You are on page 1of 9


1, FEBRUARY 2010


Quantitative Decision-Making Model for Distribution System Restoration
Wen-Hui Chen, Member, IEEE
Abstract—Distribution system restoration is a process of finding backup feeders to restore the load in out-of-service zones by switching operations. A feasible restoration plan must satisfy some practical objectives under operational constraints. Since there may be a tradeoff between objectives, and decision preferences vary from one situation to another, how to evaluate and choose a suitable restoration plan under system emergency has become a real challenge in modern power system operation. Conventional approaches can find feasible restoration plans but fail to identify their relative performance as it is unable to make a quantitative comparison among them. In this paper, we propose a quantitative evaluation framework for ranking restoration plans with their performance indexes, using the analytical hierarchy process-based fuzzy-grey approach. Experimental results showed that the proposed method was effective and helpful in assisting operators during the restoration process. Index Terms—Analytical hierarchy process (AHP), fuzzy systems, grey relational analysis (GRA), performance index, service restoration.



OMPLEX and widespread power distribution networks play an important role in delivering electricity to customers. When a fault occurs in distribution networks, the associated circuit breakers will be tripped to isolate the fault for protecting power equipment, which causes a power outage. In the meantime, system operators are responsible for restoring the electricity in out-of-service zones as quickly as possible. The restoration process involves finding suitable backup feeders and laterals to transfer the outage loads using operational criteria through a series of switching operations. The criteria may differ from utilities to utilities. Some of them are the amount of restored load, the number of switching operations, and the degree of load balance. Choosing a restoration plan is a process of looking for a combination of switching operations that satisfy multiple objectives under certain constraints. As such, distribution system restoration can be considered as a multiobjective decision-making problem. Different restoration plans lead to different system configurations, which may affect the service quality of power utilities. In addition, restoration tasks are normally performed

Manuscript received November 14, 2008; revised May 16, 2009. First published December 22, 2009; current version published January 20, 2010. Paper no. TPWRS-00906-2008. The author is with the Graduate Institute of Automation Technology, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei 106, Taiwan (e-mail: whchen@ntut. Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online at Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2009.2036811

in an emergency, so it is time limited for operators to find a suitable restoration plan. Therefore, a computerized information system that supports decision-making activities is crucial to help operators evaluate quickly restoration plans during the restoration process. The problem of distribution system restoration becomes more and more difficult when the distribution network is growing in complexity. Various methods have been developed for the restoration problem in the past. Earlier research tends to use expert systems or heuristic search approach to solve the problem [1]–[4]. A summary of modern heuristic methods for restoration problems can be found in [5]. Recent research tries to find a better solution by applying soft computing algorithms [6]–[11]. However, most of the approaches focus on finding the restoration plan that best fits some criteria rather than make quantitative comparisons to different plans. In general, decision criteria vary from one situation to another, and operators may have their own preferences under different situations. Hence, as a decision-support system, the decision itself is not about choosing the best plan but to provide decision makers with enough information for them to choose. Therefore, it is better to provide operators with relative performance of each feasible restoration plan so that operators can choose their favorite among all alternatives by themselves according to the current situation. In [12], the author used grey decision approach to select restoration plans and used simple proportion calculation to normalize objective functions. Although it can find the relationship quickly among restoration plans, the result could get worse when the compared values become diverse. In addition, it lacks of capability to handle uncertainty that existing in operators’ heuristic rules. In [13], the author incorporated fuzzy set theory to improve the problem and preprocess the data on a scale of 0 to 1 at the first stage of grey relational analysis (GRA). However, the fuzzy-grey approach did not consider a numerical weight or priority of each objective function in a rational and consistent way, which is impractical for industrial use. In this paper, the developed approach has overcome the aforementioned difficulties and provides unique advantages where important attributes of the decision are difficult to quantify or compare. The proposed approach can provide operators with a set of alternatives or restoration plans in order from most to least desirable. It can also help operators determine the relative merit of a set of restoration plans, as opposed to selecting a single one. This is useful for operators to make a right decision under emergency. In restoration problems, the difficulty of comparing different restoration plans arises from a tradeoff among objective functions and individual subjective preferences. In this paper, we developed a quantitative and systematic approach to evaluating

0885-8950/$26.00 © 2009 IEEE

less value in is preferred. the out-of-service loads in unfaulty zones will be transferred to backup feeders by switching operations. operators need to find backup feeders with enough load margins to support them. 2. A. 1. Fig. 1 shows the concept of the proposed restoration decision-support system (RDSS). Consequently. which is part of an 11-kV distribution system. Concept of the proposed RDSS. it is desirable that the number of switching operations is minimized so that the operational cost can be reduced. if the status of switch has been changed otherwise. and where switches in the restored system: is the number of Fig. Simple model distribution system. Detailed descriptions about each function block of RDSS will be given in the remaining sections. less is preferred. Objective Functions 1) Number of Switching Operations: (1) is the status of switch . and LAT7 are out of service. In the same sense. the loads connected to F2 and laterals LAT2. LAT3. VOL. Suppose that a fault occurs at a point of the feeder F2. II. value in 4) Unbalanced Loading of Feeders: (4) . the circuit breaker CB2 will be tripped to isolate the fault. 1. FEBRUARY 2010 To restore the outage loads. The criteria can be described as the following objective functions and system constraints. 3) Maximum Loading Among Backup Laterals: Fig. A performance index here refers to an index that measures how well a restoration plan is. as shown in Fig. LAT5. it needs extra maintenance work on frequently operated equipment. 2) Maximum Loading Among Backup Feeders: (2) where denotes the load current of the backup feeder after switching operations. the performance of each restoration plan by quantifying it with a performance index. The restoration task is achieved by a series of switching operations that satisfy some operational criteria. operators can easily obtain the ranking of each restoration plan and choose the favorite one according to the situation they encounter. This objective function evaluates the most loaded backup lateral.314 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS. Once the performance index has derived. is employed to illustrate the concept of restoration problems in distribution systems. In addition. During the restoration process. Switching operations are one of the key attributes to evaluate the performance of a restoration plan. Therefore. 25. The model system contains three main feeders and eight laterals. 2. The out-of-service loads in unfaulty zones can also be transferred to adjacent backup laterals if the backup feeder does not have enough margins to support them. This calculation will pick out the most loaded backup feeder and reflect its remaining load margin. The greater the number of switching operations. RESTORATION PROBLEMS A model system. the more time it will take to finish restoration. Therefore. NO. (3) where denotes the load current of the backup lateral after switching operations and represents the number of backup laterals. and represents the number of backup feeders.

. as shown in Fig. . voltage limit. These rules. Note that the smaller the unbalanced loading of feeders. and is the percentage reference load level. It is composed of three computational parts. Line currents are the most commonly used real-time data for network reconfiguration in automated substations. Analytic Hierarchy Process The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) provides a systematic approach to processing the subjective and personal preferences of an individual in making a decision [14] and has grown in popularity as a useful decision support methodology [15]. not all data are available online from SCADA systems. . the real value of each objective function is first calculated to get the firing strength in fuzzy IF-THEN rules. In Taipower. membership functions. Therefore. A. Fuzzy Multicriteria Evaluation Fuzzy multicriteria evaluation (FMCE) consists mainly of a rule base. . the radial structure of distribution networks must be kept. The definition of is given by III. current of the feeder This objective function is employed to evaluate the degree of unbalanced loading of feeders. the AHP is adopted to assess the weighting factors of each objective function in a rational way. transformer capacity. For this reason and in order to make comparison with other approaches in Section IV. 3. 1) All Feeders and Laterals Must Operate Within Their Line Capacity: This is a basic requirement in distribution system operations. The procedures of the AHP are described as follows. The entry judgment on a pair of objectives . respectively. represents the quantified and is defined as the . . all objective functions are described with the use of three fuzzy sets: low. where and . and high. Consequently. are written as antecedent-consequent pairs of IF-THEN statements expressed in the following forms: (5) where and represent the load current and the rated . The constraints used in this study are stated as follows. moderate. less value in is preferred. QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION MODEL The quantitative evaluation model (QEM) is used for evaluating the relative performance of each restoration plan.matrix: and represent the load current and the rated where current of the lateral . such as line current capacity. . . respectively. we do not take voltage limit into consideration. and radial network topology. rerepresents the number of fuzzy rules. . Constraints Restoration problems can be formulated as multiobjective decision-making problems with satisfying operational constraints. . which will be described shortly. In this study. the weighted average described in (8) is employed to derive crisp defuzzification values: (8) (7) and are the firing strength of antecedents and the where fuzzy singleton of the consequence part in the th fuzzy rule. The definition is given by In the antecedents.CHEN: QUANTITATIVE DECISION-MAKING MODEL FOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RESTORATION 315 where is the percentage load level of the feeder FDi. 1) Create Pairwise Comparison Matrix: Let be the set of objective functions (where is the number of objective functions). In the inference procedure. is the percentage reference load level. B. of B. and an inference engine. Therefore. The pairwise comparison matrix can be represented by the following -by. represent the fitness degree of objective functions . The rule base is formed with fuzzy rules according to operators’ knowledge. which describe relationships in a linguistic sense.. 5) Unbalanced Loading of Laterals: (6) where and of is the percentage load level of the lateral . automation project for distribution systems in rural area only reach substation level for cost-effect consideration. the better the system performance is. . This objective function is employed to evaluate the degree of unbalanced loading of laterals. The values spectively. 2) The Topology of Radial Network Structure Needs to be Retained: After switching operations.

