The present invention relates to optimal power flow and more specifically to linear approximations of optimal power flow on multiphase unbalanced networks.
An incredible amount of infrastructure is relied upon to transport electricity from power stations, where the majority of electricity is currently generated, to individual homes. Power stations can generate electricity in a number of ways including using fossil fuels or using renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric sources. Once electricity is generated it travels along transmission lines to substations. Substations typically do not generate electricity, but can change the voltage level of the electricity as well as provide protection to other grid infrastructure during faults and outages. From here, the electricity travels over distribution lines to bring electricity to individual homes. The infrastructure used to transport electricity through the power grid can be viewed as a graph comprised of nodes and lines. The power stations substations, and any end user can be considered nodes within the graph. Transmission and distribution lines connecting these nodes can be represented by lines.
Distributed power generation, electricity generation at the point where it is consumed, is on the rise with the increased use of residential solar panels and is fundamentally changing the path electricity takes to many users' homes. The term “smart grid” describes a new approach to power distribution which leverages advanced technology to track and manage the distribution of electricity. A smart grid applies upgrades to existing power grid infrastructure including the addition of more renewable energy sources, advanced smart meters that digitally record power usage in real time, and bidirectional energy flow that enables the generation and storage of energy in additional locations along the electrical grid.
Centralized node controllers in accordance with embodiments of the invention enable linear approximation of optimal power flow. One embodiment includes a centralized node controller including: a network interface, a processor, and a memory containing: a centralized power control application a network topology, where the network is multiphase unbalanced and comprises a plurality of connected nodes; wherein the processor is configured by the centralized controller application to: request node operating parameters from the plurality of connected nodes; calculate network operating parameters using a linear approximation of optimal power flow and the node operating parameters from the plurality of connected nodes; send network operating parameters to the plurality of connected nodes.
In a further embodiment, the linear approximation of optimal power flow further includes the assumption of small line losses.
In another embodiment, the linear approximation of optimal power flog further includes the assumption of nearly balanced voltage.
In a still further embodiment, the linear approximation of optimal power flow is evaluated using the following expressions:
where i, j, and k are nodes in the plurality of connected nodes, Λ and S are power flows, s is a complex power injection, ν is a voltage, z is a phase impedance matrix, and γ is a matrix of constants.
In still another embodiment, the network topology further includes a radial network.
In a yet further embodiment, the network topology further includes a network modeled on Kirchoffs laws.
In yet another embodiment, the network topology further includes a bus injection model (BIM) network model
In a further embodiment again, the network topology further comprises a branch flow model (BFM) network model.
In another embodiment again, the network topology is simplified using a convex relaxation.
In a further additional embodiment, the convex relaxation is a semidefinite programming (SDP) relaxation.
In another additional embodiment, the SDP relaxation exploits a radial network topology.
In a still yet further embodiment, the network topology further includes a bus injection model (BIM) network topology, and wherein the SDP relaxation exploiting a radial network topology further includes a BIM-SDP which is evaluated using the following expression:
where i is a node in the plurality of connected nodes, is the plurality of connected nodes, s is a power injection, ν is a voltage, C is a function of optimal power flow, and W is a constraint.
In still yet another embodiment, the BIM-SDP is subject to constraints.
In a still further embodiment again, the constraints are evaluated using the following expressions:
where i, and j, are nodes in the plurality of connected nodes, is the plurality of connected nodes, C is a function of optimal power flow, s is a power flow, is a complex matrix, ν and V are voltages, is a set of complex Hermitian matrices, Φ is a phase, y is an inverse phase impedance matrix, and W is a constraint.
In still another embodiment again, the network topology further includes a branch flow model (BFM) network topology, and wherein the SDP relaxation exploiting a radial network topology further includes a BFM-SDP which is evaluated using the following expression:
where i is a node in the plurality of connected nodes, is the plurality of connected nodes, s is a power injection, ν is a voltage, C is a function of optimal power flow, S is a power flow, and l is a slack variable.
Another further embodiment of the method of the invention includes: BFM-SDP is subject to constraints.
Still another further embodiment of the method of the invention includes: the constraints are evaluated using the following expressions:
where i, j, and k are nodes in the plurality of connected nodes, is the plurality of connected nodes, C is a function of optimal power flow, s is a power flow, is a complex matrix, ν and V are voltages, is a set of complex Hermitian matrices, Φ is a phase, S is a power flow, l is a slack variable, and z is a phase impedance matrix.
Turning now to the drawings, systems and methods for centralized control of power distribution systems configured as radial networks in accordance with embodiments of the invention are illustrated. In many embodiments, processes are performed to control multiphase unbalanced power distribution networks, in several embodiments, the processes are also utilized to perform control of single phase and/or multiphase balanced power distribution networks. The term single phase is used to describe a power distribution network that incorporates a single alternating current source. When several sources are used, and the sources are distributed in equally spaced regular intervals (typically 120 degrees for a commonly used three phase network), the power distribution network is described as multiphase balanced network. Single phase and multiphase balanced network problems can often be solved with similar analysis. In the discussions to follow, networks that distribute power in a single phase or a multiphase balanced manner are both be referred to single phase networks. An alternative method of distributing power is multiphase unbalanced. In this manner of power distribution, several voltage sources are, unevenly spaced. Multiphase unbalanced networks often require a different analysis due to the complexity in unevenly distributed voltages compared to single phase and/or multiphase balanced networks. Unless otherwise noted, multiphase unbalanced networks will be referred to as multiphase networks. Single phase and multiphase power distribution networks can both be represented as a radial network. Radial networks have a tree topology where each node is connected to a single unique ancestor and a set of unique children. Radial networks can be utilized in modeling the distribution side of the power grid.
In many embodiments, processing nodes are distributed throughout a power distribution network that control power load, distributed power generation, and remote battery storage. In several embodiments, the processing nodes control the operational parameters of aspects of the power distribution network in an effort to achieve what is often referred to as Optimal Power Flow (OPF). Achieving OPF involves optimizing the operation of a power system with respect to one or more objectives. These objectives can include (but are not limited to) minimizing the amount of power lost during the transmission of power to a user, minimizing the cost of generating the power needed for the system, and/or seeking to optimize other general operational constraints.
In several embodiments, a centralized processor determines operating parameters for a node of the power distribution network by performing a linear approximation using information received from nodes within the power distribution network. The nodes that can be controlled include (but are not limited to) a dynamic load, a distributed power generator (e.g. residential solar array), or battery storage. The operational parameters that are controlled typically depend upon the nature of the controlled node and can include (but are not limited to) voltage, power injection, current, and/or impedance. In many embodiments, the specific linear approximation calculation utilized by the centralized processor is selected based upon a semidefinite program (SDP) relaxation of a solution for optimal power flow in a multiphase unbalanced power distribution network. In several embodiments, the SDP relaxation takes advantage of a power distribution network's radial network topology to obtain significant computational efficiency in a calculation of OPF. While much of the discussion that follows involves centralized calculation of operational parameters for nodes of a power distribution network, a number of embodiments of the present invention perform centralized, distributed, and/or hybrid processes that coordinate the control of the power distribution network. In general, centralized processes can be considered to use a centralized processing system to calculate operational parameters for nodes within the power distribution network that are then distributed to the nodes via a communication network. By contrast, distributed processes involve individual nodes determining their operating parameters and often rely upon messages passed between processing nodes. Hybrid processes are typically regarded as using a combination of centralized and distributed processes.
Systems and methods for performing centralized control of radial power distribution networks to achieve OPF and solutions to the centralized OPF problem that can be utilized in the implementation of such systems and methods in accordance with embodiments of the invention are discussed further below.
Radial Power Distribution Networks
A power distribution network in accordance with an embodiment of the invention is shown in
The power generator 102 can represent a power source including those using fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, or hydroelectric power. Substation 106 changes the voltage of the electricity for more efficient power distribution. Solar panels 114 are distributed power generation sources, and can generate power to supply the home as well as generate additional power for the power grid. House battery 116 can store excess electricity from the solar panels to power the home when solar energy is unavailable, or store electricity from the power grid to use at a later time. Substations 106, large storage batteries 108, homes 112, solar panels 114, house batteries 116, and electric cars 118 can all be considered to be nodes within the power distribution network and the distribution lines 110 can be considered to be lines within the power distribution network. In combination, nodes and lines form a radial network. In many embodiments, node controllers are located at nodes throughout the network to control the operating parameters of different nodes to achieve OPF. Connected nodes can be nodes within the power distribution network that are connected by distribution and/or transmission lines and can be controlled by a node controller. The type of control utilized can depend on the specifics of the network and may include distributed, centralized, and/or hybrid power control. Although many different systems are described above with reference to
Node Controller Architectures
Nodes utilizing node controllers connected to a communication network in accordance with an embodiment of the invention are shown in
Centralized Controller
A centralized controller in accordance with an embodiment of the invention is shown in
Node Controller
A node controller in accordance with an embodiment of the invention is shown in
Use of Centralized Controllers to Achieve Optimal Power Flow
Centralized controllers in accordance with many embodiments of the invention utilize processes that control nodes in a manner that attempts to achieve OPF in a computationally efficient manner. In order to do this, a linear approximation has been developed enabling calculations to be performed for one or more nodes at one or more centralized computer systems. Overall the linear approximation for OPF can efficiently approximate operating parameters for nodes in the entire network. Various models can be used to develop a linear approximation solution that can be utilized to achieve OPF in a power distribution network.
The branch flow model (BFM) and the bus injection model (BIM) can be used for solving the OPF problem. The BFM focuses on the current and power in the branches of the model, and the BIM focuses on current, voltage, and power injection at the nodes of the model. Although the BFM and the BIM are generated with different sets of equations and variables, they produce related solutions since they are both modeled based on Kirchhoffs laws. The process utilized by the node controllers in accordance with various embodiments of the invention utilizes calculations determined by the BFM. Many network shapes can be used to construct the BFM, such as a radial network. In certain cases the structure of a radial network can simplify the computations of the power equations in the OPF problem. Additionally, a convex relaxation of the model can further simplify the calculations. An approach to solve for OPF in a muliphase network using SDP relaxation is described in detail below. As can readily be appreciated, any of a variety of techniques that solve for OPF in multiphase networks can be utilized as the basis for configuring node controllers as appropriate to the requirements of specific applications in accordance with various embodiments of the invention. Therefore, the inventions described herein should not be considered to be limited to the specific linear approximations discussed below.
Optimal Power Flow Models
A radial network in accordance with an embodiment of the invention is shown in
The relationship between nodes and operating parameters in an OPF model in accordance with an embodiment of the invention is shown in
In various embodiments, the following graph representation is utilized to represent at least a portion of a power distribution network. A substation node (bus) with a fixed voltage can be identified and assigned an index of 0, with the other downstream nodes (buses) in a set assigned indexes of 1, 2, . . . , n. The set of nodes (buses) without the node (bus) with a fixed voltage is +=\{0}. Each line connects an ordered pair (i, j) of nodes (buses) where node (bus) i lies between node (bus) 0 and node (bus) j. The set of lines connecting nodes (buses) is represented by ∈. Notations of an indication of connections between nodes (buses) (i, j)∈ and i→j can be used interchangeably, if i→j or j→i, denote i˜j.
The network can have three phases, a, b, c, where the phase of node (bus) ∈ can be represented by Φi, and Φij can represent the phases of line i˜j. For each node (bus), i∈, a voltage Vi can be defined by the phase ϕ complex voltage for ϕ∈Φi, Viϕ for Vi:=[Viϕ]ϕ∈Φ
Superscripts can denote projection to specified phases, e.g., if Φi=abc, then
Viab=(Via,Vib)T.
Nonexisting phase entries are filled by 0, e.g., if Φi=ab, then
Viabc=(Via,Vib,0)T.
With regard to the discussion that follows, a letter without subscripts can denote a vector of the corresponding quantity, e.g., z=[zij]i˜j and s=[si]i∈.
Power Flows
Power flows can be governed by 1) Ohm's law: Iij=yij(ViΦ
In many embodiments, processes are utilized that achieve OPF by determining the power injection that minimizes generation cost subject to physical and operational constraints. In other embodiments, any of a variety of processes that achieve OPF utilizing objectives appropriate to the requirements of specific applications can be utilized.
Generation cost can be separable. In some embodiments, Ci(si):Φ
can be the generation cost of the network,
OPF Operational Constraints
OFT has operational constraints on power injections and voltages besides physical constraints (4). First, while the substation power injection s0 is unconstrained, a branch node (bus) power injection si may vary within some externally specified set i, i.e.,
si∈i,i∈+. (5)
Second, while the substation voltage V0 is fixed and given (denote by V0ref that is nonzero componentwise), a branch node (bus) voltage can be regulated within a range, i.e., there exists [Viϕ,
V0=V0ref; (6a)
Viϕ≤|Viϕ|≤
In many embodiments, if voltages must stay within 5% from their nominal values, then 0.95≤|Viϕ|≤1.05 per unit.
Formulating OPF Problem
Based upon the above, OPF can be formulated as
In several embodiments, the following assumptions can be utilized to solve the optimal power flow problem.
1. The network (, ∈) is connected.
2. Voltage lower bounds are strictly positive, i.e.,
Viϕ>0,i∈+,ϕ∈Φi.
3. Node (Bus) and line phases satisfy
Φi⊃Φij=Φj,i→j.
SDP Applied to BIM and BFM
As discussed above, the calculations involved in determining operational parameters for individual nodes within a multiphase power distribution network that achieve OPF can be simplified by applying a convex relaxation to the OPF problem. An overview of a SDP relaxation of a radial network to solve for OPF, where nets cork topology is exploited for efficient calculations, is illustrated in
Bus Injection Model Semidefinite Programming
OPF is nonconvex due to (4), and a semidefinite programming (SDP) relaxation, BIM-SDP that exploits the radial network topology to reduce the computational complexity of the standard SDP can be utilized.
BIM-SDP can be derived by shifting the nonconvexity from (4) to some rank constraints and removing the rank constraints.
|A| can be defined as the number of elements in a set A, and k×k denotes the set of k×k complex Hermitian matrices. In addition, let νi∈|Φ
then (4) is equivalent to
It can be proven that OPF can be equivalently formulated as BIM-OPF, which is illustrated below.
where the vectors νi and
νi:=[(Viϕ)2]ϕ∈Φ
If Ci (in the objective) and i are convex, then BIM-OPF is convex except for (7g), and an SDP relaxation can be obtained by removing (7g) from BIM-OPF.
In some embodiments, BIM-SDP may be nonconvex due to Ci and i.
If an optimal BIM-SDP solution (s, ν, W) satisfies (7g), then (s, ν, W) also solves BIM-OPF. Furthermore, a global optimum (s, V) of OPF can be recovered.
Comparison of BIM-SDP and Standard-SDP Relaxation
A standard SDP relaxation of OPF has been proposed in the literature. It is derived by introducing
to shift the nonconvexity from (4) in BIM-OPF to rank {tilde over (W)}=1, and removing the rank constraint. This relaxation will be called standard-SDP for ease of reference,
BIM-SDP is computationally more efficient than standard-SDP since it has fewer variables. It is straightforward to verify that there are O(n) variables in BIM-SDP and O(n2) variables in standard-SDP.
Standard-SDP does not exploit the radial network topology. In {tilde over (W)}, only blocks corresponding to lines i˜j appear in other constraints than {tilde over (W)}≥0, i.e., if node (bus) i and node (bus) j are not connected, then block (i, j) in {tilde over (W)} only appears in {tilde over (W)}≥0. Since the network is radial, not all of the (n+1)2 blocks in {tilde over (W)} only appear in {tilde over (W)}≥0, leaving significant potential for exploring sparsity.
Call these blocks that only appear in {tilde over (W)}≥0 the {tilde over (W)}-only blocks and the other blocks the key-blocks. The role of having {tilde over (W)}-only blocks in the optimization is to make sure that the partial matrix specified by key-blocks can be completed to a positive semidefinite full matrix.
BIM-SDP can sometimes not be numerically stable. Therefore, in many embodiments, it is advantageous to use the BFM. The following section illustrates an alternative SDP relaxation for BFM.
Branch Flow Model Semidefinite Programming
A multiphase BFM of power flow can enhance the numerical stability of BIM (4). BIM (4) is ill-conditioned due to subtractions of Vi|Φ
BFM can be defined by the following three equations.
1. Ohm's law:
ViΦij=Vj=zijIij,i→j. (8)
2. Definition of slack variables:
lij=IijIijH,Sij=ViΦ
3. Power balance:
To interpret l and S, note that diag(lij) denotes the magnitude squares of current Iij, and diag(Sij) denotes the sending-end power flow on line i→j. To interpret (10), note that the receiving-end power flow on line i→j is
diag(VjIijH)=diag(Sij−zijlij).
BIM and BFM are equivalent in the sense that they share the same solution set (s, V). Similarly as described above with respect to BIM-OPF, it can be proven that OPF can be equivalently formulated as BFM-OPF. A more numerically stable SDP,BFM-SDP, that has a similar computational efficiency as BIM-SDP is additionally proposed and is illustrated below.
If Ci and i are convex, then BFM-OPF is convex except for (11g), and an SDP relaxation can be obtained by removing (11g) from BFM-OPF.
In many embodiments, BFM-SDP may be nonconvex due to Ci and i.
BFM-SDP can be numerically more stability than BIM-SDP since it avoids subtractions of νiΦ
Centralized Linear Approximation of OPF
In various embodiments, a linear approximation of the power flow (LPF) is utilized. In many embodiments, LPF is obtained by utilizing the following assumptions:
With B1, the zijlij terms can be omitted in (11a) and (11e) to obtain
In many embodiments, given sj for j∈+, (12a) determines uniquely s0 and diag(Sij) for i→j, but not the off-diagonal entries of Sij. B2 can be used to approximate the off-diagonal entries in Sij with diag(Sij).
In addition, α, β, and γ can be defined as
Assuming the voltages to be balanced, then
Sij=ViΦ
It can follow that if Λij=diag(Sij), diag(Λij) is a diagonal matrix with diagonal Λij, then
Sij=γΦ
Centralized Linear Approximation LPF
Based upon the above, (12) can be approximated by
In various embodiments, given sj for j∈+ and ν0, (13) can determine uniquely s0, (Λij, Sij) for i→j, and νj for j∈+ as
where i denotes the path from node (bus) 0 to node (bus) j and Down(j) denotes the downstream of j for j∈+.
Implementation of LPF in a Power Distribution Network
As noted above, operating parameters for nodes in a power distribution network can be determined centrally by solving the linearized approximation of the BFM-SDP relaxation of the OPF problem discussed above. Various processes for determining node operating parameters and distributing the operating parameters to update the operation of nodes within a power distribution network can be utilized. A process that can be performed by a centralized computing system for solving for optimal power flow utilizing a linear approximation is illustrated in
A process that can be performed by a node controller to achieving optimal power flow utilizing a linear approximation in accordance with an embodiment of the invention is illustrated in
Simulations described below show that LPF provides a good estimate of power flows Λ and voltages ν.
Simulations of OPF performance in Power Distribution Networks using BIM-SDP and BFM-SDP Relaxations
BIM and BFM network simulations can be performed with the following simplifications: 1) transformers are simulated as lines with appropriate impedances; 2) circuit switches are simulated as open or short lines depending on the status of the switch; 3) regulators are simulated as having a fixed voltage (the same as the substation); 4) distributed load on a line is simulated as two identical loads located at two end nodes (buses) of the line; and 5) line shunt is simulated using the π model—assuming a fixed impedance load at each end of the line with the impedance being half of the line shunt. The real-world network the simulation is modeled after is located in a residential/commercial area in Southern California. All simulations were performed using a laptop with Intel Core 2 Duo CPU at 2.66 GHz, 4G RAM, and MAC OS 10.9.2, MATLAB R_2013a.
The OPF simulation is as follows. The objective is power loss, i.e.,
The power injection constraint (5) is set up such that
1. for a node (bus) i representing a shunt capacitor with nameplate capacity
i={s∈Φ
2. for a solar photovoltaic node (bus) i with real power generation pi and nameplate rating
i={s∈|Φ
3. for a node (bus) i with multiple devices, i is the summation of above mentioned sets.
Two choices of the voltage constraint (6) are considered:
1. ViΦ
2. ViΦ
BIM-SDP and BFM-SDP are applied to solve OPF. In particular, the generic optimization solver sedumi is used to solve them and results are summarized in
The entry “value” stands for the objective value in kilowatts. In the simulation illustrated in
The entry “time” stands for the running time in seconds. In the simulation illustrated in
The entry “ratio” quantifies how close is an SDP solution to rank one. Due to finite numerical precision, even if BIM-SDP (BFM-SDP) is exact, its numerical solution only approximately satisfies (7g) [(11g)], i.e., the matrices in (7g) [(11g)] is only approximately rank one. To quantify how close are the matrices to rank one, a ratio |λ2/λ1| their largest two eigenvalues λ1, λ2 (|λ1|≥|λ2|≥0) is utilized. The smaller the ratio, the closer the matrices are to rank one. The maximum ratio over all matrices in (7g) [(11g)] is the entry “ratio”. In the simulation illustrated in
With 10% voltage flexibility simulation as illustrated in
Based upon the above, BFM-SDP is numerically exact for up to 2000-bus networks when OPF is feasible, while BIM-SDP gets into numerical difficulties for as few as 34-bus networks. The accuracy of LPF (13) is evaluated in this section. In particular, given the optimal power injections computed by BFM-SDP, a forward backward sweep algorithm (FBS) is utilized to simulate the real values for power flows and voltage magnitudes. LPF can be utilized to simulate the estimated power flows and voltage magnitudes, and the differences between FBS and LPF compare their simulated differences. The results are summarized in
Although the present invention has been described in certain specific aspects, many additional modifications and variations would be apparent to those skilled in the art. It is therefore to be understood that the present invention can be practiced otherwise than specifically described without departing from the scope and spirit of the present invention including (but not limited to) performing the centralized process with respect to a sub-network only or in a hybrid implementation of an OPF process in which some nodes are controlled in a distributed manner and communicate with ancestor and/or children nodes. Thus, embodiments of the present invention should be considered in all respects as illustrative and not restrictive. Accordingly, the scope of the invention should be determined not by the embodiments illustrated, but by the appended claims and their equivalents.
The present invention claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/004,046 entitled “Optimal Power Flow in Multiphase Radial Network” to Gan et al., filed May 28, 2014. The disclosure of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/004,046 is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.
This invention was made with government support under Grant No. DE-AR0000226 awarded by the U.S Department of Energy and Grant No. CNS0911041 awarded by the National Science Foundation. The government has certain rights in the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6625520 | Chen | Sep 2003 | B1 |
7852050 | Berggren | Dec 2010 | B2 |
9564757 | Wang | Feb 2017 | B2 |
9863985 | Giannakis | Jan 2018 | B2 |
20080077368 | Nasle | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20100217550 | Crabtree et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20110043220 | Leibowitz et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20120029720 | Cherian et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120316691 | Boardman et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120326503 | Birkelund et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130238148 | Legbedji | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130268131 | Venayagamoorthy | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140379157 | Das | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150051744 | Mitra | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20160036226 | Gan et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160254669 | Zhang | Sep 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2012083989 | Apr 2012 | JP |
2012015507 | Feb 2012 | WO |
2012058114 | May 2012 | WO |
2012167383 | Dec 2012 | WO |
2015184188 | Dec 2015 | WO |
2016022603 | Feb 2016 | WO |
Entry |
---|
A Three-Phase Power Flow Method for Real-Time Distribution System Analysis; Cheng et al., 9 pages; May 1995. |
The IV Formulation and Linear Approximations of the AC Optimal Power Flow Problem; O'Neill et al.; 18 pages Dec. 2012. |
Convex Relaxation of Optimal Power Flow Part I: Formulations and Equivalence; Steven H Low; 44 pages; Mar. 2014. |
Optimal Power Flow Via Quadratic Modeling; Ye Tao; 194 pages; Dec. 2011. |
Branch Flow Model relxations, convection; Farivar et al., 69 pages; May 2012. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application PCT/US2015/033055, Report issued Nov. 29, 2016, dated Dec. 8, 2016, 8 Pgs. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application PCT/US2015/033055, Report Completed Sep. 9, 2015, dated Sep. 9, 2015, 11 Pgs. |
“IEEE distribution test feeders”, online at available at http ://ewh.ieee.org/sco/pes/ dsacom/testf eeders/. |
Bai et al., “Semidefinite programming for optimal power flow problems”, Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 2008, vol. 30, pp. 383-392. |
Baran, M. E. et al., “Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Apr. 1989, vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 1401-1407. |
Berg et al., “Mechanized Calculation of Unbalanced Load Flow on Radial Distribution Circuits”, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-86, Issue 4, Apr. 1967, pp. 415-421. |
Cain et al., “History of optimal power flow and formulations; Optimal Power Flow Paper 1”, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Dec. 2012, 36 pgs. |
Castillo et al., “Survey of approaches to solving the ACOPF; Optimal Power Flow Paper 4”, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mar. 2013, 49 pgs. |
Chen et al., “Distribution system power flow analysis—a rigid approach”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 6, Issue 3, Jul. 1991, pp. 1146-1152. |
Dall'Anese et al., “Distributed Optimal Power Flow for Smart Microgrids”, EEE Transactions on Smart Grid, arXiv:1211.5856v5, Jan. 25, 2014, pp. 1-11, Retrieved from the Internet: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.5856.pdf. |
Frank et al., “Opti-mal power flow: a bibliographic survey I, Formulations and deterministic methods”, Energy Systems, 2012, vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 221-258. |
Fukuda et al., “Exploiting sparsity in semidefinite programming via matrix completion i: General framework”, SIAM Journal on Optimization, 2001, vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 647-674. |
Huneault et al., “A survey of the opt-imal power flow literature”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, May 1991, vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 762-770. |
Jabr et al., “Radial Distribution Load Flow Using Conic Programming”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Aug. 2006, vol. 21, Issue 3, pp. 1458-1459. |
Kersting et al., “Distribution System Modeling and Analysis”, CRC Press, 2006, 329 pgs. (presented in two parts). |
Lavaei et al., “Zero duality gap in optimal power flow problem”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2012, vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 92-107. |
Low, “Convex relaxation of optimal power flow, II: exactness”, IEEE Trans. on Control of Network Systems, Jun. 2014, vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 177-189. |
Low, “Convex Relaxation of Optimal Power Flow; Part I: Formulations and Equivalence”, IEEE Trans. on Control of Network Systems, Mar. 15-27, 2014, vol. 1, No. 1, 44 pgs., Retrieved from the Internet: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405, May 5, 2014. |
Momoh et al., “A review of selected optimal power flow literature to 1993. Part I: Nonlinear and quadratic programming approaches”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Feb. 1999, vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 96-104. |
Pandya et al., “A survey of optimal power flow methods”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 2008, vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 450-458. |
Sturm, “Using SeDuMi 1.02, a matlab toolbox for optimization over symmetric cones”, Optimization Methods and Software, Mar. 1999, vol. 11, No. 1-4, pp. 625-653. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application PCT/US2015/043676, Report issued Feb. 7, 2017, dated Feb. 16, 2017, 6 Pgs. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2015/043676, Search completed Oct. 27, 2015, dated Oct. 27, 2015, 8 Pgs. |
Alsac et al., “Further developments in LP-based optimal power flow”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 5, Issue 3, Aug. 1990, pp. 697-711. |
Baptista, E. C. et al., “Logarithmic barrier-augmented lagrangian function to the optimal power flow problem”, International Journal on Electrical Power and Energy Systems, Jun. 23, 2005, vol. 27, No. 7, pp. 528-532. |
Capitanescu, F. et al., “Interior-point based algorithms for the solution of optimal power flow problems”, Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 77, Issues 5-6, Apr. 2007, pp. 508-517, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2006.05.003. |
Contaxis, G. C. et al., “Decoupled Optimal Load Flow Using Linear or Quadratic Programming”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 1, Issue 2, May 1986, pp. 1-7. |
Farivar, M. et al., “Inverter VAR control for distribution systems with renewables”, In IEEE SmartGridComm, Oct. 17-20, 2011, pp. 457-462. |
Farivar, M. et al., “Optimal Inverter VAR Control in Distribution Systems with High PV Penetration”, In PES General Meeting, Jul. 22-26, 2012, pp. 1-7. |
Gan, L. et al., “Convex Relaxations and Linear Approximation for Optimal Power Flow in Multiphase Radial Networks”, In Power systems computation conference, Aug. 18-22, 2014, 9 pgs. |
Grant, M. et al., “Cvx: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming”, online at http://cvxr.com/cvx/, 2008, 2 pages. |
Jabr, R. A. et al., “A primal-dual interior-point method to solve the optimal power flow dispatching problem”, Optimization and Engineering, Feb. 12, 2003, vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 309-336. |
Min, W. et al., “A trust region interior point algorithm for optimal power flow problems”, Electrical Power and Energy Systems, May 2005, vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 293-300. |
Sousa, A. A. et al., “Robust optimal power flow solution using trust region and interior methods”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, May 2011, vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 487-499. |
Stott, B. et al., “DC power flow revisited”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Aug. 2009, vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 1290-1300. |
Stott, B. et al., “Fast decoupled load flow”, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, May 1974, vol. PAS-93(3), pp. 859-869. |
Torres, G. L. et al., “An interior-point method for nonlinear optimal power flow using voltage rectangular coordinates”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Nov. 1998, vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 1211-1218. |
Turitsyn, K. et al., “Local control of reactive power by distributed photovoltaic generators”, In IEEE SmartGridComm, Oct. 4-6, 2010, pp. 79-84. |
Xiao, Y. et al., “Power flow control approach to power systems with embedded FACTS devices”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Nov. 2002, vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 943-950. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20150346753 A1 | Dec 2015 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62004046 | May 2014 | US |