首页> 外文会议>42nd internaitonal universities power engineering conference >Comparison of Load Margin Analysis for Steady State Voltage Stability
【24h】

Comparison of Load Margin Analysis for Steady State Voltage Stability

机译:稳态电压稳定度的负载裕度分析比较

获取原文

摘要

Voltage stability becomes an increasing severe problem as the power systems become more complex and heavily loaded. Voltage problems have been a subject of great concern during planning and operation of power systems due to the significant number of serious failures believed to have been caused by this phenomenon. Therefore, how to develop an efficient research technique is one of the issues which the researchers most care about. For steady state voltage stability assessment, there are kinds of powerful methods can be used, which are continuation power flow (CPF), interior point method (IP method), sensitivity analysis and so on. However, the CPF and IP methods are based on margin analysis. Margin analysis for voltage stability is an efficient approach to evaluate steady state voltage stability, which can indicate the distance between operating point and collapse point of power system. There are two main ways to deal with margin evaluation problems of voltage stability: CPF method and primal-dual interior point method (PDIP method). In this paper, both an IEEE 118-bus system and a real power grid in China are analyzed in order to compare CPF method with PDIPM to find out the differences between the two methods. The contrastive result of algorithm on accuracy, reliability and flexibility shows that the CPF method is more preponderant than the PDIP method. Moreover, the CPF proposed in this paper considers the opening operation of transmission line, which promises that the result makes sense.
机译:随着电源系统变得越来越复杂和负载越来越重,电压稳定性成为一个日益严重的问题。在电源系统的规划和运行过程中,电压问题一直是一个非常令人关注的问题,因为据信大量现象是由这种现象引起的严重故障。因此,如何开发一种高效的研究技术是研究人员最关心的问题之一。对于稳态电压稳定性评估,可以使用多种有效的方法,例如:连续潮流(CPF),内点法(IP方法),灵敏度分析等。但是,CPF和IP方法基于边际分析。电压稳定度的裕度分析是评估稳态电压稳定性的有效方法,它可以指示电力系统的工作点与崩溃点之间的距离。解决电压稳定性裕度评估问题的主要方法有两种:CPF方法和原对偶内点法(PDIP方法)。为了对CPF方法与PDIPM方法进行比较,以分析这两种方法之间的差异,本文对IEEE 118总线系统和中国的实际电网进行了分析。该算法在准确性,可靠性和灵活性上的对比结果表明,CPF方法比PDIP方法更优越。此外,本文提出的中央公积金考虑了输电线路的开放操作,这表明结果是合理的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号