202

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 21, NO. 1, JANUARY 2006

A Fuzzy Multiobjective Approach for Network

Reconfiguration of Distribution Systems
Debapriya Das

AbstractThis paper presents an algorithm for network reconfiguration based on the heuristic rules and fuzzy multiobjective
approach. Multiple objectives are considered for load balancing
among the feeders and also to minimize the real power loss, deviation of nodes voltage, and branch current constraint violation,
while subject to a radial network structure in which all loads must
be energized. These four objectives are modeled with fuzzy sets to
evaluate their imprecise nature and one can provide his or her anticipated value of each objective. Heuristic rules are also incorporated in the algorithm for minimizing the number of tie-switch operations. The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated
through an example.
Index TermsFuzzy set theory, multiobjective approach, reconfiguration.

I. INTRODUCTION

ISTRIBUTION networks are configured radially. Their

configurations may be varied with manual or automatic
switching operations so that all of the loads are supplied and reduce power loss, increase system security, and enhance power
quality. Reconfiguration also relieves the overloading of the network components. The change in network configuration is performed by opening sectionalizing (normally closed) and closing
tie (normally open) switches of the network. These switchings
are performed in such a way that the radiality of the network
is maintained and all of the loads are energized. Obviously, the
greater the number of switches is, the greater the possibilities
are for reconfiguration and the better the effects are.
In recent years, considerable research has been conducted for
loss minimization in the area of network reconfiguration of distribution systems. Distribution system reconfiguration for loss
reduction was first proposed by Merlin and Back [1]. They have
used a branch-and-bound-type optimization technique to determine the minimum loss configuration. In this method, all network switches are first closed to form a meshed network. The
switches are then opened successively to restore radial configuration. Based on the method of Merlin and Back [1], a heuristic
algorithm has been suggested by Shirmohammadi and Hong [2].
Here also, the solution procedure starts by closing all of the
network switches which are then opened one after another so
as to establish the optimum flow pattern in the network. Many
approximations of the method of Merlin and Back have been
overcome in this algorithm. Borozan et al. [3] have presented
Manuscript received February 26, 2004; revised February 15, 2005. Paper no.
TPWRD-00089-2004.
The author is with the Electrical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kharagpur 721302, India (e-mail: ddas@ee.iitkgp.ernet.in).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2005.852335

a network reconfiguration technique similar to that of Shirmohammadi and Hong [2]. However, their methodology contains
three main parts: real-time load estimation, effective determination of power loss configuration, and cost/benefit evaluation.
Civanlar et al. [4] made use solely of heuristics to determine
a distribution system configuration which would reduce line
losses. Civanlar et al. made use of what is known as a branch
exchange operation for switching operations: the opening of
any switch was required to correspond to the closure of another switch, ensuring that the radial nature of the distribution
system would be preserved. Baran and Wu [5] have made an
attempt to improve the method of Civanlar et al. [4] by introducing two approximation formulas for power flow in the
transfer of system loads. The power-flow equations used by
Baran and Wu were defined by recursive approximation of P,
Q, and V at each node. Lu et al. [6] have proposed two algorithms to minimize the real power loss in distribution networks. Taylor and Lubekaman [7] have proposed a heuristic
approach to distribution feeder reconfiguration for loss reduction, removal of transformer overloads, and feeder constraint
problems. To obtain global optimal or, at least near global optimal solutions, Chiang and Jean-Jumean [8], [9] and Jeon et
al. [10] have proposed new solution methodologies using the
simulated annealing algorithm for the reconfiguration. Wagner
et al. [11] have presented a comparison of various methods applied to feeder reconfiguration for loss reduction and they have
suggested that heuristic approaches can provide substantial savings and suitable for real-time implementation. Chen and Cho
[12] have presented an optimal switching criteria using binary
integer programming with a branch-and-bound technique for
network reconfiguration to achieve energy loss minimization
for short-term and long-term operation of distribution systems.
Zhou et al. [13] have proposed two feeder reconfiguration algorithms for the purpose of service restoration and load balancing. Their methodologies combined the optimization techniques with heuristic rules and fuzzy logic for efficiency and
robust performance. Zhou et al. [14] have also proposed another heuristic-based feeder reconfiguration algorithm for reducing the operating cost in the real-time operation environment. Taleski and Rajicic [15] have proposed a method to determine the configuration with minimum energy losses for a given
period. Borozan and Rajakovic [16] have considered the application aspects of optimal distribution network reconfiguration.
Lin and Chin [17] have presented an algorithm for distribution
feeder reconfiguration using voltage index, ohmic index, and
decision index to determine the switching operation. Liu et al.
[18], Jung et al. [19], and Augugliaro et al. [20] have proposed

0885-8977/$20.00 2006 IEEE

DAS: A FUZZY MULTIOBJECTIVE APPROACH FOR NETWORK RECONFIGURATION OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

artificial-intelligence-based applications in a minimum loss reconfiguration. Nara et al. [21], [22] have proposed network reconfiguration techniques for minimum loss using a genetic algorithm (GA).
In the light of the above developments, the present work considers the network reconfiguration problem as a multiple objectives problem subject to operational and electric constraints.
The problem formulation proposed herein considers four different objectives related to:
1) minimization of the systems power loss;
2) minimization of the deviation of nodes voltage;
3) minimization of the branch current constraint violation;
4) load balancing among various feeders.
At the same time, a radial network structure must remain after
network reconfiguration in which all loads must be energized.
These four objectives are modeled with fuzzy sets to evaluate
their imprecise nature. Heuristic rules are also incorporated in
the proposed algorithm for minimizing the number of tie-switch
operations.
II. MEMBERSHIP FUNCTIONS OF DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES
In the fuzzy domain, each objective is associated with a membership function. The membership function indicates the degree of satisfaction of the objective. In the crisp domain, either
the objective is satisfied or it is violated, implying membership
values of unity and zero, respectively. On the contrary, fuzzy
sets entertain varying degrees of membership function values
from zero to unity. Thus, fuzzy set theory is an extension of
standard set theory [23]. The membership function consists of a
lower and upper bound value together with a strictly monotonically decreasing and continuous function for different objectives
which are described below.
A. Membership Function for Real Power Loss Reduction
The basic purpose for this membership function is to reduce
the real power loss of the system.
Let us define
for

(1)

is the total number of branches in the loop including

where
is the total
tie-branch, when th tie-switch is closed,
real power loss of the radial configuration of the system when
th branch in the loop is opened, and
is the total real
power loss before network reconfiguration.
Equation (1) indicates that if is high, power loss reduction
is low and, hence, a lower membership value is assigned and if
is low, the power loss reduction is high and a higher membership value is assigned.
The membership function for real power loss reduction is
can be written as
given in Fig. 1. From Fig. 1,
for
for
for

(2)

203

Fig. 1. Membership function for power-loss reduction.

Fig. 2. Membership function for maximum node voltage deviation.

In the present work, it has been assumed that

and
. This means if the loss is 50% or less of the
, the unity membership value is assigned and if the loss
, the zero membership value is
is 100% or more of
assigned.
B. Membership Function for Maximum Node Voltage
Deviation
The basic purpose of this membership function is that the
deviation of nodes voltage should be less.
Let us define
for
(3)
where
total number of branches in the loop including the tie
branch, when the th tie switch is closed;
total number of nodes of the system;
voltage of the substation (in per unit);
voltage of node corresponding to the opening of the
th branch in the loop (in per unit).
If the maximum value of nodes voltage deviation is less, then
a higher membership value is assigned and if deviation is more,
then a lower membership value is assigned.
Fig. 2 shows the membership function for maximum node
voltage deviation. From Fig. 2, we can write
for
for
for

(4)

and
have
In the present work,
means if the substation voltage
been considered.
is 1.0 p.u., then the minimum system voltage will be 0.95 p.u.
and if the minimum system voltage is greater than or equal to
0.95 p.u., the unity membership value is assigned. Similarly, if
, the minimum system voltage will be 0.90 p.u. and
if the minimum system voltage is less than or equal to 0.90 p.u.,
the zero membership value is assigned.

204

Fig. 3.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 21, NO. 1, JANUARY 2006

Membership function for maximum branch current loading index.

Fig. 4.

