Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DG (Distribution Systmes) in Distributions Systems
DG (Distribution Systmes) in Distributions Systems
DG (Distribution Systmes) in Distributions Systems
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
By
MALLADI VENKATA SEETA RAMA SASTRY
(Roll No: 148W1D5609)
Under the guidance of
DEPARTMENT OF
(AUTONOMOUS)
VIJAYAWADA-520007
OCTOBER - 2016
CERTIFICATE
MALLADI
VENKATA
SEETA
RAMA
SASTRY
bearing
Roll
Signature of Guide
Signature of HOD
Dr. P.V.R.L.
HOD of
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am extremely gratified to my guide Dr. GUMMADI SRINIVASA RAO
Associate Professor, for his insurmountable guidance and constant encouragement
given throughout this project. I am very much indebted for his valuable suggestions
and inspiration he has proffered throughout the course of the project.
It is my sincere obligation to thank our head of Electrical and Electronics
Engineering department Dr. P.V.R.L. NARASIMHAM, Principal Dr. A.V. RATNA
PRASAD and PG program coordinator of EEE Dr. B. SRINIVASA RAO for their
immeasurable beneficent help, with timely suggestions and ideas which wrapped me
in an inconceivable compliance.
I would like to thank all the project review panel members Dr. M.S.K.
RAYALU, Dr. A. RAMADEVI for their consistent encouragement and suggestions
to improve this project work.
I acknowledge my gratitude to the staff, classmates and my senior Mr. A
Balu for their continuous help and support.
It is my sincere commitment to thank to Mr. Mahesh Kumar. Putti, Mr. Ch
Sai Ravi Chandra for extending their support towards project and giving financial
support.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my Parents and family members for
their support in every part of my life and this work.
ABSTRACT
Voltage stability has become an important issue of power system stability.
This work is concentrated on finding weak busses with voltage stability index
analysis for Radial Distribution System (RDS). In this workOptimization of Multiple
Distribution Generating Unit using Voltage Stability Index and Analytical Approach
with Forward, Backward Sweep method (FBS).
In this work a noval approach has been implemented to reduce the losses in
the radial distribution system. This work has been done in two phases.From the first
phase of work identification of weak nodes with voltage stability index, which are
most sensitive to voltage collapse using the Branch Injection and Branch Current
(BIBC) and Branch Current and Branch Voltage (BCBV) matrix have been analyzed.
This feature enables us to set an index threshold to monitor and envisage system test
case stability, so that a proper action can be taken to prevent the system from
collapse.
From second phase, optimal allocation of Multiple DG with the objective as
minimizing the distribution line losses with cost attributes. It is vitally essential to
characterize the size and location of multiple DGs to be placed and the cost of
DGs,. Thecost of line losses are calculated when the DGsare placed at optimal bus.
By virtue of some intrinsically characteristics of distribution systems, as the structure
is radial in nature, immensely colossal number of nodes, with an extensive range of
R/X ratios, the conservative techniques divergesinthe distributionsystem forthe
determination of optimum size and location ofthese multipleDistributed Generations
(DG). The projectedapproach and results are validated on IEEE 15, IEEE 33, and
IEEE 69 bus standard test systems.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1.....................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................1
1.1 Transmission & Distribution of Electricity......................2
1.2 Distributed generation (DG)...........................................2
1.3 Technologies for distributed generation..........................4
1.4 Background of the project..............................................5
Chapter 2.....................................................................................8
POWER FLOW ANALYSIS.............................................................8
2.1 Power flow analysis NR method......................................8
2.2 Forward, Backward Sweeping Method..........................12
2.3 Voltage stability index..................................................15
2.4 Mathematical modeling for Distribution Generation.....17
2.5 DG Impact on Voltage Drop..........................................20
2.6 Maximum DG allowed capacity....................................21
2.7 Cost analysis................................................................22