. (9) . as shown in Table I [16]. which are then translated into corresponding numerical values. . The and the corresponding random index sistency index defined as follows: . 3. . 25. . This allows expressing the comparisons in verbal terms. Flow chart of the proposed QEM. and Its Corre2) Calculate the Largest Eigenvalue : In this step. . we have five objective functions. For example. . TABLE I FUNDAMENTAL SCALE FOR PAIRWISE COMPARISONS relative importance of two objectives. the largest sponding Normalized Eigenvector eigenvalue and the corresponding normalized eigenvector of the comparison matrix are calculated. so the pairwise comparison matrix can be rewritten as The value of each entry in the matrix is determined by judging the importance of each pair of objectives . FEBRUARY 2010 Fig. In this study. . .316 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS. . 3) Verify Consistency of the Comparison Matrix: The consistency of the comparison matrix should be verified by the before selecting the weighting values consistency ratio is the ratio of conaccording to pairwise judgments.. VOL. NO. The weighting values for all objective functions are derived from the components of the normalized eigenvector. can be derived by comparing the importance of the entry objective (the number of switching operations) and (maximum loading among backup feeders) according to Table I. 1. .

Step 3) Use AHP to derive a numerical weight of each objective function for the use in GRA. The GRCs are calculated to express the relationship between the ideal reference sequence and the compared sequence. denoted by . absolute difference value between the ideal and each compared reference sequence sequence largest value among smallest value among All the weighting factors of objective functions are determined by the AHP. IV. Step 5) Use the results from FMCE and AHP as the input of GRA to calculate the performance index of each restoration plan. LAT5. the feeder YD28 is connected to nine laterals: LAT1. LAT3. In Fig. it has been employed successfully in many fields [19]–[22]. It repand . Suppose that a fault occurs at a point of feeder YD28. LAT2. Each lateral has its supporting lateral (LAT10. Hence. LAT11. The GRA is an important part of grey system theory and widely used for applications of evaluating alternatives with respect to decision criteria. the GRA can be used to measure the relationship between two sequences by calculating their correlative degrees. LAT8. CASE STUDY To verify the effectiveness of the proposed approach. and LAT17) as a backup via a normally opened switch. Up to now. the evaluated the order of the comparison matrix. As shown in Fig. the GRG can be used as the performance index. This study is concerned with evaluating feasible restoration plans and ranks them in a quantitative way. the example used in [24] is adopted for comparison purpose. which can be expressed as [23]: (10) (11) (12) (13) where GRC of with respect to ideal reference sequence at the th entry. which . which can be calculated through the grey relational coefficient (GRC). the procedures to obtain performance index of each restoration plan using the proposed QEM are summarized as follows. known as grey relational grade (GRG). For each restoration plan. In this study. where is the weighting factor of the th objective function and satisfies (15): (15) C. Table II lists the values of and is . LAT6. LAT16. compared sequence at the th entry. Step 1) Generate feasible restoration plans according to preference setting and operational constraints. If weighting value is considered acceptable. the fitness degrees of objective functions derived from (8) are compiled as a discrete sequence . LAT13. LAT7. Step 6) Rank the restoration plans in order according to their GRGs. which is resents the strength of relationship between given by (14) where is the deviation of the maximum eigenvalue from the number of criteria used in the comparison process. LAT15. select the largest value of sequences to construct the reference sequence. Assume that the fault has been identified and isolated by opening the switch S0. 4 shows the configuration of the test example. Fig. the circuit breaker CB2 will be tripped following the fault. As a tool of quantitative analysis. and LAT9. How to restore the power supply service by a series of switching operations is the major concern of this work. . called compared sequence.CHEN: QUANTITATIVE DECISION-MAKING MODEL FOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RESTORATION 317 TABLE II ORDER OF COMPARISON MATRIX AND RI Let denote the GRG for the compared sequence . 4. LAT14. The concept of the GRA applied to this study is briefly described shortly. denoted by where is the number of restoration plans. 3. leaving all laterals connected to feeder YD28 out-of-service. For each objective among all compared function. [18] in 1982. Step 2) Use (1)–(7) to compute the values of objective functions derived from Step 1. LAT12. The test system is assumed to be balanced. Step 4) Use FMCE to evaluate the values obtained from Step 2. LAT4. The GRG is a real number ranging from 0 to 1. load transfer has been achieved only on a three-phase basis. A compared sequence (compared restoration plan) with higher GRG is preferred since it resembles more the reference sequence (the most preferred restoration plan). Grey Relational Analysis The grey system theory was first proposed by Deng [17].

