63

CHAPTER 4
MAXIMUM LOADABILITY LIMIT
OF POWER SYSTEMS

4.1

INTRODUCTION
Power system stability is defined as the characteristics of a power

system to remain in a state of equilibrium at normal operating conditions and

to restore an acceptable state of equilibrium after a disturbance. The power
systems are heavily stressed due to the increased loading and this leads to
voltage stability problem. The other factors, which cause voltage stability, are
outage of equipment (generator, line, transformer and busbar), decrement of
production and/or weakening of voltage control. Voltage Stability can also be
called as the load stability. The main factor causing voltage instability is
inability of the power system to meet the reactive power demands.
Many methods are available to determine the voltage stability limit.
One of them is PV curve. Figure 4.1 presents the PV curve, the load voltage as
a function of real power demand or sum of load demand. For a particular
demand, two voltage solutions are obtained. They are low current high
voltage and high current low voltage solutions. Power systems are operated
in the upper part of the PV-curve, that is, the low current high voltage
solution. This part of PV-curve is statically and dynamically stable. The nose
point of the curve is called the maximum loading point. The critical point
where the solutions coincide is the voltage collapse point.

Bus voltage Magnitude (pu)

64

Maximum loading point

Total Active Power (MW)

Figure 4.1 PV curve
In general the maximum loading point is more interesting from the
practical point of view than the true voltage collapse point, because the
maximum of power system loading is achieved at this point. The load increase
beyond the voltage collapse point results in loss of equilibrium and power
system can no longer operate. The power system becomes voltage unstable at
the voltage collapse point. The maximum loading point is the voltage collapse
point when the constant loads are considered. Various methods have been
proposed to determine the maximum loadability limit. Among these methods,
the Continuation Power Flow (CPF) technique (Ajjarapu and Christy 1992)
has been widely used. This method fails to give the accurate result if the step
length is more. Irisarri et al (1997) proposed Interior Point (IP) method for
determining the maximum loadability limit. Though IP method is efficient to
solve the maximum loading problem, this method has the limitation of starting
and terminating conditions. The Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP)
algorithm includes the differentiation of the constraints. This method is very
slow as it involves many matrices during the iteration process.
Evolutionary algorithms have been applied to solve this problem.
EL-Dib et al (2006) applied HPSO to determine the maximum loadability

65

limit. This method is not suitable for large scale system (limited to 14 bus
system). Multi Agent Hybrid PSO (MAHPSO) has been developed and
applied to determine the maximum loadability limit by Shunmugalatha and
Mary Raja slochanal (2008). This MAHPSO has the advantages of both
HPSO and MAPSO. In this algorithm, the load is uniformly increased in all
the load buses until the voltage limits are violated.
Maximum loadability limit can be identified by using DE. DE
sometimes results in instability of performance. MDEPSO eliminates the
disadvantages of the DE. This chapter presents the application of DE,
MHPSO and MDEPSO algorithms to determine the maximum loadability
limit of power system. The results obtained using these algorithms are
compared with the results obtained by Continuation Power Flow (CPF).
4.2

OVERVIEW OF CONTINUATION POWER FLOW

The Jacobian matrix of Newton Raphson load flow method

becomes singular at the maximum loading point. Consequently, conventional

power flow algorithms are prone to convergence problems at operating
conditions near the stability limit (Kundur 1994). The continuation power
flow analysis overcomes this problem by reformulating the power flow
equations so that they remain well conditioned at all possible loading
conditions. This allows the solution of the power flow problem for stable as
well as unstable equilibrium points (Kundur 1994).
4.2.1

Basic Principle
The continuation power flow analysis uses an iterative process

involving predictor and corrector steps as depicted in Figure 4.2. From a

known initial solution (A), a tangent predictor is used to estimate the solution
(B) for a specified pattern of load increase. The corrector step then determines

66

the exact solution (C) using a conventional power flow analysis with the
system load assumed to be fixed. The voltages for a further increase in load
are then predicted based on a new tangent predictor. If the new estimated load
(D) is now beyond the maximum load on the exact solution, a corrector step
with loads fixed would not converge; therefore, a corrector step with a fixed
voltage at the monitored bus is applied to find the exact solution(E). As the
voltage stability limit is reached, to determine the exact maximum load the
size of load increase has to be reduced gradually during the successive
predictor steps.

