Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1971
more complete picture of maximum interchange, it would be slower, longer running times; a significant increase is not expected, although
and neither approach is totally appropriate because neither is a this remains to be proven. The ordering algorithm treats a remote
dynamic solution. control constraint, for instance, as separate and distinct from both
We share all the discussers' beliefs that optimization programs will buses and assigns it a number according to its own fill-in pattern.
prove to be an extremely powerful and useful tool. We hope to set Some constraints will certainly prove difficult to order, but others
up a program of this sort, but -when we do, we expect to find the may even be better than the normal bus ordering. Similarly, some
equality constraint forms presented here equally as useful in optimiza- constraints may prove easy to misapply, causing a high percentage of
tion for inequality constraints and objective functions. Only time will divergent cases. The results of these last two problems may be that
tell which algorithms are best for which problems. some models will prove more trouble than they are worth; only pro-
Solution efficiency can be degraded by more complex coding, less duction testing will determine this.
efficient ordering, or greater tendency toward nonconvergence. More The paper presents ideas, not laws of nature; it is hoped that others
sophisticated programs necessitate more complex codes which mean will be interested enough to experiment and expand these ideas.
Abstract-Further modifications of Newton's method as applied The differences between the solution given in [1 ] (and refined
to the solution of load-flow problems are described. Considerable there) and the one described in' [3] are: 1) Cartesian, instead of
saving in computer time is achieved when using these methods. polar coordinates, are used; 2) in [3 ] the Jacobian matrix is fac-
The algorithms proposed can be adapted to the case when main tored into a product of two triangular matrices at each iteration
storage space is limited by using backing magnetic tape storage.
step, using the Gauss elimination method. In [1 ] and here, the in-
verse of the Jacobian matrix is computed once and then corrected
at each step or at each kth step (modified Newton-Raphson
INTRODUCTION method).
Four modifications of the Newton-Raphson method are
^TEWTON'S METHOD as applied to load-flow calculations described and the saving in computations achieved by them is
iN [1] is clearly superior in its convergence and ability to evaluated.
solve ill-conditioned problems to methods based on the Gauss-
Seidel algorithm. Unfortunately, when using this method one FORMULATION OF PROBLEM
has to invert the Jacobian matrix of a large system at each Kirchhoff's current law for a network of n + 1 busbars (nodes)
iteration. The reduction of the amount of computations is can be written in a way [1 ] that leads to the residual equations
therefore sought in inverting this Jacobian matrix, and some of n
the methods used to achieve this are presented.
The requirement of some of the new methods for even more
r = E (givi + bkivn+±) + Gko
storage space than that described in [1] is not prohibitive since:
1) the storage space of present-day computers is increasing fast- PkV0k - Pn±1Vn+k 0
Vk2 + Vn+k2
a point raised already in [1], [2]; 2) the load flow is computed
most often as a part of transient stability [3] or optimization [4] n
calculations and in both the network is substituted by a reduced rn+= i= 1 (bkiVi - qkivn+i) + Gk,n+l
one, with a much smaller number of busbars; 3) the proposed
methods can easily be adapted to the use of backing memory, Pn+±Vk + PkVn+± = 0 Ik (1(1))
the volume of which is practically unlimited. A program written
in ALGOL and using a limited main space storage is presented in
the Appendix. where
Pk +jPn+k power flowing into kth node
Paper 70 TP 162-PWR, recommended and approved by the Power Vk - JVn+k voltage of kth node
System Engineering Committee of the IEEE Power Group for gki + jbki admittance between nodes k and i, k i,
presentation at the IEEE Winter Power Meeting, New York, N. Y., i#dO
January 25-30, 1970. Manuscript submitted September 10, 1969;
made available for printing November 19, 1969. jGk+, + admittance between kth node and slack bus
G0o+
Y. Wallach was with the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, and the buses are numbered 0 to n with the slack bus being
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. He is now
with Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind. 47907. numbered 0.
R. K. Even is with the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, The 2n equations (1) are solved by Newton's method, where
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. in each iteration step 1 one corrects the voltage vector v accord-
Y. Yavin was with the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Tech-
nion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. He is now ing to
with the Departmeint of Electrical Engineering, Virginia Poly-
technic Institute, Blacksburg, Va. 24061. v(l) = u(1- l- [(-l - (-l 2
WALLACH et al.: IMPROVED LOAD-FLOW CALCULATIONS 117
It was shown in [1] that the Jacobian matrix J(P) can be Using definition (5), (13) becomes
written as
J-'(v + w) -
+ E E [ I WkWm + E(w) (8) Substitution of (20) into (2) yields an algorithm that will be
k=l m=lLVk d3Vm t=O called method 2, as compared to method 1 of [1].
It is interesting to note that algebraic manipulation of (20)
where
seen that
E(w)/||W112 tends to zero when the norm |w| 0, it is
leads to
[J()]1-l = [2I (J(--1))-'J(')][J(1-1)
- - (21)
sij(l) si(O)
- = d[-]
dt -t=0
+ a6(w)
and this resembles in form an equation for a successive improve-
ment of the inverse of a constant given matrix [5]. In contra-
where 6(w)/IIwI|
tends to zero as -* 0.
Equation (9) can be rewritten in matrix form as
IIwI distinction it should be noted that in (21) J(V) changes at each
iteration step 1.
The computation in method 2 starts with an initial guess of
[dt ]t=0 (10) v(°) and the calculation of the corresponding [J(o) ]-'. Equations
(2) and (20) serve for calculating successive values of v which
From the identity approach the solution.
d The problem of convergence is not dealt with here explicitly.
-_
dt S(t) S-1(t)] = 0 (11) Suffice it to say that convergence can be proved by using t6,
corollary 4.7 1.
it follows that The following methods are based on the assumption that the
Jacobian matrix changes slowly, which is justified by compu-
dS [dS'1 tations performed, e.g., in [1, table I]. In methods 3 and 4, (2) is
(12)
LdtJ L dt ]( rewritten as
Substitution of this into (10) yields V-= V(l-1) - (22)
S(1) -
(S) 0 -S(O)L dt } c S(o). (13) and the modifications of method 2 differ in the form of
only.
B(1)
118 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1971
j(o) = [[B Bf
this matrix equals the value 1 in an ordered fashion. The calculation of the norms
G-G()
(30) 4 in method 5 does not increase the amount of work considerably,
since it is based on the calculation of 2r2 which is usually needed
anyway (and not a(l) as here).
and thus depends only on the network data, but not on the In all the proposed methods, the first step is to invert J(o)
loading. Its inverse may therefore be computed once for a given [(30)]. This matrix is symmetric, as can easily be verified by
network and given as part of the input to each one of the load- noting that the matrices G and B (being the conductance and
flow cases to be solved. The special kind of the matrices Jd(') the susceptance matrices, respectively, of the given network)
WALLACH et al.: IMPROVED LOAD-FLOW CALCULATIONS 119
is a large defined region. Such information on S would allow for the discusser would like to know the authors' comments on the
guaranteed convergence for vu selected at some distance from v. mixed formulation employing rectangular coordinates for load buses
Knowledge of the region S would also give us an additional factor in and polar coordinates for generator buses with constant voltages.
comparing algorithms to go along with computing time and storage Finally the discusser wishes to thank the authors for making
requirements. available a copy of their paper.
In summary, our preliminary conclusions on a class of algorithms
quite sirmilar in concept to those presented in this paper are that
the modified Newton method seems best for the load-flow problem.
Where hard limits (such as generator var limits, etc.) are imposed,
and in effect v moves, an updating of J is required. The modified
method should be continued for as many iterations as possible. Yehuda Wallach, Reed K. Even, and Yaakov Yavin: The authors
wish to thank all those who have taken the trouble of writing down
REFERENCES
-their remarks on the paper.
The difference between our method and those mentioned by Mr.
