Optimal islanding and load shedding

Paul Trodden, Waqquas Bukhsh,

Andreas Grothey, Jacek Gondzio, Ken McKinnon
March 11, 2011

Contents
1 Introduction

2 Optimal load shedding

2.1 AC OLS problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 DC OLS problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Cutting lines without uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3
3
5
6

3 Optimal islanding and load shedding

3.1 Motivation and assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 DC IP islanding formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14
14
15

4 DC
4.1
4.2
4.3

islanding of IEEE 14-bus system

DC IP islanding of network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AC OLS on islanded network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison over different islanded networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18
19
19
24

5 DC islanding of IEEE 24-bus RTS

5.1 DC IP islanding with = 0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Effect of varying load-supply probability, d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24
26
26

6 Larger systems: computational results

29

7 Extensions to the IP formulation

7.1 Loss modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Generator switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32
32
34

8 Feasibility problems

35

Notation
Notation conventions
Upper case is used for constants, (parameters in upright text and sets in calligraphic
text), and lower case for variables. Indices are lower case and always subscripts. Superscripts are part of the name.
Sets
B
B0
B1
G
Gb
S
L
L0
D
Db

set of buses, indexed by b

subset of buses of uncertain status (and preassigned to section 0)
subset of buses preassigned to section 1
set of generators, indexed by g
set of generators attached to bus b
= {0, 1}, set of sections
set of lines, indexed by l
subset of lines of uncertain status
set of loads, indexed by d
set of loads attached to bus b

Parameters
A
PgG
PdD , QD
d
L
GL
l , Bl
B
GB
b , Bb
L,max
Pl
SlL,max
Vbmax , Vbmin
Og
d
Md
l
+

line-bus matrix; line l goes from b = Al,1 to b = Al,2

real power output from generator g
real and reactive power demands at load d (at nominal voltage)
conductance and susceptance of line l
shunt conductance and susceptance at bus b
limit on real power flow in line l
limit on apparent power flow in line l
max and min voltages at bus b
set of possible values for (pGg , qgG )
probability of losing load d if it is part of section 0
reward per unit of delivered real power at load d
maximum difference in phase angle across a connected line l
maximum difference in phase angle across a disconnected line

Variables
pGg , qgG
D
pD
d , qd
vb
b
pL,fr
, qlL,fr
l
L,to L,to
pl , q l

real and reactive power output of generator g after change

real and reactive power absorbed by demand d
voltage at bus b
voltage phase angle at bus b
real and reactive power flows into line l from bus b = Al,1
real and reactive power flows into line l from bus b = Al,2
2

lL
pL
l ,q
d
l
b

real and reactive power that would flow into line l

were the line connected
proportion of load d supplied after shedding
01 switch to disconnect line l; line is disconnected iff l = 0
section (0 or 1) that bus b lies in

Introduction

This document forms the follow-up report for the Edinburgh presentation at the Blackout project plenary meeting in Durham, 19 January 2011. The organization of the
report is as follows.
The next section describes an optimal load shedding formulation (with both AC and
DC variants) and applies it to a 14-bus example system under abnormal operation. It is
demonstrated that cutting lines, without creating islands, can lead to less load shedding.
In Section 3, the motivations for islanding are described and the IP formulation is
presented. The islanding optimization is then applied to a number of test networks. In
Section 4, the 14-bus network is islanded and the results compared with results from an
AC model applied to the islanded network. A comparison with AC results over different
islands shows agreement between AC and DC, but also indicates a need for modelling
of losses. Secondly, in Section 5, the 24-bus IEEE Reliability Test System is studied,
and the effect of varying an islanding optimization parameter is investigated. Finally,
the islanding optimization is applied to larger networks in Section 6, chiefly to obtain a
measure of computational scaling.
In the final two sections, modifications to the islanding formulation are presented
and current difficulties with the method are discussed. For the former, modifications are
made to include both loss modelling in the DC formulation and the on/off switching of
generating units (as opposed to continuous variation of outputs). In the latter section,
the problem of subsequent AC feasibility in a DC-islanded network is described, and
ideas to solve (or ameliorate) the problem are presented.

Optimal load shedding

The optimal load shedding model assumes the form of an optimal power flow optimization problem, but permits a proportion of the load at any bus to be shed. The next
two subsections briefly describes the AC and DC OLS formulations, before a 14-bus
network example is used to show that cutting lines in some cases, even without failures
and uncertainty, can maximize supplied load.

2.1

AC OLS problem

The objective is to maximize the supply of real power to loads:

X
max
Md d PdD
dD

(1)

subject to,
Kirchhoffs current law (KCL) for conservation of flow at each bus. For all b B :
X
X
X
X
2
pGg =
pD
pL,fr

(2a)
plL,to + GB
d +
b vb ,
l
gGb

gGb

dDb

qgG

dDb

lL:Al,1 =b

qdD

lL:Al,2 =b

qlL,fr

lL:Al,1 =b

qlL,to BbB vb2 ,

(2b)

lL:Al,2 =b

Kirchhoffs voltage law (KVL) across each line l L. If b = Al,1 is the from end
bus and b = Al,2 is the to end bus,
i
h
12
11 2
12
) ,
G
) + B
(3a)
sin(

+
v
v
v
cos(

pL,fr
=
G
b
b
b
b
b
b
l
b
l
l
l
i
h
21
21
2
(3b)
pL,to
= G22
l vb + vb vb Gl cos(b b ) + Bl sin(b b ) ,
l
i
h
12
(3c)
qlL,fr = Bl11 vb2 + vb vb G12
l sin(b b ) Bl cos(b b ) ,
i
h
21
(3d)
qlL,to = Bl22 vb2 + vb vb G21
l sin(b b ) Bl cos(b b ) .
22
21
12
11
22
21
12
The parameters G11
l , Gl , Gl , Gl and Bl , Bl , Bl , Bl are the real and imaginary elements of the admittance matrix of line l:
 11
  11

 11

Yl
Yl12
Gl
G12
Bl
Bl12
l
Yl =
=
+j
.
Yl21 Yl22
G21
G22
Bl21 Bl22
l
l

In most cases, when the line is not a transformer with off-nominal turns ratio
and/or contains no line charging capacitance,
22
12
21
L
G11
l = Gl = Gl = Gl = Gl

Bl11 = Bl22 = Bl12 = Bl21 = BlL ,

and the more standard form of KVL is recovered. We use this formulation to
retain generality; also, in each of the networks simulated in this report a number
of lines exist with l 6= 1 and/or non-zero line charging capacitance, in which case
L
11
L
G11
l 6= Gl , Bl 6= Bl , etc.
Load shedding constraints. We assume that load d D may be reduced by
disconnecting a proportion 1 d and that the ratio of real to reactive load stays
the same.
D
pD
d = d Pd ,

(4a)

d QD
d,

(4b)

0 d 1.

(4c)

qdD

(Currently, we assume that loads are constant power, though it is possible to use
other models in the formulation).
4

 Generation constraints: the real and reactive power outputs of the generator g G
lie in some feasible set of operation (see, for example, [1, Figure 3.19, p93]).


pGg , qgG Og .
(5)
Line limits. The formulation permits a number of different ways in which to impose
limits on line capacity, (depending on what is specified in the network data). For
example, MVA ratings on apparent power for each line l L :

2
(6a)
pL,fr
)2 + qlL,fr)2 SlL,max ,
l


2
(6b)
pL,to
)2 + qlL,to )2 SlL,max .
l
Note that this effectively corresponds to a heating constraint, applied at each end
of the line.

Alternatively, the data may provide a PlL,max and require limits on real power
flow. Or, phase angle limits
l Al,1 Al,2 l .
Voltage limits at each bus b B:
Vbmin vb Vbmax .

(7)

b0 = 0.

(8)

Reference bus constraint:

The AC OLS is always a nonlinear problem, owing to the non-linearity of the KVL
constraints.

2.2

DC OLS problem

The DC OLS problem makes use of the standard DC flow model assumptions to
produce a formulation with real power only and no line losses. The problem is as
follows.
max

Md d PdD

(9)

dD

subject to
KCL for all b B:
X

gGb

pGg =

dDb

pD
d +

lL:Al,1 =b

pL
l

lL:Al,2 =b

pL
l ,

(10)

 KVL for all l L. If b = Al,1 is the to end bus and b = Al,2 is the from end
bus,


BlL
b b ,
(11)
=
pL
l
l
Note that we include the off-nominal turns ratio l to permit the general case of a
line being a transformer; usually, l = 1.

Load shedding constraints for all d D:

D
pD
d = d Pd ,

(12a)

0 d 1.

(12b)

Generation constraints for all g G:

PgG,min pGg PgG,max .

(13)

Usually we shall assume that generation can be decreased but not increased, given
the long times required to do so. In that case, PgG,max = PgG .
Line limits, which may only be expressed either was MW ratings on real power for
each line l L :
L,max
PlL,max pL
(14)
l Pl
Or, phase angle limits:
l b b , l L
Reference bus constraint:
b0 = 0.

(15)

The main advantage of the DC OLS is its linearity; the KVL expression is linear,
and so the resulting problem is an LP.

2.3

Cutting lines without uncertainty

The following numerical simulations use the IEEE 14-bus test system (see [2]), which is
shown in Figure 1. Generator outputs at buses 1 and 2 are as follows.
0 pG1 200 MW,
0 pG2 200 MW,
150 q1G 150 MVAr,
150 q2G 150 MVAr,

13

12

14

11

10

~
6

4
2

Figure 1: IEEE 14-bus test system.

while the condensers at buses 3, 6 and 8 have zero real power output capacity, and
reactive power output in the range 0 to +140 MVAr. Total real power demand in the
network (at nominal voltage) is 259 MW. This mirrors the settings in [3]. Line limits
are not specified as standard for this system, and so a 100 MVA limit is imposed on
each line. Phase angle limits are also not specified, but will be dealt with separately in
the examples that follow.
To simulate an abnormal operating condition, the generator at bus 2 is deleted from
the system (as was done in [3]). Subsequently, the revised generation constraints are
0 pG1 200,
0 pG2 0.
Real power demand now exceeds supply by 59 MW. No buses are marked as uncertain; it
is assumed that knowledge of the network state is accurate. The idea in this simulation
is not to island an unhealthy part of the network, but to shed loads to obtain an
optimal operating point in the abnormal conditions.
7

13

12

13

14

11

12

10

10

4
2

14

11

(a) No line cuts

(b) Lines (2, 3) and (2, 5) cut

Figure 2: IEEE 14-bus test system under abnormal conditions.

OLS solution with no line cuts
Tables 1 and 2 shows the bus and line data for the AC OLS and DC OLS respectively.
The key points are summarized as follows.
Total load supplied is 147.9 MW (AC) and 154.6 MW (DC).
The load at bus 2 has been fully shed in both cases, while the AC OLS sheds
94.9% of the load at bus 3 compared with 87.8% for DC OLS.
Total real power generation is 153.8 MW (AC) and 154.6 MW (DC). In neither
case is the sole remaining generator operating at capacity (200 MW),
Line (1, 2) is operating at capacity. All others are within limits.
Bus and line values for AC and DC are of the same orders of magnitude and if the
same signs; small differences add up to a total of 5.9 MW in losses for AC.
It is not immediately apparent from the data as to why the single generator is unable
to operate nearer to capacity, and so reduce the load shed. Sensitivity analysis shows
that by far the highest shadow price is on the MVA limit constraint for line (1, 2),
indicating an extra 63.9 MW of load could be supplied for a 1 p.u. (100 MVA) increase
in capacity.
OLS solution with line cuts
Tables 3 and 4 show the results from the AC and DC OLS formulations when lines (2, 3)
and (2, 5) are cut prior to solving the optimization problems.
8

vb

b (deg)

pGg

qgG

1.053
1.035
1.025
1.012
1.013
1.060
1.043
1.056
1.041
1.037
1.045
1.045
1.039
1.022

0.00
3.10
5.50
7.10
6.22
11.60
10.30
10.30
11.97
12.20
12.03
12.45
12.50
13.23

153.8

4.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

13.9

0.0

7.6

b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

pD
d

PdD

qdD

QD
d

0.0
4.8
47.8
7.6
11.2

21.7
94.2
47.8
7.6
11.2

0.0
1.0
3.9
1.6
7.5

12.7
19.0
3.9
1.6
7.5

0.00
0.05
1.00
1.00
1.00

29.5
9.0
3.5
6.1
13.5
14.9

29.5
9.0
3.5
6.1
13.5
14.9

16.6
5.8
1.8
1.6
5.8
5.0

16.6
5.8
1.8
1.6
5.8
5.0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

(a) Bus data

l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Al,1

Al,2

pL,fr
l

pL,to
l

qlL,fr

qlL,to

MVA limit

(deg)

1
1
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
9
9
10
12
13

2
5
3
4
5
4
5
7
9
6
11
12
13
8
9
10
14
11
13
14

100.0
53.9
22.5
41.9
33.8
17.5
34.9
28.8
16.6
42.9
6.6
7.7
17.4
0.0
28.8
6.0
9.9
3.0
1.6
5.2

98.2
52.4
22.3
41.0
33.2
17.3
35.1
28.8
16.6
42.9
6.5
7.7
17.2
0.0
28.8
6.0
9.8
3.0
1.5
5.1

1.7
5.8
2.0
0.4
1.1
0.8
7.9
3.4
1.3
13.6
5.0
2.7
8.0
7.5
2.4
2.8
2.7
3.1
1.0
2.7

1.3
5.0
1.7
0.3
2.9
1.6
7.4
5.1
0.1
9.3
4.9
2.6
7.5
7.6
1.6
2.7
2.4
3.1
1.0
2.6

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

3.10
6.22
2.40
4.00
3.12
1.60
0.88
3.20
4.87
5.38
0.43
0.85
0.90
0.00
1.67
0.22
1.25
0.17
0.05
0.73

(b) Line data

Table 1: AC OLS on 14-bus network under abnormal operation with no line cuts. Units
of real and reactive power are MW and MVAr respectively; voltages are per unit.

b (deg)

pGg

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

0.00
3.75
6.82
8.41
7.38
12.93
11.85
11.85
13.70
14.06
13.75
14.24
14.52
15.65

154.6
0.0

0.0

pD
d

PdD

0.0
11.5
47.8
7.6
11.2

21.7
94.2
47.8
7.6
11.2

0.00
0.12
1.00
1.00
1.00

29.5
9.0
3.5
6.1
13.5
14.9

29.5
9.0
3.5
6.1
13.5
14.9

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

0.0

(a) Bus data

l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Al,1

Al,2

pL
l

PlL,max

(deg)

1
1
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
9
9
10
12
13

2
5
3
4
5
4
5
7
9
6
11
12
13
8
9
10
14
11
13
14

100.0
54.6
25.6
41.6
32.9
14.1
38.6
29.3
17.1
41.2
5.9
7.2
16.9
0.0
29.3
6.6
10.3
2.4
1.1
4.6

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

3.75
7.38
3.06
4.65
3.63
1.59
1.03
3.44
5.29
5.55
0.82
1.30
1.59
0.00
1.85
0.37
1.96
0.31
0.29
1.13

(b) Line data

Table 2: DC OLS of 14-bus system under abnormal conditions with no line cuts. Units
of real power are MW.

10

Having made these line cuts, the generator at bus 1 is now operating at or near to
maximum capacity, providing 200 MW (DC) and 198.1 MW (AC) to the rest of the
network. For AC, the same buses (2 and 3) as before have shed or part-shed their loads;
bus 2 has fully shed but as a consequence of the increased generation bus 3 has
shed only 56.2% compared with 94.9% previously.
The situation for DC at first appears to be rather different: bus 2 has fully shed,
while, of the rest, the only load that has not shed is at bus 3 all other buses have
part-shed between 3.6% (bus 5) and 99.6% (bus 2). However, it should be noted that
the DC is almost indifferent to which loads are shed, since (i) no losses are modelled
(ii) reactive power and voltage is neglected, and (iii) all rewards per unit supply, Md
in the objective, are unity. The former point indicates that some loss modelling is
required if the IP islanding formulation is to shed the correct loads. The second point
has implications for how line limits are modelled: if a 100 MVA limit is assumed to
be equivalent to a 100 MW limit for DC, then DC will be able to squeeze more real
power down a line. Despite this, what is important here is the overall load supply: in
fact, by cutting lines (2, 3) and (2, 5) an extra 36 MW of load has been supplied for AC
and an additional 46 for DC.
Disconnecting lines (2, 3) and (2, 5) has increased the real power carried over lines
(1, 5) and (2, 4) to near-capacity levels. Previously these lines carried 54.6 and 41.6 MW
respectively. Meanwhile, line (1, 2) remains at capacity. The net effect is a higher flow
of real power from the buses 1 and 2 to the rest of the network. This better solution
is not available without the line cuts in place; with the lines present, any phase angle
differences between bus 2 and buses 3 and 5 implies a non-zero flow of power. Viewed
differently, with all lines intact the network is unable to establish the conditions required
to move enough generated power from buses 1 and 2 to the rest of the buses.

11

vb

b (deg)

pGg

qgG

1.060
1.041
0.984
0.996
0.997
1.060
1.038
1.060
1.035
1.032
1.042
1.044
1.039
1.018

0.00
3.04
17.14
12.57
11.48
17.06
15.78
15.78
17.44
17.67
17.49
17.91
17.96
18.70

198.1

13.0

0.0

18.9

0.0

22.9

0.0

13.5

b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

pD
d

PdD

qdD

QD
d

0.0
41.2
47.8
7.6
11.2

21.7
94.2
47.8
7.6
11.2

0.0
8.3
3.9
1.6
7.5

12.7
19.0
3.9
1.6
7.5

0.00
0.44
1.00
1.00
1.00

29.5
9.0
3.5
6.1
13.5
14.9

29.5
9.0
3.5
6.1
13.5
14.9

16.6
5.8
1.8
1.6
5.8
5.0

16.6
5.8
1.8
1.6
5.8
5.0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

(a) Bus data

l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Al,1

Al,2

pL,fr
l

pL,to
l

qlL,fr

qlL,to

MVA limit

(deg)

1
1
2
3
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
9
9
10
12
13

2
5
4
4
5
7
9
6
11
12
13
8
9
10
14
11
13
14

100.0
98.1
98.3
41.2
41.7
28.3
16.2
43.8
7.1
7.8
17.7
0.0
28.3
5.5
9.5
3.5
1.7
5.6

98.3
93.3
93.1
42.5
42.0
28.3
16.2
43.8
7.0
7.8
17.4
0.0
28.3
5.5
9.4
3.5
1.6
5.5

0.2
12.8
0.8
10.6
10.4
8.6
0.6
6.4
6.1
2.8
8.5
13.2
2.9
1.7
2.0
4.1
1.1
3.4

0.8
1.6
11.4
8.6
9.6
10.4
2.0
2.1
5.9
2.7
8.1
13.5
2.0
1.7
1.8
4.1
1.1
3.2

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

3.04
11.48
9.53
4.57
1.09
3.21
4.87
5.58
0.43
0.86
0.90
0.00
1.66
0.22
1.26
0.18
0.05
0.74

(b) Line data

Table 3: AC OLS of 14-bus system under abnormal conditions with cuts to lines (2, 3)
and (2, 5). Units of real and reactive power are MW and MVAr respectively; voltages
are per unit.

12

b (deg)

pGg

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

0.00
3.75
25.59
14.94
13.53
18.83
18.05
18.05
19.73
20.00
19.63
20.05
20.35
21.48

200.0
0.0

0.0

pD
d

PdD

0.1
94.2
17.0
7.3
10.7

21.7
94.2
47.8
7.6
11.2

0.00
1.00
0.36
0.96
0.95

27.8
7.8
2.9
5.5
12.9
13.8

29.5
9.0
3.5
6.1
13.5
14.9

0.94
0.86
0.83
0.91
0.95
0.93

0.0

(a) Bus data

l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Al,1

Al,2

pL
l

PlL,max

(deg)

1
1
2
3
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
9
9
10
12
13

2
5
4
4
5
7
9
6
11
12
13
8
9
10
14
11
13
14

100.0
100.0
99.9
94.2
53.3
26.5
15.5
39.4
5.7
6.7
16.2
0.0
26.5
5.0
9.3
2.8
1.2
4.5

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

3.75
13.53
11.19
10.65
1.42
3.11
4.78
5.30
0.80
1.22
1.52
0.00
1.67
0.27
1.75
0.37
0.31
1.13

(b) Line data

Table 4: DC OLS of 14-bus system under abnormal conditions with cuts to lines (2, 3)
and (2.5). Units of real power are MW.

13

Optimal islanding and load shedding

The previous section showed that it is possible to reduce the load shed by allowing
lines to be cut, though it is uncommon for the best solution to split the network into
islands. However, so far we have assumed perfect knowledge of the post-fault state of
the network. More realistically, it may be known that there is a problem in some part
of the network, but the form and extent of the problem is not known. In such a case,
a robust solution to prevent cascading failures would be to isolate the uncertain part of
the network from the certain part, by forming one or more islands.
In this section, we present a DC Integer Programming (IP) formulation for minimizing the load shed in an electricity network under stress. The goal is to maximise the
expected load that remains connected. Initially we will formulate a single stage problem.

3.1

Motivation and assumptions

Following some failure in the network, we wish to disconnect lines, vary loads and
establish stable islands to avoid cascading failures and eventual blackout. We assume
that, post-fault, there are parts of the network that are suspected of having a fault and
some where we are reasonably sure have no faults. Figure 3 depicts such a situation for
a fictional network.
?

(a) Network prior to islanding

Section 1

Section 0
?

Island 1

Section 1
?

Island 2

Island 3

Island 4

(b) Network post islanding

Figure 3: (a) Fictional network with uncertain buses and lines, and (b) the islanding of
that network by disconnecting lines.
Our aim is to split the network into disconnected sections so that the possible faults
are all in one section. It is desirable that this section be small, since it may be prone
14

to failure, and that the other section is able to operate with little load shedding. We
would also like the problem section to shed as little load as possible. Figure 3 therefore
also shows a possible islanding solution for this network, where all of the uncertain
buses and lines have been placed in a section 0. At this point we make the following
distinction between sections and islands.
The optimized network shall consist of two sections, an unhealthy section 0 and
a healthy section 1. No lines shall connect the two sections. On the other hand,
neither section is required to be a single, connected component.
An island describes a connected component of the network.
Thus, either section may contain a number of islands as is exemplified by in Figure 3,
where section 1 comprises islands 1, 3 and 4. Section 0 is a single island, but is not
always necessarily so.
We will assume that the state of the system immediately after the initial fault is
known, and that the state at the end of the calculation can be quickly and accurately
predicted. We have central control of generation, load shedding and line breakers; we
assume that we can instantaneously and simultaneously reduce the demand, reduce real
power generation levels1 , vary the reactive power generation levels within bounds, and
also disconnect lines. It is assumed that such instantaneous variations do not cause
transient instability.
We require that after the adjustments the system is in a feasible stable steady state.
If it is optimal to do so, the model will split the network into islands but without further
constraints it will not necessarily do this.

3.2

DC IP islanding formulation

The formulation is obtained by adding sectioning constraints to the DC OLS problem.

The resulting problem is a Mixed Integer Linear Problem (MILP), describing a lossless p system with voltage-independent loads. It is, of course, possible to develop an
equivalent formulation for the AC model, but this results in a MINLP, which is difficult
to solve. (The basic graph partitioning formulation is a standard one, but linking the
binary line variables to the electricity network variables appears to be new.)
Sectioning constraints
We define a set S = {0, 1} that numbers the sections of the network: section 0 shall
be the unhealthy section, while section 1 shall be healthy. We suspect that some
subset B 0 of buses and some subset L0 of lines have a possible fault; it is these we wish
to confine to section 0.
1

Note that in more recent work and following feedback from the January meeting in Durham
we have assumed that real power generation cannot be instantaneously varied; a generators mechanical
input may be held at its current level or removed completely, while the machine remains electrically
connected to the network and able to supply reactive power. This modification is described in Section 7.
For the results presented here, however, we assume that real power can be varied.

15

We introduce a binary decision variable b with each bus b B; b shall be set equal
to 0 iff b is placed in section 0 and b = 1 otherwise. To partition the network in such
a way, we need to disconnect lines. Accordingly, we define a binary decision variable l
for each l L; l = 0 iff line l is disconnected and l = 1 otherwise.
The first pair of constraints operates on each line not pre-assigned to L0 . The value
of l for the line is zero and the line is cut if the two end buses are in different
sections (i.e. Al,1 = 0 and Al,2 = 1, or Al,1 = 1 and Al,2 = 0). Otherwise, if the
two end buses are in the same section, be it section 0 or 1, l 1; that is, the line may
or may not be disconnected. Thus, these constraints enforce the requirement that any
certain line between sections 0 and 1 shall be disconnected.
l 1 + Al,1 Al,2 , l L \ L0 ,
0

l 1 Al,1 + Al,2 , l L \ L .

(16a)
(16b)

The second pair of constraints examines lines pre-assigned to L0 and sets l = 0

disconnects the line if either or both of the ends are in healthy section 1. Thus, an
uncertain line (i) shall be disconnected if entirely in section 1, (ii) shall be disconnected
if between sections 0 and 1, (iii) may remain connected if entirely in section 0.
l 1 Al,1 , l L0 ,
0

l 1 Al,2 , l L ,

(16c)
(16d)

The final pair of constraints simply sets the value of b for a bus b depending on
what set that bus was pre-assigned to. So if b B 0 then b = 0. In addition, we define
a set B 1 , to which any buses that are desired to remain in section 1 may be assigned; if
b B 1 then b = 1.
b = 0, b B 0 ,
1

b = 1, b B .

(16e)
(16f)

This completes the description of the sectioning constraints. The IP optimization

will disconnect lines and place buses in section 0 or 1, as directed by these constraints,
depending on the pre-assignments to B 0 , B 1 and L1 . What else is placed in section 0 and
what other lines are cut are degrees of freedom for the optimization, and will depend on
the objective function.
Objective function
The overall objective of islanding is to minimize the risk of system failure. In our
motivation we assumed that there is some uncertainty associated with a particular subset
of buses and/or lines; we suspect there may be a fault and so we wish to isolate these
components from the rest of the network.
Owing to uncertainty, we assume that there is a chance that section 0 will either
black out or lose a proportion of its load beyond what we expect from our plan. We
16

therefore wish to reduce the value attributed to load supplied to section 0 in our model.
In placing any load in section 0, we shall assume a lowered probability of being able
to supply power to that load, since the probability of that section failing is higher. In
particular, we assume that we have a probability of 1 of being able to supply a load d
placed in section 1, but a probability of only d 1 of being able to supply the same
load if placed in section 0 with the uncertain components. We wish to maximize the
value of supplied demand:
X


(17)
max
Md Pd d 0d + 1d ,
dD

and
d = 0d + 1d , d D,

(18a)

0 0d 1, d D,

(18b)

0 1d b , b B, d Db .

(18c)

Here we have introduced a new variable sd for the load d delivered in section s S.
The above constraints permit it to be non-zero in only one section. The interpretation
of this is that a load d at a bus b will be worth d Md d Pd if b is in section 0, or Md d Pd
if b is in section 1. Thus the objective has a preference for a smaller section 0.
DC flow-phase angle relations in lines
When a line l is connected, a flow of real power is established depending on the differences
in phase angle at each end of the line. However, if l = 0 and a line is disconnected, we
must still permit a difference in phase at each end of the line, only with zero flow through
the line. To achieve this, we replace real power pL
l in the DC KVL constraint (11) with
.
pL
l


BlL
Al,1 Al,2 .
(19)
=
pL
l
l

L
L
Then, when line l is connected we will set pL
l , and when l is disconnected pl = 0.
l =p
We model this as follows.
L,min , P L,max reAssume the minimum and maximum possible values of pL
l are Pl
l
L,min
L,max 2
spectively, and of pL
are
P
,
P
.
Then,
l
l
l
L,min
) + l,2 (PlL,min ) + l,3 PlL,max + l,4 PlL,max ,
pL
l = l,1 (Pl

pL
l

l,1 PlL,min

l,3 PlL,max ,

(20a)
(20b)

l = l,1 + l,3 ,

(20c)

1 l = l,2 + l,4 ,

(20d)

l,i 0, i {1, 2, 3, 4}.

(20e)

In practice, PlL,min , PlL,max may be set according to line limits, i.e. PlL,min = PlL,max . On the
other hand, PlL,min , PlL,max should be sufficiently large to not constrain the solution.
2

17

When the sectioning constraints set a particular l = 0, then l,1 = l,2 = 0 and
L
so pL
l may take whatever value necessary to
l = 0. However, because l,2 + l,4 = 1, p
satisfy the KVL constraint (19).
Phase angle constraints
If phase angle constraints are present in the DC OLS formulation, they must be modified
to take into account line disconnections. If a line l has been disconnected, the formulation
should relax the phase angle difference restriction between the two end buses. For all
lL:


(21)
+ + (l + )l Al,1 Al,2 + + (l + )l ,
Overall formulation
The overall IP formulation for islanding is maximize the objective (17) subject to
sectioning constraints (16);
KCL (10);
KVL (19);
flow-phase angle line constraints (20);
load model and shedding, (12) and (18);
generation limits (13), with PgG,max = PgG ;
line limits: real power (14) or phase angle (21).
The reference bus angle constraint (b1 = 0) is not necessary; in fact, since the
optimization may create two or more islands a constraint may be required for each
island created, which is not straightforward to implement. If we do desire to remove the
redundancy in absolute values of phase angle, most likely for computational reasons, we
can add a small penalty to the objective.

DC islanding of IEEE 14-bus system

The 14-bus network is initially operating under nominal conditions; all loads are fully
supplied (259 MW in total), with outputs of 131.2 MW and 127.8 MW for the generators
at buses 1 and 2 respectively.
Bus 2 is marked uncertain and assigned to set B0 . The probability of being able to
supply any load placed in Section 0 is d = 0.5, d D. No lines are uncertain, and no
buses are pre-assigned to Section 1.

18

Constraint limits for the DC IP optimization are set as follows. The generation constraints assume that real power output can only be decreased from the current operating
point.
0 pG1 131.2 MW,
0 pG2 127.8 MW.
This still, however, assumes a continuous decrease is possible instantaneously, which is
not realistic; this assumption is tightened in Section 7.
In the absence of real data, line limits are again set to 100 MVA for all lines. Because
the DC model does not include reactive power, we assume a line limit of 100 MW. Phase
angle differences across lines are limited to 15 degrees. Linearization errors in the DC
flow model increase rapidly from this point onwards: the error in cos x 1 is 3.5% at
x = 15 degrees.

4.1

DC IP islanding of network

The results of the islanding optimization applied to the network are shown in Table 5,
and the islanded network is depicted in Figure 4(a).
Lines 1, 5, 7, 9 and 15 have been cut, islanding buses 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 the
lower-right of the network into Section 0. Consequently, the generator at bus 1
serves the healthy upper-left part of the network, while the generator at 2 serves
the unhealthy part.
Real power delivery to loads is 100 % at all load buses except for buses 2 and 3,
where 0% and 84.8 % of the respective demanded levels are supplied.
A total of 223.1 MW of real power is generated. The generator at bus 1 has
been re-scheduled to output 95.3 MW enough to fully-supply each load in its
section while the output of the generator at bus 2 is unchanged at 127.8 MW.
Despite operating at maximum output, this generator is unable to supply all load
within its section.
The expected total load supplied using the probability d for those loads in
Section 0 is 159.2 MW.
No line is at its limit, though line (1, 5) carries 95.3 MW against an assumed limit
of 100 MW. Similarly, no phase angle limits are active.

4.2

AC OLS on islanded network

An AC OLS was solved for the islanded network in Figure 4. The objective function is
again to maximize the load supplied, but now includes the probability measure for the
any buses placed in section 0. The real power generation limits are the same as for the
19

b (deg)

pGg

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

0.00
32.72
40.83
39.45
12.89
24.70
39.45
39.45
34.72
33.51
29.50
26.58
27.68
33.26

95.3
127.8
0.0

0.0

pD
d

PdD

0.0
80.0
47.8
7.6
11.2

21.7
94.2
47.8
7.6
11.2

0.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
1.00

29.5
9.0
3.5
6.1
13.5
14.9

29.5
9.0
3.5
6.1
13.5
14.9

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

0.0

b
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1

(a) Bus data

l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Al,1

Al,2

pL
l

PlL,max

(deg)

1
1
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
9
9
10
12
13

2
5
3
4
5
4
5
7
9
6
11
12
13
8
9
10
14
11
13
14

0.0
95.3
67.7
60.1
0.0
12.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
87.7
34.3
10.4
31.8
0.0
0.0
21.8
7.7
30.8
4.3
22.6

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

32.72
12.89
8.11
6.73
19.83
1.39
26.55
0.00
4.73
11.80
4.80
1.88
2.98
0.00
4.73
1.21
1.45
4.01
1.10
5.59

0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1

(b) Line data

Table 5: DC islanding of 14-bus system in response to uncertainty at bus 2. Units of

real power are in MW.

20

DC islanding optimization. Thus, because the AC system models losses, less power will
be available to supply loads and hence a greater proportion of load will be shed.
Table 6 shows the results. The salient points are summarized as follows.
41% of the load at bus 2 (the uncertain bus) is shed, but no shedding of other
loads occurs in the unhealthy part of the network. Conversely, the DC optimization
predicted that the load at bus 2 would be fully shed, while the load at bus 3 would
be supplied at 85 %.
The generator at bus 1 is operating at 99.7 MW compared with the 95.3 MW
predicted by the DC optimization. However, while DC predicted that 95.3 MW
would be sufficient to fully supply loads in Section 1, for AC the 100 MVA limit
on line (1, 5) acts as a bottleneck for Section 1. Once losses are accounted for, the
generator at 1 is unable to deliver sufficient power into Section 1, and 16% of the
load at bus 9 is shed.
The total expected load supplied is 153.2 MW versus the 159.2 predicted for DC,
a shortfall accounted for by line losses.
Line flows are again, in general, in the same direction as, and reasonably close to,
those predicted by DC.
The most significant result is that the DC IP islanding has produced a network
that is steady-state stable for AC.Again the AC and DC models shed different loads,
suggesting that some consideration of the losses should be included in the IP model.

21

vb

b (deg)

pGg

qgG

0.992
1.060
1.033
1.037
0.940
1.060
1.060
1.060
0.976
0.981
1.014
1.040
1.028
0.978

0.00
3.80
1.54
1.17
13.43
25.20
1.17
1.17
32.06
31.08
28.21
26.53
26.96
30.88

99.7
127.8
0.0

8.1
11.5
8.1

0.0

61.3

0.0

0.0

b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

pD
d

PdD

qdD

QD
d

21.7
55.6
47.8
7.6
11.2

21.7
94.2
47.8
7.6
11.2

12.7
11.2
3.9
1.6
7.5

12.7
19.0
3.9
1.6
7.5

1.00
0.59
1.00
1.00
1.00

24.9
9.0
3.5
6.1
13.5
14.9

29.5
9.0
3.5
6.1
13.5
14.9

14.0
5.8
1.8
1.6
5.8
5.0

16.6
5.8
1.8
1.6
5.8
5.0

0.84
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

(a) Bus data

l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Al,1

Al,2

pL,fr
l

pL,to
l

qlL,fr

qlL,to

MVA limit

(deg)

1
2
2
3
4
5
6
6
6
7
9
9
10
12
13

5
3
4
4
7
6
11
12
13
8
10
14
11
13
14

99.7
52.5
53.6
4.3
0.0
86.6
32.9
11.3
31.1
0.0
18.7
6.2
27.8
5.1
22.0

94.2
51.3
52.1
4.3
0.0
86.6
31.9
11.2
30.5
0.0
18.8
6.3
28.4
5.0
21.2

8.1
2.0
3.2
1.3
0.0
11.7
9.7
2.8
10.7
0.0
1.9
2.3
4.2
0.9
4.5

10.1
1.9
4.0
0.1
0.0
30.6
7.6
2.5
9.5
0.0
1.6
2.1
5.8
0.9
2.9

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

13.43
5.34
4.97
0.37
0.00
11.77
3.00
1.32
1.76
0.00
0.98
1.18
2.87
0.43
3.92

(b) Line data

Table 6: AC OLS on islanded network.

22

13

12

13

12

14

11

10

10

7
4

(a)

(b)
13

13

12

14

11

10

10
6

9
5

7
4

(c)

14

11

6
1

12

14

11

~
(d)

Figure 4: Islanded networks: network schematic diagrams indicating islanded sections.

Red line indicates boundary of unhealthy Section 0. Network (a) is obtained by
solution of the DC islanding optimization. Networks (b), (c) and (d) are manually
created by making small variations to (a).

23

4.3

Comparison over different islanded networks

To obtain a clearer picture, we now compare use of the DC model with the AC model for
a number of different islanded networks. Four different configurations are defined, shown
as (a) to (d) in Figure 4. Network (a) is that formed by the DC islanding optimization,
and then (b), (c), and (d) are derived from A as follows:
(b) additionally has the load bus 9 in Section 0.
(c) moves buses 4, 7 and 8 into Section 1.
(d) retains load bus 4 in Section 0, but moves 7 and 8 into Section 1.
In Table 7, we compare for each network the expected total load delivered as predicted by DC and AC OLS.
Network

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

PdD d 0d + 1d

pGg

DC

AC

DC

AC

159.1800
129.6800
157.9500
159.1800

153.2096
128.3228
148.7439
153.3485

223.0600
193.5600
215.9000
223.0600

227.4307
197.3711
219.6065
227.4307

Table 7: Comparison of DC and AC results for the islanded networks AD (shown in

Figure 4). Units of real power are MW.
These results indicate the shortcomings of the DC formulation as a decision maker
of which lines to disconnect; the DC optimization problem provides multiple optima,
equally ranking networks (a) and (d). The AC optimization shows that (d) is a (marginally;
0.1% difference) higher-value solution when losses are taken into account. This result
is intuitive: the line (7, 9), which is cut in network A, is actually of higher conductivity
than line (4, 7). Consequently, cutting (4, 7) instead as is done in network (d) leads
to lower total line losses. This issue could be worse than it first appears; network (d)
is not necessarily a global optimum and different cuts may lead to an even higher-value
solution. In the worst case, the loss-less DC IP formulation could in theory choose a solution that is significantly different in objective value and network topology to the
true AC optimum. This reinforces the case for modelling losses in the IP formulation.

DC islanding of IEEE 24-bus RTS

The IEEE RTS [4] comprises 24 buses and 38 lines. Of the buses, 17 have loads attached,
and the total demand real power demand is 2850 MW. Generation capacity is 3405 MW
from 32 synchronous generators; in addition, there is one synchronous condenser at bus
14. The network is depicted in Figure 5.
Under nominal operation, total load demand is 2850 MW, while total generation
capacity is 3405 MW.
24

~
18

~
21

22

17

20
23
16

19

15

14

13

24

11

12

10
8
5

Figure 5: Schematic of the IEEE RTS. Generating units are grouped at buses.
In [5], a number of most-likely contingency scenarios are determined for the RTS,
under a set of specified assumptions. The most probable collapse sequence is found to be
the consecutive tripping of the transmission line between bus 15 and bus 24 and the line
between bus 3 and bus 9. The authors show that load flow computations subsequently
fail, since the system fails to supply the load at bus 3.
In this section, we simulate this collapse sequence, and show that further failure may
be prevented by a combination of islanding and load shedding. The simulation proceeds
as follows. We begin with the network operating under nominal conditions. We then
assume that the line (15, 24) has tripped, and study the network immediately after this
first failure. Line (3, 9) is marked as uncertain (and assigned to set L0 ), as are bus 3
and bus 24, which are assigned to B0 . No buses are assigned to B1 .
As before, we constrain the generators so that real power output may be instantaneously decreased but not increased. The maximum generation limits for the DC
islanding optimization are set to the operating points prior to the first fault, obtained
from solution of a DC OPF; these will be different to the real (AC) outputs, since losses
are neglected. Table 8 shows the generator outputs at nominal operation; the total cost
of this generation is $61k per hour.

25

PgG,max (MW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
7
7
7
13
13
13
14

16
16
76
76
16
16
76
76
57.1
57.1
57.1
76.3
76.3
76.3
0

(a) Buses 114

PgG,max (MW)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

15
15
15
15
15
15
16
18
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23

2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
155
155
400
400
50
50
50
50
50
50
155
155
350

(b) Buses 1524

Table 8: Generator outputs at nominal operation

5.1

DC IP islanding with = 0.5

With the probability d set to 0.5 for all demands, the islanding optimization produces
the network shown in Figure 6(a). Buses 3 and 24 have been contained in section 0
by disconnecting lines (1, 3) and (3, 9), and the entire load at 3 has been shed. No
loads have been shed in section 1, but to account for the reduced demand the following
generators have decreased their outputs.
The three 69 MW generators at bus 7 have decreased output to 25 MW each.
The 155 MW unit at bus 16 has decreased its output to 93 MW.

5.2

Effect of varying load-supply probability, d

How should the probability d be set? For the islanding case presented in the previous
subsection, neither bus 3 nor bus 24 is a generation bus, so the islanding of only 3 and
24 requires full load shedding at these buses. The probability of being able to supply
any load placed in Section 0 will depend on the loading and status of lines within that
part, and also the generation capacity in that island.
Figure 7 shows the effect of varying d on the expected total load supplied. It is
assumed that d = for all d, so that any load placed in section 0 will have a supply
probability of . The results indicate three regimes of operation:
1. 0 0.55, where buses 3 and 24 have been islanded. This is the network shown
in Figure 6(a).
26

~
18

~
21

~
18

22

~
21

22

17

17

20
16

16

19

~
15

14

13

24

11

12

15

14

13

24

11

12

10

?
?

19

20
23

23

10

8
5

(a)

(b)

Figure 6: Schematic diagrams of the IEEE RTS, islanded under different values of d .
Generating units are grouped at buses.
2. 0.55 < 0.98, where buses 1, 2, 3 and 24 have been islanded. In this configuration, 9.4% of the load at bus 3 is shed, while all other loads are fully served.
However, because buses 1 and 2 are now in the unhealthy section 0, the probability of being able to supply these loads is now rather than 1. This is the
network shown in Figure 6(b).
3. 0.98 < 1, where no lines have been cut and consequently no islands formed.
In this configuration, the probability of being able to supply any load placed in
Section 0 is sufficiently high and so all buses are assigned to Section 0.
Thus, an increasing probability leads to a growing section 0, as it becomes less risky to
place loads there.

27

Expected total load supplied (%)

100
99
98
97
96
95
94
93

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Figure 7: Sweep of d and resulting expected total load supplied (solid line). The dashed
line shows the expected supply with no line cuts permitted.

28

Larger systems: computational results

The islanding formulation was applied to a number of different networks, ranging from
a 9-bus to the 2383-bus model of the Polish transmission network during the winter
peak. For each network, 100 instances of the islanding optimization were solved, each
to 1% optimality; in each instance, a single bus was randomly selected as uncertain and
assigned to B0 . All operations were executed on an Intel Core 2 Quad 2.66 GHz Linux
machine with 4 GiB RAM, using ILOG AMPL CPLEX 11.1 as the solver.
Figure 8 shows the computational results, including times, solver iterations, branch
and bound nodes, and iterations per node. To each node count was added unity, since
these are logarithmic plots, and where no branch and bound nodes were required (the
solver found an integer solution to the initial LP relaxation) a node count of zero is
returned.
The computation times plot indicates very approximately a linear relationship
between log(Nb ) and log(tcomp ). The longest solution time recorded is 80 minutes for
an instance of the 300-bus system, though the average times for that and the 2383-bus
network are 100 and 160 seconds respectively. That the longest time observed was for
the 300-bus system is indicative of a tendency for that network (and also the 57-bus
network) to require a large amount of solution time. The number of iterations follows
a similar pattern. This may imply that there is something particularly hard about
forming islands in these networks.

29

104

tcomp (s)

102

100

102

104

14

2430 39 57

118
300
Nb
(a) Computation times

2383

14

2430 39 57

2383

108

Niters

106

104

102

100

118
300
Nb
(b) Iterations

Figure 8: Computational results for different networks. Mean, max and min values
indicated.

30

106

Nnodes

104

102

100

14

2430 39 57

118
300
Nb
(c) Branch and bound nodes

2383

14

2430 39 57

2383

105

Niters /Nnodes

104

103

102

101

100

118
300
Nb
(d) Iterations per node

Figure 8: (continued) Computational results for different networks. Mean, max and min
values indicated.

31

Extensions to the IP formulation

This section describes modifications to the basic DC IP formulation.

7.1

Loss modelling

The real power losses in a line l are determined directly from the KVL equations (3).
Suppose, with some abuse of notation, that l = Al,1 Al,2 and also b = Al,1 , b = Al,2 .
Then,
L,fr
+ pL,to
hL
l = pl
l
22 2
2
= G11
l vb + Gl vb + vb vb

i




21
21
12
+
G
G12

B
cos

+
B
sin

l
l .
l
l
l
l

We proceed in the same way as for deriving the DC flow equations from the AC model.
Assume that voltages are at nominal levels at each end of the line, i.e., vb = vb = 1.




21
12
22
11
hL
cos l + Bl12 Bl21 sin l .
l = Gl + Gl + Gl + Gl
We also assume that Bl12 = Bl21 , so that,

21
12
22
11
cos l .
hL
l = Gl + Gl + Gl + Gl

In a general case, if l is the off-nominal turns ratio of a transformer line l, then G11
l =
L
21
12
L
22
2
L
Gl /l , Gl = Gl and Gl = Gl = Gl /l . This gives the line loss as
hL
l =

1

GL
l
+ l 2 cos l .
l l

Of course, for the usual case when a transmission line is not a transformer with offnominal turns ratio, l = 1 and


L
hL
l = 2Gl 1 cos l .

In either case, we may model the loss while maintaining a linear formulation by using
a piecewise-linear (PWL) approximation to cos l (or 1 cos l ). Having done so, the
KCL constraint (10) is modified to include the loss of power over a line. For all b B,
X
X
X
X


L
pGg =
pD
pL
pL
(22)
d +
l
l hl ,
gGb

dDb

lL:Al,1 =b

lL:Al,2 =b

That is, it is implicitly assumed that pL

l is the power injected at the from end of a
L is the power injected at the to end of a line.
line, while pL

h
l
l
Figure 9 shows PWL-modelled line losses for a DC OLS as the number of pieces in
the approximation is increased. Because a standard PWL approximation to 1 cos(x)
sits above the curve, line losses are always overestimated. Therefore, a second result
is shown for a PWL approximation with a small corrective offset ((x)2 /16) to make
the errors either side of the curve equal. The plot shows that as Np becomes large, loss
modelling becomes more accurate. However, an offset of around 5% is present in the
limit; it is thought that this is due to off-nominal voltages in the AC solution.
32

pD
d (MW)

150

pGg

100

50

10

15

20

25
Np

30

35

40

45

50

Figure 9: Line losses as a function of Np , the number of pieces in the PWL approximation. The dashed line shows the true AC losses; losses are shown for PWL loss modelling
with (green) and without (blue) the corrective offset. Np = 0 means no loss modelling.
Loss modelling in 14-bus network
Revisiting the different islanding configurations of the 14-bus network ((a)(d) in Figure 4), Table 9 compares objective value, total generation and total line losses for DC,
AC and DC with loss modelling. The latter formulation employed 20 pieces in the PWL
approximation of the loss term.
P

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

PdD d 0d + 1d

pGg

hL
l

DC

AC

DC+

DC

AC

DC+

DC

AC

DC+

159.1800
129.6800
157.9500
159.1800

153.2096
128.3228
148.7439
153.3485

152.2476
128.0748
147.9266
152.2476

223.0600
193.5600
215.9000
223.0600

227.4307
197.3711
219.6065
227.4307

227.7600
197.9766
220.7488
227.7600

0
0
0
0

11.6696
6.5255
12.9126
11.5276

13.2414
7.6270
14.8722
13.2414

Table 9: Comparison of DC, AC and DC with losses (DC+) results for the islanded
networks (a)(d) (shown in Figure 4). Units of real power are MW.
It is clear that the modified DC model conservatively estimates losses, as expected.
The ranking of the different islands is unchanged; all are in agreement that network
(d) is the most optimal, yet even with losses modelled the DC formulation continues to
33

place equal objective value on network (a). The AC results confirm that line losses are
marginally lower and load delivery higher for network (d).
Thus initially the introduction of loss modelling appears not to remedy the problem
of selecting the optimal islands. However, further investigation shows that neither (a)
nor (d) is actually the optimal island selected by the IP islanding optimization modified
for losses. The optimal islanded network is similar to network (d) but with an additional
line, (3, 4), disconnected.
P

(e)

PdD d 0d + 1d

pGg

hL
l

DC

AC

DC+

DC

AC

DC+

DC

AC

DC+

159.1800

153.3723

152.3702

223.0600

227.4307

227.7600

11.4800

13.0590

Table 10: Comparison of DC, AC and DC with losses (DC+) results for the islanded
network (e). Units of real power are MW.
We find for this network, (e), that the AC OLS also returns a higher objective value
and lower losses, while the DC without losses returns the same objective value as it did
for (a) and (d).
Further research of loss modelling in the DC formulation is in progress. In particular,
we are are investigating the application of the modified model to larger networks and
the effect on computation times.

7.2

Generator switching

So far, it has been assumed that real power generation can be instantaneously decreased
from current levels; accordingly, in the IP formulation pGg is constrained by lower and upper bounds. However, such an assumption is not realistic, particularly for the timescales
assumed for islanding, since ramp up/down rates for turbines are orders of magnitude
slower.
A more accurate scenario is that real power output of each generator obeys a binary
constraint: either the generator may continue to output at its current level, or the
turbine valves may be opened, reducing the mechanical input power to zero. In this
latter case, the generator remains electrically connected to the network thus able to
act as a source/sink of reactive power but real power output falls to zero. It is not
clear what timescales are involved for the step-/ramp-down of mechanical input power,
but we will assume this to be instantaneous. We may then model this as follows.
The generation constraint (13) in the IP formulation is replaced by
pGg = g PgG ,

(23a)

g {0, 1},

(23b)

for all g G. If g = 0 then generator g is switched off; otherwise it outputs PgG . From
the DC models point of view, the switched off generating unit contributes no power to

34

the network. However, in a subsequent AC OLS, we note that PgG,max = PgG = 0, and
the generating constraints become
0 pGg 0,
QG,min
qgG QG,max
,
g
g
so that the unit is able to supply reactive power (e.g. for voltage control).
Initial investigations on the 14-bus network show this approach to be restrictive,
since only two real power generating units are present. For the 24-bus network, 32
generating units are spread across the network and the approach is more successful. (It
is anticipated that the same will be true for larger networks; as more generating units
are present the degrees of freedom are increased.)

Feasibility problems

The greatest problem to date is that of obtaining islanding solutions that are subsequently always feasible AC solutions. We describe such an instance for the 24-bus
network here.
We begin with the network in the same post-fault state as in Section 5. To summarize, line (15, 24) has tripped, and line (3, 9) and buses 3 and 24 are uncertain. An
IP islanding optimization is executed, with d = 0.75, using both the modifications for
switched generation and loss modelling. In the islanding solution,
buses 1, 2, 3 and 24 have been placed in section 0, similar to the network shown
in Figure 6;
in addition, line (17, 18) and one of the lines from 18 to 21 (there are two in
parallel) have been cut;
the two 16 MW generators at bus 1 and one of the two 16 MW generators at bus
2 have been switched off;
40% of the load at bus 3 has shed, and 1% of the load at bus 4. No shedding takes
place in section 1.
Following islanding, total real power generation in section 0 is 320 MW and total
demand is 312.1 MW. Total reactive power demand is 64 MVAr while the total reactive
power capability limit of the generators in that island is 160 MVAr. Similarly, generation
capability in section 1 is sufficient to supply the load. Ostensibly, therefore, the island
has a feasible steady-state operating point.
Attempting to solve an AC OLS (with generators either remaining at constant real
power output or switching off, as appropriate) on the post-islanded network results in
a reported infeasibility. This is despite the fact that disconnected generators remain
free to vary reactive power output, and there was sufficient reactive power generation
available in each island to meet reactive power demands. Examining the constraints,
35

it is found that the relaxing upper voltage limits at buses 1 and 2, and lower voltage
limits at buses 4 and 9, recovers a feasible solution. In this solution, however, voltages
at buses 1 and 2 are high (1.1642 and 1.1658 p.u. respectively), while voltages are very
low at buses 4 and 9 (0.8730 and 0.9161 p.u. respectively).
Note that this loss of feasibility also occurs for DC islanding of the network without
the modifications for losses and generator switching, thus it is not a consequence of
these modifications. It should also be stressed that not all islanding configurations of
the 24-bus network lead to infeasibility. However, this is clearly a problem, and raises
the question of what we can infer from a feasible DC solution about feasibility in AC.
Is this a problem in general for islanding, unless AC power flow is explicitly considered
in deriving the islanding solution?
The loss of feasibility in our case is exacerbated by constraining real and reactive
loads to be shed in equal proportions. In fact, if real and reactive loads may be shed
independently, then no feasibility problems occur. However, this is not likely to be a
realistic assumption. It may be that feasibility is less of a problem on larger networks,
as more degrees of freedom are available. Other ideas we have, in increasing order of
complexity, are
in AC OLS (following DC islanding), modelling each load in two parts: a high P /
low Q part and a low P / high Q part, and freeing the optimization to shed these
loads independently. This would break the restriction of shedding P /Q in equal
proportions without going as far as fully independent shedding.
modelling reactive power flows and voltages in a decoupled AC islanding formulation by including a linearized qv model. The p and qv systems are independent (voltage is fixed in p, is fixed in qv).
PWL-modelled AC islanding, using special ordered sets and a MILP solver (CPLEX)
that can exploit these.
full AC islanding, by use of MINLP.

References
[1] J. Machowski, J. W. Bialek, and J. R. Bumby, Power System Dynamics: Stability
and Control, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2008.
[2] R. D. Christie. (1999, August) Power systems test case archive. University of
Washington. [Online]. Available: http://www.ee.washington.edu/research/pstca/
[3] M. A. Mostafa, M. E. El-Hawary, G. A. N. Mbamalu, M. M. Mansour, K. M. ElNagar, and A. N. El-Arabaty, Steady-state load shedding schemes: a performance
comp, Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 38, pp. 105112, 1996.

36

[4] Reliability Test System Task Force of the Application of Probability Methods Subcommittee, IEEE reliability test system, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, vol. PAS-98, no. 6, pp. 20472054, 1979.
[5] J. Hazra and A. K. Sinha, Prognosis of catastrophic failures in electric power systems, in IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, December 2006,
pp. 13491354.

37