1

Abstract-- Integration of small distributed generation (DG)

units to weak distribution system is a major concern for power system engineers. Recent grid standards demand small DG operation with power factor control mode. Lack of sufficient reactive power support brings the problem of slow voltage recovery under post-fault condition. This paper presents a comprehensive VAR planning with a mixture of both static and dynamic compensators. In a system with number of DG units, a suitable location has been sorted out for minimum number of STATic COMpensator (STATCOM) to keep DG units remain interconnected. . With help of cost analysis, STATCOM rating has been minimized to ensure economic voltage restoration, which eventually increase DG intake in distribution system. An IEEE industrial test system with various motor loads has been used for simulation and analysis.

Index Terms-- Distributed generation, Dynamic reactive power compensation, Grid code, Voltage recovery Time, STATCOM rating.

I. INTRODUCTION NCENTIVES for installation of distributed generation (DG) units around the world have increased considerably over the

last few years. Emerging environmental concerns have put more emphasis on renewable energy based distributed generation. This could include wind, solar, biomass, storage and other wide range of energy sources, which are not necessarily generation in the traditional utility sense. Therefore, the more general term distributed resources (DR) have been used in literature. Making renewable a reliable source of energy, despite its irregular nature, is a big challenge. Grid requirements and standards are trying to shape the conventional control strategies to allow flawless integration of renewable as well as non-renewable based DG in the main grid. IEEE 1547-2003 establishes the basic interconnection rules and several other standards are moving to line up more closely to it [1].

The two most common adverse interactions of any type of DR with distribution system are a) voltage regulation and b) interference with over-current protection [2]. Voltage

This work was supported by the CSIRO Intelligent Grid Flagship Collaboration Research Fund.

Tareq Aziz (taziz@itee.uq.edu.au), T. K. Saha (saha@itee.uq.edu.au) and N. Mithulananthan (mithulan@itee.uq.edu.au) are with the School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Qld 4072, Australia.

instability problems occur in a system that cant supply reactive power demand during heavy loading and disturbances like faults. This problem is more severe in case of weak grids. With induction motors making up an ever increasing portion of power system loads, the focus on reactive power support becomes more obvious. Induction motor instantly becomes large VAR consumers upon disturbances pushing the grid voltage to very low levels and making fault recovery difficult to achieve. Specific standards define the allowed voltage range that bounds the maximum permitted voltage variation at DG node under both transient and steady state conditions. The post fault voltage recovery time at DG bus is the crucial part of these standards as it demands DG to trip, if recovery time exceeds certain limit [3], [4] . With increased penetration of DG units, early tripping of DG due to local disturbance can further risk the stability of the whole system. As grid standards request distributed generators bellow certain size to operate with constant power factor control mode [5], system operator holds responsibility to maintain the voltage profile within acceptable range at all nodes under all operating conditions.

In a grid with weak voltage support from remote generators, the problem of voltage fluctuation and fault recovery issues of DG units can be solved by using dynamic reactive power compensation. Capability of STATCOM to instantly absorb and deliver VARs makes it an excellent tool to prevent temporary voltage anomalies. Compared to Static Var Compensator (SVC), STATCOM offers faster operation because of voltage source converter (VSC) and no delay associated with thyristor firing [6]. The main advantage of STATCOM over SVC is that the compensating current does not depend on the voltage level at the point of common coupling and compensating current is not lowered as the terminal voltage drops [7]. Studies have shown that by placing a dynamic reactive power compensator at the point of common coupling of DG, transient and steady state stability can be improved, ultimately allowing DG units to be connected to network. For example, in a wind turbine integrated system, dynamic reactive power compensation is provided by a STATCOM or SVC located at the point of common coupling [8], [9], [10] to enhance system stability margin. In a recent study [11], a sensitivity index based methodology has been developed to place STATCOM on a bus other than distributed generator bus to improve uptime and avoid tripping of small scale generators. The approach limits

Static and Dynamic VAR Planning to Support Widespread Penetration of Distributed

Generation in Distribution System Tareq Aziz, Student Member, IEEE, Tapan K. Saha, Senior Member, IEEE and N. Mithulananthan,

Senior Member, IEEE

I

2

the number of high-cost dynamic compensator device STATCOM to a single location in a distribution system with multiple dispersed generators. But this study has not estimated the required rating of STATCOM to improve uptime of DG.

This paper presents a comprehensive analysis to estimate the required ratings of STATCOM with a target to fulfill two objectives: improved uptime and reduced cost of restoring voltage. Simulation results have been demonstrated on an industrial test system with large number of induction motors. Available grid interconnection requirements for distributed resources have been introduced in section II. Section III describes the brief methodology followed to achieve improved voltage profile in pre-fault and post-fault conditions. Section IV presents STATCOM details along with its dynamic model. Section V presents and analyses the results obtained. Section VI draws conclusions with scope of future work.

