IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 29, NO.
3, MAY 2014
CDFLOW: A Practical Tool for Tracing Stationary
Behaviors of General Distribution Networks
Hao Sheng and Hsiao-Dong Chiang, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—The widespread use of distributed generations (DGs)
in utility distribution feeders is a trend, and it brings about
several challenges to the operation, planning, and design of gen-
eral distribution networks. In this paper, a comprehensive tool,
Continuation Distribution Power Flow (CDFLOW), is presented
and evaluated. CDFLOW can be used for tracing steady-state
stationary behaviors of general unbalanced distribution systems
due to various types of power injection variations, including
high penetration of DGs. The major computation engine behind
CDFLOW is the continuation method. Major components, either
balanced or unbalanced, grounded or ungrounded, are well
modeled in CDFLOW. A detailed description of CDFLOW and
its implementation regarding the predictor, corrector, adaptive
step-size control and parameterizations are presented. For illus-
trative purposes, CDFLOW was applied to the IEEE 8500-node
test system and a practical 1103-node distribution networks with
promising results.
Index Terms—Continuation power flow, distributed generations,
distribution systems, power flow, saddle-node bifurcation.
I. INTRODUCTION
R ECENT years have witnessed a growing trend towards
the development and deployment of distributed gener-
ation (DG). This trend in combination with new distribution
generation technologies have profoundly changed the tra-
ditional analysis, design, control paradigm of distribution
networks [1]–[4]. It is hence important to develop comprehen-
sive analysis tools for assessing the impacts of large integration
of distributed generations on distribution networks, and then
to mitigate the adverse consequences of distributed resources
integration.
Continuation power flow is a powerful tool to simulate
power system steady-state stationary behaviors with respect to
Manuscript received June 18, 2013; revised September 24, 2013; accepted
October 30, 2013. Date of publication November 25, 2013; date of current ver-
sion April 16, 2014. The work of H. Shen was supported in part by the Na-
tional Basic Research Program of China under Grant 2012CB215102, the State
Grid Corporation of China, Major Projects on Planning and Operation Control
of Large Scale Grid (SGCC-MPLG028-2012). The work of H.-D. Chiang was
supported in part by the Consortium for Electric Reliability Technology Solu-
tions provided by U.S. Department under Contract DE-FC26-09NT43321 and
by Research Fund of Nanjing University of Science and Technology (NJUST)
under Grant 2010GJPY065. Paper no. TPWRS-00766-2013.
H. Sheng is with the School of Electrical Engineering and Automation,
Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China (e-mail: shenghao@tju.edu.cn).
H.-D. Chiang is with the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA (e-mail: chiang@ ece.cornell.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2013.2289917
0885-8950 © 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1365
a variety of power injection variations [5]–[10]. Power injection
variations include both load variation and active generation
scheduling in power systems. Several commercial packages for
generating P-V, Q-V and P-Q-V curves are based on continu-
ation methods [11]. Furthermore, continuation methods have
found their practical applications in energy control centers, to
name a few, at PJM Interconnection, California ISO, TVA (TN,
USA). A CTPFlow for voltage stability analysis of unbalanced
three phase power systems was presented in which local pa-
rameterization, tangent predictor and newton corrector were
employed [12]. Several continuation power flow algorithms
have been proposed for radial distribution systems [13], [14].
These methods are applicable only for radial networks.
In this paper, a comprehensive tool, termed Continuation Dis-
tribution Power Flow (CDFLOW) is presented and evaluated.
CDFLOW can be used for tracing steady-state behaviors of gen-
eral distribution networks (radial and meshed) due to various
power injection variations, including penetration of DGs. One
advantage of this tool over the existing repetitive power flow is
that it allows operators to exploit the potential of existing distri-
bution networks to delivery more renewable energy resources to
loads. This potential comes from the fact that CDFLOW can re-
liably compute the P–V curve and the nose point (i.e., the max-
imum loading point) which represents the power delivery po-
tential of the study distribution network.
The major computation engine behind CDFLOW is the
continuation method. Continuation power flow is an efficient
numerical method to determine how far the current operating
point is away from its static security limit as well as operational
and engineering limits, such as bus voltage limits and branch
thermal limits. This piece of information can help operators
fully exploit distribution networks to delivery more renewable
energy resource and/or serve more loads, thus maximize the
value of existing distribution assets in delivering power from
renewables to load centers. Compared with the repetitive power
flow approach, the continuation power flow has three main
advantages: 1) it is more reliable in obtaining the solution
curve, especially for ill-conditioned power flow equations; 2) it
is faster via an effective predictor-corrector, adaptive step size
control algorithm; and 3) it is more versatile via parameteri-
zations such that load and generation power at a single bus, a
part of buses, and all buses can vary. In this paper, a detailed
description of CDFLOW and its numerical implementations
for reliable and fast simulation of quasi-static behaviors of
distribution networks due to variations of power injections at a
collection of buses are presented. These numerical implemen-
tations are performed through three types of predictors, two
different correctors, three different parameterization schemes,
and adaptive step-size control.
1366 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 29, NO. 3, MAY 2014

