ECEN 615

Methods of Electric Power

Systems Analysis
Lecture 6: Power Flow

Prof. Tom Overbye

Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Texas A&M University
[email protected]
Announcements
• RSVP to Alex at [email protected] for the
TAMU ECE Energy and Power Group (EPG)
picnic. It starts at 5pm on September 27, 2019
• Read Chapter 6 from the book
– They formulate the power flow using the polar form for
the Ybus elements
• Homework 1 is due today
• Homework 2 is due on Thursday September 26

2
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 
3
 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 
1  0.0477 0.0159 
B   
 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

4
 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 
5
FDPF Region of Convergence

6
FDPF Cautions
• The FDPF works well as long as the previous
approximations hold for the entire system
• With the movement towards modeling larger systems,
with more of the lower voltage portions of the system
represented (for which r/x ratios are higher) it is quite
common for the FDPF to get stuck because small
portions of the system are ill-behaved
• The FDPF is commonly used to provide an initial
guess of the solution or for contingency analysis

7
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
1 P sign convention is
θ  B P
generation is positive
• The term dc power flow actually dates from the time of
the old network analyzers (going back into the 1930’s)
• Not to be confused with the inclusion of HVDC lines in
the standard NPF 8
DC Power Flow References
• I don’t think a classic dc power flow paper exists; a
nice formulation is given in our book Power
Generation and Control book by Wood, Wollenberg
and Sheble
• The August 2009 paper in IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, “DC Power Flow Revisited” (by Stott, Jardim
and Alsac) provides good coverage
• T. J. Overbye, X. Cheng, and Y. Sun, “A comparison of
the AC and DC power flow models for LMP
Calculations,” in Proc. 37th Hawaii Int. Conf. System
Sciences, 2004, compares the accuracy of the approach
9
 DC Power Flow Example

Example from Power System Analysis and Design, by Glover, Overbye, Sarma, 6 th Edition
10
DC Power Flow in PowerWorld
• PowerWorld allows for easy switching between the
dc and ac power flows (case Aggieland37)
Aggieland Power and Light To use the
39%
A
SLACK345

dc approach
MVA
A
67%
MVA

Total Load 1421.0 MW 1.00 pu HOWDY345

sla ck
862 MW
Total Losses: 0.00 MW
A A A

90% 90% 65%

1.00 pu SLACK138

in PowerWorld
TEXAS345 MVA MVA MVA

A 1.00 pu HOWDY138
94% A

MVA 21% A
1.00 pu
MVA A 35%
1.00 pu TEXAS138 53 MW 90%
MVA

0 Mvar MVA 1.00 pu

A
29 MW
64%
1.0875 tap 0.0 Mvar 1.00 pu HOWDY69

select Tools,
0 Mvar 100 MW
287.2 MW
MVA
A
A
27 MW
1.00 pu TEXAS69 1.00 pu BATT69 60%
MVA 0 Mvar 123% 0 Mvar
A MVA
37 MW 39% 1.00 pu NORTHGATE69 A A
A MVA 87% 17%
23% 0 Mvar MVA
MVA 12MAN69
MVA
A
A
1.00 pu BONFIRE69
115.0 MW 27% 34 MW

Solve, DC
WHITE138
103% MVA
0 Mvar
A
MVA
A
74%
20 MW 36% CENTURY69 MVA
MVA
0.0 Mvar
50 MW
A
0 Mvar 31 MW 73% PLUM138
0 Mvar A
75%
1.00 pu WEB138 MVA

MVA GIGEM69 1.00 pu

1.00 pu A A

Power Flow
MAROON69 REVEILLE69 93 MW 72%
MVA
68%
MVA 1.0625 tap 49 MW
82 MW 0 Mvar
59 MW 0 Mvar
0 Mvar A
1.00 pu
0 Mvar 77%
MVA WEB69
TREE69 1.00 pu 1.00 pu
0.0 Mvar
0.0 Mvar
1.00 pu
A
A

MVA
0 MW 100 MW
0 Mvar
43%
0.0 Mvar
5 MW
A MVA FISH69
A 55%

50 MW
55% MVA
A
MVA 93 MW 57%
1.000 pu A
KYLE138
SPIRIT69 0 Mvar 23% 1.00 pu MVA
MVA
1.00 pu
A
A
22% 26%
A
1.0000 tap
YELL69 26% 35 MW MVA MVA
0.0 Mvar A

