Loss Reduction & Reactive Power Support in
Rajasthan Power System:A Case Study
Suresh Prajapat Dr. M.P. Sharma
Student, M. Tech Assistant Engineer
Shri Balaji College of Engg. & Tech. RRVPNL
Jaipur, India Jaipur, India
sureshsp90@gmail.com mahavir_sh@rediffmail.com
Abstract—This paper presents case study of real time system
operation to reduce losses with optimum utilization of existing
transmission system elements. West-North part of Rajasthan
power system having one 400 kV GSS, five 220 kV GSS and
nineteen 132 kV GSS have been selected to carry out case study
and simulated in PSSE software. Simulation model consists of 55
buses, 34 transmission lines, 66 transformers and 34 capacitor
banks. Total system load is 594.95 MW & 325.56 MVAR. Eight
cases have been simulated considering the effect of transformer
tap position, closing of opened transmission lines and shunt
capacitors. From simulation studies it is found out that
transmission losses are reduced by 50.36 % in addition to
improve network voltage profile and reduce loading.
Keywords—Grid Substation; Transformer Tap Setting; Load flow
studies; transmission loss reduction; voltage profile improvement.
I. INTRODUCTION
Reactive power management is a fixed part of power
system. India has one of the highest levels of electricity losses
in the world. Consistently research has been carried over role
of reactive power management in Rajasthan power system. By
observing poor power factor of lines and transformers, higher
transmission losses, increased loading and poor voltage profile
of the network. A case study of Rajasthan power system has
been presented and studied to evaluate transmission losses and
to diagnosis the actual condition of real time system under
operation. Therefore loss reduction of real time test system
through routine activities has been evaluated. From the
literature presented by early researchers improvements in
terms of voltage profile and loss reduction could be achieved
by effective coordination of equipment’s working at sub
stations.
Losses have been increased drastically no concern is being
carried for transformer tap position and transmission lines
connection on/Off status etc. Evaluation of various literature
procedures has not yet been appropriately applied in Rajasthan
State Power System. As instructed by Carson W. Taylor static
var compensators were designed specifically for transmission
voltage regulation [2]. Genetic algorithm have also paved the
path for optimal reactive power dispatch proposed by W.N.W
Abdullah H. Saibon [3] by scheduling reactive power in an
optimum manner which reduces circulating VAR of system
and thus promoting consistent voltage profile and appreciable
MW saving.
Shunt capacitors compensation power loss reduction by
maintaining system voltage profile and reducing the lines and
transformer loading were briefed by A.A. Sallam et al. in
Shivani Johri Bhavesh Vyas
Assistant Professor Asst. Professor, EE Dept.
Shri Balaji College of Engg.& Tech. Arya College of Engineering & I.T
Jaipur, India Jaipur, India
Sjohri07@gmail.com tonu567@gmail.com
2002 [4]. It has been observed that Rajasthan Power System
is lacking ways of optimum reactive power management [5]
thus creating higher losses. Therefore different case study
with simulations has been carried from previously recorded
literature methods and which are presently not actively taking
part in grid operations in Rajasthan State power system.
II. OBJECTIVES OF CASE STUDY
In power system, On Load Tap Changer (OLTC) is
attached with power transformers to change the tap ratio to
regulate the voltage in different grid conditions but due to
manual operation of OLTC sometimes it is not operated at few
Grid Substations (GSS). In this research paper, effect of
change of transformers tap position on loading of transformers
& lines, network voltage profile and system losses have been
simulated. Capacitor banks are installed at 33 kV bus of every
EHV GSS to improve the 33 kV bus power factor upto 0.98 in
peak load condition and operated as per loading condition of
individual GSS. Under low load condition of a GSS , capacitor
bank is kept out of circuit whereas particular area of power
system is deficit of reactive power. In this research paper,
under this scenario capacitor banks have been switched ON to
simulate the effect on grid parameters and losses. In Rajasthan
power system 132 kV transmission system is radially operated
to control the power flow in various system conditions.
Therefore, approximately one hundred fifteen 132 kV
transmission lines are opened. These transmission lines are
used in contingency of grid. Moreover, parallel 220 kV
transmission lines are got opened by State Load Despatch
Center (SLDC) under high voltage condition. Due to
communication gap and responsibility, opened transmission
lines are not taken in circuit when system voltage is under
control. In this research paper, effect of closing of opened
transmission lines on loading of transformers & lines, network
voltage profile and system losses have been simulated.
III. TEST SYSTEM DATA
Simulation model have 55 buses comprising one 400 kV bus,
six 220 kV buses, twenty four 132 kV buses and twenty four
33 kV buses. Simulation model have 34 transmission lines
comprising seven 220 kV voltage level and twenty seven 132
kV voltage level. There are total sixty six number of
transformers are out of which two 400/220 kV, elven 220/132
kV and fifty three 132/33 kV transformers. Thirty four
capacitors of 5.43 MVAR individual rating and total 184.62
MVAR capacities are connected to 33 kV buses. Single line
diagram of test system is placed at Fig-1.
 In Case I, one circuit of 220 kV D/C Bikaner –Gajner line is
opened which closed and again simulated while other
conditions remains unchanged. In Case I, five no of 132 kV
S/C lines are opened which closed and again simulated while
other conditions remains unchanged. In case IV the opened
220 kV and 132 kV circuits are closed. In case I, capacitor
banks at bus 39 & 42 are switched OFF which are switched
on. In case I, voltage of most of 220kV and 132kV buses are
below 0.95pu. Therefore, tap position of 400/220 kV
transformers is increased from 9 to 13 and 220/132kV
transformers at Gajner, Nokha, Badnu & Sridungargarh is
increased from 9 to 11 and at Bikaner from 9 to 13 and case is
simulated. In this case voltage of all 132kV & 220kV buses
are above 0.95pu. In case VI, voltage of 33kV bus no. 34, 35
Fig. 1 Single Line Diagram of Test System and 46 are below 0.95 pu. Therefore, tap position of 132/33kV
transformers connected to these buses is also increased from 9
Total system load is 594.95 MW and 325.56 MVAR having to 13 to increase voltage of these buses above 0.95pu. In case
constant power characteristic and connected at 33 kV voltage VIII firstly all, opened lines and shunt capacitor banks are
level. Detailed data of Simulation model are placed at closed and simulated. In case VI, voltage of 33kV bus no. 34,
Appendix-1. 35 and 46 are below 0.95 pu. Therefore, tap position of
IV. LOAD FLOW STUDY. 132/33kV transformers connected to these buses is also
Actual power flow on lines & transformers, 33 kV bus increased from 9 to 13 to increase voltage of these buses
load, bus voltage, transformer tap positions, operating status above 0.95pu. Results are plotted from fig. 2 to fig. 9.
of lines & capacitor banks for West-North part of Rajasthan
have been collected on 31.12.2016 at 1 PM. Actual operating
condition has been simulated in PSSE software. 400 kV Bus
of 400 kV GSS Bikaner is set as swing bus with 1.02 PU
voltage setting to carry out simulations. Load flow study
results with actual operating condition are plotted at Fig. 2 and
analyzed here under :-
 Transmission losses are 22.219MW (3.734%) which are
higher than bench mark viz. 2 %.
 Voltage of all buses is below 0.95 PU
 Minimum bus voltage at 220kV, 132kV & 33kV are
0.8826PU, 0.7752PU & 0.7435PU respectively.
 Swing bus power factor is 0.81
 One 220kV and five 132kV transmission lines are opened.
 Two capacitor banks are switched OFF.
