1
Optimal Power Flow for Autonomous Regional
Active Network Management System
Ali R. Ahmadi, Student Member, IEEE, and Timothy C. Green, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper presents an optimal power flow (OPF)
solution based on maximizing distributed generator (DG) real
power output with a restraint on network losses for radial and
meshed distribution networks. The multi-objective nonlinear
OPF problem with weighting terms for DG real power output
and loss is linearized and solved by pure primal-dual interior
point method. Besides explaining the basic algorithm, the paper
concentrates on the determination of initial points and effective
adjustment of barrier parameter to maintain accuracy and speed
of convergence. The performance of the method is evaluated on
two representative U.K distribution networks: a 12-bus rural
upland meshed network where wind is prevalent and an 18-bus
semi-urban radial feeder with two fossil fuel DGs. The results
confirm that the developed OPF algorithm has the potential for
network operation and implementation in an autonomous active
network management system due to its ability to optimize
different types of distribution network.
Index Terms—Active management, centralized voltage
control, DG real power output maximization, Interior point
method, multi-objective, network loss minimization, optimal
power flow, successive linear programming.
I. INTRODUCTION
D ISTRIBUTION network operators in U.K. are obligated
by government incentives to accommodate more and
more generation capacity from renewable resources in order
to meet the increasing demand. Most of the potential onshore
renewable resources, especially wind, across the UK is in
rural areas. Often, only the distribution network is easily
accessible for connection. Connection of large amounts of DG
raises a number of economical and technical issues because
the distribution networks were originally designed for uni-
directional transfer of power from transmission level to load
customers.
The technical concerns of Distribution Network Operators
(DNOs) over the connection of DG to their networks are well
documented [1-3] and primarily include power flow
management, loss increase and voltage management
problems. These technical issues are currently limiting or
even stopping the connection of more DGs to certain parts of
This work was supported in part by the UK’s Engineering and Physical
Science Research Council (research grant number EP/E003583/1),
ScottishPower Energy Networks, EDF Energy and ABB under the AuRA-NMS
partnership (http://www.aura-nms.co.uk/).
A. R. Ahmadi and T.C. Green are with department of Electrical & Electronic
Engineering, Imperial College London, London, England, SW7 2BT (e-mail:
ali.ahmadi06@imperial.ac.uk).
978-1-4244-4241-6/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE
the network.
Liew and Strbac [4] proposed a linear programming (LP)
based OPF to enhance the DG capacity. The benefits of active
network controls such as generation curtailment, reactive
power absorption and coordinated OLTC control was also
assessed for voltage regulation in distribution networks. In
[5], an OPF-based technique was used to maximize the DG
capacity at specific locations in a network. This could assist
the DNOs to indicate the best locations for DG developments.
Previously published work by Vovos et al. [6] demonstrated
the ability to connect larger generators to the distribution
network while minimizing voltage variations and violations.
This was successfully achieved through a capacity evaluation
technique incorporating OPF.
All the above publications introduced tools for off-line
analysis which are mainly used for planning stage. A concept
known as Autonomous Active Network Management System
(AuRA-NMS) [7] could tackle the distribution network issues
in real time as well as providing the infrastructure and
technology for full integration of DGs to the distribution
network. AuRA-NMS aims to provide generic solutions for
variety of networks in terms of voltage control and power
flow management. Therefore, the development of an accurate
and speed efficient OPF as an on-line tool for the application
of active network management system in distribution network
becomes a research challenge.
This paper presents a multi-objective OPF which includes
both loss minimization and DG real power output
maximization in the objective function. The OPF incorporates
a direct Pure Primal Dual Interior Point method as the
solution methodology. The method of solving a linear
programming problem by the Interior Point method was
initially introduced by Karmarkar [8] in 1984. The main two
advantages of Interior Point method are convergence in
polynomial time and the ability to provide scaling to handle
the problem of ill conditioning [8]. The aim of this paper is to
demonstrate the convergence accuracy of the OPF algorithm
when applied across two main types of distribution network.
A general barrier parameter formulation is used for three
forms of objective function, DG real power output
maximization, loss minimization and a combination of both.
The developed algorithm has the potential for on-line
optimization and implementation in an AuRA-NMS
controller.
 2

II. DIRECT INTERIOR POINT ALGORITHM FOR OPF The formation of Lagrangian equation and the calculation
Previously published papers [9-14] have addressed the process for the optimization of objective function using
formulation of primal-dual interior point method, but still Interior Point method are given below:
more research is needed to improve the performance of the r r
min C ( x , u ) (10)
method and development of an efficient algorithm to directly r r
solve large-scale nonlinear power systems. f (x,u ) = 0 (11)
r r r r
A. Problem formulation h(x,u ) + sh = h +
(12)
In this section, the detailed formulation of the primal-dual r r
r r +
interior point method for application of power system is s h + s sh = h − h− (13)
given. The new functions to be minimized are the weighted
total real power loss in the lines plus the negatively weighted The inequality constraints are transformed into equality
total real power generation. Section III will discuss, in details, constraints (12) and (13) by the addition of two slack
the accurate calculation of barrier parameter as well as a new variables sh and ssh. The non-negativity conditions are handled
approach for modeling the swing bus in the main optimization by the addition of a “logarithmic barrier function”, therefore
routine. the new objective function would become:
r r
r r
∑ ∑
minC ( x, u ) = α in=bus1 njbus
r r
=i +1 Lij ( x , u ) + β
nbus
∑
i =2 PGi (1)
∑
C μ = C ( x , u ) − μ im ln(s hi ) − μ im ln(s shi ) (14) ∑
Subject to:
The use of ln (Logarithmic on base e) ensures that the slack
∑ P (V ,θ , T ) = 0
n bus
PGi − PLi − ij (2) variables are always positive as the Logarithm of a negative
j =1 number is not defined. Where μ is called the “barrier
j≠i
parameter” which is a positive number forced to zero as the

∑ Q (V ,θ , T ) = 0
n bus
algorithm converges to the optimum [15]. Therefore the
Q Gi − Q Li + Q ci − ij (3)
j =1
Lagrangian equation would be a summation of the new
j ≠i objective function and the constraints:
r r r r r
S ij ≤ S ijmax (4) Lμ = C ( x , u ) − μ ∑ im ln( s hi ) − μ ∑ im ln( s shi ) − λT f ( x, u )
r r r r r r r r r r
V i min ≤ V i ≤ V i max (5) − λTh (h + − s h − h( x , u )) − λTsh (h + − h − − s h − s sh ) (15)
PGimin ≤ PGi ≤ PGimax (6) Matrices and vectors could be distinguished from scalars with
Q min
Gi ≤ Q Gi ≤ Q max
Gi (7) the use of an arrow. Also, vectors with superscript T
(indicating transposed) are rows and without are columns.
Q min
ci ≤ Q ci ≤ Q max
ci (8) The solution to the Lagrangian function (15) would be the
t min
≤ t k ≤ t kmax partial derivatives of it with respect to all the variables. This is
k (9) called the first order Karush Kuhn Tucker (KKT) optimality
Where: condition:
Lij Real power loss in branch ij ∂Lμ r r r r T r r T
∂C( x, u) ⎡ ∂f ( x, u) ⎤ r ⎡ ∂h( x, u ) ⎤ r
PGi , QGi Active & reactive power generation of DG at node i r = r −⎢ r ⎥ λ +⎢ r ⎥ λh = 0 (16)
∂x ∂x ⎣ ∂x ⎦ ⎣ ∂x ⎦
PLi , QLi Active & reactive load at node i r r r r T r r T
∂Lμ ∂C( x, u) ⎡ ∂f ( x, u) ⎤ r ⎡ ∂h( x, u ) ⎤ r
r = r −⎢ r ⎥ λ +⎢ r ⎥ λh = 0 (17)
Pij , Qij Active & reactive power flow from node i to node j ∂u ∂u ⎣ ∂u ⎦ ⎣ ∂u ⎦

Qc Reactive power absorbed/injected by a reactive ∂Lμ r r r −1

r = λh + λsh − μSh e = 0 (18)
power compensator ∂sh
tk Tap settings of the tap changer k ∂Lμ r r
r = λsh − μSsh−1e = 0 (19)
S ij Load flows of the branch ij ∂ssh
α Weighting factor for loss ∂Lμ r r r r
= h( x, u) + sh − h + = 0 (20)
β Weighting factor for DG real power output (this ∂λh
parameter is negative) ∂Lμ r r r r
r = ssh + sh + h − − h + = 0 (21)
x State variables ∂λsh
r
u Control variables ∂Lμ r r
= − f ( x, u) = 0 (22)
∂λ
Where e=[1,…,1]T, Sh=diag(sh1,…, shn), Ssh=diag(ssh1,…, sshn).
 3

The non-linear equations (16)-(22) are linearized around Lij = Sij + S ji = ( Pij + Pji ) + j (Qij + Q ji ) =
r r r
successive operating points ( xr0 , ur0 , λ 0 , λ h , λ sh , srh , srsh ) ⎡ t i2Vi 2 − tiViV j ∠(δ i − δ j + φi ) + V j2 − tiViV j ∠ − (δ i − δ j + φi ) ⎤
0 0 0 0
⎢ ⎥ (31)
using Taylor series approximation and then the Interior Point ⎢
⎣ Rij − jX ij ⎥
⎦
method is applied to solve this linear problem. Each of the [ ]
ℜe[ Lij ] = ℜe[ Sij + S ji ] = ti2Vi 2 + V j2 − 2tiViV j cos(δ i − δ j + φi ) (Gij ) (32)
seven variables presented in equations (16)-(22) could be
expressed in linear form and hence the following single matrix
[ ]
Im[ Lij ] = Im[ Sij + S ji ] = ti2Vi 2 + V j2 − 2tiViV j cos(δ i − δ j + φi ) ( Bij ) (33)

equation is obtained:
III. ALGORITHM IMPLEMENTATION
r r r r r r r r
⎡ 0 0 − Fx′° T
H x′° T
0 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ Δx ⎤ ⎡− C ′x + Fx′ λo − H ′x λ h
T T
⎤
⎢ r
− Fu′°T
r
H u′°T
⎥⎢ r ⎥ ⎢ r
°
r° r r ° r° ⎥ A. Initialization
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ Δur ⎥ ⎢− Cu′°r + Fu′°r λ° − Hru′° λ h°
T T
r ⎥
⎢ 0
⎢
0 0 I I μ h S h−°2 0
r ⎥⎢ r ⎥
⎥ ⎢ Δλ ⎥ ⎢ − λ − λ + μS −1 e
⎢
h°
r sh° r h°
⎥
⎥
The system equations were represented in per unit. The
⎢ 0 0 0 0 I 0 μS sh− 2° ⎥ ⎢ Δλh ⎥ = − λ + μS sh−1° e state variables consisting of bus voltages and angles were set
r r r ⎢
r r shr° r r
⎥ (23)
⎢H ′ H u′° 0 0 0 I 0 ⎥ ⎢Δλsh ⎥ ⎢
− h( x ° , u o ) − s h° + h + ⎥
⎢ x° ⎥⎢ r ⎥ ⎢ r r r r ⎥ to 1p.u. and 0deg. respectively. Other network parameters
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 I I ⎥ ⎢ Δs h ⎥ ⎢ − s h − s sh − h + h
− +
⎥
⎢r
F′
r
Fu′° 0 0 0 0
r
0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ Δs sh ⎥⎦ ⎢
° °
⎥ with upper and lower bounds were set to a mid-point as
⎣ x° ⎣ − f ( x ° , u ° ) ⎦
starting point. For Lagrangian multipliers, following the way
of Mehrotra [12] but considering our particular application,
The algorithm proceeds iteratively from an initial starting
we define
point through a sequence of points determined from equation
λ0=[1,…,1]T , λh0= 0 and λsh0=1.5 [1,…,1]T
(23) using successive linearization. The key steps are:
B. Barrier parameter formulation
Step 1: Initialization A single barrier parameter formulation is used for three
The choice of starting point must satisfy the forms of objective functions; DG capacity maximization, loss
non-negativity conditions. minimization and a combination of both. This formulation
Step 2: Solve the system of equations (23). produces accurate results for both radial and meshed
Step 3: Decrease the barrier parameter μ. distribution networks.
Step 4: Convergence test
If the convergence criterion is met, the optimal duality gap (34)
μ=
solution is therefore found, otherwise go to step 2. 2(1 + n + m)
Where n is the number of state variables and m is the number
of inequality constraints. Following Lustig [11], the value of μ
B. Expression for power flows and losses
was made proportional to the duality gap which is defined as
Consider a simple circuit shown in Fig.1, the expression the difference between the primal and dual objective
for branch real and reactive power flows can be written as: functions. Taking into account that the duality gap may not
Sij = [Vi I ij∗ ] always be positive due to the fact that the primal and dual
(24)
variables are unfeasible, the absolute value of the duality gap
⎡ tiVi ∠(−δi − φi ) − Vj ∠(−δ j ) ⎤
Pij = ℜe⎢tiVi ∠(δi + φi ) ⎥ (25) was substituted into equation (34).
⎢
⎣ Rij − jXij ⎦⎥ r r r r
duality gap = λT f ( x, u ) + λTh [h + − h( x, u )] + λTsh [h + − h − ] (35)
⎡ tiVi ∠(−δi − φi ) −Vj ∠(−δ j ) ⎤
Qij = Im⎢tiVi ∠(δi + φi ) ⎥ (26) The use of exponents in the denominator results in faster
⎢
⎣ Rij − jXij ⎦⎥
convergence, however this is prone to numerical instability.
Pij = ti2Vi 2Gij − tiViVj Gij cos(δi + φi − δ j ) + tiViVj Bij sin(δi + φi − δ j ) (27) The above formulation was tested on several different types
Qij = ti2Vi 2 Bij − tiViVj Bij cos(δi +φ i −δ j ) − tiViVj Gij sin(δi + φi − δ j ) (28) of distribution network and healthy convergence was
obtained.
node i node j
Vi ∠δ i : Vit∠φi + δ i Zij=Rij+jXij C. Swing bus formulation
Previously published work by Vovos et al. [16] modelled
Sij -Sji
the swing bus as a quadratic cost function. However, in our
Vi ∠δ i V j ∠δ j formulation, the swing bus is modelled as an energy
Fig. 1. Simple circuit of a network branch.
export/import in the “main optimization routine”. The
swing bus voltage and angle were excluded from the state
The loss expression would be the sum of the apparent powers variable vector and its powers, PGslack and QGslack were
at the two ends of the branch: modelled as a “control variable” with boundary limits. In
Lij = [Sij + S ji ] (29) this manner, the swing bus “simply” becomes responsible
∗ for transfer of power to/from external grid.
⎡ t iVi ∠(δ i + φi ) − V j ∠(δ i ) ⎤
∴ Sij = Pij + jQij = tiVi ∠(δ i + φi )⎢ ⎥ (30)
⎢
⎣ Rij + jX ij ⎥⎦
 4

