Thông tin tài liệu
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL 25, NO 4, OCTOBER 2010 2881 UPFC for Enhancing Power System Reliability A Rajabi-Ghahnavieh, Graduate Student Member, IEEE, M Fotuhi-Firuzabad, Senior Member, IEEE, M Shahidehpour, Fellow, IEEE, and R Feuillet, Senior Member, IEEE Abstract—This paper discusses various aspects of unified power flow controller (UPFC) control modes and settings and evaluates their impacts on the power system reliability UPFC is the most versatile flexible ac transmission system device ever applied to improve the power system operation and delivery It can control various power system parameters, such as bus voltages and line flows The impact of UPFC control modes and settings on the power system reliability has not been addressed sufficiently yet A power injection model is used to represent UPFC and a comprehensive method is proposed to select the optimal UPFC control mode and settings The proposed method applies the results of a contingency screening study to estimate the remedial action cost (RAC) associated with control modes and settings and finds the optimal control for improving the system reliability by solving a mixed-integer nonlinear optimization problem The proposed method is applied to a test system in this paper and the UPFC performance is analyzed in detail Index Terms—Composite system reliability, optimal control mode and settings, unified power flow controller (UPFC) Magnitude and phase angle of PB Difference between PB and SB voltages Active and reactive power injection of PS Currents of PB and SB Equivalent reactance of parallel transformer Equivalent reactance of series transformer NC Number of selected contingencies NLD Number of load points and NOMENCLUTURE Duration of contingency hours) Power flow equation ESRAC Probability and frequency of contingency Curtailed load cost (in U.S$) of contingency Expected squared of remedial action cost Curtailed load at point for contingency (j) (in megawatts) Active and reactive power injection of parallel inverter Curtailment cost of load point for duration (in U.S.$/megwatt-h) Magnitude and phase angle of parallel inverter voltage Remedial action cost of contingency Active and reactive power injection of series inverter Re-dispatch cost of generating unit (g) (in U.S.$/MW) Magnitude and phase angle of series inverter voltage Manuscript received August 05, 2009; revised October 30, 2009 Date of publication August 12, 2010; date of current version September 22, 2010 Paper no TPWRD-00590-2009 A Rajabi-Ghahnavieh is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran 11365-8639, Iran and also with the Laboratoire de Génie Electrique de Grenoble, INPG/ENSIEG, Saint Martin d’Here 38402, France (e-mail: a_rajabi@ee.sharif.edu) M Fotuhi-Firuzabad is with the Center of Excellence in Power System Control and Management, Department of Electrical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran (e-mail: fotuhi@sharif.edu) M Shahidehpour is with the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616 USA (e-mail: ms@iit edu) R Feuillet is with the Laboratoire d’Electrotechnique de Grenoble, Saint Martin d’Here 38402, France (e-mail: Rene.Feuillet@g2elab.inpg.fr) Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2010.2051822 (in MW re-dispatch of unit contingency NG 0885-8977/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE in Number of generating units Active and reactive power of unit (g) Generation cost of unit Max and Min active power generation for unit Max and Min reactive power generation for unit Vectors of active and reactive power generation, respectively Vectors of magnitude and phase angle of bus voltages 2882 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL 25, NO 4, OCTOBER 2010 Magnitude of voltage of bus Loading of line Max loading of line NB and NL Number of buses and lines, respectively Voltage and current of PB for contingency Voltage of PB and SB for contingency when UPFC is disconnected Self-impedance of SB for contingency Mutual impedance of PB and SB for contingency Max and Min voltage of inverters Max current of inverters and Variables for PS and SS control modes Sensitivity of to Sensitivity of to Sensitivity of to Estimated when the control modes and injections of PS and SS and are Post-contingency reactive injection of PS for contingency for and Post-contingency active injection of SS for contingency for and Post-contingency reactive injection of SS for contingency for and Post-contingency active injection of PS for contingency for and I INTRODUCTION HE UNIFIED power flow controller (UPFC) is one of the most versatile flexible ac transmission systems (FACTS) devices that has ever been used for the control and optimization of power flows [1] Some practical applications of UPFC are reported in [2], [3] UPFC can also operate as STATCOM or SSSC which would