398

IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 12, No. 1, February 1997

UTION NETWORK RECONFIGURATION FOR ENERGY LOSS REDUCTION

Kubin Taleski, Member IEEE Dragoslav RajiCid, Member IEEE
University "Sv. Kiril i Metodij," Faculty of Electrical Engineering Skopje Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
Abstract A new method for energy loss reduction for distribution networks is presented. It is based on known techniques and algorithms for radial network analysis -- oriented element ordering, power summation method for power flow, statistical representation of load variations, and a recently developed energy summation method for computation of energy losses. These methods, combined with the heuristic rules developed to lead the iterative process, make the energy loss minimization method effective, robust and fast. It presents an altemative to the power minimization methods for operation and planning purposes. Keywords: Daily load curve, Energy losses, Energy loss reduction, Energy summation, Oriented ordering, Power losses, Power loss reduction, Power summation, Radial network, Reconfiguration.

INTRQDUCTION

Radial networks have some advantages over meshed networks such as lower short circuit currents and simpler switching and protecting equipment. On the other hand, the radial structure provides lower overall reliability. Therefore, to use the benefits of the radial structure, and at the same time to overcome the difficulties, distribution systems are planned and built as weakly meshed networks, but operated as radial networks. The radial structure of distribution networks is achieved by placing a number of sectionalizing switches in the network (usually referred to as tie switches) used to open the loops that would otherwise exist. These switches, together with the circuit breakers at the beginning of each feeder, are used for reconfiguration of the network when needed. Obviously, the greater the number of switches, the greater are the possibilities for reconfiguration and the better are the effects. Generally, network reconfiguration is needed to: i) provide service to as many customers as possible following a fault condition, or during planned outages for maintenance purposes, ii) reduce system losses, and balance the loads to avoid overload of network elements [l]. There have been a number of works concerning resistive line losses reduction in distribution networks through reconfiguration [ 1-91. Generally there are two approaches to the

96 WM 305-3 PWRS A paper recommended and approved by the IEEE Power System Engineering Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at the 1996 IEEE/PES Winter Meeting, January 2125, 1996, Baltimore, MD. Manuscript submitted July 25, 1994; made available for printing December 15, 1995.

reconfiguration problem. The first approach would be to determine the status of all switches in the network simultaneously. Due to the combinatorial nature of the problem, very complicated mathematical techniques should be used and large computational time is needed. Usually, the solution obtained by methods using this approach represents a global optimum of the loss optimization problem. The second approach would be to deal with each possible loop (determined by an open tie switch) one at a time. Methods based on this approach are simpler and faster. The simplicity and speed are achieved by introducing heuristic techniques and approximations. Sometimes these methods lead to a local optimum that closely approximates the global optimum. Traditionally optimal configurations are obtained by minimizing power losses. For a given period, a moment of time is chosen as a representative state of the load conditions in the network (usually the system peak) and a power loss optimization method is used to determine the configuration of the network. The problem of loss minimization becomes very complex if energy losses are to be optimized. Since loads change on an hourly basis or even shorter, configuration of the network may need to be changed accordingly. In [7,8,9] the problem of non-coincidence of peak loads, and diversity of load c gories was addressed and implemented in energy loss minimization methods. To provide operation with minimum power and energy losses, the network should be equipped with remotely operated tie switches, preferably in every line of the network to accomplish the highest level of flexibility. Even though such an operation can provide significant savings [7], it requires increased investment and operational costs needed for highly automated control and monitoring system. The method proposed in this paper can be used to determine the configuration with minimum energy losses for a given period. It is based on several favorable characteristics of methods and techniques specially developed for radial network analysis -- oriented ordering of the network elements, power summation method for power flow, and statistical representation of load variations, all together combined in the energy summation method for computation of energy losses [lo]. Basically, the method belongs to the methods known as "branch exchange techniques." Possible loops in the network (or feeder pairs) are analyzed and reconfigured one at a time. The reconfiguration is performed by closing the open tie switch that defines the loop, and opening the switch in the branch that produces maximum savings in energy losses.

