a) Tables showing power flow analysis for Newton-Raphson, Fast decoupled flow and DC load flow using MATPOWER

and PSS/E software

Table 1: Voltage phasors and power flow of IEEE 14 bus (MATPOWER)

Newton Raphson
Bus
No

Pload

Voltage

P(Mw)

Q(Mvar)

Mag(pu)

21.7

12.7

94.2

19

47.8

5
6

Decoupled NR
Pgen

Voltage

ang(deg)

P(MW)

Q(Mvar)

1.06

232.39

-16.55

1.045

-4.983

40

43.56

1.01

-12.725

25.08

-3.9

1.018

-10.313

7.6

1.6

1.02

-8.774

11.2

7.5

1.07

-14.221

1.062

-13.36

1.09

-13.36

0
0

12.73
17.62

Mag(pu)

DC load flow
Pgen

Voltage

ang(deg)

P(MW)

Q(Mvar)

Mag(pu)

1.06

232.39

-16.55

1.045

-4.983

40

43.56

1.01

-12.725

25.08

1.018

-10.313

1.02

-8.774

1.07

-14.221

1.062

-13.36

1.09

-13.36

0
0

12.73
17.62

Pgen

ang(deg)

P(MW)

Q(Mvar)

219

-5.012

40

-12.954

-10.584
0

-9.094

-14.852

-13.907

-13.907

29.5

16.6

1.056

-14.939

1.056

-14.939

-15.695

10

5.8

1.051

-15.097

1.051

-15.097

-15.974

11

3.5

1.8

1.057

-14.791

1.057

-14.791

-15.619

12

6.1

1.6

1.055

-15.076

1.055

-15.076

-15.967

13

13.5

5.8

1.05

-15.156

1.05

-15.156

-16.14

14

14.9

1.036

-16.034

1.036

-16.034

-17.188

Converged in 2 iterations(0.02 seconds)

Converged in 8P iterations and 7Q

iterations(0.02 seconds)

Converged in 0.01 seconds

Table 2: Power flow in between different buses using different methods (MATPOWER)
NR method
From Bus
To Bus Injection
Injection
Souce
Bus

Destination
bus

MW

MVAR

Fast decoupled NR method

From Bus
To Bus Injection
Injection

MW

MVAR

MW

MVAR

DC power flow method

From Bus
To Bus Injection
Injection

MW

MVAR

MW

MVAR

MW

MVAR

156.88

-20.4

-152.59

27.68

156.88

-20.4

-152.59

27.68

147.84

-147.84

75.51

3.85

-72.75

2.23

75.51

3.85

-72.75

2.23

71.16

-71.16

73.24

3.56

-70.91

1.6

73.24

3.56

-70.91

1.6

-70.01

70.01

56.13

-1.55

-54.45

3.02

56.13

-1.55

-54.45

3.02

55.15

-55.15

41.52

1.17

-40.61

-2.1

41.52

1.17

-40.61

-2.1

40.97

-40.97

-23.29

4.47

23.66

-4.84

-23.29

4.47

23.66

-4.84

-24.19

24.19

-61.16

15.82

61.67

-14.2

-61.16

15.82

61.67

-14.2

61.75

-61.75

28.07

-9.68

-28.07

11.38

28.07

-9.68

-28.07

11.38

-28.36

28.36

16.08

-0.43

-16.08

1.73

16.08

-0.43

-16.08

1.73

-16.55

16.55

44.09

12.47

-44.09

-8.05

44.09

12.47

-44.09

-8.05

-42.79

42.79

11

7.35

3.56

-7.3

-3.44

7.35

3.56

-7.3

-3.44

-6.73

6.73

12

7.79

2.5

-7.71

-2.35

7.79

2.5

-7.71

-2.35

-7.61

7.61

13

17.75

7.22

-17.54

-6.8

17.75

7.22

-17.54

-6.8

-17.25

17.25

-17.16

17.62

-17.16

17.62

28.07

5.78

-28.07

-4.98

28.07

5.78

-28.07

-4.98

-28.36

28.36

10

5.23

4.22

-5.21

-4.18

5.23

4.22

-5.21

-4.18

-5.77

5.77

14

9.43

3.61

-9.31

-3.36

9.43

3.61

-9.31

-3.36

-9.64

9.64

10

11

-3.79

-1.62

3.8

1.64

-3.79

-1.62

3.8

1.64

3.23

-3.23

12

13

1.61

0.75

-1.61

-0.75

1.61

0.75

-1.61

-0.75

-1.51

1.51

13

14

5.64

1.75

-5.59

-1.64

5.64

1.75

-5.59

-1.64

-5.26

5.26

2
3
4
5
6

7
9

Table 3: Voltage phasors and power flow of IEEE 14 bus (PSS/E)

NR METHOD
SN

P Load

P Gen

DECOUPLED NR
Voltage

MW

MVAR

MW

MVAR

|V|

232.4

-16.5

21.7

12.7

40

94.2

19

47.8

P Load

P Gen
MW

Voltage

delta

MW

MVAR

MVAR

|V|

delta

146.28

232.4

-16.5

146.28

43.6

144.21

-5

21.7

12.7

40

43.6

144.21

-5

25.1

139.38

-12.7

94.2

19

25.1

139.38

-12.7

-3.9

140.44

-10.3

47.8

-3.9

140.44

-10.3

7.6

1.6

140.69

-8.8

7.6

1.6

140.69

-8.8

11.2

7.5

12.7

147.66

-14.2

11.2

7.5

12.7

147.66

-14.2

146.49

-13.4

146.49

-13.4

17.6

150.42

-13.4

17.6

150.42

-13.4

29.5

16.6

145.72

-14.9

29.5

16.6

145.72

-14.9

10

5.8

145.04

-15.1

5.8

145.04

-15.1

11

3.5

1.8

145.85

-14.8

3.5

1.8

145.85

-14.8

12

6.1

1.6

145.62

-15.1

6.1

1.6

145.62

-15.1

13

13.5

5.8

144.95

-15.2

13.5

5.8

144.95

-15.2

14

14.9

142.9

-16

14.9

142.9

-16

Table 4: Power flow in between different buses using different methods (PSS/E)
NR METHOD : Line Power
Source
Bus
1

