1146

E E E Transactions on Power Dclivery ,Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1991

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM POWER FLOW ANALYSIS

Tsai-Hsiang Chen Member, IEEE Mo-Shing Chen Fellow, IEEE Kab-Ju Hwang

A Rigid Approach
Paul Kotas Elie A. Chebli Member, IEEE

Energy Systems Research Center The University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, Texas 76019

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 4 Irving Place, New York, NY 10003

ABSTRACT - This paper introduces a rigid approach to threephase distribution power flow analysis for large-scale distribution systems. This approach is oriented toward applications in distribution system operational analysis rather than planning analysis. This difference should be properly emphasized, otherwise, the misuse of the planning-type method to analyze the operational behavior of the system will distort the explanation of the calculated results and lead to incorrect conclusions. The solution method is the optimally ordered triangular factorization Y BMethod ~ (implicit Z B Gauss ~ ~ Method) which not only takes advantage of the sparsity of system equations but also has very good convergence characteristics on distribution problems. Detailed component models and suitable solution techniques are the essence of an accurate simulation. Detailed component models, therefore, are needed for all system components in the simulation. Utilizing the phase frame representation for all network elements, a program, entitled "Generalized Distribution Analysis Systems - GDAS", with a number of features and capabilities not found in existing packages has been developed for large-scale distribution system simulations. The system being analyzed can be balanced or unbalanced and can be a radial, network, or mixed type distribution system. Furthermore, because the individual phase representation is employed for both system and component models, the system can comprise single, double, and three-phase systems simultaneously. Additionally, with detailed component models, the program can also perform system loss and contingency analyses.
Keywords: Cogenerator model, Transformer model, Power flow, System loss, Contingency, Primary feeder, Secondary network, Injected current, Unbalanced system, Subtransient reactance. JNTRODUCTION
Demand-side management, least-cost planning, network transformer placement study, and many other distribution system analyses need rigorous operational-type analysis rather than planning oriented analysis. The difference between these two types of analyses should be properly emphasized, otherwise, the misuse of the planning-type method to analyze the operational behavior of the system will distort the explanation of the calculated results and lead to incorrect conclusions. It is the intention of this research to develop a computer program that meets the requirements of rigorous operational-type analyses to perform power flow, system loss, and contingency analyses on a large-scale distribution system combining primary and secondary networks.

91 WM 085-1 PWRD A paper recommended and approved the IEEE Transmission and Distribution Committee o f the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE/PES 1991 Winter Meeting, New York, New York, February 3 - 7 , 1991. Manuscript submitted June 26, 1990; made available f o r printing January 3 , 1991.

These requirements arise primarily from general characteristics of the distribution system operated by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., a participant in this research. General features of the Con Edison system impacting the program design include: Portions of the system are basically unbalanced due to singlephase load, single and double-phase "radial spurs" on primary feeders and unequal three-phase loads; The networks can be extremely large. The largest secondary network consists of over 12,000 individual phase buses, and the largest primary network over 6,000 individual phase buses; Cogenerators (synchronous and induction) are allowed on both the primary feeders and secondary networks. Therefore, the GDAS program must be based on actual phase quantities, capable of handling network models with as many as 18,000-buses, and capable of simulating cogenerators at any location. Also, the transformers must be represented in greater detail, core and copper losses, phase-shifting between the primary and secondary windings, off-nominal tapping, and winding connection of the transformer should be considered. The conventional transformer model which is modeled in terms of its symmetrical components under the assumption that the power system is sufficiently balanced, is no longer suitable. Actually, to simulate the system more accurately, it is necessary to represent each system component in more detail. This has been done with GDAS, resulting in a program with the features described below. Simulate multivoltage primary circuits supplying a large secondary network and multiple isolated networks simultaneously in a single computer run; Simulate both induction and synchronous cogenerators on both the primary and secondary; Simulate three-phase transformers with various connections, for example, grounded wye-grounded wye and delta-grounded wye; Simulate composite loads, including the voltage dependent effects; Analyze system loss and detailed branch losses; Analyze contingency cases; Perform transformer backfeed calculations during contingencies; Analyze single, two and three-phase systems simultaneously; Analyze unbalanced systems; Analyze the effects of line charging on a distribution system; Analyze the effects of shunt capacitors and reactors. To accomplish the above, work was done to develop component models, select the solution technique, design the system database and of course develop the software. Based on the choice of solution method, some new component models were developed, and these are introduced in this paper. The database design is not Dresented. The GDAS program was developed on an IBM PC/AT initially and later transferred to VAX 8600 under the VMS operating system. Both PC and a VAX versions were written in Pascal, and have been successfully tested using many small sample systems and an actual Con Edison distribution system model. Results from these tests are presented. Finally, some conclusions are drawn.

TECHNICAL APPROACH
Some basic considerations in distribution power flow analysis impacting the design of the GDAS system are listed below:
0885-8977/91/0700-1146$01.0001991 IEEE

1147

The synchronous cogenerators are not controlled to maintain constant voltage; they are controlled to maintain constant power and constant power factor; The transformer core losses should not be neglected because their contribution to total system loss is significant; The line charging of primary feeders must be considered; The load characteristics provide additional insight into the behavior of the system from a practical operational viewpoint; Transformer backfeed current must be calculated; The methodologies used by GDAS to address the above considerations are listed below: Cogenerators are represented as constant complex power devices; Transformers are represented by detailed models considering core and copper losses, tap-changing, phase-shifting, and winding connection of the transformers; Primary and secondary networks are represented by actual phase impedances and capacitances; Distribution loads are represented by load models. In load models, the "load energy models" for each individual load component and the "load window" concept are applied; Optimally ordered triangular factorization method (ZB,, Gauss solution) is used for power flow calculation. There are two primary considerations in the development of an effective solution technique for power flow, system loss, and contingency analyses, as shown below: Formulation of a mathematical description of components such as cogenerators, transformers, feeders, shunt elements, and loads; Selection of a suitable numerical method. The design must also consider the inter-relationship of these two factors, and the impact of the chosen method, considering largescale system models, convergence, execution time, and data requirements. In this section, component models are introduced first, followed by the numerical solution technique.

Va
vb

V C

i1) Series ImDedance

Figuie 1 General Conductor Model Figure 2 shows the phase and neutral series impedance of the original three phase conductor. After Kron's reduction is applied, the equivalent representation shown in Figure 3 is obtained. The effects of the neutral or ground wire are still included in this representation. Figure 3 shows the series impedance part of a conductor, and its series admittance matrix is shown in Equation (1). By using the individual phase representation, the equivalent circuit of the series part of a conductor is shown in Figure 4. Zaa

Figure 2 Original Three-phase Conductor

s-

In electric distribution analysis, individual system components are given mathematical representations that approximate their physical behavior. These mathematical representations are referred to as "models". In the GDAS program, components are modeled by their equivalent circuits in terms of inductance, capacitance, resistance, and injected current. These mathematical component models depend upon the type of analysis to be performed and, hence, may differ for each study. In this paper, only the models used for power flow analysis are discussed. An individual phase representation is used for all component models. The models described in the paper include conductor, cogenerators, transformers, loads (demands), and shunt capacitors. Other network components such as network protectors, fuses, and automatic switches, although necessary in operation-type analysis, are not presented here. Of these required models, conductors, capacitors, and demands have previously developed standard implementations for the Z B Gauss ~ ~ solution. This was not the case for the transformer and cogenerator models, which required an additional research effort to design and implement new models for the ZB,, method, and are addressed here in brief. A more detailed discussion can be found in [8]. For a detailed discussion of feeder models for both coupled and uncoupled feeders, see references [I] and [2] and reference 131 for a more detailed discussion of the load model used. Since most distribution system elements are three-phase, only the three-phase model is presented here. Single and two-phase models can be obtained by following similar procedures. The GDAS program, the component models, and the solution method use the bus frame of reference.

b. Conductors
The primary feeders and secondary cables can be represented by the general K model shown in Figure 1. The shunt capacitance part of -secondary cables can be neglected because the secondary network voltage is very low. Figure 4 Equivalent Circuit of Series Admittance (Impedance) P a r t of a Three-phase Conductor
12) Shunt C m w The shunt capacitance part of the original three-phase

1148

conductor is shown in Figure 5(a). Which can be represented by its equivalent injected currents shown in Figure 5(b). The injections in Figure 5(b) can be reformulated into three single-phase injection currents I,, Ib. and I , shown below:

on an unbalanced distribution system. The complication and numerical unstable problem of this model makes it difficult to apply to analyze a distribution system. Based upon the proposed model in reference [8], a program entitled "Generalized Distribution Analysis Systems - GDAS" has been developed. Utilizing the phase frame representation for all network elements, the GDAS program can model various transformer connections, and solve a large scale distribution system. The system can be balanced or unbalanced and can be radial, network, or mixed type distribution system. Furthermore, the system can comprise single, double, and threephase systems simultaneously. For a detailed discussion of the transformer model see reference [8].

