Post National Grid Reinforcement Analysis of QESCO Network for

Reliable and Optimal Operation

*
Ubaid-ur-Rehman1, Rehmatullah Baloch1, Ali Madad1 and Faizullah Khan2
1
Quetta Electric Supply Company, Quetta.
2
Department of Telecommunication Engineering, FICT BUITEMS, Quetta.

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The Reinforcement Analysis of QESCO Network has been carried out by using the Simulation of Load
Flow Analysis Model with the help of PSS/E software. The load is very far from the source in QESCO
Grid Netwok, causes low voltage profiles. Secondly, the unavailability of service to the load centers
in case of outages of the source feeding the area due to QESCO Network constraints, have been
analyzed. The operating of the three available sources have also been studied for maximum
performance of the network and to give a solution to avoid them in using in chaotic manner. The
comparison study has been carried out for the three N-1 contingency situations and a solution is
proposed for the best possible Network topology for optimal operation of QESCO Network. This
analysis helped to determine the capability of QESCO Grid Network to deliver Electrical Power at
maximum level in different arrangements of Grids and also to adopt the best choice of Grid Network
Topology. Moreover it can help to cope with the voltage profile and power factor problems.

Key words: Load Flow, Contingency Analysis, PSS/E Software, Reinforcement

1
INTRODUCTION

Electrical Energy crisis has imperiled the progress of the Pakistan in many folds. Population of
Pakistan is increasing exponentially but the resources of energy are not growing to meet the load
demand with the same ratio. Regardless of all this, it is very vital and essential to utilize the available
energy resources in effective and logical manner in order to obtain the optimal and maximum benefit
and outcome from the available sources.

Quetta Electric Supply Company (QESCO) is delivering Electrical Power to the whole Baluchistan
(except District Lasbela). QESCO is considered to be the least consumable Power Province, but
largest, as it covers 43% area of Pakistan. The existing Load Growth rate of Balochistan is 3.5%. The
load is supplied at 11KV level from sub-transmission network of 132kV and 66kV through substations
of 132/11KV and 66/11KV. There are sixty 132KV and ten 66kV Sub-Stations [1]. The Voltage
Profile prevails very low due to being far away from power generating sources, long distanced
transmission lines, and huge number of inductive loads (70-80% agricultural loads). To deal with this
anomalous nature network, the national grid company, NTDC recently commissioned its secondary
and tertiary 220KV sources. Therefore comprehensive and panoptic system analysis is required
specifically focusing the load flow analysis of the QESCO Grid Network. Prior to the national grid
reinforcement of QESCO network there was only a single and radial 220KV source of Guddu-Sibbi-
Quetta 220kV transmission line. At present there are three 220kV sources available to QESCO. The
first and the oldest one has been described earlier, which can be considered the source feeding the load
centre of QESCO. Second source of 220kV transmission line is from Daddu to Khuzdar. Khuzdar
220kV substation is at south-east of the province. Third 220kV transmission line is feeding northern
area of the company and is from D.G Khan to Loralai. Prior to the reinforcement QESCO Power
System was under stress due to large number of agriculture consumers and having single source only,
hence, violating the NEPRA codes [2]. This low-voltage profile scenario was creating an unstable
region in the National power system. Any disturbance would easily lead to a huge electricity
breakdown or even a blackout. At present, with the reinforcing and commissioning of additional
sources from Khuzdar and Daddu, the low voltage profile and stability problems of the region can be
diminished altogether besides availability of 600-700 MW power for province.

The Power System can undergo several breakdowns, so it is necessary to get prepared for any severe
condition of overload or failure of any equipment. There should not be any violations, in any real time
or contingencies like Failure of Equipment, Generating Unit Failure, Load shedding and
Transmission/Sub-Transmission section loss. The contingency analysis is a tool which simulates and

2
measures the outcomes of hindrances, appeared in Power System in the very near future. This study
gives analysis tool for the events of contingencies tool off-line and on-line, for the operators to give
them a clear picture for the future breakdowns. It facilitates for the better planning for the Power system
engineers to take suitable steps, during post contingencies scenarios [3].

Power System planning has many components and planning of Transmission, is one of most important
feature. The main aim of the expansion Transmission network plan is to explore the best and optimal
expansion plan or topology for reliable and stable system. Pakistan’s electricity sector is also regulated
by National electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA). The electric Energy transmission and
Distribution is reigned by NEPRA under some criteria. In normal condition, QESCO is bound to
maintain voltage profile in the range of + 5% and + 10% under N-1 contingency situation as per
NEPRA grid code. In order to achieve this criteria, the Distribution Companies (DISCOS) use different
computer programs and softwares like PSS/E, ETAP etc. The standards of performance for the
transmission of electrical power through the transmission system, have been finalized in the NEPRA
document titled Performance Standards (transmission) Rules 2005 [4].

The different scenarios of load flow studies of Bangladesh Power System were analysed and
accomplished with the help of a software Power System Application Framework (PSAF), developed
by CYME International TD Inc. Load Flow Analysis is an indivisible portion of profundity of power
system transmission and distribution. This research concentrates on setting up CYME PSAF for load
flow analysis and its execution as a practical demonstration [5].

The transmission system development planning of Lao Peoples Democratic Republic has been
analysed for N-1 (Loss of one source) contingency proved that Load Flow Analysis is a mainstay of
Power system Design and critical inspection. With the help of Load Flow one can determine the
magnitude and angle of voltage at each bus and Electrical Power flowing in each transmission line. In
this research, load flow was carried out of the IEEE 30 bus system for the sensitivity analysis. The
maximum Power flow is calculated, if no fault is present and a single transmission line fault is present.
In this way, the results guide and gives a better position for planning the transmission lines capacities
and help in reducing the cascading failures probability [6].

In a broader sense, the contingency analysis plays its role is evaluating the causes of blackouts, like
power system equipment and transmission lines and subsequently proposes same actions, for Power
system to remain dependable and risk free. The categorization of contingencies with the help of
calculating the performance index for transmission line, shut downs with the newton Raphson LF

3
Analysis and basic function (RBF) is the main focus of this work [7]. Similar results were achieved
with the Contingency Analysis based on Integrated Transmission and Distribution Power Flow in
smart grid. With the advent of smart grids, having more loops with distribution networks, Transmission
Contingency Analysis (TCA) which normally leave out the Power Flow fluctuations after a
contingency many leave severe black outs. With additional management system workouts in the
distribution side, in a research one proposal is given for the integration of transmission and distribution
on the Contingency Analysis method, basis global power flow (GPF) analysis which is named as
Global Transmission Contingency Analysis (GTCA). GTCA introduced the new definition and
failures. In order to confront the false alarms, it is advised to use GTCA instead of TCA especially in
those cases where Distribution Networks (DNs) are looped more often in future smart Grids [8].

A method has been devised for the categorization of the contingencies. As it is impossible to safeguard
the electric Power system to protect against the contingencies of all types, so the contingencies which
are more crucial and intense, which also disrupts the system immensely are considered. The grading
of contingencies is carried out with more accurate and exact method. MATLAB environment has been
used for the analysis which took practical scenarios [9]. Similarly a general framework is proposed to
assess the capability of a system to sustain the impact of any contingency [10]. It is essential to produce
the desired effect of selecting the most effected part of the system in this way the severe most
component is filtered out. This model has been implied, to evaluate and analyze to select the most
suitable criteria and rule out which do not fulfill the desired outcome [11] .

Power flow studies have great significance in determining the best criteria for dividing a power system
and planning the future expansion of power system [12] [13] [14]. Power flow study provides the
magnitude and phase angle of the voltage at each node (bus bar), the P and Q power flowing in each
line. Load flow study using various scenarios helps to ensure that the power system is adequately
designed to satisfy a certain performance criteria [15] [16]. The Power System can undergo several
breakdowns, so it is necessary to get prepared for any severe condition of overload or failure of any
equipment [17].

The primary goal of the present research is to make general guidelines for the entire transmission
system incorporating the whole QESCO network and taking maximum benefit from all available
sources. This will help in continuous monitoring of the current state of the system and to examine the
effectiveness of the alternate plans for future system expansion to meet increased load demand. The
load flow studies principally focuses on Transmission Systems which postulates mostly Power

4
Transmission. This study forecasts that if and when specific Power System will become overloaded,
the load flow Studies in Power System gives the steady-state solution of the Power System Network.

The Power Flow Analysis has been performed to find the following parameters;

1. │V│ magnitude of voltage at each bus

2. Phase Angle δ of voltage at each bus
3. P (Real), Q (Reactive) Power flow in each line

Establishing, Operating, holding and maintaining conventional Power System Network features
involve resources. The target of Transmission and Distribution Network of Electric Power System’s
operation is to optimize and to obtain the maximum utilization of the resources available. In order to
attain high efficiency of usage of these usable resources, different iterative techniques have been
applied to analyse the best possible Grid Network Topology for QESCO Network.

