DRPT2008 6-9 April 2008 Nanjing China

Comparison of LMP Simulation Using Two DCOPF Algorithms and the ACOPF Algorithm Rui Bo, Student Member, IEEE, and Fangxing Li, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract--In this paper, a brief review is firstly presented for Locational Marginal Price (LMP) calculation using the lossless DCOPF algorithm and the FND (Fictitious Nodal Demand)based iterative DCOPF algorithm with losses considered. Also reviewed is the ACOPF model to calculate LMP. Then, a comparison of these three models is presented with the results from ACOPF as a benchmark. Simulation is performed on the PJM 5-bus system and the IEEE 30-bus test system. The results clearly show that the FND algorithm is a better estimation of the LMP calculated from the ACOPF algorithm and outperforms the conventional lossless DCOPF algorithm. This is reasonable since the FND model considers the line losses. In addition, analysis is presented to address when the different models may lead to large difference, which can be the guidelines for LMP simulation. An approximate algorithm may work well when the LMP difference resulting from approximation tends to be small. This is highly possible when all unbinding constraints are not close to their limits. On the contrary, a more accurate model is desired in the case that the approximation may potentially lead to larger errors when there is one or more constraints close to their limits. Index Terms--ACOPF, DCOPF, Energy markets, Fictitious Nodal Demand, Locational marginal pricing (LMP), Lagrangian multiplier, Marginal Units, Linear programming (LP), Optimal power flow (OPF), Power system planning, Power markets.

I. INTRODUCTION

I

N market planning and simulation, DC model is desired due to its robustness and speed [1-2]. Therefore, it gains practical application in a number of industrial tools for market simulation and planning. On the other hand, one of the challenges in LMP methodology is to address marginal loss price [3-6]. Reference [1] presents an iterative algorithm modified from conventional lossless DCOPF for LMP simulation including solving marginal loss price. It is shown that a deduction of system loss in energy balance equality constraint is necessary since the net injection multiplied by marginal delivery factor creates doubled system loss. Also, iteration is needed for the proposed DC model with losses considered, because the loss factor is dependent on generation dispatch, while generation dispatch is affected by loss factor as well. Then, a mismatch issue at the reference bus is identified and addressed with Fictitious Nodal Demand (FND) to model losses at each individual branch. Hence, the mismatch problem is eliminated as verified in a test in [1]. In the discussion below, the algorithm is referred to as the FNDbased Iterative DCOPF algorithm, or simply the FND

II. DCOPF-BASED AND ACOPF-BASED LMP CALCULATION MODELS A. Lossless DCOPF Model The generic DCOPF model without the consideration of losses can be easily modeled as the minimization of the total production cost subject to energy balance and transmission constraints. The voltage magnitudes are assumed to be unity and the reactive power is ignored. Also assumed is that there is no demand elasticity. This model may be written as a Linear Programming (LP) formulation: N

Min

∑c ×G i

30

(1)

i

i =1

s.t.

N

N

∑G = ∑ D i

i =1

Rui Bo and Fangxing Li are with Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. Contact: [email protected], +1-865-974-8401 (F. Li).

978-7-900714-13-8/08/ ©2008DRPT

algorithm. For the FND algorithm, several questions need to be answered. For instance, how accurate is the proposed FND algorithm, compared with a more exact model like AC Optimal Power Flow (ACOPF)? In which scenarios will the FND-based DCOPF algorithm give accurate results with high confidence level or otherwise? What is the main cause of such difference? To address the above questions, this paper firstly presents a brief review of the lossless DCOPF model, the FND-based iterative DCOPF algorithm, and the conventional ACOPF model, whose results are viewed as benchmark data. Then this paper presents a comparison of the LMP and generation dispatch results from the lossless DCOPF algorithm and the FND algorithm with the ACOPF-based results at different load levels. It is observed that the FND algorithm matches the results from ACOPF very closely, while the lossless DCOPF may generate bigger errors at various load levels. The results also demonstrate the effectiveness of the FND algorithm for LMP simulation. This paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces the lossless DCOPF, the FND-based DCOPF model, and the typical ACOPF model, as well as the corresponding LMP calculation method. Section III presents the test results of the DCOPF-based algorithms benchmarked with ACOPF algorithm using the PJM 5-bus system and the IEEE 30-bus system. Based on these results, some interesting observations are discussed in Section IV. Section V concludes the paper.

i

i =1

(2)

DRPT2008 6-9 April 2008 Nanjing China N

∑ GSF i =1

k −i

From the above DCOPF model, LMP can be easily decomposed to three components: marginal energy price, marginal congestion price and marginal loss price [1].

th × (Gi − Di ) ≤ Limit k for the k line (3)

Gimin ≤ Gi ≤ Gimax

(4)

where i = 1, 2, …, N; N = number of buses; k =1, 2,…, M; M= number of lines; ci = generation cost at Bus i ($/MWh); Gi = generation dispatch at Bus i (MWh); Di = demand at Bus i (MWh); GSFk-i = generation shift factor to line k from bus i; Limitk = transmission limit of line k.