D. Cogenerators
Concerning the synchronous cogenerators, a preliminary investigation of typical voltage control systems for the cogenerators has been done by Con Edison Company of New York. According to the investigation result, the synchronous cogenerators are not controlled to maintain voltage constant. They are controlled to maintain power and power factor constant. Furthermore, according to the document, The Disuersed Generation of Consolidated Edison 9f New York, "under some conditions, the company will require a power factor controller as well. A power factor controller, if required, shall maintain a constant power factor on the synchronous generator by controlling the voltage regulator. The power factor controller must be capable of maintaining a power a power factor within plus or minus one percent at any set point." As a result, the synchronous cogenerators can be represented approximately as constant complex power devices in the power flow study, i.e. cogenerators can be represented as P-Q specified devices in the power flow calculation. As for the induction cogenerators, the reactive power will vary with the terminal voltage change. Thus, the reactive power consumption of the induction cogenerators is not exactly constant. For simplification, the induction cogenerators can be treated as the P-Q specified devices because the bus voltages are near 1.0 p.u. in steady state cases. As a result, both the synchronous and induction generators can be represented as P-Q specified devices, i.e. constant complex power devices. The cogenerator model presented in reference [8], is significant in that it will represent the inherent generator phase imbalance due to distribution system imbalance. A program called GDAS has been developed to evaluate the performance of the distribution system with cogenerators. The derivation of these cogenerator models, as well as some sample cases, is presented in reference [8].

(a) Shunt Capacitances of Three-phase Feeder

(b) Equivalent Injected Currents

Figure 5 Shunt Capacitances and Equivalent Injected Currents of Three-phase Conductor

B. Caaacitors A three-phase shunt capacitor is schematically shown in Figure 6(a). In the GDAS program, shunt capacitors are represented by their equivalent injected currents shown in Figure 6(b). The voltage characteristics of the shunt capacitor are considered in this model.

(a) Shunt Capacitors

(b) Equivalent Injected Currents

Figure 6 Three-phase Shunt Capacitor and Equivalent Injected Currents Where

If IVI

0 then

C. Transformers
The transformer models consider the copper and core losses, the winding connection, the phase-shifting between primary and secondary windings, and the off-normal tapping. An individual phase, as opposed to a balanced three-phase, representation was employed. This approach is oriented toward applications in distribution system operational analysis rather than planning analysis. This difference should be properly emphasized. The misuse of the planning oriented method to analyze the operational behavior of the system will distort the explanation of the calculated results and lead to incorrect conclusions. Although the three-phase transformer model was issued in reference [l], no paper has been found that really implements it into a program to simulate the effects of the three-phase transformers on a distribution system, especially

E. Load (Demand) The so-called load energy models for each individual load component and the load window concept are used in the GDAS program. Hence, the voltage characteristics of the load are considered in this model, The load window as illustrated in Figure 7 is a pictorial representation showing the contribution to the total load by the various components. For moderate voltage changes, the load energy models and load window concept can be used accurately, although more information about the composition of the each load bus is needed. If no information on the load composition is available, a default load window can be selected to estimate the load. A typical three-phase load is shown in Figure 8(a). The unbalanced load distribution is allowed. In the GDAS program, a load is actually represented by equivalent injected currents shown in Figure 8(b).

I IncandIFluorl SDace Llothesl Refrig.1 Elec. I TVI Other I Total 1

Lights Light4 Hiatin4 Dryer Freezer! Range 15% I 2% I 57% I 1% I 18% I 4% 1 1 % ( 2% 1100% Figure 7 Typical Winter Residential Load Window

I I

1149

Data Checking. Component Modeling, and Y B - Matrix Construction

(a) Three-phase Load

(b) Equivalent Injected Currents

; = f = ;

Figure 8 Three-phase Loads and Equivalent Injected Currents

F=T
*

Factorization of Y B~ Matrix

Set Iteration Number K =

2. SOLUTION TECHNIOUF,
The Z BGauss ~ ~ approach has been selected for the power flow (k ) portion of the GDAS. A brief summary of the two most common Compute Bus Injected Current I hjfor solution techniques for power flow problems, the Newton-Raphson Loads, Cogenerators. Transformers, and Z B Gauss ~ features is given below. A more detailed discussion Shunt Elements. and Line Chargings can be found in [6]. The Newton-Raphson approach is known for its excellent convergence characteristics, but its major shortcoming is the Compute Voltage Deviation Due to requirement that the Jacobian matrix, with a rank approximately four Loads, Cogenerators, Transformers, times that of the Y B ~be ~ recalculated , for each iteration. Another Shunt Elements, Line Chargings, etc. drawback is that the Jacobian matrix cannot be decoupled because of the smaller X/R ratio of distribution systems. These factors, combined with the size of the large Con Edison networks to be studied makes the Newton-Raphson approach unattractive. Apply Voltage Superposition Algorithm, i.e ~ ~ methods uses the sparse bifactored Y B ~ ~ The Z B Gauss Add on No Load Swing Bus Voltage matrix and equivalent current injections to solve network equations. The convergence behavior of the Z B method ~ ~ is highly dependent upon the number of voltage specified buses in the system. If the I + only voltage specified bus in the system is the swing bus, the rate of convergence is comparable to the Newton-Raphson approach. The Z B method ~ meets the requirements for both rapid convergence rate and minimum memory usage. The distribution system is well suited for the ZB,, method; the only voltage specified bus in the system is the substation bus and each cogenerator bus is handled as a P-Q specified bus. Current Flow, and System Loss The Z B Gauss ~ ~ method is based upon the principle of superposition applied to the system bus voltages: the voltage of each Exit bus is considered to arise from two different contributions, the specified source voltage and equivalent current injection. The loads, cogenerators, capacitors and reactors are modeled as current Figure 9 Flow Chart for the Power Flow Algorithm injection sources/sinks at their respective buses. The superposition principle dictates that only one type of source will be considered at a time when calculating the bus TEST CASES AND RESULTS voltages. On the one hand, when the swing bus voltage sour r i C wtivated, all current injection sources are disconnected fmi-. I ' r The 12-bus distribution system shown in Figure 10 is used as a sample system. Included in the system is a 400 KVA cogenerator system. On the other hand, when all current injection sources are operating in parallel with a utility system with parameters: power connected to the system, the swing bus is short-circuited to the factor = 0.85, XO = 0.086 P.u., &"= 0.191 P.u., X2 = 0.175 P.u.. ground. The total complex power supplied by the cogenerator to the The component of each bus voltage obtained by activating only secondary network of the system is 340 KW + j 21 1 KVAR. the swing bus voltage source represents the no-load system voltage. Eight different cases described in Table 1 are used to This component can be determined directly as equal to the swing bus demonstrate the features of the GDAS power flow program. The voltage for every bus in the system, however, the other component, results from these cases corroborate the cogenerator and transformer affected by load currents and cogenerator currents, cannot be models and illustrate the effect of the line charging of the primary determined directly. Since load and cogenerator currents are feeders, the shunt capacitors, the cogenerator, the winding affected by bus voltages and vice versa, these quantities must be connection of the transformers, and the load behavior on the determined in an iterative manner. The flow chart of the power flow distribution system. algorithm is shown in Figure 9.

&

The voltage comparison for Cases 1, 2 , 3 , and 4.1 are shown in Figure 12. Case 4.2 is the same as Case 4.1 but three capacitors are removed. The voltages of Case 4.2 are more moderate than that of Case 4.1, and the power factor is improved from 0.19 leading to 0.84 lagging. The voltage comparison for Case 4.1 and Case 4.2 is shown in Figure 13. Case 4 shows that automatic switching of shunt capacitors can prevent overvoltage and a leading power factor during periods of light load.

1150
1.1
I \ I

I
---a

'0:
I I
I
~

v .e
v1

a e

1.0

I I

3000 feet

3000 feet

:ai

----

I I

0.9
n 8 -.-

7 8 Bus

9 1 0 1 1 1 2

I
I I I
I

Figure 12 Voltage Comparison for Cases 1,2, 3, and 4.1 Case 5 is based on Case 3 but a 400 KVA cogenerator is added at bus 10. The bus voltages of this balanced case are shown in Tables 2. Table 3 is the voltage comparison table for Case 3 and Case 5. The voltage profiles are improved and the system loss is reduced from 0.0896 + j 0.2086 MVA to 0.0763 + j 0.1489 MVA, because the location of the cogenerator is much nearer to the loads than the source. The three-phase power flows of this case, not shown here, are also balanced. The power supplied from the cogenerator is 3*(0.01067 + j 0.008) * 10,000 KVA = 320 + j 240 KVA This value is equal to the cogenerator's rating and is the expected value because a constant total P and Q model is used for the cogenerator.

I I
I I I I I

I
I I
I

5* 8-410 200 feet

I
I I
I

Network

I I
I
I

3 Phase

480KVA

Secondary

Figure 10 Sample System

@W
300 ieet

600 KVA P.F.=0.60

2*4C 500mm 400 teet 600 KVA P.F.=0.900

I
I

1*3C 750mn2 150 feet

6'4C 7 5 h 200 feet 3 Phase 400 KVA P.F. = 0.85

I I I I
I I

I I
I I

1.10
h

1.08
1.06

2
C

1.04
v1

2
I

1.02

;1.00
0.98
late: A : With/Without cogenerator B : Off-nominal tap ratios of primary transformers C : Transformer connections for whole system transformers GY : grounded wye D : Delta D : WiWWithout shunt capacitors E : Loads: Heavy : Full load Light : 10% of full load F : Load types: Type 0 : Constant P. Q loads Type 1 : Shown in Figure 11

7 8 Bus

1 0 1 1 1 2

Figure 13 Voltage Comparison for Cases No. 4 . 1 and 4.2

Table 2 Final Converged Voltage Solutions for Case No. 5

Bus Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Phase A Phase B Ang. IVI 1,000 1.019 1.021 1.018 1.021 1.003 0.992 0.960 0.995 1.000 1.006 1.011 Ang. -120.000 -121.612 -120.792 -121.638 -120.803 -123.730 -123.952 -123.523 -123.983 -123.048 -122.535 -123.195 Phase C IVI 1.000 1.019 1.021 1.018 1.021 1.003 0.992 0.960 0.995 1.000 1.006 1.011 Ang. 120.000 118.388 119.208 118.362 119.197 116.270 116.048 116.477 116.017 116.952 117.465 116.805

______________
IVI
1.000 1.019 1.021 1.018 1.021 1.003 0.992 0.960 0.995 1.000 1.006 1.011

15.00%

19.00%
Heater, Oven Incandescent Lighting

8
9 10 11 12

0.000 -1.612 -0.792 -1.638 -0.803 -3.730 -3.952 -3.523 -3.983 -3.048 -2.535 -3.195
~ ~~

Window Unit

Air Conditioning

Figure 11 Pie Chart for Load Composition of Type I

Case 6 is used to demonstrate the transformer models. It is based on Case 5 and uses various winding connections. Tables 4, 5, and 6 show the voltage magnitudes and angles of Phase A, Phase B, and Phase C ,respectively. In this case, the voltage magnitudes of different connections are the same because the system is balanced. The angles of bus voltages of grounded wye-delta has expected -30 degree phase shift, and delta-grounded wye has +30 degree phase shift. This case verifies that the transformer model can achieve the phase shifting automatically.

1151

Table 3 Voltage Comparison Table for Case No.3 and Case No. 5
Voltage Magnitude

Bus
No. . .

Bus
Name

_~______Case No. 3 1.000 1.016 1.016 1.016 1.015 0.993 0.981 0.942 0.982 0.972 0.986 1.008

Case No. 5 1.000 1.019 1.021 1.018 1.021 1.003 0.992 0.960 0.995 1.000 1.006 1.011

____
Case No 5 Case No.3 0.000 +0.003 +0.005 +0.002 +0.006 +O.OlO +0.011 +0.018 +0.013 +0.028 +0.020 +0.003

p
5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 4

SwingBus HVBus#02 HVBus#03 HVBus#04 HV Bus#05 LV Bus #06 LV Bus#O7 LVBus#08 LVBus#09 LV Bus#lO LVBus#11 LV B u s # I 2

3 * ( 0.01238 + j 0.01098 ) * 10 MVA = 371.4 + j 329.4 KVA which is slightly different (2.7 + j 1.1 KVA) from the input data (375 + j 331 KVA) because the converged voltage at that bus is 0.993 p.u. compared with 1.0 p.u. at the start. The voltage magnitude of bus 12 is 1.01 1 P.u., and the load at bus 12 is: 3 * ( 0.01634 + j 0.02150 ) * 10 MVA = 490.2 + j 645.0 KVA The difference between this value and the input data (or the results obtained from the system using the constant P and Q model) is: ( 490.2 + j 645.0 ) - ( 480.0 + j 640.0 ) = 10.2 + 5.0 KVA This difference is significant, illustrating that the use of a constant power load model can distort power flow results and give the user an inaccurate index of system performance. There is no doubt that, when used correctly, the more accurate load model will yield better results. Table 7 Final Converged Voltage Solutions for Case No. 7
Bus Number

Table 4 I V I ( P.U.) 1.ooo 1.019 1.021 1,018 1.021 1.003 0.995 1.000

Phase A

Phase B

Phase C
Ang.

_--___________
IVI
Ang.

__-___--______
IVI

7 9

10 11 12
Bus No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-1.612 -0.792 -1.638 -0.803 -3.730 -3.952 -3.523 -3.983 -3.048 -2.535 -3.195

-31.612 -30.792 -31.638 -30.803 -63.730 -63.951 -63.523 -63.983 -63.047 -62.535 -63.195

28.388 29.208 28.362 29.197 56.270 56.049 56.477 56.017 56.953 57.465 56.805

IVI
1.000 1.019 1.021 1.019 1.021 1.003 0.993 0.962 0.996 1.000 1.006 1.011

Ang.

2 3 4 5
6

1.000 1.019 1.021 1.019 1.021

1

on?

8 9 10 11 12

0.993 0.962 0.996 1.000 1.006 1.011

0.000 28.392 29.219 28.366 29.208 5 6 105 .~ 56.087 56.565 56.052 56.988 57.501 56.788

1.000 -120.000 1.019 -91.608 1.021 -90.781 1.019 -91.634 1.021 -90.792 1 no3 -63 695 . . . .~ -63.913 0.993 0.962 -63.435 0.996 -63.948 1.000 -63.012 1.006 -62.499 -63.212 1.011
~ ~

120.000 148.392 149.219 148.366 149.208 176.305 176.087 176.565 176.052 176.988 177.501 176.788

8
9 10 11 12

Table 5 I V I : P.U.) 1.ooo 1.019 1.021 1.018 1.02 1 1.003 0.992 0.960 0.995 1.ooo 1.006 1.01 1

Voltage Profiles of Phase B Angles ( Degree ) b W-Defia Delta-G W G W-G W - 120.000 -120.000 -120.000 -91.612 -121.612 -151.612 - 120.792 - 150.792 -90.792 -151.638 -121.638 -9 1.638 -150.803 -120.803 -90.803 176.270 -123.730 -63.730 -123.952 176.049 -63.951 176.477 - 123.523 -63.523 176.017 -123.983 -63.983 176.953 - 123.048 -63.047 177.465 - 122.535 -62.535 176.805 -63.195 - 123.195 Angles ( Degree ) 88.388 89.208 88.362 89.197 56.270 56.049 56.477 56.017 56.953 57.465 56.805 148.388 149.208 148.362 149.197 176.270 176.049 176.477 176.017 176.953 177.465 176.805

Case 8 is used to demonstrate the effects of an unbalanced system on the power flow results. Figure 10 is used for this case, but the loads at buses 7 and 9 are assumed to be unbalanced. The other loads are still assumed to be balanced. At bus 7,50% of the total load is on phase A, 30% on phase B, and 20% on phase C. At bus 9, there is no load on phase A, 30% on phase B, and 70% load on phase C. Two different transformer connections are used: delta-grounded wye (Case 8.1) and grounded wye-grounded wye (Case 8.2). The system voltage profiles for these two cases are shown in Table 8 and 9, respectively. Comparing the results of this case with the balanced case (Case 6) illustrates the need for non-trivial transformer model in the unbalanced case. The bus voltages are invarient with respect to a change in the transformer windings in the balanced case. This is not evident in the unbalanced case. Table 8 Final Converged Voltage Solutions for Case No. 8.1
Bus
Number

Phase A

Phase B

Phase C

______________
IVI

Ang.

-____--___---_
IVI
Ang.

____-___---_-IVI
Ang.

4 5 6 7

8
9 10 11 12

1.018 1.021 1.OO3 0.992 0.960 0.995 1.ooo 1.006 1.011

118.362 119.197 116.270 116.048 116.477 116.017 116.952 117.465 116.805

1 2 3 4

5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Case 7 is used to demonstrate the effects of the voltage dependent load model. Buses 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 use a load window which is comprised of 19% heater and oven, 7% incandescent lighting, 4% clothes dryer, 11% three-phast rlii conditioning, 44% ductor heater, and 15% window unit air conditioning loads, shown in Figure 11. The voltage profiles for this case are shown in Table 7. Note that Table 7 is very similar to Table 2, which shows the results of the constant P,Q load model. The loads are voltage dependent, however. For example, the load at bus 7 is:

1.000 1.016 1.020 1.015 1.019 1.020 0.993 0.962 1.046 1.005 1.008 1.012

0.000 28.565 29.257 28.547 29.249 56.635 56.717 56.776 54.426 57.145 57.706 57.037

1.000 -120.000 1.023 -91.583 1.022 -90.773 1.023 -91.613 1.022 -90.785 1.009 -63.680 1.000 -64.516 0.966 -63.738 1.022 -62.202 1.003 -63.156 1.008 -62.710 1.013 -63.414

1.ooo 1.017 1.021 1.016 1.020 0.973 0.978 0.949 0.911 0.988 0.998 1.005

120.000 148.120 149.106 148.090 149.094 175.643 175.758 176.251 175.669 176.754 177.296 176.72h

Tables 7 and 8 show the voltage profiles of balanced and unbalanced cases, respectively. For a balanced case, the magnitudes of the voltages of phases A, B, and C for each bus in the system are the same and the voltage angles show exactly 120 degrees difference between any two phases. This is not true for an unbalanced case. A model of an actual Con Edison network was used for largescale system testing. It is comprised of 12 primary feeders, one predominant secondary network, 12 isolated networks, 2 hi-tension services, 189 transformers, 1,595 three-phase nodes and 2,000

1152

Table 9 Final Converged Voltage Solutions for Case No. 8.2

-.

Bus Number

________ IVI Ang.

____. 0.000 1.000 -1.505 1.026 -0.716 1.022 -1.569 1.026 -0.729 1.021 -3.514 1.026 -3.429 0.999 -3.244 0.964 -5.694 1.051 -2.843 1.006 -2.289 1.009 -3.110 1.019

Phase A

Phase B

IVI

Ang.

____-__IVI

Phase C

Ang.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1.000 -120.000 1.021 -121.497 1.022 -120.831 1.021 -121.499 1.022 -120.841 1.009 -123.341 1.000 -124.198 0.965 -123.623 1.022 -121.908 1.003 -123.130 1.008 -122.678 1.013 -123.051

1.000 1.009 1.019 1.007 1.018 0.967 0.972 0.947 0.905 0.987 0.998 0.999

120.000 118.098 119.136 118.087 119.126 115.440 115.573 116.151 115.486 116.714 117.257 116.504

[7] D. I. Sun, S . Abe, R. R. Shoults, M. S . Chen, P Eichenberger, and D. Fanis, "Calculation of Energy Losses in a Distribution System" IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-99, No.4, July/Aug 1980. [81 T. H. Chen, M. S . Chen, et al. "Three-phase Cogenerator and Transformer Models for Distribution System Analysis," Submitted to IEEE Winter Power Meeting(1990).

sections. Total connected capacity is 260 MVA. This model includes all primary, 120/208 and 265/460-volt secondary, and high tension customers. The GDAS program has been successfully tested and demonstrated by using this model, ratings, and load data. The number iterations required to solve a system of this size is: 4 for grounded wye-grounded wye transformer connection, and 42 for delta-grounded wye connection. In the latter case, the acceleration factor was reduced to 0.6 for both real and imaginary part.

a n e Chen was born in Taiwan, R.O.C. on March 15, 1953. He received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering from the National Taiwan Institute of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. in 1980 and 1982 respectively. Since 1982, he has joined the National Taiwan Institute of Technology as a lecturer. With the support of the Ministry of Education of R.O.C., he worked for his Ph.D. at the Energy Systems Research Center at the University of Texas at Arlington and received the Ph.D. degree in May, 1990. He is currently Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering at the National Taiwan Institute of Technology. He is a member of Tau Beta Pi, Phi Beta Delta, and IEEE. Mo-Shine Chen received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from the National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan in 1954 and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Texas at Austin in 1958 and 1962, respectively. He is currently Professor of Electrical Engineering and Director of the Energy Systems Research Center at the University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas. He has served as a consultant to numerous companies and government agencies. Dr. Chen is a member of Eta Kappa Nu, Tau Beta Pi, Sigma Xi, IEEE, ASEE, Texas Society of Professional Engineers and the New York Academy of Science. In 1976 he was the first recipient of the Edison Electric Institute's Power Engineering Educator Award. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in the state of Texas. Dr. Chen is an IEEE Fellow and has published more than 60 papers in the Referee Journal.

C O "
The problem of system imbalance has considerable effects on power systems. The effects of zero sequence current on protection relays and negative sequence current on motors are well known by power engineers. However, other effects such as increasing system loss, decreasing system capacity, and increasing the inductive coupling between parallel lines or feeders are often overlooked. This paper intends neither to solve all the problems described above nor to present a totally new power flow method. Rather, it introduces a way to simulate an unbalanced distribution system in greater detail. This paper also shows that by using a more rigid approach, it is possible to integrate the power flow, system loss, and contingency analyses together. Because the cogenerator and transformer are not accurately represented in many existing power flow programs, the difference in results between the GDAS and other programs may be considerable, especially in those cases that contain cogenerators and the unbalanced cases with various transformer connections except grounded wye-grounded wye connection. The GDAS program has been successfully implemented and tested on both microcomputers (IBM-PC) and mainframes (DECVAX). Very large cases can be run on the mainframe version. The PC version is limited to very small cases, however, solution of cases with hundreds of buses is expected in the future using extended memory. This should make the program more popular and more attractive for personal computer users. REFERENCES [ l ] M. S . Chen and W. E. Dillon, "Power System Modeling," Proc. IEEE, V01.62, NO.7, PP.901-915, July 1974. [ 21 J. Anillaga and C. P. Arnold, Computer Modeling of Electrical Power Systems, New Zealand: John Wiley and Sons, 1983. [3] Energy Systems Research Center, The University of Texas at Arlington, "Determining Load Characteristics for Transient Performance," Final Report of EPRI Project RP 849-3, Vol. I, 1 1 , 111, December 1978.
141 W. E. Dillon, "Modeling and Analysis of an Electrically Propelled Transportation System," Ph. D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Arlington, May 1972. [ 5 ] W. E. Dillon and M. S . Chen, "Transformer Modeling in Unbalanced Three-phase Networks," IEEE Summer Power Meeting, Vancouver, Canada, July 1972. [6] D. I. Sun, "Distribution System Loss Analysis and Optimal Planning," Ph. D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Arlington, May 1980.

Kab-.Tu Hwang was born in Sangju, Korea on January 14, 1953. He received the B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from Ulsan Institute of Technology, Ulsan in 1975 and the Ph.D. degree in Engineering from Hanyang University, Seoul in 1982. He worked for Korea Electric Power Company during 1975 to 1983 as a senior engineer of the AGC/SCADA system. From 1987 to 1989, he was a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Energy Systems Research Center of the University of Texas at Arlington. Since 1983, he has been an Associate Professor of the University of Ulsan, Korea. His research interests in the field of power system include optimal power flow, load forecasting, and application of AI theory to Energy Management System. Dr. Hwang is a member of the Korea Institute of Electrical Engineers.
is a Computer Applications Engineer in the Computer Applications Engineering Department at Con Edison. He joined Con Edison in 1983. Mr. Kotas received a BS in Engineering Science from S.U.N.Y. at Buffalo in 1982 and an MS in Mathematics from the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University in 1987. Mr. Kotas is a member of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM). Flie A. Chebli was born in Beirut Lebanon on April 17, 1936. He received his BEE(Major Electrical) degree from the American University of Beirut, School of Engineering in June 1960. In 1977, he completed the Power Systems Engineering Course given by the General Electric Co. Between 1961 and 1966, he was employed by the Electricite du Liban. In 1966, he joined Ohio Power in Canton Ohio as a Distribution Engineer and was promoted to Senior Engineer prior to his transfer to AEP in New York in 1973. At the time he resigned from AEP in July 1980, he was Assistant Section Head Distribution. From July 1980 fo February I 54, he worked for the consulting f i r m C. T. Main International and its subsidiaries. In February 1984, he joined Con Ed as a Pnncipal Engineer and in October 1986 he was transferred to become Distribution Design Engineer. Mr. Chebli is a member of 1 EEE and is a registered professional engineer in the state of O h t .