IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution

Research Article

Extreme learning machine-based alleviation ISSN 1751-8687

Received on 17th April 2019

for overloaded power system

Revised 1st August 2019
Accepted on 18th September 2019
E-First on 30th October 2019
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.0531
www.ietdl.org

Imen Labed1 , Djamel Labed1

1Laboratory of Electrical Engineering, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Constantine1, Constantine, Algeria
E-mail: imen.labed@lec-umc.org

Abstract: The present study proposes a corrective method of electric system overload provided that the wind farm is integrated
into the distribution system, taking into account the congestion cost. The authors attempted to mitigate the overload and to
monitor flow over transmission lines. Unified power flow controller device was the first suggestion utilised to solve this problem,
then due to its extremely fast training and the excellent generalisation performance, extreme learning machine algorithm is
employed. The fundamental point is the transmission line alleviation. In addition, other targets are realised: the load shedding
avoidance, minimisation of losses and congestion cost. This study is also designed to utilise PowerWorld Simulator and
MATLAB software to demonstrate methods for relieving transmission overloads. The accuracy of the proposed approach has
been tested for Algerian (Adrar) 22-bus system. Obtained results showed an improvement in power system behaviour.
Simulation results are exposed, discussed and compared at the end of this study.

1 Introduction
Inspired by biology, artificial neural networks (NNs) are a common
technique in the field of machine learning. Used in classification,
pattern recognition, time-series prediction and other approximation
functions or regression. Many variations in the type of the network
are in use, the activation functions and in the learning algorithm.
Backpropagation (BP) is the most known learning algorithm for
a feed-forward NN. The BP is essentially a first-order gradient
method for parameter optimisation. However, it is clear that the
gradient descent-based learning methods are generally very slow,
and suffering from some drawbacks [1]:
• A low learning rate can lead to slow convergence.
• A significant learning rate can lead to divergence.
• Overtraining the network reduces the generalisation
performance.
• The algorithm can be very time-consuming, especially for the
large dataset.
Boser et al. introduced support vector machines (SVMs) that
analyse data efficiently [2, 3]; primarily SVMs were limited to
classification problems only, and later on extended to solve
regression problems and named as support vector regression
(SVR). SVR creates separation surface using polynomial,
sigmoidal and Radial Basis Function (RBF) functions. The
regression processes of these machines use only the data patterns
closest to the separation surface instead of all data patterns [4, 5].
In 2004, a new alternative to BP for learning feed-forward NNs
had been proposed by Huang; it is extreme learning machine
(ELM). This algorithm is easy to implement and does not suffer
from the drawbacks above. ELM is the idea of a random projection
followed by linear regression. It has been proposed for training a
single hidden layer feed-forward neural networks (SLFNs). In
problems, and the results showed that ELM has an outstanding
performance in relative terms [7].
ELM does not need tuning of all parameters; the only free
parameters need to be learnt are the connections (weights and bias)
between the hidden and the output layers, and this is what makes it
extremely fast to implement [6]. Huang combined the concept of
local receptive fields (LRFs) with ELM and proposed an LRF-
based ELM (LRF-ELM) to learn local correlations of input images
[8].
This study endeavoured to solve economically an overloaded
power system due to renewable energy penetration. The
contributions made in the present paper are two-fold. First, using a
device that belongs to the facts system, which is the unified power
flow controller (UPFC) to monitor flows over overloaded
transmission lines. Second, for further optimisation in time and
accuracy, and based on the obtained results in the first section
utilising UPFC we introduced ELM-based alleviation algorithm
ELM as an innovative novel for power system mitigation under
different several conditions. The substantial reduction in
computational time allows estimations closer to real time, relevant
to short-term operational assessments.
The present paper is organised as follows: Section 2 talks about
power flow calculation and Newton–Raphson method. In Section
3, UPFC is formulated. We explained the ELM algorithm in
Section 4. Section 5 presents the simulation results and discussion,
and finally the conclusion.
2 Load flow analysis – Newton–Raphson
The basic idea in power flow analysis is to determine the phase and
the voltage magnitude at any grid bus, according to the system of
(1) which is composed of the real and the reactive powers [9, 10]
n

ELM, the hidden nodes are randomly initiated and then fixed Pi = V i ∑ V j(Gi j cos δi j + Bi j sin δi j)
without iteratively tuning [6]. j=1
(1)
Huang demonstrated that ELM provides a much faster learning n

speed and other attractive properties compared with the alternative. Qi = V i ∑ V j(Gi j sin δi j Bi j cos δi j)
Different from traditional learning algorithms, ELM not only tends j=1

to reach the smallest training error but also the smallest norm of
weights and the excellent generalisation performance. The where Pi, Qi are real and reactive powers at PQ buses and Gij, Bij
performance of the ELM was compared with other algorithms are conductance and the susceptance of the shunt admittance of the
including SVMs and conventional BP, on some benchmark line [9, 10].

