Comprehensive UPI?

C Models for Power Flow Calculations in Practical Power Systems

Sheng-Huei Lee, Chia-Chi Chu, Member, IEEE, and Ding-Hsin Chang

AbstractA hybrid Unified Power-Flow Controllers (UPFCS) models for power flow calculations is developed: an ideal voltage source model is used to represent the series part while an ideal current source model is used to represent the shunt part. Static relationships among real power and reactive power transfers, series transformer and shunt transformer losses are considered in details. Equivalent relationships among our new models and existing models will also be investigated. Since only one extra state variable is included in our developed UPFC models, it can be easily incorporated into existing Newton-type power flow solvers. Even with flat start initial conditions, this new model can be easily converged witbin a few iterations. We have tested our new models in IEEE 300-bus power systems. Simulation results will demonstrate the efficiency and the accuracy of our proposed model Index Terms--Unified Power-Flow Controllers, Raphson Method, Power Flow Control. Newton-

I.

INTRODUCTION

ECENTLY, Unified Power-Flow Controllers (UPFCS) have been installed successfully for power flow controls [4,5,8,9, 11]. The versatility afforded by UPFCS provides an opportunity to solve various problems of largescale power systems in real-time within reasonable costs. Many different steady-state UPFC models have been proposed for power flow calculations in the past [5,7]. For example, Niaki et. al. proposed a simplified model by neglecting active power losses of coupling transformers [6]. Although this model is simple in the sense that the sending end and the receiving end of UPFC is completely decoupled, it is only applicable when voltage magnitude, and reactive power are controlled active power, simultaneously. Later, Esquivel et. al. presented a comprehensive voltage-source-based (VSB) UPFC model for controlling desired combinations of active powers, reactive powers and voltage magnitude [1,2]. Both the series converter and the shunt converter are modeled as Thus, appropriate impedances. voltage sources with active and reactive power losses of coupling transformers

are considered in details. In the VSB model, four additional variables of each UPFC are appended in the conventional Newton-Raphson power flow solver. Although this model can describe various operation modes of UPFCS, unlike traditional power flow solvers, flat start initial conditions of UPFC control parameters may degrade Newtons convergence speed, or more seriously, may cause the solution divergence. Special attentions will be paid cm selecting initial conditions. More recently, Fang proposed a hybrid model in which each UPFC is represented by am ideal series voltage and an ideal shunt current source [3]: an ideal voltage source model is used to represent the series converter of the UPFC while an ideal current source is used to represent the shunt converter. However, power losses of coupling transformers are not depicted appropriately. Our work was inspired by Fangs hybrid model. We improve such a hybrid model with detail considerations of both active power losses and reactive power losses of coupling transformers. In order to reflect the interacticln between the network and the UPFC properly, a hierarchic approach for power flow calculations is proposed. We use only one external state variable to represent the UPFC module in the conventional Newton-Raphson power flow solver. Other internal variables are obtained by solving UPFC inter-module algebraic equations. With such arrangements, it can be found that our model still cam converge within a few iterations even using the zero value as an initial state for this external variable. Thus, the flat start condition still provides a good initial guess for the Newton-Raphson iteration. This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we will briefly introduce our hybrid UPFC model. The new UPFC model representation in power flow equations will be presented in Section HI. Numerical studies of IEEE300 bus test systems will be investigated in Section IV. Finally, conclusions are made in Section V. 11.HYPRID UPFC
MODELS

This work was supported io part by the National Science Council, Republic of China, under Grants NSC-88-TPC-E- 182-001. The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Charrg Gung University, Kwei-San, Tao-Yuan 333, Taiwan, R.O.C. (e-mail: ccchu@mad ,cgu.edu.tw). Sheng-Huei Lee is also with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Chin-Yun Institute of Technology, Chung-Li, Tao-Yuan 333, Taiwan, R.O.C

A schematic representation of the UPFC is shown in Fig. 1. It consists of two back-to-back voltage source converters, sharing a shunt capacitor on the DC side. One converter is coupled to the AC system via a series transformer while the other is coupled to the AC system via a shunt transformer. The series converter, which can inject both active power and reactive power into the series branch, is used to control series branch power flow. The real power demanded by the series converter is supplied from the AC power system by the shunt converter via the common DC link. The shunt

0-7803-7173-9/01/$10.00 2001 IEEE

27 0-7803-7031-7/01/$10.00 (C) 2001 IEEE

converter can generate or absorb controllable reactive power. Thecontrolled shunt reactive compensation can be used to maintain the shunt converter terminal AC voltage magnitude at a specified value.

where lt is the current variable which represents the active power transfer between the series converter and the shunt converter via the DC link, and 1= is the current variable which represents the active power loss of the shunt coupling transformer. Similarly, the reactive power IQ is the sum of two variables lQ = Iq+ 1X where lq is the reactive current component converter, and (4) supplied by current

1;

II

the

shunt

Ix

is the reactive

L.
..

.u_L.

.LJ

, .

Fig. 1 The Schematic Representation

of UPFC

component represented the reactive power loss of the shunt coupling transformer. As shown in Section III, these four current source representations provides a simple way to understand power transfers among different components of UPFCS. The phasor diagram for describing various components of Ivr is shown in Fig 3.

The equivalent circuit model used to derive our steadystate UPFC model is shown in Fig. 2. This new model consists of one ideal voltage source Vcr and one ideal current source Ivr. The series source impedance consists of the positive resistance sequence leakage inductance XC, , and the Both

Iq

Ix

Rcr of the series coupling transformer.

IL_
Iv.
1,

It

Vs

active and reactive power loss of the shunt coupling transformer can be calculated from the shunt current lV,.

Fig. 3 Phasor Diagram for describing various components of Zvr We use the scalar notation to simpli~ the phasor representation of the shunt current source lvr. For active

S*.
4 .-F.

1.,

R.,+jX., .. ..+-----.

:,,:,,.3

-ss

power current components 1P, It and 1=, we define

I

Iw
Sending + End

._ / -

if I and V~ are inphase if I and V~ are outphase

1

[ v,

Re( V~Jc~ )=/ V:/IJ

Receiving End

Similarly,

for

reactive

power

current

components

I b=rq+rx

.1

,/,, u
.1II

Iq, Ix and Iq, we define

if 1 leads V5 by 90 if 1 lags V~ by 90

11,=1,:1,

L .

Fig.2 Equivalent Circuit Model of the Hybrid UPFC Model.

If the UPFC converter is lossless, the active power supplied by the series converter is equal to the shunt converter active power demanded, We have Re(%~c; (1) ) = lK\I~ (5) Suppose that the receiving end is set to a fixed equivalent load demand P,,, + jQr. = Prqf jQr.f , thecurrent of the UPFC series branch can be written as: (6) Thus, the active power loss of the series coupling transformer and the shunt coupling transformer can be expressed as follows: Plosscy = Rc,11cp12 = Rc,(fij
Plossvr =

The ideal series voltage source can be expressed as: Vcr = lVcrl(cos~,, + jsin8Cr) where lVcrI and Ocr are the magnitude Vcm,n < ]% I s J.m.. and os

and angle of the

voltage source. These variables are controlled within limits @c, S 2Z, respectively. According to their contributions to active power and reactive power, the ideal shunt current source Ivr can be decomposed as follows:

Iv, = 1P + IQ
where Ip and
IQ

(2) represent the active part and the The active power 1P (3)