affect power flows and reliability indices [3] UPFC consists of a series and a parallel inverter which exchanges active and reactive power to manipulate electric power flows The inverters can operate in various control modes to regulate power system parameters, such as bus voltage magnitudes and phase angles and transmission flows Active and reactive T injections of UPFC are adjusted according to control modes and associated settings of inverters which would affect power system static and dynamic operations and reliability indices [1] In the past, little effort was devoted to quantitatively assess the impact of UPFC on the power system reliability In [4], the UPFC impact on system reliability is investigated in which a two-state up/down UPFC reliability model is considered and the UPFC is used to balance the power sharing between two parallel non-identical transmission lines The UPFC operates in an automatic power flow control mode to adjust the flow on one line and the UPFC settings are selected to utilize the maximum transfer capacity of the lines The impact of UPFC application on reliability indices is then analyzed However, the paper has neither discussed the impact of various UPFC control modes on reliability indices nor proposed a method for determining optimal UPFC control modes and settings An extensive three-state UPFC reliability model is presented in [5] which incorporates failure and repair of various UPFC components A four-state model is presented in [6] to incorporate the operating states of UPFC in reliability assessments Such studies did not consider the impact of various UPFC control modes and settings in reliability analyses and did not address the impact of UPFC thoroughly on the calculation of reliability indices Other studies found optimal UPFC parameters for maximizing transfer capabilities [7], minimizing active power losses [8], and improving transient responses of power systems [9] This paper is aimed at finding the optimal UPFC control mode and settings to improve the composite reliability of power systems when all UPFC components are available The proposed approach will minimize ESRAC for improving the system reliability A selected set of contingencies are analyzed and the optimal power flow (OPF) is used to minimize RAC and calculate the optimal UPFC injections and the sensitivity of RAC to UPFC injections The results of contingency analyses are used to calculate post-contingency injections of UPFC and to estimate the ESRAC associated with control modes and settings The optimal UPFC control mode and settings are obtained by solving the proposed mixed-integer nonlinear optimization problem The paper is arranged as follows: Section II discusses the structure and operation principles of a typical UPFC and describes the two-source power injection model for UPFC The proposed method is described in Section III The impact of UPFC control modes and settings on reliability indices are discussed in Section IV and then the proposed method is applied to a test system to find the optimal control mode and setting of UPFC and to discuss various aspects of the method performance The proposed method is extended in Section V to find optimal control mode and settings of two UPFC units Concluding remarks are finally summarized in Section VI II UPFC: STRUCTURE, OPERATION, AND CONTROL A UPFC consists of two identical inverters which are connected in parallel and series to power systems through corresponding power transformers Fig shows the single line diagram of a UPFC installed in a power system in which the UPFC is represented by a voltage source models [1] RAJABI-GHAHNAVIEH et al.: UPFC FOR ENHANCING POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY 2883 Fig Two-source power injection model for UPFC Fig Single line diagram of UPFC (4) In Fig 1, the UPFC is installed between buses PB and SB The net active power exchange of inverters is zero if we neglect power losses in inverters (5) (6) (1) Each inverter is equipped with a control unit for firing commands according to measured signals and control modes of the inverter The designated power system parameters are regulated at the associated settings Control modes are given as follows Control modes associated with series and parallel inverters are also considered for PS and SS, respectively, as (7) A Parallel Inverter (8) The parallel inverter can operate either as a constant reactive power source or a voltage controller as follows [1]: 1) Reactive Control Mode (RCM): a constant positive or negative reactive power is injected at PB 2) Voltage Control Mode (VCM): is automatically regat associated settings ulated in Fig to maintain B Series Inverter The control modes of the series inverter are as follows [1] 1) Power Flow control Mode (PFM): Fig shows that and independently at associated UPFC regulates settings This control mode distinguishes UPFC from STATCOM and SSSC and are deter2) Voltage Control Mode (VCM): at associated settings mined for regulating 3) Voltage Injection Mode (VIM): and are deterat associated settings mined to maintain A survey of various models is conducted in [10] for incorporating the UPFC in OPF studies Two models are proposed by [11], [12] to incorporate the UPFC in OPF studies In this paper, the two-source power injection model shown in Fig is used to represent the UPFC in optimal power flow studies In this model, parallel source (PS) and series source (SS) are connected to PB and SB, respectively, so that the total real power injection of PS and SS is zero UPFC has other operating states for operating as STATCOM or SSSC when exploiting only one of parallel or series inverters, respectively In these states, the device manipulates power flows for the operation and control of power systems [1] The impact of these two operating states on the system reliability are much smaller than the case when the UPFC operates in the up state (i.e., components are operational [2]) In this paper, the two-state up/down model is used for reliability studies The proposed method finds the optimal control mode and settings when the UPFC is in the up state The method can further be extended to include other operating states of UPFCs The composite system reliability analysis considers various power system contingencies and performs post-contingency remedial actions [13] The system reliability indices including expected unserved energy cost (EUEC) and expected load curtailment (ELC), are given as (9) (10) (11) (2) In Fig 2, once the three independent injections of PS and SS (i.e., and ) are known, the voltage and current of series and parallel inverters in Fig are calculated as follows: (3) For each contingency, mizing RAC as and are obtained by mini- (12) (13) 2884 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL 25, NO 4, OCTOBER 2010 Fig Two-port model of the power system base case for contingency (j) (20) Using the base case solution, the UPFC is installed at designated PB and SB buses B Contingency Selection Reliability assessment includes the analyses of selected contingencies The post-contingency condition of certain contingencies, including those which disconnect PB or SB, will not be affected by UPFC injections These contingencies are excluded from the optimal calculation of UPFC control mode and settings A NC set of contingencies is selected accordingly Fig Flowchart of the proposed method The optimization is subject to (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) C Contingency Analysis Fig shows the two-port equivalent model of the base power system from PB and SB points for each contingency where in which (18) represents power flow for contingency (21) III DESCRIPTION OF METHOD The proposed method consists of the following four steps: Step 1) selection of base case; Step 2) contingency selection; Step 3) contingency analysis; Step 4) optimization of UPFC control modes and settings Fig describes the procedure for calculating the optimal UPFC control mode and settings A Selection of Base Case The power system base case, without UPFC, minimizes the total dispatch cost of committed generating units by applying the optimal power flow as In Fig 1, UPFC is disconnected by opening the breakers CB1 and CB2 to calculate the model parameters , and A power flow analysis is performed for contingency , and are obtained The model is used in the Appendix to represent post-contingency power systems Then CB1 and CB2 are closed and the contingency is analyzed to minimize RAC in which active and reactive dispatch of generating units, PS and SS injections, and load curtailments are considered as remedial actions For NC contingencies, the set of (11)–(17) and (22) are solved to incorporate PS and SS injections (22) (19) in which (22) represents the power flow equations for continwhen incorporating UPFC Here, (2)–(6) associated gency RAJABI-GHAHNAVIEH et al.: UPFC FOR ENHANCING POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY with the UPFC as well as limits on voltage, current, and apparent power of the inverters are represented as 2885 is calculated by applying where the estimated post-contingency injections of PS and SS and sensitivity coefficients of (27)–(29) as (23) (24) (25) (26) We obtain the following items by solving (11)–(17), (22) and considering (23)–(26) for each contingency : • optimal UPFC injections for PS and SS (i.e., and ); • sensitivity coefficients of RAC for the contingency to injections of PS and SS, i.e., (35) and are calculated as explained in the Appendix The values of and would calculate the estimated post-contingency injections of PS and SS, which are obtained as (27) (28) (29) (36) Equations (22)–(25) are considered for incorporating limits on inverter voltages and currents Since only one control mode is selected for series and parallel inverters (37) These items as well as the parameters of two-port equivalent model are used in the next step to find the optimal control mode and settings D Optimization of Control Mode and Settings This part uses the parameters and coefficients obtained in step C to calculate the optimal UPFC control mode and settings The and represent the selection of conbinary variables trol modes for PS and SS, respectively, as selected otherwise selected otherwise (30) (31) The system ESRAC is defined as (32) The objective is to minimize the ESRAC associated with control modes and settings of PS and SS (i.e., and , respectively) (33) where ESRAC is calculated as the estimated value of RAC for contingencies (34) (38) Equations (33)–(38) would form a mixed-integer nonlinear problem for calculating the optimal control mode and injections of PS and SS The branch and bound technique is used here Once the optimal PS and SS injections are found, UPFC settings are determined by applying (3)–(6) IV NUMERICAL RESULTS In order to demonstrate the impact of UPFC control modes and settings on reliability, the WSCC nine-bus test system [14] is used in Fig The system is modified by adding a 230 kV transmission line from B4 to B8 Since the WSCC reliability data are unavailable, those of the IEEE reliability test system (IEEE-RTS) [15] are used A composite reliability evaluation has identified that the loading of L48 is the main source of system unreliability So, in order to improve the system reliability, a UPFC is installed on L48 at B4 to reduce L48 loading Fig shows that PB is directly connected to B4 and L48 is connected between BS and B8 The UPFC is assumed to have two identical 160 MVA inverters interconnected by a DC link [2] The specification of the inverters and transformers are presented in Table I The purpose of UPFC is to reduce the power extraction of L48 MVA to MVA for reducing from B8 from the loading of L48 by 18% Six cases are studied in which six possible combinations of control modes for parallel and series inverters are used For each case, the settings are determined such that the power extraction of L48 from B8 would be MVA The pre-contingency condition is the same for all cases 2886 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL 25, NO 4, OCTOBER 2010 TABLE III POST-CONTINGENCY L89 INJECTION WITH AND WITHOUT UPFC TABLE IV POST-CONTINGENCY L89 INJECTION FOR UPDATED SETTINGS OF UPFC Fig UPFC application to the modified WSCC test system TABLE I UPFC SPECIFICATIONS TABLE II RELIABILITY INDICES WITHOUT AND WITH UPFC Table II shows the study results for the base case (without UPFC, case 1) and the six cases with UPFC (cases to 7) In order to show how UPFC control modes and settings affect the post-contingency following the outage of L57, the injection of line L89 at bus B8 as well as the settings associated with individual cases are shown in Table III In cases to 5, the injection of L89 is reduced from its original level in case 1, while it is increased from its original level in cases and This shows that the post-contingency condition depends on the UPFC control mode Post-contingency overloads of L89 in cases 4, 6, and in Table III are mitigated by changing the settings associated with the control modes of these cases Table IV shows the updated settings and corresponding L89 injections following the outage of L57 in cases 4, and By comparing the results in Tables III and IV, we learn that the post-contingency condition is substantially improved based on updated settings So proper selections of the UPFC control modes and settings can lead to a considerable enhancement of system reliability Table II shows that: TABLE V OPTIMAL UPFC CONTROL MODE AND SETTINGS 1) although the pre-contingency power system parameters in cases to are the same, the reliability indices associated with those cases are different; 2) for cases to 5, the UPFC application has led to improvements in reliability indices from 10% in case to 2% in case 5; 3) UPFC applications in cases and would deteriorate reliability indices The best reliability enhancement is achieved when the parallel inverter operates in the RCM mode and the series inverter operates in the VIM mode Now a set of 133 contingencies, including the power system base case and all single and double contingencies are selected except for those including the outage of L48 which disconnects SB from the rest of the power system The optimal PS and SS control modes and injections are calculated and presented in Table V According to the inverter output voltage and series transformer voltage ratings, the maximum series injected voltage is 30 kV which is about 13% of the nominal bus voltage Table V, on the other hand, shows that the optimal series injected voltage is about 0.042 per unit which is well below the maximum series injected voltage (i.e., 0.13 per unit) The optimal series injected voltage is determined to minimize the objective function in (33) and the limitation on the magnitude of series injected voltage has not influenced the optimal value of series voltage So, the same solution would be obtained if the maximum series injected voltage was greater than 0.13 per units However, there could be some cases where the limitation on the maximum series injected voltage would restrict the optimal solution In these cases, both the magnitude and the angle of the optimal solution would change by increasing the maximum series RAJABI-GHAHNAVIEH et al.: UPFC FOR ENHANCING POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY 2887 TABLE VI RELIABILITY INDICES WITHOUT AND WITH UPFC APPLICATIONS Fig Rotor angle oscillations with UPFC application TABLE VII ESRAC WITH OPTIMAL SETTINGS Fig Rotor angle oscillation following short-circuit without uPFC injected voltage The reliability indices along with the value of objective function associated with base case system and optimal settings of Table V are shown in Table VI The comparison of EUEC, ELC, and ESRAC, with/without UPFCs shows that the optimal UPFC application would lead to a considerable improvement in reliability In this context, EUEC and ELC are decreased by 29% and 23%, respectively Comparing EUEC, ELC obtained with the optimal UPFC application shown in Table VI with those of cases to shown in Table II, we learn that the indices are enhanced by 12% to 40% when the optimal control mode and settings are used This shows that the optimal setting can considerably enhance the impact of UPFC on reliability indices There is about 5% difference between ESRAC and for the optimal UPFC application in Table VI The value of Z in (34) is an ESRAC estimate which indicates the error in the ESRAC estimation is less than 5% The impact of optimal UPFC on the dynamic performance of the power system is evaluated A short-circuit fault is applied s and is cleared after cycles The resulting to bus B6 at rotor angle oscillations are shown in Figs and for the base case system and the system with UPFC, respectively The UPFC controller is included in Fig which has damped the rotor angle oscillations However, the maximum G3 angle deviation is slightly increased from 0.3 radian in Fig to 0.4 radians in Fig Now we eliminate the optimal control mode selection from the proposed method In essence, we obtain (39) by eliminating and from (33) the binary variables (39) The set of equations resulting from (35)–(38) and (39) is solved for the cases shown in Table II The optimal UPFC control mode and setting are found and the corresponding cases are represented in Table VII The ESRAC of case is the smallest while that of case has the largest value This result explains the reason why the proposed method has chosen the control mode combination of case as the best combination in Table V are not the same Table VII shows that ESRAC and However, the difference is small as they are both affected by the would be used UPFC control modes and settings So to compare the impact of UPFC control modes and settings on ESRAC V MULTIPLE UPFC APPLICATION The proposed method is formulated and presented to select the optimal control mode and setting of one UPFC However, the method can be extended to calculate simultaneously the optimal control mode and settings of multiple UPFC units The extension can be made without changing the basic techniques for calculating the optimal RAC, optimal UPFC injections, and the sensitivity coefficients in (27)–(29) The two-source model of Fig is used for all UPFCs and UPFC injections are considered as a remedial action in (22) The optimal injections and sensitivity coefficients are then obtained for all UPFCs The two-port equivalent power system model of Fig is report equivalent model in which is the placed by a number of UPFCs Equation (21) is extended by using self and mutual impedances of ports to represent the voltage and the current associated with each port Equation (35) is also extended 2888 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL 25, NO 4, OCTOBER 2010 APPENDIX TABLE VIII OPTIMAL CONTROL MODE AND SETTINGS OF UPFC UNITS The calculation of post-contingency injections of PS and SS depend on the control modes of PS and SS When PS operates in the RCM mode and SS operate in the PFM mode (i.e., and ), the post-contingency injections are the same as pre-contingency injections (40) (41) (42) TABLE IX RELIABILITY INDICES WITH OPTIMAL APPLICATION OF TWO UPFC% to incorporate the impact of post-contingency injections of all UPFCs in the estimation of The proposed method is further extended to find simultaneously the control mode and settings of two UPFC units Here, UPFC1 is installed on L48, bus B4 and UPFC2 is applied on L57, bus B5 Table VIII shows that for both UPFCs, the optimal control mode for parallel and series inverters are chosen as RCM and VIM, respectively The comparison of Tables VIII and V shows that the application of UPFC2 has changed the settings of UPFC1 Here, the injected series voltage is reduced and the injected shunt reactive power is increased Table IX shows the reliability indices for the optimal solution of the two UPFCs The comparison of Tables IX and VI shows that the application of second UPFC has slightly enhanced the reliability indices Further enhancement is limited here by the small size of the WSCC test system For five other combinations of control modes of PS and SS, the calculation of post-contingency injections require pre-contingency injections and control modes of PS and SS as well as the post-contingency power system configuration The two-port equivalent model of Fig obtained in the part C of Section is used here to represent the post-contingency power system of selected contingencies in which (43) and (44) Once the UPFC model of Fig is merged with the two-port equivalent model, the post-contingency apparent power of PS and , respectively, for contingency ), and SS (i.e., are obtained as follows: VI CONCLUSION (45) This paper presented the optimal control mode and settings of UPFCs A two-source power injection model was used for UPFC and the impact of UPFC control modes and settings on reliability indices were investigated It was shown that the UPFC control mode has a considerable impact on post-contingency conditions and reliability indices An approach was then proposed to determine the optimal UPFC control mode and settings The approach estimated the RAC associated with UPFC power injections using the results of a contingency screening study The estimated costs were then used in a mixed-integer nonlinear optimization problem to find the optimal UPFC control mode and settings The approach was applied to a UPFC installed in the modified WSCC test system The UPFC application enhanced the reliability indices by 29% in the given example The error in the estimation of RAC was about 5% The impact of optimal UPFC settings on the dynamic performance of the power system was evaluated It was observed that the UPFC application would enhance the dynamic response of the power system by damping the rotor angle oscillations The proposed method was extended to find the optimal control mode and settings of two UPFCs The application of the second UPFC did not have a considerable impact on the reliability indices of the given power system (46) in which (47) (48) Based on (43)–(48), and are obtained as (49) (50) where (50) shows that the net real power injection of PS and SS is zero For each of five remaining combinations of control modes, associated constraints are added to (49) and (50) to solve the resulting power flow problem and obtain the post-contingency injection as follows RAJABI-GHAHNAVIEH et al.: UPFC FOR ENHANCING POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY 1) For SS, post-contingency injections, and , are the same as pre-contingency injections in (41)–(42) Since PS operates in the VCM mode, it at its pre-conmaintains the magnitude of PB voltage tingency level So (51) The set of (49)–(51) is solved to obtain 2) For PS, the post-contingency reactive injection is obtained similar to (40) Since SS operates in the VCM mode, it maintains the voltage and the phase angle of SB at the pre-contingency level So (52) The set of (40) and (49)–(50) is solved to obtain and 3) The post-contingency injections of PS and SS ( solving (49)–(52) and ) are obtained by 2889 [6] A Rajabi-Ghahnavieh, M Fotuhi-Firuzabad, and R Feuillet, “Evaluation of UPFC impacts on power system reliability,” in Proc IEEE/ Power Eng Soc Transm Distrib Conf Expo., Apr 21–24, 2008, pp 1–8 [7] B Fardanesh, “Optimal utilization, sizing, and steady-state performance comparison of multiconverter VSC-based FACTS controllers,” IEEE Trans Power Del., vol 19, no 3, pp 1321–1327, Jul 2004 [8] H I Shaheen, G I Rashed, and S J Cheng, “Optimal location and parameters setting of unified power flow controller based on evolutionary optimization techniques,” in Proc IEEE Power Eng Soc General Meet., Jun 24–28, 2007, pp 1–8 [9] G K Venayagamoorthy, “Optimal control parameters for a UPFC in a multimachine using PSO,” in Proc 13th Int Conf Intelligent Systems Application to Power Systems, Nov 6–10, 2005, pp 1–6 [10] M A Abdel-Moamen and N P Padhy, “Optimal power flow incorporating FACTS devices—Bibliography and survey,” in Proc IEEE Transm Distrib Conf Expo., Sep 7–12, 2003, vol 2, pp 669–676 [11] S Arabi and P Kundur, “A versatile FACTS device model for power flow and stability simulations,” IEEE Tran Power Syst., vol 11, no 4, pp 1944–1950, Nov 1996 [12] S An;, J Condren, and T W Gedra, “An ideal transformer UPFC model, OPF first-order sensitivities, and application to screening for optimal UPFC locations,” IEEE Trans Power Syst., vol 22, no 1, pp 68–75, Feb 2007 [13] R Billinton and R N Allan, Reliability Evaluation of Power Systems, 2nd ed New York: Plenum, 1996 [14] P M Anderson and A A Fouad, Power System Control and Stability, 2nd ed New York: Wiley, 2003 [15] IEEE Reliability Test System Task Force, “IEEE reliability test system,” IEEE Trans Power App Syst., vol PAS-98, no 6, pp 2047–2054, Nov./Dec 1979 A Rajabi-Ghahnavieh (GSM’08) was born in Iran in 1981 He received the B.Sc degree in electrical engineering from Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran, in 2002 and the M.Sc degree in electrical engineering from Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 2004, where he is currently pursuing the joint Ph.D degree in electrical engineering with the Electrical Engineering Laboratory of the Institute National Polytechnique de Grenoble, Grenoble, France His areas of interest are reliability assessment of 4) For PS, the post-contingency reactive injection is the same as pre-contingency injections, which is similar to (40) SS operates in the VIM mode and maintains the difference between post-contingency and , respectively, at voltages at PB and SB, its pre-contingency level (i.e., ) So (53) and The post-contingency injections of SS, , are calculated using (40), (49), (50), and (53) 5) The post-contingency injections of PS and SS, that is, and are calculated by solving (49)–(51) and (53) REFERENCES [1] Y.-H Song and A T Johns, Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS), ser Inst Elect Eng Power Ser 30 London, U.K.: Inst Eng Technol Press, 2000 [2] C D Schauder, L Gyugyi, M R Lund, M R , D M Hamai, T R Rietman, D R Torgerson, and A Edris, “Operation of the unified power flow controller (UPFC) under practical constraints,” IEEE Trans Power Del., vol 13, no 2, pp 630–639, Apr 1998 [3] S Y Kim, B Y Kim, J S Yoon, B H Chang, and D H Baek, “The operation experience of KEPCO UPFC,” Electrical Machines and Systems 2005, pp 1–6, ICEMS [4] R Billinton, M Fotuhi-Firuzabad, S O Faried, and S Aboreshaid, “Impact of unified power flow controllers on power system reliability,” IEEE Trans Power Syst., vol 14, no 1, pp 410–415, Feb 2000 [5] F Aminifar, M Fotuhi-Firuzabad, and R Billinton, “Extended reliability model of a unified power flow controller,” Proc Inst Elect Eng., Gen Transm Distrib., vol 1, no 6, pp 896–903, Nov 2007 power systems M Fotuhi-Firuzabad (SM’99) was born in Iran He received the B.S degree in electrical engineering from Sharif University of Technolog in 1986, the M.S degree in electrical engineering from Tehran University in 1989, and the M.S and Ph.D degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, in 1993 and 1997, respectively He joined the Department of Electrical Engineering at Sharif University of Technology in 2002 Currently, he is a Professor and the Head of the Department of Electrical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology Prof Fotuhi-Firuzabad is a member of the Center of Excellence in Power System Management and Control at Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran M Shahidehpour (F’01) is Carl Bodine Professor in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago He is an Honorary Professor at Sharif University of Technology and the North China Electric Power University Dr Shahidehpour was the recipient of the 2009 Honorary Doctorate from the Polytechnic University of Bucharest He is the Vice President of Publications for the IEEE Power and Energy Society 2890 R Feuillet (SM’08) received the Ph.D degree in electrical engineering and the “Habilitation a Diriger des Recherches” degree from Institute National Polytechnique de Grenoble, Grenoble, France, in 1979 and 1991, respectively He has been a Professor at the Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Ingénieurs Electriciens de Grenoble and the Laboratoire d’Electrotechnique de Grenoble since 1998, where he was Deputy-Director in charge of industrial relations from 1997 to 2002 His research activities include power system security, new technologies to enhance power system control and monitoring, and large power-system management IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL 25, NO 4, OCTOBER 2010 ... injection of PS for contingency for and Post-contingency active injection of SS for contingency for and Post-contingency reactive injection of SS for contingency for and Post-contingency active... represents the power flow equations for continwhen incorporating UPFC Here, (2)–(6) associated gency RAJABI-GHAHNAVIEH et al.: UPFC FOR ENHANCING POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY with the UPFC as well... RAJABI-GHAHNAVIEH et al.: UPFC FOR ENHANCING POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY 2883 Fig Two-source power injection model for UPFC Fig Single line diagram of UPFC (4) In Fig 1, the UPFC is installed between
Ngày đăng: 25/09/2016, 12:57
Xem thêm:
