DeepOPF: A Feasibility-Optimized Deep Neural Network Approach for AC Optimal Power Flow Problems
DeepOPF: A Feasibility-Optimized Deep Neural Network Approach for AC Optimal Power Flow Problems
复制标题
DeepOPF:一种可行性优化的深度神经网络方法用于交流最优潮流问题
DOI:
10.1109/jsyst.2022.3201041
复制
发表时间:
2020-07
影响因子:
4.4
通讯作者:
Xiang Pan;Minghua Chen;Tianyu Zhao;S. Low
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Xiang Pan;Minghua Chen;Tianyu Zhao;S. Low
To cope with increasing uncertainty from renewable generation and flexible load, grid operators need to solve alternative current optimal power flow (AC-OPF) problems more frequently for efficient and reliable operation. In this article, we develop a deep neural network (DNN) approach, called DeepOPF, for solving AC-OPF problems in a fraction of the time used by conventional iterative solvers. A key difficulty for applying machine learning techniques for solving AC-OPF problems lies in ensuring that the obtained solutions respect the equality and inequality physical and operational constraints. Generalized a prediction-and-reconstruction procedure in our previous studies, DeepOPF first trains a DNN model to predict a set of independent operating variables and then directly compute the remaining ones by solving the power flow equations. Such an approach not only preserves the power-flow balance equality constraints but also reduces the number of variables to be predicted by the DNN, cutting down the number of neurons and training data needed. DeepOPF then employs a penalty approach with a zero-order gradient estimation technique in the training process toward guaranteeing the inequality constraints. We also drive a condition for tuning the DNN size according to the desired approximation accuracy, which measures its generalization capability. It provides theoretical justification for using DNN to solve AC-OPF problems. Simulation results for IEEE 30/118/300-bus and a synthetic 2000-bus test cases demonstrate the effectiveness of the penalty approach. They also show that DeepOPF speeds up the computing time by up to two orders of magnitude as compared to a state-of-the-art iterative solver, at the expense of $< $0.2% cost difference.