Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

The Modeling of Distribution Feeders Enhanced by Distributed

Generation in DIgSILENT

Insu Kim, Member, IEEE, Raeey Regassa, Member, IEEE, and Ronald G. Harley, Member,

Abstract - As distributed generation (DG) has been deployed Distribution System Simulator (OpenDSS), and thus the 5.13
in radial distribution networks, it changes their steady-state and percent difference shown in [1] may not be acceptable since it
transient behavior. To analyze the potential impact of DG on the
exceeds the maximum ±5 percent variation allowed by ANSI
distribution network, this study models a distribution network
C84.1-2011 Range A for systems with DG connections. In
enhanced by the DG system, particularly the photovoltaic (PV)
addition, many studies did not model sufficiently complex
system, in the Digital Simulation and Electrical Network
Calculation Program (DIgSILENT) and the Open Distribution feeders with more than 1,000 buses. Therefore, this study
System Simulator (OpenDSS). As a first case study, this study models (1) the IEEE 37-bus test feeder as an example of the
initially examines load models, voltage regulators, and single- and distribution network enhanced by DG systems, particularly
three-phase transformers provided by DIgSILENT and
photovoltaic (PV) systems, and (2) feeder 11 (with the number
OpenDSS, adds a single-phase PV system to the IEEE 37-bus test
of 3,434 buses) as example of the complex distribution
feeder, and compares steady-state power-flow solutions of the
IEEE 37-bus test feeder calculated by DIgSILENT to those
network without DG systems. For this purpose, this study
calculated by OpenDSS. As a second case study, this study also examines load models, voltage regulators, and single- and
models sufficiently complex feeders, or feeder JI with the number three-phase transformers provided by DIgSILENT and
of 3,434 buses. The test distribution network developed in OpenDSS, adds a 5-kW single-phase photovoltaic (PV) system
DIgSILENT will be used in various fields for analyzing the
to the IEEE 37-bus test feeder, and compares steady-state
steady-state or transient behavior of DG-enhanced distribution
power-flow solutions of the IEEE 37-bus test feeder and feeder
11 calculated by DIgSILENT to those calculated by OpenDSS.

Index Terms - Distributed generation (DG), IEEE 37-bus test If the test feeder developed in DIgSILENT shows sufficiently
feeder, feeder JI, photovoltaic (PV), DIgSILENT, and OpenDSS. less difference in steady-state solutions to OpenDSS, then it
could be used in various fields for analyzing the steady-state or
I. INTRODUCTION dynamic behavior of DG-enhanced distribution systems.

Since distributed generation (DG) systems were deployed in This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the

distribution networks, their potential impact on the distribution problem statement, and Section 3 presents the modeling of a

network such as reverse power flow and an increase in voltage distribution network consisting of load models, voltage

has been analyzed carefully to ensure their smooth integration regulators, and transformers. Section 4 introduces two case

into distribution networks. Therefore, many studies have studies. One is a case study that adds a single-phase PV system

modeled distribution networks such as IEEE 13- and 34-bus to the IEEE 37-bus test feeder and another is feeder 11 as an

test feeders using power system analysis software such as the example of sufficiently complex feeders. Section 5 calculates

Digital Simulation and Electrical Network Calculation the steady-state power-flow solutions of the case studies using

Program (DIgSILENT) [1-5]. Among these studies, one study DIgSILENT and OpenDSS. Section 6 summarizes major

modeled the IEEE 34-bus test feeder in DIgSILENT, conclusions.

compared steady-state power-flow solutions calculated by

DIgSILENT to those calculated by the Radial Distribution II. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Analysis Package (RDAP), and showed a maximum 5.13 Using DIgSILENT (version of 14.1.3), this study models
percent difference in the voltage of phase C compared to those two examples of a distribution networks, firstly the IEEE 37-
calculated by RDAP [1]. However, these studies did not bus test feeder and secondly the feeder 11; these models can be
compare their solutions to those calculated by the Open used to analyze the dynamic and steady-state effects of DG
systems on distribution networks. This study also adds a
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science single-phase PV system as an example of a DG system to the
Foundation under Grant #1232070, which was used for part of the work
IEEE 37-bus test feeder and compares the steady-state power­
presented herein.
Insu Kim is with Alabama A&M University, Normal, AL 35762 USA (e­ flow solutions of the IEEE 37-bust test feeder and feeder 11 to
mail: those calculated by OpenDSS (version of
Ronald Harley and Raeey Regassa are with the Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332 USA (e-mails: and Ronald Harley is also a Professor Emeritus at the
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.

978-1-4799-7944-8/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE

P =scale· Pa[ape!-fap +bp(!_fbP +(1-ap-bp)(-�·fcp ], (1)
Va Va Va
A. Modeling of Load Models
V eaQ V ebQ V eCQ
The load models of DIgSILENT and OpenDSS, shown in Q=scale·Qa[aQ(-) +bQ(-) +(1-aQ-bQ)(-) ], (2)
Va Va Va
TABLE I, can be classified into four types: constant power
load, referred to as "constant P;" constant impedance load,
referred to as "constant Z;" constant current load, referred to
scale = a scaling factor,

as "constant I;" and conservation voltage reduction (CVR) Pa and Qa = initial operating active and reactive power,

load, referred to as "CVR model." Fig. 1 illustrates the Va = initial operating voltage,
characteristics of a constant power load model provided by ap ,bp = coefficients for phase dependency in equation (1),
OpenDSS. For example, an oblique line with a negative slope
eo , eb , ec = coefficients for voltage dependency (or
for 0.95 S; V S; l.05 represents a constant power load model
p p p

sensitivity) in equation (1),

(note that V oc S / l). When the voltage exits the nonnal aQ ,bQ = coefficients for phase dependency in equation (2),
range (e.g., ± 5 or 10 percent) because many loads of actual
eo ,eb ,ec = coefficients for voltage dependency in equation
distribution systems under the abnormal range are dropped off Q Q Q

the network, the load model reverts to a constant impedance (2).

model represented by oblique lines with a positive slope (note The more detailed equations and coefficients for the load
that Z = V /1 ). models can be found in [10, 11].

B. Modeling of the Voltage Regulator
CharactenstIcs 0f load models 0f OpenDSS and DTgSILENT DIgSILENT and OpenDSS present a voltage regulator
Voltage Coefficients in OpenDSS
model that automatically maintains a constant voltage level by
Element Equation
Sensitivity and D1gSlLENT
. on-load tap-changer (OLTC) transformers with mUltiple taps,
S =Vl = Vi eose + jVl sine
p ocV
Constant P ,QocV o and 0 typically 32 taps, in which one tap indicates an increase or a
= Constant (P + JQ)
decrease in the voltage, typically by 0.0625 percent (::::5/8
s=vI =P+jQ
1 1
Constant I PocV .QocV 1 and 1 percent). To illustrate the difference between the voltage
Constant .
s= Vi =V =P+jQ
• 2 2
2 and 2 regulator models of both software systems, this study evaluates
/z PocV .QocV
the simple network in Fig. 2. A transformer with line-to-Iine
s=P+JQ =PnV' +QnV
CVR a b 0.16SaS1.19 [6, 7]
Pocv ,Qocv
Model I.4S<b<20.12 [7, 8] voltages of 138 kV and 4.8 kV, a capacity of 5 MVA, and
where infinite magnetizing impedance is connected in delta-wye and
Pn and Qn = nominal active and reactive power at the supplies three unbalanced constant power loads. The
transformer has an OLTC with a positive-sequence target
nominal voltage, respectively.
voltage of 122 V (32 taps, a bandwidth of 2 V, 5/8 percent
1.3 changes per tap position, a PT ratio of 40, and a primary CT

rating of 350 A) without a line drop compensator.

----- ----- ------ ----- --,"- - --""r-

'��r ..
----- ----- ------ ----- -- ---

" Slack
0.9 .... ��..L_
On-Load Tap-Changer Transfonner
0.8 / 138/4.8 kVLL , 5MVA, DlYn,
J 07
V %X(I%), %R(0.5%)
g:::> 0.6 /
Q. Distribution Line
0.5 // (Type 721, 0.56388 k m)
0.4 /
0.3 /'1'
/ 100 k VA @ 0.95 PF (Phases AB)
90 k VA @ 0.93 PF (Phases BC)
0.1 / 1 IO k VA @ 0.90 PF (Phases CA)
o / Fig. 2. Simple network with an OLTC transformer and three
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2
loads connected in parallel across two phases.
PU Current

Fig. l. The characteristics of the constant power load model in

TABLE II shows the steady-state power-flow solutions of
OpenDSS [9].
the voltage regulators of both DIgSILENT and OpenDSS.
Since a voltage regulator of OpenDSS starts from neutral, or
DIgSILENT load models can be specified by the following

978-1-4799-7944-8/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE

tap 0, and once the voltage reaches a band from 121 to 123 V,
it stops iterating, the regulated voltages are slightly less than Transformer
799(Slack) 724
those of DIgSILENT. The detailed equations for voltage Voltage Regulato
regulator models can be found in [11, 12]. 712 Load07 707
Load02 Load01
742 702 713 704 Load06
TABLE II Load24 720
705 Load03
Steady-state solution of a voltage regulator of OpenDSS and DTgSILENT
Load04 714
Voltage Ma nitude in PU 706
Bus Target Phase % Difference % Difference 729 744 727 LoadOS 718
OpenOSS DTgSILENT Load12!e-:-:� 703
from Target fTOm Target
L2 S >--:-Lo-4ad
�I"""O .... Load09 725
Tap 2 - 3 - Load II 728
1.0167 PU A 1.0096 -0.695% 1.01850 +0.180%
("'122/120) B 1.0099 -0.666% 1.01854 +0.184% Load13 730
C 1.0099 -0.666% 1.01853 +0.183% Single-Phase lO -kVA
C. Modeling of the Single- and Three-Phase Transformer 732 708
_---4t----+-�'___4 731
Load15 Load14
To illustrate the difference between single-phase
transformers of DIgSILENT and OpenDSS, this study models
736 Load16 T .
733 709S 775

Load19 5-kW PV
the simple network in Fig. 3. A single-phase transformer with 71 734
Load17 Load22 740
line-to-line voltages of 4.8 kV and 0.48 kV, a capacity of 100
735 Load20 Load21 Load23
kVA, a no-load current of 0.2 percent, and ignored
737 738 711 741
magnetizing impedance supplies a constant power of 100 kVA
Fig. 4. The modified IEEE 37-bus test feeder with a single­
at a power factor of 1.0. The single-phase transformer in
phase 5-kW PV system.
DIgSILENT is modeled by the single wire earth return
method. TABLE III shows the steady-state power-flow
solutions of a single-phase transformer of both DIgSILENT
and OpenDSS. The detailed models of single- and three-phase
transformers from DIgSILENT and OpenDSS can be found in

[11, 12].

99 hree-Phase Bus (Slack)

7 Single-Phase Transformer
4.8/0.48 kVLL, 100 kVA,

%X(3%), %R(I%),
_ No Load Current (0.2% )

77) + Single-Phase Bus

Fig. 5. Feeder 11 in the northeastern United States [15-17].

100 kVA @ 1.00 PF (Phase A) The local loads of the IEEE 37-bus test feeder consist of 13
Fig. 3. Simple network with a single-phase transformer. delta-connected constant power loads, 6 delta-connected
constant current loads, and 6 delta-connected constant
TABLE III impedance loads, supplied by a three-phase transformer of 5
Steady-state power-flow solution of a single-phase transfonner of OpenDSS
MVA. The local loads modeled in this study are presented in
I : the Appendix. In addition, this study adds a single-phase 5-kW
Positive-Sequence Line-to-Neutral Voltage
OpenDSS DTgSILENT % Difference PV system on bus 775. TABLE IV to TABLE VI show the
799 1.00000 1.00000 0 detailed model descriptions of the test feeder and the 5-kW PV
775 (Phase A) 0.98938 0.98941 +0.003%
system. Load and line data for the test feeder are found in [13,
14]. This study added a distribution line with a length of 100
feet (type 721) between buses 709S and 775.
The IEEE PES Distribution System Analysis Subcommittee Distribution feeder models, including "11, Kl, and Ml,"
proposed various feeders (4-, 13-, 34-, 37-, 123-, and 8,500- were published by EPRI on a public domain website for
bus) for research purposes [13, 14]. This study modified the research purposes (to analyze the impacts of PV systems on
IEEE 37-bus test feeder as a distribution network, shown in large distribution feeders) [15-17]. This study models feeder
Fig. 4 and modeled feeder 11, shown in Fig. 5, using Jl in Fig. 5 as a large distribution network example, which is
OpenDSS and DIgSILENT. located in the northeastern United States [15-17]. TABLE VII
shows the detailed information of the substation, including
feeder 11 that supplies 1,384 individual residential,
commercial, and light industrial loads at a nominal line-to-line

978-1-4799-7944-8/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE

L1ne-Io-Neutral Voltage in PU
voltage of 12.47 kV [15-17]. 1.0300

-OJ-DSS{PhA) --- Di«Ielt(PhA)


mgle- and three-plhase trans unners 1.0100

Type Three-Phase Single-Phase

1.0000 .. -- ...... _- --... .. -
Location Incoming Bus 709-709S
Nominal Power SMVA I O kVA 0.9900

Nominal Voltage 138 kVLJ4.16 kVLL 2.402 kVLN/0.120 kVLN 0.9800

Connection DeltaiWye Phases A-N

Frequency 60Hz 60Hz 0.9700

Winding Resistance (R) in % 8 % (0.08 PU) 3 % (0.03 PU) 0.9600

Max % Difference of 0.44 %
Leakage Reactance (X) in % 0.8 % (0.008 PU) 1 % (O.oJ PU)
No Load Loss in % Ignored 0.2 % 0.9500


TABLE V ���Eg�����gg�g������������������������
VoItage reguIator
(a) Phase A
Location 799-701 line-to-Neutral Voltage in PU

Line-to-Line Voltage 4.16 kV

The Number of Taps 32(-16 to 16) ,
Voltage Change Per Tap Position ±5/8 % (0.00625 PU) ,

� Max % %
1.0350 ,

Difference of 1.22
Frequency 60Hz .. -
Positive-Sequence Target Voltage 124 V .. ..
" -_ ...


..... "
1.0250 ,
.. ..

\ ; ........... "\,
....... -_ ...
-- .. __ ........ ,
Bandwidth 2V ,
PT Ratio 20 1.0150

CT Primary Rating 700 ,
.- '

Line Drop Compensator
\ ..
L. .. ..
I hase PV system
S'mgle-pl 0.9850

Rating 5 kW
Nominal Line-to-Neutral Voltage 0.120 kV E R�E � � R � ��� R� � �����E ��E � E � � �� ��E � �
Frequency 60Hz Buses

Load Model Constant Power (b) Phase B

Une-to-Neutral Voltage in PU

TABLE VII 1.0300

, -Ope:nOSSIPhC) --- OII1.ltnlIPhC)
Detailed specification of the substation, including feeder J1 and PV systems ,

[15-17] ,
1.0100 ,

Feeders J1 and an aggregate load feeder ,


The Number of Buses (Nodes) of ,

3,434(4,245) .....
Feeder J1 0.9900
\ .. _--------" .-
..... .....
... _--
- .. .. -
-- ..
Total Peak Generation ....
.. _ ..
11.86 MW(9.39 MW)
(Total Peak Demand) 0.9700
....... _- ...

Nominal Voltages (kYLL) 12.47 and 0.416

Location Northeastern United States "--"\ ...

