An Improved Newton Load Flow for Distributed

Generation Based on Different Control Strategies

YongLi Zhu, JianGuo Yao
Research Center
State Grid Electric Power Research Institute (SGEPRI)
Nanjing, China
zhuyongli@ieee.org
yaojianguo@sgepri.sgcc.com.cn

Abstract—This paper presents an improved Newton Raphson
load flow algorithm considering distributed generation (DG)
based on their control strategies. Different control strategies for
various DGs are firstly investigated and the load flow model for
direct-driven wind generator is especially mentioned. Then, each
kind of DGs, including photovoltaic, wind turbine, fuel cell and
microturbine, is assigned a bus type according to its certain
control strategy. An improved Newton Raphson load flow
method for DGs is derived involving two unconventional bus
types: PI and PQ (V). Numerical tests are carried out on the
PG&E 69 bus system. Iteration performance shows that the
suggested algorithm can maintain a quadratic convergence
feature even if various DGs are mixed in the test system. In
addition, a comparative study with back forward sweep method
demonstrates a better computational efficiency of the proposed
algorithm in handling network with multiple PV type DGs.
Keywords-load flow; distributed generation; photovoltaic; fuel
cell; wind power; MPPT; PWM
I. INTRODUCTION
Distributed generation (DG) has played an important role in
the development of the modern power system. Its advantages
include high efficiency of energy utilizing, low carbon
emission, flexible distribution network structure, etc. At the
same time, the integration of DGs into the legacy distribution
grid also brings about some challenges and problems, such as
reversed load flow, overvoltage at the feeder terminals where
DGs are connected, lower capacity limitation of fault current
when relays need a trip signal, etc. One of the fundamental
tools for analyzing the above problems is a novel load flow
solution adaptive for distribution network with DGs.
When a high portion of DGs penetrates in the distribution
network, the load flow can be very different from that of the
conventional network, because 1) the random variation of DGs
output like wind or solar generation make the load flow
stochastic; 2) Too many generator buses in the feeder terminals
can result in a severe overvoltage situation in voltage profile; 3)
Some inverter interfaced DGs can act as VAR compensators,
i.e. PV buses. This can result in a multiple PV buses situation
where some load flow algorithms are of bad convergence or
even divergence, e.g. back forward sweep (BFS) methods.
Thus traditional methods like original Newton Raphson
load flow (NRLF) or BFS are unsuitable for the solution of
distribution network within numerous DGs. Therefore some
novel load flow models based on conventional algorithms have
been put forward. The probabilistic load flow is introduced to
integrate the uncertainty of DG output in load flow routine by
simulating the natural resources probability distribution [1] [2].
However, they are not time economic because most of the time
is wasted on the probabilistic calculation. Several improved
BFS methods are also established for radial distribution
network with DGs [3] [4], but they handle multi-meshes cases
arduously, i.e. consuming considerable time on the calculation
of the sensitive matrix for PV buses [5] [6].
In this paper, an improved NRLF is chosen as the load flow
solution for DGs, because 1) the NRLF has an inherent ability
in handling multiple PV buses only through bus type
assignation, without any extra compensation technique. 2) It
does not rely on the radial characteristic of network topology,
i.e. multi-meshes condition is no more an obstacle. 3)
Numerically, it is of quadratic convergence.
The organization of this paper is as follows. The load flow
model for distribution network with various DGs is discussed
in the next part, and its flow chart is illustrated in Ⅲ. In Ⅳ,
performance of the proposed algorithm is investigated under
three different integration situations. The last part concludes
the paper with a prospect for future study.
II. DIFFERENT CONTROL STRATEGIES OF DGS
A. Photovoltaic generation
In a photovoltaic system, Maximum Power Point Tracking
(MPPT) control strategy is widely employed. Fig. 1 shows a
typical topology of the photovoltaic system with MPPT control.
Figure 1. Photovoltaic system with MPPT control

978-1-4244-6255-1/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE

 In spite of its various realization, roughly, the core idea of
MPPT is to 1) sense the operation voltage V by the hardware in
every sample step 2) Calculate ΔV according to some special
algorithms [7] 3) Update the operation voltage and return it to
the solar array. In this way, the current of PCC (Point of
Common Coupling) is maintained near constant, which means
the photovoltaic generation can be modeled as a current-
constant type node in load flow calculation, which is called by
some scholars as PI node [3]. In this paper, the PI bus model is
adopted in later section for load flow calculation.
2) Double-fed induction generator
These days, double-fed induction generator (DFIG) has
become the mainstream of wind generators in use. With its
rotor connected to the grid by a small cycloconverter, its
advantages over the traditional induction generator include:
ability to operate under variable speeds, to supply reactive
power and to yield energy even at low wind speed.

B. Wind power generation

Nowadays, there are mainly three kinds of wind turbine
generators:
1) Traditional induction generator
As the earliest wind generator, traditional induction
generator (IG) couples its stator directly to the grid. Its Figure 4. Double-fed induction generator
topology with grid is shown in Fig. 2:
The DFIG active power output mainly depends on the wind
speed at a certain time, while its reactive power output relies on
the control strategy of its power electronics converter. Since it
can act as a VAR compensator in some extent, there are two
type control strategies: constant power factor mode and
constant voltage mode. Because the generator or converter
Figure 2. Traditional induction generator. current violates the upper limit easily, the latter mode is now
rarely used.
Load flow models for this kind wind turbine generator have
been proposed for mainly two types: PX bus model and PQ (V) In load flow, the DFIG has been modeled as a PQ (V) bus
bus model. The PX bus model treats the wind turbine generator which also results in a complex formula of reactive power Q
as a bus with constant active power P (P is determined by the and node voltage V. Its equivalent circuit is:
wind speed at a certain time) and a constant or variable
reactance X, which can be integrated into the system
admittance matrix in load flow [8]. The PQ (V) bus model,
involving the slips, treats the wind generator as an
unconventional PQ bus, i.e. its reactive power Q is a function
of bus voltage V and slips. Since it dose not need to make any
matrix changes, this PQ (V) model has a faster performance
than PX model in the practical calculation. Thus it is adopted in
this paper. The equivalent circuit of the traditional induction
generator is given in Fig. 3: Figure 5. Equivalent circuit of DFIG.

By this circuit, the Q-V relationship can be obtained [9]:

⎧ r x2 P2 2r x tan ϕ r V
2

⎪ Pe = 2 r 2ss s 2 + (1 − s + r ss 2 ) Ps + r 2s (2)
⎨ xm Vs cos ϕ x m xm
⎪
⎩Qs = Ps tan ϕ
Figure 3. Equivalent circuit of traditional induction generator. In (2), Pe and Qe are active and reactive electric-magnetic
Based on the circuit, the Q-V relationship is in (1). The power of DFIG. Subscript “s” and “r” represent stator and rotor.
meaning of the parameters in formulas can be found in [3]: Other parameters are the circuit components in Fig. 5.
In fact, most DFIG or DFIG wind farms are operated under
constant power factor mode. So when cos ϕ is given by the
⎧s = R(V 2 − V 4 − 4X 2 P2 ) / (2P X 2 )
⎪ σ e e σ operator and Pe is predetermined according to the wind speed
(1)
⎨ R + Xσ ( Xm + Xσ )s2
2
at that time, the electric-magnetic reactive power Qe ( Qe ≈ Qs )
⎪Q = Pe tan δ = Pe
⎩ RXms
can be evaluated from (2), after that, the DFIG can be treated
as a conventional PQ bus ( P = Pe , Q = Qe ) in load flow.
In addition, some scholars treat DFIG as traditional PQ bus
based on its PQ decoupled control strategy of the power
converter under a d-q frame [4] [10]. However, because the
stator is directly coupled to grid, incorporating the Q-V
relationship into the load flow procedure can reflect a more
exact turbine machinery behavior in wind energy conversion.
So, in this paper the PQ (V) bus type is chosen for DFIG.
3) Direct-driven wind turbine generator
As a promising wind generator technology, the direct-
driven wind turbine generator (DDWTG) is designed to capture
the maximum wind power at any wind speeds (a MPPT control
strategy similar to a photovoltaic system), so can it achieve
pretty high generation efficiency [11]. For its gearless structure,
the operation and maintenance cost is reduced as well.
Furthermore, the PWM converters can be controlled to deliver
reactive power like a VAR compensator. However, load flow
method for DDWTG is seldom discussed in literatures. Fig. 6
shows its topology with grid.
adjusted by the APU (Auxiliary power unit) or PCU (Power
Conditioning Unit), especially for reactive power Q, which can
be expressed as a function of the inverter phase angle δ .
However, in realistic operation, the FCS is seldom working
in that reactive power support situation for: 1) economic issue.
More reactive power support from the inverter sometimes
means an increased fuel cost and extra inverter maintaining
cost; 2) the electric performance of FC itself is analogous with
that of solar cell, i.e. a DC current source, not a voltage source.
Based on these reasons, the PI bus model is also suitable to
FCS. In addition, the inverter of FCS usually employs a
hysteretic-loop current control strategy, which further supports
the constant-current bus type assumption.
D. Microturbine generation
The microtubine generation (MTG) system is composed of
combustion turbine, high-speed PMSG and back-to-back PWM
converter. This structure is, to some extent like that of the
DDWTG. Typically, the converter adopts a VSI (Voltage
Source Inverter) topology, so the proper bus type for MTG is
PV bus. There is also a situation where the PWM converter is
operated under constant-power factor mode so that the PQ bus
would be adopted. However, since PQ buses have commonly
existed in a conventional distribution network, PV bus type is
suggested for MTG in the following section to test the ability
of the proposed load flow algorithm in treating PV bus.

