726
2, May 1988
AWUSTBD 90LUTIONS IN FAST D S C O Q P m IOAD Mw
Show-Kang Chang
Member, IEEE
Systems Control, Inc.
1801 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA USA
ARSmAtx
The Fast Decoupled Load Flow method is commonly
accepted by the power industry, due to its simplicity
and computational efficiency. The inclusion of adjust-
ments in the method, however, has not been given proper
attention even though it can have a major effect on the
computational efficiency, if not implemented properly.
This paper presents generalized criteria for including
the common adjustments in the Fast Decoupled Load Flow
and the methods by which the different adjustments can
be implemented without significantly affecting the
solution efficiency. Test results on several large
systems are also presented to demonstrate the effec-
tiveness of the methods.
-ION
The Fast Decoupled Load Flow (FDLF) method [l] has
gained wide acceptance in the power industry, due to
its simplicity and computational efficiency. The
inclusion of adjustments in the method to simulate the
control strategies of system operation has not been
given proper attention even though it can degrade the
solution efficiency, e.g., the number of iterations for
the adjusted solution can increase significantly, the
solution may become oscillatory or even diverge.
Common approaches to incorporate adjustments into the
load flow solution process are [21:
1. error-feedback adjustment;
2. automatic adjustment.
The error-feedback adjustment involves modifications of
a control variable to maintain another functionally
dependent variable at a specified value, in a closed-
loop feedback mechanism. The automatic adjustment, on
the other hand, involves modifications of the Jacobian
matrix to include the adjustment equality constraints
for direct solution of the control variables [31-[51.
Some success had been achieved in the application of
the automatic adjustment approach to the Newton's
method [6]. The practical implementation is, however,
complicated and the handling of the control variable
limits is inefficient. In the FDLF, the error-feedback
approach is advantageous for most of the adjustments,
except for the handling of W-bus Q-limiting for which
the conventional bus-type switching approach is more
suitable.
This paper was sponsored by the IEEE Power Engineering Society
for presentation at the IEEE Power Industry Computer Applica-
tion Conference,Montreal, Canada, May 18-21, 1987. Manuscript
was published in the 1987 PICA Conference Record.
0885-8950/88/0500-0726$01 .WO 1988 IEEE
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 3, No.
Vladimir Brandwajn
Member, IEEE
Various methods had been proposed for handling certain
adjustments in the FDLF [71-[91. Computer storage
requirements, efficiency, as well as practicality for
large systems have been major problems. This paper
first explores the nature of the common adjustments
with the objective of overcoming the interaction prob-
lem between the different adjustments. Empirical cri-
teria as to when various adjustments are started and
their relation to the load flow solution are
described. Experience with many practical systems has
indicated that these criteria can have a major effect
on the overall computational efficiency.
Relevant guidelines and methods for implementing the
adjustments are also described. The methods are tied
to the use of the highly efficient sparsity techniques
[lo], [ll] which substantially speed up the adjusted
solution. Test results on several large systems are
presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
methods.
The Fast Decoupled Load Flow method involves the itera-
tive solution of the following systems of equations:
AP/V = [B'l Ae (1)
AQ/V = [B"] AV (2)
where
AP, AQ : vectors of real and reactive power
mismatches
89. AV : vectors of corrections to voltage
angles and magnitudes.
B'ij = -l/xij and B g i i= z 1 / x i j
xij, bij : reactance and susceptance of branch i-j.
SHi : total shunt admittance at bus i.
The matrices [B]' and [B"] are both sparse and sym-
metrical. They are factorized at the start of the
solution so that (1) and (2) can be solved repeatedly
by forward and backward substitutions.
The matrices [B'] and [B"] are different dimensionally
since the reference bus is excluded from [B'] and
W-buses are excluded from [B"]. It may, however, be
disadvantageous to make such distinctions when con-
sidering adjustments. Both matrices can be tri-
angularized using the same ordering regardless of the
bus types. Whenever a row/column is to be excluded, a
large diagonal ( 0 if the inverse diagonal factor is
stored) is used to mask out the effects of the lower-
diagonal terms. This technique is especially useful in
the treatment of W-buses in the matrix [B"] [lll.
 AwusrBD SOLWTI~S
Common adjustments in the power flow solution include
the control of phase shifter flows, area interchanges,
transformer taps, capacitor/ reactor switching, gen-
erator remote voltage control, and the enforcement of
Q-limits at W-buses. To be consistent with the
decoupling principle of the FDLF, the adjustments are
categorized into real and reactive ones. The real
adjustments (phase shifter6 and area interchanges) are
made in the =-cycle and the reactive ones (transformer
taps, capacitor/reactor switching, etc.) in the
Qv-cycle.
As pointed out in [ l ] ,
conventional adjustment schemes
such as error-feedback and bus-type switching are most
suited to the FDLF. Although there are no definitive
guidelines for implementing these schemes, it is essen-
tial that the effects of the adjustments on the solu-
tion speed be minimized. The following two factors,