Chapter 3...................................................................................23
ALGORITHM IMPLEMENTATION................................................23
3.1 Constraints of Allocating DGs......................................23
3.2 Algorithm for proposed method....................................23
3.3 Algorithm for Optimal Size and Allocation of DG..........24
Chapter 4...................................................................................26
SIMULATION RESULTS..............................................................26
List of Table
Table 1.1 Different types of DG.....................................................4
Table 4.1 Voltage and VSI without DG for 15 bus test system.....28
Table 4.2 Voltage and VSI without DG for 33 bus system............30
Table 4.3 Voltage and VSI without DG for 69 bus system............32
Table 4.4 Review of result in various test system without DG.....33
Table 4.5 Voltage and VSI with DG for 15 bus............................35
Table 4.6 Voltage and VSI with DG for 33 bus system.................37
Table 4.7 Voltage and VSI with DG for 69 bus system.................39
Table 4.8 Review of results for One Distribution generators........41
Table 4.9 Review of results for multiple DG for 15 bus...............42
Table 4.10 Review of results for multiple DG for 33 bus system. .44
Table 4.11 Review of results for multiple DG for 69 bus system. .46
Table A.1 Load Data for 15 bus system......................................51
Table A.2 Line Data for 15 bus..................................................51
Table A.3 Line Data for 33 bus system.......................................52
Table A.4 Load Data for 33 bus system......................................53
Table A.5 Line Data for 69 bus system.......................................54
10 | P a g e
List of figure
Figure 1.1 Energy Consumed Worldwide
12
13
15
20
27
Figure 4.2 Voltage and Voltage stability index for 15 bus RDS
28
29
Figure 4.4 Voltage and Voltage Stability Index for 33 bus RDS
29
31
Figure 4.6 Voltage and Voltage Stability Index for 69 bus RDS
32
Figure 4.7 Voltage and Voltage Stability Index for 15 bus RDS
34
35
Figure 4.9 Voltage and Voltage stability index for 33 bus RDS
36
11 | P a g e
37
Figure 4.11 Voltage and Voltage stability index for 69 bus RDS 38
Figure 4.12 Real power loss and one DG size
40
43
43
45
Subscripts
N=No of Busses
PL=Real power loss of considered test case
QL=Reactive power loss of considered test case
Vm=bus voltage of mth bus
Sm=injected apparent power of mth bus
SI=stability index
Vs=sending bus voltage
rnn=Branch resistance .
xnn=Branch reactance.
Pm2=Total real power load fed towards node m2,
Qm2=Total reactive power load fed towards node m2
12 | P a g e
jj=branch number
PDgm=OptimalRealGenarationatmthbus
Pm=Injection real power at mth bus
Qm=Injection reactive power at mth bus
QDgm=OptimalReactiveGenerationatmthbus
EC=Energyrate
T=Timedurationinhours
m=Voltage angle on mth bus.
13 | P a g e
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Electricity demand is growing the fastest of all the energy
consumed worldwide. According to global energy consumption 2000
fromFig 1, the electricity accounted for 9%.This rise in consumption
is
more
connectedwithtechnologicallydeveloped
countries
and
1.1
centrally
of
generated
delivering
to
power
the
load
and
is
the
more
consumer.
important
A
for
come
into
picture
with
new
difficulties
and
to
longer
term
considerations
[5].
Introducingthe
are
Generation
called
(EG)
asDispersed
but
for
this
Generation
thesis,
(DG)and
the
term
Embedded
Distributed
change
the
variationbychanging
uniqueness
the
of
the
technical
network,
with
characteristics.
more
These
any
distribution
network,the
payment
to
the
500 kW5 MW
100 kW20 MW
35400 MW
1250 MW
250 kW2 MW
200 kW2 MW
1 kW250 kW
250 kW5 MW
5100 MW
5 kW10 MW
35 kW1 MW
Micro-Turbines
Micro-Turbines
Ocean energy
Photovoltaic arrays
Small hydro
Solar thermal, central receiver
Solar thermal, Lutz system
Sterling engine
Wind turbine
1.4
35 kW1 MW
35 kW1 MW
100 kW1 MW
20 Watt100 kW
1100 MW
110 MW
1080 MW
210 kW
200 Watt3 MW
Chapter 2
POWER FLOW ANALYSIS
2.1 Power flow analysis NR method
The current flowing from the mth bus in system at kth iteration
S
I km
V m
k
m
(2.0)
I m YmnVn
(2.0)
n 1
Sm Vm
Y
n 1
* *
mnVn Vm Ymn Vn
n 1
(2.0)
Vm | Vm | m
j 1
j 1
j 1
j 1
(2.0)
The Eq. 2.3 & 2.4 are called the power flow equations. For the
complex function of sinusoids, the Euler relation is used,
V | V | m | V |{cos j sin }
we may rewrite Eq. (2.4) as
S m Vm Vn ( m n ) (Gmn jBmn )
n 1
N
(2.0)
S m Pm jQm
two equations, one for the real part, P m, and one for the imaginary
part, Qm
N
(2.0)
n 1
(2.0)
Pm Vm G Vm Vn G cos( m n ) Vm Vn B sin( m n )
(2.
Qm Vm B Vm Vn G sin( m n ) Vm Vn B cos( m n )
0)
Pm Vm G Vm Vn G cos( m n ) Vm Vn B sin( m n )
(2.0)
Qm Vm B Vm Vn B cos( m n ) Vm Vn G sin( m n )
As
f1 ( x)
P2 ( x ) P2
f N 1 ( x )
P2
PN ( x ) PN
PN
f ( x)
Q 0
QN 1 ( x ) QN 1
QN 1
f N ( x)
0
( x )
f2 N N
QN ( x ) QN
QN
(2.0)
The solution update formula is given by Eq. (2.10), repeated here for
convenient andclearly, an essential step in applying NR to the power
flow problem is to enable calculation of the Jacobian elements
( i 1)
(i )
x x
(i )
(i )
x J
(i )
f (x )
(2.0)
J PV
J QV
P
|V| Q
(2.0)
J nm P
Pn ( x)
Vn Vm Gmn sin( n m ) Bmn cos( n m )
m
(2.13)
J nn P
Pn ( x)
2
Qn ( x ) Bnn Vn
n
(2.14)
J nm Q
Qn ( x )
Vn Vm Gmn cos( n m ) Bmn sin( n m )
m
(2.15)
J nn Q
Qn ( x )
Pn ( x ) Gnn Vn
m
(2.16)
J nm PV
Pn ( x)
Vn Gnm cos( n m ) Bmn sin( n m )
Vm
(2.17)
J nn PV
Pn ( x ) Pn ( x)
Gnn Vn
Vn
Vn
(2.18)
J nm QV
Qn ( x)
Vn Gmn sin( n m ) Bnm cos( n m )
Vm
(2.19)
J nnQV
Qn ( x ) Qn ( x )
Bnn Vn
Vn
Vn
(2.20)
P2 ( x) P2
PN ( x ) PN
f N 1 ( x )
f ( x )
QN 1 ( x ) QN 1
f N ( x)
(
x
)
2 N N 1
G
P2
QN ( x ) QN
PN
0
(2.21)
QN 1
QN
Sm *
P jQ
) ( m k m )* ym (V k 1m )
k
V m
V m
(2.22)
J m ( k ) I mr J mr , l b, b 1
Where
J mr
I mr
(2.23a)
Step 3: Forward Sweep: Starting from the root bus, the node voltages
are updated using Eq.2.23
(2.23b)
Where msand mrdenote the sending and receiving end of branch l,Z l
is the series impedance of branch l.A simple distribution system
shown in Fig. 2.3 is used as an example. The power injections can be
converted to theequivalent current injections by (2.22), and the
relationshipbetween the busmcurrent injections and branch currents
can beobtained by applying Kirchhoffs Current Law (KCL) to
thedistribution network. The branch currents can then beformulated
as functions of equivalent current injections. Forexample, the branch
currents B1, B2 and B15, can be expressedby equivalent current
injections as
[ B ] [ BIBC ][ I ]
(2.24)
Z diag ( Z b )
(2.25)
BCBV [ BIBC ]T * Z
V1
V2
Z12
V1 V3 Z12
V1 V4 Z12
V1 V5 Z12
V1 V6 Z12
V1 V7 Z12
V V Z
1 8 12
V1 V9 Z12
V V Z
1 10 12
V1 V11 Z12
V1 V12 Z12
V1 V13 Z12
V1 V14 Z12
V V Z
1
15
12
Z 23
Z 23
Z 34
Z 23
0
Z 34
0
Z 45
0
0
Z 26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z 26
Z 67
Z 26
Z 67
Z 78
Z 29
Z 29
Z910
Z 23
Z311
Z 23
Z311
Z1112
Z 23
Z311
Z1112
Z1213
Z 23
Z 23
Z 34
Z 34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z 414
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z 415
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B
* 7
B8
B
9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B
14
small stability indices are called weak nodes and then should be
reinforced by injecting reactive power. In the present analysis, voltage
stability margin is calculated for time variant realistic ZIP load model.
The impact of DG on voltage stability improvement has also
determined.
I mk (
Sm *
P jQm *
) ( m k
)
k
V m
V m
(2.26)
For two bus system the current flow from mth bus to nthfrom Fig 2.4
Im
| Vm | m | Vn | n
Rm jX m
(2.27)
Pm jQm * | Vm | m | Vn | n
)
V km
Rm jX m
( Pm jQm ) *( Rm jX m ) V k m (| Vm | m | Vn | n )
( Pn Rm Qn X m ) j ( Pn X m Qn Rm ) | Vm || Vn | cos( n m ) | Vn |2 j | Vm || Vn | sin( n m )
Separating real and imaginary parts of the above equations
( Pn Rm Qn X m ) | Vm || Vn | cos( n m ) | Vn |2
( Pn X m Qn Rm ) | Vm || Vn | sin( n m )
From the above equations
(2.28)
(2.29)
(2.30)
( Rmm 2 X mm 2 )( Pm 2 2 Qn 2 2 ) Amm
| Vm |2 4( Pm 2 Rmn Qn 2 X mn ) Bmm
From the above equations, fourth is a feasible solution as first two are
nearly equal to zero and not feasible solutions. The third solution is
negative and not feasible.
Bmm 2 4 * Amm 2 0
and the final equation is
(2.31)
(sign)* tan(cos 1 ( DG pf )
Sign = +1: DG injects reactive power;
Sign = 1: DG is consuming reactive power;
The active and reactive power injected at bus (m), where the DG
located, are given by Eq. (2.32) and (2.33), respectively,
Pm PDGm Pdm
(2.32)
(2.33)
m 1
n 1
m 1
n 1
Pl jQl S m Vm I m*
Vm
Z
m 1
n 1
mn
In
m 1
n 1
m 1
n 1
Sm Z mn I n I m*
I n | I n | cos n j || I n | sin n
I m | I m | cos m j || I m | sin m
Where
m m m
m Tan(
Qm
)
Pm
m 1
n 1
m 1
n 1
Pl Rmn | I m | | I n | cos( m n )
m 1
n 1
N
Ql X mn | I m | | I n | sin( m n )
m 1
n 1
Im
Qm
Pm
Im
| Vm cos m |
| Vm sin m |
Pl Rmn (
m 1
n 1
Pm Pn cos( m n )
)
| Vm | cos m * | Vn | cos n
Pl Rmn (
m 1
n 1
Pm Pn cos[( m n ) (m n )]
)
| Vm || Vn | cos m cos n
(2.34)
Ql [ mn ( Pm Pn Qm Qn ) mn (Qm Pn Pm Qn )
m 1
n 1
(2.35)
Where
mn Rmn (
cos( m n )
)
| Vm || Vn |
mn Rmn (
sin( m n )
)
| Vm || Vn |
mn X mn (
cos( m n )
)
| Vm || Vn |
mn X mn (
sin( m n )
)
| Vm || Vn |
( [
dPDGm
dPDGm m 1
mn
( Pm Pn QmQn ) mn (Qm Pn Pm Qn ))
n 1
dPl
dPDGm
dPl
dPDGm
( [ mn (( PDGm PDm ) Pn ( * PDGm QDm )Qn ) mn (( * PDGm QDm ) Pn ( PDGm PDm )Qn ))
m 1
n 1
mn ( Pm * Qm ) mm ( Pm Qm )
( mn * Pn mnQn )
m 1
nm
( mn * Qn mn Pn ) 0
m 1
n m
As
N
X m ( mn * Pn mnQn )
m 1
nm
Ym ( mn * Qn mn Pn )
m 1
nm
PDGm
(2.36)
PDGm
mm ( PDm ) mm (QDm ) X m
mm
DG pf 0; .
QDGm
mm (QDm ) mm (QDm ) Ym
mm
Type 3: Active (P) and Reactive (Q) power injection mutually and the
PF ranges between
0 DG pf 1;
th
PDGm
Eg:Synchronous Machine.
PDGm
Type 4: Mutual Active (P) and Reactive (Q) power injection and the PF
ranges between
th
0 DG pf 1;
at m bus is given by
PDGm
constant sign
PDGm
V V1 V2
(2.37)
case,i.e.;
the
voltage
may
increase
or
decrease
depending upon the active and reactive power relation between load
and line R/X ratio.
R's
Where
EC=4. 63
Rs/kWh
T = 8760
hours/year
(2.38)
Rs/kWh
Where a = 0, b = 20 c = 0.25.
Cost of reactive power supplied by DG as
2
2
C(Q DG )=[Cost(Smax )-Cost( (Smax
-Q dg
) )*K Rs/hr
(2.39)
Where
K=0. 05 to 0.1
Chapter 3
ALGORITHM IMPLEMENTATION
3.1 Constraints of Allocating DGs
CIGRE
engineers
designed
and
given
some
important
Chapter 4
SIMULATION RESULTS
4.1 Test Systems
3 test cases had been considered for this methodology. They
are 15 bus, 33bus and 69 bus test systems. These test cases, data
had considered from an IEEE standard test case from the power
system. Figure 8 shows 15 bus test case, Figure 8 shows 33 bus test
case and Figure 10 show 69 bus test cases. By this voltage stability
index also increase at that particular node as because of the reactive
power injection.
4.2 Optimal Location and Size
Technically speaking, distribution and transmission networks
are designed for somewhat different purposes. The main difference is
that distribution systems are usually not designed for the connection
of active power generators. Furthermore, distribution networks
usually have a radial or loop design, rather than a mesheddesign
typical for transmission networks. Therefore, the power flow in
distributionnetworks usually is unidirectional and little or no
redundancy exists.From the analytical expressions proposed above,
the optimal sizes at diverse locations the losses are calculated. The
Position with minimum losses is considered as the optimal location at
which the Distributed generation (DG) should be added. As loss
reduction is improved with and coefficients from the base case for
DG allocation. The bus voltages will increase and voltage security will
enhance with the optimal allocation of DG.
4.3
Without DG
The algorithm followed by Forward, Backward Substitution
identified that 2.038% of the total load in the system for the
operating power factor of 0.72 lag.
Figure 4.9 Voltage and Voltage stability index for 15 bus RDS
Table 4.1 shows the Voltage and Voltage Stability Index(pu) without
allocating DG using above proposed method.
Table 4.2 Voltage and VSI without DG for 15 bus test system
Bus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Voltage
in p.u
1
0.971231
0.956618
0.950854
0.949867
0.958199
0.955979
0.956924
VSI in
p.u
1
0.993369
0.888237
0.837232
0.817435
0.845511
0.839001
0.865304
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0.967920
0.966847
0.949909
0.945791
0.944481
0.948554
0.948390
0.847343
0.878410
0.830201
0.814112
0.800165
0.819422
0.824790
Figure 4.11 Voltage and Voltage Stability Index for 33 bus RDS
From Table 4.4 the real power loss in the 33 bus system is
211.264kW. So that the percentage of real power loss in total system
is identified that 5.6686% of the total load in the system for the
operating power factor of 0.8225 lag.Table 4.2 shows the Voltage and
Voltage Stability Index(pu) without allocating DG using above prposed
method.
Bus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
0.919931
0.919055
0.917527
0.911347
0.909073
0.907652
0.906271
0.90424
0.90363
0.99648
0.99288
0.99217
0.99153
0.979217
0.972509
0.96916
0.947414
0.944855
0.933371
0.925125
0.921575
0.917366
0.916439
0.916152
0.734331
0.716141
0.713386
0.708532
0.689855
0.682981
0.678712
0.674648
0.668573
0.938349
0.985920
0.971842
0.969076
0.914943
0.919136
0.894430
0.817349
0.805467
0.795874
0.758530
0.732482
0.721143
0.708203
0.705361
Voltage in
pu
1
0.999962
0.999924
0.999818
0.998900
0.989058
0.978823
0.976383
0.975136
0.969597
0.968377
0.964876
0.961638
0.958428
0.955251
0.954660
0.953686
0.953676
VSI in
pu
1
0.999991
0.99984
0.99967
0.999004
0.993033
0.95471
0.917546
0.90863
0.903898
0.883795
0.879272
0.866634
0.855098
0.843778
0.832671
0.83062
0.827222
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
0.953162
0.952832
0.952299
0.952291
0.952212
0.952039
0.951852
0.951775
0.951753
0.999917
0.999841
0.999735
0.999716
0.999622
0.999396
0.999142
0.999067
0.999909
0.999718
0.999542
0.999492
0.999489
0.998715
0.998391
0.998348
0.998339
0.99823
0.998229
0.999763
0.998386
0.994139
0.993537
0.976344
0.976333
0.972081
0.968527
0.827196
0.825412
0.824275
0.822421
0.822397
0.822124
0.821527
0.820879
0.820611
0.999285
0.999668
0.999368
0.998941
0.998866
0.998489
0.997586
0.996574
0.999295
0.999636
0.998874
0.998172
0.99797
0.997955
0.994872
0.993581
0.99341
0.993374
0.992939
0.99669
0.999031
0.993488
0.976773
0.90427
0.908682
0.929005
0.89224
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
0.963625
0.960202
0.941053
0.931678
0.927778
0.921737
0.914278
0.913968
0.913629
0.911717
0.911258
0.968281
0.968248
0.964481
0.964429
0.879047
0.862013
0.848398
0.784707
0.753792
0.740891
0.722079
0.698752
0.697833
0.696887
0.691022
0.867553
0.879033
0.856983
0.865313
Table 4.3 shows the Voltage and Voltage Stability Index(pu) without
allocating DG using above proposed method.
Table5.4Review of resultin various test system without DG
Test
Power
case
factor
15
bus
33
bus
69
bus
0.98
0.85
0.82
Voltage
Stability
index
Minimum
Voltage
Load demand
Activepower
with real
loss, cost
power loss
Rs/year
0.8004@
0.9445
1.226M@61.795
13
0.6675@
@13
0.90367
kW
3.715MW@211.
