Optimal Planning of Reliable Distribution

Network Topologies

Joel Jose
Department of Electrical Engineering

Supervisor: Prof. Anupama Kowli

June 30, 2020
DEFENSE VIVA-VOCE
Introduction
Motivations

• Weather-related interruptions are on the rise

• Impact of interruptions on customers can be quite high
• Need: improve the reliability and resilience of existing
distribution grids
“There’s no question that a more resilient grid is needed. ... investing in the grid so that it will be prepared for an
event that might not occur for 20 years or more, puts grid owners and operators in a difficult position.”

–Teresa Hansen, Powergrid International 1

Service Restoration

SS

B1 B2 B3

tie-line
(kept open)

Normal operating configuration

2
Service Restoration

SS

B1 B2 B3
(open)

(fault)

Fault clearing by breaker B1

2
Service Restoration

SS

B1 B2 B3
(open)

Fault isolated using sectionalizers

2
Service Restoration

SS

B1 B2 B3

Upstream restoration. B1 is closed.

2
Service Restoration

SS

B1 B2 B3

Downstream restoration

2
Service Restoration

SS

B1 B2 B3

customers face
sustained interruptions

Some locations are more vulnerable to outages

2
Objectives

• Distribution feeder reconfiguration optimization

• Exploit the flexibility offered by tie-lines to operate the
network in an optimal manner (lower losses, improved
reliability)

• Optimal network augmentation

• Equip networks with sufficient redundancy to improve
service restoration capabilities
• Improving service restoration reduces outage times,
enhances reliability

• Optimal clustering of active distribution networks

• Enable distributed energy resources to assist in service
restoration

Key tools
Graph algorithms and optimization
3
Scope

• Focus on topology of network and its effect on reliability

• The problems are approached from the perspective of a
system planner
• The solutions exclusively deal with altering or
augmenting existing network topology
• Reliability metrics are chosen to reflect the impact of
topology alone on reliability
For example, duration-based metrics are not evaluated since
they depend on system-specific factors such as service
restoration strategies and crew response times, which are
difficult to compare across test systems
• Distribution network is modeled as a graph: balanced system
is assumed and its single-phase equivalent is used
4
Distribution Feeder Reconfiguration
Need for DFR

What can be achieved by DFR?

• Power loss minimization

• Load balancing: relieve overloads
• Service restoration: minimal switchings
• Voltage profile improvement
• Reliability enhancement

What are the constraints?

• Power flow constraints

• Topology related constraints: (1) connectivity (2) radiality
• Voltage magnitudes

5
Literature Survey

• Mixed-integer non-linear and mixed-integer quadratic

programming (MIQP) formulations exist [1, 2]
• The methods are exclusively heuristic for multi-objective
DFR and reliability improvement [3, 4]
• Heuristic approaches have the tendency to get stuck in
sub-optimal solutions
180

175

170
active power loss (kW)

165

160

155

150

145

140
optimal loss (139.5 kW)
135
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 6
iteration number
Contributions

• A new path-based modeling framework which allows easy

mapping of network topology into losses and reliability
indices

• A probabilistic framework which extensively uses the

path-based model for deriving and validating the
approximations on load point failure rates

• An MIQP formulation for the multi-objective DFR problem

which can be suitably modified to optimize losses,
reliability, or both

• Demonstration of the impact of choice of loading

conditions and topology on active power losses over long
duration
7
Multi-objective Optimization Framework

• Multiple objectives are modeled as:

F (x) = w1 f1 (x) + w2 f2 (x) + w3 f3 (x)
with f1 (x), f2 (x), f3 (x) representing normalized total
active power losses, SAIFI, and EDNS

• The decision variables are the status of paths between

load-points and the substation(s)
P  
• Total active power losses: (i,j)∈E rij p2ij + qij
2

• SAIFI and EDNS have linear expressions as functions of

decision variables and load-point failure rates

• Constraints on connectivity, radiality, and power flow are

also linear
8
Analytic Evaluation of Reliability

• The path-based model can be used to evaluate reliability

metrics

• Expected value of load point failure rate λn :

X
N −1
E [λn ] = λn0 p0 + λnr pr
r=1

where pr denotes the probability of failure of rth line.