often overlooked in theoretical discussions, are
crucial to the computational efficiency:
1. Starting criterion for an adjustment;
2. Relative sequence of the adjustments with respect
to each other and the solution of ( 1 ) or (2).
fie starting criterion defines when the adjustment
process should commence during the solution. In the
Newton's method [61, the iteration number is probably
the most commonly used criterion, e.g., all adjustments
are made at the end of the second iteration and there-
after. This criterion is heuristic and it does not
differentiate between the nature of the different
adjustments. The weakness of this criterion lies in
the fact that some adjustments are made at an inappro-
priate moment or in an incorrect sequence and, con-
sequently, cause an unnecessary increase in the solu-
tion time.
A simple but effective alternative is the use of bus
mismatches. They provide a measure of the solution
accuracy And allow for the coordinated control of the
adjustments. To apply this criterion, it is helpful to
characterize the adjustments as either sensitivity-
based or injection-based. For the sensitivity-based
adjustments, a set of computed or empirical sensitivi-
ties ("feedback gains" in [ 2 ] ) is raquired to estimate
the control parameter variations. The control of phase
shifter flow, transformer taps, and generator remote
voltage control belong to this group. The injection-
based adjustments involve the modification of bus
injections to meet the controlled objective (area
interchange, voltage range for a switchable capacitor/
reactor). It should be pointed out that both types of
adjustments involve modification of the bus injec-
tions. The principal difference between the two types
lies in the way the modifications are calculated:
indirectly for the sensitivity-based adjustments and
directly for the injection-based ones.
The enforcement of Q-limits at the W-buses is a
special case because it does not clearly belong to any
of the two adjustment types. It involves the change of
injections as well as bus type switching. Experience
has shown that this adjustment behaves similarly to the
sensitivity-based adjustments.
The possible "hunting" between different adjustments
can be circumvented by activating them in a selective
manner, depending on the solution accuracy and type of
adjustment. In general, the sensitivity-based adjust-
ment could be started in the early stages of the solu-
tion and the injection-based adjustments only when the
solution is moderately converged. At each iteration,
the bus mismatches provide an accuracy indicator by
which the activation of the different adjustments can
be determined. As the solution progresses, different
adjustment types are thus switched on or off, depending
on the most recent maximum bus mismatch.
The adjustments are made either before or after the
main solution of ( 1 ) or ( 2 ) , depending on their
nature. The computational efficielicy varies widely as
a function of the relative sequence of different
adjustments. Normally, it is best to perform the
injection-based adjustments before the solution, and
the sensitivity-based adjustments after the solution.
All adjustments introduce perturbations into the load
flow solution. In general, large perturbations arise
during the early stages of the sensitivity-based
adjustments and Q-limit enforcement. They invariably
slow down the convergence, or more seriously, cause the
solution to oscillate or even diverge. The
oscillation/divergence problems can be effectively
alleviated by limiting the size of the correction in an
adjustment cycle. The slow convergence problem is
mostly caused by excessive incremental power mismatches
due to the corrections. An efficient remedy to this
problem is to perform an "auxiliary" solution after the
adjustments. This, essentially, minimizes the incre-
mental power mismatches and, consequently, reduces the
perturbations on the subsequent main solution cycle.
The auxiliary solution is always fast in comparison to
the main solution. It is performed using the highly
efficient sparse-vector methods [ l o ] , and is par-
ticularly well suited to the sensitivity-based adjust-
ments. Details of its implementation and the tech-
niques to handle bus type switching are described in
the following sections.
Area Interchange Control
The conventional area interchange control method, which
works reliably in the PDLF, is the adjustment of the
scheduled real power generation of one or w r e area
"slack" generators between the power flow iterations.
The interchange error is shared among the area "slack"
generators according to prespecified proportions. The
interchange control is activated only when the solution
is moderately converged because it directly affects the
bus injections. It requires modifying the mismatch
vector AP immediately before the solution of (1). A
limit checking process may also be included in the
adjustment for detecting the possible "power imbalance'
problem.
An identical approach Can be used to perform the slack
distribution task.
Phase Shifter Flow Control
The real power flow through a controllable phase
shifter can be regulated by adjusting its shift
angle. The effects of the angle 'shift are modelled by
equivalent bus injections. In the FDLP method, this
adjustment is best handled via the "error-feedback"
scheme in which the 'feedback gain" is approximated by
the sensitivity between the shift angle and the flow.
The sensitivity ia computed using the linearized net-
work model of (1 ). The change in the real povar flow
APij through the phase shifter branch i-j is first
expressed by the following relation:
APij = (Aei - Aej + A+)/xij (3)
728