7
8

10
11
12

13

14

DECOUPLED NR: Line Power

Destination Bus
2
5
1

MW
156.9
75.5
-152.6

MVAR
-20.4
3.9
27.7

3
4
5
2
4

73.2
56.1
41.5
-70.9
-23.3

3.6
-1.6
1.2
1.6
4.5

54.5

Source
Bus

Destination Bus
2
5
1

MW
156.9
75.5
-152.6

MVAR
-20.4
3.9
27.7

3
4
5
2
4

73.2
56.1
41.5
-70.9
-23.3

3.6
-1.6
1.2
1.6
4.5

54.5

23.7

-4.8

23.7

-4.8

-61.2

15.8

-61.2

15.8

28.1

-9.7

28.1

-9.7

16.1

-0.4

16.1

-0.4

-72.7

2.2

-72.7

2.2

-40.6

-2.1

-40.6

-2.1

61.7

-14.2

61.7

-14.2

44.1

12.5

44.1

12.5

-44.1

-8

-44.1

-8

11

7.4

3.6

11

7.4

3.6

12

7.8

2.5

12

7.8

2.5

13

17.7

7.2

13

17.7

7.2

-28.1

11.4

-28.1

11.4

-17.2

-17.2

28.1

5.8

28.1

5.8

17.6

17.6

-16.1

1.7

-16.1

1.7

-28.1

-5

-28.1

-5

10

5.2

4.2

10

5.2

4.2

14

9.4

3.6

14

9.4

3.6

-5.2

-4.2

-5.2

-4.2

11

-3.8

-1.6

11

-3.8

-1.6

-7.3

-3.4

-7.3

-3.4

10

3.8

1.6

10

3.8

1.6

-7.7

-2.4

-7.7

-2.4

13

1.6

0.8

13

1.6

0.8

-17.5

-6.8

-17.5

-6.8

12

-1.6

-0.7

12

-1.6

-0.7

14

5.6

1.7

14

5.6

1.7

-9.3

-3.4

-9.3

-3.4

13

-5.6

-1.6

13

-5.6

-1.6

7
8

10
11
12

13

14

Figure 1: Simulation result of IEEE 14 bus in PSS/E using Newton-Rapshon method (same result for FDC method also)

b)
Power flow analysis was performed using MATPOWER in MATLAB for standard IEEE 14 bus system.
1) Using Matpower
Full newton raphson, Fast Decoupled Power flow and DC power was performed with results tabulated in table 1 and 2.
Table 1 shows that the voltage and phase angle results at the end of the iteration for both the Newton-Raphson method
and Fast Decoupled method were the same. Active and Reactive power were also identical in both cases. But in DC
power flow, the voltage magnitude, phase angle, power flow were different from the other two methods. The phase
angles differed by -0.58% to -7.19% compared to Newton Raphson and Fast Decoupled Power Flow, with higher
deviation occurring when the magnitude of phase angle is higher. The voltage magnitudes of all buses are 1 pu, and all
reactive power flows are zero, which is based on the assumption made in DC power flow. The injected active power in
bus1 in dc power flow was less by 5.76% compared to the other two methods. This shows that DC power flow is less
accurate than both the Newton-Raphson and Fast Decoupled power flow.
The number of iterations required in Newton-Raphson was 2, whereas for the Fast decoupled method was 8 for active
power stopping criteria and 7 for reactive power stopping criteria, assuming flat start in both cases. But in terms of
processing time, both methods converged in 0.02 seconds. DC power flow required no iteration due to the simplicity of
the problem formulation, and its convergence rate was the fastest with 0.01 seconds.
2) Using PSS/E
Full newton raphson, Fast Decoupled Power flow and DC power was performed with results tabulated in table 3 and 4.
Table 3 shows the voltage and phase angle results along with power flow at the end of the iteration NewtonRaphson(NR) and Fast Decoupled method(FDC). The numerical value matches with the results from MATPOWER for
both NR and FDC method. The accuracy of both the methods were the same. No DC load flow technique is available to
simulate power flow analysis. Figure 1 shows the simulated network diagram for NR method.
The number of iterations required was 2 for NR, while 9 iterations were required in FDC method (assuming flat start in
both cases). Processing times were not available in PSS/E.
c)
Newton Raphson will take a longer time when the number of buses and generators in the system are large in number.
The computation of inversion of a large dimension Jacobian matrix takes time, so NR is slow method. But, fast decoupled
method has two Jacobian matrix to compute, but the dimensions are greatly reduced. This will cause faster iteration
time compared to Newton-Raphson, but it takes more iteration to achieve the same degree of accuracy. A situation
where Fast Decoupled power flow is attractive is when we have already solved the case, and then we want to resolve
the case using a hot start to analyze the effect of some not so dramatic change. So, when the problem is not so tough,
the less robust solution approach of FDC also does a great job.
But there are situations where speed is of paramount importance, but accuracy is not. For example, in case of online
analysis of 50000 contingencies, we may want to filter only the contingencies that have potential to result in problems,
and then perform full analysis on those. In such cases, the DC power flow is appropriate. Although it is fast and robust, it
is not that accurate.