Optimal Location and Setting of FACTS for Optimal Power Flow Problem Using a Hybrid GA/PSO Algorithm

M. A. Abido Electrical Engineering Department King Fahd Univ. of Petroleum & Minerals Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia mabido@kfupm.edu.sa
ABSTRACT A new genetic algorithm/particle swarm optimization (GA/PSO) searching method has been developed and implemented to search for optimal FACTS devices location and associated optimal settings to solve the optimal power flow (OPF) problem. Three types of FACTS devices, static var compensation (SVC), thyristor controlled series capacitor (TCSC), and thyristor controlled phase shifter (TCPS), are incorporated in the OPF problem. GA has been used to generate candidate FACTS locations while PSO evaluates those candidate locations by finding their associated optimal settings using OPF. The proposed approach has been implemented to a standard IEEE test system where the objectives of fuel cost minimization, voltage profile improvement, and voltage stability enhancement have been considered. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach to solve the optimal location and setting of FACTS incorporated in OPF problem and improves the power system operation. 1. INTRODUCTION In this study, a new GA/PSO technique has been proposed to solve the optimal location and setting of the control variables of OPF problem. This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the FACTS devices modeling for load flow studies. Formulation of OPF incorporating FACTS devices is discussed in Section 3. Section 4 is devoted for the solution methodology where the proposed optimization technique is explained. IEEE-30 bus test system is used for the case studies in Section 5 where the simulation results are discussed. 2. FACTS MODELING

M. M. Al-Hulail Transmission Department Saudi Electricity Company Dammam, Saudi Arabia d2mmh@se.com.sa
power system at the expense of cost. Therefore, it is necessary for any new installation of FACTS to be very well planned [3-7]. Planning of FACTS devices manly means the allocation of those devices in the power system. This needs an off-line simulation of the power system with the different candidate FACTS devices location to assess the value added to the system in terms of system operation improvement. Among the different assessment tools used for this purpose, optimal power flow (OPF) seems to be the best. By incorporating FACTS devices in OPF with some modification, it can give scalar measures of its economic and technical benefits and so help in deciding for the optimal investment. OPF is a non-linear problem and can be non-convex in some cases. Moreover, incorporating FACTS devices complicates the problem further. Such complicated problem needs a well-efficient optimization technique for solving. Particle Swarm Optimization is such efficient technique employed for this task in this paper [8].

Serving customers with reliable, good quality, and low cost electric power supply is the ultimate goal of every electric utility. Meeting this goal needs a proper power system planning and operation, which is a great and a growing challenge. Utilities and power producers put all their effort in beating such a challenge. Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS) is believed to one of the most promising development to beat this challenge. FACTS devices have opened a new world in power system control. They have made the power systems operation more flexible and secure. They have the ability to control, in a fast and effective manner, the three effective players in power flow. These are circuit impedance, voltage magnitude and phase angle. Gaining flexibility in power flow is not a little achievement. The great economic and technical benefits of this to the power systems have been well proven [1,2]. Yet, installing FACTS devices in any power system is an investment issue. It offers some flexibility to the

2.1 Static var compensation (SVC) From an operation point of view, the SVC can be seen as a variable shunt susceptance. Therefore, we choose to model the SVC as a total variable susceptance between certain limits as shown in Fig. 1. The effect of this on load flow can be taken care of in building the YBus matrix [7].

Min
I B Vk

J ( x, u ) g ( x, u ) = 0 h ( x, u ) 0

( 2)

Subject to : (3) ( 4)

Fig. 1: SVC model for power flow studies 2.2 Thyristor controlled series compensation (TCSC) The effect of TCSC on power system can be seen as a controllable reactance xc inserted in the related transmission line as shown in Fig. 2 [8].

