Load Balancing
Load Balancing
Load Balancing
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3022061, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. XX, NO. XX, AUG 2019 1
Abstract—Operational performance in the low-voltage distri- || Absolute value for a real number or magnitude
bution network (LVDN) can be undermined by its inherent un- for a complex number.
balances, which may become worse as the penetration of rooftop * Conjugate of a complex number.
solar continuously increases. To address this issue, load balancing
via phase-reconfiguration devices (PRDs), which can change Parameters
phase positions of residential customers as required, provides a λ The number of allowed PRDs to be switched
cost-efficient option. However, most reported approaches to con- each time.
trol PRDs require that demands of all residential customers are |Vn | The nominal voltage of the network, which is
available, which are not viable for many LVDNs without smart
meters or advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) installed. To 1.0 p.u. in per unit system.
bridging the gap in this field, this paper proposes a novel method Ci The set of customers connected to node i, and
to control PRDs purely based on measurable data from PRDs and Ci = Fi ∪ Xi , Fi ∩ Xi = ∅.
its controller. Based on limited information, sensitivity analysis in Fi The set of customers without PRD installed at
the network with PRDs is studied, followed by the optimization node i, also denoted as fixed customers.
model that comprehensively considers operational requirements
in the network. Moreover, slack variables are introduced to the R The set of measurable nodes.
model and penalized in the objective function to assure either a Xi The set of customers with PRD installed at node
strategy that is secure or with minimized violations can always be i, also denoted as adjustable customers.
provided. The model is a challenging mixed-integer non-convex µψ,k,j A parameter indicating the initial phase con-
programming (MINCP) problem, which is reformulated as an nection of a customer. µψ,k,j = 1 means the
efficient solvable mixed-integer second-order cone programming
(MISOCP) based on exact reformulations or accurate linear ap- j th customer of node k is initially connected to
proximations. Simulations based on two modified IEEE systems phase ψ.
and a real system in Australia demonstrate that an efficient ν−, ν0 Coefficients used for constraining the magni-
strategy can be provided to mitigate unbalances in the network. tudes of Vi− and Vi0 , respectively.
φ, ψ Subscripts to represent the phase in the network,
Index Terms—Distribution network, load balancing, phase where φ, ψ ∈ {a, b, c}.
reconfiguration, sensitivity analysis, voltage unbalance. σ Penalty coefficient for slack variables in the
model.
j Imaginary symbol of a complex number.
N OMENCLATURE 0
θφ,i The VA of phase φ at node i.
Abbreviations 0
θφψ,i The VA difference between phase φ and ψ at
AMI Advanced metering infrastructure node i.
BS/AS-PRDs Before/After switching PRDs Dφi,ψk Sensitivity of demand current of the j th cus-
DT Distribution transformer tomer at node k to voltage at phase φ of node
LP Linear programming i.
LVDN Low-voltage distribution network 0
Iφ,xy The current of phase φ in the DT, which is a
MILP Mixed-integer linear programming known parameter.
MINCP Mixed-integer non-convex programming max
Iψ,xy The upper magnitude limit for Iψ,xy .
MISOCP Mixed-integer second-order cone programming 0
Pφ,xy , Q0φ,xy Known active and reactive powers running out
PRD Phase-reconfiguration device
SOC Second-order cone from the secondary side of the DT.
n
UB/LB Upper/Lower bound Pk,j , Qnk,j The net active and reactive demands for the j th
UTOPF Unbalanced three-phase optimal power flow customer of node k.
0
UTPF Unbalanced three-phase power flow Vφ,i Known voltage of node i in phase φ.
0
VM/VA Voltage magnitude/angle Vφψ,i The phase-to-phase voltage (between phase φ
ZSC/NSC Zero-/Negative sequence current and phase ψ) at node i, which is a known
ZSV/NSV Zero-/Negative sequence voltage parameter.
min max
Operators Vφ,i , Vφ,i The lower and upper magnitude limits for Vφ,i,t .
∪/∩ Union/Intersection operator. x, y, xy Node indices of the primary and secondary
sides of the DT, and the index of line where
Manuscript received XX; revised XX. (Corresponding author: Bin Liu). The the DT locates.
authors would like to acknowledge that this work is funded by the Australian Zij The impedance or impedance matrix of line ij.
Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) via the project “Demonstration of three-
phase dynamic grid-side technologies for increasing distribution network DER Variables
hosting capacity” and by UNSW Digital Grid Futures Institute. αψ,k,j A binary variable indicating the phase connec-
Bin Liu, Ke Meng and Zhao Yang Dong are with School of Electrical Engi-
neering and Telecommunications, The University of New South Wales, Syd- tion of a customer. αψ,k,j = 1 means the j th
ney 2052, Australia. (e-mail: bin.liu@unsw.edu.au, ke.meng@unsw.edu.au, customer of node k is connected to phase ψ.
zydong@ieee.org) ∆Iψ,k,j The variation of Iψ,k,j after switching PRDs.
Peter K.C. Wong is with Jemena Electricity Networks (Vic) Ltd, Melbourne
3000, Australia. (e-mail: peter.wong@jemena.com.au) ∆Vφ,i The variation of Vφ,i after switching PRDs.
Xuejun Li is with Jemena Ltd, Sydney, 2060, Australia. (e-mail: es- ωi− , ωi0 Slack variables for NSV and ZSV limits of node
epco@126.com)
0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on September 13,2020 at 08:34:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3022061, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. XX, NO. XX, AUG 2019 2
0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on September 13,2020 at 08:34:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3022061, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. XX, NO. XX, AUG 2019 3
is particularly useful for a network without smart me- phase. Moreover, the voltage at node x is assumed to be
ters/AMI installed. Moreover, as slack variables are constant, which can be estimated based on measured data at
introduced to the model and penalized in the objective node y, i.e.
function, the proposed method could guarantee that the Vx0 = Vy0 + Zxy Ixy
0
(2a)
required operational requirements for monitored nodes
are always satisfied or with minimized violations. The
0
Iφ,xy = 0
(Pφ,xy − jQ0φ,xy )/(Vφ,y
0
)∗ (2b)
problem is formulated as a mixed-integer non-convex With all available information, which is summarized in
programming (MINCP) problem and reformulated as an Table I, the operational state of the LVDN can be roughly
efficient solvable mixed-integer second-order cone pro- estimated via the measurable parameters, which is the basis
gramming (MISOCP) problem based on several reason- for the optimal control of PRDs.
able assumptions and reformulation techniques, making
it more convenient for practical applications. TABLE I
The remainder of the paper is outlined as follows. The AVAILABLE DATA IN LVDN WITH PRD S
mathematical formulation of the problem is presented in
Part II, where available information from PRD controller Equipment Available Data (Complex Numbers)
and PRDs, sensitivity analysis in the unbalanced network, 0 , V 0 , I0
DT Vφ,x φ,y φ,xy ∀φ
and developed mathematical model are discussed separately. 0 ∀φ, ∀i ∈ R
Measurable Nodes Vφ,i
Solution techniques are presented in Part III, and case studies
µφ,i,j ∀φ, ∀i, ∀j
based on the two modified IEEE systems and a real system Adjustable Customers n = P n + jQn ∀i, ∀j
Si,j i,j i,j
in Australia are performed in Part IV. The paper is concluded
with some discussions in Part V.
0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on September 13,2020 at 08:34:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3022061, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. XX, NO. XX, AUG 2019 4
0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on September 13,2020 at 08:34:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3022061, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. XX, NO. XX, AUG 2019 5
optimally control PRDs in real-time operation, where Specifically, assuming the range of VA in phase φ for any
SNTM and SIPM are executed at each period with node is [δφmin , δφmax ], where δφmin = δφ −∆δ, δφmax = δφ +∆δ and
different available information, leading to various strate- both δφ and ∆δ are given parameters, linearly approximating
gies. The strategy is kept unchanged before they are (9j)ll leads to
updated in the next period. Moreover, to provide the min −
required information for making strategies, the operation Xφ,i cos δφ + Yφ,i sin δφ ≥ Vφ,i − τφ,i (11)
of LVDN is simulated by periodically solving the UTPF Linearizing another NCX constraint (7c) is based on the
in each period with updated information. ∗
approximation of 1/Vψ,k by the following expression [23].
∗
Updated Residential 1/Vψ,k ≈ kψX Xψ,k + kψY Yψ,k + bX X
ψ + j(hψ Xψ,k +
Demands
Network
operational state where kψX , kψY , bX X Y Y
ψ and hψ , hψ , bψ are parameters to be fitted
Operation Simulation
LVDN @ Period t
Data Process & Making Strategies
for phase ψ.
From SNTM based on: Until
The general idea to fit the parameters is based on the
previous period Updated PRD
Phase Positions
(1) Voltages (Measurable nodes)
(2) Currents in the DT
Updated PRD
Phase Positions
next period
least-square method with a sufficient number of sampled
(3) P&Q of adjustable customers points in the feasible region of Vψ,k . This method has been
demonstrated with high accuracy, and more details can be
From Until
found in [23], [32], which are omitted here for simplicity.
SIPM based on: ∗
previous period Updated PRD
Phase Positions
(1) CMs of adjustable customers
Updated PRD
Phase Positions
next period
With (12), ∆(1/Vψ,k ) can be expressed as
(2) CMs in the DT
∗
∆(1/Vψ,k ) = kψX ∆Xψ,k + kψY ∆Yψ,k + j(hX
ψ ∆Xψ,k +
Fig. 4. Scheme for real-time control of PRDs in LVDN. hYψ ∆Yψ,k ) ∀ψ, ∀k (13)
4) SNTM is a MINCP problem due to the introduced Combining (7c) and (13) leads to
integer variables and non-convex parts in (7c) and (9j). n
ζψ,k,j = (Pk,j − jQnk,j )[(kψX + jhX
ψ )αψ,k,j ∆Xψ,k +
Solution techniques to make the formulated problem
efficiently solvable will be discussed in the next section. (kψY + jhYψ )αψ,k,j ∆Yψ,k ] ∀ψ, ∀k, ∀j (14)
Obviously, non-convex parts in (14) now are κX ψ,k,j =
III. S OLUTION T ECHNIQUES αψ,k,j ∆Xψ,k and κYψ,k,j = αψ,k,j ∆Yψ,k . Noting that they
A. Reformulating Constraints are in bilinear form and each of them can be expressed as the
To make solution techniques clearer, constrains in (9) are product of a continuous variable and a binary variable, they
can be exactly reformulated as a set of MIL constraints based
categorized as shown in Table II, followed by the reformula- on McCormick envelope [33], yielding
tion or linearization of each type of constraint. n
ξψ,k,j = (Pk,j − jQn X X X Y
k,j )[(kψ + jhψ )κψ,k,j + (kψ +
Operational
constraints: (9b)-(9d), Other linear terms
(9e)-(9o)
B. Algorithm
Based on the above reformulation techniques, (9) is re-
Fig. 5. Illustration of dealing with voltage constraints. formulated as an efficient solvable MISOCP problem. The
0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on September 13,2020 at 08:34:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3022061, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. XX, NO. XX, AUG 2019 6
Distribution
Transformer 0
6 8
1
4 3 2 5 6 7 -0.5
5 4 3 2 17
-1
10 9 -0.5 0 0.5 1
7 12 13 15
Real Part (p.u.)
11 9
16
12 11 13
8 10 14
Fig. 8. The comparison of solutions from cosine law (1) and initially
generated random scenarios.
Fig. 7. Topology of the IEEE-13 LVDN (Orange: phase a; Green: phase b;
Purple: phase c). As shown in Fig. 8, (1) is accurate in providing VA
information at each node and is readily to be applied in
The IEEE-13 LVDN is with 17 single-phase powered cus- practice.
tomers, where five customers are with PV panels, and the
capacity for each of them is 5 kW. There are 5 PRDs installed
at customer 3,7,9,11 and 17 for the IEEE-13 LVDN. C. Case II
Moreover, ν − is set as 2%, which is based on the opera- 1) Operational performance at specific periods: The op-
tional requirements in Australian distribution networks [36], timal control of PRDs in the IEEE-13 LVDN is studied in
and ν 0 is set as 4.5%. σ is set as 1000 and the voltage this case based on the scheme presented in Fig. 4. Before
of the root node is a known parameter, which is set as introducing PRDs, i.e., for NPRD, phase positions of 5 ad-
2π 2π
Vx0 = [1.0ej0 , 1.0e−j 3 , 1.0ej 3 ]T for all periods throughout justable customers are c, b, a, c and c, respectively. Simulation
the day for clearer illustration. Other parameters and topology results are presented in Fig. 9-Fig. 15. Specifically, simulation
information of the system can be found in [37]. results of two periods (Period 8 and 18 corresponding to 8:00
The Australian LVDN is with 26 nodes in the main feeder, and 18:00) are investigated with more details, followed by the
and 69 customers, each of which is powered by single-phase or network performance analysis throughout the whole day2 .
three phases. Among the 69 customers, 16 of them are with PV The initial phase positions of 5 PRDs at period 8 are
panels, and 14 of them are equipped with PRDs. Other opera- a, b, c, a, c, which are the optimized results from the previous
tional parameters, including the topology, residential demands period. After 0.07 second, SNTM reports the optimized posi-
and PRD locations, can be found in [37]. Different from the tions of all PRDs as a, a, a, a, c. The maximum zero-sequence
modified IEEE-13 LVDN, voltages of the root node for this voltage (ZSV) and negative sequence voltage (NSV) levels of
system throughout the day are set according to historical data, all measurable nodes are 1.33% and 2.36% initially and are
as discussed later. 0.74% and 1.40% after switching PRDs to the updated posi-
The European LVDN is a much larger system with 907 tions. To verify the accuracy of the proposed method, UTPF
buses and 55 single-phase powered residential customers. is employed to get the exact operational state of the whole
Based on original data from [38], we further assume there network after fixing PRDs at their optimized phase positions3 .
are ten residential customers with PV installed and each of The calculated maximum ZSV and NSV by SNTM+PF are
the installations is 5 kW. Moreover, PV is assumed to be 0.76% and 1.39%, respectively, which are very close to the
generating at their capacity values at noon. Other data for the results reported by SNTM. The overall current unbalance level
European LVDN, including the PRDs location information can is reduced from 9.04 A to 4.95 A reported by SNTM, and
also be found in [37]. to 5.05 A by SNTM+PF. The result again shows that the
Cases to be studied are outlined as follows. simulation results of SNTM and SNTM+PF are close to each
1) Case I: This case is used to demonstrate the efficiency other.
of the employed method to determine the VAs of any VMs of all nodes at period 8 are presented in Fig. 9, where
two phases, as discussed in Section II-A. they vary significantly after switching PRDs to optimized
2) Case II: This case is based on the IEEE-13 LVDN. In phase positions. However, VMs all fall into the secure region
this case, the efficiency and optimality of SNTM will be for both the initial state and the updated state. Moreover, the
studied, followed by its comparisons with both SIPM errors for measurable nodes for SNTM and SNTM+PF are
and the case when no PRD is introduced (denoted as
NPRD). 2 For
the IEEE-13 LVDN, the time resolution of controlling PRDs is 1-hour.
3) Case III: This case is based on the Australian LVDN 3 “SNTM/SIPM+PF” is used to represent the refined simulation results by
and the European LVDN to show the effectiveness and UTPF after fixing PRD at optimized phase positions provided by SNTM/SIPM
practicality of the proposed method. throughout the context.
0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on September 13,2020 at 08:34:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3022061, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. XX, NO. XX, AUG 2019 7
1.02
Phase a (Initial)
Phase b (Initial)
Phase a (SNTM+PF)
Phase b (SNTM+PF)
Phase a (SNTM)
Phase b (SNTM)
However, as PRDs are usually dispersedly installed in the
Phase c (Initial) Phase c (SNTM+PF) Phase c (SNTM) network, the operational requirements of most non-measurable
Voltage Magnitude (p.u.)
1.01 nodes are expected to be satisfied once they are reached at all
measurable nodes.
1 2) Accuracy analysis: To verify the rationality of neglect-
ing variations of demand currents at fixed customers, their
0.99 values before and after switching PRDs at periods 8 and 18
are presented in Fig. 11. As shown in the figure, the variations
0.98 are minimal, which further demonstrates approximating (4) by
(5) is accurate enough for the developed model.
0.97
2 4 6 8 10 12
2 Real Part (BS-PRDs) 4
Node Real Part (AS-PRDs)
Imaginary Part (BS-PRDs)
1.5 Imaginary Part (AS-PRDs) 3
Fig. 9. Voltage magnitudes at period 8 for the IEEE-13 LVDN.
1 2
Current (p.u.)
0.5
1
sufficiently small, which, along with other simulation results 0
at this period, demonstrates the accuracy of the sensitivity- 0
-0.5
based method. -1
The simulation results of period 18 are presented in Fig. 10 -1
and Table III. -1.5
-2
5 10 15 5 10 15
TABLE III
Customer Index Customer Index
S IMULATION RESULTS OF SNTM, SNTM+PF, SIPM+PF AT PERIOD 18.
Fig. 11. Demand currents of fixed customers before/after switching PRDs
SNTM SIPM (BS/AS-PRDs) at period 8 (left) and 18 (right).
Indicator/Method
Initial SNTM+PF Initial SIPM+PF
z− + z0 3.15 2.50 3.78 1.91 3) Optimality analysis: In this section, the optimality of the
zd 5.09 3.50 6.14 3.09 solution provided by SNTM will be investigated based on the
max NSV(i ∈ R) 0.32% 0.54% 1.185% 1.12% following steps for period 8 in the IEEE-13 LVDN.
max ZSV(i ∈ R) 1.45% 0.74% 3.11% 2.80%
PRD 1) Enumerate all possible strategies to control PRDs. As
c, c, c, a, b c, c, a, c, b a, b, c, a, c b, b, c, a, c there are 5 PRDs in the network, the total number of
phase positions
possible strategies is 35 = 243.
2) For each possible strategy, fix positions of all PRDs
accordingly and run the UTPF for the network.
1.02
Phase a (Initial)
Phase b (Initial)
Phase a (SNTM+PF)
Phase b (SNTM+PF)
Phase a (SNTM)
Phase b (SNTM)
Phase a (SIPM+PF)
Phase b (SIPM+PF)
VM Lower Limit 3) Analyze the simulation results of all possible strategies,
Phase c (Initial) Phase c (SNTM+PF) Phase c (SNTM) Phase c (SIPM+PF)
find the one with minimal current unbalance in the DT
Voltage Magnitude (p.u.)
1
and without any constraint operational violations.
The simulation results, including the upper bound (UB) and
0.98
lower bound (LB) of VMs, UB and LB of voltage unbalances,
number of PRDs switched, and the current unbalance level for
0.96
each possible strategy are presented in Fig.124 .
0.94 8 NSV (All Strategies) NSV (Strategy from SNTM)
Voltage Magnitude (p.u.)
2
UB (All Strategies) UB (Strategy from SNTM)
LB (All Strategies) LB (Strategy from SNTM)
Fig. 10. Voltage magnitudes at period 18 for the IEEE-13 LVDN. 0.9
5
All Strategies Strategy from SNTM All Strategies Strategy from SNTM
Number of Switched PRDs
4 20
In Fig. 10, VMs of phase a at node 9-11 are below the lower
3
limit initially. However, this violation is adequately addressed 15
0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on September 13,2020 at 08:34:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3022061, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. XX, NO. XX, AUG 2019 8
observed, which, together with the accuracy analysis in the last NPRD and SIPM can be brought down to within the upper
subsection, demonstrates that the provided strategy is likely to limits effectively by SNTM, as shown in Fig. 15.
achieve global optimality. In summary, the simulation results of Case II demonstrate
4) Operational performance during the whole day: The that the proposed sensitivity-based method is accurate enough
operational performances of the network throughout the whole and can provide a satisfactory strategy that effectively im-
day are presented in Fig. 13-Fig. 15, where for NPRD, 5 proves the network’s operational performance, i.e., mitigating
adjustable customers at all periods are fixed at their original current unbalance in the DT while ameliorating both VM and
phase position c, b, a, c, c respectively as shown in Fig. 7. As voltage unbalance levels.
shown in Fig. 13, SNTM always provides a strategy that better
minimizes the current unbalance (z − + z 0 ) than NPRD, while D. Case III
SIPM may lead to a worse result, particularly around the
midday. It is noteworthy that although SIPM is to minimize the 1) Australian LVDN: For the Australian LVDN, the VMs
CM unbalance (z d ), the true operational state of the network at the primary side of the DT, i.e., node x, throughout the
reveals that this cannot be guaranteed due to neglecting the whole day are presented in the middle subgraph of Fig. 165 ,
phase angles of relevant terms as shown in Fig. 13. where voltage volatility and unbalance can be observed.
Simulation results for this case are presented in the top and
bottom subgraphs of Fig. 16 and Fig. 17.
NPRD
40 SNTM+PF
SIPM+PF
z-+z0 (A)
30
50 NPRD
20 SNTM+PF
z-+z0 (A)
40
10
30
20
10
NPRD Time (hour)
30 SNTM+PF
VM@Node x (p.u.)
25 SIPM+PF
1.09 Phase a
20 Phase b
zd (A)
1.08
Phase c
15 1.07
10 1.06
5 1.05
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hour) VM Level (p.u.) 1.1
1.08
1.06
Fig. 13. Current unbalance throughout the whole day for the IEEE-13 LVDN. 1.04 NPRD Average (NPRD) VM Upper Limit
1.02 SNTM+PF Average (SNTM+PF)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hour)
1.06
1.04
Fig. 16. Current unbalance and voltage magnitude levels throughout the whole
1.02
day for the Australian LVDN.
VM Level (p.u.)
0.98
2
0.96 NPRD Average (NPRD) NSV Limit
SNTM+PF Average (SNTM+PF)
NSV Level (%)
0.94 1.5
0.92
1
0.9 SIPM+PF Average (SIPM+PF) VM Limits
NPRD Average (NPRD)
0.88 SNTM+PF Average (SNTM+PF) 0.5
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hour)
4 Time (hour)
ZSV Limit
ZSV Level (%)
3
Fig. 14. Voltage magnitude levels throughout the whole day for the IEEE-13
LVDN. 2
2
Fig. 17. Voltage unbalance levels throughout the whole day for the Australian
1
LVDN.
ZSV Limit Time (hour)
10
As shown in the figure, current unbalances in the DT can be
ZSV Level (%)
8
6
effectively mitigated, leading to a 67.10% reduction averagely
4 of the whole day. On operational security, the network experi-
2
ences violations of upper VM limits from around period 15 to
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (hour)
16 18 20 22 24
period 16, which can be adequately addressed after controlling
PRDs by the proposed method, as shown in Fig. 16.
Fig. 15. Voltage unbalance levels throughout the whole day for the IEEE-13 Moreover, voltage unbalance level exceeds the upper limit
LVDN. slightly around period 6:00 and around 21:00, and significantly
from around 15:00 to 19:00 in the network. However, this
Based on Fig. 14, VMs for SNTM at most periods are issue can also be adequately addressed by optimally switch-
within the secure region except slight violations at period 20 ing PRDs, as shown in Fig. 17. Regarding the computation
and 21. However, it is found that the violations occur only efficiency, solving SNTM once only takes approximately 0.27
at the non-measurable node 10, and VMs of all measurable second, which implies the proposed method is readily applied
nodes are within the secure region for all periods. By contrast, in practical systems.
violations of VM limits frequently occur throughout the day
for the other two methods. Similar results are observed for 5 Different from the IEEE-13 LVDN, time resolutions for the Australian
voltage unbalance levels, where the significant violations for LVDN and the European LVDN are 5 minutes and 1 minute, respectively.
0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on September 13,2020 at 08:34:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3022061, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. XX, NO. XX, AUG 2019 9
150
The current unbalances in the DT, NSV, ZSV and VM levels NPRD
z-+z0 (A)
100 SNTM+PF
at node 11 in the Australian LVDN before and after switching
50
PRDs are present in 18.
VM Level (p.u.)
1.08 NPRD Average (NPRD)
1.06
SNTM+PF Average (SNTM+PF)
BS-PRDs 1.04
z-+z0 (A)
30 AS-PRDs 1.02
20 1
0.98
10 0.96
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
2 6
NPRD Average (NPRD) NSV Limit ZSV Limit
NSV/ZSV(%)
VM@Node 11 (p.u.)
1.1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
1.08
Time (hour) Time (hour)
1.06 1.09
1.04
Phase a (BS-PRDs) Phase a (AS-PRDs) VM Limits 1.08
1.02 Phase b (BS-PRDs) Phase b (AS-PRDs)
1
Phase c (BS-PRDs) Phase c (AS-PRDs)
1.07
Fig. 19. Current unbalance (in the DT), VM levels and NSV/ZSV for the
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hour)
13 14
Time (hour)
15 16 European LVDN throughout the day.
Active Power 60
40
Reactive Power
Fig. 18. Current unbalance (in the DT), NSV/ZSV and VM levels of node
20 50
0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on September 13,2020 at 08:34:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3022061, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. XX, NO. XX, AUG 2019 10
method can be executed to update the control strategy only [11] S. Karagiannopoulos, P. Aristidou, and G. Hug, “A centralised control
when monitored unbalance, either current unbalance in the method for tackling unbalances in active distribution grids,” in 2018
Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC), Dublin, Ireland, 2018.
DT or voltage unbalance of measurable nodes, exceeds a [12] F. Geth, J. Tant, R. Belmans, and J. Driesen, “Balanced and unbalanced
predefined level, or VM violation is detected for monitored inverter strategies in battery storage systems for low-voltage grid sup-
nodes. However, as substantial voltage unbalance may pass port,” IET Generation, Transmission Distribution, vol. 9, no. 10, pp.
929–936, 2015.
from the upstream medium-voltage distribution network to [13] T.-H. Chen and J.-T. Cherng, “Optimal phase arrangement of distribu-
LVDN, and the target of balancing the network may be tion transformers connected to a primary feeder for system unbalance
unachievable merely by PRDs under some extreme operational improvement and loss reduction using a genetic algorithm,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 994–1000, 2000.
conditions, other measures may be required to further tackle [14] C. H. Lin, C. S. Chen, H. J. Chuang, and C. Y. Ho, “Heuristic rule-based
the unbalance issue. Therefore, exploring the formulation phase balancing of distribution systems by considering customer load
when other controllable devices, e.g. PV inverter, battery patterns,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 709–716, 2005.
