4.7 Article

Risk-Based Distributionally Robust Optima Power Flow With Dynamic Line Rating

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
Volume 33, Issue 6, Pages 6074-6086

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2844356

Keywords

Dynamic line rating; optimal power flow; distributionally robust optimization; risk; Wasserstein distance

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51725702, 51627811]
  2. 111 Project [B08013]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018MS002]
  4. National Science Foundation [1745451]
  5. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
  6. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  7. Directorate For Engineering [1745451] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, we propose a risk-based data-driven distributionally robust approach to investigating the optimal power flow with dynamic line rating. The risk terms, including penalties for load shedding, wind generation curtailment and line overload, are embedded into the objective function. To robustify the solution, we consider a distributional uncertainty set based on the secondorder moment, that captures the correlation between wind generation outputs and line ratings, and also the Wasserstein distance, that hedges against data perturbations. We show that the proposed model can be reformulated as a convex conic program. Approximations of the proposed model are suggested, which leads to a significant reduction of the number of the constraints. For practical large-scale test systems, a distributionally robust optimal power flow model with Wasserstein-distance-based distributional uncertainty set and its convex reformulation are also provided. Simulation results on the 5-bus, the IEEE 118-bus and the Polish 2736-bus test systems validate the effectiveness of the proposed models.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available