where J is the objective function; x and u are the state and control variables respectively; g and h are the problem equality and inequality constraints respectively. The state variables x includes the slack bus power PG1, load bus voltage VL, generator reactive power output QG, and transmission line loadings Sl. Hence, x can be expressed as
x T = [ PG , V L ,...., V L , QG , QG , S l ,...., S l ]( 5 ) NL 1 1 1 NG 1 nl

where NL, NG, and nl are number of load buses, number of generators, and number of transmission lines, respectively. Fig. 2: TCSC model in power flow calculation 2.3 Thyristor controlled phase shifter (TCPS) The effect of the phase shifter can be seen to be equivalent to an ideal transformer with complex taps as shown in Fig. 3. The control variables u include generator voltages VG, generator real power outputs PG except the slack bus PG1, transformer tap settings T, and FACTS devices control parameters. FACTS devices control parameters in our case consists of the SVC susceptances B, TCSC reactances xc, TCPS angles . Hence, u can be expressed as
u T = [V G ,....., V G , P ,......, PG , T ,....., T NT , 1 NG G 2 NG 1 (6)

B1 ,....., B NSH , x c1 ,....., x CNSC , 1 ,....., NPS ]

where NT, NSH, NSC, and NPS are number of regulating transformers, number of SVCs, number of TCSCs, and number of TCPSs, respectively. Fig. 3: TCPS model in power flow calculation 3.2 where t*= t . The modification takes place to the YBus matrix as follows [9]: Objective Functions J is the objective function to be minimize, which is one of the following: 3.2.1 Fuel cost minimization It seeks to find the optimal active power outputs of the generation plants so as to minimize the total fuel cost. This can be expressed as
NG J = f i ($ / h ) i (7 )

t 2Y ii YBus = tYij e j
3. 3.1

tYij e

Y jj

(1)

PROBLEM FORMULATION

Problem Variables

Optimal power system operation seeks to optimize the steady state performance of a power system in terms of an objective function while satisfying several equality and inequality constraints. Generally, OPF is formulated an optimization problem as follows:

where fi is the fuel cost curve of the ith generator and it is assumed here to be represented by the following quadratic function: where ai, bi, and ci are the cost coefficients of the ith generator.
2 f i = a i + b i PG + c PG ($ / h ) i i i (8 )

3.2.2

Voltage profile improvement

Voltage profile is one of the quality measures for power system. It can be improved by minimizing the load bus voltage deviations from 1.0 per unit. The objective function can be expressed as
J = V 1 i NL i (9 )

3.2.3

Voltage stability enhancement

Where: NB is the number of buses; PGi and QGi are active and reactive power generations at bus i; PDi and QDi are active and reactive power demands at bus i; Vi and i are voltage magnitude and angle at bus i; Yij(FACTS) and ji(FACTS) are magnitude and phase angle of elements in Y-bus matrix where the effects of FACTS have been taken into consideration. 3.3.2 Inequality constraints

Voltage profile improvement does not necessary implies a voltage secure system. Voltage instability problems have been experienced in systems where voltage profile was acceptable [10]. Voltage secure system can be assured by enhancing the voltage stability profile throughout the whole power system. An indicator L-index is used in this study to evaluate the voltage stability at each bus of the system. The indicator value varies between 0 (no load case) and 1 (voltage collapse) [11-13]. One of the best features of the L-index is that the computation speed is very fast and so can be used for on-line monitoring of power system. Enhancing the voltage stability and moving the system far from voltage collapse point can be achieved by minimizing the following objective function
J = L max (10 )

The inequality operation constraints include: i) Generation constraints: Generator voltages, real power outputs, and reactive power outputs are restricted by their lower and upper limits as follows:
min max VG VG VG , i i i min max PG PG PG , i i i min max QG QG QG , i i i i = 1,....., NG i = 1,....., NG i = 1,....., NG (14 ) (15 ) (16 )

ii) Transformer constraints: Transformer tap settings are bounded as follows:

Ti min T i Ti max , i = 1,....., NT (17 )

Where Lmax is the maximum value of L-index as

L max = max L K , K = 1,........, NL

(11 )

iii)Security constraints: These include the constraints of voltages at load buses and transmission lines loadings as follows
min max VL VL VL , i i i max Sl Sl , i i = 1,....., NL i = 1,....., nl (18 ) (19 )

3.3

Problem Constraints

The functions g and h are the equality and inequality constraints to be satisfied while searching for the optimal solution. 3.3.1 Equality constraints

iv)FACTS devices constraints: SVC, TCSC, and TCPS settings are bounded as follows:
min max , Bi Bi Bi min max , xc xc xc i i i min max , i i i i = 1,......, NSVC i = 1,......, NTCSC i = 1,......, NTCPS ( 20 ) ( 21 ) ( 22 )

The equality constraints that are the power flow equations corresponding to both real and reactive power balance equations, which can be written as:
PG PD = i i NB V V Y ( FACTS ) cos( ij ( FACTS ) + j i ) = 0 j =1 i j ij ; i NB QG Q D = i i NB V V Y ( FACTS ) sin( ij ( FACTS ) + j i ) = 0 j =1 i j ij ; i NB (13 ) (12 )

4. 4.1

SOLUTION METHODOLOGY Overview

A new GA/PSO algorithm is proposed here as a searching technique developed for finding the optimal FACTS device location and settings with respect to one of the OPF objectives formulated in part 3. Thus, the problem can be separated into two parts. The first is the optimal FACTS devices locations while the second is the OPF that generates the optimal settings of the

FACTS devices together with the other control variables. The result of the first part is an integer which is either bus number and/or branch numbers where FACTS devices are suggested to be installed. This needs an integer-based optimization algorithm. GA has been implemented for this purpose because of its inherent property for solving integer-based optimization algorithm [14]. Fitness candidate solution is part of GA which requires OPF solving. Since PSO has fast convergence ability which is greatly attractive property for such a large iterative and time consuming problem [15], PSO is implemented to solve the OPF problem for the candidate location of FACTS. 4.2 The Proposed GA/PSO Algorithm

Mutation: With a mutation probability, mutate new offspring at each locus (position in chromosome). o Accepting: Place new offspring in a new population Step5 (fitness using PSO and time updating): repeat step 2 and 3 with the new FACTS locations. Step6 (Stopping criteria): If one of the stopping criteria is satisfied then stop; else go to step 4. Fig. 4 shows implemented steps. o

Initial set of random FACTS location

The hybridization between the two algorithms can be shown in Fig. 4. GA generates candidate FACTS locations and PSO evaluate them by solving the OPF with those FACTS locations. This yields to the optimal settings for those FACTS devices together with the other control variables and so the corresponding fitness of for each FACTS location. The GA then takes that information and processes in generating another solution set by crossing over and mutating the old FACTS locations set. PSO is then consulted again for OPF solving with those new FACTS locations. This process is repeated until one of the stopping criteria for GA is satisfied. The final output of the process is an optimal setting of the OPF control variables with an optimal, or rather close to optimal, FACTS devices location with their corresponding optimal settings. The new GA/PSO technique can be described in the following steps: Step1 (Initialization): Set the time counter t=0 and generate randomly n chromosomes, {Xj(0), j=1,,n} that represent n initial candidate FACTS devices locations. Step2 (Fitness using PSO): Evaluate each chromosome (candidate FACTS location) in the initial population using the objective function, J. This is done by solving the OPF with each candidate location using PSO. Search for the best value of the objective function Jbest. Set the chromosome (FACTS location) associated with Jbest as the global best. Step3 (Time updating): Update the time counter t=t+1. Step4 (New population): Create a new population of FACTS location by repeating the following steps until the new population is complete: o Selection: Select two parent chromosomes from a population according to their fitness (the better fitness, the bigger chance to be selected) o Crossover: With a crossover probability, cross over the parents to form a new offspring (children). If no crossover was performed, offspring is an exact copy of parents.

OPF using PSO to calculate fitness for FACTS locations

Crossover and mutation to produce new set of FACTS locations

OPF using PSO to calculate fitness for FACTS locations

Searching for best FACTS location

No Convergence

Yes Optimal FACTS location and corresponding optimal settings of control variables

Stop

Fig. 4: The flowchart of the proposed GA/PSO

5.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The proposed approach has been tested on the standard IEEE 30-bus test system shown in Fig. 5. The system line and bus data are given in [16]. The system has six generators at buses 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, and 13 and four transformers with off-nominal tap ratio in lines 6-9, 610, 4-12, and 28-27. The cost coefficients in (8) are given in Table 1. The minimum and maximum limits on control variables along with the initial operating point are given in Table 2.

Table 1: Generator cost coefficients G1 0.0 200 37.5 G2 0.0 175 175 G5 0.0 100 625 G8 0.0 325 83.4 G11 0.0 300 250 G13 0.0 300 250

a b c

branches 16 and 18, and TCPS on branch 26. Table 3 shows the optimal control variable settings for both OPF with arbitrary and close to optimal FACTS location. The resulted summation of voltage deviation with the close to optimal FACTS device locations is 0.0961 which means a reduction of about 33.12% from that with the arbitrary FACTS location. 5.3 Optimal FACTS location stability enhancement for voltage

29 28

27

30

26

25

23

24

15

18

19

17

20

21

14

16

22

The new PSO/GA algorithm was used once again but to search for the close to optimal FACTS locations that lead to the best voltage stability index enhancement. The close to optimal locations were as follows: SVCs at buses 19 and 29, TCSC on braches 36 and 38, and TCPS on branch 10. OPF results of this case have been compared with that of the case with the arbitrary FACTS locations. Both are shown in table 3. The voltage stability index has been improved and reduced from 0.1221 to 0.0598. (51% reduction) Table 2: Optimal setting of FACTS devices for fuel cost minimization
Min Max 2.00 0.80 0.50 0.32 0.30 0.40 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.05 0.05 50% 50% 0.20 Arbitrary 1.7289 0.4943 0.2381 0.2107 0.1270 0.1224 1.0845 1.0663 1.0373 1.0371 1.0685 1.0602 1.0056 0.9875 0.9802 0.9567 801.1727 0.7775 0.1388 Optimized 1.7634 0.4770 0.2388 0.2068 0.1165 0.1200 1.0837 1.0666 1.0377 1.0391 1.0638 1.0472 1.0605 0.9443 0.9666 0.9750 0.0432 0.0219 0.2035 0.2410 -0.0052 800.7393 0.7393 0.1426

13

12 11 9

10

7 2

Fig. 5: Single-line diagram of IEEE 30-bus system 5.1 Optimal FACTS minimization location for fuel cost

The computational flowchart of the proposed GA/PSO shown in Fig. 4 was implemented to search for optimal FACTS device locations that best minimize the total fuel cost. The optimal FACTS locations were found to be as follows: SVCs at buses 20 and 21, TCSCs on branches 2 and 5, and TCPS on branch 34. Table 2 shows the optimal settings of the control variables for OPF with optimal and arbitrary FACTS device locations and their corresponding fuel costs. The total fuel cost, as can be noticed from the table, has reduced from $801.1727 with the arbitrary locations to $800.7393 with the optimal locations. As a matter of fact, FACTS devices are not fuel minimization-based devices. So, such little reduction is reasonable. 5.2 Optimal FACTS location for voltage profile improvement

P1 P2 P5 P8 P11 P13 V1 V2 V5 V8 V11 V13 T11 T12 T15 T36 SVC20 SVC21 TCSC2* TCSC5* TCPS34** Cost ($/H) voltage Deviation Voltage Stab. Index * % of XL ** angle in radian

0.50 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 -0.05 -0.05 0.00 0.00 -0.20

6.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The first author acknowledges the support of King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Saudi Arabia. 7. CONCLUSIONS

The new GA/PSO was used to search for an optimal FACTS device location that may lead to the best reduction in voltage deviations. The optimal locations were as follows: SVCs at buses 19 and 26, TCSCs on

A new proposed GA/PSO algorithm has been proposed for solving the optimal location and settings of FACTS devices with respect to a certain objective. In the proposed technique, the capability of GA to solve the

optimal location problem has been merged with the potential of PSO to solve the optimal settings problem. It can be concluded from the case studies that FACTS devices greatly improve voltage deviation and significantly enhance voltage stability of power systems while they have a slight improvement on fuel cost.

[6]

Table 3: Optimal setting of FACTS devices for improving voltage profile and stability
Voltage Deviation Arbitrary P1 1.3836 P2 0.4896 0.3420 P5 0.2478 P8 0.1959 P11 0.2578 P13 1.0133 V1 1.0044 V2 1.0199 V5 1.0092 V8 1.0184 V11 1.0286 V13 1.0214 T11 0.9254 T12 0.9598 T15 0.9626 T36 SVC19 SVC26 TCSC16* TCSC18* TCPS26** Cost ($/H) 831.4172 Voltage 0.1437 Deviation Voltage Stab. 0.1583 Index * % of XL ** angle in radian Optimized 1.3969 0.4067 0.4102 0.2649 0.2111 0.2358 1.0140 1.0041 1.0178 1.0107 1.0316 1.0197 1.0517 0.9000 0.9666 0.9505 0.0500 0.0273 0.2916 0.1999 -0.2000 849.9176 0.0961 0.2242 Voltage Stab. Index Arbitrary 1.4242 0.5897 0.3881 0.2229 0.1845 0.1200 1.0839 1.0788 1.0857 1.0423 1.0304 1.0312 0.9833 0.9379 0.9263 0.9393 837.9752 0.9068 0.1221 Optimized 1.2281 0.6274 0.3012 0.2245 0.2996 0.2414 1.0688 1.0553 1.0349 1.0189 1.0626 1.0373 1.0381 0.9017 0.9107 0.9418 -0.0500 -0.0320 0.4988 0.1340 -0.1520 844.1146 0.6090 0.0598

8. REFERENCES [1] Yong Hug Song and Allan T Johns, Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS), IEE power and energy series 30, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, 1999. Hingorani N.G., Flexible AC Transmission, IEEE spectrum, April 1993, PP. 40-45. Mutale J. and Strbac G., Transmission Network Reinforcement Versus FACTS: An Economic Assessment, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 15, No. 3, August 2000, pp.961-967. Schaffner Ch. and Andersson G., Value of Controllable Devices in a Liberalized Electricity Market, a paper from the Power Systems and High Voltage Laboratories (EEH) website, www.eeh.ee.ethz.ch/downloads/psl/publications. Strbac G. and Jenkins N., FACTS Devices in Uplift Control, Sixth International Conference on AC and DC Power Transmission, Publ. No. 423, 29 April-3 May 1996. pp. 214-219.

[2] [3]

[4]

[5]

Galiana F.D., et al., Assessment and Control of the Impact of FACTS Devices on Power System Performance, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 11, No. 4, November 1996, pp.1931-1935. [7] Srivastava S.C. and Verma R.K., Impact of FACTS Devices on Transmission Pricing in a De-Regulated Electricity Market, International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and Power Technologies 2000, City University, London, 4-7 April 2000, Pp.642-648. [6] Abido M, Optimal Power Flow Using Particle Swarm Optimization, International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, Vol. 24, No. 7, 2002, pp.563-571. [7] Perez A, Acha E and Esquivel C, Advanced SVC Models for Newton-Raphson Load Flow and Newton Optimal Power Flow Studies, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2000, pp.129-136. [8] Ge S, Chung T and Wong Y, A New Method to Incorporate FACTS Devices in Optimal Power Flow, International Conference on Energy Management and Power Delivery, Vol. 1, 1998, pp.122-127. [9] Noroozian M and Andersson G., Power Flow Control by Use of Controllable Series Components, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1993, pp.1420-1429. [10] Overbye T. and DeMarco C., Voltage Security Enhancement Using Energy Based Sensitivities, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 6, No. 3, August 1991, pp.1196-1202. [11] Kim S., Song T., et al, Development of Voltage Stability Constrained Optimal Power Flow (VSCOPF), Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, 2001 IEEE, Vol. 3, 15-19 July 2001, pp.1664-1669. [12] Tuan T.Q., et. al., Emergency Load Shedding to Avoid Risks of Voltage Instability Using Indicator, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 9, No. 1, February 1994, PP.341-347. [13] Kessel P. and Glavitsch H., Estimating the Voltage Stability of a Power System, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1986, PP.346-354. [14] Goldberg D.E., Genetic Algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning, Longman (1989). [15] Shi Y and Eberhart R, Particle Swarm Optimization: Development, Applications and Resources, Proc. Congress on Evolutionary Computation 2001, pp.81-86. [16] L. L. Lai and J. T. Ma, "Improved Genetic Algorithms for Optimal Power Flow Under Both Normal and Contingent Operation States," Int. J. Electrical Power & Energy Systems, Vol. 19, No. 5, 1997, pp. 287-292.