PV Buses

 Since the voltage magnitude at PV buses is fixed

there is no need to explicitly include these voltages
in x or write the reactive power balance equations
– the reactive power output of the generator varies to
maintain the fixed terminal voltage (within limits)
– optionally these variations/equations can be included by
just writing the explicit voltage constraint for the
generator bus

|Vi | – Vi setpoint = 0

1
Two Bus Newton-Raphson Example

For the two bus power system shown below, use the
Newton-Raphson power flow to determine the
voltage magnitude and angle at bus two. Assume
that bus one is the slack and SBase = 100 MVA.
Line Z = 0.1j

One 1.000 pu Two 1.000 pu

0 MW 200 MW
0 MVR 100 MVR

2    j10 j10 

x    Ybus   
 V2   j10  j10  2
Two Bus Example, cont’d

General power balance equations

n
Pi   Vi Vk (Gik cosik  Bik sin ik )  PGi  PDi
k 1
n
Qi   Vi Vk (Gik sin ik  Bik cos ik )  QGi  QDi
k 1
Bus two power balance equations
V2 V1 (10sin  2 )  2.0  0
2
V2 V1 ( 10cos  2 )  V2 (10)  1.0  0

3
Two Bus Example, cont’d

P2 (x)  V2 (10sin  2 )  2.0  0

2
Q2 (x)  V2 (10 cos  2 )  V2 (10)  1.0  0
Now calculate the power flow Jacobian
 P2 (x) P2 (x) 
  V 2 
2
J ( x)   
 Q 2 (x) Q 2 (x) 
   V 2 
 2

10 V2 cos 2 10sin  2 

 
10 V2 sin  2 10 cos 2  20 V2 
4
Two Bus Example, First Iteration

(0) 0
Set v  0, guess x  
1 
Calculate

(0)
 V2 (10sin  2 )  2.0   2.0 
f(x )   2   1.0 
 V2 (10 cos  2 )  V2 (10)  1.0   
(0) 10 V2 cos 2 10sin  2  10 0 
J (x )      0 10 
10 V2 sin  2 10cos 2  20 V2   
1
(1) 0  10 0   2.0   0.2 
Solve x    1.0    
1
   0 10     0.9 
5
Two Bus Example, Next Iterations

(1)  0.9 (10sin(0.2))  2.0  0.212 

f(x )   2  
0.9(10 cos( 0.2))  0.9  10  1.0   0.279 
(1)  8.82 1.986 
J (x )   
 1.788 8.199 
1
(2)  0.2   8.82 1.986  0.212   0.233
x         
 0.9   1.788 8.199   0.279   0.8586 
(2)  0.0145 (3)  0.236 
f(x )    x   
 0.0190   0.8554 
(3) 0.0000906 
f(x )    Done! V2  0.8554  13.52
 0.0001175 
6
Two Bus Solved Values

Once the voltage angle and magnitude at bus 2 are

known we can calculate all the other system values,
such as the line flows and the generator reactive
power output
200.0 MW -200.0 MW
168.3 MVR Line Z = 0.1j -100.0 MVR

One 1.000 pu Two 0.855 pu -13.522 Deg

200.0 MW 200 MW
168.3 MVR 100 MVR

7
 Two Bus Case Low Voltage Solution
This case actually has two solutions! The second
"low voltage" is found by using a low initial guess.
(0)  0 
Set v  0, guess x  
 0.25 
Calculate

(0)
 V2 (10sin  2 )  2.0   2 
f(x )   2    0.875
 V2 (10cos  2 )  V2 (10)  1.0   
(0) 10 V2 cos 2 10sin  2   2.5 0 
J (x )      0 5 
10 V2 sin  2 10 cos 2  20 V2   
8
 Low Voltage Solution, cont'd
1
(1)  0   2.5 0   2   0.8 
Solve x          
 0.25   0  5   0.875   0.075 
(2) 1.462  (2)  1.42  (3)  0.921
f (x )    x   x  
 0.534   0.2336   0.220 
Low voltage solution
200.0 MW -200.0 MW
831.7 MVR Line Z = 0.1j -100.0 MVR

One 1.000 pu Two 0.261 pu -49.914 Deg

200.0 MW 200 MW
831.7 MVR 100 MVR

9
Two Bus Region of Convergence
Slide shows the region of convergence for different initial
guesses of bus 2 angle (x-axis) and magnitude (y-axis)
Red region
converges
to the high
voltage
solution,
while the
yellow region
converges
to the low
voltage
solution
10
Using the Power Flow: Example 1

A
SLA CK3 4 5
MVA
A

MVA

2 1 8 MW
1 .0 2 pu RA Y 3 4 5
sla ck
5 4 M var
A A A

1 .0 2 pu MVA MVA SLA C K1 3 8 MVA

T IM 3 4 5
1 .0 1 pu RA Y 1 3 8

Using
A
A

MVA
A
1 .0 3 pu
T IM 1 3 8
MVA
MVA
1 .0 0 pu 3 3 MW A

1 .0 2 pu
1 3 M var MVA
A
A
1 6 .0 Mvar 1 8 MW
1 .0 2 pu RA Y 6 9

case
MVA
MVA 5 Mvar 3 7 MW
A
1 7 MW A

1 .0 2 pu T IM 6 9 P A I6 9 1 3 M var
1 .0 1 pu MVA 3 M var MVA
A

2 3 MW 1 .0 1 pu GRO SS6 9 A
A MVA
7 M var

from
MVA
FERNA 6 9
MVA A
1 .0 1 pu WO LEN6 9
A 2 1 MW
M O RO1 3 8 MVA

MVA
H ISKY6 9 7 Mvar
A
A
4 .8 M var
1 2 MW MVA
A MVA

Example
5 Mvar 2 0 MW 1 .0 0 pu MVA
8 Mvar A
1 .0 0 pu BOB1 3 8
P ET E6 9 A

MVA DEMA R6 9
1 .0 0 pu A A

H A NNA H 6 9 5 8 MW
MVA

MVA MVA
5 1 MW 4 0 M var
4 5 MW
1 5 M var 1 .0 2 pu BOB6 9

6.13
A

1 2 Mvar
2 9 .0 Mvar MVA
UIUC 6 9 0 .9 9 pu
1 4 .3 M var
1 .0 0 pu 1 4 0 MW 5 6 MW
1 2 .8 M var A

4 5 M var
A
MVA 1 3 M var LY NN1 3 8
A
0 MW
MVA
A 0 M var
MVA
A
MVA 5 8 MW A
14 MW
0 .9 9 7 pu BLT 1 3 8
3 6 M var MVA 1 .0 0 pu MVA 4 M var
0 .9 9 pu A M A NDA 6 9 A
A

A
SH IM KO6 9 1 .0 2 pu
H O M ER6 9 3 3 MW
MVA
MVA
7 .4 Mvar
A
MVA
1 0 Mvar 1 .0 1 pu A

BLT 6 9 MVA
A 1 .0 1 pu MVA

1 5 MW A MVA
1 5 MW
3 Mvar H A LE6 9 A 1 0 6 MW 5 M var
MVA
1 .0 0 pu 8 Mvar A

MVA

3 6 MW
MVA
A
A A
1 .0 1 pu
6 0 MW MVA 1 0 M var 7 .2 M var MVA
A
A
MVA
1 2 Mvar
1 .0 0 pu 1 .0 0 pu P A T T EN6 9 MVA

0 .0 Mvar A
MVA

4 5 MW 1 4 MW RO GER6 9
MVA
1 .0 0 pu WEBER6 9 0 M var
LA UF6 9 2 M var
1 .0 2 pu
2 3 MW
2 2 MW 0 MW
A A
6 M var 1 4 MW A

20 MW 1 5 M var 0 M var
MVA MVA 3 Mvar MVA
3 0 Mvar
1 .0 2 pu JO1 3 8 JO3 4 5
LA UF1 3 8 1 .0 2 pu SA V O Y6 9 4 2 MW
1 .0 0 pu
2 M var
1 .0 1 pu BUCKY 1 3 8 A

A MVA A

1 5 0 MW
MVA 1 .0 1 pu SA V O Y1 3 8 MVA
A A
0 M var
MVA MVA

1 5 0 MW
A
0 M var
MVA
1 .0 3 pu
1 .0 2 pu A

MVA

11
Three Bus PV Case Example
For this three bus case we have
 2   P2 ( x)  PG 2  PD 2 
x   3  f (x)   P3 (x)  PG 3  PD 3   0
   
 V2   Q2 ( x)  QD 2 
Line Z = 0.1j

0.941 pu
One 1.000 pu Two -7.469 Deg

170.0 MW 200 MW
68.2 MVR 100 MVR
Line Z = 0.1j Line Z = 0.1j

Three 1.000 pu

30 MW
63 MVR
12
Modeling Voltage Dependent Load

So far we've assumed that the load is independent of

the bus voltage (i.e., constant power). However, the
power flow can be easily extended to include voltage
depedence with both the real and reactive load. This
is done by making PDi and Q Di a function of Vi :
n
 Vi Vk (Gik cos ik  Bik sin  ik )  PGi  PDi ( Vi )  0
k 1
n
 Vi Vk (Gik sin  ik  Bik cos ik )  QGi  QDi ( Vi )  0
k 1
13
Voltage Dependent Load Example

In previous two bus example now assume the load is

constant impedance, so
2
P2 (x)  V2 (10sin  2 )  2.0 V2  0
2 2
Q2 (x)  V2 (10 cos  2 )  V2 (10)  1.0 V2  0
Now calculate the power flow Jacobian
10 V2 cos 2 10sin  2  4.0 V2 
J ( x)  
10 V2 sin  2 10 cos 2  20 V2  2.0 V2 

14
Voltage Dependent Load, cont'd

(0) 0 
Again set v  0, guess x  
1 
Calculate
 V 2 (10sin  2 )  2.0 V2
2   2.0 
(0)
f(x )     
2 2
 V2 (10cos  2 )  V2 (10)  1.0 V2  1.0 

(0) 10 4 
J (x )   
 0 12 
1
(1) 0  10 4   2.0   0.1667 
Solve x    1.0    
1
   0 12     0.9167 
15
Voltage Dependent Load, cont'd

With constant impedance load the MW/Mvar load at

bus 2 varies with the square of the bus 2 voltage
magnitude. This if the voltage level is less than 1.0,
the load is lower than 200/100 MW/Mvar
160.0 MW -160.0 MW
120.0 MVR Line Z = 0.1j -80.0 MVR

0.894 pu
One 1.000 pu Two -10.304 Deg

160.0 MW 160 MW
120.0 MVR 80 MVR

16
Solving Large Power Systems

 The most difficult computational task is inverting the

Jacobian matrix
– inverting a full matrix is an order n3 operation, meaning the
amount of computation increases with the cube of the size
size
– this amount of computation can be decreased substantially
by recognizing that since the Ybus is a sparse matrix, the
Jacobian is also a sparse matrix
– using sparse matrix methods results in a computational
order of about n1.5.
– this is a substantial savings when solving systems with tens
of thousands of buses
17
Newton-Raphson Power Flow

 Advantages
– fast convergence as long as initial guess is close to solution
– large region of convergence
 Disadvantages
– each iteration takes much longer than a Gauss-Seidel iteration
– more complicated to code, particularly when implementing
sparse matrix algorithms
 Newton-Raphson algorithm is very common in power flow
analysis

18
Dishonest Newton-Raphson

 Since most of the time in the Newton-Raphson

iteration is spend calculating the inverse of the
Jacobian, one way to speed up the iterations is to
only calculate/inverse the Jacobian occasionally
– known as the “Dishonest” Newton-Raphson
– an extreme example is to only calculate the Jacobian for
the first iteration
Honest: x(v 1)  x( v ) - J (x( v ) )-1f ( x( v ) )
Dishonest: x(v 1)  x( v ) - J ( x(0) )-1 f ( x( v ) )
(v )
Both require f (x )   for a solution
19
Dishonest Newton-Raphson Example

Use the Dishonest Newton-Raphson to solve

f ( x)  x 2 - 2  0
1
(v)  df ( x ) 
(0)
(v)
x    f ( x )
 dx 
 1  (v) 2
x ( v )    (0)  (( x ) - 2)
2x 
(v)  1 
x ( v 1)  x   (0)  (( x ( v ) ) 2 - 2)
2x 

20
Dishonest N-R Example, cont’d

( v 1) (v)  1  (v) 2

x  x   (0)  (( x ) - 2)
2x 
Guess x (0)  1. Iteratively solving we get
v x ( v ) (honest) x ( v ) (dishonest)
0 1 1 We pay a price
1 1.5 1.5 in increased
2 1.41667 1.375 iterations, but
with decreased
3 1.41422 1.429
computation
4 1.41422 1.408 per iteration
21
Two Bus Dishonest ROC
Slide shows the region of convergence for different initial
guesses for the 2 bus case using the Dishonest N-R
Red region
converges
to the high
voltage
solution,
while the
yellow region
converges
to the low
voltage
solution
22
Honest N-R Region of Convergence

Maximum
of 15
iterations

23
Decoupled Power Flow

 The completely Dishonest Newton-Raphson is not

used for power flow analysis. However several
approximations of the Jacobian matrix are used.
 One common method is the decoupled power flow.
In this approach approximations are used to
decouple the real and reactive power equations.

24
Decoupled Power Flow Formulation

General form of the power flow problem

 P (v ) P (v ) 
  (v) 
 θ V  θ  P ( x (v ) 
) (v )
      f ( x )
 Q ( v ) Q (v )    V   Q(x ( v ) ) 
( v )
 
 θ  V 
where
 P2 (x(v ) )  PD 2  PG 2 
(v)  
P (x )    
 P ( x( v ) )  P  P 
 n Dn Gn 
25
 Decoupling Approximation
P ( v ) Q ( v )
Usually the off-diagonal matrices, and
V θ
are small. Therefore we approximate them as zero:
 P ( v ) 
 0 
θ  θ (v) 
  P ( x (v ) 
)
        f ( x (v )
)
 Q    V 
(v) ( v )

 Q ( x (v)
) 
 0 
  V 
Then the problem can be decoupled
 P ( v )  1  Q ( v )  1
(v) (v) (v) (v)
θ    P ( x ) V    Q ( x )
 θ   V  26
Off-diagonal Jacobian Terms

Justification for Jacobian approximations:

1. Usually r x, therefore Gij  Bij
2. Usually  ij is small so sin  ij  0
Therefore
Pi
 Vi  Gij cos ij  Bij sin  ij   0
 Vj
Qi
  Vi V j  Gij cos ij  Bij sin  ij   0
θ j

27
Decoupled N-R Region of Convergence

28
Fast Decoupled Power Flow

 By continuing with our Jacobian approximations we

can actually obtain a reasonable approximation that is
independent of the voltage magnitudes/angles.
 This means the Jacobian need only be built/inverted
once.
 This approach is known as the fast decoupled power
flow (FDPF)
 FDPF uses the same mismatch equations as standard
power flow so it should have same solution
 The FDPF is widely used, particularly when we only
need an approximate solution
29
FDPF Approximations

The FDPF makes the following approximations:

1. G ij  0
2. Vi  1
3. sin  ij  0 cos ij  1
Then
(v ) (v)
(v) 1  P ( x ) (v ) 1 Q ( x )
θ  B (v )
 V B (v )
V V
Where B is just the imaginary part of the Ybus  G  jB,
except the slack bus row/column are omitted
30
FDPF Three Bus Example

Use the FDPF to solve the following three bus system

Line Z = j0.07

One Two

200 MW
100 MVR
Line Z = j0.05 Line Z = j0.1

Three 1.000 pu

200 MW
100 MVR  34.3 14.3 20 
Ybus  j  14.3 24.3 10 
 
 20 10 30 
31
FDPF Three Bus Example, cont’d

 34.3 14.3 20 
   24.3 10 
Ybus  j 14.3 24.3 10 B  
   10 30 
 20 10 30 
 0.0477 0.0159 
B 1   
 0.0159 0.0389 
Iteratively solve, starting with an initial voltage guess
(0) (0)
 2  0  V 2  1
    V   1
 3 0   3 
(1)
 2  0   0.0477 0.0159   2   0.1272 
         
 3 0
   0.0159 0.0389 2
   0.1091
32
FDPF Three Bus Example, cont’d

(1)
V 2  1  0.0477 0.0159  1  0.9364 
V   1   0.0159 0.0389  1   0.9455
 3      
Pi (x ) n PDi  PGi
  Vk (Gik cos ik  Bik sin  ik ) 
Vi k 1 Vi
(2)
 2   0.1272   0.0477 0.0159   0.151  0.1361
         
 3  0.1091    0.0159  0.0389  0.107    0.1156 
(2)
V 2  0.924 
V    
 3 0.936 
 0.1384   0.9224 
Actual solution: θ    V 
 0.1171  0.9338 
33
FDPF Region of Convergence

34
“DC” Power Flow

 The “DC” power flow makes the most severe

approximations:
– completely ignore reactive power, assume all the voltages are
always 1.0 per unit, ignore line conductance
 This makes the power flow a linear set of equations,
which can be solved directly

θ  B 1 P

35
Power System Control

 A major problem with power system operation is the

limited capacity of the transmission system
– lines/transformers have limits (usually thermal)
– no direct way of controlling flow down a transmission line
(e.g., there are no valves to close to limit flow)
– open transmission system access associated with industry
restructuring is stressing the system in new ways
 We need to indirectly control transmission line flow by
changing the generator outputs

36
Indirect Transmission Line Control

What we would like to determine is how a change in

generation at bus k affects the power flow on a line
from bus i to bus j.
The assumption is
that the change
in generation is
absorbed by the
slack bus

37
Power Flow Simulation - Before

One way to determine the impact of a generator change is to compare a before/after

power flow.
For example below is a three bus case with an overload

131.9 MW

124%

One Two

200.0 MW 68.1 MW 200 MW

68.1 MW 100 MVR
71.0 MVR

Z for all lines = j0.1

Three 1.000 pu

0 MW
64 MVR

38
Power Flow Simulation - After
Increasing the generation at bus 3 by 95 MW (and hence
decreasing it at bus 1 by a corresponding amount), results
in a 31.3 drop in the MW flow on the line from bus 1 to 2.
101.6 MW

100%

One Two

105.0 MW 3.4 MW 200 MW

98.4 MW 100 MVR
64.3 MVR
92%
Z for all lines = j0.1
Limit for all lines = 150 MVA
1.000 pu
Three
95 MW
64 MVR

39
Analytic Calculation of Sensitivities

 Calculating control sensitivities by repeat power

flow solutions is tedious and would require many
power flow solutions. An alternative approach is to
analytically calculate these values
The power flow from bus i to bus j is
Vi V j i   j
Pij  sin( i   j ) 
X ij X ij
 i   j  ij
So Pij  We just need to get
X ij PGk
40
Analytic Sensitivities

From the fast decoupled power flow we know

θ  B 1P (x)
So to get the change in θ due to a change of
generation at bus k, just set P( x) equal to
all zeros except a minus one at position k.
0
 
 
P   1  Bus k
0
 
   41
Three Bus Sensitivity Example
For the previous three bus case with Zline  j 0.1
 20 10 10 
   20 10 
Ybus  j 10 20 10  B   
   10 20 
 10 10 20 
Hence for a change of generation at bus 3
1
  2   20 10   0   0.0333
        
 3  10  20 
   1 0.0667 
0.0667  0
Then P3 to 1   0.667 pu
0.1
P3 to 2  0.333 pu P 2 to 1  0.333 pu
42