POWER SYSTEM ANALYSIS

Practical Report

Submitted by

Name: Sajan Gurung

Student No: 02200093

Electrical Engineering

College of Science and Technology

Rinchending, Phuentsholing

Lab report 2: Experiment No 2 Date:21/08/2024

Experiment No 2: Load Flow Analysis

Aim: To study the influence of change in load demand, slack generator, add or loss of
transmission line to the load flow results.

Objective:
• To observe the effect of change of active and reactive power demand to the load flow
results.
• To observe the effect of slack/ swing reference bus generator to the load flow results.
• To observe effect of addition/loss of transmission line to the load flow results.

Experiment Description:

Figure 1: IEEE 9-bus system.

Procedure:
1) Open the exp1_ 9 Bus system
Settings: Go to File- Save as Operation Scenario (name it as Experiment 02, Base Model)
Repeat: activate experiment 02 file and create operation scenario (name it as PQ Demand) and
carry out the following tasks;
• Activate ‘PQ demand Model’ and reset and adjust all the generator voltages to 1.p.u or more until
all bus voltages equal or nearer to 1p.u.
• Open the data manager or edit object variables, select load and update loading percentage of P &
Q values (scaling factor) shown in table 01 one by one.
 Load bus Loading Loading Loading
% % %
Load 7 1.2 1.5 1.6
Load 9 1.2 1.5 1.6
Load1 1.2 1.5 1.6
Load5 1.2 1.5 1.6

Table 1: Scaling Factor of Active Power for different load

1. Open flexible data extract the following results for each case in Table 1 in tabular forms
for different load:
Dispatch Power Results
Generators Generators Loads P Loads Q P Losses Q losses
P (MW) Q (MVar) (MW) (Mvar) (MW) (Mvar)

Bus voltage Results

Bus No. Voltage magnitude
(in p.u)

Results of Transmission lines

Line Name Active power Losses Capacitive losses Loading %
(MW) (Mvar)

Transformer loading results

Transformer Active power HV Reactive Power HV Loading %
Name side side

2. To observe the effect of slack/ swing reference bus generator to the load flow results.
• Select ‘Experiment 02 model ‘and create another operational scenario as ‘Slack bus
Model’
• Open the slack generator and tick ‘Out of Service’
• Run load flow and compare load flow summary results with/without slack bus.
3. To observe effect of addition/loss of transmission line to the load flow results.
• select ‘Base Model’ and create another operational scenario as ‘Effect of line length’
• Select Line G23, tick ‘out of Service’ and observe the limit violation in the single line
diagram and observed summary of load flow results
 • Activate the line G23, vary the line length (80 km and 140 km) observe and record the
line flows and losses.
• Copy Line G23 and connect between same buses and record line flows and grid
losses.

Result:
1. Dispatch Power:
Pg (MW) Qg Pload Qload Ploss Qloss
(MVar) (MW) (MVar) (MW) (MVar)
20% 1033.122 386.8754 1020 480 13.12146 -93.1242
50% 1387.716 685.4057 1360 640 27.71636 45.40573
60% 1298.03 601.2664 1275 600 23.03003 1.266435

Pg (MW) Qg (MVar)
1387.716 1298.03 685.4057
1500 800
601.2664
Magnitude in MW

1033.122 Magnitude in MVar

600
1000 386.8754
400
500
200
0 0
20% 50% 60% 20% 50% 60%
Load Condition Load Condition

Ploss (MW) Qloss (MVar)

30 27.71636 100
23.03003
Magnitude in MW

Magnitude in MVar

25 45.40573
50
20 1.266435
13.12146 0
15
10 20% 50% 60%
-50
5
0 -100
-93.1242
20% 50% 60% -150
Load Condition Load Condition

Fig: Power dispatch of the network.

