Article title: Reduction of a Real Power System: Turkish Transmission System Case
Authors: Yeşil, M., & Irmak, E.
Journal: Electric Power Components and Systems
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15325008.2024.2311340
In the originally published version of this manuscript, the author has requested to revise the below percentage values.
Therefore, page 10, second paragraph should read as “Table 1 provides a comparison between the original system and the proposed reduced REI model [1]. As shown, the number of busbars has been reduced by 52% in the proposed model compared to the IEEE-39 bus system. The number of lines, generators, and load models has also been reduced by 71%, 40%, and 42%, respectively.”
On page 11, first paragraph should read as “Line 1–39, while the lowest error, 0.48%, was seen on Line 16–17. The average error rate for all boundary lines is 1.54%. This low average error rate for active load flow on the boundary lines is notable considering the significant reduction, around 52%, in the number of busbars between the original model and the proposed model.”
On page 11, right column, third paragraph should read as “Table 3 compares the number of 400 kV buses and 400 kV transmission lines in the real model of the Turkish transmission system with the reduced numbers obtained after applying the reduction method proposed in this study. As seen from the table, the number of buses in the proposed model has been reduced by 57% compared to the full model. Similarly, a reduction rate of 49% has been achieved in the number of transmission lines.”
The correct Table 1 should be
On page 12, should read as “Turkish transmission network. The reference bus numbers given in this table are determined according to the connection buses that provide interregional connectivity. Table 5 provides the amounts of load flows, errors, and error percentages for both the connection lines in the original model and the connection lines in the proposed REI model. As can be seen from the table, the average error percentage is 3.51%. Despite a 57% reduction in the number of buses between the original and proposed reduced models, the active load flow error in the connection lines is considerably low, with an average error of 3.51%. Table 5 presents an outstanding achievement in the field of model reduction. The proposed expanded REI model has been able to achieve a remarkable 57% reduction in the number of buses without compromising the accuracy of the active load flow in the connection lines. As evidenced by the table, the average error percentage is only 3.51%, which is incredibly impressive given the significant.”
The correct Table 3 should be
On page 14, last paragraph should read as “The proposed model has been demonstrated on a sample 48-bus power system and tested on the IEEE 39-bus system, where it reduced the number of busbars by approximately 52% compared to the original model. Additionally, the number of transmission lines, generators, and load models were reduced by 71%, 40%, and 42%, respectively. The power flow differences between the full model and the proposed reduced model were significantly minimized, with an average error rate of 1.54% for all boundary lines.”
TABLE 1. Reduction rates of the proposed model.
On page 15, first paragraph should read as “To validate the efficiency of the proposed model on a real power system, it has been implemented on the Turkish transmission system, resulting in a 57% reduction in the total number of busbars from 162 to 70. Moreover, the number of transmission lines has been reduced by 49%, further simplifying the model. Despite this considerable reduction in complexity, the average active load flow error on the connection lines has been only 3.51%, which is an impressive result. It indicates that the proposed model can significantly reduce the complexity of a real power system while still maintaining its accuracy.”