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 22, pp. 5058-5070 5058
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 17518695, 2019, 22, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.0531 by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
It is clear that in the non-linear power equations mentioned Transmitted uncompensated real (Po) and reactive (Qo) power
above, there is no equality between the number of equations and flows are given by expressions below [16, 18, 19]:
the variables number; therefore, resort to some other methods that
are applicable for solving these equations [11–13]. The classical V rV s
resolution is not able here to solve the problem; this may explain P0(δ) = sin(δ) (6)
x
the reason for which numerical methods are used as well as the
Newton–Raphson approach [13, 14]. On the basis of the Jacobian V r(V s cos(δ) − V r)
matrix, whose elements are partial derivative values of either P or Q0(δ) = (7)
x
Q for either V or δ, we can write the equation as follows: (see (2)) .
ΔPi, ΔQi are real and reactive power mismatch at bus bar (i), Δδij is The real and reactive powers with UPFC are
the voltage angle between bus bar (i) and bus bar (j) and Δδi is the
voltage angle mismatch at bus bar (i). ΔVV r sin(φ)
To get the variation of the voltage magnitude and the phase, we P(δ, φ) = P0(δ) + (8)
x
have to inverse the Jacobian matrix as it is presented in the
equation below: V r(V s cos(δ) + ΔV cos(φ) − V r)
Q(δ, φ) = (9)
(k )
x
[∂δ ] [∂P ](k )

¯ (k)
= [J]−1 (3) The magnitude and the phase angle of the injected voltage in series
∂V [∂Q(k)]
with the transmission line to provide the required real and reactive
powers are given by the following equations [20, 21]:
• By consequence, the new values of the mentioned targets [15,
16] X
ΔV =
Vr
(Q(δ, φ) − Q0)2 + (P(δ, φ) − P0)2 (10)
V ik + 1 = V ik + ΔV ik
(4)
δik + 1
= + Δδik δik P(δ, φ) − P0
φ = atan (11)
Q(δ, φ) − Q0
• The iterative system stops when the convergence criterion is
satisfied [9]
where Vr and Vs are voltage magnitudes at receiving and sending
(k ) end lines, X is the transmission line impedance, Po, Qo are
ΔPi <ε
(5) uncompensated real and reactive line power flows, and ΔV is the
ΔQi (k )
<ε magnitude of the injected voltage in series with the line [22, 23].

Once Vik + 1 and δik + 1 are known, the real and reactive powers
can always be calculated using the equation system number (1) [15,
16].
3 Unified power flow controller
The UPFC is the most gifted version of flexible AC transmission
system devices. It serves to control all the three parameters
(voltage, impedance and phase angle) simultaneously [16]. The
UPFC is a combination of a static compensator (STATCOM) shunt
controller STATCOM and a static synchronous series compensator
controller (SSSC). Coupled with a common DC capacitor allowing
the bidirectional transit of the real and the reactive powers between
the series SSSC output and the shunt STATCOM output [16, 17].
The main reasons for using UPFC are as follows:
1. Passing reactive power flow bidirectionally.
2. Maintaining DC voltage regulation.
3. Workability in a wide range of operating conditions.
4 Extreme learning machine
Huang et al. proposed an ELM algorithm, as a new learning
scheme working for single hidden layer feed-forward neural
networks (SLFNs) [6, 24].
ELM is entirely different from traditional iterative learning
algorithms as it randomly selects the input weights (W) and biases
(b) for hidden nodes and analytically calculates the output weights
(β) by finding the least-squared solution.
In doing so, it is proven that the training error can still be
minimised with even better generalisation performance [6, 24].
Notably, the learning speed of ELM can be thousands of times
faster than traditional feed-forward network learning algorithms
such as the BP algorithm. Compared to conventional learning
algorithms, ELM not only tends to reach the smallest training error
but also to obtain the smallest norm of weights [25, 26].
For N arbitrary distinct samples (xi, ti), where
xi = (xi1 , xi2 , …, xin )T ∈ Rn (12)

∂P2 ∂P2 ∂P2 ∂P2 ∂P2 ∂P2

⋯ ⋯
∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δn ∂ V¯ m + 1 ∂ V¯ m + 2 ∂ V¯ n
∂P3 ∂P3 ∂P3 ∂P3 ∂P3 ∂P3
⋯ ⋯
ΔP2 ∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δn ∂ V¯ m + 1 ∂ V¯ m + 2 ∂ V¯ n Δδ2
ΔP3 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ Δδ3
⋮ ∂Pn ∂Pn ∂Pn ∂Pn ∂Pn ∂Pn ⋮
⋯ ⋯
ΔPn ∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δn ∂ V¯ m + 1 ∂ V¯ m + 2 ∂ V¯ n Δδn
= (2)
ΔQm + 1 ∂Qm + 1 ∂Qm + 1 ∂Qm + 1 ∂Qm + 1 ∂Qm + 1 ∂Qm + 1 Δ V¯ m + 1
⋯ ⋯
ΔQm + 2 ∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δn ∂ V¯ m + 1 ∂ V¯ m + 2 ∂ V¯ n Δ V¯ m + 2
⋮ ∂Qm + 2 ∂Qm + 2 ∂Qm + 2 ∂Qm + 2 ∂Qm + 2 ∂Qm + 2 ⋮
⋯ ⋯
ΔQn ∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δn ∂ V¯ m + 1 ∂ V¯ m + 2 ∂ V¯ n Δ V¯ n
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
∂Qn ∂Qn ∂Qn ∂Qn ∂Qn ∂Qn
⋯ ⋯
∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δn ∂ V¯ m + 1 ∂ V¯ m + 2 V¯ n
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 22, pp. 5058-5070 5059
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 17518695, 2019, 22, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.0531 by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ti = (ti1 , ti2 , …, tim) TRm (13) H† = (HTH)−1H (20)