Q;.f )/lK\2

(7) (8)

reactive part of lVr , respectively. has two components: 1P = 1++1=

1, Iq

The complex power transfer from the sending bus can be expressed as

0-7803-7173-9/01/$10.00 2001 IEEE

28
0-7803-7031-7/01/$10.00 (C) 2001 IEEE

S~r = Iy, + jQ,,r

a load demand ~.r +jQ,r (9) demand ~,, + jQ,,

expressed in (1 1)-(12). The load

jlol~l +ZZIKI + Z(IKI + KG

specified at each iteration are expressed 10 calculated from the

Under the lossless assumption (5), the equivalent active power load demand of the sending bus is <, = Plos+, + Plos%, + P,ef (lo) By substituting (7) and (8) into (1 O), the real power flow fi-om the sending end can be simplified as f., = Rc.(p:f + Q:ef )//~ I* + 1, 1~1 + P,q (11)

in terms of the active current

previous iteration. At the end of Newton-Rapson iteration, 10 is determined by the power flow solver. UPFC control parameters 11 ,1, and ~r can be calculated directly in the

Similarly, by substituting (6) into (9), we can find that the reactive power flow tlom the sending end is

UPFC module level without incorporating into the entire power flow equations, With such hierarchic arrangements, power flow equations will be modified accordingly as follows: f23
f;:

=
=

f2,, -1

+ e,,

= o

(13) (14) (15)

fz,, +
f2,-1

Q,,,
+ p,.,

= o
= o

Analytical

formulations

of P,, and Q,, in (1 1)-(12) will when the power

contribute to power ftow formulations system includes UPFCS.

III.

UPFC m

POWER FLOWS

= f2y + Q., = O (16) Since one extra variables is needed, the new equation will be introduced by setting the sending bus voltage at the specified value:
f2.+1 = Iul -

f;wl f;;

~rqf

= o

(17)

Power flow equations are a set of equations expressed the active and reactive power balance in each bus. Mathematically, it can be expressed as:

Intuitively, the initial condition of I. should be set to be zero. This means there is no shunt reactive compensations in the initial iteration . power

f2,-I = $Ilvi 11% /(G,kcosO,k+B,ksinO,k )+PD, f2, = .$)4 Ilh l(G,pin~,~ - B,~cos@,~)+ i = 1,2,..., n; i+ s,r

PG, = O

QD, -QG, =o

B, Modification ofJacobian Matrix Since the number of equations and the number of state variables are increased, some entries of Jacobian matrix will be modified accordingly. Here we list modified entries in the Jacobian matrix:

where lViI and lVkI are voltage magnitudes at bus i and k , 6,k is the phase difference Gik + jBik
D[ + jQD,

between bus i and k linking bus i and k is

(18)

is the admittance
is

the load demand at bus i . PG,+ jQG,

(19)

the power generation at bus i . A, Power Flow A40dljlcations When a power system includes UPFCS, power balance equations change at the buses where UPFCS are connected accordingly. As developed in Section 11,the power transfer ~., +jQ,7 from the sending end to the receiving end is (20)

(21)

indeed a nonlinear fimction of two unknown variables Iz and 10 if both bus voltage magnitudes known. Since the current component I, and angles are represents the

(22)

(23)

active power loss of the shunt coupling transformer, its magnitude will be sufficiently small and its contribution to power mismatch vector will be insignificant. For simplicity, we neglect the variation oflZ Only 10 will be set to be the new external state variable of UPFCS in power flow calculations. We study modified power flows using a hierarchic approach. Two levels calculations will be involved in each iteration. In the system level, it is assumed that both the sending end bus voltage and the line flow are specified. The sending end of the UPFC are treated as a load bus with

(24)

(25)

Detailed expressions of partial derivatives shown in ( 18)(25) are derived in Appendix A. c. Vcr, I, and I= Calculations

0-7803-7173-9/01/$10.00 2001 IEEE

29 0-7803-7031-7/01/$10.00 (C) 2001 IEEE

UPFC control parameter

V=, and

1,

can be determined

by the bus voltage magnitude and the UPFC series branch desired power flow. Using (6), I/cr can be calculated as: ~r = (Rc, + jxcr

control the transmission line power flow only. In this case, no state variable is appended in power flow equations. On the other hand, if we set Vcr = 0,1, = O , no active power will be transferred between UPFC converters. The transmission line power flow is out of control. Only the bus voltage is our control objective, Table 1 summarizes the control setting for different UPFC control models. When UPFCS operate in different modes, the system Jacobian matrix will also be changed accordingly since analytical expressions of Pyr and QSr are different for each control mode. For simplicity, here we omit the technical details.
Table 1 Control Setting for Different UPFC Control Modes Controlled Objectives Branch Flow and Bus Voltage Branch Flow Bus Voltage None Setting Control Variables None Iq=o V& =0,1, = o Vcr= 0,1, = Iq = O UPFC Inter-Module Variables ~r Jt,Iz,Iq,Ix v Cr, 11. (,.,x I 10,IZJX 1,, [x

)(Pref - jQr,( Y v+ v- ~

(26)

By substituting (6) and (26) into (5), It can be obtained as:

Z,= R., (P$ + Q;,f )(IKIIK. 1 )+ ~r,f /lKI

(Pr,fCOS(6,

- 0,) - Q,,f sin(~,, - ~,))1~1 (W

1, can also be solved directly in

The current component

terms of IQ using the following equation:

The detailed derivation of (28) is shown in Appendix B, D. Equivalent Voltage Source of the Shunt Converter The state variable of our hybrid model is indeed equivalent to those of the VSB model, shown in Fig 4, developed by Esquivel et. al [1 ,2].

sending

Rvr+Jxvr *)=Re( Vdw

End

Receivi; End

IV.
I

SIMULATION RESULTS

I ~Re( V.,1..
i+, ( -.,,:
Vw

*)

I
L

:~__ .

Fig.4 Voltage-Source-Based

UPFC Model Equivalent Circuit

In the VSB model, the complex power flows into the shunt branch is: (29) On the other hand, in our hybrid model, the complex power flows into the shunt branch can be written as: Sw = (1, +1, + jzQ]~l (30) Since (29) and (30) are identical, the equivalent voltage source in the VSB model can be easily derived as Vw = ~(Rvr + jl,,)(lt + 1, - j@lK1/ ~ (31)

We have tested our previous developments in IEEE-300 bus test system. The system data has been modified to include UPFCS [12]. It is assumed that the UPFC has been embedded in the transmission line 12-21 (L1 ). The UPFC has been set to control the voltage magnitudes at bus 12 and the power flow from bus 12 to bus 21. Before embedded UPFC into L 1, the bus voltage at bus 12 and the transmission line power flow are : ~z = 0.997Z5.270
%?.zl =

402.62 + j98.47A4W

The solution will be converged within 5 iterations when a power mismatch tolerance is set to be 10-8. When the UPFC is included in our models, it is assumed that the impedance of coupling transformers is: R., + jXC, = 0.02+jO.2 p.u. R,r + jXV, = 0.02+ jO.2 p.u. We have implemented our hybrid UPFC model and the VSB model using the power flow calculation program Matpower [10], Various control objectives are used to test our hybrid model. A. Both Power Transfer and Bus Voltage Control the power Table 2 lists our test cases in which both transfer and the bus voltage are set at the specified values. Numerical simulations have been performed in these cases. The power flow solutions using our hybrid UPFC model are shown in Table 4 while the solutions obtained from the VSB model are shown in Table 5. From simulation results, we can find that power flow solutions of our hybrid model are essentially the same as those of the VSB model. This also demonstrates the validity of our hybrid model. With the aid of (31), we can also find the equivalent shunt

E. UPFC in Other Control Modes The previous development is based on the assumption that our UPFC model is operated in the condition that both transmission line power flow and bus voltage are our control objectives. This hybrid model also works in other modes, including (1) control the transmission line power flow only, (2) control the bus voltage only, or (3) even control none of them. These different control modes can be achieved by setting the proper control parameters to a specific value. For example, if we set Iy = O, this means no reactive power is generated by the shtmt converter. Thus, the bus voltage will not be regulated. This is essentially to

