Applying A Physics-Consistent General Power Theory To Practical Electricity Systems With Unbalance and Periodic Waveform Distortion - Part 1: Implementation, Testing, Application To DG

CSE 030
Applying a physics-consistent general

power theory to practical electricity
systems with unbalance and periodic
waveform distortion – Part 1:
Implementation, testing, application to DG
AUTHORS
C. T. GAUNT, H. K. CHISEPO – Dept. of Electrical Engineering, University of Cape

Town, South Africa
M. MALENGRET – MLT Drives, Cape Town, South Africa
Summary
Reactive and apparent power are not power or energy. Their present de nitions
and computation classify them as components of power added geometrically, but this
is inconsistent with the laws of physics of circuits and cannot represent accurately
the performance of most practical electrical power systems. The problem lies in the
concept model of reactive power orthogonal to power in a right-angled PQS triangle.
A novel alternative general power theory (GPT) formulated through linear algebra
can directly identify the optimal currents at a point of connection for minimum
delivery loss for the same power. The novel measurement (or concept) model
represents an apparatus or complex power system with all the in uencing quantities
of any number of wires, unbalance, and harmonic distortion. Compensation by power
electronic converters is possible.
Part 1 of these two comprehensive papers describes, with examples, the GPT’s
measurement of useful power parameters, interprets and compares them with some
other theories, and describes the testing of the new theory. An application to inverter
control for distributed generation is examined with a numerical example.
Applications to voltage stability in the presence of distortion by GICs, and to
metering and electricity tariffs that challenge accepted practice are in Part 2.
©2024 - CIGRE CSE N°30 October 2023 1

These papers will likely interest utilities engaged in generation, transmission and
distribution, market operators, manufacturers, regulators, researchers, and
academics.
KEYWORDS
Active distribution network – Apparent power – Distortion – Inverter-based generators – Power

electronics– Power factor – Reactive power –Unbalance – Voltage control
1. Introduction
Various concept models, theories, and de nitions of electric power components have
been proposed since 1890. Different ways of de ning and measuring parameters
with the same name, such as apparent or reactive power, produce results that are
dif cult to interpret in physical terms. Despite unsettling shortcomings, the theories
survive and are taught to successive generations of engineers.
Why are measurements made at all? Mostly, a parameter is measured so that it can
control, or be controlled, or be a basis for costing or comparison. Thus, power
parameters are used technically to improve system ef ciency and stability, for
regulating tariffs and power quality, and nancially to determine fair prices for
energy, capacity, and ancillary services. As the same measurements may be used for
different purposes, it is desirable that they consistently represent real power system
performance.
A practical power system comprises one or more sources, a delivery system, and one
or more loads. It operates at dc or ac, or as one modulated by the other, and with
waveforms distorted by harmonics. Practical systems are unbalanced with different
impedances, voltages, and currents in the various wires.
Fundamentally, only voltages and currents are sensed in a system at points of

connection (PoC) or common coupling (PCC). The laws and principles of physics,
however, allow several relationships to be de ned by combination.
Early experimenters addressed how the power delivery of ac systems differed from
dc systems. The interest was (and still is) in the inter-relationships between currents,
voltages and voltage drop, power, and energy ow and dissipation by resistive
heating in the supply system. The product of ac voltage and current gave the power
in resistors, but not in inductors. Terms like wattless power and apparent power [1]
were introduced to signify and quantify the differences, but these were not physical
quantities of classical power. A century of debate followed the early proposals – and
continues.
This paper introduces a general power theory (GPT) for practical systems with any
number of wires. It is based on a novel measurement model that includes all the
in uencing quantities of unbalance and distortion, and it is suitable for steady-state
measurement and control. With only physics consistent terms of voltage, current,
impedance, power, and energy, based on local measurements of voltage and current,
an appropriate mathematical approach was used to derive useful physical
parameters.

The wide applicability of the GPT is illustrated in Fig. 1. At the meter, the 3-wire
system could be from a centre-tapped single-phase ac supply, two phases and
neutral of a 3-phase system, an open-delta 3-phase supply, a split dc system, or
various other con gurations not distinguishable until measurements are made. The
GPT applies equally to all of them.
The application and some implications of the novel theory are explored. An
unexpected property of the GPT is that it cannot accommodate any forms of reactive
and non-active power that are not power and are operational measurements without
interpretation in terms of physics. This is not mere terminology – it is an evidence-
based way of thinking scienti cally about power system circuits.
Figure 1 – Any 3-wire unbalanced, waveform-distorted system supplying power to a load
Questioning notions of reactive power and rede ning apparent power challenge
traditional power engineering knowledge. However, the GPT offers potential bene ts
in terms of addressing measurement issues, system design, decision-making, policy
formulation, and fair electricity pricing. Several research papers explore innovative
applications and outcomes resulting from alternative approaches like GPT.
Hereafter, section 2 reviews signi cant developing themes relevant to power theory.
Section 3 does not repeat the already-published GPT derivation, and the proof that
the compensation produces the optimal (minimum) delivery loss [2]; instead, it
applies the GPT to some simple examples and interprets key results. Section 4
describes its testing. In section 5 the GPT is compared with conventional approaches
to distributed generation control. In Part 2, other practical applications and
implications are examined in Section 6 (voltage stability with GICs), 7 (meters and
tariffs), 8 (teaching, research, and policy), and 9 (de nitions for power terms). Section
10 offers some conclusions.
2. Review of developing themes
2.1. Technology Changes

Four major technology trends are combining to change modern power systems from
those of the 20th century. Environmental concerns drive greater use of renewable
energy that is variable and requires backup from storage or dispatchable energy
sources. Second, many new sources are distributed closer to the edges of power
systems, where distortion and phase unbalance are greatest. Third, power
electronics technology with fast current control is changing the character of loads,
inverter-based sources and storage, and even the wired system. Fourth, digital
techniques have replaced most analogue measurement and control, presenting new
opportunities and some problems.
These four trends are often represented as characteristics of smart grids, but they
apply generally to electricity supply systems, changing the tasks of planners and
operators and giving them the technologies to meet the systems’ needs.
2.2. Models of Apparatus and Power Systems

An apparatus, as distinct from a power system, is an assembly of circuit elements
connected to the system at a PoC. It can be a load, a source, or a whole network of
loads and sources. An apparatus has a set of ideal source voltages at its terminals. If
the elements change or are re-arranged, the currents will too, without affecting the
voltages. Changing the set of voltages causes currents to change according to the
voltage sensitivity of the apparatus, often referred to as impedance, current or power
models of a load but usually a mix of these responses.
Most power theories de ne power components for an apparatus, neglecting the

effects of power delivery impedances on the voltages at the PoC. Some de ne a power
system with resistances in the phase wires (usually assumed equal) and a neutral
wire (usually with equal resistance or none). A few include resistance and
inductance. Most theories that include delivery resistance or inductance assume
known balanced and undistorted equivalent source voltages, without practical
access to measure them.
2.3. Prior Power Theories

Past power theories have been reviewed
in many papers. Our initial derivation of
the GPT in the time domain for a three-
phase system was published in 2008 [3].
The approach was extended to systems
with any m-wires a few years later [4]
[5], [6]. Those early papers included
reviews of the theories of Fryze,
Depenbrock, Buchholtz, Akaji, Willems,
Ferrero, Nabae, Rossetto, Peng, Dai,
Salmerón, Filipski, Czarnecki, Jeon,
Morsi, Emanuel, Mayordona, Mishra,
Montero, Ustariz, Ate , and their co-
authors. The discussion and many
references are not repeated here; the
interested reader is referred to the
original papers. Some of these and
others have been identi ed in a more
recent survey of time domain theories
[7].
Our time domain theory was unable to

accommodate frequency dependent
impedances such as represented by
skin effect and reactance at harmonic
frequencies, so we extended the GPT
into the frequency domain [2], which
also corrected some aws of the time
domain GPT, notably its formulation of
reactive power. That paper included
reviews (also not repeated here) of more
recent developments of the p-q,
conservative power and current
physical components theories, and
others, by Czarnecki, Burgos-Mellado,
Schäffer, Montoya, Moriano, Monteiro,
Dey, Mikulović, Jeon, Bhattarai, Lev-Ari,
and their co-authors.
Figure 2 – The origin of the power