0885-8950/97/$10.00 0 1996 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: The National Institute of Engineering. Downloaded on August 24, 2009 at 02:36 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

399

The candidate branch to be opened is chosen using a similar approximate technique found in [3], but applied for energy losses, rather than power losses. The order by which the loops are analyzed and reconfigured is determined by heuristic rules. A number of power loss minimization methods based on the branch exchange technique have used heuristics to determine the open switch to be closed, for example [1,3,5,6]. However, since those methods deal with a particular moment of time, the same heuristic rules can not be applied, as loads and voltages vary with time. The proposed method may have advantages over traditional methods that take into account only power losses. On the other hand, it requires more input data to describe variations of loads, daily load curves (DLC) for typical consumer types in particular. However, it is not necessary to know DLCs for every load point in the network. Usually there are arbitrary number of different typical consumer types, much less than the number of load points. Consumers of a certain type have DLCs of equal or similar shape, but with different magnitude (peak active and reactive power). If DLCs are expressed in p.u. of their peak active power, the only data needed to represent the load at a load point is the maximum active and reactive powers, and the DLC type. Furthermore, the proposed method allows the load at a load point to be expressed as a combination of different consumer types. GLOSSARY OF SYMBOLS
T - duration of the load curves; nt - number of time intervals in T; n - number of consumer types in the network; P and Q - active and reactive power, respectively; p and q - active and reactive power in p.u. of peak load for load curves, respectively; I and V - current and voltage, respectively; R - line resistance; W - energy; e,f- components of typical loads at load points (in P.u.) for active and reactive power, respectively; - second statistical moment of a random variable. The following symbols are used combined with the general symbols: A - denotes energy or power losses, or time interval; 'I denotes a quantity at the receiving end of an element; P and Q - as superscript denote that the variable is associated with active and reactive power or energy, respectively; m - lower case letter as subscript denotes that the variable is associated with an element; M - upper case letter as subscript denotes that the variable is associated with a node; i, j and k - as sub-subscripts denote that the variable is associated with load curve of type i, j or k; t - as sub-subscript denote that the variable is associ- ated with a particular moment of time (interval) t; - bar over a variable denotes average value (power); - - bar under a variable denotes a complex quantity.

'____)I

orientation
Z'
Lx

-Branch _ _ _ Link

Fig. 1 Two feeder (one loop) distribution network

We will assume that every branch in the network is equipped with a switch. To maintain the radiality of the network the switch in one of the branches (branch a in Fig. 1) is open. Network elements are numbered using the oriented ordering algorithm described in [lo]. As a result of the ordering, a branch (and its receiving node) is assigned a number (index) in the ordered list that is always greater than the index of the sending end. The orientation of branches in the network is positive fi-om the sending node (lower index) to the receiving node (higher index). If the open switch in line a is at the side of node Z, introducing the fictitious node Z', branch a can be treated as a branch of the network with no load flowing in it. The positive orientation af the loop is defined fi-om the node with lower index (Z) to the node with higher index (2'). Throughout the paper we will use the term loop as a synonym for an open tie line. The same terminology will be used instead of the termfeederpair, because a single feeder may have a loop within. It is assumed that peak loads and corresponding typical DLCs are known at each load point, and that there are n different consumer types. We will also assume that at each load point the resulting load can be represented as a sum of n different consumer types (1). Furthermore, each load can be of constant power, constant current, or constant impedance type [lo]. Similarly, the proposed method in this paper assumes balanced three-phase loads and network elements, but it can be adapted for use in case of unbalanced networks.
n

t = 1, ...,nt .

The purpose of the reconfiguration is to determine which branch in the loop should be opened, instead of branch A-2, to obtain minimum energy losses. Let us assume that branch x is the branch we are looking for. If the network is analyzed only at a particular moment, the effect of the reconfiguration (change in power losses in the loop) can be estimated by using (2), as in [3]:

The reconfiguration, or in other words the load transfer from feeder a-nl to feeder z-n2, can be simulated by injec-

Authorized licensed use limited to: The National Institute of Engineering. Downloaded on August 24, 2009 at 02:36 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

400

tion of complex current equal to the current flowing through branch x at nodes Z and Z', with directions shown on Fig. 1. By doing this, the current in branch x will become zero -which is equivalent to the effect of closing the switch in branch a,and opening the switch in linex. However, (2) can not be applied if energy losses are to be estimated. But, a similar formula can be derived if the energy summation method [lo] is used. Briefly, if statistical characteristics of the DLCs are calculated (second moments of random variables that compose DLCs), the average power losses in a particular branch m (defined as a quotient of active energy losses and period r ) can be calculated from (3):

and the amount of average power loss change for the loop can be calculated from (7):

According to [IO], voltage magnitude V, in (3) is the average voltage at the receiving end of line m, obtained from a power flow calculation with average loads (average power)

Function (7) reaches extreme if its first partial derivatives, with respect to 6P and @ , are equal to zero:

applied at load points. Let us, for the time being, assume that (average) node voltages will not change significantly due to the load transfer performed by the reconfiguration. By analogy, the reconfiguration can be simulated if an average complex power, equal to the average complex power at the receiving end of branch x, is injected at nodes 2 and 2'. But the location of the switch to be opened is not known, so we will fmd the amount of complex energy (average complex power) needed to achieve minimum energy losses in the network. The branch to be opened will be the one whose average complex power flow equals the average complex power oktained. Since there can be n different load types in the network, the injected average complex power 6P+j 6 e can be decomposed into n different components:

Equations (8) represent two sets of n linear equations and, after rearranging, they can be written as (9.a) and (9.b).

,
I

m=a V&

k = l , ...,n ;

(94

m=a V ,

The active energy losses (or the average active power losses) in branch m, after the injection of the complex power sP+J ~ at Q nodes Z and Z', can approximately be calculated using (5).

According to the use tation, the plus sign in (5) is applied for branches orientation coincides with the orientation of the loop (branches hom n2 to z in Fig. 1). The apount of average power loss change in line m can be estimated from (5) and (3), resulting into (6):
-change Mm - upnew

(9.b) Right hand sides of (9.a) and (9.b) can be calculated fiom the average power flows in branches of the loop. Note that the positive sign indicates a branch with opposite orientation in respect to the loop orientation, and that (9.a) needed only for those consumer types that are loop -- the remaining c complex power are set t Linear equations (9.a) and (9.b) losses can be matical solution of the problem. minimized if a branch in the loo power flow satisfies relation (10).
k = l , ,n.

- upold

Obviously, it would be very hard, if not impossible, to find a branch whose all n components meet the requirements from (10). Therefore, the solution obtained fiom (9.a) and (9.b) has little practical implementation, and it is presented only to justify the technique proposed in this paper. Since the direct solution of the problem is very complicated to obtain, we will apply the technique used in [3]. With respect to (I I), eq. (7) can be rewritten as in (12).

Authorized licensed use limited to: The National Institute of Engineering. Downloaded on August 24, 2009 at 02:36 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

401
Element ordering Set all LOFs to .FALSE. Optimize independentloops
~

Calculate average node voltages and average power flows Set LOFs to .FALSE. for loops with changed power flows

The similarity between (2) and (12) is obvious. Equation (12) can be used to estimate the amount of energy loss changes over period T, achieved by closing branch a and opening the branch with average complex power at the receiving end equal to 6P + j6Q. The change in configuration will alter the power flows in branches affected by that change. At this point it would be rational to test branches for possible overloads. For example, current magnitude in branch n2 in every interval At can be approximately calculated with (13) using average power flow at its receiving end (14). Furthermore, if all branches in the feeder have equal current limits, only the first branch should be tested (branch n2 in Fig. 1).
~

r Select next loop for optimizaaon

Estimate energy loss changes Select a branch to be opened
/ \

'

i. Change configuration and reorder network elements

I

_ _ _ _ ~

, : L Optimal configurationfound
1
L

1 7 -

Fig 2 Simplifiedflow-chartfor the proposed algorithm

Since node voltages are not known for every interval At, we can use average node voltages, similarly to ( 3 ) . Tests showed that errors produced by approximate formula (1 3) are of the same magnitude as errors produced by (3) when branch energy losses are calculated. According to [101 those errors are less than 5%, even for heavily loaded networks.
THE ENERGY LOSS MINIMIZATION METHOD

The procedure described in the previous section would be sufficient if applied simultaneously to all loops in the network, but only if the loops do not have mutual branches. The problem becomes more complicated if some branches in the network belong to more than one loop. It is because load transfer in one loop can affect power flows in the loops that share mutual branches. The simplified flow-chart of the energy loss minimization method is shown in Fig. 2. At the beginning of the procedure, after the oriented ordering, loops (open tie switches) are identified, and for each loop a loop optimality flag (LOF) is assigned. LOF when TRUE indicates that the loop has been optimized. Then, the

independent loops are identified -- we will use the term independent loops for those loops that do not have any mutual branches. For these loops the procedure for selection of a branch to be opened is applied simultaneously, and the loops are marked as optimized (their LOFs set to TRUE), because they do not have to be further analyzed. The remaining of the procedure is iterative. At the beginning of each iteration a power flow is performed to calculate average node voltages needed for the energy loss calculation that follows. (Note that energy loss calculation is also performed in the previous step for optimization of the independent loops.) Then, the active energy losses for each loop are tested to determine which loops were affected by the reconfiguration in the previous iteration. If such loops exist, their LOFs are set to FALSE. At this stage branch current limits can be tested, and if necessary take appropriate action. The process continues by selection of the next loop to be optimized. At this point it should be noted that the order by which loops are selected and optimized may significantly affect the efficiency of the method. To avoid unnecessary iterations efficient criteria for loop selection must be established.

Authorized licensed use limited to: The National Institute of Engineering. Downloaded on August 24, 2009 at 02:36 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

402

Various power loss minimization methods based on the branch exchange technique use different criteria to determine the order by which the loops are analyzed. Usually, it is the voltage difference across the open switches, or the power loss difference across the two sub paths of the loop -branches with coincident orientation with the loop orientation and the branches with oppmite orientation. For this method a set of specific heuristic rules was set up. These rules are based on the analysis of the network topology and the active energy losses for each loop. Parts of a complex radial distribution network shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 will be used to explain the basic principles for selection of the switch to be closed. The part of the network in Fig. 3 has one open tie switch (loop Ll). A characteristic of loop L1 is that one of the sub paths does not contain any branches. Let us assume, for the moment, that all network elements are with identical parameters and that loads are uniformly distributed. If this were true, the configuration with minimum losses for a single loop could have been achieved by opening the switch in the branch at the middle sf the loop. Even if none of the assumptions above is true, it is normal to expect that, eventually, id the minimization process, the open switch A-A would have to be moved on sub path A'-M-A, towards node A . Therefore, loops like loop L1 should have priority for optimization in the reconfiguration process. The part of the network shown in Fig. 4 includes two open tie switches: consequently, there are two loops (L2 and L3), oriented as indicated by the arrows. Both loops have same root (node B), and they overlap -- a part of loop L2 (branches between nodes B and N> i s a subset of loop L3. We will refer to loops L2 and L3 as an inner-outer loop pair (IOLP). The relation between loops L2 and L3 (inner and outer loop) is also used for construction of the heuristic rules. In most cases, as tests showed, it is more efficient to optimize the inner loop first. If the relation between those two loops has not changed (the open switch in the new configuration is on the path B-C-C'-N), then optimize the outer loop. The oriented ordering technique used for the element ordering provides an efficient and fast detection of IOLPs. Note that, generally, more than two loops may have similar relationship. If more than two loops have at least one mutual branch, they are considered as an innedouter loop group. Furthermore, the identification of the most inner and the most outer loop is accomplished by comparison of the energy losses associated with the loops. The Ioop with the lowest energy losses is declared as the most inner loop, while the loop with the highest losses, as the most outer loop. For example, if loop L2 in Fig. 4 has lower energy losses than loop L3, L2 is an inner loop, whileL3 is an outer loop. The selection of the loop to be optimized (or the open tie switch to be closed) is performed by the following rules, listed by descending order of precedence: Select and optimize first loops with characteristics like loop L1 in Fig. 3 (highly unbalanced energy losses over both loop's sub paths). As described earlier, these loops are the most likely candidates for optimization. If these loops are not optimized at this

Fig 3 P a r t of a radial distribution network with one loop

To substation

Loop L3

Fig. 4 Part of a radial distribution network w i t h two loops

early stage of the process, their later optimization can affect the configuration in loops, thus requiring extra iterations. Detect all IOL exists, the se1 trary. When a pair or group is or group is not selected until all optimized. The or mized in the group is from outer loop. Due to the app (12), the accuracy o higher if the chan modest changes in energy losses. Therefore, by optimizing the loops with lower losses (inner loops) the possibilities for false estimates are lower. Select the next loop in the list of ordered elements. The application of these rules provides fewer iterations to be performed. However, for networks in which many loops overlap, some loops need to be optimized more than once. The next step in the minimization procedure is to determine the branch to be opened. To avoid testing all the branches in the loop, the first two branches adjacent to the open switch are tested. If there are no power sources in the network (other than at the slack ) the results of the tests will have opposite signs. Equati the active energy loss change if branches z and b are opened (Fig. 1). This is accomplished by substituting in (1 1):

