首页> 外文会议>International 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:稳态电压稳定性负载边缘分析的比较

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:随着电力系统变得更加复杂和加载,电压稳定性变得越来越严重。由于这一现象引起的大量严重失败,电压问题是在电力系统的规划和运营期间的一个主题。因此,如何开发有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,可以使用各种强大的方法,即延续电流(CPF),内部点法(IP方法),灵敏度分析等。但是,CPF和IP方法基于边缘分析。电压稳定性的保证金分析是评估稳态电压稳定性的有效方法,这可以指示电力系统的工作点与折叠点之间的距离。有两种主要方法可以处理电压稳定性的边缘评估问题:CPF方法和原始 - 双内部点法(PDIP方法)。在本文中,分析了IEEE 118总线系统和中国的实际电网,以便将CPF方法与PDIPM进行比较,从而了解两种方法之间的差异。算法对准确度,可靠性和灵活性的对比结果表明,CPF方法比PDIP方法更优先考虑。此外,本文提出的CPF考虑了传输线的开放运行,这承诺该结果是有意义的。

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