2.7.

Example of Gauss Seidel load flow technique

To illustrate the basic procedure of GSLF, let as consider a small 5-bus system as shown in Fig.
2.16. In this system, buses 1-3 are generator buses and buses 4-5 are load buses. Therefore, in this
system, n = 5 and m = 3. Moreover, bus 1 is taken to be the slack bus and thus, buses 2-3 are
considered to be PV buses. The bus data and line data of this system are given in Tables A.1 and
A.2 respectively. From Table A.1, the injected real and reactive powers at different buses can be
obtained as follows: P2 = 0.5 p.u, P3 = 1.0 p.u, P4 = 1.15 p.u, P5 = 0.85 p.u, Q4 = 0.6 p.u, and
BUS of this system (computed from the line data given in Table
Q5 = 0.4 p.u. Moreover, the Y
A.2) is shown in equation (2.32). Note that in this equation, the real part (G) and the imaginary
BUS matrix (Y
BUS = G + jB) are shown separately.
part (B) of the Y

Figure 2.16: The example 5 bus system

3.2417 1.4006
0
0
1.8412

1.4006 3.2417 1.8412

0
0

G= 0
1.8412 4.2294 1.2584 1.1298

0
0
1.2584 2.1921 0.9337

1.8412
0
1.1298 0.9337 3.9047

13.0138 5.6022
0
0
7.4835

5.6022 13.0138 7.4835

0
0

B=
0
7.4835 18.9271 7.1309
4.4768

0
0
7.1309 10.7227 3.7348

7.4835

0
4.4768
3.7348
15.5521

33

(2.32)

For applying GSLF, initially the flat start profile is assumed. Please note that the flat voltage
profile is followed for PQ buses. For PV buses, the initial voltage magnitude is taken to be equal
to their corresponding specified voltage magnitude. However, the initial voltage angles are always
assumed to be zero. Therefore, from the data given in Table A.1, all the 5 bus voltages are initialised
to 1.00o p.u. Now as the system contains both PV and PQ buses, we follow the complete
GSLF algorithm. In step 2(a) of this algorithm, we first calculate the reactive power absorbed
or generated by generators 2 and 3 (corresponding to i = 2 and i = 3). The calculated values of Q2
and Q3 at iteration 1 (in p.u.) are shown in Table 2.2 (denoted as Qcal in this table). Now, the data
in Table A.1 show that the minimum and maximum reactive power limits for both these generators
are -5 p.u. and 5 p.u respectively. Hence, the calculated values of Q2 and Q3 are well within the
corresponding reactive power limits. Therefore, both bus 2 and bus 3 are continued to operate as PV
buses and as a result, their voltage magnitudes are maintained at the corresponding specified values
and only the voltage angles are calculated in step 2(b) (utilising the calculated values of Q2 and Q3 ).
Subsequently in step 3, both the magnitude and angles of buses 4 and 5 are calculated. The results
of iteration 1 are shown in Table 2.2. Finally in steps 4-5, the error is calculated, which is also shown
in Table 2.2. The error is found to be more than the threshold value (taken to be equal to 1.0e12 )
and therefore the algorithm goes back to step 2 again. The iteration wise result for first 6 iterations
are shown in Tables 2.2 and 2.3. Please observed from these two tables that because of high Qmax
G
min
and QG limits, the reactive powers supplied or observed by these two generators are always within
these limits and thus bus 2 and 3 continue to act as PV buses from iteration to iteration. Also note
from Tables 2.2 and 2.3 that the error reduces with iteration. Finally, the algorithm converges after
69 iterations and the final solution is shown in Table 2.4. Please note from this table that the final
values of Q2 and Q3 are -18.51 and 68.87 MVAR respectively. These values are well within their
corresponding reactive power limits and thus, the voltage magnitudes of bus 2 and 3 maintained at
1.0 p.u (pre-specified values). The finally computed values of real and reactive power injection at
all the buses are also shown in Table 2.4, which are also found to be exactly equal to the specified
injected values.
Table 2.2: GSLF results in 5 bus system without any generator Q limit for iterations 1-3
Iteration = 1
Bus no.
1
2
3
4
5

Qcal

Iteration = 2

Qcal

Iteration = 3

Qcal

(p.u)
(p.u)
(deg)
(p.u)
(p.u)
(deg)
(p.u)
(p.u)
(deg)
1.0
0
1.0
0
1.0
0
-0.0720
1.0
2.0533 -0.0663
1.0
4.1038 -0.2022
1.0
3.7091
-0.0932
1.0
3.5968 0.2937
1.0
2.6494 0.5142
1.0
1.6234
0.9394 -3.2379
0.9167 -5.0548
0.9101 -6.0776
0.957 -2.5257
0.9482 -3.2562
0.946 -3.797
error = 0.081708
error = 0.037148
error = 0.017906

Let us now study the behaviour of GSLF when generator reactive power limit is violated. Towards
this goal, let us assume that the maximum reactive power which can be supplied by generator 3 in
34

Table 2.3: GSLF results in 5 bus system without any generator Q limit for iterations 4-6
Iteration = 4
Bus no.
1
2
3
4
5

Qcal

Iteration = 5

Qcal

Iteration = 6

Qcal

(p.u)
(p.u)
(deg)
(p.u)
(p.u)
(deg)
(p.u)
(p.u)
(deg)
1.0
0
1.0
0
1.0
0
-0.2129
1.0
3.1318 -0.2071
1.0
2.6927 -0.2013
1.0
2.3782
0.5926
1.0
0.8641 0.6263
1.0
0.3228 0.6461
1.0
-0.0546
0.9082 -6.7844
0.9074 -7.266
0.9069 -7.5985
0.9452 -4.1735
0.9448 -4.435
0.9446 -4.6163
error = 0.013252
error = 0.0094475
error = 0.0065856

Table 2.4: Final Results of the 5 bus system with GSLF

Bus no.
1
2
3
4
5

Without generator Q limit

Pinj

Qinj

(p.u)
(deg)
(p.u)
(p.u)
1.0
0
0.56743 0.26505
1.0
1.65757
0.5
-0.18519
1.0
-0.91206
1.0
0.68875
0.90594 -8.35088
-1.15
-0.6
0.94397 -5.02735
-0.85
-0.4
Total iteration = 69

50 MVAR (it supplies 68.87 MVAR when no limit is imposed on the generators). The iteration
wise solutions for first 6 iterations of the load flow computation with this maximum limit are shown
in Tables 2.5 and 2.6. Now, let us compare Tables 2.2 and 2.5. From these two tables it can be
observed that the load flow solution with generator Q limit proceeds in identical fashion for first two
iterations as in the case with no reactive power limit on the generators. However, from iteration 3
onwards the solution changes. In iteration 3, Q3 calculated is found to be equal to 51.42 MVAR. As
a result, Q3 is limited to 50 MVAR and Bus 3 is converted to a PQ bus, and therefore its voltage
magnitude is calculated using the expression shown in step 2(c). Please observe that this voltage
magnitude is not maintained at 1.0 p.u (in fact, it becomes less than 1.0 p.u. because of insufficient
reactive power). In the subsequent iteration also, calculated Q3 is always found to be more than the
maximum limit and as a result, Q3 is always maintained at 50 MVAR thereby making V3 < 1.0
p.u. The algorithm finally converges with a tolerance of 1.0e12 p.u. after 66 iterations and the final
solution are shown in Table 2.7. In this table, the GSLF results without any reactive power limit (as
shown in Table 2.4) are also reproduced for comparison. Please note from Table 2.7 that because of
cap on Q3 , the overall voltage profile of the system is little lower than that obtained with no limit
on generator reactive power.
As a second example, let us now consider the IEEE-14 bus system. The data of the IEEE 14
bus system are shown in Tables A.3 and A.4. The power flow solution without any limit on the
35

Table 2.5: GSLF results in 5 bus system with generator Q limit on bus 3 for iterations 1-3
Iteration = 1
Bus no.

Qcal

Iteration = 2

Qcal

Iteration = 3

Qcal

(p.u)
(p.u)
(deg)
(p.u)
(p.u)
(deg)
(p.u)
(p.u)
(deg)
1.0
0
1.0
0
1.0
0
-0.0720
1.0
2.0533 -0.0663
1.0
4.1038 -0.2022
1.0
3.7091
-0.0932
1.0
3.5968 0.2937
1.0
2.6494 0.5142 0.9955 1.6318
0.9394 -3.2379
0.9167 -5.0548
0.9071 -6.0918
0.957 -2.5257
0.9482 -3.2562
0.944 -3.8036
error = 0.081708
error = 0.037148
error = 0.019063

1
2
3
4
5

Table 2.6: GSLF results in 5 bus system with generator Q limit on bus 3 for iterations 4-6
Iteration = 1
Bus no.

Qcal

Iteration = 2

Qcal

Iteration = 3

Qcal

(p.u)
(p.u)
(deg)
(p.u)
(p.u)
(deg)
(p.u)
(p.u)
(deg)
1.0
0
1.0
0
1.0
0
-0.1784
1.0
3.1067 -0.1365
1.0
2.6692 -0.1082
1.0
2.3656
0.5337 0.991 0.9288 0.5178 0.9882 0.4399 0.5109 0.9864 0.1025
0.9012 -6.8046
0.8973 -7.2918
0.8947 -7.6271
0.9409 -4.1739
0.9388 -4.4292
0.9374 -4.6044
error = 0.012967
error = 0.0088975
error = 0.0061049

1
2
3
4
5

Table 2.7: Final Results of the 5 bus system with GSLF with generator Q limit

Bus no.
1
2
3
4
5

Without generator Q limit

Pinj

Qinj

With generator Q limit

Pinj

Qinj

(p.u)
(deg)
(p.u)
(p.u)
(p.u)
(deg)
(p.u)
(p.u)
1.0
0
0.56743 0.26505
1.0
0
0.56979 0.33935
1.0
1.65757
0.5
-0.18519
1.0
1.69679
0.5
-0.04769
1.0
-0.91206
1.0
0.68875 0.9825 -0.63991
1.0
0.5
0.90594 -8.35088
-1.15
-0.6
0.88918 -8.35906
-1.15
-0.6
0.94397 -5.02735
-0.85
-0.4
0.93445 -4.98675
-0.85
-0.4
Total iteration = 69
Total iteration = 66

generator reactive power is shown in Table 2.8. Note that all the terminal voltage of the generators
are maintained at their corresponding specified values. Also observe that the generator connected
at bus 6 supplies a reactive power of 37.27 MVAR. Now assume that generator 6 is constrained to
supply only 30 MVAR. With this Q limit, the power flow solution is also shown in Table 2.8. From
these result followings salient point can be noted:
a. Reactive power supplied by generator 6 is limited at 30 MVAR.
b. As a result, V6 goes down to 1.05497 p.u. (from the specified value of 1.07 p.u.).
36

Table 2.8: Final Results of the 14 bus system with GSLF

Without generator Q limit

Bus no.

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

(p.u)
1.06
1.045
1.04932
1.03299
1.04015
1.07
1.02076
1.0224
1.0201
1.0211
1.04144
1.0526
1.04494
1.01249

Pinj

(deg)
(p.u)
0
2.37259
-5.17113
0.183
-14.54246
-1.19
-10.39269 -0.4779
-8.76418 -0.07599
-12.52265
0.112
-13.44781
0
-13.47154
0
-13.60908 -0.29499
-13.69541
-0.09
-13.22158 -0.03501
-13.42868 -0.06099
-13.50388 -0.135
-14.60128 -0.14901
Total iteration = 676

Qinj

(p.u)
-0.3308
-0.166
-0.08762
-0.039
-0.01599
0.37278
0
-0.129
-0.16599
-0.05799
-0.018
-0.01599
-0.05799
-0.05001

(p.u)
1.06
1.045
1.04697
1.02902
1.03615
1.05497
1.01266
1.01391
1.0118
1.01154
1.02915
1.03787
1.03063
1.00136

With generator Q limit

Pinj

(deg)
(p.u)
0
2.37188
-5.17845
0.183
-14.55556
-1.19
-10.35987 -0.4779
-8.71027 -0.07599
-12.45871
0.112
-13.49478
0
-13.5185
0
-13.66101 -0.29499
-13.73679
-0.09
-13.21814 -0.03501
-13.39145 -0.06099
-13.48166 -0.135
-14.64504 -0.14901
Total iteration = 718

Qinj
(p.u)
-0.31249
-0.1066
-0.08762
-0.039
-0.01599
0.3
0
-0.129
-0.16599
-0.05799
-0.018
-0.01599
-0.05799
-0.05001

c. Because of the limit on generator reactive power, the overall voltage profile is on the lower side
as compared to that obtained without any Q limit.
As the last example the 30 bus system is considered. The data of this system are given in Tables
A.5 and A.6. Again initially the load flow solution has been computed without any limit on the
generator reactive power and the result are shown in Table 2.9. Subsequently Q limits have been
imposed on both the generator connected at bus 11 (20 MVAR) and the generator connected at bus
13 (30 MVAR). However, with a tolerance of 10e12 p.u. GSLF algorithm fails to converge even
after 10,000 iteration. When the tolerance is reduced to 10e6 p.u., the algorithm converges in 348
iteration and the result are again shown in Table 2.9. As can be seen from these results, for both
the generation, the reactive power supplied have been fixed at their corresponding limits and as a
result, the overall voltage profile of the system has gone down.
From these results it is observed that the convergence characteristics of the GSLF technique is
quite poor. Usually the number of iteration taken by GSLF is quite large and moreover in many
cases, GSLF even fails to converge. To overcome these difficulties of GSLF, Newton- Raphson(NR)
techniques have been developed, which are our next topics of discussion. These are two versions of
NR techniques, namely, i) NR in polar co-ordinate and ii) NR in rectangular co-ordinate. We will
study both these versions one by one and will start with the NR in polar co-ordinate from the next
lecture.

37

Table 2.9: Final Results of the 30 bus system with GSLF

Without generator Q limit

Bus no.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

(p.u)
1.05
1.0338
1.03128
1.02578
1.0058
1.02178
1.00111
1.023
1.04608
1.03606
1.0913
1.04859
1.0883
1.03346
1.02825
1.0359
1.0306
1.01873
1.01626
1.02041
1.02305
1.02343
1.0165
1.00939
1.00048
0.9825
1.00379
1.02049
0.98353
0.97181

Pinj

(deg)
(p.u)
0
2.38673
-4.97945 0.3586
-7.96653
-0.024
-9.58235
-0.076
-13.60103 -0.6964
-11.50296
0
-13.9994
-0.628
-12.56853
-0.45
-13.04088
0
-14.88589 -0.058
-11.16876 0.1793
-13.74947 -0.112
-12.56078 0.1691
-14.71704 -0.062
-14.86737 -0.082
-14.50539 -0.035
-14.98291
-0.09
-15.58107 -0.032
-15.81066 -0.095
-15.63819 -0.022
-15.35955 -0.175
-15.35222
0
-15.41998 -0.032
-15.81043 -0.087
-15.84004
0
-16.27422 -0.035
-15.59587
0
-12.1474
0
-16.87497 -0.024
-17.79427 -0.106
Total iteration = 851

Qinj
(p.u)
-0.29842
-0.05698
-0.012
-0.016
0.05042
0
-0.109
0.12343
0
-0.02
0.24018
-0.075
0.31043
-0.016
-0.025
-0.018
-0.058
-0.009
-0.034
-0.007
-0.112
0
-0.016
-0.067
0
-0.023
0
0
-0.009
-0.019

38

With generator Q limit

Pinj

Qinj

(p.u)
(deg)
(p.u)
(p.u)
1.05
0
2.3865 -0.29386
1.0338 -4.98084 0.35861 -0.04562
1.03045 -7.95523 -0.02399 -0.012
1.02477 -9.56929 -0.07598 -0.016
1.0058 -13.60836 -0.6964 0.05532
1.02084 -11.49304 0.00003
0
1.00055 -13.99792 -0.628
-0.109
1.023 -12.57567
-0.45
0.15111
1.04006 -13.02865 0.00001
0
1.03117 -14.8866 -0.05797 -0.02001
1.07807 -11.12256 0.1793
0.2
1.04456 -13.75755 -0.11198 -0.075
1.08311 -12.55854 0.1691
0.3
1.02931 -14.73168 -0.062
-0.016
1.02403 -14.88097 -0.08199 -0.025
1.03148 -14.51198 -0.035
-0.018
1.02583 -14.98712
-0.09
-0.058
1.01422 -15.59618 -0.03199 -0.009
1.01159 -15.8251 -0.09499 -0.034
1.01568 -15.64961 -0.022
-0.007
1.01825 -15.36524 -0.17496 -0.11201
1.01867 -15.3581
0
0
1.01226 -15.43637 -0.032
-0.016
1.00517 -15.8277
-0.087
-0.067
0.99748 -15.86849
0
0
0.97944 -16.30534 -0.035
-0.023
1.00158 -15.62827
0
0
1.01959 -12.14235
0
0
0.98126 -16.91314 -0.024
-0.009
0.96951 -17.83675 -0.106
-0.019
Total iteration = 348 (totlerance 10e6 )