American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

Advanced
July  2007, 3(3): 553-567. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2007.3.553

A semismooth Newton method for solving optimal power flow

Xiaojiao Tong 1, , Felix F. Wu 2, , Yongping Zhang 3, , Zheng Yan 4, and  Yixin Ni 1,

1. 

College of Electrical and Information Engineering, Changsha University of Science and Technology, China, China
2. 

Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
3. 

Tsinghua University, China
4. 

Shangsha Jiao Tong University, China

Received  September 2006 Revised  April 2007 Published  July 2007

In this paper, we present some new optimization approaches to solve optimal power flow (OPF) problems. By using a so-called Nonlinear Complementarity Problem (NCP) function, the optimality condition (KKT system) of the original optimization problem is reformulated into a set of nonsmooth equations. The advantage of the new reformulation lies in that the inequality constraints are transformed into equations. The semismooth Newton-type method is applied to solve the reformulated equations. Moreover, we present a decoupled semismooth Newton method according to the inherent weak-coupling characteristics of power systems. The convergence of the new methods, especially for the decoupled method, are established. Numerical examples of both OPF and available transfer capability (ATC) problems demonstrate that the new algorithms are effective.
Keywords: semismooth Newton method, Available Transfer Capability (ATC), Optimal Power Flow (OPF), decoupled semismooth Newton method., KKT system.
Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 65K05, 65K10, 90C9.
Citation: Xiaojiao Tong, Felix F. Wu, Yongping Zhang, Zheng Yan, Yixin Ni. A semismooth Newton method for solving optimal power flow. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2007, 3 (3) : 553-567. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2007.3.553
[1]

Min Li. A three term Polak-Ribière-Polyak conjugate gradient method close to the memoryless BFGS quasi-Newton method. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (1) : 245-260. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018149
[2]

Lunji Song, Wenya Qi, Kaifang Liu, Qingxian Gu. A new over-penalized weak galerkin finite element method. Part Ⅱ: Elliptic interface problems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (5) : 2581-2598. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020196
[3]

Kaifang Liu, Lunji Song, Shan Zhao. A new over-penalized weak galerkin method. Part Ⅰ: Second-order elliptic problems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (5) : 2411-2428. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020184
[4]

Armin Lechleiter, Tobias Rienmüller. Factorization method for the inverse Stokes problem. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2013, 7 (4) : 1271-1293. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2013.7.1271
[5]

Qiang Guo, Dong Liang. An adaptive wavelet method and its analysis for parabolic equations. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2013, 3 (2) : 327-345. doi: 10.3934/naco.2013.3.327
[6]

Tao Wu, Yu Lei, Jiao Shi, Maoguo Gong. An evolutionary multiobjective method for low-rank and sparse matrix decomposition. Big Data & Information Analytics, 2017, 2 (1) : 23-37. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017006
[7]

Deren Han, Zehui Jia, Yongzhong Song, David Z. W. Wang. An efficient projection method for nonlinear inverse problems with sparsity constraints. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2016, 10 (3) : 689-709. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2016017
[8]

Boris Kramer, John R. Singler. A POD projection method for large-scale algebraic Riccati equations. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2016, 6 (4) : 413-435. doi: 10.3934/naco.2016018
[9]

Petra Csomós, Hermann Mena. Fourier-splitting method for solving hyperbolic LQR problems. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2018, 8 (1) : 17-46. doi: 10.3934/naco.2018002
[10]

Christina Surulescu, Nicolae Surulescu. Modeling and simulation of some cell dispersion problems by a nonparametric method. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2011, 8 (2) : 263-277. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2011.8.263
[11]

Jiangxing Wang. Convergence analysis of an accurate and efficient method for nonlinear Maxwell's equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (5) : 2429-2440. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020185
[12]

Manfred Einsiedler, Elon Lindenstrauss. On measures invariant under diagonalizable actions: the Rank-One case and the general Low-Entropy method. Journal of Modern Dynamics, 2008, 2 (1) : 83-128. doi: 10.3934/jmd.2008.2.83
[13]

Xiaomao Deng, Xiao-Chuan Cai, Jun Zou. A parallel space-time domain decomposition method for unsteady source inversion problems. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2015, 9 (4) : 1069-1091. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2015.9.1069
[14]

Marion Darbas, Jérémy Heleine, Stephanie Lohrengel. Numerical resolution by the quasi-reversibility method of a data completion problem for Maxwell's equations. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2020, 14 (6) : 1107-1133. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020056
[15]

Mohsen Abdolhosseinzadeh, Mir Mohammad Alipour. Design of experiment for tuning parameters of an ant colony optimization method for the constrained shortest Hamiltonian path problem in the grid networks. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (2) : 321-332. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020028
[16]

Shu-Yu Hsu. Existence and properties of ancient solutions of the Yamabe flow. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2018, 38 (1) : 91-129. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2018005
[17]

Matthias Erbar, Jan Maas. Gradient flow structures for discrete porous medium equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2014, 34 (4) : 1355-1374. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2014.34.1355
[18]

Yila Bai, Haiqing Zhao, Xu Zhang, Enmin Feng, Zhijun Li. The model of heat transfer of the arctic snow-ice layer in summer and numerical simulation. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2005, 1 (3) : 405-414. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2005.1.405
[19]

Feng Luo. A combinatorial curvature flow for compact 3-manifolds with boundary. Electronic Research Announcements, 2005, 11: 12-20.

[20]

Y. Latushkin, B. Layton. The optimal gap condition for invariant manifolds. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 1999, 5 (2) : 233-268. doi: 10.3934/dcds.1999.5.233

2019 Impact Factor: 1.366

Tools

Metrics

  • PDF downloads (50)
  • HTML views (0)
  • Cited by (3)

Other articles
by authors

[Back to Top]

Copyright © 2021 American Institute of Mathematical Sciences