N

∑c ×G i

N

∑ DF

est

i

i =1

i =1

k −i

(

)

th × Gi − Di − Eiest ≤ Limit k for the k line

Gimin ≤ Gi ≤ Gimax

(14) where LMPi= LMP at Bus i; λ = Lagrangian multiplier of Eq. (6) = energy price of the system = price at the reference bus; µk = Lagrangian multiplier of Eq. (7) = sensitivity of the kth transmission constraint. Apparently, the above LMP calculation can be applied to the lossless DCOPF model. The main difference is that the loss price is zero with the lossless DCOPF, because delivery factor at each bus is always 1.0 due to the lossless model. C. ACOPF-Based Model As a comparison, a model based on ACOPF is presented. Although this is not a typical model for market price simulation purpose due to its relatively slow speed and convergence problem in a fairly large system, it is presented here for the purposes of comparison and illustration. In general the ACOPF model can be formulated as

(6) (7)

× PGi

(15)

PGi − PLi − P(V , θ ) = 0 (Real power balance)

(16)

QGi − QLi − Q(V ,θ ) = 0 (Reactive power balance) (17) max k

Fk ≤ F min Gi

P

(Line flow MVA limits) max Gi

≤ PGi ≤ P

(Gen. real power limits)

(18) (19)

QGimin ≤ QGi ≤ QGimax (Gen. reactive power limits) (20)

(9)

Vi min ≤ Vi ≤ Vi max (Bus voltage limits)

(21)

where cGi = cost of generator Gi; PGi, QGi = real and reactive output of generator Gi; PGimin, PGimax = min and max limit of PGi; QGi min, QGimax = min and max limit of QGi; PLi, QLi = real and reactive demand of load Li; Fk, Fkmax = line flow and its maximum limit at line k; Vi min, Vi max = min and max voltage limit at bus i.

where LFi = loss factor at Bus i; Pi = net power injection at Bus i (MWh). The Fictitious Nodal Demand at Bus i is denoted by Ei . It is derived as Mi

Gi

Subject to:

Marginal Delivery Factor (DF) at the ith bus represents the amount of power that is effectively delivered to serve the load with 1MW injection at Bus i. This can be written as

E i = ∑ 12 × Fk2 × Rk

∑c

Min

(8)

where DFi = delivery factor at Bus i; Ploss = total power loss in the system (MWh); Ei = Fictitious Nodal Demand at Bus i (MWh).

∂P DFi = 1 − LFi = 1 − Loss ∂Pi

(13)

LMPi loss = λ × ( DFi − 1)

i =1

N

∑ GSF

N

est × Gi − ∑ DFi est × Di + Ploss =0

(12)

k =1

i =1

s.t.

LMP energy = λ M

(5)

i

(11)

LMPi cong = ∑ GSFk −i × µ k

B. FND-Based DCOPF Model Considering Loss To address power loss, a FND-based DCOPF model is proposed in [1]. In this model, Marginal Delivery Factor (DF) is introduced into the power balance equation to account for power loss balance. Fictitious Nodal Demand (FND) is proposed and included in power flow equations to distribute total power loss into individual transmission line. The model is shown as follows. Min

LMPi = LMP energy + LMPi cong + LMPi loss

(10)

k =1

The LMPs from the above formulation are the Lagrange multipliers of the equality constraints as shown in equation (16).

where Mi = the number of lines connected to Bus i; Fk = line flow through line k; Rk = line resistance of line k.

31

DRPT2008 6-9 April 2008 Nanjing China

III. BENCHMARKING THE FND AND LOSSLESS DCOPF ALGORITHMS WITH ACOPF-BASED ALGORITHM A. Tests Results from PJM Five-Bus System The first test system is the small, yet realistic PJM five-bus system [1-2], with slight modification on the marginal cost of the Sundance unit. The new cost is $35/MWh instead of $30/MWh to differentiate it from the Solitude unit. This change is for better illustration of the concepts and interpretation of the results. Details of the system can be found in Fig. 1 as shown below.

LMPi (1) = LMP from the lossless DCOPF algorithm or the FND algorithm; LMPi (2) = LMP from the ACOPF algorithm; Sign of MD is determined by the sign of (LMPi (1) LMPi (2)). Figure 4 depicts the Marginal Unit Difference Flag of FND-based DCOPF algorithm and Lossless DCOPF algorithm when compared with the benchmark ACOPF algorithm. At any load level within the investigated load range, when the DC algorithm gives the same marginal unit set as the benchmark ACOPF algorithm does, the Marginal Unit Difference Flag is set to zero; and one otherwise. The MD and AD of the generation dispatch, defined similarly to those for LMP in Eqs. (22-23), are also presented in Figures 5 and 6.

LMP Max Difference (%)

LMP Max Difference vs. Loading Level

Fig. 1. The Base Case of the PJM Five-Bus Example.

100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

1.30

Loading Level (p.u. of base load)

 LMPi (1) − LMPi ( 2 )  × 100  MDLMP (%) = ± max  (2) i∈{1, 2,..., N } LMP  i  N

∑ AD LMP (%) =

i =1

LMPi (1) − LMPi ( 2 ) × 100 LMPi ( 2) N

(22)

(23)

where 32

Lossless DCOPF

FND-based Iterative DCOPF

Fig. 2. The Maximum Difference of LMP in Percentage between each DCOPF algorithm and the ACOPF for the PJM 5-bus system. LMP Avg. Difference vs. Loading Level 35 LMP Avg. Difference (%)

In the ACOPF run, all loads are assumed to have 0.95 lagging power factors. The generators are assumed to have a reactive power limit of 150 MVar capacitive to 150 MVar inductive. This is selected such that reactive power will not be a limiting issue. LMP calculations are performed using the lossless DCOPF algorithm, the FND-based Iterative DCOPF algorithm, and the ACOPF algorithm. The LMP results from the two DCOPF algorithms are benchmarked with the ACOPF under various load levels from 1.0 per unit to 1.3 per unit of the base case load (=900MWh). Tests are performed with step size of 0.0025 p.u. load increase. All bus loads are varied proportionally and the same power factor is kept at each bus (for the ACOPF case). Test results show that the FND algorithm quickly converges in 4-5 iterations for the PJM 5bus case even if a low tolerance of 0.001 MW is applied for high accuracy. Figures 2 and 3 plot the maximum difference (MD) and the average difference (AD) of nodal LMPs of the two models compared with benchmark data. The MD and the AD of LMP at a given load level are defined in (22) and (23), respectively.

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

1.30

Loading Level (p.u. of base load) Lossless DCOPF

FND-based Iterative DCOPF

Fig. 3. The Average Difference of LMP in Percentage between each DCOPF algorithm and ACOPF for the PJM 5-bus system.

DRPT2008 6-9 April 2008 Nanjing China

Marginal Unit Difference Flag vs. Loading Level Marginal Unit Difference Flag

1

0 1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

1.30

Loading Level (p.u. of base load) Lossless DCOPF

FND-based Iterative DCOPF

Fig. 4. Marginal Unit Difference Flag of each DCOPF algorithm when compared with the benchmark ACOPF for the PJM 5-bus system. Fig. 7. The Network Topology of the IEEE 30-Bus System. Generation Max Difference vs. Loading Level

Figs. 8-9 and 11-12 show the Maximum Difference and Average Difference of LMP and generation dispatch between each of the two DCOPF algorithms and the ACOPF algorithm. Figure 10 shows the Marginal Unit Difference Flag of the two algorithms when compared with the benchmark ACOPF algorithm. Similar observation can be made that the FND algorithm performs better than lossless DCOPF and is a very good approximation of ACOPF algorithm for load levels [0.70, 1.16] and [1.22, 1.30]. Nevertheless, neither FND nor lossless DCOPF algorithm can identify the same marginal units as the ACOPF algorithm for load levels [1.16, 1.22]. This is reasonable since DCOPF algorithms are based on the DC model assumptions and approximations. In general, the FND-based DCOPF greatly outperforms the lossless DCOPF.