A high active power loss (Ploss) for a medium load condition indicates significant energy
dissipation as heat within the power system. Possible causes include increased line currents,
heightened resistance in components, or equipment overload.
The more reactive power loss (Qloss) during a normal load condition suggests suboptimal
power factor operation. This leads to increased reactive power flow, higher current levels,
and additional losses in transformers and conductors
 2. Bus Voltage

Voltage (p.u)
The buses 4, 6, and 8 consistently perform
Bus No. 20% 50% 60%
exceptionally well, even under full load
1 1.008324 0.9250811 0.917911
conditions, demonstrating strong
2 1 0.9995761 0.996073
infrastructure and effective voltage
3 1 0.9583474 0.950463
control. Conversely, buses 1, 3, 5, and 9
4 1 1 1
show decreasing performance as load
5 0.9808877 0.911197 0.902033 increases, indicating potential capacity
6 0.978762 1 1 limitations. These buses are experiencing
7 0.9540719 0.974853 0.972609 voltage levels below regulatory limits,
8 0.9451001 1 1 posing a significant risk to grid stability
9 0.9355653 0.9363721 0.929968 and connected equipment.

Voltage (p.u)
1.02
1
0.98
Magnitude in p.u

0.96
0.94
0.92
0.9
0.88
0.86
0.84
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Bus

20% 50% 60%

Figure 3: Bus voltage in p.u.

 3. Transmission Line

Active Power Loss in KW Capacitive Loss in Mvar Loading in Percentage

Line 20% 50% 60% 20% 50% 60% 20% 50% 60%
G10 323.9918 889.958 1155.282 104.8956 101.862 100.6911 18.99441 27.00423 29.97566
G13 1160.755 1255.791 1423.416 12.52539 12.22481 12.11382 27.48263 28.97466 30.82304
G15 1914.623 3147.274 3644.556 15.17419 14.87411 14.76819 31.61123 40.36913 43.39678
G16 816.4167 1890.448 2364.688 5.242212 5.21068 5.199004 35.29136 53.55603 59.87216
G17 816.4167 1890.448 2364.688 5.242212 5.21068 5.199004 35.29136 53.55603 59.87216
G18 354.6028 114.9942 192.8161 10.48442 10.42136 10.39801 16.81278 10.68368 13.29837
G21 2901.12 4102.695 4629.776 7.515232 7.334883 7.268294 54.47007 64.77642 68.80089
G22 1003.695 1286.382 1400.079 17.86255 17.54966 17.4379 21.63392 24.59657 25.67832
G23 1819.222 3539.649 4267.486 15.31076 15.04257 14.94677 30.70665 42.5752 46.69009
G24 1526.298 4192.517 5442.436 15.03046 14.66977 14.53659 28.58993 46.49342 52.82759

Several lines, including G10, G13, G15, G16,

Loading (%) and G17, follow the expected pattern of
80 increasing active power and capacitive
70 losses as loads intensify, potentially
impacting system efficiency. Notably, Line
60
G18 stands out with a distinct trend: while
Loading in %

50 initially showing the highest active power

40 losses in the Normal condition, it
30
substantially reduces both active power
and capacitive losses in the Medium and
20
Heavy conditions, suggesting an efficiency
10 improvement under heavier loads.
0 Conversely, Lines G21, G22, G23, and G24
G10 G13 G15 G16 G17 G18 G21 G22 G23 G24 demonstrate straightforward, proportional
Transmission Line increases in losses as loading percentages
rise, highlighting the need for loss
20% 50% 60% mitigation strategies.

Figure 4: Transmission Line Loading

 Capacitive Losses Lines G10, G13, G15, G16, and G17 exhibit a
consistent trend of increasing active and
120 capacitive losses as loading conditions shift
100 from Normal to Heavy, indicating that heavier
Magnitude in MVar

loads lead to greater losses in these lines. In

80
contrast, Line G18 stands out as an anomaly,
60 initially displaying the highest active power
losses in the Normal condition but subsequently
40
showing substantial reductions in capacitive
20 losses in the Medium and Heavy conditions.
This suggests improved efficiency under heavy
0
G10 G13 G15 G16 G17 G18 G21 G22 G23 G24
loads for Line G18.
Transmission Line

20% 50% 60%

Figure 5: Capacitive loss of transmission line

Active Power Loss in KW The pattern of increased active power

losses as the system load escalates from
6000
Normal to Heavy, a characteristic common
5000 in power systems due to resistive losses
Magnitude in KW

4000 with higher current flow. Notably, Line

G18 stands out as an exception, showing a
3000
decrease in losses under heavier loads in
2000 both Medium and Heavy conditions. This
1000
anomaly suggests unique characteristics
or optimization measures specific to Line
0 G18 that enhance its efficiency when
G10 G13 G15 G16 G17 G18 G21 G22 G23 G24
confronted with substantial loads.
Transmission Line