Then, the branches on the path on which the first branch has negative changes are checked. The energy loss changes become positive, or i The branch with highest negative energy loss changes so far is selected to be opened. However, sources at nodes other than the slack nod energy and power flows in parts of the network can be disturbed. If this is the case, the swi to be opened is determined by testing all branches in th Finally, the last step in the procedure is the reordering of the network elements. oted before, the proposed method, as well as the pro s it uses (power and energy

Authorized licensed use limited to: The National Institute of Engineering. Downloaded on August 24, 2009 at 02:36 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

403

summation methods), are based on the oriented ordering of the network elements. After a change in the configuration is performed, it is necessary to update the indices in the list of ordered elements. The reordering can be simply accomplished by a full ordering such as the one performed at the top of the procedure. However, for large networks this task could be time consuming. On the other hand, only small segments of the ordered list are affected by the reconfiguration, and it is rational to take advantage of that fact. Therefore, a special technique for partial reordering was developed. Tests performed on a 150-node (28 loops) radial network suggest that speed gains over a full ordering are 5 to 10 times, depending on the scale of the changes in the configuration. A special characteristic of the proposed method is that it can be used, with minor modifications in (12), as a power loss minimization method as well. Note that if n=1, and the DLC is flat ( F&,) = Q = 1), average power losses become
%,l)

lem of non-coincident peak loads is solved simpler -- their magnitude is what counts, not the timing. The problem of network reconfiguration is not solely a technical problem. Usually it is a matter of utility companies' policies. Some utilities change their network configurations on a seasonal basis, while other utilities reconfigure their networks more fiequently. The methodology presented in this paper allows to evaluate the benefits of more fiequent reconfiguration, for example on weekdaylweekend basis, in addition to seasonal changes. Even periods shorter than 24 hours can be used, for example off-peak and peak load periods [7]. TEST RESULTS The effectiveness of the proposed method for energy loss reduction was tested for convergence and ability to provide configuration with lowest energy losses. The method has not been compared with other methods, since, by the authors' knowledge, there are no similar methods suitable for comparison. Computer programs, Written in FORTRAN, were developed and ran on a 66MHz 486DX2 PC/AT compatible personal computer. The power and energy summation methods [lo] were used for all power flow and energy loss calculations. The nominal voltage was chosen as a base voltage and as the voltage at the slack bus. In all cases (power summation method) the iterative process finishes if, in two consecutive iterations, changes in both network active and reactive power losses are lower than 0.01 kWkvar. Test results presented in this paper include two networks. The first test network (10 kV, 16-nodes and 2 loops) is non existent, but was constructed for demonstration purposes using realistic data. Two types of consumer were adopted fi-om [l 11: Urban Residential Load (URL,), and Commercial Load (CL). The data for the network elements, as well as for the loads, is presented in Table I. The results of the optimization for both energy and power losses at system peak are presented in Table 11, and complex network load and loss curves are presented in Figs. A.2 and A.3. The results show that two optimal configurations differ significantly. Power losses at system peak (8 p.m.) for both configurations are almost identical. But, the configuration obtained for minimum power losses at system peak has 6% higher energy losses, and 14% higher maximum power, losses (10 a.m.) than the configuration obtained for minimum energy losses. However, not always the two minimization methods result in configurations that differ that much, as proven with the second test network. The second test network (12.66 kV, 32-nodes and 5 loops) was used in [IO], but originally found in [l]. Since the network in [l] was used for power loss reduction, it had to be modified. Two consumer types were assigned to the load points in the following way: every odd node was assigned URL type, while every even node, CL type. Loads fiom [l] were used as peak loads. Also, nodes were given names with the letter N preceding the number.

power losses. Hence, equation (12) can be considered as a general form of equation (2). Both minimization versions of the method were tested on numerous networks, and they produced configurations with lowest energy or power losses, respectively. The proposed method for energy loss reduction is very simple and fast. Both characteristics are achieved by the assumption that average node voltages do not change much with each load transfer. However, there are situations when this assumption can produce false estimates in (12) and lead to a change in configuration with higher energy losses. But, since energy losses are recalculated in every iteration, such situations are easily detected, and the changes are ignored by marking the current loop as optimized and proceeding with the next one. The price to pay for that is an extra iteration. At this point it must be emphasized that the configuration of the network with minimum energy losses over a period does not necessarily mean it provides the most cost savings. There are several issues to be considered, among them costs for switching. For example, there are cases, as it happens with power loss optimization methods, when expected savings are marginal and overwhelmed by switching costs. In addition, there are situations when savings in energy losses may not be greater than the price difference between lost power and lost energy. On the other hand, the proposed method is capable of dealing with networks and loading conditions in which maximum power losses do not occur at system peak (example network in AppendixA), or when maximum (energy) savings are expected during off-peak periods [7,9]. Even though the proposed method deals with energy, it does not require load curves for all load points. At most load points there will be only one consumer category. Once typical consumer groups are determined, and they are assigned to load points, only additional data, except peak loads, are the types of DLCs at load points. Loads that do not conform to a single consumer category can be mathematically decomposed into n typical consumer load curves (l), requiring knowledge of components e andfonly. Likewise, the prob-

Authorized licensed use limited to: The National Institute of Engineering. Downloaded on August 24, 2009 at 02:36 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

404
TABLE I DATA FOR THE 10 KV TEST NETWORK
Branch Sending Receiving node node I 0 0.00 030 025 025 0.25 025 0.30 025 030 050

EG7GFE-I
kW
0 55 012 010 010 0.10 010 0 12 010 012 020
0

Load at receiving node

har 0 200 200 200 200 150 150 200 150 150 150 200 150 200 200 200 200

TABLE Jll INFLUENCEOF THE HEURISTIC RULES ON SELECTION OF SWITCH TO BE OPENED Iteration/ I Closeline I Open line I Energy losses (no ofloops tested) I kWh Loop selection by heuristic rules 1 /(I) 1 N8 - N14 I N13 - N14 [ 2411.3 N6 - N7 1897 9 2 / (1) N7 - N20 1779.9 N11 - N21 N8 - N9 3 /(1) N31 - N32 1744.1 4 IC31 N17 - N32 N27 - N28 1735.9 5 l(4) N24 N28 Loop selection by thelr position in the ordered list N27 - N28 2141 0 N24 - N28 1 /(I) 1809 8 2 I (2.) N21 - N11 N9 - N10 1795 8 1812 6 1780 5 1772 0 1753 2 1761 9 1735 9

type
URL URL URL URL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL URL
URL

500 500 500 500 400 450 500 400 400 400 500 400 600 600 600 600

URL CL

TABLE II COMPARISON OF BOTH OPTIMAL. CONFIGURATIONS

If the power loss minimization algorithm is applied (for the moment when system peak occuss -- 8 p.m.), it leads to the configuration defined by the following open lines: N6-N7, N8-N9, N13-Nl4, N27-N28 and N31-N32. The number of iterations varies depending on the starting configuration, but the final (optimal) configuration is always identical. The power losses for the optimal configuration are 105.6 kW, while energy losses over a 24 hour period, are 1735.9 kWh. In this case, the same configuration is achieved if the energy minimization algorithm is applied. Many factors influence the differences between confgurations obtained by the power and energy loss minimization methods, such as: loads and types of loads, voltage variation at the slack node, variances and covariance of DLCs, and network element parameters. Since it is almost impossible to predict the outcome of both minimization methods, the fmal decision about which configuration should be used for most economical operation should consider factors such as costs for power, energy, and switching. To illustrate the effects of the heuristic rules used for selection of the switch to be closed, the intermediate results of the energy minimization algorithm for the second test network are presented in Table 111. The starting configuration for this test is defined by the following open lines: N7-N20, NS-Nl4, Nll-N21, N17-N32 and N24-N28. The energy losses for this configuration are 2477.8 kWh. The results obtained using the heuristic rules are presented in the first half of the table. The second half of the table shows the results when no rules are applied -- the order by which loops are

selected is determined by their position in the list of ordered elements. The numbers in parentheses show how many loops were tested in each iteration before a decrease in the energy losses was achieved. Results in Table 111 show that the order by which loops are optimized directly affects the performance of the proposed algorithm. Note that if no heuristic is applied, the number of iterations depends on the positions of the loops in the ordered list of elements. Also note that in the 4. iteration and 7. iteration there are false estimates resulting into energy loss increase, requiring repetition with another loop. Finally, some remarks about the speed of the energy loss ization method. Most of the computational time in each iteration is used for calculation of the energy losses. The number of loops tested and the number of branches tested for (12) does not significantly affect the time required for one iteration. For example, for the second test network when heuristic rules are used, the average time was 0.050 seconds per iteration.

CONCLUSIONS
A method for distribution network reconfiguration for energy loss reduction is presented. The method can be used to obtain the configuration with minimum active energy losses over a period of time and can be used as an advantageous alternative to the power loss minimization methods. Its robustness, effectiveness and accuracy are inherited &om the energy summation method and further improved by the heuristic rules used to lead the minimization process. The computational time is almost identical to the time needed by power loss minimization methods that makes this method suitable for operation, as well for planning purposes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported in part by the Ministry of Science, Republic of Macedonia.

Authorized licensed use limited to: The National Institute of Engineering. Downloaded on August 24, 2009 at 02:36 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

405 APPENDIX A: NUMERICAL EXAMPLE

In this section we will present a brief numerical example for optimization of the first test network (Table1 and Fig. A.l). There are two loops in the network and they can be considered as a loop pair, similar to the example in Fig. 4 (same root -- M, and mutual line M-M6). Second moments p2 for DLCs (URI, and CL) used in the tests are calculated fiom (A. 1) [ l I] and are presented in Table A.1 in p.u. of average power for the correspondingDLC.

MI0 MI1

MI2

MI

lese
M2 M3
M4

M5

Fig. A.l Graph of the 10 kV test network

(A. 1) where all quantities in the right hand sides of (A.l) are expressed in p.u. of peak active power for the corresponding DLC. The next step is to determine the loop to be optimized first. Active energy losses for each loop, as well as energy losses for branches on the positive and negative path ( AW+ and AW- ), are calculated and they are shown in Table A.11 (1. iteration). Loop M15-Ml6 is chosen to be optimized first for the following reasons: it is considered as an inner loop (lower energy losses, 47.8 kwh) and it has higher unbalanced losses across both paths (0.281 11).
TABLE A.1 SECOND MOMENTS FOR DLCS USED IN THE TESTS
h

I = 1,...,n;/= 1,...,n

Estimates show that branches on the path M15-M if opened would produce increase in energy losses. Next, line Mll-M12 is tested and the test shows that, if opened, that line will produce energy loss reduction equal to 9.3 kwh. Line M12-Ml6 is the best candidate since it yields to highest reduction if opened. The next iteration starts with calculation of energy losses for the new configuration. Results of the calculations are shown in Table A.11 (2. iteration). Note that loop M12-Ml6 is marked as optimized (LOF'TRUE). Estimates for energy loss reduction for adjacent lines to line M5-M9 are:
Open line M8 - M9 M4 - M5 Estimates for energy loss reduction (kWh) -77.6 -56.1

Since opening neither line produces energy loss reduction, this loop is marked as optimized, leaving us with no loop to be further optimized. In the configuration determined for minimum power losses at system peak, the most loaded branch is M-M6. At 10 a.m. it is loaded at 93% of its thermal limit (255 A), while at 8 p.m. (system peak) it is loaded at 64% (Fig. A.4). In the final configuration obtained for mi&" energy losses the same branch is loaded at 77% of its limit (10 a.m. Fig. AS). Minimal voltages for both configurations are 0.9543 and 0.9636 P.u., respectively.
S (kVA) 8000

AP (kW)
S,,=7247.1 kVA
2oo

LOOP
1. Iteration

LOF

Awloop

AW+

AW-

AW+/AWI

kWh M15-Ml6 M5 -M9 2. Iteration

kWh

kWh

FALSE FALSE

47.8 49.2

Active network losses: 1729.2 kWh I 10.5 I 37.3 I 0.28111 I 20.1 I 29.1 I 0.68920 Active network losses: 1632.2 kWh

2000

50

Next, it should be determined which branch in the loop provides highest energy loss reductions if opened. Estimates for energy loss reductions if adjacent lines to line M15-Ml6 are opened, are calculated using (12):
Open line M12 - MI6 MI4 - MI5 Estimates for energy loss reduction (kWh) 96.0 -318.3

1000

t O 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Time

Fig. A.2 Apparent load and active power loss curves for the network in the configurationwith minimum power losses at system peak

Authorized licensed use limited to: The National Institute of Engineering. Downloaded on August 24, 2009 at 02:36 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

406
S (kVA)
8ooo

AP ( k W

REFERENCES
[l] M. E. Baran, and F. F. Wu, "Network Reconfiguration In Distribution Systems For Loss Reduction And Load Balancing," IEEE Trans on PWRD, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 1401-1407, April 1989. [2] C. S. Chen, and M. Y. Cho, "Determination of Critical Switches in Distribution Systems," IEEE Trans. on PWRD, Vol. 7, NO. 3, pp. 1443-1449, July 1992. [3] S. Civanlar, J. J. Grainger, H. Yin, and S. S. H. Lee, "Distribution Feeder Reconfiguration For Loss Reduction," IEEE Trans on PWRD, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 1217-1223, July 1988. [4] D. Shirmohammadi, and H. W. Hong, "Reconfiguration Of Electric Distribution Networks For Resistive Line Losses Reduction," IEEE Trans on PWRD, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 14921498, April 1989. [5] C-C. Liu, S. J. Lee, and K. Vu, "Loss Minimization Of Distribution Feeders: Optimality And Algorithm," IEEE Trans. on PWRD, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 1281-1289,April 1989. [6] S. K. Goswami, and S. K. Basu, "A New Algorithm For The Reconfiguration Of Distribution Feeders For Loss Minimization," IEEE Trans. on PWRD, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 1484-1491, July 1992. [7] R. E. Lee, and C. L. Brooks, "A Method And Its Application To Evaluate Automated Distribution Control," IEEE Trans on PWRD, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 1232-1240, October 1988. [XI R. P. Broadwater, A. H. Khan,H. E. Shaalan, and R. E. Lee, "Time Varying Load Analysis To Reduce Distribution Losses Through Reconfiguration," IEEE Trans on PWRLI, Vol. 8, NO. 1, pp. 294-300, January 1993. [9] C. S. Chen, and M. Y. Cho, "Energy Loss Reduction by Critical Switches," IEEE Trans on PWRD, Vol. 8 , No. 3, pp. 1246-1253, July 1993. [lo] R. Taleski, and D. RajiCiC, "Energy Summation Method For Energy Loss Computation In Radial Distribution Networks," Paper no. 95SM601-5 PWRS presented at the EEEPES 1995 Summer Meeting, Portland, OR, July 23-27, 1995. [ 111 A. L. Shenkman, "Energy Loss Computation By Using Statistical Techniques," IEEE Trans on PWRD, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 254-258, January 1990.

S,,=7247.5

WA

T 2oo

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Time Fig A 3 Apparent load and active power loss curves for the network in the configuration with minimum energy losses kW, kvar 4000 T

Line M-M6

3000

2000

1000

-P
0 - 9 :
, / # : I /

-Q
8 I 8 ; 8 : # I
> l , I >
: I /

10 12 14

16 18 20

22 24

Time Fig A 4 Load curves for the most loaded branch in the network in the configuration with minimum power losses kW, kvar
4000

Line M-M6

Rubin Taleski ( M'90) was born in 1957. He received his B.S. and M.S. degrees, both in Electrical Engineering, from the University "Sv. Kiril i Metodij" in Skopje in 1980 and 1990, respectively. During the period 1981-1987 he worked at the Institute for Energy in Skopje. In 1987 he joined the Faculty of Electrical Engineering in Skopje, and presently he is a teaching assistant in Power Systems at the same University. His subjects of interest are computer applications in power and distribution system analysis.
Drugoslav Rujicic (M '86) was born in 1935. He received his B.S. from University "Sv. Kiril i Metodij" in Skopje and M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Belgrade, all in Electrical Engineering. Presently he is a Professor at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering at the University "Sv. Kiril i Metodij" in Skopje. His current area of interest is analysis of transmission and distribution systems.

07-3

P
:
'

-Q
: ' I , I 10 12 14 Time
,

'

'

: I 16 18 20 22 24
I , ~,

Fig. A.5 Load curves for the most loaded branch in the network in the configuration with minimum energy losses