Looking back much further, in 1893
triangle: some of Kennelly’s stationary
Kennelly used the term impedance
vector diagrams – single-phase
factor and introduced an impedance
impedance Z, potential difference E,
triangle, leading to discussion by
current I, and power P in an alternating
Steinmetz of the effect of the whole
current circuit [9]. Power is a scalar
system on the voltage drop in power
quantity, and the concept model of the
delivery [8]. In 1910 Kennelly extended
power vector triangle is incompatible
the impedance triangle to power and
with physics
energy [9], shown in part in Fig. 2.
In time, the many variables affecting power theory introduced such complexity that
papers and discussions tended to focus on only a limited range of them. By 1920 it
was “desirable to separate the effects of phase displacement, unbalance and wave
form since the causes and remedies for each are quite distinct” [10]. Generally, the
segregated approach has continued until the present, although we know now that

separation introduces limitations. Beyond Steinmetz’ discussion [8], the complex
relationship between the displacement angles at the source and load was not
recognized by many, or neglected, even though the de nition of unity power factor at
the load did not achieve the minimum loss in power delivery [11].
When in uence quantities (de ned at IEV 311-06-01) [12] are excluded from a
model and protocol, or contain invalidating assumptions, the uncertainty of a model-
de ned measurement’s representation of the physical behaviour of the system is
unde ned and cannot be known. Most power theories and most standards (including
DIN [13], IEEE [14], and others) omit source impedance from the de nitions of
apparent power, reactive power, and power factor, so signi cant in uencing
quantities are neglected. Without referring to the practical source and line capacity
or the avoidable loss (IEV 691-11-16) in the delivery system, utility tariffs include
non-physical quantities with a unit of VA (IEV 691-05-06), and charges for power
factor or reactive power (IEV 691-09-06).
Non-physical operational de nitions and omission of in uencing quantities

introduce inconsistencies and ambiguity into interpreting measurement outputs. For
example, multiple de nitions of apparent power [14] and methods of measuring
reactive power [15] lead to practical problems in billing customers [16], and
waveform distortion may lead to smart meters displaying reverse power ow even in
the absence of behind-the-meter generation [17]. Filtering the input signals removes
the distortion from a measurement, but also any information about the effects of
distortion.
At the same time, the objective of effective compensation leads to various

approaches to deriving the non-active components of apparent power for a variety of
system topologies [18], [19], [20], [21]. Most researchers assume balanced source
impedances and/or treat the voltage at a load’s PoC as constant, though a few do not
[22], [23], [24].
In summary, this review suggests (i) power electronics and digital techniques are
changing the performance of power systems, (ii) system models with assumptions
violated in practice by unbalance and distortion could be improved with more
representative models based on parameters observable from the PoC, (iii) de nitions
of a load or source as an apparatus connected to constant voltage terminals might
have uses but ignore power dissipated in delivery, and (iv) many mathematical
de nitions of non-active and apparent power and power factor are inconsistent with
each other.
3. GPT for measurement and control

The novel concept of the GPT is that the transport of electric power in a multi-wire,
multi-frequency network is shared by each wire and its frequency components. The
power at a PoC over a time interval can be transmitted by the delivery system in
in nite combinations but only one combination of wire- and frequency-components
of current will transport the same energy with minimum loss. The uniqueness of the
optimum combination (minimum loss for the power delivered) in a system with M-
wires and H+1 frequencies is supported by a mathematical proof based on the
orthogonality property of frequency components over a speci c time interval,
Kirchhoff’s laws, and the conservation of energy [2].

Therefore, only one current vector IA exists, consisting of a unique set of M x (H+1)
optimal line current components IA m,h that deliver the power PPoC at the PoC with
minimal loss, and is given by:
I A = K A V Th (null ) R−1 (1)

PTh(OPT)
where: K =   2 is a single real value constant, (2)
A  V '
 Th(null) 
' , I ' > =P

P PTh(OPT) = < V Th + / − | | I ' || 2 (3)
A PoC A
with +/- depending on the direction of total power ow,
I A' = I AR1 /2 (4)
V Th(null)
' = V ' − e' = V
Th ref Th(null)
R−1 /2 (5)
and ' signi es resistance weighting by an array R based on the Thévenin resistances,
a square M x M matrix with the M x (H+1) resistance elements of the delivery system,
where the diagonal vector is
R(diag) = (r1 ,0,r1 ,1,… r1 ,H) , (r2 ,0,r2 ,1,. . . r2 ,H) ,…, (r M,0,r M,1,… r M,H) and all other elements
of the square matrix are zero. This approach identi es the minimum loss in the
delivery system as  I A'  2 and the optimum power at the Thévenin point PPTh(OPT) .
 
Using one general physical model, the GPT de nes the power parameters associated
with a load, source or other network connected to a PoC. The same formulation is
valid for systems with any number of wires of possibly unequal impedances, ac and
dc, possibly unbalanced voltages and currents, and with waveforms distorted by
harmonics.
The GPT is essentially a measurement process. But when applied to a compensator

or inverter, the hardware cost of a GPT-controller is negligible and produces bene ts
from potentially achieving minimum delivery losses throughout the life of the
system.
These advantages are constrained, however, by the assumption of steady-state

conditions in which the frequency, load current and Thévenin equivalent parameters
of the past one or several cycles will hold for the next cycles. Small variations of load
or frequency can be accommodated in practice with a short delay when the
conditions change. When the power frequency deviates too far or too quickly from
acceptable limits, such as during a system fault, control for optimum energy delivery
needs to be suspended and an alternative control approach adopted. Approaches to
detecting transient system incidents and resuming GPT control are beyond the
scope of this paper.
The application of the GPT is rst illustrated using a simple example of the system of
Fig. 1. It is based on a 3-phase 4-wire system with only fundamental frequency, in
which an open circuit in one phase leaves the extremely unbalanced 3-wire supply
shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 3 – Form and values of a 60 Hz 3-wire supply with a missing phase. The voltage measurement
reference wire T is the neutral wire. The dashed source impedances are not in the original problem
The problem was posed [25] for only fundamental frequency and analysed using the
Current Physical Components (CPC) approach. A second paper [18] calculated the
compensation that draws only active current from the supply terminals. The case
was presented as an apparatus, so for this example of GPT application an arbitrary
small unbalance is added to the supply impedance. Extended versions of the
problem are discussed in sections 4 (with harmonic components) and 7 (showing the
missing phase of a 4-wire supply in Fig. 17). Three less extreme cases of unbalance
using different examples were presented in [2].
The algebra of the GPT de nes the same calculations processed repetitively for the
number of wires and harmonic components. A spreadsheet offers an easy way to
illustrate the simple calculation steps. It also facilitates translation into embedded
controllers, simulations, and software languages. The key formulas of the
spreadsheet, listed in [2], can be extended to include as many wires and harmonics
as needed.
The implementation of the GPT can be thought of as having three steps: inputs,
measurement, and control. These are described in sections 3.1 to 3.3.
3.1. Input parameters at the PoC
3.1.1 Voltages and currents

The rst step in making a measurement is to sample the voltages and currents in
each wire at the PoC. All voltages are measured from any common physical
reference, usually one wire. Simultaneous samples of voltages and currents in each
wire are taken at regular intervals and time-stamped.
The voltages and currents in dc systems are constant magnitudes in each of the M
wires of a multi-wire system.
Distorted periodic waveforms of ac voltages and currents can be represented

mathematically by the sum of weighted sinusoids, decomposed by Fourier analysis.
Termed the fundamental and harmonic frequencies and possibly with a dc
component (h0), these are not separate voltages and currents, but are components
consistent with the Principle of Superposition. The cycle of interest may be one or

several cycles at the fundamental power frequency or even a week, with periodic
distortion represented as harmonics. Many sources give information about
frequency measurement and Fourier analysis of sampled distorted waveforms.
Superposition allows the three wires of Fig. 1 to be modelled as an equivalent circuit

of the load at the PoC with a sub-circuit for each frequency component. In the rst
example, the system contains only fundamental frequency.
The voltages and currents are vectors. As with many approaches, one voltage is
de ned as an angle reference and the angles of all other vectors are related to it.
Currents into the apparatus are de ned as positive. Scalar power into a load is
positive, and out from a source is negative. The GPT is consistent for loads and
sources.
For an M-wire system with (H+1) frequency components, the Fourier transform of the
sampled measurements gives two M x (H+1) dimensional complex rms (CRMS)
vectors U and IS. For the GPT, the voltages and currents U and IS are expressed as
CRMS values for each wire and frequency component: x(t) = Asin(ωt + α) where
A=amplitude, ω=frequency and α= phase angle. This is also referred to as the
exponential form of the Fourier rms components for each wire, Ae jω(h)α, where h is
the harmonic order. Several papers describe and use the CRMS representation of
voltages and currents [18], [24], [25], [26], [27].
Table I shows the input parameters

(CRMS voltages and currents, and
equivalent impedances) for the GPT
calculation of the system example of
Fig. 3.
The voltages and currents give the

arithmetic power at the PoC – see
section 3.2.3. Table I - GPT input values for Figure 3
3.1.2 Equivalent source impedances
The widely used Helmholtz-Thévenin equivalent circuit of a system observable at a

PoC is powerful because it incorporates unbalance in the impedances or the
electrical distances to sources and loads, and harmonic disturbance from nearby
sources.
The equivalent circuit impedances change when the supply system recon gures,
such as by line or capacitor switching and as loads change. Measurements on a low
voltage network show the pro le of the impedances follows a daily pattern [28] as
loads add to the system demand and generators respond to supply it. The daily
pattern may become less predictable as the penetration of wind DG increases.
There are many approaches to measuring the equivalent circuit impedances,

including passive monitoring of network changes, active probing with a
measurement instrument or by disturbing an existing compensator or inverter, and

from PMU measurements. They can be derived also by a network reduction of a
system model established by state estimation, or by disturbing a model by probing
with extra load. Since the Thévenin theorem is based on small disturbances, the
parameters differ from the transient and sub-transient source impedances of faults.
The frequency range of current and voltage transducers affects the accuracy of
practical measurements of harmonic impedances.
For applying the GPT, the equivalent impedances for all frequencies of relevance can
be derived using the most suitable of the above approaches. The values of resistance
rm,h and reactance xm,h de ne all M x (H+1) lines of the equivalent circuit to the PoC.
These derivations are usually less uncertain than the estimated values of
impedances used in many equations in power system analysis, and better than
neglecting the source impedance entirely.
For an apparatus, no source impedance exists. An apparatus is de ned only by its

internal component impedances and the currents drawn for any set of terminal
voltages. The apparatus case is described in section 3.4.
3.2 GPT calculation of power terms
3.2.1 Source voltages referred to original measurement reference
Using Ohm’s law, the voltages across the impedances of each of the M x (H+1)
Thévenin lines are calculated and added to the voltages measured at the PoC to give
the source voltages from the reference point at the PoC.
In simple terms, this takes the form: VTh = VPoC + ZlineIPoC. In linear algebra, the
currents and voltages measured at the PoC form row vectors IS and U each consisting
of the M x (H+1) CRMS values. Then, the voltage components at the equivalent source
are V =U +Z I where z = r + j2π f l for m = 1 to M and h = 0
Th m ,h m ,h m ,h m ,h m ,h m ,h h m ,h
to H, giving the M x (H+1) Thévenin complex voltage vectors VTh.
3.2.2 Source voltages referred to a null point
A distinct null reference point is needed at the equivalent source for each frequency
component to keep the mathematics consistent with Kirchhoff’s voltage law. For each
harmonic order h, there is a superposed Thévenin equivalent circuit with an offset
between the reference point at the PoC and the equivalent source, and a reference
offset vector of the form e
ref ,h
= Σ(V Th m,h/rm,h) / Σ(1/rm,h) for each wire m. For each
subsystem, VTh(null) is calculated by subtracting the respective eref,h offsets from
VTh m,h, and gives  V '  2 where the dash ' indicates a resistance-weighted value.
 Th (null) 


The offset vector is derived using the
Gramm-Schmidt method in linear
algebra, and the algebraic formulae
maintain the structure of the CRMS
values. (The process is described in
equations (8), (18), (23), (26) and (27)
and appendix of the GPT derivation [2]
and all calculations are arithmetic.)
The calculated source voltages and

reference point are shown in Table II. Table II - Calculation of source voltages
and Thévenin point null reference for
Figure 3
3.2.3 Calculating P, APSYS and

PFSYS
The calculated GPT power parameters

associated with the load, source or
network connected to the PoC of a
practical power system are illustrated in
Table III. (In section 4.1 Table VI, these
GPT power measurements of APSYS and Table III - Power parameters for Figure
PFSYS are compared with those of 3
Bhattarai.).
The current in a wire depends on the currents in all other wires, and the voltages and
currents of the superposed equivalent circuits are related vectorially. However, the
scalar power at the PoC and source cannot be attributed to a single wire or phase but
given only as values for the whole system. (This is consistent with power
measurement as the product of i(t) and v(t) such that the measurement depends on
the voltage reference and every current-carrying wire.) Therefore, power terms are
calculated for each frequency subsystem and then added to nd the system total.
Having identi ed all currents at the PoC and all source voltages with respect to a null
reference point consistent with Kirchhoff’s voltage law, the power at the source and
the loss in the delivery system can be calculated. All power quantities are ‘real’
average power and have the unit of power W, and they are compatible in arithmetic
calculations, including in dimensionless ratios. The signi cant power quantities
include:
The power PPoC delivered to the PoC is the inner product of vectors U and I.
Expressed in CRMS form, the power of the M wires in each harmonic subsystem is
Ph = < V m,h , I m,h > = Σ(V m,h I m,h cos(α V – α I)) , and summed for the system
PPoC = P0+P1+P2+…+PH. All GPT power parameters are associated with this PPoC.
VPoC and PPoC are de ned conventionally, but VTh and PTh at the Thévenin source
are also needed for the GPT measurement of other power parameters related to
PPoC.

The power loss dissipated by the currents in the wire resistances is  I '  2 , which
 
 S 
is recognisable as the common expression I2R. The set of resistance-weighted
current components IA' causing the minimum loss dissipation in the delivery
system is given by the solution (6) of the quadratic equation (3) of the power PPoC
and the norm of the Thévenin source resistance-weighted voltage, ||V'Th(null)|| of
(5). The minimum delivery loss by implementing compensation is given by  I A' 
 
 
where:
(6)
2 1 /2
 I '  = ( −  V '  Th(null)  − 4PPoc) ) /2
    ± (  V '
 A   Th(null) 
The power sent out from the Thévenin source before compensation is
P +  I '  2 and the minimum power needed from the Thévenin source after
 
POC  S 
compensation is P +  I '  2 .
 
POC  A 
From all sets of currents that dissipate the loss  I S'  2 ,  I SOpt'  can be de ned as
   
   
the optimally distributed set, giving AP =  I SOpt'   V Th '  as the maximum

 
 
 
SYS   
power that could be sent out from the Thévenin equivalent source for the original
loss. APSYS is real power in the physical sense and the units are Watts.
The PFSYS is a dimensionless ratio of the loss without compensation and the
minimum delivery loss for the same PPoC: √||IA'||2/||IS'||2. It is the same ratio as
||IA'||/||IS'|| and
PTh min/APSYS. It is an index of the relative ef ciency of delivery. Being the ratio of
powers at the source, “unity power factor” PFSYS =1 is the optimum relative
ef ciency for a given total active (or average) power transmitted from a source”
[2]. The PFSYS is not the overall ef ciency as de ned by (loss) / (PPoC + loss).
The GPT does not depend on compensation; it measures actual power quantities
associated with the PoC load as it is.
3.3 Active current distribution
A common proportionality factor

K =P /  V
 ' 
 2 (2) for the
A Th opt  Th (null) 
active current is used to calculate the
optimal components of IA. Then the new
voltages at the PoC are given by Ohm’s
law, and the compensating current
components IC by subtraction of IA from
the uncompensated original IS. The
results are shown in Table IV. Clearly,
the active current components are not
necessarily balanced. Table IV - Calculation of compensator
currents for Figure 3
3.4 Simpli cation for an apparatus

For an apparatus with no source impedance, all terms in the GPT equations
containing equivalent source impedances are modi ed by making the impedance
values zero. A null reference point for the measured PoC voltages is needed to
comply with Kirchhoff’s voltage law. The offset vector at the PoC is de ned simply by
the voltages, without resistance weighting, so this simpli ed form gives the same
PPoC, while APAPP and PFAPP no longer have units of real power:
APAPP = ||Is|| ||Vnull|| (not resistance weighted, units VA)

PFAPP = PPoC/APAPP (not dimensionless but W/VA).
Measurements and compensation

currents in the apparatus case adapting
the GPT-based approach with zero
delivery impedance are shown in
Table V.
The GPT-based apparatus case for Fig. 3

gives results consistent with the CPC
approach [18], [25] for this 3-wire
example. The null point offset voltages
correspond to those derived using
symmetrical components [25]. The
PFAPP is higher than for the same load in
a delivery system, shown in Table III,
because the estimate of APAPP is lower.
The term APAPP is not power and PFAPP

cannot represent losses incurred in
Table V - Measurement and
delivering power to the apparatus.
compensation for Figure 3 Apparatus
Following Kennelly [8], PFAPP can be
case
viewed as an equivalent impedance
factor, IF=R/Z, of the apparatus for the
set of voltages at its terminals. The
compensation of Z can be calculated for
comparison with power theory
approaches based on an ideal voltage
source; but it only adjusts the
impedance factor and cannot give full
compensation in a practical power
system.
The GPT-adapted approach does not need the symmetrical component voltages to be
calculated and has fewer, simpler steps than the CPC approach. It requires no
concept of reactive power, although Q=VIsinϕ can be calculated for each h and
summated. A ‘residual non-active power’ determined from PPoC, Q and APAPP of Table
V corresponds to the extra CPC component
DU=27.5 kVA [25] in this unbalanced system.
3.5 Example of a simple dc system

The GPT applies to all wired power systems, so consider a 3-wire dc smart grid
example (Fig. 1) with equal wire resistances delivering power to a resistive load at
different voltages, as illustrated in Fig. 4. The load, an assembly of resistors, is
de ned only by the currents and voltages at the PoC. The question is, “what optimum
wire currents would deliver the power to the load with the minimum loss?” The GPT
applies to this system too.
3.5.1 Calculations
The PoC reference is the third wire. With

U = {109, 47, 0}; IS = {100, 100, -200};
then PPoC = < U, IS > = 15600 W.
The weighted current vector is IS’, the

product of IS and the matrix R1/2 {by (15)
in [2]}, in which R(diag)= {0.01, 0.01,
0.01}, then, ||IS’||2 = <IS’,
IS’>=100+100+400=600 W of line loss;
giving PTh = PPoC + ||IS’||2 = 15600+600
= 16200 W. Figure 4 – DC system with three
unbalanced voltages and wires of equal
resistance to resistive load
The equivalent source line voltage with respect to original PoC side common
reference is VThPoC = {110, 48, -2}.
The weighted null point necessary offset to subtract from above to obtain VTh_null (or
VTh_null(m,h) in full) is
eref= 52 V, (by V1r1 + V2r2 + V3r3)/(r1+r2+r3)

giving VTh(null)= {58, -4, -54}.
The proportionality constant KA, is derived from the resistance-weighted voltage

vector
||VTh’||2 = < VTh’, VTh’> = 582/0.01 + (-4)2/0.01 + (-54)2/0.01 = 629600,
and the minimum delivery loss {by (33) in [2]} is

||IA’||2 = ½(-||VTh’|| -/+ √((||VTh’||2 + 4 PPoC)) = 406.96 W,
identifying the optimum power sent out from the Thévenin point:
PTh = PPoC + ||IA’||2 = 16006.96 W.
This gives: KA = PTh-opt / ||VTh’||2 = 16006.96 / 629600 = 0.2542
Then the optimum wire currents IA are: KA VTh /R = {147.46, -10.17, -137.29}
The voltages at the PoC after compensation would change from U = {109, 47, 0} to
U# = {109.15, 48.73, 0}, making the delivered power 15600 W, the same as before
compensation.

3.5.2 Interpretation of dc system
The theory underlying this dc example is simply the algebraic calculation of

currents, voltages and voltage drop, and power and losses in a power system, such
that the delivery loss after compensation is the minimum possible. As Karapetoff
discussed in his analogy [29], the delivery to the customer is unchanged by a
redistribution of the currents to minimise the losses, but it makes a difference to the
source and delivery capacity of the supplier.
In the dc power system of this example, the PFSYS can be calculated for the
improvement that optimum currents distribution makes to the losses: ||IA’||2 /
||IS’||2 = 406.96 / 600, giving PFSYS = 0.82 for the dc system before (or without)
compensation. By extension, APSYS=P/PFSYS = 15600/0.82 = 19024 W.
This APSYS is equal to the power (fully compensated) that could be dispatched for the
same losses (600 W) as the original uncompensated power.
The example shows the GPT approach can improve the operation of multi-wire dc
networks by controlling a converter for a load or source.
Traditionally, there is no apparent power or Q in dc systems, but the physics-based

theory derives APSYS and PFSYS for systems with ac, dc, or mixed ac/dc components.
3.6 What about reactive power Q?

We cannot nd in the GPT for systems any relationship the same as reactive power.
The derivation and proof of the GPT in the frequency domain [2] showed that the
delivery loss cannot be associated with Q orthogonal to P as depicted in the PQS
power triangle. It was not our intention to challenge the validity of the concept of
reactive power and despite all the evidence it took us a long time to appreciate that a
physics-consistent concept model of power delivery cannot accommodate a physics-
violating parameter like reactive power. Like every other electrical power engineer,
our training and experience limited our ability to accept this obvious, apparently
novel idea.
The early (mis)conception of the PQS triangle arose from a de nition by Kennelly [9]
deriving reactive and apparent power as Watts. With an example of a current
I=4000 Arms through a single-phase RXL (series) impedance, he presented two sets
of triangles in the complex plane, including those in Fig. 2. The potential difference
across the resistance, pd = IR = 2000 V dissipated a power of I2R = 8 MW. The
“reactive” pd = jIXL = 750 V was extended to the “reactive” power of jI2XL = 3 MW.
The power and reactive power are written in complex arithmetic with modern
symbols as P+jQ=VI(cosα + jsinα). The inner product reactive power Q=<V, I> is an
imaginary, axial power orthogonal to the complex plane. The arithmetic products
S=VI and Q=VIsinα are measurements based on physical quantities, but they do not
give physical power. They are operations applied to two complex numbers (usually
de ned arbitrarily as rms quantities without reference to distortion, or as
measurements from a particular wire without reference to unbalance) and are not
physical quantities.

The linear algebra expression is consistent with what was already well known by
1901 – that the electromechanical (physical) measurement of reactive power or
energy needed a 90° phase shift and measurement of the real power or energy [30].
Realising no power is associated with reactive power, the unit of measurement was
changed to volt-amp-reactive and var. Now, a digital relay can easily make a
calculation neglecting the orthogonality constraint, mimicking Kennelly’s original
error.
For the whole system, the loss avoided by compensation is ||IC'||2+2<IA', IC'>. Since
IA' = IA x R-1/2, the product of a vector and the matrix of wire resistances, IA and IC are
orthogonal only when all the wire resistance are zero. In practical systems (not
assuming lossless delivery), the minimum delivery loss occurs when IA and IC are not
orthogonal, which contradicts the de nition of conventional Q.
The error of the power triangle arises from various factors such as disregarded zero
voltage and current components, reverse harmonic power ow, unbalance, and volt
drop across line impedance.
In terms of the circuit theory of electric

power systems, the concept of reactive
power as the oscillating component is
not credible, even for an undistorted
single-phase lossless system. Fig. 5
clearly shows that Q is not quantitively
the same as the negative power owing
back to a source or oscillating
instantaneous power within a cycle, and
if it were, what would be the
interpretation of other components of
Figure 5 – Instantaneous voltage,
non-active power that have been
current, power and PAV and Q during one
associated with unbalance or distortion?
cycle. Conventional pf=0.8
The non-active component of current
that contributes to delivery loss does
not deliver non-active power; it delivers
zero power.
The argument that the quantities of apparent and reactive power have already
proved useful, even if they are inconsistent with physics, ignores the inherent
inaccuracies.
Reactive power is not a physical power, and reactive energy is not physical energy.
Neither represents a quantity of losses in the delivery system. Though widely used, Q
loss and kvarh in transformers and systems are not physical quantities and are
algebraically zero. They, and any other de ned orthogonal non-active power
components, are not consistent with the law of energy conservation. Thus, common
statements like “absorbing reactive power to control the voltage”, “reactive power
injection” and “Q reserve margins” are inaccurate in real systems. What these terms
refer to are the addition or reduction of non-active current components that do not
contribute to delivering power but do incur avoidable losses in delivery. It is shown
in later sections that the inaccuracies can be misleading.

Representative measurement needs a valid concept model and mathematics
adequate to represent the physical relationship. Apparently without comprehending
the signi cance of violating the laws of physics, the operational measurement of Q, a
zero average quantity, has been de ned as a real quantity by standards authorities,
used by engineers to analyse power systems, and built into economic models and
regulatory policies.
The testing of the GPT in section 4 and the practical applications of sections 5 to 9
are relevant to correcting the concepts that have been based on reactive power and
energy.
Advertising, continue reading below
4. Testing the GPT

Testing any novel analytical approach proceeds in stages. First, an example from
another power theory was used in sections 3.1 to 3.4. In section 4.1, that power
system is extended using another published example, one with unbalance and
harmonic components. In section 4.2, the GPT in the frequency domain is compared
with a different approach – time domain simulations in EMT software. Eventually,
given the novelty of the implications of the GPT, it is necessary to test its validity by
physical implementation in hardware, which is discussed brie y in section 4.3.
4.1 Comparison with published examples

Most published power theory examples are trivially simple with a single-phase
system, an apparatus with balanced voltages or loads, or an undistorted waveform,
or the examples declare insuf cient data to replicate the solution. Exceptions
include the examples used by Lev-Ari et al., from whom one [31] was analysed in the
GPT theory paper [2], and some using the CPC approach [19], [27], [32].
Bhattarai’s thesis Illustration 5.1, with unbalance and distortion [27], depicted in
Fig. 6, represents supply to an arc furnace with one phase open. The system has
three wires, derived voltages from an isolated reference point that effectively adds a
fourth wire, three harmonic components and no dc component. The currents and
voltages at the PoC are declared as CRMS quantities and the equivalent circuit
impedances are given. This is a variation of another 3-wire circuit [32] with different
source impedances and only fundamental frequency components. Although the

given source voltages and load impedances would not be available in a practical
system, they are useful for checking the measured quantities for replicating the
example.
Figure 6 – Form and values of a 3-phase, 3-wire supply to an arc furnace with one phase open (arc
extinguished) based on Bhattarai’s Illust. 5.1 of [25]. The arti cial voltage measurement reference,
which is not a system wire, adds a 4th wire, and voltages and currents are provided as CRMS amplitude
and angle
Compared with Fig. 3, this example adds a fourth wire, even though it is only a
reference point for measuring voltages. The wire carries no current, so it is
connected to the Thévenin point by a high impedance. The three harmonic
components require superposed circuits with the same topology as the fundamental
frequency, illustrated in Fig. 7 for only the fundamental component h1 and one
distorting harmonic h5, each requiring the same calculation routines, and with
results collected for the whole system.
Figure 7 – Concept model of power system represented by the Thevenin equivalent circuit ‘lines’ for a
4-wire system with two phases, a neutral and a virtual voltage measurement reference point – and a
fundamental and 5th harmonic

Key results of the GPT and CPC analysis
are presented in Table VI.
For an apparatus connected at the

terminals R, S and T, the CPC quantities
for power, PFAPP and APAPP [27] are the
same as those of the GPT apparatus
case, con rming the validity of CPC Table VI - GPT quantities for an
analysis for this topology. However, the unbalanced load in the power system of
apparatus is supplied by a power Fig 6 compared with CPC analysis [25]
system that is neglected in calculating
these quantities.
Bhattarai’s analysis indicated a loss of 6 kW in the power system – the difference

between the fundamental power of the apparatus and its power with all frequency
components. The GPT analysis shows instead that some power (6 kW) is returned to
the power system by the harmonic components. A meter that measures only ltered
fundamental frequency components would ‘over-read’ by 6 kW the net power
delivered to the load, but that 6 kW represents real power re-transmitted into and
dissipated in the delivery system.
The delivery of total (net) power at the PoC of 511.2 kW at all frequencies incurs a
system loss of 57.7 kW. The loss could be reduced to 9.0 kW by effective
compensation, and without compensation is re ected in the low PFSYS=0.395 for the
load at the PoC.
Without compensation, the injection of harmonic power into the system is a

consequence of the waveform distortion by the nonlinear load. A ‘source’ of power at
a harmonic frequency is possible even when a customer’s load has no embedded
generation. To draw power most ef ciently from the supply system, a GPT-controlled
compensator will not inject harmonic power to the system, since to do so would incur
losses without contributing to the power required at the PoC. Also, it would not draw
at the fundamental frequency the re-exported power.
4.2 Comparison with time domain simulation

The results of GPT analysis have been compared with simulations in PSCAD/EMTDC
and MATLAB/Simulink. Both these time-step simulation tools can represent the
power system response at any frequencies. They differ from conventional load ow
software based on fundamental-frequency power system equations with intrinsic
reactive power concepts. Both simulation packages allow the system to be de ned as
a network with resistance and inductance, and with voltage sources. Loads can be
represented by the PoC currents or impedances without having to de ne power and
reactive power. And both give the same results in simple simulations.
In making comparisons between the GPT analysis and time domain simulations, the
equivalent or ideal voltage sources at the Thévenin point and the PoC currents are
input from the GPT spreadsheet without compensation and then with the
compensation suggested by the GPT spreadsheet. Testing progressed through stages
of balanced systems with only fundamental frequency to more complex unbalanced
distorted conditions. The apparatus case can be approximated by setting the
equivalent circuit impedances close to zero without the software defaulting to zero.

The circuit of the fundamental frequency subsystem of Fig. 7 for MATLAB Simulink
simulation is illustrated in Fig. 8. The reference point for the measurement of PoC
voltages is constructed by a high impedance separation from the neutral of the
Thévenin sources.
Figure 8 – Circuit for testing in MATLAB Simulink the system of Fig 6. Only the subsystem of one of the
four frequency components (fundamental and three harmonics) is depicted
In all cases tested, before and after compensation, the simulations return the same
losses and PoC voltages as predicted by the GPT spreadsheet. This con rms the
frequency domain calculations of the GPT are consistent with time domain
simulation. The minimum loss combination of current components is available only
with the mathematical proof in the GPT derivation [2], so simulations could verify the
GPT’s optimisation only by in nite testing. However, the time domain simulations
can show that other compensation approaches do not achieve the optimum loss
reduction of the GPT approach.
Testing against other methods of calculating compensation requires that full

numerical details of those other methods are available for making comparisons. At
this stage, few such examples have been identi ed. The constraint is not on the size
of the example, since the GPT is independent of network size. The GPT ‘sees’ the
network only from the PoC, and the equivalent circuit impedances of any network are
derived from measurement or conventional simulation. The main constraint is that
few optimum loss solutions of test cases with unbalance and distortion have been
published, and we have tested most of those available. Another constraint is that few
test systems with unbalance and distortion have been endorsed by the engineering
community. Therefore, for the analysis of the GPT applications in the following
sections, we have adapted existing test systems or derived new ones appropriate to
the problem being investigated.
4.3 Physical system testing

Since the GPT is developed on a physics-based concept model of a power system, it
should be possible to test its validity by measurement on a physical power system.
Physical testing of GPT-controlled inverters has already begun [33]. Testing of the
GPT concept involves Control- and Power-Hardware-in-the-Loop (referred to as CHIL
and PHIL tests) and Real-Lab tests in a microgrid that can be controlled, modelled,
and represented completely by only the voltages, currents, power and equivalent
circuit impedances at the PoC.

APPLICATIONS
The GPT is not merely a new computer game; its concept model is practical and
useful because it is consistent with the laws of physics and the behaviour of the
power system. The sections 5 to 9 describe the link between engineering science and
engineering practice through theory-based applications.
5. GPT control of distributed generation

Distributed generation (DG) is implemented widely on distribution systems in
developing and developed countries. The typical mix of large and small, three- and
single-phase customers, and variable loads results in constantly changing unbalance
during different times and seasons. DG is widely considered to reduce feeder losses,
but voltage rise with increasing DG penetration is a constraint requiring control. In
this section, the implications of the GPT for controlling power injected from a
distributed energy source into an unbalanced feeder without distortion are
examined.
The system performance can be demonstrated in a medium voltage feeder with

distributed loads and a DG source, and the same principles apply to the connection
of large generators and transmission networks to distribution utilities.
It is useful rst to consider:
the nature of the currents drawn from the original (main grid, bulk) source when
energy is injected elsewhere in the feeder; and
the loss attributable in the GPT to a load at the PoC when there are other loads on
the system.
5.1 Effect of power input to downstream network

As energy is injected by DG into a feeder (or minigid or any secondary network) with
distributed loads, the power drawn from the main source reduces. Usually, power
from converter based “renewable” DG sources is injected at conventional unity
power factor, with equal currents in phase with the terminal voltages. The feeder’s
bulk source supplies the balance of the currents not supplied by the DG.
5.2 Loss reduction in multi-node systems

Consider two separate resistance loads I1 and I2 at a PCC at the end of a very simple
feeder of resistance r. Since they share the delivery system resistance r, the total loss
dissipated by the two currents is (I1+I2)2r = (I12+I22+2I1I2)r. According to the GPT, the
loss attributable to I1 is I12r1Th and to I2 is I22r2Th. However, neither load is
observable by the other except by its effect on the Thévenin equivalent impedance
seen from each load’s PoC, so the term 2I1I2r of loss cannot be calculated for an
individual PoC. If both currents supply loads, the terms I12r and I22r will under-
estimate the feeder loss. If one current is a source (such as from a DG) reducing the
load current in any branch of the feeder, the actual loss will be over-estimated by the
individual terms.

This effect is like the GPT’s loss reduction by compensating the non-active current
components, with the avoided loss given by ||IC'||2+2 <IA', IC'>. Unlike the GPT’s
capacity to calculate the current distribution to eliminate IC, the currents at other
PoCs on the system are not observable to a meter or compensator at its PoC.
Therefore, estimates of total loss before compensation ||IS'||2 and after compensation
||IA'||2 differ from the actual loss incurred in the system by combination with other
PoC currents.
Nevertheless, reduction of one current term at a PoC will reduce the loss attributable
to all PoCs. Complete loss optimization is possible only by reducing the avoidable
loss at all nodes.
In this section, GPT-based control will be considered only for the DG source and at
the input to the feeder from the main source.
5.3 Distributed generation control

Most renewable energy sources and other novel technologies like battery storage
and EVs, require power electronic converter interfaced technologies with suitably
controlled power/energy injection. In some cases, the integration of renewable
energy has led to problems, including voltage control, that have been measured in
real systems [34].
Most DG is located near the electrical edges of power systems where voltages, inertia
and fault levels are relatively low, and distortion and unbalance are signi cant. Most
distribution systems were originally designed to meet the voltage drop constraints of
passive feeders supplied from central generation. In some feeders, shunt capacitor
banks are installed to support the voltages; an approach referred to as volt-var
control (VVC).
DG can reverse the direction of power ow in all or part of an existing passive feeder,
changing the voltage pro le, and even causing voltages on the feeder to exceed the
usual limits. In the same way as VVC using capacitors supports voltages on a passive
feeder, VVC can also ‘absorb inductive reactive power’ at a DG node to reduce the
voltage rise, allowing more power and energy to be injected into the feeder [35] [36]
[37].
5.4 DG on a medium voltage feeder

The following simpli ed example investigates the optimum control of DG on an
unbalanced medium voltage (MV) feeder. The effects of VVC to limit voltage rise at
the DG terminals are compared with GPT-based control. Instead of the
approximations of reactive power and conventional power factor, the GPT offers an
approach consistent with the physics of power delivery.

5.4.1 Feeder model
Despite the availability of MV test

feeders [38], [39], a simpler example is
suf cient to demonstrate the effects of
the DG and the application of GPT Figure 9 – Converter-based DG at Bus 6
analysis. An originally passive rural exporting power into a 20 kV rural
distribution feeder, extended to a DG at feeder with unbalanced line parameters
Bus 6, shown in Fig. 9, represents and unbalanced loads. IF=R/Z
typical development of new renewables-
based DG.
The maximum output of the new DG could exceed the feeder demand during periods
of high generation. This example considers only DG output below the level of causing
reverse power into the source network.
The three-phase delta feeder is rated 20

kV (line to line). It operates at 50 Hz and
is without distortion. The ideal voltage
source at Bus 1 represents a strong
supply to a town, with the rural feeder
supplied from a busbar controlled at
20.7 kV. The line conductor is ACSR Fox.
Line impedances and shunt Table VII - Line impedances at 50 Hz
susceptance are slightly unbalanced as
shown in Table VII.
Intermediate loads shown in Table VIII

introduce unbalanced currents and
voltage drop along the feeder, without
causing distortion. The loads draw
constant power with constant
impedance factor R/Z equal to
conventional pf. Loads without voltage Table VIII - Loads on the 20 kV rural
control on LV and MV feeders typically feeder
have a mixed character and can be
modelled as constant currents.
The purpose of this example is not a worst-case design or identi cation of limits of
penetration, so the loads are modelled as power to establish a constant value of
power delivered. This approach simpli es interpretation of the trends of other
parameters, and extrapolation of the performance to high voltage systems.

The Thévenin equivalent impedance of the shunt-series feeder impedances, as seen
from a PoC, can be extracted using a Simulink measurement impedance block
suitable for 3-wire systems.
Conventional inverter control injects equal currents into each phase, aligned with
the voltage. The injected power raises voltage levels in the vicinity of the DG bus and
may cause voltages to rise above an acceptable level, assumed in this example to be
a commonly applied limit of 1.075 p.u. (7.5% above rated voltage).
The feeder is modelled in MATLAB/Simulink by de ning loads as impedances to

avoid any uncertainty associated with the concept of Q, and adjusting those
impedance magnitudes to maintain constant load power. The optimum
compensation by the DG inverter is calculated according to the GPT using the same
processes in MATLAB as in the Excel spreadsheet. As explained in section 5.2, the
loss uniquely attributed to the DG input by the GPT does not account for the
combined load and DG loss in the feeder, so the total feeder loss must be calculated
in the MATLAB simulation.
5.4.2 Feeder voltage pro le
The voltage pro les along the passive

feeder and for an active feeder with
balanced DG input per phase are
depicted in Fig. 10. The maximum
phase voltage at Bus 6 reaches the
upper acceptable limit of 21.5 kV when
the DG output reaches about 1800 kW at
Figure 10 – Voltage pro le of feeder.
conventional pf=1. At DG output of 2736
Passive feeder, DG=0, dashed. Active
kW the limit of this model’s assumptions
feeder with DG=2.7 MW at conventional
is reached with reverse power into the
upf shown solid
source bus.
5.4.3 Losses
As the DG input to the feeder load increases, the feeder losses decline until the
demand is met with about 1000 kW from the DG and the balance from Bus 1. Higher
DG export increases the feeder loss. The feeder loss is depicted by the black dashed
line in Fig. 11.
Instead of conventional DG control, the inverter can be controlled according to the

GPT, injecting current into the wires inversely to their Thévenin equivalent
resistance. On its own, the GPT control of the DG reduces the losses very little, as
depicted by the dashed blue line, since the feeder draws current from the strong
source at Bus 1, even when the DG supplies all the power of the feeder loads and
loss.
When the DG power level increases voltages above the limit, the feeder’s DG capacity
is increased by VVC. The typical inverter’s absorption of “reactive power” at the DG
terminals is achieved in this example by adding controlled shunt inductances. The

different (less optimal) set of currents includes reactive current components that
incur avoidable loss without delivering power. The loss curve with VVC is depicted in
maroon in Fig. 11. The VVC enables more power to be injected by the DG, but one
third of the extra DG export enabled by the VVC is dissipated as losses.
Simultaneous GPT control and VVC by reactors demonstrates the two approaches are
incompatible because the GPT-controlled inverter currents offset the avoidable loss
introduced by the VVC and restore the voltage associated with ef cient delivery.
The VVC use of “reactive power” (more accurately non-active current components)
for voltage control is apparently widely used. In this example, it increases revenue
for the power producer, but the high avoidable losses reduce the bene ts for the
distribution system operator and the customers.
Figure 11 – Grid source power (solid) and feeder loss (dashes) in response to increasing DG power
injection. GPT inverter control (blue) has small effect. VVC (maroon) suppresses voltage rise above
21.5 kV, but extra losses reduce effective DG power
5.4.4 Currents from the strong source
Since the DG input to the feeder can be controlled to provide only power, as the DG
contribution increases, an unconstrained feeder will draw from the bulk source a
higher proportion of currents not contributing power.
A GPT-meter at Bus 2 on the incoming line from Bus 1 can measure the power,
apparent power APSYS, and PFSYS of the currents drawn from the source. The
contribution from the strong source is depicted in Fig. 12.
As PDG increases, the power supplied from Bus 1 decreases until the voltage at Bus 6
reaches the limit value. APSYS remains high relative to the real power supplied and
the PFSYS decreases steadily.

If the DG power level is increased and
the maximum voltage on the feeder is
limited by VVC, the DG power can be
increased until negligible power is
drawn from Bus 1. The dashed
extensions to the curves in Fig. 12 show
how the GPT-based PFSYS measured at
the Bus 2 Incomer reduces to nearly
zero and the maximum power that could
be sent out from the source for the same Figure 12 – GPT metered feeder load
loss (APSYS) increases rapidly when VVC received at Bus 2 from Bus 1
is implemented.
These results cannot be compared with those of conventional meters because the
current components imported by the feeder from the bulk supply are unbalanced,
and conventional 3-phase apparent power and power factor equations are not
de ned for unbalance. Even reactive power meters complying with the same
standard speci cation give different measurements according to their proprietary
design [15].
GPT-controlled compensators can

eliminate the current components that
deliver no power but incur delivery loss.
GPT-controlled compensation at the
incoming supply to Bus 2 from Bus 1
and at the DG bus signi cantly reduces
the feeder loss, as illustrated in Fig. 13.
There is no demand for ancillary service
from the bulk source, and the voltage
limit is not exceeded for DG power up to
1800 kW. However, achieving this
Figure 13 – Loss reduction with a GPT-
condition requires that the export of
controlled inverter on the DG at Bus 6
power from the DG into the feeder be
and by a GPT-controlled compensator at
limited, not increased by causing extra
the Bus 2 Incomer from Bus 1
loss.
5.4.5 Interpretation of the feeder performance
A simple distribution feeder exposes the weaknesses of conventional reactive power

thinking about controlling feeders. VVC by reactive power absorption to limit voltage
rise on a feeder and enable higher outputs from DGs is possible but incurs high
losses.
MATLAB simulations and GPT analysis together show that:

GPT-control of an inverter for loss minimisation is incompatible with “reactive”
VVC that enables higher DG export by incurring signi cant losses to reduce the
voltages at the DG terminals.
The existing control of DG puts extra demand on bulk suppliers for ‘ancillary
services’ and reduces the suppliers’ relative ef ciency of delivery – evidenced by
PFSYS and APSYS. Traditional power theory and standards-compliant meters
cannot reliably identify these effects.
GPT compensation at the feeder connection to the bulk supply can eliminate the
nonactive ‘power’ drawn from the bulk supply and improve the feeder
performance.
There are implications for system planning, the approach to optimal power ow,
metering, and the nancial compensation of suppliers that meet the power balancing
needs of distributors and customers with generating capacity “behind the meter”.
The value of DG energy after losses, and cost re ective charging for the balance of
currents drawn from the bulk supply are commercial issues that need to be informed
by the technical behaviour of the power system.
The lessons from the analysis of this MV feeder extend also to lower and higher
voltage systems. At high voltage, the bulk supplier might be a transmission operator,
and the feeder represent the network of a distribution utility. Traditional power
theories, which cannot represent practical system performance, confuse the
decision-making about the ancillary services from bulk suppliers. As more converter
interfaced generation connects at distribution levels and displaces energy supplied
from transmission networks, new technical and commercial arrangements will be
required [40].
This example is limited. It has not analysed feeder performance with mixed power
and impedance load models or the effects of harmonic distortion. A feeder with lower
load and high DG injection, such as at night with wind generation, could reverse
power ow into the voltage source bus and violate the model assumptions. Analysing
a feeder with reverse power would need a different source model, and voltage control
at Bus 1, such as by an automatic tap-changer.
Intermediate conclusions
Using several examples, the GPT-based model-and-process measurement of power
parameters at a PoC has been compared with other approaches to power, reactive
power, and apparent power. Our research shows that the understanding of power
parameters at an apparatus is complemented by considering the whole system from
sources to loads. The GPT approach, with a concept model compatible with the laws
of physics and accommodating unbalance, harmonics, and the delivery system,
avoids the traditional approaches’ assumptions that are violated in practical power
systems.
An in nite combination of current components in the Hilbert space of voltage and

current vectors can deliver power to a PoC, but only one combination will do so with
the minimum loss. Linear algebra offers a rigorous and compact way of representing
the relationships between all the variables and identifying the unique, minimum-
loss combination and the ‘real’ power dispatched, dissipated as delivery loss, and
delivered. The GPT measurement can be extended to identify how a load or
distributed source can be compensated to achieve the optimum of minimum loss.

The GPT cannot accommodate reactive power Q that is de ned as an arithmetic
product of a voltage and an orthogonal current component, and which, when voltage
and current are treated as vectors in linear algebra, is always zero. Similarly,
historically de ned apparent power is also an operational measurement with no
direct physical meaning, but its form can be de ned in the GPT as a physical power
measured in Watts, conditional on the voltage-current displacement being corrected.
Tested using EMT simulation, the GPT approach compares favourably with
conventional Q-based power theories. As an example, conventional power theory
suggests volt-var control of DG, whereas the GPT exposes its disadvantages in terms
of losses. Part 2 of this paper examines further examples and implications of the
GPT.
Acknowledgements
George Gabriels provided the Thévenin impedance measurement meter in
MATLAB/Simulink for measuring equivalent circuit parameters from a PoC.
The research has been funded in part by a grant from the Open Philanthropy Project.
References
1. C.P. Steinmetz, “Symbolic representation of general alternating waves and of
double frequency vector products,” Trans AIEE, vol. XVI, pp. 269-296, 1899, doi:
10.1109/T-AIEE.1899.4764075.
2. M. Malengret and C. T. Gaunt, “Active currents, power factor, and apparent power
for practical power delivery systems”, IEEE Access, 2020 doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3010638.
3. M. Malengret and C. T. Gaunt, “Decomposition of currents in three- and four-wire
systems,” IEEE Trans. Instr. and Measurement, vol 57, Issue 5, pp 963-972, 2008,
doi: 10.1109/TIM.2007.911705.
4. M. Malengret and C. T. Gaunt, “General theory of instantaneous power for multi-
phase systems with distortion, unbalance and direct current components,” Electr.
Power Syst. Res., vol. 81, pp 1897-1904, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.epsr.2011.05.016.
5. M. Malengret and C. T. Gaunt, “General theory of average power for multi-phase
systems with distortion, unbalance and direct current components,” Electr. Power
Syst. Res., vol. 84, pp. 224-230, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.epsr.2011.11.020.
6. C. T. Gaunt and M. Malengret, “True power factor metering for m-wire power
systems with distortion, unbalance and direct current components,” Electr. Power
Syst. Res., vol 95, pp. 140-147, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.epsr.2012.07.019,
7. M. G. Simões, F. Harirchi, and M. Babakmehr, “Survey on time-domain power
theories and their applications for renewable energy integration in smart-grids”,
IET Smart Grid, vol. 2, issue 4, p.491–503, 2019, Doi: 10.1049/iet-stg.2018.0244
8. A. E. Kennelly, “Impedance”, Trans. AIEE, vol X, p175-232, 1893. doi: 10.1109/T-
AIEE.1893.4768008.
9. A. E, Kennelly, “Vector power in alternating-current circuits”, Proc. AIEE, vol. 29,
issue 7, p1023-1057, 1910. doi: 10.1109/PAIEE.1910.6659879.
10. F. B. Silsbee, “Power factor in polyphase systems”, Trans. AIEE, vol. 39, issue 2,
p1465-1467, 1920. doi: 10.1109/T-AIEE.1920.4765336.
11. J. A. Suul and M. Molinas, “Properties of reactive current injection by AC power
electronic systems for loss minimization”, 15th Int. Power Electronics and Motion
Control Conf. (EPE/PEMC), Serbia, 2012. doi: 10.1109/EPEPEMC.2012.6397415.

12. Electropedia, IEC Electrotechnical Vocabulary, available online at
http://dom2.iec.ch/iev.
13. DIN 40110 Quantities used in alternating current theory; Part 1 (1994): Two-line
circuits; Part 2 (2002): Multi-line circuits.
14. IEEE Standard de nitions for the measurement of electric power quantities
under sinusoidal, nonsinusoidal, balanced, or unbalanced conditions, IEEE
Standard 1459-2010.
15. NEMA C12.24 TR-2011 “De nitions for calculations of VA, VAh, VAR, and VARh for
poly-phase electricity meters” 2011, National Electrical Manufacturers
Association, Rosslyn, USA.
16. A. J. Berrisford, “Smart meters should be smarter”, IEEE Power and Energy
Society General Meeting, San Diego, USA, 2012. doi:
10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345146.
17. C. Ndungu, private communications, Sep 2020 – Nov 2021.
18. L. S. Czarnecki and P. D. Bhattarai, “Reactive compensation of LTI loads in three-
wire systems at asymmetrical voltage,” Int. School on Nonsinusoidal Currents
and Compensation (ISNCC), Lagow, Poland, 2015 doi:
10.1109/ISNCC.2015.7174712
19. L. S. Czarnecki and P. M. Haley, “Unbalanced power in four-wire systems and its
reactive compensation,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 53-63, 2015,
doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2014.2314599.
20. L. F. Correa Monteiro, B. F. Exposto, J. G. Pinto, M. Aredes, and J. L. Afonso, “Control
algorithms based on the active and non-active currents for a UPQC without series
transformers,” IET Power Electron., vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 1985_1994, 2016, doi:
10.1049/iet-pel.2015.0642.
21. C. Burgos-Mellado, R. Cardenas, D. Saez, A. Costabeber, and M. Sumner, “A control
algorithm based on the conservative power theory for cooperative sharing of
imbalances in four-wire systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 34, no. 6, pp.
5325_5339, 2019, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2018.2869866.
22. H. K. Morales Paredes, F. P. Marafao and L. C. P. da Silva, "A comparative analysis
of FBD, PQ and CPT current decompositions — Part I: Three-phase, three-wire
systems," IEEE PowerTech, Bucharest, Romania, 2009, pp. 1-8, doi:
10.1109/PTC.2009.5282173.
23. H. K. Morales Paredes, F. P. Marafao and L. C. P. da Silva, "A comparative analysis
of FBD, PQ and CPT current decompositions — Part II: Three-phase four-wire
systems," IEEE PowerTech, Bucharest, Romania, 2009, pp. 1-6, doi:
10.1109/PTC.2009.5282169.
24. H. Lev-Ari, R. D. Hernández, A. M. Stanković, and E. A. Marengo, “Adaptive near-
optimal compensation in lossy polyphase power systems,” IEEE Trans. Control
Syst. Techn., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 732-739, 2018, doi: 10.1109/TCST.2017.2677742.
25. L. S. Czarnecki and P. D. Bhattarai, “Currents’ physical components (CPC) in three-
phase systems with asymmetrical voltage,” Przegląd Elektrotechniczny, R. 91, Nr.
6/2015, doi: 10.15199/48.2015.06.06.
26. D. I. Brandao and E. Tedeschi, “Three-dimensional representation of electrical
circuit quantities,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 3258-3261, 2020,
doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2020.2967222.
27. P. D. Bhattarai, “Powers and compensation in three-phase systems with
nonsinusoidal and asymmetrical voltages and currents.” PhD dissertation,
Louisiana State University, 2016.
https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/1712.
28. M. Malengret and C. T. Gaunt, “Inverters and compensators for minimum line
losses,” Conf. on Power Electron. and Appl. and Exhibition (EPE), Karlsruhe,
Germany, 2016, doi:10.1109/EPE.2016.7695634.
29. V. Karapetoff, “Contribution to discussion,” in C. Fortescue, Measurement of power
in polyphase circuits, Trans. AIEE, vol. XLII, pp. 358-375, 1923, doi: 10.1109/T-

AIEE.1923.5060878.
30. W.H. Browne, “Power factor indicators,” Trans. AIEE, vol. XVIII, pp.287-312, 1901,
doi: 10.1109/T-AIEE.1901.4764183.
31. H. Lev-Ari and A. M. Stanković, “Fundamental performance limits in lossy
polyphase systems: Apparent power and optimal compensation,” IEEE Int. Symp.
Circuits Syst., New Orleans, LA, USA, pp. 61–64, 2007, doi:
10.1109/ISCAS.2007.378182.
32. L. S. Czarnecki and P. D. Bhattarai, “A method of calculating LC parameters of
balancing compensators for ac arc furnaces,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol 32, Issue
2, 2017, doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2016.2536681
33. P. Jankee, M. Malengret, D. Oyedokun, and C. T. Gaunt, “An inverter controlled by
the General Power Theory for power quality improvement,” 30th Southern
African Universities Power Engineering Conference (SAUPEC), 2022, doi:
10.1109/SAUPEC55179.2022.9730729.
34. E. Batzelis, Z. H. Rather, J. Barton, B. R. Naidu, B. Wu, et al. “Solar integration in
the UK and India: Technical barriers and future directions,” JUICE White Paper on
solar integration, 2021. doi: 10.17028/rd.lboro.14453133
35. V.A. Evangelopoulos, P.S. Georgilakis, and N.D. Hatziargyriou, “Optimal operation
of smart distribution networks: A review of models, methods and future
research,” Electr. Power Syst. Res., 140 (2016) 95–106, doi:
10.1016/j.epsr.2016.06.035.
36. I. Abdelmotteleb, T. Gómez, and J. P. Chaves-Avila, “Bene ts of PV inverter volt-
var control on distribution network operation,” IEEE PowerTech, 2017, doi:
10.1109/PTC.2017.7981098.
37. A. M. Howlader, S. Sadoyama, L. R. Roose, and S. Sepasi, “Distributed voltage
regulation using volt-var controls of a smart PV inverter in a smart grid: An
experimental study”, Renewable Energy, 127, pp.145-157, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.renene.2018.04.058.
38. TF C6.04, “Benchmark systems for network integration of renewable and
distributed energy resources,” Technical Brochure TB 575 , CIGRE, Paris, 2014.
39. W. H. Kersting, “Radial distribution test feeders,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 6,
no. 3, pp. 975–985, Aug. 1991, doi: 10.1109/59.119237.
40. C. T. Gaunt, “Comments in response to notice of inquiry: Reactive power
capability compensation,” in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No.
RM-22-2, 17 Feb. 2022.
Contact Author: C.T. GAUNT 

Applying A Physics-Consistent General Power Theory To Practical Electricity Systems With Unbalance and Periodic Waveform Distortion - Part 1: Implementation, Testing, Application To DG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applying A Physics-Consistent General Power Theory To Practical Electricity Systems With Unbalance and Periodic Waveform Distortion - Part 1: Implementation, Testing, Application To DG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CSE 030

Applying a physics-consistent general

C. T. GAUNT, H. K. CHISEPO – Dept. of Electrical Engineering, University of Cape

©2024 - CIGRE CSE N°30 October 2023 1

Active distribution network – Apparent power – Distortion – Inverter-based generators – Power

Fundamentally, only voltages and currents are sensed in a system at points of

©2024 - CIGRE CSE N°30 October 2023 2

Figure 1 – Any 3-wire unbalanced, waveform-distorted system supplying power to a load

2. Review of developing themes

2.1. Technology Changes

©2024 - CIGRE CSE N°30 October 2023 3

2.2. Models of Apparatus and Power Systems

Most power theories de ne power components for an apparatus, neglecting the

2.3. Prior Power Theories

©2024 - CIGRE CSE N°30 October 2023 4

Our time domain theory was unable to

Figure 2 – The origin of the power

©2024 - CIGRE CSE N°30 October 2023 5

Non-physical operational de nitions and omission of in uencing quantities

At the same time, the objective of effective compensation leads to various

3. GPT for measurement and control

©2024 - CIGRE CSE N°30 October 2023 6

I A = K A V Th (null ) R−1 (1)

' , I ' > =P

with +/- depending on the direction of total power ow,

I A' = I AR1 /2 (4)

The GPT is essentially a measurement process. But when applied to a compensator

These advantages are constrained, however, by the assumption of steady-state

©2024 - CIGRE CSE N°30 October 2023 7

3.1. Input parameters at the PoC

3.1.1 Voltages and currents

Distorted periodic waveforms of ac voltages and currents can be represented

©2024 - CIGRE CSE N°30 October 2023 8

Superposition allows the three wires of Fig. 1 to be modelled as an equivalent circuit

Table I shows the input parameters

The voltages and currents give the

3.1.2 Equivalent source impedances

The widely used Helmholtz-Thévenin equivalent circuit of a system observable at a

There are many approaches to measuring the equivalent circuit impedances,

©2024 - CIGRE CSE N°30 October 2023 9

For an apparatus, no source impedance exists. An apparatus is de ned only by its

3.2 GPT calculation of power terms

3.2.1 Source voltages referred to original measurement reference

3.2.2 Source voltages referred to a null point

©2024 - CIGRE CSE N°30 October 2023 10

The calculated source voltages and

3.2.3 Calculating P, APSYS and

The calculated GPT power parameters

©2024 - CIGRE CSE N°30 October 2023 11

3.3 Active current distribution

A common proportionality factor

3.4 Simpli cation for an apparatus

©2024 - CIGRE CSE N°30 October 2023 12

APAPP = ||Is|| ||Vnull|| (not resistance weighted, units VA)

Measurements and compensation

The GPT-based apparatus case for Fig. 3

The term APAPP is not power and PFAPP

3.5 Example of a simple dc system

©2024 - CIGRE CSE N°30 October 2023 13

The PoC reference is the third wire. With

The weighted current vector is IS’, the

eref= 52 V, (by V1r1 + V2r2 + V3r3)/(r1+r2+r3)