II. GRID INTERCONNECTION REQUIREMENTS Grid codes have been specified for distributed generators

under both - steady state and transient conditions. Usually, these operation requirements for DG units are specified at the point of common coupling. In general, the steady state operation requirements include reactive power generation capability for DG units, steady state voltage operating range, frequency operating range and voltage quality [12], [13].

A. Reactive power provision DG units are not allowed to regulate voltage actively at

point of common coupling according to IEEE Std 1547-2003 [5]. FERC orders 661 [14] fixes power factor at the coupling point between 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging for large wind parks over 20MW. In Australia, distributed generation with a capacity of less than 30MW shall not actively regulate the voltage at coupling point and power factor must lie in between 1 to 0.95 leading for both 100% and 50% real power injections [15].

B. Steady State Voltage Operation range Steady state voltage level at each load connection point is

one of the most important parameters for quality of supply. Like most other countries, in Australia, continuous voltage operating range has been defined as 10% of nominal voltage [15].

C. Interconnection system response to abnormal voltage IEEE Std. 1547-2003 states that any DR unit should cease

energizing the electric power system during abnormal system conditions according to the clearing times shown in Table I. Clearing time is the time between the start of an abnormal condition (due to some fault) and DG ceasing to energize the local area [5]. For DG units with generation capacity larger than 30 kW, the listed clearing times are default values though these can vary among utilities. Hence, the clearing times in Table I have been taken as default values for the present study.

TABLE I. INTERCONNECTION SYSTEM RESPONSE TO ABNORMAL VOLTAGES [5]

Voltage Range (p.u.) Clearing time (Sec)

V < 0.5 0.16 0.5 V < 0.88 2.00 1.1 < V < 1.2 1.00 V 1.2 0.16

III. METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED TO IMPROVE DG UPTIME A test distribution system has been integrated with

distributed generators where total demand of real power has been supplied by DG units. As DG supplies the total demand required by connected loads, this approach converts the test system to a normal interconnected microgrid. In order to fulfil steady state voltage requirement as in section IIB, optimal reactive power compensator placement is performed. Tabu search [16], which is a heuristic optimal technique has been used as an optimization tool for finding compensator placement and sizes in the present work. The objective function of the problem can be expressed as follows to minimize system energy loss and capacitor investment cost.

( )0 0 , ,, 1 1 ( , )ijI L

j ji e j j loss j

q q i j

Min C q k T P x q= =

+

(1)

In this formulation, power flow equations are used as equality constraints and VAR source placement restriction, reactive power generation restrictions, transformer tap-setting restriction, bus voltage restriction and power flow of each branch are used as inequality constraints. In the objective function, L and I represents number of load levels and candidate locations to install the capacitors. 0q stands for the sizing vector whose components are multiples of the standard size of single fixed capacitor bank, jq is the control scheme vector at load level j whose components are discrete variables. Investment cost associated with capacitor installed at location i is given by ( )ii qC . Power loss at a load level j with time duration jT is given by ,loss j jP T and ,e jk stands for different energy loss cost for each load level.

With three phase short circuit fault near to generator bus, time domain simulation is performed to check dynamic voltage restoring capability of the generator and load bus. Dynamic compensator (here STATCOM) is required only if static compensators fail to meet the grid requirement as mentioned in Table I. The node with highest inductive

RdIdV / has been chosen as location for STATCOM. Details of this procedure can be found in [11].

IV. STATCOM: MODELING AND RATING STATCOM is a Voltage Source Converter (VSC) based

system that injects or absorbs reactive current, independent to grid voltage. Figure 1 shows the basic block diagram of STATCOM. Reactive current injected or absorbed by STATCOM will profoundly influence grid node voltage. It is modeled either only as reactive current source or as a current source with active and reactive components. The current

3

injected by STATCOM depends on pulse width modulation (PWM) method used along with operational limits and characteristics of Insulated Gate Bi-polar Transistors (IGBT) in use. Therefore, current injected by STATCOM has appropriate limiters, which are dynamic in nature [7]. The magnitude and/or phase shift of the voltage source converter (V) must be controlled to maintain the bus voltage (Vs) constant.

STATCOM controller block has been shown in Fig. 2 [17]. With di and qi as reference currents in d-q reference frames, the active and reactive power injected by STATCOM can be expressed as

( cos sin )STATCOM d qP V i i = + (2)

( sin cos )STATCOM d qQ V i i = (3)

Fig. 1. Basic STATCOM model.

Fig. 2. Controller Block for STATCOM [17]

STATCOM ratings are based on many parameters, which are typically ruled by the amount of reactive power required to recover and ride through faults in distribution system. Usually, STATCOM has a symmetrical rating concerning inductive and

capacitive reactive power. For asymmetric rating, STATCOMs need to have a complementary reactive power source. The rating of STATCOM decides the maximum reactive power that can be injected or absorbed. Usually they have some extra capability called the transient capability [9], which is available to the system for a short period of time. Impact of placement on this transient capability has been observed in this work. Analysis for finding minimum rating of STATCOM has also considered necessary assumptions for network parameters such as X/R ratio and short circuit capacity.

Static & dynamic- in both reactive power compensation; final rating of the device is usually determined by system economics. But in a renewable based distribution system, where a major portion of demand is supplied by DG, minimum capacity of STATCOM must be adequate for the system to restore voltage after temporary disturbances. Cost analysis presented in section V will focus on this economic restoration of voltage maintaining grid code.

V. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

A. Test distribution System and Analytical Tool An IEEE 43 bus industrial distribution system with

21.76MW and 9MVAr of real and reactive power load, respectively has been studied as test system [18]. This test system has been shown in Fig. 3. The system has five different levels of voltage rated at 69kV, 13.8kV, 4.16kV, 2.4kV and as low as 0.48kV. Along with optimization, all the results presented in this paper were simulated with DigSilent PowerFactory 14.0 [19].

Fig.3. Single line diagram of 43 bus test system.

DG units considered in this study are conventional

synchronous generators with unity power factor operation. DG connection details for 43bus test system have been shown in appendix. The system is supplying peak demand of 28.82MW with a short circuit capacity of 300MVA. Grid X/R ratio has been taken as 4. Low values of both - short circuit capacity and X/R ratio implies it as a weak grid and hence requires

4

dynamic compensating device to restore voltage to pre-fault condition [20].

B. Capacitor and STATCOM placement As mentioned previously, Tabu search technique has been

used to find out the suitable location of fixed compensator in the system at peak load condition to maintain the primary requirement of grid code i.e. steady state voltage. With an objective function of minimizing grid loss with minimum available capacitor banks, 50% of the buses have been chosen as candidate bus. Table II shows the optimal capacitor places along with sensitivity values RdIdV / at the optimal compensation nodes. These values are calculated numerically with small perturbations. A negative RdIdV / on bus 39 clearly shows that, bus 39 requires STATCOM to support voltage recovery after fault near to generator bus.

TABLE II. OPTIMAL CAPACITOR SOLUTION FOR 43 BUS SYSTEM Optimal

Node Capacitor

Size (MVAr)

Sensitivity index

RdIdV / (Vp.u/Ip.u.) Presence ofSTATCOM

49 0.6 0.20 (Capacitive) No 29 0.6 0.25 (Capacitive) No 21 0.6 0.33 (Capacitive) No 51 0.6 0.2 (Capacitive) No 41 0.6 0.2 (Capacitive) No 25 0.6 0.03 (Capacitive) No 30 0.6 0.25 (Capacitive) No 39 1.1 -0.25 (Inductive) Yes 17 1.1 0.25 (Capacitive) No 35 1.2 0.2 (Capacitive) No 18 1.2 0.2 (Capacitive) No 37 1.2 0.33 (Capacitive) No 33 1.2 0.25 (Capacitive) No

C. Voltage Recovery with STATCOM Voltage recovery requirement in [3] and [5], specifies that

the DG terminal voltage must come back to 90% of its normal operating voltage within 2 sec after a fault takes place in location near to generator bus. In present work, 43 bus test system under peak load condition is subjected to a three phase low impedance fault (with a fault reactance of 0.05 ) at bus 31 and the fault is cleared after 10 cycles. Figure 4 compares the performance of voltage recovery for bus 4 for different cases, namely without compensators, with capacitors and with STATCOM at bus 39. Figure 5 shows voltage at bus 50 where the second DG unit is connected for the same cases. Results are tabulated in Table III, which shows that other than STATCOM at bus 39, no controller arrangement can support grid requirement at bus 4 as they have recovery time greater than 2sec. For bus 50, recovery time is found less than 2sec in all arrangements considered. So for further investigation, the present work concentrates on voltage profile at bus 4. For primary study, STATCOM reactive power has been set at 1.1MVAr (according to Table II).

Fig 4. Voltage at Bus 4 with DG1

Fig 5. Voltage at Bus 50 with DG2

TABLE III. VOLTAGE RECOVERY TIME DG node Without

Capacitors With

Capacitors With STATCOM at bus 39

4 (DG1) 3.02 Sec 2.04 Sec 1.61 Sec 50 (DG2) 0.6 Sec 0.42 Sec 0.31 Sec

As mentioned earlier, according to common practice,

dynamic reactive power compensators are usually placed at the point of common coupling to support fast voltage recovery. Now STATCOM of same rating is placed on generator bus 4 to compare with the results listed in Table III. Time domain simulation plot showing the voltage profile is given in Fig. 6, which shows that voltage recovery is delayed to 5 cycles with STATCOM placed at bus 4 compared to STATCOM at bus 39.

Time domain plot of reactive power output from STATCOM of rating 2.2MVAr with two different placements has been shown in Fig. 7. Because of lengthy overshoot period, placement at bus 4 requires STATCOM with higher transient capability to restore voltage. So in terms of transient/overload capability too, bus 39 is the optimum place for placing STATCOM in this system.

5

Fig 6. Voltage at Bus 4 with DG1

Fig 7. Dynamic reactive power from STATCOM at bus 39 and bus 4

D. STATCOM Rating Study An investigation of various sizes of STATCOM on voltage

restoring time has been performed through multiple time domain simulations. As dynamic reactive power devices are very expensive [9], a mixture of static and dynamic compensators have been placed at bus 39 to minimize the cost of restoring voltage. Commercially available 3-phase capacitor sizes with real cost/kVAr have been used for the present study [21]. Here the capacitor sizes range from 0.15MVAr to 2.85MVAr. STATCOM range has been chosen from 100kVAr to 7MVAr [22]. Upper limits of capacitor and STATCOM have been selected 2.85MVAr and 7MVAr respectively so that reactive power injection at node does not violate voltage limit 1.1p.u at bus 39 under steady state condition. Fig 8. shows voltage restoring time vs. combination of capacitor and STATCOM rating plot.

Fig 8. Voltage restoring time with various combinations of Capacitors and STATCOM

This plot shows that as STATCOM size is lowered below 0.4MVAr, combination with any size of available capacitors fail to restore the voltage within 2 sec after a three phase fault occurs at bus 31. A STATCOM of rating greater than 0.4MVAr with a combination of any size of capacitor makes the uptime less than 2sec.

Minimum restoring time 1.56sec is achieved with a combination of 4MVAr of STATCOM and 0.15MVAr of capacitor. Dynamic reactive power output from 4MVAr STATCOM, which is injected at bus 39 has been plotted in Fig. 9.

Fig 9. Dynamic reactive power output from 4MVAr STATCOM with minimum restoring time of 1.56sec

E. Cost Analysis for Restoring Voltage A cost analysis for the combinations of static and dynamic

compensator for restoring voltage has been plotted in Fig. 10. Capacitor cost has been taken as 8$/kVAr whereas STATCOM cost has been taken as 50$/kVAr [10]. Fig. 10 plots the cost of restoring voltage for restoring times found with different mixture of capacitor and STATCOM from Section V.D. In our present work, primary focus is to maintain grid code and avoid tripping of DG units. Hence STATCOM

6

value lower than 0.4MVAr with all sets of capacitor combinations will be discarded because of restoring time greater than 2sec. The lowest restoring time 1.56sec as found earlier in Section V.D would cost 2,01,200$ according to the cost estimate/kVAr. But this might not be economically feasible option.

An analysis of Fig. 10 shows that the lowest cost of restoring voltage is 21,200$ for a combination of 0.4MVAr STATCOM with 0.15MVAr capacitor. This combination results in an uptime of 1.78sec which is certainly maintaining grid code. The resulting bus voltage at bus 39 with this combination of compensator is 0.98p.u. To bring the bus voltage to 1 p.u., capacitor with a rating of 0.75MVAr is required, which makes the total reactive power injection 1.15 MVAr at steady state. This amount is almost equal to MVAr requirement by Tabu search (1.1MVAr) for maintaining steady state voltage as in Table II. Because of choosing a higher rating capacitor, cost increases by around 7200$. As can be seen from these results, around one-third of total reactive power required at steady state needs to be allocated from dynamic source to ensure grid compatible voltage recovery.

Fig 10. Cost analysis for restoring voltage at DG bus

VI. CONCLUSIONS With a widespread penetration of distributed generation,

there is an urge of economic reactive power planning for todays stressed system. In this paper, we have investigated a unified approach toward planning of static and dynamic compensator in a distributed manner to improve uptime of DG units and make them remain energized during abnormal conditions. A study has been done to minimize the size of expensive dynamic VAR compensator i.e. STATCOM. Results show that cost of voltage restoration after fault can be minimized with proper placement and combination of fixed and dynamic compensator in a system. Cost analysis helps to choose economic rating of compensators. Future work will be focused on quantitative relationship between post fault recovery voltage and network/ control parameters with required controllable range.

APPENDIX TABLE IV. DISTRIBUTED GENERATION: CAPACITY AND LOCATION

DISTRIBUTED GENERATOR DG1 DG2

Location bus 4 50 MVA rating 20 20 Power factor 1 1

VII. REFERENCES [1] R. C. Dugan, T. S. Key, G. J. Ball, "Distributed resources standards,"

IEEE Industry Applications Magazine, vol. 12, pp. 27-34, 2006. [2] E. J. Coster, J. M. A. Myrzik, B. Kruimer, W. L. Kling, "Integration

Issues of Distributed Generation in Distribution Grids," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 99, pp. 28-39, 2011.

[3] "IEEE Application Guide for IEEE Std 1547, IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems," IEEE Std 1547.2-2008, pp. 1-207, 2009.

[4] "International Grid Code Comparison (IGCC-list)" online available at http://www.gl-group.com/pdf/IGCC_list.pdf."

[5] "IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources With Electric Power Systems," IEEE Std 1547-2003, pp. 0_1-16, 2003.

[6] M. Noroozian, N. A. Petersson, B. Thorvaldson, A. B. Nilsson, C. W. Taylor, "Benefits of SVC and STATCOM for electric utility application," in Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, 2003, IEEE PES, vol.3, pp. 1143-1150, 2003.

[7] N. G. Hingorani and L. Gyugyi, Understanding FACTS : concepts and technology of flexible AC transmission systems. Delhi: IEEE Press, 2001.

[8] C. Chompoo-inwai, C. Yingvivatanapong, K. Methaprayoon, Lee Wei-Jen, "Reactive compensation techniques to improve the ride-through capability of wind turbine during disturbance,", IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 41, pp. 666-672, 2005.

[9] N. K. Ardeshna and B. H. Chowdhury, "Supporting islanded microgrid operations in the presence of intermittent wind generation," in IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting 2010, 2010, pp. 1-8.

[10] M. Molinas, Suul Jon Are, T. Undeland, "Low Voltage Ride Through of Wind Farms With Cage Generators: STATCOM Versus SVC," IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 23, pp. 1104-1117, 2008.

[11] Tareq Aziz, U. P. Mhaskar, Tapan K. Saha , N. Mithulanathan, "A Grid Compatible Methodology for Reactive Power Compensation in Renewable Based Distribution System " accepted in IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting 2011, Detroit, Michigan, 2011.

[12] Qiuwei Wu, Zhao Xu, J. stergaard, "Grid integration issues for large scale wind power plants (WPPs)," in IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting 2010, 2010, pp. 1-6.

[13] "CSIRO Intelligent Grid Flagship Project P1 Internal Report," 2010. [14] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), "Interconnection for

Wind Energy " Issued June 2, 2005. [15] A. E. M. Commission, "National Electricity Amendment (Technical

Standards for wind and other generators connections) Rule 2007," 8 March, 2007, www.aemc.gov.au.

[16] H. Yann-Chang, Yang Hong-Tzer, Huang Ching-Lien, "Solving the capacitor placement problem in a radial distribution system using Tabu Search approach," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 11, pp. 1868-1873, 1996.

[17] "Technical documentation on dynamic modeling of Doubly-Fed Induction Machine wind-generators," DIgSILENT Powerfactory 13.2, DigSILENT GmbH, Germany, 30 Sept 2003.

[18] "IEEE Recommended Practice for Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Analysis," IEEE Std 399-1997, 1998.

[19] DIgSILENTGmbH, "DIgSILENT PowerFactory V14.0 -User Manual," DIgSILENT GmbH, 2008.

[20] B. Pokharel and G. Wenzhong, "Mitigation of disturbances in DFIG-based wind farm connected to weak distribution system using STATCOM," in North American Power Symposium (NAPS), 2010, 2010, pp. 1-7.

[21] S. F. Mekhamer, S. A. Soliman, M. A. Moustafa, M. E. El-Hawary "Application of fuzzy logic for reactive-power compensation of radial distribution feeders," IEEE Transactions on ,Power Systems, vol. 18, pp. 206-213, 2003.

[22] Product Brochure: ABB Power Quality Solutions, PCS100 STATCOM, Available: www.abb.com/powerquality.

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 200 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 2.00333 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 400 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 600 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00167 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False

/CreateJDFFile false /Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /NA /PreserveEditing false /UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ]>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice