www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution
Received on 1st February 2013
Accepted on 13th July 2013
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0389

ISSN 1751-8687

Optimal power flow algorithm and analysis in

distribution system considering distributed
generation
Wanxing Sheng, Ke-yan Liu, Sheng Cheng
Power Distribution Research Department, China Electric Power Research Institute, Beijing 100192,
People’s Republic of China
E-mail: liukeyan@epri.sgcc.com.cn

Abstract: This study investigates the optimal power flow (OPF) problem for distribution networks with the integration of
distributed generation (DG). By considering the objectives of minimal line loss, minimal voltage deviation and maximum DG
active power output, the proposed OPF formulation is a multi-object optimisation problem. Through normalisation of each
objective function, the multi-objective optimisation is transformed to single-objective optimisation. To solve such a non-
convex problem, the trust-region sequential quadratic programming (TRSQP) method is proposed, which iteratively
approximates the OPF by a quadratic programming with the trust-region guidance. The TRSQP utilises the sensitivity
analysis to approximate all the constraints with linear ones, which will reduce the optimisation scale. Active set method is
utilised in TRSQP to solve quadratic programming sub-problem. Numerical tests on IEEE 33-, PG&E 69- and actual 292-,
588-, 1180-bus systems show the applicability of the proposed method, and comparisons with the primal–dual interior point
method and sequential linear programming method are provided. The initialisation and convergence condition of the proposed
method are also discussed. The computational result indicates that the proposed algorithm for DG control optimisation in
distribution system is feasible and effective.

1 Introduction OPF aims to minimise system generation cost or to maximise

In recent years, distributed generation (DG) technology has
become a heavily researched topic, given the increasing
global concerns for energy saving issues, the increasing
sophistication of wind power, photovoltaic power generation
and other renewable energy technologies. After DG is
connected to a distribution network, the distribution
network’s structure, operation and control mode will change
tremendously, and the distribution system automation and the
demand side management must consider the coordination
between DG and distribution network control. Distribution
system control and management will become more complex.
The increasing proportion of DG in a power system will
significantly affect the planning, operation and control of a
distributed network. The direction of power flow and the
distribution of short-circuit current in the existing
distribution network will be significantly impacted. Whereas
the traditional distribution network is a radial system, its
information collection and scheduling are simple. The
penetration of DG complicates operations and scheduling.
With the further development of DG in a distribution power
system, the capacity of DG penetration and its actual impact
on operations and planning are becoming increasingly
important problems.
Optimal power flow (OPF) is an efficient tool to solve the
operation and planning problem in power systems. Typically,
social welfare while considering power balances, generation
loading limits and line capacity constraints. The OPF
computation method includes methods such as a linear
programming (LP) method [1], a quadratic programming
(QP) method [2–5], a non-linear programming (NLP)
method [6, 7], an intelligence method [8] and an augmented
Lagrangian method [9]. Dolan et al. [10] described the
connection regime for DG in the UK and presented a novel
application of the OPF technique for automatic power flow
management. Capitanescu and Wehenkel [11] proposed a
sensitivity-based mixed integer LP to determine a subset of
control allowed to move in the OPF. According to the
results reported in [12], a real-time strategy for minimising
load curtailment was proposed to remove thermal
congestion, and OPF is investigated with a mixed integer
LP problem.
Many researchers have studied the impact of DG on power
system, but few researchers have investigated the optimal
operation of a distribution system with grid-connected DG.
Thus, the study of the optimal operation of a distribution
system after connecting DG to the distribution network is
required in cases of large-scale DG access to a distribution
network, and such research has important theoretical and
practical significance.
Variants of the OPF problem have been devised with the
objective of optimising the power supplied by DG units as

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 261–272 261
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0389 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
well as by the utility at the substation, subject to electrical
network constraints on powers and voltages, and the
expected load profile. The major challenge of an OPF
problem in DG-connected distribution network is the
non-convex problem processing from the non-linear
relationship between voltage and the apparent powers
demanded at the loads.
To alleviate to obtain the global optimal solution, the
semi-definite programming (SDP) reformulation of [13, 14]
was recently extended to balanced distribution networks in
[15], and conditions ensuring global optimality of the
obtained solution were derived. A SDP optimisation was
proposed by solving the dual of an equivalent form of the
OPF problem. The dual problem can be transferred to a
convex SDP, and it is a new solving of traditional OPF
problem. The economic dispatch problem for unbalanced
three-phase power distribution networks was investigated
using the SDP optimisation to obtain the minimum of costs
of power drawn from the main grid and supplied by the DG
units [16]. A sequential quadratic programming (SQP)
method was proposed to find the optimal sizing of shunt
capacitors and passive filters for maximising the net present
value resulting from energy-loss reduction while taking
investment cost into account [17]. An efficient interior point
method to solve the OPF problem via SQP was presented
in [18]. The method was structured with an outer
linearisation loop and an inner optimisation loop. Also, the
inner loop solves a relaxed reduced QP problem.
Trust-region interior point algorithm is also a powerful
method in solving non-linear OPF problems. In [19], the
OPF problem was solved by a primal–dual interior point
method (PDIPM) with multiple centrality corrections as a
sequence of linearised trust-region sub-problems. The trust
region controls the linear step size and ensures the validity
of the linear model. A robust OPF solution using trust
region and interior point methods was proposed in [20].
Byrd–Omojokun trust-region technique was utilised to solve
non-linear OPF problems, then using interior point methods
to solve the trust region sub-problems.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows: DG and
its impact on distribution networks are described in Section
2. Section 3 states the formulation of the proposed OPF
formulation for comprehensive distribution management
with DG units. Section 4 describes the proposed
Fig. 1 Conceptual diagram for optimal power flow management
262
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
trust-region sequential quadratic programming (TRSQP)
algorithm to solve the OPF problem with DG penetration.
Section 5 provides numerical results and comparisons with
the proposed approach using various test systems with DG
units. Section 6 summarises the main contributions and
conclusions of the paper.
2 DG and its impact on distribution networks
Photovoltaic generation and wind generation are the most
rapidly penetrating DG systems, as their installation
capacities are expanding by greater than 30% annually in
China. Until June 2012, the maximum total wind generation
installation capacity was 52.58 million KW, according to
statistics from the State Grid Cooperation of China. The
existing research and development of DG in China can be
classified into three stages in terms of operation modes: (i)
stand-alone DG units; (ii) grid-connected DG units; and (iii)
a micro-grid with multi-energy generators (MGMEG). This
paper attempts to determine the optimal operation of a
distribution system with grid-connected DG.
The conceptual diagram for OPF management is shown in
Fig. 1. To maintain a safe and stable power system, the DG
must be scheduled in the global control. The DG unit is
integrated into an existing distribution power system to
implement optimal control, which will convert the power
system adjustments from passive control to active control.
Dispatchable DG and non-dispatchable DG are all fit to this
scenario. Dispatchable DG is capable of producing
controlled active power on demand and non-dispatchable
DG units can also be considered as actively controlled units
in order to improve the reliability and economic
performance of power systems. Although the
non-dispatchable DG units, such as wind power and
photovoltaic systems, usually operate according to a
maximum power-tracking concept and their output power is
dependent on the weather, the output of non-dispatchable
DG units can be made curtailment to keep active control in
the active real power control system.
There are several related literatures in the OPF management
in the distribution power system with DG units. In [21], the
authors investigated OPF to evaluate the maximum
connection capacity of renewable DG units. They proposed
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 261–272
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0389

a multi-period AC OPF-based technique for evaluating the
maximum capacity of a new variable DG that could be
connected to a distribution network. Dent et al. utilised an
established OPF-based method to determine the network’s
capacity to accommodate DG by including voltage step
constraints [22]. Ahmadi and Green [23] presented an OPF
solution based on maximising distributed generator real
power output with a restraint on network losses for radial
and meshed distribution networks. The multi-objective
non-linear OPF problem with weighting terms for DG real
power output and loss was linearised and solved with the
pure PDIPM. Ochoa et al. proposed using AC OPF to
determine the optimal accommodation of (renewable) DG
in a way that minimises system energy losses. Coordinated
voltage control and dispatchable DG power factors have
also been embedded in the OPF formulation to explore the
additional loss reduction benefits [24].
3 Problem formulation
3.1 Objective functions
OPF is a centralised solution that affects the overall network.
It is normally deployed at the economic dispatch stage to
determine the network’s optimal operation state with respect
to system constraints. Three objectives are considered in the
optimisation model, which includes reducing system line
losses, reducing voltage deviation and increasing active
power outputs of DG units in distribution power system
considering DG.
www.ietdl.org
outputs of DG units, which can be expressed as follows


NDG
max F3 (x) = PDGi (3)
i=1
where PDGi is ith active power of DG, and NDG is the number
of DG units.
3.1.4 Normalisation of multiple objectives: The
primal multiple-objective optimisation can be transformed
to single-objective optimisation by normalisation of each
objective function, which is shown as follows
min F(x) = w1 F1 (x)/F10 + w2 F2 (x)/F20
− w3 F3 (x)/F30 (4)
where w1, w2 and w3 are the weighting factors of each
objective function, respectively, and their sum satisfies w1 +
w2 + w3 = 1, wi > 0 (i = 1, 2, 3). F10 , F20 and F30 are the three
objective values before the optimisation.
3.2 Constraints
Three constraint conditions are considered in the optimisation
model, which includes constraints of power flow equations,
nodal voltage and thermal limits.
3.2.1 Equality constraints: The equality and inequality
constraints are as follows

N  
3.1.1 Minimisation of line loss: The first objective is to PDGi − Pdi = Vi Vj Gij cos uij + Bij sin uij (5)
minimise the system line loss after DG injection into the j=1
distribution network. This objective can be expressed as
follows

N  
QDGi − Qdi = Vi Vj Gij sin uij − Bij cos uij (6)
min F1 (x) = PLoss j=1

 2 
= gij Vi + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos uij (1) where PDGi and QDGi are active and reactive generation
(i,j)[B outputs, whereas Pdi and Qdi are the active and reactive
load at node i, respectively, Gij and Bij are the real and
where B is the set of branches of the network, and (i, j) ∈ B imaginary parts of nodal admittance matrix, respectively,
means (i, j) are the two nodes of a branch. Vi and Vj are the and N is the number of buses.
voltage magnitudes of nodes i and j. gij is the conductance
between nodes i and j. 3.2.2 Inequality constraints: Generation limits
min
PDGi ≤ PDGi ≤ PDGi
max
(7)
3.1.2 Minimisation of voltage deviation: The second
DGi ≤ QDGi ≤ QDGi
Qmin max
objective is to minimise the voltage deviation between (8)
nodal voltage and specified voltage magnitude. The nodal
voltage magnitude is an important indicator to evaluate the Voltage limits
system security and power quality. The minimisation of
voltage deviation can help to guarantee the better voltage Vimin ≤ Vi ≤ Vimax (9)
level in distribution power system
Thermal limits

n  2
Vi − Vispec 
min F2 (x) = (2)
i=0
Vimax − Vimin Sbk = Pb2k + Qb2k ≤ Sbk (10)
 
where Vispec is the specified voltage magnitude. Vimax and Vimin Pb = V 2 G − V V G cos u + B sin u
k i ij i j ij ij ij ij
are the upper limit and lower limit of the voltage of node i,
  (11)
respectively. Qb = V 2 B + V V G sin u − B cos u
k i ij i j ij ij ij ij

min max
3.1.3 Maximisation active power output of DG In the inequality constraints, PDGi , PDGi , Qmin max
DGi and QDGi are
units: The third objective is to maximise the active power the lower/upper active and reactive generating unit limits of

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 261–272 263
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0389 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
DG, respectively. Sijmax is the apparent power thermal limit of trust region as given by the radius Δk is too large. Hence,
the circuit between nodes i and j. Sbk is the apparent power the radius is reduced and trust-region sub-problem (15) is
thermal limit of branch k. Pbk and Qbk are active and solved again.
reactive power flow on branch k, and the nodes i and j in
(11) are the head and the tail of branch k. 4.1.2 Trust region method with constraints
optimisation: For the constrained optimisation problem
3.3 Overview formulation (12), assume the current control variable is uk, and the
status variable is xk. Based on the trust-region method, the
Aggregating the objectives and constraints, the problem can QP sub-problem at current point is defined as
be formulated as a NLP problem as follows


T 1
min ∇f vk d + d T Bk d
min f (u, x) 2



s.t. h(u, x) = 0 (12) s.t. ∇h vk d = −h vk (16)



g(u, x) ≤ 0 ∇g vk d ≤ −g vk
||d||1 ≤ Dk
where f (x, u) is the objective function that can be adjusted to
satisfy different objective. The control variable u represents
the independent variable, for example, the active power and
reactive power of DG units or the reactive power
compensator. The status variable x represents the system’s
state variables, the phase angles and voltage magnitude of
nodes. The equality constraints represent the power balance
equation, the inequality constraints, the line loading
constraints and the nodal voltage inequality.
4 Proposed OPF computation method in the
distribution power system
4.1 TRSQP method with constrained optimisation
4.1.1 Trust-region methods with unconstrained
optimisation: Trust-region methods were initially
developed to solve unconstrained minimisation problems of
the following form
min f (x)
(13)
s.t. x [ Rn
The model function mk is constructed to approximate f(x) near
the approximation point xk. The function is usually defined as
a quadratic function that is derived from the truncated Taylor
series expansion of f(x) around xk
T 1
 to the trust-region QP sub-problem (16), the approximate
mk xk + d = f xk + ∇f xk d + d T ∇2 f xk d (14)
2
T
where ∇f (xk) ∈ Rn and ∇2f(xk) ∈ Rn×n are the gradient and the
Hessian matrix of f (x) evaluated at xk, respectively [25].

 
The model function mk(xk + d ) need to be a good
approximation to f (x). The search for a minimum value of
 + 
mk is restricted to some region around xk, called the trust
region. The trust region is usually defined by the norm
||d||∞ ≤ Δk, where the scalar is called the trust-region radius.
Then the trust-region sub-problem around approximation
point xk for the unconstrained minimisation problem (13) is
defined as
T 1
 (16); the real decrease quantity and the estimated decrease
min f xk + ∇f xk d + d T ∇2 f xk d
2 (15)
s.t. d 1 ≤ Dk
/Predk
vk ,0 −
P vk , dk (19)
If the candidate solution xk+1 = xk + dk does not produce a
sufficient decrease in f (x), according to a merit function, the
264
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014

where ωk is xk uk , Bk is the Hessian matrix of the objective
function and Δk is the trust-region radius.
4.1.3 Merit function and decrease direction: For
constrained optimisation problem (16), the issue on how to
evaluate a solution depends on not only the primal
objective function, but also on the constraints in the
problem (12). So, a merit function is used to be a
measurement of the decrease condition of this algorithm
and to adjust the radius of trust region. In the unconstrained
algorithms, merit function is naturally chosen as objective
function itself. In the constraint optimisation, the merit
function should include both information of objective
function and constraint conditions. A commonly used merit
function is applied for primal problem (12) and its
definition is listed as follows
P(v) = f (v) + s × (||h(v)||1 + ||g + (v)||1 ) (17)
where g +(ω) = max(0, g(ω)), and σ is a penalty parameter. P
(ω) is a non-differentiable exact penalty function which is
used to evaluate a solution of the problem (12). The merit
function (17) is strongly associated with the trust-region QP
sub-problem (16) since the trial step computed by solving
the QP sub-problem will decrease the merit function.
Additionally, an approximate merit function is also used in
order to decide whether to accept the trial step. According
merit function can be defined by
P vk , d = f vk + ∇f vk d
1
+ d T Bk d + s × h vk + ∇h vk d 1
2



+  g vk + ∇g vk d  (18)
1
4.1.4 Estimated decrease quantity and real decrease
quantity: After solving the QP sub-problem, the
adjustment of trust-region radius is needed for next
iteration. Let dk denotes the solution of the QP sub-problem
quantity at kth iteration are defined as follows
⎧
⎨ rk = Aredk
Predk = P
⎩
Aredk = P vk − P vk + dk
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 261–272
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0389
 www.ietdl.org
where Aredk is the actual reduction in the merit function P(ω), where dx, du are corresponding to the status variable part and
Predk is the predicted reduction in the merit function P(ω), rk the control variable part of the increment vector d, and ∂h/∂xk
is the ratio of the actual reduction to predicted reduction. is the Jacobi matrix of the power flow equation. If the power
The ratio rk is used to judge whether the trust-region radius flow equation h(x, u) = 0 is satisfied in each iteration, then the
Δk is the proper step size. If rk is close to unity, it means that formulation (22) can be written as
the predicted and actual reduction in P(ω) match with each
other and the trust-region radius Δk is proper; otherwise, it
−1

means the trust-region radius is not proper and should be dx = − ∂h/∂xk × ∂h/∂uk × du (23)
adjusted in next iteration.
Traditionally, the penalty parameter σ of (17) is set to be Defining the sensitive matrix Jk = −(∂h/∂xk)−1 × (∂h/∂uk), the
very large to exclude the condition if constraints violation objective function of problem (16) can be transformed as
happens, it will enlarge the chance of rejection and increase follows
the total iteration times. Since the constraints violation will
be eliminated after several iterations, the penalty parameter

T 1
need not be set too large in merit function. The ∇f vk d + d T Bk d
recommended value of σ is from 1 to 10. 2

T
T
The strategy to adjust the trust region is shown as follows = ∂f /∂xk Jk du + ∂f /∂uk du
 1
T 1 T uu
T xu
vk , rk , 0.25 + duT Jk Bxx k Jdu + du Bk du + du Jk Bk du
T
(24)
vk+1 = (20) 2 2
vk + dk , rk ≥ 0.25
Bxx uu xu
k , Bk and Bk are block matrixes corresponding to the
Whether to accept or reject the solution dk at current point is status variable x and the control variable u. Since the status
described as variable and the control variable are not coupled in
⎧ objective function, Bxuk = 0 is established. To make (24)
⎨ ||dk ||1 /2, rk , 0.25 more clearly, Ck and B′k are defined as follows
Dk+1 = Dk , 0.25 ≤ rk ≤ 0.75 (21)
⎩ 
T
T
min{2Dk , D}, rk . 0.75 & ||dk ||1 = Dk
Ck = ∂f /∂xk Jk + ∂f /∂uk

T (25)
where D is the maximum trust region radius. B′k = Jk Bxx
k Jk + Bk
uu

4.1.5 Convergence condition: The iteration will stop if

convergence is satisfied: ||dk|| < min(ε1, Δk), and ε1 is the
convergence accuracy.
The Hessian matrix of TRSQP, as shown in (16), is more
easy to calculate in each iteration than the traditional
Newton–Lagrangian SQP. Since second derivative is only
made on the objective in TRSQP, in Newton–Lagrangian
SQP method, the second derivative is made on the
Lagrangian function. In addition, it need not calculate the
step size after the solution for the QP sub-problem is
obtained in TRSQP.
4.2 Reducing the treatment size in optimisation
 (28)
4.2.1 Transformation of QP sub-problem solving:
For the QP sub-problem (16), the PDIPM is often used to
solve the problem when the size of the problem is large,
and the solving process will be very difficult when there are
a number of variables and constraints. The active set
method is usually used to solve the medium-scale QP
problem, and it is more efficient than PDIPM when the
number of variables is much less than that of the inequality
constraints.
In the formulated problem of Section 3, the number of
independent control variable is fewer than that of status
variable and the constraints. The power flow equation
contains the implicit function of the control variable and
status variable, so the size of the QP sub-problem can be
reduced by the power flow equation and then can be solved
by active set method.
Considering the control variable u and state variable x,
respectively, based on the QP sub-problem (16), the
equation constraints can be transformed as follows
−1
  problem should be solved to obtain an appropriate θ and du.
dx = ∂h/∂xk −h xk , uk − ∂h/∂uk du
The inequality constraints of problem (16) can be written as
∂g/∂xk Jk du + ∂g/∂uk du ≤ −g xk , uk (26)
G(k) = ∂g/∂xk Jk + ∂g/∂uk (27)
Finally, the primal problem (16) can be expressed as follows
1
min Ck du + duT B′k du
2
s.t. Gk du ≤ −g xk , uk
||du ||1 ≤ Dk
An equivalent process is made to use a constant Jacobi
matrix to replace the accuracy Jacobi matrix ∂h/∂x,
which makes the computation of sensitive matrix easier
and reduces the total computation time of each iteration.
After reducing the treatment size, the QP sub-problem
has only inequality constraints, and the number of
variables is much less than before, then the active set
method can be used to solve the sub-problem efficiently
and quickly.
4.2.2 Adding algorithm robustness towards different
initial points: In the proposed algorithm, a variable is
introduced to modify the trust region QP sub-problem to
overcome the possible infeasibility of the linearised
constraints in the trust region. First, the following LP
(22) The value of du will be used as initial point du(0) for the QP

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 261–272 265
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0389 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
sub-problem (30). set, the active set is updated with new active set, then go to
step (2);
max u (4) Calculate step size αk, set xk+1 = xk + αkdk;

 (5) If αk = 1, the active set is updated as Sk+1: = Sk; otherwise
s.t. Gk du ≤ −ug xk , uk set Sk+1 = Sk ∪ {jk}, jk is the index of the
(29)  inequality constraints
 
0,u≤1 of problem (31) which satisfies ak = b jk − aTjk xk / aTjk dk .
||du ||1 ≤ Dk Set k = k + 1, then loop to step (2).
1
min Ck du + duT B′k du
2 4.4 Overall procedure

 (30)
s.t. Gk du ≤ −ug xk , uk
The overall procedure of proposed TRSQP in solving the
||du ||1 ≤ Dk optimal problem is specified as follows:

If the variable θ is sufficiently small, the QP sub-problem (30) Step 1: Initialise the control variable u and status variable x.
is always feasible. The importing of θ and solving of LP Set the maximum trust-region radius D = (1/2)||u − u||1 ,
sub-problem (29) are to drive the feasibility region of the
linearised constraints towards the original direction. By this
means, a proper increment of control variable can be
obtained even if the sub-problem (28) has no solution with
infeasible initial point.

4.3 Active set method in solving QP sub-problem

Aggregating the objectives and constraints, the QP

sub-problem can be written in general mathematical form as
follows

1 T
min x Bx + cT x
2 (31)
s.t. Ain x ≤ bin

The main idea of active set method is to compute the solution

only with the active constraints in the iteration procedure, and
the active constraints are the some equation constraints that
are on the constraint boundaries. The active set Sk = I(xk) is
defined as an estimate of the active constraints at the
solution point. It will be updated at each iteration k and be
used to form a basis for a search direction dk. The search
direction dk is calculated and minimises the objective
function while remaining on active constraints boundaries.
If the search direction dk is approximate to be zero vector
and the Lagrangian multipliers are positive in the iteration,
it means the current point is the optimal point.
To guarantee the new iteration point xk+1 is feasible, the
iteration step αk in active set method is defined as follows
 
bi − aTi xk T
ak = min(a, 1), a = min |ai d . 0 & i  Sk
aTi dk

where bi, ai are the ith row of matrix bin, Ain.

The solving procedure of active set method in solving QP
sub-problem is described as follows

(1) Set the initial point x0, and let k = 0;

(2) Calculate the active set Sk = I(xk) at current point, and
solve the QP sub-problem with equality constraints for
search direction dk and Lagrangian multiplier vector λk. If
dk ≠ 0, go to step (4); otherwise go to step (3);
(3) Obtain the minimum value of λk, (λk)t = min((λk)i|i ∈ I
(xk)). t is the index of the minimum value of λk. If (λk)t < 0,
then xk is the optimal point and the iteration should be
stopped; otherwise remove the constraints from the active Fig. 2 Flowchart of the proposed TRSQP method

266 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 261–272
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0389

the initial trust-region radius D0 = (1/2)D, the positive
penalty parameter σ, the control variable accuracy ε1 and
the constraint maximum violation ε2. Set flag = 0 and
iteration time k = 0;
Step 2: Power flow computation with the current control
variable, and obtain the value of the status variable and the
branch flow of the system;
Step 3: If flag = 0, go to step (5), otherwise go to step (4);
Step 4: If ||g +(uk, xk)||∞ < ε2 (inequality constraints
are

satisfied) and the incremental vector ||duk || , min 11 , Dk ,
then stop the iteration and output the result; otherwise,
calculate the rk in formulation (19), then go to step (6);
Step 5: Calculate the sensitive matrix Jk and form the QP
sub-problem (28). Solve the problem (28) using active set
method. If the sub-problem has no feasible solution, the
problems (29) and (30) will be solved towards creating a
feasible initial point. The solution of problem (30) will be
the incremental vector duk as the current iteration. Set
uk+1 = uk + duk , flag = 1 and go to step (2);
Step 6: If rk < 0.25, set uk+1 := uk+1 − duk , Dk+1 = ||duk ||1 /2,
flag = 0, then go to step (2); otherwise, adjust the trust region
according to (21) as follows and go to step (5) (Fig. 2).
5 Experiments and discussion
5.1 Experiment setting
To demonstrate the effectiveness of the TRSQP method, the
proposed algorithm in Section 4 was implemented to obtain
solution for an optimal active and reactive power dispatch
of DG units. The IEEE 33-bus, the PG&E 69-bus [26] and
actual 292-, 588-, 1180-bus distribution networks were
considered with DG and tested. The algorithm was
implemented, evaluated and compared in the following
environments:
† The proposed TRSQP algorithm was coded in MATLAB
and run on an Intel i5-3210M 2.5 GHz notebook with 4 GB
RAM.
† The algorithm verification and comparison were made with
PDIPM and sequential linear programming method (SLPM).
The PDIPM and SLPM are implemented in MATLAB based
on Matpower library [27, 28], and the default settings in
Matpower have been used.
† The types of DG units in the following experiments are all
wind generators. All DG units have the same rated power
factor 0.96 with different capability. Their reactive power
can be adjusted in their range. The default reactive power is
zero when there is no necessity for reactive power
adjustment. Since the active power of renewable energy can
only be reduced, the maximum active power of each DG
unit is set to be Pmax = Po. Po is equal to the current active
power of DG units at that time period which depends on
Fig. 3 Schematic diagram of the IEEE 33-bus system with two DG
units
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 261–272
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0389
www.ietdl.org
Table 1 Daily load types of nodes in IEEE 33-bus test case
Daily load type Node ID
1 13 ∼ 17, 28 ∼ 32
2 7 ∼ 12, 23 ∼ 27
3 1 ∼ 6, 18 ∼ 22
the wind speed. Commonly the optimal control of other
types of non-dispatchable DG, such as photovoltaic
generator, can all take the strategy of setting the maximum
active power output to be the current active power output.
The active power capacity of type I, type II and type III DG
units are set to 1.2, 1.0 and 0.8 MW, respectively.
† As mentioned in Section 3, the optimal output of DG units
should satisfy three aspects. The first aspect is to make DG
output as large as possible under various constraints. The
second one is to guarantee the system line loss as small as
possible. The third one is to keep the node voltage
amplitude as close to the rated voltage. According to the
importance in the three objectives and single comprehensive
objective optimisation in (4), the three weighted factors are
set as w1 = 0.6, w2 = 0.2, w3 = 0.2, respectively. The highest
voltage and lowest voltage are set to 1.02 and 0.90 pu
respectively, and Vispec of each node is set to 1.0 pu. The
penalty parameter σ is set to be 10. Based on the proposed
method, the adjustments of active power and reactive power
are made to achieve the comprehensive single optimisation
objective.
5.2 IEEE 33-bus system with 2 DG units
Different with standard IEEE 33-bus system (Fig. 3), the load
of each node varies based on the daily cycle curve in the
revised IEEE 33-bus system, which is shown in Table 1.
The active power and the reactive power of each load node
vary with a fixed power factor. The active power of the
varying loads in 24 h is shown in Fig. 4.
As shown in Fig. 3, DG1 and DG2 are incorporated to node
13 and node 31, respectively, and they are all Type I DG
units. Before the optimisation adjustment, the output of DG
units is stochastic and decided by the wind strength at that
time. Initially, the reactive power output is zero and there is
no adjustment in reactive power. The active power output
of DG1 and DG2 is shown in Fig. 5, and this is the case
Fig. 4 Load trends of the three load types in the IEEE 33-bus test
case
267
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org

Fig. 5 Active power output without curtailment of the two DG Fig. 7 Reactive power output of the two DG units
units

when the two DG units have not been adjusted. With the loads units. The variation of system line loss with/without DG
varying all the time, the network may work at a bad condition curtailment in 24 h is shown in Fig. 8. The variation of
such as high voltage deviation and active power loss if the voltage deviation is shown in Fig. 9. As shown in Figs. 8
active power output of DG units is not being controlled. and 9, the average line loss descent rate is about 36.2% in
Moreover, voltage magnitude limit and line thermal limit the whole period with the elimination of network
may be violated which will bring the security risk in the constraints, and the voltage quality is also improved.
operation of power system. As the DG units considered
here are non-dispatchable, so it is necessary to make active
power curtailment of DG units and adjust the reactive Table 2 Violated bus and line in 24 time period
power to solve the line thermal constraints. At the same
time, keeping voltage quality and reducing line loss are Time Without DG curtailment With DG curtailment
step
important by the coordination of DG active power Violated Violated Violated Violated
curtailment and reactive power adjustment. According to bus line bus line
the simulation result of the proposed algorithm, the
curtailment amount of DG units is shown in Fig. 6. The 1 13 30–31 × ×
curtailment amount is equal to the difference of the optimal 2 13 30–31 × ×
active power value by optimisation and the initial DG 3 12–17 30–31 × ×
4 12–17, 31, 30–31 × ×
active power. The reactive power output in the 24-h periods 32
is shown in Fig. 7. About the violations of nodal voltage 5 12–17 30–31 × ×
and line thermal constraint, the comparison of without 6 × 30–31 × ×
curtailment and with curtailment is shown in Table 2. Since 7 × 30–31 × ×
there is no violation from the time period 8 to time period 23 × 30–31 × ×
24 × 30–31 × ×
22, the time period range has not been shown in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, the line thermal constraints and nodal Note: × means no violation detected
voltage constraints are all eliminated by the adjustment of DG

Fig. 6 Active power output curtailment of the two DG units Fig. 8 Comparison of system active power loss

268 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 261–272
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0389

Fig. 9 Comparison of network voltage quality indicator
With the integration of DG in distribution power system,
the DG units are expected to generate more active power. In
some case, the objective of DG generating more active
power will have conflict with the minimal line loss and
minimal of voltage deviation objectives. As shown in
Fig. 6, the active power of DG units are reduced a lot since
the loads in the time periods 1–6 and 22–24 are low. In the
described three optimal objectives, the three objectives have
different weight factors. If the weight factor of maximal DG
units generating objective is increased, the active power
output in these time periods of light load will be reduced,
since the increased active power will bring the violation of
network constraints. The two other objectives of minimal
line loss and minimal of voltage deviation objectives will
also produce restrictive effects in the optimisation.
To show the weight factor influence on the active power
curtailment of DG units, a comparison experiment is made.
Taking the time period 1 as one example, the weight factor
w1 is taken as 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0, respectively, and keep w2
Table 3 Computation result with different weight factor w1 at time period 1
w1 DG1curtailment, MW DG2curtailment, MW
0.6 0.2476 0.1450
0.8 0.1055 0.1413
1.0 0 0.1392
Fig. 10 Schematic diagram of the PG&E 69-bus system
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 261–272
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0389
www.ietdl.org
and w3 unchanged. The active power curtailment of DG1
and DG2, the variation of line loss and the largest voltage
deviation are shown in Table 3. From the result of Table 3,
improving the weight factor w1 will lead the curtailment of
DG units getting smaller. Meanwhile, it will bring different
influence on the system line loss and voltage quality. The
appropriate weight factors should be given according to
decision maker based on the application requirement.
5.3 PG&E 69-bus system with 3 DG units
As shown in Fig. 10, the TRSQP algorithm is tested on the
PG&E 69-bus system. In PG&E 69-bus system, the base
power and the base voltage are 10 MVA and 12.66 KV,
respectively. The corresponding branch impedances and the
average daily active and reactive powers can be found in
[26]. Similar with IEEE 33-bus test case, the load of each
node varies based on the daily cycle curve. There are three
load types, which are shown in Table 4. In the test case
DG1, DG2 and DG3 are located in nodes 51, 24 and 67,
respectively. DG1 and DG2 are type III, DG3 is type II DG.
Similar with IEEE 33-bus test case, the active load of the
three DG units are varying with the variant of load. For the
active power adjustment, the DG units can curtail their
active power output, while the reactive power adjustment
can be adjusted in its upper and lower constraints. After the
optimal computation on the PG&E 69-bus test system in 24
time periods, the active power and reactive power of DG
units can be obtained. The active power decrease and the
reactive power adjustment of the three DG units are shown
in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively. The variation in system
Table 4 Daily load types of nodes in PG&E 69 test case
Daily load type Node ID
1 54 ∼ 69
2 26 ∼ 53
3 2 ∼ 25
Active power loss, MW Voltage deviation, pu
0.0520 0.0838
0.0676 0.0864
0.0816 0.0893
269
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
line loss with/without DG curtailment in 24 h is shown in
Fig. 13. The variation in voltage deviation is shown in Fig. 14.
After the active power curtailment of the DG units, the
voltage constraints and line thermal constraints can be
eliminated. As shown in Figs. 11 and 12, the curtailment of
the three DG units is not large, especially for DG3.
Fig. 11 Active power output with curtailment of the three DG units
Fig. 12 Reactive power output of the three DG units
Fig. 13 Comparison of network active power loss
270
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
Fig. 14 Comparison of system voltage quality indicator
Whenever there are the constraints violations, the DG units
decreases their active power output with a small amount.
The reactive power adjustment of DG3 is variable while its
active power has not been reduced in the whole time
period. It shows that the utilisation of DG3 is adequate and
its reactive power has relatively abundant adjustment range.
The active power of DG1 and DG2 are decreased in the
time periods of light load, while their reactive power stayed
at their maximum state. As shown in Figs. 13 and 14, the
system line loss has been decreased and the voltage quality
is also improved in all the time period by using the
proposed algorithm with the efficient adjustment of DG units.
Comparing with IEEE 33-bus test system, the load
distribution of PG&E 69-bus system is not even. Through
the comprehensive adjustment of active and reactive power
of DG units, the system operation condition can be
improved efficiently under the security constraints. In the
real operation of DG units, it is expected to make the
renewable energy produce active power as more as possible.
However, the active power output of DG units will not be
beneficial to the optimal operation of distribution power
system in the light load case. So, the active power of DG
units needs to make curtailment in coordination with their
reactive power adjustment to fully achieve the optimal
operation. For the test cases of IEEE 33-bus and PG&E
69-bus system, the total computation time and each time
period computation time are shown in Table 5. It shows
that the proposed algorithm can quickly solve the optimal
adjustment of active and reactive power, and it can be
applied in online application case.
5.4 Comparison with different algorithms
The proposed algorithm was compared with PDIPM and
SLPM using the 33-, 69-, 292-, 588-, 1180-bus test
systems. In order to make comparison efficiently and
clearly, the optimal objective is selected as minimal line
Table 5 Computation time of IEEE 33-bus and PG&E 69-bus
test cases
Test case Total time, s Average time, s
IEEE 33-bus 0.265 0.011
PG&E 69-bus 0.456 0.019
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 261–272
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0389
 www.ietdl.org
Table 6 Sizes of the power systems Table 9 Total and inner iteration number of TRSQP
Test system N G C B Test system Main Total inner Average inner
iteration iteration iteration
IEEE 33-bus 33 2 104 32
PG&E 69-bus 69 3 216 68 IEEE 33-bus 5 15 5
actual 292-bus 292 6 902 296 PG&E 69-bus 4 16 4
actual 588-bus 588 10 1806 592 actual 292-bus 8 97 12
actual 1180-bus 1180 15 3602 1184 actual 588-bus 6 96 16
actual 1180-bus 6 157 26

Table 7 Initial loading and losses Table 10 Computational results for three groups of different
initiation
Test system Active power Reactive power Active power
load, MW load, MVar loss, MW Test system Number of iterations/Time (s)/Minimum loss
(MW)
IEEE 33-bus 3.715 2.300 0.203
PG&E 3.802 2.695 0.227 I II III
69-bus
actual 11.256 6.811 0.863 IEEE 33-bus 6/0.016/0.049 4/0.016/0.049 5/0.016/0.049
292-bus PG&E 69-bus 5/0.018/0.081 5/0.019/0.081 4/0.018/0.081
actual 15.831 9.569 1.619 actual 292-bus 7/0.074/0.234 6/0.069/0.234 8/0.077/0.234
588-bus actual 588-bus 7/0.118/0.231 6/0.115/0.231 6/0.114/0.231
actual 22.206 13.417 3.095 actual 1180-bus 11/0.593/0.291 6/0.265/0.291 6/0.265/0.291
1180-bus

loss. Also, the scenario is to adjust the real and reactive power the solving of the five test systems from the perspective of
output of DG units to achieve the objective, which is similar iteration and computation time. With the increase of system
with the part in previous Sections 5.2 and 5.3. The solution scale, the SLPM cannot converge to a solution in the
accuracy ε1 is set to 1 × 10−6, and the tolerance threshold of 1180-bus system. Note that the iteration number listed in
constraints ε2 is set to 1 × 10−6. In the PDIPM, the duality Table 8 is the main iterations number. For TRSQP, it is the
gap ε is to 1 × 10−6. In SLPM, the step size will be cut in number of trust region (outer) iterations. In the TRSQP, the
half when the oscillation of the objective function occurs. main computation time is in computing the QP
Table 6 shows the size of each set for the various test sub-problem. The solving of each sub-problem has its
systems. N is the node number of test system, G denotes the iteration, which called inner iteration. As stated in Section
number of DG units, C is the number of all constraints and 3, the constraints in QP solving of each sub-problem are
B indicates the branch number in the test system. The 292-, inequality constraints. Also, the number of variables in QP
588- and 1180-bus system are selected from real urban is equal to the system control variable number.
distribution network in north of China. In the five different Table 9 shows the solution detail of the TRSQP algorithm.
distribution systems, DG units with different quantity and In the solving of each QP sub-problem, the scale of the active
capacity are included to make the experiments. Table 7 set solution method for QP is small since the active
shows the initial load and power loss of the test system. In constraints number is smaller than the variable number. As
the initial case, the DG units do not produce any power. shown in Table 9, the average inner iteration number is
Table 8 shows the solution comparison details of the three approximately equal to the system variable number. For
algorithms. The operating points obtained by all the three example, the control variable number is 4 for real and
algorithms are exactly the same, and all algorithms were reactive power in IEEE 33-bus test case, while the average
successful in yielding a solution except the SLPM, which inner iteration number is 5. The same is also true to the
fails to solve the 1180-bus system. Among the three 69-bus, 292-bus, 588-bus and 1180-bus. From the
algorithms, the proposed TRSQP performs the best than comparison between PDIPM and TRSQP, the TRSQP
PDIPM and SLPM in the total iteration number and solving time still dominates even though the total inner
computation time. The SLPM algorithm is the slowest in iteration number is large. The main reason is that the
variable scale in PDIPM is very large and there are many
Table 8 Iteration comparison and final line loss Lagrangian multipliers and coefficients to compute, while
the variable number only relates with the independent
Test system Number of iterations/Time (s)/Minimum loss control variable in the proposed TRSQP. If the ratio
(MW) between the independent control variable and other status
Proposed PDIPM SLPM
variable in TRSQP is smaller, then TRSQP has better
TRSQP computing speed than PDIPM. Instead, the computing
speed of TRSQP will be slower than PDIPM.
IEEE 33-bus 5/0.016/0.049 11/0.079/ 48/0.375/0.049 To investigate the robustness of the proposed TRSQP, three
0.049 different initialisation ways are tested: (I) the initial vector of
PG&E 69-bus 4/0.018/0.081 14/0.109/ 49/0.791/0.081 control variable is set to their minimal value; (II) the initial
0.081
actual 292-bus 8/0.077/0.234 16/0.295/ 41/7.119/0.235 vector of control variable is set to their maximal value; (III)
0.233 the initial vector of control variable is set to their mean
actual 588-bus 6/0.114/0.231 15/0.515/ 23/14.749/ value between minimal and maximal value. The
0.231 0.231 computation result for different initial points is shown in
actual 6/0.265/0.291 15/0.998/ fail
1180-bus 0.290
Table 10. From three different initial points, the proposed
TRSQP algorithm can obtain the same optimal solution

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 261–272 271
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0389 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
with similar iteration number. For the actual 1180-bus test
system, the solution with the first initial condition takes 11
iterations, which is larger than the second and three initial
conditions. The main reason is that the vector of initial
condition I is far from the optimal solution. Also, the step
dk is rejected if the step is too large in the update of trust
region size. With the adjustment of trust region size, the
step becomes smaller and convergence to the threshold.
From the above comparison, it shows that the proposed
TRSQP method has better computation time and robust
performance than PDIPM and SLPM methods. It has good
potential online application prospect in the control and
optimisation of distribution networks with DG units.
6 Conclusions
A new OPF algorithm, TRSQP, was proposed to solve the DG
penetration problem in distribution power systems. Multiple
objectives have been formed to comprehensively express
the optimal requirements of distribution power system with
DG units. Then the multiple objectives are normalised to
form a single objective for processing. The proposed novel
TRSQP combines SQP with trust-region method, and it is a
global convergent OPF algorithm. Through trial step and
trust-region method, to search in the region, the
computation is highly stabilised and fast convergent. The
active set method is utilised to solve the QP sub-problem.
To avoid the failure of trial step towards infeasible initial
point, the correction treatment has been made. The
proposed technique was compared with the PDIPM and
SLPM, and the results indicate that the proposed method
yields better accuracy with fast convergence speed.
The research contribution and the novelties of the proposed
algorithm can be generalised as follows:
(1) The proposed novel TRSQP algorithm is robust, accurate
and fast convergence. The algorithm has better feasibility
than sequential LP method and interior point method. To
reduce the trail step failure in traditional trust-region
method, treatment of penalty has been proposed in the
sub-problem solving procedure.
(2) The sensitivity analysis is used to exclude large-scale
power flow constraints from the sub-problem. To solve the
QP sub-problem whose size has been reduced, the active set
method has been incorporated into the trust region SQP
optimisation, which has a higher computational efficiency
than interior point method in solving the reduced QP
sub-problem.
(3) In addition to solve active power control in distribution
system with DG, the TRSQP algorithm can also contribute
to compute the DG sizing and reactive power optimisation
in distribution system.
(4) The proposed algorithm was not only designed for
dispatchable DG, but also for non-dispatchable DG.
7 References
1 Chung, T.S., Shaoyun, G.: ‘A recursive LP-based approach for optimal
capacitor allocation with cost-benefit consideration’, Electr. Power Syst.
Res., 1997, 39, (2), pp. 129–136
2 Grudinin, N.: ‘Reactive power optimization using successive quadratic
programming method’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1998, 13, (4),
pp. 1219–1225
272
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
3 Granelli, G.P., Montagna, M.: ‘Security-constrained economic dispatch
using dual quadratic programming’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2000, 56,
(1), pp. 71–80
4 Lin, X., David, A.K., Yu, C.W.: ‘Reactive power optimization with
voltage stability consideration in power market systems’, IEE Proc.
Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2003, 150, (3), pp. 305–310
5 Berizzi, A., Delfanti, M., Marannino, P., et al.: ‘Enhanced
security-constrained OPF with FACTS devices’, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., 2005, 20, (3), pp. 1597–1605
6 Monmoh, J.A., Zhu, J.: ‘Multi-area power systems economic dispatch
using nonlinear convex network flow programming’, Electr. Power
Syst. Res., 2001, 59, (1), pp. 13–20
7 Pudjianto, D., Ahmed, S., Strbac, G.: ‘Allocation of VAR support using
LP and NLP based optimal power flows’, IEE Proc. Gener. Transm.
Distrib., 2002, 149, (4), pp. 377–383
8 Bakirtzis, A.G., Biskas, P.N., Zoumas, C.E., et al.: ‘Optimal power flow
by enhanced genetic algorithm’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2002, 17, (2),
pp. 229–236
9 Liu, K., Li, Y., Sheng, W.: ‘The decomposition and computation method
for distributed optimal power flow based on message passing interface
(MPI)’, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2011, 33, (5), pp. 1185–1193
10 Dolan, M.J., Davidson, E.M., Kockar, I., et al.: ‘Distribution power flow
management utilizing an online optimal power flow technique’, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., 2012, 27, (2), pp. 790–799
11 Capitanescu, F., Wehenkel, L.: ‘Redispatching active and reactive
powers using a limited number of control actions’, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., 2011, 26, (3), 1221–1230
12 Capitanescu, F., Wehenkel, L.: ‘Optimal power flow computations with
a limited number of controls allowed to move’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
2010, 25, (1), pp. 586–587
13 Bai, X., Wei, H., Fujisawa, K., Wang, Y.: ‘Semidefinite programming
for optimal power flow problems’, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.,
2008, 30, (6), pp. 383–392
14 Lavaei, J., Low, S.H.: ‘Zero duality gap in optimal power flow problem’,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2012, 27, (1), pp. 92–107
15 Lam, A.Y., Zhang, B., Dominguez-Garcia, A., Tse, D.: ‘Optimal
distributed voltage regulation in power distribution networks’, 2012,
available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5226v1
16 Dall’Anese, E., Giannakis, G.B., Wollenberg, B.F.: ‘Optimization of
unbalanced power distribution networks via semidefinite relaxation’.
Proc. 44th North American Power System Symp., University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA, September 2012
17 Abril, I.P., González, J.A.: ‘VAR compensation by sequential quadratic
programming’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2003, 18, (1), pp. 36–41
18 Nejdawi, I.M., Clements, K.A., Davis, P.W.: ‘An efficient interior point
method for sequential quadratic programming based optimal power
flow’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2000, 15, (4), pp. 1179–1183
19 Wang, M., Liu, S.: ‘A trust region interior point algorithm for optimal
power flow problems’, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2005, 27,
(4), pp. 293–300
20 Sousa, A.A., Torres, G.L., Cañizares, C.A.: ‘Robust optimal power flow
solution using trust region and interior-point methods’, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., 2011, 26, (2), pp. 487–499
21 Ochoa, L.F., Dent, C.J., Harrison, G.P.: ‘Distribution network capacity
assessment: variable DG and active networks’, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., 2010, 25, (1), pp. 87–95
22 Dent, C.J., Ochoa, L.F., Harrison, G.P.: ‘Network distributed generation
capacity analysis using OPF with voltage step constraints’, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., 2010, 25, (1), pp. 296–304
23 Ahmadi, A.R., Green, T.C.: ‘Optimal power flow for autonomous
regional active network management system’. IEEE Power and
Energy Society General Meeting, 2009, pp. 1–7
24 Ochoa, L.F., Harrison, G.P.: ‘Minimizing energy losses: optimal
accommodation and smart operation of renewable distributed
generation’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2011, 26, (1), pp. 198–205
25 Biegler, L.T., Nocedal, J., Schmid, C.: ‘Numerical experience with a
reduced Hessian method for large scale constrained optimization’,
Comput. Optim. Appl., 2000, 15, (1), pp. 45–67
26 Baran, B.E., Wu, F.F.: ‘Optimal capacitor placement on radial distribution
systems’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 1989, 4, (1), pp. 725–734
27 Capitanescu, F., Wehenkel, L.: ‘Redispatching active and reactive
powers using a limited number of control actions’, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., 2011, 26, (3), pp. 1221–1230
28 Zimmerman, R.D., Murillo-Sánchez, C.E., Thomas, R.J.:
‘MATPOWER: steady-state operations, planning and analysis tools for
power systems research and education’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
2011, 26, (1), pp. 12–19
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 261–272
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0389