where AI) is the incremental shift angle, and xij the

phase shifter reactance. CaWnte
Next the effect of AI) on A0 and AO. is obtained from AP
(1) by the equivalent injection techAque:

APij = (-MIij tB'1-l Nij + 1) AI)/xij = S AI)/xij (4)

where Mij is a sparse vector with +1 and -1 in the ith

and jth positions and N.. is a sparse vector with
+l/xij and -l/xij in the i'th and jth positions. Control and Update
AP
The sparse-vector methods [ l o ] allow an efficient com-
putation of the sensitivity S via fast-forward/fast-
backward substitutions. The sensitivity is computed
1
only once during the solution process, due to the
invariant nature of the matrix [B' 1. A negative value
of S is used when Pji is controlled instead of Pij.

The shift limits are enforced by modifying the computed

increments, appropriately. At the same time, the pos-
sible limit back-off is also tested for. The correc-
tion of the phase shifter angle introduces incremental
real power mismatches at its terminal buses. The mis-
matches propagate to the next solution cycle and thus Phase Shifter
slow down the convergence. This problem can be &LSP
resolved by performing an auxiliary solution before Update Angle Shift
advancing to the QV-cycle. The auxiliary solution of
(1) is used to compute approximate angle changes caused
by the adjustment. Since the mismatch vector AP is
sparse (two nonzeros for each shift angle change),
sparse-vector methods are applicable for the solu-
tion. Experience has shown that the computational
overhead associated with the auxiliary solution is
usually very small and the benefits significantly out-
weigh the extra effort.
I Update 8
Auxy~-ion I
Inclusion of Real Adjustments in the =-Cycle

Figure 1 shows how the real adjustment described above To ( t V Cycle

are included in the PO-cycle of the FDLF method. Sa
and Sp represent the starting criteria for the area
interchange control and phase shifter flow control, Figure 1. P-8 Solution Cycle
respectively. The activation of the adjustments is
governed by the maximum bus mismatch which is identical problem of finding the binding constraints in the
to the normal convergence criterion (omitted from the optimal load flow 1121. An auxiliary solution which
figure for simplicity). Each iteration may, therefore, follows the main solution of (2) , remedies the problem
incur different adjustments, depending on the nmst by approximately resolving the inequalities before
recent maximum mismatch. advancing the solution.

The objective of the auxiliary solution is to identify

W-Bus Q-Limit~
When the load flow solution is mderately converged,
any Q-limit violations at the W-buses should be cor-
rected. Any violated W-bus is converted to the PQ-
type with the reactive generation set at the limiting
value. The voltage of the converted bus is sub-
sequently compared to the scheduled value and the bus
is reconverted to the W-type, if any of the back-off
conditions are satisfied.
The switching of bus types involves the insertion/
deletion of equalities into/from ( 2 ) and, hence,
requires. the retriangularization of the matrix [B"].
Two efficient methods are available for this task:
partial refactorization and factor updating [ill. Both
methods were found to be equally efficient.
The initial enforcement of the Q-limits normally
perturbs the solution and can cause new Q-limit viola-
tions as well as limit back-offs. If not properly
resolved, it will slow down the convergence or even
new Q-limit violations and/or limit back-offs, and to
correct bus voltages should any new adjustments
occur. After the main solution of ( 2 ) and voltage
update, the reactive generation change at a W-bus i
can be computed from the following formula:
(5)
The .linear approximation of ( 5 ) is generally ade-
quate. Each newly violated W-bus is converted to the
FQ-type with its equation inserted into the matrix
[e"]. The incremental reactive power mismatch induced
by this adjustment is (Qlh -
Q . ) , where Qlim is the
violated MVAR limit and Qgi isqthe updated reactive
generation.
Similarly, if a generator can back-off the limit, the
associated bus is converted to the W-type and the
corresponding equation deleted from the matrix (B-1.
Each back-off a150 causes a bus voltage correction:
AVi = (Vsi - Vi)

cause divergence. This problem resembles the classical where Vsi is the scheduled voltage.

The vpltage c o r r e c t i o n AV. introduces an incremental
r e a c t i v e power mismatch (-b1 V . AV a t each connected
ij I i and j t h positions.
bp
After t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e new adjustments, t h e
bus voltages a r e corrected by solving ( 2 ) using t h e
,,/
/ incremental mismatches. Since t h e Q - l i m i t s are
enforced only when t h e solution is s u f f i c i e n t l y
accurate, t h e number of back-offs i s normally small.
The incremental mismatch vector i s sparse and, there-
f o r e , t h e sparse-vector methods a r e again c a l l e d f o r .
The inclusion of t h e a u x i l i a r y s o l u t i o n s t e p has been
found to s i g n i f i c a n t l y increase t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of
t h e Q - l i m i t adjustment. Independent of t h e number of
W-buses, t y p i c a l l y , no more than two a d d i t i o n a l i t e r a -
t i o n s a r e required f o r t h e adjustment. This i s espe-
c i a l l y important t o a p p l i c a t i o n s involving a l a r g e
number of load flow s o l u t i o n s , such a s contingency
analysis.
Capacitor/Reactor Switchinp
A bus voltage can be maintained within a s p e c i f i e d
range by switching a c o n t r o l l a b l e capacitor o r r e a c t o r
a t t h e bus. Although t h e c a p a c i t o r s / r e a c t o r s a r e dis-
c r e t e i n nature, t h e common approach i s to ignore t h e
d i s c r e t e n e s s during t h e adjustment and to convert t h e
appropriate parameter to i t s nearest d i s c r e t e s e t t i n g
only a f t e r t h e i n i t i a l convergence. The load flow i s
then reconverged with t h e f i x e d s e t t i n g .
The error-feedback scheme i s used f o r t h i s adjust-
ment. In t h i s case, t h e feedback-gain r e p r e s e n t s t h e
s e n s i t i v i t y between t h e voltage and shunt admittance of
a bus. It i s found by computing t h e diagonal term of
t h e inverse of [B"]. For bus i, t h e s e n s i t i v i t y
r e l a t i o n is thus expressed by:
tB"1-'Mi) Abi = S Abi
where Mi i s a sparse vector with + 1 i n t h e i t h posi-
t i o n , and Abi t h e shunt acbaittance change.
The s e n s i t i v i t y S i s constant and it has t o be recal-
culated only following bus type switching.
The shunt admittance change Ab. causes an incremental
mismatch Ab V which i s d i r a c t l y included i n t h e
mismatch ve%tkr A Q of ( 2 ) p r i o r to t h e main solution.
Experience has shown t h a t it i s not necessary t o modify
[B"] f o r the shunt acbaittance change, provided t h a t t h e
mismatch c a l c u l a t i o n s c o r r e c t l y account f o r t h e change.
Transformer Tap Voltage Control
An automatic on-load tap-changing transformer can keep
t h e voltage of a l o c a l or remote bus Within a s p e c i f i e d
range, by . a d j u s t i n g the in-phase tap. As i n t h e
capacitor/reactor switching, t h i s adjustment i s per-
formed using t h e continuous approach. For a trans-
former i - j c o n t r o l l i n g t h e voltage of bus k, t h e e r r o r -
feedback formula is:
AVk = S A t
where AVk i s t h e c o n t r o l error, S the sensitivity,
and A t t h e t a p increment.
Normally, S = f l gives s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s . If
desired, however, S can be e f f i c i e n t l y computed from:
S = Mk' [ B"1-l N (9)
729
where Mk is a sparse vector with + 1 i n t h e kth p o s i t i o n
and N a sparse vector with -bij/t and b . ./t i n t h e i t h
11
Each t a p increment c r e a t e s incremental r e a c t i v e mis-
matches A t / t a t t h e transformer terminal buses,
which shou?tih resolved by an a u x i l i a r y s o l u t i o n . For
computational e f f i c i e n c y it i s b e s t t o combine t h i s
s o l u t i o n with t h a t f o r t h e generator remote voltage
control.
If a bus voltage i s simultaneously c o n t r o l l e d by
s e v e r a l transformers, d i r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n of ( 8 ) w i l l
usually cause over-capensated adjustments which may
r e s u l t i n an o s c i l l a t o r y solution. This adverse e f f e c t
can be a l l e v i a t e d e i t h e r by l i m i t i n g t h e s i z e of AV t o
be corrected, o r , by coordinating t h e transformer
adjustments. one p o s s i b l e coordination i s t o make t h e
adjustments proportional to t h e i r s e n s i t i v i t i e s . The
s e n s i t i v i t i e s ccolputed from ( 9 ) a r e more appropriate
f o r t h i s purpose.
Generator R e m o t e Voltage Control
A generator a t a PV-bus can c o n t r o l , within i t s MVAR
limits, t h e voltage of a remote bus. This type of
c o n t r o l d i f f e r s from t h e l o c a l PV-bus r e g u l a t i o n i n
t h a t the W-bus voltage i s t o be adjusted even though
i t s Q - l i m i t s a r e not violated.
I n i t i a l l y , t h e voltages a t t h e W-buses a r e used a s
c o n t r o l parameters. Whenever a W-bus i s converted t o
t h e PQ-type due to Q-limiting, i t s c o n t r o l parameter i s
swktched t o t h e r e a c t i v e generation with t h e most
r e c e n t bus voltage serving as t h e scheduled voltage f o r
subsequent back-off t e s t i n g . The r e a c t i v e generation
may change due t o t h e influence of o t h e r adjustments,
although t h i s r a r e l y occurs i n p r a c t i c a l applica-
tions. For s i m p l i c i t y , only t h e voltage control para-
(7) meter i s discussed i n t h i s paper.
The error-feedback scheme i s used, where the formula
f o r a W-bus i c o n t r o l l i n g t h e voltage of bus j
become$ :
AV. = (Vjsp
3
- V 3. ) = S AVi (10)
An estimate of t h e s e n s i t i v i t y S i s c a l c u l a t e d using
t h e l i n e a r i z e d model of ( 2):
S = -M ' [B"]-'N (11)
j
where M . i s a sparse vector with + 1 i n t h e j t h p o s i t i o n
3
and N a sparse vector with +bik i n t h e kth p o s i t i o n f o r
each bus k connected to i.
The incremental r e a c t i v e mismatch induced by t h e W-bus
voltage adjustment i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t induced by a
PQ-generator limit back-off. For computational
e f f i c i e n c y it is combined with t h e incremental mismatch
from t h e transformer adjustment and resolved i n a
s i n g l e a u x i l i a r y solution.
The problem of voltage c o n t r o l by multiple W-buses can
(8) be resolved s i m i l a r l y t o that of t h e multiple trans-
former control. I f a bus voltage is simultaneously
controlled by a transformer and a generator, t h e pre-
cedence is given to t h e generator u n t i l its c o n t r o l
c a p a b i l i t y i s exhausted, i.e., t h e r e a c t i v e generation
hits a l i m i t .
Inclusion of Reactive Adjustments i n t h e Q-V Cycle
Figure 2 shows how t h e r e a c t i v e adjustments described
above a r e included i n t h e Q-V s o l u t i o n cycle of t h e
-..

730

e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e methods. The characteristics of

t h e s e systems a r e given i n Table I. For each system,
CalCJlte t h e number of buses, branches, W-buses. buses with
capacitor c o n t r o l , and LTCs i s l i s t e d . Also, shown iq
AQ t h e number of i t e r a t i o n s f o r t h e unadjusted s o l u t i o n .

TABLE I
C"SRIST1CS OP TSST SYSTR4S

Yes CapacitorlReactor ITERATION

-cNnga
VpdateAQ
-.
I 157 1 62 4

ITERATION

6
7
6
MAX
--
1240.98
107.84
-30.36
MW
MISMATCH MISMATCH

-3894.53

8.88
3.07
1.33

0.25
I
I

I
MAX MVAR

21907.52
-458.56
150.28
-36.73
10.75
-2.81

0.77
YQL N J p a
0
73
3
1
0
0

For the sake of c l a r i t y and b r e v i t y , only e f f e c t s of

t h e r e a c t i v e adjustments a r e described here. The real
adjustments behave s i m i l a r l y t o t h e r e a c t i v e ones. A l l
t e s t r e s u l t s w e r e obtained using t h e f l a t s t a r t condi-
10
0
0
0

* Auxiliary Solution
t i o n s and 1 MW/MVAR maximum bus mismatch tolerances.
S t a r t i n g c r i t e r i a f o r t h e sensitivity-based adjustments
and injection-based adjustments were 500 MW/MVAR and 5
A
MW/MVAR, respectively.

Effect of W-Bus Q-Limit Adjustment

The e f f e c t of t h e PV-bus Q - l i m i t adjustment on t h e

convergence of t h e test system B i s shown i n
Table 11. For each i t e r a t i o n , t h e maximum bus mismatch
p r i o r to t h e s o l u t i o n of ( I ) o r ( 2 ) i s shown, along
with t h e number of Q - l i m i t enforcements ( N Q l ) before
t h e s o l u t i o n of ( 2 ) , t h e number of new v i o l a t i o n s
(NQ21, and t h e back-offs (NQ3) a f t e r t h e s o l u t i o n of
(2). Most of t h e adjustments were performed a t t h e
t
To P-0 Cycle
U initial activation. Afterwards, only two more
a c t i v a t i o n s were needed t o i d e n t i f y t h e f i n a l 78
binding VAR l i m i t s . For t h e purpose of comparison, t h e
adjustment e f f e c t on t h e t e s t system C i s shown i n
Table 111.
Figure 2. Q-V Solution Cycle

