2018
DOI: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2018.5633
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of combined Runge–Kutta Broyden's load flow approach for well‐ and ill‐conditioned power systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

4
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since the factorization of the Jacobian matrix could be considered the heaviest computational part of a PF solver [10], one could deduce that the technique developed in [10] is four-times less efficient than NR. To address such issue, the authors developed a combined Runge-Kutta-Broyden paradigm in [20], which avoids the factorization of the Jacobian matrix. However, this calculation is replaced by the inversion of the Jacobian, which is unaffordable in large-scale systems.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the factorization of the Jacobian matrix could be considered the heaviest computational part of a PF solver [10], one could deduce that the technique developed in [10] is four-times less efficient than NR. To address such issue, the authors developed a combined Runge-Kutta-Broyden paradigm in [20], which avoids the factorization of the Jacobian matrix. However, this calculation is replaced by the inversion of the Jacobian, which is unaffordable in large-scale systems.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the basis of this analogy, any numerical integration method can be considered for developing robust PF solution techniques. The authors have exploited this idea in several references [13]- [15]. In addition, the Implicit counterpart of the Continuous Newton's method has been proposed for PF analysis in [16].…”
Section: B Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…). Algorithm 2 is well-defined and, for any starting point 0 ∈ Ω, it either terminates finitely with an iterate k satisfying 0 ∈ m( k ) + N Ω ( k ) or generates an infinite sequence { k } and any accumulation point ⋆ of this sequence satisfies (12). Additionally, if { k } is a subsequence of { k } converging to ⋆ , then Δ( k ) → 0 as k → ∞.…”
Section: Theorem 1 ([22]mentioning
confidence: 99%