Standard SLFNs with N ≈ nodes and activation function g(x) are This solution is accurate as long as the square matrix (HTH) is
mathematically modelled as invertible. However, it is singular in some applications. In SLFN, it
is singular in most of the cases since there is a tendency to select
N≈ m ≪ n. In ELM. Huang et al. have solved this problem using
∑ βig(wi . x j + bi) = o j Moore–Penrose pseudo inverse of H matrix to overcome this
i=1 (14) problem [27, 30, 31].
j = 1, … , N
5 Simulation and results analysis
where wi = (wi1, wi2, …, win) T is the weight vector connection of 5.1 Grid and problem description
the ith hidden node and input nodes, βi = (βi1, βi2, …, βim)T is the
weight vector connecting the ith hidden node and output nodes, bi Keeping in mind the end goal to check the execution of the above
thoughts referred to earlier, we considered in the simulation section
is the threshold of the ith hidden node and wi and x j denote the an Algerian (Adrar) 22-bus system using power word simulator
inner products of wi and x j. software.
That standard SLFN with N ≈ hidden nodes and g(x) activation The software contains a highly effective power flow analysis
function can approximate these N samples with zero package capable of efficiently solving systems with up to 100,000
buses. Simulation section is divided into four phases:
N≈
∑ ∥ oj − t j ∥ = 0 (15) (i) First step: We performed load flow analysis using Newton–
j=1 Raphson method for Algerian (Adrar) 22-bus system, under normal
conditions.
which means there exist βi, wi and bi such that (ii) Second step: We inserted a wind turbine (20 MW) into the
system; we studied the grid behaviour, identified the weak
N≈ N≈ elements and determined the number of the overloaded lines.
∑ βigi(x j) = ∑ βig(wi . x j + bi) = t j (16) (iii) Third step: We inserted UPFC in the violated lines to monitor
i=1 i=1 flows, to eliminate the overload, to minimise losses and so the
congestion cost.
Equation (16) can be written compactly as
(iv) Fourth step: On the basis of the third step results, we
introduced ELM-based alleviation algorithm to manage the
Hβ = T (17)
congestion and optimise the simulation time, losses and congestion
cost. ELM built predictor is then applied in power system for
where
different congestion conditions to verify its generalisation
performance in real time. ELM-based approach is performed
utilising MATLAB environment.
H(w1…wN , x1…xN , b1…bN ≈)
The Algerian (Adrar) 22-bus system exposed in Fig. 1 is a hybrid
g(w1 . x1 + b1) … g(wN ≈ . x1 + bN ≈) (18) grid, where photovoltaic energy reaches 46 MW, and the wind farm
has a capacity of 20 MW which is disconnected in the beginning.
= ⋮ … ⋮ Bus number 3 is considered as a slack bus. The two generators
g(w1 . xN + b1) … g(wN ≈ . xN + bN ≈) N ∗ N≈
connected at bus 11 are on automatic generation control (AGC)
mode to allow the power output of generators changing
T T automatically. Generators connected at bus 11 and also at bus 6 are
β1 t1
on automatic voltage regulator (AVR) mode to regulate voltage
β= ⋮ and T = ⋮ buses automatically. Load flow is solved based on Newton–
βN ≈ N ≈ ∗ m tN N ∗m
Raphson method, which is an available option in PowerWorld
Simulator software.
Thus, the ELM algorithm can be summarised as follows: Table 1 exposes the load demand variation during winter days.
Voltage profile and losses for the steady state (before renewable
Step 1: Randomly assign input weight W i and bias bi energy integration) are exposed in Figs. 2a and b.

(i = 1, 2, …, N) . 5.2 Wind farm insertion

Step 2: Calculate the hidden layer output matrix H.
Step 3: Calculate the output weight β by β = H†T.
If the hidden layer output matrix is non-square (that means
N ≈ < N), the determinant of H (det H = 0) and (rank H < N ≈), in
linear algebra matrix, is assessed as a singular matrix that cannot
be directly inverted [27–29]
β = (HTH)−1HTT
The inverse of H cannot be determined if H is not a full-rank
matrix. In this case, the generalised inverse matrix, known as
pseudo inverse, is used. To calculate the pseudo inverse, various
approaches can be applied. The most widely known type is the
Moore–Penrose pseudo inverse [27, 30]. The pseudo inverse of the
matrix H, namely H†, can be computed via least-square solution
In this stage, 20 MW of wind source is connected to the studied
electric system at bus 15. It is observed in Fig. 3 the violations
occurring in lines (7–21), (21–10), (10–22), (22–18) and (18–5)
due to the wind energy insertion. It is also noted the variation in
load flow, the generators output and the voltage profile.
The proposed case (while integrating the wind farm) is studied
during winter days, where the load average variation is within: the
evening peak 145 MW and the night dip, which reaches 81 MW.
(19) The two critical scenarios that could happen to the net and must be
studied while integrating a wind farm are either:
• A high wind energy penetration rate with maximum demand.
• A high penetration rate with minimal demand.
Since it is more severe and to guarantee system security, we
discussed in this paper the electric net behaviour during evening
peak: 145 MW, with a high wind energy penetration (20 MW).

5060 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 22, pp. 5058-5070
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 17518695, 2019, 22, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.0531 by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Fig. 1 Algerian (Adrar) 22-bus system in power word simulator

Table 1 Algerian electric demand during a winter day

Day peak, MW Evening peak, MW Night dip, MW
117 145 81

Fig. 2 Power system profile at steady state

(a) Voltage profile,
(b) Total losses

Fig. 3 Wind farm insertion in Algerian (Adrar) 22-bus system

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 22, pp. 5058-5070 5061
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 17518695, 2019, 22, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.0531 by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Fig. 4 Grid profile while wind farm integration
(a) Voltage profile,
(b) Total losses

Table 2a Line flow and limit monitoring

From num To num MW from Mvar from MVA from Percentage of MVA
5 18 −13.4612 26.6405 29.8483 96.7373
7 21 28.5823 −13.6572 31.6775 103.2067
21 10 23.2835 −19.052 30.0849 98.4114
22 10 −18.8158 26.4295 32.4431 101.3847
22 18 18.8158 −26.4295 32.4431 101.3847

Table 2b Load shedding

Number of buses Current MW Current Mvar Base MW Base Mvar
9 9.9924 2.0000 10.0000 2.0000
13 9.9791 1.9958 10.0000 2.0000
14 9.7806 1.9958 10.0000 2.0000
15 4.9870 0.9974 5.0000 1.0000
16 4.6657 0.9331 5.0000 1.0000
16 4.6657 1.8663 5.0000 2.0000
19 4.6068 0.9214 5.0000 1.0000
19 4.6068 1.8427 5.0000 2.0000
20 9.9436 2.9831 10.0000 3.0000

Voltage profile and losses in this case (wind energy connection)
are exposed in Figs. 4a and b.
Table 2a exposes line flow in violated lines precising the
overload percentage, whereas Table 2b shows the unsatisfactory
load connected to different buses.
5.3 UPFC insertion-system relief
To reduce the flow over the violated lines and to enhance the
system security, we connected UPFC devices in overloaded lines
(7–21), (21–10), (10–22) (22–18) and (18-5) as it is shown in
Fig. 5. Power flow is always solved based on Newton–Raphson
technique.
The grid voltage profile and total system losses are shown in
Figs. 6a and b, respectively. Line flow obtained results are
presented in Table 3a and load consumption, which is satisfied in
Table 3b.
Significant enhancement of the system performance is observed
in Figs. 6a and b. By reducing the grid losses and maintaining the
voltage profile of the various buses within acceptable values.
5.4 Extreme learning machine
5.4.1 ELM algorithm and implementation: On the basis of
UPFC simulation section (Fig. 5), obtained results are used as
inputs of ELM-based algorithm (ELM). The off-line training
validation and test process are the first step to build the predictor
model (adjust the weights of the hidden layers), then the model can
be utilised in real power system time. The performance, training–
testing time and regression are illustrated in Figs. 7a–c,
respectively. Furthermore, the training, testing time and the
accuracy values for ELM proposed approach are exposed in
Table 4a as well for SVR and NNs algorithms in Table 4b (Fig 8).
5.4.2 Critical scenarios using ELM algorithm: In this phase, we
are going to vary the load at bus 15:(8, 10, 13) MW as it is shown
in Figs. 9a–12a, the main aim is to examine the ELM approach
generalisation performance. The system relief results are exposed
in Figs. 9b–11b and grid parameters are shown in Tables 5a, b–7a,
b: first case, load at bus 15 = 8 MW see (Fig. 9, Table 5a, b);
second case, load at bus 15 = 10 MW, see (Fig. 10, Table 6a, b);
and third case, load at bus 15 = 13 MW; see (Fig. 11, Table 7a, b).
5.5 Results analysis
5.5.1 Electrical grid steady-state operation: In the considered
power system [Algerian (Adrar) 22-bus system Fig. 1], the net is
operating under normal conditions (steady state). The load is
satisfied, no violations, weak elements or overloaded transmission
lines. It maintains requirements of reliability and safety. Power
flow analysis is solved using Newton–Raphson approach. Levels of
the voltage at any bus lie within acceptable values 0.99–1.06 pu
(Fig. 2a). The total system loss rate is acceptable 0.6 MW what
means (0.4%) of the total consumption (Fig. 2b). AGC mode is on
for the two generators connected at bus 11 to enable the generation
variation automatically (generators rescheduling). Generators
connected at bus 11 and also at bus 6 are on AVR mode to regulate
voltage buses automatically within generators limits. The total
hourly cost reaches the value €3990.90/h to reduce this rate; wind
source is inserted in the electrical grid.