Max %
... ...
........ - ....
Difference of 2.01 00 ' -
The Number of Customers of 0.9500 -

Feeder J1
Customer Type Residential, Commercial, Light Industrial 0.9300

Length 58 Miles of Primary Lines EE�SR���E����R�����EE�SR�RE�������


(c) Phase C
Fig. 6. Comparison of the steady-state power-flow solutions of
To validate the IEEE 37-bus test feeder and feeder 11 the modified IEEE 37-bus test feeder.
modeled by DIgSILENT, this study calculates the steady-state
power flow of the test feeders using OpenDSS. Fig. 6 TABLE VIII
compares the steady-state power-flow solutions (or voltage
Total power, vo tage, and current on buses 799 and 7r )

Bus Category OpenDSS DlgSILENT % Diff.

profiles along buses) of the IEEE 37-bus test feeder calculated Active Power Supplied by Slack 2.54 MW 2.S6 MW +0.79%
by DIgSILENT to those calculated by OpenDSS. The steady­ 799
Reactive Power Supplied by Slack 1.40 MVar 1.40 MVar 0.00%
state solution of phase C of bus 728 reveals a maximum Total Power Injected by PV S kW (ZiJ 1.0 PF 5 kW (ZiJ 1.0 PF 0.00%
difference of 2.1 percent, which is less than the 5.13 percent 775 Bus Voltage in PU 0.97796 L -31.9° 0.9818 L -32.0° +0.39%
Bus Current in A 42.58 A 42.41 A -0.40%
presented in [1]. TABLE VIII shows the total power, voltage,
and current on buses 799 and 775. Fig. 6 and TABLE VIII
Fig. 7 compares the percentage differences of the steady­
indicate that if DIgSILENT provides the same voltage­
state power-flow solutions of feeder 11 calculated by
regulating algorithm as OpenDSS, the steady-state power-flow
DIgSILENT to those calculated by OpenDSS. In Fig. 7 and
solutions of DIgSILENT will be closer to those of OpenDSS.
TABLE IX, the steady-state solutions of all voltages reveal a
maximum difference of 2.59 percent and an average difference
of 0.48 percent to those calculated by OpenDSS.

978-1-4799-7944-8/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE


The authors would also like to thank Roger C. Dugan at
1.50% o
EPRI for his input to discussions pertaining to the load models

of OpenDSS, The authors also would like to thank EPRI for


-0,50% their publication of feeders Jl, Kl, and Ml on their public


domain for research studies.
500 1000 lS00 2000 2500 3000 3500

Fig. 7. Comparison of percent difference of the steady-state [1] J, Owuor, J, Munda, and A, Jimoh, "The IEEE 34 node radial test
power-flow solutions of feeder Jl. feeder as a simulation testbench for Distributed Generation, " IEEE
AFRICON, Victoria Falls, Livingstone, Zambia, Sept. 13-15, 20II.
TABLE IX [2] P, Juanuwattanakul and M, Masoum, "Voltage stability
I erence 0f vo Itages o·
Percent d"ffi f fieeder Jl enhancement for unbalanced multiphase distribution networks, "
Category Ph. A Ph . B Ph . C Average 2011 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Detroit,
Maximum ofl % difference 1 of V 1.70% 1.90% 2.59% - Michigan, USA, July 24-28, 20II,
Average ofl % difference 1 of V 0.58% 0.41% 0.45% 0.48% [3] P, Juanuwattanakul and M, Masoum, "Increasing distributed
generation penetration in multiphase distribution networks
VI. CONCLUSION considering grid losses, maximum loading factor and bus voltage
limits, " lET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 6, pp,
The objective of this study is to build the IEEE 37-bus test 1262-1271, 2012,
feeder enhanced by DG (distributed generation), particularly a [4] H. Funrnilayo, J. Silva, and K. Butler-Purry, "Overcurrent
PV (photovoltaic) system in this study, and feeder Jl with
Protection for the IEEE 34-Node Radial Test Feeder, " IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 27, pp. 459-468, 2012.
3,434 buses in DIgSILENT. This study examined the
[5] J, Seuss and R, Harley, "Determining reactive power levels
characteristics of load models, voltage regulators, and single­ necessary to provide optimal feeder line voltage regulation, " 2013
and three-phase transformers, modeled the IEEE 37-test feeder North American Power Symposium, Manhattan, Kansas, USA, Sept.

and feeder Jl in DIgSILENT, and added a single-phase 5-kW 22-24, 2013,

[6] W, Sunderman, "Conservation voltage reduction system modeling,
PV system on the IEEE 37-bus test feeder. The steady-state
measurement, and verification, " 2012 IEEE PES Transmission and
power-flow solutions of the IEEE 37-bus test feeder modeled Distribution Conference and Exposition, Orlando, Florida, USA,
in DIgSILENT indicated a good match to those calculated by May 7-10, 2012.
OpenDSS at a maximum difference of 2.1 percent. In addition, [7] P, Sen and K. Lee, "Conservation voltage reduction technique: An
application guideline for smarter grid, " 2014 IEEE Rural Electric
the steady-state power-flow solutions of feeder Jl showed an
Power Conference, Fort Worth, Texas, USA, May 18-21, 2014.
average percentage difference of 0.48 percent to solutions
[8] P. Anderson, "Conservation Voltage Reduction (CVR), " Idaho
calculated by OpenDSS. Thus, as future work, the test feeders Power.Available from:
will be used in various fields for analyzing the steady-state or
transient behavior of DG-enhanced distribution systems. ForFuture/irp/2013IDecMtgMaterials/ConservatioVoltageReduction
This study did not, however, model shunt capacitor banks,
[9] R. Dugan, R. Arritt, J. Smith, and M. Rylander, "OpenDSS Training
which are primarily used to improve power factors by injecting Workshop, " Electric Power Research Institute, June 5-7, 2013.
reactive power, and distributed load through distribution lines. [10] DIgSILENT GmbH, General Load Model, Tech. Rep., 2013.
It also did not model the other DG types such as wind, [11] R. Dugan, Reference Guide The Open Distribution System
Simulator (OpenDSS), Electric Power Research Institute, Tech.
microturbines, and battery storage systems. By adding these
Rep., 2013.
components into the test feeders, however, the proposed case [12] DIgSILENT GmbH, Two-Winding Transformer (3-Phase), Tech.
studies will be extended to include such cases. Rep., 201I.
[13] W. H. Kersting, "Radial distribution test feeders, " IEEE Trans. on
VII. ApPENDIX Power Systems, vol. 6, pp. 975-985, 1991.
[14] Distribution Test Feeder Working Group, Distribution Test Feeders.
TABLE X Available from
Load models of the modified IEEE 37-bus test feeder
Coefficients Coefficients
Bus Ph Model kW kVar Bus Ph. Model kW kVar
(a,b) (a,b) html
701 A Constant P 140 70 0,0 729 A CVR 42 21 1,2 [15] Electric Power Research Institute, Distributed PV Monitoring and
701 B Constant P 140 70 0,0 730 C Constant Z 85 40 2,2
Feeder Analysis. Available from:
701 C Constant P 350 175 0,0 731 B Constant Z 85 40 2,2
712 C Constant P 85 40 0,0 732 C Constant P 42 21 0,0 [16] Electric Power Research Institute, Feeder J1, Tech. Rep., 2014.
713 C Constant P 85 40 0,0 733 A CVR 85 40 1,2 [17] I. Kim, R. Harley, R. Regassa, and Y. del Valle, "The Effect of the
714 A CVR 17 8 1,2 734 C Constant P 42 21 0,0
714 B CVR 21 10 1,2 735 C Constant P 85 40 0,0
Volt/VAr Control of Photovoltaic Systems on the Time-Series
718 A Constant Z 85 40 2,2 736 B Constant Z 42 21 2,2 Steady-State Analysis of a Distribution Network, " IEEE Power
720 C Constant P 85 40 0,0 737 A CVR 140 70 1,2 Systems Conference, Clemson, South Carolina, March 10-13, 2015.
722 B CVR 140 70 1,2 738 A Constant P 126 62 0,0
722 C CVR 21 10 1,2 740 C Constant P 85 40 0,0
724 B Constant Z 42 21 2,2 741 C CVR 42 21 1,2
725 B Constant P 42 21 0,0 742 A Constant Z 8 4 2,2
727 C Constant P 42 21 0,0 742 B Constant Z 85 40 2,2
728 ABC Constant P 126 63 0,0 744 A Constant P 42 21 0,0

978-1-4799-7944-8/15/$31,00 ©2015 IEEE