproblem in Eqs. (3) and (4) can be
redefined as

Minimize
AC P = a P Ap Sg +APTSg y p Ap Sg (15)

Subject to

[1 -jiAp =0° 1

Ap . AP < TP Sg (16)
sg sg
Figure 1. Computational sequence of three modules.
Another benefit of this P-optimization module is
1150
that as a byproduct, it also computes the reactive Minimize
power changes AQ caused by the P-optimization. This
relationship is g-ven by a sensitivity equation AQ sgc 1AQ sgc
sgcl
AQ
gc
=j
B
Ap
t(17)
g
AC = L.QAn An
An
YQ [n
(23)
Subject to
where J is defined in Appendix A.
Afver the optimum solution to the P-optimization AQ . AQ sgc .7ibf
subproblem is found by using the gradient projection sgc sgc
method (GPM), both the real and reactive powers are
updated from P and Qg to P +AP and Q +AQ An . An . An (24)
respectively. g gc g g gc gc
IV. Q-OPTIMIZATION MODULE A QsgcI
D
hV re D --. AV
For the Q-optimization module, the Jacobian matrix
J in Eq. (11) is augmented to include the sensitivity
coefficients representing the changes in real and where
reactive power with respect to the changes in off-
nominal tap settings of the LTC as
[API - QA SPjC y Ty
Q=-A i CPC
i

Here again, the benefit of our Q-optimization module is

LAQ An
WOd)
that it also computes the real power adjustment AP,
using Eq. (21) which is caused by the Q-optimization. Y
After solving the Q-optimization module using the
whiere gradient projection method, both the real, reactive
powers and the tap settings are updated from P , Q
J-A J IJJ and n to P +AP QQ cAQ and n+An, 9ft respective?y.
is noted tgat ;Weed Sot be updated since the load-
Jn: sensitivity
nominal tap settings
matrix with respect to off- flow calculation immediately following gives more exact
updated value for that.
In order-to obtain the formulas for the Q-optimization V. LOAD-FLOW CALCULATION MODULE
module, J is partitioned, as shown in Eq. (19) [more
details are presented in Appendix A]. The above P- and Q-optimization subproblems are
solved by using a version of the gradient projection
AP5 A=6 method which assumes the approximated linearized
AP I21 22 A constraints as given in Eqs. (16) and (24). Their
g g optimum values thus are not exact. Therefore, it is
APL = ..
necessary to use the load-flow calculation module in
AQ --g---1-- - order to make fine adjustments on those optimum values.
But the load-flow calculation module is slightly
A.QQ9cJ L 1 23 24 An (19) different from the conventional one in the fact that
all the buses excluding the swing bus are regarded as
P-Q assigned buses irrespective of actual bus types,
The sensitivity matrix J can be obtained by and the swing bus voltage is assigned optimally by the
differentiating the nodal power equations with respect preceding optimization module.
to the off-nominal tap setting values n. In the case Finally it is noted that there is no need to
when a transformer tap n is installed on the p side update the Jacobian matrix for the load flow
of a line between buse?q p and q, the sensitivity calculation purpose since the matrix also is taken from
coefficients 3Q /an , aQ /an , etc. constitute J . the preceding optimization module.
But the coeffiPcierR! aPq/anpq, aP /an are set 20
zeroes, since these valuesPardp%eglighbl)q%mall. VI. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
Although more exact decomposition can be realized
by setting The method presented in this paper was tested by
solving two test systems. These systems are a 6-bus
AQ2, = A65 = AS =A6 (=AP )=O , (20) system [101, and a modified IEEE 30-bus system [41.
The data for both systems is presented in Tables and
III.
the condition A6 =O or AP =0 is relaxed in order to
preserve the sparsity property of the Jacobian 6-Bus Example
matrices. The dependent variables for the Q- Three different studies were performed with the 6-
optimization module, AP S, AP and AV, are obtained in bus system to show the flexibility and convenience of
terms of the control AQ and An, as variableY, the new method, and how it compares with other
sgc ~ ~ ~ sg conventional methods.
AP
AP
IQ - c LAn J (21)
In the first study, which is used to compare with
conventional reactive power optimization methods, only
the Q-optimization module is used with generation cost
coefficients a and ck set to zero while bk is unity in
]AQsgc Eq. (7). This corresponds exactly to conventional
AV = JD An (22) approaches which adopt total transmission loss as
objective function. However, our method has an
additional advantage of using Eq. (21) to redistribute
where JC and J are defined in Appendix A. real power generation, reducing the transmission loss
Consequently, from Eqs. (10), (21) and (22), the even more, and as a consequence, reducing the
Q-optimization subproblem in Eqs. (5) and (6) can be generation cost. It is important to note that the
redefined as final transmission loss is 8.186 [MW] which is smaller
 1151

TABLE i. Data for the 6-Bus System (100 M?4A Base) presented in this paper represents a significant
(A) Load Data (C) Generator, Data improvement over traditional methods.
Bus Loads
Another important advantage is in the
Number P(p.u.) I Q(p.u. computational aspect. These simulations were performed
Bus Cost Coefficients on the NEC AS/900ON system in the University of
1 0.000 0.000 No. a b c
Houston. The time per single iteration for the first
2 0.000 0.000
3 0.550 0.130 1 0 1. 0.05 study was about 0.318 seconds. The relatively short
4 0.000 0.000 2 0 1. 0.01 execution time for this method suggests a bright
5 0.300 0.180 promise of using the method for on-line application to
6 0.500 0.050 the optimal load flow calculations. The time per
(B) Line Data single iteration for the second and third studies was
about 0.173 seconds which is much smaller than in the
Line From Bus To Bus Line Impedance Tap first study. The reason for this shorter time is due
Number Number Number R X Setting to the use of the P-module which requires less
1 1 6 0.123 0.518 _ computations than the Q-module. For all three studies,
2 1 4 0.080 0.370 - the short computation time per iteration and the fast
3 4 6 0.097 0.407 -
convergence are not only due to our particular
4 6 5 0.000 0.300 1.025 mathematical formulation, but also due to, in large
5 5 2 0.282 0.640 -

6 2 3 0.723 1.050 part, the use of gradient projection method for

7 4 3 0.000 0.133 1.100 optimization.
than 8.93 [MW], the result obtained in Reference 10. 30-Bus Example
The computer results for all system variables for this
case are summarized in table III. The same study is Two different studies were performed with this
made for half load level and the results obtained show system to show the significance of the proposed method
a transmission loss of 1.462 [MW] which is smaller than and the use of the algorithm in a bigger system.
results obtained in other methods [101. In the first study the system is optimized using
The second study is the general case of optimal the optimal real and reactive power dispatch method
real and reactive power dispatch, and for this purpose presented in this paper. The resulting cost and power
the generation cost coefficients listed in Table I(c) loss are presented in Table IV. To compare these
are used. In this case, the generation cost is further results with conventional methods the same 30-bus
reduced to 588.609 $/hr from 588.946 $/hr of the first system is optimized in the second study using the same
study. Similarly, the transmission loss was also P-module, and using a Q-module with the line loss
reduced to 8.155 MW from 8.186 MW. These and other objective function and without using Eq. (21).
variables are shown in Table II. The results obtained show that the method
The third study corresponds to the conventional presented in this paper using the same generation cost
real and reactive power dispatch, which uses generation objective function for both P- and Q-optimization
cost objective function for the P-problem and line loss problem gives much better results than the other
objective function for the Q-problem. The results for method. The difference in generation cost between
this case are shown in Table 11 which show higher these two studies (804.853 $/hr compared to 823.629
generation cost of 607.737 $/hr and transmission loss $/hr) clearly shows the advantage of this) method.
of 8.718 MW compared with the second study. It is to Also, it is important to point out that 4ith this
be noted that this third study is also performed by method and the use of the gradient projection method,
using our P- and Q-optimization modules with two the real and reactive power dispatch problem has
different objective functions mentioned above. This considerably faster convergence compared with
results in comparable computation time as discussed conventional methods. The time per single iteration
later. for this system was approximately 2.162 seconds, and it
The above three studies show that the hiethod converged in 2 iterations.
TABLE IL. Suammary of Results for the 6-Bus System
Limits Initial Initial Final States
Variable State State First Study First Study Second Study Third Study
Lower Upper Full Load Half Load Full Load Half Load Full Load Full Load

P1 (MW) 10. 100. 95.828 45.557 91.553 45.747 91.437 93.702

P2(MW) 10. 100. 50.000 25.000 51.633 23.215 51.636 50.000

Ql (MVAR) -20. 100. 36.541 4.621 33.122 5.469 33.126 33.400

Q2((MYAR) -20. 100. 34.100 21.600 33.855 20.678 33.872 33.867

Qc4 (MVAR) 0.0 5.0 0.000 0.0 0.752 0.482 0.754 0.750

Qc6(MVAR) 0.0 5.5 0.000 0.0 0.573 0.200 0.568 0.570

*4 0.900 1.100 1.025 1.025 1.027 1.027 1.026 1.027

*7 0.900 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.088 1.083 1.088 1.088

V1(p.u.) 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.05 1.08 1.00 1.08 1.08

V2(p.u.) 1.00 1.15 1.05 1.10 1.13 1.05 1.13 1.13

V3(p.u.) 0.90 1.00 0.86 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

V4(p.u.) 0.90 1.00 0.96 1.03 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.99

V5(p.u.) 0.90 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94

V6(p.u.) 0.90 1.00 0.94 1.02 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97

Number of Iterations - - 5 2 5 5
Generation Cost [$/hr] 629.981 180.578 588.946 178.990 588.609 607.737
System Losses IMWI 10.828 3.057 8.186 1.462 8.155 8.718
1152

VIl. CONCLUSIONS TABLE IV. Summary of Results for the 30-Bus System

Variable | Limits Initial Final States

It is concluded from this study that the new Lower Upper First Study Second Study
methodology presented here has distinct advantages
summarized below. P1 (MW) 50. 200. 99.211 187.219 166.554
P2 (HW) 20. 80. 80.000 53.781 80.000
(1) More reasonable performance measure - Unlike the
conventional methods, which use the fuel costs as P5 (MW) 15. 50. 50.000 16.955 15.000
the performance measure for real power P8(MW) 10. 35. 20.000 11.288 10.000
optimization and the transmission loss for
reactive power optimization, the method presented P8 (MW) 10. 30. 20.000 11.287 10.000

TABLE III. Data for the 30-Bus System (100 MVA Base) P13(MW) 12. 40. 20.000 13.355 12.000

(A) Load Data Q1 (HVAR) -20. 200. 5.335 19.342 18.353

Bus Load Bus Load Q2 (MVAR) -20. 100. 27.657 27.423 27.439
No. P(p.u.) Q(p.u.) Mo. P(p.u.) Q(p.u.)
Q5 (MVAR) -15. 80. 21.544 21.205 21.223
1 0.000 0.000 16 0.035 0.018
2 0.217 0.127 17 0.090 0.058 Q8 (MVAR) -15. 60. 22.933 23.086 23.104
3 0.024 0.012 18 0.032 0.009 Qll (HVAR) -10. 50. 38.583 38.438 38.453
4 0.076 0.016 19 0.095 0.034
5 0.942 0.190 20 0.022 0.007 Q3 (HVAR) -15. 60. 40.345 40.423 40.355
6 0.000 0.000 21 0.175 0.112
7 0.228 0.109 22 0.000 0.000 13
8 0.300 0.300 23 0.032 0.016 VI (p.u.) 0.95 1.10 1.05 1.10 1.10
9 0.000 0.000 24 0.087 0.067
10 0.058 0.020 25 0.000 0.000 V2(p.u.) 0.95 1.10 1.04 1.08 1.08
11 0.000 0.000 26 0.035 0.023 V5(p.u.) 0.95 1.10 1.01 1.03 1.03
12 0.112 0.075 27 0.000 0.000
13 0.000 0.000 28 0.000 0.000 V8(p.u.) 0.95 1.10 1.01 1.04 1.04
14 0.062 0.016 29 0.024 0.009
15 0.082 0.025 30 0.106 0.019 V11(P.u.) 0.95 1.10 1.05 1.08 1.09
(B) Line Data V13(p.u.) 0.95 1.10 1.05 1.08 1.08
Line From Bus To Bus Line Impedance Tap n11 0.900 1.100 1.078 1.072 1.072
Number Number Number R(p.u.) X(p.u.) Setting
n12 0.900 1.100 1.069 1.070 1.069
1 1 2 0.0192 0.0575 -
2 1 3 0.0452 0.1852 -
n15 0.900 1.100 1.032 1.032 1.032
3 2 4 0.0570 0.1737 -
4 3 4 0.0132 0.0379 -
n36 0.900 1.100 1.068 1.068 1.068
5 2 5 0.0472 0.1983 -
6 2 6 0.0581 0.1763 -
Qcio(MVAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.692 0.711
7 4 6 0.0119 0.0414 -
8 5 7 0.0460 0.1160 -
9 6 7 0.0267 0.0820 - Qc12(MVAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.046 0.045
10 6 8 0.0120 0.0420 -
11 6 9 0.0000 0.2080 1.078 Qc15 (MVAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.285 0.304
12 6 10 0.0000 0.5560 1.069
13 9 11 0.0000 0.2080 - Qcl7(MVAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.287 0.306
14 9 10 0.0000 0.1100 -
15 4 12 0.0000 0.2560 1.032 Qc2O(}VAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.208 0.129
16 12 13 0.0000 0.1400 -
17 12 14 0.1231 0.2559 - Qc2l(MVAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.000 0.000
18 12 15 0.0662 0.1304 -
19 12 16 0.0945 0.1987 - QC23 (MVAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.330 0.350
20 14 15 0.2210 0.1997 -
21 16 17 0.0824 0.1932 - Qc24(MVAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.938 0.957
22 15 18 0,1070 0.2185 -
QC9(MzAR) 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.269 0.290
23 18 19 0.0639 0.1292 -
24 19 20 0.0340 0.0680 -
25 10 20 0.0936 0.2090 - Generation Cost [$/hr] 901.918 804.853 823.629
26 10 17 0.0324 0.0845 -
27 10 21 0.0348 0.0749 - System Losses [MW] 5.812 10.486 10.154
28 10 22 0.0727 0.1499 -
29 21 22 0.0116 0.0236 -
30 15 23 0.1000 0.2020 - here utilizes the same performance measure (the
31 22 24 0.1150 0.1790 - total fuel costs) for both optimizations, which is
32 23 24 0.1320 0.2700 -
more realistic and reasonable performance.
33 24 25 0.1885 0.3292 -
34 25 26 0.2544 0.3800 - (2) More economical reallocation of real powers in the
35 25 27 0.1093 0.2087 - case of reactive power optimization - unlike the
36 28 27 0.0000 0.3960 1.068 conventional methods which, for reactive power
37 27 29 0.2198 0.4153 -
optimization, fix all non-swing bus real powers
38 27 30 0.3202 0.6027 -
39 29 30 0.2399 0.4533 - and change only the swing-bus real power to absorb
40 8 28 0.6360 0.2000 - the reduction in transmission losses, the Q-
41 6 28 0.0169 0.0599 - optimization method presented here optimally
reallocates all generator real powers because of
(C) Generator Data the performance measure being defined as the total
Bus Cost Coefficients fuel .cost.
No. a b | c (3) Non-fixed swing-bus voltage - In some of the
conventional algorithms the swing-bus voltage
1 0.0 2.00 0.00375 remains fixed in the reactive power optimization
2 0.0 1.75 0.01750 procedure, but the method presented here optimally
5 0.0 1.00 0.06250 determines the swing-bus voltage, along with any
8 0.0 3.25 0.00834 other bus voltages.
11 (4) More accurate algorithms - The conventional B-
0.0 3.00 0.02500 coefficients for transmission loss formula are
1 13- 0.0 3.00 0.02500 functionally replaced by more accurate sensitivity
 1153
matrices which are successively updated during the APPENDIX A
iteration.
(5) Fast computation - The method presented here, P-Optimization Model
inspite of a lot of matrix operations, still
preserves the highly-sparse characteristics of Using the conditions AV = A'S = 0
system Jacobian matrices, and thus makes it
possible to use the optimally-ordered triangular of Eq. (13), the real powers in Eq. (12) can be
factorization technique which allows for handling expressed in terms of power angles as
of a large power system with faster computation.
(6) Application of the gradient projection method -The AP = 9ll (Al)
computer program developed for this study is shown
to be efficient and highly reliable for finding an
optimum in the optimization process. Also, this
method provides faster convergence in the optimal g 1
power dispatch problem than other conventional
methods.
= L (A2)
rAPJ
A wt12
A t
oj
(7) Possibility for on-line applications - The fast Accordingly, with the use of Eqs. (A2) and J (A3) we
and reliable characteristics in computation get
mentioned above present the future possibility for AP
its on-line applications, such as the economic AP
5
= j- 21-
i I I1 9 A
JA 9 (A3)
load dispatch, reactive power-voltage control, on-
line optimal load flow, etc. or w
APt
I..

tAP!
VIII. REFERENCES
[I JA] fAPgf (A4)
[1] H.W. Dommel and W.F. Tinney, "Optimal Power Flow
Solutions", IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus since AP =- from Eq. (13). Here JA is the vector of
and Systems, Vol. PAS-87, pp. 1866-1876, October first (m-\) elements of the matrix product in Eq. (A3).
1968. The dependent variable AQ c for the P-optimization
[2] H.H. Happ, "Optimal Power Dispatch-A -Comprehensive module also can be derived as
Survey", IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
[3]
Systems, Vol. PAS-96, pp. &41-854, May/June 1977.
J. Carpentier, "Optimal Power Flows", Int. J. of
Q =gi
A
LAQc
Q 13 12. gAPJ
LApJ B g(A5)
Electrical Power and Energy Systems, Vol. 1, pp.
3-15, April 1979. where iB is the vector of first (m-k.) elements of the
[4] 0. Alsac and B. Scott, "Optimal Load Flow with matrix product in Eq. (A5).
Steady-State Security", IEEE Transactions on Power
App tUs and , Vol. PAS-93, pp. 745-751, Q-Optimization Model
May/June 1974. Using the conditions = .A'S A6' 0

[5] F.F. Wu, G. Gross, J.F. Luini, and P.M. Look, "A of Eq. (20), the real and reactive power generations in
As

Two-Stage Approach to Solving Large-Scale Optimal Eq. (19) can be expressed as

Power Flows", 1979 PICA Conference, pp. 126-136,
May 1979.
[61 R.R. Shoults and D.T. Sun, "Optimal Power Flow
AP =
[:;]
= 21 AV + J22 An
(A7)
Based Upon P-Q Decomposition", IEEE Transactions
on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-101, pp.
397-405, February 1982.
[7] R.C. Burchett, Hf.H. Happ, D.R. Vierath, and K.A.
Wirgau, "Developments in Optimal Power Flow", IEEE
FL l = J 23 AV +J 2 A n (A8)
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. LA Q
j232

Accordingly, the dependent variable for the Q-

PAS-101, pp. 406-414, February 1982. optimization module, AV, can be the function of the
181 J. Peschon, D.S. Piercy, W.F. Tinney, and O.J. control variables, AQsgc and An, as
Tveit, "Optimum Control of Reactive Power Flow",
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems,
Vol. PAS-87, pp. 40-48, January 1968. -l
AV= j23 AQsgjc
LAQ
191 R.A. Fernandes, H.H. Happ, and K.A. Wirgau, 23 24 A (A9)
"'Optimal Reactive Power Flow for Improved System
Operations", Int. J. of Electrical Power and (AIO)
Energy Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 133-139, July 1980. =
JE AQsgc - J23J24 An
[101 K.R.C. Mamandur and R.O. Chenoweth, "Optimal
Control of Reactive Power Flow for Improvements in since AQ2, = 0 from Eq. (20).
Voltage Profiles and for Real Power Loss Here JE is the matrix of the first (m+Q-Q,')
Minimization," IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, pp. 3185- columns of J23. Then, rearranging Eq. (A1O),
3194, July 1981.
[ill F.J. Trefny and K.Y. Lee, "Economic Fuel
Dispatch", IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, pp. 3468-3477, July AV =
[JE EI 23
23 J24 AQ
1g A JD FAQ
t
g

1981. Also, the substitution of Eq. (AIO) into- Eq. (A7)

[12] M.C. Biggs and M.A. Laughton, "Optimal Electric results in
Power Scheduling: A Large Nonlinear Programming _
Test Problem Solved by Recursive Quadratic AQsgc
Programming", Math. Programming, Vol. 13, pp. 167- APsg = 21JE J22 J21 J23 2 An
182.
[131 J.B. Rosen, "The Gradient Projection Method for
Nonlinear Programming. Part I. Linear
Constraints", J. Soc. Indust. Appl. Math., Vol. [AQsgc (A12)
3, pp. 181-217, March 1960.