EEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 6, No.

4, M o b e r 1991

1922

FEEDER RECONFIGURATION FOR LOSS REDUCTION: AN APPLICATION OF D I S T R I B U T I O N AUTOMATION

T.P. Wagner, A.Y. Chikhani, Senior Member

De-nt
of Electrical and Com$mter Enqineerinq
RGyal Military College of Canad;
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
KEYKXDS: Distribution Automation, Feeder ReconfigurMinimization, Linear Programing,
ation, Loss
Heuristics.

ABslRAcT

One of the features provided by Distribution

Automation, which can result in substantial savings
for the utility, is feeder reconfiguration for loss
reduction. This work provides a comparison of various
methods applied to feeder reconfiguration for loss
minimization. A new linear progr&ng
method using
Transportation techniques and a new Heuristic Search
method are proposed for camparison with a previously
developed Heuristic technique which was based on an
Optimal Load Flow analysis. The methods are compared
on simulations of both a small feeder distribution
system, and a larger system based on a model of the
Kingston Public Utility Coxmission 44 kV distribution
system. This study indicates that Linear Programing,
in the f o m of transportation algorithms, is not
suitable for real-time application to feeder
reconfiguration whilst Heuristic approaches, although
not opthl, can provide substantial savings if
properly formulated and are suitable for real-time
iqlemntation.

l3mRmKrIoN
It was estimated that from 5% to 13% of the total
power system generation is wasted in the form of 12R
losses at the distribution level [ l ] . Recent advances
in distribution automation technology have made it
possible to reduce these losses by applying loss
minimization techniques on a real-time basis. A
project by the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company
[ 2 ] simulated the application of loss reduction
techniques to a portion of their system for the period
of one year.
The results showed an estimated
reduction in losses of 14.6% over the one year period
on a system with a peak of 230 IN.
Distribution systems supply power to three basic
load types, residential, comrcial, and industrial.
The load profiles for each of these load types is
different, causing the distribution feeders to become
m r e heavily loaded at certain times of the day and
less heavily loaded at other times; each feeder
varying in a different m e r depending on the
This shifting of the
characteristics of its loads.
system loads can be used to minimize, or at least
reduce the system losses by reconfiguring the system
from tine to t h e in order to redistribute the load
currents more efficiently.
Much of recent research on Distribution Automation
has focused on the minimum-loss configuration problem.
While an exhaustive search of all possible
91 WM 101-6 PWRD A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Transmission and Distribution Committee
of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation
at the IEEE/PES 1991 Winter Meeting, New York, New
York, February 3 , 1991. Manuscript submitted
July 30, 1990; made available for printing
November 30, 1990.

R. Hackam, Fellow
Dept. of Electrical Engineering
University of Windsor
Windsor, Ontario, Canada

configurations would provide the m s t accurate and

reliable solution, this is unrealistic as it takes a
long time for a real-time application.
various
methods have been proposed to solve for the minimum
loss configuration in acceptable t k s , each method
having different advantages and disadvantages.
Linear programing techniques have been used [3-51
in planning applications to minimize the costs
associated with new construction. Although it was the
capital or fixed costs which were considered to be of
primary importance, an attempt was often rrade to
Branch and
include the minimization of 12R losses.
Bound nethods have also been used to minimize losses
in proposed distribution systems 161. However, when
applied to distribution systems, it is difficult to
determine the upper and lower bounds effectively and
t k consuming for real-time
the method often &oms
applications.
Heuristics techniques have been proposed [6-111
for finding the optdl, or near-opthl solution with
fast computation t k s .
In a method developed by
Merlin and Back[6] and later modified by ShilmoharraMdi
and Hong [ 7 ] a low loss configuration is determined by
applying an optin-al load flow analysis to the system
with all switches closed. The system is returned to a
radial configuration by opening the branches with the
lowest current, the o p t d l load flow pattern being
determined after each switch is opened. Civanlar et
a1 [ 1 2 ] derived a formula for estimating the loss
reduction which would result from carrying out a
e i c u l a r switching option.
A switching option is
defined here as the closing of one open tie-switch and
the opening of one of the closed sectionalizing
switches in the loop which is forred, the net result
being the transfer of a block of load from one feeder
to another.
In the present work, a col-nparison of the m r e
promising methods of real-time reconfiguration for
loss reduction is conducted.
Linear Programing
methods using a Stepping Stone algorithm [13] is, for
the first t k , applied to the feeder reconfiguration
problem. TWO Heuristic methods are also compared.
The first Heuristic method is that of Merlin and Back
[6] as inplenented by S h i m h m d i and Hong [7]. The
second Heuristic Ethod, presented here, employs the
Heuristic rules developed by Givanlar et a1 [ 1 2 ] . TWO
subroutines are used in this method to provide an
esthte of the loss reduction which would result from
carrying out a particular switching option. The first
subroutine uses the loss reduction formula developed
by Civanlar et a1 [12].
The second subroutine mkes
use of a uniformly distributed load model [13] which
lraodels most distribution systems m r e accurately.
The different reconfiguration techniques are
applied to simulations of two different distribution
systems.
The first system is a three feeder
distribution system used by Civanlar et a1 to
illustrate their loss reduction formula, and the
second system consists of a shulation of the m r e
complex Kingston Public utilities Comnission (P.U.C.)
44 kv, 150 MW distribution system.

LINEAR

Linear programing mthods which are used by

distribution system planners have their p r w goal

018-9464/91$01.00 0 1991 IEEE

1923

to minimize the capital costs involved in constructing

new systems or expanding existing ones.
Often,
attempts were m d e to include the cost of 12R losses
in their calculations. It is therefore worthwhile to
investigate these nethods to determine their
suitability in solving the feeder reconfiguration for
loss
minimization.
Linear programing is a
mathematical optimization technique developed by
George Dantzig in 1947. The problem is formulated as
the optimization of an objective function, subject to
a set of constraints.
The distribution reconfiguration system is best expressed as a transportation
problem. Transportation systems are expressed as:

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5 D6

D7

D8

D9

a,

s1

s2
s3
bj

Fig. 1
n

..

Subject to the Constraints:

E Xij I ai

i=l j=1

(2)

nrn

For the feeder reconfiguration case the pxameters

are defined as follows:

Transportation Tableau

previous change. It is only necessary to recalculate

the element from which the circled element was moved.
In order to increase the accuracy of the cost
factors Cij, the non-linear 12R function can be
linearized in a piecewise rranner. The linearization
of the objective function can be done in a stepwise
or piecewise linear manner as illustrated in Fig. 2.
The piecewise linear method, selected for use in this
work, is accomplished by assigning a cost factor equal

m u n t of power being supplied by source i

amount of power demanded by load point j
x . = power supplied from source i to load point j
cf2 = cost factor associated with delivering Xij
2 = losses incurred in delivering the total load
n = number of feeder sources
m = n m h r of load points

ai
bj

=
=

One transportation method which is suitable for

the distribution system is the stepping stone
A
typical tableau for solving
algorithm [13].
transportation problems using the stepping stone
The tableau,
algorithm is illustrated in Fig. 1.
organized in this m e r , is useful in pre-processing
the information used in the transportation algorithm
process. Notice that there are two types of entries
in the tableau. The circled entries represent basis
A basic solution is
vectors in the basic solution.
any feasible combination of the basis vectors which
completely satisfies the constraints of the problem.
The values of the circled entries represent existing
loads which are fed from the feeder sources according
to the row in which they are located. The tableau
therefore provides information on not only the m u n t
of the load currents being demanded, but also on the
present configuration.
The second type of entry is the uncircled entry.
These entries are calculated by applying the stepping
stone algorithm.
Any positive, non-zero element
indicate that the system is not opti.mil,and that
losses can be reduced by eliminating that element from
the basic solution. In practical tern, this m u n t s
to transferring the load represented by that element,
to another feeder.
Some features of radial systems siniplify the
solution of transportation problems. Meshed networks,
i.e., networks where each load m y be fed from m r e
than one source, can have m r e than one circled
element in each column. In order to r a v e a positive
uncircled value it is no longer a siple rratter of
w i n g one element.
The method requires a further
calculation to determine the best way to r a v e the
positive elemnt.
Radial networks do not require
these extra calculations. It is also much sinpler to
recalculate the uncircled element values for radial
networks because fewer elements were involved in the

POWER FLOW
Fig. 2

Piwewise Linear Approximation of Lasses

to the slope of the straight line sections approximating the quadratic curve, over each range of load
currents. The degree of accuracy may be enhanced
sinply by increasing the number of load ranges,
however, computational effort will also be increased.

The method developed by Merlin and Back [6], and

later modified by Shirmhammdi et a1 [ 7 ] , is
primarily based on Heuristics or rules-of-thumb, with
an additional subroutine added to ensure that no
arrent overloads or law voltage conditions will occur
due to any proposed switching.
The method has an
advantage over s c w other techniques in that it is
independent of the initial configuration. This means
that it is m r e likely to find the global optimum and
not converge to some local minimum.
The basic method is described in the flow diagram
illustrated in Fig. 3 . The first step in the algorithm
is to read in the system data. This includes static
data such as feeder line impedances as well as dynamic
information such as system configuration and voltage,
current, and power values.
The radial distribution
system is then modified to a meshed system by assuming
that all open tie switches have been closed. Using

1924
AND SWlTCH DATA

CLOSE Au OPEN S W C H E S
CREATlNC A MESHED NE'ITWRK

C'LOSE THE LMT SWlTCH OPEND

OFN
THE SWlTCHCARlWNG THE NEXT WMsT

CU-

AS DETERMINEDBY THE 0mM.U

LOADMWANMYSIS

YEJ

Fig. 3

The Heuristic search method is used to find the

optimal or near optimal configuration for a distribution feeder. It employs two different subroutines to
calculate system loss reductions.
Generally the
method works by considering all possible switching
options carrying out the option which provides the
greatest loss reduction and then repeating the
procedure until no further loss reductions are
possible. An additional subroutine is included to
ensure that no constraint violations would occur due
to carrying out the proposed switching. It is a s s d
that no violations exist before the loss minimization
algorithm is applied and that if such a condition did
exist, other routines such as load balancing or CrAR
control would be used to rectify the problem. If a
configuration is investigated and found to cause
under-voltage or over-voltage conditions, then that
option is disregarded. A flow diagram of the mthcd
is shown in Fig. 4.

Optimal Load Flow Method

the current system data, an ac load flow is p e r f o m

to determine the actual load currents. This step is
required to represent the loads as constant power
loads, such that load currents will vary with changing
voltages.
The load currents calculated in the ac load flow
are then used in the optimal load flow to determine
individual line currents.
The optimal load flow is
similar to the ac load flow only with line section
reactances set to zero.
This procedure gives the
o p t b l load flow pattern, in terms of minimal I2R
losses for the given loads and system configuration.
The o p t h l load flow results provide the optimal
currents, in terms of minimal losses, for the mshed
system. In order to find the radial system which will
supply all of the loads with minimal losses, some of
the switches must be opened. In order to disturb the
system the least mount, the switch in the section
with the lowest current is opened (assuming that the
switch f o m part of a loop feed). Once this switch
has been opened, the load flow is repeated, and again
the section with the lowest current is opened. This
process is repeated until the system is in a radial
configuration

An additional subroutine is used to ensure that no

violations of voltage or current constraints would
occur due to the resulting configuration. After each
load flow analysis, all voltages and currents are
checked against system limitations.
If a violation
has occurred, the last switch to be opened is closed
and the section with the next h e s t current is then
opened.

It is assumed that no voltage or current

violations exist on the system prior to application of
the reconfiguration process.
If such violations do
exist, other programs such as load shedding or voltage
correction would be mployed to correct them.

Fig. 4

Heuristic Search Method

In order to reduce the number of options which

must be considered, two Heuristics have been incorporated into the program. It has been shown [12] that in
order to reduce the losses on a distributed system, it
is necessary to transfer loads fromthe feeder on the
low voltage side of the open switch to the feeder on
the high voltage side of the switch. Therefore, when
considering the open tie-switch, it is necessary to
transfer loads from the side with the greatest voltage
drop from the substation to the switch, over to the
side with the lower voltage drop from the source to
the switch. This is done by closing a normally-open
tie-switch and opening
one
of the closed
sectionalizing switches in the loop feed which has
been formd. The second rule states that a reduction
in losses is only possible if there is a substantial
voltage drop across the open switch. By employing
these two Heuristic rules, it is possible to reduce
the number of options which must be considered.
The mthod begins by considering each open switch
as an option. The Heuristic rules are then applied.
If the voltage drop across the open tie-switch is
negligible, then that option is disregarded, as are
all of the options which branch fromthat option. If
a large voltage drop does exist, then the switch is
considered closed and all the possible options which
branched fromthis decision are then tested. All the
possible switches which could be used to break the
parallel circuit are considered in turn. It is only
necessary to consider opening switches on the side of

1925
the tie-switch with the largest voltage drop from the
substation to the switch, which is obviously the low
voltage side of the switch.
Once the number of switching options has been
reduced by the application of the Heuristic rules, the
rmining options are evaluated to determine which
option would provide the greatest loss reduction. This
option is then tested by performing a load flow
analysis on the proposed configuration to ensue that
no over-current or low voltage conditions would result
from carrying out the switching option. If these
conditions are discovered, then that switching option
is disregarded and the switching option providing the
next greatest loss reduction is considered.

the length of the section.

