IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v12y2019i24p4769-d297799.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fault Current Constraint Transmission Expansion Planning Based on the Inverse Matrix Modification Lemma and a Valid Inequality

Author

Listed:
  • Sungwoo Lee

    (Korea Power Exchange, Jeollanam-do 58322, Korea)

  • Hyoungtae Kim

    (Korea Power Exchange, Jeollanam-do 58322, Korea)

  • Tae Hyun Kim

    (Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Korea)

  • Hansol Shin

    (Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Korea)

  • Wook Kim

    (Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Korea)

Abstract

In the transmission expansion planning (TEP) problem, it is challenging to consider a fault current level constraint due to the time-consuming update process of the bus impedance matrix, which is required to calculate the fault currents during the search for the optimal solution. In the existing studies, either a nonlinear update equation or its linearized version is used to calculate the updated bus impedance matrix. In the former case, there is a problem in that the mathematical formulation is derived in the form of mixed-integer nonlinear programming. In the latter case, there is a problem in that an error due to the linearization may exist and the change of fault currents in other buses that are not connected to the new transmission lines cannot be detected. In this paper, we use a method to obtain the exact updated bus impedance matrix directly from the inversion of the bus admittance matrix. We propose a novel method based on the inverse matrix modification lemma (IMML) and a valid inequality is proposed to find a better solution to the TEP problem with fault current level constraint. The proposed method is applied to the IEEE two-area reliability test system with 96 buses to verify the performance and effectiveness of the proposed method and we compare the results with the existing methods. Simulation results show that the existing TEP method based on impedance matrix modification method violates the fault current level constraint in some buses, while the proposed method satisfies the constraint in all buses in a reasonable computation time.

Suggested Citation

  • Sungwoo Lee & Hyoungtae Kim & Tae Hyun Kim & Hansol Shin & Wook Kim, 2019. "Fault Current Constraint Transmission Expansion Planning Based on the Inverse Matrix Modification Lemma and a Valid Inequality," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-17, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:24:p:4769-:d:297799
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/24/4769/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/24/4769/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jack Brimberg & Pierre Hansen & Keh-Wei Lin & Nenad Mladenović & MichÈle Breton, 2003. "An Oil Pipeline Design Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 51(2), pages 228-239, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wang, Meng & Yu, Hang & Yang, Yikun & Lin, Xiaoyu & Guo, Haijin & Li, Chaoen & Zhou, Yue & Jing, Rui, 2021. "Unlocking emerging impacts of carbon tax on integrated energy systems through supply and demand co-optimization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 302(C).
    2. Arthur K. Barnes & Jose E. Tabarez & Adam Mate & Russell W. Bent, 2021. "Optimization-Based Formulations for Short-Circuit Studies with Inverter-Interfaced Generation in PowerModelsProtection.jl," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-27, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cazzaro, Davide & Fischetti, Martina & Fischetti, Matteo, 2020. "Heuristic algorithms for the Wind Farm Cable Routing problem," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    2. Massol, Olivier & Banal-Estañol, Albert, 2014. "Export diversification through resource-based industrialization: The case of natural gas," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 1067-1082.
    3. Massol, Olivier & Tchung-Ming, Stéphane & Banal-Estañol, Albert, 2015. "Joining the CCS club! The economics of CO2 pipeline projects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 247(1), pages 259-275.
    4. Pierre Hansen & Nenad Mladenović & José Moreno Pérez, 2010. "Variable neighbourhood search: methods and applications," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 367-407, March.
    5. Jean André & Stéphane Auray & Daniel de Wolf & Mohamed-Mahmoud Memmah & Antoine Simonnet, 2014. "Time development of new hydrogen transmission pipeline networks for France," Post-Print halshs-02396799, HAL.
    6. André, Jean & Auray, Stéphane & Brac, Jean & De Wolf, Daniel & Maisonnier, Guy & Ould-Sidi, Mohamed-Mahmoud & Simonnet, Antoine, 2013. "Design and dimensioning of hydrogen transmission pipeline networks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(1), pages 239-251.
    7. Christopher Yeates & Cornelia Schmidt-Hattenberger & Wolfgang Weinzierl & David Bruhn, 2021. "Heuristic Methods for Minimum-Cost Pipeline Network Design – a Node Valency Transfer Metaheuristic," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 839-871, December.
    8. Michael Bussieck & Alexander Meeraus, 2007. "Algebraic modeling for IP and MIP (GAMS)," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 149(1), pages 49-56, February.
    9. Thapalia, Biju K. & Crainic, Teodor Gabriel & Kaut, Michal & Wallace, Stein W., 2012. "Single-commodity network design with random edge capacities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 394-403.
    10. Martina Fischetti & Matteo Fischetti, 2023. "Integrated Layout and Cable Routing in Wind Farm Optimal Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 2147-2164, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:24:p:4769-:d:297799. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.