Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CHAPTER 7
STATIC SECURITY ENHANCEMENT USING
MULTI TYPE FACTS DEVICES FOR
MULTIPLE CONTINGENCIES
7.1
INTRODUCTION
In the proposed work, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
In this problem two cases are considered and they are single and
double contingency. Combination of TCSC and UPFC are used to reduce line
overloads and installation cost of FACTS devices. To evaluate the suitability
of a given branch for placing UPFC and TCSC, an index called Contingency
Severity Index (CSI) is calculated for each branch. This index is used for
installing the UPFC and TCSC. Once located, the optimal settings of these
devices with respect to single and double contingency can be obtained by
solving the optimization problem.
140
7.2
PROBLEM FORMULATION
The objectives used in this problem are eliminating or alleviating
the line overloads and minimizing the installation cost of the multi type
FACTS devices. The problem can be formulated as follows and it involves
three stages:
i)
FACTS devices
ii)
Single contingency
7.2.1
a series branch in the transmission line via its DC circuit results in a UPFC, is
shown in Figure 7.1. The UPFC combines the benefits of a STATCOM and a
TCSC.
141
7.2.1.1
Operation of UPFC
The UPFC consists of two voltage-sourced converters. The two
142
Converter 2 and therefore does not have to be transmitted by the line. Thus,
Converter 1 can be operated at a unity power factor or can be controlled to
have a reactive power exchange with the line independent of the reactive
power exchanged by Converter 2. Obviously, there can be no reactive power
flow through the UPFC dc link.
7.3
7.3.1
series with the line and SVC connected across the corresponding buses
between which the line is connected as shown in Figure 7.2.
143
SOL =
c =1 k =1
Pk
a k max
Pk
(7.1)
(7.2)
(7.3)
(7.4)
144
7.3.1.1
(7.5)
7.3.1.2
7.3.1.3
(7.6)
= PD + PL
(7.7)
(7.8)
(7.9)
145
7.4
(7.10)
Algorithm:
Step 1.
Step 2.
Step 3.
Step 4.
Step 5.
Step 6.
146
7.5
6 Bus System
The bus data and line data of the six bus test system are given in
Appendix 3. This system is analyzed for both single and double
contingencies.
7.5.1.1
Single Contingency
Branch
1-2
2-6
CSI
0.0445
0.0383
1-4
0.0329
4
5
3-5
2-5
0.0286
0.0279
2-4
0.0252
2-3
0.0205
147
7.5.1.2
Double Contingency
Rank
1
2
Branch
3-6
2-3
CSI
0.872
0.6931
3
4
1-2
1-5
0.4866
0.4100
5
6
2-6
2-5
0.3597
0.3280
7
8
2-4
1-4
0.3064
0.2736
Tables 7.1 and 7.2 show that branch number 1-2 and 3-6 are chosen
as the best location to place the first available multi type FACTS devices for
single and double contingencies. Depending on the available budget, the
placement of other FACTS devices can proceed where branch 2-6 and 2-3
will be the second choice, branch 1-4 and 1-2 are the third choice and so on.
Once the location is determined, their type, optimal settings and cost of
installation can be obtained by solving the optimization problem using PSO.
Tables 7.3 and 7.4 show the overloading of branches when different number
of FACTS devices is installed during single and double contingencies.
148
Table 7.3
No. of
devices
SOL
No. of
overloads
FACTS
Fitness
device Cost
6
(US$) (10 )
(109)
Execution
time
(seconds)
Value
126.0266
23
0.1410
107.8061
19
3.7821
2.0515
231.50
100.0111
18
12.591
1.9555
230.90
96.4418
17
16.353
1.8822
232.50
89.5330
15
15.404
1.7193
232.79
93.4915
17
17.964
1.8334
226.84
Table 7.4
No. of
devices
SOL
FACTS
device Cost
overloads
(US$) (106)
No. of
Fitness
Value
Execution
time
(109)
(Seconds)
447.39
188
0.2010
382.71
187
2.9306
6.1280
1404.3
342.36
179
79.347
5.8560
1660.2
318.20
175
9.5265
5.5502
1361.4
258.53
182
28.480
5.6950
1149.9
505.40
198
33.205
6.2356
1415.9
149
Tables 7.3 and 7.4 show that the severity index (SOL) and the
number of overloads are reduced from 23 to 15 when four FACTS devices are
placed for single contingencies and 188 to 175 when three FACTS devices are
placed for double contingencies. Further increase of devices, shows no
improvement in reduction of severity, overloading and cost of installation
rather they start increasing. Hence in this case, four and three number of
FACTS devices are considered for optimal system security for single and
double contingencies. The optimal settings, line number and the type of
device are obtained by solving optimization algorithms using PSO is given in
Tables 7.5 and 7.6.
Figures 7.3 and 7.4 represent the fitness convergence curve for
IEEE 6 bus system for single and double contingencies. Number of
generations / iterations is taken in X axis and Fitness value in Y axis. The
simulation is carried out with multiple runs to get the optimal results of multitype FACTS devices.
i)
No. of population = 30
ii)
Max Generation
= 150
iii) C1
= C2 =
iv) Vmax
= 0.25
v)
run
150
Table 7.5
No. of
Reactance
Reactive
XTCSC
Power QSVC
(P.U)
(MVAR)
0.1497
-155.1191
0.1501
-150.4248
-0.0313
-141.3419
0.0515
0.1437
-119.3479
2-4
-0.0335
-146.2072
2-6
0.0401
-74.848
-0.0336
-134.7928
0.1435
-122.7183
2-5
-0.0668
1-2
-0.07451
-136.9343
2-6
0.0764
-131.8085
-0.0532
-36.1739
2-3
-0.0103
-155.3881
3-5
0.1401
-64.1792
Branch
devices Number
1
2
3-5
3-5
2-4
Type of device
TCSC
UPFC
2-6
3
3-5
1-4
3-5
1-4
151
Table 7.6
Type of device
No. of
Branch
devices Number
1
2
2-6
TCSC
UPFC
Reactive
Power
QSVC
XTCSC
(pu)
(MVAR)
0.0815
0.0750
-85.7757
-0.0296
-101.0229
0.0299
-36.0040
0.0717
20.9624
1-4
-0.0381
3-6
-0.0431
-122.0320
0.0807
-146.1893
-0.0206
-40.6733
1-4
-0.0034
-120.0641
3-6
-0.0485
109.7632
2-3
0.0095
-118.6482
0.0524
-51.9278
2-5
-0.0662
-135.2774
2-4
-0.0277
-131.2981
2-6
2-4
1-5
3
Reactance
2-6
1-5
2-4
1-5
Fitness Value
152
Figure 7.3
Fitness Value
Contingency
Figure 7.4
153
7.5.2
The IEEE 30 bus system consists of 41 branches. Line data and bus
data are given in Appendix 4. This system is also analyzed for both single and
double contingencies.
7.5.2.1
Single Contingency
Table 7.7
Rank
Branch
CSI
15-18
0.0511
25-27
0.0505
2-6
0.0460
22-24
0.0424
1-3
0.0389
3-4
0.0384
27-29
0.0245
1-2
0.0232
27-30
0.0185
154
7.5.2.2
Double Contingency
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Branch
25-27
22-24
16-17
23-24
2-6
2-4
15-23
15-18
14-15
6-10
4-12
10-21
12-15
1-2
10-17
1-3
3-4
18-19
6-28
27-29
9-10
12-13
CSI
0.8894
0.7306
0.4899
0.2464
0.2060
0.1935
0.1920
0.1631
0.1588
0.1400
0.1048
0.1018
0.0991
0.0883
0.0870
0.0814
0.0802
0.0699
0.0265
0.0262
0.0194
0.0161
155
After ranking of the branches, the PSO algorithm is used to find out
the location of the devices, their types, settings and installation cost to
alleviate the line overloads and to improve the system security margin. They
are given in Tables from 7.9 to 7.12.
Figures 7.5 and 7.6 represent the fitness convergence curve for
IEEE 30 bus system for single and double contingencies. Number of
generations / iterations is taken in X axis and Fitness Value in Y axis.
i) No. of population
25
100
iii) C1 = C2
iv) Vmax
0.25
Table 7.9
Fitness
Value
(109)
0
1.8459
Execution
time
(seconds)
SOL
No. of
overloads
0
1
145.7700
144.7901
16
15
FACTS
Device Cost
(US$) (106)
0
18.398
2
3
144.0800
141.7725
14
13
21.050
19.409
1.7985
1.8156
14072.79
13921.73
4
5
140.6269
142.8015
13
14
9.9994
27.950
1.7378
1.8338
14115.35
14223.51
No. of
devices
0.17800
14010.60
156
Table 7.10
Execution
time
(seconds)
0
46.391
Fitness
Value
x (109)
0
7.5111
84
36.900
7.4852
71432.04
78
91
100
23.750
21.813
25.188
7.4673
7.3991
7.7408
71508.06
72083.18
72204.67
SOL
No. of
overloads
FACTS
Device Cost
(US$) x (106)
0
1
546.2114
540.9482
105
91
524.2522
3
4
5
519.8329
528.5074
529.0064
No. of
devices
Table 7.11
0.488150
71184.04
No. of
devices
Branch
Number
2-6
2-6
3-4
15-18
2-6
22-24
15-18
2-6
3-4
27-29
15-18
2-6
22-24
3-4
27-30
Type of device
TCSC
UPFC
Reactance
XTCSC (P.u)
-0.0974
0.0819
0.0136
0.1488
-0.0925
-0.0823
0.1068
0.0861
0.0170
0.2538
0.1088
-0.0883
-0.0839
-0.0204
-0.4327
Reactive
Power QSVC
(MVAR)
-54.3545
0
0.3438
0
0
0
32.54
0
0
-56.24
0
-43.9082
-18.4190
64.4621
0
157
Table 7.12
Type of device
Reactance
Reactive
No. of
Branch
devices
Number
2-6
-0.0699
26.0844
23-24
-0.1402
-15.0381
-0.0632
-0.0791
-25.3856
14-15
-0.1352
-19.5650
12-15
0.0572
-49.3143
-0.0685
-29.7246
2-6
-0.0726
42.9757
15-23
-0.1047
17.5657
10-17
0.0396
-0.1139
2-6
0.0853
-51.2918
15-18
-0.1091
60.6020
6-10
0.2109
-64.2678
4-12
0.1328
24.2349
22-24
4
25-27
UPFC
2-6
2-6
TCSC
XTCSC (P.u)
Power QSVC
(MVAR)
158
Figure 7.6
Figure 7.7
159
7.6
CONCLUSION
This research work has presented a PSO based solution for solving
the power system security enhancement problems involving multiple
constraints. The results show that the PSO approach has provided a good
solution to place multi type FACTS devices along the system branches based
on CSI values, to alleviate system overloads and to improve the system
security margin during single and double contingencies. Once good PSO
control parameters are obtained, the solution to the problem can easily be
obtained.