The present invention generally relates to optimal power flow and more specifically to a closed form iterative processes for solving for optimal power flow.
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 user's 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.
Node controllers and power distribution networks in accordance with embodiments of the invention enable distributed power control. One embodiment includes a node controller including: a network interface, a processor, a memory containing: a distributed power control application: a plurality of node operating parameters describing the operating parameter of a node; and a plurality of node operating parameters describing operating parameters for a set of at least one node selected from the group consisting of an ancestor node and at least one child node; wherein the processor is configured by the distributed power control application to: send node operating parameters to nodes in the set of at least one node; receive operating parameters from the nodes in the set of at least one node; calculate a plurality of updated node operating parameters using an iterative process to determine the updated node operating parameters using the node operating parameters that describe the operating parameters of the node, and the operating parameters of the set of at least one node, where each iteration in the iterative process involves evaluation of a closed form solution; and adjust the node operating parameters.
In a further embodiment, the iterative process further includes an alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) process.
In another embodiment, the ADMM process further includes an x-update process, wherein the x-update process comprises minimizing an augmented Lagrangian for an augmented Relaxed Optimal Power Flow (ROPF) expression.
In a still further embodiment, the x-update process is subject to the following constraints:
where v is a complex voltage, r is a real portion and x is an imaginary portion of a complex impedance, P is a real portion and Q is an imaginary portion of a branch power flow, l is a magnitude squared of the complex branch current, l is the a layer number, Ci is a set of child nodes, i is the node, j is the child node, and Ai is the ancestor node.
In still another embodiment, the ADMM process further includes a z-update process, wherein the z-update process comprises minimizing an augmented Lagrangian for an augmented Relaxed Optimal Power Flow (ROPF) expression.
In a yet further embodiment, the z-update process further includes calculating a closed form expression of independent subexpression.
In yet another embodiment, the ADMM process further includes a Lagrange multiplier update process, wherein the Lagrange multiplier update expression includes a set of Lagrange multipliers.
In a further embodiment again, each Lagrange multiplier in the set of Lagrange multipliers is evaluated by the processor using the following expression:
λk+1=λk+ρ(Axk+1+Bzk+1−c)
where λ is a Lagrange multiplier in the set of Lagrange multipliers, ρ is a constant, Ax+Bz−c is a constraint, k is current iteration, and k+1 is a next iteration.
In another embodiment again, the updated node operating parameters are further calculated using the node operating parameters that describe a set of operating parameters of at least one node selected from the group consisting of an ancestor node of the ancestor node and at least one child node of the at least one child node.
In a further additional embodiment, the node operating parameters include power injection, voltage, branch current to the ancestor node, and branch power flow to the ancestor node
In another additional embodiment, a power distribution network including: one or more centralized computing systems; a communications network: a plurality of node controllers, wherein each node controller in the plurality of node controllers contains: a network interface; a node processor; and a memory containing: a distributed power control application: a plurality of node operating parameters describing the operating parameters of a node; and a plurality of node operating parameters describing operating parameters for a set of at least one node selected from the group consisting of an ancestor node and at least one child node; wherein the node processor is configured by the distributed power control application to: send node operating parameters to nodes in the set of at least one node; receive operating parameters from the nodes in the set of at least one node; calculate a plurality of updated node operating parameters using an iterative process to determine the updated node operating parameters using the node operating parameters that describe the operating parameters of the node, and the operating parameters of the nodes in the set of at least one node, where each iteration in the iterative process involves evaluation of a closed form solution; and adjust the node operating parameters.
In a still yet further embodiment, the iterative process is part of a distributed process for achieving Optimal Power Flow (OPF) that is simplified using a convex relaxation.
In still yet another embodiment, the node controllers are modeled in the centralized computing system as a radial network.
In a still further embodiment again, the node controllers are modeled in the centralized computing system using Kirchhoffs laws.
In still another embodiment again, the node controllers are modeled in the centralized computing system using a branch flow model.
Another further embodiment of the method of the invention includes: the ADMM process further includes an x-update process, wherein the x-update process includes minimizing an augmented Lagrangian for an augmented Relaxed Optimal Power Flow (ROPF) expression.
Still another further embodiment of the method of the invention includes: the x-update process is subject to the following constraints:
where v is a complex voltage, r is a real portion and x is an imaginary portion of a complex impedance, P is a real portion and Q is an imaginary portion of a branch power flow, l is a magnitude squared of the complex branch current, l is the a layer number, Ci is a set of child nodes, i is the node, j is the child node, and Ai is the ancestor node.
In a further additional embodiment, the ADMM process further includes a z-update process, wherein the z-update process includes minimizing an augmented Lagrangian for an augmented Relaxed Optimal Power Flow (ROPF) expression.
In another additional embodiment, the z-update process further comprises calculating a closed form expression of independent subexpression.
In a still yet further embodiment, the ADMM process further comprises a Lagrange multiplier update process, wherein the Lagrange multiplier update expression comprises a set of Lagrange multipliers.
In still yet another embodiment, each Lagrange multiplier in the set of Lagrange multipliers is evaluated by the processor using the following expression:
λk+1=λk+ρ(Axk+1+Bzk+1−c)
where λ is a Lagrange multiplier in the set of Lagrange multipliers, ρ is a constant, Ax+Bz−c is a constraint, k is current iteration, and k+1 is a next iteration.
In a still further embodiment again, the updated node operating parameters are further calculated using the node operating parameters that describe a set of operating parameters of at least one node selected from the group consisting of an ancestor node of the ancestor node and at least one child node of the at least one child node.
In still another embodiment again, the node operating parameters include power injection, voltage, branch current to an ancestor node, and branch power flow to an ancestor node.
Turning now to the drawings, systems and methods for distributed control of power distribution systems configured as radial networks in accordance with embodiments of the invention are illustrated. Radial networks have a tree topology where each node is connected to a single unique ancestor and a set of unique children and radial networks are commonly utilized in modeling the distribution side of the power grid. In many embodiments, processing nodes are distributed throughout the 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 a number of embodiments, the processing nodes within the power distribution network perform centralized, distributed, or hybrid processes that coordinate the control of the power distribution network. Centralized processes can use a centralized processing unit to calculate optimal power flow of all nodes within the network. Distributed processes can be based upon messages passed between the processing node and its ancestor and/or child nodes within the radial network. Hybrid processes use a combination of centralized and distributed process steps. In several embodiments, individual processing nodes determine the voltage, power injection, current, and/or impedance of a given power load, distributed power generation, or remote battery storage within the power distribution network by performing a closed form calculation using information received by power and/or child nodes. In many embodiments, the specific closed form calculation utilized by the processing nodes is selected based upon a distributed solution for optimal power flow of the power distribution network obtained using alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM). Use of a closed form expression obtained in the manner described below can be particularly advantageous relative to techniques for performing distributed control of a power distribution network to achieve OPF requiring the use of an iterative optimization process at each processing node. Specifically, performing a single set of calculations to obtain the control parameters as opposed to repeatedly iterating a set of calculations to obtain the control parameters can be significantly more computationally efficient and can enable the power distribution network to adapt to changes with much lower latency. Additional computational efficiencies may be obtained by a conic relaxation of the distribution network, for example by using a second order cone program (SOCP) relaxation.
Systems and methods for performing distributed control of radial power distribution networks to achieve OPF and solutions to the distributed 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 100 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, the 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. 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
A system 200 including nodes utilizing node controllers connected to a communication network in accordance with an embodiment of the invention are shown in
A node controller in accordance with an embodiment of the invention is shown in
Use of Node Controllers to Achieve Optimal Power Flow
Node 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 closed form expression has been developed enabling calculations to performed at each node concurrently. The term ‘closed form expression’ refers to a calculation that can be performed in a finite number of operations. Overall the closed form solution for OPF can be more computationally efficient and predictable to compute than the use of an iterative process by a node controller to determine operating parameters. Various models can be used to develop a closed form solution that can be utilized to achieve OPF in a distributed manner.
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 of 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 processing nodes 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 OPF in a distributed closed form manner using a second order cone program (SOCP) conic relaxation is described in detail below. As can readily be appreciated, any of a variety of techniques that can be utilized to solve the OPF in a distributed closed form manner 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 closed form expressions discussed below.
Branch Flow Model
A radial network in accordance with an embodiment of the invention is shown in
The relationship 500 between nodes and operating parameters in a BFM is discussed in accordance with an embodiment of the invention is shown in
Modelling a Power Distribution Network
A distribution network can be modeled by a directed tree graph T:=(N,E) where N:={0, . . . , n}represent the set of nodes (buses) and E represent the set of distribution lines connecting the nodes (buses) in N. Index the root of the tree by 0 and let N+:=N\{0} denote the other nodes (buses). For each node i, it has a unique ancestor Ai and a set of children nodes, denoted by Ci. The graph orientation is adopted where every line points toward the root. Each directed line connected a node i and its unique ancestor Ai. The lines are labeled by E:={1, . . . , n} where each iϵE denotes a line from i to Ai.
The root of the tree T can be an element of the power distribution network, typically a substation node (bus). It has a fixed voltage and redistributes the bulk power it receives from the transmission network to other nodes (buses). For each node (bus) iϵN, Vi=|Vi|eiθ
Solving for OPF
An overview of a process 700 for solving for optimal power flow in a radial network utilizing a closed form solution is illustrated in
As noted above, a branch flow model for radial networks is adopted. The process controls a single phase network, therefore, the phase angles of voltages and currents are ignored and the process uses only the variables x:=(v,l,P,Q,p,q). Compared with bus injection model, the branch flow model is more numerical stable and has broad application in distribution networks. Given the network T, the branch flow model is defined by:
where P0, Q0=0 for ease of presentation. Given a vector x that satisfies (1), the phase angles of the voltages and currents can be uniquely determined if the network is a tree. Hence this (relaxed) model (1) is equivalent to a full AC power flow model.
The OPF problem seeks to optimize certain objectives, e.g. total power loss, subject to power flow equations (1) and various operational constraints. An objective function that can be utilized in accordance with many embodiments of the invention takes the following form:
For instance, to minimize total power loss, set f0(p0)=0 and fi(pi,li)=liri for each iϵN+.
In several embodiments, two operational constraints can be utilized. First, the power injection at each node (bus) iϵN+ is constrained to be in a region Si, i.e.
(pi,qi)ϵSi (3a)
For controllable load, whose real power can vary within [pi,
Second, the voltage magnitude at each load node (bus) iϵN+ is constrained so that it is maintained within a prescribed region, i.e.
vi≤vi≤
Typically the voltage magnitude is allowed to deviate by 5% from its nominal value, i.e. vi=0.952 and
The OPF problem is:
The OPF problem (4) is nonconvex due to the equality (1d). This is relaxed to inequality in
Pi2+Qi2≤viliiϵN+ (5)
resulting in a (convex) second-order cone program (SOCP):
Clearly, ROPF (6) provides a lower bound for the original OPF problem (4) since the original feasible set is enlarged. The relaxation can be called exact if every optimal solution of ROPF attains equality in (5) and hence is also optimal for the original OPF. For networks with a tree topology, SOCP relaxation is exact under some mild conditions.
The SOCP relaxation is assumed to be exact and this section develops a distributed algorithm that solves ROPF. First a standard alternating direction method of multiplier (ADMM) is reviewed. Then the structure of ROPF is used to speed up the standard ADMM algorithm by deriving closed form expressions for the optimization subproblems in each ADMM iteration.
Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers
ADMM blends the decomposability of dual decomposition with the superior convergence properties of the method of multipliers. It solves optimization problem of the form:
where Kx, Kz are convex sets. In addition, λ denotes the Lagrange multiplier for the constraint Ax+Bz=c.
Then the augmented Lagrangian is defined as
where ρ≥0 is a constant. When ρ=0, the augmented Lagrangian reduces to the standard Lagrangian. ADMM consists of the iterations:
Compared to dual decomposition, ADMM is guaranteed to converge to an optimal solution under less restrictive conditions. In a number of embodiments, the following conditions are utilized:
rk:=∥Axk+Bzk−c∥ (9a)
sk:=ρ∥ATB(zk−zk−1)∥ (9b)
They can be viewed as the residuals for primal and dual feasibility. Under mild conditions, it can be shown that
In applying ADMM to ROPF, the structure of ROPF is first exploited to derive subproblems that are decoupled and can be solved concurrently. Closed form solutions are then derived to these subproblems. Through decoupling of the solution, the subproblems can be solved by the network controllers to achieve distributed OPF. The standard idea of decoupling through local variables is explained in this subsection, which will be used in the next subsection.
In many embodiments:
where f(x) is a convex function and Kz is a convex set. The variable x must satisfy the linear constraints (10b) for all iϵJ as well as be in Kz. As is shown below, making the constraints (10b) local so that the update (8) can be decomposed into several small optimization subproblems that can be solved simultaneously gives a speedup. To this end, local copies are created of x and they are computed in parallel. Each copy satisfies a different subset of the constraints before the algorithm converges. At optimality, all the local copies are required to be equal and hence satisfy all the constraints.
Partitioning of Radial Network to Decouple Nodes
A partitioned radial network is shown in
Formally, let {Jl, 1≤l≤m} be a partition of J, i.e. Jl are disjoint and ∪1≤l≤mJl=J. There are m+1 constraints defined by the sets Kz and
Kxl:={xϵn|aiTx=bi,iϵJl},1≤l≤m
In many embodiments, there are m+1 copies (z, (x(l), 1≤l≤m)) of the original variable. The decoupled version of (10) is:
The term x:=(x(l), 1≤l≤m) can be used to denote the variable obtained by stacking all vectors x(l), 1≤l≤m. The last equality can be relaxed for each l. In addition, λ(l) can denote the corresponding Lagrange multipliers and λ:=(λ(l), 1≤l≤m). Then the augmented Lagrangian is
The primal variables (x, z) and the multipliers λ can be updated according to (8).
Next, it can be shown that two partitions (m=2) are sufficient for designing distributed OPF algorithm using this approach.
A distributed algorithm can be derived for solving ROPF (6) that has the following advantages First, each node (bus) only needs to solves a local subproblem in each iteration of (8). Moreover, there is a closed form solution for each subproblem, in contrast to most distributed processes for solving for OPF that employ iterative procedure to solve each subproblem. Second, communication is only required between adjacent nodes (buses).
An overview of the ADMM process 800 to solve for OPF, where each distributed calculation involves evaluation of closed form solutions is illustrated in
The ROPF problem (6) is written in the form of (10) as:
where Kz:={z|z satisfies (3) and (5)}. Next, the constraints in (1a)-(1c) can be partitioned to be equivalently in the form of (11) such that the update in (8) can be done simultaneously by each node (bus).
Each node (bus) iϵN can be treated as an agent with its local variables xi:=(vi,li,Pi,Qi,pi,qi). Then the constraints in Kz are local, i.e. they are separable for each agent i. Note that the network T is a tree, which is a bipartite graph and can be partitioned into two groups J1:={iϵN|i is in the odd layer} and J2:={iϵN|i is in the even layer}. Let
Kxl={xi(l) satisfies (1a)-(1c) for iϵJl},l=1,2
Under such partition, node (bus) iϵJ1 (J2) is only coupled with nodes (buses) kϵJ2 (J1). In particular, by (1a), each node (bus) i needs the voltage vA
E-ROPF:
where (12a)-(12c) form (Kx(l), l=1,2) and (12d)-(12f) form Kz. The value of the superscript l depends on the partition that i belongs to, i.e. l=1 (2) if iϵJ1 (J2). Let λ, γ and μ be Lagrangian multipliers associated with x(l)−z=0, specifically
The E-ROPF problem (12) can be solved in a distributed manner, i.e. both the x-update (8a) and z-update (8b) can be decomposed into small subproblems that can be solved simultaneously. For ease of presentation, the iteration number k is removed in (8) for all the variables, which will be updated accordingly after each subproblem is solved. The augmented Lagrangian for modified ROPF problem is given in (13).
Notations are abused in (13) and denoted xi,A
For each node i, the corresponding subproblem is
which takes the following form
whose closed form solution is given as
Prior to performing the x update, each node i requests variables from its ancestor Ai and children jϵCi. In particular, the node can obtain vA
Based on (13b), in the z-update step, solve
The subproblem solved by each node i is
min Hi(z)
s.t.(Pi(z))2+(Qi(z))2≤vi(z)li(z)
vi≤vi(z)≤
(pi(z),qi(z))ϵSi
Suppose fi(pi(z),li(z)) is linear or quadratic in its argument. Let κ=(|Ci|+1)−1/2 and scale vi(z) down by κ in the above problem. Then it takes the following form:
Note that (y1, . . . , y4) and (y5,y6) are independent in the optimization problem (16). Thus two independent subproblems exist. The first subproblem solves
which determines the update of (y5,y6). The solution is
where [x]ab:=min{b,max{x,a}}. The second subproblem solves
which determines the update of (y1, . . . , y4). After the z-update, the Lagrange multipliers are updated for the relaxed constraints as (8c). Both the z-update and multiplier update steps only involve local variables of an agent and no communication is required. Finally, the stopping criteria for the algorithm is specified. Empirical results show that the the solution is accurate enough when both the primal residual rk defined in (9a) and the dual residual sk defined in (9b) are below 10−4√{square root over (N)}, where N is the number of nodes (buses). A derivation of the closed form expression follows.
Derivation of Closed Form Expression
As shown above, to determine the update of (y1, . . . , y4) the following expression can be utilized:
where y3>0. If R can be defined as R:=√{square root over (y12+y22)}, then P1 can be written equivalently as
P2 can be solved utilizing the removing the constraint R2≤k2y3y4 from P2 so it can become:
In various embodiments, an optimal solution can be given by
It can be proven [in Lemma 0.1 to follow] that {circumflex over (R)}2≤k2ŷ3ŷ4, (ŷ3,ŷ4,{circumflex over (R)}) is also optimal for P2 when R2−y3y4 is not convex but g(y)=R2/y3−k2y4 is convex.
Lemma 0.1. K can be a convex set and f(y),g(y):n→ be convex differentiable functions.
Denote y*:=argminyϵK {f(y)|g(y)≤0} and ŷ:=argminyϵK f(y). Then
g({circumflex over (y)})>0⇒g(y*)=0
Proof. The Lagrangian of minyϵK{f(y) s.t. g(y)≤0}can be written as
L(y,λ)=f(y)+λg(y)
where λ≥0 is the Lagrangian multiplier of g(y)≤0. In many embodiments, g(y*) can be g(y*)<0, then the KKT conditions indicate that the optimal primal y* and dual λ* satisfy
y*=argminyϵK{f(y)+λ*g(y)}
g(y*)<0⇒λ*=0
This can mean y*=argminyϵKf(y)=ŷ, which contradicts g(ŷ)>0.
Otherwise, the optimal solution to P2 satisfies R2=k2y3y4 and the derivation can proceed as follows.
R=k√{square root over (y3y4)} can be substituted into f(R) and P2 becomes
P3:min g(y3,y4)s.t.y3ϵ[y3,
where g(y3,y4)=
Sg can be set of local minima of g(y3,y4) is denoted by
Additionally, Sg* can be a set of feasible local minima to P3 and h(y3):=argminy4g(y3,y4) and is denoted by Sg*:=Sg∩{(y3,y4)|y3ϵ[y3,
Sg*∪{y3,h(y3)),(
It can also be proven that by obtaining all the elements in Sg, Sg is equivalent to solving a polynomial equation with degree of 4 [in (Lemma 0.2) to follow,]. In addition, it can be proven that solving h(y3) is equivalent to solving a polynomial equation with degree of 3 [in (Lemma 0.3) to follow]. This implies there can be a closed form expression to P2 and P1.
Lemma 0.2. g(y3,y4) can be defined in (17). Then the set of local minima of g(y3,y4): Sg can be written as
{(y3,y4)|(y3,y4,z2,z1) satisfies (18) and z1 satisfies (19)}
which means (18) can be used to solve (19) and recover (z3,z4).
Proof. A derivative of g(y3 y4) can be taken with respect to y3, y4 to give
which can be equivalent to
(18a) and (18b) can be substituted into (20) and (21), to generate
In addition, (23) can be substituted into (22), to generate (19).
Lemma 0.3. h(y3) can be defined as h(y3):=argminy4g(y3,y4). Then
h(y3)=min{g(y3,y4)|y4 satisfies (24)}.
Proof. Let
which is the set of all local minima of g(y3,y4) with fixed y3.
Taking the derivative of g(y3,y4) with respect to y4 gives
which is equivalent to (24). Solving (24) is equivalent to solving a polynomial equation with degree of 3.
Communication Between Node Controllers
Referring back to
The above discussion provides a detailed discussion of the manner in which closed form solutions can be developed for subproblems that can be solved by individual node controllers to achieve a distributed solution to achieve OPF in a radial power distribution network. The manner in which the solutions outlined in the above discussion can be utilized to implement processes that are executed in node controllers in accordance with various embodiments of the invention is discussed further below.
Implementing Distributed Power Control Processes
A variety of techniques can be utilized to implement processes for execution by node controllers to achieve distributed OPF based upon closed form expressions developed using techniques similar to those outlined above. Pseudocode 1100 that can be utilized to implement processes executed by node controllers to achieve distributed power control in accordance with various embodiments of the invention is illustrated in
Case Study Using a Distributed ADMM Power Control Process
To demonstrate the scalability of the distributed processes described herein, the performance of the distributed processes was simulated on a model of a 2,065-bus distribution circuit in the service territory of Southern California Edison. The simulation involved 1,409 household loads, whose power consumptions are within 0.07 kw-7.6 kw and 142 commercial loads, whose power consumptions are within 5 kw-36.5 kw. The simulation also included 135 rooftop PV panels, whose nameplates are within 0.7-4.5 kw, distributed across the 1,409 houses.
The network is unbalanced three phase. It is assumed that the three phases are balanced and considered a single phase network. The voltage magnitude at each load bus is allowed within [0.95, 1.05] per unit (pu), i.e.
The simulation was implemented in Matlab 2013a and run on Macbook pro 2013 with i5 dual core processor. The following aspects are the main focus of the simulation. Solution feasibility: the primal residual rk defined in (9a) measures the feasibility of the solution for ADMM. In the simulation. (12g) is relaxed and rk=√{square root over (∥(x(1))k−zk∥2+∥(x(2))k−zk∥2)} with respect to the iterations k. Optimality: the dual feasibility error sk defined in (9b) measures the optimality of the solution for ADMM. Using a distributed process similar to the processes described above, the dual residual sk=ρ∥zk−zk−1∥ with respect to the iterations k. Computation time: the proposed distributed algorithm is run on a single machine. The total time can be divided by the number of agents to roughly estimate the time required for each agent to execute its own distributed process (excluding communication overhead).
During the simulation, the stopping criteria was that both the primal and dual residual be below 10−4√{square root over (N)} and
Moreover, the advantage of deriving closed form expression is shown by comparing the computation time of solving the subproblems between an off-the-shelf solver (CVX) and distributed processes implemented in accordance with an embodiment of present invention. In particular, the average computation time of solving the subproblem in both the x and z update is computed. In the x update, the average time required to solve the subproblem is 1.7×10−4 s for the simulated distributed process but 0.2 s for CVX. In the z update, the average time required to solve the subproblem is 5.1×10−4 s for the simulated distributed process but 0.3 s for CVX. Thus, each ADMM iteration takes about 6.8×10−4 s but 0.5 s for using a conventional solver.
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 distributed processes here with respect to a sub-network only in a hybrid implementation of an OPF process in which some nodes are centrally controlled, other nodes receive some operational parameters from a central node and calculate other operational parameters in a distributed manner, and still further nodes operate in a completely distributed manner communicating only 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. 62/002,697 entitled “Distributed Algorithm of Optimal Power Flow Problem on a Radial Network” to Peng et al., filed May 23, 2014. The disclosure of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/002,697 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 |
---|---|---|---|
20120316691 | Boardman et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130274941 | Khozikov et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2015179873 | Nov 2015 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Kraning et al., “Dynamic Network Energy Management via Proximal Message Passing” Foundations and Trends in Optimization vol. 1, No. 2 (2013) pp. 70-122. |
Taylor et al., “Convex models of distribution system reconfiguration” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 6, No. 1, Jan. 2007 pp. 1407-1413. |
Phan et al., “Distributed Methods for Solving the Security-Constrained Optimal Power Flow Problem” IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT), 2012, Jan. 16-20, 2012, 7 Pgs. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application PCT/US2015/032482, Report issued Nov. 29, 2016, dated Dec. 8, 2016, 12 Pgs. |
Bai et al., “Semidefinite programming for optimal power flow problems”, Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 2008, vol. 30, pp. 383-392. |
Baldick, R. et al., “A fast distributed imple-mentation of optimal power flow”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 14, Issue 3, Aug. 1999, pp. 858-864. |
Boyd et al., “Distributed Optimization and Statistical Learning via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers”, Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, vol. 3, No. 1, 2010, pp. 1-122. |
Dall'Anese et al., “Distributed Optimal Power Flow for Smart Microgrids”, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, arXiv:1211.5856v5, Jan. 25, 2014, Retrieved from the Internet: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.5856.pdf>, pp. 1-11. |
Devane, E. et al., “Stability and convergence of distributed algorithms for the OPF problem”, 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Dec. 10-13, 2013, Florence, Italy, pp. 2933-2938. |
Farivar, M. et al., “Branch flow model: relaxations and convexification (parts I, II)”, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 28, No. 3, Aug. 2013, pp. 2554-2572. |
Farivar, M. et al., “Inverter VAR control for distribution systems with renewables”, In IEEE SmartGridComm, Oct. 17-20, 2011, pp. 457-462. |
Gan et al., “Exact Convex Relaxation of Optimal Power Flow in Radial Networks”, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 60, Issue 1, Jan. 2015, pp. 72-87. |
Gan et al., “Optimal power flow in distribution networks”, Proc. 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Dec. 2013, in arXiv:12084076, 7 pgs. |
Grant, M. et al., “CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming”, Apr. 17, 2011, retrieved from http://cvxr.com/cvx/, 2 pages. |
Jabr et al., “Radial Distribution Load Flow Using Conic Programming”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 21, Issue 3, Aug. 2006, pp. 1458-1459. |
Jakobsson, Martin, “On Some Extensions and Performance of Fast-Lipschitz Optimization”, Master's Degree Project, Stockholm, Sweden, Oct. 2011, Retrieved from the Internet: <http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:471914/FULLTEXT01.pdf>, 84 pages. |
Kim, B. H. et al., “Coarse-grained distributed optimal power flow”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 12, Issue 2, May 1997, pp. 932-939. |
Lam, A. et al., “Optimal Distributed Voltage Regulation in Power Distribution Networks”, arXiv:1204.5226, Apr. 23, 2012, retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5226v1, 24 pages. |
Lam et al., “Distributed algorithms for optimal power flow problem”, Decision and Control (CDC), 2012 IEEE 51st Annual Conference on IEEE, 2012, pp. 430-437. |
Li, N. et al., “Demand response in radial distribution networks: Distributed algorithm”, 2012 Conference Record of the Forty Sixth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers (ASILOMAR), Nov. 4-7, 2012, Pacific Grove, CA, USA, pp. 1549-1553. |
Low, “Convex relaxation of optimal power flow—II: exactness”, IEEE Trans. on Control of Network Systems, vol. 1, No. 2, Jun. 2014, pp. 177-189. |
Low, “Convex Relaxation of Optimal Power Flow; Part I: Formulations and Equivalence”, IEEE Trans. on Control of Network Systems, Apr. 15, 2014, vol. 1, No. 1, 44 pgs., Retrieved from the Internet: <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405. |
Peng et al., “Distributed algorithm for optimal power flow on a radial network”, 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Dec. 15-17, 2014, Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp. 167-172. |
Peng et al., “Feeder Reconfiguration in Distribution Networks Based on Convex Relaxation of OPF”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 30, Issue 4, Jul. 2015, pp. 1793-1804. |
Srinivasa et al., “HERB: a home exploring robotic butler”, Autonomous Robots, vol. 28, 2010, pp. 5-20. |
Sun, A. X. et al., “Fully decentralized AC optimal power flow algorithms”, 2013 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, Jul. 21-25, 2013, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 1-5. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20150340863 A1 | Nov 2015 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62002697 | May 2014 | US |