Modified Synopsis Seminar Presentation Soumya IIT Kharagpur PDF

Ch-1 Ch-2 Ch-3 Ch-4 Ch-5 Ch-6 Ch-7 Ch-8 Ch-9 Back Up
Operation of Distributed Networks with

Distributed Generations Under the Impact of
Load and Generation Uncertainties
Soumyabrata Barik
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
May 14 2019
Operation of Distributed Networks with Distributed Generations Under the Impact of Load and Generation U
1 / 167 IIT KGP
Objectives
I The purpose of this thesis is to develop different strategies

for the effective operation of distribution network in
presence of different DGs by considering the uncertainties.
I To develop a new meta-heuristic optimization technique for
placement of DGs, that mimics the athletes in a
tournament.
I To develop a economic operation of distribution network in
presence of renewable DGs and shunt capacitors based on
seasonal variation of load demand.
2 / 167 IIT KGP
Objectives
I To propose a new strategy to boost and maintain the

voltage of the remotely located buses by placing DGs with
using the concept of novel Q − P QV bus pair method.
I To develop a strategy to consider a predefined contracted
amount of power exchange between the upstream grid and
the distribution networks, by using the concept of
P QV δ-zero bus concept.
I Proposal of a strategy to analyze the effect of FFC DGs in
presence of uncertainties caused by renewable sources and
the load demand.
3 / 167 IIT KGP
Load Demand and Renewable Generation

Along with Uncertainty Modelling
3 / 167 IIT KGP
Load Demand and Renewable DGs

Load modelling
I Average time varying load demand profiles are considered.

I Load data are collected from the load dispatch centre and
normalized based on the peak load.
I The per unit load patterns are considered, and the loads
connected to each bus at each load level is modified
according to
P Li (t)=P Lpeak
i ×Loadpu (t)
(1)
QLi (t)=QLpeak
i ×Loadpu (t)
for {i∈N|2≤i≤N B} and t represents number of load hours.
4 / 167 IIT KGP

Load modelling
I Load growth is a natural phenomena in the distribution

network which is modelled as
P Li (t)=P Lbase
i (t)×(1+gr)nLG
(2)
QLi (t)=QLbase
i (t)×(1+gr)nLG
I The uncertainty in the load demand is modelled as Normal

distribution 2
x−µload (t)
−1
2
t
fload (x)= 1 √
σload (t) 2π
e σload (t)
(3)
I The mean or the expected value of the active and the
reactive power loads
peak
µP pu
i (t)=Load (t)P Li
(4)
µQ pu peak
i (t)=Load (t)QLi
5 / 167 IIT KGP

Solar modelling
I Solar units convert the solar irradiation into usable power.

I The power generation from solar PV plant at every instant
depends on the solar irradiance and the ambient
temperature.
S(t)
Psolar (t)=PST C S
ST C
(1+Ki (T (t)−TST C )) (5)
I The average solar irradiation and the solar power patterns
are collected from the 100kWp solar plant installed at the
rooftop of IIT Kharagpur.
I The power generation pattern of the solar plant is
normalized w.r.t the peak power produced.
6 / 167 IIT KGP

Solar modelling
I The intermittent nature of the solar power generation is

modelled by Beta distribution as
Γ(α(t)+β(t))
t (S)=
fsol Γ(α(t))Γ(β(t))
(S(t))α(t)−1 (1−S(t))β(t)−1 (6)
I α and β are shape factors given as

µsol (t)(1+µsol (t))
β(t) =(1−µsol (t)) −1
(σsol (t))2
(7)
α(t) = µ(sol
1−µ
(t)βsol (t)
(t))
sol
I The mean value of solar power generation with solar DG

rating
rating Psolar is
rating
µsol (t)=αsolar
pu (t)Psolar (8)
7 / 167 IIT KGP

Wind modelling
I Wind speed is converted to usable power by the wind

turbines. Power extracted from the wind is
PW ind = 12 ρAV 3 Cp (λ,θ) (9)
I The unpredictable behavior of the wind speed can be well
fitted in Weibull distribution. The wind velocity v t (m/s) at
time instant t is given by

v(t)
kw (t)

v(t)
kw (t)−1 −
t
fwind (v)= c(t) c(t)
e c(t)
(10)
I The mean value of the wind power generation with wind
rating
DG rating Pwind is
rating
µwind (t)=αwind
pu (t)Pwind (11)
8 / 167 IIT KGP

Wind modelling
I c(t) is the scale factor at time t that depends on the shape

factor kw (t)(> 0).
Scale factor at time t is given by
µ (t)
c(t)= wind (12)
Γ 1+ 1
kw (t)
I Shape factor can be calculated by solving the non-linear

equation as

2 Γ 1+ 2
σwind (t) kw (t)
µwind (t)
− 2 +1=0 (13)
Γ 1+ 2
kw (t)
I However, the shape factor can also be approximated as
σwind (t) −1.086

kw (t)= µwind (t)
(14)
9 / 167 IIT KGP
Test and Objective Functions With Equality

and Inequality Constraints
9 / 167 IIT KGP
Optimization Problem
I Optimization methods seek the best possible/optimal

solution for a problem.
I An optimization problem can be expressed as a
minimization problem as
minimize
n
f (X)
X∈<
subject to gk (X) ≤ 0, k = 1, . . . , K (15)
hl (X) = 0, l = 1, . . . , L
I The penalty method is used to transform the constrained
optimization to unconstrained optimization problem
PK PL
f mod (X)=f (X)+ k=1 φk gk2 (X)+ l=1 ψk h2l (X) (16)
10 / 167 IIT KGP
Test Functions
Schwefel’s Function
I This test function is a multimodal and seperable in nature

and expressed as
Pn √
f (X)= i=1 −xi sin( |xi | ) (17)
n×418.9829
I n is an integer number and the unknown variables are in

the range of −500≤xi ≤500.
I The minimum value of the objective function to be
obtained is f (X ∗ )=−1, for the optimum values of
x∗ (i) = 420.9687, ∀i = 1, 2, · · · , n.
11 / 167 IIT KGP
Test Functions
Schwefel’s Function
0.5
-0.5
-1
500
500
400
300
0 200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-500 -400
-500
Figure – 3D plot of Schwefel’s function
12 / 167 IIT KGP
Test Functions
Michalewicz Function
I Michalewicz function is a multimodal test function with d!

number of local minima. The function is mathematically
expressed as
ix2

Pd
f (X)=− i=1 sin(xi )sin2m π
i (18)
I The parameter m gives an idea about the steepness.
I This test function is evaluated on 0 ≤ x1 , x2 , · · · , xd ≤ π
and for n = 2, the minima is f (X ∗ )=−1.8013 and for n = 5,
the minima is f (X ∗ )=−0.4687.
13 / 167 IIT KGP
Test Functions
Michalewicz Function
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
4
3.5
3 4
2.5 3.5
2 3
2.5
1.5 2
1 1.5
0.5 1
0.5
0 0
Figure – 3D plot of Michalewicz function
14 / 167 IIT KGP
Test Functions
Goldstein-Price’s Function
I Goldstein Price Function is multimodal and non-scalable

function. The mathematical expression is
f (X)=fa (X)×fb (X) (19)

where
fa (X)=1+(x1 +x2 +1)2 (19−14x1 +3x21 −14x2 +6x1 x2 +3x22 )
(20)
fb (X)=30+(2x1 −3x2 )2 (18−32x1 +12x21 +48x2 −36x1 x2 +27x22 )
I The two input variables defined as x1 ∈ [−2, 2] and

x2 ∈ [−2, 2]. The global optima is f (X ∗ )=3 at x∗1 = 0 and
x∗2 = −1.
15 / 167 IIT KGP
Test Functions
Goldstein-Price’s Function
×105
10
0
2
1.5
1 2
0.5 1.5
0 1
0.5
-0.5 0
-1 -0.5
-1.5 -1
-1.5
-2 -2
Figure – 3D plot of Goldstein-Prices’s function
16 / 167 IIT KGP
Test Functions
Six Hump Camel Back Function
I This function is multimodal and non-seperable. It has total

six minima, among which two are global. The mathematical
expression of the test function is
f (X)=(4−2.1x21 + 31 x41 )x21 +x1 x2 +(−4+4x22 )x22 (21)

I The two input variables are x1 ∈ [−2, 2] and x2 ∈ [−3, 3].
The global optima is f (X ∗ )=−1.0316 at x∗1 = −0.0898, 0.0898
and x∗2 = 0.7126, −0.7126.
17 / 167 IIT KGP
Test Functions
Six Hump Camel Back Function
400
300
200
100
-100
3
2 3
2.5
1 2
1.5
0 1
0.5
0
-1 -0.5
-1
-2 -1.5
-2
Figure – 3D plot of Six Hump Camel Back function
18 / 167 IIT KGP
Test Functions
Schaffer’s Function
I This is a unimodal, non-seperable and non-convex function

in nature. The mathematical expression is
cos2 sin |x2
( ( 2
))
1 −x2 | −0.5
f (X)=0.5+ 2 (22)
(1+0.001 x2(
1 +x2
2
))
I The two input variables are −100 ≤ x1 , x2 ≤ 100. The
global optima is f (X ∗ )=0.292579 at the minima points x∗1 = 0
and x∗2 = 1.253115.
19 / 167 IIT KGP
Test Functions
Schaffer’s Function
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
100
50 100
0 50
0
-50 -50
-100 -100
Figure – 3D plot Schaffer’s function
20 / 167 IIT KGP
Practical Engineering Problems

Spring Design
I The weight of the spring is minimized.

I It has three design variables namely diameter of the wire
0.05 ≤ x1 ≤ 2, mean diameter of the coil (0.25 ≤ x2 ≤ 1.3),
and the active coil numbers 2 ≤ x3 ≤ 15.
I The objective function is
f (X)=(x3 +2)x2 x21 (23)
x32 x3 ≤0
g1 (X)=1−
71785x41
4x2
2 −x1 x2 1
g2 (X)= + −1≤0
(
12566 x2 x3 4
) 5108x2
1 −x1 1 (24)
140.45x
g3 (X)=1− 2 1 ≤0
x2 x3
x1 +x2
g4 (X)= 1.5
−1≤0
21 / 167 IIT KGP
Practical Engineering Problems

Pressure Vessel Design
I The fabrication cost is to be minimized.

I The four design variables are thickness of shell 0≤ x1 ≤ 99,
head 0 ≤ x2 ≤ 99, the inner radius 10 ≤ x3 ≤ 200 and the
length of the cylindrical section 10 ≤ x4 ≤ 200.
I The objective function is
f (X)=0.6224x1 x3 x4 +1.7781x2 x23 +3.1661x21 x4 +19.84x21 x3 (25)
g1 (X) =−x1 +0.0193x3 ≤0

g2 (X) =−x3 +0.00954x3 ≤0
(26)
g3 (X) =−πx23 x4 − 34 πx33 +1296000≤0
g4 (X) =x4 −240≤0
22 / 167 IIT KGP
Objective Functions
I The operation of the distribution networks in presence of

DGs and capacitors needs the the proper sizing and siting
strategies.
I The wrongly sized and placed DGs and the capacitors may
lead to the detrimental effect on the distribution network
and causes maloperation.
I The different combinations (weightage approach) of active
power loss, voltage deviation, and the DG cost are
considered as the objective functions.
I The weighting factors are selected such as
PNobj
0≤wi ≤1 and i=1 wi =1 (27)
23 / 167 IIT KGP
Objective Functions
Function-1
I The active power loss in the distribution network in the

presence of DGs and (or) capacitors is considered as the
primary objective function to reduce the burden of the
network. P LIF is defined as the factor of base case loss
mod
Ploss
(min)J1 =P LIF =
P base
(28)
loss
I The power loss Ploss is defined as the

N BN B
Ploss = 12 [<{Yij }][|Vi |2 +|Vj |2 −2|Vi ||Vj |cosδij ] (29)
P P
i=1 j=1
24 / 167 IIT KGP
Objective Functions
Function-2
I Along with the active power loss, the voltage deviation of

the network can also be considered as the other essential
objective function to improve the voltage profile of the
distribution network.
I The objective function is constructed with different
combinations of weighting factors.
min J2 =w1 (P LIF )+w2 (V DIF ) (30)
I V DI is the voltage deviation index of the system defined as

mod
V DIF = V Dbase
VD
(31)
and
PN B 2
V D= N1B i=1 (Vi −1.0) (32)
25 / 167 IIT KGP
Objective Functions
Function-3
I This objective function includes the active power loss,

voltage deviation and the operation cost of the DGs.
I With the weighting factors, the objective function can be
constructed as
min J3 =w1 P LIF +w2 V DIF +w3 CF (33)
CF is the cost factor of the DGs and can be defined as
PN DG
i=1 fcosti (PDG )
CF = (34)
( ) fcost P max
i DG
I The cost function fcosti depends on the amount of active

power injected by the DG, and is defined as
2
fcost (PDG )=a+bPDG +cPDG (35)
I The a, b, c are the three cost coefficients.
26 / 167 IIT KGP
Operational Constraints
Equality Constraints
I The objective functions are used to solve under the

consideration of some equality and inequality constraints.
I The active and the reactive power balance should be
maintained as
peak P DG P BR
sgnP grid (t)− N
P B
i=2 P Li Loadpu (t)+ N
l=1 PDGl (t)− N
j=1 Plossj (t)=0
PN DG P BR
QLpeak
PN B
sgnQgrid (t)− i=2 i Loadpu (t)+ l=1 QDGl (t)− N
j=1 Qlossj (t)=0
(36)
I sgn defines the mode of the power exchange with the main
grid, i.e. 



 +1 when the power is imported from the grid

sgn= −1
 when the power is exported to the grid (37)


0

when no power is exchanged with the grid
27 / 167 IIT KGP
Inequality Constraints
I The DGs and (or) capacitor are placed with the bus
voltages maintained within lower and upper voltage levels
as
Vmin ≤Vi (t)≤Vmax ∀i∈N B (38)
I Power supplied by the DGs at any bus should be less than
the total load demand
P Lpeak
PN B
PDG (t)≤ i=2 i Loadpu (t) (39)
I DG size should be always within the lower and the upper
limit as
min ≤P
PDG max
DG ≤PDG (40)
28 / 167 IIT KGP
Inequality Constraints
I The power exchanged from the main grid is decided by the

utility and the time of use tariff (TOU) and should be kept
within certain pre-specified limits
grid grid
Pmin ≤P grid (t)≤Pmax (41)
where
grid PN B
Pmin =contmin
pu i=2 P LP
i
eak
grid PN B (42)
Pmax =contmax
pu i=2 P LP
i
eak
I The current flowing through any branch of the modified

distribution network should be always within
rated
max|(Iij orIji )|≤Iij i,j∈N B|i6=j (43)
29 / 167 IIT KGP
Test Systems Considered

33 Bus Distribution Network
30 / 167 IIT KGP
Test Systems Considered

69 Bus Distribution Network
31 / 167 IIT KGP
A Novel Athlete Run Based Optimization

Method (ARBO)
31 / 167 IIT KGP
Athlete Run Based Optimization (ARBO)

Optimization method
I ARBO is a novel meta-heuristic population based (swarm

based) optimization algorithm where the key inspiration
comes from finding out the best athlete in a tournament.
I The quality of the athletes is judged as per their
performance in the race.
I Athletes can improve their performance (fitness) only after
hard practices.
I Initially, the athletes are chosen according to their best and
worst performance as
X=rangemin +rand1 ×(rangemax −rangemin ) (44)
32 / 167 IIT KGP

Optimization method
I After the competition in each group, one best candidate is

chosen and denoted by Xbest .
I Within these all Xbest s, one will be best of all and is
lgroup
denoted by Xbest .
lgroup
I All the Xbest s will try to achieve Xbest by more practice,
and as a result, some Xbest s may be even better qualified
lgroup
than Xbest .
I This can happen for each group denoted by the variable i
by the following relation

new =X old +C×rand × X lgroup −X old
Xbest (45)
i best i
2 best best W (k) i
33 / 167 IIT KGP

Optimization method
I W is the weighting factor which is used to vary from

iteration to iteration by
iter
W (iter)=Wmax ×e− M AXIT ER (46)
Wmax is the maximum value of the weighting factor and
considered as 1.2.
Some situations may arise in the relation of Xbest in (45)
new old
1. When rand = 0, then Xbest = Xbest i.e., no improvement.
1 new lgroup
2. When rand = 2 , then Xbest = Xbest , i.e., due to the
practice this athlete has achieved the best position.
new lgroup old
3. When rand = 1, then Xbest = 2 × Xbest − Xbest , means,
due to hard practice this athlete has reached a better
lgroup
position than the best i.e., Xbest .
34 / 167 IIT KGP

Optimization method
lgroup
I After practice, the athletes will be updated and Xbest will
be modified.
lgroup sup
I The new Xbest after the practice is denoted by Xbest .
I After the final competition the best athlete shall be
emerged and for the next tournament the athletes will try
to follow the performance record of the champion of the
previous tournament and update themselves.
I The selection of the athletes for the next tournament
(iteration) is done
X=rangemin +rand3 ×(f inal−rangemin )+rand4 ×(rangemax −f inal)

(47)
35 / 167 IIT KGP

Flow Chart
Find the best among the

updated values of X best
and termed as sup
X best
Start
Read input data No Yes

iter 1
?
Generate random
populations
No
sup sup fitness (iter - 1) fitness (iter )
iter = 1 3 X bestprev ← X best ? Yes
1
sup
final ← X best
Yes No
iter MAXITER
sup sup Update
X bestprev ← X best
? X sup
best
Store the final

Calculate the solutions Generate new
athletes Check the limits
fitness value
X best
Fitness for the
final solutions
iter = iter + 1
fitness (iter ) ¬ fitness (iter 1)
Find out the best
for each group
STOP
Calculate the sup sup

X best ← X bestprev
weighting factor
3 Check the limits Update
X sup
best
1
Find best among all

the X best
and termed as
Xlgbestroup
Check the limits of

X best
36 / 167 IIT KGP
Application of ARBO in Test Functions

Comparison of Schwefel’s Function
I Minimum value by ARBO technique is f (X) = −1 for

xi = 420.96. After 30 runs the mean and standard deviation
are -0.9955 and 0.002345 respectively.
0
-0.1
-0.2
PSO
-0.3 TLBO
ARBO
-0.4
Fitness Value
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
-1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Number of Iterations
37 / 167 IIT KGP

Comparison of Langermann’s Function
I Minimum value by ARBO technique is f (X) = −1.0809 for

x1 = 9.6817 and x2 = 0.6681. After 30 runs the mean and
standard deviation are -1.0807 and 1.9 × 10−9 respectively.
-0.85
-0.9
PSO
TLBO
ARBO
Fitness Value
-0.95
-1
-1.05
-1.1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
38 / 167 IIT KGP

Comparison of Michalewicz Function

x1 = 2.207, x2 = 1.558, x3 = 1.295, x4 = 1.113 and
x5 = 1.708 for d = 5. After 30 runs the mean and standard
deviation are -4.425 and 0.081 respectively.
-1.5
PSO
-2
TLBO
ARBO
-2.5
Fitness Value
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
-5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
39 / 167 IIT KGP

Comparison of Goldstein-Price’s Function
I Minimum value by ARBO technique is f (X) = 3 for x1 = 0

and x2 = −1. After 30 runs the mean and standard
deviation are 3.0013 and 0.0019 respectively.
12
11
10
PSO
9 TLBO
ARBO
Fitness Value
2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
40 / 167 IIT KGP

Comparison of Six Hump Camel Back Function

x1 = 0.089, −0.089 and x2 = −0.7126, 0.7126. After 30 runs
the mean and standard deviation are -1.03167 and
7.86975 × 10−6 respectively.
-0.96
-0.97
-0.98
PSO
TLBO
-0.99 ARBO
Fitness Value
-1
-1.01
-1.02
-1.03
-1.04
-1.05
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Number of Iteratioins
41 / 167 IIT KGP

Comparison of Schaffer’s Function
I Minimum value by ARBO technique is f (X) = 0.29258 for

x1 = 0 and x2 = 1.255. After 30 runs the mean and
standard deviation are 0.29259 and 1.57 × 10−5 respectively.
0.48
0.46
0.44 PSO
TLBO
0.42 ARBO
Fitness Value
0.4
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
42 / 167 IIT KGP
Application of ARBO in Engineering Problems

Comparison of Spring Design

x1 = 0.0516, x2 = 0.3529, and x3 = 11.7673. After 30 runs
the mean and standard deviation are 0.013 and 0.00021
respectively.
0.25
0.2
PSO
TLBO
ARBO
Fitness Value
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
43 / 167 IIT KGP

Comparison of Pressure Vessel Design

x1 = 0.8458, x2 = 0.4669, x3 = 43.140 and x4 = 178.4323.
After 30 runs the mean and standard deviation are 8053
and 553.545 respectively.
×105
4
3.5
3 PSO
TLBO
2.5 ARBO
Fitness Value
1.5
0.5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
44 / 167 IIT KGP

Comparison of Welded Beam Design

x1 = 0.2064, x2 = 3.5724, x3 = 8.8914 and x4 = 0.2215.
After 30 runs the mean and standard deviation are 1.9493
and 0.0592 respectively.
30
25
PSO
TLBO
ARBO
20
Fitness Value
15
10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

45 / 167 IIT KGP
Sizing of DGs and Shunt Capacitors With

Seasonal Load Variation
45 / 167 IIT KGP
Load Pattern
I An average hourly load profile for one year is considered.
I The four seasons are considered in a year mainly Winter
(1 − 8th and 44 − 52nd week), Spring (9 − 17th week),
Summer (18 − 30th week) and Fall (31 − 43rd week).
0.95
Normalized Load Demand Pattern (pu)
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75 Winter Spring Summer Fall
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96
Hour
46 / 167 IIT KGP
Optimal Sizes of Renewable DGs

Solar DG
I The peak solar power is generated during Fall season at

12.00 (noon), i.e. t = 85 hours.
I Therefore, the equation (1) is written as
P Li (t=85)=P Lpeak
i ×0.6962
(48)
QLi (t=85)=QLpeak
i ×0.6962
0.9
Normalized Solar Power Generation Pattern (pu)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96
Hour
47 / 167 IIT KGP

Solar DG (33 Bus)
I Optimum solar power injection is determined by minimizing

the objective function which is the combination of active
power loss and voltage deviation with w1 = w2 = 0.5.
0.5
0.45
0.4
Objective Function J
0.35
0.3 Minimum size of

Solar DG
0.25
0.2
0.15
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Solar DG size
I The solar power injection is Psolar

30 30
=1457≈1460kW =Psolarmax .
I For all the other load hours (t 6= 85)
30
Psolar 30
(t)=Psolarmax αpu
solar (t) (49)
48 / 167 IIT KGP

Solar DG (69 Bus)
I Optimum solar power injection is determined by minimizing

0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
Minimum size
0.2 of Solar DG
0.15
0.1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Solar DG size
I The solar power injection is Psolar

61 61
=1548≈1550kW =Psolarmax .
61
Psolar 61
(t)=Psolarmax αpu
solar (t) (50)
49 / 167 IIT KGP

Panel Generating Factor (PGF)
I The actual size of the solar PV depends on the locations

and the climate condition and can be taken care of by the
term PGF defined as
PGF= Peak Energy in kWh
power in kW (kWp)
(51)
I The PGF is calculated from the average yearly solar power
generation.
I From the data obtained from rooftop installed 100kWp
solar plant, the PGF is obtained as 3.52.
I The actual size of the solar plant using PGF is
avg
E (pu) 30
Ssolar (kW p)= solar Psolarmax (kW )
P GF
E
avg
(pu) 61
(52)
Ssolar (kW p)= solar
P GF
Psolarmax (kW )
50 / 167 IIT KGP

Average Annual Solar Generation Profile
avg
I The average annual solar production Esolar (pu) is
calculated from the generation profile
Yearly Average Solar Power (IIT KGP 100 kW Plant)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
12AM 1AM 2AM 3AM 4AM 5AM 6AM 7AM 8AM 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM 8PM 9PM 10PM 11PM
Hour
51 / 167 IIT KGP

Wind DG
I The peak wind power is generated at t = 14 & t = 17 hour

with load 0.8416 pu and 0.7974 pu during Winter.
I Therefore, the equation (1) is written as
P Li (t=85)=P Lpeak
i ×0.8416
(53)
QLi (t=85)=QLpeak
i ×0.8416
0.9
Normalized Wind Power Generation Pattern (pu)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96
Hour
52 / 167 IIT KGP

Wind DG (33 Bus)
I Optimum wind power injection is determined by minimizing

0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
Minimum size
0.4 of Wind DG
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Wind DG size
I The wind power injection is 13 =1362≈1370kW =P 13

Pwind windmax

pu
13 (t)=P 13
Pwind windmax αwind (t) (54)
53 / 167 IIT KGP

Wind DG (69 Bus)
I Optimum wind power injection is determined by minimizing

0.7
0.65
0.6
Minimum size
0.55
of Wind DG
0.5
0.45
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Wind DG size
I The wind power injection is windmax .

17 =948≈950kW =P 17
Pwind
pu
17 (t)=P 17
Pwind windmax αwind (t) (55)
54 / 167 IIT KGP
Placement of the Capacitors

Fixed and Switched Capacitors
I The installation of shunt capacitors as the source of

reactive power is popular method for improving voltage
profile and power factor.
I Along with the DGs, optimal placement,and sizing of fixed
and switched shunt capacitors for varying load level is
considered for better voltage profile.
I The capacitor sizes obtained by the method at an average
low load level are considered as fixed capacitors which will
remain connected throughout the year.
I With the increment in load level, the switched capacitors
are opted to add as per the requirements.
55 / 167 IIT KGP

Selection of Average Load Levels
I Different load levels are considered to reduce the

computational time for obtaining fixed and switched
capacitors.
I The pu load pattern is subdivided into four types of average
load levels such as low, medium, high and very high.
1
Very High
0.95 Load Level
Normalized Load Demand Pattern (pu)
0.9
0.85 High Load

Level
0.8
Medium
Load Level
0.75
0.7
0.65
Low Load
Level
0.6
0.55
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96
Hour
56 / 167 IIT KGP

Fixed and Switched capacitors in 33 bus
I The locations of the shunt capacitors are obtained as bus-7,

bus-30 and bus-15 for the 33 bus distribution network.
0.45
Determination of first capacitor
Determination of second capacitor
Determination of third capacitor
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
2 5 10 15 20 25 30 33
Bus number
57 / 167 IIT KGP

Fixed and Switched capacitors in 69 bus
I The locations of the shunt capacitors are obtained as

bus-61, bus-12 and bus-56 for the 69 bus distribution
network.
0.4
Determination of first capacitor
Determination of second capacitor
0.38 Determination of third capacitor
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
2 7 12 17 22 27 32 37 42 47 52 57 62 67 69
Bus number
58 / 167 IIT KGP
Cost-Benefit (CB) Analysis for DGs and Capacitors

Placement
I Investment for extension or modification of a system is
viable if it is economically sound.
I Capital costs, operation and maintenance costs have been
considered for CB analysis.
I The annual installment cost is defined as
Cinst =(Csolar Ssolar +Cwind Swind )CRFDG +
Nf ixed
!
Nswitched
f ixed P f ixed switched
P switched CRF
CCap Scap i
+CCap Scap j Cap
i=1 j=1
(56)
I The capital recovery factor for the DGs and the capacitors
k(1+k)n
CRF = (1+k)n −1 (57)
59 / 167 IIT KGP
Cost-Benefit (CB) Analysis for DGs and Capacitors

Placement
I The annual operation and maintenance cost is defined as
96
(OMsolar Ssolar αpu pu
solar (t)+OMwind Swind αwind (t)) (58)
P
OM =91.25
j=1
I The amount of energy saved annually is given by

96 ∗ base ∗ DGcap

<(V˜s I˜s ) −<(V˜s I˜s ) (59)
P
Esavings =91.25 ∆t
j=1
I To get the profit

Ke Esavings −(AI+OMDG )>0
AI+OMDG
Ke > Esavings
(60)
I Net profit can be expressed as

P rof it=Esavings (Keconsidered −Kecalculated ) (61)
60 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
Case Studies
Four different scenarios are considered

I Scenario-1 : Base Case
I Scenario-2 : Both Solar and Wind DGs
I Scenario-3 : Switched and Fixed Capacitors
I Scenario-4 : Solar and, wind DGs and Shunt Capacitors
61 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
33 Bus
Cost of the electricity Keconsidered is taken as 0.18$/kWhr. The

costs of the fixed and the switched capacitors are considered as
$3/kVAr and $9/kVAr
Case E save Kecalculated profit/hr V min V max

(MWhr) ($/kWh) ($) (pu) (pu)
Scenario-1 0 - - 0.913 1.0
Scenario-2 7340.4 0.116 57.27 0.94 1.0
Scenario-3 6248.0 0.0222 1.125 0.957 1.02
Scenario-4 7383.7 0.111 58 0.98 1.02
62 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
Active Power Loss Profile (33 Bus)
220
200
Summer Fall
Winter Spring
180 Bare Condition
With DGs only
160 With Caps only
Power Loss (kW)
With DGs and Caps

140
120
100
80
60
40
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96
Hour
63 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
Peak Load Voltage Profile (33 Bus)
1.01
0.99 Bare Condition

With DGs only
0.98 With Caps only
Voltage magnitude (in pu)
With DGs and Caps

0.97
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.91
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 33
Bus number
64 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
69 Bus
Cost of the electricity Keconsidered is taken as 0.18$/kWhr. The

costs of the fixed and the switched capacitors are considered as
$3/kVAr and $9/kVAr.
Case E save Kecalculated profit/hr V min V max

(MWhr) ($/kWh) ($) (pu) (pu)
Scenario-1 0 - - 0.909 1.0
Scenario-2 6441.4 0.1157 47.28 0.953 1.0
Scenario-3 157.3 0.01154 3.019 0.94 1.0
Scenario-4 6576.3 0.1136 49.48 0.982 1.0
65 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
Active Power Loss Profile (69 Bus)
250
Bare Condition
With DGs only
With Caps only
200 With DGs and Caps
Power Loss (kW)
150
100
50
Winter Spring Summer Fall
0
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96
Hour
66 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
Peak Load Voltage Profile (69 Bus)
1.01
0.98
0.96
0.94 Bare Condition

With DGs only
With Caps only
With DGs and Caps
0.92
0.9
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 69
Bus number
67 / 167 IIT KGP
Power Loss Profile with Load Growth (7%)

33 Bus
I After 10 years, the active power loss reduces from 937.12

kW to 347 kW.
I After 5 years, the minimum voltage remains at 0.9465 pu.
1000
Bare Condition
900
With DGs only
With Caps only
800
With DGs and Caps
700
Active Power Loss
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
68 / 167 IIT KGP
Power Loss Profile with Load Growth (7%)

69 Bus
I After 10 years, the active power loss reduces from 1083 kW

to 336.8 kW.
I After 5 years, the minimum voltage remains at 0.945 pu.
1200
Bare Condition
1000 With DGs only
With Caps only
With DGs and Caps
Active Power Loss
800
600
400
200
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
69 / 167 IIT KGP
Novel Q − P QV Bus Pair Method of DG

Placement to Maintain the Volatge of
Remotely Located Bus
69 / 167 IIT KGP
A Novel Q − P QV Bus Pair Method
I A novel method of finding out the locations and sizes of

DGs based on the concept of Q and P QV bus pair is
developed.
I The P QV bus is the remotely located bus where the
voltage is to be improved.
I The Q is the bus, at which the DG is to be placed.
I In Q bus, only the reactive power is known, whereas the
active power, the voltage magnitude, and the voltage angle
are unknown.
I In P QV bus, only the voltage angle is unknown, whereas
all the other quantities are known.
I Active power injection at Q bus plus the load demand is
the expected size of the DG placed at Q bus.
70 / 167 IIT KGP

Modification of Jacobian Matrix
I This new pair of buses modify the Jacobian Matrix in the

load flow technique.
I In a distribution network, assume that except the slack bus,
Q bus (mth )and P QV bus (nth ) all the other buses are of
P Q type.
I The complex power injection at the bus-i is
Sipow =Vi
PN B
j=1 Yij∗ Vj∗ (62)
I The real power mismatch (∆Pi ) of the ith bus is given as
∂Pi P B ∂Pi
∆Pi = N
P B
j=2 ∂δj
∆δj + N
j=2 ∂|Vj | ∆|Vj | (63)
j6=n
This is valid for i∈{2,3,··· ,N B}\{m}.

71 / 167 IIT KGP

I The reactive power mismatch (∆Qi ) of the ith bus is given

as
P B ∂Qi PN B ∂Qi
∆Qi = N
j=2 ∂δj ∆δj + j=2 ∂|Vj | ∆|Vj | (64)
j6=n
This is valid for i∈{2,3,··· ,N B}.
I For the sake of clarity a 5 bus sample network is selected as

72 / 167 IIT KGP

The relation between the power mismatch matrix and the state
variable matrix is given by
 ∂P3 ∂P3 ∂P3 ∂P3 ∂P3 ∂P3 ∂P3


  ∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δ4 ∂δ5 ∂|V2 | ∂|V3 | ∂|V5 |  
∆P3  ∂P4 ∂P4 ∂P4 ∂P4 ∂P4 ∂P4 ∂P4  ∆δ2
 ∆P4   ∂δ2
 ∂P5 ∂δ3 ∂δ4 ∂δ5 ∂|V2 | ∂|V3 | ∂|V5 |   ∆δ3 
  ∂P5 ∂P5 ∂P5 ∂P5 ∂P5 ∂P5   
∆P5 ∂|V2 | ∂|V3 | ∆δ4
 ∂δ ∂δ3 ∂δ4 ∂δ5 ∂V5  

   2 
   ∂Q2 ∂Q2 ∂Q2 ∂Q2 ∂Q2 ∂Q2 ∂Q2   

 ∆Q2 =
  ∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δ4 ∂δ5 ∂|V2 | ∂|V3 | ∂|V5 |  
 ∆δ5 

 ∂Q3 ∂Q3 ∂Q3 ∂Q3 ∂Q3 ∂Q3 ∂Q3  
∆Q3 ∆|V2 |
   
∂|V2 | ∂|V3 | ∂|V5 |  
 ∂δ ∂δ3 ∂δ4 ∂δ5
   2 
 ∆Q4   ∂Q4 ∂Q4 ∂Q4 ∂Q4 ∂Q4 ∂Q4 ∂Q4   ∆|V3 | 
 ∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δ4 ∂δ5 ∂|V2 | ∂|V3 | ∂|V5 | 
∆Q5 ∂Q5 ∂Q5 ∂Q5 ∂Q5 ∂Q5 ∂Q5 ∂Q5 ∆|V5 |
∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δ4 ∂δ5 ∂|V2 | ∂|V3 | ∂|V5 |
(65)
73 / 167 IIT KGP
Load Profile and Objective Function
I The minimization of the active power loss given in (28) is

selected as the objective function.
I The load demand profile given in Figure-46 with four
different season winter, spring, summer and fall is
considered.
74 / 167 IIT KGP
Flow Chart of Q − P QV bus Pair Method

Start
Read network data , Hr=1

load data
Run the load flow Set voltage of PQV

bus to Vmin
Find bus with

minimum voltage Run the load flow
Increase the
Consider this as PQV voltage of
bus PQV bus in
Find out loss
a step of
0.01 pu
Select the
corresponding lateral Hr=Hr+1
branch
Voltage of PQV
bus < Vmax
Find the buses in the NO YES
lateral branch Consider this bus as
Q bus
Consider one bus at a Find out the
time as Q bus minimum loss
Run load flow

Find out bus with Select corresponding
minimum loss optimal value of the
Find out loss voltage of PQV bus
Find out DG size by

All buses proposed method
NO YES
considered
?
NO
YES
Hr<96
?
Terminating
Include the DG in the
conditions meet
network
?
NO
YES
Draw all the graphs
Stop
75 / 167 IIT KGP
Q − P QV Bus Pair Method

Evaluation Indices
I Line power transfer capability index (LPTCI) is defined as

∗ base ∗ DG base −P DG
<(V˜s I˜s ) −<(V˜s I˜s ) +Ploss
LP T CI=
˜ ˜ ∗ base
loss (66)
<(Vs Is )
I Active power loss reduction index (APLRI) is defined as

base −P DG
Ploss
AP LRI=
P base
loss (67)
loss
I Reactive power loss reduction index (APLRI) is defined as
Qbase DG
loss −Qloss
RP LRI=
Q base (68)
loss
I Voltage deviation index (VDI) is defined as
PN B 2
V DI= i=1 (Viideal −ViDG ) (69)
76 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
33 bus
DG No. Selection of DG locations UPF Lag

Selected P QV bus 18 18
Voltage to be boosted at P QV bus 0.95 0.95
1st DG Selected Q bus (DG location) 6 6
Minimum voltage after first DG 0.95 0.9632
2nd DG Selected Q bus (DG location) 11 11
77 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
Selection of Voltage for 33 bus
400
350
Active power loss (kW)
300
Voltage to select for PQV bus with upf DG

250 Voltage to select for PQV bus with lpf DG
200
150
100
50
0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1.02 1.04 1.05
Voltage (pu)
78 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
33 bus
DG Size Loss (kW) % Less Power V18 (pu)

Drawn
1 UPF DG 2700 kW 104.21 64 0.950
2 UPF DGs 570 kW 95.57 79 0.968
1 LPF DG 3180 kVA 62.27 65 0.963
2 LPF DGs 610 kVA 51.65 80 0.985
79 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
DG Impact Evaluation Indices 33 bus
Eval Index 1 UPF DG 2 UPF DGs 1 LPF DG 2 LPF DGs

LPTCI 0.6732 0.8175 0.6946 0.8117
APLRI 0.4858 0.5284 0.6927 0.7452
RPLRI 0.4466 0.4992 0.6397 0.7024
VDI 0.0325 0.0148 0.0145 0.00403
80 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
Active Power Loss Profile for 33 bus
250
Bare condition
With upf DG at bus 6
With lpf DG at bus 6
200 With upf DGs at bus 6 and 11
With lpf DGs at bus 6 and 11
Power Loss (kW)
150

100
50
0
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96
Hour
81 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
1.01
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.94 Bare condition

0.93 With lpf DG at bus 6
With upf DGs at bus 6 and 11
0.92 With lpf DGs at bus 6 and 11
0.91
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 33
Bus number
82 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
69 bus
DG No. Selection of DG locations UPF Lag

1st DG Selected Q bus (DG location) 60 60
2nd DG Selected Q bus (DG location) 19 19
83 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
Selection of Voltage for 69 bus
300
250
200
Voltage to select for PQV bus with upf DG
Voltage to select for PQV bus with lpf DG
150
100
50
0
0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1.02 1.04 1.05
Voltage (pu)
84 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
69 bus
DG Size Loss (kW) % Less Power V65 (pu)

Drawn
1 UPF DG 2000 kW 91.88 47 0.970
2 UPF DGs 520 kW 80.21 61 0.973
1 LPF DG 2350 kVA 36.34 49 0.985
2 LPF DGs 505 kVA 20.42 60 0.988
85 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
DG Impact Evaluation Indices 69 bus
Table – DG impact evaluation indices for 69 bus distribution network
Eval Index 1 UPF DG 2 UPF DGs 1 LPF DG 2 LPF DGs

LPTCI 0.5114 0.6461 0.539 0.6512
APLRI 0.5916 0.6434 0.8446 0.9134
RPLRI 0.5592 0.6061 0.7995 0.8601
VDI 0.02324 0.00738 0.01293 0.00125
86 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
250
Bare conditioin
200
Power Loss (kW)
150
Summer
100
Winter
Spring
Fall
50
0
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96
Hour
87 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
1.01
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
Bare condition
0.94
0.93 With lpf DG at bus 60
0.92 With lfp DGs at bus 60 and 19
0.91
0.9
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 69
Bus number
88 / 167 IIT KGP
Integration with FFC and UPC DGs

under three different power contract
scenarios using MDPSO algorithm
88 / 167 IIT KGP
P QV δ-Zero Bus Pair Method
I With rapid load growth the amount of active and reactive

power exchanged with the main grid increases.
I A pre-contracted active and reactive power from the main
grid, and the rest of the power can obtain from biomass
DGs to gain profit.
I As the main grid active and reactive power are known a
priory, load flow is to be modified.
I Concept of P QV δ-zero bus pair is adopted.
I Three different scenarios are considered as
1. Zero power exchange with the main grid.
2. Fixed amount of power exchange between the main grid and
the distribution network.
3. Power exchange based on Time of Use (TOU) tariff rate.
89 / 167 IIT KGP

I Introduction of P QV δ-zero bus pair modifies the load flow

method.
I In a distribution network, assume that except the P QV δ
(bus-1) and zero bus (dth ), all the other buses are of P Q
type.
I For P QV δ bus, all the quantities are known.
I For zero bus, all four quantities (voltage magnitude, voltage
angle, active and reactive power) are unknown, and hence
the name.
I The active power mismatch (∆Pi ) and reactive power
mismatch (∆Qi ) for ith bus are given as
90 / 167 IIT KGP

I
∂Pi P B ∂Pi
∆Pi = N
P B
j=2 ∂δj
∆δj + N
j=2 ∂|Vj | ∆|Vj |
∂Qi P B ∂Qi (70)

∆Qi = N
P B
j=2 ∂δj
∆δj + N
j=2 ∂|Vj | ∆|Vj |
This is valid for i∈{1,2,··· ,N B}\{d}.

I For the sake of clarity, a sample 5 bus distribution network
is given as
91 / 167 IIT KGP

The relation between the power mismatch matrix and the state
variable matrix is given by
   ∂P1 ∂P1 ∂P1 ∂P1 ∂P1 ∂P1 ∂P1 ∂P1 
∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δ4 ∂δ5 ∂|V2 | ∂|V3 | ∂|V4 | ∂|V5 | 
∂P2 ∂P2 ∂P2 ∂P2 ∂P2 ∂P2 ∂P2 ∂P2  ∆δ2
 ∆P1   ∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δ4 ∂δ5 ∂|V2 | ∂|V3 | ∂|V4 | ∂|V5 |  
   ∆δ3
 ∆P2   ∂P3
 ∂P3 ∂P3 ∂P3 ∂P3 ∂P3 ∂P3 ∂P3  
  ∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δ4 ∂δ5 ∂|V2 | ∂|V3 | ∂|V4 | ∂|V5 |  
  ∆δ4
 ∆P3   ∂P4 ∂P4 ∂P4 ∂P4 ∂P4 ∂P4 ∂P4 ∂P4  
   ∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δ4 ∂δ5 ∂|V2 | ∂|V3 | ∂|V4 | ∂|V5 |   ∆δ5
 ∆P4  =  ∂Q ∂Q1 ∂Q1 ∂Q1 ∂Q1 ∂Q1 ∂Q1 ∂Q1  

   1 ∆|V2 |
 ∆Q1   ∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δ4 ∂δ5 ∂|V2 | ∂|V3 | ∂|V4 | ∂|V5 | 

   ∂Q2 ∂Q2 ∂Q2 ∂Q2 ∂Q2 ∂Q2 ∂Q2 ∂Q2   ∆|V3 |
 ∆Q2   ∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δ4 ∂δ5 ∂|V2 | ∂|V3 | ∂|V4 | ∂|V5 |  
   ∂Q
  3 ∂Q3 ∂Q3 ∂Q3 ∂Q3 ∂Q3 ∂Q3 ∂Q3 
 ∆|V4 |
 ∆Q3 ∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δ4 ∂δ5 ∂|V2 | ∂|V3 | ∂|V4 | ∂|V5 | 
∂Q4 ∂Q4 ∂Q4 ∂Q4 ∂Q4 ∂Q4 ∂Q4 ∂Q4 ∆|V5 |
∆Q4
∂δ2 ∂δ3 ∂δ4 ∂δ5 ∂|V2 | ∂|V3 | ∂|V4 | ∂|V5 |
(71)
92 / 167 IIT KGP
Objective Function
I The objective functions given in (28) and (30) are

considered. For multi-objective function, the weighting
factors are selected as w1 = w2 = 0.5.
I For both of the objective functions, the decision variables
vector [X] contains the locations and the sizes of the DGs,
[X] =
i.e.,
locDG1 , locDG2 , · · · , locDGn , PDG1 , PDG2 , · · · , PDGn−1 .
I For the FFC DG, the size depends on the UPC DGs and
the amount of power contract.
I Therefore, in the optimization problem number of decision
variables are reduced to (2n − 1).
93 / 167 IIT KGP
Daily Load Profile

A daily average load profile (24 Hours) is considered to find out
the DG sizes using P QV δ-zero technique.
0.98
0.96
0.94
Load Levels (pu)
0.92
0.9
0.88
0.86
0.84
0.82
0.8
1 5 10 15 20 24
Hour
94 / 167 IIT KGP
Hourly Power Contract

For Scenario-3, the 24 hours of power exchange in between main
grid and the distribution network is given as
0.7
0.6
Energy Contract (pu)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
1 5 10 15 20 24
Hour
95 / 167 IIT KGP
Profile of Time of Use Tariff (TOU)

The profile of hourly basis price of electricity ($/kWhr) is given
as
0.25
0.2
TOU Tariff ($/kWh)
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1 5 10 15 20 24
Hour
96 / 167 IIT KGP
Mixed Discrete Particle Swarm Optimization (MDPSO)

I MDPSO is a modified version of PSO that can handle both
continuous as well as the discrete variables.
I The optimization strategy for continuous variables are same
as normal PSO.
I The locations of the discrete variables are expressed in
terms of hypercube which are the sets of ordered pairs as
Hd ={(xL
id ,xid )|x∈X,d∈m+1,m+2,...,N |m<N }
U (72)
I xL U
id and xid are lower and the upper bound of discrete
variables that bound the hypercube.
I The upper and lower bounds are given as
xL +
id =bxid c=max{nid ∈Z |nid 6xid }
(73)
xU +
id =dxid e=min{nid ∈Z |nid 6xid }
97 / 167 IIT KGP
I The locations of the discrete particles are determined by

the Nearest Vertex Approach (NVA)
(
dis xL
id if |xid − xL U
id | 6 |xid − xid |
xid = (74)
xU
id if |xid − xL U
id | > |xid − xid |
I To prevent the tendency of the particle to escape from the
search space, a confinement mechanism is introduced for
both types of variables

xid
 if xmin
d < xid < xmax
d
xid = xmind if x id 6 x min
d (75)

 max
xd if xid > xd max
98 / 167 IIT KGP

Flow Chart
Start
Read data such as

swarm, dimension,
iterations
Initialize the particles

positions and velocity
Find out fitness fi(iter-1)

and fi(iter) for ith particle
If
fi(iter-1)<fi(iter)
?
Pbest=fi(iter-1) Pbest=fi(iter)
i=i+1
Yes If No
i =<N
?
Determine the global best

Max(Pbesti)
Yes Convergence
criteria meets
? Confinement
criteria
Optimal output
No No
results
Nearest Vertex
Update velocity Approach
Stop Variables are

discrete
Yes ?
Update position
99 / 167 IIT KGP
Economic Analysis of DG Placement

I Investment for extension or modification of a system is
viable if it is economically sound.
I The Net Annual Profit (NAP) obtained from the less
energy drawn from the upstream grid.
I The NAP with the TOU tariff scheme is
P24 grid
P rof it=365 t=1 {PBase (t)−P
grid }×∆t×C
T OU (t) (76)
I The annual instalment cost is given by
PNDG rating r(1+r)yr
InstDG = k=1 PDGk CDGk (1+r)yr −1 (77)
I Per hour profit obtained by the utility for DGs placement
and the TOU is
P24 PNDG
P rof it−InstDG −365 t=1 k=1 PDGk (t)OMDG (t)
P rof itN et/hr = 8760
(78)
100 / 167 IIT KGP
Assumptions
I Bus-1 is selected as the location of P QV δ bus.

I Load power factors for all buses have kept unchanged, i.e.
this is independent on the variation of the load demand.
I Voltage of the P QV δ bus (bus-1) is assumed as 1.0∠0 pu.
I Only a single DG is allowed to place at a particular bus i.e
locDG
i 6= locDG
j .
I Flat voltage profile is considered for the initiation of the
load flow.
I For MDPSO swarm size is considered as 20 and maximum
iterations are considered as 200.
I The inertia weight varies in the range of w ∈[0.4,0.9].
101 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results
I The different combinations of active power loss and the
voltage deviation given in (28) and (30) are considered.
I In scenario-1, zero power is taken from the substation.
I In scenario-2, 50% of the total load demand at any load
level is supplied by substation and rest of the load is
supplied by DGs.
I In scenario-3, the load demand to be supplied by the
substation is set according to the TOU tariff.
I For 33 bus system, DGs are placed at bus-14 (FFC), bus-3
(UPC) and bus-30 (UPC) which are determined by
MDPSO.
I For 69 bus system, DGs are placed at bus-61 (FFC), bus-17
(UPC) and bus-49 (UPC) which are determined by
MDPSO.
102 / 167 IIT KGP
Simulation Results (33 Bus)

Case-1 (Power Loss), Scenario-1 (Zero Power Intake)
I The determined size of the biomass DGs at bus-14 is

14 = 670 kW, at bus-3 is P 3 = 1900 kW and at bus-30
PDG DG
30 = 1170 kW.
is PDG
I After the placement of the biomass DGs, the active power
loss is reduced to 21.32 kW at peak load level.
I The minimum voltage of the system has been improved to
0.9884 pu.
I The voltage of the bus-18 has been improved to 0.9973 pu.
I The voltage deviation index of the system has been reduced
to 0.000476.
I The average profit obtained after the placement of the DGs
for this scenario is $114 per hour.
103 / 167 IIT KGP

Case-1 (Power Loss), Scenario-2 (Half Power Intake)

14 = 700 kW, at bus-3 is P 3 = 300 kW and at bus-30 is
PDG DG
30 = 1200 kW.
PDG
0.9794 pu.
to 0.0033.
for this scenario is $62.8 per hour.
104 / 167 IIT KGP

Case-1 (Power Loss), Scenario-3 (TOU Based Power Intake)

PDG DG
30 = 1220 kW.
is PDG
0.9791 pu.
to 0.00392.
105 / 167 IIT KGP

Case-1 (Plot for Active Power Loss)
250
Bare case
0% power exchange with upstream grid
Power exchange according to TOU tariff
200
150
100
50
0
1 5 10 15 20 24
Hours
106 / 167 IIT KGP

Case-1 (Plot for Voltage)
1.01
0.99
0.98
0.97 Bare case

0.96 50% power exchange with upstream grid
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.91
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 33
Hour
107 / 167 IIT KGP

Case-2 (Power Loss+Voltage), Scenario-1 (Zero Power Intake)

PDG DG
30 = 1200 kW.
is PDG
0.9884 pu.
to 0.000428.
108 / 167 IIT KGP

Case-2 (Power Loss+Voltage), Scenario-2 (Half Power Intake)

14 = 730 kW, at bus-3 is 0 kW and at bus-30 is
PDG
30 = 1180 kW.
PDG
0.9794 pu.
to 0.00317.
109 / 167 IIT KGP

Case-2 (Power Loss+Voltage), Scenario-3 (TOU Based Power Intake)

PDG DG
30 = 1300 kW.
is PDG
0.9799 pu.
to 0.00196.
110 / 167 IIT KGP

250
Bare case
200
150
100
50
0
1 5 10 15 20 24
Hours
111 / 167 IIT KGP

1.01
0.99
0.98
0.97 Bare case

0.96 50% power exchabge with upstream grid
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.91
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 33
Bus number
112 / 167 IIT KGP

Case-1 (Power Loss), Scenario-1 (Zero Power Intake)

PDG DG
49 = 1170 kW.
is PDG
0.9945 pu.
to 0.000262.
113 / 167 IIT KGP

Case-1 (Power Loss), Scenario-2 (Half Power Intake)

PDG DG
is 0 kW.
0.9872 pu.
to 0.00360.
114 / 167 IIT KGP

Case-1 (Power Loss), Scenario-3 (TOU Based Power Intake)

PDG DG
49 = 1030 kW.
is PDG
0.9909 pu.
to 0.00171.
115 / 167 IIT KGP

250
Bare case
200 Power exchange according to TOU tariff
150
100
50
0
1 5 10 15 20 24
Hours
116 / 167 IIT KGP

1.02
1
0.98
0.96
Bare case
0.94 50% power exchange with upstream grid
0.92
0.9
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 69
Bus number
117 / 167 IIT KGP

Case-2 (Power Loss+Voltage), Scenario-1 (Zero Power Intake)

PDG DG
49 = 1700 kW.
is PDG
0.9956 pu.
to 0.000253.
118 / 167 IIT KGP

Case-2 (Power Loss+Voltage), Scenario-2 (Half Power Intake)

PDG DG
is 0 kW.
0.9856 pu.
to 0.00333.
119 / 167 IIT KGP

Case-2 (Power Loss+Voltage), Scenario-3 (TOU Based Power Intake)

PDG DG
49 = 1000 kW.
is PDG
0.9899 pu.
to 0.00162.
120 / 167 IIT KGP

250
Bare case
200
150
100
50
0
1 5 10 15 20 24
Hours
121 / 167 IIT KGP

1.02
1
0.98
0.96
Bare case
0.94
0.92
0.9
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 69
Bus number
122 / 167 IIT KGP
Assessment of FFC DG Impact

MDPSO Based PEM with Load
and Renewable Uncertainties
122 / 167 IIT KGP
MDPSO Based PEM Method

I Point estimate based method is used to analyze the
uncertainties in the distribution network.
I Distribution network is power independent on the main
grid, i.e. no power exchange is taken place though it is
connected to main grid.
I Uncertainties due to renewable sources and load demand
(Industrial, Commercial, Residential) are considered.
I Concept of P QV δ-zero bus is used.
I The locations of DGs and the zero bus are determined by
MDPSO.
I Expected values of DGs, and shunt capacitors are found
out by MDPSO based PEM method.
I Results are compared with TLBO method.
123 / 167 IIT KGP
Objective Functions
I Different combinations of active power loss, voltage

deviation and the DG cost as objective functions.
I In Objective Function-1 (28), only power loss is considered
as the prime objective function.
I In Objective Function-2 (30), power loss and voltage
deviation are considered as objective function. The choice
of w1 = w2 = 0.5 for Case-1, and w1 = 0.3 and w2 = 0.7 for
33 bus and w1 = 0.2 and w2 = 0.8 for 69 bus for Case-2.
I In Objective Function-3 (33), power loss, voltage deviation
and DG cost are considered as the objective function. The
choice of w1 = w2 = w3 = 31 for Case-1, and w1 = 0.10,
w2 = 0.45 and w3 = 0.45 for 33 bus and w1 = 0.15,
w2 = 0.425 and w3 = 0.425 for 69 bus in Case-2.
124 / 167 IIT KGP
Hong’s Point Estimation Method

Overview
I Hong’s PEM is an approximate method to model the

uncertainty of an output variable Z.
I The statistical information of the output variable Z is
provided in terms of the moments as
P unc PN
E[Z n ]=hZ n i≈ N
l=1
n
k=1 wl,k Z (l,k) (79)
Here Z(l,k)=F (hx1 ihx2 i···pl,k ···hxm i) and N unc is the number of
uncertain i.e. random variables, where
N unc =2(N B−1)+N DG −N0act −N0react −N0DG (80)
I In Hong’s PEM the location of the k th concentration of lth
random variable can be determined by
pl,k =hxl i+ξl,k σxl (81)
125 / 167 IIT KGP

Order of PEM Used
I Higher PEM schemes consider more detailed probabilistic

information in terms of the higher order central moments.
I Positions in N m scheme highly depend on the number of
uncertain variables.
I For the system with Wiebull distributed uncertain variable
N m + 1 method is effective, as for (N ≥ 3) the PEM
method yields complex concentration.
I Hence instead of using N m, N m + 1 PEM methods are
used.
I The 2m + 1 and 4m + 1 schemes of PEM is considered.
I 3m + 1 PEM scheme gives non real values of concentrations
and hence discarded.
126 / 167 IIT KGP

Methodology
I For N m + 1 scheme of PEM, the standard locations ξl,k are

determined by solving N th order polynomial
PN
N (ξ)=ξ N +
fpol i=1 PN −i ξ N −i (82)
I The coefficients of the polynomial (82) are found out by
[P]N ×1 =−[A]−1
N ×N [λ]N ×1 (83)
I aij is an element of the matrix [A] and aij =λl,i+j−1 .
I The λl,k is the k th standard central moment.
I The weights of the N points are obtained by solving
[W ]N ×1 =[L]−1 ∗
N ×N [λ ]N ×1 (84)
127 / 167 IIT KGP
MDPSO Based Point Estimate Method

Flow Chart
Select Hr=1 Start
Read solar, wind, load Read network data, load

uncertainty data, Nunc levels, solar and wind pu
data
in
P=1
Select DG locations and
peak values of UPC DGs
Read MDPSO data such as variables for MDPSO
Find out mean as swarm, dimension, no
and standard of iteratioins
deviation
Randomly in
Compute central moments generate particles
and standard locations out
Generate the
Yes swarm
P<Nunc
?
No Find out fitness for all particles Confinement
based on the objective function criteria
I=0, L=1 minimization
Hr=Hr+1
No
I=I+1 Find global and Variables are
local best Nearest vertex Yes
approach discrete
?
Compute the
concentrations
L=L+1 Convergence No Update the
Update the
criteria meets velocity of the
out positions
? particles
Yes in
Calculate Yes
L<Npoint
moments for
?
output variables Best solution
Yes
No
I<Nunc
out
?
No
Find out GCE Find out CDF and
coefficients PDF
Yes
Hr<24
?
No Note down the
FFC DG and Stop
Capacitor size
128 / 167 IIT KGP
Gram Charlier Expansion (GCE)

I The PDF and CDF of probabilistic output variables can be
approximately expressed by a known distribution function.
I GCE Type-A method which is given by
F (x)=[1+ ∞ k
k=3 (−1) Ck Hk (x;µ,σ)]ψ(x;µ,σ) (85)
P
f (x)=[1+ ∞ k
k=3 (−1) Ck Hk (x;µ,σ)]φ(x;µ,σ) (86)
P
I φ(x;µ,σ) is the kernel of the PDF, considered as the Normal

Distribution.
I Hk is the k th order Chebycheff–Hermite probabilistic
polynomial
Hk (x;µ,σ)=(−1)k φ−1 (x;µ,σ)Dk [φ(x;µ,σ)] (87)
I Ck are the coefficients of GCE as
R∞
Ck = −∞ Hk (x;µ,σ)f (x)dx=hHk (x;µ,σ)i (88)
129 / 167 IIT KGP

Comparison of DGs and capacitors by MDPSO and TLBO
Mean value of Solar Mean Value of Wind

Obj Func Case
power (kW) power (kW)
MDPSO TLBO MDPSO TLBO
J1 1 995.30 994 998.70 1165.40
J2 1 989.50 996.20 1168.70 1165.40
J2 2 982.20 975.50 1264.20 1267.90
J3 1 1471.80 1473 1581 1594.70
J3 2 1380 1224.30 1095 1370.30
129 / 167 IIT KGP

Objective Function-1
I 33 = 1900kW p and the size of

The size of solar DG placed Psol
wind DG placed Pwin11 = 1300kW p.
I After PEM the shunt capacitor to be connected is

Q30
cap = 1200kV Ar by both 2m + 1 and 4m + 1.
I After PEM the FFC DG to be connected is
Pf3f c = 2400kV A by 2m + 1 and Pf3f c = 2350kV A by
4m + 1.
I The minimum voltage is improved to 0.979pu by both
2m + 1 and 4m + 1.
130 / 167 IIT KGP

Objective Function-1 (PDF)
0.14
2m+1 PEM by MDPSO

0.12 2m+1 PEM by TLBO
4m+1 PEM by MDPSO
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
0.1
0.08
Probability
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Expected value of active power loss (kW)
131 / 167 IIT KGP

Objective Function-2, Case-1

11
wind DG placed Pwin = 1300kW p.
Q30 30
cap = 1200kV Ar by 2m + 1 and Qcap = 1150kV Ar by
4m + 1.
4m + 1.
I The minimum voltage is improved to 0.984pu both by
2m + 1 and 4m + 1.
132 / 167 IIT KGP

Objective Function-2, Case-1 (PDF)
0.16
2m+1 PEM by MDPSO

4m+1 PEM by MDPSO
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
0.12
0.1
Probability
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
133 / 167 IIT KGP


11
Q30 30
4m + 1.
4m + 1.
I The minimum voltage is improved to 0.9869pu by 2m + 1
and 0.9885pu by 4m + 1.
134 / 167 IIT KGP

0.3
2m+1 PEM by MDPSO
2m+1 PEM by TLBO
4m+1 PEM by MDPSO
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
0.2
Probability
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
135 / 167 IIT KGP


11
Q30 30
4m + 1.
4m + 1.
2m + 1 and 4m + 1.
136 / 167 IIT KGP

0.04
2m+1 PEM by MDPSO

0.035
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
2m+1 PEM by MDPSO
0.025
Probability
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
137 / 167 IIT KGP



Q30
cap = 1200kV Ar by bboth 2m + 1 and 4m + 1.
4m + 1.
2m + 1 and 4m + 1.
138 / 167 IIT KGP

0.08
0.07
2m+1 PEM by MDPSO
2m+1 PEM by TLBO
4m+1 PEM by MDPSO
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
0.05
Probability
0.03
0.01
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
139 / 167 IIT KGP

Comparison of DGs and capacitors by MDPSO and TLBO
Mean value of Solar Mean Value of Wind

Obj Func Case
power (kW) power (kW)
MDPSO TLBO MDPSO TLBO
J1 1 550.33 555 2033.20 2031.80
J2 1 665.62 663.77 1843 1866.01
J2 2 714.42 714.06 1806.20 1794
J3 1 686.76 698.82 2055.70 2051.20
J3 2 652.87 674.15 1893.10 1921.02
139 / 167 IIT KGP

Objective Function-1

2
Q2cap = 1100kV Ar by 2m + 1 and Q2cap = 1600kV Ar by
4m + 1.
4m + 1.
and 0.977pu by 4m + 1.
140 / 167 IIT KGP

Objective Function-1 (PDF)
0.18
0.16 2m+1 PEM by MDPSO

2m+1 PEM by TLBO
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
0.12
Probability
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
141 / 167 IIT KGP


4m + 1.
Pf61f c = 2000kV A by both 2m + 1 and 4m + 1.
and 0.9855pu by 4m + 1.
142 / 167 IIT KGP

0.35
2m+1 PEM by MDPSO

0.3
2m+1 PEM by TLBO
4m+1 PEM by MDPSO
Probability
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Expected value of active power loss
143 / 167 IIT KGP


2
4m + 1.
4m + 1.
and 0.9900pu by 4m + 1.
144 / 167 IIT KGP

0.14
2m+1 PEM by MDPSO
4m+1 PEM by MDPSO
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
0.1
Probability
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
145 / 167 IIT KGP


4m + 1.
and 0.9800pu by 4m + 1.
146 / 167 IIT KGP

0.08
2m+1 PEM by MDPSO

0.07
2m+1 PEM by TLBO
4m+1 PEM by MDPSO
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
0.06
0.05
Probability
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Expected values of active power loss (kW)
147 / 167 IIT KGP


4m + 1.
and 0.9800pu by 4m + 1.
148 / 167 IIT KGP

0.3
2m+1 PEM by MDPSO

4m+1 PEM by MDPSO
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
0.2
Probability
0.15
0.1
0.05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Expected values of active power loss (kW)
149 / 167 IIT KGP
Conclusion
I Different strategies of operation of distribution networks by

placement of DGs are discussed.
I A new meta-heuristic type swarm based optimization
method ARBO is developed and compared with PSO and
TLBO for different test functions and practical engineering
problems.
I A new strategy for the placement of renewable DGs based
on the seasonal variation of the load demand is discussed.
I To improve the power factor of the networks, average load
level method is developed for the placement of fixed and
switched capacitors.
I The load growth of the networks are considered and it is
taken care of by the DGs and the capacitors.
150 / 167 IIT KGP
Conclusion
I To improve the voltage of the remotely located bus, a novel
Q − P QV bus pair concept is developed to place the
biomass DGs at Q bus.
I The techno-economic analysis is also performed which
shows that the technique is economically sound.
I For the predefined power exchange between main grid and
the distribution network, a P QV δ−zero bus pair method is
adopted.
I Results show that, the zero power exchange is more cost
effective but tough to implement whereas power exchange
according to TOU tariff less cost effective but popular
method and easy to implement.
I The effect of the random behavior of the renewable
resources and the load demand is analyzed using the PEM
method.
151 / 167 IIT KGP
Future Work
I Extend the concept of Q − P QV bus to place the renewable

DGs and the effect of the uncertainties caused by renewable
resources and load demand.
I Extend the work of MDPSO based PEM method used in
P QV δ-zero bus concept, considering correlation
uncertainties.
I Use the concept of ARBO method for finding out battery
charging and discharging strategy in presence of renewable
sources.
I Effect of hybrid electric vehicles in the microgrid in
presence of loads and renewable uncertainties.
152 / 167 IIT KGP
Papers Published From the Thesis
[1] S. Barik and D. Das, “Determining the Sizes of Renewable DGs

Considering Seasonal Variation of Generation and Load and Their
Impact on System Load Growth,” IET Renewable Power
Generation, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 1101–1110, 2018
[2] S. Barik, D. Das, “Impact of Feeder Flow Control Distributed
Generation in a Distribution Network in Presence of Renewable
and Load Uncertainties by Mixed Discrete Particle Swarm Based
Point Estimate Method”, IET Renewable Power Generation,
doi-10.1049/iet-rpg.2018.5834, 2019.
[3] S. Barik, and D. Das, “MDPSO Based Q–PQV Bus Pair
Technique–A Novel Method to Maintain the Voltage of Remotely
Located Buses with Renewable DGs,” IEEE PES Asia–Pacific
Power and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC), IEEE,
2018.
153 / 167 IIT KGP
References
I Al-Rashidi, Mohammed R., and Mohamed E. El-Hawary, “A survey of particle swarm

optimization applications in electric power systems,” IEEE transactions on
evolutionary computation, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 913-918, 2009.
I Shi, Yuhui, “Particle swarm optimization : developments, applications and resources,”
Proceedings of the 2001 congress on evolutionary computation (IEEE Cat. No.
01TH8546), Vol. 1, 2001.
I Kennedy, James, “Particle swarm optimization,” Encyclopedia of machine learning,
pp. 760-766, 2010.
I Trelea, Ioan Cristian, “The particle swarm optimization algorithm : convergence analysis
and parameter selection,” Information processing letters, vol. 85, no. 6, pp. 317-325,
2003.
I Lu, Qiang, Qing-Long Han, and Shirong Liu, “A finite-time particle swarm optimization
algorithm for odor source localization,” Information Sciences, vol. 277, pp. 111-140,
2014.
I Wu, Jui-Yu, “Real-coded genetic algorithm-based particle swarm optimization method
for solving unconstrained optimization problems,” International Conference on
Electronics and Information Engineering, Vol. 1, 2010.
I Parsopoulos, Konstantinos E., and Michael N. Vrahatis, “Particle swarm optimization
method in multiobjective problems,” Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on
Applied computing, pp. 603-607, 2002.
I Bratton, Daniel, and James Kennedy, “Defining a standard for particle swarm
optimization,” IEEE swarm intelligence symposium, pp. 120-127, 2007.
154 / 167 IIT KGP
References
I Elbeltagi, Emad, Tarek Hegazy, and Donald Grierson, “Comparison among five
evolutionary-based optimization algorithms,” Advanced engineering informatics, vol.
19, no. 1, pp. 43-53, 2005.
I Hassan, Rania, et al, “A comparison of particle swarm optimization and the genetic
algorithm,” 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics
and materials conference, pp. 1897, 2005.
I Zhang, Haopeng, and Qing Hui, “Hybrid multiagent swarm optimization : Algorithms,
evaluation, and application,” IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp.
5699-5704, 2012.
I HA, Mahmoud Pesaran, Phung Dang Huy, and Vigna K. Ramachandaramurthy, “A
review of the optimal allocation of distributed generation : Objectives, constraints,
methods, and algorithms,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 75,pp.
293-312, 2017.
I Atwa, Y. M., et al., “Optimal renewable resources mix for distribution system energy
loss minimization,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 360-370,
2010.
I Thomson, Murray, and David G. Infield, “Network power-flow analysis for a high
penetration of distributed generation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 22,
no. 3, pp. 1157-1162, 2007.
I Rahmani-andebili, Mehdi, “Simultaneous placement of DG and capacitor in distribution
network,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 131, pp. 1-10, 2016.
I Gholami, R., M. Shahabi, and M-R. Haghifam, “An efficient optimal capacitor allocation
in DG embedded distribution networks with islanding operation capability of micro-grid
using a new genetic based algorithm,” International Journal of Electrical Power &
Energy Systems, vol. 71, pp. 335-343, 2015.
155 / 167 IIT KGP
References
I Zeinalzadeh, A., Mohammadi, Y., & Moradi, M. H., “Optimal multi objective placement
and sizing of multiple DGs and shunt capacitor banks simultaneously considering load
uncertainty via MOPSO approach,” International Journal of Electrical Power &
Energy Systems, vol. 67, pp. 336-349, 2015.
I Ramadan, H. S., A. F. Bendary, and S. Nagy, “Particle swarm optimization algorithm
for capacitor allocation problem in distribution systems with wind turbine generators,”
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 84, pp. 143-152,
2017.
I El-Fergany, A. A., & Abdelaziz, A. Y., “Artificial bee colony algorithm to allocate fixed
and switched static shunt capacitors in radial distribution networks,” Electric Power
Components and Systems, vol.42, no. 5, pp. 427-438, 2014.
I García, J. A. M., & Mena, A. J. G., “Optimal distributed generation location and size
using a modified teaching–learning based optimization algorithm,” International
journal of electrical power & energy systems, vol. 50, pp. 65-75, 2013.
I Kanwar, Neeraj, et al., “Improved meta-heuristic techniques for simultaneous capacitor
and DG allocation in radial distribution networks,” International Journal of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems, vol. 73, pp. 653-664, 2015.
I Lasseter, Robert H., “Microgrids and distributed generation,” Journal of Energy
Engineering, vol. 133, no. 3, pp. 144-149, 2007.
I Chowdhury, S., Tong, W., Messac, A., & Zhang, J., “A mixed-discrete particle swarm
optimization algorithm with explicit diversity-preservation,” Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 367-388, 2013.
I Chowdhury, S., Zhang, J., Messac, A., & Castillo, L., “Exploring key factors influencing
optimal farm design using mixed-discrete particle swarm optimization,”
Multidisciplinary Analysis Optimization Conference, pp. 9280, 2010.
156 / 167 IIT KGP
References
I Alavi, S. A., Ahmadian, A., & Aliakbar-Golkar, M., “Optimal probabilistic energy
management in a typical micro-grid based-on robust optimization and point estimate
method,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 95, pp. 314-325, 2015.
I Zhang, P., & Lee, S. T, “Probabilistic load flow computation using the method of
combined cumulants and Gram-Charlier expansion,” IEEE transactions on power
systems, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 676-682, 2004.
I Xiao, Q., He, Y., Chen, K., Yang, Y., & Lu, Y., “Point estimate method based on
univariate dimension reduction model for probabilistic power flow computation,” IET
Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 11, no. 14, pp. 3522-3531, 2017.
I Delgado, C., and J. A. Domínguez-Navarro, “Point estimate method for probabilistic
load flow of an unbalanced power distribution system with correlated wind and solar
sources,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 61, pp.
267-278, 2014.
I Ma Xi-Yuan, Yuan-Zhang Sun, and Hua-Liang Fang, “Scenario generation of wind power
based on statistical uncertainty and variability,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable
Energy, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 894–904, 2013.
157 / 167 IIT KGP
157 / 167 IIT KGP
Backup Slides for Chapter-5
157 / 167 IIT KGP
Sizing of DGs and shunt capacitors

Fixed and Switched Capacitors Sizes (33 Bus)
I The fixed and switched capcitors sizes for 33 bus DNR are
Load level Shunt Caps 7th bus 30th bus 15th bus
types types (kVAr) (kVAr) (kVAr)
Low Fixed 1750 650 300
Medium Switched 0 150 50
High Switched 0 50 50
Very High Switched 0 0 0
157 / 167 IIT KGP
Sizing of DGs and Shunt Capacitors

3500
Capacitor Sizes in kVAr of bus no 7, 30 and 15
Cap size for bus no 15 Cap size for bus no 30 Cap size for bus no 7
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96
Hour
157 / 167 IIT KGP

Comparison of DGs and Fixed and Switched Capacitor Sizes (33 Bus)
DG and Caps Proposed ARBO PSO TLBO

sizes Method
Solar DG (30th bus) 1460 1456.5 1456.8 1456.7
Wind DG (13th bus) 1370 1361.6 1361.8 1361.9
Fixed Caps (7th bus) 1750 1772.3 1772.1 1772.1
Switched Caps (7th bus) 0,0,0 0,0,0 0,0,0 0,0,0
Fixed Caps (30th bus) 650 663.6 663.8 663.8
Switched Caps 150, 159.4, 159.35, 159.35,
(30th bus) 50, 0 15.91, 0 15.84, 0 15.78, 0
Fixed Caps (15th ) bus 300 278.71 278.38 278.37
Switched Caps at 50, 79.88, 79.98, 79.97,
(15th bus) 50, 0 21.51, 0 21.47, 0 21.49, 0
157 / 167 IIT KGP

I The fixed and switched capacitors sizes for 69 bus DNR are
Load level Shunt Caps 61st bus 12th bus 56th bus
types types (kVAr) (kVAr) (kVAr)
Low Fixed 1200 850 600
Medium Switched 200 100 50
High Switched 50 0 0
Very High Switched 0 0 0
157 / 167 IIT KGP

3500
Cap size for bus no 56 Cap size for bus no 12 Cap size for bus no 61
3000
Capacotor Sizes in kVar of bus no 61, 12 and 56
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96
Hour
157 / 167 IIT KGP

Comparison of DGs and Fixed and Switched Capacitor Sizes (69 Bus)
DG and Caps Proposed ARBO PSO TLBO

sizes Method
Solar DG (61st bus) 1547 1546.87 1547.83 1547.88
Wind DG (17st bus) 947 947.58 947.55 947.54
Fixed Caps (61st bus) 1200 1209.53 1209.62 1209.63
Switched Caps 200, 221.43, 221.52, 221.49,
(61st bus) 50, 0 55.14,0 55.15, 0 55.149, 0
Fixed Caps (12th bus) 850 845.87 846.63 846.62
Switched Caps 100, 112.40, 112.32, 112.33,
(12th bus) 0, 0 0, 0 0, 0 0, 0
Fixed Caps (56th bus) 600 619.20 619.149 619.151
Switched Caps 50,0,0 72.50,0,0 72.47,0,0 72.46,0,0
157 / 167 IIT KGP

Comparison of Energy Imported from the Substation (33 Bus)
4000
Bare Condition
With DGs only
3500 With Caps only
Energy imported from the grid
With DGs and Caps

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000 Winter Spring Summer Fall
500
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96
Hour
157 / 167 IIT KGP

4500
4000 Base Condition

With DGs only
With Caps only
Energy imported from the grid
3500 With DGs and Caps
3000
Summer
2500 Winter Spring Fall
2000
1500
1000
500
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96
Hours
157 / 167 IIT KGP
157 / 167 IIT KGP
DG Placement Using Q-PQV Bus Pair Method

4000
3500
Energy improted from the grid
3000
2500
Bare condition
2000 With upf DG at bus 6
With upf DGs at bus 6 and bus 11
1500 With lpf DGs at bus 6 and bus 11
1000
500
0
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96
Hours
157 / 167 IIT KGP
DG Placement Using Q-PQV Bus Pair Method

4500
Bare condition
4000 With lpf DG at bus 60
Energy improted from the grid

3500
3000
2500

2000
1500
1000
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 96
Hours
157 / 167 IIT KGP
157 / 167 IIT KGP

Case-1 (Loss)
2000
DG at bus 14 scenario-1
1800 DG at bus 14 scenario-2
DG sizes (kW)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1 5 10 15 20 24
Hour
157 / 167 IIT KGP

Case-2 (Loss+Voltage)
2000
1600
DG sizes (kW)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1 5 10 15 20 24
Hours
157 / 167 IIT KGP
157 / 167 IIT KGP

Expected Values at Peak Load Level after PEM
Objective Case PEM FFC DG Cap Ploss Vmin

Function Method (kVA) (kVAr) (kW) (pu)
J1 1 2m + 1 2383.32 1193.13 29.02 0.979
J1 1 4m + 1 2340.25 1178.97 29.08 0.979
J2 1 2m + 1 2212.08 1168.47 29.91 0.984
J2 1 4m + 1 2226.64 1140.75 29.87 0.984
J2 2 2m + 1 2039.95 1372.12 31.64 0.987
J2 2 4m + 1 2223.14 1540.78 32.16 0.988
J3 1 2m + 1 1445.5 1453.57 45.28 0.988
J3 1 4m + 1 1407.91 1515.30 44.70 0.988
J3 2 2m + 1 2024 1172.28 34.01 0.985
J3 2 4m + 1 2018.92 1181.05 33.94 0.985
157 / 167 IIT KGP

Objective Function-1 (CDF)
2m+1 PEM by MDPSO

0.9
2m+1 PEM by TLBO
4m+1 PEM by MDPSO
0.8
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
0.7
Cumulative distribution
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
158 / 167 IIT KGP

Objective Function-2, Case-1 (CDF)

2m+1 PEM by TLBO
4m+1 PEM by MDPSO
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
159 / 167 IIT KGP


2m+1 PEM by TLBO
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
160 / 167 IIT KGP


2m+1 PEM by TLBO
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
161 / 167 IIT KGP


2m+1 PEM by TLBO
4m+1 PEM by MDPSO
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
162 / 167 IIT KGP

Expected Values at Peak Load Level after PEM
Objective Case PEM FFC DG Cap Ploss Vmin

Function Method (kVA) (kVAr) (kW) (pu)
J1 1 2m + 1 2196.16 1085.04 16.88 0.984
J1 1 4m + 1 1873.01 1566.58 17.25 0.977
J2 1 2m + 1 1987.67 1487.84 15.19 0.986
J2 1 4m + 1 1974.20 1514.53 14.75 0.986
J2 2 2m + 1 2470.47 807.91 24.74 0.991
J2 2 4m + 1 2223.14 1138.89 18.95 0.990
J3 1 2m + 1 1723.83 1665.63 16.96 0.984
J3 1 4m + 1 1789.71 1541.80 17.76 0.981
J3 2 2m + 1 2100.36 1272.80 16.93 0.984
J3 2 4m + 1 2141.49 1214.72 17.14 0.984
162 / 167 IIT KGP

Objective Function-1 (CDF)

2m+1 PEM by TLBO
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
163 / 167 IIT KGP

1
2m+1 PEM by MDPSO
2m+1 PEM by TLBO
4m+1 PEM by MDPSO
0.8
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
164 / 167 IIT KGP


2m+1 PEM by TLBO
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
165 / 167 IIT KGP

1.0

2m+1 PEM by TLBO
4m+1 PEM by TLBO
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
166 / 167 IIT KGP


2m+1 PEM by TLBO
1
4m+1 PEM by MDPSO
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
167 / 167 IIT KGP

Modified Synopsis Seminar Presentation Soumya IIT Kharagpur PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Modified Synopsis Seminar Presentation Soumya IIT Kharagpur PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ch-1 Ch-2 Ch-3 Ch-4 Ch-5 Ch-6 Ch-7 Ch-8 Ch-9 Back Up

Operation of Distributed Networks with

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

I The purpose of this thesis is to develop different strategies

I To propose a new strategy to boost and maintain the

Load Demand and Renewable Generation

Load Demand and Renewable DGs

I Average time varying load demand profiles are considered.

for {i∈N|2≤i≤N B} and t represents number of load hours.

Load Demand and Renewable DGs

I Load growth is a natural phenomena in the distribution

I The uncertainty in the load demand is modelled as Normal

Load Demand and Renewable DGs

I Solar units convert the solar irradiation into usable power.

Load Demand and Renewable DGs

I The intermittent nature of the solar power generation is

I The mean value of solar power generation with solar DG

Load Demand and Renewable DGs

I Wind speed is converted to usable power by the wind

Load Demand and Renewable DGs

I c(t) is the scale factor at time t that depends on the shape

I Shape factor can be calculated by solving the non-linear

I However, the shape factor can also be approximated as

σwind (t) −1.086

Test and Objective Functions With Equality

I Optimization methods seek the best possible/optimal

I This test function is a multimodal and seperable in nature

I n is an integer number and the unknown variables are in

Figure – 3D plot of Schwefel’s function

I Michalewicz function is a multimodal test function with d!

Figure – 3D plot of Michalewicz function

I Goldstein Price Function is multimodal and non-scalable

f (X)=fa (X)×fb (X) (19)

I The two input variables defined as x1 ∈ [−2, 2] and

Figure – 3D plot of Goldstein-Prices’s function

I This function is multimodal and non-seperable. It has total

f (X)=(4−2.1x21 + 31 x41 )x21 +x1 x2 +(−4+4x22 )x22 (21)

Figure – 3D plot of Six Hump Camel Back function

I This is a unimodal, non-seperable and non-convex function

Figure – 3D plot Schaffer’s function

Practical Engineering Problems

I The weight of the spring is minimized.

Practical Engineering Problems

I The fabrication cost is to be minimized.

f (X)=0.6224x1 x3 x4 +1.7781x2 x23 +3.1661x21 x4 +19.84x21 x3 (25)

g1 (X) =−x1 +0.0193x3 ≤0

I The operation of the distribution networks in presence of

I The active power loss in the distribution network in the

I The power loss Ploss is defined as the

I Along with the active power loss, the voltage deviation of

min J2 =w1 (P LIF )+w2 (V DIF ) (30)

I V DI is the voltage deviation index of the system defined as

I This objective function includes the active power loss,

I The cost function fcosti depends on the amount of active

I The objective functions are used to solve under the

I The power exchanged from the main grid is decided by the

I The current flowing through any branch of the modified

Test Systems Considered

Test Systems Considered

A Novel Athlete Run Based Optimization

Athlete Run Based Optimization (ARBO)

I ARBO is a novel meta-heuristic population based (swarm

Athlete Run Based Optimization (ARBO)