 All transformers tap position is at nominal. Fig. 2 Load Flow Results of Case I
To simulate the effect of change of transformers tap position,
closing of opened transmission lines and shunt capacitors,
following eight cases have been simulated in PSSE software :-
Case I Load flow study (LFS) for existing operating
condition
Case II LFS with closing of opened 220kV line
Case III LFS with closing of opened 132kV lines
Case IV LFS with closing of opened 220kV&132kV lines
Case V LFS with switching ON of switched OFF shunt
capacitor banks
Case VI Increase of tap position of 400/220 kV and
220/132 kV transformers
Case VII Increase of tap position of 400/220 kV, 220/132
kV & 132/33kV transformers
Case VIII Closing of opened lines & capacitor banks and
increase of tap position of transformers Fig. 3 Load Flow Results of Case II
 Fig. 8 Load Flow Results of Case VII
Fig. 4 Load Flow Results of Case III

Fig. 9 Load Flow Results of Case VIII

Fig. 5 Load Flow Results of Case IV V. RESULT A NALYSIS

A. Effect on Transmission Losses
Power system losses for different cases are tabulated in Table-
I. The simulation results shows that with optimum utilization
of existing elements transmission losses are reduced by 50%
due to increase of system voltage, decrease of reactive power
flow on transmission lines and decrease of network resistance.
TABLE I TRANSMISSION LOSSES
Particulars Loss (MW) % Loss % Loss Reduction
Case-I 22.219 3.734 -
Case-II 20.600 3.462 7.29
Case-III 17.083 2.871 23.12
Case-IV 15.539 2.611 30.06
Case-V 21.489 3.611 3.29
Fig. 6 Load Flow Results of Case V
Case-VI 14.848 2.495 33.17
Case-VII 14.758 2.48 33.58
Case-VIII 11.029 1.853 50.36
In Case VIII system losses are reduced by 11.19MW as
compared to Case-I. Considering 80 percent load factor,
Annual Energy Saving (AES) is determined.
Loss load factor (LLF) = 0.3 (LF) + 0.7 (LF) 2 = 0.688 (1)
AES = [11.19 x8760xLLF/102 LUs/Annum] (2)
AES = 674.40 LUs/Annum (3)
Annual cost saving = Units Saved X tariff rate (4)
ACS = (674.40)X(5) (5)
ACS = Rs. 3372 Lakhs/Annum (6)
Fig. 7 Load Flow Results of Case VI
B. Effect on Swing Bus Loading D. Effect on loading of Lines and Transformers
Swing bus loading for different cases are tabulated in Loading of substation transformers and lines in Case-I to
Table-II. The simulation results shows that with optimum Case-II have been tabulated at Table IV to VI.
utilization of existing elements swing bus MW & MVAR TABLE IV MVA LOADING OF TRANSFORMERS
loading is reduced and power factor is improved.
Name Voltage Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case
TABLE II SWING BUS LOADING AND POWER FACTOR of GSS Ratio I II III IV V VI VII VIII
Swing Bus loading 400 kV
Particulars
MW MVAR Power Factor Bikaner 400/220 761 743 732 715 748 672 671 646
Case-I 617.17 445.39 0.810 220 KV
Case-II 615.55 416.37 0.828 Bikaner 220/132 209 187 232 216 204 201 200 204
Case-III 612.03 401.93 0.835
Case-IV 610.49 372.78 0.853 Nokha 220/132 113 112 91 88 112 106 106 83
Case-V 616.44 425.11 0.823 S.
220/132 127 127 123 120 127 118 118 113
Case-VI 609.80 283.63 0.906 Dungargarh
Case-VII 609.71 281.13 0.908 Gajner 220/132 114 131 119 139 111 96 96 129
Case-VIII 605.98 226.04 0.936 Badnu 220/132 123 122 105 102 123 118 118 96

TABLE V MVA LOADING OF LINES

C. Effect on network voltage profile
Power system voltage from case I to Case VIII at the Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case
NAME OF LINE
different bus voltage level at various represented GSS and I II III IV V VI VII VIII
detail graphical representation and its variation profile is given 220 KV S/C Bikaner-
235 220 238 224 232 224 223 210
in Fig.10 at 220 kV bus voltage level, Fig.11 at 132 kV bus Bikaner Line(Circuit-I)
voltage level and Fig.12 at 33 kV bus voltage level. 220 KV S/C Bikaner-
102 95 103 97 100 97 97 91
Bikaner Line(Circuit-II)
220 KV D/C Bikaner-
116 64 121 68 113 97 97 63
Gajner Line (Circuit-I)
220 KV D/C Bikaner-
OFF 64 OFF 68 OFF OFF OFF 63
Gajner Line (Circuit-II)
220 KV S/C Bikaner-
140 130 126 122 130 119 119 114
Sridungargarh Line
220 KV S/C Bikaner-
115 115 92 88 115 106 106 83
Nokha Line
220 KV S/C Bikaner-
126 126 106 103 126 120 120 96
Fig. 10 220kV bus voltage Badnu Line
TABLE VI RANGE OF LOADING OF LINES
Case
MVA ≤ 0.50 0.50 < MVA ≤ 0.75 0.75 < MVA ≤ 1.00 MVA > 1
Consider
Case-I 19 10 3 2
Case-II 20 9 3 2
Case-III 24 8 0 2
Case-IV 25 7 0 2
Case-V 19 10 3 2
Case-VI 20 10 2 2
Fig. 11 132kV Bus Voltage
Case-VII 20 10 2 2
Case-VIII 26 6 0 2
Number of buses which are fall in certain voltage range and
minimum bus voltage in each case is tabulated at table III. As per studies, loading on transformers and lines are reduced
From Case I to Case VIII, voltage profile of the network is in Case VIII as compared to Case I.
improved as indicated in table III. Value of minimum bus E. Effect on MVAR flow on Lines and Transformers
voltage is also improved. In case VIII, voltage of all buses is MVAR flow on transformers and lines in Case-I to Case-II
above 0.95 PU. have been tabulated at Table VII to VIII.
TABLE III NETWORK VOLTAGE RANGE TABLE VII MVAR FLOW ON TRANSFORMERS
Min. Bus
Particulars V < 0.90 0.90 ≤ V < 0.950.95 ≤ V ≤ 1 1< V < 1.05
Voltage Case Case- Case- Case- Case- Case- Case- Case-
Name of GSS
CASE-I 52 2 0 1 0.7435 -I II III IV V VI VII VIII
CASE-II 51 3 0 1 0.7623
400 kV Bikaner 444 416 402 373 425 284 281 226
CASE-III 49 5 0 1 0.7845
220 kV Bikaner 108 92 110 97 101 86 85 64
CASE-IV 44 9 1 1 0.81
220 kV Nokha 50 49 33 31 49 34 34 19
CASE-V 51 3 0 1 0.7543 220 KV S.
CASE-VI 0 3 35 17 0.9191 61 59 57 43 60 38 38 36
Dungargarh
CASE-VII 0 0 36 19 0.9522 220 KV Gajner 57 64 55 63 51 24 24 38
CASE-VIII 0 0 11 44 0.9678 220 KV Badnu 45 44 38 36 44 31 31 23
 TABLE VIII MVAR FLOW ON LINES [7] Ravi Panwar, Vikas Sharma, Dr. M.P Sharma, Bhavesh Vyas,
“Circulating MVAr Control in Rajasthan (India) Transmission System”
Case- Case- Case- Case- Case- Case- Case- Case- presented at IEEE, ICPEICES-2016, Delhi Technical University, 4-6
NAME OF LINE July, 2016.
I II III IV V VI VII VIII
[8] Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission Grid Code, Jaipur, (As
220 KV S/C Bikaner- per Electricity Act, 2003),
112 99 106 95 106 82 81 58
Bikaner Line(Circuit-I) [Online]: http://www.rvpn.co.in/aboutus/GridCode-01.pdf.
220 KV S/C Bikaner-
47 42 45 40 45 34 34 24 APPENDIX-1
Bikaner Line(Circuit-II)
220 KV D/C Bikaner- TABLE IX BUS DATA
57 27 56 27 51 20 20 12
Gajner Line (Circuit-I) Bus No. Bus Name Nominal Bus Voltage (kV) Max. Bus Voltage (PU) Min. Bus Voltage (PU)
220 KV D/C Bikaner- 1 BIKANER400KV 400.0 1.05 0.95
OFF 27 OFF 27 OFF OFF OFF 12 2 BIKANER_42 220.0 1.05 0.95
Gajner Line (Circuit-II) 3 BIKANER220 220.0 1.05 0.95
220 KV S/C Bikaner- 4 GAJNER220KV 220.0 1.05 0.95
63 62 59 56 62 36 36 34 5 NOKHA220KV 220.0 1.05 0.95
Sridungargarh Line 6 BADNU220KV 220.0 1.05 0.95
220 KV S/C Bikaner- 7 SRIDUNGH220 220.0 1.05 0.95
51 50 30 27 50 30 30 12 8 LALMDSR132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
Nokha Line 9 LOONKRNSR132 132.0 1.05 0.95
220 KV S/C Bikaner- 10 SHARERA132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
48 46 38 35 47 30 29 18 11 DULCHSR132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
Badnu Line 12 PUGALRD132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
13 BHINASR132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
14 GAJNER132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
As per studies, MVAR flow on transformers and lines are 15 NOKHAD132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
reduced in Case VIII as compared to Case I. 16
17
KOLAYAT132KV
BAJJU132KV
132.0
132.0
1.05
1.05
0.95
0.95
18 PS1_132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
19 PS2_132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
VI. CONCLUSION 20 NOKHA132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
21 DESHNOK132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
In this paper, case study of Rajasthan power system has been 22 PANCHU132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
23 JASRASR132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
presented and studied to evaluate the impact of optimum 24 BADNU132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
utilization of existing transmission system elements on 25
26
BIKANER132KV
NAPASAR132KV
132.0
132.0
1.05
1.05
0.95
0.95
transmission losses and other system parameters. Studies have 27
28
MOONDSR132KV
SRIDUNG2_132
132.0
132.0
1.05
1.05
0.95
0.95
been carried for existing power system operation (Case-I) 29 SRIDUNG1_132 132.0 1.05 0.95
30 RIRI132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
versus proposed power system operation (Case-VIII). 31 UPANI132KV 132.0 1.05 0.95
Following are the conclusions of study: 32
33
BIKANER33KV
LOONKRNSR33
33.0
33.0
1.05
1.05
0.95
0.95
1. Reactive power flow on transmission lines and 34
35
SHARERA33KV
DULCHSR33KV
33.0
33.0
1.05
1.05
0.95
0.95
transformers have been reduced in Case-VIII as compared 36
37
PUGALRD33KV
BHINASR33KV
33.0
33.0
1.05
1.05
0.95
0.95
to Case-I. 38 GAJNER33KV 33.0 1.05 0.95
39 NOKHAD33KV 33.0 1.05 0.95
2. The loading on transmission lines and transformers have 40
41
KOLAYAT33KV
BAJJU33KV
33.0
33.0
1.05
1.05
0.95
0.95
been decreased in Case-VIII as compared to Case-I which 42
43
PS1_33KV
PS2_33KV
33.0
33.0
1.05
1.05
0.95
0.95
is due to reduction MVAR flow on lines and 44 NOKHA33KV 33.0 1.05 0.95
45 DESHNOK33KV 33.0 1.05 0.95
transformers. This spare capacity can be used to meet the 46 PANCHU33KV 33.0 1.05 0.95
47 JASRASR33KV 33.0 1.05 0.95
increasing demand of respective areas and avoid the 48 BADNU33KV 33.0 1.05 0.95
49 LALAMDSR33KV 33.0 1.05 0.95
augmentation of system. 50 NAPASAR33KV 33.0 1.05 0.95
51 MOONDSR33KV 33.0 1.05 0.95
3. It is seen that network voltage profile in Case-VIII is 52 SRIDUNG2_33 33.0 1.05 0.95
53 SRIDUNG1_33 33.0 1.05 0.95
better than Case-I. 54 RIRI33KV 33.0 1.05 0.95
55 UPANI33KV 33.0 1.05 0.95
4. MW losses are significantly reduced in Case VIII as TABLE X LINE DATA
compare to Case I.
Line Volt. Line Line Line Charging B
From Bus No. To Bus No. Line Length (kM)
(kV) R (pu) X (pu) (pu)
2 3 220 0.001547 0.008249 0.0142 10
REFERENCES 2 3 220 0.003558 0.018973 0.03266 23
2 4 220 0.009127 0.048669 0.08378 59
[1] [Online]: http://energy.rajasthan.gov.in, Energy Portal Government of 2 4 220 0.009127 0.048669 0.08378 59
2 5 220 0.011448 0.061043 0.10508 74
Rajasthan, 2 7 220 0.009127 0.048669 0.08378 59
[2] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, Tata McGraw Hill 3 6 220 0.01021 0.054443 0.09372 66
8 23 132 0.017689 0.042104 0.00969 19
publications, New Delhi, 2007. 8 24 132 0.011172 0.026592 0.00612 12
9 25 132 0.060515 0.14404 0.03315 65
[3] Carson W. Taylor “Line drop compensation, high side voltage control, 10 11 132 0.035378 0.084208 0.01938 38
secondary voltage control-why not control a generator like a static var 10 25 132 0.04655 0.1108 0.0255 50
11 28 132 0.032585 0.07756 0.01785 35
compensator?” ,Published in IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer 12 14 132 0.023275 0.0554 0.01275 25
Meeting, 16-20 July 2000. 12 25 132 0.023275 0.0554 0.01275 25
13 14 132 0.023275 0.0554 0.01275 25
[4] W.N.W Abdullah, H. Saibon and K.L. Lo, “Genetic Algorithm for 13 25 132 0.013965 0.03324 0.00765 15
Reactive Power Dispatch” Published in Energy Management and Power 14 15 132 0.020482 0.048752 0.01122 22
14 16 132 0.020482 0.048752 0.01122 22
Delivery 1998, under Proceedings of EMPD, on 5 March 1998. 16 17 132 0.040964 0.097504 0.02244 44
17 18 132 0.047481 0.113016 0.02601 51
[5] A.A. Sallam, M. Desouky, “Shunt capacitor effect on electrical 18 19 132 0.00931 0.02216 0.0051 10
distribution system reliability”, published in IEEE Transactions on 20 21 132 0.031654 0.075344 0.01734 34
Reliability, Vol. 43, Aug.,2002, P.No. 170-176. 20 23 132 0.036309 0.086424 0.01989 39
20 23 132 0.036309 0.086424 0.01989 39
[6] PSS/E website, Siemens PTI, https://w3.siemens.com/smartgrid/ 21 22 132 0.029792 0.070912 0.01632 32
21 25 132 0.023275 0.0554 0.01275 25
global/en/products-systems-solutions/software-solutions/planning-data 24 27 132 0.013034 0.031024 0.00714 14
management-software/planning-simulation/Pages/PSS-E.aspx. 24 28 132 0.026068 0.062048 0.01428 28
 25 26 132 0.019551 0.046536 0.01071 21 20 44 3 17 65 0.1 25
26 27 132 0.013965 0.03324 0.00765 15 21 45 1 17 65 0.1 25
28 29 132 0.002793 0.006648 0.00153 3 21 45 2 17 65 0.1 25
28 30 132 0.015827 0.037672 0.00867 17 21 45 3 17 65 0.1 25
30 31 132 0.012103 0.028808 0.00663 13 22 46 1 17 65 0.1 25
23 47 1 17 65 0.1 25
TABLE XI LOAD DATA 23 47 2 17 65 0.1 25
24 48 1 17 65 0.1 25
S. No. Bus No. Pload (MW) Qload (Mvar) 24 48 2 17 65 0.1 25
1 32 34.9 14.97 24 48 3 17 65 0.1 25
2 33 30.18 17.91 25 32 1 17 140 0.1 50
3 34 15.47 8.81 25 32 2 17 140 0.1 50
4 35 31.68 21.7 25 32 3 17 65 0.1 25
5 36 33.6 15.7 26 50 1 17 65 0.1 25
6 37 50 30 26 50 2 17 65 0.1 25
7 38 5.39 3.34 26 50 3 17 55 0.1 12.5
8 39 3.22 1.56 27 51 1 17 65 0.1 25
9 40 47.42 35.56
27 51 2 17 55 0.1 12.5
10 41 11.48 4.54
28 52 1 17 140 0.1 0
11 42 5.71 0.81
12 43 1.5 0.8 28 52 2 17 65 0.1 25
13 44 17.2 11.69 29 53 1 17 65 0.1 25
14 45 41.59 20.14 29 53 2 17 65 0.1 25
15 46 14 8.31 30 54 1 17 65 0.1 25
16 47 26.44 12.81 30 54 2 17 65 0.1 25
17 48 47.55 23.43 30 54 3 17 65 0.1 25
18 49 15.63 5.14 31 55 1 17 65 0.1 25
31 55 2 17 65 0.1 25
19 50 40 13.15
20 51 10.38 3.77 TABLE XIV TRANSFORMER TAP DATA
21 52 29 17.97
22 53 36 22.31 Min Tap Nom. Nom. Tap
S.No. Voltage Ratio(kV) Capacity (MVA) Max. Tap Voltage
23 54 26 16.11 Voltage Tap Voltage
24 55 20.61 15.03 1 400/220 315 360 9 400 440
Total 594.95 325.56 2 220/132 160 242 9 220 187
3 220/132 100 242 9 220 187
TABLE XII CAPACITOR DATA
4 132/33 40/50 138.6 5 132 112.2
S. No. Bus No. Total Capacity of Capacitor Banks (MVAR) 5 132/33 20/25 138.6 5 132 112.2
1 32 16.29 6 132/33 10/12.5 138.6 7 132 112.2
2 33 10.86
3 35 10.86
4 36 10.86
5 37 10.86
6 39 5.43
7 40 10.86
8 42 5.43
9 44 5.43
10 45 10.86
11 47 10.86
12 48 16.29
13 50 10.86
14 52 10.86
15 53 16.29
16 54 10.86
17 55 10.86
Total 184.62

TABLE XIII TRANSFORMER DATA

From Bus No. To Bus No. Id Total Tap Positions Full load loss (kW) Specified X (pu) Rating (MVA)
1 2 1 17 430 0.13 315
1 2 2 17 430 0.13 315
3 25 1 21 160 0.12 100
3 25 2 21 160 0.12 100
3 25 3 21 160 0.12 100
4 14 1 21 185 0.12 160
4 14 2 21 160 0.12 100
5 20 1 21 185 0.12 160
5 20 2 21 160 0.12 100
6 24 1 21 185 0.12 160
6 24 2 21 185 0.12 160
7 28 1 21 160 0.12 100
7 28 2 21 160 0.12 100
8 49 1 17 65 0.1 25
9 33 1 17 65 0.1 25
9 33 2 17 65 0.1 25
10 34 1 17 65 0.1 25
11 35 1 17 140 0.1 50
11 35 2 17 65 0.1 25
12 36 1 17 140 0.1 50
12 36 2 17 65 0.1 25
13 37 1 17 65 0.1 25
13 37 2 17 65 0.1 25
13 37 3 17 65 0.1 25
14 38 1 17 140 0.1 50
14 38 2 17 65 0.1 25
14 38 3 17 65 0.1 25
15 39 1 17 55 0.1 12.5
15 39 2 17 55 0.1 0
16 40 1 17 65 0.1 25
16 40 2 17 65 0.1 25
16 40 3 17 65 0.1 25
17 41 1 17 55 0.1 12.5
17 41 2 17 55 0.1 12.5
18 42 1 17 65 0.1 25
18 42 2 17 65 0.1 25
19 43 1 17 65 0.1 25
20 44 1 17 140 0.1 50
20 44 2 17 140 0.1 50