5062 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 22, pp. 5058-5070
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 17518695, 2019, 22, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.0531 by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Fig. 5 System relief using UPFC

Fig. 6 Grid profile for system relief using UPFC

(a) Voltage profile,
(b) Total losses using UPFC

Table 3a Line flow and limit monitoring

From num To num MW from Mvar from % of MVA
5 18 −12.9390 −7.5041 46.7423
7 21 27.2428 2.8996 85.9665
21 10 22.1400 2.4917 69.624
22 10 −18.0231 −2.4331 56.8329
22 18 18.0233 2.4400 60.0993

Table 3b Load shedding

Number of buses Current MW Current Mvar Base MW Base Mvar
9 10.0000 2.0000 10.0000 2.0000
13 10.0000 2.0000 10.0000 2.0000
14 10.0000 2.0000 10.0000 2.0000
15 5.0000 1.0000 5.0000 1.0000
16 5.0000 1.0000 5.0000 1.0000
16 5.0000 2.0000 5.0000 2.0000
19 5.0000 1.0000 5.0000 1.0000
19 5.0000 2.0000 5.0000 2.0000
20 10.0000 3.0000 10.0000 3.0000
Total losses = 0.7834 MW and − 15.7190 Mvar.

5.5.2 Wind farm penetration: Fig. 3 shows the wind farm (20 • Significant transits on lines (7–21)103%, (21–10)98%, (10–
MW) insertion at bus 15, which caused: 22)101%, (22–18)101% and (18–5)96%.
• Voltage drops (0.57 pu) at bus 19 (Fig. 4a).
• Generators output and load flow variation. • Load shedding Table 2b.

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 22, pp. 5058-5070 5063
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

• Significant reduction in the operation hourly cost €2886.72/h.
The increased reactive power generated by the plant connected at
the slack bus (32 Mvar), supplied by transmitting lines, caused the
voltage to fall drastically at the receiving-end side (buses). This
17518695, 2019, 22, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.0531 by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
low-voltage led to overload and overheating of transmission lines
and risk of equipment failures. It is not allowed to transport
reactive energy. In general, it is more cost-effective at the system
level to generate reactive power at the location, where it is needed
to avoid higher losses and large voltage deviations. Furthermore,

Fig. 7 ELM proposed algorithm training process

(a) Performance,
(b) Training and testing times,
(c) Regression

Table 4a Training, testing time and accuracy for ELM

Training time, s Testing time, s Training accuracy Test accuracy
0.0313 0.0023 4.256 × 10−21 1.946 × 10−21

5064 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 22, pp. 5058-5070
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

Table 4b Training, testing time and accuracy for SVR and NN algorithm
Algorithm NN
training time, s
accuracy 2.410 × 10−16
Total losses = 0.7816 MW and −15,7507 Mvar.
Fig. 8 System relief using ELM algorithm
the transport of reactive power is possible only over limited
distances.
We have a threat to the system security, which must be solved
immediately. System losses reached 2.39 MW (Fig. 4b). The
critical limits are mentioned in red colour.
5.5.3 Response of power system to UPFC connection: A
corrective control action must be taken to eliminate such overloads.
The most practised technique for overload alleviation is the facts
devices insertion. In our case, we tried to improve the system
behaviour and to enhance the grid parameters utilising UPFC
device.
To change the power flow way in the electrical system, we need
to be able to control all the three parameters simultaneously:
voltage, impedance and phase angle. Four UPFC devices are
connected in congested lines (7–21), (21–10), (22–18) and (18–5)
to control the transferred powers at sending and receiving sides and
to monitor flows through transmission lines.
The initial real and reactive power flows in the transmission
lines are 28.54 MW and − 13.66 Mvar (7–21), 23.25 MW and
−19.02 Mvar (21–10), 18.78 MW and −26.36 Mvar (10–22), 18.78
MW and −26.36 Mvar (22–18) and 13.43 MW and −26.54 Mvar
(18–5). After the UPFC connection, the line flow is changed to
27.24 MW and 2.90 Mvar (7–21), 22.14 MW and 2.49 Mvar (21–
10), 18.02 MW and 2.43 Mvar (10–22), 18.02 MW and 2.44 Mvar
(22–18) and 12.94 MW and 7.50 Mvar (18–5) as it is shown in
(Fig. 5). The series converter of UPFC controls the transmission
line real/reactive power flows by injecting a series voltage,
whereas the shunt converter controls the UPFC bus voltage/shunt
reactive power. The interaction between the series injected voltage,
and the transmission line current leads to a real and reactive power
exchange between the series converter and the power system. That
means UPFC can generate or absorb the needed reactive power
locally by the switching operation of its converters. Thus, the
decrease of the reactive generated power by the plant connected at
the slack bus.
We can see clearly that the line flow, bus voltage and the
generator's output are changed (AGC mode on and AVR mode on).
A variation in the generation schedule is noted due to the decrease
in transmission line reactive power), some generators back down
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 22, pp. 5058-5070
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
17518695, 2019, 22, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.0531 by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SVR
21 34
3.666 × 10−14
while others increase their output (generation values at bus 11:9.8
MW, slack generator: 22 MW and −3 Mvar) as results:
• Congestion problem well-handled in optimal manner,
overloaded lines relief (7–21) 86%, (21–10)70%, (10–22)57%,
(22–18)60% and (18–5)47% (Fig. 5).
• Voltage profile improvement (bus16 from 0.58 to 1.01 pu), (bus
19 from 0.57 to 1 pu) (Fig. 6a). This enhancement in voltage
values is caused by the UPFC connexion as well the AVR in
generators connected at buses 6 and 11. To allow for
automatically maintaining generators output terminal voltage at
a set value under varying load, by modifying the excitation of
the generator within the machine's limit.
• Avoidance of: elements outages, cascade failure and load
shedding which is satisfied.
• Remarkable reduction in total losses, attaining 0.78 MW.
• Minimum rescheduling cost reaching €2865.69/h.
5.5.4 Extreme learning machine: For further optimisation in
time and accuracy, we introduced ELM-based alleviation algorithm
ELM.
The proposed ELM approach has been implemented in
MATLAB software.
Results obtained in the precedent section (UPFC results) are
used as input matrix; containing power system operating variables,
which are: bus number (n), bus voltage values (Vi), phase angle
(δi), load demand (PDi real and QDi reactive powers). The target
matrix is line flow parameters: (Pij real and Qij reactive powers),
transmission line capacity (C) and generators output (Pgi, Qgi)
(Fig. 12).
The database is randomly partitioned into two non-overlapped
sets. One consists of 75% of the total input matrix for training and
validation. The other set which is about 25% is reserved as the test
set. The optimal ELM structure can be determined as the one
which results in the lowest validation error. The generalisation
(ELM approach used in real power system time) is based on the
increment of the power demand among the load bus (load at bus
15).
The training process has been repeated for 50 times, Tables 4a
and b show a comparison between the proposed ELM-based
5065

Fig. 9 ELM-based alleviation for Algerian grid overload (load at bus 15 = 8 MW)
(a) Algerian grid with wind farm and load at bus 15 = 8 MW,
(b) System relief based on ELM (load at bus 15 = 8 MW)
alleviation and other techniques which are the NN and SVR. It is
clear that ELM approach is the fastest algorithm and the most
accurate. The performance of ELM-based alleviation algorithm is
evaluated including the mean squared error. The best training and
test accuracy are about 4.2564 × 10−21 and 1.9465 × 10−21,
respectively, reached at 58 iterations as it is mentioned in Table 4a
and also Figs. 7a and b. The training time reaches 0.03125 s,
whereas the test time is 0.0023 s. The exactitude can be interpreted
in the plot (Fig. 7c), the outputs and the targets are entirely
identical.
The model is built; bias and weights are fixed.
Fig. 8 shows the system relief utilising ELM trained model. The
overload is eliminated successfully. A significant reduction in
system loss is obtained: 0.7816 MW and −15.7507 Mvar, close to
results found in UPFC section: 0.7834 MW and −15.7190 Mvar.
Finally, to improve the generalisation performance of the ELM-
based alleviation approach, the trained model can be applied online
for real power system time, by varying the load in bus 15 to reach
the different values 8, 10, 13 MW. The overload results are shown
in Figs. 9a–11a.
5066
17518695, 2019, 22, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.0531 by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The new parameters offered by ELM-based alleviation
algorithm are sent instantly to AVR and AGC to manage the
congestion.
The generators are rescheduled using AGC. AGC optimises the
operation of generation units using real-time data such as
frequency, actual generation, tie-line load flows and plant units’
controller status to provide generation changes (Figs. 9b–11b). The
AVR allows for automatically maintaining generators output
terminal voltage at a set value under varying load, taking into
account the limit of excitation.
The reduction of the transported reactive power participated in
system mitigation. This reduction is due to the minimisation of the
reactive power generation at bus 3 −3.52, −3.55, −3.66 Mvar,
Tables 5b–7b for the three cases, respectively.
It is evident to note from the different results of the studied
cases: the overload mitigation, load satisfaction, enhancement of
the voltage profile, minimisation of the total system losses and cost
congestion. The benefit of the utilised technique is the easy, high
and global control and coordination. Corrections can be achieved
automatically since AGC and AVR regulator signals, and the tie-
line protections are masterminded automatically and instantly. The
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 22, pp. 5058-5070
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

new corrected planning schedule issue of the proposed novel can
be sent instantly to the AGC and AVR to proceed the congestion
management without any need to the UPFC devices insertion since
the facts technology is very expensive, and can amplify the
congestion cost more.
The timing is the most crucial factor in alleviating the grid
overload, and this is the advantage of the proposed approach. The
time reduction is a minimisation of the threat and risk of outages
and cascade failure; furthermore, a blackout. Additionally, the
diminution of the flow in the congested lines and also the
congestion management time leads to a fuel optimisation; this can
be seen clearly by making a simple comparison between losses and
congestion cost in the different cases.
• First case: total losses: 0.7725 MW and − 15.8885 Mvar;
congestion cost: €2878.68/h
• Second case: total losses: 0.7707 MW and − 15.8836 Mvar;
congestion cost: €2888.48/h
• Third case: total losses 0.7647 MW and − 15.6352 Mvar;
congestion cost: €2891.78/h
Fig. 10 ELM-based alleviation for Algerian grid overload (load at bus 15 = 10 MW)
(a) Algerian grid with wind farm integration and load at bus 15 = 10 MW,
(b) System relief based on ELM (load at bus 15 = 10 MW)
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 22, pp. 5058-5070
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
17518695, 2019, 22, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.0531 by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 Conclusion
As a novel and promising learning technology, ELM has solved
many real-world engineering problems including electric power
systems complications. The ability to regulate power flow through
transmission lines and to alleviate system overload is of particular
importance. Therefore, we employed ELM in this paper to treat
this huge and severe problem caused by the wind energy
connection. In this paper, we have investigated its remarkable
efficiency, simplicity and impressive generalisation performance.
The ELM proposed novel eliminated complete overload, without
the need of inserting UPFC devices, and by consequence
minimising the congestion cost. The case study showed that the
value of the weight of its hidden layer need not be tuned, and this is
what makes it extremely fast. Obtained simulation results showed a
real-time learning about seconds, milliseconds and even
microseconds, whereas other techniques such as NNs and SVMs
are suffering from slow learning speed and the poor learning
scalability. The observed reduction in computational time allows
estimations closer to the real time of power system, relevant to
5067
 17518695, 2019, 22, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.0531 by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Fig. 11 ELM-based alleviation for Algerian grid overload (load at bus 15 = 13 MW)
(a) Algerian grid with wind farm integration and load at bus15 = 13 MW,
(b) System relief based on ELM (load at bus 15 = 13 MW)

Table 5a Line flow and limit monitoring

From num To num MW from Mvar from Percentage of MVA
5 18 −12.5374 −7.6219 45.8413
7 21 26.8301 2.8569 84.7097
21 10 21.7305 2.5029 68.3568
22 10 −17.6182 −2.5086 55.6121
22 18 17.6182 2.5086 59.0451

Table 5b Generator output

Number of bus Gen MW Gen Mvar
3 22.82 −3.47
11 13.66 5.00
11 13.30 5.00
Total losses = 0.7725 MW and − 15.8885 Mvar.

5068 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 22, pp. 5058-5070
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 17518695, 2019, 22, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.0531 by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Table 6a Line flow and limit monitoring
From num To num MW from Mvar from Percentage of MVA
5 18 −12.3771 −7.6297 45.4369
7 21 26.6655 2.8059 84.1893
21 10 21.5671 2.4702 67.8379
22 10 −17.4566 −2.4975 55.1072
22 18 17.4566 2.4975 58.5805

Table 6b Generator output

Number of buses Gen MW Gen Mvar
3 22.47 −3.52
11 11.33 5.00
11 10.97 5.00
Total losses = 0.7707 MW and −15.8838 Mvar.

Table 7a Line flow and limit monitoring

From num To num MW from Mvar from Percentage of MVA
5 18 −12.1898 −7.5711 44.8428
7 21 26.4731 2.6912 83.5495
21 10 21.3760 2.3717 67.2099
22 10 −17.2675 −2.4181 54.4874
22 18 17.2675 2.4181 57.9587

Table 7b Generator output

Number of buses Gen MW Gen Mvar
3 22.68 −3.55
11 12.25 5.00
11 11.89 5.00
Total losses = 0.7647 MW and −15.6352 MV.

short-term operational assessments, which is the major gain in this

paper.
The effectiveness of the ELM proposed novel could add a
reasonable economic and technique improvement in real power
system operation, especially the overload problem.

Fig. 12 Flowchart of ELM algorithm and implementation

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 22, pp. 5058-5070 5069
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

7 References
[1] Guang-Bin, H., Qin-Yu, Z., Chee-Kheong, S.: ‘Extreme learning machine:
theory and applications’, Neurocomputing, 2006, 70, pp. 489–501
[2] Shafiullah, M., Abido, M.A., Al-Hamouz, Z.: ‘Wavelet-based extreme
learning machine for distribution grid fault location’, IET Gener. Transm.
Distrib., 2017, 11, (17), pp. 4256–4263, doi:10.1049/iet-gtd.0656
[3] Boser, B.E., Guyon, I.M., Vapnik, V.N.: ‘A training algorithm for optimal
margin classifiers’. Proc. COLT ‘92 Proc. Fifth Annual Workshop on
Computational Learning Theory, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 27–29 July 1992, pp.
144–152
[4] Vapnik, V., Golowich, S.E., Smola, A.: ‘Support vector method for function
approximation, regression estimation, and signal processing’, Adv. Neural Inf.
Process. Syst., 1997, 9, pp. 281–287
[5] Canu, S., Grandvalet, Y., Guigue, V., et al.: ‘SVM and kernel methods
MATLAB toolbox’, Percept. Syst. Inf., 2003, 69, p. 70
[6] Huang, G.A., Guang-Bin, H., Shiji, S., et al.: ‘Trends in extreme learning
machines: a review’, Neural Netw., 2015, 61, pp. 32–48
[7] Yan, X., Yuanyu, D., Zhao, Y.D., et al.: ‘Extreme learning machine-based
predictor for real-time frequency stability assessment of electric power
systems’, Neural Comput. Appl., 2013, 22, pp. 501–508
[8] Shan, P., Xinyi, Y.: ‘Deep convolutional extreme learning machine and its
application in handwritten digit classification’, Comput. Intell. Neurosci.,
2016, 3, pp. 1–10, doi: 10.1155/2016/3049632
[9] Gopiya, N.S., Khatod, D.K., Sharma, M.P.: ‘Dispersed generation impact on
distribution systems’, Int. J. Electr. Electron. Eng., 2012, 2, (1), pp. 2231–
5284
[10] Saadat, H.: ‘Power system analysis’, in Stephen, W. (Eds.): ‘McGraw Hill
series in electrical and computer engineering’ (McGraw Hill, New York, NY,
USA, 1999, 3rd edn.), 697 pages
[11] Labed, I., Labed, D., Mansour, Z., et al.: ‘Influence of the wind farm
integration on load flow, voltage in electrical power system’, Int. J. Hydrog.
Energy, 2016, 41, (29), pp. 12603–12617
[12] Jankovıc, S., Ivanovıc, B.: ‘Application of combined Newton–Raphson
method to large load flow models’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2015, 40, pp.
127–134
[13] Houria, S., Rezak, A., Abdellah, M.: ‘Impact of large scale power plant
connection on congestion in the Algerian electricity transmission system’,
Energy, 2018, 159, pp. 115–120
[14] Houria, S., Rezak, A., Abdellah, M.: ‘Optimal design of the electric
connection of a wind farm’, Energy, 2018, 165, pp. 972–983
[15] Gholami-Khesht, H., Monfared, M.: ‘Novel grid voltage estimation by means
of the Newton–Raphson optimization for three-phase grid connected voltage
source converters’, IET Power Electron., 2014, 7, (12), pp. 2945–2953, doi:
10. 1049 /iet-pel.2014.0061
[16] Kamel, S., Abdel-Akher, M., Chen, Z., et al.: ‘Developed generalized unified
power flow controller model in the Newton–Raphson power-flow analysis
using combined mismatches method’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2016, 10,
(9), pp. 2177–2184, doi:10. 1049/iet-gtd.2015.1247
5070
17518695, 2019, 22, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.0531 by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
[17] Mehrdad, T.H., Mehdi, A.J.: ‘Robust method for state estimation of power
system with UPFC’, Turk. J. Electr. Eng. Commun., 2010, 18, (4), pp. 571–
582
[18] Maza, O.J.M., Acha, E., Garcia, S., et al.: ‘Overview of power electronics
technology and applications in power generation transmission and
distribution’, J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean, 2017, 5, pp. 499–514
[19] Vikram Rajan, J.: ‘Unified power flow controller used power system stability
enhancement under three phase fault’, Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol., 2014, 3, (7),
pp. 131–139
[20] Ghahremani, E, Innocent, K.: ‘Optimal placement of multiple-type FACTS
devices to maximize power system loadability using a generic graphical user
interface’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2013, 28, (2), pp. 764–778
[21] Sebaa, M., Allaoui, T., Denai, M., et al.: ‘A robust adaptive fuzzy control of a
unified power flow controller’, Turk. J. Electr. Eng. Commun., 2012, 20, (1),
pp. 87–98
[22] Georgilakis, P., Hatziargyriou, N.: ‘Unified power flow controllers in smart
power systems: models, methods, and future research’, IET Smart Grid, 2018,
2, (1), pp. 2–10, doi:10.1049/iet-stg.2018.0065
[23] Aree, P: ‘Precise dynamic initialization of fixed-speed wind turbines under
active-stall and active-pitch controls from their aerodynamic power
coefficients using unified Newton–Raphson power-flow approach’, IET
Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2018, 12, (1), pp. 9–19, doi:10.1049/iet-
gtd.2016.1225
[24] Yang Gu, A.B.N., Junfa Liu, A., Yiqiang Chen, A., et al.: ‘TOSELM:
timeliness online sequential extreme learning machine’, Neurocomputing,
2014, 128, (27), pp. 119–127
[25] Xu, Y., Dong, Z.Y., Meng, K., et al.: ‘Real-time transient stability assessment
model using extreme learning machine’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, 5,
(3), pp. 314–322
[26] Zhixiang, X.C., Houying, Y.Z., Yuguang, G., et al.: ‘Modified extreme
learning machine with sigmoidal activation functions’, Neural Comput. Appl.,
2013, 22, (3), pp. 541–550
[27] Yakup, K., Apdullah, Y., Esen, Y., et al.: ‘LU triangularization extreme
learning machine in EEG cognitive task classification’, Neural Comput.
Appl., 2017, 1, pp. 1–10, doi: 10.1007/s 00521-017-3142-
[28] Tawfek, M., Zhao, Y.D., Jin, M.: ‘An advanced approach for optimal wind
power generation prediction intervals by using self-adaptive evolutionary
extreme learning machine’, Renew. Energy 2018, 126, pp. 254–269
[29] Yuan, A., Hong Chen, B.N., Yicong, Z.C., et al.: ‘Generalization ability of
extreme learning machine with uniformly ergodic Markov chains Peipei’,
Neurocomputing, 2015, 167, pp. 528–534
[30] Huang, G.B., Siew, C.K.: ‘Extreme learning machine with randomly assigned
RBF kernels’, Int. J. Inf. Technol., 2005, 11, (1), pp. 16–24
[31] Mahmoud, T., Dong, Z.Y., Ma, J: ‘Advanced method for short-term wind
power prediction with multiple observation points using extreme learning
machines’, J. Eng., 2018, 1, pp. 29–38, doi:10.1049/joe.2017.0338
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 22, pp. 5058-5070
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019