Figure 6. Direct driven wind turbine generator III. FLOW CHART OF THE IMPROVED NRLF
Using a permanent magnetic synchronous generator
(PMSG) as its energy passer, the turbine shaft is directly
coupled to the rotor. A full-power converter is responsible for
the frequency conversion and power quality conditioning.
Since the electric machine itself is isolated by the back-to back
PWM converts, a fully PQ decoupled control strategy can be
easily achieved. Thus the DDWTG is modeled as a PQ bus.

C. Fuel Cell
The fuel cell system (FCS) control strategy involves mainly
two parts: 1) power control 2) temperature control. The former
is our concern in this paper. Fig. 7 shows the prevalent two-
stage control topology for FCS. The first stage adopts Boost
circuit to maintain the DC voltage stable and provides a
suitable input for the latter inverter since the voltage of FC per
se will gradually decrease with the rise of temperature.

∠δ ∠θ

Figure 7. Fuel cell system

The load flow of fuel cell has been modeled as a PV bus in Figure 8. Flow chart for the proposed load flow solution
some work [4] [12]. The reason is that its output voltage can be
 IV. CASE STUDY 101

100 No DG
A. Test Bed 10-1
PI type DG

The PG&E 69 bus distribution network is chosen to test the 10-2

performance of the proposed load flow algorithm. The system

Iteration tolerance
topology, branch data and bus data can be found in [13]. It is 10-3

three-phase symmetric. The total load is: 3802.9 +j2694.6kVA. 10-4

The capacity base and voltage base are 10MVA and 12.66kV 10-5
respectively. Initial values are set to 1.0 for all buses, including
the root bus. To demonstrate the iteration performance, five 10-6

scenarios are designed: 10-7

1) PI bus. 10-8

A photovoltaic generation station is integrated in bus 26 at 10-9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
the end of the main feeder. Parameters: P=150kW, constant Iteration numbers
phase current I=15A, i.e. 0.0166 (p.u.).
Figure 10. Iteration perormance for PI bus type DG
2) PQ (V) bus.
Since its Q-V relationship is the most complex in PQ (V) 1.04
type, the DFIG is chosen as a representative of PQ (V) bus in
load flow, also linked to bus 26. Parameters: rated active power 1.02
1500kW, rated generator terminal voltage 0.69kV, integrated to
grid through a 0.69kV/12.66kV ideal transformer. Impedance 1.00

parameters: Xm=1.4568, Xs=0.03692, Xr=0.03759,

Rs=0.001692, Rr=0.002423. Constant power factor cos ϕ is .98
Voltage
0.89 and field average active power P is assumed 1000W.
.96

3) PI, PQ (V) and PV type mixed.

After bus 26, bus 54, bus 56, bus 90 and bus 34, a .94

photovoltaic generation station, a FC generation station, a No DG

.92
micro turbine generator, a DFIG and a traditional induction PQ (V) DFIG
generator is integrated respectively. The FCS parameters:
.90
P=200kW, I=.0.03(p.u.). The microturbine generator 0 20 40 60 80
parameters: P=150kW, Vset=0.98 and the reactive output limit Bus Index
is 75kVar<Q<600kVar, initial value Q0= (Qmax+Qmin)/2. The
traditional IG parameters: P=600kW, Xm=2.205952, Figure 11. Voltage profile with PQ(V) (DFIG)
Xs=0.050752, Xr=0.149152, Rs=0.00453, Rr=0.00486. 101
Parameters for other DGs are the same as 1) and 2).
100 No DG
PQ(V) DFIG
B. Numerical Results 10-1

The voltage profile and iteration performance are illustrated 10-2

Iteration tolerance

with Fig. 9 to Fig. 14. For better result reading, the bus 27e, 10-3
28e, 69, 70, 88, 89, 90 in origin system are renumbered as 39, 10-4
59, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64 in the new bus index.
10-5
1.02
10-6
No DG
1.00 PI 10-7

10-8
.98
10-9
Voltage

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.96 Iteration numbers

.94 Figure 12. Iteration perormance for PQ (V) (DFIG)

.92

.90
0 20 40 60 80
Bus Index

Figure 9. Voltage profile with PI bus type DG

 1.04 V. CONCLUSION

1.02
This article describes a load flow solution based on the
control strategies of DGs. Since most DGs are interfaced to the
1.00
distribution network through the power electronic converters,
load flow at the PCC is no more the same as that of the
.98
conventional network. So, to acquire a more precise load flow
Voltage

result, hardware control strategy should be reflected in the load

.96
flow calculation. Reflecting the control strategies in bus types
is an effective way to employ existed methods, esp. the NRLF
.94 which has an inherent ability to handle PV buses rapidly.
Further study point could be focused on developing a three-
No DG phase unbalanced version of the proposed algorithm and
.92
Mixed 3 bus types
optimizing its software architecture.
.90
0 20 40 60 80
Bus Index ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author sincerely appreciates the helpful instructions
Figure 13. Voltage profile with mixed three bus types provided by Prof. Xu Qinshan and Prof. Tomsovic (University
101
of Tennessee) during the 2010 spring semester in Southeast
University.
100 No DG
10-1 Mixed 3 bus types
REFERENCES
10-2
[1] S. Conti, S. Raitia, “Probabilistic load flow using Monte Carlo
Iteration tolerance

10-3 techniques for distribution networks with photovoltaic generators,” Solar

10-4 Energy. Elsevier, vol. 81, pp. 1473–1481, December 2007.
[2] J. Usaola, “Probabilistic load flow with correlated wind power
10-5
injections,” Electric Power Systems Research. Elsevier, vol. 80, pp.
10-6 528–536, May 2010.
10-7 [3] Q. Liu, J. Cai, “A integrated power flow algorithm for radial distribution
system with DGs based on voltage regulating,” 2010 Asia-Pacific Power
10-8 and Energy Engineering Conference. Chengdu, pp. 1–4, March 2010.
10-9 [4] M. Ding, X.F. Guo, Z.K. Zhang, “Three phase power flow for weaky
10-10
meshed distribution network with distributed generation,” 2009 Asia-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference. Wuhan, pp. 1–7,
Iteration numbers March 2009.
[5] A. Augugliaro, L. Dusonchet, S. Favuzza, M.G. Ippolito, E. Riva, “A
Figure 14. Iteration perormance for mixed three bus types backward sweep method for power flow solution in distribution
networks,” Electrical Power and Energy Systems, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 35–
From the above results, iteration turns for PI bus DG is at 40, May 2010.
most one more than that of no DG case. For PQ (V) DFIG, the [6] Y. Zhu, K. Tomsovic, “Adaptive power flow method for distribution
performance is similar. As to the mixed type case, the worst systems with dispersed generation,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 822- 827, July 2002.
situation is only three turns more than that of no DG case.
[7] C.S. Chiu, "T-S Fuzzy Maximum Power Point Tracking Control of Solar
Generally speaking, integrating DG into the bulk system will Power Generation Systems," IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion,
increase the iteration numbers in a tiny amount. It is also easy vol. 25, no. 4, pp.1123–1132, December. 2010.
to observe that the algorithm convergence maintains a similar [8] A.E. Feijoo, J. Cidras, "Modeling of wind farms in the load flow
descending trend as in the no DG case. Finally, the average analysis," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 110–
voltage profile is enhanced by DG as an expected result. To 115, Feburary 2000.
further evaluate the time efficiency of the suggested algorithm [9] Y.N. Liu, W. Wang, Y.N. Wang, “Research on wind farm models for
in treating multiple PV buses, a brief numerical comparison power flow calculation,” East China Electric Power, vol. 36, no. 4, pp.
58–61.
against back forward sweep method is carried out, and results
[10] J.F.M. Padron, A.E.F. Lorenzo, "Calculating Steady-State Operating
are listed in TableⅠ. Obviously, the algorithm shows a big Conditions for Doubly-Fed Induction Generator Wind Turbines," IEEE
advantage as the PV buses increase. Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 922–928, May 2000.
[11] H. Siegfried, Grid integration of Wind Energy Conversion Systems, 2nd
ed., England: John Wiley & Sons, 2006, pp.68–73.
TABLE I. COMPARISON WITH BACK-FORWARD SWEEP FOR PV BUS
[12] H.Y. Chen, J.F. Chen, X.Z. Duan, “Study on Power Flow Calculation of
Time cost (seconds) Distribution System with DGs,” Automation of Electric Power System,
Scenarios
Improved NRLF BFS vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 35–40, January 2006.
No DG 0.228025 0.564378 [13] M.A. Kashem, V. Ganapathy, G.B. Jasmon, “A Novel Approach for
1 PV bus 0.374588 2.245230 Network Reconfiguration Based Load Balancing in Distribution
4 PV bus 0.545090 2.296852 Networks,” Electric Machines & Power Systems, vol. 28, no. 5, pp.
Running on a Core 2 Duo 2.0Hz laptop 415–431, May 2000.