IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution

Research Article

Multi-criteria optimisation approach to

increase the delivered power in radial
distribution networks

ISSN 1751-8687
Received on 30th July 2014
Revised on 20th July 2015
Accepted on 2nd August 2015
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2014.1196
www.ietdl.org

Bruno Canizes , Joo Soares, Zita Vale, Cristina Lobo

GECAD - Knowledge Engineering and Decision-Support Research Center - Polytechnic of Porto (ISEP/IPP), R. Dr. Antnio Bernardino de
Almeida, 431, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal
E-mail: bruno.canizes@gmail.com

Abstract: This study proposes a new methodology to increase the power delivered to any load point in a radial distribution
network, through the identification of new investments in order to improve the repair time. This research work is
innovative and consists in proposing a full optimisation model based on mixed-integer non-linear programming
considering the Pareto front technique. The goal is to achieve a reduction in repair times of the distribution networks
components, while minimising the costs of that reduction as well as non-supplied energy costs. The optimisation
model considers the distribution network technical constraints, the substation transformer taps, and it is able to choose
the capacitor banks size. A case study based on a 33-bus distribution network is presented in order to illustrate in
detail the application of the proposed methodology.

Nomenclature
Zi (X
)
m fi (X
)

mdi
Zimax
Zimin

r2
r3

r
t/2
n
s

l2
l3
x21(a/2)
l
m
ij
Z1
Z2
I.R.R.
NE
Sij
lij
rij
Nm
r
Cij,m
Xij,

Cyrij,m
CijNSE
Frij

individual objective
satisfaction level of X
solution with respect to the ith
objective
desire reference level of the ith objective
maximum of individual objective
minimum of individual objective
set of non-dominated solutions or plans
lower bound for real expected repair time (h)
upper bound for real expected repair time (h)
average of repair times (h)
t-distribution
quantity of repair times
standard deviation
real expected repair time (h)
lower bound for interruption rate (interruptions per
year)
upper bound for interruption rate (interruptions per
year)
chi-square distribution
interruption rate (interruption per year)
action type
component from bus i to bus j
investment objective function
non-supplied energy (NSE) objective function
internal rate of return (%)
total number of system components
power ow in component (line) ij
interruption rate of component ijth (interruption per
year)
repair time of component ijth (h)
total number of actions for repair time reduction
cost of repair time reduction in monetary units (m.u.)
for component ijth with action m
decision variable {0,1} for component ijth with action
m to reduce repair time
annual cost of repair time reduction in monetary units
(m.u.) for component ijth with action m
NSE cost in monetary units (m.u.) for component ij
nal repair time for component ij

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 25652574
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

NSEFinal
NSEMax
CRF
BNF
dr
t
Pgeni
L pi
Lqi
Pi (v, )
Qi (v, )
a
Qcapvj
Wj, a
Qcapj
min
Pgen
i
max
Pgen
i
Qmin
geni
Qmax
geni
Vimin
Vi
Vimax
Sij (v, )
Sijmax
tapmin
tap
tapmax
rij
m.u.

obtained NSE (kVAh/year)

threshold for NSE (kVAh/year)
capital recovery factor
Monetary savings
discount rate
lifetime project
generated active power at bus i
active load in bus i in p.u.
reactive load in bus i in p.u.
active power injections in bus i in p.u.
reactive power injections in bus i in p.u.
bank capacity
reactive power output by capacitor banks in bus j
binary decision variable (0, 1) to install a bank capacity
(a) in bus j
reactive power (a) installed in bus i
lower limit of generated active power in bus i
upper limit of generated active power in bus i
lower limit of generated reactive power in bus i
upper limit of generated reactive power in bus i
lower limit of voltage magnitude in bus i
voltage magnitude in bus i
upper limit of voltage magnitude in bus i
apparent power ow in line ij in p.u.
rating power limit of line ij
lower limit of transformer tap
transformer tap
upper limit of transformer tap
repair time variation for component ijth using a repair
time reduction action
monetary units

Introduction

Over the past few decades lots of efforts have been devoted to the
distribution systems reliability assessment. Reliability is the ability
to deliver electricity to all delivery points within acceptable levels
of quality, in the desired amount and at the minimum cost.
Obviously, these are conicting goals, because increasing the

2565

quality and quantity of the energy provided to customers will

necessarily increase the investment cost in networks, as well as the
operation cost [1]. Network planners and operators must nd the
adequate balance taking into account the uncertainties of future
conditions. The reliability criteria can be deterministic and/or
probabilistic, however, in both cases a consistent database and an
exhaustive statistical analysis of all the available information are
needed such as interruption rates (l) and average repair times (r)
of distribution system components. Moreover, maximising the
reliability in distribution power systems involves minimising the
unserved energy, and therefore load curtailment.
There are two types of uncertainties in distribution power systems:
randomness and fuzziness [25]. It is well known that interruption
frequencies or interruption probabilities of distribution overhead
lines are related to weather conditions [2, 3, 57]. Weather
conditions are usually described in fuzzy words. Each weather
condition (rain, wind, storm etc.) can be categorised into different
degrees (such as heavy, medium or light rain) [25]. This
classication is obviously vague or fuzzy. Interruption frequencies
or interruption probabilities of distribution lines are also caused by
environments (such as tree falling or animal activities) and
operational conditions (such as load levels). It is very difcult to
distinguish exactly the effects of these conditions on the outage
data of individual components using a probability model, since
there are little or any statistics available. Some utilities do not have
enough statistical records, but they may have a good judgment on
the range of outage parameters (such as repair time). A fuzzy
approach allows obtaining adequate models for all these cases [25].
Unlike transmission systems, which are looped, distribution
networks are usually made up by radial feeders. The most
important consequence of radial feeders is that many customers
can be affected by the interruption of a single component. The
adequacy is represented by reliability indices such as average
interruption rate l, average outage duration r, and the annual
outage duration U. These reliability indices are load point indices
and they are of crucial importance for reliability studies. The
average outage duration and the interruption rate can be reduced
by network congurations, suitable location of substation, feeder
length, and by increasing fault avoidance and corrective repair
measures. These measures try to modify the interruption rate and
repair time of each segment, improving the system reliability.
Repair time and interruption rate modications may require
additional efforts which are associated with additional expenditures.
A technique for optimal reliability design in electrical distribution
system was developed by Chang and Wu in [8]. This technique
solved a non-linear optimisation problem based on
polynomial-time algorithm.
A value based on a probabilistic approach to design urban
distribution systems for determination of the optimal section length
for the main feeder, number and placement of feeder ties, feeder
and transformer loadings is proposed in [9]. A genetic algorithm
approach for reliability design of a distribution system is presented
in [10]. The objective function contains the investment cost, and
the system interruption cost. System interruption rate and average
outage duration at load point are considered as constraints. Louit
et al. [11] presented an algorithm for determination of optimal
interval for major maintenance actions in electrical distribution
networks. Comparative case studies for value-based distribution
system reliability planning are present in [12]. An algorithm for
optimum location of distributed generation (DG) in a distribution
system based on reliability considerations was proposed in [13].
Arya et al. [14] proposed a methodology for reliability
enhancement of radial distribution system by determining optimal
values of repair times, and interruption rates of each section. A set
of composite models for distribution system reliability evaluation
that may be applied to non-radial type networks was proposed in
[15]. In [16], a three-stage method for planning a power
distribution system is proposed in which the substation
optimisation, the number of feeders with their active route, and the
node reliability optimisation are included. Chandramohan et al.
[17] presented the minimisation of radial distribution system
operating cost in the regulated electricity market via

2566

reconguration. Arya et al. [18] presented an analytical

methodology for reliability evaluation, and enhancement of
distribution system having DG. In [19], Ferreira and Bretas used a
non-linear binary programming model for reliability optimisation
of distribution systems. In [20], the authors proposed an
evolutionary algorithm for distribution feeder reconguration. The
problem consists of minimising the power loss, operation cost of
DG and non-supplied energy (NSE) simultaneously. The
considered constraints including the radial structure of the
network, line thermal limits, transformer capacities and bus
voltages are within their admissible ranges in this approach.
Canizes et al. [5] presented a methodology which aims to increase
the probability of delivering power to any load point of
distribution networks by identifying new investments in
distribution components not considering the network technical
constraints. The proposed methodology uses a fuzzy set approach
to estimate the outage parameters, and the investments aims to
reduce the components interruption rates and repair times.
The references cited above do not have considered a way to
increase the delivered power considering investments actions in
order to reduce the repair time of the distribution network
components, and all the technical network constraints.
Hence, this paper proposes a new and innovative methodology for
increasing the delivered power to any load point of the distribution
network, by identifying new investments in distribution
components, while minimising the costs of those investments, as
well as the cost of the NSE (multi-objective problem). The
investments aim to reduce the components repair time. The repair
time reduction can be obtained by increasing the operation
personnel, upgrading the automation system, improving the
communication system and so on. The proposed methodology is a
weighted AC optimisation model based on mixed-integer
non-linear programming (MINLP) using the Pareto front technique
[21, 22]. A case study based on 33-bus distribution test network
[23] is used to demonstrate the proposed methodology.
Since the presented problem is a multi-objective optimisation
problem, it requires a multi-objective method for solving. This
paper utilises a Pareto-based approach, which can obtain a set of
optimal solutions instead of one [24].
This paper is organised as follows: Section 2 introduces the fuzzy
set membership models for outage parameters. Section 3 presents the
proposed methodology to increase the delivered power by reducing
the NSE in radial distribution network. Section 4 presents the case
study and the discussion of the obtained results. Finally, the most
relevant conclusions are duly drawn in Section 6.

2 Fuzzy set membership models for outage

parameters
Each outage model is characterised by the following parameters
interruption frequency and repair time; interruption rate and repair
rate; transition rates between multiple states; unavailability or
forced outage rate; and standard deviation.
These parameters are the input data in risk evaluation, and they
can be estimated from historical interruption statistics.
Most of the data collection systems provide the interruption
frequency or the unavailability and repair time. Usually, the
interruption rate and the repair rate are not directly collected, but
they can be calculated from the interruption frequency and repair
time [25].
The repair time is a parameter that can be directly collected by a
data collection system and the expected repair time condence
interval is given by
s
r2 =
r ta/2 (n 1)


n

(1)

s
r3 =
r + ta/2 (n 1)


n

(2)

r2 m r3

(3)

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 25652574
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

The real expected repair time () is placed between r2 and r3, the
lower and higher bounds respectively, as it can be seen in (3). With
the point and interval estimates, a triangle membership function of
repair time r (in hours per interruption) can be easily created [25].
The interruption rate l and interruption frequency f are numeric
with very close values for power system components, although
they are conceptually different. f and l are often replaced by each
other in practical engineering calculations of power system risk
evaluation. Equations (4)(6) are used to estimate the two bounds
of the interruption rate

l2 =

x21(a/2) (2 F )
2T

(4)

x2a/2 (2 F )
2T

(5)

l3 =

l2 l l3

(6)

Considering (4)(6), a triangle membership function of interruption

rate can be easily created. The forced outage rate or unavailability of
system components (U ) can be determined using the interruption
frequency (interruption rate) and repair time [25]
U lr

Satisfying decision making

The decision makers judgment to select the nal solution has a

subjective imprecise nature, thus a method to support its decision
can be necessary. Fuzzy satisfying method can be used to select
the preferred solution among non-dominated solutions obtained in
optimisation stage. To the decision maker it will be asked to
determine its imprecise goals for each objective. As a result, the
nal solution will be found. Since the trade-offs between each
objective are determined in the rst stage, one can expect a much
reasonable judgment from decision maker comparing to prior
methods [25].
After non-dominated set determination, it is desirable to obtain a
exible and realistic solution that represents a trade-off between
different objectives [26]. Fuzzy satisfying method due to
simplicity and similarity to human reasoning is of great interest.
Fuzzy sets are dened by membership functions, which represent
the degree of membership in a fuzzy set using values from 0 to
1. Fig. 1 presents a linear type membership function, which will
be used in this work.
The value of the membership function indicates to what extend a
solution is satisfying the objective Zi. Decision maker is fully satised
with objective value of Zi (X
) if m fi (X
) = 1 and not satised if
m fi (X
) = 0. Equation (8) presents the model used for all objectives

min

Zi Zi (X
)
m fi (X
) =

Zimax Zimin

(7)

The membership function of unavailability can be obtained from l

and r. For this, the interval calculation rules for a given
membership function grade must be used [25].
The use of the centroid of the function obtained by the gravity
technique is an appropriated approach, and it is very similar to
the weighted mean used in the probability theory, used for the
defuzzication of the outage parameters. This technique nds the
balance point by calculating the weighted mean of the membership
functions.

3.1

Zimin Zi (X
) Zimax

(8)

Zi (X
) , Zimin

Once dened the membership functions, decision makers need to

choose the desirable reference level (mdi ) of each objective. To
obtain the nal solution a method called minimax [27], have
been applied. Thus, the following optimisation problem is used:

 





max max mdi m fi (X )
X
[F

Multi-objective optimisation

When different incommensurable objectives with conicting/

supporting relations or without any mathematical relation with
each other are considered, an appropriated tool like multi-objective
optimisation must be used in order to deal with this problem.
Usually it is not possible to obtain an optimum at which all such
objectives are optimised. Thus, the Pareto front method can be
used to characterise the solutions from the multi-objective
problem. Pareto front optimal method is also known as
non-inferiority or non-dominancy method [22].

Zi (X
) . Zimax

(9)

Proposed methodology

The following proposed method when compared with the existence

works, considers a technique to increase the delivered power, i.e.
reducing the NSE. The technique deals with investments action in
order to reduce the repair time of the distribution network
components, and all the technical network constraints based on
deterministic formulation. Thus, the proposed methodology
minimises the investment cost, as well as the NSE cost in radial
distribution networks. This methodology aims to maximise the
power availability in each load point of this network type. A
scheme of the proposed methodology is shown in Fig. 2.
The proposed methodology has ve main aspects, which are
presented in more detail as follows.
4.1

Database

A consistent database creation and an exhaustive statistical analysis

of all available historical data (such as repair times, number of
interruptions, and number of repairs) are an important issue for the
proposed methodology.
4.2

Target for NSE

Network operator goal is to achieve a desire NSE for the radial

distribution network. The NSE is given by the following equation:
NSE =
Fig. 1 Linear type membership function (adapted from [25])

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 25652574
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

NE


lij rij Sij

(10)

ij=1

2567

Fig. 2 Diagram of the proposed methodology

4.3

Fuzzy logic functions for r, l and U

Several effects such as weather conditions, environmental, and

operational conditions are very difcult to distinguish precisely on
the outage data of individual components using a probability
model, since there are little or any statistics available. Usually,
utilities do not have enough statistical records of outage
parameters. As a result, the fuzzy set approach allows obtaining
adequate models. Equations (1)(6) allow determining the
membership functions for repair times and interruption rates of all
distribution system components. Hence, membership function of
unavailability can be calculated by (7).
4.4

Weighted AC optimisation based on MINLP

Considering investment minimisation and NSE cost minimisation

the problem turns into a multi-objective optimisation problem
which is more complicated rather than a single objective of the
optimal power ow (OPF) problem. Also, the multi-objective
optimisation problem has a greater search space than the single
objective problem.
The proposed methodology can give to the planner the possibility
to decide what objective is better for him depending on the pursued
goal. The Pareto front technique can be a useful tool helping the
planner to choose the more convenient preference. The Pareto

2568

front technique is generally used to solve conicted objective

function [28]. In the proposed methodology, the goal is to improve
reliability, minimising the NSE, which is improved by investments
in the network. Thus, conictive objectives are present (maximise
reliability and minimise investments).
An MINLP using the weighted Pareto front method is developed as
it can be seen in (11)(26). This mathematical model is applied in
order to identify the distribution network components, in which
investments allow increasing the delivered power to every load
point in the considered network. The weighted technique is used to
obtain the non-dominated solutions. A set of weights randomly
generated are used to construct a set of feasible optimisation problems.
The investment aims to achieve a reduction in repair times of
distribution networks, while minimising the costs of that reduction
as well as the minimisation of the NSE costs. Hence, a
multi-objective problem can be developed.
The repair time reduction can be achieved, for instance: by
increasing the operation personnel, by upgrading the automation
system, by communication system, among others.

Problem formulation

The distribution network planning problem based on OPF model

must be able to evaluate the load distribution among substation,

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 25652574
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

distributed generators and feeders. The result should meet demand

and technical requirements (a feasible result).
In this paper, the optimisation problem is modelled as an MINLP.
The model presented an objective function that represents the costs
of future investments in order to reduce the repair time
(minimisation of investment Z1) as well as the reliability related
costs, i.e. NSE costs (NSE costs Z2). Also, it ensures the
possibility of the optimal capacitors sizing in the network
supporting the nodes voltage (injecting reactive power) and
considers the substation transformer taps. Moreover, when this
method is compared with the state-of-the-art it considers a
multi-objective problem subjected to all technical constraints, as
well as the constraints related with the repair time reductions using
a deterministic process. Furthermore, the fuzziness uncertainty
associated to repair times and failure rates is considered. Thus, this
model represents an advantage regarding to the state-of-the-art.
Thus, the multi-objective function to be minimised is
Minimise Z1 =

Nm
NE 


Cij,m

ij=1 m=1

Nm
NE 


max
Qmin
geni Qgeni Qgeni

(19)

Bus voltage magnitude limits

Vimin Vi Vimax

(20)

p di p

(21)

Bus angle limits

Capacity limits of distribution lines/cables

Sij (v, d) Skmax

(22)

tapmin tap tapmax

(23)

t
1 + dr 1
Xij,m +

t
dr 1 + dr
Transformer taps limits

Cyrij,m Xij,m

(11)

ij=1 m=1

N


t
E
1 + dr 1 
NSE
Minimise Z2 =
Cij lij Frij Sij

t
dr 1 + dr
ij=1

(12)

Effective methods like constraint technique and normal boundary

intersection method can be used for solving the multi-objective
problem. In this work, the authors have the objective to use a
simple and popular method for solving the multi-objective
problem. Thus, the weighted method (13) was chosen
MinimiseZ = w1 Z1 + w2 Z2
where w1 + w2 = 1

(13)

Final repair time equation



Frij = rij Drij Xij,m

(24)

NSEFinal NSEMax

(25)

NSE threshold

The minimisation of the objective function (13) is subjected to the

technical constraints (power balance, line capacity limits, DG
capacity limits, substation capacity limits, voltage magnitude and
angle, transformer taps) and logical constraints (integer decision
variables capacitors size and investment option).
Thus, the model is subjected to:
Active and reactive power ow equations
Pgeni L pi Pi (v, d) = 0

(14)


Qgeni Lqi Qi (v, d) + Qcapvj W j, a = 0 j [ i

(15)

Selection of a unique value in each capacitor bank

d



W j, a 1 j [ i

(16)

a=1

Reactive power output by capacitors


Qcapvj = Qcapj W j, a Vj2

j[i

(17)

Upper and lower power output limits (active and reactive powers)
of the substation and distributed generator units
min
max
Pgeni Pgen
Pgen
i
i

(18)

Fig. 3 Single-line 33-bus distribution network (adapted from [23])

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 25652574

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

2569

Table 1 Outage data for 33-bus distribution network

Bus
out

Bus
in

Mean time to repair

r, h

Number of
interruptions

Time period,
years

Average interruption rate l,

interruptions/year

Unavailability U,
h/year

30.200
26.700
25.100
11.900
9.500
12.100
25.600
8.600
11.700
29.300
9.700
12.100
9.200
12.100
10.100
8.300
13.800
29.800
8.900
20.300
12. 000
25.500
25.000
11.000
9.400
9.300
9.300
27.000
20.600
11.800
9.500
9.300

3
11
9
21
21
12
14
17
21
11
29
12
26
21
12
8
8
12
30
17
15
14
11
21
17
14
16
21
25
16
26
14

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

0.300
1.100
0.900
2.100
2.100
1.200
1.400
1.700
2.100
1.100
2.900
1.200
2.600
2.100
1.200
0.800
0.800
1.200
3.000
1.700
1.500
1.400
1.100
2.100
1.700
1.400
1.600
2.100
2.500
1.600
2.600
1.400

9.060
29.370
22.590
24.990
19.950
14.520
35.840
14.620
24.570
32.230
28.130
14.520
23.920
25.410
12.120
6.640
11.040
35.760
26.700
34.510
18.000
35.700
27.500
23.100
15.980
13.020
14.880
56.700
51.500
18.880
24.700
13.020

Lines or cables
33
1
1
2
1
18
2
3
2
22
3
4
4
5
5
6
5
25
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
18
19
19
20
20
21
22
23
23
24
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32

Only one investment option (action) can be picked for repair time
Nm
NE 


Xij,m 1

(26)

ij=1 m=1

To obtain the values of rij, the network operator must evaluate

studies that aim to improve the reliability of distribution network.
The reliability increase can be achieved by reducing the
components repair time. The goal of these studies is to know
which reduction of repair time is possible to obtain for each
component. By selecting the given repair time reduction actions,
the network operator have the associated cost for each component.

Case study

Tests were conducted in the 33-bus distribution test network adapted

from [23]. This test system is a hypothetical 12.66 kV system with
two feeders, one substation, 33 buses, and 32 load points. The
total substation load for this case study is 4549 kVA. Some
adaptations were made in this network two DGs units with 500 kW,
250 kVAr in buses 11 and 27; four capacitors sizes with 150, 300,
450, and 600 kVAr can be installed in buses 5 and 10; the
substation transformer has a continuous value tap (5%).
The 33-bus distribution network (Fig. 3) does not have an outage
database associated, thus the authors created an outage database
(Table 1) in order to apply the proposed methodology.
Table 2 Initial data for 33-bus distribution network
Network active load, kW
Network reactive load, kVAr
Initial NSE, kVAh/year
Initial NSE cost, m.u./year

2570

3715.000
2300.000
545060.000
1090121.000

For this case study only lines and cables were considered for the
analysis, and it is assumed that the substation and DG units have
100% of availability.
The actions that the system operator can apply to reduce the repair
time are the increase the operation personal (IOP), automation
system upgrade (ASU), and communications upgrade (CUp).
Each one of these actions has a cost and results in a repair time
reduction for each system component.
The NSE cost is 2 m/kVAh. A set of 1000 random weights is
determined. A 10-year lifetime project with a 1.75% discount rate,
which leads to a 0.110 capital recovery factor, is considered for
the NSE cost and investment in repair time reduction cost.
GAMS, with DICOPT solver, has been used to develop the
weighted AC optimisation that uses MINLP. The MATLAB
software has been linked with GAMS in order to solve the model
to all 1000 weights. The way used to link GAMS to MATLAB
can be found in [29]. For this case study, a computer with one
processor Intel Xeon E3-1225 3.20 GHz with four cores, 4 GB of
random-access-memory (RAM), and Windows 8 Professional
64-bit operating system was used.
The initial network data considered in this case study are presented
in Table 2. The initial losses are obtained running a power ow for
distribution networks based on the algorithm of Thukaram et al.
[30]. Tables 3 and 4 present the network data and reduction times
per action with cost, respectively.
Twenty-nine non-dominated solutions or plans were obtained by
the weighted AC optimisation. The algorithm took around 4954 s
(1.38 h) to compute the set of 1000 weighted solutions. Table 5
presents the obtained non-dominated solutions, and the economic
evaluation for each of those solutions. The signal minus in the
values of NSE benet and nal benet represents the benet for
system operator. It is important to note that without any
investment the value of NSE cost at the end of 10 years (lifetime
project) would be 9,920,103 m.u.
Fig. 4 presents the set of non-dominated solutions (plans), which
are plotted as NSE cost versus investment cost.
The fuzzy satisfying decision method is used to select the
preferred solution among non-dominated solutions obtained in

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 25652574
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

Table 3 Network data

Bus out
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
18
19
20
2
22
23
5
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

Bus in

R,

X,

Active load, kW

Reactive load, kVar

Apparent load, kVA

Thermal limit, kVA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

0.0922
0.4930
0.3660
0.3811
0.8190
0.1872
0.7114
1.0300
1.0440
0.1966
0.3744
1.4680
0.5416
0.5910
0.7463
1.2890
0.7320
0.1640
1.5042
0.4095
0.7089
0.4512
0.8980
0.8960
0.2030
0.2842
1.0590
0.8042
0.5075
0.9744
0.3105
0.3410

0.0470
0.2511
0.1864
0.1941
0.7070
0.6188
0.2351
0.7400
0.7400
0.0650
0.1238
1.1550
0.7129
0.5260
0.5450
1.7210
0.5740
0.1565
1.3554
0.4784
0.9373
0.3083
0.7091
0.7011
0.1034
0.1447
0.9337
0.7006
0.2585
0.9630
0.3619
0.5302

100.0
90.0
120.0
60.0
60.0
200.0
200.0
60.0
60.0
45.0
60.0
60.0
120.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
420.0
420.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
120.0
200.0
150.0
210.0
60.0

60.0
40.0
80.0
30.0
20.0
100.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
30.0
35.0
35.0
80.0
10.0
20.0
20.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
50.0
200.0
200.0
25.0
25.0
20.0
70.0
600.0
70.0
100.0
40.0

116.619
98.489
144.222
67.082
63.246
223.607
223.607
63.246
63.246
54.083
69.462
69.462
144.222
60.828
63.246
63.246
98.489
98.489
98.489
98.489
98.489
102.956
465.188
465.188
65.000
65.000
63.246
138.924
632.456
165.529
232.594
72.111

450
450
450
329
450
329
329
329
329
329
329
329
329
329
229
329
329
329
329
329
450
450
450
450
450
329
329
329
329
329
329
329

optimisation stage. The minimum and maximum values as well as

the desirable reference levels are presented in Table 6.
The maximum cost value for investment objective was
determined considering the weight of investment equal to one
and the weight of NSE equal to zero. The minimum value is

Table 4 Reduction times per action and costs

Bus
out
1
1
2
2
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33

Bus
in

IOP,
h

ASU,
h

CUp,
h

IOP, m.u.

ASU, m.u.

CUp, m.u.

2
18
3
22
4
5
6
25
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
1

8.00
7.50
3.60
2.90
3.60
7.70
2.60
3.50
8.80
2.90
3.60
2.70
3.60
3.00
2.50
4.10
8.90
2.70
6.10
3.60
7.70
7.50
3.30
2.80
2.80
2.80
8.10
6.20
3.50
2.90
2.80
9.10

16.00
15.10
7.10
5.70
7.30
15.30
5.20
7.00
17.60
5.80
7.20
5.50
7.30
6.10
5.00
8.30
17.90
5.30
12.20
7.20
15.30
15.00
6.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
16.20
12.40
7.10
5.70
5.60
18.10

21.40
20.10
9.50
7.60
9.70
20.50
6.90
9.40
23.40
7.70
9.70
7.30
9.70
8.10
6.70
11.00
23.80
7.10
16.30
9.60
20.40
20.00
8.80
7.50
7.50
7.50
21.60
16.50
9.40
7.60
7.40
24.20

76,000
6400
56,400
18,000
53,600
52,400
20,400
37,600
16,400
12,400
11,600
10,800
9600
8000
6800
3600
3200
2400
1600
4800
3200
1600
16,000
8000
36,400
35,600
34,800
32,400
8400
5600
1600
84,800

114,000
9600
84,600
27,000
80,400
78,600
30,600
56,400
24,600
18,600
17,400
16,200
14,400
12,000
10,200
5400
4800
3600
2400
7200
4800
2400
24,000
12,000
54,600
53,400
52,200
48,600
12,600
8400
2400
127,200

152,000
12,800
112,800
36,000
107,200
104,800
40,800
75,200
32,800
24,800
23,200
21,600
19,200
16,000
13,600
7200
6400
4800
3200
9600
6400
3200
32,000
16,000
72,800
71,200
69,600
64,800
16,800
11,200
3200
169,600

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 25652574
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

considered equal to zero, i.e. without any investment in the

network. Regarding to the NSE the maximum value is equal to
the NSE value for the 10 years lifetime project without any
investment. The minimum value is that one which corresponds
to the weight equal to zero.
To specify the reference levels for each objective the trade-offs
shown in Fig. 4 can help the decision maker to choose reasonable
reference values. For instance, in the investment objective, it is
considered the last value where it is yet possible to obtain an I.R.
R. positive, i.e. 6,999,804 m.u. (plan 18) and also the minimum
value of investment in the network, i.e, 5,495,616 m.u. Thus, it is
obtained(6, 999, 804 5, 495, 616)/(6, 999, 804 0) = 0.21. In the
NSE objective, it is considered the maximum cost value
(3,634,406 m.u.), which corresponds to the minimum value of
investment in the trade-off curve, and also the minimum cost
(1,782,840 m.u.) in the same curve. So, it is obtained(9, 920, 103
3, 634, 406)/(9, 920, 103 1, 782, 840) = 0.77. Taking into
account these values the reference levels for each objective are set
to the ones presented in Table 4.
Applying the optimisation problem from (9) it is selected the
solution of plan 1 (see Table 5).
Plan 1 presents the higher benet (monetary units m.u.) for the
system operator (790,082 m.u.). The objective function value is of
9,130,022 m.u. for 10 years of project lifetime. Considering this
plan, the payback presents a value of 7.96 years and the internal
rate of return a value of 14.38%.
The values for nal repair times can be found in Table 7. The zero
in unavailability reduction means that the respective components do
not have any investment action (in repair time).
Table 8 presents the optimised value for NSE when plan 1 is
considered. The proposed methodology leads to a 36.6% reduction
in the NSE value. For the considered plan only bus 5 has a
capacitor bank with 600 kVAr. Regarding to the substation
transformer tap, the obtained value is of 1.001 p.u.
Table 9 shows the chosen actions to be applied in the network
components. The symbol denotes that the respective action
was chosen. It is possible to see that the automation system
upgrade action was chosen for two components, while
communications upgrade was chosen for 22 components.

2571

Table 5 Non-dominated solutions or plans

Plan
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Investment cost, m.u.

NSE cost, m.u.

NSE benefit, m.u.

Final benefit, m.u.

Payback, years

I.R.R., %

5,495,616
5,515,920
5,524,380
5,531,148
5,551,452
5,566,680
5,600,520
5,620,824
5,627,592
5,839,092
5,859,396
5,866,164
6,043,824
6,077,664
6,097,968
6,104,736
6,740,928
6,999,804
7,086,096
7,201,152
7,358,508
7,410,960
8,091,144
8,317,872
9,752,688
10,355,040
10,970,928
11,349,936
11,512,368

3,634,406
3,622,558
3,619,442
3,611,348
3,596,553
3,585,344
3,563,654
3,553,364
3,550,057
3,435,065
3,424,776
3,421,469
3,339,754
3,318,066
3,307,777
3,304,470
3,012,588
2,910,635
2,877,304
2,835,734
2,778,242
2,759,358
2,573,350
2,511,792
2,137,593
1,982,614
1,837,392
1,788,978
1,782,840

6,285,698
6,297,546
6,300,662
6,308,755
6,323,550
6,334,760
6,356,450
6,366,739
6,370,046
6,485,038
6,495,328
6,498,635
6,580,349
6,602,037
6,612,326
6,615,634
6,907,516
7,009,469
7,042,800
7,084,370
7,141,862
7,160,746
7,346,753
7,408,311
7,782,510
7,937,490
8,082,711
8,131,126
8,137,264

790,082
781,626
776,282
777,607
772,098
768,080
755,930
745,915
742,454
645,946
635,932
632,471
536,525
524,373
514,358
510,898
166,588
9665
43,296
116,782
216,646
250,214
744,391
909,561
1,970,178
2,417,550
2,888,217
3,218,810
3,375,104

7.96
7.97
7.98
7.98
7.99
8.00
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.19
8.21
8.21
8.36
8.38
8.39
8.40
8.88
9.09
9.16
9.25
9.38
9.42
10.02
10.22
11.40
11.87
12.35
12.70
12.87

14.38
14.17
14.05
14.06
13.91
13.80
13.50
13.27
13.19
11.06
10.85
10.78
8.88
8.63
8.43
8.37
2.47
0.14
0.61
1.62
2.94
3.38
9.20
10.94
20.20
23.35
26.33
28.36
29.32

Fig. 4 Non-dominated solutions or plans for the 33-bus distribution system

Table 6 Input values for fuzzy satisfying decision method

maximum cost, m.u.

minimum cost, m.u.
reference level

Investment

NSE

11,512,500
0
0.2

9,920,103
1,782,902
0.7

Conclusions

A new methodology to reduce the NSE in a radial distribution

network by identifying new investments is proposed in order to
reduce the repair time in network components. To estimate the
network outage parameter (which is a very important issue in the
proposed method) a fuzzy set approach was used.

2572

As a main contribution, an AC optimisation model based on

MINLP was developed considering the Pareto front technique
(weighted method) to achieve a reduction in repair times of
distribution networks components, while minimising the costs of
that reduction, as well as the NSE costs. The optimisation model
proposed in this paper identies the actions to be taken, as well
as the components in which the system operator must invest at
minimum cost. The model also considers the distribution
network technical constraints, and it is able to consider the
substation transformer taps and to choose the size of capacitor
banks.
Regarding all the obtained plans (non-dominated solutions) the
system operator can carry out an analysis in order to choose a
solution preference. Through the obtained results the proposed
method proves to be adequate to support the distribution network
operator to plan future network investment actions.

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 25652574
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

Table 7 Final repair time and final unavailability considering plan 1

Bus
out

Bus
in

Lines or cables
33
1
1
2
1
18
2
3
2
22
3
4
4
5
5
6
5
25
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
18
19
19
20
20
21
22
23
23
24
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32

Final repair time

Fr, h

Interruption rate l,
interruption/year

Final unavailability U,
h/year

Unavailability reduction U,
h/year

Unavailability
reduction, %

30.200
5.300
5.000
11.900
1.900
12.100
5.100
3.400
11.700
5.900
9.700
12.100
9.200
12.100
2.000
3.300
2.800
6.000
1.800
4.000
2.400
5.100
5.000
2.200
1.900
9.300
9.300
5.400
4.100
2.400
1.900
1.900

0.300
1.100
0.900
2.100
2.100
1.200
1.400
1.700
2.100
1.100
2.900
1.200
2.600
2.100
1.200
0.800
0.800
1.200
3.000
1.700
1.500
1.400
1.100
2.100
1.700
1.400
1.600
2.100
2.500
1.600
2.600
1.400

9.060
5.830
4.500
24.990
3.990
14.520
7.140
5.780
24.570
6.490
28.130
14.520
23.920
25.410
2.400
2.640
2.240
7.200
5.400
6.800
3.600
7.140
5.500
4.620
3.230
13.020
14.880
11.340
10.250
3.840
4.940
2.660

0.000
23.540
18.090
0.000
15.960
0.000
28.700
8.840
0.000
25.740
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.720
4.000
8.800
28.560
21.300
27.710
14.400
28.560
22.000
18.480
12.750
0.000
0.000
45.360
41.250
15.040
19.760
10.360

0.000
80.150
80.080
0.000
80.000
0.000
80.078
60.465
0.000
79.863
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
80.198
60.241
79.710
79.866
79.775
80.296
80.000
80.000
80.000
80.000
79.787
0.000
0.000
80.000
80.097
79.661
80.000
79.570

Table 8 Optimised NSE considering plan 1

NSE, kVAh/year

Initial value

Threshold value

Obtained value

545060.000

200000.000

199690.000

Table 9 Actions for each network component considering plan 1

Bus out
33
1
1
2
2
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

Bus in

IOP

ASU

Cup

1
2
18
3
22
4
5
6
25
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 25652574
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by FEDER Funds through COMPETE

program and by National Funds through FCT under the projects
FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER: UID/EEA/00760/2013, and PTDC/
SEN-ENR/122174/2010, and by the GID-MicroRede, project no.
34086, co-funded by COMPETE under FEDER via QREN
Programme, and by the SASGER-MeC, project no.
NORTE-07-0162-FEDER-000101, co-funded by COMPETE
under FEDER Programme. The present work also developed under
the EUREKA ITEA2 Project SEAS with project number 12004.

References

1 Zheng, H., Cheng, Y., Gou, B., et al.: Impact of automatic switches on power
distribution system reliability, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2012, 83, (1), pp. 5157
2 Canizes, B., Soares, J., Vale, Z., et al.: Hybrid fuzzy Monte Carlo technique for
reliability assessment in transmission power systems, Energy, 2012, 45, (1),
pp. 10071017
3 Canizes, B., Vale, Z.A., Soares, J.P., et al.: Fuzzy Monte Carlo mathematical
model for load curtailment minimization in transmission power systems. 17th
Power Systems Computation Conf. (PSCC11), 2011
4 Wenyuan, L., Jiaqi, Z., Kaigui, X., et al.: Power system risk assessment using a
hybrid method of fuzzy set and Monte Carlo simulation, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., 2008, 23, (2), pp. 336343
5 Canizes, B., Soares, J., Vale, Z., et al.: Increase of the delivered energy probability
in des using a fuzzy probabilistic modeling. 3rd IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies (ISGT) Europe Conf., 2012
6 IEEE: Electric Delivery System Reliability Evaluation, IEEE Tutorial Course
Textbook No. 05TP175, 2005
7 Billinton, R., Li, W.: A novel method for incorporating weather effects in
composite system adequacy evaluation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1991, 6, (3),
pp. 11541160
8 Chang, W.F., Wu, Y.C.: Optimal reliability design in an electrical distribution
system via a polynomial-time algorithm, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.,
2003, 25, (8), pp. 659666
9 Chowdhury, A.A., Custer, D.E.: A value-based probabilistic approach to
designing urban distribution systems, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2005,
27, (910), pp. 647655
10 Su, C.T., Lii, G.R.: Reliability design of distribution systems using modied
genetic algorithms, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2002, 60, (3), pp. 201206

2573

11

12
13
14

15
16

17

18

19

20

Louit, D., Pascual, R., Banjevic, D.: Optimal interval for major maintenance
actions in electricity distribution networks, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.,
2009, 31, (78), pp. 396401
Tsao, T.F., Chang, H.C.: Comparative case studies for value-based distribution
system reliability planning, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2004, 68, (3), pp. 229237
Banerjee, B., Islam, S.M.: Reliability based optimum location of distributed
generation, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2011, 33, (8), pp. 14701478
Arya, L.D., Choube, S.C., Arya, R.: Differential evolution applied for reliability
optimization of radial distribution systems, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.,
2011, 33, (2), pp. 271277
Tsao, T.F., Chang, H.C.: Composite reliability evaluation model for different types
of distribution systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2003, 18, (2), pp. 924930
Bhowmik, S., Goswami, S.K., Bhattacherjee, P.K.: A new power distribution
system planning through reliability evaluation technique, Electr. Power Syst.
Res., 2000, 54, (3), pp. 169179
Chandramohan, S., Atturulu, N., Devi, R.P.K., et al.: Operating cost minimization
of a radial distribution system in a deregulated electricity market through
reconguration using Nsga method, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2010,
32, (2), pp. 126132
Arya, R., Choube, S.C., Arya, L.D.: Reliability evaluation and enhancement of
distribution systems in the presence of distributed generation based on standby
mode, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2012, 43, (1), pp. 607616
Ferreira, G.D., Bretas, A.S.: A nonlinear binary programming model for electric
distribution systems reliability optimization, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.,
2012, 43, (1), pp. 384392
Narimani, M.R., Vahed, A.A., Azizipanah-Abarghooee, R., et al.: Enhanced
gravitational search algorithm for multi-objective distribution feeder
reconguration considering reliability, loss and operational cost, IET Gener.,
Transm. Distrib., 2014, 8, (1), pp. 5569

2574

21
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29
30

Coello Coello, C.A., Lamont, G.B., Van Veldhuizen, D.A.: Evolutionary

algorithms for solving multi-objective problems (Springer, 2007, 2nd edn.)
Bernal-Agustin, J.L., Dufo-Lopez, R.: Multi-objective design and control of
hybrid systems minimizing costs and unmet load, Electr. Power Syst. Res.,
2009, 79, (1), pp. 170180
Baran, M.E., Wu, F.F.: Network reconguration in distribution-systems for loss
reduction and load balancing, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 1989, 4, (2),
pp. 14011407
Narimani, M.R., Azizipanah-Abarghooee, R., Zoghdar-Moghadam-Shahrekohne,
B., et al.: A novel approach to multi-objective optimal power ow by a new
hybrid optimization algorithm considering generator constraints and multi-fuel
type, Energy, 2013, 49, (1), pp. 119136
Maghouli, P., Hosseini, S.H., Buygi, M.O., et al.: A multi-objective framework for
transmission expansion planning in deregulated environments, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., 2009, 24, (2), pp. 10511061
Hajri-Gabouj, S.: A fuzzy genetic multiobjective optimization algorithm for a
multilevel generalized assignment problem, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.t C,
Appl. Rev., 2003, 33, (2), pp. 214224
Sakawa, M., Yano, H.: An interactive fuzzy satiscing method for multiobjective
nonlinear programming problems with fuzzy parameters, Fuzzy Sets Syst., 1989,
30, (3), pp. 221238
Dias, F.M., Canizes, B., Khodr, H., et al.: Distribution networks planning using
decomposition optimisation technique, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015. doi:
10.1049/iet-gtd.2014.0860
http://www.research.cs.wisc.edu/math-prog/matlab.html, accessed December 2014
Thukaram, D., Banda, H.M.W., Jerome, J.: A robust three phase power ow
algorithm for radial distribution systems, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 1999, 50, (3),
pp. 227236

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 16, pp. 25652574
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015