Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Network automation planning in distribution networks with distributed generators using a risk-based approach

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Electrical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes a risk-based approach for optimal allocation of automation devices in radial distribution networks with island operation of distributed generators considering load and generation uncertainty and variability. The presented approach is based on fuzzy sets concept, fuzzy mixed integer linear programming, and risk analysis. It enables obtaining a set of network automation plans and employs the maximal expected monetary value (max EMV) criterion to evaluate the risk and to select the best automation plan. In this way, the proposed approach provides a decision-maker with a means of determining the network automation plan which ensures the most effective response to load and generation uncertainty and variability and thus minimizes the risk of excessive interruption costs to customers (loads and generators).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

λ(i), λt(i):

Sustained and transient failure rates of a line (i), respectively,

A(i):

Lines (branches) in the local network (LN) created in the case of fault (i),

C(j), CG(j):

Cost due to long-term interruptions to a load and a DG at node (j), respectively,

CDst(j), CGst(j):

Cost due to short-term interruptions to a load and a DG at node (j), respectively,

CIF(s), CIS(s), CI(s):

Investment cost of FPIs, RCSs, and reclosers, respectively,

\( \tilde{D}(j) \) :

Fuzzy load in a node (j)

\( \tilde{G}(j) \) :

Fuzzy generation in a node (j)

ICF(s), ICS(s), IC(s):

Installation cost of FPIs, RCSs, and reclosers, respectively

MCF(s, S k), MCS(s,S k), MC(s,S k):

Operation cost of FPIs, RCSs, and reclosers, respectively

DCF(s,S k), DCS(s,S k), DC(s,S k):

Uninstallation cost of FPIs, RCSs, and reclosers, respectively

F((a,a′),l):

Directed branches (a and a’) for which node (l) is source node

L(i):

Length of a branch (i)

NG, NL:

Set of DG and load nodes in the network, respectively

NSF:

Number of sustained faults in the network

NGL(i), NLL(i):

Set of DGs and loads in a LN formed if sustained fault (i) occurs, respectively

NR, NS, NFI:

Set of possible locations of reclosers, RCSs, and FPIs, respectively

NFIE, NSE, NER:

Locations of FPIs, RCSs, and reclosers that already exist in the network, respectively

SR(i,j):

Possible locations on the path that connects fault (i) and node (j) at which an automation device could be placed

SF:

Possible locations for placement of automation devices in the network

sFH :

Feeder head switch

TRepair(f,i):

Duration of repair in the case of fault (i)

TDG(f,j):

DG unavailability duration

TIZM(i):

Localization and isolation duration in the case of fault (i) in the existing network

ΔTIZF(i,s):

Reduction of the length of localization and isolation process due to a FPI at location (s)

TRFH(i):

Length of a supply restoration process performed by manual operation of the switch at a feeder head

T((a,a′),l):

Directed branches (a and a’) for which node (l) is terminal node,

T sec, T rec :

RCS and recloser operation time,

x max(a):

Maximal capacity of branch (a)

U r :

Network rated voltage

U min, U max :

Voltage limits

Za :

Impedance of line (a)

\( ci\tilde{n}t^{t} (i, S_{k} ) \) :

Fuzzy variable that describes fuzzy cost of interruption due to the transient fault (i) in the automation plan Sk

\( ci\tilde{n}t^{us} (i, S_{k} ) \) :

Fuzzy variable that represents fuzzy cost of interruption to customers upstream from the sustained fault (i) in the automation plan Sk

\( ci\tilde{n}t^{ds} (OI(i, S_{k} )) \) :

Fuzzy variable that describes fuzzy cost of interruption to customers in the optimal island created downstream from the sustained fault (i) in the automation plan Sk

cst(i,j, S k)), cgst(i,l, S k):

Variables that represent short-term interruption cost to loads and to generators (DGs) in the automation plan Sk, respectively

cad(S k):

Variable that describes cost of new automation devices in the automation plan Sk

crl(S k):

Variable that describes relocation cost of the automation devices in the automation plan Sk

t(i,j, S k), t(i,l, S k):

Variables that represent interruption duration of loads and DGs, respectively, due to sustained fault (i) in the automation plan Sk

\( d\tilde{g}(i,j) \) :

Variable that describes the fuzzy generation at node (j) in the case of fault (i)

tiz(i,j, S k):

Variable that describes duration of localization and isolation of fault (i) from the standpoint of node (j) in the automation plan Sk

tisl(i,j,S k):

Variable that represents a duration of island(s) creation in the automation plan Sk if a sustained fault (i) occurs

w(s,S k), ww(s,S k), wfi(s,S k):

Binary variable that takes value 1 if a recloser, RCS, or an FPI is installed at location (s) in the automation plan Sk

wdg(i,j,S k):

Binary variable that takes value 1 if a DG at location (j) operates in the island mode in the case of fault (i)

wm(s,S k), wwm(s,S k), wfim(s,S k):

Binary variables that take value 1 if the automation device is relocated to a new location (s) in the automation plan Sk

w load(i,j,S k):

Binary variable that takes value 1 if node (j) is supplied during the island operation in the case of fault (i)

w virt(a,i,S k):

Artificial binary variable that takes value 1 if a recloser at branch (a) is opened in the case of fault (i)

ww virt(i,j,S k):

Artificial binary variable that takes value 1 if RCS in demand node (substation) (j) is opened

x(a,i), x(a′,i):

Variables that describe current flow over the oriented branches (a) and (a’) in the LN created in the case of fault (i)

U l(i), U m(i):

Variables that represent voltages in the network during the island operation in the case of fault (i)

References

  1. Lim I, Sidhu TS, Choi MS, Lee SJ, Ha BN (2013) An optimal composition and placement of automatic switches in DAS. IEEE Trans Power Del 28:1474–1482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Assis LS, González JFV, Usberti FL, Lyra Ch, Cavellucci C, Von Zuben FJ (2015) Switch allocation problems in power distribution systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst 30:246–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pombo AV, Murta-Pina J, Pires VF (2016) A multiobjective placement of switching devices in distribution networks incorporating distributed energy resources. Electr Power Syst Res 130:34–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ray S, Bhattacharya A, Bhattacharjee S (2016) Optimal placement of switches in a radial distribution network for reliability improvement. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 76:3–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Popovic Z, Brbaklic B, Knezevic S (2017) A mixed integer linear programming based approach for optimal placement of different types of automation devices in distribution networks. Electr Power Syst Res 148:136–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang L, Singh C (2008) Reliability-constrained optimum placement of reclosers and distributed generators in distribution networks using an ACS algorithm. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C 38:757–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Falaghi H, Haghifam MR, Singh Ch (2009) Ant colony optimization based method for placement of sectionalizing switches in distribution networks using a fuzzy multiobjective approach. IEEE Trans Power Del 24:268–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Raoofat M (2011) Simultaneous allocation of dgs and remote controllable switches in distribution networks considering multilevel load model. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 33:1429–1436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Heidari A, Agelidis VG, Kia M (2015) Considerations of sectionalizing switches in distribution networks with distributed generation. IEEE Trans Power Del 30:1401–1409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Heidari A, Agelidis VG, Kia M, Pou J, Aghaei J, Shafie-Khah M, Catalão JPS (2017) Reliability optimization of automated distribution networks with probability customer interruption cost model in the presence of DG units. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 8:305–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Popovic Z, Knezevic S, Brbaklic B (2018) Optimal reliability improvement strategy in radial distribution networks with island operation of distributed generation. IET Gener Trans Distrib 12:78–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu W, Li Z, Zeng B, Yang M, Qin H, Zheng X, Zhao D (2018) Collaborative planning of DERs and intentional islands in distribution network considering loss-of-load risk. IEEE Access 6:45961–45973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Li Y, Zio E (2012) Uncertainty analysis of the adequacy assessment model of a distributed generation system. Renew Energy 4:235–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Arefi A, Abeygunawardana A, Ledwich G (2016) A new risk-managed planning of electric distribution network incorporating customer engagement and temporary solutions. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 7:1646–1661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shaocheng T (1994) Interval number and fuzzy number linear programming. Fuzzy Sets Syst 66:301–306

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Chinneck JW, Ramadan K (2000) Linear programming with interval coefficients. J Oper Res Soc 51:209–220

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Anderson G, Entriken R, Nitu P (1999) Risk assessment and financial management. IEEE Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chen S, Nikolaidis E, Cudney HH (1999) Comparison of probabilistic and fuzzy set methods for designing under uncertainty. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics AIAA-99-1579, pp 2660–2674

  19. Ross TJ, Booker JM, Parkinson WJ (2002) Fuzzy logic and probability applications: bridging the gap. ASA-SIAM series on statistics and applied probability, SIAM, Philadelphia, ASA, Alexandria, VA

  20. Wood KL, Antonsson EK, Beck JL (1990) Representing imprecision in engineering design: comparing fuzzy and probability calculus. Res Eng Des 3:187–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Matos MA, Gouveia EM (2008) The fuzzy power flow revisited. IEEE Trans Power Syst 23:213–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pota M, Esposito M, De Pietro G (2013) Transforming probability distributions into membership functions of fuzzy classes: a hypothesis test approach. Fuzzy Sets Syst 233:52–73

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Bradbury LJS (2013) The probability density distribution for the power output from arrays of wind turbines and the intermittent nature of wind power. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 123:121–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Klir GJ, Yuan B (1995) Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic. Prentice-Hall, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Huynh VN, Nakamori Y, Lawry J (2008) A probability-based approach to comparison of fuzzy numbers and applications to target-oriented decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 16:371–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Popovic D, Popovic Z (2004) A risk management procedure for supply restoration in distribution networks. IEEE Trans Power Syst 19:221–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. El-Hawary ME (1998) Electric Power Applications of Fuzzy Systems. IEEE Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Sengupta A, Pal TK (2009) Fuzzy preference ordering of interval numbers in decision problems. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Abraham A, Hassanien AE, Siarry P, Engelbrecht A (2009) Foundations of computational intelligence, vol 3. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Singh D, Misra RK, Singh D (2007) Effect of load models in distributed generation planning. IEEE Trans Power Syst 22:2204–2212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tollefson G, Billinton R, Wacker G, Chan E, Aweya J (1994) A Canadian customer survey to assess power system reliability worth. IEEE Trans Power Syst 9:443–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Power Electronic and Telecommunication Engineering, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovica 6, 21 000, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Zeljko N. Popovic

  2. Schneider Electric DMS NS, Narodnog fronta 25a, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Stanko D. Knezevic

  3. Technical Faculty “Mihailo Pupin”, University of Novi Sad, Djure Djakovica bb, Zrenjanin, Serbia

    Vojin Dj. Kerleta

Authors
  1. Zeljko N. Popovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stanko D. Knezevic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vojin Dj. Kerleta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zeljko N. Popovic.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Popovic, Z.N., Knezevic, S.D. & Kerleta, V.D. Network automation planning in distribution networks with distributed generators using a risk-based approach. Electr Eng 101, 659–673 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00202-019-00814-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00202-019-00814-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation