CHAPTER

FOUR

TOTAL TRANSFER CAPABILITY

structuring of power system aims at involving the private power producers in the system to supply power. The restructured electric power

industry is characterized by the competition in generation with guaranteed access to open transmission [39, 130]. With the endeavor of achieving diversied customer choice of power suppliers and competitive electricity rates, vertically integrated utilities are broken down into generation, transmission and distribution entities. Transmission system, which acts as a common corridor between suppliers and customers, plays a signicant role in the restructured market structure.

4.1

Total transfer capability

In restructured power market, power producers and customers will share the transmission network and try to maximize their benets by procuring power

A part of this work is published in: Dierential evolution based method for total transfer capability evaluation International Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology, 2(5):8191, 2010

43

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability

44

from the cheapest available resources. This results in the violation of line ows, voltage and generation limits, aecting the system security and reliability to a greater extent. Hence there exists a technical challenge of nding the optimal balance between maximum power transfer capability and system stability margins. This is important as transfer capability values dominate critical decision making of many power system operations and planning. Hence, utilities need to accurately evaluate the total transfer capability (TTC) to ensure that system reliability is maintained. Total transfer capability is dened as the maximum power that can be transferred between dierent areas without violating system constraints. The value of TTC can be made more accurate by considering transmission reliability margin (TRM), which is the amount of transmission capability necessary to protect the transmission system against overloading. A wide variety of mathematical methods and algorithms have been developed for calculating TTC. These methods can be divided into four types as follows: continuation power ow (CPF) method, repetitive power ow (RPF) method, linear available transfer capability (LATC) method and optimal power ow (OPF) based method. The CPF method traces the power ow solution curve, starting at a base load, leading to the steady state voltage stability limit or the critical maximum loading point of power systems [41]. This method can overcome the singularity of the Jacobian matrix near the saddle node bifurcation point, or the critical point. However, more computational eort and convergence time are needed for this method. The RPF method, based on a generalized search method, repeatedly solves conventional power ow equations, where the successive power ow solutions are obtained to establish the maximum transfer capability [131]. RPF uses a common loading factor to increase certain power for a cluster of generators

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability

45

and loads. This leads to conservative TTC, since the optimal distribution of generation and load are ignored. The LATC method is based on linear incremental power ow approximation, which calculates power transfer distribution factors (PTDF) to determine the transfer capabilities of power system [45]. This method is attractive since the factors are easy to calculate and can give rough gures of TTC quickly. However, this method is based on dc load ow, ignoring voltage and reactive power eects. This results in a stressed system with insucient reactive power support and voltage control. Yan Ou et al [48] have obtained TTC using transfer based security constrained optimal power ow method for IEEE 24 bus RTS system. Shaaban et al [47] calculated total transfer capability by considering the eect of reactive power using sequential quadratic programming. But this method is very sensitive to the initial starting point by which local optimum is detected. To overcome the short comings of the above methods, many researchers have tried to calculate transfer capability by means of articial intelligence techniques such as evolutionary programming (EP) [67], and hybrid continuous ant colony optimization [132]. Sensitivity based methods [131, 133, 134], and probabilistic methods [6264] are also used to consider the impact of system uncertainties and evaluated transmission reliability margin. In the present study, DE is used as an optimization tool to solve maximum power transfer optimal power ow problem in restructured power market. Contingencies in terms of single and multi line outages, generator outages and three phase faults are considered to evaluate TRM. While computing TTC between two areas, it is assumed that there is no change in load and generation of other connected areas since TTC value will be aected by such changes. The applicability of the method is investigated on IEEE 30 bus and Indian utility 62 bus systems with various cases of power transfers.

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability

46

4.2

Problem formulation

In this section, estimation of total transfer capability is formulated as an optimal power ow problem. The objective is to maximize the power that can be transferred from a specic set of generators in a source area to loads in a sink area, subject to the constraints of load ow equations and system operation limits. The sum of real power loads in the sink area at the maximum power transaction is dened as the TTC value. The objective function for the OPF-based TTC calculation is expressed mathematically as
N D SN K

Max F =
i=1 N

PDi

(4.1)

PGi PDi QGi QDi +

j =1 N

Vi Vj Yij cos(ij i + j ) = 0 Vi Vj Yij sin(ij i + j ) = 0 i = 1, 2, ......, N G i = 1, 2, ......., N G i = 1, 2, ......, N

(4.2)

(4.3) (4.4) (4.5) (4.6) (4.7)

j =1

min max PGi PGi PGi max Qmin Gi QGi QGi

Vimin Vi Vimax
max |SLij | SLij

i, j = 1, 2, ......., N L

where F is the total real power load of load buses in the sink area. PGi and QGi are the real and reactive power generation at bus i. PDi and QDi are the real and reactive power load at bus i. Vi and Vj are the voltage magnitudes at bus i and j respectively. Yij and ij are the magnitude and angle of the element i, j of bus admittance matrix. i and j are the voltage angles of
min max bus i and j . PGi and PGi are the lower and upper limits of real power max generation at bus i. Qmin Gi and QGi are the lower and upper limits of reactive

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability

47

power generation at bus i, Vimin and Vimax are the lower & upper limits of
max voltage magnitude at bus i. |SLij | is the apparent power ow and SLij is the

maximum MVA rating of the transmission line connecting buses i and j . N is the total number of buses. N G is the total number of generators. N L is the total number of branches and N D SN K is the total number of load buses in sink area.

4.3

Solution methodology

The TTC from the source area to the sink area is calculated using OPF based dierential evolution method. From NERCs denition [39, 130], TRM is the transfer capability that is reserved for any uncertainties that may occur in the near future. TRM can be calculated by deterministic and probabilistic methods [39, 48, 130, 133]. In this work, TRM is included by introducing contingencies such as single & multi line outages, generator outages and a 3- to ground fault. A base case ac power ow is established initially, in which the system load is supplied without violating the system constraints. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show the base case power ows in the transmission lines of IEEE 30 & Indian utility 62 bus systems respectively. The base case is modied by varying the generation in the source area and the load in sink area simultaneously. This process continues until the contingency causes the violation of any one of the system limits such as thermal limit, voltage limit and stability limit. The minimum amount of power transfer among all the contingencies under any one of this violation, is taken as the TTC for the corresponding power transaction which is given by
T T C = Min (T T C0 , T T CK ) (4.8)

where T T C0 and T T CK are the maximum amount of power transfers without and with contingency K , respectively. The detailed algorithm of calculating

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability

140 120 Magnitude of line ows (MVA) 100 80 60 40 20

48
Maximum limit Base case line ow

10

15 20 25 30 Number of transmission lines

35

40

Figure 4.1: Base case line ows IEEE 30 bus system

450 400 Magnitude of line ows (MVA) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Number of transmission lines 70 80 90 Maximum limit Base case line ow

Figure 4.2: Base case line ows Indian utility 62 bus system

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability

49

TTC using OPF based dierential evolution method is given in the ow chart as shown in the gure 4.3. The adopted formulation for TTC calculation nds out the maximum additional allowable transactions without curtailing the existing ones.
Start Read the input Run base case OPF and compute line ows using Newton-Raphson method Select a case, normal or any contingency k Increase the iteration counter G = G + 1 Compute the TTC for the selected case, for each population of the parent vector Set the parent population with the maximum value of TTC as the target vector

Set iteration counter G = 1 Perform mutation and crossover Generate randomly, the parent vectors, with the real power of the generator vectors in the source area and the real power of the load vectors in the sink area as the control variables Compute line ows using Newton-Raphson method Increase real power of the load nonuniformly Compute the TTC for each population of the trial vectors Selection among the target vector and the trial vector for the survival Best vector selected will be the new parent vector for the next population No Limits violated? Yes Yes Limits violated? No

Is G > Gmax ? Yes The minimum value of all the TTC levels, obtained from among the various cases, is taken as the TTC for this source/sink transfer case Stop

No

Figure 4.3: Flow chart for the evaluation of TTC

4.4

Case study and results

The IEEE 30 bus (gure 4.4) and Indian utility 62 bus systems (gure 4.5) are used as the test systems to demonstrate the eectiveness of the proposed

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability

50

method in determining the value of TTC. The IEEE 30 bus system is split into three areas with two generators in each area. Area 1 and Area 2 are interconnected by a tie line 4-12. The lines 10-17, 10-20 and 23-24 are the tie lines which connect areas 2 and 3. The base case real power loads in each area are 84.5, 56.2 and 48.5MW respectively.
G 1 2 G 5 7 28 AREA - 1 3 4 6 8

9 G 12 13 17 16 10

11

G 27

14 15

18

20

22 G

21

19 30 G

AREA - 2

23

24

25

29

AREA - 3

26

Figure 4.4: One line diagram of IEEE 30 bus system with dierent areas An Indian utility 62 bus system has 19 generators, 89 numbers of transmission lines, 11 tap changing transformers with a power demand of 2909MW. The system is divided into 3 areas with six generators in area 1 and area 3 respectively, whereas area 2 has seven generators. The base case real power loads of each area are 795, 1190 and 924 MW respectively. The simulation parameters for DE and PSO are given in Table 3.1.

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability

AREA - 2 57 AREA - 1 G 51 50 G 59 49 G 42 47 46 28 37 38 G 39 41 45 25 G 43 G 23 G 17 21 22 AREA - 3 27 40 30 33 G 36 32 G 31 29 16 48 44 19 18 62 G 54 52 G 61 60 20 14 G 15 55 53 G 56 G 58 12 13 10 11 3 4 G 5 8 G 2 6 7 1 G G 9

51

26 24 34 G 35

Figure 4.5: One line diagram of Indian utility 62 bus system with dierent areas

4.4.1
4.4.1.1

Calculation of TTC without TRM

Transfer of power from area 2 to 1 IEEE 30 bus system

In this case, the generating powers of area 2 and the real power load of area 1 are taken as the control variables and are varied randomly from their base values. The active loading vector of area 1 before and after this transaction is shown in the Table 4.1. It is found that the generation of area 2 reaches its maximum limit when the load of area 1 is 105.3972MW which is the needed value of TTC. Figure 4.6 shows the convergence characteristics of TTC using

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability Table 4.1: Active loading of area 1 Load bus numbers Base case load (MW ) Increased load using DE (MW ) 2 21.7 33.0 3 2.4 2.9124 4 7.6 7.7439 7 22.8 30.0

52

8 30.0 31.7409

DE and PSO. It can be seen that DE gives more optimal values of TTC than PSO. The CPU time needed for DE and PSO are 31.6057 and 43.8154 seconds respectively for the above case.
106 104 102 TTC (MW ) 100 98 96 94 92 0 DE

PSO

10

20

30

40 50 60 Number of iterations

70

80

90

100

Figure 4.6: Convergence characteristics for the transaction from area 2 to area 1 IEEE 30 bus system

4.4.1.2

Transfer of power from area 2 to 3 IEEE 30 bus system

In this case, the load of area 3 is varied randomly until any one of the system constraints is violated. Simultaneously, the generation of area 2 is also varied to meet the changing load in area 3. Using the proposed algorithm, the value of TTC is found to be 66.4664MW. This value is taken when the generation of area 2 reaches its maximum limit. The active loading vector of area 3 before

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability

53

and after transaction is shown in Figure 4.7. The CPU time required for DE
20 18 16 Active loads (MW ) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of load buses 6 7 Increased load Base case load

Figure 4.7: Base and increased loads of area 3 IEEE 30 bus system and PSO are found to be 33.5843 and 44.5734 seconds respectively for this case. The TTC values obtained for both the cases of power transfer with their limiting conditions and other published results are given in Table 4.2. It is found that in both the cases of power transfer (21 and 23) TTC values given by DE are 6.4881% and 5.6548% greater than that obtained using PSO. This shows the robustness of DE over PSO. Such a better estimation of the TTC value helps the system operator to enhance the utilization of system capability for further operation and planning of the transmission network. 4.4.1.3 Transfer of power from area 1 to 2 Indian utility 62 bus system In this case, the load of area 1 is varied randomly until any one of the system constraints is violated. Simultaneously, the generation of area 2 is also varied to meet the changing load in area 1. Using the proposed algorithm, the value

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability Table 4.2: Comparison of results IEEE 30 bus system Area From To CPF [47, 67] 88.50 (6-8 ) Total Transfer Capability (MW) EP [67] PSO* 98.9756 (6-8) 62.9090 (6-8 ) DE* 105.3972 (Generation of area 2) 66.4664 (Generation of area 2)

54

98.77 2 1 (Generation of area 2) 62.65 51.50 2 3 (Generation of (6-8 ) area 2) *Results obtained in this study

of TTC is estimated to be 1608.7906MW where the limiting condition is the violation of thermal limit in line 43. The variation of loads for this case is given in gure 4.8.

200 180 160 Active loads (MW ) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number of load buses 9 10 11 Increased load Base case load

Figure 4.8: Variation of loads for area 1 to area 2 Indian utility 62 bus system

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability

55

4.4.2
4.4.2.1

Calculation of TTC with TRM

Transfer of power from area 2 to 1 IEEE 30 bus system

TTC including contingencies which involves single and multi line outages is carried out for this case. The tie line between area 2 and area 1(412), and transmission lines (57) & (1415) of area 1 and area 2 respectively, are made out of service individually, and simultaneously. The outage of the line 57 is taken as the critical contingency which gives the least value of 99.9897MW with the line 68 exceeding its maximum limits as shown in the gure 4.9. Apart from the line contingencies, a 3- to ground fault is also introduced as

105.3972 MW Source area Sink area

Area 2

Area 1

57 68

99.9897 MW

Area 2 Notation: Single transmission line outage Thermal limit reached Denotes the tie line 4 12

Area 1

Figure 4.9: TTC calculation for the transaction from area 2 to area 1 including contingencies IEEE 30 bus system an uncertainty in the transmission line connected between the buses 6 & 9. Due to this fault, the generator rotor angles swing rapidly and may result in

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability

56

system instability. To ensure stability, this fault is subsequently cleared by isolating the faulty line from the system after 50ms. Rotor angle characteristics of each generator of the system are shown in the gure 4.10. It can be seen that rotor angles are within the safer limit (45 to 45 ) and hence the system security is ensured. The value of TTC obtained for the above case is found to be 97.8425MW.

4.4.2.2

Transfer of power from area 2 to 3 IEEE 30 bus system

The tie lines between area 2 and area 3 (10-17, 10-20 and 23-24), are made out of service individually and multi line contingency is introduced by the outage of one of the tie line 10-17 and the line 14-15 of area 2 simultaneously. The TTC value obtained for each transfer case, and their respective limiting conditions are given in Table 4.3. The value of TTC obtained for the above

2 4 6 8
G23 G22 G13 G27

G2

(degree )

10 12 14 0 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3

Figure 4.10: Generator relative rotor angle curves IEEE 30 bus system

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Time (seconds )

0. 8

0. 9

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability Table 4.3: TTC with TRM for area 23 IEEE 30 bus system Cases Normal 10-17 10-20 23-24 10-17 and 14-15 TTC (MW ) 66.4664 76.0019 60.7472 58.1763 66.7877

57

Limiting condition Generation of area 2 6-8 15-18 21-22 6-8

case is found to be 58.1763MW, after the outage of tie line (23-24). Figure 4.11 shows the convergence characteristics for the above case. Figure 4.12 shows the line ows in MVA for the transaction from area 2 to area 3 using DE algorithm. Lines 11(6-8), line 27(15-18) and line 32(21-22) are the violated lines as shown in the gure 4.12 corresponding to the respective contingencies. The variation of real power loads in the sink area (area 3) with respect to the base case values is shown in gure 4.13.
80 1017 75

TTC (MW )

70 1017 & 1415 Normal

65 1020 60 2324 55 0

10

20

30

40 50 60 Number of iterations

70

80

90

100

Figure 4.11: Convergence characteristics for various contingencies from area 2 to area 3 using DE IEEE 30 bus system

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability

140 120 Magnitude of line ows (MVA) 100 80 60 40 20 Maximum limit Normal case 1017 line contignency 1020 line contingency 2324 line contingency 1017 & 1415 multi line

58

10

15 20 25 30 Number of transmission lines

35

40

Figure 4.12: Line ows for the transaction from area 2 to area 3 using DE IEEE 30 bus system
25 Base case load Normal case 1017 line contingency 1020 line contingency 2324 line contingency 1017 & 1415 multi line

20 Magnitude of loads (MW )

15

10

bus 10

bus 21

bus 24 bus 25 bus 26 Load buses in area 3

bus 29

bus 30

Figure 4.13: Variation of loads for the transaction from area 2 to area 3 using DE IEEE 30 bus system

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability

59

A 3- to ground fault is introduced in the transmission line connected between buses 10 & 21. This is cleared after 50ms as before, and the system is found to be stable. The value of TTC for this case is found to be 56.3531MW.

4.4.2.3

Transfer of power from area 1 to 2 Indian utility 62 bus system

In this case, contingencies such as single line, multi line and generator outages are included in the system. The tie lines between area 1 and area 2, and the largest generator among the two areas, are made out of service individually and multi line contingency is introduced by the outage of lines 49-50 and 58-60 of area 1 and 2 simultaneously. The TTC values obtained for each case are given in Table 4.4. The lowest among these values (1564.27MW ), is obtained Table 4.4: TTC (MW ) with TRM for area 12 Indian utility 62 bus system
Cases TTC Outage of Norline line line line lines 49-50 mal 52-61 55-58 59-61 62-61 &58-60 1608.79 1577.82 1604.47 1613.25 1580.80 1564.27 largest generator 1605.81

during the multi line contingency by limiting the line 43 connected between the buses 31 and 32. Figure 4.14 shows convergence characteristics for the above case. Lines 43(31-32), 78(55-58) and 58(39-42) are found to be the most violated lines during various contingencies as shown in the gure 4.15.

4.5

Conclusions

This chapter presents a detailed formulation and implementation of the OPF based TTC calculation with transmission reliability margin using dierential evolution algorithm. The algorithm is tested on the IEEE 30 bus and Indian

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability

1640 1620 1600 TTC (MW ) 1580 1560 1540 1520 1500 1480 0 6261 5261 Largest generator 5558 4950 & 5860 5961 Normal 10 20 30 40 50 60 Number of iterations 70 80 90

60

100

Figure 4.14: Convergence characteristics for various contingencies from area 12 using DE Indian utility 62 bus system
500 450 Magnitude of line ows (MVA) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Number of transmission lines 70 80 90 Maximum limit Normal case 5261 line contingency 5558 line contingency 5961 line contingency 6261 line contingency Largest generator outage 4950 & 5860 multi line

Figure 4.15: Line ows (MVA) for area 12 using DE Indian utility 62 bus system

Chapter 4. Total transfer capability

61

utility 62 bus systems. Results show that the proposed method is very eective with good convergence characteristics compared to particle swarm optimization, in determining the TTC between the dierent areas subjected to the system operation limits. Also, the results obtained by DE are better than the previously reported methods like CPF [47] & EP [67] (Table 4.2) and the CPU time needed for convergence is less. The accuracy of TTC is improved by considering TRM in the calculation. Also it is concluded that the total transfer capability is less when TRM is considered.