75

CHAPTER - 5 NETWORK RECONFIGURATION

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

5.1 INTRODUCTION Network Reconfiguration is the process of operating switches to change the circuit topology so that operating costs are reduced while satisfying the specified constraints. These constraints include radial configuration, serving all loads, coordination of protective devices, keeping all the equipment within current capacity limits and the voltage drop within limits. Distribution network reconfiguration for loss reduction and load balancing is a complicated combinatorial, non differentiable, constrained optimization problem since the

reconfiguration involves many candidate-switching combinations. The problem precludes algorithms that guarantee a global optimum. Most existing reconfiguration algorithms fall into two categories. In the first, branch exchange, the system operates in a feasible radial

configuration and the algorithm opens and closes candidate switches in pairs. In the second, loop cutting, the system is completely meshed and the algorithm opens candidate switches to reach a feasible radial configuration. An algorithm for minimum loss reconfiguration of distribution system is proposed based on Sensitivity and Heuristics [100]. A codification algorithm is proposed for network reconfiguration for loss reduction [101]. The loss minimum distribution system

reconfiguration is obtained using hyper cube ant colony optimization

76

[102].

The

algorithm

proceeds

towards

final

configuration

by

introducing variations according to heuristic rules from the initial configuration. A sequential method for loss minimum reconfiguration and an extended algorithm for service restoration are presented in [108]. The network reconfiguration based on a Benders decomposition approach integrated with optimal power flow is presented [109]. A mixed integer quadratic constrained program for solving

reconfiguration problem is proposed [116]. A Meta heuristic method using modified Tabu search algorithm is proposed for distribution system reconfiguration [120]. Implementation of an evolutionary algorithm [122] is presented for network reconfiguration to minimize loss and disruption costs. The efficiency of loss estimation technique and reconfiguration approach affects the efficiency of network reconfiguration of distribution systems [125]. A coloured Petri net algorithm for load balancing in radial distribution system is proposed [67]. A method using GA is presented for load balancing through reconfiguration [90]. This chapter presents PGSA for radial distribution system network reconfiguration to minimize power loss and/or to keep load balancing while satisfying its constraints. The proposed method handles objective function inclusive of the constraints. One of the major advantages of PGSA is better searching performance than the published random algorithms in the literature [73]. The effectiveness of PGSA to network reconfiguration is illustrated with the help of examples.

77

5.2 PROBLEM FORMULATION FOR LOSS REDUCTION The objective function of the network reconfiguration to minimize the power loss in the system is given below.

+ S Minimize F = min P + S V CV I CI T, Loss

(5.1)

where, PT,Loss is the total active power loss in the system. V and I parameters are the penalty constants. SCI is the squared sum of the violated current constraints and SCV is the squared sum of the violated voltage constraints. Moreover, the penalty constants are determined as follows: (i) Constant I (V) is given a value of 0, if the associated current (voltage) constraint is not violated. (ii) I (V) is given a significant value if the associated current (voltage) constraint is violated. These considerations make the objective function to move away from the unfeasible solutions. The voltage magnitude at each node must be maintained within specified limits. The current in each branch must satisfy the branch current carrying capacity. These constraints are expressed as follows:

Vmin Vi Vmax

(5.2) (5.3)

j , max

where

Vi

is voltage magnitude of node i,

Vmin

and

Vmax

are

minimum and maximum node voltage magnitude limits, I j and Ij,max are current magnitude and maximum current limit of branch j,

78

respectively. Backward - forward sweep power flow method is used as described in the section 2.2 to prevent complicated computation.

5.3 LOAD BALANCING Usually it appears a mixture of domestic, commercial and industrial type of loads, varying from time to time, on distribution lines. Each of these has different characteristics and requirements. From this one can understand that some parts of the distribution system are heavily loaded at certain times and less loaded at other times in a day. In order to reschedule the load currents more efficiently for loss minimization, it is required to transfer the loads between the substations or feeders and modify the topology of the distribution feeders without changing the radial structure. 5.3.1 Load Balancing Problem Formulation The objective function for load balancing is presented in this section. The function consists of two components. One is the system load balancing index and the other is the branch load balancing index. The branch Load Balancing index (LBj) is defined as a measure of how much a branch can be loaded without exceeding the rated capacity of that branch. The load on the entire system is indicated by system Load Balancing index (LBsys). The objective is to optimize the branch load balancing indices so that the system load balancing index is minimized. In other words, all the branch load balancing indices are set to be more or less the same value and are also nearly equal to the system load balancing index.

79

The load balancing problem is formulated in the form of branch load balancing and system load balancing indices [20] as
Sj The branch load balancing index, LB = max j S j

(5.4)

The system load balancing index, LBsys =

Sj 1 nb max nb j=1 S j

(5.5)

where, nb is the total number of branches in the system.

S is apparent power of branch j j

Smax is maximum capacity of branch j j

5.3.1.1 Objective function

Minimize F =

Sj 1 nb max nb j=1 S j

(5.6)

By rescheduling the loads the branch load balancing indices can be optimized and thereby the system load balancing index will be minimized. In effect, it is made all the branch load balancing indices, (LBj) are approximately equal to each other and also closely approximate to the system load balancing index (LBsys). Mathematically this can be represented as,
Sj S2 S1 Sn 1 nb = = ..... = = m ax m ax ax n b j=1 S m a x S1 S2 Sm n j

(5.7)

The objectives to be achieved are, (i) The system loss must be reduced. (ii) The voltage magnitude of each node must fall within permissible limits i.e. Vmin Vi Vmax

80

(iii) Current capacity of each branch,

j , max

The condition of a branch will become critical when the load balancing index of the branch is equal to 1 and if it is greater than 1 the branch rated capacity will be exceeded. The system load balancing index will be low if the system is lightly loaded and its value will be closer to zero and the individual branch load balancing indices will also be low. The load balancing indices of individual branches will differ widely when the loads are unbalanced. On the other hand the balanced load will make the load balancing indices of all the branches nearly equal. Practically it is not possible to make all the branch load balancing indices exactly equal. However, the branch load balancing indices can be adjusted with the help of reconfiguration and hence the system load balancing index can be improved.

5.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF PGSA TO RECONFIGURATION This section presents implementation of PGSA to the network reconfiguration problem for loss reduction and/or load balancing. 5.4.1 Decision Variables Design The switch, usually considered as the decision variable, can be assigned either a value 0 (zero for open switch) or 1

(one for closed switch) in the distribution network optimization problem. However, two problems exist, (i) the rudimentary techniques are unsuitable for the large-scale optimization problem as the number of possible network states grows exponentially with the number of

81

switches, (ii) the optimal reconfiguration may not be obtained since a lot of unfeasible solutions will appear in the iterative procedure. The design of decision variables requires more sophisticated techniques to overcome the above mentioned problems. The independent loops can be taken as decision variables in distribution system reconfiguration problem since the number of independent loops is the same as the number of tie switches. The network optimization problem to minimize system real power loss is identical to the problem of selection of an appropriate tie switch for each independent loop in the system. This can greatly

reduce the network model as the number of the decision variables are reduced and cause unfeasible solutions to a marked decrease in the iterative procedure. Consider an IEEE 16 node distribution system consisting of 13 sectionalizing and 3 tie switches as shown in fig.5.1, to illustrate the new decision variables. The dotted lines represent initial tie switches and the sectionalizing switches are represented as thick lines. The basic procedure to design the new decision variables is given below. (i) An initial radial network is to be formed with all the sectionalizing switches in close and all the tie switches in open. (ii) The first independent loop (nominated loop 1) is to be formed by closing the first tie switch (S5). (iii) Number the switches in loop 1 using consecutive integers assuming the decision variable of loop-1 as x1, and then the numbers of all switches in loop-1 constitute the possible solution set of x 1. For

82

example, number the switches S1, S2, S5, S9, S8, S6 in loop-1 using 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and then get the possible solution set of x1 i.e., integral set [1 6]. In the same manner, define other decision variables as x2 for loop 2, x3 for loop 3, and then get their respective possible solution sets.

Fig. 5.1 Initial configuration of 16 node distribution system 5.4.2 Switch State Description In the iterative procedure the unfeasible solutions cannot be avoided when independent loops are taken as decision variables. Here, to reduce the chance to appear the unfeasible solutions in the iterative procedure the switches are described in four states. Further it improves the efficiency of the solution method. (i) Open state - switch is open in a feasible solution. (ii) Closed state - switch is closed in a feasible solution. (iii) Permanent closed state - switch is closed in all feasible solutions. (iv) Temporary closed state - switch must be closed in a feasible solution because another switch is open and the switch will be open

83

or closed state when the opened switch is closed in another feasible solution. The above description makes no need to number the permanent closed state switches while forming the possible solution sets of the selected decision variables. Also the number of switches in temporary closed state can be temporarily deleted in the possible solution set of the corresponding variable. Some illuminations about the temporary closed state and permanent closed state of a switch for fig.5.1 are as given below. (i) In any feasible and reasonable solution a switch which is close to the source node should be closed. The switches S1, S6 and S12 in fig.5.1 belong to such case. Hence no need to number the switches S1, S6, and S12 while forming the possible solution set of each decision variable. This reduces the search domain. (ii) Some switches, which belong to the same two or three independent loops, are interrelated. Only one of the interrelated switches may be in open state in a feasible solution. In other words, the possible switches corresponding to two independent loops must be temporarily closed while only one switch is in open state. The unfeasible solutions due to the interrelation of some switches can be avoided by introducing the concept of temporary closed state. 5.4.3 Constraints Treatment In PGSA, the constraints are treated in the following way. (i) Adopting independent loops as decision variables the radial characteristic of the network is enforced.

84

(ii) The branch capacity and node voltage limits are executed by checking every possible solution obtained.

Fig.5.2 Flow chart for Network Reconfiguration 5.4.4 Algorithm for Network Reconfiguration
The flow chart is shown in fig.5.2.

Step 1: Read the distribution system data such as line and load data, constraints limits, Nmax etc. and set iteration count N=0.

85

Step 2: Form the search domain by giving possible tie-line switches, which corresponds to the length of the trunk and the branch of a plant. Step 3: Give the initial solution X0 (X0 is initial configuration) which corresponds to the root of a plant, and calculate the initial value of objective function (power loss or load balancing index). Step 4: Let the initial value of the basic point Xb, which corresponds to the initial preferential growth node of a plant, and the initial value of optimization Xbest equal to X0, and let Fbest that is used to save the objective function value of the best solution Xbest be equal to f(X0), namely, Xb = Xbest = X0 and Fbest = f(X0). Step 5: For k=1: n (n is the number of tie lines) Step 6: For j=1: m (m is the maximum number of possible switches for kth tie line) Step 7: Get a possible solution (configuration) X p from basic point Xb (initial or updated configuration) by replacing k th element in the basic point Xb with jth possible switch of kth tie line. Step 8: Calculate the corresponding objective function (power loss or load balancing index) for Xp (new configuration). Step 9: Check for limit constraints and if the objective function f(Xp) < f(Xb), then save the Xp in feasible solution set, otherwise abandon the possible solution Xp. Step 10: From the set of all feasible solutions find the minimal solution.

86

Step 11: Calculate the probabilities C1, C2, C3,., Ck of feasible solutions X1, X2, X3,., Xk by using equation (3.1), which corresponds to the morphactin concentration of the nodes of a plant. Step 12: Calculate the accumulating probabilities C1, C2,, Ck of the solutions X1, X2, Xk. Select a random number from the interval [0 1], must belong to one of the intervals [0 C1], [C1, C2], .,[Ck-1, Ck], the accumulating probability of which is equal to the upper limit of the corresponding interval, and in the next iteration this will be the new basic point Xb, which corresponds to the new preferential growth node of a plant for next step. Step 13: Check for N>=Nmax, if yes go to next step else set N=N+1 and go to step 6 by replacing Xb and Fbest with new growth point and its corresponding objective function respectively. Step 14: Print the results for the optimal configuration obtained. Step 15: Stop.

5. 5 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES The proposed method is demonstrated through two different cases. Case-I: Three different systems consisting of 16, 33 and 69-node

radial distribution systems are tested to demonstrate the loss reduction through network reconfiguration. Case-II: Illustrates testing of the Load Balancing through network reconfiguration of 2 different systems consisting of 33 and 69-node radial distribution systems.

87

5.5.1 Case I 5.5.1.1 Example - 1 The line and load data of 16 node system is given in table C.1. The results obtained from the PGSA for a 16 node system are compared with the existing method [116] in table 5.1. The minimum voltage is improved in PGSA. The average real power loss reduction is 8.86%. The convergence characteristics are shown in fig.5.3. The node voltages are tabulated in table 5.2. The power losses are given in table 5.3. The voltage profile is shown in fig.5.4. The final configuration arrived is shown in fig.5.5 (b). Table5.1. Results of 16-node radial distribution network reconfiguration for loss reduction Final Configuration Item Initial Configuration 5,11,16 511.44 0.9693 Existing method [116] Tie Switches Real Power Loss (kW) Loss Reduction (%) Min. Voltage (pu) No. of Switches Changed 7,9,16 466.1 8.85 0.9716 2 Proposed PGSA 7, 9,16 466.13 8.86 0.9717 2

Table5.2. Node voltages before and after reconfiguration for 16 node system Node No. 1 2 3 |V| (pu) before Reconfiguration 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 |V| (pu) after Reconfiguration 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

88

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

0.9906 0.9878 0.9859 0.9848 0.9791 0.9711 0.9769 0.9709 0.9693 0.9944 0.9948 0.9918 0.9913

0.9907 0.9879 0.9860 0.9849 0.9814 0.9734 0.9899 0.9879 0.9717 0.9923 0.9907 0.9897 0.9891

Table5.3. Power loss before and after reconfiguration for 16 node system Branch No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total Before Reconfiguration Ploss (kW) 61.63 7.51 11.95 1.52 278.34 2.09 87.01 0.71 19.71 29.08 7.84 2.01 2.06 511.44 Qloss (kVAr) 82.18 10.33 23.89 1.52 278.34 2.09 119.64 0.71 27.09 29.08 10.77 2.68 2.06 590.38 After Reconfiguration Ploss (kW) 67.80 10.63 11.94 1.52 0.25 220.94 76.53 19.61 42.51 7.87 3.71 0.74 2.07 466.13 Qloss (kVAr) 90.40 14.62 23.89 1.52 0.25 220.94 105.23 26.97 42.51 10.82 4.94 0.74 2.07 544.9

89

Fig.5.3 Convergence characteristics of 16 node system

Fig.5.4 Voltage profile of 16 node radial distribution system before and after reconfiguration

(a) Initial Configuration

(b) Final configuration

Fig.5.5 Reconfiguration of 16 node distribution system

90

5.5.1.2 Example - 2 The single line diagram of initial configuration of 33 node RDS is shown in fig.5.6. The line and load data is tabulated in table C.2. The node voltages and power loss before and after reconfiguration are given in table 5.4 and table 5.5 respectively. The proposed PGSA results are compared with the existing method [116] in the table 5.6. The loss reduction is 31.39%, which is better compared to existing method. The minimum voltage is 0.9381 whereas it is 0.9378 with the existing method. The node voltages before and after reconfiguration are shown in fig.5.7. The convergence characteristics are shown in fig.5.8. The final configuration of the 33 node RDS obtained by PGSA is shown in fig.5.8. It is seen that the PGSA is converged 94 times to optimum solution. Table5.4. Node voltages before and after reconfiguration of 33 node system Node No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |V| (pu) before Reconfiguration 1.0000 0.9970 0.9830 0.9755 0.9681 0.9499 0.9462 0.9414 0.9351 0.9290 |V| (pu) after Reconfiguration 1.0000 0.9971 0.9870 0.9825 0.9781 0.9673 0.9667 0.9626 0.9592 0.9627

91

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

0.9282 0.9269 0.9208 0.9185 0.9171 0.9157 0.9137 0.9132 0.9965 0.9929 0.9922 0.9916 0.9794 0.9727 0.9694 0.9478 0.9452 0.9337 0.9254 0.9220 0.9178 0.9169 0.9166

0.9628 0.9631 0.9605 0.9597 0.9532 0.9514 0.9485 0.9475 0.9951 0.9782 0.9736 0.9701 0.9834 0.9768 0.9735 0.9655 0.9632 0.9526 0.9451 0.9419 0.9385 0.9381 0.9472

Table5.5. Power loss before and after reconfiguration of 33 node system Branch Before Reconfiguration No. 1 2 3 4 Ploss (kW) Qloss (kVAr) 12.24 51.79 0.16 0.83 6.33 26.38 0.15 0.75 After Reconfiguration Ploss (kW) 11.87 26.79 2.26 18.06 Qloss (kVAr) 6.14 13.65 2.16 16.27

92

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Total Loss

0.10 0.04 19.90 3.18 5.14 1.29 18.70 37.12 1.91 2.60 3.33 11.30 7.83 3.90 1.59 0.21 0.01 4.84 4.18 3.56 0.55 0.88 2.69 0.73 0.36 0.28 0.25 0.05 201.54

0.12 0.06 10.14 2.17 4.06 1.01 9.52 33.02 6.33 1.32 1.69 6.86 6.82 1.98 1.58 0.25 0.02 1.60 3.00 2.52 0.18 0.29 2.10 0.96 0.32 0.21 0.34 0.04 132.11

4.23 1.18 5.62 1.24 1.74 0.45 0.48 0.15 0.02 2.15 0.03 0.46 0.08 0.01 7.55 3.16 5.10 1.28 6.65 13.19 0.06 2.23 2.84 9.60 6.62 3.25 1.09 0.12 138.46

4.94 1.56 5.62 0.89 1.74 0.33 0.65 0.12 0.02 2.15 0.01 0.36 0.10 0.00 3.84 2.16 4.03 1.00 3.39 11.39 0.21 1.14 1.45 8.46 5.77 1.65 1.08 0.14 102.42

93

Table5.6. Results of 33-node radial distribution network reconfiguration for loss reduction Final Configuration Item Initial Configuration Existing method [116] Tie Switches 33,34,35,36,37 7,9,14,37,32 7,14,9,32,37 Real Power Loss (kW) Loss Reduction (%) Min. Voltage (pu) No. of Switches Changed 4 4 0.9132 0.9378 0.9381 30.76 31.39 201.54 139.55 138.46 by PGSA

Fig.5.6 Initial configuration of 33 node system

94

Fig.5.7 Voltage profile of 33 node radial distribution system before and after reconfiguration

Fig.5.8 Convergence characteristics of 33 node system

Fig.5.9 Final configuration of the 33 node system

95

5.5.1.3 Example 3 The initial configuration of the 69 node system is shown in fig.5.10. The line and load data is given in the table C.3. In table 5.7 the summary of results obtained by the PGSA for the 69 node system is given. It is run for 100 times out of which PGSA converged to optimum solution 94 times with an average loss reduction of 55.59%. The convergence characteristics are shown in fig.5.11. The node voltages before and after reconfiguration is given in table 5.8 and also is shown in fig.5.12. The power losses are given in table 5.9. The reconfigured 69 node radial distribution system is shown in fig.5.13.

Fig.5.10 Initial configuration of 69 node system Table5.7. Results of 69-node radial distribution network reconfiguration for loss reduction Item Tie switches Initial Configuration 69,70,71,72,73 Final Configuration by proposed PGSA 69,70,14,56,61

96

Real Power loss (kW) Power loss reduction (%) Min. Voltage (pu) No. of switches changed

224.44 0.9094 -

99.62 55.59 0.9428 3

Fig.5.11 Convergence characteristics of 69 node system

Fig.5.12 Voltage profile of 69 node radial distribution system before and after reconfiguration

97

Fig.5.13 Final configuration of the 69 node system Table5.8. Node voltages before and after reconfiguration of 69 node system Node No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 |V| (pu) before Reconfiguration 1.0000 1.0000 0.9999 0.9998 0.9990 0.9901 0.9808 0.9786 0.9775 0.9726 0.9715 0.9684 0.9653 0.9624 0.9596 0.9590 |V| (pu) after Reconfiguration 1.0000 1.0000 0.9999 0.9999 0.9997 0.9975 0.9954 0.9947 0.9945 0.9917 0.9912 0.9900 0.9898 0.9898 0.9802 0.9792

98

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

0.9581 0.9580 0.9578 0.9575 0.9569 0.9569 0.9569 0.9566 0.9565 0.9565 0.9563 0.9999 0.9998 0.9997 0.9997 0.9996 0.9994 0.9992 0.9990 0.9999 0.9997 0.9996 0.9996 0.9995 0.9988 0.9987 0.9985 0.9985 0.9984 0.9984 0.9998

0.9774 0.9773 0.9761 0.9752 0.9739 0.9738 0.9734 0.9723 0.9703 0.9694 0.9689 0.9999 0.9999 0.9997 0.9997 0.9996 0.9993 0.9990 0.9989 0.9999 0.9990 0.9980 0.9977 0.9977 0.9914 0.9888 0.9884 0.9883 0.9874 0.9874 0.9997

99

48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

0.9986 0.9948 0.9942 0.9788 0.9788 0.9747 0.9716 0.9669 0.9627 0.9402 0.9291 0.9248 0.9197 0.9126 0.9124 0.9118 0.9112 0.9094 0.9715 0.9715 0.9679 0.9679

0.9964 0.9854 0.9828 0.9947 0.9947 0.9944 0.9943 0.9942 0.9942 0.9942 0.9523 0.9523 0.9484 0.9428 0.9628 0.9628 0.9630 0.9654 0.9911 0.9911 0.9896 0.9896

Table5.9. Power loss before and after reconfiguration of 69 node system Branch No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Before Reconfiguration Ploss (kW) Qloss (kVAr) 0.08 0.18 0.08 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.04 After Reconfiguration Ploss (kW) Qloss (kVAr) 0.07 0.17 0.07 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.42 0.17 0.30 0.00 0.07 1.02

100

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

0.02 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.94 0.02 0.58 1.63 0.12 28.30 28.40 6.91 3.38 0.00 0.00 4.79 5.79 6.73 9.14 8.81

0.02 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 0.06 1.43 4.00 0.28 14.41 14.98 7.10 2.92 0.00 0.00 1.58 2.95 3.43 4.66 4.49

0.64 0.19 0.01 3.93 1.67 0.22 0.05 0.58 0.00 4.25 0.84 1.38 0.01 0.81 0.52 0.84 0.02 0.23 0.49 0.91 0.37 0.19 1.03 0.71 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.75 0.22 0.01 4.59 1.95 0.26 0.06 0.73 0.01 4.25 0.28 0.46 0.00 0.27 0.17 0.28 0.01 0.07 0.16 0.30 0.12 0.06 1.03 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

101

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Total Loss

49.78 24.54 9.52 10.69 14.05 0.11 0.14 0.66 0.04 1.02 2.20 0.00 0.00 1.29 0.02 0.00 1.25 1.21 0.22 0.32 0.00 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 224.44

16.71 8.23 3.15 3.25 7.16 0.06 0.07 0.34 0.02 0.34 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.01 0.00 0.41 0.40 0.07 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 107.14

0.00 0.11 0.17 4.19 13.29 2.55 38.24 0.00 6.33 8.32 1.59 1.64 0.35 0.12 0.00 0.00 1.43 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 99.62

0.00 0.13 0.41 10.25 32.52 6.25 38.24 0.00 1.92 4.24 0.81 0.84 0.36 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 114.9

102

5.5.2 Case II 5.5.2.1 Example 1 The proposed method for load balancing is tested on 33 node radial distribution system shown in fig.5.6. The node voltages and power loss before and after load balancing is given in tables 5.10 and 5.11 respectively. The summary of results obtained from the PGSA is given in table 5.12. The minimum voltage is improved from 0.9132 pu to 0.9171 pu. The configuration of the 33 node system after load balancing is shown in fig.5.14. The voltage profile and convergence curves are shown in fig.5.15 and 5.16 respectively. Table5.10. Node voltages of a 33 node system before and after Load Balancing Node No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |V| (pu) before load balancing 1.0000 0.9970 0.9830 0.9755 0.9681 0.9499 0.9462 0.9414 0.9351 0.9291 0.9282 0.9269 0.9208 0.9185 |V| (pu) after load balancing 1.0000 0.9970 0.9830 0.9755 0.9681 0.9498 0.9463 0.9415 0.9353 0.9331 0.9328 0.9325 0.9316 0.9270

103

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

0.9171 0.9157 0.9137 0.9132 0.9965 0.9929 0.9922 0.9916 0.9794 0.9727 0.9694 0.9478 0.9452 0.9337 0.9254 0.9220 0.9178 0.9169 0.9166

0.9277 0.9264 0.9244 0.9238 0.9965 0.9929 0.9922 0.9916 0.9794 0.9727 0.9694 0.9478 0.9453 0.9338 0.9256 0.9221 0.9179 0.9175 0.9171

Table5.11. Power loss before and after Load balancing Branch No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Before load balancing Ploss (kW) 12.24 51.79 0.16 0.83 0.10 0.04 19.90 3.18 5.14 Qloss (kVAr) 6.33 26.38 0.15 0.75 0.12 0.06 10.14 2.17 4.06 After load balancing Ploss (kW) 12.20 51.61 0.16 0.83 0.10 0.04 19.80 3.18 5.14 Qloss (kVAr) 6.31 26.29 0.15 0.75 0.12 0.06 10.09 2.17 4.06

104

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Total Loss

1.29 18.70 37.12 1.91 2.60 3.33 11.30 7.83 3.90 1.59 0.21 0.01 4.84 4.18 3.56 0.55 0.88 2.69 0.73 0.36 0.28 0.25 0.05 201.54

1.01 9.52 33.02 6.33 1.32 1.69 6.86 6.82 1.98 1.58 0.25 0.02 1.60 3.00 2.52 0.18 0.29 2.10 0.96 0.32 0.21 0.34 0.04 132.12

1.29 18.60 38.05 1.89 2.60 3.33 11.30 7.83 3.89 1.59 0.21 0.01 4.77 4.11 0.49 2.64 0.09 0.28 0.25 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 196.48

1.01 9.48 32.85 6.26 1.32 1.69 9.96 6.82 1.98 1.57 0.25 0.02 1.58 2.95 0.35 2.63 0.08 0.20 0.33 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04 131.15

Table5.12. Summary results of 33-node system for load balancing Item Tie Switches LB Index LB sys Reduction (%) Minimum Voltage (pu) Before load balancing 33,34,35,36,37 0.9438 0.9132 Proposed PGSA 33,13,35,36,37 0.7543 18.95 0.9171

105

Fig.5.14 Final configuration of 33 node distribution system after load balancing

Fig.5.15 Voltage profile of 33 node radial distribution system before and after load balancing

Fig.5.16 Convergence curve of 33 node radial distribution system before and after load balancing

106

5.5.2.2 Example 2 Consider 69-node radial distribution network as shown in fig.5.10. The results obtained from the PGSA are compared with GA [90] in the table 5.13. The convergence characteristic is shown in fig.5.17. The PGSA is converged to same solution for 95 times out of 100 times with an average system load balancing index of 0.5667, whereas genetic algorithm is converged to solution for 59 times, with an average system load balancing index of 0.6187. The network diagram after load balancing is shown in fig.5.18. The node voltages before and after load balancing is given in table 5.14 and also shown in fig.5. 19. The power loss is given in table 5.15. Table5.13. Results of 69-node system for load balancing Before Item load balancing Tie Switches LB Index LB sys Reduction (%) No. of Switches Changed No. of times best solution occurred Average execution time (seconds) 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 0.9438 After load balancing GA [90] 10,20,13,57,25 0.6187 32.51 5 59 45.7687 PGSA 10,20,13,58, 25 0.5699 37.39 5 95 27.3468

107

Fig.5.17 Convergence characteristics of 69 node system for load balancing

Fig.5.18 Final configuration of 69 node distribution system after load balancing

Fig.5.19 Voltage profile of 69 node distribution system before and after load balancing

108

Table5.14. Node voltages of 69 node system before and after Load Balancing Node No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 |V| (pu) before load balancing 1.0000 1.0000 0.9999 0.9998 0.9990 0.9901 0.9808 0.9786 0.9775 0.9726 0.9715 0.9684 0.9653 0.9624 0.9596 0.9590 0.9581 0.9581 0.9578 0.9575 0.9569 0.9569 0.9569 0.9566 0.9565 0.9565 0.9563 |V| (pu) after load balancing 1.0000 1.0000 0.9999 0.9999 0.9998 0.9989 0.9980 0.9978 0.9977 0.9976 0.9848 0.9828 0.9816 0.9856 0.9856 0.9854 0.9850 0.9850 0.9850 0.9850 0.9808 0.9808 0.9807 0.9807 0.9807 0.9245 0.9243

109

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

0.9999 0.9998 0.9997 0.9997 0.9996 0.9994 0.9992 0.9990 0.9999 0.9997 0.9996 0.9996 0.9995 0.9988 0.9987 0.9985 0.9985 0.9984 0.9984 0.9998 0.9986 0.9948 0.9942 0.9788 0.9788 0.9747 0.9716 0.9669 0.9627 0.9402 0.9291 0.9248

0.9999 0.9999 0.9997 0.9997 0.9996 0.9993 0.9990 0.9989 0.9999 0.9989 0.9979 0.9976 0.9976 0.9909 0.9881 0.9877 0.9877 0.9874 0.9874 0.9997 0.9958 0.9827 0.9796 0.9978 0.9978 0.9977 0.9976 0.9975 0.9975 0.9975 0.9975 0.9407

110

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

0.9197 0.9126 0.9124 0.9118 0.9112 0.9094 0.9715 0.9715 0.9679 0.9679

0.9357 0.9282 0.9279 0.9275 0.9255 0.9246 0.9848 0.9848 0.9825 0.9825

Table5.15. Power loss before and after Load balancing for 69 node distribution system Branch No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Before load balancing Ploss (kW) 0.08 0.08 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 Qloss (kVAr) 0.18 0.18 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 After load balancing Ploss (kW) 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.46 0.71 0.21 0.01 4.40 1.86 0.25 0.01 1.41 0.88 0.00 0.00 Qloss (kVAr) 0.18 0.18 0.30 0.00 0.08 1.13 0.83 0.24 0.01 5.13 2.18 0.29 0.01 1.41 0.29 0.00 0.00

111

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.94 0.02 0.58 1.63 0.12 28.30 28.41 6.91 3.38 0.00 0.00 4.79 5.79 6.73 9.14 8.81 49.78 24.54 9.52 10.69 14.05 0.11 0.14 0.66 0.04 1.02 2.20

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 0.06 1.43 4.00 0.28 14.41 14.98 7.10 2.92 0.00 0.00 1.58 2.95 3.43 4.66 4.49 16.71 8.23 3.15 3.25 7.16 0.06 0.07 0.34 0.02 0.34 0.73

0.24 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.23 5.77 18.52 3.79 62.44 10.68 14.04

0.08 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.57 14.13 45.31 9.28 62.44 3.24 7.15

112

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Total Loss

0.00 0.00 1.29 0.02 0.00 1.25 1.21 0.22 0.32 0.00 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 224.45

0.00 0.00 0.43 0.01 0.00 0.41 0.40 0.07 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 107.14

0.13 0.16 0.77 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.26 0.27 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 128.59

0.07 0.08 0.39 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.14 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 155.92

5.6 CONCLUSIONS In this chapter, the PGSA has been proposed to reconfigure distribution network for loss reduction and/or to keep load balancing. The problem is formulated as a non-linear optimization problem with an objective function of minimizing system losses and/or load balancing index subject to security constraints. The test results have been presented for loss minimization and/or load balancing through the network reconfiguration.