25. 3) less than eight switch operations. Table VI summarized the restoration plans obtained in [24] and [25]. All units in the tables are in amperes. Typical distribution system. the normally closed switch at the head of lateral must be opened when the coris closed. For example. VOL. Conventional approaches focus on searching the best restoration plan from solution space. in the test case. it is difficult to tell how good the selected restoration plan is. 4. For comparing responding normally open switch with [24]. TABLE III PREFAULT LOAD CONDITIONS TABLE V LOAD CURRENTS ON SUPPORTING LATERALS AFTER RESTORATION To maintain the radial system structure. operators need some backup plans as there may be unexpected events that can occur when the selected restoration plan is being performed. FEBRUARY 2010 TABLE IV FEASIBLE RESTORATION PLANS AND RELATED LOAD CURRENTS ON FEEDERS AFTER RESTORATION Fig. 1. Table III gives the prefault load conditions. in practical operation. NO. The trouble is that each approach claims that it is the best. the suggested restoration plans obtained in [24] and [25] are different. 2) maximum allowable lateral current: 104A. operators have no choice but rely only on the result decided by computer programs. In this situation. the constraints are set as follows: 1) maximum allowable feeder current: 463A.318 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS. Tables IV and V list all the feasible switching operations and the load currents on supporting feeders and laterals after restoration. In the absence of quantitative evaluation of each restoration plan. In addition. the switch TABLE VI RESTORATION PLANS OBTAINED BY DIFFERENT APPROACHES . For example.

and bad are crisply defined as 1. According to the relative importance of each objective function.CHEN: QUANTITATIVE DECISION-MAKING MODEL FOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RESTORATION 319 TABLE VII OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS AND CORRESPONDING DEFUZZIFICATION VALUES Fig. it would be helpful to provide operators with relative performance of each restoration plan so that they can choose the preferable one among all alternatives by themselves. APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED APPROACH The relative performance of each restoration plan can be derived by applying the proposed quantitative evaluation model to the test case. Analytic Hierarchy Process V. B. The values of the five objective functions and the corresponding defuzzification values are summarized in Table VII. 1) Number of switching operations Then we can derive its largest eigenvalue and the corresponding normalized eigenvector as follows: 2) Maximum loading among backup feeders The AHP is employed to assess the weighting factors of each objective function. . may break down unexpectedly on the repair crews who have been dispatched to operate it. 5. Membership functions of the objective function f . In this case. Fuzzy Multicriteria Evaluation As shown in Fig. 5. the membership functions of fuzzy sets used for this example are assigned as follows. In the consequence. the pairwise comparison matrix used in the study is chosen as 3) Maximum loading among backup laterals The following are the procedures for verifying the consistency of the pairwise comparison matrix. which will be described as follows. moderate. the assessment is regarded as an effective process.. A. Since the is less than 0. instead of merely selecting a plan for operators. From (9) 4) Loading unbalance of feeders 5) Loading unbalance of laterals i.e. respectively. This can simplify the computation process and meet completely the needs of this study.1. and 0. making it impossible for the selected restoration plan to be implemented. the singleton fuzzy sets good.5. 0.

Wong and H. pp. [2] L. Res. Dodge. Yan. pp. pp. May 1992. K. vol. T. Yu. pp.. “The integration and application of fuzzy and grey modeling methods. Kuo. [17] J. Venkata. C. “Study on the fault diagnosis of transformer based on the grey relational analysis. vol. “How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. 2. Sep. 1990. Luo. pp. 7th Int.. no. L. REFERENCES [1] C. In this case. and plan#6. is set to be (0. C. “Comparative study of modern heuristic algorithms to service restoration in distribution systems. 28. S. Dec. [6] Y. vol. p. 2231–2234. 2005. 20. H. 78. Y. Deng. and with the load balance and the overload among supporting lines taken into consideration. Das. 1992. 3. 619–626. no. O.. Oct. pp. “Control problems of grey systems. T. pp. Li. S. pp. 5. operators will find it hard to make another choice. Res. vol. K. [11] Z.” System Control Lett. S.” J. In the test case. 3. 9–26.. plan#5. 173–181. 4.” Elect. Oct. R. 4. B. H. C. Mater. 1989. 12. Peng. When provided with the information of relative performance indexes. 2433–2442. “A hybrid particle swarm optimization approach for distribution network reconfiguration problem. S.” IEEE Trans. The GRG is used as the performance index of a restoration plan.” IEEE Trans. and H. W. plan#2. [23] C. Das.. “A new grey relational measurement. [9] Y.” IEEE Trans. 2. L. and the next favorite alternative can thus be easily obtained even if the selected plan fails to be performed..798.205. and plan#9) selected in [24]. and J. Wen.320 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS. 1980. “Distribution system service restoration using a heuristic search approach. In addition. [18] J. 2007. 1158–1161. [19] M. [7] A. Huang and C. 15. 1181–1186. vol. no.. Commun.. [21] B. vol. 7. Y. [8] D. Power Del. T. Res. and R.. J. New York: McGrawHill. Phadke. 734–740. Liu. 71. Dielectr. At first. Jun. no. 341–346. Vaidya and S. Deng. all the 11 feasible restoration plans are represented as compared . 199–205. “Introduction to grey system theory. T. “Fault diagnosis of power transformer based on model-diagnosis with grey relation. Hsu. L. 1. J. Huang. Aug. FEBRUARY 2010 TABLE VIII GRGS OF EVALUATED PLANS 2) The hybrid fuzzy-grey algorithm with AHP exhibits a reasonable and appropriate ranking approach. Choo. are highlighted in italic bold font. 2.. P. and Y. “An AIS-ACO hybrid approach for multi-objective distribution system reconfiguration. the most preferred plan can be quickly obtained. J. 1. Conf. various plans are comparable. 1–7. no. C. It is helpful to present the rankings of restoration plans to operators instead of merely selecting a plan for them.” IEEE Trans. vol.” IEEE Trans. Hsu. Lai. 1. 2002. L. Chinese Inst. CONCLUSION In this study. “Grey neural network. 1989.” IEICE Trans. 2235–2241. 4.095. Rogers. [20] C. [22] Y. Chang. no. Chien. “Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. Jan. Huang. Chow. Y. The reference sequence. C. [13] W. Res. Fukuyama. but did not provide quantitative figures to show the reason behind such selection. J. S.545). 2005. Fund. 1–29. 2004. pp. vol.. Genji. Wu. pp. vol. pp. Technol. S.. Taniguchi. 1. Power Syst. Singh.” IEEE Trans.. As all the feasible restoration plans have the same number of switch operations. Chang. 1. Sun. 288–294. [4] Y. pp. pp. E81-A. no. vol. Eng. Power Syst. 4. R.. pp. Sharma. 2006. Y. Liu.. The three top ranking plans. Saaty.” IEEE Trans. no. “An expert system operational aid for restoration and loss reduction of distribution system. vol. and S. Shin. 145–152. E. Nov. NO. C. Chen. 4. Lee.” J. and C. [14] T. Grey Relational Analysis The final stage of the proposed quantitative evaluation model is to measure the similarity between each restoration plan and the reference plan using GRA. vol. and the GRGs can thus be derived as listed in Table VIII by applying (10) to (15). pp. and A.” IEEE Trans. H. 1982. vol. L. vol. “Distribution system restoration using the hybrid fuzzy-grey method. vol. no.” in Proc. 18. 25. H. 1996. Comput. M. and Y. VOL. Chen. each restoration plan should be represented in a sequence form. 2002. 17. we have proposed a quantitative evaluation model for evaluating restoration plans and highlighted the concept of relative performance index used for decision making in distribution system restoration. Z. Power Syst. K. Y. Grey Syst. S. Power Syst. Kuo. M. Yu. vol. 48. “Enhancement of restoration service in distribution systems using a combination fuzzy-GA method. and X. 4) It can be easily implemented as a decision-support system used in practical distribution systems. Power Syst. Sci. pp. vol. Yu. Feb. By using the proposed evaluation model. Power Del. “Heuristic search approach to distribution system restoration. Fudo. S. C. Y. 1–24. if plan #6 fails to be implemented. Chen. Nov. plan#3. K. Apr. Power Syst.” in Proc. 1394–1400. B. May 1988. J. Power Syst. is sequences constructed by selecting the largest value of . G. Cheng. 2006. J. Pahwa. Power Del. H. 1. Tsai. Monticelli. and C. Kim. 795–802. 1. “A grey-based approach for distribution network reconfiguration. Sep. S. with the aid of relative performance rankings provided by the proposed approach. pp. Dong. vol. Ahuja. 11. Electron.” Eur. The proposed approach is superior to conventional methods in terms of the following features. no.” Eur. Muchlinski. no. 2002 Power Syst. pp. X. Kuo. [3] T.. Oper. [10] A. The Analytical Hierarchy Process. 0. Obviously. plan #6. 1. 22. pp. J. 169. [15] O. 768–777. Song. 3) Each restoration plan can be evaluated in a quantitative fashion so that operators can get insight into how good a restoration plan is.” IEEE Trans. “Optimal service restoration and reconfiguration using genetic-tabu algorithm. S. operators are expected to be more confident in making a decision. Power Del. Toune. Ma. . Kumar. “Service restoration in distribution system using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm. S. pp. 2000. plan #3. pp. P... [16] T. no. “Artificial neural networks in power system restoration. Kumar. 2003 Properties Appl. Mar. Morelato and A. no. and plan#2 are considered better than those (plan #2.. Liu. 7. Oct. Feb. 1101–1111. M. K. L. 0. Satty. vol.625.. 1998.. T. 0. Oper.” Elect. [5] S.” Proc. Bretas and A. C. “Operational experience and maintenance of online expert system for customer restoration and fault testing. 107–119. Kim. and J. 54. General Meeting. no. Grey Syst. [12] W. and H. VI. 835–842.” Fuzzy Sets Syst. vol. C. 0. 2000. no. 2003. Tsai.” J. Note that the authors in [25] also recommended plan #6 as the best choice.. Hsiao and C. C. Nakanishi. pp. 2008 IEEE Power Energy Soc. 1) It provides an effective and quantitative evaluation model for evaluating restoration plans. 76. 2. H.. Feb.

Hsu and H. Taipei. National Taipei University of Technology. no. Apr.S.” IEEE Trans.. Y. pp. May 2003.” IEEE Trans. 948–953. “Multiobjective service restoration of distribution systems using fuzzy cause-effect networks. degrees from the National Taiwan University. degree from the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology and the M. he was a Senior Engineer and received numerous employee outstanding awards at Taiwan Power Company (Taipower Company). M. and Ph. all in electrical engineering. pp. From 1992–2000. Huang. 867–874.D.CHEN: QUANTITATIVE DECISION-MAKING MODEL FOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RESTORATION 321 [24] C. which is Taiwan's largest power utility company. Kuo. “A heuristic based fuzzy reasoning approach for distribution system service restoration. Taiwan. He is currently an Associate Professor at the Graduate Institute of Automation Technology. 2. [25] Y. 18. C. 9. Taipei. Wen-Hui Chen (M'04) was born in Taiwan in 1965.. 1994. Power Del. He received the B. vol. vol.S. . no. 2. Power Syst.