FDLF. Sc, Sq, S t , Sr a r e t h e s t a r t i n g c r i t e r i a f o r

capacitor/reactor switching, Q-limit enforcement,
transformer t a p c o n t r o l , and generator remote c o n t r o l ,
respectively. Normally, Sq=St=Sr. The W-bus Q - l i m i t
adjustment is performed i n two steps. The a u x i l i a r y
s o l u t i o n s f o r the transformer t a p and generator remote
c o n t r o l a r e combined i n t o a s i n g l e s o l u t i o n a s
described above.
3
4 4 51.75 30.68 6 0 1
5 5 -8.43 -2.29 0 0 0
The adjustment methods described above have been t e s t e d
on systems of s e v e r a l u t i l i t i e s .
three systems a r e presented
Typical r e s u l t s on
t o demonstrate t h e 1 5 5 0.47 I -0.25
 731

ITERATION W MW MAX W A R
Q MISMATCH YISMATCH MISMATCH

1 1 -2574.49 530 13.92 0 5841.97 14150.46 0 0 0 0

2 2 -344.85 -250.07 68 6437.75 -2737.09 0 0 0 0
3 3 41.97 16.27 10 198.48 262.27 69 11 10 7
4 4 -6.0 1 -103.20 56 51.75 30.70 6 0 1 3
5 5 22.80 9.61 0 -8.44 -10.99 0 0 0 0
6 6 -2.97 -0.83 ' 0 2.10 -1.60 0 0 0 0
7 7 8.95 3.13 4.05 25.94 0 0 0 0
1 0
I I I I -4.08 0 0 0 0
7 7 -0.84 -0.25
8 7 -0.08 0.74
Effect of Capacitor Switching and Transformer Tag
Control Effects of the Starting Criteria

Table IV shows the effect of capacitor switching and The effects of the starting criteria for the Q-limit
transformer tap control on the convergence of the test enforcement and tap adjustments in systems B and C are
system A. The number of capacitor adjustments (NCP) shown in Tables VI1 and VIII, respectively.
and transformer adjustments (NTT) is shown for each
iteration. In the initial test (Table VII) the starting criterion,
for the Q-limit enforcement, was varied while the taps
The idtial convergence without accounting for the were kept fixed. The starting criterion for the
discrete nature of capacitor/transformer tap adjust- Q-limit adjustment was then fixed at 500 W A R and the
ments was achieved in 6 iterations. An additional criterion for tap adjustments was varied. These
iteration was required to reconverge the case following results are shown in Table VIII.
the discretization of capacitors and transformer
taps. It is noteworthy that the auxiliary solution TABLE V I 1
prevented large perturbations even in the presence of KwBlcT CW Q-LmIT Sl'ARTIUG CRITElUoR
extensive adjustments.
STARTING SYSTEM B SYSTEM C
Combined Effect of Reactive Adjustments CRITERION

The combined effect, of different reactive adjustments

on the copvergence of test systems B and C, is shown in
Tables V and VI, respectively. In this test, the com-
bined effects of Q-limiting and tap control were
checked. The results indicate that the convergence is 10
largely dictated by the Q-limit adjustment. The inter-
action between the real and reactive adjustments is
insignificant, due to the use of the auxiliary
solution. An additional iteration was required in both TABLE VI11
cases to reconverge the solutions following tap dis- m?FPcT op TAP S
-!I CRITRRIW
cretization.
STARTING SYSTEM B SYSTEM C
CRITERION ITERATION ITERATION

1
ITERATION
-
P 8 U
! %z 15 16

1 I -3894.53 21907.52 0
2 2 1240.98 -458.56 73
3 3 105.53 156.42 4
4 4 -30.45 -24.70 1 Effect of Reactive Adjustments Without Auxiliary
-51.75
Solutions
5 5 1.82 0
6 6 3.08 -8.16 0 0 0 Most of the existing load flow programs perform the
7 7 1.32 13.13 0 0 0 adjustments without the use of auxilliary solutions.
Tables IX and X show the test results obtained on
systems B and C without the benefits of auxiliary
7 7 solutions. The Q-limit adjustment (limit
enforcement/back-off) was pe forned in a sinxlf step
prior to the solution of 7 2 ) and the tra S Orme
adjustment updated the taps without Computing the
resulting voltage increments. Note that in some cases
the solution failed to converge as indicated by I t ' .
732

B. Stott, "Review of Load-Flow Calculh

Methods", IEEE Proceedings, vol. 62, pp. 916-9a
July 1974.
I STARTING
CRITERION
I SYSTEM B
ITERATION
I SYSTEM C 1 J.P. Britton, "Improved Area Interchange Control
ITERATION for Newton's Method Load Flows", IEEE Trans. on
MVAR P B P B Power App. and Syst., vol. PAS-88, pp. 1577-1581,
October 1969.
500 12 11
5 13 12 11 11 N.M. Peterson and W.S. Meyer, "Automatic Adjust-
ment of Transformer and Phase-Shifter Taps in the
Newton Power Flow', IEEE Trans. on Power App. and
Syst., vol. PAS-90, pp. 103-108, Jan/Feb 1971.

