IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No.

3, March 1981

1105

OPTIMUM SIZE AND LOCATION OF SHUNT CAPACITORS FOR REDUCTION OF LOSSES ON DISTRIBUTION FEEDERS
J. J. Grainger, Senior Member, IEEE
Electrical Engineering Department North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina S. H. Lee, Member, IEEE

Abstract New generalized procedures are developed for optimizing the net savings associated with reduction of power and energy losses through shunt capacitor placement on primary distribution'feeders. These procedures are applied to realistic problems to facilitate their immediate use by the electric utility distribution system designer. It is shown that a basic principle, called here "The Equal Area Criterion", offers significant computational and physical insight into numerous problems outside the bounds of studies previously reported and widely accepted in industry.
-

energy loss reductions is maximized. A representative physical feeder is chosen to illustrate the application of concepts and results throughout the paper.

THE NORMALIZED EQUIVALENT FEEDER

INTRODUCTION
Shunt capacitors have been installed on distribution primary feeders to improve feeder voltage profile via power factor correction. It has been also widely recognized that the application of shunt capacitors results in reduction of power and energy losses in the feeder. Hence, full benefits from the use of shunt capacitors can only be achieved through simultaneous consideration of the above-mentioned two effects. The problem of installing shunt capacitors on distribution primary feeders has been dealt with by many researchers such as Neagle and Samson, Cook, Schmill, Chang, Rankine and others [ 1,2,.... 111. In applying their results to specific, physically-based problems, however, most previous work suffers from the following standpoints: (a) Very restricted reactive-load distribution such as uniform-load distribution or a combination of concentrated and uniformly distributed loads have been extensively used in most analyses. Wire size of the feeder has been usually assumed to be uniform. iIt is apparent 'that solutions obtained under these assumptions may be far from what they should be under real circumstances. (b) Very often analyses were concerned with specified cases, e.g., the case of one capacitor bank, two capacitor banks, etc. Because of the lack of generality of those for.mulae, utility companies having different situations may not be able to apply those results to their systems. The primary objective of this paper is to remove certain unrealistic assumptions and to present very general and yet simple procedures for implementation so that they can be easily and readily modified, adapted, and extended depending upon conditions of the system in question. Postponing consideration of voltage control problems to our future reports, in this paper we will deal only with savings due to power and energy loss reductions using shunt capacitors. It should be mentioned that the problem formulation and the solution approaches to be presented herein are so general that the feeder voltage control'problem can be properly linked to the loss reduction problem without signifilcant difficulties on the basis of the results in this'paper. In this regard, our problem can now be addressed 'as follows: For a given single radial feeder having possibly many sections of different wire sizes, and for any known reactive-load distribution along the feeder which is not necessarily either uniformly distributed or concentrated, we would like to determine optimum location and/or size of shunt capacitor banks so that the economic benefit from power and

Most of the existing studies concerning capacitor placement on distribution feeders assume a uniform reactive load distribution along a uniform feeder. In practice, neither the load distribution nor the feeder is uniform and our analysis does not assume otherwise. The tapering introduced along a feeder from the express section towards the feederend is exemplified in Fig. 1 in which is represented a physically existing 23 kV nine-section feeder of five wire-sizes [ 12].

L~_:-at ior,

Lcoro .>.8o.

1 2

Fig. 1. One-line Diagram of Nonuniform, 23 kV, Three-phase Primary Feeder. Reactive Loads are Shown to Scale; Sections with Same Wire-size are-Shown with Same Width Line.
The concentrated reactive loads are at the end of each section; these loads are quite dissimilar as schematically shown in Fig. 1. The actual wire-sizes, section lengths in miles, and kvar load distribution are tabulated in Table 1. To simplify the development of the theory underlying our procedures, it is convenient to treat a physical feeder -as an equiva-

Table 1. Data for Example Feeder: Total Length is 16.27 Miles; Three-phase Reactive Loads Shown Correspond to Distribution of Fig. 1.
(1)

(2)
WIRE

(3)
RESISTANCE IN OHMS
PER MILE

UMBER

ECTION
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SIZE

(4) PHYSICAL SECTION LENGTH

hT

IN-MILES

(L7F
.63

(5) SECTION LENGTH OF EQUIVALENT UNIFORM FEEDER IN MILES

(6)
NORMALIZED SECTION LENGTH FOR EQUIVALENT UNIFORM FEEDER .0073 .0146 .0442 .0413 .1174 .0536

(7)

(L1r1/r4

KVAR LOAD AT END OF SECTION

460 340 446 1840

300 Cu 336.4 Al 2/0 Cu 2 Cu 2 Cu 2 Cu 4 Cu 4 Cu 4 Cu

.2803 ;4390

.1957
.8622

.8622 1.3701

.862?

1.3701 1.3701

T lM.5

1.70 .81 2.30 1.05 1.50 3.50 3.90

.88

.1430 .2861 .8656 .8100 2.3000

2.3837 5.5618 6.1974

1.0500

600

9977 -00

.3162

.1216 .2838

110 60 130 200

lent uniform feeder of unity length. This is accomplished in a two step process as follows: (a) Suppose there are k sections in the physical feeder. Chose rj, the resistance in ohms per mile of the jth section, as the resistance in ohms per mile of the equivalent uniform feeder. Modify the physical length Li of the ith section as follows:
L. r.

F 80 246-9 A paper recommended and approved by the IEEE Transmission & Distribution Committee on the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, NY, February 38, 1980. Manuscript submitted September 8, 1979; made available for printing November 16, 1979.

L.

ul

r.
J

l 2,... ,k

(1)

1981 IEEE

1106
where Lui is the length in miles of the ith section of the equivalent uniform feeder. (b) Lu, the total length in miles of the equivalent uniform feeder is defined by k L. r i (2) L u ii 1 r2 j=
Divide each section length Lui of the equivalent feeder by Lu to yield a normalized equivalent uniform feeder of unity length and uniform resistance k r = Z L. r
i=
1

F(x) a

E f(T) X<t <1

(4)

where Is is the peak reactive current injected into the feeder at the substation, x is the distance measured along the normalized equivalent uniform feeder from the same end and I(x) is the reactive current density at x. A typical example of F(x) for the case of discrete loads concentrated at arbitrary locations along the feeder is shown in Fig. 3; this figure is drawn for the f(x) corresponding to the reactive loads listed in column 7 of Table 1. For continuous F(x) integration appears in (4).

ohms per normalized unit length. The application of this procedure to our example physical feeder is demonstrated quantitatively in columns (4), (5), (6) of Table 1 and graphically to scale in Fig. 2; as shown, rj=r4 in this example.
Sal --tation

1. 0000
0. 090i

10.27
L.aor.n 'lo. 1 2
3 4

rni.
P., 0

0.70203

r-

.Q

70 0.02

o 11

14

-Imi.
5 6 7 9 8

19.60

_.

C)

IV

Se ::ti cr.-. lio. i2 3

10

7-Oc) L1
Section Iac. 1-2 3 4
6
7

lI

1I R1.0

0.15

Q0.0788

Fig. 2. Representation of (a) Physical Feeder (b) Equivalent Feeder with r = 0.8622 Q2/mile (c) Normalized Equivalent Uniform Feeder with r = 16.8971 Q/unit length.
Upon close examination, it is apparent that the section-lengths of the physical feeder (relative to each other) are expanded, contracted or unaltered by our normalizing transformation depending upon the corresponding ri/rj ratios. This observation is noteworthy because of its effect upon assumptions commonly found in the literature; it means that an assumed uniform load distribution along a physical feeder of different wire-sizes becomes nonuniform on the equivalent feeder and consequently, does not match the basic model underlying many of the analyses in the references. In our work, discrete loads are considered to be located at nodes at the remote end of the corresponding feeder section; these nodes are referred to in the text as feedpoints or loadpoints.

x-1 .0

iaoranalized dist;ance

Fig. 3. The Normalized Reactive Current Function F(x) Corresponding to Example Feeder and Loads of Table 1.