[15] J. I)ieudonne, Foundations of Modern Analysis. New York: Peterson and Mr. Meyer is that in the first case the inverted matrix
Academic Press, 1960. is updated in every kth iteration only whereas in their methods a
[16] J. Meisel and R. D. Barnard, "Applications of fixed-point set of linear equations is solved by triangularization in each itera-
techniques to load-flow studies," IEEE Trans. Power App. tion. In the most general case such a solution requires I = 1n3
Syst., vol. PAS-89, pp. 136-140, January 1970. operations for I iterations, whereas in the method suggested in our
[17] R. Barnard, "Extended Newton algorithmns for calculatinig paper Al = (I/K)16n2 operations only are required. There is no
system singular points," Paper D-6:7, presented at the 3rd
Hawaii Conf. on System Sciences, Honolulu, Hawaii, January question that our method is clearly superior if these numbers are
1970. taken as the basis of discussion.
[18] J. B. Ward and H. W. Hale, "Digital computer solution of The methods proposed in our paper are not amenable to the
power-flow problems," AIEE Trans. (Power App. Syst.), application of sparsity considerations for lowering the number of
vol. 75, pp. 398-404, June 1956. operations. This is shown very convincingly by M'Ur. Peterson and
[19] J. P. Britton, "Improved load flow performance through a more Mr. Meyer. And yet when deciding what method to use one should
general equation form," this issue, pp. 109-116. pose the following considerations.
1) Is the structure of the network such that (32) holds true, i.e.,
that the "average" mentioned by the discussers is relevant to the
particular case?
2) How sparse is sparse? The measure of sparsity changes when
stability or optimization is considered.
D. K. Subramanian (Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India): 3) Taking advantage of sparsity means additional logic operations
The authors are to be congratuilated for developing four new methods for establishing the addresses of nonzero ternms. No comparable
for load-flow studies. Also, such mathematical rigors as norms and expenditure in computation time is required by our methods.
operators of fuLnctional analysis are introduced. The discusser would As the discussion by Mr. Meisel and Mr. Barnard shows, there are
like to know the opinions of authors on the following points. at least somiie indications that sparsity couild be used for uipdating
1) In method 4 Jd(°) is assumed to be a null matrix. Will the J-1. The whole comparison between the methlods will have to be done
convergence improve if instead Jd calculated during the first itera- fronm the beginining in this case. Our inethod can be imiproved, as
tion is used? Also Jd(-1) is a null matrix and not Jd(°). Mr. Meisel and Mr. Barnard show, by incluiding remainder terms,
2) Usually for normal well-conditioned systems the improvement thereby checking also on results. This can be done in triangulariza-
on voltage variables obtained during the first iteration of Newton's tion only at the penalty of additional time expendituire. MIoreover,
method is considerable compared to the values obtained in the there are indications in these discussers' notes that generator type
succeeding iterations. Hence if the methods 2-5 are used after one or switching and other changes in the structure of the iiimpedance matrix
two iterations using method 1, will the convergence improve? could be taken care of in our methods.
3) Equation (24) for BU') can also be obtained in the following It seems that there is no point in trying to imnprove our imethod 2
manner. Let Us use the AMonte Carlo method to invert [J(O) + Jd]: (as considered by Mr. Peterson and Mr. MIeyer) since we have dis-
carded it as an inefficient method.
[J(O) + Jd]- = [J(O)]-I[I + JdJ(°01] 1 (40) We have appended an ALGOL progranm to make the algorithm
[J(O) + -
Jd]l J(O)-1[I JdJ(O)-1]
-
(41) clearer. Of course the same algorithm can be programmed in ma-
chine language, thus saving the added penalty (which, contrary to
= J(O) - J(o) -JdJ(°) -1
-
what could be erroneously understood from Mr. Peterson and Mr.
which is the same as (21). Meyer's remark, is not inherent to the method) of using programmer-
Equation (41) is obtained from (40) using oriented language.
We did not have time to run the program as suggested in 1),
(I + AX)Y- = I-AX + AX2- (42) 2), and 5) of Mr. Subramanian's discussion, so we cannot give a
(I AX)-,
+ I- _
AX. (43) positive answer. We do feel that the proposed changes can speed up
the solution.
4) Another factor is sparsity, which is lost in these methods. We are thankful for the suggestions in the two last letters and
5) Since the authors very well explain the advantages of using think that it will still take some time before the controversy is
rectangular coordinates for voltages instead of polar coordinates, solved.