Professional Documents
Culture Documents
24
allocating capacitor at each bus of the feeder equal to its reactive load to achieve unity power factor at each bus, then performing the load flow for the feeder after installing these capacitor to obtain the total reactive losses in this case. These reactive losses are compensated by a capacitor its size equals these losses. This capacitor is placed at a candidate bus. The candidate bus is chosen to achieve minimum total losses and satisfy the voltage constraint and the sectional losses constraint mentioned in [12]. This paper presents implementation of the new approach and the so-called exact solution in [11], and a comparison between them to show the validity of proposed approach. The compression is made at the same conditions and assumptions. II. PROBLEM FORMULATION A. Problem Formulation The purpose of placing compensating capacitors along the distribution feeders is to lower the total power loss and bring the bus voltages within specified limits while minimizing the total power cost. The total power loss PTloss is given by
Fig.1. One-line diagram of a radial distribution feeder. where, (k+1) is the case after the capacitor placement and (k) is the case before the capacitor placement. B. The Proposed Strategy The proposed approach is to connect a capacitor rated at the reactive power needed at certain bus directly at this bus. This is applied on all buses of the distribution system simultaneously. The total reactive power losses are calculated from the results of a load flow program. Then add a capacitor its value equal to the resulted Q total loss at the candidate bus. The candidate bus is chosen to minimize the cost function in eq. (3), and satisfies constrains of eq. (4) and eq. (5). The solution algorithm of this approach can be summarized as follows: 1- Perform the load flow program (LF) for the original feeder to get the Section losses, the voltage at each bus, the total active losses and the total reactive losses. 2- Put QC at all buses simultaneously equals the value QC = Q load (i) where i index is the bus number. 3- With QCs are placed run the LF program. If the voltage is less than Vmin and the sectional losses are less than that of case before adding QC, put QC = Q total losses at the bus which satisfies eq. (3), eq. (4) and eq. (5). 4- Repeat step 3 until satisfying all constraints. C. Exact Solution. [11] As it was stated at [11], the solution algorithm of this method can be summarized as follows: 1- Assume that we should put QC at bus number one. Try all of the 27 values of QC at this bus. For each value of QC, perform the load flow program and evaluate the cost function. Record QC that gives minimum cost and record this cost. 2- Repeat step 1 for all buses. Then select to put QC1 at the bus (K1) that has lowest minimum cost function. 3- With optimal QC placed at bus K1, repeat step 1and 2 to select the next candidate bus (K2) where the next optimal QC2 will be placed. 4- With QC1 and QC2 placed at buses K1 and K2, repeat steps 1 and 2 and so on until candidate buses are exhausted. 5- If the minimum voltage is still <0.9, try to increase QC of the candidate node that is very far from the substation. This will increase the voltage such that 0.9 Vi 1 p.u.
P Tloss
P loss(i,
i0
n -1
i 1)
, i = 1,..., n
(1)
where, i is the bus number and n is the total number of buses as shown in Fig. 1. Considering investment cost, there is a finite number of standard capacitor sizes that are integer multiples of the smallest size Qc. the cost per kVAr varies from one size to another. Generally, large capacitor sizes are cheaper than smaller ones. Let the maximum permissible capacitor size be limited to [11]:
c Q max c 0
H Q 0c
(2)
where, Q is the smallest capacitor size in Table (A-1) in Appendix (A) and H is an integer resulted by dividing the
c maximum allowed capacitor size for this feeder Q max on the
c Cost C P PTloss K c jQ j j 1
(3)
Where, Cp is the cost per power loss ($/kW) and j = 1, 2,, J represents the selected buses. The objective function eq. (3) is to be minimized subjected to two constraints: The first constraint: Vmin Vi Vmax The second constraint:
P (k 1) Sec.loss P
, i=1, 2,., n.
(4)
(k) Sec.loss
(5)
25
III. NUMERICAL RESULTS In order to test the proposed approach and validate its results, two distribution systems with 9 and 34-buses respectively have been taken as examples. The constants and conditions are as follows [11]: Power losses cost Cp = 168 U.S.$168/kW Voltage limits: Vmin= 0.9 p.u. Vmax=1.1 p.u. Fixed capacitors are only considered. The possible capacitor sizes have been shown in Table (A-2) in Appendix (A) with corresponding cost/kVAr [13]. The values of the choices are derived from Table (A-1) by assuming a life expectancy of ten years (the operating costs are neglected) [11]. A. The First Test Feeder The 9-bus radial distribution feeder in [3] is taken as the test feeder. The rated voltage is 23 kV. The single line diagram, the load data and feeder-line parameters for the system are shown in Appendix (B). By applying the load flow program on this feeder before compensation, the value cost and the total power losses are U.S. $ 131675 and 783.8 kW, respectively. The maximum and the minimum bus voltage magnitudes were 0.9929 and 0.8375 p.u respectively, where the voltage of the substation (bus number 0) is assumed to be 1 p.u. The results for this feeder are summarized in Table I. B. The Second Test Feeder Another 34-bus radial distribution test system has been used. This test system has a main feeder and four laterals (sub feeders). The data of the feeder is presented in [12]. The single line diagram, the load data and feeder line parameters for the system are shown in Appendix (B). The system voltage is 11kV. Before compensation, the cost is U.S. $327212, this is based on the previously defined cost function, the active and reactive losses are 221.5kW and 65.04kVAr, respectively, and the voltage limits in p.u. are 0.9417 Vi 1.The results for this feeder are summarized in Table II. C. Discussion on results Table I shows the results of the two methods for the first feeder. It is observed that the total active loss for the proposed approach is less than that of the exact solution. The fixed cost (the cost of the installed capacitors only), and the running cost (the cost of the total power losses only) for the proposed approach are less than that of the exact solution; so the proposed approach offers more cost saving than the exact solution. The voltage profile for the proposed approach is more close to that of the exact solution as shown in Fig.2. The active loss in each section of this feeder is shown in Fig. 3. The sectional loss resulting by using the proposed approach is always less than that of the original case (i.e. case without QC s), but the sectional loss resulting from the exact solution offers a violation in section (2-3) (i.e. the loss in this section
TABLE I RESULTS FOR THE TWO METHODS APPLIED TO THE 9-BUS FEEDER INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL CASE. Method No. Without Qc Qc in MVAr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.783 131675 0 131675 1 0.8375 0 0 The Proposed approach Qc in MVAr 0.46 1.227 0.446 1.84 1.495 0.996 0.06 0.13 0.2 0.684 114912 1436.5 116348.5 1 0.891 99 15326.5 Exact solution in Ref. [11] Qc in MVAr 0 3.6 0 4.05 1.65 0 0 0.6 0 0.686 115248 1787.4 117035 1.007 0.9003 97 14640
Bus No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total power loss in MW Running cost $ Fixed cost $ Total cost $ Max voltage in p.u. Min voltage in p.u. Loss reduction in kW Cost saving in $
TABLE II RESULTS FOR THE TWO METHODS APPLIED TO THE 34-BUS FEEDER INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL CASE Method No. Total power loss in MW Total cost $ Max voltage Min voltage Loss reduction in kW Cost saving in $ Without Qc 0.2215 37212 1 0.9417 0 0 The Proposed approach 0.1578 27980.9 1 0.951 63.7 9231.1 Exact solution in Ref. [11] 0.1655 28250 1 0.951 56 8962
is more than that of the original case). The results for the second feeder are shown in Table II. It is observed that the proposed approach offers less total power loss, less cost, hence more cost saving and more loss reduction than the exact solution. The voltage profile for the proposed approach for 34-bus system is the best case as shown from Fig. 4. The sectional losses for the two methods and the original case for this feeder are shown Fig. 5. The sectional loss resulting by using the proposed approach is always less than that of the original case, also is less than that resulting by the exact solution.
26
IV. CONCLUSION This paper proposes an efficient and simple approach for the optimal location and sizing of fixed shunt capacitor in radial distribution feeders based on the total reactive powerrequired for the distribution feeder. The following conclusions may be deduced: The power losses of distribution feeders can be effectively reduced by proper reactive compensation equal to its total reactive loads in addition to the total reactive losses in the feeder sections.
By this approach, the losses in each section of the feeder are not allowed to increase than that of the original case (without capacitor placement) during the capacitor allocation and sizing scenario. In addition to power-loss reduction, the voltage profile can be improved as well by the proposed approach V. REFERENCES
[1] H. N. Ng, M. M. A. Salama, and A. Y. Chikhani, Classification of capacitor allocation techniques, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 387392, Jan. 2000.
27
[2] S. H. Lee, J. J. Grainger, Optimum placement of fixed and switched capacitors on primary distribution feeders, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS100, no. 1, pp. 345-352, Jan. 1981. [3] J. J. Grainger, S. H. Lee, Capacity release by shunt capacitor placement on distribution feeders: a new voltage- dependent model, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS- 101 no. 5, pp. 12361244. May 1982. [4] M. Ponnavaikko and K. S. Prakasa Rao, Optimal choice of fixed and switched shunt capacitors on radial distributors by the method of local variations, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 102, no. 6, pp. 16071615, June 1983. [5] M. E. Baran and F. F.Wu, Optimal capacitor placement on radial distribution systems, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 725734, Jan. 1989. [6] T. M. Khalil, H. K. M. Yousssef, and M. M. Abdel Aziz, Optimal capacitor placement on radial distribution feeders in presence of nonlinear loads using binary particle swarm optimization, in Conf. 19th International Conference on Electricity Distribution Conf. ,Vienna, 21-24 may 2007. [7] S. Civanlar, J. J. Grainger, H. Yin, and S. H. Lee, Distribution feeder reconfiguration for loss reduction, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1217 1223, July 1988. [8] T. Taylor and D. Lubkeman, Implementation of heuristic search strategies for distribution feeder reconfiguration, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 239246, Jan. 1990. [9] T. S. Abdel-Salam, A. Y. Chikhani, and R. Hackam, A new technique for loss reduction using compensating capacitors applied to distribution systems with varying load condition, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 819827, Apr. 1994. [10] M. Chis, M. M. A. Salama, and S. Jayaram, Capacitor placement in distribution systems using heuristic search strategies, IEE Proceedings Generation, Transmission and Distribution, vol. 144, no. 2, pp. 225230, May 1997. [11] S. F. Mekhamer, S. A. Soliman, M. A. Moustafa, and M. E. El- Hawary, Application of fuzzy logic for reactivepower compensation of radial distribution feeders, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 206213, Feb. 2003. [12] M. M. Hamada, M. A. A. Wahab, A. M. El-Sayed, H. A. Ramadan A proposed strategy for capacitor allocation in radial distribution feeders, in Conf. 12th Middle East Power Systems Conf., MEPCON, Aswan, Egypt, 12-15 March 2008. [13] Y. Baghzouz and S. Ertem, Shunt capacitor sizing for radial distribution feeders with distorted substation voltages, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 5, pp. 650 657, Apr. 1990.
Table (A-2) Possible choice of capacitor sizes and cost / kVAr . J 1 2 3 4 5 Qc (kVAr) 150 300 450 600 750 $/kVAr 0.5 0.35 0.253 0.22 0.276 J Qc(kVAr) $/kVAr J Qc(kVAr) $/kVAr J Qc(kVAr) $/kVAr J Qc(kVAr) $/kVAr 7 1050 0.228 13 1950 0.211 19 2850 0.183 25 3750 0.183 8 1200 0.17 14 2100 0.176 20 3000 0.18 26 3900 0.182 9 1350 0.207 15 2250 0.197 21 3150 0.195 27 4050 0.179 10 1500 0.201 16 2400 0.17 22 3300 0.174 11 1650 0.193 17 2550 0.189 23 3450 0.188
Fig.(B-1) The single line diagram of the 9-bus test system [3].
Table (B-1) The load data and the feeder data of the 9-bus test system [3]. Bus N o. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Load P (kW) 1840 980 1790 1598 1610 780 1150 980 1640 Q (kVAr) 460 340 446 1840 600 110 60 130 200 Bus No. From 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.123 0.014 0.746 0.698 1.983 0.905 2.055 4.795 5.343 0.4127 0.6051 1.205 0.6084 1.7276 0.7886 1.164 2.716 3.0264 Sectional parameters Ri,i+1(p.u.) Xi,i+1(p.u.)
28
Table (B-2) The load data and the feeder data of the 34-bus test system [11]. Bus N o. Load P (kW) Q (kVAr) Sectional parameters Bus No From 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 2_1 2_2 2_3 5 5_1 5_2 5_3 5_4 5_5 5_6 5_7 5_8 5_9 5_10 6 6_1 6_2 9 9_1 9_2 9_3 To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2_1 2_2 2_3 2_4 5_1 5_2 5_3 5_4 5_5 5_6 5_7 5_8 5_9 5_10 5_11 6_1 6_2 6_3 9_1 9_2 9_3 9_4 Ri,i+1 (/km) 0.195 0.195 0.299 0.299 0.299 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.299 0.299 0.378 0.378 0.378 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 0.524 Xi,i+1 (/km) 0.08 0.08 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.083 0.083 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.6 0.55 0.55 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.25 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.55 0.55 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.25 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 Length km
Fig.(B-2) The single line diagram of the 34-bus test system [11]. .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2_1 2_2 2_3 2_4 5_1 5_2 5_3 5_4 5_5 5_6 5_7 5_8 5_9 5_10 5_11 6_1 6_2 6_3 9_1 9_2 9_3 9_4
320 0 230 230 0 0 230 320 0 230 137 72 72 72 13.5 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 137 75 75 75 57 57 57 57
142.5 0 142.5 142.5 0 0 142.5 142.5 0 142.5 84 45 45 45 7.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 85 48 48 48 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5
29