Figure 4.2

A typical sequence of calculations in a CPF analysis

(Kundur 1994)

4.2.2

Mathematical Formulation
The basic equations are similar to those of a standard power flow

analysis except that the increase in load is added as a parameter. The

reformulated power flow equations, with provision for increasing generations
as the load increases, may be expressed as

67

f ( ,| V |)

where

(4.1)

is the loading parameter

is the angle of bus voltage
|V| is the voltage magnitude
K is the constant representing percent load change at each bus.
The above non linear equation is solved by specifying a value for

such that
0

where

critical

= 0 represents the base load condition, and

critical

represents the

critical load.
Equation (4.1) may be rearranged as
f ( ,| V |, ) 0

4.2.3

(4.2)

Predictor Step
In the predictor step, a linear approximation is used to estimate the

next solution for a change in one of the state variables.

Taking the derivatives of both sides of Equation (4.2), with the state
variables corresponding to the initial solution, will result in the following set
of linear equations.
f d

fV d | V | f d

(4.3)

68

Since the insertion of

in the power flow equations added an

unknown variable, one more equation is needed to solve the above equations.
This is satisfied by setting one of the components of the tangent vector to +1
or -1. This component is referred to as the continuation parameter.
Equation (4.3) now becomes

fV

d|V|

ek

(4.4)

where ek is a row vector with all elements equal to zero except for the Kth
element (corresponding to the continuation parameter) being equal to 1.
Initially, the load parameter

is chosen as the continuation

parameter and the corresponding component of the tangent vector is set to +1.
During the subsequent predictor steps, the continuation parameter is chosen to
be the state variable that has the greatest rate of change near the given
solution, and the sign of its slope determines the sign of the corresponding
component of the tangent vector. As the maximum load is approached, a
voltage will typically be the parameter with the largest change.
Once the tangent vector is found, the prediction for the next
solution is given by

|V|

| V0 |
0

d
d|V|

(4.5)

Where the subscript 0 identifies the values of the state variables at

the beginning of the predictor step. The step size

is chosen so that a power

flow solution exists with the specified continuation parameter. If for a given
step size a solution cannot be found in the corrector step, the step size is

69

reduced and the corrector step is repeated until a successful solution is

obtained.
4.2.4

Corrector Step
In the corrector step, the original set of equations f( ,|V|, ) = 0 is

augmented by one equation that specifies the state variable selected as the
continuation parameter. Thus the new set of equations is
f ( ,| V |, )
lk

(4.6)

In the above, lk is the state variable selected as the continuation

parameter and

is equal to the predicted value of lk. This set of equations can

be solved using a slightly modified Newton Raphson power flow method. The
introduction of the additional equation makes the Jacobian non-singular at the
critical operating point.
4.3

FORMULATION OF OBJECTIVE FUNCTION

Maximum loadability problem can be formulated as an optimization

problem. The objective of this problem is to determine the maximum load

increase in a power system without violating the stability. The load is
increased, until the power flow problem is able to provide the solution. This
can be mathematically formulated as follows
Maximize f
Subjected to the constrains
1.

Equality constraints
Power balance equation

(4.7)

70
n

Fpi

Pgi

Pdi | Vi |

| V j | | Yij | cos(

ij

(4.8)

(4.9)

j 1

where

Pdi

Pdo
n

Fqi

Q gi

Q di

| Vi |

| V j | | Yij | sin(

ij

j 1

2.

Inequality constraints at PV bus

Pgi min

Pgi

Qgi min

Qgi

Pgi max
Qgi max

Now the objective function is written as

Minimize f

K1 * (1 / ) K 2 * (

Fpi2

Fqi2 )

(4.10)

The maximization objective function is considered as minimization

function by taking reciprocal of loading parameter . The results of power
flow equations are considered as solutions when the real and reactive power
mismatches are lesser than 0.001. Hence the equality (Fpi and Fqi) constraints
are considered as inequality constraints and are included in the objective
function and so the penalty factors K1 and K2 are selected as 2.5 and 10,000
respectively. For the reactive power limit inequality constraint, the constraint
handling method described by Deb (2000) is followed.
4.4

PROPOSED ALGORITHMS TO DETERMINE MAXIMUM

LOADABILITY LIMIT

4.4.1

MDEPSO Algorithm
The MDEPSO algorithm explained in chapter 2 is applied to

determine the maximum loadability limit. The methodology is explained step

by step as follows:

71

1.

Initialize a set of random values for bus voltages and loading

parameter (XG) Loading parameter is generated between 0.1p.u
and 5p.u. At the normal operating point (base load), the bus
voltage magnitude usually lies in the range of 0.9 p.u to 1.1 p.u.
At the nose point, since the load is maximum, the voltage
magnitude drops enormously and the voltage increases. Hence
voltage magnitude is selected between 0.6p.u and 0.9p.u and the
angle is chosen between -0.1radian and -0.5radian.
xi = [|Vji|,

ji,

i];

i = 1 to NP; j = 1 to n except slack bus

NP - Population size

n = number of buses.

