Chapter 3 Voltage Stability Enhancement
Chapter 3 Voltage Stability Enhancement
CHAPTER 3
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Optimal location of TCSC and UPFC using GA, EGA and PSO is also
done for IEEE 14 bus system.
The following section deals with the various techniques available for
performing voltage stability analysis.
3. Modal analysis
5. Index method.
6. Compensators
P-V curve method is one of the extensively used methods for voltage
stability analysis. Active power margin exists before the point of voltage
instability can be calculated. Changes in real power consumption for change
in voltage are monitored in a radial system. In huge meshed networks, real
40
power is the total active load in a area and V is the voltage of the critical bus.
Real power transferred throughout a transmission line is also studied by this
method [2].
3.2.6 Compensators
The participation factor of the jth variable in the ith mode is defined as
the product of the jth´s components of the right and left eigenvectors
corresponding to the ith mode. The magnitude of participation factors is
dimensionless. They are independent state variables. In a mode the sum of the
participation factors of all variables and the sum of the participation of all
modes in a variable are equal to one [9].
For the eigen value i of the matrix JR, if i and i correspond to the
right and left eigenvectors respectively, then the participation factor
measuring the participation of the kth bus in ith mode is defined as
Pki = ki ki (3.1)
V-Q sensitivity at ith mode is determined by the bus with highest Pki.
The area close to voltage instability is determined by bus participation factor
provided by the smallest eigen value of JR.
Power flow analysis is done for the base case for the test system. The
test system considered is IEEE 14 bus and IEEE 30 bus system. The Voltage
Profile graph which shows the voltages of all the buses in the system after the
load flow analysis is represented in the graph as shown in Figure 3.2. for 14
bus and Figure 3.3 for 30 bus system.
From the modal analysis calculation and the load flow analysis it is
found that the participation factor is more for the Bus 14, (Participation value
= 0.325) hence the bus is more sensitive to voltage collapse for 14 bus system.
For 30 bus system the participation factor is more for buses 26, 29 and
30 (Participation value = 0.1729, 0.1934 and 0.2118 respectively) compared
to other buses. Therefore the buses 26,29 and 30 is more sensitive to voltage
collapse in a 30 bus system.
The FVSI is derived from the voltage quadratic equation at the receiving
bus on a two- bus system [18].FVSI can be defined by
4Z 2Q j
FVSI ij 2 (3.2)
Vi X
The line that gives index value closest to 1 will be the most critical line
of the bus and may lead to system wide instability scenario. This index can
also be used to determine the most sensitive bus on the system.
X ij X ij 2
LQP 4 Pi Qj (3.3)
Vi 2 Vi 2
where
This index was derived based on a two machine model of the power
system connected by a single transmission. This is represented
mathematically as
4 Q j X ij
L mn 2 (3.4)
Vi sin
Lines that represent Lmn close to 1 reaching their stability limits while
those near zero are stable.
49
The loading pattern is chosen so that each time the load is changed in
only one particular node, keeping the load at other nodes fixed at base case.
Several combinations of real and reactive load pattern are selected to achieve
this and they are listed as follows
The analysis is conducted on the IEEE 30 bus system. Load buses are
selected in order to investigate the effect of reactive power loading on FVSI
values which in turn identifies the most critical line with respect to a bus.
Reactive power at load buses are gradually increased from the base case until
their highest permissible load or maximum loadability limit which is the
maximum load that could be injected to a load bus previous to the power flow
solution diverges.