[15] C. H. Lin, C. S. Chen, M. Y. Huang, H. J. Chuang, M. S. Kang,
energy storage system, tap position of the DT, are incorporated C. Y. Ho, and C. W. Huang, “Optimal phase arrangement of distribution
in the network and developing efficient algorithms fall in feeders using immune algorithm,” in Proc. International Conference on
our future research interests. Moreover, how to consider the Intelligent Systems Applications to Power Systems, Toki Messe, Niigata,
Japan, 2007.
generation or demand uncertainties when updating the control [16] L. Chia-Hung, C. Chao-Shun, C. Hui-Jen, H. Ming-Yang, and H. Chia-
strategies is also worthy of more effort. Wen, “An expert system for three-phase balancing of distribution feed-
Besides, switching PRDs could have some impacts on ers,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1488–1496, 2008.
[17] R. A. Hooshmand and S. Soltani, “Fuzzy optimal phase balancing of
appliances of residential customers. Nevertheless, to the au- radial and meshed distribution networks using bf-pso algorithm,” IEEE
thors’ experience, the switching process is not likely to cause Trans. Power Syst., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 47–57, 2012.
significant impacts or damages on common residential ap- [18] K. Wang, S. Skiena, and T. G. Robertazzi, “Phase balancing algorithms,”
Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 96, pp. 218–224, 2013.
pliances. Moreover, when installing PRDs in a real power [19] J. Horta, D. Kofman, D. Menga, and M. Caujolle, “Augmenting der
system, customers with life-support equipment or PV panels hosting capacity of distribution grids through local energy markets and
are excluded to minimize the risk of incurring outage or dynamic phase switching,” in Proc. the Ninth International Conference
on Future Energy Systems - e-Energy ’18, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2018.
temporary shutdown of such devices. [20] X. Geng, S. Gupta, and L. Xie, “Robust look-ahead three-phase bal-
On placing PRDs, there are experience-based and ancing of uncertain distribution loads,” in The Hawaii International
optimization-based methods. In the former one, based on Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Maui, Hawaii, 2018.
which the PRD locations are selected for the European LVDN, [21] ARENA, “Demonstration of three dynamic grid-side technologies in
australia,” https://arena.gov.au/projects/demonstration-of-three-dynamic
customers with higher demand levels are usually selected -grid-side-technologies/.
because they could balance the network more effectively, [22] B. Liu, K. Meng, Z. Y. Dong, P. Wong, and T. Ting, “Unbalance
particularly when the penetration of PV is high. In the latter, mitigation via phase-switching device and static var compensator in low-
voltage distribution network,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2020.
placing PRDs could be formulated as an optimization problem [23] H. Ahmadi, J. R. Marti, and A. von Meier, “A linear power flow
considering both installation and operational constraints based formulation for three-phase distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Power
on historical data, which is the one used in this paper for Syst., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 5012–5021, 2016.
[24] L. Gan and S. H. Low, “Convex relaxations and linear approximation for
the IEEE-13 LVDN and the Australian LVDN. However, opf in multiphase radial networks,” in Proc. Power Systems Computation
placing PRDs may also be impacted by specific PRD control Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 2018.
algorithms. How to install PRDs considering the specific [25] B. A. Robbins and A. D. Dominguez-Garcia, “Optimal reactive power
dispatch for voltage regulation in unbalanced distribution systems,” IEEE
control algorithm, and to achieve a compromise between the Trans. Power Syst., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 2903–2913, 2016.
observability and controllability in the network is beyond the [26] J. A. Castrillon, J. S. Giraldo, and C. A. Castro, “MILP for optimal reac-
scope of this paper and also needs more efforts in our future tive compensation and voltage control of distribution power systems,” in
Proc. IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, Chicago, USA,
work. 2017.
[27] J. C. Lopez, J. F. Franco, M. J. Rider, and R. Romero, “Optimal
R EFERENCES restoration/maintenance switching sequence of unbalanced three-phase
distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 6058–
[1] P. Wong, A. Kalam, and R. Barr, “Modelling and analysis of practical 6068, 2018.
options to improve the hosting capacity of low voltage networks for [28] T. Jen-Hao, “A direct approach for distribution system load flow solu-
embedded photo-voltaic generation,” IET Renew. Power Gener., vol. 11, tions,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 882–887, 2003.
no. 5, pp. 625–632, 2017. [29] H. Fang, W. Sheng, J. Wang, Y. Liang, J. Wang, and S. Wang, “Research
[2] M. M. Haque and P. Wolfs, “A review of high PV penetrations in LV on the method for real-time online control of three-phase unbalanced
distribution networks: Present status, impacts and mitigation measures,” load in distribution area,” Proceedings of the CSEE, vol. 35, no. 9,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 62, pp. 1195–1208, 2015.
2016. [30] G. Grigoras, M. Gavrilas, B. Neagu, O. Ivanov, I. Tris, tiu, and C. Bulac,
[3] J. Zhu, M.-Y. Chow, and F. Zhang, “Phase balancing using mixed-integer “An efficient method to optimal phase load balancing in low voltage
programming,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1487–1492, distribution network,” in 2019 International Conference on Energy and
1998. Environment (CIEM), Timisoara, Romania, 2019.
[4] J. Zhu, G. Bilbro, and M.-Y. Chow, “Phase balancing using simulated [31] S. Liu, R. Jin, H. Qiu, X. Cui, Z. Lin, Z. Lian, Z. Lin, F. Wen, Y. Ding,
annealing,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1508–1513, Q. Wang, and L. Yang, “Practical method for mitigating three-phase
1999. unbalance based on data-driven user phase identification,” IEEE Trans.
[5] A. Kharrazi, V. Sreeram, and Y. Mishra, “Assessment techniques of Power Syst., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 1653–1656, 2020.
the impact of grid-tied rooftop photovoltaic generation on the power [32] B. Liu, K. Meng, P. Wong, Z. Y. Dong, C. Zhang, B. Wang, T. Ting,
quality of low voltage distribution network - A review,” Renewable and and Q. Qu, “Improving operational feasibility of low-voltage distribution
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 120, 2020. network by phase switching devices,” in Proc. 8th IET International
[6] “Solar report (January 2019),” Australian Energy Council, Report, Conference on Renewable Power Generation, Shanghai, China, 2019.
2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.energycouncil.com.au/media [33] A. Gupte, S. Ahmed, M. Cheon, and S. Dey, “Solving mixed integer
/15358/australian-energy-council-solar-report -january-2019.pdf bilinear problems using MILP formulations,” SIAM Journal on Opti-
[7] F. Shahnia, P. J. Wolfs, and A. Ghosh, “Voltage unbalance reduction mization, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 721–744, 2013.
in low voltage feeders by dynamic switching of residential customers [34] J. Lofberg, “Yalmip : a toolbox for modeling and optimization in
among three phases,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1318– Matlab,” in Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Computer Aided
1327, 2014. Control Systems Design, New Orleans, USA, 2004.
[8] “Distributed voltage control strategy for LV networks with inverter- [35] I. IBM, “Cplex user’s manual,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https:
interfaced generators,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 107, pp. //www.ibm.com/analytics/cplex-optimizer
85 – 92, 2014. [36] “Electricity distribution code (version 9),” Essential Services Commis-
[9] S. Weckx and J. Driesen, “Load balancing with EV chargers and pv sion, Report, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.esc.vic.gov.au/sit
inverters in unbalanced distribution grids,” IEEE Trans. Sustainable es/default/files/documents/Electricity-Distribution-Code-Version-9.pdf
Energy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 635–643, 2015. [37] “Simulation data for LVDNs,” https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SxS
[10] P. Fortenbacher, M. Zellner, and G. Andersson, “Optimal sizing and iQR05nDituIQDmZnDQU o1YWy22zU.
placement of distributed storage in low voltage networks,” in 2016 Power [38] “Simulation data for the IEEE European LVDN,” https://site.ieee.org/
Systems Computation Conference (PSCC), Genoa, Italy, 2016. pes-testfeeders/resources/.
0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on September 13,2020 at 08:34:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3022061, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. XX, NO. XX, AUG 2019 11
Bin Liu (M’19) received the Bachelor, Master and Xuejun Li received Master degree of electric power
Ph.D. degrees all in electrical engineering from system from Shandong University, Ph.D. degree
Wuhan University, Wuhan, China, in 2009, China from Beijing Jiaotong University and MBA degree
Electric Power Research Institute, Beijing, China, from The University of Sydney. Dr. Li is currently
in 2012 and Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, the Deputy Executive General Manager of Jemena
in 2015, respectively. He is currently a Research and looks after the gas and electricity T&D network
Associate at The University of New South Wales, assets. His research interest includes asset manage-
Sydney, NSW, Australia. He also worked as a Re- ment, information system management, and project
search Assistant at The Hong Kong Polytechnic management. He is a Charted Engineer and member
University, Hong Kong, in 2012 and as a power of IET (The Institute of Engineer and Technology).
system engineer in China from 2015 to 2017. His
research interests include optimization theory and its
application in power and multi-energy systems, renewable energy integration
and energy storage.
0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on September 13,2020 at 08:34:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: