Verification of Linear Flexibility Range Assessment in Distribution Grids

Contreras, Daniel; Rudion, Krzysztof

doi:10.1109/ptc.2019.8810542

Cited by 7 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although slight differences can be observed between the Rademacher and beta PDF, both approaches do help improving the quality of the RS method, proving to be valid solutions to the concerns raised in [15], and supports the reasoning behind [5] and [7]. This demonstration is valid only for rectangular FPU limits, for which a comparison to an OPF method was already provided in [23]. Furthermore, this type of PDF is not trivial to construct for non-regular polygons, requiring the development of additional methods for their production, as is described in Section 4.…”

Section: Bivariate Pdf To Select Random Samplessupporting

confidence: 62%

“…The OPF-based methods are clearly the best option when it comes to assess the FOR in grid with a larger number of buses or with plenty of flexible assets. The main conclusion is that OPF-based algorithms are more able to provide a good approximation to the "real" FOR of an ADN, compared to RS-methods, which tend to underestimate it, adding additional insight to the findings in [15] and [23].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In [23], a bivariate beta PDF was proposed for the random selection of FPU set points. This allowed increasing the size of the assessed FOR, as more IPF defined by extreme load and generation states of FPU could be obtained, partially solving an issue raised in [15].…”

Section: Bivariate Pdf To Select Random Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The European CIGRE test-bench MV grid of [48] is used to compare all the proposed PDF for the random sampling approach. This section proposes a follow-up to the analysis initiated in [23], which focused solely on the application of the beta PDF. A single-line diagram of the grid model is shown in Figure 9.…”

Section: -Bus Grid Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Results showed that a beta PDF helps enhancing the area of the assessed FOR compared to using a traditional uniform PDF, resulting in an FOR comparable to the LFA method of [1]. The main result of [23] is that both, OPF and RS methods, could assess the FOR in a similar way, yet the analogy is only valid for rectangular FPU boundaries and for a small radial grid (cf. [24][25][26]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Computing the feasible operating region of active distribution networks: Comparison and validation of random sampling and optimal power flow based methods

Contreras

Rudion

2021

IET Generation Trans & Dist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The feasible operating region (FOR) indicates the operation points that an active distribution network can achieve at the interconnection point with the transmission grid when operating flexible assets within it; without disturbing the stability of the grid itself. Even though the concept is not new, many novel methods to compute the FOR efficiently have been proposed in recent years, resulting in two main schools of thought: random sampling (RS) and optimal power flow (OPF) methods. Both approaches have their merits, yet no wide‐ranging analysis regarding scenarios in which each method could be best applied has been done so far. This paper focuses on performing such a comparison; however, capability charts of flexibility providing units and grids are usually modelled as irregular convex polygons, requiring some adaptation of the RS‐methods to allow for a proper comparison of the resulting feasible operating region. Correspondingly, new methods to adapt the extraction of random samples from generic capability charts are proposed in the paper. Using models of two radial distribution grids, both OPF‐ and RS‐based methods are compared and validated. Results show that RS methods are adequate for assessing small grids, especially with the proposed improvements, while OPF‐based methods excel in larger grids.

show abstract

Section: Bivariate Pdf To Select Random Samplessupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%