POWER SYSTEM LOSS MINIMISATION

ATECHNICAL SEMINAR REPORT

Submitted to
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY HYDERABAD (T.S)
In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the award of the degree of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING
BY

B. MANOJ KUMAR
(20C35A0214)

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING

BALAJI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
(Affiliated to JNTU, Hyderabad & Approved by AICTE, New Delhi)
Accredited by NAAC & ISO 9001:2015 NARSAMPET,
WARANGAL-506331
2020-2023
 DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING
BALAJI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
(Affiliated to JNTU, Hyderabad & Approved by AICTE, New Delhi)
Accredited by NAAC & ISO 9001:2015
NARSAMPET, WARANGAL-506331
2020-2023

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Seminar Report entitled “ POWER SYSTEM LOSS
MINIMISATION” is a bonafide record carried out by B. MANOJ KUMAR bearing hall
ticket no.(20C35A0214), of final year in electrical and electronics engineering during the
academic year (2020-23) in the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
bachelor degree from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad, T.S.

Coordinator Head of Department

Ms . S.RODA VISHAL Dr.S.MALLIKARJUN REDDY

(Asst.Professor, EEE Dept.) (Associate Professor)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It gives me immense pleasure to acknowledgement the perennial inspiration of Prof. V.S.

HARIHARAN, Principal, Balaji Institute of Technology and Science and Associative Prof. Dr.
S. MALLIKARJUN REDDY, Head of the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering
for the kind of cooperation and encouragement in bringing out this task.
I express my sincere thanks to Ms. S. RODA VISHAL Assistant Professor EEE department,
supervising me right from the inception till the successful completion. I sincerely acknowledge her
for extending her valuable supervision, support for literature, critical reviews of seminar report and
above all the moral support.
Finally, I would like to add few heartfelt words for the people who were the part of the
seminar in various ways, especially my friends and classmates who give me unending support from
the beginning. I again pay my sincere thanks to all web communities and publishers of research
paper those I referred for my seminar.

B. MANOJ KUMAR
(20C35A0214)

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work presented in this project titled “POWER SYSTEM LOSS MINIMISATION”
submitted towards completion of minor-project in seventh Semester of B.Tech (EEE) at the BALAJI
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, NARSAMPET, Warangal . It is an authentic record of my
original work pursued under the Supervisor of Ms.S .RODA VISHAL, Associate Professor, EEE Dept..

I have not submitted the matter embodied in this project for the award of any other degree

B. MANOJ KUMAR(20C35A0214)
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the above declaration made by the candidate is correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief

Place: BITS Narsampet

Date: Mrs.S.RODA VISHAL

( Assistant.Professor )

ABSTRACT
Now a day, number of customers in distribution system is increasing, from this fact many researchers focus on
distribution system power quality, power loss minimization, stability and reliability projects.

This paper reviews about detail description of distribution system power loss minimization by using different
improvement methods. Related to these methods Optimization techniques such as knowledge based
algorithms, evolutionary algorithms, mixed algorithms and other various ways has been investigated. Also the
gap and limitation among the reviewed papers is the main focus for these review.

In these reviewed paper comparisons among different improvement method and optimization techniques,
benefits and challenges, key point and observations in addition to conclusions and recommendation included
as content
 INTRODUCTION

Reduce Losses in the Transmission and Distribution System

Losses at Each Stage of Electricity Distribution6

Estimated Loss as a
Percentage of
Energy Sold
Component Typical Typical
Urban Rural
Subtransmission Lines 0.1 0.7
Power Transformers 0.1 0.7
Distribution Lines 0.9 2.5
Distribution Transformers No 1.2 1.7
Load
Distribution Transformers Load 0.8 0.8
from “distributing The Secondary Lines 0.5 0.9 following section
describes each segment of Total 3.6 7.3 the transmission and
distribution system, with
The following section describes each segment of the transmission and distribution system, with an indication of
how losses occur and how they can be mitigated.

Step-Up Transformers. These are the transformers located at generating facilities, which convert the power
produced at generating plants to voltages suitable for transmission lines. Typical large generators produce
power at 6600 volts, 13,800 volts, 18,000 volts, or even 22,000 volts, whereas typical transmission voltages in
the United States are 115 kV, 138 kV, 230 kV, 345 kV, 500 kV, and 765 kV. Step-up transformers are typically
sized to the generating units, with modest losses at normal operating levels. If, however, they carry more power
than their original percent occur in the converter stations at each end of a DC transmission line.

Distributing Stations. Many utilities have an intermediate step on their systems, with power taken stations,”
which receive power at high voltage (230 kV and higher) and deliver that power to
multiple distribution substations at 69 kV or 115 kV. Transformer losses that occur in
 substations are incurred twice – first in transforming power from high-voltage
transmission to an intermediate voltage, then again at the substations transforming it
down to primary voltage. The principal losses in distributing stations are transformer
losses. The reason utilities use separate voltage levels is to isolate bulk power transfers
from power that is serving load. This approach increases system reliability.
Substation Transformers. These take power from the transmission system, typically at 115 kV or higher, and
convert it to the distribution voltage levels of 4 kV to 34 kV. Sized specifically for their maximum expected
loads, they very seldom carry power near that limit in order to allow for load transfer between circuits, but there
are two issues of concern. The first is core losses that may be too high when they are lightly loaded. The second
is resistive losses that may be too high when they are heavily loaded.

Voltage Regulators. These are transformers with multiple taps installed along distribution circuits to enable
increasing or decreasing voltage at various points. Historically these were installed along long rural
distribution lines to enable a step-up of voltage at distant points, offsetting reduced voltage caused by
resistance

intended capacity, losses increase sharply. This can be a

problem when generating units have been “uprated” to provide higher output without similar uprating of the
stepup transformers. Also, if the generators are operating at a non-optimal power factor (explained below), the
resulting increased reactive power output (also explained below) can

6 Hydro One. Distribution Line Loss Study. Ontario Energy Board Docket. No. RP-2005-0020. Available at:
http://www. ontarioenergyboard.ca/documents/edr-2006-rates/hydro_ one_networks/eb-2005-0378/Exhibit
%20A%20-%20Tab%20 15%20-%20Schedule%202.pdf.
of the lines. Today there are additional functions for these devices. They enable acceptance of higher levels of
distributed resources, such as residential solar, onto a circuit, by allowing the grid operator to ensure that “hot
spots” do not result from the injection of power at midcircuit. In addition, they enable more rigorous
conservation voltage regulation along a distribution line, which can reduce total power consumption (see
Chapter 5). Because they are transformers, they involve both core losses and resistive losses, and attention to
both the materials and the sizing of

these affects the level of line losses.

Primary Distribution Lines. Primary lines connect substations to circuits that bring power into business
districts and neighborhoods. These typically run at 4 kV to 34 kV. The higher the voltage, the lower the current,
and thus the lower the resistive losses on these lines. However, higher voltages require taller poles (or more
expensive undergrounding technology), so there is a cost/efficiency tradeoff.

Line Transformers. These are the garbage-can-sized cylinders you see mounted on neighborhood power poles
or in metal boxes mounted on concrete pads. They convert primary voltage distribution power to the voltages
we use in our homes and businesses, typically 120 V, 208 V, 240 V, 277 V, and 480 V.

Secondary Distribution Lines. These connect line transformers to individual homes and businesses. They are
typically very short, in part because at these lower voltages, the amperage needed to move power is significant,
which requires larger (and thus more expensive) conductors. Losses can be quite high owing to the high current.
This is especially true if the secondary load has grown beyond or faster than original projections.

Reducing Transformer Losses

Recall that transformer losses are caused in two different ways, core (no-load) losses and resistive (copper)
losses.

Core losses are the losses incurred to energize the transformer. These vary with the size of the transformer and
the materials used to construct the transformer. It is essential to “right-size” transformers to minimize core
losses. In a situation in which, for example, a large industrial customer with heavy machinery and high power
demand moves out of a large building and is replaced by a warehouse operation with only lights and
a few office machines, and no accompanying modification is made to the transformers, core losses could
exceed the annual power consumption of the new business.

Resistive losses are primarily a function of the current flowing through a transformer, heating it up. These
losses are exponential with the current. For this reason it is important to not have too small a transformer, or it
will “run hot” with high losses. One option is for utilities to install banks of three or more transformers at
substations, de-energizing one or more during low-load periods (to avoid excessive core losses), but then
switching them on during high-demand periods (to avoid excessive resistive losses). Again, there may be trade-
offs resulting from increased circuit breaker maintenance costs and risk for decreased reliability.
Reducing Line (Conductor) Losses
All utility-grade conductors are made of very pure aluminum or copper, both of which have
inherently low resistance to electrical current. There are three factors that contribute most
significantly to conductor losses. The first is the quality of the connections at each end of the
conductors (and any splices that may exist mid-line). The second is the size of the conductor
relative to the amperage it carries. The third is the voltage at which the conductors operate.

Connection quality is generally very good in the United States, but is a source of very
significant line losses in less developed countries. Corroded connectors, or simple twisted
wires, result in significant arcing of the electrical current, which wastes power in the form of
heat.

Conductor size affects the resistance of the line to current passing through it.1 Where high
amperage is anticipated, larger conductors are required, just as a larger-gauge extension cord is
needed to handle power tools and other high-usage appliances. Utilities sometimes change out
the wires or “re-conductor” an existing distribution circuit (without changing its voltage) in
order to increase the capacity and reduce losses on that circuit. This is expensive, but not as
expensive as the full reconstruction necessary to increase voltage. And sometimes there is no
other alternative, as when a single-family residential area gradually converts to multifamily or
commercial development.

Voltage affects losses by reducing the amperage needed to deliver any given number of watts to
customers. By increasing voltage on a line – which usually means that new transformers must
also be installed – a utility can reduce the amperage in the line.2 Higher-voltage lines

also generally require taller poles, however, and the costs involved in setting new poles may be prohibitive. The
use of underground cable for higher-voltage lines is several times more expensive than overhead construction
and is generally limited to relatively short distances and relatively flat terrain.

1 The radius of the conductor reflects the “R” portion of the I2R formula noted previously.
2 Thus reducing the “I” portion of the I2R formula.
Encouraging the use of distributed generation such as solar photovoltaics and wind can also greatly reduce
system losses if planned wisely. Distributed generation assists by providing a source of power closer to the
receiving loads of the utility, thereby avoiding the need for power to be delivered from distant central power
stations, suffering losses en route.

Power Factor and Reactive Power

These topics delve fairly deeply into electrical engineering, but they also represent very promising sources of
increased electric grid capacity and reduced line losses. “Power factor” is a quantity that basically indicates
how effectively a device utilizes electricity. It is measured as the ratio of “real power in kW” to “apparent
power in kilovoltampere (kVA)” on a distribution circuit or end-use. The difference between the two reflects
how efficiently real power is used. “Real power” is the portion of electricity that does useful work. “Reactive
power” establishes the magnetic field required by motors and transformers to operate, but does not contribute
to useful work.

Real power is produced only from generators – and distributed generation such as solar photovoltaics. Reactive
power can be produced from both generators and capacitors. For maximum efficiency, a generator should
operate at its rated power factor or higher. The same is true for motors and other end-use equipment.

Resistive loads (such as incandescent light bulbs) have a power factor of 1.00, meaning that they use only real
power; so real power and apparent power are the same for such loads. However, motors, transformers,
electronic equipment, and distribution lines consume both real and reactive power. So their power factor is less
than 1.00 unless power factor correction technology is applied. In fact, some motors (such as those in
refrigerators and especially older air conditioners) and electronic power supplies (such as those in personal
computers, office equipment, and televisions) impose loads on the electric system that exceed the amount of
power they actually use productively.3
While kilowatt hours (kWh) measure the amount of power used by an end-user, kilovolt-ampere hours measure
the total amount of power that must be supplied by the utility. Modern metering can identify this difference, and
can help enable consumers or utilities to take corrective action. This usually involves installing capacitors to
supply reactive power at the customer’s equipment instead of requiring the grid to supply all the reactive power
needed.

3 The increased current on the distribution system therefore affects the “I” component of the I2R formula. This means that losses
will increase by the square of the current.
Although utilities typically bill large customers in part for their peak demand level, including additional losses
owing to poor power factor, most small business and residential consumers are not charged for peak demand.
The primary reason for this is that the necessary metering equipment was historically fairly expensive, and
residential consumers had few loads that created significant power factor issues. Today both of these factors
have changed. Modern, inexpensive, smart meters can measure kilovoltampere hours as easily as they measure
kWh, so utilities can bill customers for the actual power they require (kVA), not just the power they consume
(kW). This in turn provides a real incentive for consumers to invest in power factor correction.

This is not a trivial matter. One of the most efficient home refrigerators sold, a Whirlpool 22-cubic-foot
bottomfreezer model, has been measured to have a power factor below 40 percent, meaning that the kVA
capacity required to serve it is 2.5 times the kW the unit actually consumes.4 This drives up the current on the
home circuit, the secondary distribution line, the line transformer, and so on up the distribution circuit if
capacitors are not installed somewhere on the circuit to address and correct this power factor problem. Because
conductors, transformers, and power generators are actually rated in kVA not kW, if this power factor is not
corrected, it increases the cost of the entire electrical system. And, if left uncorrected, the resulting higher
amperage imposed on lines and transformers also drives up resistive losses. Utilities – and their ratepayers –
must then spend more money sooner to replace grid equipment that becomes unnecessarily overloaded. Circuit
and station upgrades and even generation additions can be reduced or even postponed if power factor is
corrected.

As residential loads have moved from resistive loads (e.g., incandescent light bulbs, electric ranges, electric
dryers, and electric water heaters) to more electronic and motor loads (e.g., air conditioning Figure 10-2
compressors), residential power factor has become a promising source of significant capacity reduction, making
power factor correction Average and Marginal Line Losses Increase With Load 13
2
increasingly important in Assumes 7% average losses; 25% No-load, R75% I
25%
improving system efficiency.
Losses as percentage of
load (incremental load)

20%
Marginal Losses
Power factor correction is most 15 %

effective when done close to the 10%

Average Losses
5%
loads involved, so that the
0%
higher current does not affect 33% 42% 50% 58% 67% 75 % 83% 92 % 100%
Percent of Maximum System Load
wiring upstream from the end-

4 Measured by RAP Senior Advisor Jim Lazar, using a Kill-AWatt meter, on August 10, 2014.
use. Federal appliance standards could require high power factor along with high measured kWh energy
efficiency, but until this is in place and the existing appliance stock has been upgraded, utilities may be able to
achieve significant capacity benefits and reductions in line losses by addressing commercial and residential
power factor issues with carefully placed capacitor installations on distribution circuits.

Benefits of Demand Response Programs on Line Losses

Demand response (DR) programs reduce loads during the highest demand hours on a system. These are the
hours when line losses are highest, because the amperage on conductors is highest.

Because line losses are exponential, reducing load a little bit at peak hours results in an exponential reduction in
line losses.11 Figure 10-2 shows how marginal losses increase with load twice as rapidly as average losses on a
utility distribution system.12 As the figure shows, peak hour line losses on a distribution circuit may exceed 20
percent.

Conversely, off-peak marginal losses may be as little as five percent. Thus, shifting an electric water heater load
from onpeak to off-peak may save 15 percent of the power shifted, a savings that would dwarf the standby loss
that would occur from holding that hot water in a well-insulated tank.

Ice storage or chilled-water storage for air conditioning can provide similar benefits, reducing on-peak losses
dramatically, while increasing off-peak losses only moderately.

11 In mathematical terms, the first derivative of the I2R function is 2IR, meaning that the marginal resistive
losses at every hour are two times the average resistive losses.

12 Assumes an illustrative hypothetical system with 25-percent core (no-load) losses and 75-percent resistive
(copper) losses.
And there is another benefit of making ice at night: the outside air is cooler, allowing the chiller equipment to
work more efficiently because heat is more readily released (i.e., the “heat rejection” of the equipment is
improved).

The capacity value of DR needs to be measured in a manner that includes the avoided line losses, because the
amount of generation avoided is a function not only of the end-use load that is reduced, but also the losses
incurred between the generation system and the load. As noted earlier, this can range from 5 to 20 percent more
than the load.
Other forms of DR (addressed more comprehensively in Chapter 23) not only provide peak load relief, but also
reduce line losses by shrinking on-peak losses, thereby avoiding not only the fuel used to generate wasted
electricity (and the associated emissions), but also over time at least some of the capital investment in
generation, transmission, and distribution facilities necessary to supply that wasted electricity.

Regulatory Backdrop
The technical standards of the electric distribution system are defined and largely self-regulated by the
industry in the United States, notably by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the American
National Standards Institute, and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.

13 Lazar, J., & Baldwin, X. (2011, August). Valuing the Contribution of Energy Efficiency to Avoided Marginal
Line Losses and Reserve Requirements. Montpelier, VT: The Regulatory Assistance Project. Available at:
http://www.raponline.org/ document/download/id/4537.
The US Department of Energy (DOE) has regulated the efficiency of distribution line transformers since 2007,
but because of their 40-plus-year lifespan, millions of older, less-efficient transformers remain in service. States
that have adopted energy efficiency resources standards may allow utilities to meet a portion of their obligation
through distribution system efficiency improvements such as transformer replacement, conductor replacement,
or voltage upgrades.5 The DOE’s standards for distribution transformers adopted in 2013 are expected to save
350 billion kWh over the next 30 years, compared with the typical transformers being built. This equates to a
savings of about 30 percent in losses.6 Further refinements to these standards could increase these savings by an
additional one-third, although there is also a cost trade-off involved owing to the more costly materials used.

It is important to note that capital projects to install new, or to improve existing, transmission and distribution
systems or components are typically regulated by public utility commissions and require commission approval
above certain expenditure levels. Public utility commissions strive to ensure that such capital expenditures are
“prudent” and “used and useful” to avoid undue burden to ratepayers. As such, improvements in these systems
may also be required to demonstrate reliability gains and/or cost reductions to ratepayers before they are
approved.

5 Energy efficiency resources standards policies are discussed in Chapter 11.

6 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. (2013,
April). New Department of Energy Transformer Standards Are a Mixed Bag. Available at:
http://aceee.org/press/2013/04/newdepartment-energy-transformer-st.
State and Local Implementation Experiences
Aside from initial siting issues, improvements to electricity transmission and distribution systems rarely come
before air quality regulators. They do often appear in public utility regulatory dockets, typically for prudency
review and cost recovery purposes.

Almost every electric utility has undertaken specific programs for distribution system improvement, and they

generally consider line loss reduction as one of the resulting benefit streams. Comparatively few utilities,
however, have undertaken specific programs directed solely toward line loss reduction.

Burbank Water and Power, a small municipal utility in Burbank, California, is an exception. It has given
specific attention to line loss reduction in the following ways. It has:

• Increased some distribution circuits from 4 kV to 13 kV and 34 kV;

• Installed gas-cooled substations with high-efficiency station transformers;

• Re-conductored some residential circuits with larger conductors to reduce resistive losses;

• Installed smart meters that enable the system controllers to measure voltage at thousands of points

in order to facilitate a conservation voltage regulation program;

• Identified substations where one of three station transformers can be de-energized during the winter period
to reduce core losses;

• Extended power factor (kVA) rates to medium-sized commercial customers to create an incentive for these
customers to install power factor correction;

• Installed capacitor banks at strategic points on the distribution system to improve power factor; and

• Identified customers occupying premises with oversized (or undersized) line transformers to optimize or
“right-size” the transformers and thereby reduce losses.

The multiple-transformer approach described in an earlier section is used by many utilities at the substation
level, but there are also opportunities to do it at the customer level where loads vary seasonally. For example, a
program to de-energize transformers serving only irrigation pumping loads during the non-irrigation season has
been examined by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Regional Technical Forum.7 Installing the
necessary switching would, of course, require additional capital investment in the distribution system.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions

Distribution system efficiency improvements can readily avoid two to four percent of total energy required at
the generation level. Air quality regulators could nominally anticipate a corresponding reduction in GHG
emissions from reduced generation. However, depending on which generation sources are dispatched to serve
the reduced load, the impact on GHG emissions can be greater or less than the percentage of energy savings. If
older steam generating units are curtailed or retired, GHG savings are likely to significantly exceed the
percentage of energy savings; if newer gas turbines are curtailed instead, the GHG savings are likely to be less
than the energy savings percentage.

Co-Benefits
Addressing line losses reduces both capacity and energy requirements on the electricity system. In addition, by
reducing electricity generated, the societal benefits of reduced emissions – of all emitted GHG, criteria, and
toxic pollutants – are realized. Numerous co-benefits, including energy-related and non-energy benefits, also
occur with reduced generation, as noted in Table 10-2.

Where losses are reduced by improving power factor at the customer’s end-use, the amount of heat released
within the customer premises can also be reduced, avoiding some air conditioning load in air conditioned
buildings. Refrigerator motors that run cooler after power factor correction also reduce the amount of cooling
that is required for the refrigerator to keep food cool. These can provide additional participant benefits, which
are not mentioned in the table at right, in comfort and operations and maintenance costs.

Figure 10-3 illustrates that the benefits of line loss reduction spread across the spectrum of direct and indirect
economic benefits associated with energy efficiency.

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness

Table 10-2

Types of Co-Benefits Potentially Associated With

7 Refer to: Podell-Eberhardt, Z.,Travis, R., Phillips, C., & Koski, S. (2012). Draft Presentation of Five Standard Protocols.
Cascade Energy, Inc. Available at: http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/ meetings/2012/10/Draft%20Protocol%20Presentation%20 for%20Oct
%2023.pptx.
 Reducing Line Losses
Provided by This
Policy Type of Co-Benefit or Technology?
Benefits to Society
Non-GHG Air Quality Impacts Criteria and toxic
pollutants
emitted by generating units
are also reduced
Nitrogen Oxides Yes
Sulfur Dioxide Yes
Particulate Matter Yes
Mercury Yes
Other Yes
Water Quantity and Quality Impacts Maybe
Coal Ash Ponds and Coal Combustion Residuals
Maybe
Employment Impacts No
Economic Development No
Other Economic Considerations Maybe
Societal Risk and Energy Security Maybe
Reduction of Effects of Termination of Service No
Avoidance of Uncollectible Bills for Utilities No
 Benefits to the Utility System
Avoided Production Capacity Costs Maybe
Avoided Production Energy Costs Yes
Avoided Costs of Existing Environmental Regulations
Maybe
Avoided Costs of Future Environmental Regulations
Maybe
Avoided Transmission Capacity Costs Maybe
Avoided Distribution Capacity Costs Maybe
Avoided Line Losses Yes
Avoided Reserves Yes
Avoided Risk Yes
Increased Reliability Yes
Displacement of Renewable Resource Obligation No
Reduced Credit and Collection Costs No
Demand-Response-Induced Price Effect No
Other

a payback period of as little as 2.4 years for some sizes. For

Line loss reduction investments at the time of system upgrades are almost always highly cost-effective. That is,
when a transformer, conductor, or electric motor is being replaced, it is essential that the replacement be a high-
efficiency and high power-factor unit. Retrofit costs associated with replacing an in-service, operational unit are
dramatically higher than the incremental capital costs of selecting a more efficient component at the time of
installatio For example, the economic analysis associated with the

DOE transformer standards referenced previously estimated all sizes of transformers, however, the payback
period was well within the useful life of a utility-grade distribution system transformer.17
Power factor correction is one of the most cost-effective measures both utilities and customers can take to
improve efficiency and reduce losses. Making their customers aware of potential power factor savings should be
an important

17 US DOE. (2007, October). Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 197, Page 58219.
Other Considerations

Reducing line losses makes it less likely that system loads will exceed system capacity, thus enhancing
reliability by avoiding brownouts and blackouts that can occur under such circumstances.

In addition, improving the power factor of end-use motors extends the lifetime of those motors owing to
reduced heating, thereby providing end-use reliability improvements for businesses and consumers.

More fundamentally, the electric power industry is undergoing unprecedented change at this time. The
associated uncertainty should foster enhancements to the transmission and distribution system as a way to
secure greater yield from existing generation resources (which compares favorably to the risks involved in
constructing new supply resources). At the same time, however, declining electrical growth in many areas,
coupled with increasingly competitive distributed generation alternatives, may make the financing of new, more
efficient grid infrastructure challenging.
18 Adapted from: Lazar, J., & Colburn, K. (2013, September).
Recognizing the Full Value of Energy Efficiency (What’s Under the Feel-Good Frosting of the World’s
Most Valuable Layer Cake of Benefits). Montpelier, VT: The Regulatory Assistance Project. Available at
www.raponline.org/document/download/ id/6739.
19 Power factor for individual induction motors may be limited (e.g., to 93 percent) to avoid harmonic
issues, depending on the motor’s design.

For More Information

Interested readers may wish to consult the following reference documents for more information on line losses
in electricity transmission and distribution systems.

• Lazar, J., & Baldwin, X. (2011, August). Valuing the Contribution of Energy Efficiency to Avoided
Marginal Line Losses and Reserve Requirements. Montpelier, VT: The Regulatory Assistance Project.
Available at: http:// www.raponline.org/document/download/id/4537.
• Lazar, J., & Colburn, K. (2013, September).

Recognizing the Full Value of Energy Efficiency (What’s

Under the Feel-Good Frosting of the World’s Most
Valuable Layer Cake of Benefits). Montpelier, VT: The Regulatory Assistance Project. Available at
http://www. raponline.org/document/download/id/6739.
• Rozenblat, L. (2013). What is Power Factor? Available at: http://powerfactor.us/whatis.html.

• Schneider Electric. (2008). Electrical Installation Guide, Chapter K: Energy Efficiency in Electrical
Distribution. Available at: http://www.schneider-electric.com.au/
documents/electrical-distribution/en/local/electricalinstallation-guide/EIG-K-energy-efficiency.pdf.

They include global or individual compensation as needed. The optimum sizes of the batteries are
determined in such a way that they make the economic cost or return function maximum. In this objective
function, the reduction of the reactive power losses has been introduced because the installation of the
batteries reduces not only the active power losses but also the reactive losses. Since the batteries are installed
one after the other, the optimum power determined by deriving the objective function is only an initial value
from which is determined a standard size available on the market which satisfies the constraints of the
problem namely a reduction of the positive power losses and reactive current of positive branch load. This
last constraint comes to replace the stress on the tension which cannot lead to a solution if small limits are
considered.

The environment is used for this comparative study to model and simulate. A performance analysis for the
optimal location of TCSC was made by using PSO and SSA algorithms. The results show that the Salp
Swarm Algorithm is the best performing compared to Particle Swarm Optimization devices. REFERENCES
1. Mukherjee, A. and Mukherjee, V., 2016. Chaotic krill herd algorithm for optimal reactive power dispatch
considering FACTS devices. Applied Soft Computing, 44, pp.163-190. 2. Papavasiliou, A. and Mezghani, I.,
2018, June. Coordination schemes for the integration of transmission and distribution system operations. In
2018 Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC) (pp. 1-7). IEEE. 3. Heredia, F.J., Cuadrado, M.D. and
Corchero, C., 2018. On optimal participation in the electricity markets of wind power plants with battery
energy storage systems. Computers & Operations Research, 96, pp.316-329. 4. Meera, P.S. and Hemamalini,
S., 2017. Optimal siting of distributed generators in a distribution network using artificial immune system.
International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 7(2), p.641. 5. Mahmoudi, A., Ahmadi, H. and
Hosseinian, S.H., 2018. A Novel Direct Power Flow for Distribution Systems with Voltage-Controlled Buses.
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, 42(2), pp.149-160. 6.
Bhullar, S. and Ghosh, S., 2017. A novel search technique to solve load flow of distribution networks. Journal
of Engineering Research, 5(4). European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine ISSN 2515-8260 Volume
7, Issue 4, 2020 1231 7. Ghatak, U. and Mukherjee, V., 2017. An improved load flow technique based on
load current injection for modern distribution system. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy
Systems, 84, pp.168-181. 8. Mary, M.M. and Joshi, V.P., 2017, July. Load flow method for distribution
systems. In 2017 International Conference on Intelligent Computing, Instrumentation and Control
Technologies (ICICICT) (pp. 949-952). IEEE. 9. Yang, N.C. and Chen, H.C., 2018. Decomposed Newton
algorithm-based three-phase power-flow for unbalanced radial distribution networks with distributed energy
resources and electric vehicle demands. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 96,
pp.473-483. 10. Pathak, O. and Prakash, P., 2018, October. Load Flow Solution for Radial Distribution
Network. In 2018 2nd IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Intelligent Control and Energy
Systems (ICPEICES) (pp. 176-181). IEEE. 11. Parihar, S.S. and Malik, N., 2017, October. Power flow
analysis of balanced radial distribution system with composite load model. In 2017 Recent Developments in
Control, Automation & Power Engineering (RDCAPE) (pp. 160-165). IEEE. 12. Babu, B.K. and
Maheswarapu, S., 2016, December. An efficient power flow method for distribution system studies under
various load models. In 2016 IEEE Annual India Conference (INDICON) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. 13. Di Fazio,
A.R., Russo, M., Valeri, S. and De Santis, M., 2018. Linear method for steady-state analysis of radial
distribution systems. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 99, pp.744-755. 14.
Lakdja, F. and Gherbi, F.Z., 2010. Impact of Thyristors Controlled Series Capacitor Devices and Optimal
Power Flow on Power Systems. no, 16, pp.145-157. 15. Tabatabaei, N.M., Aghajani, G., Boushehri, N.S. and
Shoarinejad, S., 2011. Optimal location of FACTS devices using adaptive particle swarm optimization mixed
with simulated annealing. International Journal on Technical and Physical Problems of Engineering (IJTPE),
7, pp.60-70. 16. Gitizadeh, M. and Kalantar, M., 2009. Optimum allocation of FACTS devices in Fars
Regional Electric Network using genetic algorithm based goal attainment. Journal of Zhejiang
UniversitySCIENCE A, 10(4), pp.478-487. 17. Ismail, M., Tawfik, G. and Hsen, H.A., 2012. Optimal
location of multi type FACTS devices for multiple contingencies using genetic algorithms. International
Journal of Energy Engineering, 2(2), p.2935. 18. Dwi, L., Herlambang, S. and Muhammad, R.D., 2017.
Optimization of SMES and TCSC using particle swarm optimization for oscillation mitigation in a multi
machines power system. Journal of Mechatronics, Electrical Power, and Vehicular Technology, 8(1), pp.11-
21. 19. Monal, P., Heistrene, L. and Pandya, V., 2020. Optimal Power Flow in Power Networks with TCSC
Using Particle Swarm Optimization Technique. In Advances in Electric Power and Energy Infrastructure (pp.
91-101). Springer, Singapore. 20. Mirjalili, S., Gandomi, A.H., Mirjalili, S.Z., Saremi, S., Faris, H. and
Mirjalili, S.M., 2017. Salp Swarm Algorithm: A bio-inspired optimizer for engineering design problems.
Advances in Engineering Software, 114, pp.163-191.
Recently, low frequency HVac (LF-HVac) has been proposed as an alternate solution for HVac and HVdc
systems. LF-HVac systems combine the advantages of the two existing technologies, such as high power-
carrying capability over long distance, straightforward ac protection system, and the use of multi-terminal
networks [1]–[3]. In [4], it is shown that a significant reduction in reactance at low frequency benefits LF-
HVac transmission systems in terms of low-load and full-load voltage profiles. Voltage stability and system
dynamic response following a disturbance are also improved in LF-HVac systems compared to conventional
HVac systems [5] [6]. The possibility of implementing 16.7 Hz LF-HVac transmission for practical offshore
wind farms in Europe is investigated in [7] and [8].

Similar to HVdc systems, an LF-HVac system requires power converters for connection to a conventional
50/60-Hz HVac system, which forms a multi-frequency power system.

Besides frequency conversion, these converters offer additional control capability in the entire transmission
system. Specifically, the power flow transfer between two buses in the LFHVac and 50/60-Hz systems, i.e.
the power sent to one bus from the other one, is controlled by the power set point of the converter between
the two buses. In addition to the existing generators and shunt capacitors, the converters in an interconnected
multi-frequency HVac transmission system can be considered as additional control resources to achieve an
optimal operation with minimum system losses or generation cost. Unlike shunt capacitors, that reactive
power from the converters are able to adapt to the fast dynamics of demands makes them superior in
providing ancillary services such as voltage regulation. A generalized optimal power flow (OPF) model for
multi-frequency HVac transmission systems incorporating converter model, control, and losses is thus needed
to further optimize system operation subjected to operational constraints and demand variations.

Towards this end, several research has been done. The design of a grid-forming control for back-to-back
(BTB) voltage-source converters (VSC) to maintain a stable offshore voltage for a long LF-HVac system is
discussed in [9]. In [10], the control and coordination of BTB converters to form an LF-HVac grid and
connect to a standard 50/60-Hz HVac and HVdc grids are presented. A generalized unified power flow (PF)
formulation in polar coordinates and solution for such a multi-frequency HVac - HVdc power system are also
included. With the inclusion of BTB converters connecting two systems at different frequencies, PF can be
solved using sequential or unified approaches [11]–[13]. The latter is more convenient to be implemented in
solving OPF problems. To the best knowledge of the authors, however, no research has been done to solve
OPF in multi-frequency HVac power systems.

In conventional 50/60-Hz HVac systems, OPF is characterized as a nonconvex mixed-integer nonlinear

programing (MINLP) problem. Existing approaches to solve this OPF for conventional HVac systems include
linearization, relaxation, and nonlinear programing. Linearization methods suffers poor solution accuracy in
spite of the availability of reliable solvers. On the other hand, the solution obtained from relaxation methods
might be unable to recover the solution of the original problem [14]–[16]. The third approach addresses the
exact nonlinear model of power system, so the accuracy and feasibility of the obtained solution is guaranteed.
This approach, however, is non-polynomial hard, and it only guarantees local optimum in near real-time
applications.
One of the most effective methods for solving nonconvex NLP problems is the predictor-corrector primal-
dual interior point method (PCPDIPM) [17]–[19]. Several widely-used open-source NLP solvers such as
IPOPT were developed based on this method [20]. When these solvers are implemented in a programing
language, however, the exact formulations of Jacobian and Hessian matrices are required [21]. In addition,
their applications are limited to NLP and not applicable to MINLP problems. On the other hand, MINLP
solvers such as BONMIN implement branching algorithms to efficiently handle discrete variables [22].
However, these algorithms might take more time and iterations to converge than the

Fig. 1. An example of a multi-frequency power systems. The HVac grid s and LF-HVac grid l are connected
to each other through BTB converters using centralized control. Loads are assumed to be located only in
HVac grid s.

interior point algorithm.

As an extension of the existing works on the emerging LFHVac transmission technology, the main
contributions of this paper are:
• A multi-period OPF formulation for the optimal operation of a multi-frequency HVac transmission system
employing BTB converters with a centralized control scheme. The optimal dispatch of generators and
BTB converters as well as capacitor switching pattern are determined to minimize the system losses,
subjected to comprehensive operational constraints of ac grids and converter stations.
• A PCPDIPM-based solution framework using a derived formulation of Hessian matrices corresponding to
converter constraints. Compared to [10], the OPF formulation is written in rectangular coordinates to take
the advantage of the constant Hessian matrices of power balance constraints. These constant matrices can
be pre-calculated; therefore, the computational burden and convergence time during a real-time operation
reduces. Since the formulated OPF is nonconvex, this approach only guarantees a local solution.
The proposed OPF model and solution can be used in operational and planning analyses of a bulk multi-
frequency HVac system with other objectives such as minimizing generation costs. This framework is also
able to extend to include HVac - HVdc interconnections.
III. SYSTEM STRUCTURE AND CENTRALIZED CONTROL FOR BTB CONVETERS
This section focuses on the modeling of BTB converters employing a centralized control in a generalized
multi-frequency HVac system similar to the one shown in Fig. 1.

A. Steady-State Model of BTB Converter Stations

Fig. 2 shows the model and control of each BTB converter in Fig. 1, which consists of two VSC denoted as
VSC1 and

VSC2. These converters have identical structures and electrical

Fig. 2. A BTB converter is used to connect an LF-HVac grid to a 50/60-Hz HVac grid: the system
configuration, the interface between the two grids, and
the main control blocks.

components such as a transformer, a shunt capacitor, a phase reactor, and switching valves. These two
converters share a common dc-link capacitor, which acts as an intermediate energy storage component and
allows decoupled operation of converters VSC1 and VSC2. Each VSC converter can be thought of as a
synchronous machine without inertia. Assuming converter voltages V¯c1 and V¯c2 contain no harmonic, each
VSC converter is represented as a controllable voltage source behind an impedance [11]. The impedances Z¯T1
and Z¯T2, Z¯f1 and Z¯f2, and Z¯c1 and Z¯c2 represent the transformer leakage impedances, shunt capacitor
impedances, and the phase reactor impedances, respectively, at both side of the BTB converter.

B. Operation Modes and Coordination of BTB Converters with Centralized Control in Multi-Frequency
HVac Systems

As described above, the operations of VSC1 and VSC2 are decoupled by keeping the dc-link capacitor
voltage Vdc,k constant. At each side, the active and reactive power injected or withdrawn from the
corresponding ac grid are also controlled independently [23], [24]. The real power control target for
can be changed to regulate the dc-link voltage Vdc,k. On the other hand, the reactive power
control target for Qconvs,k and Qconvl,k can be switched to regulate the voltage magnitude Vs,k and Vl,k of the
associated bus in HVac grid s or LF-HVac grid l, respectively.

When n BTB converters are used as power flow controllers between HVac grid s and LF-HVac grid l, as
shown in Fig. 1, the following operating modes are proposed to regulate the power, dc-link voltage, and/or ac
voltage magnitude of the ac bus at each side of n-1 BTB converters:
• Converter VSC1, which is connected to HVac grid s, is set to regulate real and reactive power (PQ mode) or
real power and voltage magnitude at the kth bus in grid s (PV mode).
This means that Ps,kconv and Qconvs,k in PQ mode or Ps,kconv and Vs,k in PV mode are the input for the
OPF analysis.

• Converter VSC2, which is connected to LF-HVac grid l, is set to regulate the dc-link voltage and to control
either reactive power (QVdc mode) or the terminal voltage magnitude (VV dc mode). This implies that either
Qconvl,k in QVdc mode or Vl,k in VVdc mode is a known quantity while P conv
l,k is unknown and needs to be
determined.
This approach does not apply to one particular BTB converter, which varies the unknown reactive power
Qconvl,sl at the VSC2 side to control the voltage magnitude Vl,sl at the slack bus of LF-HVac grid l. VSC2 also
regulates the active power flowing toward VSC2 from the slack bus. However, the set point of is
unknown since it depends on the losses in LF-HVac grid l. Since the phase angle reference is lost due to the
intermediate dc stage in the ac/dc/ac conversion, the phase angle of the slack bus in LF-HVac grid l is
considered to be zero. On the other hand, VSC1 side of this BTB converter controls the reactive power
and Vdc. The active power is unknown since it depends on the unknown active power , on the Joule
losses due to the real parts of Z¯T1,

Z¯c1, Z¯T2, and Z¯c2, and on the switching losses in VSC1 and VSC2. Note that the ac bus connected to the
VSC1 side of this converter does not need to be the slack bus of HVac grid s.

IV. OPF FORMULATION IN LF-HVAC POWER SYSTEMS WITH BTB CONVERTERS

This section proposes an OPF formulation in the rectangular coordinates to determine the optimal dispatch
of generators, shunt capacitors, and converters for minimizing system losses in the multi-frequency system
described in Section III.

A. Variables

In rectangular coordinates, the state variable x includes the real and imaginary parts (es,fs) of bus voltages in
HVac grid s and (el,fl) in LF-HVac grid l. The decision variable u includes the dispatch of generators and
shunt capacitors in HVac grid ) and LF-HVac grid ). The dispatch at two
sides of all BTB converters (P ) are the other components of u. The combined variable
vector of the proposed OPF problem is thus defined as follows:
X ,
P

B. Weighted-sum Objective Functions

The objective of this OPF problem in this paper is to minimize system losses and shunt capacitor switching
operations for a given operating horizon. Within a time step, the total measured load is assumed to be
constant. Therefore, minimizing the system losses is equal to minimizing the sum of active power generated
from all generators in HVac grid s and LF-HVac grid l. The objective function of the optimal power flow is
thus defined as follows:
where and are the dispatch during the previous time step of the shunt capacitor at bus k in HVac
grid s and LF-HVac grid l, respectively.

C. Constraints of HVac Grid s

The equality constraints gPQs in HVac grid s, representing the active and reactive power balance at all buses,
are given by:

gs,kP (X) = Ps,k − (Ps,kgen − Ps,kload − Ps,kconv) = 0, gs,kQ (X) = Qs,k − (Qgens,k − Qloads,k −
Qconvs,k )
− (e2s,k + fs,k2 )Qshs,k = 0, ∀k ∈ Ns.(3)

The power Ps,k and Qs,kk injected into HVac grid s at bus k in (3) are as determined follows:

Ps,k = Gs,k:(es,kes + fs,kfs) + Bs,k:(fs,kes − es,kfs),

Qs,k = Gs,k:(fs,kes − es,kfs) − Bs,k:(es,kes + fs,kfs),

∀k ∈ Ns, (4)

where Gs,k: and Bs,k: are the the kth row of the conductance and susceptance matrices Gs and Bs. The magnitude
of voltage-controlled buses is constrained as follows:

(5)
The inequality constraints in HVac grid s include the generation limits of all generators, which are given as
follows:

. (6)
The dispatch Qshs,k of the shunt capacitor at bus k belongs to a set with multiple discrete values:

. (7)
The voltages at load buses are limited by lower and upper bounds as follows:

. (8)
The line flow constraint, which represents the thermal limit of the line between bus k and bus j, is given as
follows:

hIs,kj(X) = (gs,kj2+ b2s,kj)[(es,k − es,j)2 + (fs,k − fs,j)2]

≤ I¯s,kj2 , ∀(k,j) ∈ Ds. (9)

To guarantee the system stability, the active power flowing between bus j and bus k is also limited as follows:

−P¯s,kj ≤hPs,kj(X) = gs,kj(e2s,k+fs,k2 −es,kes,j−fs,kfs,j)

+bs,kj(es,kfs,j−fs,kes,j) ≤ P¯s,kj,∀(k,j)∈Ds. (10)

D. Constraints of LF-HVac Grid l

Assuming LF-HVac grid l does not serve any loads, the equality constraints gPQl in HVac grid l, representing
the active and reactive power balance at all buses, are given by:

gl,kP (X) = Pl,k − (Pl,kgen + Pl,kconv) = 0, gl,kQ (X) = Ql,k − (Qgenl,k + Qconvl,k )
− (el,k2 + fl,k2)Qshl,k = 0, ∀k ∈ Nl.(11)

where the real power Pl,k and the reactive power Ql,k injected into LF-HVac grid l from bus k in (11) are
obtained with an expression similar to (4).
Similar to HVac grid s, voltage constraints (5) at voltagecontrolled buses, wind generation limits (6),
capacitor dispatch constraint (7), line current limits (9), and line power limits (10) apply for LF-HVac grid l.

E. Constraints of BTB Converters

To simplify the expression, several equations in this section are shown in polar coordinates. With the power
and current directions in Fig. 2, the currents I¯s,i withdrawn from HVac grid s and I¯l,i injected into LF-HVac
grid l as well as the voltages at the shunt capacitors are calculated as follows:

(12)

Converter currents and voltages I¯c1,k, I¯c2,k, V¯c1,k, and V¯c2,k at each side of the BTB converter are
determined as follows:

I¯c1,k =I¯s,k − V¯f1,k/Z¯f1,k; V¯c1,k =V¯f1,k−I¯c1,kZ¯c1,k,∀k ∈ Cs,

I¯c2,k =I¯l,k + V¯f2,k/Z¯f2,k; V¯c2,k =V¯f2,k+I¯c2,kZ¯c2,k,∀k ∈ Cl.

(13) The Joule and switching losses PJ1,i, Psw1,i, PJ2,i, and
Psw2,i at each side of the BTB converter are calculated as follows [11], [25]:

;
;
;
, (14)

where RT1,k, RT2,k, Rc1,k, and Rc2,k are the winding resistances of the transformers and phase reactors while a0,
a1, and a2 are given coefficients.
The power balance equation gcl,kP at BTB converter k connecting HVac grid s and LF-HVac grid l is obtained
from the relationship between Ps,kconv, Pl,kconv, and the Joule and switching losses: gc,kP
(X)=Pl,kconv+PJ2,k+Psw2,k+PJ1,k+Psw1,k−Ps,kconv =0.

(15)
By substituting (12)-(14) and ignoring the capacitive element (as in the modular multilevel converter
technology), (15) can be rewritten in rectangular coordinates as follows:

where R1,k = RT1,k + Rc1,k and R2,k = RT2,k + Rc2,k.

For control design and stability analysis, it is important to take into account the capability constraints of each
VSC converter. These constraints are normally converted into equivalent constraints of voltage and power at
the ac terminal in order to be easily embedded in optimal power flow algorithms.
1) The RMS converter current Ic1,k in (13) is limited by an upper bound to protect switching devices
from thermal overheating [25]:

Without the shunt capacitive element, (17) simplifies to:

(18)
The similar inequality is obtained for VSC2 as follows:

hIconvl,k(X) = (Pl,kconv)2+(Qconvl,k )2

− (Ic,kmax)2(e2l,k+fl,k2 )≤0,∀k∈Cl. (19)

2) The rms converter voltage Vc1,k is also limited by the voltage Vdc,k across the dc-link capacitor to avoid
overmodulation [25], [26]:

where (g1,k + jb1,k) = 1/Z¯1,k = 1/(Z¯T1,k+Z¯c1,k), while the value of the coefficient km depends on the
pulse-width modulation (PWM) technique. For sinusoidal and space-vector PWM, which are the two most
popular PWM techniques, km is equal to 0.61 and 0.71, respectively.

Noticing the difference in the power convention at two sides of the BTB converter in Fig. 2, an inequality is
obtained for VSC2 as follows:
 2

Reactive power [pu]

1
1st constraint
0 Feasible region 2nd constraint
3rd constraint

2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Active power [pu]

Fig. 3. The feasible operating region of VSC1 with Vs,i = 1pu, Ic,imax = 2pu, km = 0.61, Z¯1 = 0.0001+j0.15, Srated =
2.5 pu, and kQ = 0.5.

3) The reactive power absorbed by the converter is also limited with respect to its rated apparent power
Srated:

Qconvs,k≤ kQSrated,

Qconvl,k≥ −kQSrated, (22)

where the coefficient kQ is project-specific [26], [27].

The convex feasible operating region of converter VSC1, which is enclosed by the three limits described
above, is shown in Fig. 3.

F. Loss Minimization Problem in Multi-Frequency AC Systems

Considering the objective and all constraints formulated above, the optimal power flow problem in multi-
frequency ac systems implementing BTB converters can be defined as follows:

min f(x),

s.t. g(x) = 0 (23a)

xmin ≤ Ixˆ ≤ xmax (23b) hmin ≤ h(x) ≤ hmax (23c)

The equality constraint (23a) is combined from (3), (5), (11), and (16). The box inequality constraint (23b) is
combined from (6), (7) , and (22). The functional inequality constrain (23c) is combined from (8)-(10) and
(18) - (21). If a lower or upper bound in (23b) or (23c) is missing in the original inequality, a sufficiently
large dummy constant is inserted. Since the feasible of (23) is nonconvex and the variable vector includes
discrete variables, (23) is a nonconvex MINLP problem.

V. SOLUTION APPROACH
This section describes an efficient solution approach to solve the formulated multi-period MINLP problem
(23) in a generalized multi-frequency power system. The flowchart of this modified PCPDIPM method is
shown in Fig. 4.

The developed framework has two main loops. The inner loop solves for the optimal dispatch of generators,
shunt capacitors, and BTB converters in a time step, while the outer loop is the repetition of the inner loop
for multiple time steps in a given time horizon. The lsolution of subsequent time step depends on the number
of capacitor banks in service at the previous time step.

Within a time step, as shown in Fig. 4, the solution of (23) is obtained based on the PCPDIPM. The PCPDIM
is a NewtonRaphson-based method where the variable update in each iteration is determined as the solution
of a system of linear equations Ax = b. While solving such a system of equations can be done efficiently by
using a sparse linear solver, forming A and b in the context of OPF is computationally expensive for a large
transmission system. This computational burden results from iteratively updating a high number of the
Jacobian and Hessian matrices corresponding to the power balance equations (3), (11), and (16). This paper
takes the advantages of constant Hessian matrices of all power balance constraints (3) and (11) in HVac and
LF-HVac grids by formulating the OPF problem in rectangular coordinates. Therefore, these matrices are pre-
calculated once and without any approximations for the entire multi-period OPF. In addition, a compressed
sparse row (CSR) format is used for storing only the nonzero entries in these highly sparse and large matrices
so that this step is applicable in a normal computer memory capacity. Unlike (3) and (11), both the Jacobian
of Hessian matrices of the power balance constraints (16) in BTB converter stations are not constant. The
exact forms of these matrices are derived and shown in the Appendix, and their values need to be updated
every iteration.

Another challenging issue when adopting the conventional PCPDIPM is that it cannot guarantee a global
optimum for a nonconvex problem. Therefore multiple starting points, which include both a flat start and
warm starts, are used in this work to improve the quality of the final solution. The warm

Fig. 4. Flow chart of the modified PCPDIPM method to solve the formulated multi-period OPF problem in a
multi-frequency HVac system.
starts, which strictly satisfy all inequality constraints of (23), are generated from a separately developed PF
tool for multifrequency power system [10]. The final solution is chosen as the one with the minimum
objective function.
As discussed above, the existence of discrete variables prevents the application of NLP solvers for the OPF
problem (23). In this work, the technique to deal with discrete variables in [18] is adopted. At the beginning,
all variables are considered to be continuous. When the solution is about to converge, i.e the complementary
is sufficiently small, the dispatch of shunt capacitors is forced to converge to the nearest discrete values by
adding a penalty function to the objective function.

VI. CASE STUDY

This section demonstrates the benefits of the proposed formulation in Section IV and solution approach in
Section V in minimizing system losses, capacitor switching operations, and voltage violations in a multi-
frequency HVac system.

,
Quan Nguyen (S’15) is a Power System Engineer at The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. His
research interests include transmission and distribution planning and operation: modeling, control,
optimization, and simulation, renewable energy integration, power quality, and applications of power
electronics in power systems.Keng-Weng Lao (S’09-M’17) is a Lecturer in the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, University of Macau. His current research interests include FACTS compensation
devices, renewable energy, energy saving, and energy management.Phuong Vu is a Lecturer of the School of
Electrical Engineering, Hanoi University of Science and Technology. His research interests include power
electronics and control, electrical machine drive, and renewable energy integration.Surya Santoso (F’15) is
Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. His research interests
include power quality, power systems, and renewable energy integration in transmission and distribution
systems. He is co-author of Electrical Power Systems Quality (3rd edition), sole author of Fundamentals of
Electric Power Quality, and editor of Handbook of Electric Power Calculations (4th edition) and Standard
Handbook for Electrical Engineers (17th edition). He is an IEEE Fellow.

Summary
Reducing line losses in the electrical transmission and distribution system is a readily available option to
enhance electrical efficiency and reduce generation-related emissions. Advances in technology and
understanding have made possible significant efficiency gains through investments in improved grid
components and, on the demand side, in load management at peak levels. As with several other options, the
primary limitation on this strategy is economic, not technical. It is essential that new system builds take
advantage of more efficient components. Upgrade and/or replacement of the broad electrical distribution
infrastructure now in place, however, will remain a significant obstacle. Changes in the electric power
industry, declining electrical demand in many areas, and increasingly competitive distributed generation
alternatives, may make the financing of new, more efficient grid infrastructure challenging. The advent of
mandatory CO2 emissions reduction requirements will improve the payback of such improvements, but it will
simultaneously motivate more efficient end-use equipment and clean distributed generation as well.

CONCLUSION

Reactive energy compensation is an essential operation that generates not only technical benefits but also
economic gains. It is carried out by introducing one of the FACTS devices which are the most efficient, or
capacitors connected via circuit breaker which are slower but they have proven their efficiency in an
industrial environment.