2.

Set iteration count G = 1; x iG [ | VjiG |;

G
ji

3.

Using the Equations (4.8), (4.9) and (4.10) calculate the

G
i

];

fitness1 f (x iG )
4.

DE operator:
i)

Perform mutation and cross over. Generate a new set of

population for bus voltages and loading parameter XG

x i'G

x Gr1 Fs (x Gr 2 x Gr3 ) [ | VjiD |;

D
ji

ii)

Substituting these voltages and loading parameter in the

D
i

power mismatch Equations (4.8) and (4.9), calculate the

fitness2 f (x 'G
i )
5.

PSO operator
i)

Choose XG ([ |Vji|;

ii)

Generate pbest. For ith particle, if fitness1 is lesser than

i])

ji;

as present particle.

fitness2, then pbest is selected from parent voltage, else

it is selected from target voltage.
pbest i

x iG

[ | VjiG |;

if f (x iG ) < f (x 'G
i )

G
ji

G
i

];

72
x i'G

else pbest i

[ | VjiD |;

D
ji

D
i

];

iii) Generate gbest from overall best.

iv) Using Equations (2.7) and (2.8) update the velocity and
position of XG and get the new voltage vector XG
veiG 1 w*veiG rand*c1 *(gbest xiG ) rand*c2 *(pbest i x iG )

The position of each particle is updated by using this

velocity vector by

x "G
i
x "G
i
v)

x Gi

veiG

[ | VjiPSO |;

PSO
ji

PSO
i

];

The new vector calculated in step (iv) is used to calculate

the fitness3 f (x "G
i ).

6.

By comparing fitness1, 2 and 3, select the best particle for next

iteration
if f (x"G
f (x iG ) f (x i'G )
i )

then x iG

G
else if f (x iG ) f (x 'G
f (x "G
i )
i ) then x i

else x iG

x "G
i

[ | VjiPSO |;

PSO
ji

x iG
1

PSO
i

x i'G

[ | VjiG |;
[ | VjiD |;

G
ji

G
i

;
D
ji

];
D
i

];

];

7.

Increase the iteration count G = G+1.

8.

Check for maximum number of iterations. If not go to step 3

and repeat the steps.

4.4.2

MHPSO Algorithm
1.

Initialize a population of particles for bus voltages and loading

parameter. Bus voltage magnitudes are generated randomly
between 0.6 p.u and 0.9 p.u and phase angles are between -0.1
radians and -0.5 radians. Loading parameter is generated
between 0.1 p.u and 5 p.u.

73
2.

Set iteration count G = 1

3.

For each particle set, calculate the fitness value using

Equations (4.2), (4.3) and (4.4)

4.

From the population set, select pbest and gbest by comparing

the fitness values of present particles and over all particles.
pbest is the position of the best particle at that particular
iteration and gbest is the position of the best particle up to that
iterations.

5.

From the randomly chosen parent particles produce child1 and

child2 using Equations (2.3) and (2.4)

6.

To increase the convergence speed, replace the particle which

produces very high fitness value by the average of the best
two particles. Calculate the velocity using Equations (2.1),
(2.5) and (2.6) and update the position of the particle (voltage)
according to Equation (2.2).

4.5

7.

Increase the count G = G +1

8.

Repeat the steps 3 to 7 for fixed number of generations G.

CASE STUDY
To validate the proposed algorithms, they are applied to determine

the maximum loadability limit of 6 bus and IEEE 30 bus systems.

6 bus system
The particle size of 50 is taken for all the evolutionary algorithms.
20 independent trials are considered for each algorithm and in each trial the
algorithm is run for 500 iterations.
The following three cases are considered.

74

Case1:

Increase in load shared only by slack bus (without

considering Q limit) The above said CPF, MHPSO, DE and MDEPSO

algorithms are applied to determine the maximum loadability limit. Table 4.1
shows the maximum loadabilty limit and the bus voltages obtained at the
maximum loading point. Figure 4.3 shows comparative convergence
characteristics obtained using evolutionary algorithms for this case. The
statistical measures of maximum loadability limit for the evolutionary
algorithms are given in Table 4.7.
Table 4.1

