A Novel Method of Power Flow Analysis with UPFC Considering Limit Violations of Variable

Qiang Tong
College of Physics and Electronic Engineering Leshan Teachers College Leshan, 614000, China

Qiang Jiang
College of Electrical Engineering Southwest Jiaotong University Chengdu, 610031, China

Abstract In this paper, with respect to power flows of power systems with UPFC (Unified Power Flow Controller), a relatively detailed analysis and comparison to the models and algorithms reported in the open literature are made. A new power injection model and algorithm for power flow calculation of power systems with UPFC is proposed, and its principles and deriving processes are expatiated. The capacitance of line to ground is considered in the model. This model based on power injection method, is intuitive, convenient and versatile, and can be used for various functional modes of FACTS devices and all FACTS devices. A sequential iteration algorithm to solve the power flows with UPFC is developed based on the Fast Decoupled Load Flow(FDLF), in order to conveniently handling limit violations of the UPFC internal state variable but little modification to mismatch equations and Jacobian matrix. How to determine the initial start conditions and to handle limit violations is also discussed. Finally, the numerical examples shows that this model still has good convergence performance even using the zero value as an initial state for this external variable. Keywords- UPFC FACTS, power flow calculation, power injection model , Fast Decoupled Load Flow

new challenges in modeling and solution techniques. So it is imperative to make further in-depth study on model and algorithm of UPFC during steady and dynamic states. In recent years, numerous models have been developed for UPFC to study its effects on power system, mostly using the NewtonRaphson method. Further, these models have been applied to optimal power flows studies. The steady-state model of UPFC can be broadly classified into two main categories: decoupled model and coupled model. The former is proposed in [2] by Nabavi-Niaki et.al. in 1995 for power flow control using UPFC. The model takes the voltage controlled node as PV node, and the opposite node as PQ node in which the active and reactive power flows are controlled at the set values by UPFC. Utilizing this model, the power flows of the power systems with UPFC can be performed without changing the conventional power flow program only with addition of two buses per UPFC. However, the model only can be used in situations when the UPFC is simultaneously controlling the three parameters (bus voltage, active and reactive power flows of the transmission line). Generally, in contrast to the decoupled model, coupled model consists of two major kinds: Voltage (or Current) Source Model (VSM) [3]-[6] and Power (or Current) Injection Model (PIM) [7]-[14]. Esquivel et.al. presented a comprehensive voltage-source-based (VSB) UPFC model in [3]. In the VSB model, both the series converter and the shunt converter are modeled as voltage sources with appropriate impedances, and four additional variables of each UPFC are appended in the conventional Newton-Raphson power flow solver [3]-[5]. Reference [6] proposed a hybrid model in which an ideal voltage source model with appropriate impedance is used to represent the series converter of the UPFC while an ideal current source is used to represent the shunt converter. The coupled models above need to modify the conventional power flow program and Jacobian matrix accordingly because the number of equations and state variables are increased. A Newton-type algorithm based on PIM for the control of power flow in electrical power networks has been developed in [7]. Reference [7] takes the approach of modeling the UPFC as series reactance together with a set of active and reactive nodal power injections at each end of the series reactance. These powers are expressed as function of the terminal, nodal voltages, and the voltage of a series source which represents the UPFC series converter. Fang and Ngan in [8-9] proposed a new power injection model, in which the UPFC-installed line is

I.

INTRODUCTION

With the major restructuring of the electricity industry, especially the newly development of electrical network towards smart strong grid, power transmission systems are being required to increase available transfer capability and to become a higher controllability, reliability and stability. The Flexible AC Transmission System (FACTS) technology has coincided with the requirements. FACTS devices can regulate power flows of the transmission line (by controlling one or all of circuit impedance, magnitude and phase angle difference of the voltages across the line) for optimal operation performance of power systems that thermal limits are not exceeded, losses minimized, stability margins increased, contractual require ments fulfilled, etc. without violating the economic generation dispatch [1]. As the most versatile and complex FACTS devices, the unified power flow controller (UPFC) can be used to independently and simultaneously control bus voltage, active and reactive power flows of the transmission line. With such a comprehensive control capability, the UPFC make it possible to provide real-time control of power flows within a power system to meet some predefined operating target or optimal operation performance. However, with the adoption of UPFCs in power systems, the traditional power flow analysis will face
Projects Sichuan Education Department-Funded. Serial Number: 09ZC100

978-1-4244-8039-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

decoupled while neglecting losses of the UPFC and the line. The influence on power system of series ideal voltage source and shunt ideal current source model is equivalent to power injection into buses controlled by UPFC. The above power injection model generally can easily be incorporated into a conventional power flow program with little modification by adding the UPFC power injections and their derivatives with respect to the AC network state variables, i.e. nodal voltage magnitude and angles. The original dimensions of the mismatch vector and Jacobian matrix are not altered almost. However, these models among above reported literature may have various shortcomings including model inflexibility and convergence failure-prone. How to improve the algorithm convergence or flexibility have been our over-riding concerns while developing these new models. Inspired by Fangs power injection model, this paper improves a comprehensive power injection model. A sequential iteration algorithm for the power flow studies of UPFC is developed based on the fast decoupled technique. How to determine the initial start conditions and to handle limit violations is discussed. This model based on power injection method, is intuitive, convenient and versatile, and can be used for various functional modes of FACTS devices and all FACTS devices. II. OPERATING PRINCIPLE OF UPFC

is represented by an ideal voltage source VS . The shunt branch is equivalent to an ideal current source I sh . Magnitude and phase angle of ac voltage source are controllable and fall within the following region ( VS min VS VS max ,

0 S 2 ). The variable I sh of shunt current source also

is controllable within limit capacity limit of shunt two components:
N N I sh I sh I sh is current converter . I sh is decomposed into

I T and I q , which are respectively the real

and imaginary controllable components of ideal shunt current source. I T , in-phase components with respect to Vm , is determined by active power of shunt converter exchanging with the system and the loss of UPFC. I q is inquadrature components with respect to Vm ,which provides independent shunt reactive compensation to maintain bus voltage level where the UPFC is installed.

Vm m

UP FC

m I

mk

Vm I mk

VS

I km Vk
Pkm + jQ km

V S _S + I rk r I sh
j

Vk k
P C + jQC

Ymk
bC 2
j bC 2

Ish Vsh

Iq I T
Figure 2.

Equivalent circuit of UPFC

Figure 1UPFC schematic diagram

Where the PC + jQC is the specified value of controlled power flow of transmission line. When the losses of the converters and the associated transformers are neglected, the active power absorbed from the system by shunt converter is equal to that injected into transmission lines by series converter, thus the following constraint equation is met:

A schematic representation of the UPFC is shown in Figure 1. It consists of two back-to-back voltage source converters coupled through a common DC link. The converter in series coupled to the AC system via a transformer provides the main function of the UPFC to control the real and/or reactive power flow on the transmission line by injection an ac voltage with controllable magnitude and phase angle. Another converter coupled to the AC system via a shunt transformer can generate or absorb controllable reactive power and provide independent shunt reactive compensation to control bus voltage at a specified value. The DC link provides a path to exchange active power between two converters. The real power demanded by the series converter is supplied from the AC power system by the shunt converter via the common DC link. III. MODEL OF UPFC

V m I T = Re[V S I * rk ]

(1)

This constraint equation shows that the overall active power exchange between the UPFC and the AC system become zero. So the active power Prk is equal to the Pmk on the transmission line. The active and reactive power flow of the transmission line where the UPFC is embedded can be expressed as follows:
2 Pmk = (Vm + VS2 )Gmk + 2VmVS Gmk cos( S m ) VkVS [Gmk cos( S k ) + Bmk sin( S k )] V mV k (G mk cos mk + Bmk sin mk ) (2)

A. Equivalent Circuit of UPFC The equivalent circuit used to derive our steady-state UPFC model is shown in Figure 2, where the UPFC is located between nodes m and k in the line. The series branch of UPFC

2 Qmk = Vm I q Vm ( Bmk + bC / 2) VmVS [Gmk sin(

 S m ) + ( Bmk + bC / 2) cos( S m )] VmVk (Gmk sin mk Bmk cos mk )

2 k

When UPFC controls the voltage of node m to a set value, node m can be taken as a PV node, thus Q MM ( inj ) and Q M ( inj ) are not incorporated into iterated mismatch power equations. When UPFC doesnt control the voltage of node m, Q M ( inj ) are set at zero or specified none zero value by demand, so at this time, node m can be taken as a PQ node. The other additional injection active and reactive powers are derived as:

Pkm = V Gmk VkVS [Gmk cos( S k ) Bmk sin( S k )] VmVk (Gmk cos mk Bmk sin mk ) 4

Qkm = Vk2 ( Bmk + bC / 2) + VkVS [(Gmk sin( S k ) + Bmk cos( S k )] + VmVk (Gmk sin mk + Bmk cos mk ) 5
B. Power Injection Model of UPFC Based on the derived power flow equations (2)-(5) above, the power injection model of UPFC can be established as Figure 3.

PM ( inj ) = GmkVS2 2VmVS Gmk cos( S m ) + VkVS [

VS [Gmk cos( S k ) + Bmk sin( S k )] (9)

QM ( inj ) = VmVS [Gmk sin( S m ) + ( Bmk + bC / 2)

(cos( S m )]

(10)

Vmm P M (inj) + jQ M (inj)

m

PKM0 + jQKM0

Vk k
k

PK ( inj ) = VkVS [Gmk cos( S k ) Bmk sin( S k )]

(11)

I mk
b j C 2

Ymk
b j C 2

QK ( inj ) = VkVS [Gmk sin( S k ) + Bmk cos( S k )]

(12) Can be seen from the above expressions and analysis, the equivalent additional injection active and reactive power in our UPFC power injection model only are functions of the common power systems state variables (bus voltage magnitude and phase angle) and UPFC internal control variables ( VS ,

jQMM(inj)

PK(inj) + jQK(inj)

Figure 3. Power injection model of UPFC

The complex power PKM 0 + jQKM 0 can be seen as a natural power flow from node k to node m on the transmission line with UPFC, the value of which is equal to that on the transmission without UPFC, and only determined by the voltage magnitude and phase angle of the node. We define:

PKM 0 = PKM 0 (Vm , Vk , m , k ) = GmkVk2 VmVk (Gmk cos km + Bmk sin km ) 6 Q KM 0 = Q KM 0 (Vm ,Vk , m , k ) = ( Bmk + bC / 2)Vk2 + VmVk ( Bmk cos km Gmk sin km ) 7 PM ( inj ) , QM ( inj ) , PK ( inj ) , QK ( inj ) and QMM ( inj ) are node
additional injection power equivalent to impacts of UPFC.

S ). Note that the attraction of these formulations is that it can be implemented easily in existing power flow programs by appending two additional variables of each UPFC in the conventional power flow solver. In this article, we take the equivalent power injection PK ( inj ) and Q K ( inj ) as the new
additional state variables to solve power flows due to UPFC embedded into power system. Through solving the simultaneous equations (11-12), UPFC control parameters VS and S directly can be obtained after

PK ( inj ) and QK ( inj ) have

(13)

been solved by iteration. For instance, VS can be given by:

2 2 2 2 VS = ( PK ( inj ) + Q K ( inj ) ) /(Gmk + Bmk ) / Vk

PM ( inj ) and QM ( inj ) are respectively equivalent additional

injection active and reactive power injected into node m by UPFC, as oppose to PK ( inj ) Q K ( inj ) which are injected into node k by UPFC. These equivalent additional injection powers are used to control the power flows through the line between node m and node k.

IV.

ALGORITHM OF POWER FLOWS WITH UPFC

A. Algorithm of Power Flows When UPFC is installed on the transmission line between node m and node k, series new mismatch power equations can be derived as following

QMM ( inj ) is the reactive power provided by shunt converter

which is injected into node m and supports the voltage level of node m. The value of Q MM ( inj ) can be given by:

PGi PLi = ViV j (Gij cosij + Bij sin ij )

ji

(14) (15)

QGi QLi = ViV j (Gij sin ij Bij cos ij )

ji

Q MM ( inj ) = Vm I q

(8)

i = 1,2, ! , n i m, k

PGm PLm + PM ( inj ) = VmV j (Gmj cos mj +Bmj sin mj )

jm

Pk0( inj ) = PC Qk0( inj ) = bC / 2 QC

(24) (25)

(16)

QGm Q Lm + Q M ( inj ) + QMM ( inj ) = VmV j (Gmj sin mj

jm

Bmj cos mj )
jk

(17)

The practical experience shows that this model still can converge within a few iterations even using the zero value as an initial state for additional injection power variables. C. Limit Violations A few limits of the internal UPFC states exist due to the rating of converters. If limit violations of the internal UPFC states occurs, the power flow analysis is meaningless. This means that UPFC does not allow the states. Some methods for handling the constraints of UPFC device have been reported in [13]-[16]. The UPFC internal parameters should be revised when some limit is violated by a variable. In the algorithm of this paper, the UPFC parameters are computed iteratively after PIM gives the iterative results once of power flow by solve power mismatch equations, so all constraints of UPFC can be checked in iterative process. If the violations of these constraints occur, the control parameters of UPFC can be adjusted to avoid these limits and thus the original scheduled control objective are impossible to achieve. We set the violation variable at the limit value in order to achieve the highest efficiency of UPFC. V. NUMERICAL TEST RESULT

PGk PLk + PK ( inj ) = VkV j (Gkj cos kj +Bkj sin kj )

(18)

QGk QLk + QK ( inj ) = VkV j (Gkj sin kj Bkj cos kj )

jk

(19) Where, n is total number of nodes in power systems.

PGi , QGi are input power of power supply at node i, PLi QLi are load demand power at node l.
Note that the right sides of the mismatch equations (14-19) above exactly are same as the equations without UPFC, so the mismatch matrix can be written as:

P H N Q J L U / U
The matrix are further simplified to

(20

P / U = B U Q / U = B U

(21)

In expression (21), the mismatch matrix is entirely identical in form with conventional Fast Decoupled Load Flow technique without UPFC, and the coefficient matrix is also exactly same as the one of conventional Fast Decoupled Load Flow technique without UPFC.

To verify the performance and correctness of the algorithm based on different scale and operation condition of electric power systems, the simulation test is implemented on common 5 node system with the power supply and load power that have been modified and IEEE-14 node system. The results are compared and analyzed on the convergence conditions of power flows calculation, shown as table 1 and table 2. In the test the convergence precision of power flows calculation take 10-5, while the UPFC simultaneously controls line power flows and bus voltage at the specified value.
TABLE I. THE COMPARISON OF CALCULATION TIMES IN 5-BUS SYSTEM Iterations Cases Method 0  Method 1  Method 2 5 7 9 11 14 16 11 39 Method 3 11 24 28

PK ( inj ) , QK ( inj ) is injected into node k though transmission

line, so have

PK ( inj ) = PKM 0 (Vm ,Vk , m , k ) PC QK ( inj ) = QKM 0 (Vm ,Vk , m , k ) QC

(22) (23)

1 2 3 TABLE II.

B. UPFC Initial Conditions An important part of the power flow algorithm is the selection of initial conditions for the UPFC Controllers. Without proper initialization, convergence may be problematic. Engineering experience indicates that in power systems without UPFC, 1 p.u. voltage magnitude for all PQ buses and 0 voltage angle for all buses provide a suitable starting condition. For specified nodal powers at node k in our PIM, PC and QC, by the solutions of the active and reactive power equations (22)-(23), the good initial conditions of UPFC additional injection power variables PK ( inj ) , Q K ( inj ) at this node can be given by:

THE COMPARISON OF CALCULATION TIMES IN IEEE-14 BUS

SYSTEM

Iterations Cases 1 2 3 Method 0  Method 1  Method 2 4 6 7 9 12 16  9 36 Method 3 9 22 25

Where, Method 0 is common conventional NewtonRaphson power flow solver based on UPFC voltage source model [5]; Methods 1 and 2 are respectively presented by reference [7], [10] based on UPFC power injection model; Method 3 is the algorithm proposed in this paper. Case 1 is the conditions in the usual power systems without UPFC; Case 2 is the conditions in the power systems with one UPFC as opposed to Case 3 with two UPFC. means convergence failure for power flows calculation. All the results show that method 3, the proposed algorithm in this paper has good convergence and high accuracy comparatively. Method 1 has good convergence speed appropriate to conventional Newton-Raphson techniques but limited application situation because it solves the power flows distribution only when control parameters of UPFC have been given. In practice, it is usually given control target, but the control parameters are unknown. With respect to methods 2 convergence properties may be not desirable, especially when containing multiple UPFC, because convergence maybe become worse in power flows calculation with multiple UPFC due to influence each other of the control variables. VI. CONCLUSION

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

Inspired by Fangs power injection model, this paper improves a comprehensive power injection model with detail considerations of both initial conditions and limit violations of UPFC internal variable. We use only two equivalent power injection as external state variables to represent the UPFC module in the conventional power flow solver. Other internal variables are obtained by solving UPFC inter-module algebraic equations. The proposed UPFC steady state model is completely general. It controls active and reactive power simultaneously as well as voltage magnitude. It can also be set to control one or more of the parameters in any combination or to control none of them. This sequential iteration algorithm for the power flow studies of UPFC is developed based on the fast decoupled technique, and can conveniently handle limit violations of the UPFC internal state variable but little modification to mismatch equations and Jacobian matrix. With such arrangements, it can be found that this model still can converge within a few iterations even using the zero value as an initial state for this external variable. REFERENCES
[1] The FACTS Terms & Definitions Task Force of The FACTS Working Group of The DC and FACTS Subcommittee. Proposed Terms and Definitions for Flexible AC Transmission System (FACTS). IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery199712(4)1848-1853 A.Nabavi-Niaki M.R.Iravani. Steady-State and Dynamic Models of Unified Power Flow Controller(UPFC) for Power System Studies. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems199611(4)1937-1943 C.R.Fuerte-Esquivel E.Acha. Newton-Raphson Algorithm for the Reliable Solution of Large Power Networks with Embedded FACTS Devices. IEE Proceedings. GenerationTransmission & Distribution 1996143(5)447-454 C.R.Fuerte-Esquivel E.Acha. Unified Power Flow Controller A Critical Comparison of Newton-Raphson UPFC Algorithms in Power Flow Studies. IEE Proceedings.Generation Transmission & Distribution1997144(5)437-44

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

C.R.Fuerte-Esquivel,E.Acha et al. A comprehensive Newton-Raphon UPFC model for the quadratic power flow solution of practical power networks[J]. IEEE Trans.on Power System,2000, 15(1):102-109 Sheng-Huei Lee Chia-Chi Chu Ding-Hsin Chang. Comprehensive UPFC Models for Power Flow Calculation in Practical Power Systems. IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting2001(1)27-32 M.Noroozian L.Angquist M.Ghandhari G.Andersson. Use of UPFC for Optimal Power Flow Control. IEEE Trans.on Power Delivery 199712(4)1629-1634 W.L.Fang and H.W.Ngan. Control setting of unified power flow through a robust load flow calculation. IEE Proceedings, Generation, Transmission & Distribution, Vol. 146, No. 4, pp.365-369, July 1999 Fang WanliangH.W.Ngan. Extension of Newton Raphson Load Flow Techniques to Cover Multi Unified Power Flow Controllers. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Advances in Power System ControlOperation and Management(APSCOM 1997)Hong Kong1997(1)383-388 Sun HongboDavid C.YuLuo Chunlei. A Novel Method of Power Flow Analysis with Unified Power Flow Controller(UPFC). IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting2000(4)2800-2805 Ying Xiao,Y.H.Song,Y.Z.Sun. Versatile model for power flow control using FACTS devices[A]. Proceedings of The 3rd International Conference on Power Electronics and Motion Control, PIEMC 2000[C], 2000,2:868-874. Xiao-Ping Zhang and Keith R Godfrey. Advanced Unified Power Flow Controller Model for Power System Steady State Control. IEEE International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and Power Technologies (DRPT 2004) Hong Kong 2004(1)228-233 Tae-Hyun KimJang-Cheol Seoet al. A Decoupled Unified Power Flow Controller Model for Power Flow Considering Limit Resolution. IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting1999(2)11901195 Jun-Yong Liu Yong-Hua Song P.A.Mehta. Strategies for Handling UPFC Constraints in Steady-State Power Flow and Voltage Control. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems200015(2)566-571 J.Bian D.G.Ramey R.J.Nelson A.Edris. A Study of Equipment Sizes and Constraints for A Unified Power Flow Controller. IEEE Proceedings of Transmission and Distribution Conference1996(1) 332-338 Nampeth P. S.N.Singh Surapong C. Modelling of UPFC and Its Parameters Selection. IEEE 4th International Conference on Power Electronics and Drive Systems2001(1)77-83

[2]

[3]

[4]