• Majority of literature approximates the average load

point failure rate as λ0n

9
Analytic Evaluation: Error Bounds

• Need to quantify the error introduced by this

approximation:
X
N −1
n
ϵ = λn0 p0 + λnr pr −λn0
r=1
| {z }
E[λn ]

• A loose upper bound on the error is:

ϵn ≤ λ̄n 1 − p0 := ϵ̄n .
• For the 33-bus system, the largest value of ϵ̄n is of the
order of 10−3 and is only 0.04% of λn0

• Linear expressions for reliability indices (SAIFI and EDNS)

can use λn0 without significant loss of accuracy

10
Optimization of Power Loss and Reliability

155 1.65

150 1.60
power loss (kW)

145 1.55

SAIFI
140 1.50

135 1.45
power loss
SAIFI
130 1.40
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
weight of loss minimization objective

Trade-off between power loss and reliability (33-bus system)

• Topologies with best SAIFI can also be arrived at using a

shortest-path tree algorithm

11
Effect of DFR on Path-related Metrics

• Minimum loss configurations have lower path lengths

(number of lines in the path)
• Lower path lengths favorably impact average resistances,
load point failure rates, and voltage profiles (not shown)
12
Effect of Loading Conditions

• Loading conditions are input to the DFR problem: can

affect optimal topologies
• Impact of loading conditions on topology, and therefore
on power losses can be quantified using time-series
power flow studies

System Topology Lmax (kW) Lmin (kW) Ltotal (MW)

Substation Peak 821.11 2.88 918.13

33-bus Substation Minimum 830.79 2.78 938.57
Load-point Mean 821.11 2.92 910.93
Substation Peak 757.35 2.25 970.84
84-bus Substation Minimum 771.19 2.20 976.17
Load-point Mean 767.45 2.21 970.27

13
Future Work

• Modify the optimization formulation for generating

service restoration options
• The objective is to connect maximum part of the network
with minimum number of switching operations

• Minimizing number of switching operations can be

modeled as a mixed-integer linear programming problem

• Extend the framework to handle the presence of

distributed energy resources

14
Optimal Network Augmentation
Approaches for Improving Reliability

• Adding protection devices and new switches

• Optimal placement of switches has been shown to
improve service restoration
• Smaller number of customers affected by outages

• Distribution automation
• Enables faster fault location, identification, and service
restoration

• Improving crew response times

• Altering the network topology including the installation

of new tie-lines and feeders

15
Network Augmentation Using Tie-lines

• Adding tie-lines provides more flexibility for service

restoration and can reduce customer outage duration

• Analogous problem from communication networks:

design of survivable networks [5]
• Graph theoretic approaches for improving system
reliability

• Deals with design of new networks and augmenting

existing systems

• Objective: add a new set of tie-lines to an existing

network to improve service restoration

16
Literature Survey

• Locating new switches [6] and upgrading manual switches

with remote-controlled switches [7] are well studied

• Installing new lines for serving new load points, while

considering reliability has also been explored [8]

• A synthesis problem is proposed in [9], which searches

over all spanning trees using an evolutionary algorithm

• Network augmentation is posed as an N − 1 security

constrained multi-stage stochastic optimization problem
in [10]

17
Contributions

• Modeling reliability enhancement by addition of new

tie-lines as an edge-connectivity augmentation problem

• Solving the augmentation problem using an

integer-linear programming (ILP) formulation

• Incorporating practical considerations into the solution

scheme: developing an algorithm for performing partial
augmentations. Tractable graph algorithms for local
edge-connectivity augmentation does not exist.

• Identifying metrics suitable for characterizing reliability

as a function of network topology

18
Edge-connectivity in Network Graphs

• Edge-connectivity of the connected graph G: minimum

number of edges whose removal disconnects G
• A k-edge connected graph has at least k edge-disjoint
paths between any pair of nodes in the graph (Menger’s
Theorem)
1 S/S 1 S/S 1 S/S

a c a c a c

2 4 2
m 4 2 4

b d b d b d

3 5 3 5 3
n 5

edge-connectivity = 1 edge-connectivity = 1 edge-connectivity = 2

Node vulnerable to outage of single line Node resilient towards outage of single line

19
Global and Local Edge-Connectivity

1 S/S
• Global edge-connectivity, κe (G), is
a c
defined on the entire graph G
2 4

• Local edge-connectivity, κe (i, j), is e

b d
defined between a pair of nodes: the
maximum number of edge-disjoint 3 5

paths between i and j edge-connectivity = 1

• We are interested in local and global connectivity with

respect to the substation node

• 2-edge-connecting the network would imply two disjoint

paths to the substation: service restoration possible
under all single component outages

20
Quantifying Reliability as a Function of Topology

• Standard reliability indices are functions of component

failure rates, number of customers, load patterns, and
service restoration strategy of the utility

• We would like to capture the effect of topology alone

• The metrics should be able to quantify reliability

enhancement of partial augmentation1 as well

• Average edge-connectivity, κ̄e (G): local edge-connectivity

averaged over all substation-load bus pairs

• Number of spanning trees, t(G): captures the availability

of alternative topologies for service restoration2
1
Partial augmentation – when the edges added do not improve global edge-connectivity
2
Distribution networks are radially operated. Spanning trees offer connectivity and radiality.