0-7803-7173-9/01/$10.00 2001 IEEE

30 0-7803-7031-7/01/$10.00 (C) 2001 IEEE

voltage I/vr in our hybrid model which is exactly the same

as those representation in the VSB model.
Table2 Different Case 1 2 3 4 UPFC Control Objectives and Parameter Setting

V. CONCLUSIONS A new hybrid UPFC static model for power flow calculations has been developed in this paper. This model can be set to control desired combinations of active power, reactive power, and voltage magnitude simultaneously. In addition, both series and shunt transformer losses are also be considered. Equivalent relationships between our new model and the VSB model are also investigated. Since only one extra UPFC variable is appended in our developed UPFC models, it can be easily incorporated into existing Newton-type power flow solvers. Even with flat start initial conditions, our new model can be easily converged within a few iterations. We have tested our new models in IEEE300 bus power system models. Simulation results have demonstrated the efficiency and the accuracy of our proposed model.

p,.! +.iQ,,j
120+j120 150+j120 120+j100 120+j120

vreJ
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01

Regarding the efficiency of our proposed model, we compare iteration numbers needed in power flow solvers between our hybrid UPFC model and the VSB model. Within the same mismatch criterion, we find the iteration numbers needed for the VSB model is little higher than those of our hybrid model as shown in Table 3.
Table3 Comparison Case 1 2 . Iterations 5 5 of Computation Cost

Our Hybrid UPFC Model

Voltage-Source-Based (VSB) UPFC Model Iterations 1 8

VI,

APPENDIX

We also compare computational flops required in (1) original power system model without UPFC, (2) our hybrid UPFC model, and (3) VSB UPFC model. This result is shown in Fig. 5. Since only one extra state variable is appended in our hybrid mode, it is easy to see that our hybrid model will not increase significant flops in comparison with those without UPFC. However, the VSB model, which have four state variables, may increase as shown in Case 3. computational flops significantly Flop comparisons also demonstrate the efficiency of our hybrid model.

A. Partial Derivative of Equivalent Load Demand All first partial derivative term corresponding to the sending end and receiving end of UPFC are derived explicitly in this section. They are obtained by deriving (11) and (12) with respect to state variable. (32) (33)

80,

-[Pre~COS(6,,

19r) -

Qrefsir@,-- ~,)]~1 /1%1 @5J

I
1Seowo

1aloxlo

1400mo 1200mo

(38)

Mlocno # 1
800~0 mnoo 400CO0 200020 0

B. Estimation of 1, The loss formulation of the shunt coupling transformer can be developed as:
1 2
Case

Plossvr = R#vrl

= Zzlul

(39)

According to (2), (3) and (4), we have IIW12 = (z: + l,) 2+ lQ By substituting solution of (28). (40)

Fig. 5 Computational

Flops Comparison

B. UPFC in (lher Control Modes We also test our UPFC in other control modes, Table 6 the parameter setting in other control modes and shows UPFC inter-module parameter values. Simulation resuks also illustrates that our proposed UPFC model can also be used in other control modes.

(40) into (39), we can find lZ is the

VII. REFERENCE
[1] C R. Fuerte-Esquivei, E. Aeha, Unified Power Flow Controller A Critical Comparison of Newton-Raphson UPFC Algorithms in Power

0-7803-7173-9/01/$10.00 2001 IEEE

31 0-7803-7031-7/01/$10.00 (C) 2001 IEEE

Flow Studies, IEE Proceedings, Generation, Transmission & Distribution. vol. 144, no. 5, September 1997, pp. 437-444. [2] R. Fuerte-Esquivel, E. Acha, and H, Ambriz-Perez, A Comprehensive Newton-Raphson UPFC Model for the Quadratic Power Flow Solution of Practical Power Networks, IEEE Trans. on Por.ve~Systems, vol. 15, no. 1, February 2000, pp. 102-109. [3] W. L. Fang and H. W. Ngan, Control setting of unified power flow controllers through a robust load flow calculation, IEE Proceedings, Gene~ation, Transmission & Dist~ibution, vol. 146, no. 4, July 1999, pp. 365-369. [4] L. Gyugyi, Unified power flow control concept for flexible AC transmission systems, IEEProceedmgs, Generation, Transmission &Distributirm. vol. 139, no.4, July 1992, pp. 323-331. [5 ] N. G Hingorani and L. Gyugyi, Understanding FACTS: concepts and technology o~j7exible ACtransmission systemr, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 2000. [6] 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 Systems, vol. 11, no. 4, November, 1996: pp. 1937-1943.

[7] M. Noroozian, L. Angquist, M. Ghandhari, and G. Andersson, Use of UPFC For Optimal Power Flow Control,, IEEE Trans. on Power
Delivery, vol. 12, no. 4, October 1997, pp. 1629-1634. [8]M. Rahman, M. Ahmed, R. Gutman, RJ. OKeefe, RJ. Nekon, J. Bian, UPFC Application on the AEP System: Planning Considerations'',lEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 12, no.4, November, 1997, pp. 1695-1701. [9 ] Y. H. Song and A, T, John, Flexible ac transmission systems (FACTS), Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, 1999, [10] D, Ray Zimmerman, Deqiang Gan, MA TPOWER, A MATLAB Power System Simulation Package, Ver.2.0Users A4anual, PSERC3 School of Electrical Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca. [11] C, Schauder, E. Stacey, M. Lund, A. Keri, A. Mehraban, A, Edris, L. Gyugyi, L. Kovalsky, AEP UPFC Project: Installation, Commissioning and Operation of the Plus or Minus 160 MVA STATCOM (Phase 1), IEEE Transactions on Power Deliveq. vol. 13, no, 4, pp. 1530-1535, October, 1998,

[12] Available from ftp://wahoo,ee,washington,edu.

Table4 Power Flow Sohrtion Using Hybrid UPFCModel

Power Flow Solution Case

I

UPFC Inter-Model Variables

Iq Ix I, 1,

Transfer power
v (p:) ~

Transformer loss
Plossvr Plosscr

slz.~~ (MW)

VIZ

(pu)

(pu)

(pu) -1.000 ) 109 -0 . .. -0.053 -0.672

(pu) 0.336 f) 327

(pu) 0.1000 00109 0.0053 0.0672

(MW)
33.638 32.746 28,066 32.398

(MW)
0,999 1.094 0.534 6,790

(MW)
5,783 7.398 4.946 5.780

1 2 3 4

120+j120
150+j120 120+j100 120+j120

1.000/6.788
1.000/Z6.533 1.00016.871 1,010< 6,361

1.616
0.767 0.484 2,473

0.2s1
0,321

0.285 Z175.667 ! 0.300Z 167,642 0.24 1/177.249 0.275 L175,44&

Table5 Power Flow Solution Using Voltage-Source-Based UPFC Model

Power Flow Solution Case

1 2 3 4 s~~.zl (MW) 120+j120 150+j120 120+j100 120+j100 Vlg

UPFC Inter-Model Variables

v Vr v

Transfer power
~ (MW) 33.638 32.746 28.066 32,398

Transformer loss
Plossvr (MW) 0.999 1.094 0,534 6.790 Plosscr (MW) 5.783 7.398 4.946 5.780

(pu)
1.000/6.788 1.000/6.533 1.000 L6.871 1.010 Z6.361

(Pu)
1.11912.608 1.12812.423 1.08213.385 1.367 Ll.594

(p:)
0,2851175.667 0.3001167.642 0.241 L177.249 0.2751175.446

Control Objective case P,,f + JQ,,T

Table6 Power Flow Sohrtion for Different Control Model Power Flow Solution UPFC Inter-Model Variables
512-21

Vref

v 12

Iq

lx

1,

I,

v cr

0-7803-7173-9/01/$10.00 2001 IEEE

32
0-7803-7031-7/01/$10.00 (C) 2001 IEEE