A feasible arrangement and forecast situation is proposed for the best optimal scenario for QESCO
Network. The present study anticipates the load growth in 2017 and simulates the results accordingly.
The N- contingencies are simulated via different scenarios and best choice of operation is extracted
from the various situations. This research has been carried out by a software so it is very economical
and beneficial. The PSS/E Software has been used for evaluation purpose of different circumstances
in Power Flow, for the assessment of huge Network solution of Power Flow problems.

5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Data Collection

The data has been collected for the QESCO Grid network and four scenarios were modeled for
analysis purpose (Figure 1) i.e.

i. Peak Load: June 2015

ii. Off Peak Load: January 2016

iii. Peak Load: June 2019

iv. Off Peak Load: January 2020

(b). Recommended (a). Current

Figure 1. Current and recommended models for Load Flow Analysis

Software Selection

The Siemens PTI PSS/E V32.0 software was found most suitable to carry out this research. PTI PSS/E
is a very advance program, for planning of transmission, with fastidious and precise qualities of
modelling the system. It incorporates the new advancements to the basic power flow and retain the
basic analytical models, with the dynamic activities of simulation. This is a very powerful tool for the
Power System Engineers to simulate various scenarios of Contingency analysis and substation
reliability with addition to the power flow analysis of complete power system as well as the module of
short circuit analysis. The output of PSSE software is shown in the figure .2.

6
 Figure.2. Output interface of PSSE software

Modelling and Simulation

The modelling and simulation has been carried on the following assumptions:

1. PEPCO latest power market survey (PMS) load forecast has been used for QESCO and PEPCO
system future loads.

2. All existing and the proposed power plants have been included. Future power plants are based on
NTDC latest generation expansion plan.

3. Latest transmission expansion plans of NTDC have been modelled.

4. QESCO’s planned/on-going transmission expansion/re-enforcement projects, including substations

(extension, augmentation, conversion, new), transmission lines has been assumed in the studies as per
their expected commissioning schedules.

5. The existing and planned shunt capacitors at 11 kV and 132 kV has been modeled in the study
scenarios.

7
Contingency Ranking

The QESCO Grid network has been manipulated for different topologies to ascertain the best choice
for operation and maximum performance. The following topologies were used

1. With Reinforcement

2. Without Sibi Reinforcement

3. Without Loralai Reinforcement

4. Without Khuzdar Reinforcement

Network construction and Single Line Diagrams (SLDs)

After collection of database and simulation software selection software, network construction is carried
out. Using the database, the QESCO network grid was constructed and accordingly simulated. Prior
to the contingency analysis, it was needed to converge the network, using power flow studies numerical
iterative techniques (Newton Raphson Method) used by the software. The network converged to the
ultimate extent, normal and abnormal (Red buses) conditions found after contingency analysis as
shown in Figure. 3.

Figure. 3. Single line diagram showing red buses

8
Fixed Slope Decoupled Newton-Raphson
The Power Flow menu provides access to most of the PSS®E steady-state analyses. Included are the
power flow solutions for both ac and dc network analysis, data access and listing, network, dispatch,
load and topology manipulations. Methods are available for checking network conditions and
exporting results. Analysis methods provided in the power flow menu include the following:
• Decoupled Newton-Raphson Power Flow Solution
• Fully-Coupled Newton-Raphson Power Flow Solution
• Fixed Slope Decoupled Newton-Raphson Power Flow Solution
• Newton-Raphson Power Flow Solution with Inertial Governor Dispatch
• Gauss-Seidel Power Flow Solution
• AC Contingency Analysis
• Multi-Level Contingency Analysis
• Generation Dispatch
• PV Analysis
• QV Analysis
• Probabilistic Reliability Assessment
• Substation Reliability Assessment
Short-circuit analysis, the Optimal Power Flow, transmission access analysis, and dynamic simulation
and disturbances methods are available on separate menus. Fixed slope decoupled Newton-Raphson
technique has been used to determine the best scenario for optimal and most reliable Grid Network
Topology for QESCO. With this Load flow solution, all the results have been obtained.

9
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. With Reinforcement Topology

When the QESCO Grid network was simulated for the analysis with the availibility of all the three 220
KV sources, two buses were found having voltage greater than 1.05 p.u voltage (Table 1). The QESCO
grid network found 20 buses, having voltage less than 0.95 p.u voltage (Table 2). It is evident that the
best voltage profile for the network has been obtained by this topology.

With all sources intact the Power Factor calculated from the Output Report of PSS/E With
reinforcement as under

Total MW = 1698.9

Total MVAR = 780.4

∴ Apparent Power = MVA = �(𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)2 + (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)2= �(1698.9)2 + (780.4)2

MVA = 1869.568

1698.9
∴Power Factor = 1869.568 = 0.9087

2. Without Sibi Reinforcement Topology

The load flow analysis was carried out to simulate the QESCO grid network with N-1 contigency of
without Sibi reinforcement and no bus found having voltage greater than 1.05 p.u voltage (Table 3).
QESCO grid network simulated for the load flow studies without Sibi reinforcement and found 24
buses with voltage less than 0.95 p.u voltage (Table 4). The number of buses in this topology is greater
than with all sources topology ( Table 1).

Without Sibi reinforcement, Power Factor calculated from the Output Report of PSS/E as under

Total MW = 1244.6

Total MVAR = 784.0

∴ Apparent Power = MVA = �(𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)2 + (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)2= �(1244.6)2 + (784.0)2

10
 MVA = 1470.94

1244.6
∴Power Factor = 784.0
= 0.846

3. Without Loralai Reinforcement Topology

The system of QESCO network modelled without Loralai reinforcement simulated and the results
evaluated that no bus having voltage greater than 1.05 p.u voltage (Table 5) this is also undesirable
condition for the voltage profile at the lower side. The level of system modelling detail used without
Loralai source and the results of this analysis were found abnormal having 85 buses with voltage less
than 0.95 p.u voltage. The bus bars from 26 to 29 are having very low voltage values because these
grid stations are very far from the sources of Quetta and Sibbi, with very lentghy Transmission Lines
(Table 6). This topolgy gave higher number of buses having voltage less than the desired value as
compared to the other topologies.

Without Loralai reinforcement, Power Factor calculated from the Output Report of PSS/E as under

Total MW = 1292.3

Total MVAR = 816.4

∴ Apparent Power = MVA = �(𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)2 + (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)2= �(1292.3)2 + (816.4)2

MVA = 1528.57

1292.3
∴Power Factor = 816.4
= 0.845

4. Without Khuzdar Reinforcement Topology

Power flow analysis of the QESCO network was carried out without Khuzdar reinforcemnt topology.
The results showed that no bus had voltage greater than 1.05 p.u voltage likewise previous two grid
network topologies (Table 7). With the grid network topology without khuzdar reinforcement
topology simulated and found 32 buses having voltage less than 0.95 p.u voltage (Table 8) which is
greater than the QESCO grid network topology having all sources available ( Table 1).

Without Khuzdar reinforcement, Power Factor calculated from the Output Report of PSS/E as under

11
Total MW = 1329.2

Total MVAR = 841.3

∴ Apparent Power = MVA = �(𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)2 + (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)2= �(1329.2)2 + (841.3)2

MVA = 1573.07

1329.2
∴Power Factor = 841.3
= 0.8449

This analysis comprises of four different scenarios in which QESCO Network topology is manipulated.
The salient feature of QESCO network is its long Transmission lines which transport electrical power
from the source to the load centers. This lengthy Transmission lines is one of major causes of voltage
drop and in case of radial network the whole system undergoes black out in case of contingency. The
similar work is carried out by Mittal, A., J. Hazra, et al. (2011), a large number of consumers suffered
the complete blackout as a result of contingency occurance in the system. In the current research the
same case was analyzed and the idea of interconnected power system network has been supported.
However the real time contingency analysis has not been in practice but this study covers the best
possible solution. The load flow results are based on the QESCO maximum demand in 2017 i.e.
1961MW as shown in Table 9 QESCO’s anticipated Maximum Demand Projection.

The solution of Load Flow (LF) analysis with the outcomes of this research has been depicted precisely
in table 10. The Grid Topology having all the sources intact, has produced least difference in load and
demand, thereby resulting in load shedding of 153.4 MW. This topology has highest power factor (P.F)
of 0.9087, with least number of buses i.e. 20 having voltage less than desired level and feeding largest
load of 1698.9 MW. This is the only topology having 02 number of buses having p.u voltage greater
than 1.05.

In case of without Sibi reinforcement grid topology, 540.6 MW load shedding has to be faced with
P.F of 0.846. There are 24 number of buses with p.u voltage < 0.95 and no buses are available with
p.u voltage greater than 1.05.

The without Loralai reinforcement scenario, produces 535 MW load shedding. The P.F of this grrid
arrangement is also very poor with value of 0.845. There are 85 number of buses with p.u voltage <
0.95 and no buses are available with p.u voltage greater than 1.05.

12
Highest load shedding of 554.6 MW with least P.F of 0.8449 is recorded in without Khuzdar
reinforcement grid topology. It has no bus having p.u voltage greater than 1.05. It has 33 number of
buses having p.u voltage less than 0.95.

The reinforecent of QESCO Grid Network Topology with all sources, has been found healthier and
prefferable relatively to the other three scenarios which are abundant with low voltage profile and poor
power factor, which are not recommended in any Power System. Power Factor results, With
Reinforcement situation is far better than other three N-1 Contingency Scenarios. The results are very
healthy for Power factor when Grid Network of QESCO is used with all the sources interconnected
with each other as it delivers optimal power to the load connected to QESCO Grid Network as
compared with the other topologies discussed in this study. The simulation of LF on QESCO Network
generates the losses, which are also shown in Table 10. The reinforcement without Sibi have maximum
losses among the all other scenarios and the reinforcement with Khuzdar is at minimum level in terms
of losses. On the other hand, Net Power results of the reinforcement is maximum when all the sources
are interconnected.

The study of Load Flow analysis and Contingency assessment is a very depth knowledge and stipulates
the all parameters of Power System Network which exhibit the condition and quality to be under study.
It is very necessary for the Power System Engineers and designers to make the Power System flexible
and adaptable to the changes and variations occured during contingency situations. Therefore an
valuation and study on facts is inevitable to extenuate the effects of contingency, due to which the
whole Power System may be collapsed. Therefore there is a very big room for the future Power System
Engineers to devise techniques for the correcting the side effects which are imposed after the
contingency situation. More flexible and systematic methodology should be designed in future for the
planning to avoid catastrophic conditions in the subsequent situations of contingency. Moreover, the
complete blackouts which may occur in case of total loss of Power System in the event of Power
System failure is also a very important aspect of study for future study. This requires also profoundness
and depth study to formulate a methodology to avert any untoward situation. So, there is also a very
wide margin where the Power System Developers can work and explore the means of delivering the
Electrical Power at minimum risk failure rates.

13
CONCLUSION

Although QESCO Power System is not as complex and densely loaded grid Network compared to the
other Discos of Pakistan, yet its uniqueness is in its scattered load centers distributed over a
considerable extent and widespread. Therefore, it has been always a problem to utilize the available
sources in best optimal operation to be benefitted for the consumers. The conclusion can easily be
made with the analysis that QESCO Network can deliver optimal Power Flow with the all sources
interconnected for reliable and optimal operation.

14
Tables

1. With Reinforcement Topology

Table 1 Buses with Voltage > 1.0500

S.No. BUS# NAME BASE KV V(PU) V(KV)

1 999 GWDR 132.000 1.0500 138.600

2 9600 SIBBI 132.000 1.0575 139.590

Table 2 Buses with Voltage < 0.9500

S.No BUS# NAME BASE KV V(PU) V(KV)

1 8441 JACB-TOF 66.000 0.8759 57.809

2 8444 MANJOSHORI 66.000 0.8401 55.445

3 8502 GADAKHA 66.000 0.8178 53.976

4 8515 JHAL MGS 66.000 0.7321 48.321

5 84401 T-1 11.000 0.9023 9.925

6 84403 T-3 11.000 0.9048 9.953

7 84451 T-1 11.000 0.8572 9.430

8 85021 T-1 11.000 0.8598 9.458

9 85103 T-1 11.000 0.8479 9.327

10 85152 T-2 11.000 0.7928 8.720

11 8443 DM. J-66 66.000 0.8411 55.514

12 8445 ROJJAMAL 66.000 0.8479 55.963

13 8510 USTAMOHD 66.000 0.8060 53.195

14 9735 CHAMAN 132.000 0.9437 124.570

15
 15 84402 T-2 11.000 0.9048 9.953

16 84441 T-1 11.000 0.9089 9.998

17 84452 T-2 11.000 0.8237 9.061

18 85102 T-2 11.000 0.8766 9.642

19 85151 T-1 11.000 0.7728 8.501

20 85153 T-3 11.000 0.7800 8.580

2. Without Sibi Reinforcement Topology

Table 3 Buses with Voltage > 1.0500

BUS# NAME BASE KV V(PU) V(KV)

None

Table 4 Buses with Voltage < 0.9500

S.No BUS# NAME BASE KV V(PU) V(KV)

1 8441 JACB-TOF 66.000 0.8602 56.773

2 8444 MANJOSHORI 66.000 0.8240 54.386

3 8502 GADAKHA 66.000 0.7965 52.660

4 8515 JHAL MGS 66.000 0.7092 46.809

5 9768 G.H.ZAI 132.000 0.9374 123.730

6 9855 KHARAN 132.000 0.9197 121.400

7 84402 T-2 11.000 0.8872 9.759

8 84441 T-1 11.000 0.8911 9.802

16
 9 84452 T-2 11.000 0.8064 8.871

10 85102 T-2 11.000 0.8536 9.390

11 85151 T-1 11.000 0.7474 8.221

12 85153 T-3 11.000 0.7545 8.300

13 8443 DM. J-66 66.000 0.8251 54.458

14 8445 ROJJAMAL 66.000 0.8308 54.832

15 8510 USTAMOHD 66.000 0.7856 51.847

16 9765 MUSAFRPR 132.000 0.9155 120.850

17 9770 ZHOB 132.000 0.9041 119.330

18 84401 T-1 11.000 0.8846 9.731

19 84403 T-3 11.000 0.8872 9.759

20 84451 T-1 11.000 0.8392 9.232

21 85021 T-1 11.000 0.8373 9.210

22 85103 T-1 11.000 0.8251 9.076

23 85152 T-2 11.000 0.7661 8.427

24 96201 T-1 11.000 0.9473 10.421

3. Without Loralai Reinforcement Topology

Table 5 Buses with Voltage > 1.0500

BUS# NAME BASE KV V(PU) V(KV)

None

17
 Table 6 Buses with Voltage < 0.9500

S.No BUS# NAME BASE KV V(PU) V(KV)

1 7600 Rakhni 132.00 0.8803 116.20

2 7604 KINGRI 132.00 0.8319 109.81

3 7608 MEKHTAR 132.00 0.7900 104.29

4 7610 BARKHAN 132.00 0.8389 110.73

5 7620 KOHLU 132.00 0.8290 109.43

6 8441 JACB-TOF 66.000 0.8660 57.154

7 8443 DM.J-66 66.000 0.8313 54.867

8 8444 MANJOSHORI 66.000 0.8303 54.797

9 8445 ROJJAMAL 66.000 0.8368 55.230

10 8502 GADAKHA 66.000 0.8024 52.957

11 8510 USTAMOHD 66.000 0.7919 52.266

12 8515 JHAL MGS 66.000 0.7168 47.308

13 9620 HARNAI 132.00 0.8240 108.76

14 9630 LORALAI 132.00 0.7214 95.224

15 9635 DUKI 132.00 0.7531 99.414

16 9640 SHARIG 132.00 0.8199 108.23

17 9713 HURAMZAI 132.00 0.9439 124.59

18 9717 ALIZAI 132.00 0.9415 124.28

19 9718 BARSHORE 132.00 0.9411 124.22

20 9720 GULISTAN 132.00 0.9245 122.03

18
21 9730 Q.ABDULA 132.00 0.9278 122.47

22 9735 CHAMAN 132.00 0.9180 121.18

23 9740 KHANOZAI 132.00 0.7770 102.57

24 9741 ZIARAT 132.00 0.7707 101.73

25 9750 MUS.BAGH 132.00 0.7394 97.598

26 9760 Q.S.ULLA 132.00 0.6481 85.543

27 9765 MUSAFRPR 132.00 0.4658 61.491

28 9768 G.H.ZAI 132.00 0.5241 69.178

29 9770 ZHOB 132.00 0.4359 57.538

30 9800 KIRDGHEB 132.00 0.9428 124.45

31 9810 NOSHKI 132.00 0.9320 123.02

32 9814 MALL 132.00 0.9355 123.48

33 9845 ZEHRI 132.00 0.9483 125.18

34 9850 GIDDER 132.00 0.9497 125.36

35 9855 KHARAN 132.00 0.8683 114.61

36 9859 BASIMA 132.00 0.9268 122.33

37 9910 ALIZAI 66.000 0.9482 62.580

38 76001 T-1 11.000 0.8734 9.608

39 76002 T-2 11.000 0.8720 9.592

40 76041 T-1 11.000 0.8133 8.946

41 76042 T-2 11.000 0.7939 8.733

42 76081 T-1 11.000 0.7686 8.454

43 76101 T-1 11.000 0.8399 9.238

19
44 76102 T-2 11.000 0.8519 9.371

45 76201 T-1 11.000 0.8373 9.211

46 84401 T-1 11.000 0.8916 9.807

47 84402 T-2 11.000 0.8941 9.835

48 84403 T-3 11.000 0.8941 9.835

49 84441 T-1 11.000 0.8981 9.880

50 84451 T-1 11.000 0.8457 9.303

51 85102 T-2 11.000 0.8609 9.470

52 85103 T-1 11.000 0.8324 9.157

53 85151 T-1 11.000 0.7559 8.315

54 85152 T-2 11.000 0.7748 8.522

55 85153 T-3 11.000 0.7631 8.394

56 96101 T-1 11.000 0.9308 10.239

57 96201 T-1 11.000 0.7532 8.285

58 96301 T-1 11.000 0.6802 7.482

59 96302 T-2 11.000 0.6941 7.635

60 96304 T-4 11.000 0.6809 7.490

61 96351 T-1 11.000 0.6987 7.686

62 96352 T-2 11.000 0.7019 7.721

63 96401 T-1 11.000 0.7888 8.677

64 97171 T-1 11.000 0.9409 10.350

65 97181 T-1 11.000 0.9426 10.368

66 97401 T-1 11.000 0.7864 8.650

20
67 97402 T-2 11.000 0.7983 8.781

68 97403 T-4 33.000 0.7809 25.771

69 97404 T-3 11.000 0.7919 8.711

70 97411 T-1 11.000 0.7929 8.722

71 97501 T-1 11.000 0.7448 8.193

72 97502 T-2 33.000 0.7353 24.266

73 97503 T-3 11.000 0.7355 8.091

74 97601 T-1 11.000 0.6184 6.803

75 97602 T-2 11.000 0.6163 6.779

76 97603 T-3 11.000 0.6214 6.835

77 97651 T-1 11.000 0.4932 5.425

78 97652 T-2 11.000 0.4804 5.284

79 97681 T-1 11.000 0.5001 5.501

80 97682 T-2 11.000 0.5132 5.645

81 97701 T-1 11.000 0.4093 4.502

82 97702 T-2 11.000 0.4160 4.576

83 98551 T-1 11.000 0.8941 9.835

84 98552 T-2 11.000 0.9308 10.239

85 98553 T-3 11.000 0.9226 10.149

21
4. Without Khuzdar Reinforcement Topology

Table 7 Buses with Voltage > 1.0500

BUS# NAME BASE KV V(PU) V(KV)

None

Table 8 Buses with Voltage < 0.9500

S.No BUS# NAME BASE KV V(PU) V(KV)

1 8441 JACB-TOF 66.000 0.8758 57.805

2 8443 DM.J-66 66.000 0.8418 55.561

3 8444 MANJOSHORI 66.000 0.8408 55.495

4 8445 ROJJAMAL 66.000 0.8474 55.930

5 8502 GADAKHA 66.000 0.8141 53.733

6 8510 USTAMOHD 66.000 0.8039 53.057

7 8515 JHAL MGS 66.000 0.7310 48.245

8 9765 MUSAFRPR 132.00 0.9442 124.63

9 9770 ZHOB 132.00 0.9338 123.26

10 9800 KIRDGHEB 132.00 0.9443 124.65

11 9810 NOSHKI 132.00 0.9350 123.42

12 9814 MALL 132.00 0.9386 123.89

13 9845 ZEHRI 132.00 0.9327 123.11

14 9850 GIDDER 132.00 0.9353 123.46

15 9855 KHARAN 132.00 0.8638 114.02

22
16 9859 BASIMA 132.00 0.9154 120.83

17 9866 WADH 132.00 0.9461 124.88

18 84401 T-1 11.000 0.9034 9.937

19 84402 T-2 11.000 0.9059 9.965

20 84403 T-3 11.000 0.9059 9.965

21 84441 T-1 11.000 0.9102 10.012

22 84451 T-1 11.000 0.8572 9.429

23 84452 T-2 11.000 0.8236 9.060

24 85021 T-1 11.000 0.8560 9.416

25 85102 T-2 11.000 0.8746 9.620

26 85103 T-1 11.000 0.8462 9.308

27 85151 T-1 11.000 0.7720 8.492

28 85152 T-2 11.000 0.7910 8.701

29 85153 T-3 11.000 0.7791 8.570

30 98551 T-1 11.000 0.8912 9.804

31 98552 T-2 11.000 0.9278 10.206

32 98553 T-3 11.000 0.9201 10.121

33 98661 T-1 11.000 0.9433 10.376

23
 Projection of QESCO’s anticipated Demand

Table 9 QESCO’s anticipated Demand

QESCO MAXIMUM DEMAND

Maximum Demand %Age

Year
(MW) Increase

2016 1893

2017 1961

2018 2030 3.5

2019 2102

2020 2177

24
 Comparative Analysis of QESCO Network with and without Reinforcement of Various
Sources for year 2017

Table 10 Cmparative Statement

No. of Buses
Max Load Losses Net No. of Buses
Network having p.u
Demand Power P.F having p.u Remarks
Topology voltage >
in 2017 (MW) (MW) (MW) voltage < 0.95
1.05

153.4 MW
With
1961 1698.9 108.7 1807.6 0.9807 2 20 Power has to be
reinforcement
load shed

540.6 MW
Without Sibi
1961 1244.6 176.7 1420.6 0.846 0 24 Power has to be
reinforcement
load shed

Without 535MW Power

Loralai 1961 1292.3 133.7 1426 0.845 0 85 has to be load
reinforcement shed

Without 554.6 MW
Khuzdar 1961 1329.2 77.2 1406.4 0.8449 0 33 Power has to be
reinforcement load shed

25
REFERENCES

[1] NTDCL, "Quarterly Load Data Report No. 143 of Grid stations in respect of NTDCL and all
distribution companies of PEPCO," 2015.

[2] NEPRA, "Grid code " 2014.

[3] H.-D. Chiang and C.-S. Wang, "Dynamic method for preventing voltage collapse in electrical
power systems," ed: Google Patents, 1998.
[4] A. Malik, "Effectiveness of regulatory structure in the power sector of Pakistan," Pakistan
Institute of Development Economics2007.
[5] N. Mehnaz, et al., "Load Flow Analysis and Abnormality Removal of Bangladesh Power System
Using Software CYME PSAF," in 2013 4th International Conference on Intelligent Systems,
Modelling and Simulation, 2013, pp. 384-388.
[6] I. Totonchi, et al., "Sensitivity analysis for the IEEE 30 bus system using load-flow studies," in
Electric Power and Energy Conversion Systems (EPECS), 2013 3rd International Conference on,
2013, pp. 1-6.
[7] B. Philavanh, et al., "Power and voltage control of central-I transmission network in Lao PDR
using Excel's solver," in Power System Technology, 2004. PowerCon 2004. 2004 International
Conference on, 2004, pp. 736-741.
[8] Z. Li, et al., "Transmission Contingency Analysis Based on Integrated Transmission and
Distribution Power Flow in Smart Grid," Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 30, pp.
3356-3367, 2015.
[9] H. Udaykumar, "Contingency Ranking in Modern Power System by Exact and Precise Method."
[10] R. Allan and M. Da Silva, "Evaluation of reliability indices and outage costs in distribution
systems," IEEE Transactions on Power systems, vol. 10, pp. 413-419, 1995.
[11] R. Adolf, et al., "Techniques for improving filters in power grid contingency analysis," in
Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition, ed: Springer, 2011, pp. 599-611.

[12] S. Sachan and C. Gupta, "Analysis of contingent conditions in power system," in Engineering
and Systems (SCES), 2014 Students Conference on, 2014, pp. 1-5.
[13] M. Shahidehpour, et al., "Impact of security on power systems operation," Proceedings of the
IEEE, vol. 93, pp. 2013-2025, 2005.

26
[14] F. Capitanescu and L. Wehenkel, "A new iterative approach to the corrective security-
constrained optimal power flow problem," IEEE Transactions on Power systems, vol. 23, pp.
1533-1541, 2008.
[15] S. Fliscounakis, et al., "Contingency ranking with respect to overloads in very large power
systems taking into account uncertainty, preventive, and corrective actions," IEEE
Transactions on Power systems, vol. 28, pp. 4909-4917, 2013.
[16] F. Capitanescu and L. Wehenkel, "Computation of worst operation scenarios under
uncertainty for static security management," IEEE Transactions on Power systems, vol. 28, pp.
1697-1705, 2013.
[17] S. Zonouz, et al., "SOCCA: A security-oriented cyber-physical contingency analysis in power
infrastructures," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, pp. 3-13, 2014.

27