20% 50% 60%

Figure 6: Active power loss of transmission line

[Link]

G11 G12
Active power HV side 1.0249 1.0208
20% Reactive Power HV side 1 0.9907
Loading % 13.2901 17.7581
Active power HV side 1.0235 1.0168
50% Reactive Power HV side 1 0.9859
Loading % 16.8239 21.552
Active power HV side 1.0229 1.0151
60% Reactive Power HV side 1 0.9841
Loading % 19.3158 23.919

Loading %
30
23.919
25 21.552
17.7581 19.3158
20 16.8239
13.2901
15
10
5
0
20% 50% 60%

G11 G12

Figure 7: Loading of transformer

Increase of a transformer's loading from normal to heavy conditions brings several important
considerations. The higher load levels result in increased current flows and thermal stress on the
transformer, potentially causing overheating or equipment damage. Transformer efficiency tends to
decrease under heavy loads due to elevated losses, impacting voltage regulation and potentially affecting
connected loads. Efficient cooling systems become crucial to dissipate heat, and routine maintenance is
essential for detecting issues that may accelerate under heavy loads. These conditions also lead to higher
energy consumption and operational costs.
 Reactive Power HV side
1.0050 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
1.0000
0.9950 0.9907
0.9900 0.9859 0.9841
0.9850
0.9800
0.9750

Transformer1 Transformer2
Reactive Power HV Reactive Power HV Reactive Power HV
side side side
P = 1.2
Active
P = 1.5
Power HV side
P = 1.6
1.0300 1.0249 1.0235 1.0229
1.0250 1.0208
1.0200 1.0168 1.0151
1.0150
1.0100

Transformer1 Transformer2

Active power HV Active power HV Active power HV

side P = 1.2 side P = 1.5 side P = 1.6

Figure 8: Active and reactive power of HV side

2) Effect of Slack Bus
Without slack bus

Figure 9: Grid summary without slack bus

With Slack bus

Figure 10: Grid summary with slack bus

Load flow result comparing with and without slack bus
3) When G23 (Line 9) is out of service:

Figure 11: Caption when G23 is out of service.

When G23 or line 9 is ticked out of service, the simulation does not work as it is a crucial line in the
network.

Varying line length (80km-140km) loading % and graph:

Varying line length loading

(%)
Line 80km 90km 100km 110km 120km 130km 140km
Name
G10 16.3964 16.4635 16.5286 16.5917 16.6528 16.7120 16.7694
G13 23.6486 23.1432 22.7208 22.3752 22.0999 21.8888 21.7359
G15 37.4212 37.4212 37.4212 37.4212 37.4212 37.4212 37.4212
G16 29.6266 29.4986 29.3768 29.2608 29.1503 29.0449 28.9443
G17 29.6266 29.4986 29.3768 29.2608 29.1503 29.0449 28.9443
G18 7.7590 8.0014 8.2346 8.4588 8.6744 8.8815 9.0806
G21 35.4430 36.2498 37.0244 37.7682 38.4823 39.1682 39.8271
G22 32.6266 34.5595 36.3908 38.1282 39.7787 41.3485 42.8433
G23 52.5399 51.2676 50.0580 48.9064 47.8088 46.7615 45.7610
G24 23.2062 23.3959 23.5783 23.7537 23.9224 24.0846 24.2407
 Loading %
60.0000
50.0000
40.0000
30.0000
20.0000
10.0000
0.0000
Line1 Line2 Line3 Line4 Line5 Line6 Line7 Line8 Line9 Line10

80km 90km 100km 110km 120km 130km 140km

Figure 12: Loading in percentage

When line length varies between 80km to 140km, the loading % of line 7, 8 and 9 changes
significantly with increases in line length. But in other cases, the Loading % don’t change that much
like line 7, 8 and 9, the values remain almost same.

Varying line length (80km-140km) losses (KW) and graph:

Varying line length Losses

(KW)
Line Name 80km 90km 100km 110km 120km 130km 140km
G10 213.74 217.54 221.23 224.79 228.24 231.58 234.81
G13 811.82 771.34 738.02 711.04 689.67 673.26 661.25
G15 2616.25 2616.25 2616.25 2616.25 2616.25 2616.25 2616.25
G16 573.52 568.48 563.71 559.19 554.90 550.82 546.93
G17 573.52 568.48 563.71 559.19 554.90 550.82 546.93
G18 70.81 76.04 81.22 86.33 91.36 96.32 101.19
G21 1225.87 1283.69 1340.41 1396.00 1450.40 1503.59 1555.57
G22 2210.36 2499.34 2789.55 3079.66 3368.58 3655.43 3939.47
G23 3572.64 3815.78 4030.21 4219.09 4385.22 4531.05 4658.72
G24 1006.93 1024.84 1042.18 1058.97 1075.22 1090.95 1106.17
 Losses KW

38.4823
37.4212
37.4212
5000.00

33.7366
4500.00
4000.00
3500.00
3000.00
2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
1000.00
500.00
0.00
Line1 Line2 Line3 Line4 Line5 Line6 Line7 Line8 Line9 Line10

80km 90km 100km 110km 120km 130km 140km

Figure 13: Losses of line in KW

Lines 7, 8, and 9 experience a substantial increase in losses as the line length increases, primarily due
to the longer conductor lengths leading to higher resistive losses. In contrast, other lines demonstrate
relatively stable loss characteristics when line length varies, suggesting that they may be designed or
configured differently or operate within a length range where loss variations are minimal. Importantly,
the change in line length for line 9 significantly impacts the losses of neighboring lines, 7 and 8,
indicating system interdependencies and the need to consider such interactions in power system
design and operation to optimize efficiency and performance.

Addition of Line9 (Duplicate G23):

Line Loading
%
Line
Single Line9 Double Line9
No.
G10 16.6528 16.2512
G13 22.0999 24.9446
G15 37.4212 37.4212
G16 29.1503 29.8913
G17 29.1503 29.8913
G18 8.6744 7.2675
G21 38.4823 33.7366
G22 39.7787 27.6018
G23 47.8088 27.7277
G24 0 27.7277
G10 23.9224 22.7897
 Line Loading %

47.8088
39.7787
60.0000

29.8913

29.8913
29.1503

29.1503

27.7277

27.7277
27.6018
24.9446

23.9224
22.7897
22.0999
16.6528
16.2512
40.0000

8.6744
7.2675

0.0000
20.0000

0.0000
Line1 Line2 Line3 Line4 Line5 Line6 Line7 Line8 Line9 Line9(1) Line10

Single Line9 Double Line9

Figure 14: Line loading with duplicate line.

Line Losses(MW)

4.3852
3.3686
5.0000
2.6163
2.6162

4.0000

1.5475
1.4504

1.4250

1.4250
3.0000

1.1078

1.0752
0.9681
0.9190
0.6897

0.5840

0.5840
0.5549

0.5549

2.0000
0.2282
0.2055

0.0914
0.0607

0.0000
1.0000
0.0000
Line1 Line2 Line3 Line4 Line5 Line6 Line7 Line8 Line9 Line9(1) Line10

Single Line Double Line

Figure 15: Line losses with duplicate line

With reference to figures 13 and 14, demonstrates the benefits of duplicating and connecting Line 9 or
G23 to create a double line. When this duplication occurs, it significantly reduces the line loading
percentage of G23, primarily because the load is shared between the original line and the newly added
line. This load-sharing effect not only lowers the loading percentage of G23 but also leads to a
decrease in losses, as shown in Figure 29. This approach effectively enhances the system's capacity to
accommodate higher loads while simultaneously improving overall efficiency by reducing losses. It
underscores the advantages of optimizing line configurations through duplication to enhance system
performance and capacity.
Conclusion:
Variations in load demand had a notable impact on the power system. Increased load demand
caused higher voltage drops and line currents, potentially leading to instability, whereas
decreased load demand resulted in more stable voltage profiles. Accurate load management
emerged as a pivotal factor for system stability. Furthermore, adjustments to the slack
generator influenced voltage angles and magnitudes at different buses, underscoring the
importance of proper control to maintain desired power flow patterns and voltage levels.
Additionally, the addition of transmission lines alleviated congestion and reduced losses,
enhancing system reliability, while line removals increased congestion and losses, posing
operational challenges.