Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
1
Distribution Capacitor Placement With Distributed Generation Concerning
Voltage Drop Reduction
Clemson University
Clemson, SC, USA
March 13, 2002
Thomas M. Haire Dr. Adly A. Girgis
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
2
Topics
• Background Information
• Procedure and System
• PQ Solution
• PV Solution
• Solution Comparison
• Conclusion
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
3
Background
• Sizing and placement standard “two-thirds rule.”– A capacitor may be placed two-thirds the length
of the line and may be two-thirds the size of the reactive load.
• Does not hold for economic consideration.– This paper desires to make the voltage profile as
flat as possible.
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
4
“Two-Thirds Rule”
x
n i
ni
2 1
2 1I
I
nC iS
2
2 1
Where,xi distance from substation to ith capacitor
n number of capacitorsIci capacitor load size (Amps or VARs)
1, to maximize peak power loss reductionIs reactive load (Amps or VARs)
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
5
Procedure
• Analyze using Newton-Raphson LoadFlow• PQ Solution
– Specify generator real and reactive power.– Allow generator voltage to float.– Design capacitors for constant generator power
factors of 1, 0.9, 0.8.– Capacitors placed and sized according to “Two-
Thirds Rule.”
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
6
Procedure (cont.)
• PV Solution– Specify generator real power and voltage.– Allow generator reactive power to float
between 0.8 and 1.– Design capacitors for estimated generator
power factors of 1, 0.9, 0.8.– Capacitors placed and sized according to
“Two-Thirds Rule.”
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
7
System Studied• 300 A circuit
• (From observed conditions)
– Zone 1, 6 mi, 4.374 MW, evenly distributed
– Zone 2, 0.75 mi, 1.458 MW, evenly distributed
– Power factor is 0.9 lagging.
• Wire– 477 ACSR, 18/1 str.
• DG– 2 Natural gas engines
– 1.062 MW each
0-6.0 mi.4.374 MW
6.0-6.75 mi. 1.458 MW
DG DG 7.5 mi.
SS
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
8
PQ Solution
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
9
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
10
Voltage Conclusions• The more reactive power produced by the DG,
the less voltage drop for any given number of capacitors.
• Excluding unity power factor at all loads.
• Voltage Support from both real and reactive power flowing from both directions.
• In practice, design generator settings and capacitor placement for DG producing maximum reactive power.
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
11
Power Reduction Conclusions
• Real and reactive power consumed by the wires is the least when all loads have capacitors and DG is operated at unity power factor.
• This formation will produce the least current flowing in the wires.
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
12
PV Solution
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
13
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
14
Voltage Conclusions• Best profile is a result of designing the
capacitors as if no DG was present.
• This would be a design for the DG power factor to be 1; however, the DG will not operate at unity power factor.
• In practice, use the “Two-Thirds Rule” as normal and let the DG chase the power factor of the system.
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
15
Power Reduction Conclusions• The real and reactive power loss decreases
as the number of capacitors increases.• Most graphs show no true trend to the
change in power as a result of design changes related to different DG power factors.
• In designs other than unity power factor, the load flow had difficulties finding a solution without lowering the DG voltage.
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
16
Solution Comparison
• The PV solution provided the better solution for voltage reduction.
• This results from not forcing any source in the system to supply a specific power.
• In these tests, the DG operated near the low power factor setting as in the PQ solution.
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
17
Conclusions• The more reactive power produced by the
generator, the flatter the voltage profile.• If the real and reactive power from the
generator are kept constant, design the capacitors for max. reactive power from the generator.
• If the voltage and real power are to be kept constant, design the capacitors as if the DG does not exist. Then allow DG to “chase” the system reactive power.
Power System 2002 Conference: Impact of Distributed GenerationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
18
Questions?
Thank You!
Thomas M. Haire
(864) 656-7219