21
Quantifying Reliability

1 S/S 1 S/S 1 S/S

a c a c a c

2 4 2 4 2 4

e
b d b d b d

3 5 3 5 3
n 5

• Edge-connectivity is a worst-case metric

• Average edge-connectivity quantifies connectivity due to
partial augmentations also
• Another option to improve reliability: ensure that edge d
has low failure probability (a trusted edge) 22
Edge-connectivity Augmentation

• Let G0 = (V, E0 ) denote the graph corresponding to the

initial topology of the distribution network

• The 2-edge-connectivity augmentation problem attempts

to add a minimum weight set of edges from a candidate
set Ex to G0 to make it 2-edge-connected

• Existing graph algorithms3 :

• Unweighted global edge-connectivity augmentation
(GECA-Graph) [11]
• Weighted global edge-connectivity augmentation
(WECA-Graph) [12]
3
Implemented using the Python library NetworkX.

23
Solutions Using Graph Algorithms

32 250
29 30
151 300
33 31 28 51 111 110 112 113 114
50
49 109
25 47 107
26 48 46 108
45 64 106 104
27
23 44 103
43 65 105 450
24 42 63 102 100
66
21 41 101
40 99
62 197 71
22 98
35 39 97 70
135 38
18 36 69
19 68
20 37 75
160 67
60 74
14 57 73
85
58 610 72
11 59 61
9 79
10 56 78
2 55
52 53 54 76
77
SS 13 152 80
94 84
8
1 7
149 34 96
12 90 88 81
92
17
15 87 86
91 89
3 95 93
5 6 82 83
4 16

Base topology

24
Solutions Using Graph Algorithms

32 250
29 30
151 300
33 31 28 51 111 110 112 113 114
50
49 109
25 47 107
26 48 46 108
45 64 106 104
27
23 44 103
43 65 105 450
24 42 63 102 100
66
21 41 101
40 99
62 197 71
22 98
35 39 97 70
135 38
18 36 69
19 68
20 37 75
160 67
60 74
14 57 73
85
58 610 72
11 59 61
9 79
10 56 78
2 55
52 53 54 76
77
SS 13 152 80
94 84
8
1 7
149 34 96
12 90 88 81
92
17
15 87 86
91 89
3 95 93
5 6 82 83
4 16

Solution of GECA-Graph 20 new lines, 15891.05 m

24
Solutions Using Graph Algorithms

32 250
29 30
151 300
33 31 28 51 111 110 112 113 114
50
49 109
25 47 107
26 48 46 108
45 64 106 104
27
23 44 103
43 65 105 450
24 42 63 102 100
66
21 41 101
40 99
62 197 71
22 98
35 39 97 70
135 38
18 36 69
19 68
20 37 75
160 67
60 74
14 57 73
85
58 610 72
11 59 61
9 79
10 56 78
2 55
52 53 54 76
77
SS 13 152 80
94 84
8
1 7
149 34 96
12 90 88 81
92
17
15 87 86
91 89
3 95 93
5 6 82 83
4 16

Solution of WECA-Graph 38 new lines, 5809.79 m

24
Certain Limitations and Practical Considerations

• The GECA-Graph algorithm selects edges from the

complete graph—some of the edges can be technically
and economically non-viable

• The WECA-Graph algorithm is only an approximation—the

gap between global optimum and the approximation can
have significant economical impact in practice

• Completely 2-edge-connecting a distribution system is

often unnecessary, impractical, and uneconomical

• More practical to improve connectivity of only a subset of

buses: local edge-connectivity augmentation

25
Local Edge-connectivity Augmentation

• Selectively improve the reliability of a subset of critical

nodes in the network

• Critical nodes may correspond to buses with high-priority

loads like hospitals or industries, or customers who are
willing to pay for higher reliability

• This problem does not have tractable graph algorithms

• The proposed ILP formulation solves the local

edge-connectivity augmentation problem for distribution
networks

26
Optimization Formulation: Objective Function

• Available edge-set is E = E0 ∪ Ex , initial and candidate

edges

• Decision variables: xij ∈ {0, 1}


1, if (i, j) ∈ E is selected in the solution,
xij =
0, otherwise.

• Solve an augmentation problem: xij = 1, ∀(i, j) ∈ E0

• The cost of adding the edge (i, j) is wij . For edges in E0 ,

wij = 0.
P
• Objective function: (i,j)∈E wij xij

27
Optimization Formulation: Path Constraints

• Membership of edges in paths is captured using the

auxiliary variables yij ∈ {0, 1} ∀(i, j) ∈ E ∪ E ′
(st)p

• Ensure k(t) paths exist from each t to s:

X (st)p
X (st)p
yij − yji = f (i)
j : (i,j)∈E∪E ′ j : (j,i)∈E∪E ′

∀t ∈ V \ s, p = 1, . . . , k(t), i ∈ V
where,


 1, if i = s,

f (i) = −1, if i = t, ∀i ∈ V .



0, if i ∈ V \ {s, t}
5 6
s t
1 2 3 4
28
Optimization Formulation: Path and Degree Constraints

• Higher connectivity requirements are assigned to critical

nodes:

2, if t ∈ V c ,
k(t) =
1, otherwise.

• Ensure that the k(t) paths are edge-disjoint:

k(t)  
X (st)p (st)p
yij + yji ≤ xij ∀t ∈ V \ s, (i, j) ∈ E
p=1

• A constraint on node degrees to reduce the search-space:

X X
xij + xij ≥ k(i) ∀i ∈ V
j : (i,j)∈E j : (j,i)∈E

29
Optimization Formulation: LECA-ILP

Putting it together:
X
min wij xij
x,y
(i,j)∈E

subject to:
X (st)p
X (st)p
yij − yji = f (i) ∀t ∈ V \ s, p = 1, . . . , k(t)
j : (i,j)∈E∪E ′ j : (j,i)∈E∪E ′
(path constr.)
k(t)  
X (st)p (st)p
yij + yji ≤ xij ∀t ∈ V \ s, (i, j) ∈ E (disjoint constr.)
p=1
X X
xij + xij ≥ k(i) ∀i ∈ V (degree constr.)
j : (i,j)∈E j : (j,i)∈E

xij = 1, ∀(i, j) ∈ E0 (augmentation const.)

∈ {0, 1} ∀(i, j) ∈ E ∪ E ′
(st)p
xij ∈ {0, 1} ∀(i, j) ∈ E; yij
30
Solving LECA-ILP

• Cost of new lines are assumed to be proportional to their

length: wij take the values of line lengths

• Use engineering knowledge to limit the maximum length

of new lines: create Ex based on line lengths

• The ILP can be solved using commercial solvers: Gurobi

or IBM CPLEX

• Tested on networks modeled after real distribution

networks: IEEE 123-bus test system, EPRI Ckt7 200-bus
test system, and a 906-bus European test system.

• Line lengths are calculated from GIS coordinates of buses

31
IEEE 123-bus Test System

32 250
29 30
151 300
33 31 28 51 111 110 112 113 114
50
49 109
25 47 107
26 48 46 108
45 64 106 104
27
23 44 103
43 65 105 450
24 42 63 102 100
66
21 41 101
40 99
62 197 71
22 98
35 39 97 70
135 38
18 36 69
19 68
20 37 75
160 67
60 74
14 57 73
85
58 610 72
11 59 61
9 79
10 56 78
2 55
52 53 54 76
77
SS 13 152 80
94 84
8
1 7
149 34 96
12 90 88 81
92
17
15 87 86
91 89
3 95 93
5 6 82 83
4 16

Base topology

32
IEEE 123-bus Test System

32 250
29 30
151 300
33 31 28 51 111 110 112 113 114
50
49 109
25 47 107
26 48 46 108
45 64 106 104
27
23 44 103
43 65 105 450
24 42 63 102 100
66
21 41 101
40 99
62 197 71
22 98
35 39 97 70
135 38
18 36 69
19 68
20 37 75
160 67
60 74
14 57 73
85
58 610 72
11 59 61
9 79
10 56 78
2 55
52 53 54 76
77
SS 13 152 80
94 84
8
1 7
149 34 96
12 90 88 81
92
17
15 87 86
91 89
3 95 93
5 6 82 83
4 16

Solution of GECA-Graph 20 new lines, 15891.05 m

32
IEEE 123-bus Test System

32 250
29 30
151 300
33 31 28 51 111 110 112 113 114
50
49 109
25 47 107
26 48 46 108
45 64 106 104
27
23 44 103
43 65 105 450
24 42 63 102 100
66
21 41 101
40 99
62 197 71
22 98
35 39 97 70
135 38
18 36 69
19 68
20 37 75
160 67
60 74
14 57 73
85
58 610 72
11 59 61
9 79
10 56 78
2 55
52 53 54 76
77
SS 13 152 80
94 84
8
1 7
149 34 96
12 90 88 81
92
17
15 87 86
91 89
3 95 93
5 6 82 83
4 16

Solution of WECA-Graph 38 new lines, 5809.79 m

32
IEEE 123-bus Test System

32 250
29 30
151 300
33 31 28 51 111 110 112 113 114
50
49 109
25 47 107
26 48 46 108
45 64 106 104
27
23 44 103
43 65 105 450
24 42 63 102 100
66
21 41 101
40 99
62 197 71
22 98
35 39 97 70
135 38
18 36 69
19 68
20 37 75
160 67
60 74
14 57 73
85
58 610 72
11 59 61
9 79
10 56 78
2 55
52 53 54 76
77
SS 13 152 80
94 84
8
1 7
149 34 96
12 90 88 81
92
17
15 87 86
91 89
3 95 93
5 6 82 83
4 16

Solution of GECA-ILP 25 new lines, 2604.52 m

32
IEEE 123-bus Test System

32 250
29 30
151 300
33 31 28 51 111 110 112 113 114
50
49 109
25 47 107
26 48 46 108
45 64 106 104
27
23 44 103
43 65 105 450
24 42 63 102 100
66
21 41 101
40 99
62 197 71
22 98
35 39 97 70
135 38
18 36 69
19 68
20 37 75
160 67
60 74
14 57 73
85
58 610 72
11 59 61
9 79
10 56 78
2 55
52 53 54 76
77
SS 13 152 80
94 84
8
1 7
149 34 96
12 90 88 81
92
17
15 87 86
91 89
3 95 93
5 6 82 83
4 16

Solution of LECA-ILP 10 new lines, 766.88 m

32
IEEE 123-bus Test System

Topology New lines Total length (m) t(G) κ̄e (G)

Base – – 322 1.07

GECA-Graph 20 15891.05 1.20 × 1021 2.08
WECA-Graph 38 5809.79 6.36 × 1026 2.07
GECA-ILP 25 2604.52 3.11 × 1021 2.02
LECA-ILP-Critical 10 766.88 1.16 × 1011 1.43

• The proposed formulation offers superior solutions as

compared to the graph algorithms

• Comparing the total length between WECA-Graph and

LECA-ILP solutions confirm that the approximation error
in WECA-Graph can be quite significant
33
EPRI Ckt7 Test System

SS

Base topology

34
EPRI Ckt7 Test System

SS

Solution of GECA-Graph
21 new lines, 25485.26 m

34
EPRI Ckt7 Test System

SS

Solution of WECA-Graph
45 new lines, 7136.87 m

34
EPRI Ckt7 Test System

SS

Solution of GECA-ILP
37 new lines, 5622.42 m

34
EPRI Ckt7 Test System

SS

Solution of LECA-ILP
10 new lines, 2744.34 m

34
EPRI Ckt7 Test System

Topology New lines Total length (m) t(G) κ̄e (G)

Base – – 1 1.00
GECA-Graph 21 25485.26 5.15 × 1023 2.02
WECA-Graph 45 7136.87 2.43 × 1031 2.01
GECA-ILP 37 5622.42 7.20 × 1027 2.01
LECA-ILP-Critical 10 2744.34 1.05 × 109 1.15

• System characterized by a long feeder—long lines are

required for augmentation. Can shorter lines be used if
sources are closer to critical nodes?

• Results obtained on the European 906-bus test feeder

also show similar behavior
35
Future Work: Address Practical Considerations

• When the number of new tie-lines that can be added are

limited
• Solve using k-edge selection problem
• Strengthen existing lines—create trusted edges

• Model the capacity of edges

• When the new lines have to be ranked according to their
contribution to reliability
• Design better metrics. For example, edge-betweenness
centrality measure
• This metric captures the number of paths passing through
the edge

• Extend to transmission networks: identify vulnerable

locations and strengthen the network
36
Optimal Clustering of Active
Distribution Networks
Node Clusters in Active Networks

• Node clusters — akin to microgrids containing loads and

distributed energy resources (DERs) that can be grid
connected or islanded

• There may be multiple such DER-load groups in a

distribution system [13, 14]
• Smart switches to achieve seamless separation and
automatic re-synchronization of clusters
• Useful for black start and service restoration
• Can offer higher reliability and flexibility

37
Example: Multiple Clusters

tie-line

• How to identify the boundaries of such clusters

optimally?
• How do the boundaries evolve when supply-demand
conditions change?
38
Literature Survey

• Multiple-microgrids can be coordinated for frequency

regulation [15], voltage control [16] and service
restoration [17]

• Design loop-based (meshed) microgrid structures [18]

• Dynamically cluster loads and DERs to maximize load

served under grid unavailability [19, 20]—traditional
microgrids have limited capacity to manage
supply-adequacy due to fixed boundaries

• Many approaches for forming multiple-microgrids use

optimization formulations [20, 21]; some solved using
heuristic solution schemes [22]

39
Contributions

• A framework where multiple partitions are formed in a

distribution network by optimally clustering loads and
DERs

• A graph partitioning scheme for identifying cluster

boundaries based on supply-demand conditions

• An optimization formulation which remedies the

limitations of the graph algorithm—forms clusters with
optimal supply-demand conditions and ensures
sufficient flexibility for successful islanded operation

• A reliability quantification framework based on

sequential Monte Carlo simulations

40
Dynamic Cluster Boundaries

• Cluster boundaries evolve based on system conditions

• Supply-adequate clusters which can be intentionally

islanded during faults
• Boundaries may be evaluated every 5–15 minutes
• Triggers: supply demand conditions, topology changes,
reliability, economics
• When all is normal, clusters work in tandem; islanding
exercised only when necessary

• IEEE 1547-2018 lists the following reasons for intentional

islanding:
“enhanced reliability, economic dispatch decisions for
self-supply or import/export of power with or through the Area
EPS, or pre-emptive Area EPS operator action to island ahead
of inclement weather.” 41
Example: 33-bus test system

Table 1: DER data for the 33-bus example.

Power Output (kW)

Bus Number Type
Scenario 1 Scenario 2

6 Small Hydro 600 600

9 Small Hydro 400 600
15 PV 250 150
16 Small Hydro 400 400
20 Wind 150 150
21 Wind 250 250
24 Wind 400 400
25 PV 600 600
31 PV 400 400
32 PV 400 400

42
33-bus test system: Changing Boundaries

23 24 25
C5: 60.0 kW
119.8
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
(+15.2 loss)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
S/S
C1: 60.0 kW C3: 35.0 kW
C2: -60.0 kW
19 20 21 22 - demand node
- generation node
C4: 40.0 kW
Scenario 1

23 24 25
C5: 60.0 kW
216.3
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
(+18.7 loss)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
S/S
C1: 60.0 kW C3: 40.0 kW
C2: 35.0 kW
19 20 21 22 - demand node
- generation node
C4: 40.0 kW
43
Scenario 2
Partitioning Algorithms

• Spectral Partitioning
• Single step k-way partitioning obtained using k smallest
eigenvalues of graph Laplacian
• Algorithm gives supply-adequate, balanced clusters
• Disadvantage: ignores the properties of nodes, limitations
for adding constraints

• Optimization Formulation
• Objective: define nearly supply-adequate clusters by
minimizing sum of absolute mismatches or minimizing the
maximum mismatch or maximizing number of customers
served
• Constraints reflect basic requirements like resource
availability, connectivity within clusters, etc.
• The formulation is a mixed-integer linear programming
problem 44
Service Restoration Strategies

• Business as usual (BAU)

• DERs disconnected during faults
• Switching allows for feeder reconfiguration for finding
alternate supply paths

• Using clusters
• DERs aid in service restoration
• Switching allows for islanding and re-synchronization
• Cluster boundaries may be fixed or dynamic

45
Benefit Quantification

• Standard reliability indices can be evaluated using

sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) simulations

• Realistic load curves and failure probabilities of lines are

used in SMC to obtain values of indices
generation demand component state
samples samples samples

sequential cluster definitions

simulation Islanded operation

Load shedding
Service
Dynamic Microgrid-based Restoration
Operations
Demand response

DER re-dispatch
Reliability Evaluation
offline
calculations
Load Point Indices
Load-point Indices System
Load PointIndices
Indices

46
Combining Optimal Augmentation and Node Clusters
30 250
32 29
151 300
51 111 110 112 113 114
33 31 28 50
49 109
47 107
25
26 48 108
46 104
27 45 64 106
23 44 43 103
65 105 450
24 63 102 100
42
41 66 101
21 40 99
62 197 71
22 98
35 39 70
135 38 97
18 36 69
19
37 68
20 75
160 67
60 74
57 73
14 58 610 72 85
11 59 61
10 9 79
56 78
2 54 55
53
52 76 77
152
8 13 94 80
1 7 84
149 96 90
12 34 88
92 81
17
89 87 86
15 91
95 93
3 5 6 82 83
16
4

- source nodes
- critical nodes
- new tie-line

• Allow critical nodes to connect to nearest hub (node with

sufficient DER capacity) instead of substation
• Can achieve connectivity with shorter tie-lines 47
Numerical Results

Table 2: Reliability indices for the 33-bus system.

Reliability Index BAU Fixed Clusters Dynamic Clusters

SAIFI (failures/year) 0.2120 0.1952 0.1870

SAIDI (hours/year) 0.7009 0.6425 0.6310
MAIFI (failures/year) 8.3436 7.6010 7.2358
ENS (MWh/year) 1.3870 1.2567 1.2390

Table 3: Reliability indices for the augmented4 33-bus system.

Reliability Index BAU Fixed Clusters Dynamic Clusters

SAIFI (failures/year) 0.1634 0.1173 0.1081

SAIDI (hours/year) 0.5018 0.4952 0.4430
MAIFI (failures/year) 8.3287 7.6005 7.2134
ENS (MWh/year) 1.0533 1.0190 1.0082

4
Augmented by adding one new tie-line

48
Future Work

• Use the optimization framework to ensure sufficient

flexibility for sustained islanded operation: siting and
sizing of storage

• Extend the work on augmentation to build connectivity

between clusters

49
Summary

• The research focuses on optimization of distribution

network topology, with emphasis on reliability

• Specifically, three distinct areas are explored:

reliability-oriented reconfiguration optimization, optimal
augmentation by installing new tie-lines, and a node
clustering scheme to facilitate service restoration using
DERs

• The solutions proposed make extensive use of graph

algorithms and mathematical optimization formulations
inspired by the graph algorithms

50
Publications

[1] J. Jose and A. Kowli, “Optimal Augmentation of Distribution Networks for

Improved Reliability”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. [Under Review].
[2] J. Jose and A. Kowli, “Path-Based Distribution Feeder Reconfiguration for
Optimization of Losses and Reliability,” in IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 14, no. 1,
pp. 1417-1426, March 2020.
[3] J. Jose and A. Kowli, “Network Expansion for Improved Reliability in Distribution
Networks,” 2018 IEEE PES Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference
(APPEEC). Kota Kinabalu, 2018, pp. 284–289.
[4] A. Kowli, J. Jose, V. S. Borkar, and T. P. Imthias Ahamed, “A Dynamic Programming
Framework for Optimal Home Scheduling,” 2017 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies - Asia (ISGT-Asia), Auckland, 2017, pp. 1–6.
[5] J. Jose, A. Kowli, V. Bhalekar, K. V. Prasad, and N. Rajagopal, “Dynamic
microgrid-based operations: A new operational paradigm for distribution
networks,” IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Asia, pp.
564–569, 2016.
[6] J. Jose and A. Kowli, “Reliability constrained distribution feeder reconfiguration
for power loss minimization,” in 2016 National Power Systems Conference
(NPSC), Dec 2016, pp. 1–6.

51
Thank You

51
References i

[1] J. Taylor and F. Hover, “Convex models of distribution

system reconfiguration,” Power Systems, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 27, pp. 1407–1413, Aug 2012.
[2] H. Ahmadi and J. Marti, “Distribution system optimization
based on a linear power-flow formulation,” Power
Delivery, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 30, pp. 25–33, Feb 2015.
[3] O. Badran, S. Mekhilef, H. Mokhlis, and W. Dahalan,
“Optimal reconfiguration of distribution system
connected with distributed generations: A review of
different methodologies,” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, vol. 73, pp. 854 – 867, 2017.

52
References ii

[4] A. Kavousi-Fard and M.-R. Akbari-Zadeh, “Reliability

enhancement using optimal distribution feeder
reconfiguration,” Neurocomputing, vol. 106, pp. 1–11, 2013.
[5] M. Grötschel, C. Monma, and M. Stoer, “Chapter 10 design
of survivable networks,” in Network Models, vol. 7 of
Handbooks in Operations Research and Management
Science, pp. 617 – 672, Elsevier, 1995.
[6] R. Billinton and S. Jonnavithula, “Optimal switching
device placement in radial distribution systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 11, pp. 1646–1651, Jul
1996.

53
References iii

[7] Y. Xu, C. C. Liu, K. P. Schneider, and D. T. Ton, “Placement of

remote-controlled switches to enhance distribution
system restoration capability,” IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol. 31, pp. 1139–1150, March 2016.
[8] V. F. Martins and C. L. T. Borges, “Active distribution
network integrated planning incorporating distributed
generation and load response uncertainties,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 26, pp. 2164–2172,
Nov 2011.

54
References iv

[9] P. M. S. Carvalho and L. A. F. M. Ferreira, “Urban

distribution network investment criteria for reliability
adequacy,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 19,
pp. 1216–1222, May 2004.
[10] K. Singh, A. Philpott, and K. Wood, “Column generation for
design of survivable networks,” in Working paper, Dept. of
Engineering Science, University of Auckland, 2005.
[11] K. Eswaran and R. Tarjan, “Augmentation problems,” SIAM
Journal on Computing, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 653–665, 1976.
[12] S. Khuller and R. Thurimella, “Approximation Algorithms
for Graph Augmentation,” Journal of Algorithms, vol. 14,
no. 2, pp. 214–225, 1993.

55
References v

[13] L. Tao and C. Schwaegerl, “Advanced architectures and

control concepts for more microgrids,” tech. rep., EC
Project, Tech. Rep. SES6-019864, 2009.
[14] N. Hatziargyriou, “Operation of multi-microgrids,” in
Microgrids:Architectures and Control, pp. 344–, Wiley-IEEE
Press, 2014.
[15] N. J. Gil and J. P. Lopes, “Hierarchical frequency control
scheme for islanded multi-microgrids operation,” in
Power Tech, pp. 473–478, 2007.

56
References vi

[16] A. Madureira, “Coordinated voltage control in

multi-microgrids,” vol. PhD Thesis, Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Porto, 2009.
[17] C. L. Moreira, F. O. Resende, and J. A. P. Lopes, “Using low
voltage microgrids for service restoration,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 22, pp. 395–403, Feb
2007.
[18] L. Che, X. Zhang, M. Shahidehpour, A. Alabdulwahab, and
Y. Al-Turki, “Optimal planning of loop-based microgrid
topology,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 8,
pp. 1771–1781, July 2017.

57
References vii

[19] M. Vadari and G. Stokes, “Utility 2.0 and the dynamic

microgrid,” Fortnightly Magazine, November 2013.
[20] T. Ding, Y. Lin, Z. Bie, and C. Chen, “A resilient microgrid
formation strategy for load restoration considering
master-slave distributed generators and topology
reconfiguration,” Applied energy, vol. 199, pp. 205–216,
2017.
[21] C. Chen, J. Wang, F. Qiu, and D. Zhao, “Resilient
distribution system by microgrids formation after natural
disasters,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 7,
pp. 958–966, March 2016.

58
References viii

[22] S. A. Arefifar, Y. A. I. Mohamed, and T. H. M. El-Fouly,

“Supply-adequacy-based optimal construction of
microgrids in smart distribution systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 3, pp. 1491–1502, Sep.
2012.

59
Appendix
Augmentation: Low-voltage Urban Network
Augmentation: Metrics

• The average edge-connectivity metric is calculated as:

P
t∈V (G),t̸=s κe (s, t)
κ̄e (G) =
N −1
• Number of spanning trees is calculated using Kirchhoff’s
Matrix Tree Theorem: Let LG and L e G be, respectively, the
reduced Laplacian and the Laplacian matrix of any simple
undirected graph G after anchoring an arbitrary vertex
out of its N vertices. The following statements hold:
1. t(G) = det(LG )
1 QN eG )
2. t(G) = λi (L
N i=2
Size of LECA-ILP: Variables and Constraints

• Number of variables in LECA-ILP formulation:

• m variables for edge status, where m = |E|
Pn
• 2m × t=2 k(t) variables for path membership, where
n = |V |
Pn
• Total: m + 2m × t=2 k(t) binary variables
Pn
• Path constraints: (n − 1) t=2 k(t)

• Disjoint constraints: (n − 1)m; Degree constraints: n

The EPRI test system: 2,63,807 variables, 79,600 path

constraints, 65,869 disjoint constraints, 200 degree constraints
Augmentation: Computation Times

Table 4: Average computation times of augmentation algorithms

Average computation time (s)

Test system
GU-Graph GW-Graph GW-ILP LW-ILP

123-node 0.654 0.823 117.621 10.364

200-node 0.662 2.435 2902.897 812.785
Handling Potential Infeasibilities

The problem will be infeasible if the graph G has bridges in it.

A bridge is an edge of the graph whose deletion increases the
number of connected components.
If a distribution system has only one feeder going out of the
substation, that line will be a bridge, and cannot be part of a
2-edge-connected solution. Therefore, we adopt the following
strategy for graphs with bridges:
1. Check for presence of bridges using chain decomposition
2. Assume that the bridges are highly reliable, or propose
rewiring to ensure higher reliability. With this
assumption, contract the edge by fusing its vertices.
3. Perform the edge-connectivity augmentation algorithm
on the contracted graph.
k-Edge Selection Problem

• Select k edges to maximize the number of spanning trees

maxtw (GE0 ∪Ex )

Ex

st: |E| = k

• Convex formulation:

max log det L(x)

x
X
st: x=k
0≤x≤1
ILP Formulation for Graph Partitioning

min w
st :
∑
n
xih Pi ≤ th h = 1, . . . , k
i=1
∑
n
xih Pi ≥ −th h = 1, . . . , k
i=1
{
∑
k
1 if the ith node is in partition h
xih = 1 i = 1, . . . , n xih =
h=1 0 otherwise
∑
n
g
1i xih ≥1 h = 1, . . . , k
i=1
{
∑
n 1 if (i, j) is entirely in partition h,
d yij,h =
1i xih ≥ 1 h = 1, . . . , k
0 otherwise.
i=1
( n )
∑ ∑
yij,h = xih −1 h = 1, . . . , k
(i,j)∈E, i<j i=1

yij,h ≤ xih ∀(i, j) ∈ E, h = 1, . . . , k

yij,h ≤ xjh ∀(i, j) ∈ E, h = 1, . . . , k
yij,h ≥ xih + xjh − 1 ∀(i, j) ∈ E, h = 1, . . . , k
0 ≤ th ≤ w h = 1, . . . , k; xih , yij,h ∈ {0, 1}
Partitions on 33-bus System

70.0 kW
23 24 25
0.0 kW
119.8
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
(+15.2 loss)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
S/S
50.0 kW -25.0 kW

- demand node
19 20 21 22 - generation node

40.0 kW
spectral k-way partitioning

extended k-way partitioning

Partitions on 33-bus System

minmax k-way partitioning

23 24 25
0.0 kW
119.8
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
(+15.2 loss)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
S/S
0.0 kW -5.0 kW

19 20 21 22

flexibility-based k-way partitioning