CDFLOW can be used in a variety of applications such as: 1) E. Lines, Switch, Breaker, and Disconnector
to simulate static behaviors of distribution networks due to load
and/or renewable variations with/without control devices; 2) to
III. THREE-PHASE CONTINUATION POWER FLOW
study voltage and thermal limit problems due to load and/or gen-
eration variations; 3) to evaluate maximum delivery capability The power flow equations of three-phase distribution net-
of distribution networks; 4) to conduct coordination studies of works for phase of bus are
control devices for their impacts on distribution system static
behaviors; and 4) simulate the impact of automatic disconnec-
tion of loads due to voltage sags on system static behaviors.
The distinguished features of CDFLOW include: 1) the level (1)
of modeling capability for balanced, unbalanced networks,
grounded or ungrounded devices; 2) its computational speed
and reliability for large-scale distribution networks; 4) the (2)
impact of reactive power limits of DGs is taken into consider-
ation; 4) the exact saddle-node bifurcation point is computed;
5) weak areas and weak nodes can be identified and the load These equations can be combined in compact form as
margin is accurately computed. and 6) all of the voltage and
thermal limits along the P–V curves can be identified. (3)

where represents the whole set of power flow equations,

II. SYSTEM MODEL
Major components for steady-state analysis of distribution
systems, either balanced or unbalanced, grounded or un-
grounded, are well modeled in CDFLOW with the following
modeling capability [15], [16]:
and .
The three-phase continuation power flow equation with load
and distributed generation variations can be explicitly expressed
as follows. For PQ type nodes, the corresponding continuation
power flow equations are

A. Distributed Generator Using P-V, or P-Q, or P-I Models

• Synchronous generator, induction generator, and inverter (4)
(e.g., photovoltaic generation, fuel cell).

B. Load
(5)
• General load models, including constant power, constant
current, and constant impedance types or their combina-
For PV type nodes, the corresponding continuation power
tion. Three-phase loads can be balanced or unbalanced and
flow equations are
connected in grounded wye or ungrounded delta configu-
rations and single-phase or two-phase grounded loads.

C. Distribution Transformer
(6)
• Three-phase transformers of connection types include: (7)
grounded/ungrounded wye-delta connection, delta con-
nection, grounded/ungrounded wye-grounded/ungrounded
wye connection, open grounded wye-open delta connec-
tion, V-connection, and autotransformer.
• Single-phase transformer: two-wire connection or three- (8)
wire connection. (9)
• Voltage regulator: on-load tap controller (LTC), line-drop
compensator (LDC), and single-phase line voltage where is the proposed active generation variation at bus
regulator. phase , and and are the proposed real and reactive
load variations at bus .
The load model can be represented as constant impedance,
D. Shunt Compensator
constant current, constant power, or combination of them as
• Shunt compensator can be a capacitor or a reactor, fixed or follows:
switchable. A three-phase shunt compensator can be bal-
anced or unbalanced and connected in grounded wye or un-
grounded delta configurations. Single-phase or two-phase
grounded shunt compensators are treated similarly. (10)
SHENG AND CHIANG: CDFLOW: PRACTICAL TOOL FOR TRACING STATIONARY BEHAVIORS OF GENERAL DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS
For a P-V node with a Q limit, say , the three phase
continuation power flow equation can be expressed as follows:
(11)
(12)
IV. TRACING QUASI-STEADY-STATE BEHAVIORS
To trace the steady-state behavior due to load/renewables
variation, it is necessary to solve the continuation power flow
equations with different values of . CDFLOW treats the
parameter as another state variable as follows:
(13)
and introduces another parameter, arc length , along the solu-
tion curve. Both and are functions of the arc length param-
eter :
(14)
The step-size along the arc length yields the following
constraint:
(15)
We solve the following equations for the
unknowns and :
(16)
(17)
CDFLOW solves these augmented power flow equa-
tions to obtain the solution curve passing through the
“nose” point without encountering the numerical difficulty
of ill-conditioning.
Continuation methods, sometimes called curve tracing or
path following, are useful tools to generate solution curves for
general nonlinear algebraic equations with a varying parameter.
Continuation methods have four basic elements: parameteriza-
tion, predictor, corrector, and step-size control.
A. Parameterization
Parameterization is a mathematical way of identifying each
solution on the solution curve so that the “next” solution or “pre-
vious” solution can be quantified. There are several different
types of parameterizations.
1) Physical parameterization uses the controlling param-
eter , in which case the step size is .
2) Local parameterization, which uses either the control-
ling parameter or any component of the state vector ;
namely to parameterize the solution curve. The step
size in the local parameterization is or [17].
3) Arc length parameterization employs the arc length
along the solution curve to perform parameterization;
the step size in this case is :
(18)
1367
4) Pseudo arc length parameterization was proposed in
[18], of which the most popular form is
(19)
CDFLOW implements the arc length, pseudo-arc length, and
local parameterization schemes. The local parameterization
scheme can compute special points, such as voltage violation
points and thermal limit points.
B. Predictor
The predictor attempts to find an approximation point for the
next solution . The quality of the approximation
point by a predictor significantly affects the number of iterations
required by a corrector in order to obtain an exact solution. A
better approximation point yields a smaller number of iterations
needed in a corrector to reach the solution.
Several different predictors have been proposed in the liter-
ature. They can be divided into two classes. First is the ODE-
based methods, which use the current solution and its deriva-
tives to predict the next solution. The tangent method, a pop-
ular one as a predictor, is a first-order ODE based method. The
second class is polynomial extrapolation-based methods; which
use only current and previous solutions to find an approximated
solution. The secant method, a popular polynomial-based linear
predictor, uses the current solution and the previous one to pre-
dict the next one. Nonlinear methods, which are the most pop-
ular predictors, apply the second-order Lagrange’s polynomial
interpolation formula.
In order to achieve computational efficiency, CDFLOW em-
ploys the tangent method in the first point of solution curve
tracing, the secant method in the second point computation and
the nonlinear method afterwards. The nonlinear method em-
ploys Lagrange’s polynomial interpolation formula to approxi-
mate the next solution. It is a multi-order polynomial-based pre-
dictor [19]. The predicted solution at step may be
written as
(20)
where is the previous solution at step , is the
step number, is the Lagrange interpolation coefficient
of step , is the order. It should be noted that Lagrange’s in-
terpolation coefficients are uniquely determined by given
solutions. Specially, they can be written as
(21)
In CDFLOW, the order is chosen to be 2; given three
known solutions , , and , then
predicted solution is obtained.
C. Corrector
After the predictor has produced an approximation
for the next solution , the error
must be corrected before it accumulates. In principle, any
1368 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 29, NO. 3, MAY 2014

effective numerical procedure for solving a set of nonlinear

algebraic equations can be used for a corrector.
Several methods have been proposed to solve distribution
power flow equations. The most widely used one is the for-
ward/backward sweep method (FBS) [20]; however, it is ap-
plicable only to radial distribution networks. The implicit Zbus
Gauss method [21] and Newton method can solve both radial
and meshed distribution networks; hence, they were employed
as a corrector in CDFLOW. The current injection method pro-
posed in [22] is another powerful one, making it useful as a
corrector. This method has been applied in OpenDSS [23] and
GridLAB-D [24] as a power flow solver.
GridLAB-D uses the FBS method for solving radial networks
and uses the current injection method for solving meshed net-
works while OpenDSS uses the current injection method and
the Newton method. However, both GridLAB-D and OpenDSS
do not implement the continuation power flow.
To improve its speed and convergence, the Newton method is Fig. 1. Elements of continuation method in CDFLOW.
modified in CDFLOW by introducing a weighting factor as

The exact saddle-node bifurcation point, i.e., the nose point,

(22)
where is chosen to ensure a monotonic decrease and
.
D. Step Size Control
The distance between and is called the
step size. One key element affecting the computational effi-
ciency associated with a continuation method is the step-length
control. It is safe to choose a constant, small step size in any con-
tinuation method. However, this constant step size may often
lead to inefficient computation, such as too many steps through
the “flat” part of the solution curve. Similarly, an inadequately
large step size can cause the predicted point to lie far away from
the (true) solution point, and, as a result, the corrector needs
more iterations to converge. In the extreme case, the corrector
may diverge.
CDFLOW uses the arc length in the state space as the pa-
rameterization scheme, which allows the predictor to take large
steps on the “flat” part of the solution curve and small steps on
the “curly” part. In addition, the arc length is adjusted ac-
cording to the number of iterations taken at each continuation
step. By setting a desired target number of iterations , Step 2: Initialization:
the method compares the actual number of iterations
with the target. If the actual number is smaller, then the next
step size is set to be larger than the previous one. On the flip
side, if the actual number is greater, then the next step size is
set to be smaller than the previous one. There are four input
parameters for step-size control in CDFLOW: is the initial
step size for the first step; and are the smallest and
largest step sizes, respectively; coefficient is an accelerating
parameter which can be set to 0 for constant step size. If the th
solution converges, the step size will be enlarged, oth-
erwise, will be shrunk and a back stepping needed until
the th solution converges. The step size is computed as
can be computed by solving the following set of char-
acteristic equations:
(24)
where and are the right and left eigenvectors, respectively.
The first vector equation of (24) specifies that the solution
be on the steady-state solution branch, the second vector equa-
tion specifies that a real-valued eigenvector exists that corre-
sponds to a zero eigenvalue, and the last scalar equation makes
the length of the null vector at length 1.0. A Newton method is
applied to solve these equations.
V. SOLUTION METHOD
CDFLOW uses a predictor-corrector continuation method to
trace solution curves (see Fig. 1). A step-by-step exposition of
the solution algorithm used in CDFLOW is summarized in the
following.
Step 1: Input Data: Input distribution system data: including
network data, forecasted load data and predicted generation
data.
1) Run a power flow study to make the initial point lie on the
solution curve.
2) Build up the current load demand pattern, and active power
generation pattern (excluding the slack bus).
Step 3: Build the Power Injection Variation Vector: Input the
buses at which loads and/or power generations are to be varied,
and also input the quantity of variations.
1) Build up the future load demand pattern , and
active power generation pattern
2) Parameterize the load demand pattern ,
and active power generation pattern so that

(23) Then, form the vector sum of the bus injection power pattern.
SHENG AND CHIANG: CDFLOW: PRACTICAL TOOL FOR TRACING STATIONARY BEHAVIORS OF GENERAL DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS 1369

Step 4: Linear Predictor (Phase-One): If two solution points

are obtained, go to step 5, otherwise perform the following.
1) Calculate the tangent direction.
2) Determine an appropriate step-length.
3) Obtain the predicted point.
Step 5: Linear Predictor (Phase-Two): After at least two so-
lution points have been obtained, the predictor can be switched
to the secant method and go to Step 7, otherwise, go to the next
step.
Step 6: Nonlinear Predictor (Phase-Three): After at least
Fig. 2. Three-phase voltage magnitudes at Bus1216 as loading increases; phase
three points, obtain the predicted point using a nonlinear c is the weakest phase and its voltage continues to drop after going through the
predictor, which requires the information of at least three saddle node bifurcation point.
contiguous solutions.
1) Choose an appropriate step size.
2) Obtain the predicted point using a nonlinear predictor
method, say, using a second-order nonlinear predictor.
Step 7: Corrector: Solve the set of augmented power flow
(16) and (17) using the modified Newton method or Implicit
Z-bus Gauss method starting from the approximation point ob-
tained in the Predictors. Check the direction of at current
step, if , go to Step 11, otherwise, go to Step 8.
Step 8: Check Q-Limit: Calculate the reactive power of
generation. Check whether reactive power generation reaches
its limit or not. If a Q-limit is encountered, change the corre- Fig. 3. Dominant eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix at various loading condi-
sponding bus type from PV to PQ, and reformulate the power tions. The eigenvalue curve moves close to zero and turns to be positive after
flow equation and go to Step 7. going through the saddle node bifurcation point.
Step 9: Stop Criterion: If further tracing of solution curve is
of no interest, stop here. Otherwise, go to step 10.
Step 10: Adaptive Step Size Control: Update step size by (23)
and go to the predictor step to calculate the next point.
Step 11: Compute the Bifurcation Point (Optional): Solve the
set of ( ) characteristic equation (24) for the saddle-node
bifurcation point using the corrected point as the
initial conditions, and go to Step 9.

VI. NUMERICAL STUDIES

The evaluation of CDFLOW has been performed on several
test systems ranging from IEEE 14-bus to IEEE 8500-node test
system [25], [26]. Due to space limitation, two numerical simu-
lations, a practical 1103-node system and IEEE 8500-node test
system, are presented.
A. Practical 394-Bus System
This practical 394-bus, 1103-node system is an unbalanced
distribution network [27]. The substation bus delivers power
to the full feeder and there is no DG in this network. In this
test case, CDFLOW is applied to trace the quasi-steady-states
(i.e., each node voltage phasor behavior) due to uniform load
increases with the required power delivered from the substation,
and the following aspects are studied.
1) The properties of three-phase P-V curves (phase voltage as
well as sequence voltage) at each bus.
2) The trajectory of dominant eigenvalue along P-V curves
(see Figs. 2 and 3).
3) The automatic disconnection of loads due to voltage sags.
We make the following observations.
1) The patterns of the P-V curves are similar in shape with
those of transmission networks but are different among
phases. As shown in Fig. 2, the upper portion of P-V curve
in phase c is stable, and the lower portion is unstable, while
Fig. 4. Sequence voltage magnitudes at Bus1216 as loading increases; the
upper portion of zero- and negative-sequence voltages are unstable while the
lower portions are stable.
the upper portion of phase a and b are unstable, and lower
portion are stable. This phenomenon is very different from
the transmission system in which the upper portion of P-V
curves is stable while the lower portion of P-V curves is
unstable.
2) It is interesting to note that, as we transform the bus voltage
from the abc coordinate to symmetrical components, the
upper half portion of the positive sequence is stable while
the lower half portions of zero and negative sequences of
voltage are stable (see Fig. 4).
3) The exact bifurcation value is 1.8208, and the corre-
sponding dominant eigenvalue is zero at the bifurcation
point (see Fig. 3). Physically speaking, this value asserts
that current network topology and control devices can
potentially support additional 182.08% load/generation
increases. Considering operational and engineering con-
straints, such as voltage limits and thermal limits, the
allowable load increase is 15.09% at which the first viola-
tion of the voltage limit occurs.
1370
Fig. 5. Comparison of 3-phase voltage magnitude of Bus1216 without and with
under-voltage load disconnection. As expected, the voltage magnitudes experi-
ence several sudden changes during curve tracing, each corresponding to one or
more load disconnections.
TABLE I
DISTRIBUTED GENERATOR DEPLOYED IN THE IEEE 8500-NODE TEST SYSTEM
Loads equipped with a load-shedding mechanism will auto-
matically disconnect owing to voltage sags. CDFLOW simu-
lates the disconnection of a load if its voltage drops to a spec-
ified threshold and reflects the impact of load shedding via the
corresponding power flow solution. Suppose loads at Bus1201
and Bus1227 are sheddable and the threshold voltage is set to
be 0.8 p.u. The impact of these loads was shown in Fig. 5; it
can be seen that the shape of the P-V curve alters and the cor-
responding load margin (i.e., load and/or renewable generation)
is increased. In addition, the corresponding weakest bus is then
changed from Bus1217 to Bus1102.
B. 8500 Node Test System
In this test case, six DGs of different capacities are connected
to the 8500-node distribution system (see Table I). This study
investigates their impacts on static stability limit. The initial out-
puts of DGs were at 60% of their capacities, and from which the
network is stressed because load variation and DGs’ real gener-
ation are uniformly increased.
The specified positive sequence voltages at these PV nodes
of three DGs are 1.0 p.u.; the following aspects are studied:
1) the effect of DG penetration on static stability limit;
2) the effect of DG penetration on system voltages.
As shown in Fig. 6, this P-V curve asserts that the distribute
network can deliver all of the DG’s maximum outputs to serve
the load while the delivery margin is, for this operating point,
about 8162.906 kW. The multiple P-V curves of phase a of six
selected buses are shown in Fig. 7. It can be observed that the
magnitude of the weak phase of a weak bus drops rapidly as the
loading condition and the penetration increases.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 29, NO. 3, MAY 2014
Fig. 6. Three-phase voltage magnitudes at Bus M1027055 as loading increase;
phase a is the weakest phase, and its voltage drops fast.
Fig. 7. Phase a voltage magnitudes of multiple nodes as the penetration of DG
increases.
On a laptop with Windows 7 32-bit, Intel Core 2.4-GHz i5
CPU, CDFLOW loads the network model of IEEE 8500-node
test feeder from data files in 0.198 s and requires four iterations,
0.215 s to solve the initial power flow at a given regulator tap
position (the tolerance is ). The regulator taps are changed
at most eight times during the initial solution, yielding a total of
18 iterations, this takes 0.565 s. When , and
are set to be 0.001, 0.05, and 5 respectively, it takes about 7.158
s to trace the P-V curves through 41 continuation steps and com-
pute the exact saddle-node bifurcation point for this test feeder.
If DG is modeled as PV node and its reactive power limits are
considered, the resulting P-V curve may change dramatically
and the corresponding maximum loading point can be signifi-
cantly reduced. Since distribution network can be unbalanced,
the weak location is phase wised, the weak phase and weak node
can be identified during the P-V curve tracing, thus, CDFLOW
can help operators determine accurate maximum power from
DGs that can be delivered by the study network structure to load
centers.
VII. CONCLUSION
Distribution networks need to integrate a wide variety of
distributed energy resources, especially renewable energy
resources. In this paper, a comprehensive tool, termed CD-
FLOW for tracing steady-state behavior of general unbalanced
distribution systems due to load and/or renewable variations is
described and evaluated. A detailed description of CDFLOW
and its numerical implementation regarding the predictor, cor-
rector, adaptive step-size control and parameterization schemes
are presented.
In this paper, CDFLOW has been illustrated to: 1) simulate
static behaviors of distribution networks due to load and/or re-
newable variations with/without control devices; 2) to study
SHENG AND CHIANG: CDFLOW: PRACTICAL TOOL FOR TRACING STATIONARY BEHAVIORS OF GENERAL DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS
voltage and thermal limit problems due to load and/or gener-
ation variations; 3) to evaluate maximum delivery capability
of distribution networks; and 4) simulate the impacts of auto-
matic disconnection of loads due to voltage sags on system static
behaviors.
CDFLOW was applied to the IEEE 8500-node test system
and a practical 1103-node distribution networks with promising
results. Further development in CDFLOW with detailed models
of various DG types, such as exciter control mode or inverter
control mode is desirable.
REFERENCES
[1] P. Barker, “Integrating Distributed Resources Into Electric Utility
Distribution Systems,” EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, USA, Tech. Rep.
EPRI-1004061, 2001.
[2] J. Banks and J. Carl et al., “Assessing the role of distributed power
systems in the U.S. power sector,” Brookings Inst. Energy Security Ini-
tiative and The Hoover Inst. Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy
Policy, Tech. Rep., 2011.
[3] X. Zhang, G. Karady, and Y. Guan, “Design methods investigation for
residential microgrid infrastructure,” Eur. Trans. Electr. Power, vol.
21, no. 8, pp. 2125–2141, Nov. 2011.
[4] X. Zhang, G. Karady, K. Piratla, and S. Ariaratnam, “Nexus between
distributed generation and urban water infrastructure,” in Proc. IEEE
PES General Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA, Jul. 20–26, 2012, pp. 1–8.
[5] H. D. Chiang, W. Ma, R. J. Thomas, and J. S. Thorp, “A tool for ana-
lyzing voltage collapse in electric power systems,” in Proc. 10th Power
Syst. Computational Conf., Graz, Austria, Aug. 1990, pp. 601–611.
[6] K. Iba, H. Suzuli, M. Egawa, and T. Watanabe, “Calculation of the
critical loading with nose curve using homotopy continuation method,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 584–593, May 1991.
[7] K. Okumura, K. Terai, and A. Kishima, “Solution of ill-conditioned
load flow equation by homotopy continuation method,” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Symp. Circuits Syst., Jun. 1991, vol. 5, pp. 2897–2899.
[8] V. Ajjarapu and C. Christy, “The continuation power flow: A tool for
steady state voltage stability analysis,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
7, no. 1, pp. 416–423, Feb. 1992.
[9] C. A. Canizares and F. L. Alvarado, “Point of collapse and continuation
methods for large AC/DC systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 8,
no. 1, pp. 1–8, Feb. 1993.
[10] H. D. Chiang, A. J. Flueck, K. S. Shah, and N. Balu, “CPFLOW: A
practical tool for tracing power system steady-state stationary behavior
due to load and generation variations,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
10, no. 2, pp. 623–634, May 1995.
[11] A. J. Flueck, H. D. Chiang, and K. S. Shah, “Investigating the installed
real power transfer capability of a large scale power system under a pro-
posed multiarea interchange schedule using CPFLOW,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 883–889, May 1996.
[12] X. P. Zhang, P. Ju, and E. Handschin, “Continuation three-phase
power flow: A tool for voltage stability analysis of unbalanced
three-phase power system,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20, no. 3,
pp. 1320–1329, Aug. 2005.
[13] M. Abdel-Akher, “Voltage stability analysis of unbalanced distribu-
tion systems using backward/forward sweep load-flow analysis method
with secant predictor,” IET Gen., Transm. Distrib., vol. 7, no. 3, pp.
309–317, 2012.
[14] A. Dukpa, B. Venkatesh, and M. EI-Hawary, “Application of continu-
ation power flow method in radial distribution systems,” Electr. Power
Syst. Res.ems , vol. 79, pp. 1503–1510, 2009.
[15] W. H. Kersting, Distribution System Modeling and Analysis. Boca
Raton, FL, USA: CRC, 2000.
[16] R. Zimmerman, “Comprehensive distribution power flow: modeling,
formulation, solution algorithms and analysis,” Ph.D. dissertation,
School of Electr. Comput. Eng., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY, USA,
1995.
1371
[17] R. Seydel, From Equilibrium to Chaos: Practical Bifurcation and Sta-
bility Analysis. New York, NY, USA: Elsevier, 1988.
[18] H. B. Keller, “Numerical solution of bifurcation and nonlinear eigen-
value problems,” in Applications of Bifurcation Theory, P. H. Rabi-
nowitz, Ed. New York, NY, USA: Academic, 1977, pp. 359–384.
[19] H. Mori and S. Yamada, “Continuation power flow with the nonlinear
predictor of the Lagrange’s polynomial interpolation formula,” in Proc.
IEEE/PES T&D Conf. Exhibition, 2002, vol. 2, pp. 1133–1138.
[20] W. H. Kersting and D. L. Mendive, “An application of ladder network
theory to the solution of three phase radial load flow problem,” pre-
sented at the IEEE Winter Power Meeting, New York, NY, USA, Jan.
1976, no. A76 044-8.
[21] T. H. Chen, M. S. Chen, K. J. Hwang, P. Kotas, and E. A. Chebli,
“Distribution system power flow analysis—A rigid approach,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1146–1152, Aug. 1991.
[22] P. A. N. Garcia, J. L. R. Pereira, S. Carneiro, Jr., V. M. Da Costa, and
N. Martins, “Three-phase power flow calculations using the current in-
jection method,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 508–514,
May 2000.
[23] OpenDSS. EPRI [Online]. Available: http://sourceforge.net/projects/
electricdss/
[24] GridLAB-D. PNLL [Online]. Available: http://www.gridlabd.org/
[25] IEEE PES Distribution System Analysis Subcommittee’s Distribution
Test Feeder Working Group, “Distribution test feeders,” [Online].
Available: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/dsacom/testfeeders.html
[26] W. H. Kersting, “Radial distribution test feeders,” in Proc. IEEE Power
Eng. Soc. Winter Meeting, 2001, vol. 2, pp. 908–912.
[27] K. N. Miu and H. D. Chiang, “Electric distribution system load ca-
pability: Problem formulation, solution algorithm, numerical results,”
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 436–442, Jan. 2000.
[28] S. M. M. Tafreshi and E. Mashhour, “Distributed generation modeling
for power flow studies and a three-phase unbalanced power flow solu-
tion for radial distribution systems considering distributed generation,”
Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 79, pp. 680–686, Apr. 2009.
Hao Sheng received the B.E. degree from North
China Electric Power University, Baoding, China,
in 2003, and the M.S. degree from Northeast Dianli
University, Jilin, China, in 2007, both in electrical
engineering. He is currently working toward the
Ph.D. degree at Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.
From 2007 to 2012, he was affiliated with
R&D Center of Beijing SiFang Automation
Co., Ltd. working on application software for
EMS/WAMS/DSA. His current research interests
include nonlinear systems theory and globally
convergent methods and their applications to transmission and distribution
systems analysis and control.
Hsiao-Dong Chiang (M’87–SM’91–F’97) received
the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering and
computer science from the University of California,
Berkeley, CA, USA, in 1986.
He has been a Professor of electrical and computer
engineering with Cornell University, Ithaca, NY,
USA, since 1998. He holds 14 U.S. patents and sev-
eral consultant positions. He and his research team
have published more than 350 papers in refereed
journals and conference proceedings. He is author of
the book Direct Methods for Power System Stability
Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, BCU Methodology and Applications (Wiley,
2010). His current research interests include nonlinear system theory, and their
practical applications to electric circuits, systems, signals, and images.