D. Stopping Criterion B. Radial Feeder Topology

Following Wu and Marsten [17], but considering our Fig.3 represents an 18 bus bar U.K. radial feeder with two
particular application, we define Distributed Generators connected at bus bar 7 and 14.
Connected to the 33-kV at Bus 1, the network has a common
original obj function − dual obj function rated bus voltage level at 11kV. The maximum and minimum
≤ ε1 (36)
1 + dual obj function voltage limits are ±10%. The line and transformer
characteristics are given in the Appendix.
maximum KKT mismatch ≤ ε 2 (37)
Where:
r r
original obj function = C ( x , u ) (38)
r r r r r r
dual obj function= C ( x, u ) − λ f ( x, u ) − λ [h − h( x, u )] − λ [h − h ] (39)
T T
h
+ T
sh
+ −

Based on two predefined parameters (ε1 and ε2) which are

sufficiently small, the algorithm continuous to operate until
the relative duality gap and the mismatches of the KKT
conditions are satisfying the tolerances.
Fig. 3. The 18-bus radial distribution feeder.
IV. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The DG capacity limits are given in Table II. All loads are
A. Meshed Network Topology assumed to be drawing constant complex power.
Fig.2 represents a 12 bus bar U.K. meshed distribution
TABLE II
network with 4 Distributed Generators connected at bus 5, 6,
DISTRIBUTED GENERATION CAPABILITY LIMITS
8 and 12. Except buses 1, 2, 3 and 4 which are rated at 132- Distributed
kV, the network has a common rated bus voltage at 33-kV. Generation Min Limit Max Limit
The maximum and minimum voltage limits are +4% and -6% 0 MW 2.0 MW
respectively. The line and transformer characteristics are DG1-Diesel Generator -0.6 MVAr 0.6 MVAr
0 MW 5 MW
given in the Appendix.
DG2- Landfill Gas -2 MVAr 2 MVAr

C. Simulation results
The pure primal dual interior point algorithm has been
coded in MATLAB and run on an Intel Core 2 Quad,
2.83GHz processor with 3GB RAM. The investigation
examines the impact of the barrier parameter formulation and
the initial points on the performance of the algorithm when
applied to distribution networks with different types of
objective functions.
The optimization was applied to the meshed distribution
network with three different sets of weighting factors for α
and β. All the bus bars and branches had voltage boundary
limits and line flow constraints respectively. The optimization
Fig. 2. The 12-bus meshed distribution network. provides 13 control variables (subject to the given network)
which are the real and reactive powers of the slack bus and
The DG capacity limits are given in Table I. All loads are the DGs as well as the taps of the three transformers (±10%
assumed to be drawing constant complex power. tap range). The DGs are centrally dispatched and their voltage
control regimes are restricted by their statutory voltage limits.
TABLE I The results are given in table III, IV and V:
DISTRIBUTED GENERATION CAPABILITY LIMITS
Distributed TABLE III
Generation Min Limit Max Limit DISTRIBUTED GENERATION OUTPUT MAXIMIZATION
0 MW 58.5 MW α= 0 β=-1
DG1-Wind -20 MVAr 20 MVAr Distributed Generators
0 MW 45 MW DG1 DG2 DG3 DG4 Grid Loss
DG2- Hydro -10 MVAr 10 MVAr Import
0 MW 9.35 MW Re. Power 58.49 44.99 9.34 10.19 -89.12 2.88
DG3- Wind -1.51 MVAr 1.54 MVAr (MW)
0 MW 10.20 MW Im. Power 0.23 -2.61 -0.16 -0.20 24.13 N/A
DG4-Wind -3 MVAr 3 MVAr (MVAr)
 5

TABLE IV the two DGs as well as one tap changer (±10% tap range).
NETWORK LOSS MINIMIZATION
The DGs were again centrally dispatched.
α= 1 β=0 Table VIII reports the iteration counts by the algorithm as
Distributed Generators well as the convergence time given in parentheses. The
DG1 DG2 DG3 DG4 Grid Import Loss iterations were terminated when the relative duality gap is less
Re. Power 10.87 5.02 4.09 6.79 4.41 0.18
(MW) than or equal to ε1=10-3 and the largest power mismatch (in
Im. Power -2.02 -1.07 0 0.24 9.83 N/A p.u.) is less than or equal to ε2=10-4. For the meshed network,
(MVAr) the algorithm converged in 26 iterations for DG real power
TABLE V
output maximization and loss minimization. The iteration
DUAL OBJECTIVE, MAXIMIZING DG OUTPUT WITH RESTRAINT ON LOSSES
counts increased by one iteration when a dual objective
α= 0 β=-1/31 function was used. For the radial feeder, the algorithm
Distributed Generators
DG1 DG2 DG3 DG4 Grid Import Loss
converged in 33 iterations for both sets of trials.
TABLE VIII
Re. Power 30.24 37.92 8.81 9.68 -54.42 1.23
NUMBER OF ITERATIONS
(MW)
Im. Power 2.70 1.79 0.24 0.95 5.78 N/A Tolerance ε1=10-3 ε2=10-4
(MVAr) DG output max Loss min Dual objective
Iteration- 26 (2.77sec.) 26 (2.78sec.) 27 (2.85sec.)
When α is set to zero and β set to -1, the loss minimization meshed net.
is ignored and it can be seen from Table III that the network is Iteration-radial 33 (5.27sec.) 33(5.28sec.) N/A
able to export 89.12MW to the external grid. This feeder
configuration of generation causes 2.88MW of real power Fig.4 shows the behavior of the barrier parameter when the
loss. However, if the losses are targeted but not generation algorithm was tested on the meshed network. The barrier
(α=1, β=0) the losses reduce to 0.18MW. But as table IV parameter reduced rapidly through the iterations and became
shows, 4.41MW is imported from external grid to supply the close to zero at the optimum solution. The barrier parameter
local loads. Perhaps a more satisfactory overall solution is behaved similarly for loss minimization and dual objective
found when α is set to one and β set to -1/31 (as the ratio of function.
DG power generation is 31 times more than the network loss).
Table V shows that the generation has been increased to meet
the local load and provide an export of 54.42MW but losses
have risen to only 1.23MW.
The optimization was then applied to the radial distribution
feeder with two different sets of weighting factors for α and β.
The results are given in table VI and VII:
TABLE VI
DISTRIBUTED GENERATION OUTPUT MAXIMIZATION

α= 0 β=-1
Distributed Generators
DG1 DG2 Grid Import Loss
Re. Power (MW) 1.99 4.99 -3.47 0.12
Im Power (MVAr) 0.15 0.26 1.58 N/A Fig. 4. Variation of barrier parameter for the meshed network.

TABLE VII Fig.5 shows the behavior of the barrier parameter when the
NETWORK LOSS MINIMIZATION algorithm was tested on the radial feeder. The barrier
α= 1 β=0 parameter reduced gradually through the iterations. The
Distributed Generators barrier parameter behaved similarly for loss minimization.
DG1 DG2 Grid Import Loss
Re. Power (MW) 1.68 1.20 0.53 0.01
Im Power (MVAr) 0.56 -0.32 1.60 N/A

When α is set to zero and β set to -1, The DGs embedded

along the radial feeder are able to generate up to their
maximum limit and export 3.47MW to the external grid. In
this scenario, the losses are calculated to be 0.12MW.
However, When α is set to 1 and β set to zero, the losses are
minimized to 0.01MW with an import of 0.53MW from the
external grid. All the bus bars and branches of the radial
feeder had voltage boundary limits and line flow constraints
respectively. The optimization provided 7 control variables
which are the real and reactive powers of the slack bus and
Fig. 5. Variation of barrier parameter for the radial feeder.
 6

V. CONCLUSION The line and transformer characteristics of the 18-bus radial

The detailed formulation of a pure primal-dual interior distribution feeder with a system base of 10MVA are given in
point method for optimal power flow with a new objective Table X:
function have been presented. Several implementation issues TABLE X
such as initial points, calculation of barrier parameter and BRANCH CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE 18-BUS FEEDER
stopping criterion are discussed and investigated to evaluate
From Bus To Bus R (pu) X (pu) Rating (MVA)
the performance of the algorithm when applied to meshed and 1 2 0 0.1000 16
radial distribution networks. The formulation of the barrier 2 3 0.0174 0.0085 7.621
parameter is new as it does not contain exponents in the 3 4 0.0001 0.0001 7.431
denominator in order to maintain accuracy of convergence 4 15 0.0025 0.0007 5.144
4 5 0.0052 0.0028 7.431
with reasonable speed when the algorithm is applied across 5 6 0.0003 0.0002 7.621
different types of distribution network. A new approach for 6 8 0.0017 0.0008 7.621
the formulation of the swing bus in the main optimization 7 6 0.0010 0.0010 10
routine was also presented. 8 9 0.0022 0.0011 7.621
9 10 0.0001 0.0000 7.621
The formulated multi-objective cost function for an OPF 10 11 0.0016 0.0008 5.906
incorporates a penalty on losses and thereby could possibly 11 13 0.0299 0.0081 5.144
allow a DNO to optimize DG capacity subject to normal 11 12 0.0007 0.0003 7.621
network constraints but also with a restraint on losses. This 14 13 0.0010 0.0010 10
15 16 0.0011 0.0003 5.144
approach has been tested on two types of U.K. distribution
16 18 0.0013 0.0004 5.144
network. The ratio of weights between DG power 16 17 0.0034 0.0009 5.144
maximization and loss minimization could be varied between
the extreme cases to optimize on consideration and ignore the VII. REFERENCES
other. The algorithm has the potential to be used for
[1] C.L. Masters, “Voltage rise: the big issue when connecting embedded
autonomous control (active network management) as it can generation to long 11 kV overhead lines,” Power Eng. J., vol. 16, no. 1, pp.
provide optimization results for different types of distribution 5-12, Feb. 2002.
network. [2] A.R. Wallace, "Protection of Embedded Generation Schemes," in Proc.
1999 IEE Colloquium on Protection and Connection of Renewable
Further work on the current algorithm would be to instruct Energy Systems, pp. 1/1-1/5.
the DGs to exercise voltage control at regional level and [3] N. Jenkins, R. Allan, P. Crossley, D. Kirschen, and G. Strbac, "Embedded
compare the optimization results with the generators Generation," IEE power and energy series 31, London: Institution of
Electrical Engineering , 2000.
operating at power factor control mode. The OPF algorithm is [4] S.N. Liew and G. Strbac, "Maximising penetration of wind generation in
also required to be tested on the AuRA-NMS controller to existing distribution networks," in Proc. 2002 IEE Gener. Transm.
examine its performance in an open loop as well as a closed Distrib. Conf., pp. 256-262.
[5] G.P. Harrison and A.R Wallace, "Maximising Distributed generation
loop test environment. Capacity in Deregulated Markets," in Proc. 2003 IEEE Power
Engineering Society Transmission and Distribution Conf., pp. 527-530.
VI. APPENDIX [6] P.N. Vovos, A.E. Kiprakis, A.R. Wallace, and G.P. Harrison, "
Centralized and Distributed Voltage Control: Impact on Distributed
The line and transformer characteristics of the 12-bus Generation Penetration," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22, no.1, pp. 476-
meshed distribution network with a system base of 100MVA 483, Feb. 2007.
are given in Table IX: [7] E.M. Davidson and D.J McArthur, "Exploiting Multi-agent System
Technology within an Autonomous Regional Active Network Management
System ," in Proc. 2007 IEEE Power Engineering Society Transmission
TABLE IX and Distribution Conf., pp. 1-6, Nov. 2007.
BRANCH CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE 12-BUS NETWORK [8] N.K. Karmakar, "A New Polynomial Time Algorithm for Linear
Programming," Combimbinatorica 4, pp. 373-395, 1984.
From Bus To Bus R (pu) X (pu) Rating (MVA) [9] I.J. Lustig, R.E. Marsten and D.F. Shanno, “On Implementing Mehrotra’s
1 3 0.02 0.05 98.8 Predictor-Corrector Interior Point Method for Linear Programming,”
1 2 0.02 0.05 98.8 SIAM Journal of Optimization, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 435-449, Aug. 1992.
4 3 0.01 0.02 98.8 [10] S. Mehrotra, “On the Implementation of a Primal Dual Interior Point
5 4 0.01 0.25 72 Method,” SIAM Journal of Optimization, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 575-601, Nov.
6 3 0.01 0.28 45 1992.
6 12 0.20 0.40 20.5 [11] I.J. Lustig, R.E. Marsten and D.F. Shanno, “Computational Experience
With a Primal-Dual Interior Point Method For Linear Programming,”
6 8 0.25 0.48 15.4
Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 152, pp. 191-222, 1991.
7 6 0.03 0.02 18
[12] S. Mehrotra, “On Finding a Vertex Solution using Interior Point Methods,”
9 10 0.04 0.04 21
Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 152, pp. 233-253, 1990.
9 8 0.12 0.20 20 [13] R.D.C. Monteiro and I. Adler, “Interior Path Following Primal-Dual
10 6 0.22 0.43 21 Algorithms. Part I: Linear Programming,” Mathematical Programming 44,
10 2 0.02 0.28 45 pp. 27-41, 1989.
11 10 0.01 0.02 21 [14] R.J. Vanderbei and D.F. Shanno, “An Interior-Point Algorithm for
12 10 0.14 0.19 20 Nonconvex Nonlinear Programming,” Computational Optimization and
Applications, vol. 13, pp.231-252, 1999.
 7

[15] A.V. Fiacco and G.P. McCormick, " Nonlinear Programming: Sequential
Unconstrained Minimisation Techniques," New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1968.
[16] P.N. Vovos, G.P. Harrison, A.R. Wallace and J.W. Bialek, " Optimal
Power Flow as a Tool for Fault Level-Constrained Network Capacity
Analysis," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20, no.2, pp. 734-741, May
2005.
[17] Y. Wu, A.S. Debs and R.E. Marsten, " A Direct Nonlinear Predictor-
Corrector Primal-Dual Interior Point Algorithm for Optimal Power Flows,"
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20, no.2, pp. 734-741, May 2005.

VIII. BIOGRAPHIES

Ali.R. Ahmadi (S’2007) received the B.Eng. degree

(and Merit for the best undergraduate project) in
electronic and electrical engineering from University
College London (UCL), London, U.K., in 2006, and is
currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in Department of
Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial
College, London, U.K..
His research interest include distributed
generation, distribution network voltage control,
Optimal Power Flow and Active Network
Management Systems.

Timothy C. Green (M’1989, SM’02) received the

B.Sc. degree (first class honours) in electrical
engineering from Imperial College, London, U.K., in
1986 and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering
from Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, U.K., in
1990.

He was a Lecturer at Heriot Watt University until

1994 and is now a Professor of electrical power
Engineering at Imperial College London, deputy head
of Control and Power Group and Deputy head of the Department of Electrical
and Electronic Engineering. His research interests are power electronic and
control to enhance power quality and power delivery. This covers interfaces and
controllers for distributed generation, micro-grids, FACTS, autonomous active
distribution networks, distribution network optimization. He has an addition line
of research in power MEMS and energy scavenging. Professor Green is a
Chartered Engineer in the U.K. and MIEE.