18
0.69102
@18
0.9113
26kW
3.971MW@219.
@65
@65
54kW
25.30lakh
85.69lakh
89.210lakh
4.4 With DG
The algorithm considered above is formulated for DG in the
system. Belowresults shows that optimal sizes and total losses with
Figure 4.14 Voltage and Voltage Stability Index for 15 bus RDS
The voltage and stability index is plotted in Fig. 4.7 where minimum
voltage point and index point is highlighted. The test case needs both
real and reactive power injection to reduce losses.All the results above
discussed wrt to the 15 bus radial distribution system are tabulated
in Table 4.8.
Table 4.6 Voltage and VSI with DG for 15 bus
Bus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Voltage in
pu
1
0.9946678
1.0002883
0.9945240
0.993537
0.9816263
0.9794047
0.9803501
0.9913563
VSI in
pu
1
1.0874743
1.0566929
0.9999285
0.9781005
1.0099772
0.924110
0.951719
1.011980
10
11
12
13
14
15
0.9902833
0.9935754
0.9894544
0.9881440
0.9922236
0.9920596
0.966490
0.992236
0.973742
0.958250
0.980273
0.986147
From Fig. 4.8 it is noticed that minimum power loss appears at bus 3.
The optimal power factor for this considered system is 0.72 lagging
and corresponding optimal size is 1.4206 MVA has a cost for real
power is 20,457/hr (1022.9 kW) Rs.The total losses with optimal
location, optimal size, having best power factor are 15.7881 kW with a
loss cost 6.40lakhRs/year.
th
bus only. The voltage and index had improved after placing DG in
the optimal position. The voltage and stability index is plotted in Fig.
4.9 where minimum voltage point and index point is highlighted.
Figure 4.16 Voltage and Voltage stability index for 33 bus RDS
In 33-bus test system, from Fig. 4.10 bus 6 found to be the best
location with minimum power loss. The optimal power factor for this
system obtained is 0.8225 lagging and corresponding optimal size is
3.0135 MVA has a cost for real power is 49,774/hr
(2488.78 kW)
according to cost analysis. The test case needs both real and reactive
power injection to reduce losses. The total losses with optimal
location, optimal size, having best power factor is 68.495 kW with real
power loss cost as 30.382 lakh Rs/year.
Bus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
1
0.999061
0.995824
0.996421
0.997437
1.000408
0.996894
0.983175
0.976814
0.970931
0.970056
0.968529
0.962332
0.96004
0.958615
0.957229
0.955185
0.954570
0.998529
0.994931
0.994223
0.993582
0.992217
0.985506
0.982161
0.998474
0.995904
0.984399
0.976136
0.972566
0.968370
0.967446
0.967160
1
1.007541
1.036341
1.013525
1.017225
1.070142
1.000482
0.983005
0.932588
0.908919
0.888491
0.885134
0.878495
0.857191
0.849232
0.844195
0.839228
0.832328
0.988825
0.994015
0.979871
0.977086
0.996343
0.968583
0.943045
1.006503
0.993118
0.980108
0.936899
0.907139
0.893753
0.879169
0.87595
All the results above discussed wrt to the 33 bus radial distribution
system are tabulated in Table 4.8.
Figure 4.18 Voltage and Voltage stability index for 69 bus RDS
From Fig. 4.8 it is noticed that minimum power losss appears at bus
61. The test case needs both real and reactive power injection to
reduce losses. The optimal power factor for this system obtained is
0.82 lagging and corresponding optimal size is 2.2228MVA has a cost
for real power is 36,232 RS/hr (1811.51 kW). The total losses with
optimal location, optimal size, having best power factor is 23.67 kW
with real power loss cost as 9.60lakh Rs.
Bus2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
0.999961
0.999910
0.999618
0.996619
0.993506
0.992789
0.992461
0.987013
0.985813
0.982369
0.979184
0.976028
0.972903
0.972322
0.971363
0.971354
0.970848
0.970523
0.969999
0.969992
0.969914
0.969743
0.969559
0.969483
0.969462
0.999953
0.999878
0.999771
0.999752
0.999658
0.999432
0.999179
0.999104
0.99994
0.999755
0.999579
0.999986
1.000036
1.001875
1.023185
1.012152
0.980480
0.974781
0.969859
0.949021
0.944318
0.931201
0.919224
0.907466
0.895942
0.893807
0.890282
0.890252
0.888398
0.887215
0.885291
0.885265
0.884981
0.884360
0.883687
0.883410
0.999650
0.999814
0.999514
0.999087
0.999011
0.9986353
0.9977326
0.9967201
0.9996612
0.9997821
0.9990205
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
0.999528
0.999526
0.998752
0.998428
0.998385
0.998375
0.998266
0.998266
0.999854
0.998478
0.994311
0.993629
0.992750
0.992740
0.992630
0.992836
0.993196
0.993632
0.996102
0.997319
0.997788
0.998726
0.999940
0.999652
0.999330
0.997542
0.997100
0.985719
0.985687
0.981981
0.981930
0.9983184
0.9981158
0.9981015
0.9950181
0.9937268
0.9935562
0.9935196
0.9930846
0.9995579
0.9993965
0.9938506
0.9771325
0.9702658
0.9713156
0.9958784
0.9845891
0.9909036
0.9875707
1.0564498
1.0251409
1.0060607
1.0173064
1.0276842
0.9997618
0.9986123
0.9973232
0.9901407
0.9321698
0.9440876
0.9211955
0.9298473
The voltage and stability index is plotted in Fig. 4.11 where minimum
voltage point and index point is highlighted. The test case needs both
real and reactive power injection to reduce losses. All the results
above discussed wrt to the 69 bus radial distribution system are
tabulated in Table 4.8.
case
facto
r
15
bus
33
bus
69
bus
0.72
Load
DG
Voltage
Min
demand
value
Stabilit
Voltag
withreal
in MVA
y index
power
0.825
0.82
0.8323@
0.9546
18
@18
68.495k
MVA@6
1
@27
@27
/hr
/year
kW)
@7
0.9694
costRs
81kW
3.715MW
0. 8831
costRs
1022.9
MVA@3
2.2228
loss
W@15.78
0.9791
@6
DG
20,457(
0.9241@
MVA
ActiveP
loss
1.2264M
1.4205
3.0135
Active
49,774(
2488.7
8kW)
W
3.9718M
36,232
W@23.67
(1811.5
kW
1kW)
6.40
lakh
30.4
lakh
9.60
lakh
Installed DG
Voltag
Ploss
chang
Power
st
case
MVA
kW
e in
injecti
Rs
loss
on
/hr
1022.9
20,45
kW
1035.5
0.9445
No DG
1DG
2DG
size
1.42
@13
0.9794
bus
@7
size
1.418
bus
0.464
4
6
0.9875
@11
61.79
15.82
74.38
7.47
87.90
kW+33
9.03kW
27,49
0
minimum power loss at 8.302kW. For the optimal power factor 0.72
lagg for this system,the optimal size is 1.8824MVA has a cost for real
power is 27,490 (1035.5kW+339.0316kW) Rs/hr. The test case needs
both real and reactive power injection to reduce losses. Table 4.9
shows the simulated results for 15 bus distribution systems.Further
increase in number of DGs, will decrese the real power loss in the
system and voltage profile will improve.
Installed DG
Voltag
Ploss
Chang
cas
MVA
kW
in loss
Real
power
injection
DG
cost
Rs
/hr
No
0.9036
211.2
DG
@18
1D
size
3.038
0.9546
68.85
bus
@18
2D
size
2.548
0.9765
56.38
bus
@18
.
663
30
67.40
2488.78
49,77
kW
2420.18k
73.30
W+630.3
8kW
61,05
8
Test
Installed DG
case
1DG
MVA
Ploss
chang
power
kW
e in
injectio
loss
89.21
1811.51
kW
0.9113
DG
@61
size
2.222
0.9694
bus
61
@27
2DG
bus
0.649
0
2.195
17
61
Real
Voltag
No
size
DG
cost
Rs/hr
219.54
23.67
36,232
1776.83
0.9765
@65
7.4647
96.59
4kW
+519.88
45,931
4kW
FUTURE SCOPE
The DG should participate according real time whole sale
electrical market. Deregulation of electrical market is derived by two
objectives
namely
optimal
size
and
allocation
throughprofit
CONCLUSIONS
A
Forward,
Backward
Sweeping
method
(FBSM)
has
been
for
proposed
are,27,490(1034.4kW+339.031kW)
test
Rs/hr,
(2420.18kW+630.38kW)
systems
49,774
Rs/hr
and
bus
systems respectively.
The main theme of this thesis voltage profile improvement rather
than voltages stability improvement by injecting real power into the
system.
REFERENCES
[1]
Yearbook.Enerdata.Net/Electricity-Domestic-Consumption
Data -By-Region
[2] World Final Electricity Consumption between 1980 and
2030Twh
[3] Tsikalakis, A. G., and N. D. Hatziargyriou. "Environmental
benefits of distributed generation with and without emissions
trading." Energy Policy35.6 (2007): 3395-3409.
[4] Das D, Kothari DP, Kalam A. A simple and efficient method
for
load
flow
solution
of
radial
distribution
networks.
System
Power
Flow
Solution
International
K,
Selvan
MP.
Distributed
generation
generator
placement
in
primary
distribution
Power
System
Optimization
D.
P.
Kothari, J.
S.
Appendix
Table A.13 Load Data for 15 bus system
Bus
Bus
1
2
3
4
5
Type
1
3
3
3
3
Voltage
Del
Pg
Qg
Pload
Qload
1
1
1
1
1
angle
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44.1
70
140
44.1
0
44.9883
71.41
142.8
44.9883
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
140
140
70
70
44.1
140
70
44.1
70
140
142.82
142.82
71.41
71.41
44.9883
142.82
71.41
44.9883
71.41
142.82
Form
To
Resistanc
Reactanc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
bus
1
2
3
4
2
9
2
6
6
3
11
12
4
4
bus
2
3
4
5
9
10
6
7
8
11
12
13
14
15
e
1.35309
1.17024
0.84111
1.52348
2.01317
1.68671
2.55727
1.0882
1.25143
1.79553
2.4485
2.01317
2.23801
1.19702
e
1.32849
1.14464
0.82271
1.0276
1.3579
1.1377
1.7249
0.734
0.8441
1.2111
1.65185
1.3579
1.5047
0.8074
Shunt
Tap
4.668
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Form
To
Resistanc
Reactanc
bus
1
bus
2
e
0.0922
e
0.047
Shunt
Tap
5.234
ratio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2
19
20
21
3
23
24
6
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
0.493
0.366
0.3811
0.819
0.1872
1.7114
1.03
1.04
0.1966
0.3744
1.468
0.5416
0.591
0.7463
1.289
0.732
0.16
1.5042
0.4095
0.7089
0.4512
0.898
0.896
0.203
0.2842
1.059
0.8042
0.5075
0.9744
0.3105
0.341
0.251
0.1864
0.1941
0.707
0.6188
1.2351
0.74
0.74
0.065
0.1238
1.155
0.7129
0.526
0.545
1.721
0.574
0.1565
1.3554
0.4784
0.9373
0.3083
0.7091
0.7011
0.1034
0.1447
0.9337
0.7006
0.2585
0.963
0.3619
0.5302
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Bus
Type
Voltage
Del
angle
Pg
Qg
Pload
Qload
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
90
120
60
60
200
200
60
60
45
60
60
120
60
0
0
90
90
90
90
90
90
420
420
60
60
60
120
200
150
210
60
0
60
40
80
30
20
100
100
20
20
30
35
35
80
10
0
20
40
40
40
40
40
50
200
200
25
20
20
70
600
70
100
40
Bus
Form
To
Resistanc
Reactanc
Shun
Tap
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
bus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
bus
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
e
0.0005
0.0005
0.0015
0.0251
0.366
0.3811
0.0922
0.0493
0.819
0.1872
0.7114
1.03
1.04
1.058
0.1966
0.3744
0.0047
0.3276
0.2106
0.3416
0.014
0.1591
0.3463
0.7488
0.3089
0.1732
0.0044
0.064
0.3978
0.0702
0.351
0.839
1.708
1.474
e
0.0012
0.0012
0.0036
0.0294
0.1864
0.1941
0.047
0.0251
0.2707
0.0619
0.2351
0.34
0.345
0.3496
0.065
0.1238
0.0016
0.1083
0.069
0.1129
0.0046
0.0526
0.1145
0.2475
0.1021
0.0572
0.0108
0.1565
0.1315
0.0232
0.116
0.2816
0.5646
0.4873
t
-4.68
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
3
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
4
47
48
49
8
51
9
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
11
66
12
68
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
0.0044
0.064
0.1053
0.0304
0.0018
0.7283
0.31
0.041
0.0092
0.1089
0.0009
0.0034
0.0851
0.2898
0.0822
0.0928
0.3319
0.174
0.203
0.2842
0.2813
1.59
0.7837
0.3042
0.3861
0.5075
0.0974
0.145
0.7105
1.041
0.2012
0.0047
0.7394
0.0047
0.0108
0.1565
0.123
0.0355
0.0021
0.8509
0.3623
0.0478
0.0116
0.1373
0.0012
0.0084
0.2083
0.7091
0.2011
0.0473
0.1114
0.0886
0.1034
0.1447
0.0012
0.0012
0.0036
0.0294
0.1864
0.1941
0.047
0.0251
0.2707
0.0619
0.2351
0.34
0.345
0.3496
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1