Generation Max. Difference (%)

150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

1.30

Loading Level (p.u. of base load)

Lossless DCOPF

FND-based DCOPF Iterative

Fig. 5. The Maximum Difference of Generation Dispatch between each DCOPF algorithm and the ACOPF for the PJM 5-bus system. Ge neration Av g. Diffe re nce vs. Loading Le ve l

LMP Max. Difference vs. Loading Level

20

10

15

-10

LMP Max. Difference (%)

0

10

5

0 1.00

-20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

1.30

-80 0.70

Loading Level

Lossless DCOPF

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

Loading Level (p.u. of Base Load)

FND-based Iterative DCOPF

Lossless DCOPF

Fig. 6. The Average Difference of Generation Dispatch between each DCOPF algorithm and ACOPF for the PJM 5-bus system.

B. Tests Results from the IEEE 30-Bus System The second test system is the IEEE 30-Bus test system, as illustrated in Fig. 7. More details of the system data are available in [8]. The bidding prices of the 6 generators are assumed here to be 10, 15, 30, 35, 40 and 45, respectively, all in $/MWh. The branch susceptances and the transformer tap ratios are all ignored for simplicity. To make the ACOPF converge beyond the load level 1.05 per unit of the base-case load, network data is slightly modified: 1) load power factor is kept at 0.95 lagging as load increases; and 2) the transmission limit of line 6-8 is increased by 10%. Test results show that the FND algorithm converges in about 5 iterations for this system even if a low tolerance 0.001MW is applied for high accuracy. 33

FND-based Iterative DCOPF

Fig. 8. The Maximum Difference of LMP between each DCOPF algorithm and ACOPF for the IEEE 30-bus system. LMP Av g. Diffe rence v s. Loading Lev el

60

LMP Avg. Difference (%)

Generation Avg. Difference (%)

25

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

Loading Level (p.u. of Base Load)

Lossless DCOPF

FND-based Iterative DCOPF

Fig. 9. Average Difference of LMP between each DCOPF algorithm and ACOPF for the IEEE 30-bus system.

DRPT2008 6-9 April 2008 Nanjing China

FND algorithm are very close to the ACOPF LMP results with exceptions at only two particular load levels: 1.0900 and 1.1925 per unit of the base load. As a comparison, the LMP from the lossless DCOPF produces significant errors at two bands of load levels, i.e., [1.0900, 1.1125] and [1.1625, 1.1925]. Similar observations can be found in generation scheduling. Since the lossless DCOPF ignores the line loss and power loss does affect the LMP and generation scheduling, it is not surprising that it performs much more poorly than the FND-based Iterative DCOPF algorithm. Similar observations can be found for the IEEE 30-bus system as shown in Figs. 8-9.

Marginal Unit Difference Flag vs. Loading Level

Marginal Unit Difference Flag

1

0 0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

Loading Level (p.u. of Base Load)

Lossless DCOPF

FND-based Iterative DCOPF

B. Occurrence of significant LMP Difference between DCOPF and ACOPF The occurrence of the significant LMP difference between DC model and AC model is due to the different set of identified marginal units, as can be seen from Figs. 2-3 and Figure 4 in the PJM 5-bus system, and Figs 8-9 and Figure 10 in the IEEE 30-bus system, respectively. In the PJM 5-bus system for instance, the load range of significant LMP difference always lines up with the load range of different marginal unit set. On the other side, at the load level where the marginal unit set is the same between DCOPF and ACOPF, the LMP difference is inconsiderable, since the LMP at any bus is either equal to the marginal unit price at that bus, or determined by all marginal unit cost/bidding. For example, when the load level is 1.09 per unit of the base load, the dispatch results are shown in Table 1. With the ACOPF model, the marginal units are Sundance and Brighton. However, in the FND-based Iterative DCOPF, the Brighton unit, which is dispatched extremely close to but not at its maximum capacity as in ACOPF, is now dispatched at its maximum capacity. In addition, the Solitude is dispatched at a very small amount of generation. So, the marginal units for FND algorithm are Sundance and Solitude. Therefore, the different marginal units lead to the LMP difference because they determine the overall trend of the LMP. In this case, the generation cost difference between Sundance and Brighton is relatively big, i.e., ($30-$10)/MWh = $20/MWh. This leads to the considerable MD (80%) between the FND algorithm and the ACOPF algorithm at 1.0900 load level, as shown in Fig. 2. However, once the DCOPF identifies the same marginal units as ACOPF at load level such as 1.0925 p.u., the LMPs will be very close.

Fig. 10. Marginal Unit Difference Flag of each DCOPF algorithm when compared with the benchmark ACOPF for the IEEE 30-bus system. Generation Max. Difference vs. Loading Level Generation Max. Difference (%)

60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

Loading Level (p.u. of Base Load) Lossless DCOPF

FND-based Iterative DCOPF

Fig. 11. The Maximum Difference of Generation Dispatch between each DCOPF algorithm and ACOPF for the IEEE 30-bus system. Generation Avg. Difference vs. Loading Level

Generation Avg. Difference (%)

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

Loading Level (p.u. of Base Load)

Lossless DCOPF

FND-based Iterative DCOPF

Fig. 12. The Average Difference of Generation Dispatch between each DCOPF algorithm and ACOPF for the IEEE 30-bus system.

Table 1. The Generation Dispatch Results from DCOPF and ACOPF at load level 1.09 p.u..

IV. DISCUSSION ON THE SIMULATION RESULTS

Max. Cap Cost FND-based ACOPF (MW) ($/MWh) DCOPF Alta 110 14 110.00 110.00 Park City 100 15 100.00 100.00 Solitude 520 30 0.00 0.49 Sundance 200 35 180.39 179.94 Brighton 600 10 600.00 599.79 Total 990.88 989.72 Marginal Units (with Dispatch Amount in Bold Font): FND-based DCOPF – Solitude and Sundance ACOPF – Sundance and Brighton.

A. Effects of power loss on LMP and generation dispatch Taking the PJM 5-bus system as an example, LMP from the lossless DCOPF algorithm closely matches ACOPF results for 82% of all the studied load levels, as shown in Figs. 2-3. This is consistent with the results reported in [7]. However, the lossless DCOPF causes some significant errors at the other 18% load levels. The FND algorithm outperforms the lossless DCOPF algorithm in terms of accuracy of LMP as well as generation scheduling. For example, the LMP results from 34

DRPT2008 6-9 April 2008 Nanjing China

This observation has practical implication for real systems. For a system consisting of generation center with abundant low-cost generation resources and load center with expensive generators, when the units in the low-cost, net-exporting area are approaching their maximum capacity, it is very likely that the difference between DCOPF and ACOPF may lead to significant price difference because the two approaches may give different set of marginal units. Special care such as verification with AC model may be necessary for system planners if DC model is the primary approach. Moreover, the reason of different marginal unit sets identified by DCOPF model and ACOPF model lies in the natural difference between DC model and AC model. Since DC model linearizes the network by setting the voltage magnitude to unity and ignoring the reactive power, there must be some difference in the power flow calculation, which causes the different marginal units and hence affects LMP at many buses at some particular load level. C. Generation Dispatch Difference As for the generation dispatch results shown in Figs. 5 and 6, the results from FND algorithm are very close to those from ACOPF algorithm for most cases except the load levels between 1.09 to 1.10. Actually, the difference is not as big as it looks because Figs. 5 and 6 show relative difference, which sometimes amplifies the facts. For instance, when a unit is dispatched as a small value, e.g. 0.5MWh in ACOPF, the difference percentage is as big as 100% when FND gives 1.0MWh. In this case, the large relative difference is not so surprising as it appears. In addition, large dispatch difference does not necessarily correspond to large LMP difference. For example, although the generation output is quite different at load levels [1.23, 1.30] compared to benchmark data in the IEEE 30-bus system, as observed in Figs. 8-12, LMPs at these load levels are still very close. In fact, as long as the significant generation difference occurs at load levels where the marginal unit set identified by FND algorithm is the same as that by ACOPF, LMP may not be noteworthily different. V. CONCLUSIONS This paper presents a comparison of LMP results from the lossless DCOPF, the FND-based DCOPF, and the ACOPF algorithms. The results indicate that FND-based Iterative DCOPF gives much better results than lossless DCOPF and represents a better approximation of ACOPF LMP. In terms of error estimation for approximation approaches, change of marginal unit set is a reliable rule of thumb. When the marginal unit set remains the same as load varies, the approximation methods such as FND-based DCOPF algorithm give very close results to the benchmark data obtained from the ACOPF model. However, when there is a change of marginal units, or, some system component such as transmission line or generator, is reaching its limit, the LMP difference is likely to be large. Furthermore, the occurrence of

35

significant LMP difference does not necessarily coincide with the appearance of large difference of generation dispatch. Further investigations are necessary to find out an efficient correction or modification of the DCOPF-based algorithm under the scenario when a considerable LMP error may occur due to the linearization in DC model. VI. REFERENCES [1]

Fangxing Li and Rui Bo, “DCOPF-Based LMP Simulation: Algorithm, Comparison with ACOPF, and Sensitivity,” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1475-1485, November 2007.

[2]

PJM Training Materials: LMP 101, PJM.

[3]

S. Stoft, Power System Economics – Designing Markets for Electricity, IEEE and John Willey Publication, 2002.

[4]

M. Shahidehpour, H. Yamin, and Z. Li, Market Operations in Electric Power Systems, Wiley-Interscience, 2002.

[5]

E. Litvinov, T. Zheng, G. Rosenwald, and P. Shamsollahi, “Marginal Loss Modeling in LMP Calculation,” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 880-888, May 2004.

[6]

Fangxing Li, Jiuping Pan and Henry Chao, “Marginal Loss Calculation in Competitive Electrical Energy Markets,” Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation, Restructuring and Power Technologies, 2004 (DRPT 2004), vol. 1, pp. 205-209.

[7]

T. Overbye, X. Cheng, and Y. Sun, “A Comparison of the AC and DC Power Flow Models for LMP Calculations,” Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004.

[8]

R. D. Zimmerman, C. E. Murillo-Sánchez, D. Gan, MatPower – A Matlab Power System Simulation Package, School of Electrical Engineering, Cornell University, http://www.pserc.cornell.edu/matpower/matpower.html.

VII. BIOGRAPHIES Rui Bo (S’02) received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in electric power engineering from Southeast University of China in 2000 and 2003, respectively. He had worked at ZTE Corporation and Shenzhen Cermate Inc. from 2003 to 2005. He started his Ph.D. program at The University of Tennessee in January 2006. His interests include power system operation and planning, power system economics and market simulation. Fangxing (Fran) Li (M’01, SM’05) received the Ph.D. degree from Virginia Tech in 2001. He has been an Assistant Professor at The University of Tennessee since August 2005. Prior to joining UT, he worked at ABB, Raleigh, NC, as a senior and then a principal engineer for four and a half years. During his employment at ABB, he had been the lead developer of GridViewTM, ABB’s market simulation tool. His other interests include reactive power, distributed energy resources, and reliability. Dr. Li is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina.

Comparison of LMP Simulation Using Two DCOPF Algorithms and the ...

LMP calculated from the ACOPF algorithm and outperforms the conventional lossless DCOPF algorithm. This is reasonable since the FND model considers the ...

506KB Sizes 0 Downloads 278 Views

Recommend Documents

Comparison of Symmetric Key Encryption Algorithms - IJRIT
In this paper we provides a comparison between most common symmetric key cryptography algorithms: DES, AES, RC2, ... Today it becomes very essential to protect data and database mostly in e-transaction. The information has .... For most applications,

Spike detection: a review and comparison of algorithms
Persyst Development Corporation, 1060 Sandretto Drive, Suite E-2, Prescott, AZ 86305, USA ... Data requirements neces- sary for an .... use these attributes to classify events as spike or non-spike. .... good, in reality they may not be meaningful be

scmamp: Statistical Comparison of Multiple Algorithms ... - The R Journal
files. Depending on how the experimentation is conducted, we may end up with a number of files, .... Department of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence.

Development and Numerical Simulation of Algorithms ...
Development and Numerical Simulation of. Algorithms to the Computational Resolution of. Ordinary Differential Equations. Leniel Braz de Oliveira Macaferi. 1.

Design and Simulation of Adaptive Filtering Algorithms for Active ...
Keywords: Adaptive Filter, LMS Algorithm, Active Noise cancellation, MSE, .... The anti-noise generated corresponding to the white noise is as shown below,.

Comparison of Algorithms to Enhance Spicules of ...
breast, computer-aided diagnosis (CAD), algorithms, mammography ... Computer-aided detection ..... study. Finally, we appreciate the technical support in the.

Comparison of Two Approaches to Structured Physical ...
edge, there are no published reports comparing the reliabil- ity and validity of these ... additional queries on TV/video game/computer use. The .... Pearson product-moment correlation. ..... the youth are meeting recommended guidelines of 60.

Comparison of Voice Activity Detection Algorithms for ...
circuit-switched networks is considerably less. However, these networks do not guarantee faithful voice transmission. Voice over packet or Voice over IP (VoIP).