The 1st International Conference

on Sustainable Power Generation and Supply

SUPERGEN 2009
6-7 April 2009, Nanjing, China

Optimal Dispatch of ULTC and Capacitors

for Volt/VAr Control in Distribution
System with Harmonic Consideration
by Particle Swarm Approach

Suwit Auchariyamet and Somporn Sirisumrannukul

Department of Electrical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering,
King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok
1
➢ Outline
1) Introduction
2) Problem Formulation
3) Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
4) Computation Process
5) Case Study
6) Test Results
7) Conclusion

2
➢ 1) Introduction
• Volt/VAr control in distribution system is defined as a
regulation of voltage and reactive power over the feeders
• The advantages of volt/VAr control are:
- bus voltages improvement
- system power loss reduction
• This work is emphasized on the optimal dispatch of
- the under load tap changer (ULTC)
- the substation capacitors
- the feeder capacitors
for volt/VAr control in distribution system with the
presence of nonlinear loads
• The particle swarm optimization algorithm is applied to
determine the optimal solution
3
 ➢ Problem Formulation
• Objective function:
Minimize the system energy loss
S
Min F = Ti Pi
i =1
F = system energy loss (kWh)
Ti = time duration for load level i (hr)
Pi = power loss for load level i (kW)
S = number of load levels

Note : Pi is the combination of losses at

fundamental and harmonic frequencies
4
 ➢ Problem Formulation
• Constraints: the objective function is subjected to
(1) Power flow equations
(2) Bus voltage limits
(3) Total harmonic distortion of bus voltages
(4) Maximum number of switching operation for
- ULTC
- Substation capacitors
- Feeder capacitors

5
➢ Particle Swarm Optimization
• Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is a
population-based algorithm that first
introduced in 1995
• PSO’s development is based on social behavior
in herd of animals (e.g. bird flocking or fish
schooling)
• Many advances in PSO development extend its
abilities to handle difficult optimization
problems in science and engineering fields

6
➢ Particle Swarm Optimization
• PSO’s concept:
- PSO consists of a group of particle in swarm
- Particles are referred as the candidate solutions
- Each particle is represented by its position
and velocity
- Particles change their positions to find
the better solution by updating their velocities
- Knowledge for updating the velocity is based on
 inertia component from last velocity
 previous best position of each particle
 position of the best particle in swarm
7
 ➢ Computation Process
• Particle representation:
- Each particle consists of three segments
- Each segment represents the setting of ULTC and
capacitors for all load levels
Setting of the Setting of the
Setting of the ULTC
substation capacitors feeder capacitors
Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3
Dimension of particle = S  (1+Cs+Cf )

S = number of load levels

Cs = number of substation capacitors
Cf = number of feeder capacitors

8
➢ Computation Process
• Computation procedure:
Input Input Input
system data operational constraints PSO parameters

For each particle,

perform power flow and Randomly generate
harmonic power flow initial population of particles
to obtain bus voltages, comprising positions and velocities
power loss, and THD

Evaluate fitness value Update each particle

for each particle by PSO algorithm

No Yes Print
Reach maximum iteration?
optimal solution
9
 ➢ Case Study
• Test system:
- KWA06, A practical radial distribution system of
Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA), Thailand
- The system consists of 29 buses, 20 load points
100 kW 130 kW 100 kW
19

KWA F6 240 kW 175 kW 425 kW 20 21 22

18 145 kW 27 150 kW
13 12 11
ULTC 17
180 kW
26 150 kW
10 85 kW
5 400 kW
1
9 400 kW 16 125 kW 25 100 kW
No. 1 No. 2
310 kW 100 kW 290 kW 125 kW 160 kW
8
29
2 3 4 6 7 14 15 23 24 28
10
 ➢ Case Study
• Conditions:
 Base voltage 22 kV
 Base power 100 MVA
 Power factor of all load points 0.7
 % Nonlinear of load 30%
 Harmonic orders of interest 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, and 25
1.5
1.3
1.2 1.15
1.0
Load (p.u.)

0.85
• Load duration
0.9
0.7

data: 0.6 0.5

0.3

0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Time (hr) 11
 ➢ Case Study
 V min 0.95 p.u.  Maximum switching operation
• Operational  V max 1.05 p.u. -for ULTC 15
constraints:  THD max 5% -for substation capacitors 10
-for feeder capacitors 4

Capacitor location Bank size (kVAr) Number of banks

Substation capacitors
• Existing -No. 1 100 3
capacitor -No. 2 100 3
Feeder capacitors
in the -Bus 8 300 6
networks: -Bus 11 300 6
-Bus 17 300 6
-Bus 29 300 6

 Number of particles in swarm 50

• PSO  Maximum number of iteration 100
parameters: w linearly decrease
from 0.9 to 0.4
 c1 , c2 2.0
12
➢ Case Study
• Case Studies: three cases are investigated
- Case1 (base case) is without volt/VAr control
- Case2 is with volt/VAr control
but neglects harmonics
- Case3 is with volt/VAr control
and harmonics consideration
Volt/VAr Harmonics
Case
Control Consideration
1  
2 ✓ 
3 ✓ ✓
13
 ➢ Test Results
• Case 1: without volt/VAr control
Bus voltages
1.05
Le ve l 1 Le ve l 2 Le ve l 3
1.00 Le ve l 4 Le ve l 5 Le ve l 6
Voltage (p.u.)

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
Bus No.

• Most of the bus voltages for all load levels violate the lower limit
14
 ➢ Test Results
• Case 1: without volt/VAr control
THD Values
15
Le ve l 1 Le ve l 2 Le ve l 3
Le ve l 4 Le ve l 5 Le ve l 6

10
THD (%)

0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
Bus No.

• THD values in load levels 2 to 6 exceed the permissible limit

of 5%
15
 ➢ Test Results
• Case 2: volt/VAr control but neglect harmonic
Optimal solution obtained from the proposed PSO technique
Load levels Number of
Devices
1 2 3 4 5 6 switchings
1) Tap position of ULTC: 3 4 7 4 6 4 12
2) Number of banks for substation capacitors:
- No.1 0 0 2 1 1 0 4
- No.2 0 1 2 1 1 0 4
3) Number of banks for feeder capacitors:
- Bus 8 1 2 3 3 3 2 4
- Bus 11 2 2 4 3 3 2 4
- Bus 17 1 3 2 2 2 2 4
- Bus 29 1 2 3 2 2 2 4

16
 ➢ Test Results
• Case 3: volt/VAr control with harmonic consideration
Optimal solution obtained from the proposed PSO technique
Load levels Number of
Devices
1 2 3 4 5 6 switchings
1) Tap position of ULTC: 3 2 0 2 1 3 6
2) Number of banks for substation capacitors:
- No.1 0 1 3 3 3 1 6
- No.2 0 2 3 2 3 2 8
3) Number of banks for feeder capacitors:
- Bus 8 3 4 5 4 4 3 4
- Bus 11 3 3 5 5 5 3 4
- Bus 17 4 5 6 6 6 5 4
- Bus 29 3 4 5 5 4 3 4

17
 ➢ Test Results
• Case 2: Devices
1 2
Load levels
3 4 5 6
Volt/VAr control 2) Number of banks for substation capacitors:
- No.1 0 0 2 1 1 0
but neglect harmonic - No.2 0 1 2 1 1 0
3) Number of banks for feeder capacitors:
- Bus 8 1 2 3 3 3 2
- Bus 11 2 2 4 3 3 2
- Bus 17 1 3 2 2 2 2
- Bus 29 1 2 3 2 2 2
Load levels
• Case 3: Devices
1 2 3 4 5 6
Volt/VAr control 2) Number of banks for substation capacitors:
- No.1 0 1 3 3 3 1
with harmonic - No.2 0 2 3 2 3 2
consideration 3) Number of banks for feeder capacitors:
- Bus 8 3 4 5 4 4 3
- Bus 11 3 3 5 5 5 3
- Bus 17 4 5 6 6 6 5
- Bus 29 3 4 5 5 4 3

• The optimal dispatch of case 2 needs less capacitors than

those of case 3
18
 ➢ Test Results
• Case 2: Volt/VAr control but neglect harmonic
Load levels Number of
Devices
1 2 3 4 5 6 switchings
1) Tap position of ULTC: 3 4 7 4 6 4 12

• Case 3:
Volt/VAr control with harmonic consideration
Load levels Number of
Devices
1 2 3 4 5 6 switchings
1) Tap position of ULTC: 3 2 0 2 1 3 6

• The ULTC in case 2 can be set at a high position

and changed more frequently

19
 ➢ Test Results
• Case 2: Devices
Load levels Number of
1 2 3 4 5 6 switchings
Volt/VAr control 3) Number of banks for feeder capacitors:
but neglect - Bus 8 1 2 3 3 3 2 4
- Bus 11 2 2 4 3 3 2 4
harmonic - Bus 17 1 3 2 2 2 2 4
- Bus 29 1 2 3 2 2 2 4

• Case 3: Devices
Load levels Number of
1 2 3 4 5 6 switchings
Volt/VAr control 3) Number of banks for feeder capacitors:
with harmonic - Bus 8 3 4 5 4 4 3 4
- Bus 11 3 3 5 5 5 3 4
consideration - Bus 17 4 5 6 6 6 5 4
- Bus 29 3 4 5 5 4 3 4

• In both cases, the constraint of maximum switching operations

for feeder capacitors is binding for all feeder capacitors

• This is logical as capacitors are more effective for reactive power

support if connected closer to the loads
20
 ➢ Test Results
• Case 2: volt/VAr control but neglect harmonic
Bus voltages
1.05
Le ve l 1 Le ve l 2 Le ve l 3
Le ve l 4 Le ve l 5 Le ve l 6
Voltage (p.u.)

1.00

0.95
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
Bus No.

• Bus voltages are developed by the volt/VAr control to stay

within the allowable range
21
 ➢ Test Results
• Case 2: volt/VAr control but neglect harmonic
THD Values
7.5

5.0
THD (%)

2.5
Le ve l 1 Le ve l 2 Le ve l 3
Le ve l 4 Le ve l 5 Le ve l 6
0.0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
Bus No.

• Volt/VAr control can also improve THD levels, but the

THD values at some busses for some load levels
still exceed the 5% limit 22
 ➢ Test Results
• Case 3: volt/VAr control with harmonic consideration
Bus voltages
1.10
Le ve l 1 Le ve l 2 Le ve l 3
Le ve l 4 Le ve l 5 Le ve l 6
1.05
Voltage (p.u.)

1.00

0.95

0.90
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
Bus No.

• Bus voltages are developed by the volt/VAr control

to stay within the allowable range
23
 ➢ Test Results
• Case 3: volt/VAr control with harmonic consideration
THD Values
3.0
THD (%)

1.5

Le ve l 1 Le ve l 2 Le ve l 3
Le ve l 4 Le ve l 5 Le ve l 6
0.0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
Bus No.
• Volt/VAr control can maintain THD levels within the limit of 5%

24
➢ Test Results
Power losses
750
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
600
Losses (kW)

450

300

150

0
0.5 0.85 1.3 1 1.15 0.7
Load (p.u.)
• Power losses are reduced for all load levels due to
the implementation of volt/VAr control
• Power loss is greatly decreased during the interval of
high demand load
25
➢ Test Results
Case Energy loss (kWh)
1 6,765.22
2 2,903.55
3 3,219.91
• Although the system energy loss of case 2 is lower than
case 3, some of the unacceptable THD in case 2 could
cause harmonic resonance condition in the system
• Therefore, the optimal schedule of case 3 would be more
appropriate because it can control all bus THD levels
within the limit which will help prevent undesired
harmonic while reducing energy loss

26
➢ Conclusion
• Test results from the study system illustrate
the effectiveness of PSO algorithm to determine
the optimal dispatch of ULTC and capacitors
for volt/VAr control
• The attractiveness of obtained solution is a
reduction of energy loss whereas all the
specified constraints are satisfied
• It is important to take harmonic constraint into
consideration while determining the optimal
dispatch for volt/VAr control because this will
help prevent undesired harmonic parallel
resonance
27
Thank you for your attention 28