C. Membership Function for Maximum Branch Current

Loading Index

Membership function for the load balancing index.

where

The basic purpose for this membership function is to minimize the branch current constraint violation.
Let us define
Branch current loading index
for
(5)
where
total number of branches in the loop including the
tie branch when the th tie switch is closed;
magnitude of current of branch-m when the th
branch in the loop is opened;
line capacity of branch-m;
total number of the nodes of the system.
Let us define
for

total number of branches including the tie branch in

the loop when the th tie switch is closed;
total number of feeders;
current of feeder corresponding to the opening of
the th branch in the loop;
is the maximum of all the feeder currents corresponding to the opening of the th branch in the loop
for
.
Let us define
for
(9)
Equation (9) indicates that a better load balancing can be
achieved if the value of
is low. Therefore, for lower , a
higher membership grade is assigned and for higher , a lower
membership grade is assigned.
Fig. 4 shows the membership function for . From Fig. 4,
we can write
for

(6)
When the maximum value of branch current loading index
exceeds unity, a lower membership value is assigned and as long
as it is less than or equal to unity, the maximum membership
value is assigned (i.e., unity).
The membership function for the maximum branch current
loading index is shown in Fig. 3. From Fig. 3, we can write
for
for
for

(7)

and
have been considIn this case,
indicates that as long as the branch currents of
ered.
the system are less than or equal to their respective line capacity,
indicates
unity membership value is assigned and
that 15% overloading is allowed for each branch and if in any
branch, the current is greater than or equal to 1.15 times the line
capacity, a zero membership value is assigned.
D. Membership Function for Feeder Load Balancing
Load balancing is one of the major objectives of feeder reconfiguration. An effective strategy to increase the loading margin of
heavily loaded feeders is to transfer part of their loads to lightly
loaded feeders. Feeder load balancing index may be given as
for
(8)

for
for

(10)

In this case,
and
have been conindicates that the maximum deviation of
sidered.
feeder currents will be 10% with respect to the maximum value
of feeder current and if this deviation is less than or equal to
10%, the unity membership value is assigned and
indicates that if this deviation is greater than 50%, a zero membership value is assigned.
III. OPTIMIZATION IN FUZZY ENVIRONMENT
When there are multiple objectives to be satisfied simultaneously, a compromise has to be made to get the best solution.
One solution methodology for the multiobjective optimization
in fuzzy framework is based on the maxmin principle [24]
which is described as follows.
Step 1) For each option considered, the membership values
of all the different objectives are evaluated.
For example, when the th tie switch of a distribution system is closed, a loop is formed with
number of branches in the loop. Now, opening each
branch in this loop is an option. After opening the
th branch in this loop (radial structure is retained),
,
the load-flow run was carried out to compute
,
, and
, for
.
Step 2) The degree of overall satisfaction for this option is
the minimum of all the above membership values.

DAS: A FUZZY MULTIOBJECTIVE APPROACH FOR NETWORK RECONFIGURATION OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

205

Now, a fuzzy decision for overall satisfaction

may be defined as the choice that satisfies all of
the objectives and if we interpret this as a logical
and, we can model it with the intersection of
the fuzzy sets. In the present work, classical fuzzy
set intersection is used and the fuzzy decision for
overall satisfaction is then given by
for
(11)
Step 3) The optimal solution is the maximum of all such
overall degrees of satisfaction.
Now, a fuzzy decision for an optimal solution
may be defined as the choice that maximizes all
such overall degrees of satisfaction and if we interpret this as a logical or we can model it with the
union of fuzzy sets. In the present work, the classical fuzzy set union is used and the fuzzy decision
for an optimal solution is then given by
for

(12)

IV. HEURISTIC RULES FOR MINIMIZING THE NUMBER OF

TIE-SWITCH OPERATIONS AND ALGORITHM
The optimal switching strategies for network reconfiguration
proposed by most of the researchers need to consider every candidate switch to evaluate the effectiveness of loss reduction,
and extensive numerical computation is often required. In the
present work, heuristic rules are considered which minimize the
number of tie-switch operations. These heuristic rules are explained below.
In the first iteration, compute the voltage difference across
all of the open tie switches and detect the open tie switch across
which the voltage difference is maximum. If this maximum
voltage difference is greater than some specified value , then
this tie switch is considered first. It is expected that because
of the largest voltage difference, this switching will cause
maximum loss reduction, improve minimum system voltage,
and will provide better load balancing. In the next iteration, the
same procedure is repeated for the remaining tie-switches and
so forth.
If, in any iteration, this maximum voltage difference is less
, then this tie-switch operation is
than the specified value
discarded and automatically other tie-switch operations are discarded because the voltage difference across all other open tie
switches is less than .
A complete algorithm for the proposed method of the network
reconfiguration process is given below:
Step 1) read system data;
Step 2) run the load-flow program for radial distribution
networks;
Step 3) compute the voltage difference across the open tie
for
);
switches (i.e.,
Step 4) identify the open tie switch across which the
voltage difference is maximum and its code (i.e.,
);
, go to Step 6); otherwise, go to Step
Step 5) if
10);

Fig. 5.

Sample distribution networks with four tie branches.

Step 6) select the tie switch and identify the total

number of loop branches
including the tie
branch when the tie-switch is closed;
Step 7) open one branch at a time in the loop and evaluate
the membership value for each objective and also
evaluate the overall degree of satisfaction (i.e., for
to , compute
,
,
, and
using
(2), (4), (7), and (10), respectively, and evaluate:
;
Step 8) Obtain the optimal solution for the operation of
, for
tie-switch , (i.e.,
);
and rearrange the coding of the rest
Step 9)
of the tie switches and go to Step 2);
Step 10) print output results;
Step 11) stop.
V. EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED METHOD
For the purpose of explanation of the proposed algorithm,
consider the sample radial distribution system as shown in
Fig. 5. It is assumed that every branch has a sectionalizing
switch. This system has three feeders, four tie branches, and
four tie switches.
Initially, run the load-flow program. Now compute the voltage
difference across all of the open tie-switches and detect the open
tie-switch across which the voltage difference is maximum. Say
the voltage difference across the open tie switch, tie 4 (Fig. 5) is
maximum. Now check whether this voltage difference is greater
or not. Say this voltage difference
than some specified value
is greater than ; therefore, this tie switch (tie 4) will be considered first.
Now if tie 4 is closed, a loop will be formed and the total
number of branches including tie branch (1324) in this loop
will be 10. These branches are 1312, 1211, 1110, 1026,
2718, 1819, 1922, 2223, 2324, and 2413. Opening each
branch in this loop is an option. As mentioned in Section III,
for each option considered, the membership values of all the
objectives are evaluated. Therefore, one branch at a time in the
loop is opened (radial structure is retained) and the membership
value of each objective is evaluated.

206

Fig. 6.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 21, NO. 1, JANUARY 2006

Radial configuration after the first switching operation.

Fig. 7. Radial configuration after the second switching operation.

Say in this loop, first open the sectionalizing switch of branch

1312 (radial structure is retained) and run the load-flow pro,
,
, and
using (2),
gram. After that, compute
(4), (7), and (10), respectively. Now the overall degree of satisfor this option is
faction
(13)
Similarly, now close the sectionalizing switch of branch
1312, and open the sectionalizing switch of branch 1211
and run the load-flow program. Now, the overall degree of
satisfaction
for this option is computed as
(14)
Similarly,
have to be computed. The optimal solution
for this tie switch (tie
4) operation is the maximum of all such overall degrees of
satisfaction. Therefore, the optimal solution for this tie switch
(tie 4) operation can be given as
(15)
Say
, which means the optimal solution for this
tie switch (tie 4) operation can be obtained by opening the sectionalizing switch of branch 1211 and closing the tie switch
(tie 4) of the tie branch 2413, and the radial structure of the
network is retained.
Fig. 6 shows the radial configuration of the network after the
first switching operation.
Again, run the load-flow program, and the voltage difference across the remaining open tie switches (i.e.,, tie-1, tie-2,
and tie-3) is computed and say the voltage difference across tie
switch, tie 1 is maximum. Now check whether the voltage difference across tie 1 is greater than or not. Say this is greater
than and this tie switch (tie 1) is closed to form a loop in this
system and a similar procedure is repeated as mentioned before. Say the optimal solution for this tie-switch (tie-1) operation suggests opening the sectionalizing switch of branch 1314
and closing the tie-switch (tie-1) of the tie-branch 146. Therefore, the sectionalizing switch of branch 1314 must be opened
and the tie-switch (tie-1) of the tie-branch 146 must be closed
and Fig. 7 shows the radial configuration of this network after
a second switching operation. Now Fig. 7 consists of two tie
switches (tie 2 and tie 3). Again, run the load-flow program
and the voltage difference across these tie-switches is computed

Fig. 8. Final radial configuration.

and say the voltage difference across tie 3 is maximum and it is

checked whether this voltage difference is greater or not. Suppose this is less than , then this switching option will be discarded and automatically another switching option will also be
discarded because the voltage difference across the remaining
open tie-switches is less than . Fig. 8 shows the final radial
configuration.
The author has tested a few examples and it was found that
gives satisfactory results. In the present
a value of
work, a load-flow algorithm [25] for solving radial distribution
networks has been used.
VI. EXAMPLE
The tested system is a 11-kV radial distribution system having
two substations, four feeders, 70 nodes, and 78 branches (including tie branches) as shown in Fig. 9. Tie switches of this
system are open in normal conditions. Data for this system are
given in the Appendix.
Before network reconfiguration, the total real power loss of
this system is 227.53 kW. The minimum voltage is
p.u.
Fig. 10 shows the final radial configuration of the system.
After reconfiguration, the total real power loss is 205.32 kW.
p.u.
The minimum voltage is

DAS: A FUZZY MULTIOBJECTIVE APPROACH FOR NETWORK RECONFIGURATION OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

207

TABLE I
OPTIMAL SOLUTION FOR TIE-SWITCH OPERATION

TABLE II
FEEDERS CURRENT BEFORE AND AFTER RECONFIGURATION

Fig. 9. Tested radial distribution system.

Fig. 10.

Final radial configuration.

It is to be noted here that during the iterative process, the proposed algorithm has considered only six out of 11 tie switches
(i.e., tie 1, tie 3, tie 4, tie 7, tie 8, and tie 9) and remaining tie
switches have been discarded. Because during each iteration,
the proposed algorithm has detected the tie switch across which
the voltage difference is maximum and if this maximum voltage
, then this tie switch is
difference is greater than
considered first. In this example, it was found that in the first
iteration, the voltage difference across tie 1
is max. Therefore, tie switch, tie 1 was
imum and also
considered first.
Similarly in the second iteration, the voltage difference across
was found to be maximum and also
.
tie 3
Therefore tie switch, tie 3 was considered in the second iteration. This process was repeated for the remaining tie switches.
In this fashion, the proposed algorithm considered tie 4, tie 7, tie
8, and tie 9 and discarded the remaining tie switches because the
voltage difference across all of these tie switches was less than
. After network reconfiguration, the real power loss reduction
is 9.8% and minimum voltage of the system has improved from
0.9052 to 0.9268 p.u.
Table I shows the optimal solution (membership values) after
each tie-switch operation. From Table I, it is seen that the solution has improved after each tie-switch operation.
Table II shows the feeders current before and after network
reconfiguration. From Table II, it is seen that the feeders current
are more balanced after reconfiguration.
It is worth mentioning here that the global or near global optimum results depend on the minimum and maximum limiting
values of each objective and the value of . There may be a possibility of local optimum results if these values are not properly
selected. Therefore, the proper choice of minimum and maximum limiting values of each objective and the value of is
very important for obtaining the global or near global optimum
solution.

208

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 21, NO. 1, JANUARY 2006

TABLE III
LINE AND LOAD DATA

VII. CONCLUSION
In the present work, a heuristic-based fuzzy multiobjective algorithm has been proposed to solve the network reconfiguration
problem in a radial distribution system. The objectives considered attempt to maximize the fuzzy satisfaction of the minimization of real power loss, minimization of the deviations of nodes
voltage, minimization of the branch current constraint violation,
and feeder load balancing subject to the radial network structure
in which all loads must be energized. The proposed algorithm
also minimizes the number of tie-switch operations and, hence,
the search space is reduced and computational time is less. The
simulation on a medium-size distribution network has proved
the feasibility of the proposed approach and the obtained results are quite good and they encourage the implementation of
the strategy on a large-size distribution network.
APPENDIX
Other data: current carrying capacity of all tie branches are
234.0 A. The current carrying capacity of branches 1 to 8, 17 to
23, 31 to 39, and 52 to 57 is 270 A. For branches 9 to 16, 24 to
30, 40 to 51, and 58 to 68, it is 208 A (see Table III).
REFERENCES

The proposed method has not been compared with other

methods, since, by the authors knowledge, there are no similar
methods suitable for comparison. The proposed method has
been implemented on a Pentium-IV computer and CPU time
for truly exhaustive search was only about 3 s.

[1] A. Merlin and H. Back, Search for a minimal-loss operating spanning

tree configuration in an urban power distribution system, in Proc. 5th
Power System Computation Conf., Cambridge, U.K., 1975, pp. 118.
[2] D. Shirmohammadi and H. W. Hong, Reconfiguration of electric distribution networks for resistive line loss reduction, IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 14921498, Apr. 1989.
[3] V. Borozan, D. Rajicic, and R. Ackovski, Improved method for loss
minimization in distribution networks, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
10, no. 3, pp. 14201425, Aug. 1995.
[4] S. Civanlar, J. J. Grainger, H. Yin, and S. S. H. Lee, Distribution feeder
reconfiguration for loss reduction, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 3, no.
3, pp. 12171223, Jul. 1988.
[5] M. E. Baran and F. F. Wu, Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 14011407, Aug. 1989.
[6] C. C. Liu, S. J. Lee, and K. Vu, Loss minimization of distribution
feeders: Optimality and algorithms, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol.
4, no. 1, pp. 12811289, Apr. 1989.
[7] T. Taylor and D. Lubkeman, Implementation of heuristic search strategies for distribution feeder reconfiguration, IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 239246, Jan. 1990.
[8] H. D. Chiang and R. M. Jean-Jameau, Optimal network reconfiguration in distribution systems, part 1: A new formulation and a solution
methodology, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 19021909,
Oct. 1990.
[9]
, Optimal network reconfigurations in distribution systems, part
2: Solution algorithms and numerical results, IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 15681574, Jul. 1990.
[10] Y. J. Jeon, J. C. Kim, J. O. Kim, J. R. Shin, and K. Y. Lee, An
efficient simulated annealing algorithm for network reconfiguration in
large-scale distribution systems, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 17, no.
4, pp. 10701078, Oct. 2002.
[11] T. P. Wagner, A. Y. Chikhani, and R. Hackam, Feeder reconfiguration for loss reduction, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 6, no. 4, pp.
19221933, Oct. 1991.
[12] C. S. Chen and M. Y. Cho, Energy loss reduction by critical switches,
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 12461253, Jul. 1993.
[13] Q. Zhou, D. Shirmohammadi, and W. H. E. Liu, Distribution feeder
reconfiguration for service restoration and load balancing, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 724729, May 1997.
[14]
, Distribution feeder reconfiguration for operation cost reduction,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 730735, May 1997.
[15] R. Taleski and D. Rajicic, Distribution network reconfiguration for
energy loss reduction, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12, no. 1, pp.
398406, Feb. 1997.

DAS: A FUZZY MULTIOBJECTIVE APPROACH FOR NETWORK RECONFIGURATION OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

[16] V. Borozan and N. Rajakovic, Application assessments of distribution

network minimum loss reconfiguration, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol.
12, no. 4, pp. 17861792, Oct. 1997.
[17] W. M. Lin and H. C. Chin, A new approach for distribution feeder reconfiguration for loss reduction and service restoration, IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 870875, Jul. 1998.
[18] C. C. Liu, S. J. Lee, and S. S. Venkata, An expert system operational aid
for restoration and loss reduction of distribution systems, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 619626, May 1988.
[19] K. H. Jung, H. Kim, and Y. Ko, Network reconfiguration algorithm
for automated distribution systems based on artificial intelligence approach, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 19331941, Oct.
1993.
[20] A. Augugliaro, L. Dusonchet, M. Ippolito, and E. R. Sanseverino, Minimum losses reconfiguration of MV distribution networks through local
control of tieSwitches, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 18, no. 3, pp.
762771, Jul. 2003.
[21] K. Nara, A. Shiose, M. Kitagawa, and T. Ishihara, Implementation of
genetic algorithm for distribution system loss minimum reconfiguration, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 10441051, Aug. 1992.

209

[22] K. Nara, T. Satoh, and M. Kitagawa, Distribution system loss minimum reconfiguration by genetic algorithm, in Proc. 3rd Symp. Expert
System Application to Power Systems, Tokyo and Kobe, Japan, 1991, pp.
724730.
[23] L. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, in Inf. Contr., vol. 8, 1965, pp. 338353.
[24] H. J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy programming and linear programming with
several objective functions, in TIMS/Studies in the Management Sciences Amsterdam, North Holland, 1984, vol. 20, pp. 109121.
[25] S. Ghosh and D. Das, Method for load flow solution of radial distribution networks, in Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen., Transm. Distrib., Nov.
1999, pp. 641648.

Debapriya Das received the B.E. degree from Calcutta University, Calcutta,
India, in 1982, and the M.Tech. degree from the Indian Institute of Technology
(IIT), Kharagpur, India, in 1984, and the Ph.D. degree from the IIT, Delhi, India,
in 1992.
Currently, he is Associate Professor at IIT, Kharagpur, India. His research
interests are electric power distribution system and power system operation and
control.