Critical Critical
Bus Bus
Bus Qmax Line Bus Line
Voltage FVSI Q (MVAR) Voltage FVSI
No. (MVAR) connecting No. max connecting
(p.u) (pu)
bus bus
3 286 0.776 1-3 0.998 19 92.5 0.6135 10-20 0.9995
4 470 0.7391 2-4 0.973 20 88.5 0.6903 10-20 0.9941
6 680 0.7864 6-8 0.983 21 159 0.6245 6-10 0.9915
7 280 0.7573 5-7 0.99 22 148 0.6181 6-10 0.9846
9 175 0.8288 9-11 0.981 23 88.2 0.6713 23-24 0.9794
10 173 0.7491 6-10 0.992 24 105 0.6571 22-24 0.9918
12 206 0.8187 12-13 0.988 25 60.8 0.672 24-25 0.9942
14 82.2 0.7788 14-15 0.998 26 28.5 0.7079 25-26 0.9936
15 149 0.6776 12-15 0.99 27 57.1 0.7486 28-27 0.9971
16 112 0.7219 12-16 0.986 28 292 0.7368 8-28 0.9923
17 154 0.588 6-10 0.979 29 34.5 0.6514 27-29 0.9916
18 86.5 0.6686 15-18 0.976 30 31.05 0.6606 27-30 0.9931
to any load change at bus 26. Bus 26 has the least maximum permissible load
of 0.028589p.u and it is ranked the highest in the system and also the buses 29
and 30 have the lowest maximum loadability, these buses also consider as
critical buses and marked as bold in Table.. Since the bus 3, 4 and 6 have a
maximum permissible load of 2.85768p.u, 3.00089p.u and 3.1546p.u
respectively. These buses are the most secure buses in the system according to
the large maximum loadability.
FVSI FVSI
Rank Rank
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
1 26 26 30 13 22 15 10
2 30 30 29 14 15 22 24
3 29 29 26 15 17 17 22
4 27 25 18 16 21 21 17
5 25 27 14 17 10 12 21
6 14 18 27 18 9 10 4
7 18 19 25 19 12 9 9
8 23 23 20 20 7 3 12
9 20 14 19 21 3 28 3
10 19 20 23 22 28 7 7
11 24 24 15 23 4 4 28
12 16 16 16 24 6 6 6
2
C2 (PG) = 0 1PG 2PG (3.5)
Based the Siemens AG Database the cost function for the controller
that has been selected to use are as follows
Where
C1UPFC and C1TCSC are in US$ / kVar, rf– rating factor and s is the
operating range of the FACTS controller in MVar.
Where
CTotal: the overall cost objective function which includes the average
investment costs of FACTS devices C1 (f) and the generation cost C2(PG).
B1(f) and B2(g): are the inequality constraints for FACTS controllers
and the conventional power flow respectively.
f and PG: are vectors that represent the variables of FACTS controllers
and the active power outputs of the generators.
The unit for generation cost is US$/Hour and for the investment cost of
FACTS controllers are US$. They must be unified into US$/Hour. Normally
the FACTS controllers will be in service for many years. However only a part
of its life time is employed to regulate the power flow. In this work three
years is employed to evaluate the cost function.
The average value of the investment costs are calculated as follows [70]
1) Parent selection
2) Crossover
3) Mutation
1) The encoding, i.e., how the problem physical decision variables are
translated to a Genetic Algorithm chromosome and its inverse
operator, decoding;
3.10.1 Encoding
In the SGA, shown in Fig. 3.7, after the application of the basic genetic
operators (parent selection, crossover, and mutation) the advanced and
problem-specific operators are applied to produce the new generation. All
chromosomes in the initial population are created at random (every bit in the
chromosome has equal probability of being switched ON or OFF).
= (3.14)
( )
= ( , ). ( , )) (3.15)
Where
FF-fitness function;
A- constant;
NG -number of units;
In the EGA, [37] after the application of the basic genetic operators
(parent selection, crossover, and mutation) the advanced and problem-specific
operators are applied to produce the new generation.
2) Elitism: Elitism ensures that the best solution found thus far is never
lost when moving from one generation to another. The best solution of
each generation replaces a randomly selected chromosome in the new
generation.
distinguish between the Simple genetic algorithm and our EGA, operators
specific to the OPF problem have been added.
bit structures of improved performance, exploits new areas of the search space
far away from the current solution, and retains the diversity of the population.
PSO however does not need thisas it only requires the evaluation of
each solution by the fitness function depending on the set of optimized
parameters. This function is also used by GA and so is the idea of the
initialization of parameter setup as a random generation. The main advantage
of PSO compared to GA is the simpler method of providing new solutions
based only on two variables - velocity and position related by two linear
equations. Each possible solution is represented by a particle, which flies
through the searched space, which is limited by restrictive maximum and
minimum values, toward the current optimal position. The particle has its
direction and speed of movement (velocity) but it can also randomly decide to
move to the best position of all positions or to its own best position. Each
64
particle holds information about its own position (which represents one
potential solution), the velocity and the position with the best fitness function
it ever has flown through.
A. Implementation
= (3.16)
( )
Where
A- constant;
= ( , ). ( , )) (3.17)
C. Next population
The first cycle ends after the creation of a new velocity vector and the
calculation of the new position of the particular particle.
= + + (3.18)
66
= + (3.19)
D. Border
In the fourth case, the particle can fly through the forbidden area back
to the allowed space, but on the other side of the allowed space. This
approach can be used in the case of a very specific limited space.
67
E. Parallel operation
Controller Bus
S. No.
Type Rating (p.u) nl nr
1 UPFC -0.681 9 14
2 TCSC -0.977 4 9
3 UPFC -0.353 4 7
4 UPFC 0.6501 3 4
5 TCSC 0.7654 4 9
From the coding results obtained with genetic algorithm it is found that
each time the coding is executed a new result is obtained as tabulated in
Table3.5. From the observation made from the Table 3.5 we could say that
with genetic algorithm analysis the use of TCSC controller with rating of
1.0p.u to -1.0p.u at the line connecting the bus 4 to bus 9.
Controller bus
S. No.
Type Rating (p.u) nl nr
1 TCSC -0.277 2 3
2 TCSC -1 4 7
3 UPFC 0.9989 1 5
4 UPFC -0.251 1 5
5 TCSC 0.5972 5 6
69
From the result obtained shown in Table 3.6, it is found that the use of
UPFC controller will be more efficient with a rating of 1.0p.u to -0.25p.u at
the line connecting the bus 1 to bus 5. Though the TCSC controller is
repeated more number of times than UPFC controller the bus location for
TCSC controller is different in each time when TCSC controller is selected.
Controller bus
SI Rating
Type nl nr
(p.u)
1 UPFC -0.0496 5 6
2 UPFC -0.2579 4 9
3 UPFC -0.1543 5 6
4 TCSC -0.1129 5 6
5 UPFC -0.9757 4 9
Table 3.7 shows the coding result obtained for particle swarm
optimization. The controller selected by this algorithm is UPFC with a rating
ranging from 0.5p.u to -0.5p.u at the line connecting bus 5 to bus 6.
From the Bus ranking from Voltage stability analysis and Line outage
contingency analysis, it is evident that the optimum locations of the
STATCOM are bus 26, 29 and bus 30. Buses 26, 29 and 30 has been
identified as weak bus through Maximum loadability as well as modal
analysis, hence we can conclude that the FACTS device STATCOM can be
placed at buses 26, 29 and 30 and to improve the voltage stability.
Voltage FVSI
Bus Line
No. With Without No. With Without
FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS
30 0.9836 0.7896 38 0.8436 0.9972
29 0.8941 0.6993 36 0.4351 0.6104
26 0.9925 0.8671 39 0.4315 0.5824
Voltage FVSI
Bus Line
No. With Without No. With Without
FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS
30 0.9732 0.9021 34 0.9759 0.9982
29 0.9625 0.8732 36 0.2468 0.4025
26 0.9869 0.7156 33 0.2302 0.3967
3.14 SUMMARY
Voltage stability analysis has been carried out by modal analysis and
indices method. The test system considered for performing the studies are
IEEE 14 bus and IEEE 30 bus system.
In modal analysis technique, the eigen values are estimated from the
Jacobian matrix formed by N-R power flow method. The participation factor
is estimated by using the eigen value. The bus corresponding to the highest
participation factor is considered as weak bus. For IEEE 14 bus system 14th
bus is identified as weak bus and for IEEE 30 bus system buses 26, 29 and 30
are the weak buses.
In the indices method the relation between Q and V has been used for
formulation of different indices. Based on the indices value the critical bus
72
and critical lines have been estimated for IEEE 30 bus system in the critical
buses are 26,29 and 30.