Sei sulla pagina 1di 9

2.

To evaluate the errors introduced in


Evaluation Methods of Co-ordinating
of optimum system operation by the assump-
tions involved in the various methods of
co-ordination.
Incremental Fuel Costs and Incremental 3. To evaluate the errors introduced
in optimum system operation by the as-
sumptions involved in determining a trans-
Transmission Losses mission
4. To
loss formula.
evaluate the savings obtained in
system operation by co-ordinating incre-
L. K. KIRCHMAYER G. W. STAGG mental fuel costs and incremental trans-
ASSOCIATE MEMBER AIEE ASSOCIATE MEMBER AIEE mission losses.
This paper is intended to be the basis
for formulating a method which will allow
A MAJOR problem involved in the network analyzer measurements and system dispatchers to determine plant
operation of large integrated power arithmetic calculations. The authors, in loading schedules quickly for all the
systems is the hourly determination of addition, evaluated the discrepancies operating conditions encountered in a
generation schedules for optimum system introduced by the assumptions made in large power network.
economy, including the effects of both obtaining a loss formula. This paper is a
incremental fuel costs and incremental continuation of the authors' work and Co-ordination of Incremental Fuel
transmission losses. With the aid of the considers various methods of co-ordinat- Costs and Incremental
incremental slide rule' incremental fuel ing incremental fuel costs and incremental Transmission Losses
costs have been applied for years in transmission losses for optimum system
the determination of plant loading economy. In order to combine incremental fuel
schedules. The evaluation of incre- The first major step in the development costs and incremental transmission losses,
mental transmission losses has been sim- of a co-ordination method was presented it is necessary first to express the incre-
plified greatly by the recent development in 1949 by E. E. George, H. W. Page and mental transmission losses in terms of in-
of transmission loss formulas,2'3'4 which J. B. Ward,6 in co-ordinating fuel costs cremental costs. According to mathemat-
express system losses in terms of plant and transmission losses by use of the net- ical derivation, the incremental trans-
and interconnection loadings. work analyzer to prepare predicted plant mission losses should be charged at a rate
A transmission loss formula expressing loading schedules for a large power sys- equal to the incremental cost of received
the total transmission losses in terms of tem. At the same time, the electrical power.
generator powers was first presented by engineering staff of the American Gas and Three methods of co-ordinating incre-
E. E. George in 1943.2 The application of Electric Service Corporation, also with mental fuel costs and incremental trans-
the network analyzer to determine a the aid of the network analyzer, developed mission losses will be discussed:
similar loss formula was developed later a method to penalize the incremental fuel
by Ward, Eaton, and Hale.3 At the 1951 costs of a particular plant on the incre- EXACT METHOD INVOLVING NONLINEAR
summer convention of AIEE G. Kron mental slide rule to include the effect of SIMULTANEOUS EQUATIONS
and the authors presented companion transmission losses. Recently, the Ameri- The minimum fuel input for a given re-
papers4'5 which described an improved can Gas and Electric Service Corpora- ceived load is obtained by solution of the
method of deriving a total transmission tion in co-operation with the General
loss formula requiring considerably less Electric Company has successfully em-
following equations:
ployed transmission loss formulas and dFn (PL
punched card machines for the prepara- +x =
x (1)
Paper 52-112, recommended by the AIEE Trans-
dPn PnX
mission and Distribution, and System Engineering tion of penalty factor charts to be used in or
Committees and approved by the AIEE Technical the economic scheduling of generation.7
Program Committee for presentation at the AIEE
Winter General Meeting, New York, N. Y., Janu- Realizing the actual magnitude of 1 dFn + 6PL
ary 21-25, 1952. Manuscript submitted October ± =1 (2)
23, 1951; made available for printing January 3, savings involved in the economical sched- X dPn (Pn
1952. uling of generation the authors have where
L. K. KIRCHMAYER is with General Electric Com- undertaken this paper for the following
pany, Schenectady, N. Y., and G. W. STAGG is
purposes: F5 =fuel input to plant n in dollars per hour
with American Gas and Electric Service Corpora- Pn =output of plant n in megawatts
tion, New York, N. Y.
1. To present a mathematical analysis of dF5
d = incremental fuel cost of plant n in
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions the various methods of co-ordinating incre-
of their associates and in particular those of R. dPn
Amstutz and R. Haberman of the General Electric mental fuel costs and incremental trans- dollars per megawatt hour
Company. mission losses. PL =total transmission losses

JANUARY 1952 Kirchmayer, Stagg Incremental Fuel Costs and Transmission Losses .- 13
PLANT 2 20 MW LOSS FOR PLANT Figure 1 (left).
100 MW TRANSFER
Simple 2-plant

HIGH-COST 11SYSTEM IAREA


LOW-COST
system 31
U)

cn

( INAREADIANA)} LOAD ( OHIO0)


4
-J
C]
z
0
a

-J
aPL= incremental transmission loss at plant w

(JPn
n in megawatts per megawatt Figure 2 (right). I-
z
X = incremental cost of received power in w
4
dollars per megawatt hour Approximate in-
cremental fuel 0
The derivation of these equations is pre- costs for simple zI
sented in Appendix I. In general, the in- 2-plant system MW OUTPUT OF EACH AREA
cremental transmission loss at plant n
may be expressed by

-= 2 2BnmPm
bPn m
where Bnn = transmission loss formula
constants.
The incremental fuel cost of a given
plant over a limited range may be repre-
sented by
z i 0~~~~~~ ~~~~~ N L PENLT
F42Z YACTOR 0
0
z
dn FnnPn +fn
z
4
EQUATIONS

F=slope of incremental fuel cost curve -j


fn= intercept of incremental fuel cost curve 0. PEI .lALTYFIACTOR
Then equation 1 becomes
i; __r5EXACT SOLUTION
FnnPn +fn+X 2BnmPm = X (3)
m O___ APPROXIMATE LINEAR PLANT NQ
Solutions for different total loads are ob-
tained by varying the magnitude of X. 0 I100 200 300 400 500 60 )o
The existence of equation 1 was first TOTA L GSENERATION -LMW
called to the authors' attention by J. B.
Ward of Purdue University. Figure 3. Generation schedules obtained by various co-ordination methods for the simple
2-plant system
APPROXIMATE METHOD INVOLVING
LINEAR SIMULTANEOUS EQUATIONS
The incremental transmission loss at
~~~. I. I.
P,.
. . .

plant n in equation 1 is charged at X, the


incremental cost of the received power.
If the incremental transmission loss at
plant n is charged at a constant rate 3, 300.
the following set of linear simultaneous
equations results: z
4-
d Fn 6PL, PLANT N2 PLANT NO 2
(4) ct. TRANSMISSION LOSSES EXACT COORDINATION
dPn bjPn 0
2 200 W NEGLECTED - EQUATIONS
where d = average incremental cost of re- z
0
ceived power in dollars per megawatt i- 7
_ ~~~~~PLANT N21I
_.~~~~~~~EXACTCOORDINATION
hour. Uf) EQUATIONS
Equation 4 may also be written 100.
1 dFn+ PL X
(5)
,8 dPn bPn O ~~~~~~~~~~~AiPLANTNQ22
/
- - TANSMSSION LOSSES
-~

oo0
=
NEGLECTED
- ±

where = X' 0 100 200 300


L 400I IILLIII
500 600
TOTAL GENERATION -MW
This set of linear simultaneous equations Figure 4. Comparison of generation schedules with losses neglected and with the effect of
corresponds to those described by George losses included for simple 2-plant system

514 Kirchmayer, Stagg-Incremental Fuel Costs and Transmission Losses JANUARY l1952
1600 Table 11.

15600
1400
F X X T TRANSMISSION LOSSES
NEGLECTED IN
Plant n Fnn fn
COORDINATION EQUATIONS 7
cr
D
:3
0
132
00 - - x1 X
PENALTY FACTOR - 1 0.00820 ..... 1.280
2 .... 0.00440 ..... 0.795
ir 1200 3 .0.00190 ..... 1.809
.0.00429
4 0.657
.L xl\i
0. .....
1100 APPROXIMATE L 1 EXACT COORDINATION
0
6.
....
0
0.00222 .....
0.01200..... 0.300
0.889
7 ..... 0.02080 ..... 0.635
1000 PRACTiC AL LOAD ING
0
0 X _ .EOUAION 8 ........ 0.01270 ..... 0.572
z
90OCCURS1 AT THIS PODINT .D/ l l l
THE RESULTS OBTAINED
z /-
1 / WITH APPROXIMATE LINEAR
800 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~COORDINATION
EQUATIONS ARE
:3 DESIGNATED AS FOLLOWS dF2
_2.
700 BYt A< Ya incremental fuel cost of plant 2
,8 '2.5 BY X dP2
600 __ __ __ -e 3O0 BY 0
=F22P2 +f2
500 / __ _
= 0.004P2+2.0

400q K^^^ nz^s The total transmission losses are given


- -100 150AeAe 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
RECEIVED LOAD-MW by:
Figure 5. Fuel inputs for the various generation schedules determined for the simple 2-plant PL =total transmission losses
system = Bi,Ps2 +B22P22 +2B12PIP2
The incremental transmission losses at
plants 1 and 2 are given by:
Page and Ward.6 Solutions for different to the incremental fuel cost of plant n, 6PL =
total loads are obtained by varying the the following equations result: incremental transmission loss of
value of =X/,B. Whenever X/:3=)= 1,
OP,
an exact solution is obtained correspond- dF_dF =PL (6) plant 1
ing to the solution of the nonlinear simul- dPn dPn (Pn = 2B11Pl +2B12P2

taneous equations. d-F =PL = incremental transmission loss of


11+ lx
OP2
PENALTY FACTOR METHOD dPn, 6P/ plant 2
If the incremental transmission loss at dFn Ln = 2B,2P, +2B22P2
(7
plant n is charged at a rate corresponding dPn where
where Ln= penalty factor of plant n. Bl = 0.002
Table 1. Transmission Loss Formula Coeffi- This method is now in use by the B22 = 0
cients (Brnm X 102) American Gas and Electric Service Cor- B12 = 0
poration.'
m n D Loading B Loading Ave These constants correspond to a 20-
megawatt loss for a transfer of 100 mega--
Application of Co-ordination Equa- watts.
1.... 1 .... 0.08670.... 0.07055 .... 0.07863
2.... 2.... 0.06145 .... 0.06050 .... 0.06098 tions to a 2-Plant System The exact nonlinear equations for a 2-
3.... 3.... 0.11240 .... 0.07090 .... 0.09163
4... .4 .... 0.02730 .... 0.02565 .... 0.02646 plant system are given by inspection of
5.... 5.... 0.02390 .... 0.02235 .... 0.02311 To assist in the understanding of the
6.... 6.... 0.03815 .... 0.03630 .... 0.03723 above three methods, they will be applied
equation 1 as:
7.... 7 .... 0.05950 .... 0.06620 .... 0.06285
8... .8 .... 0.12140 .... 0.11870 .... 0.12010 first to the simple 2-plant system shown in FlP, ±+X(2B1Pl +2B12P2) = x -fl
1.... 2.... -0.00986. ... -0.01011.... -0.00999 F22P2±+X(2B12P2+2B22P2) = X -f2 (8)
1.... 3.... -0.01697.... -0.01107.... -0.01402
Figure 1. This system is a simple repre-
1.... 4.... -0.00661.... -0.00730.... -0.00695 sentation of the American Gas and Elec- From equation 4, the approximate linear
1.... 5.... -0.00898.... -0.01372.... -0.01136
1.... 6.... -0.02064.... -0.02089.... -0.02076 tric System and illustrates the relatively equations may be written:
1... 7.... -0.02914.... -0.02868.... - 0.02892 high cost generation in the Indiana
1.... 8.... -0.03498.... -0.03086.... -0.03292
2.... 3.... 0.04688 .... 0.04558 .... 0.04624 Division as compared to low cost genera- FliP1 13(2BllPl +2Bl2P2) = X -f'
2.... 4.... 0.01299 .... 0.01194 .... 0.01246 tion in the Ohio Division available for F22P2+ f3(2B12P2+2B22P2) = X -f2 (9)
2.... 5.... -0.01227.... -0.01208.... -0.01218
2.... 6.... -0.01954.... -0.01665.... -0.01810 transfer west. These two areas are inter- The application of the penalty factor
2.... 7.... -0.02192.... -0.01308.... -0.01750 connected by a 132-kv transmission sys-
2.... 8.... -0.02276.... -0.01232.... -0.01754 method gives the following equations:
3... 4 .... 0.01314 .... 0.01169 .... 0.01242 tem and are separated by a distance of ap-
3... .5.... -0.01121.... -0.01274.... -0.01198
proximately 250 miles. The maximum (F,1Pl +f,)Ll = X
3.... 6.... -0.02630.... -0.01778.... -0.02204 (10)
3... .7.... -0.03595.... -0.01500.... -0.02530 practical transfer over the transmission ( F22P2 +f2)L2 = X
3.... 8.... -0.04240.... -0.01442.... -0.02841
4.... 5.... 0.00231.... 0.00127 .... 0.00179 system corresponds to approximately 170 where
4... .6.... -0.00754.... -0.00660.... -0.00707 megawatts.
4.... 7.... -0.01094.... -0.00656.... -0.00876
4.... 8.... -0.01292.... -0.00692.... -0.00992 The approximate incremental fuel costs Li=penalty factor of plant 1
5.... 6.... 0.01181 .... 0.01267 .... 0.01224 for plants 1 and 2 are shown in Figure 2 = 1 +2B1P1 +2B12P2
5.... 7.... 0.00681.... 0.00769 .... 0.00721
5... .8 .... 0.00332 .... 0.00423 .... 0.00378 and may be expressed by: L2= penalty factor of plant 2
6... .7.... 0.02210 .... 0.02122.... 0.02166 =1 +2B12P1 +2B22P2
6... .8 .... 0.01732 .... 0.01632 .... 0.01682 dF,
7.... 8.... 0.05595 .... 0.05940 .... 0.05768 = incremental fuel cost of plant 1
dPi If the effect of the transmission losses
The B loading corresponds approximately to a total = F,1Pi +fj are neglected in the scheduling of genera-
load of 84 per cent of peak; the D loading, 54 per
cent of peak. = 0.002P1 + 1.7 tion, then optimum loading is given by:

JANUARY 1952 Kirchmayer, Stagg-Incremental Fuel Costs and Transmission Losses 515
170 190-

160 180
PLANT NO 6
PLANT
NQ PENALTY_
DENOTESSOLUTION
x~FACTOR
150 170 __-_
z
¢ 140 0 160
Z

.2
-J
EXACT SOLUTION -
I-
z 150 2.0
z 130 4
a -j
0.
0
> 120 140 1 \ --

z TRANSMISSION LOSSES
.4
-J NEGLECTED
0C 110 130 - .

1200 1250 1300 1350 1400


RECEIVED LOAD - MW
100
110 -
90
IOC
80 ~~X DENOTES PENALTY
PLANT N° 7
PLANT
NO FACTOR SOLUTION
12
90- 90
THE RESULTS Of ALL
z NT COORDINATE METHOS
4
COI NCI DE
IAAN
0
a
z
130 4
0C
| |PLANT
NQ 3 | oe ~NEGLECTED
120
NEGLECTED
110 50
1200 1250 1300 1350 1400
RECEIVED LOAD - MW
I ol I 2.2 o
# I ,
10020
z 710
4
0
90 0
140
600J
I ~~~~THERESULTS Of ALL
|PLANT N° 8 |COORDINATE METHODS
TRASDESINLOTSESPEAT
I-
zL 801 K I I , ,
70
0 l j \ 0EXACT SOLUTION 120 t - -
0 11- 1 - 5 ~~~~TRANSMISSION LOSSES|
601 z
60 |X DENOTES PENALTY 4 110IIII III
3. ? ____ j FACTOR SOLUTION 0.

l 0 ~~XDENOTES PENALTY
4u
A t%

1200 1250 1300


RECEIVED LOAD - MW
1350 1400
90
ll lFAC OR SLUTIONI
'370 -- -- 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400
RECEIVED LOAD - MW
360
PLANT N2 4
350 F11P1+fi = X l
~ ~
AN~~ ~ - F22P2 +f2= X S (11)
34C By choosing appropriate values of X,
TRANSMISSION LOSS
NEGLECTED various solutions for the above sets of co-
330
ordination equations were obtained, and
z
C0-
32
the resulting generation schedules were
4
0
jeI .8 plotted as shown in Figures 3 and 4. It is
4
I- 310 la2.2 to be noted that increasing the value of ,B
z
.4 tends to emphasize the effect of trans-
0.
300 mission losses and results in a solution of
the equations approaching operation with
290 - minimum transmission losses. Under the
.-> - ~EXACT SOLUTION condition of minimum transmission losses
~2.4 Figure 6. Genera-
280
tion schedules ob-
there would be zero transfer west and
tained by various plant 2 would carry the entire load. When
27C co-ordination meth- the linear equations are used, therefore,
- j ~~~~X
DENOTES PENALTY care must be taken to choose a value of 3
- ~~~~~~~~F
ACTOR SOLUT ION odsfor the simplified
1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 American Gas and which will give a solution closely ap-
RECEIVED LOAD-MW Electric System proximating that of the exact solution.

516 Kirchmayer, Stagg Incremental Fuel Costs and Transmission Losses JANUARY 1952
100 f 3 C 3 150

I)
95

9C 9z TRANSMISSION LOSSES NEGLECTED 3100


z 85 / / s IN SCHEDULING GENERATION
z85

'<80
0
C .8
3050
p~~~~~~~8 =2
a
° 75 x
°
I 3000
-'65 -tl
a(- <-X EXACT SOLUTION
- w
o _.- _.-- X DENOTES PENALTY 0
-6C ____ -FACTOR SOLUTION -J
Q-

z2A
o 2950
0
1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 z
RECEIVED LOAD - MW
0.
Figure 7 (above). Total transmission losses resulting from the genera- z
tion schedules given by various co-ordination methods _j2900

Figure 8 (right). Fuel inputs for the various generation schedules de-
termined for the simplified American Gas and Electric System 2850

To evaluate the assumptions made in


the linear and penalty factor methods of 2800 r 1I
co-ordinating incremental fuel costs and
incremental transmission losses, the fuel
inputs in dollars per hour for the three
methods were calculated and plotted as a 1200 12550 1300 1350 1400
function of received load. (See Figure 5.) RECEIVED LOAD - MW
The results obtained from the penalty
factor and linear methods compare favor- The simplified representation of the The transmission loss formula constants
ablv with the exact solution. The results American Gas and Electric System was (B.,,,) were calculated from the D and B
indicate, in addition, that a considerable used also in this paper to accomplish the loading conditions. Small discrepancies
saving can be realized in the economic following: occur between the transmission loss for-
scheduling of generation bv including the 1. Development of techniques. mula coefficients for these two periods be-
effects of transmission losses. cause of changes in the load pattern, and
2. Determination of accuracy of various
co-ordination methods. generator voltages, angles, and power
Results of Study on American Gas factors. The D loading and B loading
3. Evaluation of savings of a large power
and Electric System system obtained by including the effect of transmission loss formula coefficients and
transmission losses in the scheduling of also their average are given in Table I.
SYSTEM REPRESENTATION generation. Except where otherwise specified, the
average Brnm loss formula coefficients were
In the previous paper,4 a simplified rep INCREMENTAL TRANSMISSION LOSS AND used in this study.
resentation of the American Gas and INCREMENTAL FUEL COST DATA Modifications of the above assumptions
Electric System was developed which In deriving the loss formula coefficients may be required in other system studies
duplicated the wide variation of operating for the simplified system the following as- to determine a transmission loss formula.
conditions experienced in actual practice. sumptions were made: The analysis of off-nominal turn ratios in
The simplified representation included the the transmission system is discussed in
132-kv transmission system, eight major 1. The equivalent load current at any bus
remains a constant complex fraction of the reference 7 of this paper and in a recent
steam plants, and several interconnec- paper by G. Kron.14
total equivalent load current. The equiva-
tions. The daily variation in load was lent load current at a bus is defined to be Over a given range of plant output, the
subdivided into five typical loading the sum of the line-charging, synchronous incremental fuel cost of plant n may be
periods and designated as follows: condenser, and load current at that bus. approximated by the following relation-
2. The generator bus voltage magnitudes ship:
Loading Period Per Cent of Peak are assumed to remain constant.
3. The ratio of reactive to real power of
any source is assumed to remain at a fixed Incremental Fuel Cost of Plant n = dPi,
A .93 dP,,
B......................... 84
C. 69
value. - FnnPn +fn
D .54 4. The generator bus angles are assumed
E .44 The coefficients in Table II were valid for
to remain constant.

JANUARY 1952 Kirchmayer, Stagg Incremental Fuel Costs and Transmission Losses 517
39

0I-
a
.4
-
I

RECEIVED LOAD - MW

11 0-

100

z
90 90
~~~~~~~~~D
LO ADING Bnm
80 ____L</ER AVE 6nm
.4 140-
-J

-jI130 z
IL 4
-J
TRNSMISSIONLOSSES
PLANT N2 3 C. B LOADING Bnm NEGLECTED
60
120

110
TRANSMISSION LOSSES
-o 1200 1250 1300
RECEIVED LOAD - MW
1350 1400
NEGLECTED

Sc--- - __~~~~~~~~~~oeI.
__ 140_______J74i4
PLANT NQ 8
:
130
. _ _ ..__
7C- - -, - _ _ _ _
,37- I,
12013013010 i -T.
-

z 120
.-

1200 a I
i -! =W

4
4 ;k AG -.I fV
60-REEIE
LA -MW_
0

o 110

z TRANSMISSION LOSSES
4
NEGLECTED
CL

1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 ~ ~ ~~~I35


100~ 10 I40
RECEIVED LOAD -MW

1 200 1250 1300 1350 1400


RECEIVED LOAD - MW

the range of loading presented in this


paper.
Calculations of generation schedules,
transmission losses, and fuel inputs were
made for all the loading periods. Typical
results for one range of loading conditions
will be presented. The application of
punched card machines to these calcula-
tions is briefly described in Appendix
II.

Figure 9. Genera- COMPARISON OF CO-ORDINATION


tion schedules ob- METHODS
tained using the B The generation schedules obtained from

and D loading and the exact solution of the nonlinear simul-

average transmission
loss coefficients for taneous equations and from loading by

the simplified equal incremental fuel costs are given in

American Gas and Figure 6 for all plants except 2 and 5.


1300 1350
RECEIVED LOAD-MW Electric System For all the methods of solution considered

518 Kirchmayer, Stagg-Incremental Fuel Costs and Transmission Losses JANUARY 1952
100

95

90
TRANSMISSION LOSSES NEGLECTED 3150
3100 _
W / IN SCHEDULING GENERATION
lB-LOADING Bnm
z85 ~'2.2

80
0
-i
z
3050 'DLODING Bnm
°275
D LOADING Bnm
AVERAGE Bnm TRANSMISSION LOSSES
~70 0 NEGLECTED IN
I 3000 _ SCHEDULING GENERATION
a-
t , t , B LOADING Bnm
60 _ . 0.
a

0 2950 --
55 AVERAGE Bn m
1200 1250 1300
RECEIVED LOAD - MW
1350 1400 z
~2.2
0.
z
plants 2 and 5 remain at their maximum Figure 10. Total -J
2900-
loads of 210 megawatts and 310 mega- transmission losses Li.
watts respectively. Also indicated in obtained using the 2D-LOADING Bnm
Figure 6 are the generation schedules ob- B and D loading
tained from the approximate linear si- and average trans-
mission loss coeffi- 2850
multaneous equations for various values cients in the co-or-
of : as well as the generation schedules ob- dination methods
tained from the penalty factor method. for the simplified
The total transmission losses as a function American Gas and
of received load are plotted in Figure 7 for Electric System ~B
2800~~~~~~.
2800
- LOADING Bnm
the generation schedules discussed pre- Figure 11 (right).
viously. A comparison of the fuel inputs Fuel inputs for the
in dollars per hour is given in Figure 8. various generation
It will be noted here that the fuel inputs schedules deter- 27501 - -~- L

1200 1250 1300 1350 1400


for the generation schedules obtained mined for the simpli- RECEIVED LOAD-MW
from the solution of the nonlinear simul- fied American Gas
taneous equations, the linear simultane- and Electric System
ous equations, and the penalty factor
method are practically identical.
plotted as shown in Figure 12. Inte- scheduling generation by the linear simul-
grated over a year a saving of approxi- taneous equations and the penalty factor
mately $150,000 is to be realized. method is for all practical purposes identical
ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS OF VARIATIONS IN to that obtained by the solution of the
Loss FORMULA COEFFICIENTS exact nonlinear equations.
Conclusions 2. An average set of loss formula constants
With 3=2.2, the effect of the varia-
tions in the Bnm constants such as occur From the typical results presented and may be applied over the complete daily cycle
similar data from other loading periods in the co-ordination of incremental fuel costs
between the D and B loading periods was and incremental transmission losses.
investigated. The generation schedules the following conclusions can be drawn:
3. For a large integrated power system
obtained from equation 4 with the B load- 1. The operating economy obtained by savings of considerable magnitude can be
ing, the D loading, and the average loss
formula coefficients are compared with 80 I I-1
the loading by equal incremental fuel
costs in Figure 9. A corresponding com- 70
parison of transmission losses and fuel in- 0

puts is given in Figures 10 and 11. It will ,


n
60

be noted from Figures 9, 10, and 11 that 0

the variation of the Bnm constants such as >W


J
4
50

occur between the different loading m 40


periods causes very little change in the 4

economic scheduling of generation. 0


o 30
Figure 12. Dol- 1-
EVALUATION OF ANNUAL SAVINGS lars saved in fuel 4

input by includ- a20


For the five loading periods the dollars ing the effect
0

saved per hour by including the effect of of transmission 4 10


incremental transmission losses over the
method of scheduling generation by equal
losses in the eco-
nomic scheduling
I
O I
600 900
I
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
I
1500 1600
I
1700 1800
--LiI
1900
incremental fuel costs were calculated and of generation RECEIVED LOAD-MW

JANUARY 1952 Kirchmayer, Stagg Incremental Fuel Costs and Transmission Losses 519
realized when the effect of transmission
losses are included in the economic schedul-
Appendix 11. Use of Punched where
ing of generation. Card Machines B =loss formula coefficient niatrix

The solution of equations 1 and 4 was P = generation matrix


Appendix 1. Determination of uraiiicu Iy mecans puncncu ma-
chines which proved to be an accurate and The reader is referred to references 10 to
Co-ordination Equations efficient ineanis of calculating generation 13 for additional information on the appli-
schedules. cation of punched card machi: cs
The derivation of these equations follows The use of punched card machines has the
directly from the method of Lagrangian following advantages over the nietwvork
multipliers described by Courant.9 Let analyzer solution: References
Ft =total fuel input to system in dollars per 1. Greater accuracy. 1. ECONOMIC LOADING OF STEAM POWER PLANTS
hour 2. The programming boards are permanently AND ELECTRIC SYSTEMS (book), M. J. Steinberg,
wired so that the set-up time of the machines is T. H. Smith. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
2Fn only that required to insert the control panels into York, N. Y., 1943.
n
the machine. 2. INTRASYSTEM TRANSMISSION LossEs, E. E.
where 3. The programming of the machine is such that George. Electrical Engineering (AIEE Trans-
any system up to 99 variables may be conveniently actions), volume 62, March 1943, pages 153-58.
Fn= fuel input to plant n in dollars per hour handled. 3. TOTAL AND INCREMENTAL LOSSES IN POWER
4. There are no difficulties handling negative TRANSMISSION NETWORKS, J. B. Ward, J. R. Eaton,
Let H. W. Hale. AIEE Transactions, volume 69,
mutual coefficients as in the case of the network part 1, 1950, pages 626-31.
PL =total transmission losses in megawatts analyzer.
4. ANALYSIS OF TOTAL AND INCREMENTAL LOSSES
_ 2;PnBnmPm The machines used for this purpose were: IN TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS, L. K. Kirchmayer,
mn G. W. Stagg. AIEE Transactions, volume 70,
Electronic Calculating Punch, Reproducing part I, 1951, pages 1197-205.
wvhere Punch, Sorter, Tabulator, Key Punch.
5. TENSOR ANALYSIS OF INTEGRATED TRANS-
A brief explanation of the method in- MISSION SYSTEMS-PART I. THE SIX BASIC REFER-
Pn = loading of plant n volved is as follows: It is desired to solve ENCE FRAMES, G. Kron. AIEE Transactions
Bn.=transmission loss formula coefficients the set of equations volume 70, part 1, 1951, pages 1239-48.
It is desired to minimize the total fuel input 6. CO-ORDINATION OF FUEL COST AND TRANS-
MISSION Loss BY USE OF THE NETWORK ANALYZER
(Ft) in dollars per hour for a given received
load (PR). Let
|~ _||P|-|C TO DETERMINE PLANT LOADING SCHEDULES, E. E.
George, H. W. Page, J. B. Ward. AIEE Trans-
actions, volume 68, part II, 1949, pages 1152-160.
PR =given received load where 7. TRANSMISSION LOSSES AND ECONOMIC LOADING
OF POWER SYSTEMS, L. K. Kirchmayer, G. H.
By application of the method of Lagrangian McDaniel. General Electric Review (Schenectady,
multipliers the equation of constraint is |AA =coefficient matrix N. Y.), October 1951.
given by 8. THE INTEGRATED POWER SYSTEM (book),
Philip Sporn. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
4'(P, P2,P.. . Pn) = Pn -PL -PR =° =Y matrix of generatorpowers which is New York, N. Y., 1950.
n I__I to be obtained 9. DIFFERENTIAL AND INTEGRAL CALCULUS
(12) (book), R. Courant. Interscience Publishers, New
York, N. Y., volume II, 1936, pages 188-211.
Then minimum fuel input for a given re- C |driving function matrix
ceived load is obtained when 10. HIGH-SPEED COMPUTING DEVICES (book).
Staff of Engineering Research Associates, Inc.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York,
W; Form the composite inatrix: N. Y., 1950, Chapter IX.
(13)
bPn 11. PUNCHED CARD TECHNIQUES FOR THE SOLU-
A C TION OF SIMULTANEOUS EQUATIONS AND OTHER
where MATRIX OPERATIONS, W. D. Beck. Proceedizgs,
-110 Scientific Computation Forum, International Busi-
if = Ft -XX (14) ness Machines (New York, N. Y.), 1948.
The equations are solved by an elimination 12. THE SOLUTION OF SIMULTANEOUS LINEAR
= Lagrangian type of multiplier EQUATIONS WITH THE AID OF THE 602 CALCULATING
method which is designated as starring or PUNCH, F. Verzuh. Mathematical Tables and Other
Mi _ -Ft _,X a/ =0 (15) pivotal condensation. Specifically a given Aids to Computation, National Research Council
ZPn (Pn bPn diagonal term akt of the A matrix is chosen (Washington, D. C.), Number 27, July 1949.
to be the starred term and the operationi 13. NOTES ON THE SOLUTION OF ALGEBRAIC
Then LINEAR SIMULTANEOUS EQUATIONS, L. Fox, H. D.
a Husky, J. H. Williamson. Quar-terly Journal o'
aij * -Gt j Mechanics and Applied Math, National Research
b
FtX 6P [ZPn-PL-PR l= ° akk Council (Washington, D. C.), 1948, pages 149-78
14. TENSORIAL ANALYSIS OF INTEGRATED TRANS-
ZOPt bP j is performed in the composite matrix con- MISSION SYSTEMS: PART I -OFF-NOMINAL TURN
-X[ 1- ]=0 verting it to a (*) system or reduced matrix RATIOS, G. Kron. AIEE Tran.sactions, volume
from which the k row and k column have 71, part III, 1952, pages 505-12.
been eliminated. This process is repeated
ZF1 aPL (16) until the only remaining nonzero terms are
6Pn ()Pn those of the original zero matrix in the lower
right-hand corner of the original composite
But matrix. When the reduction has been
completely carried out, these terms in the Discussion
aF (ZFn)aF d lower right-hand matrix have become the P
matrix which was desired. C. W. Watchorn (Pennsylvania Water and
bPn OPn (Pn dPn Transmission losses for various generation Power Company, Baltimore, Md.): This
Then equation 16 becomes schedules may be efficiently calculated from paper is most timely and valuable in that it
the loss formula by the following matrix marks another milestone in the progress of
,dF, ?PL (17) operation: solving the problem of coordinating geiierat-
dPn l)Pn ing costs among the several stations on a
PL =transmission losses system or a group of interconnected systems.
That the authors found digital computers to
Equation 17 above is identical to equation 1
presented in the paper. =p||B I be more satisfactory than the network

,520 Kirchmayer, Stagg-Incremental Fuel Costs and Transmission Losses JANUARY 19,59
anaIyzer in solving the simultaneous equa- among the interconnected power stations. L. K. Kirchmayer and G. W. Stagg: M e
tions, a question that was raised more than 2 The other factor required is the system wish to thank Mr. Watchorn for his discus-
years ago with respect to reference 6 of the loss equations. Would it not be possible to sion. Regarding the question, "Would it
paper, is of particular importance, since it is obtain these equations automatically, pos- not be possible to obtain these equations
believed that a more flexible means is pro- sibly by means of a system analogue, which, automatically, possibly by means of a sys-
vided thereby to adopt the method to the by means of appropriate instrumentation, tem analogue which, by means of appropri-
automatic assignment of load among the would currently represent the system or sys- ate instrumentation, would currently repre-
various units on a system or a group of tems as actually operated. sent the system or systems as actually
interconnected systems regardless of loca- It is realized that such a proposal may operated?" we have the following com-
tion than if it were necessary to use a net- appear to be visionary to many, but it is be- ments:
work analyzer for such purpose. lieved to be a worth-while objective, since if The network analyzer is an analogue com-
It is believed that this fact, coupled with accomplished, it would result in several puter which may be used to represent a
the possibility of automatic computation of major benefits, which might well more than given power system. Howevet, with pres-
current incremental generating costs at the justify many such installations. ent network analyzers it is necessary to sum
various stations, rather than by use of the losses line by line to determine total
manually operated mechanical computers, REFERENCE transmission losses. A device to accom-
as described in the paper, together with 1. CALCULATING MACHINE SlMPLIFIES POWER plish this summing automatically may be
automatic load assignment among the units PLANT PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONS, E. Daniele,
L. J. Parsons, G. R. Baiter, and discussion by C. W.
prohibitively expensive as compared with an
in such stations,' should provide one factor Watchorn. AIEE Transactions, volume 71, part analogue of the system loss equations which
as a basis for automatic load assignment III, 1952,pages 81-87. may be used to represent the system.

JANUARY 1952 Kirchmayer, Stagg-Incremental Fuel Costs and Transmission Losses 5-91