LOSS REDUCTION AND SAVINGS FORMULAE

It is required to optimally place n fixed, shunt capacitors on a three-phase radial distribution feeder so as to minimize power and energy losses. More specifically, we seek the locations hi (i=1,2,...,n) and the sizes Ici (i 1,2,...,n) of the shunt capacitors, Fig. 4, which will maximize the net dollar savings resulting from the capacitor placement program. It is noted that no assumption is made regarding the relative sizes of the capacitors to be installed. In the following analysis Ici will in general represent the reactive current of the ith capacitor bank; however, in certain examples, it represents kvar ratings.

THE NORMALIZED REACTIVE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION

As previously noted, our procedures require no assumption regarding the distribution of reactive load along the feeder. Accordingly, the distribution system planner can directly apply our procedures to actual reactive load distributions found in practice; as a result, capacitors can be specified to satisfy actual rather than approximate compensation levels. Consider a three-phase nonuniformly distributed reactive load such as that represented by Fig. 1. We now define a normalized reactive current density function, f(x), and a normalized feeder reative current function, F(x), as follows:
f(x)
A

=Ca .o

I(X) I
S

(3)

Fig. 4. Capacitor Locations and Current Ratings Carry Subscripts Numbered as Shown n = 3 here.

1107

The peak power loss reduction which is effected by the n shunt capacitors is given by
LP =

Step 1:

31f
0

2 (I F()) rdx 0

hn
i

2 (I F(x) - Z I .) rdx

=1c

Step 2: Step 3:
(5)

n-i

il.
1

hi+i

(I F(x) -

j=

E I .) r dx cJ

+ f

h1

(IsF(x))

r dx]}

From the one line diagram of the physical feeder [Fig. I] and the tabulated data of wire sizes, section lengths and resistance parameters, determine the base length and the per unit distance of each node along the normalized equivalent uniform feeder [Table 1, Fig. 2] . Using the total sending-end reactive load input to the feeder as base, draw the normalized reactive current function F(x) along the normalized equivalent uniform feeder [Fig. 3]. From the graph of F(x) determine the optimum location of each capacitor, hl (i= 1,2,...,n), in the given sequence of installation via the formula F(h*) = (K +
K
+ K T

and, correspondingly, the energy loss reduction is given by

LE
=

Kp

I.i i-l*
+

I j=1i I

(9)

3f0f
n
E

(Is(t)
2
.)

F(x))
dx +
Z

dx -US

(I

(t) F(x)
i
j=i
I

where
.)
cJ

nr
i=i

I
ci

j=i

fh (IS(t) F(x) hi+i

r

h.

j=l cj

A
=

0.

2
r

dx

Step 4:

The normalized optimum locations hi (i=1,2,...,n), are transformed back to physical distances by reverse application of Step 1.

fh (I (t) F(x))
1s

dx] Idt

(6)

where lS(t) is the time-varying, reactive-load current, measured over a load cycle of duration T, at the source end of the normalized equivalent uniform feeder of resistance r ohms/unit length. The net savings resulting from both power and energy loss reductions is then given by
S
n
=

LP + K

LE

c i=i

ci

(7)

where Kp, Ke, and .Kc are the respective constants to convert power loss savings, energy loss savings and capacitor-bank rating to dollars. For convenience, we will omit in later equations the multiplier 3 which appears in (5) and (6) and interpret Kc as the annual cost per singlephase kvar.
OPTIMUM LOCATIONS AND BANK SIZES

To maximize the net savings S of (7), it is required to simultaneously solve for the optimum locations and optimum capacitorbank sizes to be placed thereat. An overall solution approach becomes clear after we establish two independent results, each of which has important stand-alone applications in practice.

The generality and remarkable simplicity of Procedure A are now exemplified for the nine-section, 23 kV, three-phase feeder previously introduced. Example 1: The principal reactive load on the non-uniform feeder are specified in Table 1. Determine the locations for 300 kvar, 900 kvar, 1200 kvar capacitor banks which will optimize the net savings from both power-losss and energy-loss reductions. The parameter values are Kp = $120/kW/yr; Ke = 15 mills/kwh; T = 8760 hours; Lf = 0.45. Solution: From the given data we find the normalized values Icl = 0.1006; IC2 = 0.3018; Ic3 0.4023 and Procedure A yields the following optimum locations h* = 0.6838; hr = 0.2248; hr = 0.1074 corresponding to feedpoints at 12.77, 6.32 and 4.02 miles, respectively. Fig. 5 shows the graphical construction and results. Remark: In Example 1, if the given parameters were such that the calculations of Procedure A result in h2 = F 1 (0.2628), then h2 is not uniquely defined. [See Fig. 3 ] This means that, as far as reduction of losses is concerned, the second capacitor should be located at any place along section 5 without affecting the amount of savings; this is due to the piece-wise linear

(x)

1. G300

Optimum Locations
First, we present a theorem which leads to a procedure for finding the points along a feeder at which a given sequence of n fixed capacitor banks should be installed in order to maximize the net savings S. Theorem 1: For given capacitor ratings Ici (i= 1,2,...,n), the optimal location of the ith capacitor, hi (i=1,2,...,n), is given by

h* I

-i

+ K T

K+p

e ) (S2 KTL

I.
+

2s

i-i I E y- -) ) j=l s

(8)
0.2515

where F-1 ( ) represents the inverse of the function F( ), defined in (4) and exemplifled in Fig. 3, and Lf is the reactive load factor for the feeder. The proof of this theorem is set forth in the APPENDIX.

PROCEDURE A: Optimum Locations

As a result of Theorem 1 we now present a new, general, yet remarkably simple procedure for determining the optimum locations for a specified sequence of capacitor bank sizes.

0.0503

i
ffi n

X=l .0

Fig. 5. Graphical Representation of Results from Procedure A Applied to Example 1. Note Optimal Locations at Feedpoints.

1108
nature of the function S for discrete load points. However, the reactive current in feeder section 5 is lagging if the capacitor is placed at feed point = 0.1076, while it becomes leading with the same power factor if the capacitor is placed at feedpoint x = 0.2248. If the capacitor is placed somewhere between the two feed points, reactive power is leading in the portion of the feeder section nearer to the substation than the capacitor while it is lagging in the other portion of the feeder section. Observations: It is worthwhile to note here a number of interesting features of this result which is a generalization of results presented in much of the existing literature: (a) The optimum location, hi, of the ith capacitor, Ici, is not dependent upon the size of capacitors Icj for j>i. In other words, no capacitor located nearer to the source end of the feeder than the ith capacitor has any influence on the location of the latter. (b) Optimum locations hi* (i=1,2,...,n), can always be chosen at feed points. (c) If the objective of the capacitor placement programs is to maximize the peak power loss reduction, then Ke is set equal to zero in (7); this is equivalent to assuming that the reactive load factor, Lf, is unity. It then follows from (8) that
F (h*)

PROCEDURE B: Optimum Capacitor Sizes

For the case where Kc = 0 in (7), we present a procedure which is a logical outcome of the graphical interpretation of (12). This procedure enables the distribution system designer to determine the optimal sizes of capacitor banks which should be installed, once he has selected their locations on the feeder. It is convenient to illustrate the procedure, without any loss of generality, for the problem of sizing three capacitors (n=3) at locations hl, h2, h3 on the normalized equivalent uniform feeder which has the normalized reactive current profile shown by F(x) in Fig. 6.

1.h

2 cI 2
s

i: I.

i=[y+

i-i

I ((i=l, 2, . . ., n)

(10)

a result which holds for any load distribution. It extends, while confirming, the results obtained for particular uniform load dis-

tributions in the references.

(d) If the objective of the capacitor placement program is one of energy conservation i.e. reduction of energy loss, without regard for power loss or economics, then both Kp and Kc are set equal to zero in (7). Not surprisingly, the optimum Iocations in this case are dependent upon the reactive load factor of the feeder and are given by
i-1

x=1.0 h g2 Fig. 6. Illustration of Procedure B to the Problem of Optimally Sizing Three Capacitors at Pre-specified Locations.
g3

h3

g2

h2

Step 1:

Determine a point g, on the normalized equivalent uniform feeder such that

ci

2[Lf I F(h)

I ] I

F(g )
(i=1,2, ... ,n)
(1

1)

1 -

f1 F(x) dx A C1 2 h2

(13)

Again, this is a general result; it states that for maximum energy loss reduction, the ith capacitor in the specified sequence should be located at a point at which its rating equals twice the average reactive load in the feeder minus the combined rating of all the capacitors installed further from the substation than the ith
capacitor.

i.e. g, is a point determined by the mean value of the reactive current in the feeder segment [h2,hl 1. The optimum rating of the first capacitor is then found using I 1
=

Is F (g1)
+K1( TLf)
+ K

=a

Is
=

(14)

(K

Optimum Capacitor Sizes

to determine the We next present a theorem which enables optimum sizes for the n capacitor banks to be installed at predesignated locations along the feeder which, as before, may involve sections of dissimilar wire sizes. Theorem 2: In order to maximize the total savings S when the cost of capacitors is neglected, i.e., Kc = 0, the optimal capacitor curh rents I* (i=1,2,..,n) to be located at known locations hl, h2, ...h are given by the following recursive fonnula
us

where

a =

(K

T)

and C1

F(g9)

Step 2:

Step 3:

Draw the dotted contour I which passes through the point g, and which is parallel to the original load profile. Determine a point g2 on the feeder such that
F
The

(g2)
fF

1 2 f hF (x) dx h 3 o rn- 3

(15)
using

optimum rating of the second capacitor is found

Ic2
K + K TL

a Is
=

(g2)

F(gl) }

a Is

C2

(16)

I*. ci

P K
p

e + K T
e

i-i

Iavg

(h

i+l, i)- k EIck

=

where C2

F(g2)

C1

for i=1,2,...,n

Step 4:

(12)
Step 5:

Draw the dotted contour II which passes through the point g2 and which is parallel to the original load profile. Determine a point g3 on the feeder such that

where lavg (hi+1 ,hi) is the mean value of the reactive current in the normalized equivalent feeder segment [hi+1,hi]. The proof of this theorem is presented via Theorems 2A and 2B in the APPENDIX.

F(g3)

1 h
3

h3 f0 F(x) dx

(17)

1109

The optimum rating of the third capacitor is then

c3
where

I( XI
i
.

-a

Is

{F(g3) F(g2)}
-

Is C3

(18)

C3 = F(g3) - (C.1+ C2)

The above procedure can be applied to the problem of placing any number of capacitors on an arbitrary radial feeder having arbitrary reactive load distribution; recursive formula (12) is invoked for the F(x) involved.

AN EQUAL AREA CRITERION

In developing the theory underlying Procedure B a most interesting fact was observed which we now refer to as the "Equal Area Criterion" The Equal Area Criterion plays a key role in a computer-based search technique which is to be reported in a later paper. To assist explanation and insight, we appeal to graphical procedures; accordingly, we rely on Fig. 7 and the corresponding three capacitor problem. In Fig. 7, the contour III is drawn through g3 parallel to the original normalized reactive current profile. From the construction underlying Fig. 7 the Equal Area Criterion yields

x=t d.
h3

Fig. 7. Illustration of Equal Area Criterion to Three-capacitor Problem of Fig. 6.

AreaAl =AreaB1
Area A2 = Area B2 Area A3 = Area B3 This criterion applies equally well to any general case. Later in this paper, it will be shown to be a pivotal criterion in determining the optimum locations and optimum capacitor sizes for general reactive load distributions. For the present, we will apply Procedure B to the non-uniform feeder previously considered.

1.0000

F(x)

Example 2: For the three-phase reactive loads and feeder of Example 1, determine the optimum sizes of the capacitor banks to be placed at locations hl,h2,h3 corresponding to distances of 12.37, 8.13, 4.02 miles, respectively, from the substation. The parameter data given is still applicable and, in addition, Kc = 0. Solution: The feedpoints chosen for location for the capacitors correspond to normalized distances h, = 0.6838, h2 = 0.3400, h3 = 0.1074. Equations (13) - (18) applied to F(x) of Fig. 3 yield the following: (13)
F(g)

0.1853

0.0815-iij
F 4 L

91
h2

g3

g2

0. 0815 = C1

(14) (15)
(16)

Ic
I2

Is
I

F(g)

Is

C1

243 kvar

Fig. 8. Graphical Representation of the results from Procedure B Applied to Example 2. The Feeder Reactive Current after the Capacitors are Installed is Shown by the Dotted Profile.
309 kvar

F(g2) = 0.1853

[F(g2) - F(g1)] =
-

a I C2

(17) (18)

F(g3)

0.7924

I3

aI [F(g3)

F(g2)]

C3

1811 kvar

These results are shown in Fig. 8. LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF CAPACITORS TO MAXIMIZE POWER AND ENERGY LOSS REDUCTIONS
In previous sections, procedures are developed to determine the optimum locations for a specified set of capacitor banks and vice versa. In this section, we set forth a procedure for determining both the locations and the corresponding capacitor sizes which maximize the benefits accruing from their installation. It should be noted that, at this stage of our presentation, our discussion is limited

to maximizing the savings caused by power and energy loss reductions under the assumption that the cost of capacitors is negligible. Therefore, the use of capacitors guarantees economic benefits in this situation. However, when the cost of capacitors is taken into consideration there may be a point of diminishing economic return beyond which the placement of further total capacitance on the feeder is not economically justified. Trade-off considerations will then apply, this case is discussed in more detail in a later section.

PROCEDURE C: Optimum Locations and Sizes

To determine the optimum locations and sizes of the n capacitor banks, the procedural steps set forth below are followed. These steps are alternately based upon those of Procedure A and Procedure B with the Equal Area Criterion guiding the interaction between them. Our new procedure starts with an arbitrarily chosen hl. It then determines the corresponding Icl. The Equal Area Criterion is then invoked to

1110

determine h2 which, in turn, leads to Ic2, h3,...,hn, Icn in this order. When hn is obtained at the end of the first iteration, we check whether the Equal Area Criterion (E.A.C.) is satisfied in the segment [o,hn]. If so, the solution obtained is optimal. Otherwise, we adjust h, and apply the whole procedure again. While a flowchart for a computerbased approach could be presented for the procedure at this stage, we choose to illustrate its application via the graphical approach of Fig. 9 and a general three-capacitor problem. Illustration: It is desired to optimally place three capacitors of optimum sizes on the feeder whose reactive load profile is shown in Fig. 9. Step 1: Select h, (initialization) Step 2: In accordance with Procedure A, determine Ici so that the chosen h, is optimum in the sense that
I l = 2aI

F(h1)

(19)

Step 3:

In accordance with Procedure B, determine h2 so that the previously chosen h1 and the obtained ICi are optimal in the sense that the E.A.C. is satisfied in the feeder segment [h2 ,hl . This is done as follows: (i) Determine a point g1 such that
F (g1 ) =

