See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/310772738

Exact Transmission Power Losses Calculation and Allocation Method

Conference Paper · September 2008

CITATIONS READS

0 541

2 authors:

Mirza Kusljugic Alija Mujcinagic

University of Tuzla State Electricity Regulatory Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina
19 PUBLICATIONS   109 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wind Energy Conversion Systems View project

Power Systems Dynamics Analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alija Mujcinagic on 24 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Exact Transmission Power Losses Calculation and Allocation Method
Mirza Kušljugić
University of Tuzla, Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
mirza.kusljugic@untz.ba
ABSTRACT: An Exact Transmission Power Losses
Calculation and a novel Losses Allocation Method is
presented in the paper. The exact calculation of the active
power transmission loss provides information regarding its
dependence on the injected active and reactive powers. The
proposed loss calculation and the allocation method are Z-
bus based procedures and use data of bus voltage phasors
and power injections from the solution obtained from AC
power flow calculation. The proposed allocation method is
compared with the other commonly used methods: pro rata,
proportional sharing and incremental transmission loss
methods. In order to make a consistent comparison among
the methods a modification of proportional sharing method,
which allocates transmission losses both to generators and
loads, has been used. WSCC-9 and modified IEEE-14 test
systems are used for comparison of the methods. Bosnia
and Herzegovina electric power system load flow
calculations are used to demonstrate applicability of the
proposed method on a real system.
Keywords— Transmission network, losses calculation and
allocation, power market.
1. INTRODUCTION
Due to introduction of competition in the electricity sector,
the transmission network presents essential infrastructure
for the wholesale electricity market. In real-time operation
consumer meters measure their actual energy consumptions
while at the same time generator meters measure their
actual productions, which equal the consumption of
customers plus network losses. This equality expressed in
terms of power is defined by:
PG = PL + Plosses (1)
where:
PG – generators’ production
PL – consumers’ load
Plosses – transmission network active power losses
The key issue arising from (1) is “who should pay for the
network losses (Plosses)”. As the transmission network is
essential for all market participants, it is “fair” that losses
should be paid by both generators and loads.
Alija Mujčinagić
State Electricity Regulatory Commission
Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
amujcinagic@derk.ba
Before the introduction of competition the issue of loss
allocation was of a limited and mostly academic interest
since all of the power was generated, distributed and
delivered to consumers by the same utility company. Since
transmission losses are worth substantial amount of money,
in the market environment it has become very important to
allocate transmission losses in a fair and transparent
manner. Each market participant claims satisfactory
allocation of losses as accurately as possible. Loss
allocation methods should also provide clear market signals
for short term operation and long term expansion planning
of power system.
2. LOSS ALLOCATION METHODS
Loss allocation is a procedure for subdividing the system
transmission losses into fractions, the cost of which
becomes the responsibility of individual users of the power
systems.
A number of allocation schemes have been proposed to
allocate the system losses to generators/loads in a pool
market or to individual transactions in a bilateral contract
market. These methodologies can be divided into two
groups: those that allocate the transmission losses to the
buses (generators and loads) of the system and those that
allocate them among the individual bilateral transactions.
This paper focuses on the comparison of methods that have
been reported in the technical literature, namely pro rata
(PR), proportional sharing (PS) and incremental
transmission loss (ITL) procedures and the new one named
“exact losses allocation” method, proposed by the authors.
PR method is simple to understand and implement. It is
based on a comparison of the level of power generated or
consumed by specific generator or load to the total power
generated or delivered in the system. It causes that losses
are distributed across all buses only according to their level
of generation or consumption. Pro rata is unable to trace
power flows due to its independency of network topology.
PS method [1] is based on a topological tracing procedure
which is capable to trace electricity upstream from loads to
generators or downstream form generators to loads.
The method relies on a simple principle: losses associated
with every line whose flow enters a given bus are
transferred to the lines whose flows leave the bus,
proportionally to the flows of those lines (the flows of
which leave the bus).The shortage of PS method is that the
distribution of power flows is based on assumption of the
proportional sharing principle. This principle is neither
provable nor disprovable. ITL methodologies use the
sensitivities of losses to bus injections to allocate the losses
to generators and loads [2]. It is therefore location sensitive
approach. The ITL methods depend on the selection of the
slack bus and also no losses are allocated to the slack bus.
The ITL methods allocated approximately twice the exact
amount of the total losses to market participants.
3. EXACT LOSS CALCULATION

In this paper an exact loss calculation formula, proposed in

[3] is used. Total system losses for n-bus network could be
calculated as:
S L = V1I1* + V2 I 2* + ... + Vn I n* (2)
Equation (2) is net sum of all the real and reactive power
entering and leaving the buses of the network:
n
SL = ∑V I
i =1
*
i i (3)
Figure 1. Phasor projection of Vi and Ii
If bus voltages are expressed in matrix form:
[V ] = [Z bus ][I ] (4) I i = I xi + jI yi and I j = I xj + jI yj (12,13)
where: ⎧ n ⎛ n ⎞⎫⎪
⎪
[V]- bus voltages’ matrix
[I] – bus injected currents’ matrix ⎪⎩ i =1
∑
PL = Re ⎨ ( I xi − jI yi )⎜
⎜ ∑ Rij ( I xj + jI yj ) ⎟⎬
⎟
(14)
⎝ j =1 ⎠⎪⎭
[Zbus] – network Z-bus matrix n n

Equation (3), using equation (4), could be written as:

PL = ∑ ∑ R (I
i =1 j =1
ij xi I xj + I yi I yj ) (15)
n n
SL = ∑ ∑Z
i =1
I i*
j =1
ij I j (5) Acording to Figure 1, nodal power injections Pi , Qi can be
expressed as :
Since SL represents the complex power loss of the system ⎧ Pi = Vi I xi cos θ i + Vi I yi sin θ i
⎪
the active power loss can be expressed as the real part of ⎨ (16)
(5): ⎪Q = V I sin θ − V I cos θ
PL = Re{S L } (6) ⎩ i i xi i i yi i

The bus current injections components then can be derived

or as:
as:
⎧ n ⎛ n ⎞⎫⎪
⎪ ⎧ I xi = (Pi cos θ i + Qi sin θ i ) / Vi
∑ ∑
PL = Re⎨ I i* ⎜
⎜
⎪⎩ i =1 ⎝ j =1
Z ij I j ⎟⎬
⎟
(7) ⎪
⎠⎪⎭ ⎨ (17)
[Zbus] matrix consist of real and imaginary parts: ⎪ I = (P sin θ − Q cos θ ) / V
⎩ yi i i i i i
⎡ R11 R12 K R1n ⎤ ⎡ X 11 X 12 K X 1n ⎤
⎢R R22 K R2 n ⎥⎥ ⎢X X 22 K X 2 n ⎥⎥ (8)
Z = R + jX = ⎢ 21 + j ⎢ 21 Substituting Ixi and Iyi from (17) in (15) results in the
⎢ M M O M ⎥ ⎢ M M O M ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ following exact loss formula:
⎣ Rn 2 Rn 2 L Rnn ⎦ ⎣ X n2 X n2 L X nn ⎦ n n
Rij
PL = ∑∑ V V (
( Pi cosθ i + Qi sin θ i ) Pj cosθ j + Q j sin θ j )
i j
Thus relation (7) can be further developed as: i =1 j =1 (18)
n n
Rij
⎧ n
⎪ ⎛ n ⎞⎫⎪ ⎧ n
⎪ ⎛ n ⎞⎫⎪ + ∑∑ V V (
( Pi sin θ i − Qi cosθ i ) Pj sin θ j − Q j cosθ j )
∑ ∑
PL = Re ⎨ I i* ⎜
⎜
⎪⎩ i =1 ⎝
⎟ ∑ ∑
Rij I j ⎟⎬ + Re⎨ I i* ⎜
⎜
jX ij I j ⎟⎬
⎟
(9)
i =1 j =1 i j
j =1 ⎠⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ i =1 ⎝ j =1 ⎠⎪⎭ In (18) PL is expressed as a function of the active and
As [Zbus] matrix is a symmetric matrix the second part of reactive power injections. After arranging term (18), active
term (9) is zero and the total active power losses could be power losses can be written as the sum of three terms:
expressed according to: PL = PLPP + PLPQ + PLQQ (19)
⎧ n ⎛ n ⎞⎫⎪
⎪
∑ ∑
PL = Re⎨ I i* ⎜ Rij I j ⎟⎬
n n
Rij
⎜
⎪⎩ i =1 ⎝ j =1
⎟
⎪
(10) PLPP = ∑∑ V V ( Pi cos θ i ⋅ Pj cos θ j + Pi sin θ i ⋅ Pj sin θ j )
⎠⎭ i =1 j =1 i j
(20)
n n
If the injected current phasor Ii is represented by its real Rij
and imaginary parts and the bus voltage phasors in polar
= ∑∑ V V
i =1 j =1 i j
Pi ⋅ Pj cos θ ij
form, as is illustrated in Figure 1, the following relations n n Rij
could be developed. PLPQ = ∑∑V V i j
( Pi cos θ i ⋅ Q j sin θ j + Qi sin θ i ⋅ P j cos θ j )
(21)
⎡ I x1 ⎤ ⎡ I y1 ⎤ i =1 j =1

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ n n Rij
⎢ I x2 ⎥ ⎢I y2 ⎥ − ∑∑V V ( Pi sin θ i ⋅ Q j cos θ j + Qi cos θ i ⋅ P j sin θ j )
I = I x + jI y = + j⎢ ⎥ (11) i =1 j =1 i j
⎢ M ⎥ M
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ n n
R
⎣⎢ I xn ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ I yn ⎥⎦ PLQQ = ∑∑ ViVij j (Qi sin θi ⋅ Q j sin θ j + Qi cos θi ⋅ Q j cos θ j )
i =1 j =1 (22)
n n
Rij
= ∑∑ ViV j Qi ⋅ Q j cos θij
i =1 j =1

2
The terms PLPP and PLQQ present the loss components From the network data in Table 1 [Y] matrix and [Z]=[Y]-1
dependent on the active and the reactive power injections matrix are calculated. For WSCC-9 test system the real part
respectively, while PLPQ may be considered to represent the of [Z] matrix, the matrix [R], has the following value:
losses induced by the interactions among the active and the
reactive power injections. For real power systems in ⎡ 0.0103 - 0.0046 - 0.0061 0.0103 0.0053 0.0032 - 0.0046 - 0.0060 - 0.0061 ⎤
⎢ - 0.0046 0.0089 0.0001 - 0.0046 - 0.0029 - 0.0056 0.0089 0.0047 0.0001 ⎥⎥
majority of operating states PLPP is the dominant component ⎢
⎢ - 0.0061 0.0001 0.0096 - 0.0061 - 0.0058 - 0.0037 0.0001 0.0035 0.0096 ⎥
of the total system loss contributing between 70 and 100 %. ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.0103 - 0.0046 - 0.0061 0.0103 0.0053 0.0032 - 0.0046 - 0.0060 - 0.0061⎥
[R] = ⎢ 0.0053 - 0.0029 - 0.0058 0.0053 0.0099 - 0.0004 - 0.0029 - 0.0048 - 0.0058⎥
4. CASE STUDY – WSCC-9 ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.0032 - 0.0056 - 0.0037 0.0032 - 0.0004 0.0111 - 0.0056 - 0.0055 - 0.0037⎥
⎢ - 0.0046 0.0089 0.0001 - 0.0046 - 0.0029 - 0.0056 0.0089 0.0047 0.0001 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
A Western System Coordination Council (WSCC) 9-bus ⎢ - 0.0060 0.0047 0.0035 - 0.0060 - 0.0048 - 0.0055 0.0047 0.0086 0.0035 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
system is used to illustrate application and evaluate ⎣ - 0.0061 0.0001 0.0096 - 0.0061 - 0.0058 - 0.0037 0.0001 0.0035 0.0096 ⎦
characteristics of the proposed method. The test system
parameters and topology are shown in Table 1 and The matrix [R] contains elements which reflect the effect
Figure 2. of electrical distances between buses on the total system
loss. Therefore for a fixed topology [Z] matrix has a
constant value.
Using terms (20), (21) and (22) the structure of the total
loss is calculated. For the WSCC-9 test system the loss
structure is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Total active power loss structure for WSCC-9 test system
[p.u.] [MW] [%]
PLPP 0,0466 4,66 100,43 %
PLPQ -0.0016 -0,16 -3,44%
PLQQ 0.0014 0,14 3,017 %
PL 0.0464 4,64 100,00 %

Loss structure could be used to determine which

components of the total loss should be used for the
allocation procedure. For majority of power systems it is
Figure 2. WSCC-9 bus system sufficient to use only PLPP component (i.e. when this
component contributes more than 90% of the total loss).
Table 1. WSCC-9 topology data
From bus To bus R (p.u.) X (p.u.) B (p.u.) 5. EXACT LOSS ALLOCATION METHOD
1 4 0.000 0.0576 0.000
2 7 0.000 0.0625 0.000
3 9 0.000 0.0586 0.000 The proposed version of the „exact loss alocation“ method
4 5 0.0100 0.0850 0.0880 is directly derived from the loss formula for the PLPP
4 6 0.0170 0.0920 0.0790 component :
5 7 0.0320 0.1610 0.1530 ⎡ R11 R1n ⎤
6 9 0.0390 0.1700 0.1790 ⎢ P1 ⋅ P1 cos θ11 L P1 ⋅ Pn cos θ1n ⎥
V
⎢ 11V V 1Vn ⎥ (23)
[ ]
7 8 0.0085 0.0720 0.0745
8 9 0.0119 0.1008 0.1045 PLPP = ⎢ M O M ⎥
⎢ R Rnn ⎥
⎢ n1 P ⋅ P cos θ L Pn ⋅ Pn cos θ nn ⎥
⎢ VnV 1 n 1 n1 VnVn ⎥
The results of power flow solution are shown in Table 2. ⎣ ⎦
The authors used MATLAB–PSAT tool to solve power
flows. [PLPP] presents a simetric matrix. In [3] the derived loss
formula for PLPP was used to develop an allocation method
Table 2. WSCC-9 power flow solution results
Bus V phase P gen Q gen P load Q load for bilateral transactions market.
[p.u.] [rad] [p.u.] [p.u.] [p.u.] [p.u.] In this paper we present a bus alloocation method which
1 1,04000 0,00000 0,71641 0,27046 0,0000 0,0000 could be used for loss allocation in pool/multipools markets
2 1,02500 0,16197 1,63000 0,06654 0,0000 0,0000 as well as in combined pool/bilateral transactions markets.
3 1,02500 0,08142 0,85000 -0,10860 0,0000 0,0000 Since Bosnia and Herzegovina power market is a complex
4 1,02579 -0,03869 0,00000 0,00000 0,0000 0,0000
5 0,99563 -0,06962 0,00000 0,00000 1,2500 0,5000 multipools/bilateral transactions market the main aim of the
6 1,01265 -0,06436 0,00000 0,00000 0,9000 0,3000 proposed method has been to contribute to the ongoing
7 1,02577 0,06492 0,00000 0,00000 0,0000 0,0000 discussion regarding selection of loss allocation procedure
8 1,01588 0,01270 0,00000 0,00000 1,0000 0,3500 in such a market.
9 1,03235 0,03433 0,00000 0,00000 0,0000 0,0000
Using power flow data for the test system, presented in
Total active loss [p.u.] 0,0464 Table 2 and matrix [R] the matrix [PLPP] is calculated:
Total active power generation [p.u.] 3,1964
Total active power load [p.u.] 3,1500

3
 ⎡
⎢0,00490 -0,00500 -0,00350 0,00000
⎤
-0,00460 -0,00200 0,00000 0,00410 0,00000⎥
In order to compare ELA method to PR and PS methods
⎢ ⎥ the results of different allocation procedures applied to
⎢-0,00500 0,02250 0,00010 0,00000 0,00560 0,00770 0,00000 -0,00730 0,00000⎥
⎢-0,00350 0,00010 0,00660 0,00000 0,00600 0,00270 0,00000 -0,00290 0,00000⎥ WSCC-9 test system are presented in Table 5 and Figure 3.
⎢ ⎥
⎢0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000⎥
[PLPP] =⎢-0,00460 0,00560 0,00600 0,00000 0,01560 -0,00040 0,00000 -0,00590 0,00000⎥ Table 5. WCSS-9 test system allocation of losses using different methods
⎢ ⎥ BUS PR 100 %L PS 100% L PR 50:50 PS 50:50 ELA
⎢-0,00200 0,00770 0,00270 0,00000 -0,00040 0,00880 0,00000 -0,00480 0,00000⎥
⎢0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000⎥
1 0,000% 0,000% 11,206% 4,700% -13,175%
⎢ ⎥ 2 0,000% 0,000% 25,497% 29,550% 50,972%
⎢0,00410 -0,00730 -0,00290 0,00000 -0,00590 -0,00480 0,00000 0,00830 0,00000⎥
⎢ ⎥ 3 0,000% 0,000% 13,296% 15,702% 19,438%
⎢0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000⎥
4 0,000% 0,000% 0,000% 0,000% 0,000%
⎣ ⎦
5 39,683% 55,556% 19,841% 27,805% 35,205%
The sum of the elements of matrix [PLPP] in all the rows or 6 28,571% 33,115% 14,286% 16,574% 25,918%
all the columns is equal to the total system loss. We based 7 0,000% 0,000% 0,000% 0,000% 0,000%
our approach on assumption that the sum of the elements in 8 31,746% 11,329% 15,873% 5,670% -18,359%
the i-th row (or i-th column) of the matrix [PLPP] presents 9 0,000% 0,000% 0,000% 0,000% 0,000%
active power loss coeficient PLPPi which could be allocated SUM 100,000% 100,000% 100,000% 100,000% 100,000%
to the i-th bus according to:
n 6. CASE STUDY – MODIFIED IEEE 14 BUS
PLPPi = ∑j =1
PLPPi , j . (24)
A modified IEEE-14 bus network (with two additional
This approach is illustrated for WSCC-9 test system in generators at bus 6 and bus 8), shown in Figure 4, is used
Table 4. to compare PR, PS and ELA methods.
The generation data have been slightly changed: the power
Table 4. Loss allocation factors for WSCC-9 test system of the bus 1 is decreased for the 60 MW, while the two new
Bus Exact [p.u.] Exact [%] generators are included: at the bus 6 (30 MW) and at the
1 -0,00610 -13,17% bus 8 (30 MW).
2 0,02360 50,97% The total system load is retained at 259 MW. The results of
3 0,00900 19,44%
4 0,00000 0,00%
power flow solution are shown in Tables 6 and 7.
5 0,01630 35,21%
6 0,01200 25,92% Table 6. IEEE-14 test system power flow solution
7 0,00000 0,00% Bus V phase P gen Q gen P load Q load
8 -0,00850 -18,36% [p.u.] [rad] [p.u.] [p.u.] [p.u.] [p.u.]
9 0,00000 0,00% 1 1,060000 0,000000 1,67249 -0,079804 0,00000 0,00000
SUM 0,04630 100,00% 2 1,045000 -0,062572 0,40000 0,248073 0,21700 0,12700
3 1,010000 -0,181208 0,00000 0,188048 0,94200 0,19000
4 1,027189 -0,127660 0,00000 0,000000 0,47800 -0,03900
Since the proposed method could be used to directly 5 1,028827 -0,105160 0,00000 0,000000 0,07600 0,01600
allocate the exact value of the total loss, it is named “Exact 6 1,070000 -0,142193 0,30000 0,042672 0,11200 0,07500
Loss Allocation” (ELA) method. 7 1,065194 -0,133644 0,00000 0,000000 0,00000 0,00000
It is easy to prove that the individual bus loss coefficients, 8 1,090000 -0,088101 0,30000 0,160285 0,00000 0,00000
calculated using ELA method, when applied to PLPP and 9 1,058816 -0,166032 0,00000 0,000000 0,29500 0,16600
10 1,053242 -0,166838 0,00000 0,000000 0,09000 0,05800
PLPQ equal the half of the Marginal Loss (ML) coefficients
11 1,057915 -0,156925 0,00000 0,000000 0,03500 0,01800
and approximately the half of ITL coefficients. Since for 12 1,055495 -0,157859 0,00000 0,000000 0,06100 0,01600
majority of power systems PLPQ component can be 13 1,050677 -0,160133 0,00000 0,000000 0,13500 0,05800
neglected it is reasonable to apply ELA method using only 14 1,037273 -0,180893 0,00000 0,000000 0,14900 0,05000
[PLPP] matrix. ELA method has similar features to ML and
ITL methods, i.e. it is sensitive to network topology and Table 7. Power Flow Summary report
can allocate negative coefficients. This feature is evident TOTAL GENERATION
REAL POWER [p.u.] 2,672497445
from Table 4 since "electrically well positioned" buses REACTIVE POWER [p.u.] 0,559276286
(generator bus 1 and load bus 8) have negative loss TOTAL LOAD
allocation coefficients. REAL POWER [p.u.] 2,59
REACTIVE POWER [p.u.] 0,735
TOTAL LOSSES
REAL POWER [p.u.] 0,082497445
REACTIVE POWER [p.u.] 0,037283647

By integrating two generators (at the buses 6 and 8) closer

to the load center the total power losses have decreased
compared to the standard IEEE-14 bus model.
The results of different allocation methods, applied to
IEEE-14 test system, are presented in Table 8 and Figure 5.

Figure 3. Transmission losses allocated using the pro rata (PR) method,
the proportional sharing (PS) and “exact” (ELA) method

4
 flow, loss structure and allocation calculations are carried
for 400, 220 and 110 kV networks. The data used in this
case refer to 2006.

Figure 4. Modified IEEE-14 bus model

Table 8. Modified IEEE-14 test system allocation of losses using

different methods
Bus PR 100 % L PS 100% L PR 50:50 PS 50:50 ELA
1 0,00% 0,00% 31,29% 41,90% 50,22%
2 8,38% 3,93% 11,67% 7,73% 1,33% Figure 6. Electric power system of Bosnia and Herzegovina
3 36,37% 55,43% 18,19% 27,71% 32,44%
4 18,46% 20,48% 9,23% 10,24% 6,78% In this paper only aggregated results of the calculations
5 2,93% 2,51% 1,47% 1,26% 0,44% undertaken in [4] are presented. In the maximum load
6 4,32% 1,36% 7,77% 2,54% -0,67%
7 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
condition the network contains 244 buses and 338 lines.
8 0,00% 0,00% 5,61% 0,49% -4,32% Interaction with the neighboring systems (of Croatia,
9 11,39% 3,38% 5,69% 1,69% 4,48% Serbia and Montenegro) is included modeling power
10 3,47% 2,06% 1,74% 1,03% 1,50% exchange over the interconnection lines. The total load data
11 1,35% 0,76% 0,68% 0,38% 0,43% and corresponding losses are represented in Table 9.
12 2,36% 1,45% 1,18% 0,73% 0,82%
13 5,21% 3,65% 2,61% 1,83% 2,31%
Table 9. Total load and losses data for BH power system
14 5,75% 4,97% 2,88% 2,49% 4,25%
Data Load (MW) Loss (MW)
100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
Peak load 2019 42,6
Minimum load 868 20,78
It is worth noting that the added generators at the buses 6
and 8, which are electrically close to the loads, are Appling exact loss calculation formula the loss components
allocated negative coefficients. are calculated and for the peak load are presented in Table
10 and Figure 7.

Table 10. Total loss components for BH peak load

Loss
Structure Share [%]
[p.u] [MW]
PLPP 0,3659 36,59 86,69%
PLPQ 0,0070 0,70 1,66%
PLQQ 0,0492 4,92 11,66%
TOTAL 0,4221 42,21 100,00%

PLPP
11,66%
PLPQ
1,66%
PLQQ

Figure 5. Modified IEEE-14 test system allocation of losses using

different methods

7. APPLICATION TO THE REAL POWER SYSTEM OF

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
86,69%

Tests carried out on the WSCC-9 and IEEE-14 bus system

have a limitation regarding small number of buses. In order Figure 7. Total loss components for BH peak load conditions
to test application of ELA method on a real system Bosnia
and Herzegovina power system, shown in Figure 6, is
analyzed in minimum and maximum load conditions. Load

5
From Table 10 is evident that PLPP component equals
86,69% of the total loss. Majority of these losses occurs in
the 110 kV network, which has the biggest length (62 % of
total transmission network).
All analyzed loads are connected to 110 kV except the
biggest load (Aluminum Smelter) which is connected to
220 kV network.
Hydro power production is mainly connected to 110 kV
network. It is also important to mention that 400 kV and
220 kV lines are very lightly loaded, in spite of the fact that
majority of the generation is connected to these networks.
The result of loss structure calculation for the minimum
load condition is illustrated in Figure 8.
PLPP
PLPQ
20,63% PLQQ
0,73%
78,64%
Figure 8. Total loss components for BH minimum load conditions
In the minimum load conditions PLPP component equals
78,64 % and is equally distributed on 400, 220 and 110 kV
lines. This loss distribution (among voltage levels and PL
components) is caused by the following factors:
• Majority of hydro generators, connected to 110kV
network, are not included in the economic
dispatching for this loading level.
• Influence of the reactive power flows on losses has
increased from 11,66 % in peak to 20,63 % in
minimum load conditions. Line charging on 400 and
220 kV lines has substantial effect on the reactive
power flows.
However in both loading condition PLPQ component could
be neglected. Loss allocation calculations are performed
using PR (50% loads, 50% generators allocation) and ELA
(applied only to PLPP component) methods.
The results of these methods substantially differ for some
of the buses. This is the consequence of the characteristics
that ELA allocates losses to buses depending of their
electric location in the network. For the generating buses
smaller, and in some cases even negative coefficients, are
allocated according to ELA to the generators which are
electrically close to the loads. In Bosnia and Herzegovina
system this is the case for some of the hydro and old
thermal generating units, connected to 110 kV network.
The proposed ELA method also allocated smaller
coefficient than PR to the biggest load (Aluminum Smelter)
which is connected to the 220 kV network.
8. CONCLUSIONS
A new loss allocation method based on Z-bus matrix and
the results of AC load flow calculations is presented in the
paper. The method calculates structure and allocation of the
total system losses based on the physical power flows. The
method considers both active and reactive power injections
View publication stats
in the loss allocation procedure. This feature qualifies this
method especially suitable for loss allocation procedure for
distribution networks with embedded (distributed)
generators. Since the proposed method directly allocates
the total system losses to the individual buses it is named
“exact loss allocation” method.
The proposed method is compared with pro rata and
proportional sharing methods on WSCC-9 and on modified
IEEE-14 test systems. Its application on a real system is
illustrated on Bosnia and Herzegovina power system for
two characteristic regimes (peak and minimum loading).
Based on the performed analysis it could be concluded that
the proposed ELA method has great potential for
application both in transmission and distribution networks.
In this paper initial results of the research in the area of loss
allocation, undertaken in [4], are presented. It is planned
that the application of the proposed method will be further
tested in the following areas:
• ex-ante estimation of system energy losses and
allocation coefficients using clusters’ based pattern
recognition technique
• ex-ante stochastic estimation of system energy
losses and allocation coefficients
• application of ELA method to distributed networks,
including ones with distributed generation.
9. REFERENCES
[1.] „Proportional sharing assumption in tracing methodology”,
J.W. Bialek and P.A. Kattuman, IEE Proc.-Generation,
Transmission, Distribution., Vol. 151, No. 4, July 2004
[2.] „Transmission Loss Allocation: A Comparison of Different
Practical Algorithms“, A. J. Conejo, J. M. Arroyo, N. Alguacil,
and A. L. Guijarro, IEEE Transactions On Power Systems,
Vol. 17, No. 3, August 2002
[3.] Qifeng Ding, “Optimal meter placement and transaction-based
loss allocation in deregulated power system operation”, Ph.D.
dissertation Texas A&M University, 2004.
[4.] A. Mujčinagić,“Analysis of Loss Structure and Allocation
Procedures of Bosnia and Herzegovina Power System“, (in
Bosnian) M.Sc. thesis at the University of Tuzla, 2008.
10.BIOGRAPHIES
Mirza Kušljugić, born in 1955, received B.Sc.,
M.Sc. and Ph:D. in electrical engineering from
the University of Sarajevo, in ’78, ’86, and ’89
respectively. He is currently tenure professor in
Electric Power Systems at the University of
Tuzla, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and
President of the Board for Energy, Mining and
Industry at the Parliament of Federation of Bosnia
and Herzegovina. He also served as President of
the Board of directors of Electric Power Company
of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He published 3 books
and more than 40 technical and scientific papers.
His area of interest includes power system
analysis, especially power system dynamics,
power system economics and distributed
generation.
Alija Mujčinagić, born in 1973, graduated at the
Faculty of Electrical Engineering in Tuzla. He
participated in several conferences and workshops
in Europe pertaining to electricity markets.
Employed by the State Electricity Regulatory
Commission as an analyst in the Tariff and
Market Department. His research interests are
electricity market, power system economics and
operation.