IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Volume 3, No.

3, July 1988

1217

DISTRIBUTION FEEDER RECONFIGURATION FOR

LOSS REDUCTION
S. Civanlar
Member, IEEE

J.J. Grainger
Snior Member, IEEE
Non-Member

H. Yin

Electric Power Research Center

School of Engineering
North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC
27695-7911

S.S.H. Lee
Snior Member, IEEE
Carolina Power & Light Company
Raleigh, NC 27602

Abstract
Feeder reconfiguration is defined as altering the topological structures
of distribution feeders by changing the open/closed states of the
sectionalizing and tie switches. In this paper, a scheme is presented which
utilizes feeder reconfiguration as a planning and/or real-time control tool in
order to restructure the primary feeders for loss reduction. The mathematical
foundation of the scheme is given; the solution procedure is illustrated on
simple examples.
INTRODUCTION
The explosive growth in the reas of micro- and mini-computers,
microprocessors
and
telecommunications
technolo-gies
provides
opportunities for advanced control of electric power systems, particularly in
the rea of distribution system automation. Prototype distribution automation
systems are currently being developed and tested on a small-scale basis using
the presently available data acquisition system [1-4]. Intensified research,
development and demonstration efforts are now being directed towards the
hardware and software to sup-port large-scale distribution automation
schemes for system-wide implementation by the electric utility industry.
Three of the current distribution automation projects are at

Consequently, the peak loads on substation transformers, on individual

feeders, or on feeder sections occur at different times (noncoincidence of
peaks). Feeder reconfiguration allows the transfer of loads from heavily
loaded feeders (or transformers) to relatively less heavily loaded feeders (or
transformers). Such transfers are effective not only in terms of altering the
level of loads on the feeders being switched, but also in improving the voltage
profile along the feeders and effecting reductions in the overall system power
losses. Studies and experiments on feeder reconfiguration are ongoing in
many utilities and some of the recent publications reflecting these efforts are
usted in the refer-ences [5-11].
This paper discusses the problem of reducing power losses in
distribution feeders via feeder reconfiguration. A scheme for determining the
open/closed states of the tie and sectionalizing switches to achieve loss
reduction is presented. While the scope of the feeder reconfiguration problem
discussed here is limited to the discussion of losses, the results developed
provide significant insight into useful characteristics associated with the
modeling and properties of related feeder reconfiguration problem.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, North Carolina (under

Electric Power Research Institute sponsorship).

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Knoxville, Tennessee (under U.S.

Department of Energy sponsorship).

Texas Electric Service Company, Dallas, Texas (under Electric Power

Research Institute sponsorship).

Feeder reconfiguration is performed by opening/closing two types of

switches, tie and sectionalizing switches. A whole feeder, or part of a feeder,
may be served from another feeder by closing a tie switch linking the two
while an appropriate sectionalizing switch must be opened to maintain radial
structures.

Distribution feeder reconfiguration can be used as a planning tool as

well as a real-time control tool. Modifying the radial structure of the
distribution feeders from time to time, by changing the open/closed states of
the switches to transfer loads from one feeder to another, may significantly
improve the operating conditions of the overall system. Each feeder in a
distribution system has a different mixture of commercial, residential and
industrial type loads, and it is well known that the daily load variations of
these load types are dissimilar.

In the context of loss reduction, the problem to be addressed in this

paper is to identify tie and sectionalizing switches that should be closed and
opened, respectively, to achieve a mximum reduction in losses.
Conceptually, it is a straightforward matter to determine whether the new
system obtained through a feeder reconfiguration would incur lower losses.
The change in losses can easily be computed from the results of two load
flow studies simulating the system configurations before and after the feeder
reconfiguration.

87 WM 140-7
A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Transmission and Distribution Committee of the IEEE Power
Engineering Society for presenta-tion at the IEEE/PES 1987 Winter
Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 1-6, 1987. Manuscript
submit-ted August 29, 1986; made available for printing November 13,
1986.

However, even for a distribution system of modrate sze such as the

one shown in Figure 1, the number of switching options is so great that
conducting many load-flow studies for all the possible options becomes not
only extremely inefficient from a computational standpoint, but also
impractical as a real-time feeder reconfiguration strategy.

0885-8977/88/0700-1217$01.00 1988 IEEE

1218

The problem in question is now illustrated using the three-feeder distribution system shown in Figure 2. The dotted branches, 15, 21 and 26, represent ties
connecting feeders, and normally open tie switches are assumed to be present on these branches.
For notational convenience, these tie switches will be identified by the corresponding tie numbers. Without loss of generality, and mindful of the practical
situation, let us assume for ease of explanation that there are sectionalizing switches on every branch of the system. All thirteen sectionalizing switches will also
be identified by the corresponding branch numbers.
The load at bus 11 can be transferred to Feeder-I by closing the tie switch 15 and opening the sectionalizing switch 19. Similarly, the loads at buses 9, 11
and 12 can be transferred to Feeder-I by closing the tie switch 15 and opening the sectionalizing switch 18. Throughout this paper, we will focus our discussion
on feeder reconfiguration by closing a single tie switch and opening a single sectionalizing switch to preserve radiality of the two feeders that are under
consideraron. The combined pair consisting of a tie and a sectionalizing switch will be referred to as a switching option. While the successive application of the
proposed scheme could handle the case of mltiple switching operations in which severa! tie and sec tionalizing switches are simultaneously closed and/or
opened, the detailed implementation is beyond the scope of this paper, and will not be further discussed here.
It can be easily verified that there are fifteen feasible

switching options for the example system. Actually, the total number of switching options is much larger than fifteen; but some of those which cause isolation of
part of a feeder are directly eliminated. As noted earlier, the best switching option could be selected from the results of thirty load-fiow studies simulating all
fifteen possible feeder configurations.

DESIRABLE FEATURES OF SOLUTION METHOD

In light of the dimensionality concerns addressed above, it appears that a desirable solution method should provide the following two features: (i)
capability to estimate with minimal computational efforts the change in losses resulting from feeder reconfiguration and (i) criteria that may be used to elimnate
undesirable switching options in order to alleviate the dimensionality problem. It will be seen that the formula developed in this paper for estimating the change
in losses requires little additional information over the base case (i.e. prior to feeder reconfiguration) load-fiow solution. Furthermore, the formula suggests a
flltering mechanism for eliminating those switching options which would not yield loss reduction.
The primary objective in deriving the expression for power loss reduction via load transfer is to determine (i) whether a specified switching option would
result in a loss increase or decrease, and (ii) among the candidate switching options, which option would yield the greatest reduction in losses. In other words,
relative rather than absolute accuracy is sought here.

1219
ESTIMATION OF LOSS CHANGE
The amount of loss change resulting from transferring a group of loads
from Feeder-II to Feeder-I can be estimated from the following simple
where
D
m
n
I,

equation:

set of buses which are disconnected from Feeder-II and

connected to Feeder- I
tie bus of Feeder-I to which loads from Feeder-II will be
connected
tie bus of Feeder-II that will be connected to bus m via
a tie switch
complex bus current at bus i
series resistance of the path connecting the two substation buses of Feeder- I and Feeder-II via closure of the
specified tie switch (see the example given below)
component of E = Rgus^BUS corresponding to bus m.
Rgug is the "bus resistance matrix" of Feeder-I before
the load transfer which is found using the substation
bus as reference. Igjs ls ^ne vector of bus currents for
Feeder-I
En
similar to Em but defined for bus n of Feeder-II.
Re{.}, *,|J

real part, complex conjgate, and magnitude operators,

respectively. It is to be noted that Em and En are computed using
base-case bus currents 7, before the load transfer. It is suggested to
incorprate the effects of capacitors into bus currents to faciltate
computational efficiency. The derivation of Eq.(l) is pro-vided in the

Figure 2 Three-feeder example system

Tabie 1 Data ofthe three-feeder example system

Appendix from which it is apparent that AP represents a kw loss reduction
(increase) when it is negative (positive).

Bus to
Bus

Section
Resistance
(P.U)

1-4
4-5
4-8
6-7
2-8
8-9
8-10
9-11
9-12
3-13
13-14
13-15
15-16
5-11
10-14
7-16

0075
0.08
0.09
0.04
0.11
0.08
0 11
0.11
008
0.11
009
0.08
0 04
0.04
0.04
0.09

Section
Reactance
(P.U)
0.1
0.11
0.18
004
0.11
0 11
0 11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.04
004
0.04
0.12

Bnd Bus
Load
(MW)
20
30
20
1.5
40
5.0
10
0.6
4.5
10
1.0
10
21

End Bus
Load
(MVAR)
1.6
1.5
0.8
1.2
2.7
3.0
09
0.1
2.0
09
0.7
0.9
10

End Bus
Capacitor
(MVAR)
1.1
1.2

1.2
0.6
3.7
1.8
18

End Bus
Voltaje (P.U)
0.9S1/-0.370
0.988/-0.544
0.986/-0.697
0.985/-0.704
0.979/-0.763
0.971/-1.451
0.977/-0.770
0.971/-1 525
0.969/-1.836
0.994/-0.332
0.996/0.459
0.992/-0.627
0.991/-0.596

(I) Suppose the load at bus 11 is transferred from Feeder-II to Feeder-I by

closing the tie line switch 15 and opening the sectionalizing switch 19.
In this case, D={11}, m = 5, n = ll, and

where Roop is the total resistance of the path along the branches
11,12,15,19,18 and 16. (II) Suppose the loads at buses 9, 11 and 12 are
transferred from Feeder-II to Feeder-I by closing tie switch 15 and opening
sectionalizing switch 18. In this case, D = {9,11,12}, m=5, n = ll and

Example:

where i?;00 is the same as above.

The second term on the right-hand side of Eq.(l) is always positive.
Therefore, a reduction in losses cannot be achieved unless the first term
becomes significantly negative. Since complex vales are dealt within the
first term, it may not be simple to draw any definite conclusions. However,
we note that voltage phase-angle differences are small on most distribution
systems, and that complex bus currents /, may be mostly in phase with
voltage phasors due to capacitor VAR compensation on well designed
systems. Under these circumstances, loosely speaking, the first term becomes
negative if \Em\ < \Ej,
It follows from the above observation that loss reduction can be
attained only if there is a significant voltage difference across the normally
open tie switch and if the loads on the higher voltage drop side of the tie
switch are transferred to the other side. It will be seen that the above
observation can be used as a most attractive criterion to elimnate undesirable
switching options during the elimination process.
It is also noteworthy that in Eq.(l), information regarding E is required
only at the terminal buses where the tie switch is located, and that the
configuration of the group of loads to be transferred or the geographic extent
of the overall distribution system does not matter to the result.
STRATEGY

The use of Eq.(l) is now illustrated using the three-feeder system of Figure 2.
The simplicity of the proposed methodology makes it suit-

1220
able for an on-line control strategy for feeder loss reduction. The strategy for
selecting the best switching option is further explained via the example
system of Figure 2. Shown in Table 1 are the bus data, line data and the basecase load-flow solution. The bus voltage magnitudes and angles (in degrees)
are shown in the right-most column.
When closing the tie switch 15, flve options for opening sectionalizing
switches 11, 12, 19, 18, and 16 are available. Since \EU\ > \EB[ transferring
loads on Feeder-I to Feeder-II is expected to increase losses. Consequently,
opening the sectionalizing switch 11 or 12 is regarded as undesirable and
need not be considered. Therefore, associated with closing the tie switch 15
are three candidate options, viz., opening the sectionalizing switches 19, 18,
and 16, respectively. Similarly, since |?jj > \EU[ opening switch 22 or 24 is
considered to be undesirable when the tie switch 21 is closed. For a similar
rea-son, transferring loads on Feeder-III to Feeder-I when the tie switch 26 is
closed is expected to increase losses; consequently the corresponding
switching options are eliminated from further consideration. As a result of
this elimination process, the number of candidate options to be examined is
now eight. For each of the eight candidate switching options AP is com-puted
using Eq.(l). The result of such calculations is that closing the tie switch 21
and opening the sectionalizing switch 17 would yield the most negative
valu, ie, mximum loss reduction. Readers are encouraged to verify the
result by using a.c. load flow analysis.
Table 2 Data of the two-feeder example system
litt to
Din

Srcllon
1
llpflinlnnce

_!'-J
A-5
5-1
4-3

2_____
2-1
1-1
1-2
2-3

0.075
0.08
0.0
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.1
0.11

Sfctlun
llrnclance
(l'.U)
0.1

o.u

0.12
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.1
(III

3'-4'
4-5

0.09
0.055

0.12
0.11

5-U

0.10

0.10

tumi Hiifl
l.fmd
(MW)
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.6
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.5
3.0
2.5

liml 1)119
lml Mus
V.>llanc
l,ml
(MVAll)
0.6
0.99/-0.4UU
1.3
0.1)82/0.750
0.5
0.977/01)87
0.3
U.97O/-1.O20
0.1
0.97/-1.033
_____0.2_____ 0.970/1.444
0.2
0.1)7 i/-l.385
0.0
0.975/-1.255
0.4
0.9

0.981/0.949
0.987/0.473
1.000/ 0.000

The accuracy of Eq.(l) compared to a load-flow study has been tested

on typical systems. For example, shown in Figure 3.a is one of those test
systems which has two radial feeders served from two substations where a
sectionalizing switch is assumed on every section of the feeder. The feeder
data of this example is given in Table 2. Shown in Figure 3.b are the total
system power losses computed using Eq.(l) and also computed using an a.c.
load-flow. In both cases the successive opening of the variably located switch
is considered when switch 1 1 is closed. In this example, concentrated
constant P,Q load representaron is assumed at each node for the load-flow
study. As can be seen from Figure 3.b, the deviation in the computa-tions is
almost negligible for the open switches cise to the tie switch, as expected.
On the other hand, it increases as the amount of transferred load increases.
However, for the practical cases, the accuracy of the the loss computation
using Eq.(l) is adequate.
SPBCIAL CASES
For an ideal distribution system with perfect VAR com-pensation, all
the variables in Eq.(l) assume real vales, since

Figure 3 The two-feeder example system

(a) System diagram
(b) Power losses versus open-swch location
there is negligible reactive current flow. Consequently, Eq.(l) becomes

When a switch is closed, it is obvious that the sectionalizing switch

to be opened must be along the shortest path from the tie buses to
the corresponding substations as indicated by the solid lines in
Figure 4.a. For a well compensated system, Eq.(2) reveis that the
switch to be opened for minimum losses can be directly found using
the unimodal nature of AP. In order to explain this fact, consider
that the switch to be opened is at dis-tance x from the tie bus n
along the shortest path. Then Eq.(2) assumes the form
where I(x) of Figure 4.b is the the current distribution along the
shortest path. Because of the quadratic nature of AP, it can be
shown that the switch to be opened is that which causes I(x) to most
closely satisfy

To Ilstrate, consider again transferring some loads on

Feeder-II to Feeder-I. Suppose that the projection of the valu ( En
Em)/ R\oop falls on the bus (n-1), as indicated in Figure 4.b. Now a
decisin has to be made whether to open section (n,n 1) or (n
l,n 2). The optimal strategy for mximum loss reduction is to
open the section (n-l,n-2) if Ai < A2 or to

1221

open the section (n,n-l) if Aj >A 2. Since AP is positive if Em >En,

the alternative switching options along one feeder are directly
eliminated.

reconfiguration is yet to be accomplished. The technique presented in this

paper is basically load-flow-based and, henee, shows promising flexibility
that will allow its ready incorpora-tion into the overall feeder reconfiguration
strategy.

It can be also shown that the minimum valu of AP attainable

by the closure of the tie switch between buses m and n is

and this can be used in determining the switch to open.

Very often in distribution research, an assumption is made that load is
uniformly distributed throughout a single radial feeder having no laterals. In
such cases, the optimal location for the switch to be opened for minimal
losses is found directly from Eq.(4) as xopt = (En Em) /(d Roop) where d is
the current density of the uniformly distributed load. The extensin of the
above results to the combined case of concentrated and/or continuously (but
not necessarily uniformly) distributed loads should be immediate.
Figure 4 () Notation on a two-feeder system (b) The
current distribution I(x)

ACKNWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided for
this research by the industrial members of the Electric Power Research
Center, an industry/university cooperative research center at North Carolina
State University.
REFERENCES
[I]

"Bibliography on Distribution Automation" IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus & Systems, June 1984, pp.
1176-1182

[2] P.C. Lyons, S.A. Thomas, "Microprocessor Based Control of Distribution

Systems," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus & Systems,
December 1981, pp.4893-4899
[3] J.B. Bunch, L.A Demian, H.J. Fiedler,"A Distribution Automation
Evaluation Using Digital Techniques," IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus & Systems, 1985, pp 3169-3175
[4] S.L. Purucker, T.W. Reddoch, J.S. Detwiler, L.D. Monteen, "The Design
of an Integrated Distribution Control System," IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus & Systems, March 1985, pp.745-752
[5] D.W. Ross, J. Patton, A.I. Cohn, M.Carson, "New Method For
Evaluating Distribution Automation and Control (DAC) Systems
Benefits," IEEE Transad tons on Power Apparatus & Systems, June
1981, pp.2978-2986
[6]

B.W. McConnell,T.W. Reddoch,S.L. Purucker.L.D. Monteen,

"Distribution Energy Control Center Experiment," IEEE Transactions
on Power Apparatus & Systems, June 1983, pp. 1582-1589

[7) L.V. McCall, B.J. Chamber, "Defining A Distribution System For

Computer-Controlled Distribution Automation," IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus & Systems, August 1983, pp. 2665-2669
[8] J.R. Redmon, C.H. Gentz, "Affect of Distribution Automation and
Control on Future System Configuration," IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus & Systems, April 1981
[9] C.H. Castro, J.B. Bunch, T.M.Topka,"Generalized Algo-rithms for
Distribution Feeder Deployment and Sectional-izing," IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus & Systems, March 1980, pp. 549557
[10] ORNL report DE-AC05-840R21400, 1985
[II]
CONCLUSIONS
This paper addresses, the problem of feeder reconfiguration in the
context of feeder loss reduction. Compu-tationl complexity arising from the
large dimensionality of the problem is identified and a criterion is developed
for reducing the number of candidate options. Also developed is an interesting and simple-to-use formula which removes the need to con-duct numerous
load flow studies thereby significantly reducing the computational
requirements. Special situations are con-sidered under restricted assumptions
to reveal the interesting characteristics associated with the loss minimization
problem. The task of coordinating the scheme developed here and other
related control strategies to attain full benefits from feeder

Aoki K., Ichimori T., M. Kanezashi, " Normal State

Optimal Allocation in Distribution Systems," Presented in
the IEEE Winter Power Meeting 1986, New York
APPENDDC

A. Change in Power Loss after a Load Transfer:

Let us suppose that Feeder-A, which is tree structured as
shown in Figure A.I.a, has bus currents Ilt J2, .........................,In. The vec
tor of these bus currents is represented as

1222
To determine the additional losses incurred on the original Feeder-A resulting
from the addition of new loads, as shown in Figure A.l.b, only the total
additional load current I% at bus k needs to be considered. Therefore, the
vector of bus currents after the addition of new loads is represented as

The power loss on Feeder-A before the load addition is,

where Rbul is the real part of the bus impedance matrix of Feeder-A. The
power loss on the original Feeder-A after the load addition is

From Eqs.(A.3) and (A.4) the change in power loss on Feeder-A due to the load
addition is

Representing / as

Figure A.l Representaban of Feeder-A (a) before

the load transfer (b) after the load transfer

where
and substituting Eqs.(A.6), (A.7) and (A.4) into Eq.(A.5), it can be shown that

One can easily note that the term 2 R>us (^>i) A 's ^he vol; = i tage drop between bus k and
the substation assuming a purely resistive equivalent feeder. Denoting this
voltagedrop as

Eq.(A.8) can be rewritten as

The resistances of the sections along the shortest paths as indi-cated in Figure
B.l are represented by Rj, j = 1,2,... and Rj, j' = l,2,.... The voltage drop E2 can
be computed from

Here Rbu! corresponds to Rbu of Feeder-A of Figure B.l.b whereas Rbu

corresponds to that of Feeder-B of Figure B.l.a. The change in power loss for
the transferred feeder section which is shown with dashed Unes in Figure B.l
is

Here Rbut (k,k) corresponds to the total resistance of the shortest path between
bus k and the substation.
B. Derivation of Eq.(l):
The proof is made by induction in three steps as follows :
Step - (i) : Prove that Eq.(l) is valid for transferring the lateral that carries a
total current of Ix connected to the tie bus 1 shown in Figure B.l.a from
Feeder-A to Feeder-B, i.e.

where R0 is the resistance of the normally-open branch (1,1 ). The total power
loss will then be

Using the following identities

where Ey E^ are the voltages of the tie buses, computed using Eq.(A.9), and
Roop is already defined in the main text. Using Eq.(A.lO) the changes in
power losses on Feeder-A and Feeder-B (See Figure B.l) are
and substituting Eqs. (B.4), (B.9) and (B.10) into Eq. (B.2), it can be shown
that
Also substituting Eq.(B.5) into Eq.(B.3) the following is obtained
and
where
Finally, from Eqs. (B.7), (B.ll) and (B.12)

where

Substituting Eqs.(B.18) and (B.19) into Eq.(B.17), 8P can be found as

Step - (ii) : Assume that Eq.(l) is valid for opening the switch on
section l of Figure B.l to transfer the parts of the Feeder-A to
Feeder-B, i.e.

Upon substituting Eqs. (B.20) and (B.15) into Eq.(B.16), it can be

readily verified that the resulting AP(/ + 1) is that of Eq.(l) applied to
Figure B.l when the ( / + 1 ) ,( switch is opened. This completes the
proof by induction.

where 7; represents the total current at the j th lateral along the

shortest path between bus 1 and the substation of Feeder-A.
Discussion
A. Fabio M. M. De Lima (Electrical Engineer, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil):
Contributions to power loss reduction are strongly welcomed. This elegant and
well-written paper fulfills our expectation, offering a strategy to perform
optimum feeder reconfiguration for loss reduction, with minimized
computational effort. I have the foliowing questions to the authors.
1) What were the adopted base vales (V-base, S-base) for the data shown
in Table I and Table 2?
2) Considering the three-feeder example system, and other real exam-ples,
what was the accuracy of the loss computation using Eq. (1), compared to
exact ac load flow analysis?
3) Should not the solution indicated by Eq. (1) be verified in respect to
voltage drop and conductor current restrictions?
I congratlate the authors for their didactic and mathematically rigorous
paper.
Manuscript received February 26, 1987.

Step - (iii) : Now, we will prove that Eq.(l) is valid when the (/+ 1)
th switch is opened. Let us first write
where SP is the incremental change in losses resulting from
transferring the parts of the Feeder-A between switches / and ( + 1)
to Feeder-B, to which laterals 1,2,...,1 has already been transferred
(See Figure B.l). From Eq.(B.l)

S. Civanlar, J. J. Grainger, Y. Yin, and S. S. H. Lee: We would like to thank

the many discussers of the paper following its presentation at the Winter
Meeting in New Orleans. We especially appreciate the comments and very
pertinent questions which Mr. De Lima has submitted. The data in Tables 1
and 2 were developed to Ilstrate the procedure presented in the paper. While
the two example systems do not necessarily represent existing feeders, we tried
to pick realistic vales. The base chosen for our study analysis is 100 MVA, 23
kV. As far as the accuracy of the loss change estimation formula is concerned,
we would like to point out that the development of Eq. (1) is conceptually
based on a linear approximation around the base-case operating point.
Therefore, for any specified point, the accuracy depends upon the amount of
deviation from the base-case valu, as depicted by solid and dotted lines in
Fig. 3. It is also seen in Fig. 3 that in general, Eq. (1) slightly underestimates
the amount of loss change when compared with the valu calculated by an ac
load flow analysis. Finally, as indicated by the discusser, any overload
condition of facilities or abnormal voltage profile resulting from a load transfer
should be examined and avoided. In principie, a load transfer that would
reduce feeder losses is believed to improve the feeder voltage profile as well
under most circumstances.
Manuscript received April 2, 1987.

where En + l), E are the resistive voltage drops between the

substation and the buses (1+1) and 1 before lateral (1+1) is
transferred to Feeder-B. It can be easily shown that

and