If A3 > B3, return to Step 1. Choose a new value of h1 corresponding to a point slightly nearer the end of the feeder and repeat the remaining steps of the procedure. Remark: During the procedure, if it should happen that it is not possible to locate points gi or hi in some step, this means that the initially chosen h, is too close to the substation. In this event a new hi should be chosen further from the substation. Remark: Because of the discontinuous nature of the function F(x) for a feeder having discrete load points (e.g. Fig. 3), we will encounter the problem that derivatives of the function S with respect to location hi may not exist (in fact, its subgradient is not unique). Therefore, in the mathematical analyses underlying our procedures subgradients rather than gradients should be used. In this regard, for instance, in Step 2 or Step 4 in Procedure C, if hi coincides with a feedpoint, the value of F(hi) is not uniquely determined. From the application viewpoint this is not a hindrance but rather an advantage to solution. For example, referring to Fig. 11, any point on the segment of the staircase function F(x) at location h1 can be used for
F(x) 1.0

Icl -"yI

(20)

(ii)
(iii)
Step 4:

Draw a contour I through the point g1 which is parallel to the original load profile. Locate a point h2 so that area A1 = area B1 (21)

As in Step 2, determine IC2 which satisfies

Ic2 2{IsF(h2) - Icl}

=

(22)

Step 5:

As in Step 3, determine h3 as follows: (i) Determine a point g2 such that

F(g2) =

aI (Icl
s

Ic2)

(23)

(ii) Draw a contour II passing through the point g2 which is parallel to the original load profile (iii) Locate a point h3 so that area A2 = area B2 (24)

Fig. 9. Illustration of Procedure C to the Problem of Determining Optimum Locations and Sizes of Three Capacitors.

Step 6:

As in Step 2 or Step 4, determine Ic3 which satisfies

!(y)

Ic3

2{aIs F(h3)

cl

c2

(25)
1,,9 9 ~

Step 7: No further locations need to be determined. Instead, optimality of the previously obtained solution hl, h2, h3, Ic1, IC2, IC is to be checked using the Equal Area Criterion. (i) Determine a point g3 such that
3 =
I
s

'()=~

(Icl+1c2+1c3)

(26)

0\
0s's

(ii) Draw a contour III passing through the point g3 which is parallel to the original load profile. Two further areas A3 and B3 are now defined. (iii) Three possibilities exist. If A3 = B3 (or if they differ only within a specified tolerance) then the E.A.C. is deemed to be satisfied throughout the feeder and thus the locations and sizes obtained above are optimal. The procedure is then terminated. If A3 < B3, return to Step 1. Choose a new value of h, corresponding to a point slightly nearer the substation and repeat the remaining steps of the procedure.

X~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X X.X
h3

h2

h1

Fig. 10. Application of Procedure C to a Uniform Feeder Having a Uniformly Distributed Load.

F(h1). This additional flexibility offered in the case of discrete loads (Steps 2, 4 and 6 in our case) will be exploited for computer-based solution approaches to be reported later. At any rate, this flexibility will be restricted by the need to satisfy the Equal Area Criterion over the entire feeder. Let us exemplify the simplicity of application of Procedure C to the uniformly distributed load profile which is considered in so many of the references. Example 3: Fig. 10 represents a uniformly distributed load on a uniform feeder. For the illustration, Fig. 10 shows only three capacitor banks, i.e. n=3. Solution: Owing to the simplicity of the load profile in Fig. 10, an analytic solution procedure for the case of n capacitors is readily available. From the Equal Area Criterion (A =B =A2=B2=..=An=Bn) it must follow that all capacitors banks are equal in size i.e. IC c=IC= cn Also, it is easily seen that =Icn
(2n+l)b = 1 (Normalized Feeder Length)
and
(n

1111 is represented the reactive current profile along the normalized equivalent uniform feeder before and after the capacitors are installed. The optimal solution for this example is: hj n 16.27 miles; h' E 6.32 miles; h- 4.02 miles; I*G n 212 kvar; I*c2 571 kvar;I*c3 n 1578 kvar. It should be noted that f(h?) # 0.0478 but is chosen to satisfy the Equal Area Criterion. Another feature of this optimal solution is that the reactive feeder current is zero between h1 and h1 which means that A2 =B2 = 0ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CAPACITOR INSTALLATION

(27)

-y-aI

ci
s

= 1 (Normalized Total Capacitance)

(8 (28)

where b is defined in Fig. 10 and all other symbols are as previously defined. It immediately follows that
and

Any discussion on the use of capacitors should involve some consideration of the economic trade-offs associated with their installation. It is obvious that the higher the installed cost of capacitor banks the fess significant are the economic benefits of the resultant power and energy loss reductions. To account for the, cost of capacitor installation, Kc in (7) is no longer considered to be zero. As a consequence of using non-zero Kc, most interesting results are found which could impact the results of the above procedures in a significant manner. For example, it will be shown that the much used ruleof-thumb referred to as "The Two-Thirds Rule", no longer holds even for the idealized case of uniformly distributed load on a uniform feeder. Generalized Procedure B: Optimum Capacitor Sizes
It is shown in the APPENDIX that, for given locations hi (i=l, 2,...,n) and Kc > 0, the optimum capacitor bank sizes I* (i= 12,...,n-1) are the same as previously obtained via Procedure B. However, the equation for I * , the optimum size of the capacitor to be located closest to the substation, is altered in accordance with
I*
cn
=

hi
ci

2(n+l-i)
2n+

(29)

2aI for i=l,2, ... ,n. 2n+l The foundation on which the so-called "Two-Thirds Rule" is based can now be readily identified from (29) and (30). Moreover, the role of the Equal Area Criterion in yielding the more general equations 'in a very simple manner is noteworthy. The last Remark above is more fully appreciated by applying Procedure C to a practical example.

LF(g n-l )-8] cIs s n )-F(g

A

(31)

Example 4: Determine the optimum locations and sizes for three capacitor banks which maximize savings on the non-uniform feeder of Example 1 when Kc=O and all other parameter values are unchanged. Solution: Space limitations do now allow us to set forth the steps of Procedure C for solution of this problem. However, in Fig. 11

where
S

2rhn (Kp+K e TL f )I s

c C

(32)

Accordingly, to account for installed cost of capacitors, it is necessary to modify only the last step of Procedure B. Without any loss of generality, we illustrate this modification using the three-capacitor problem previously considered. As far as Ic, and Icz are concerned there is no change in procedure; Step 2 to 4 of Procedure B are unaltered. Step 5 is altered to read as follows: Step 5: Determine a point g3 on the feeder such that

F(g3)

h f 3 F (x)dx,

(33)

Then, the optimal value of the third capacitor is

Ic3 = aI[F(g3) F(g2) 9]

where
K

(34)

L
lII

2rh3
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
________

(K+K

TLf) Is

(35)

The graphical interpretation of Generalized Procedure B is readily seen in Fig. 12.

I.

The Equal Area Criterion

It should be appreciated that the Equal Area Criterion is applicable throughout the normalized equivalent uniform feeder so that A1=B1, A2=B2,...,An=Bn. However, the modification required to account for A > 0 is graphically evident from Fig. 12. The net result is that in applying Generalized Procedure B, the Equal Area Criterion

L.J

h3

h1,

Fig.

11.

Graphical Representation of Results from Procedure C to Example 4. The Dotted Profile Represents the Feeder Reactive Current after the Capacitors are Installed.

1112

(ii) Draw a contour III passing through the point g3 which is parallel to the original load profile. Two further areas of A3 and B3 are now defined. (iii) Same as before.
Remark: As we mentioned immediately following Procedure C, it might be impossible to locate points gi and hi in the application of some step. Moreover, there may be a case that, whatever the initially chosen hi is, it is not possible to determine gn (g3 in our illustration). This corresponds to the situation that it is not economical to place capacitors at all.' We will treat this case in the next section. We now demonstrate the application of Generalized Procedure C to two examples.
1(x)

1.0

X.

Fig. 12. Illustration of Equal Area Criterion to Three-Capacitor Problem of Fig. 6 in the Presence of Capacitor Costs. Note Areas A3 and B3 Defined.
must still be satisfied; the modification required to account for capacitor cost affects the value of Icn found by the E.A.C. ,< 0, then the value of 3cz becomes Remark: If F(g3 )- F(g2) negative. In this eventuality, the proper interpretation is that it is not economical to place the third capacitor at location h3. This fact will be exploited below to simultaneously determine both optimum location and size of each capacitor. In addition, it is noted that the presence of capacitor costs does not alter Procedure A. Example 5: Determine the optimum sizes of the three capacitors to be'installed on the 23 kV feeder of Example 2. Use Generalized Procedure B and a value of Kc corresponding to $3.50 per thre7ephase kvar; assume a 14.3% annual fixed charge rate for Kc Solution: From (35) we calculate ,B = 0.0972. Accordingly, the rating of the third optimal capacitor found in Example 2 is altered to the value corresponding to Ic3 = 0.6070-0.0972=0.5098 i.e. Ic3 = cr1s (0.5098) 1-520 kvar. The sizes of the first and'second capacitors are unaltered.

N~~~~~~~~~~~
N~~~~~~~~~~~~

N0

Fig. 13. Application of Generalized Procedure C to a Uniform Feeder H~aving a Uniformnly Distributed Load. Note the Presence, of Capa'cito'r Costs Alters-Both Optimum Sizes and Locations (Compare with Fig. IO),
N ~~~~~~~

Effect of Capacitor Cost on Optimum Locations and Sizes of Capacitor Banks

It is noted above that the Equal Area Criterion remains valid for Kc > 0. Consequently, it follows that Generalized Procedure B conjoined with Procedure A leads to a more generalized version of Procedure C. We are, therefore, now in a position to describe a procedure for determining the optimum location and size of each capacitor when the cost of capacitors is included.

Example 6: Again, consider the classical case of uniformly distributed load on a uniformn feeder. WVe are' required to place n capacitors to maximize net savings. Fig. '13 shows--the graphical interpretation for n=3. 'Solution: In this case three variables a,b,lci must be determined. It follows from the Equal Area Criterion that JGl'==lG2= ...=Icn- Usin-g the construction of Fig. 13 as guide, we have the following tlhree eq,uations in a,b,lci:(2n+1)b + 2a=1
2n+1
2
a

(normalized length)
'V

Generalized Procedure C: Optimum Locations and Sizes

The only changes to be made in Procedure C for Kc > 0 involve items (i) and (ii) of the last step'. Accordingly, for the three-capacitor illustration, Step 7 of Procedure C should be' altered as follows: Step 7: In applying the E.A.C. the effect of capacitor cost is taken into account as follows: (i) Determine a pointg3 such that

oTI s

ci +2

Kc 2(a+b)I s - I

(normalized current)

(38)
(39)

K /2(a+b)

(construction)

\.L.ct c / 2ot)
where
' A c
+Kef TL ) 2r(Kp

(40)

K-

(41) (42)
(43)

F(g3)
where

I
s

cl
K

c c2+Ic3

s')

(36)
and

Equations (38), (39), (40) can be solved for a,b,Ici to yield

I. -20.b I S C1

i=I,2,...,n

2rh3 (K +K TLf ) I

(37)

hi

(2i-1)b

1113

where b is the smaller of the two solutions of the quadratic equation

I
S

[(2n-l)b-l][(2n+l)b-l] - 2K C = 0

(44)

It is readily seen that for Kc = 0 we have the same solution as in Example 3.. It is noted, however, that with the inclusion of capacitor cost, the "Two-Thirds Rule" and its generalization as reflected in the references, must be modified. Example 7: Determine the optimum locations and sizes of the three capacitor banks required to maximize the net savings on the 23 kV feeder of Example 4; use Generalized Procedure C and the data of Example 5. Solution: From Example 5, /3 = 0.0972. Applying Generalized Procedure C yields a solution which differs from that of Example 4 in the value obtained for the third capacitor only..Here Ic3 -- 1288 kvar. In general, when A (or Kc) # 0, all the capacitor sizes and locations obtained via Procedure C can be affected (see Example 6). A CRITERION FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The conclusion here is that for the physical feeder involved, for the reactive loads and their distributions indicated in Table 1 and the economic parameters specified, the savings which result from application of capacitors are significantly greater than the costs of application; consequently and unequivocally, capacitors should be used! CONCLUSIONS
This paper has extended, generalized, corrected, and confirmed results reported in previous literature. In spite of the most generalized problem specifications employed throughout the paper e.g., no restriction on the reactive-load distribution along the feeder whose wire size is not necessarily uniform, the procedures presented here for determining optimum size and/or location of shunt capacitors are remarkably simple to implement, and yet theoretically sound. Owing to the generality of the formulae, it appears promising to extend our results to deal with feeders having lateral branches and also to account for the effect of switching time of switched shunt capacitors. Although this paper reports only the economic benefits from capacitor application via reduction of losses, research is under way to incorporate feeder voltage control problems as well, in order to fully account for the effects of application of shunt capacitors.

In this section we offer a criterion for economic analysis of capacitor installation. This criterion provides insight into the following areas: (i) How significant is Kc, capacitor cost, in achieving economic benefits? (ii) Is it sufficient to simply compare Kc with Kp and Ke - the annual cost of power and energy loss - to justify use of (iii)

NOMENCLATURE
distance measured along the normalized equivalent uniform feeder from the substation r: resistance in ohms per unit length of the normalized equivalent feeder reactive-load current density at x on the equivalent I(x): feeder peak reactive-load current injected into the feeder at Is: the substation time-varying, reactive-load current injected into the feeder at the substation normalized reactive-load current density at x on the equivalent feeder normalized feeder reactive current at x on the equivalent feeder location of the ith capacitor bank hi: per unit reactive current of the ith capacitor bank ci1 T: duration of a load cycle reactive load factor Lf: LP: peak power loss reduction LE: energy loss reduction annual cost per unit of power loss in $/kW Kp: per unit energy production cost in $/kWh Ke: annual cost per unit of installed capacitor in $/kVAR Kc: S: net savings resulting from both peak power and energy loss reductions mean value of the -fee'der reactive current in the normalshi): lavg(hi+, ized equivalent feeder segment [hi+1 ,hil x:

(iv)
(v)

We now the above questions.

capacitors? Does Is, the maximum reactive current on the feeder, affect the economic trade-off considerations? Depending upon the answer, it may not be economical to install capacitors on certain feeders. How significantly does reactive load-cycle and reactive load distribution affect economic trade-offs? Do the wire sizes effect the trade-off considerations? As in (iii) certain feeders may not economically benefit from capacitor placement. provide a new criterion which offers a means of answering

Criterion A:
If Kc > 2(Kp + KeTLf)RIsfJ F(x)dx where R is the total feeder resistance, then it is economically preferable not to attempt to use capacitors. [Note that f F(x)dx is the area beneath the normalized reactive current profile (see Fig. 3)]. A justification for this criterion is presented in the APPENDIX. The remarkable simplicity of this criterion allows the distribution system de.signer to examine the influence of each of the parameters corresponding to the listed questions, this can be done in aggregate or on an individual basis. It is immediately apparent that the critical capacitor cost, beyond which it is of no economic value to add capacitors, is directly proportional to the total resistance of the feeder and the accumulated feeder reactive current (i.e., Is f I F(x)dx).

Example 8:

Using the data of Examples I and 5 apply Criterion A to the subject 23 kV feeder.
Solution: We must first examine the question: Is Kc > 2(Kp + KeTLf)R Is f F(x)dx? This is numerically answered by: Is 0*5>8*2?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was supported in part by the Carolina Power and Light Company, and the North Carolina Energy Institute. The authors acknowledge the assistance of Mr. D. L. Allen, North Carolina State University, in the preparation of this paper and the numerical examples throughout.

1114

REFERENCES

[1] N. M. Neagle and D. R. Samson, "Loss reduction from capacitors installed on primary feeders," AIEE Transactions, vol. 75, part III, pp. 950-959, 1956. [2] R. F. Cook, "Analysis of capacitors application as affected by load cycle," AIEE Transactions, vol. 78, part IIIA, pp. 950-957, 1959. [31 M. Maxwell, "The economic application of capacitors to distribution feeders," AJEE Transactions, vol. 79, pp. 353-359, 1960. [4] R. F. Cook, "Optimizing the application of shunt capacitors for reactive-volt-ampere control and loss reduction," AIEE Transactions, vol. 80, pp. 430444, August 1961. [5] R. F. Cook, "Calculating loss reduction aff6rded by shunt capacitor application," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 83, pp. 1227-1230, 1964. [6] J. V. Schmill, "Optimum size and location of shunt capacitors on distribution feeders," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 84, pp. 825-832, September 1965. [7] H. Duran, "Optimum number, location, and size of shunt capacitors in radial distribution feeders - a dynamic programming approach." IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 87, pp. 1769-1774, September 1968. [8] N. E. Chang, "Determination of primary-feeder losses," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 87, pp. 1991-1994, December 1968. [9] N. E. Chang, "Locating shunt capacitors on primary feeder for voltage control and loss reduction," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 88, pp. 1574-1577, October 1969. [10] N. E. Chang, "Generalized equations on loss reduction with shunt capacitor," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 91, pp. 2189-2195, 1972. [11] L. J. Rankine, "Method of locating shunt capacitors suitable for computer solution," Electrical World, Sept. 26, 1960, pp. 72-73. [12] G. E. Shuford and J. Bryan, "Unique computer optimization program obsoletes 'Rule of Thumb' distribution system improvement methods," Proceedings of the American Power Conference, April 1977.
APPENDIX
Each capacitor installed on the feeder contributes to the total power loss reduction, LP, and the total energy loss reduction, LE. From both the computational and analytical viewpoints it is desirable, if possible, to represent LP and LE in terms which reflect the separate contributions wnade by each capacitor. Unfortunately, the contributions of each capacitor in a multi-capacitor installation are not completely separable and independent. However, the total power and energy loss reductions can be separately dealt with in a limited sense as now shown. The following nomenclature is first introduced: LP1 ,(LE1): the power (energy) loss reduction effected by capacitor 1. LP2,(LE2): the power (energy) loss reduction effected by capacitor 2 in addition to that of capacitor 1. LPi,(LEi): the power (energy) loss reduction effected by capacitor i in addition to that of capacitors 1, 2, . (i-1) (see

To minimize the notational complexity, the three-phase feeder is handled on a single-phase basis. The total net savings, S, is defined by n (A4) S = Kp LP + K e LE-K c i=1 Ici

Proof of Theorem 1: Optimal Locations

hj, kki. From a necessary

a s
_

We first observe that LPi and LEi are dependent upon hi but not condition, the optimum location of capacitor i, hi, must satisfy, for all i,

a
==K

LP
h.

* h. =h.
1

P a

+ K

a LE
e a
h.

= O.
h.=h.

(A5)

However

LP
h.

LP. ah 1.
h.

2rI1 I (F(h.)
ais

I
k=

ck

rI2. Ci
(A6)

and

=-= I h. I h.
1

aILE

a LE
11

5 T[2rI I (LfF(h ) ci

. 1 I l
1

ck

] rI2 ci

(A7)
I . 21 s
iI

from which it follows that (K + K T) F (hi) = (KI+ K TL ) e f p

k=l I s

(A8)

It is immediately seen that the necessary condition is also sufficient; this follows from the concavity of the functions S with respect to h. In the case of discrete feedpoints the function S is piece-wise linear concave in h. This completes the proof.

Justification of Procedure B: Optimal Capacitor Sizes Procedure B hinges on the property of the following Theorem 2A and its accompanying characterization which is stated as Theorem 2B.
Theorem 2A: In order to maximize the total savings S, the optimal capacitor currents IAi, i = 1, 2. n, of n capacitors to be located at known locations hI, h2, . . ., hn must satisfy the following set of linear algebraic equations:

h1 h2
h. 1 h. 1 h
n

. . .

n
.

* I 1c1

h2 h2 h3
i
. .
.

n
n

Ic2
I

i+l
.

Ici
.

Fig. 4). Then the total power loss reduction and total energy loss reduction is given by
LP =. S LP 1=1 1
n

I cn

LE =.ZE

i1- LE
-

(Al)
=

(K + K TLf) (K + K T) I(0,hi) e p

2r(Kp + KeT)
K
-

where
LP. 1
=
. fhi(IQF (x) 2rI ci a

, k=1

)dx Ic ckX

i rh rhic

(A2)

and
LE.
1-

fII i-I Ckx [2r1MI (I (t)F (x) --k1 c k-lIkic

T 0

fhi

2 rh I1]dt

(K + K,T L) p 1 (K +KeT) -~I (0!,h.) eL e f) I(O,h ) n (Kp + K e T)

2r(Kp

+ e

KeT)

(A9)

(Kp+

2r(KP + Ke T)

Kc

(A3)

where I(O,hi) = f h

IsF(x)dx.

1115 Proof: Proof: The recursive formula of (A18) can be equivalently written as:
= k(h,+,hi) kwe rck aeavg

From the necessary condition it is required for optimal capacitor size that for all i,
as a LP
9 LE

for i=l,

2,

* *

*, n.

(A20)

ci

ci

ci

tI

for all k We first observe that, for any i, we have the following: h a LPi = 2rf i I F(x)dx - 2rh T I ikzl ck 0 SI a I.
Ci

ck

=I*

= 0 (AIO)

where

ck

(K + K TLf)
a =

(Kp

KeT) e

(A21)

(All)
(A12)

a LP,

Ici
c

= =-'-k-2r

hkIck

~for k > i

LLPk Id

for k . i

(A13)

Therefore, it suffices to show that (A20) satisfies the set of equations (A9). For ease of explanation, without loss of generality, we consider the case of three capacitors (n=3) using geometric representation. (Refer to Fig. 7). Initially available in Fig. 7 are the original reactive load profile and locations hl, h2, and h3. Our constructive proof is initiated by locating the point g, such that
F (g1) = C

= avg (h2 'h1)

s

Similarly, it is shown that, for any i,

aLE1 _ a LEi = T
ci

(A22)

[2rLf

f0 ITF(x)dx

~h .

hi kj l

ck] (Al 4) g1

a LEk T a I. =-2r h kIck

for k > i for k < i

a I ci

Ci a LEk

Substituting from (Al 1)-(A1 3) and (A14)-(A16) in (A 10) which is

now written as n n =K a LPICK L as Ke klaL k=l1'~T k=1 'aIci aS = Kp kz

Now a dotted contour I is drawn so that it passes through the pointed and is parallel to the original load profile. It follows from the property of the point g, that the area beneath the load profile F(x) over the feeder segment [h2,hl I is equal to that of the parallelogram which is enclosed by two parallel contours, the original load profile and Contour I, and by two perpendicular lines of length C1 at locations h1 and h2 on the feeder (only one perpendicular line is shown in the figure). This fact yields area A1 = area B1 Similarly, points g2 and g3 are respectively located such that F(g2)
and
=C 1 F(g ) 3
+ C
=

aIci.

-Kc = K=0i

(A17) A7

C1

+ C

aI (3h2)
=
I

(A23)

yields the desired set of linear equations (A9). To complete the justification, it suffices to show that the function S is concave in Ici, i = 1, 2, . . . , n. This can be verified by observing that the following Hessian Matrix of function S
-

~3

avg _3

(O= C)
(A24)

aT 5

2r(Kp + K eT)

'h1
h

h2

hn
n

2 2
n

hn

hnJ

is negative definite; this verification is by induction using the fact that hi > h2 > ... > hnThe solution to (A9) can furthernore be characterized as follows.

As before, contours II and III are drawn so that they pass through points g2 and g3, respectively, and are parallel to the original load profile. Similar to above reasoning, we have area A2 = area B2 area A3 = area B3 Now let I Ccd I aI 3 1c3 CaI 1 s ; I c2 =C 2ct

.ci

(A25)

Theorem 2B:

If cost of capacitors is neglected, i.e., Kc 0, the solution to the set of equations (A9) is given by the following recursive formula:
, 1+ n for i = ,.., h. I f I F (x) dx where I = (1 +' 13l) ht-h e r avg hi+1 = the beginning of 'the feeder. and 13 n+l

Clearly these Ici's are those of (A20). Hence, to complete the proof it needs to be shown that these Ici's satisfy the set of equations (A9). In other words, the validity of the following set of three equations needs to be checked:
hiIcl + hTI 2 c2 + hI 3 c3 I

I i -(K + KeTLf) K T) C(K +K

Iavg

(+l

hI
(A8

(0,h )
a I(0,1h2)

h2 (Icl +

Ic2 )

h3Ic3

(A26)

(Al9)

h3 (Icl + Ic2 + Ic3)

= a

I(O,h3)

Remark: The proof about to be given is constructive. It is noted that Steps 1, 3, and 5 of Procedure B in the main text directly follow from (Al 8). In the process of proving this theorem the Equal Area Criterion becomes evident.

The left-hand side of the first equation of (A'26) represents the total area of the three parallelograms. (Refer to Fig. Al). (For notational convenience, proportionality constants are neglected here). The right-hand side of the same equation is, by definition, the area beneath the load profile F(x) over the feeder segment [0,hl]. Since A1 = B1, A2 = B2, and A3 = B3, both sides of the equation represent

1116

Discussion Ralph H. Hopkinson (General Electric Company, Schenectady, NY): * This paper describes a rather complete and new analysis of the economic aspects of capacitor application on distribution feeders. It is the intent of this discussion to encourage the authors to continue to develop their method and to present it in a manner which can be more readily used. * It is noted that the energy loss reduction (equation 6) would normally be derived from equation 5 (peak power loss reduction). The equation would have the form, LE = LP(kW) x Loss Factor x 8760 x $/kW/hr $/Yr. * Many utilities will apply capacitor banks which are equal in size and which are composed of an integral number of identical units of standard size. Can the methods of the authors be used to evaluate the extra losses from applying these practical sizes in per unit of the theoretical optima? * As a function of the number of capacitor banks on the feeder, how much of the load KVAR should be supplied by shunt capacitors? Does this differ from the KVAR needed to achieve the economic power factor? * Do the methods of the paper suggest any rules of thumb for applying capacitors which will retain most of the optimum benefits? * Have sensitivity studies been made to determine how critical it is to operate in our optimum manner? * Has operation over a load cycle been studied? Many utilities will apply fixed capacitors at light load and will switch on additional banks as the load increases over the daily load cycle. Do the authors plan to extend their methods to handle the time varying case? In addition to bank sizes and locations, the switching times are of interest. In closing this discussion, the authors are to be encouraged to extend their analysis to cover the above and to make their findings to extend their analysis to cover the above and to make their findings known. It would be most useful if some sort of simplified application method could be devised.
Manuscript received February 14, 1980.

II

Fig. Al. Three Parallelograms in Fig. 7 Whose Area is Equal to the Area beneath the Load Profile over the Feeder Segment

[O,hl]

the same area. Similarly, the remaining two equations can also be shown to be satisfied; hence, this completes the proof.

Justification of Generalized Procedure B: When a nonnegative Kc is taken into account, the set of equations (A9) can be rewritten as:
h

Tcl

'h. h1
..

hi hi+l 1. hn
'
.

Ici

sh n hn

'

hn
I

oltK I cn + 2r (K c +KeTLf)h p etfn

(K
=

KTLf)
+ K

(K
p

T)

I(0,hi)

(A27)

ej

where only the last element Icn of the left-hand side vector appears to differ from that in (A9). This leads to the conclusion that the justification of Procedure B equally applies to this case in which
cK
cn

2r(K

+K

TLt )h

plays the same role as Icn in Procedure B. Thus under the condition of the nonnegative Kc, the value of lcn obtained by Procedure B needs only to be reduced by
ceK

2r (K +K TLt)h
to yield
an

optimum Ict for this generalized problem.

Justification of Criterion A:
It can be easily shown from Fig. 12 that there is a value of ,B greater than which it is impossible to implement Generalized Procedure C, i.e., it is not possible even to locate h1 so that a positive value for I1c is obtained which yields a g1 so as to satisfy the Equal Area Criterion. This critical value can be readily identified as
1
0

F (x) dx.

The desired criterion follows thereafter.

E. K. Stanek (West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV): The authors should be congratulated for bringing a high degree of innovation and insight to an important problem in the often neglected area of distribution systems. The technique they have developed is important because it removes many of the restrictive assumptions in previous attempts to optimize capacitor selection and placement. The major innovations appear to be the introduction of the concept of normalized length and what they term the "equal area criterion". The former concept is vital to the creation of a system in which the latter graphical technique is valid. While the latter concept is "an equal area criterion", the use of this phrase, which has a well established meaning in power system stability, will probably lead to confusion. Perhaps a name like "reactive current/distance balancing" would be more descriptive and less confusing. A few factors that are addressed in the paper should perhaps be mentioned. First, no discussion was presented regarding the optimum number of capacitor locations, n. It may not be obvious to the reader that there is no optimum and finite n when the load is continuously distributed. If the load is confined to discrete locations, the optimum number of locations is probably equal to the number of load locations. These intuitive conclusions drawn by the discusser may have been so obvious to the authors that they failed to state them. Perhaps they could verify the intuition of the discusser. Second, the ratings of available capacitors are not truly continuous variables, nor are their costs a constant times their ratings in kvar. Thus, the capacitor ratings in the examples are somewhat of a textbook solution. For instance, the results of Example 2 are 243 kvar, 310 kvar and 1811 kvar. These results would probably imply the use of standard ratings of 250 kvar, 300 kvar and 1800 kvar. While these standard values are only slightly different from the calculated values, other calculated values may not fall so close to standard ratings. The use of a suboptimal capacitor rating will then affect the optimal capacitor location. The other point is that capacitors are cheaper per kvar in larger ratings. In the case of one company's price schedule, there is a 15% difference in price between units of 250 kvar and 500 kvar on a per kvar basis. If one compares units rated 100 kvar and 500 kvar, the per kvar cost difference is over 20%. Thus, the factor Kc should probably be treated

as a function of the current Ic, The third point is the availability of data. In order to do the time and distance integrals of equation 6 of the paper, it would be necessary to know the current at each point on the line as a function of time over a daily load cycle. The current would probably be known only at the substation and it would require considerable effort to obtain the currents at other locations on the feeder. Once again the authors should be commended for making an outstanding contribution to the understanding and solution of an important problem.
Manuscript received February 19, 1980.

1117 ble that capacitors further down the feeder may be dependent on banks closer to the substation? In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the authors for presenting a new look at a difficult topic.
Manuscript received February 29, 1980.

Art Hughes (B.C. Hydro, Vancouver, B.C., CANADA): The authors are to be commended for presentipg a clear, well written paper on the difficult topic of capacitor allocation and loss minimization. In addition, allowing different conductor sizes; and non-uniform, nonconcentrated load models add to the paper's value. However, there are a few points I would like to raise: a) It would appear that the effect of transformer tappers, and in line regulators was neglected? If this is true, might this not result in the buying of new shunt capacitors to solve a problem that may be partially handled by existing controllers? b) Are the capacitors allowed to have different costs as a function of location/block size? This question will become more significant if the enforcing of voltage/line flow limits necessitates having some of the capacitor banks switchable. In addition, the selection of which banks must be made switchable is a non-trivial question in its own right since it necessitates the consideration of existing controllers such as switched shunt capacitors. c) 'Was any consideration given to modelling the effect of voltage changes on the reactive loads? d) Does not the equal area criteria basically follow from the facts that: - loss minimization tends to raise the system voltage and flatten the voltage profile - current magnitude is being minimized with only reactive current control? p) The effect of a voltage increase on the in-phase current flow (M.W. current) appears to be neglected. This is often not justified. For example: Assume a feeder section carrying 1.0 pu current at 1.0 pu voltage and constant MVA loads. A 5% increase in voltage results in approximately a 10% reduction in I R losses. Changing the power factor from 0.85 to 0.90 results in approximately an 1 1% loss reduction, if voltage changes
are neglected. f) Will not the inter-dependence of the capacitor banks possibly increase when voltage limits are included? Specifically, is it not proba(1) (2)
200

J. L. Hodges (Duke Power Co., Charlotte, NC): The authors are to be congratulated for their novel approach to the application of capacitors on utility distribution systems. The inherent flexibility of your approach provides distribution engineers with a usable tool in determining most of the economic considerations of applying capacitors. Of particular interest is your statement concerning consideration of voltage control problems. The optimizing procedures developed in your paper provide more exacting solutions for only a few of the many practical questions which must be answered during the normal process of capacitor placement on distribution feeders. Decisions must be made concerning whether or not the capacitor should be switched; if it is to be switched, what type of control would be required; if it is to be voltage controlled, what relay settings would control the capacitor the best. With emphasis being placed on the environment, the economic and electrical solutions for placement of capacitors on distribution feeders can easily be outweighed by the environmental considerations. These factors and more must be considered by the distribution engineer. I hope that any future paper concerning voltage control problems would provide solutions to as many of these practical questions as possible. The combination of this presented paper and a future paper on voltage control problems would provide distribution engineers with a powerful tool for determining distribution capacitor location, size and control.
Manuscript received February 18, 1980.

J. J. Grainger and S. H. Lee: The authors would like to thank the discussors for their thoughtful discussion of this paper. In reply to Mr. Hopkinson and Dr. Stanek's comments on standard capacitor ratings, suboptimal solutions, and sensitivity studies, we provide the following Table 2 which relates to the example feeder and reactive load distribution of the paper. The table shows, for a number of different integral capacitor sizes chosen in the neighborhood of the theoretically optimum capacitor ratings of Example 7, the corresponding annual net savings in $ (S), peak power loss reduction in both kW and $ (LP), annual energy loss reductions in both kWh and $ (LE), and the total compensation level in kvar. It should be noted that the use of these capacitor ratings different from the optimum does not affect the optimum locations; this will, in general, be true because of the discrete nature of the net savings function with respect to locations. From the table based upon the numerical results of Example 7, the following observations can be made:
(6)
225

(3)
200

(4)
200

(5)
200

(7)
200 500 1200

(8)
200

(9)
225

(10)
225
575 1275

(11)
200

(12)
225
575 1300

Il (kvar)
I2(kvar)

200

550
1275

500

600
1200

550
1300

575
1275

550
1275

575

550
1300

600
1300

Ic3(kvar)
S ($)
LP

1300

1300

4561.6 4560.7 4560.5 4558.9 4558.2 4555.0 4555.0 4554.3 4551.1 4549.1 4547.3 4544.1
39.0

(kW)

38.6

38.9

39.2

39.2

39.3

37.7

39.5

39.5

39.6

39.7

39.8

LP ($)

4675.9 4633.8 4663.5 4701.4 4708.5 4720.3 4524.0 4733.4 4745.2 4751.7 4764.1 4776.1
59444.7 58879.0 58790.3 57789.6

LE

(kwh) 63021.4 64893.8 62901.0 62014.3 61493.6 60492.9 68346.3 60445.4

937.4
2000

LE ($) 945.3 Total kvar compensa- 2025 tion

943.5
2000

930.2
2050

922.4
2050

907.4 1025.2
2050 1900

906.7
2075

891.7
2075

883.2
2075

881.9
2100

866.9
2100

Table 2. Sensitivity Analsysis: Effects of Various Integral Capacitor

Ratings on Savings. The Net Annual Savings is $4563.6 when the Theoretically Optimum Solution of Example 7 is Used.

1118
i) Integral capacitor ratings which are closer to the theoretically optimum values do not necessarily yield correspondingly higher net savings. ii) As the total compensation level is increased, peak power loss reduction in general increases, whereas energy loss reduction decreases. iii) As far as reduction of losses is concerned, it is recommended that standard capacitor ratings slightly smaller than the theoretically optimum values be used. In dealing with time-varying reactive load on the feeder, we assume that it varies in a conforming manner so that reactive load factor based on the measurements at the substation is sufficient to evaluate energy losses. As pointed out by Mr. Hopkinson, very often energy loss reduction is computed using loss factor together with peak power loss reductions. However, the use of loss factor estimated by a heuristic scheme may introduce a significant error, and hence, its use is not recommended. In response to Mr. Hughes' question concerning the source of the Equal Area Criterion, we would point out that it has nothing to do with "voltage flattening." The criterion has been derived based soley upon the special distribution of reactive load in which time-varying reactive load has been implicitly taken into account via reactive load factor. As Dr. Stanek points out, an "equal-area criterion" exists for synchronous machine stability determination. Since the twomachine stability problem is totally different in nature from the problem of capacitor placement on distribution feeders, the authors prefer their chosen terminology. The Equal Area Criterion of the paper offers a convenient and meaningful graphical interpretation for Procedures B and C. The authors fully share Mr. Hopkinson's desire for a rule-ofthumb which would provide simplicity and convenience in design problems. Unfortunately, such a rule-of-thumb would require equally simplistic modeling and unrealistic assumptions such as uniform distribution of load. The authors chose to minimize the number of such assumptions and provide a new methodology for handling general

load distributions. When all the loads are discrete, the optimum number of capacitor banks corresponds to the number of concentrated loads but only if capacitor cost is neglected. We have not attempted to determine the optimum compensation level as a function of the number of capacitor banks. Realistic load distributions, variable wire-sizes and capacitor-cost considerations preclude a closed form solution although net annual savings can be determined quite readily for n = 1, 2, 3, etc., when other parameters are specified. Although a linear cost function has been employed in our paper, we agree with Mr. Hughes and Dr. Stanek that different cost functions should be used to account for economies of scale, etc. For example, we recognize that associated with each capacitor-bank installation there is a flxed charge which is not directly related to bank size. The form of representation of capacitQr cost directly affects the optimum number of capacitors to be placed. As indicated by most discussors, we believe that switched capacitors must be simultaneously considered to account for full benefits available from placement of capacitors. Limited results on this subject have been obtained and will be made available in the near future. Messrs. Hodges and Hughes raised pertinent questions as to the effect of capacitors on feeder voltage profile, which subject is beyond the scope of the model developed in this paper. Determination of the relation between feeder voltage and line current is an important and yet difficult problem. The authors are aware that the EPRI and several utility companies have been making efforts to determine the effect of feeder voltage reduction on customers' power consumption. We feel that future study should also include the consideration of interaction between regulators and switched capacitors. Research on these important topics is now under way. Meanwhile, we would caution Mr. Hughes against the use of any assumption regarding load behavior with voltage variation and our readers against acceptance of simplified calculations based on such assumptions.
REFERENCE

S. H. Lee and J. J. Grainger, "Optimum Placement of Fixed and Switched Capacitors on Primary Distribution Feeders" IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-I00, No. 1, pp. 345-352, January 1981. Manuscript received April 10, 1980.