Bus voltages for 6 bus system at the maximum loading point

(increase in load

shared only

by slack bus

without

considering Qlimit)
CPF

MHPSO

Bus
No

Magnitude

Angle

pu

deg

pu

1.0500

0.0000

1.0500

DE
Magnitude

Angle

Magnitude

Angle

deg

pu

deg

pu

deg

1.0500

0.0000

1.0500

0.0000

1.0500

0.0000

-59.558

1.0500

-56.035

1.0500

-55.892

1.0500

-57.8973

1.0700

-71.063

1.0700

-67.339

1.0700

-67.190

1.0700

-69.3221

0.7921

-52.460

0.8079

-49.715

0.8085

-49.601

0.7991

-51.2281

0.7331

-65.403

0.7510

-62.057

0.7517

-61.925

0.7420

-63.8389

0.9029

-75.939

0.9067

-72.267

0.9068

-72.118

0.9047

-74.2610

(p.u)

1.9104

Magnitude Angle

MDEPSO

1.9183

1.9184

1.9312

75

Figure 4.3

Convergence characteristics for 6 bus system (increase in

load shared only by slack bus without considering Qlimit)

Case 2:

Increase in load is shared by all the generators (without

considering Q limit)
For this case the loading parameter term is included in generator

buses also. Hence when the demand increases the generation is also equally
increasing, thus the increase in load is shared by all the generators. The above
said algorithms are applied. The reactive power limits at generator buses are
not considered here. Table 4.2 gives the bus voltages and the maximum
loadability limit obtained using each algorithm. Figure 4.4 shows the
convergence characteristics of each evolutionary algorithm. Table 4.8 gives
the statistical performances of maximum loadability limit for DE, MDEPSO
and MHPSO algorithms.

76

Table 4.2

Bus voltages of 6 bus system at the maximum loading point

(increase in load shared by all the generators without
considering Qlimit)
CPF

Bus
no

MHPSO

DE

MDEPSO

Magnitude Angle Magnitude Angle Magnitude Angle Magnitude Angle

p.u

deg

p.u

deg

p.u

deg

p.u

Deg

1.0500

0.0

1.0500

0.0

1.0500

0.0

1.0500

0.0

1.0500

-34.211

1.0500

-33.4664

1.0500

-33.489

1.0500

-33.449

1.0700

-39.539

1.0700

-38.674

1.0700

-38.674

1.0700

-71.063

0.7256

-44.077

0.7297

-57.158

0.7298

-57.158

0.7296

-52.460

0.6142

-58.155

0.6221

-57.158

0.6224

-57.158

0.6220

-65.403

0.8238

-56.149

0.8259

-55.278

0.8260

-55.278

0.8259

-75.928

(pu)

Figure 4.4

3.4492

3.4517

3.45191

3.45199

Convergence characteristics for 6 bus system (increase in

load shared by all the generators without considering Qlimit)

77

Case 3:

Increase in demand is shared by slack bus alone by considering

the reactive power limit on PV buses.
The upper limit and lower limit of reactive power are taken as the

constraints. If the limits are violating, the difference between the calculated
value and boundary limit is added in the objective function. CPF, DE,
MDEPSO and MHPSO algorithms are applied to determine the maximum
loadability limit. The results are given in Table 4.3. Convergence
characteristics of evolutionary algorithms are given in Figure 4.5. Statistical
performances are given in Table 4.9.
Table 4.3

Bus voltages of 6 bus system at the maximum loading point

(increase in load shared only by slack bus by considering
Qlimit)
CPF

MHPSO

DE

MDEPSO

Bus Magnitude Angle Magnitude Angle Magnitude Angle Magnitude Angle

no

p.u

deg

p.u

deg

p.u

deg

p.u

deg

1.0500

0.0000

1.0500

0.0000

1.0500

0.0000

1.0500

0.0000

0.8006

-20.5634

0.7925

-20.6493

0.7980

-20.6379

0.7986

-20.6207

0.7653

-29.1921

0.7615

-29.3755

0.7621

-29.3526

0.7629

-29.3125

0.7421

-22.3109

0.7392

-22.4255

0.7396

-22.4141

0.7402

-22.3912

0.6606

-30.1203

0.6565

-30.3209

0.6571

-30.2980

0.6580

-30.2579

0.6448

-36.9443

0.6402

-37.2250

0.6409

-37.1906

0.6419

-37.1333

(p.u)

1.0121

1.01310

1.01317

1.01329

78

Figure 4.5

Convergence characteristics for 6 bus system (increase in

load shared only by slack bus by considering Qlimit)

Comparing the above three cases, the maximum loadability limit is

greater when the load is shared by all the generators. When the reactive power
limit is considered the loadability limit is reduced.
From the Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3, it is evident that, the evolutionary
algorithms are superior to CPF. Among the evolutionary algorithms, MDEPSO
gives slightly higher maximum loadabilty limit. This validates the superiority of
the proposed MDEPSO algorithm. From the characteristic curve, it is evident
that MHPSO converges quickly than DE and MDEPSO. Even though
MDEPSO takes more time for single iteration, it converges within lesser
number of iterations; hence the total time is reduced compared to DE.

79

From the statistical measures the following inferences are noted:

For all the cases, standard deviation obtained by MDEPSO is very
low compared to DE and MHPSO. This indicates that MDEPSO algorithm
provides steady results in all the trials. For case 3, all the algorithms provide
constant results. For case 1and case 3, DE and MHPSO results are not
consistent during the trials. Best values show that all the evolutionary
algorithms equally work well and provide nearly same results.
IEEE 30 bus system
The algorithms are also tested on IEEE 30 bus systems. The
following three cases are again considered:
Case 1:

Increase in load is shared only by slack bus (without

considering Q limit)
The above said CPF, MHPSO, DE and MDEPSO algorithms are

applied to determine the maximum loadability limit. Table 4.4 shows the
maximum loadabilty limit and the bus voltages obtained at the maximum
loading point. Figure 4.6 shows comparative convergence characteristics
obtained using Evolutionary algorithms. Table 4.10 gives the statistical
measures.
The total increase in demand obtained by MDEPSO algorithm is
3.6912 p.u and using CPF algorithm the value is only 3.4169 p.u. CPF
algorithm says that a maximum load of 341.69 MW can be added in the power
system. From MDEPSO, it is suggested that an additional load of 27.43 MW
can be rised in the power system without affecting the stability of the system.
Compared to CPF, the percentage rise of maximum loadability limit obtained
by MDEPSO is 8 and by MHPSO and DE are 0.3 and 1 respectively.

80

Table 4.4

Bus voltages of IEEE 30 bus system at the maximum loading

point (increase in load shared only by slack bus without
considering Qlimit)
CPF

Bus
No

MHPSO

Magnitude Angle Magnitude Angle

p.u
deg
p.u
deg

DE
Magnitude
p.u

MDEPSO
Angle
Angle Magnitude
deg
deg
p.u

1
2
3
4

1.0600
1.0450
0.9419
0.9293

0.0000
-13.8197
-20.4184
-25.3533

1.0600
1.0450
0.9831
0.9710

0.0000
-9.2819
-13.7051
-16.8449

1.0600
1.0450
0.9874
0.9750

0.0000
-8.6756
-12.8233
-15.7180

1.0600
1.0450
0.9715
0.9590

0.0000
-10.8228
-16.0542
-19.7613

5
6
7
8
9
10

1.0100
0.9433
0.9589
1.0100
0.9584
0.9105

-28.5883
-29.7193
-30.0917
-32.1142
-43.0589
-49.6410

1.0100
0.9755
0.9794
1.0100
0.9852
0.9374

-20.7582
-19.7613
-20.9759
-21.2338
-27.0951
-31.1631

1.0100
0.9777
0.9810
1.0100
0.9874
0.9385

-19.7025
-18.4160
-19.7106
-19.7856
-25.2243
-29.3103

1.0100
0.9667
0.9743
1.0100
0.9703
0.9150

-23.3995
-23.1818
-24.1157
-24.8950
-32.4809
-37.6719

11
12
13

1.0820
0.9696
1.0710

-43.0577
-46.9195
-46.9189

1.0820
0.9926
1.0710

-26.3445
-29.5359
-28.9171

1.0820
0.9961
1.0710

-24.1911
-27.5352
-26.8731

1.0820
0.9784
1.0710

-31.6673
-35.1680
-34.5555

14
15
16

0.9173
0.8912
0.9245

-50.7096
-51.3141
-49.4004

0.9426
0.9229
0.9524

-31.7590
-31.9939
-30.5100

0.9510
0.9282
0.9529

-29.4133
-29.6156
-28.8145

0.9236
0.8994
0.9294

-37.5917
-37.9928
-37.0990

17
18
19
20
21

0.9059
0.8588
0.8538
0.8630
0.8093

-50.3286
-54.2820
-54.7042
-53.9227
-51.9185

0.9325
0.8879
0.8819
0.8907
0.9032

-31.3637
-33.6899
-33.9993
-33.5466
-32.2861

0.9339
0.8920
0.8854
0.8937
0.9025

-29.5720
-31.3963
-32.0607
-31.7542
-30.3651

0.9088
0.8536
0.8454
0.8560
0.8769

-38.1188
-40.0669
-40.5596
-40.1356
-39.2991

22
23
24
25

0.8034
0.8225
0.7653
0.6035

-54.6429
-52.6429
-56.5050
-63.8561

0.8999
0.8720
0.8417
0.7676

-32.3835
-33.4435
-34.0394
-36.3255

0.8984
0.8711
0.8272
0.7137

-30.4187
-30.6843
-31.5161
-33.1667

0.8729
0.8433
0.8089
0.7374

-39.4653
-40.1700
-41.7628
-45.0058

26
27
28
29

0.4937
0.5887
0.8971
0.6782

-73.3844
-61.6674
-31.8736
-41.5548

0.6959
0.7794
0.9489
0.6485

-38.6173
-35.8385
-21.2681
-41.1670

0.5436
0.7611
0.9501
0.6647

-34.4404
-32.6384
-19.6754
-36.6030

0.6360
0.7735
0.9397
0.6722

-49.2743
-43.3156
-25.1127
-49.9504

30

0.6023 -43.4150
0.14237

(pu)

0.6171 -44.0260
0.1429

0.6400
-38.0903
0.1437

0.6424 -52.5975
0.1538

81

Figure 4.6

Convergence characteristics for IEEE 30 bus system

(increase in load shared only by slack bus without
considering Qlimit)

Case 2:

Increase in load is shared by all the generators (without

considering Q limit)
For this case the loading parameter term

is included in generator

buses also. Hence when the demand increases the generation is also equally
increasing, thus the increase in load is shared by all the generators. The above
said algorithms are applied. The reactive power limits at generator buses are
not considered here. Table 4.5 gives the bus voltages and the maximum
loadability limit obtained using each algorithm. Figure 4.7 shows the
convergence characteristics of each evolutionary algorithm discussed in this
thesis. The statistical measures are given in Table 4.11. The total increase in
demand obtained by CPF is 349.2 MW. The maximum increase in demand
obtained by MDEPSO is 387.6 MW. Compared to CPF, the percentage rise of
maximum loadability limit is 11. The maximum increase in demand obtained

82

by MHPSO is 3.36 MW. This gives 0.9% rise in demand than CPF. DE gives
0.8% higher maximum loadability than CPF.
Table 4.5

Bus voltages of IEEE 30 bus system at the maximum loading

point (increase in load shared by all the generators without
considering Qlimit)

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
(pu)

CPF
Voltage
Angle
pu
deg
1.0600
0.0000
1.0450 -13.3327
0.9417 -20.4775
0.9294 -25.3419
1.0100 -27.3988
0.9454 -29.6047
0.9591 -29.6104
1.0100 -31.6788
0.9591 -43.0062
0.9131 -50.4603
1.0820 -41.3331
0.9702 -47.3205
1.0710 -46.1975
0.9144 -51.6807
0.8896 -52.4256
0.9231 -50.2713
0.9064 -51.2739
0.8516 -55.9951
0.8462 -56.4821
0.8568 -55.5597
0.8748 -52.9470
0.8702 -53.2908
0.8307 -56.0811
0.7920 -57.7083
0.6927 -63.3290
0.585
-63.3290
0.7163 -71.8660
0.9097 -59.9199
0.5908 -71.9119
0.5559 -76.0544
0.1455

MHPSO
Voltage
Angle
pu
deg
1.0600
0.0000
1.0450
-8.8063
0.9684 -11.9404
0.9560 -14.5703
1.0100 -20.7525
0.9575 -18.0424
0.9690 -20.1165
1.0100 -20.6092
0.8886 -22.6776
0.7522 -22.5974
1.0820 -25.0783
0.9103 -20.2024
1.0710 -18.9076
0.8409 -20.8671
0.8071 -19.1711
0.7982 -19.7040
0.7398 -21.6635
0.7432 -18.8789
0.7169 -19.6696
0.7203 -20.1394
0.6919 -21.5088
0.6873 -21.1765
0.7021 -18.6726
0.6420 -20.1108
0.6345 -25.3877
0.5847 -26.8430
0.7061 -31.3350
0.9241 -19.7154
0.6200 -36.0619
0.5396 -43.9630
0.1469

DE
MDEPSO
Voltage
Angle
Voltage
Angle
pu
deg
pu
deg
1.0600
0.0000
1.0600
0.0000
1.0450
-8.4683 1.0450
-9.4480
0.9794 -11.4476 0.9565 -12.6852
0.9667 -13.9744 0.9372 -15.7105
1.0100 -20.6322 1.0100 -22.0817
0.9697 -16.9079 0.9428 -19.1768
0.9741 -19.5836 0.9590 -21.3312
1.0100 -19.0565 1.0100 -21.7437
0.9216 -19.5493 0.8246 -25.6627
0.8122 -20.5749 0.6288 -29.1349
1.0820 -20.0306 1.0820 -26.7399
0.9369 -20.8556 0.8310 -26.9633
1.0710 -20.5806 1.0710 -26.6368
0.8785 -20.7181 0.7189 -25.8403
0.8511 -19.9675 0.6500 -23.6345
0.8437 -20.1050 0.6998 -26.5862
0.8019 -20.2827 0.6245 -28.6532
0.7910 -18.2544 0.4551 -16.7532
0.7682 -18.2544 0.4004 -15.8480
0.7726 -18.3976 0.4203 -18.3461
0.7629 -20.0477 0.5598 -29.2724
0.7603 -19.9217 0.5550 -28.9802
0.7831 -19.5894 0.5488 -23.2907
0.7335 -20.1967 0.5026 -27.6337
0.7409 -23.5772 0.5532 -33.7017
0.6761 -22.0703 0.4308 -31.7017
0.7920 -26.9347 0.6732 -37.0646
0.9476 -18.2601 0.9155 -20.8728
0.7275 -31.5126 0.6244 -44.0833
0.6891 -35.5291 0.5604 -51.8297
0.1467
0.1615

83

Figure 4.7

Convergence characteristics for IEEE 30 bus system

(increase in load shared by all the generators without
considering Qlimit)

Case 3:

Increase in demand is shared by slack bus alone by considering

the reactive power limit on PV buses.
The upper limit and lower limit of reactive power are taken as the

constraints. If the limits are violating, the difference between the calculated
value and boundary limit is added in the objective function. CPF, DE
MDEPSO algorithms are applied to determine the maximum loadability
limits. The results are given in Table 4.6. Convergence characteristics of
evolutionary algorithms are given in Figure 4.8. Statistical measures are given
in Table 4.12. CPF shows that an additional load of 165 MW can be added in
the power system. Compared to CPF, the percentage rise in the maximum
loadability limit obtained by MHPSO is 1. By DE this value is increased to
33.57% and MDEPSO provides 41.39 % rise in maximum loadability limit.

84

Table 4.6

Bus voltages of IEEE 30 bus system at the maximum loading

point (increase in load shared only by slack bus by
considering Qlimit)

Bus
CPF
No. Magnitude Angle
(p.u)
(deg)

MHPSO
Magnitude Angle
(p.u)
(deg)

DE
Magnitude Angle
(p.u)
(deg)

MDEPSO
Magnitude Angle
(p.u)
(deg)

1
2
3
4

1.0600
0.9570
0.8634
0.8243

0.0000
-9.3162
-14.6505
-18.5409

1.0600
0.5008
0.5001
0.5907

0.0000
-63.7816
-51.1135
-53.8580

1.0600
0.5003
0.5001
0.5917

0.0000
-58.9027
-46.0342
-48.6406

1.0600
0.5006
0.5001
0.5794

0.0000
-62.6360
-49.4052
-52.1677

5
6

0.8560
0.8009

-24.0355
-22.3854

0.5956
0.6896

-66.6349
-55.4737

0.6469
0.6936

-62.3931
-50.4821

0.6421
0.6598

-66.2478
-53.7296

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

0.8115
0.7972
0.7948
0.7660
0.8534
0.8037
0.8436
0.7643

-24.1100
-23.8350
-34.8186
-41.0925
-34.8186
-38.4741
-38.4741
-42.2728

0.6479
0.8311
0.6868
0.6780
0.6888
0.6717
0.6869
0.6799

-58.4932
-58.3213
-48.5295
-49.6697
-44.5245
-50.0879
-48.5409
-50.5119

0.6708
0.8198
0.6999
0.6903
0.7050
0.6738
0.6847
0.6879

-54.0198
-52.8703
-44.6281
-45.5289
-41.2043
-43.3157
-41.1099
-42.6410

0.6498
0.7419
0.6646
0.6615
0.6599
0.6726
0.6848
0.6855

-57.6491
-55.5153
-48.8877
-50.7507
-44.6124
-49.4436
-47.1902
-49.7930

15
16

0.7489
0.7702

-42.8400
-40.9722

0.6807
0.6776

-49.9905
-49.8072

0.6789
0.6879

-43.6261
-43.5243

0.6815
0.6664

-50.3918
-49.4874

17
18

0.7584
0.7216

-41.8660
-45.8480

0.6730
0.6926

-49.8301
-49.4749

0.6866
0.6691

-45.0589
-44.3568

0.6557
0.6755

-50.2313
-51.0361

19
20

0.7167
0.7252

-45.4699
-45.4642

0.6963
0.6962

-49.4749
-49.2285

0.6656
0.6723

-44.8859
-45.0462

0.6646
0.6644

-51.3871
-51.1647

21
22

0.7384
0.7371

-43.1437
-43.3385

0.6614
0.6642

-49.4061
-49.0795

0.6837
0.6866

-45.6621
-45.4671

0.6511
0.6545

-51.2229
-51.1820

23
24
25
26
27

0.7145
0.6949
0.6647
0.6037
0.6488

-45.4470
-46.3179
-48.2774
-53.0673
-45.3209

0.6752
0.6619
0.6751
0.6641
0.6836

-49.2514
-47.9164
-42.1525
-38.6517
-42.9202

0.6875
0.6874
0.7208
0.7367
0.7214

-43.6628
-44.1410
-40.7938
-39.8225
-41.1259

0.6896
0.9710
0.7143
0.7258
0.7129

-50.6866
-51.4473
-51.0617
-51.8280
-51.4972

28
29
30

0.7725
-24.7375
0.6204
-52.6204
0.5956
-55.6342
0.0691

(pu)

0.7200
-53.1361
0.6914
-40.6169
0.6692
-40.6513
0.0617

0.7287
-48.6550
0.7213
-38.8760
0.7054
-41.1787
0.0923

0.6895
-52.2452
0.7153
-52.0144
0.6927
-55.3949
0.0977

85

Figure 4.8

Convergence characteristics for IEEE 30 bus system

(increase in load shared only by slack bus considering Qlimit)

From the Tables 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6, it is evident that, the evolutionary
algorithms are superior to CPF. Among the evolutionary algorithms,
MDEPSO gives higher maximum loadabilty limit. Statistical performances
show that MDEPSO is consistent than DE and MHPSO. Compared to 6 bus
system, the standard deviation for 30 bus system is higher. Some of the trials
are not able to provide the optimum results.
Table 4.7

Statistical performances of EAs for 6 bus system (increase in

load shared only by slack bus without considering Qlimit)

Algorithm

Standard

Best

Worst

Mean

MHPSO

1.9183

1.6534

1.8294

0.1320

DE

1.9184

1.5850

1.7834

0.1708

MDEPSO

1.9185

1.9184

1.9185

3.1623*10-5

Deviation

86

Table 4.8

Statistical performances of EAs for 6 bus system (increase in

load shared by all the generators without considering Qlimit)

Best

Worst

Mean

Standard
Deviation

MHPSO

3.4517

3.2140

3.3354

0.1083

DE

3.4519

3.2367

3.3853

0.1027

MDEPSO

3.4520

3.4234

3.4491

0.0090

Algorithm

Table 4.9

Statistical performances of EAs for 6 bus system (increase in

load shared only by slack bus alone including Qlimit)

Algorithm

Best

Worst

Mean

Standard
Deviation

MHPSO

1.0131

1.0122

1.0126

4.6476*10-4

DE

1.0132

1.0129

1.0131

1.3943*10-4

MDEPSO

1.0133

1.0132

1.0133

2.8460*10-5

Table 4.10

Statistical performances of EAs for IEEE 30 bus system

(increase in load shared only by slack bus without
considering Qlimit)

Algorithm

Best

Worst

Mean

Standard
Deviation

MHPSO

0.1429

0.1401

0.1409

0.0012

DE

0.1437

0.1122

0.1237

0.0159

MDEPSO

0.1538

0.1235

0.1485

0.0093

87

Table 4.11

Statistical performances of EAs for 30 bus system (increase in

load shared by all the generators without considering Qlimit)

Algorithm

Best

Worst

Mean

Standard
Deviation

MHPSO

0.1469

0.1108

0.1342

0.0111

DE

0.1467

0.1134

0.1286

0.0128

MDEPSO

0.1615

0.1435

0.1543

0.0093

Table 4.12

Statistical performances of EAs for 30 bus system (increase

in load shared only by slack bus by considering Qlimit)

Algorithm

4.6.

Best

Worst

Mean

Standard
Deviation

MHPSO

0.0617

0.0234

0.0500

0.0184

DE

0.0923

0.0548

0.0613

0.0114

MDEPSO

0.0977

0.0856

0.0929

0.0048

CONCLUSION
In this chapter, DE, MHPSO and MDEPSO algorithms have been

applied to determine the maximum loadability limit of power systems. The

algorithms have been tested on six bus and IEEE 30 bus systems. The results
obtained using the evolutionary algorithms have been compared to those
obtained using continuation power flow. The evolutionary algorithms give
higher maximum loadability limit than CPF algorithm. For 6 bus system, all
the EAs give nearly the same results. MHPSO converges quickly. For 30 bus
system, compared with other evolutionary algorithms, MDEPSO gives better
result. This validates the proposed MDEPSO algorithm.