J.P. Britton, "Improved Load Flow Performance

Through a More General Equation Form", IEEE Trans.
~~
on Power App. and Syst., vol. PAS-90, pp. 109-116,
STARTING Jan/Feb 197 1.
C RITEFSON SYSTEM B SYSTEM C
MVAR ITERATION ITERATION W.F. Tinney and C.E. Hart, "Power Flow Solution by
( Q-LIMIT ) P B P 8 Newton's Method", IEEE Trans. on Power App. and
Syst., vol. PAS-86, pp. 1449-1456, NOV. 1967.
500 14 12
P.S. Nagendra Rao, K . S . Prakasa Rao, and J. Nanda,
5 16 16 16 15 "An Exact Fast Load Flow Method Including Second
Order Terms in Rectangular Coordinates", IEEE
Trans. on Power App. and Syst., vol. PAS-101,
pp. 3261-3268, Sap. 1982.
It can ben se& fron Tables IX and X that the number of
iterations for both P and Q increases quite R.N. Allan and C. Arruda, "LTC Transformers and
significantly without the benefits of auxiliary MVAR Violations in the Fast Decoupled Load Flow",
solutions. Also, the adjustment may fail to correctly IEEE Trans. on Power App. and Syst., vol. PAS-101,
identify the binding set of Q-limits when a high pp. 3328-3332, Sep. 1982.
starting criterion is used.
Z.X. Han, "Phase Shifter and Power Flow Control",
IEEE Trans. on Power App. and Syst., vol. PAS-101,
coIIcLuG1ons pp. 3790-3795, Oct. 1982.
%npirical criteria and efficient methods for the imple- 1101 W.F. Tinney, V. Brandwajn, and S.M. Chan, "Sparse
mentation of adjustments in the Fast Decoupled Load Vector Methods", IEEE Trans. on Power App. and
Flov have been presented. By the use of auxiliary Syst., vol. PAS-104, pp. 295-301, Feb. 1985.
solutions and sparsity techniques, the adjusted solu-
tions can be obtained without substantial increase in [ll] S.M. Chan and V. Brandwajn, "Partial Matrix Refac-
the number of iterations and computational time. Since torization", Proc. of the Fourteenth PICA
only conventional schemes, i.e., error-feedback and Conference, pp. 9-15, May, 1985.
bus-type switching, are w e d , the basic E'DLF formula-
tion remains unchanged and the adjustments are easy to [121 H.W. Dommel and W.T. Tinney, "Optimal Power Flow
include in the program. The methods are also applic- Solutions", IEBE Trans. on Power App. and Syst.,
able to other adjustments such as transformer tap flow vol. PAS-87, pp. 1866-1876, Oct. 1968.
control, distributed system slack, etc. Test results
on several realistic systems indicate that the number
of extra iterations required for W-bus Q-limiting is
virtually independent of the size of the problems. The
Discussion
perturbations caused by the adjustments are minimized
via the auxiliary solution. The described techniques Fernando L. Alvprndo (The University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI):
can be implemented efficiently in other load flow This is a usetid and practical paper for all those interested in the fast
methods. The paper's major contributions consist of: decoupled method. This discussion concerns only the fourth of the stated
paper contributions. Sparse vector methods are indeed one of the most
a) analysis of the nature of different adjustments; important new ideas in sparse matrix technology. With all due credit to
Tinnex, Brandwajn, and Chan for reference [lo], sparse vector methods
b) development of methodology for efficient were also described in full detail in [All, which was presented concurrently
implementation of different adjustments; with [lo], and was published three months after [lo] only due to the quirks
of the publishing process. An unfortunate circumstance of [A101 was that
c) providing practical guidelines for the selection of sparse vector methods were not mentioned explicitly in the paper title, as
starting criteria; they were considered by the authors (in retrospect perhaps mistakenly) the
lesser of the three stated contributions of this paper.
d) pointing out the applications of sparse vector The main reason for bringing this issue up at this time is not so much to
methods in the implementation of different criticize the authors of this paper in any way, but to point out that in the
adjustments. experience of this discusser over the last two years, sparse vector methods
are indeed best explained using reference [lo]. However, many of those to
whom this discusser has exposed sparse vector methods have found the
implementation of the method to be most straightforward from the
description in reference [All. Thus, it is this discusser's opinion that much
[l] B. Stott and 0. Alsac, "Fast Decoupled Load Flow", could be gained by all in the future by insuring reference to [All alongside
IEEE Trans. on Power App. and Syst., vol. PAS-93, [lo] whenever implementation issues regarding sparse vector methods are
pp. 859-869, May/June 1974. to be addressed.
 ,/
References
/L.. Alvarado, M. K. Enns, and S . K. Mong, “A Fault Program
, with Macros, Monitors and Direct Compensation of Mutual
-/ Groups,” ZEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., May 1985, pp. 1109-
1120.
B. Stott, 0. Alsac, and M. Prais (Power Computer Applications, Mesa,
AZ): For many years, control adjustments have been the main algorithmic
challenge in conventional power flow, a challenge that, judging by the
literature, has partially gone ignored. This paper is therefore particularly
welcome, and is a valuable partner to the original fast decoupled reference.
We are in agreement with the general discussion of adjustment principles
and with the specific techniques described, having evolved our fast
decoupled versions in much the same ways. V. Brandwajn is acknowledged
for suggesting the Q-limit scheme some years ago.
In order to realize overall convergence speed-up, the kinds of refinement
described in the paper must be applied rigorously to all types of control.
Any one slowly converging device will largely nullify all of the others.
We can confirm that the use of a control’s local sensitivity, calculated by
sparse vector methods, generally works well, except in the case of generator
var limits where bus-type switching is needed. In a power system with large
numbers of voltage controls, particularly LTC transformers, the computa-
tion of the sparse inverse matrix might be a more economical way of
obtaining most of the required local sensitivities.
The main remaining problems are where controls have high interactions,
and where the sensitivities change during the solution process, due to
limiting or backoff of neighboring controls. We note that the authors have
not included self-adaptive sensitivity updating (at each iteration as a
function of the changes during the last iteration). Do they have any
experience with this? Should it be used in conjunction with the precomputed
local sensitivities?
The paper is nonspecific where control of a quantity is shared between
multiple devices. The most common example is a PQ bus voltage controlled
from a number of remote PV buses, with a defined var allocation between
them. Another case is where several transformers control the same bus
voltage, with specified var-sharing or tap gauging, etc. Are they catered for
by the techniques in the paper?
The paper brings out the importance of the starting criterion for a control
such as var limiting and transformer tapping. This appears to be a system-
dependent aspect of tuning that even the best algorithms cannot overcome.
One of the greatest unsolved problems strongly associated with reactive
controls is the existence in some power systems of multiple solutions. These
can be attributed to the different ways in which a system state is reached.
The power flow solution makes no attempt to simulate the different
precedences, based on speeds of response, of the various controlled
devices. How critical are such factors, and would it make sense to
incorporate them in some approximate ways into the adjustment processes?
733
S. K. Chang and V. Brandwajn: We wish to thank the discussers for their
interest in our paper and for their comments.
Regarding the comments of Prof. Alvarado, reference [lo] was listed in
the bibliography primarily because it provides fundamental insight into the
sparse vector methods. The general concept has been described in a number
of earlier papers, although not as extensively (see especially [A]). The cited
paper co-authored by the discusser addresses the algorithmic aspects of fast
forwardlfast backward substitution in considerabledetail and may serve as a
convenient reference document for those who need guidance in implement-
ing these techniques.
The authors are grateful to Messrs. Stott, Alsac, and Prais for their
valuable comments on the problem areas associated with the power flow
adjustments. The choice between precomputing alI local sensitivities ushg
the sparse inverse algorithm and computing only the needed ones during the
solution with the sparse vector methods is problem dependent. With good
implementation, however, both approaches should cause only a small
overhead on the overall solution time.
The approach of using the self-adapive sensitivities to determine the
control parameter variations is commonly employed in the load flow
calculations in which the sensitivities are costly to compute. It works well
for the tap/phase shifter flow control. Tuning is g e n e d y required for other
types of adjustments. Our experience of applying it to solve the external
model in the state estimator has indicated that the approach can be quite
efficient even though we have not implemented it in our fast decoupld load
flow program.
There is no unique solution for control variables that regulate the same
quantity without specified var-sharing between them. If the var-sharhg is
defined, the control adjustments can be made proportional to their
composite sensitivities which are functions of var-sharing factors and the
relevant sensitivities. It is found beneficial to limit the size of the control
correction at each step to avoid the possible solution oscillation due to
control interactions.
We concur with the comment on the starting criterion. The criterion is
effective if it can affect the activation of different adjustments in a
determined manner. Our experience has shown that the use of bus
mismatches indeed fulfills this requirement. The starting criteria are system
dependent and can be developed based upon the magnitudes of bus net
injections.
The simulation of control precedences, based on speeds of response, in
the adjustment processes deserves careful consideration. The effects on
alleviating the multiple solution problem as well as the impact on the
solution speed are not known to us, although the ways to incorporate them
in the power flow can be envisioned.
References
[AI K. W. Edwin and G. G. Wagner, “On-Line Security Constrained
Economic Dispatch Using Sensitivities and Convex Linear Program-
mine.” oresented at WAC Symposium on Computer Applications in
Large &e Power Systems,-New Delhi, August, 1979: