Chaos Based Multi-agent Coordination with sharing resources for Secondary Voltage Control in Power-system Voltage Stability

Xiaolei Du, Tiecheng Lu, Liang Xu and Tie Liu

Abstract-- The secondary voltage control (SVC) of power systems initiated by EDF has been developed successfully to improve power-system voltage stability. And, with the development of agent technique, multi-agent system (MAS) has been applied in SVC to maintain the system voltage more stable. The models established in previous papers on MAS based secondary voltage control with no sharing resources and information delays. So a study of the chaotic dynamics of the MAS is presented in this paper, which shows us what helps to eliminate the unstable dynamics of the MAS in resources sharing. And a more efficient MAS model, with resources sharing, in the emergency mode is established to meet the needs of the secondary voltage control for power system in this paper. The simulation results of the New England 39-bus system show that the proposed MAS are efficient in managing global voltage control of power system comparing with the normal MAS scheme.. Index Terms multi-agent system (MAS), secondary voltage control (SVC), chaos, dynamic, sharing resources.

I. INTRODUCTION OWADAYS, secondary voltage control strategy, as a significant segment of the hierarchical voltage control in power systems, has been widely accepted by the scholars in many countries and draws their great attentions. Many studies on secondary voltage control had been done and many control schemes appeared in recent years [1]-[4]. Distributed artificial intelligence (DAI), developed and applied mainly for constructing large, complex and knowledge-rich software systems, has also been studied to solve power-system problems. As a significant part of DAI, multi-agent system works in a decentralized control regime, however, which requires the communication and co-operation through coordination agents, if found necessary, not among all the agents but only between closely related agents with common interests [5]. From the point of view of system control, a multi-agent based control system is different from traditional decentralized control. As each controller is an autonomous agent, the fundamental cooperation mechanism of MAS lies in the task sharing and communication among
X.L. Du is with the School of Electrical Engineering Wuhan Wuhan, China (e-mail:duxiaolei810815@163.com). T.C. Lu. is with the School of Electrical Engineering Wuhan Wuhan, China (e-mail: tclu@whu.edu.cn). L. Xu is with the Shandong Electric Power Engineering Institute. China . T. Liu is with the School of Electrical Engineering Wuhan Wuhan, China. University, University, Consulting University,

agents. The relationships among the agents and resources are one to one in models of previous papers. Under general circumstance, every agent gets a fixed control target from the manager agent. But, once an agent failed to complete the voltage control task, there will be frequency co operations through the manager agent [6]. So, the over-discrete resource management based coordinated MAS has a longer response time that with sharing resources. To build a more efficient MAS, resources sharing should be introduced. Without considering the information delays and imperfect knowledge about the state of the system, the time evolution of the agent cooperation is simple and predictable; it is relatively easy to program the agents to deal with variations. But, when computational agents in these systems make choices in terms of delayed and imperfect knowledge about the state of the system, their dynamics can become extremely complex, giving rise to nonlinear oscillations even chaos. The problem of locally controlling a distributed system can be addressed in a two ways solution in this paper. First, one could increase the uncertainty in the agents evaluation of the merits of different choices to stabilize the system. Another is to increase the diversity of the system by introducing additional types of agents that use different problem-solving methods, since heterogeneous systems tend to be more stable than homogeneous ones. To improve the efficiency of normal MAS based secondary voltage control, a new MAS with sharing resources is established based on the two ways upwards to maintain power system voltage stability. Finally, the simulation results of the New England 39-bus system [6] show that the proposed MAS are efficient in managing global voltage control of power system comparing with the normal MAS scheme. II. STUDY ON CHAOTIC DYNAMICS OF MAS To study the global dynamics of MAS, and the consequences of control methods, a simple model is proposed to achieve some of the key features of MAS and solving methods. For simplicity in studying the global behavior of large systems we take, the payoff G, for using resource r to depend on the number of agents already using it, rather than exactly which agents these are. Imperfect information about the state of the system causes each agents payoff to differ from the actual value. This type of uncertainty concisely

1207 978-981-05-9423-7 c 2007 RPS

captures the effect of many sources of errors such as some program bugs, heuristics incorrectly evaluating choices etc. Specifically, the perceived payoffs are taken to be normally distributed, with standard deviation , around their correct values. Although for simplicity we will consider the case in which all agents have the same effective delay, uncertainty, and preferences for resource use, we should mention that the same range of behaviors is also found in more common situations. We consider the case of two resources here, so the system can be described by the fraction f of agents that are using resource 1 at any given time. Its dynamics is then governed by (2), (1) Where a is the rate at which agents reevaluate their resource choice and p is the probability that an agent will prefer resource 1 over 2 when it makes a choice. Generally, p is a function off through the density dependent payoffs. In terms of t h e pa yoffs a n d un cer t a in t y, we h ave (2) Where quantifies the uncertainty. Notice that this definition captures the simple requirement that an agent is more likely to prefer a resource when its payoff is relatively large. Finally, delays in information are modeled by supposing that the payoffs that enter into at time t are the values they had at a delayed time t - . For a typical system of many agents with a mixture of cooperative and competitive payoffs, the kinds of dynamical behaviors exhibited by the model are shown in Fig. 1. When the delays and uncertainty are fairly small, the system converges to an equilibrium point close to the optimal obtainable by an omniscient, central controller. As the information available to the agents becomes more corrupted, the equilibrium point moves further from the optimal value. With increasing delays, the equilibrium eventually becomes unstable, leading to the oscillatory and chaotic behavior shown in the figure. In these cases, the- number of agents using particular resources continues to vary so that the system spends relatively little time near the optimal value, with the consequent drop in its overall performance.
df = ( f ) dt

(b)

(c)
Fig.1. Typical behaviors for the fraction f of agents using resource 1 as a function of time for successively longer delays. (a) Relaxation toward stable equilibrium. (h) Simple persistent oscillations. (c) Chaotic oscillations. The payoffs are G1 = 4 + 7 f 5.333 f
2

1 G1( f ) G 2( f ) = (1+ erf( )) 2 2

resource 2. The time scale is in units of the delay time , dashed line shows the optimal allocation for these payoffs.

for resource1 and G 2 = 4 + 3 f for

= 1/4 and the

This chaotic dynamics of agent as shown in fig.1 should be avoided when applying in secondary voltage control strategy. Two ways are proposed to achieve a stable equilibrium by making chaos a transient phenomena: First, reward mechanism, which has the effect of dynamically changing the control parameters of the system dynamics in such a way that a global fixed point of the system is achieved; Second, sufficient diversity, which stabilize the system, in practice a fluctuation could wipe out those agent types that would otherwise be successful in stabilizing the system. For the space restriction, the procedure [7] will not be demonstrated here, fig.2 will show us the ability to control chaos in distributed systems through a reward mechanism with different delays.

(a)

(a)

1208

The 8th International Power Engineering Conference (IPEC 2007)

and i are active and reactive injection equations at bus i , respectively. B. Normal MAS for Secondary Voltage control The MAS focuses on the interaction and cooperation of autonomous agent groups. The agent acquires up-dated information through regular interaction with its environment and other agents, and adjusts its actions for the benefit of its highly self-adaptive function. The basic configuration of the MAS for secondary voltage control is shown in fig.3. The regional secondary controller works as a coordination agent (CA) and each voltage controllers (including generators, SVC, synchronous condenser, static condenser, etc.) are governed by the corresponding execution agents (EA). Distributed coordination of the MAS can be achieved either by task allocation based on communication among agents or autonomous regulation based on local self-estimation. The operation of all control agents in the MAS is for a common objective to minimize the voltage deviation and maintain an adequate regional voltage profile.
Coordination agent

gia ( x, u )

g r ( x, u )

(b)
Fig.2. Fraction of agents using resource 1 for a collection of biased agents with (a) (chaos) no reward and (b)(chaos to stable) with reward.

III. DESIGN OF THE CHAOS BASED MAS FOR SECONDARY VOLTAGE CONTROL In this chapter, we present the theory of the system optimization, the normal MAS for SVC and establish a new chaos based MAS for SVC. A. Optimization Model of SVC To fit the development of power system, many scholars begin to use improved CSVC [8]. The CSVC model is proposed as following:

MinZ =

i P

(V
n

ref

Vi ) + f
2

iG

(q

ref

Qi 2 max ) Qi
Execution agent

h (Vi ref Vi )2
iG

Execution agent

(3)
Voltage controller

Subject to

gia ( x, u ) = 0 gir ( x, u ) = 0 Q
min i

i = 1, 2,..., n i = 1, 2,..., n
max i

(4) (5) (6) (7)

Voltage regulator

Voltage controller

Qi Q

i G
i ( G * C )

Voltage regulator

Vi min Vi Vi max
Where:

Power system

, and C are sets of indices of pilot buses, voltage regulating devices and critical buses, respectively. and i are actual voltage at bus i and set-point voltage, respectively.

P G
ref

Fig.3. Basic configuration of the MAS for secondary voltage control

Vi

f and h are weighted factors. Qi and ( Qimax , Qimin ) are actual and limit reactive
generations at bus i, respectively. is reference value of relative reactive power generation with a region, defined by the expression

q ref

ref

iG

iG n

max i

(8)

CA is the key part of the MAS. To meet the demands of the voltage control under various system states, the corresponding agent should take different control strategy according to the information from the environment and pick out the different modes (control strategies) for the agents under control. Two modes are proposed here: the general mode and emergency mode. After commands are received from CA, EA updates the settings of the voltage controller to maintain the system voltage stability, while ensuring no self interests damage. When system runs under general circumstances, the MAS works in general mode to achieve global optimal voltage control and keep reasonable reactive power reserves. According to (3), EA periodically constitutes a series of commands and send them to CAs by dealing with the voltageregulating information from CAs, in a coordinated way. Generally speaking, if the CSVC is accomplished with the linear optimization model, the control variable increment is

The 8th International Power Engineering Conference (IPEC 2007)

1209

worked out and sent to primary voltage controller every 3-10s, and the overall time constant of the secondary loop is about 13 minutes. When applying (3) in a nonlinear model, it may take much more time to find the solution. But on the other hand, the final result and the settings of each primary controller can be achieved in one control step. Therefore, the nonlinear method can still satisfy the control speed of secondary voltage control. And further more, the control variables achieved are more accurate. After system runs into contingencies, it is necessary for reactive power reserves near the bus where voltage violation occurs to provide fast and effective reactive power support. The MAS switch into the emergency mode. Firstly, in this mode, the corresponding EA which detected the voltage violation change the setting of primary voltage controller to restore the voltage level rapidly. If the voltage is not restored though the its voluntary control actions, EA should request the CA in charge for help. Then, CA adjusts other EAs states to recover the violated voltage rapidly. The coordination method used in this paper is the contract net protocol (CNP), which is widely used in MAS [6]. While applying in SVC, CA acts as manager agent and EA as contract agent. CA takes charge of inviting public bidding of voltage control task and awarding the control contract to the EA which applies the bidding according to its own capability. The system works in market mechanism for the better use of reactive power resources. The process of coordination and cooperation among agents is described as following: 1. Generally, all agents work at monitoring state. EA monitor voltage of nodes adjacent; CA monitors important nodes that EAs can not cover. State changes when voltage violates at a certain node. 2. Once, an unrestorable voltage violation occurred on a certain EA, the EA (called the provoked EA) should request CA for help and. The provoked EA reports ponderance, and then runs into requesting state. 3. CA distributes notice on the bulleting board for voltage support assistances and invites public biding. The notice includes fault position and ponderance. EAs evaluate their own capability of voltage support, and bid according to var/voltage capability, self-limitation and control priority, then run into biding state. 4. CA receives EAs bidding and figures out the optimal list of EAs through a genetic algorithm [9]. Then, CA sends confirmation and awards the contract which involves the control target and control time to the EA on the top of the list. Then, the EA starts to execute the task, and runs into the executing state. 5. EAs in the biding state which didnt receive the confirmation within given time will return to the monitoring state. The EA executes the task with autonomous control (local secondary voltage control), and then returns to monitoring state. 6. After CA receives confirmation that the contract has been accomplished, CA request the provoked EA if the voltage violation is restored. If restored, CA returns to monitoring state, otherwise CA should award the voltage

control contract to next EA in the list for more voltage support until the voltage recovers. 7. It means that voltage violation can not be restored through secondary voltage control system, when CA in biding state cant receive the bidding from EA in given time. In this case, CA sends a message to the provoked EA indicating that the CA fails to achieve assistance, and then returns to the monitoring state. 8. If the provoked EA in the requesting state cant receive the message from CA in given time or receive a confirmation message, it returns to the monitoring state. C. The Chaos Based MAS for Secondary Voltage Control The agent is one to one with the resource in the normal MAS discussed above. Therefore, agents can not share resources. System efficiency will decrease without taking full advantage of resources. If one agent shares its resource with the agent short in electrical distance, the system efficiency will be increased, and the ability of the agent controlling voltage will be strengthened. And with the applying of chaos control, the procedure of resource competing will be stable. Considering the amount of computing, processing time and the essence of hierarchical voltage control, the number of the sharing resources should not be too large. As a exploring job, the number is based on 2 in our paper. By this means, one agent will share its resource with the one shortest in electrical distance [11]. When system runs under general circumstances, CA achieves the optimal control varieties through and send tasks to EAs. EA waits for task, then adjust voltage controller variables and ensures all variables within the range. The steps are all the same as a normal MAS one. The difference only lies in the normal states range, that the chaos based one will switch into emergency mode much longer in time span. Under this circumstance, the voltage will restore more quickly than that under the normal one. When system runs under emergency state, the procedures are all the same as the normal ones but a new agent sequence list. On this list, the agents with reduplicate resources are jumped over to decrease the reduplicate tasks. Obviously, more var resources for agents action will evidently expand the voltage control range and put off the seconds when the system switch into the emergency mode with a longer response time. This makes the voltage curve smoother than that of the normal MAS. From the point of view discussed above, the chaos based MAS for SVC has its priority to the normal MAS based SVC. Here, the chaos based rule has two respects as follows: 1). reward mechanism. We reward the agent performs well more available resources. So, actually, each agent might dominate 2 or more resources and one at least, depends on the mix below. 2). the right mix of diverse agents and generating diversities. We can define the standard of diversity as the electrical distance. But, diversity generating is hard to be achieved since the net structure is already given. As the result of mix, the strong connected agents will share more resources,

1210

The 8th International Power Engineering Conference (IPEC 2007)

vice versa. This looks like partitioning, but actually, they are not the same in consequence. Here, the performance will be evaluated in terms of the system sensitivity matrix. The more sensitive, the better one agent performs. The principle is the same as that of a partitioning in steps. Thats the reason why they look alike apparently. IV. SIMULATION RESULTS

SVq : sensitivity matrix.

According to rule no.1and 2, the agents are divided into 3 styles. The details of resources sharing in shown in following table: TABLE I
THE DIAGRAM OF RESOURCES DISTRIBUTING

Agent resources Agent resources Agent resource

A1 G1,S8 A6 G6,,G7 A11 S4,G2

A2 G2,S11 A7 G6,G7 A12 S8,S4

A3 G3,S11 A8 G8,G10 A13 S11,G2,G3

A4 G4,G5 A9 G9,s,17 A14 S14,S11

A5 G4,G5 A10 G10,G8 A15 S17,G10

Fig.4. New England 39-bus diagram

In this section, the chaos based MAS for secondary voltage control is simulated on an England 39-bus system shown in fig.4. This system, shown in Fig.6, includes 29 load buses, 9 generator buses, and one equivalent generator representing the interconnection with an extra network. Five SVCs are equipped in Nodes 4, 8, 11, 14, 17. All the VAR units in the system are limited to a boundary at 100 MVA. Each controller of the generators and static var compensators is set with a execution agent as shown in fig.4. A. Sharing Resources Distributing Linearize the power flow equation, and then we get [10]:

B. Comparing to the normal MAS for SVC under system contingencies The system condition obtained from optimal power flow calculation is regarded as the initial operating state for simulation. In this simulation, the control behaviors of the normal MAS and chaos based MAS under normal condition and system contingency are investigated with the voltage curve comparing. When under normal state, a reactive power load injects into node 12 by 200MVA. Fig.5 shows the voltage curve under the chaos based MAS for SVC comparing to a normal one. When the load is injected, the chaos based MAS is still under normal state while the normal one has switched into the emergency mode. So, as fig.5 shows, the voltage applied with the chaos based method restores quickly.

Fig.5 voltage curve of bus 12 under normal stage. Broken line presents voltage under chaos based MAS for SVC. Real line represents voltage under normal MAS for SVC

P Jp Q = Jq

JpV =J JqV V V

(9) (10) (11)

JqV Jq 1 Jp JpV V = SqV V Q =

V = (SqV )1 Q = SVq Q
Where:

is the variety of the voltage angle, V is the variety of the voltage amplitude. J: Jacobian matrix,

P is the variety of active power, reactive power;

Q is the variety of the

When a 300MVA reactive load injected into node 12, system runs into contingency. Then, CA will run steps as discussed in chapter III.B. First, SVC11, SVC13 and G3 will bring into service. When the voltage crosses the bounder as shown in fig.6, system runs into emergency mode. CA call for var supporting assistance, then a list according to EAs biding is achieved. In this case, the list is A11, A12, A15. As shown in fig.6, voltage restored step by step with comparing to that under normal MAS can hardly get to the lower boundary.

The 8th International Power Engineering Conference (IPEC 2007)

1211

VII. BIOGRAPHIES
Xiaolei Du was born in Shandong, China; on August 15, 1981. Received B.S. degree at the School of electrical engineering in Shandong University in 2002. Now he is pursuing his PhD degree at the School of electrical engineering in Wuhan University. His main interests and research fields are the optimization of voltage quality and var planning.

Fig.6. voltage curve of bus 12 under emergency mode. Broken line presents voltage under chaos based MAS for SVC. Real line represents voltage under normal MAS for SVC

After the simulation, the validity of the chaos based MAS for SVC has been testified under both normal and emergency mode. Its apparently that the chaos based MAS for SVC has more advantage to eliminate the system voltage violation, and do a lot of good to the system voltage stability when it comes to contingency. V.
CONCLUSION

Tiecheng Lu was born in Jiangsu, China; on 1953.Received M.S. degree at the School of electrical engineering in Wuhan University in .He is a professor at the School of electrical engineering of Wuhan University. His main interests and research fields are the internal overvoltage and the monitoring of the overvoltage. Liang Xu was born in Shandong, China; on 1979. Received B.S. degree at the School of electrical engineering in Shandong University in 2002. Now he is an engineer in Shandong Electric Power Consulting Institute.

In this paper, a model of chaos based MAS for SVC is established to maintain system voltage stability under both normal and emergency circumstances. This type of MAS with sharing resources and chaos based rules applied is testified to be valid to deal with larger reactive load violation by a simulation operated on the New England 39-bus system. It has more priority to the normal MAS based SVC to maintain the system voltage stability under emergency circumstances in rapidness and efficiency.

VI. REFERENCES
J. P. Paul, J. Y. Leost, and J. M. Tesseron, "Survey of the secondary voltage control in France: present realization and investigation", IEEE Trans. on Power System, 2 (2), 1987, pp. 505-511. [2] A. Stankovic, M. Ilic, and D. Maratukulam. "Recent Results Secondary Voltage Control of Power Systems". IEE Trans on Power Systems, 1991, 6(1), pp. 94- 101. [3] Y.Z. Sun, Z.F Wan, X.Y. Yao. "Study on Secondary Voltage control of Power System". Automation of Electric Power Systems.1999, 23 (9), pp. 9-14. [4] H. Lefebvre, D. Fragnier, and J. Y. Boussion, "Secondary coordinated voltage control system: Feedback of EDF", in Proc. IEEE/PES Summer Meeting, Seattle, USA, July, 2000, pp. 291-295. [5] Y. S. Fan, J. W. Cao. "Multi-agent Systems: Theory, Method and Applications". Springer, 2002. [6] G. H. Sheng, X.C. Jiang, and Y. Zeng. L. Mitchell, and C. J. Carter, "Optimal Coordination For Multi-Agent Based Secondary Voltage Control In Power System, " in Proc. 2005 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exhibition: Asia and Pacific, pp.1- 6. [7] T. Hogg, B.A. Huberman, "Controlling chaos in distributed systems", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 21(6), 1991, pp. 1325-1332. [8] A. Conejo, and M. J. Agullar, "Secondary Voltage Control: Nonlinear selection of pilot buses, design of an optimal control law, and simulation result", in Proc .IEE Genar. Transm. Distrib., 145 (1), 1998, pp.77-81D. [9] K. Iba, "Reactive Power optimization by Genetic algorithm", IEEE Trans. on Power System, 9(2), 1994, pp.685-692. [10] C. E. Hu, Y. M. Xue and R. G. Yang, "Optimal allocation of reactive power sources using network partitioning", in Proc. 2004 PowerCon, pp.222-225. [11] D. P. Liu, G.Q. Tang and H. Chen. "Tabu Search Based Network Partitioning For Voltage Control" [1]

1212

The 8th International Power Engineering Conference (IPEC 2007)