Please see CASEFORMAT for details on the case file format.
This data was converted from IEEE Common Data Format
(ieee118cdf.txt) on 20-Sep-2004 by cdf2matp, rev. 1.11
See end of file for warnings generated during conversion.
Converted from IEEE CDF file from:
https://labs.ece.uw.edu/pstca/
With baseKV data take from the PSAP format file from the same site,
added manually on 10-Mar-2006.
08/25/93 UW ARCHIVE 100.0 1961 W IEEE 118 Bus Test Case
Updates: Sep 15'2010 by CM and CZ. Buses grouped on four areas;
Branch thermal limits incorporated based on: KV level, same
cable, and safe security factor (assuming bundled config on 345KV
and double circuit on 161 and 138KV lines).
Transformer capacity for 9 units also set.
Split data for parallel lines that initially had aggregated params
RAMP_AGC,RAMP_10 & RAMP_30 set to 20% of PMAX for each generator
function change of name to c118
Aug 13'2012 by CM and DM.
The 118-bus test system was modified in order to allow the
loading factor to be considerably increased without compromising
the feasibility of the system. The procedure followed is
described here.
First, all the synchronous capacitors were removed from the
system in order to decrease the size of the model. Those were
initially 22 generators. Two of them were added again (generators
at buses 110 and 104) because there are currently hydro
generators close to the geographic locations where the
synchronous capacitors were located originally. This overall
retirement yielded a base case consisting of 34 generators, that
is the original 54 generators minus 20 synchronous generators
retired.
Second, the set of relevant contingencies was chosen from all
possible contingencies. The generator contingencies selected were
those of generators located at buses 10, 80, and 89. The branch
contingencies selected were those of branches located between
buses 17-30, 30-38, and 5-11. Those contingencies showed to have
important impact over the system when using a dispatch deviation
criterion. The criterion was applied using both DC and AC
versions of the OPF.
Third, the loading factor range was obtained for the set of
contingencies for both the DC and AC versions of the model. For
the DC case, all the loading factors of the base case (no
contingencies) and all the contingencies were above 1.6. For the
AC case, however, the loading factor of the base case was around
1.3, and even worse, the loading factor of the worst contingency
was around 1.1. Since similar loading factor conditions were
desired for both DC and AC cases, some changes or upgrades were
required.
In the AC base case there were voltage problems in buses 70
and 76, and that was causing the system to become infeasible when
exceeding a loading factor of 1.3. Apparently, there was not
enough reactive power to be dispatched in that zone since all the
synchronous capacitors were removed. Hence, two synchronous
capacitors were added in that particular zone, namely generators
at buses 76 and 77. Additionally, the reactive power limits of the
generator at bus 77 were increased from [-20, 70] MVar to [-50,
330] MVar in order to obtain a loading factor above 1.6 for the
base case.
Furthermore, in the case under the contingency of the generator at
bus 10, again with the AC case, the loading factor was the one
close to 1.1. To improve that factor, the synchronous capacitor
at bus 6 was added and its reactive power limits increased from
[-13, 50] MVar to [-50, 250] MVar. With these changes, the
voltage level deficiencies at bus 6 were solved, at least for
loading factors up to 1.5. Beyond this loading factor it gets
more difficult to improve it without resorting to the addition of
more synchronous generators. Therefore, the maximum loading
factor for the AC case was defined to be 1.5 whereas for the DC
case it was defined to be 1.6.