The use of lumped load
models artificially inflates the value of the
calculated system losses.
In addition, the o p t h l
configuration may not be the s m as the configuration
which would result if the system were modelled m r e
accurately. The second weakness is that an esthte of
the total system losses is not provided, only an
esthte of the loss reduction. Although an esthte
of total losses is not required for the method to
work, the information is certainly desirable for
budgetary reasons. In order to provide total system
loss estimates using this technique, a separate
subroutine must be included which reduces the speed
advantage of the method.
Uniformly Distributed Load Model

Once a feasible switching option has been

selected, the switching is considered to have been
carried out.
The entire process is then repted
until no further loss reductions are possible. The
minimum loss configuration having been determined,
switching is then carried out on the actual system to
reflect the proposed optimal ( o r near-optimal)
configuration.
Two methods are used to provide the estimate of
the reduction in losses for each possible configuration. The first one is based on a formula developed
for calculating the loss reduction using the k
n
m
load currents, tie-switch voltage, and feeder
resistance values [12].
The second method used to
calculate the reduction in losses is based on the
uniformly distributed load model [13].

Although the total load d m d e d from each feeder

section is knwn to the Distribution Automation
system, the distribution of that load over the feeder
length is not. Rather than d e l the load as lumped at
the feeder section end, a unifody distributed load
d e l [13] is used in order to more accurately
estimate system losses.
Estimates of total system
losses before and after the proposed switching change
are used to calculate the loss reduction. Although
this method requires m r e computations, it has the
advantages of greater accuracy and also providing a
value for the total system losses and loss reduction.
The uniformly distributed load d e l is illustrated in
Fig. 5.
I2

m s Reduction F o m l a

The loss Reduction Formula [12] estimates the

reduction in losses which would occur when a
particular switching option is carried out. The
formula requires voltage and current information only
at the locations of the tie and sectionalizing
switches. The formula is given as:

where :

(4)

is the set of buses which are disconnected

from Feeder I1 and connected to Feeder I.
is the tie bus of Feeder I to which loads
m
from Feeder 11 will be connected.
is the tie bus of Feeder I that will be
n
connected to bus m via a tie-switch.
is the Complex bus current as bus i.
Ii
is the series resistance of the path connectRloop
ing the two substation buses of Feeder I and
Feeder I1 via closure of the specified tie
switch.
is the component of E = Qus 1~~~correspondE,
ing to bus m.
Qus is the bus resistance
matrix of Feeder I before the load transfer
which is found using the substation bus as
reference.
1~~~ is the vector of bus
currents for Feeder I.
is similar to Embut defined for bus n of
En
Feeder 11.
Ret 1, *, I I are the real part, complex conjugate,
and magnitude operators, respectively.
D

The formula provides a fast method of esthating

the reduction in losses, however, it has t w
weaknesses. The method is based on modelling the
feeder section loads as being lumped at the feeder
section ends. This is an unrealistic model for m s t
distribution systems as loads are usually tapped off
of each feeder section at a number of locations along

Fig. 5

DOWNSTREAM
LOADS

Id

Uniformly Distributed Load Model

In a typical distribution automation system,

monitors at each switch location would provide the
values of I1 and 12, from which Id can be calculated.
Losses over the feeder section are then calculated
by:
I

12R

[ I1 - I1x + 12x]

WX

where x is the length of the feeder section.

Solving for the integral, and given that Id = 11 12, we get an expression for feeder section losses in
terms of load d m d e d at that section (Id), y d
current emanating from the end of the feeder section
(12).

This qression is then used to calculate the

losses in each feeder branch, which can then be sunned
to provide an estimate of total system losses. total
cmtation time for estimating system losses will
increase s-hat
over the lumped load model, however,
the extra effort is justified by the increased

1926

accuracy of the esthte of losses.

Tw(EEFEEDER?EsTsysIEM
The first system selected for comparing the
various reconfiguration schemes is the three-feeder
distribution system used by Civanlar et a1 [ U ] to
illustrate their loss reduction formula. The system
consists of 3 feeders, 13 nomlly closed sectionalizing switches, 3 normally open tie-switches, and 13
load pints. Feeder section impedances, system loads,
and system configuration are illustrated in Fig. 6.

realistic system in which the loads vary with t m .

In this way, the amount of savings which would result
from each method can be compared. It is therefore
necessary to establish load flow patterns for each of
FEEDER

FEEDER

FEEDER

FEEDER

EEDER

FEEDER

33M9

This particular system was chosen as it provides a

sinple, well defined system for which the optimal
configuration is easily determined. The system is used
as described, with the loads assumed to be constant as
specified.
7

FEEDER 1

LDADCEKIFR

--- OPEN SwrrcH

Fig. 7

Kingston P.U.C. 44 kV Distribution System

the three load types, residential, cmrcial, and

industrial.
A study conducted by the Pennsylvania Power and
Light Co. monitored loads on eight distribution
feeders for a period of one year [ 2 ] . By emmining the
recorded data, it has been determined that in order to
&el
the load changes on a distribution system over a
one year period, only 18 different daily load profiles
are required.

Three Feeder Distribution System

Fig. 6
Kl"
SYSlxM

-ITY

-SS1m

44

DISIRIEWTIJ

The second system used to test the three feeder

reconfiguration nethods is the Kingston P.U.C. 44 kV
distribution system shown in Fig. 7. This system consists of 6 feeders, 38 normally o p n tie-switches, and
26 load pints with a peak demand of 150 MW. The loads
are prim&ily a d u r e of residential and comrcial
with some light industrial.
This system has been
selected as a l l the relevant data have been given to
the authors as well as it provides a system of w a g e able size with a reasonable number of opentieswitches for reconfiguration.
LQADM3DELFtXTHE44kVSYS'X34

The three-feeder test system is used primrily to

ensure that each of the reconfiguration algorithms has
been *lmntd
Properly.
The
loads are
assumed to be constant, therefore, Once the 0Pt-l
configuration has teen found, no further switching is
required.
The 44 kV system on the other hand, is Used to
compare the reconfiguration algorithm on a m r e

The year is divided into three seasons; winter

s m r and spring/fall. The mnths of the year are
divided into the three seasons as follows:
- June, July, August
- December, January, February

*ring/Fa11

- March, April,

september/ October,

November

Loads tend to follow the same patterns for e a c h of

these three time period.
Daily load profiles within
each season will differ according to whether it is a
weekday or a weekend/holiday. Daily load profiles for
each of these two categories tend to r a i n the same
for each of these seasons.
Daily load profiles will also vary dependinq on
the type of load: residential, co&rcialor
industrial. The day has been divided into 96 tperiods, of 15 minute intervals.
system lcrads are
considered to be constant over each time interval.
Fifteen minute t b intervals will track load changes
with reasonable accuracy, and also provide sufficient
time for transients caused by switching and other
transients to settle down. A practical Distribution
Automation system would allow a minimum of 15 minutes
between switching operations in order to obtain steady

1927

state values for the system parameters. It can be seen

that an entire year of distribution system load
changes can be shlated using only 18 load profiles,
considering 3 seasons, either weekend or holiday, for
3 load types.
Residential and comrcial load profiles have been
obtained from actual recordings on the Kingston P.U.C.
44 kV system, for both weekdays and weekends/holidays,
during the winter season.
Typical industrial load
profiles for winter weekdays and weekends have been
provided by Ontario Hydro.
These records are
sufficient to determine the 18 load profiles required
over
a one year period.
to simulate the 44 kV system
Industrial load profiles do not change significantly
with the seasons as heating/air conditioning
represents only a very smll portion of the total
load.
The two winter industrial load profiles,
winter-weekday and winter-holiday, are therefore also
used for the s m r spring/fall seasons. For the
spring/fall season, residential and comrcial load
demands are reduced to approximately 85% of the winter
d m d . These load profiles are therefore derived by
multiplying the equivalent winter load profiles by a
factor of 0.75. The winter residential and comrcial
load profiles have been d f i e d to produce the s m r
residential and c m r c i a l load profiles. S m r
residential and comrcial loads profiles differ from
the corresponding winter profiles in that s m r air
conditioning loads are m r e prominent during the
daytime while winter heating loads are m r e prominent
at night. In addition, in 1989, for the nearby city
of Toronto (population, 2 million), the peak s m r
demand was equal to the peak winter denand. These two
facts were used to produce the summer residential and
comercia1 load profiles. Some example load profiles
are illustrated in Fig. 8.
The load profiles as
described above are reasonable and adequate and
considered mrely as input data for applyingthe
proposed and existing reconfiguration methods and
0

0
0.
0.

each point is therefore assigned to be:

LOAD

= (150/200)

X (Station Capcity) X (Load (time))

where LOAD(the) is the load profile infomtion,

which is a function of the, and has been nomlized
In this way, the peak
to reach a maximum of 1.0.
system load will be 150 MW, as for the actual system,
and the total load will be distributed among the
various load pints in proportion to their station
capacities.
This does not represent exactly the
Kingston 44 kV system, but it does provide a reasonable system to which the reconfiguration methods can
be applied.
It was necessary to derive the load profiles as
described above because of the lack of sufficient
recorded data. A m r e accurate analysis can only be
obtained by continuously monitoring and recording
system load infomtion as was done for the P.P. & L.
project [ 2 ] .
RESULTS

Three Feeder T e s t System

The effectiveness of each of the selected reconfiguration techniques is first tested by comparing the
results of each method, applied to the 3 feeders, 13
load point, 16 branch distribution system (Fig. 6 ) .
The methods which have been compared include:
1.
2.
3.

Linear Programing
0pti.milLoad Flow
Heuristic Search with:
a) Uniformly Distributed Load Model loss
calculating formula.
b) Loss Reduction Esthtion formula.

The selected methods have been p r o g r d with

additional check on the accuracy of the methods is
done using a Gauss-Seidel Load Flow analysis. The load
flow analysis is too slow for real-th application to
the feeder reconfiguration problem, but it does
provide an accurate estimate of the losses for
ccanparing the results of the methods being tested.
The methods have been applied to the three-feeder
distribution system using the data provided, in order
to determine
the
optimal (or near-optbl)
configuration. The results of the comparison are
illustrated in Table 1.
These results
illustrate some interesting
properties of the various methods.
Since both the
Heuristic Search/Loss Reduction Formula nethod and the
Gauss-Seidel Load Flow Analysis d e l the loads as
lumped at the ends of the feeder sections, the

0.
0.
0.
0.
TlME (houn)

Fig. 8

Sample Load Profiles

ASSHOWN

0.0061244 0.0042626

0.0042626

0.0046907

compare their perfomce.

The next step in simulating the distribution
system involves assigning the various load profiles to
the actual system loads.
Each of the system load
points is designated as either residential, comnercial
or industrial, and power factors of 0.98, 0.90 and
0.85 are assigned to each load type respectively.
Power factors are assumed to remain constant for each
load type. Loads on the 44 kV system are in the form
of transfomr stations, each station having its own
capacity equal to the capacity of the transformers in
that station. The total system capacity is 200 MW,
and the maximum load demanded is 150 MW. The load at

0.00643

'* MFIHOD IS IN ERROR

OPllMALcoNFIC~

Table 1 System Losses

Configurations

(in

P.u.)

For

Various

1928

esthted losses are higher than those estimated using

the m r e realistic uniformly distributed load model.
The results of the Heuristic Search/Loss Reduction
Formula and Gauss-Seidel loss estimates are in
reasonably close agreement. The losses for the O p t k l
Load Flow method are calculated using the Uniformly
Distributed Load mdel, as loss calculations are not
inherent in the method.
The Transportation Algorithm, which used a lumpedload model, produces lower estimtes than the
Heuristic Search/mss Reduction Formula and GaussSeidel methods even though a piecewise linear model of
the cost factors is used.
It also produces results
which are incorrect.
The method indicates that, in
order to reduce system losses, LOAD 10 should be roved
from SOURCE 1 to S O J K E 3 . The other methods indicate
an increase in losses for this switching option. This
is confirmed by the Gauss-Seidel load flow analysis.
Further examination of Linear PrcqrarrPning methods
reveals a critical weakness in the theory as applied
An
to the distribution system reconfiguration.
assumption which m s t be valid in order for linear
prcqranuning methods to work is that the costs due to
one load must be linearly independent of all other
loads. In other words, the total system losses must
be the sum of the losses incurred supplying each load
independently. Since losses are calculated as 12R, it
is not only important to minimize losses for each load
independently, but also to optimize how the loads are
ccanbined over the various possible routes.
As a result of not satisfying this assumption,
linear programning methods can result in configurations which are not optimal or near-opthl. While
linear programing techniques may be useful for providing distribution system planners with a reasonable
starting pint for their design, the results should be
viewed with caution.
Linear PrOgrarraning methods, in
the form used in this coinparison, are not considered
suitable for the real-time reconfiguration of
distribution systems. Consequently, these methods are
not included in the carprison on the 44 kv
distribution system.

Heuristic Methods
The final configuration, as determined by each of
the three Heuristic methods, should be optimal in
tern of minimal losses.
This is confirmed by the
Gauss-Seidel Load Flow Analyses which was perfornk?d on
each of the possible configurations in order to determine the one with the lowest losses. Both the Optimal
Load Flow method and the Heuristic Search technique
have been seleded for further camparison on the m r e
complex 44 kV system.

K I "

Puc 44 kV DISlRIIWTION

S Y m

21

LI
U

33

33

33

36

21

33
34

Table 2 Open Switches for Proposed Configurations

Switch numbers are defined in Fig. 7 .
other switches are considered closed.
is different and that they all propose changes to the
original configuration. The different results for the
two Heuristic Search methods are expected as two
different &els
are used for the system loads, the
uniformly distributed load model, and the lumped-load
del.
These two load mdels are sufficiently
different
to
result
in
different optimal
configurations.
The optimal Load Flow method also proposed a
configuration which is different from the other two
methods. This method should have produced the same
results as the Heuristic Search/Loss Reduction Formula
method which models the loads in the same way. The
losses for the optbra1 Load Flow configuration are
higher than the Heuristic Search results and the configurations are considerably different. A load flow
analysis of the two configurations has been used to
confirm that the Optimal k m d Flow results are worse,
in terms of minimizing losses, than the Heuristic
Search method which uses the s e model for system
loads.
A further test has been conducted to check the
reliability of the O p t h l Load Flow method. If the
proposed configuration is truly o p t h l (or nearoptimal), opening some of the proposed switches prior
to applying the method should not change the end
result by a significant amount.
In other words, if
some of the switches which are listed in Table 2 as
being open in the optimal configuration are physically
r w v e d from the system, application of the optimal
bad Flow mthod should propose opening the other
The OptirOal Load Flow
switches listed in T a b l e 2.
algorithm has been applied to the system with
different ccanbinations of the 13 switches pre-opened.
The results, listed in Table 3 , show that different
configurations result for each case.
The method
obviously does not produce optimal results.

Analysis For Constant Loads

The first step in the comparison of the reconfiguration methods on the 44 kV system is to apply the
algorithms to the system with load currents fixed, in
order to compare the "optimal" configurations as
determined by each technique.
The load currents for
WINER-WEEKDAY, at 24 hrs., are used and assumed to be
constant.
The Heuristic Search methods and the
optimal Load Flow technique are then applied to
determine the uopthl" system configuration. Thirteen
switches are required to be open in order to maintain
the radial nature of the system and still supply all
The configuration resulting f m t h e
of the loads.
application of the various reconfiguration methods are
described in Table 2 which lists the 13 open switches
for each configuration.
Notice that each of the recomnded configurations

LO

10

11

12

11

I2

10

14

14

14

IS

1s

1V

19

19

I9

Denota pre-opcocd svitcha

Note: mtch numben am defined io Figure 6

Table 3 Configurations
Switches

for

Different

Pre-opened

1929
The Optimal Load Flaw method works by closing all
switches, calculating the optimal load flow for
minimum losses, and then opening the branch with the
lowest current. Opening the branch with the least
current is said to disturb the o p t h l flaw the least
a u n t possible. A new load flaw is then perfonned
and the process is repeated until the system is in a
radial configuration.
The method is theoretically sound up to the point
of opening the branch with the lowest current. The
optimal load flow does indeed provide the currents in
the system which would minimize the losses. opening
the switch with the lowest current is not, however,
guaranteed to lead to an optirral solution. opening of
each switch changes the current in other branches and
the system is very sensitive to the order in which the
switches are opened. The final configuration will only
be o p t h l by coincidence and not by virtue of the
method.
The authors of the O p t k l Load Flow nethod 161,
did not claim that the Ethod is optimal or nearopthl, only that it provides a degree of loss
reduction. Their results show that, when applied to a
distribution system which has not been previously
optimized, the method reduces the losses. This is also
the case for the Kingston P.U.C. 44 kV system, as can
be seen in Table 2 .
The method does not, hcwever,
always provide optimal or near-optimal configurations,
and therefore may not be suitable for real-time
applications.
Analysis for Chanqinq Loads
The next step in the comparison of the feeder
reconfiguration methods is to apply them to the 44 kV
system under changing load conditions.
The load
profiles described above are used to simulate load
changes over a period of one year. Each method is then
applied to the system, the resulting switching is
recorded, and the total losses for the year are
calculated. The system losses which would occur for
each method, over a one year period, are listed in
Table 4 . The losses for the non-automated system are
compared to the losses for each reconfiguration method
to determine the savings in MWH. The dollar value of

U
B(ylh)
SAVINGS

*Loss

nEDuamN

Table 4

465.18

8.8 %

17230

The subroutine for calculating the losses in the

Uniformly Distributed Load Model variation of the two
Heuristic Search techniques has been d f i e d , for
comparison, by changing the losses formula for each
branch from Eqn. (6) to:
\

KDSSES = 12$

(7)

The basic method for calculating the losses

r a i n s the same. Each feeder branch current flow is
determined from the information made available by the
Distribution Automation system. The loss formula can
then be applied to determine the system losses. only
the formula itself is chanqed to reflect modelling the
load in a different m e r . This method can therefore
be easily d f i e d to accorrnnodate a lumped-load model
or a uniformly distributed load model. Applying the
d f i e d method to the 44 kV system results in the
sane losses, configurations and
savings as the
Heuristic Search/Loss Reduction Formula method.
The results for the optimal Load Flow method show
reduction in losses (2.3%), however, the losses
are not reduced by nearly as much as the Heuristic
Search/Loss Reduction F o m l a method (8.8%) which
similarlymodels the loads as lumped at the feeder
section ends. This result confirms that, although the
Optimal Load Flaw method can reduce system losses, it
is by no means optimal.
saw

12243
I

38,618.00

The Kingston P.U.C. 44 kV system, however, is

sorewhat unusual. It is a high voltage distribution
system supplying loads through transfomr stations
which are relatively few in nmker. Soine of these
stations supply specific loads
(comnercial or
industrial) while other supply the 4.16 kV distribution system.
This tvpe of distribution system is
better modelled by the lumped-load mdel which m r e
accurately represents the actual system.

The Kingston P.U.C. 44 kV distribution system

serves primarily residential and c m r c i a l loads,
with a small amount of light industrial. Major
industrial sites in the area are supplied directly
from the Ontario Hydro transmission system and are not
part of the Kingston system.

523.259.25

Automation system and, even if it is, the distribution

of the total branch load to each transfomr is not.
Therefore, for typical distribution systems, the
uniformly distributed load model provides a better
W e 1 of the branch loads and a more accurate estimate
of the system losses.

6.8 %

56.121.50

23 %

savings m e to Loss Minimizations Methods

these savings is then

calculated using $0.05/k WH
which is an average of the Ontario Hydro industrial
rates for 1989.

Feeder reconfiguration x h e s for loss reduction

make use of the diversity of the load profiles within
the system and reconfigure the system from time to
time, thereby reducing losses.
The greater the
diversity in load profiles, the greater the potential
for loss reduction. In order to determine the effect

m - 0
Wm(0vT

It can be seen that the savings which result from

the Heuristic Searchflniformly Distributed Load Model
method are m c h less than the savings which result
from the Heuristic Search/loss Reduction Formula
method. The actual losses are also less, again, due
to the nature of the mdels.

For m s t distribution systems, the load transf o m r s are distributed along the length of the feeder
branches. The spatial distribution of these transf o m r s is not normally known to the distribution

2851.95

6025.27

5447.31

26M.11

5794.88

577.96

221.84

230.39

6025.27

AUrUMAnON

-=m)
wrm
AVrOhlATMN
SAv(Ncs

(Mwb)

I ?= I
8-

Fa"

Table 5

128,898.00
9.59 96

111.09200
1.78 96

I
I

111.519.50

3.8 %

Savings Due to Reconfiguration Modified Loads

1930
of different load types on the loss reduction, several
of the residential and c m r c i a l loads on the 44 kV

system were changes to industrial load profiles.

Table 5 shows the results of +roving the mixture
of residential, comrcial, and industrial customers
on the 44 kV system. Total system losses are increased
scanewhat but, m r e importantly, the savings due to
automatic reconfiguration have increased. The savings
for the one year period are substantially greater for
the mdified system and the percentage loss reduction
is -roved.
This simple test indicates that
potential savings due to automatic feeder reconfiguration are greater for systems with greater diversity
in the individual load profiles. Systems with a well
balanced mixture of residential, comrcial and
industrial load types stand to benefit m s t from the
installation of Distribution Automation equipment for
feeder reconfiguration.

Table 6 Comparison of Computation Thss

COST ANALYSIS
A recent pilot project by Mississauga Hydro, which
included automating six field switches, has been completed for approximately $200,000.
The cost of the
field switches ($10,000 per switch) has been minimized
by automating the existing field switches by adding
By colnparison,
energy storage operators and RTJ's.
load break
recent prices for &ea-Brawn-Boveri
automated switches with energy-storage units and RlU'S
are approximately $8,000 - $10,000, depending on the
degree of sophistication that is required.

A review of the switching operations on the

simulated 44 kv system reveals that, over the one year
period, only four switches are required to be operated
automatically. The cost for the equipwnt required to
automte these four switches is estimated to be
$229,000 based on the Mississauga Hydro project costs.
The total cost of the Mississauga Hydro project,
$200,000 would be reduced by about $16,000 as only
four switches need to be autmted, but an extra cost
of $45,000 would be required to provide mnitorhg of
all of the system switches. The net result is a total
system cost of approximately $229,000.
the estimated
savings due to feeder reconfiguration for loss
reduction, from Table 4, using the lumped-load model,
are $23,259 per year. The total capital cost of the
equiprent which is nomlly e x p z t e d to last 20 years,
The annual savings are therefore worthis $229,000.
while when col~lparedto the cost required to irplement
the automated system.

Linear proqramrun
. gt-lethcd
A linear prograrmring method in the form of a
transportation problem has been developed and applied
to the three-feeder distribution system in order to
determine its effectiveness.
Linear programning nethods have proven unsuitable
for application to the feeder reconfiguration for loss
reduction problem.
The two difficulties with the

method are that the objective function is required to

be a linear function, which it is not, and that the
costs associated with supplying each individual load
must be linearly independent of each other, which they
are not.
The problem with the quadratic objective function
be overcome by modelling the function in a
piecewise linear fashion, at the expense of speed of
calculation. The fact that the individual costs are
not linearly independent is not so easily overcome.
As a result, although these methods m y be suitable
for system planning, they are not adequate for realt h applications to feeder reconfiguration.
( 1 2 R ) can

Heuristic Methcds
Methods which guarantee optimal solutions, such as
linear prcqranming, are either too t h s consuming or
have other inherent weaknesses which make them
unsuitable for the feeder reconfiguration problem.
Since speed of application is such an important
parameter, the best methods will provide fast
solutions with optimal or near-optimal results. A
mll reduction in the loss savings may be acceptable
if the method is reliable and fast. Heuristic techniques, if properly structured, can provide fast
compu-tation times and the resulting configurations
should be optimal or near-optirral.
Recent efforts have concentrated on Heuristics as
the best methods for obtaining fast solutions to the
feeder reconfiguration problem, with good reliability
and near-opthl results.
Two forms of Heuristic
approaches have been compared in this work, the
Heuristic Search strategy and the Optimal Load Flow
method.
The Heuristic methods have been tested on both the
three feeder system and the Kingston P.U.C. 44 kV
system. The 44 kV system was shulated with constant
existing load-types and d f i e d load types.
The results of applying the Heuristic methods to
the sinple three feeder system showed that all three
method produce the same final configuration. This
configuration has been examined (by Gauss-Seidel load
flow analysis of every possible configuration) and
proven to be optimal.
Further tests of the three Heuristic methods have
been conducted on the m r e complex 44 kV system. The
two Heuristic search methods propose the optimal
configuration when applied to the system with the
loads ass&
to be constant. The Optimal Load Flow
mthod, however, produces results which are sarewhat
less than optkl, although some loss reduction is
obtained over the original configuration. The O p t k l
Load Flow method is often able to reduce the system
losses but the final configuration is not guaranteed
to be optimal or even near-optimal.
When applied to the 44 kV system with time-varying
loads, the Heuristic Search methods reduced system
losses by as much as 8.8% over the one year test
period. Again, the Optimal Load Flow method, while
providing sone loss reduction, is not nearly as
effective.
Not only is the O p t k l Load Flow method less
effective at reducing system losses, it is also the
slowest method. Fpplication of the three methods has
been sirdated on the Honeywell CP-6 mainframe
computer. The system works on a th-sharing basis
which makes a m a t e assessment of the computation
t h s bpssible, however, an approxination of the
relative speeds of calcuhtion is possible. The
m u n t of t i n - e taken to complete the calculations for

each of the rrethcds f o r the one year period has been

recorded and is shown in Table 6. These times do not
represent exact CPU times as the system is timesharing with other processes, however, they do give an
indication of the relative times taken by each method.
The times shown include the time taken to calculate
configurations for 96 time periods, f o r each of two
days, for each of three seasons. The total number of
configurations to be determined is therefore 576.

All of the times listed in Table 6 are acceptable

for real-time reconfiguration of the Kingston 44 kV
system which is a relatively small system. For large
or medium size systems, the O p t k l Load Flow method
may very well be too tine consuming to be practical.
KINGSION P.U.C.
44 kV SYSTEM

INUMBER OF FEEDERS
NUMBER OF SWITCHES

PENNSYLVANIA
POWER AND LIGHT
26

51

161

PEAK LOAD ( M W
TOTAL LOSSES WITHOUT
RECONFIGURATIOWW)

16.927

LOSS REDUCTION WlTH

RECONFlGURATlON(MW)
PERCENTAGE LOSS
RECUCnON
SAVINGS

8.8 s

14.6 Q.

$23.259.00

SI 11.450.00

Table 7 Camparison of Kingston P.U.C. and p.p. and L.

Systems
The Heuristic Searchflnifody Distributed Load
Model method, although sorewhat more t k consuming,
is reasonably fast and would likely be adequate for
larger systems. In addition, it has the advdnta9 of
being easily d f i e d to &el
the system either with
lumped or uniformly distributed loads, whichever m r e
accurately describes the system.
The savings in losses for the one year period,
using the lumped-load &el
and the Heuristic Search
methods, are estimated to be approxbately $23,000 or
465 MWH. This compares favorably with the results of
the Pennsylvania Power and Light (PPL) project [2]. A
comparison is detailed in Table 7. The higher savings
for the PPL system are attributed to the higher total
load, higher system losses and, most importantly, to
the greater number of possible switching options.
Considering the relatively smill size of the Kingston
44 kV system, the savings are quite significant.
The Cost Analysis described above shows that
Distribution Automation is cost effective. Feeder
reconfiguration for loss reduction alone provides some
savings and when combined with other Distribution
Automation features such as Load Management, VAR and
voltage control, automatic meter reading, fault isolation and service restoration etc., the benefits of
Distribution Autmtion become even more convincing.

1931

J. B. Bunch, R.

D. Miller and J. E. Wheeler,

"Distribution System Integrated Voltage and
Reactive Power Control", IEEE Trans. on Power
Ppparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-101, pp.284-289,
1982.
R. E. Lee and C. L. Brcoks, "A Method and its
Application to Evaluate Automated Distribution
Control", I= ~rans.Power Delivery, Vol. 3 , tp.
1232-1240, 1988.
K.M. Hamam, A. Bracellar and K.S. Hindi,
"Solution of the Transhipment Problem by Networking Modelling and its Application to Generator
Scheduling and Distribution Design", Power
Systems Cannutation Conference, 1975.
M.J. Juricek, A. Fukutome and M.S. Chen, "Transportation Analysis of an Electric Power Distribution System", IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus &
Systems, Vol. PAS-95, NO.3, A76-052-1, p. 758,
1976,
D.L. Wall, G.L. Thompson and J.E.D. NorthcoteGreen, "An optimization Model for Planning Radial
Distribution Networks", IEEE Trans. on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-98, No. 3, pp.
1061-1068, 1979.
A. Merlin, and G. Back, "Search ffx a MinimmLOSS Operational spanning Tree Configuration for
an U r b a n Power Distribution System",Proc. of the
Fifth Power System Conference (PYX), Cambridge,
pp. 1-18, 1975.
71 D. Shirmohammadi, and H.W. Hong, "Reconfiguration
of Electric Distribution Networks for Resistive
Line Lasses Reduction", IEEE Trans. on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. 4, NO. 2, pp. 14921498, 1989.
81 T. Taylor, and D. L u b k m , "Implementationof
Heuristic Search Strategies for Distribution
Feeder Reconfiguration",IEEE PES S m r Meeting,
Long Beach, California, 1989.
"Network Reconfigur[91 M.E. Baran, and F.F. WU,
ation in Distribution Systems for Loss Reduction
and Load Balancing", IEFE Trans. on Power
Delivery, Vo1.4, pp. 1401-1407, 1989.
A. I. Cohen, and M. Carson,
[ 101 D.W. Roks, J. Pat&,
"New Methods
for Evaluating Distribution
Automition and Control (DAC) System Benefits",
IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus & Systems, Vol.
PAS-100, No.6, pp. 2978-2986, 1981.
[ll] G. Hadley, 'Linear P r o g r d n g r ,Addison-Wesley
publishing Campany, 1963.
[12] S. Civanlar, J.J. Grainger, H. Yin and S.S.H.
Lee, "Distribution Feeder Reconfiguration for
LOSS Reduction", IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery,
Vol. 3 , Pp. 1217-1223, 1988.
[13] N. E. Chang, "Determination of Primry-Feeder
Losses", IEEE Trans. on Power Appxatus and
SyStemS, Vol. PAS-87, NO. 12, pP.1991-1994, 1968.

1932

Discussion

M. ETEZADI-AMOLI, EE/CS Department, University

of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557-0030. The authors
are commended for their work regarding feeder
reconfiguration for loss reduction through
distribution automation.
The following
comments are made regarding the described
approach:

The above comments are not made to discourage

research work in the area of distribution
automation. These comments are merely stated
to highlight the various 11costs8'
that one has
to consider when dealing with automation of an
actual distribution system.
Again, my
congratulations to the authors for their work
regarding this subject.

1.

14anuscript received March 4 . 1991.

2.

Based on this author's experience as a

former
distribution engineer,
many
substation transformers operate at a
fixed tap which may be changed once a
year depending on the load variation
between summer and winter.
Feeder
reconfiguration as proposed may require
different taps for these transformers
during a regular season. Since this may
not
be
practical,
extra
boundary
conditions will have to be incorporated
into the proposed algorithm.
This in
turn will reduce the number of switching
options.
Actual distribution feeder layout may not
always accommodate allocation of load
from one feeder to another due to the
different
ratings
of
the
various
conductors and other limitations. Since
all feeders do not have the same type of
conductors, representation of the actual
feeders and their capabilities will
further reduce the switching options.

3.

Since distribution feeders are protected

using overcurrent relays and settings of
these relays are dependent on load and
fault currents, the proposed scheme would
have to resolve the protection issues
under various operating conditions.

4.

In an actual power distribution system,

different feeders may be designed to
operate
with
different
reliability
depending on the type of loads.
Thus
reconfiguration of
the distribution
system or the purpose of loss reduction
may not be acceptable to customers with
essential loads such as the casinos in
the Reno area.

5.

6.

Use of shunt capacitors for voltage

regulation and power factor correction is
a logical and popular option among the
distribution engineers.
If current
compensation is used to control the
switching of these capacitor banks,
allocation of load from one feeder to the
other may disrupt the arrangement for the
proper operation of these devices.
Relocation of these banks to a section of
a feeder which will not be influenced by
the reconfiguration may not be possible,
practical,
or
economical.
Any
modification cost related to this issue
must be included in the economic analysis
regarding the distribution automation.
Voltage
regulators
and
line
sectionalizers which may be installed on
some feeders may not properly operate
under the described schemes.

Dariush Shirmohammadi and Wayne Hong

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
The authors have compared two heuristic
methods of
network reconfiguration for
resistive
losses reduction. Both these
methods have been successfully implemented in
practice. The comparison seems to have been
made by actually implementing the algorithms
presented in the references [7] and [12] of
the paper.
The results presented are of
importance and value to the industry.
A s emphasized by the authors, both these
methods are heuristic and, hence, their
implementation can profoundly impact their
results. This is particularly true for the
method
presented in [ 7 ] --llOptimal Flow
Pattern" approach. In thls method, the power
flow of the distribution network must be
solved accurately and repeatedly. In the
absence of an efficient and accurate method
for solving such power flow problem, the
overall algorithm becomes inefficient and
perhaps
inaccurate.
For
example,
a
Gauss-Seidel approach is too inefficient and
a Newton-based approach may be unstable.
In
both
cases,
increasing the mismatch
tolerances to obtain results may render the
power flow results useless. If, as a result
of an inaccurate power flow solution the
nodal current injections are inaccurately
computed, switches that are selected for
opening will not be the optimum or near
optimum. We have found the power flow method
presented in [A] to efficient and accurate
for distribution networks.

Another important implementation issue is the

modeling of switches and their interactions
with one another in the Optimal Flow Pattern
approach.
For example, once a normally
closed switch is opened in the process
converting the meshed network to a radial
one, a normally open switch must remain
closed in order to keep the loads downstream
from the opened switch connected.
The
selection of such a normally open switch is
not trivial if more than one such switch
exists -- which is often the case.
In the implementation of

the Optimal Flow

Pattern approach it is also important whether

and how network ampacity constraints are
taken into consideration. Including ampacity
considerations impacts the final results and
the efficiency of the algorithm.
Implementation issues are also extremely
important if numerical efficiency is to be
maintained.

1933

Without careful attention to implementation

issues, it is expected that only small scale
distribution networks can be solved without
difficulty as is shown in the paper.
However, as the network size becomes larger,
the impact of the implementation details on
the efficiency and the accuracy of the
approach becomes increasingly important.
Our experience with the Optimal Flow Pattern
approach [7] on distribution networks of
practical sizes (up to five thousand branches
and 1200 switches) is very favorable. We
have found the approach to be very robust and
practically independent on the initial set of
open switches. Obviously some dependence on
the initial set of open switches should be
expected since the approach only points to a
near-optimum solution. We have frequently
achieved
loss
reductions
that were
significantly more than 10 percent for such
realistic networks. The CPU times have been
a few seconds on a 6 MIP computer. Small
networks, such as those studied in the paper,
can be solved in a fraction of a second.
In conclusion, we must emphasize that unless
a heuristic approach is correctly implemented
to work
efficiently with
large scale
networks, no general conclusions could be
made on its results.
[A] D. Shirmohammadi, H.W. Hong, A. Semlyen,
G.X. Luo, "A Compensation-Based Power
.
Flow technique for Weakly Meshed
Distribution and Transmission Networks",
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, May
1988, pp. 753-762.
Manuscript received March 4 , 1991.

CLOSURE

T. Wagner and A .
Chikhani, Electrical
Engineering Department, Royal Military College
of Canada, Kingston Ontario, Canada, K7K 5LO
R . Hackam, Electrical Engineering Department,
University of Windsor, Windsor Ontario,
Canada, N9B 3 P 4 . The authors would like to
thank D. Shirmohammadi and W. Hong for there
thoughtful comments and advice.
The discussion by M. Etezadi-Amoli is
also very much appreciated and outlines some
very
important
considerations in
the
application of reconfiguration schemes. It is
obvious that feeder reconfiguration will only
be practical if it is implemented as part of
a comprehensive automation system, including
a sophisticated SCADA system, which may
resolve some of the concerns listed in the
discussion. For example, overcurrent relay
settings could be automatically adjusted to
suit the present configuration. Shunt
capacitor switching could also be included,
not only for voltage and power factor
correction, but also for loss reduction.
Research is presently ongoing to examine how
to best implement feeder reconfiguration in
conjunction with shunt capacitor switching, in
order to optimize distribution system
configurations for minimal losses.
As pointed out, implementation of feeder
reconfiguration schemes may also require
upgrading of some of the feeders to larger
capacity conductors, in order to take full
advantage of the loss minimization techniques.
With regard to the manual operation of
transformer taps, the authors agree that some
examination of this restriction is required.
However, since the overall effect of the
feeder reconfiguration process is to more
evenly distribute the feeder loads over the
distribution network, it may well be that taps
will not require more frequent changes.
The comments regarding voltage regulators
and feeder reliabilities again underline the
fact that there are many considerations which
need to be addressed in order to effectively
implement a practical reconfiguration scheme.
Manuscript received August 27, 1991.