Notice there
MVA
0 Mvar 1.00 pu A 14%
A 1.00 pu KYLE69 18% MVA
MVA

25 MW 61 MW
110 MW
A MVA

0 Mvar
90 MW
A 0 Mvar
MVA
1.00 pu 22% A

MVA 33%
MVA
A
58 MW A
1.00 pu
A
62% 57%
0.0 Mvar

are no
14%
MVA
0.0 Mvar 96 MW MVA
BUSH69 0 Mvar MVA
A
0 Mvar 29%
1.00 pu 1.00 pu MSC69 MVA A
A
65% 70 MW 59 MW RING69 MVA
MVA
1.00 pu RUDDER69 0 Mvar 0 Mvar
RELLIS69
1.00 pu
38 MW
10 MW 220 Mvar
36 MW

losses
A A
0 Mvar MW A
81% 84% 58%
45 MW
0 Mvar
MVA MVA MVA

1.00 pu AGGIE138 AGGIE345

11
RELLIS138 1.00 pu REED69
1.00 pu
1.00 pu HULLABALOO138
0 deg A
65%
MVA
11
Modeling Transformers with Off-
Nominal Taps and Phase Shifts
• If transformers have a turns ratio that matches the ratio
of the per unit voltages than transformers are modeled
in a manner similar to transmission lines.
• However it is common for transformers to have a
variable tap ratio; this is known as an “off-nominal” tap
ratio
– The off-nominal tap is t, initially we’ll consider it a real
number
– We’ll cover phase shifters shortly in which t is complex

12
Transformer Representation
• The one–line diagram of a branch with a variable tap
transformer

k m
• The network representation of a branch with off–
nominal turns ratio transformer is
t :1 Im
Ik ykm = gkm + j bkm

k k
the tap is on
the side of bus k
13
Transformer Nodal Equations
• From the network representation
 Ek 
I m  I k   y k m  E m E k    y k m  E m  
 t 

 yk m 
  y k m  E m +    Ek
 t 
• Also

1  yk m   yk m 
I k  I k     Em   2  Ek
t  t   t 

14
Transformer Nodal Equations
• We may rewrite these two equations as
 Ik   ykm ykm  Ek  Ybus is still symmetric
   2
   
t t  here (though this will
     
   y    change with phase
   k m ykm   
 Im   t  E m  shifters)

This approach was first presented in F.L. Alvarado,

“Formation of Y-Node using the Primitive Y-Node
Concept,” IEEE Trans. Power App. and Syst.,
December 1982
15
The p-Equivalent Circuit for a
Transformer Branch
yk m
k t m

 1 1  1
yk m  2   y k m 1  
t t  t

16
Variable Tap Voltage Control
• A transformer with a variable tap, i.e., the variable t is
not constant, may be used to control the voltage at
either the bus on the side of the tap or at the bus on the
side away from the tap
• This constitutes an example of single criterion control
since we adjust a single control variable (i.e., the
transformer tap t) to achieve a specified criterion: the
maintenance of a constant voltage at a designated bus
• Names for this type of control are on-load tap changer
(LTC) transformer or tap changing under load (TCUL)
• Usually on low side; there may also be taps on high
side that can be adjusted when it is de-energized
17
Variable Tap Voltage Control
• An LTC is a discrete control, often with 32 incremental
steps of 0.625% each, giving an automatic range of 
10%
• It follows from the  – equivalent model for the
transformer that the transfer admittance between the
buses of the transformer branch and the contribution to
the self admittance at the bus away from the tap
explicitly depend on t
• However, the tap changes in discrete steps; there is also
a built in time delay in how fast they respond
• Voltage regulators are devices with a unity nominal
ratio, and then a similar tap range
18
Ameren Champaign (IL) Test
Facility Voltage Regulators
These are connected
on the low side of a
69/12.4 kV
transformer; each
phase can be
regulated separately

19
Variable Tap Voltage Control in the
Power Flow
• LTCs (or voltage regulators) can be directly included
in the power flow equations by modifying the
Ybus entries; that is by scaling the terms by 1, 1/t or 1/t2
as appropriate
• If t is fixed then there is no change in the number of
equations
• If t is variable, such as to enforce a voltage equality,
then it can be included either by adding an additional
equation and variable (t) directly, or by doing an “outer
loop” calculation in which t is varied outside of the NR
solution
– The outer loop is used in PowerWorld because of limit issues
20
Five Bus PowerWorld Example
With an impedance
of j0.1 pu between
buses 4 and 5, the
y node primitive
with t=1.0 is
  j10 j10 
 j10  j10 
 

If t=1.1 then it is
  j10 j9.09 
 j9.09  j8.26 
PowerWorld Case: B5_Voltage  
21
Circulating Reactive Power
• Unbalanced transformer taps can cause large amounts
of reactive power to circulating, increasing power
system losses and overloading transformers
64 MW
slack
16 Mvar

1 1.00 pu PowerWorld Case:

30.5 MW 33.9 MW
-17.6 Mvar 33.3 Mvar Bus3CirculatingVars
A
1.000 tap
A
1.056 tap
MVA MVA

33.7 MW
30.3 MW A
-30.9 Mvar
18.9 Mvar MVA

2 1.02 pu 3 1.02 pu

0.0 Mvar

24 MW 40 MW
12 Mvar 0 Mvar

22
LTC Tap Coordination
• Changing tap ratios can affect the voltages and var flow
at nearby buses; hence coordinated control is needed

PowerWorld
Case:
Aggieland37
_LTC

23
Auto Detection of Circulating
Reactive or Real Power
• Select Tools, Connections, Find Circulating MW
or Mvar Flows to do an automatic determination
of the circulating power in a case

24
Coordinated Reactive Control
• A number of different devices may be doing automatic
reactive power control. They must be considered in
some control priority
– One example would be 1) generator reactive power, 2)
switched shunts, 3) LTCs
• You can see the active controls in PowerWorld with
Case Information, Solution Details, Remotely
Regulated Buses

25
Coordinated Reactive Control
• The challenge with implementing tap control in the
power flow is it is quite common for at least some of the
taps to reach their limits
– Keeping in mind a large case may have thousands of LTCs!
• If this control was directly included in the power flow
equations then every time a limit was encountered the
Jacobian would change
– Also taps are discrete variables, so voltages must be a range
• Doing an outer loop control can more directly include
the limit impacts; often time sensitivity values are used
• We’ll return to this once we discuss sparse matrices and
sensitivity calculations 26
 Phase-Shifting Transformers
• Phase shifters are transformers in which the phase angle
across the transformer can be varied in order to
control real power flow
– Sometimes they are called phase angle regulars (PAR)
– Quadrature booster (evidently British though I’ve never heard
this term)
• They are constructed
by include a delta-
connected winding
that introduces a 90º
phase shift that is added
to the output voltage
Image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrature_booster
27
Phase-Shifter Model
• We develop the mathematical model of a phase
shifting transformer as a first step toward our study
of its simulation
• Let buses k and m be the terminals of the phase–
shifting transformer, then define the phase shift
angle as km
• The latter differs from an off–nominal turns ratio
LTC transformer in that its tap ratio is a complex
quantity, i.e., a complex number, tkmkm
• The phase shift angle is a discrete value, with one
degree a typical increment
28
Phase-Shifter Model
• For a phase shifter located on the branch (k, m), the
admittance matrix representation is obtained
analogously to that for the LTC
   y km y km   
Ik   2
 j km  
Ek 
   t te  
   
 I    y km y km   E m 
 m   te  j km   

• Note, if there is a phase shift then Ybus is no longer

symmetric!! In a large case there are almost
always some phase shifters. Y-D transformers also
introduce a phase shift that is often not modeled 29
Integrated Phase-Shifter Control
• Phase shifters are usually used to control the real power
flow on a device
• Similar to LTCs, phase-shifter control can either be
directly integrated into the power flow equations
(adding an equation for the real power flow equality
constraint, and a variable for the phase shifter value), or
they can be handled in with an outer loop approach
• As was the case with LTCs, limit enforcement often
makes the outer loop approach preferred
• Coordinated control is needed when there are multiple,
close by phase shifters
30
 Two Bus Phase Shifter Example

Top line has

x=0.2 pu, while
the phase shifter
has x=0.25 pu.

1 1
Y12   
j0.2 j0.25
 cos  15   j sin  15    j5  ( j4 )(0.966  j0.259)

Y12  1.036  j8.864

PowerWorld Case: B2PhaseShifter 31
Aggieland37 With Phase Shifters
A

52%
MVA

Total Load 1420.7 MW 1.02 pu HOWDY345

slack
641 MW
Total Losses: 25.08 MW
A A A

70% 70% 52%

1.01 pu TEXAS345 MVA MVA SLACK138 MVA

A 0.99 pu HOWDY138
82% A
MVA 25%
A
1.03 pu
MVA A 27%
0.96 pu TEXAS138 53 MW 83% MVA

1.01 pu
21 Mvar
MVA
A
29 MW
60%
MVA
0 deg 0.0 Mvar 8 Mvar
1.02 pu HOWDY69
100 MW
A
27 MW A

1.03 pu TEXAS69 BATT69 60% 71% 30 Mvar

1.00 pu MVA 4 Mvar MVA
A

37 MW 49% 1.00 pu NORTHGATE69 A A

A
74% 16%
14 Mvar
MVA

20% A
MVA
12MAN69 MVA

MVA 0.98 pu BONFIRE69

A 27% 34 MW
WHITE138 76% 0 Mvar
MVA

MVA A
A
78%
20 MW 37% CENTURY69
0.0 Mvar
MVA
MVA A
8 Mvar 31 MW 78% PLUM138
13 Mvar 0.958 pu
A
WEB138 MVA
47% 0.98 pu
GIGEM69
0.97 pu
MVA A A
MAROON69 93 MW 95%
82 MW
REVEILLE69
65 Mvar
53%
MVA MVA
1.0875 tap 49 MW
59 MW 17 Mvar
27 Mvar
17 Mvar
A

37%
1.000 pu
WEB69
TREE69 0.97 pu
MVA
1.01 pu
0.0 Mvar A
100 MW
0.99 pu 16%
0.0 Mvar A MVA
30 Mvar
23%
A
MVA 0.0 Mvar FISH69
A 58%
58% MVA
A
93 MW 58%
1.006 pu KYLE138
MVA A

SPIRIT69 58 Mvar 49% 0.963 pu MVA

1.01 pu MVA

1.0000 tap
A A
A
48% 64%
YELL69 26% 35 MW MVA MVA
0.0 Mvar A

11 Mvar 0.98 pu
MVA A

KYLE69 68%
0.989 pu
MVA
A
MVA

25 MW 43%
A
MVA 61 MW
10 Mvar A 17 Mvar
MVA
1.00 pu 48%
A

MVA 58%
58 MW 0.99 pu
A A MVA

36% 47%
0.0 Mvar
A

14% 0.0 Mvar 96 MW MVA

BUSH69 17 Mvar MVA A
MVA
20 Mvar 22%
0.98 pu 0.97 pu MSC69 MVA A
A

RELLIS69 55% 70 MW 59 MW RING69 MVA

MVA
0.97 pu RUDDER69 0 Mvar 6 Mvar
0.998 pu
36 MW
22 MW
1.0213 tap
A A A

65%
MVA
68%
MVA
1.0213 tap 24 Mvar
0 Mvar
46%
MVA

38 MW 0.98 pu AGGIE138 AGGIE345

RELLIS138 10 Mvar 0.988 pu REED69
0.977 pu
0.98 pu HULLABALOO138
0 deg
A

54%
A MVA A

14% 59%
MVA A 0.986 pu REED138 A MVA

35% 57%
MVA MVA

PowerWorld Case: Aggieland37_PhaseShifter

32
 Large Case Phase Shifter Limits
and Step Size
Transformer Variables Step Size
180 11
160 10.5
10
140
9.5
120 9
8.5
100
8
80 7.5
60 7
6.5
40

Step Size
6
20 5.5
Values

5
0
4.5
-20 4
3.5
-40
3
-60 2.5
-80 2
1.5
-100 1
-120 0.5
0
-140
20 40 60 80
-160 Step Size
-180
20 40 60 80
Tap Min Tap Max

33
 Example of Phase Shifters in
Practice
• The below report mentions issues associated with
the Ontario-Michigan PARs

https://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/markets_operations/committees/bic_miwg/meeting_materials/2017-
02-28/2016%20Ontario-Michigan%20Interface%20PAR%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report.pdf
34