970 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 11, NO.

2, APRIL 2020

Active Distribution System Reinforcement Planning

With EV Charging Stations—Part I: Uncertainty
Modeling and Problem Formulation
Ali Ehsan and Qiang Yang , Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—Due to the associated uncertainties, the large-scale EVCS Electric vehicle charging station
deployment of electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable distributed HMM Heuristic moment matching
generation is a major challenge faced by the modern distribu- OEV Other-purpose electric vehicle
tion systems. The first part of this two-paper series proposes a
scenario-based stochastic model for the multistage joint reinforce- PV Photovoltaic
ment planning of the distribution systems and the electric vehicle SoC State-of-charge
charging stations (EVCSs). The historical EV charging demand Markov Model Related Parameters and Variables
is first determined using the Markovian analysis of EV driving
patterns and charging demand. A scenario matrix, based on the Ec EV energy consumption per kilometer
heuristic moment matching method, is then generated to char- (kWh/km)
acterize the stochastic features and correlation among historical Cb Maximum battery capacity (kWh)
wind and photovoltaic generation, and conventional loads and EV Sn ch EV normal charging state
demands. The scenario matrix is then utilized to formulate the ex- Sf ch EV fast charging state
pansion planning framework, aiming at the minimization of the
investment and operational costs. The proposed expansion plan Sd EV driving state
determines the optimal construction/reinforcement of substations, Sp EV parking state
EVCSs, and feeders, in addition to the placement of wind and Pn Typical power of normal charging (kW)
photovoltaic generators, and capacitor banks over the multi-stage Pf Typical power of fast charging (kW)
planning horizon. In the second companion paper, the effective- tm d Departure time in the morning of CEV
ness and scalability of the proposed model is assessed through case
studies in the 18-bus and the IEEE 123-bus distribution systems, tm a Arrival time in the morning of CEV
respectively. ted Departure time in the evening of CEV
tea Arrival time in the evening of CEV
Index Terms—Distribution system, distributed generation,
electric vehicle charging stations, multistage expansion planning,
td Departure time of OEV
heuristic moment matching. ta Arrival time of OEV
Nd Valid samples generated by Monte-Carlo sim-
NOMENCLATURE ulation
SoC(t) SoC in the existing time slot
Abbreviations SoC(t + 1) SoC in the next time slot
CEV Commuting electric vehicle v EV average driving speed (km/h)
DG Distributed generation P Markov model of EV
DSEP Distribution system expansion planning ti ith time slot
EV Electric vehicle Sni ch Probability of normal charging in ith time slot
Sfi ch Probability of fast charging in ith time slot
Sdi Probability of driving in the ith time slot
Manuscript received November 15, 2018; revised March 2, 2019; accepted
May 4, 2019. Date of publication May 7, 2019; date of current version March Spi Probability of parking in the ith time slot
23, 2020. This work was supported in part by the National Key Research and P ev EV charging demand
Development Program of China under Grant 2018YFB0904800, in part by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 51777183, and in HMM Method Related Parameters and Variables
part by the Major Scientific Project of Zhejiang Lab under Grant 2018FD0ZX01. ai , bi , ci , di Transforming coefficients
Paper no. TSTE-01132-2018. (Corresponding author: Qiang Yang.)
A. Ehsan is with the College of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University,
i = 1, 2, 3 Indices for wind generation, PV generation,
Hangzhou 310027, China, and also with the Department of Electrical Engi- conventional load and EV demands
neering, COMSATS University Islamabad, Sahiwal 57000, Pakistan (e-mail:, k = 1, 2, 3, 4 Expectation, standard deviation, skewness and
aliehsan@zju.edu.cn).
Q. Yang is with the College of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University,
kurtosis
Hangzhou 310027, China, and also with the Zhejiang Lab, Hangzhou 310058, L Lower-triangle matrix of R
China (e-mail:,qyang@zju.edu.cn). Mi,k N T , Mi,k T
kth normalized target moment and kth target
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
moment of ith column vector
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSTE.2019.2915338 Mi,k (Z i ) Moments of target scenarios

1949-3029 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

Authorized licensed use limited to: PUNJAB UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on July 13,2021 at 05:38:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
EHSAN AND YANG: ACTIVE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REINFORCEMENT PLANNING WITH EV CHARGING STATIONS 971

G d d
Mik kth moment of ith column vector of target sce- Pi,u ,h , Qi,u ,h Active (kW) and reactive (kvar) power de-
narios mands
N (0, 1) Normal distribution Ra , Xa , Za Resistance, reactance and impedance per
Nh , N u Number of scenarios & uncertainty factors length of conductor type a (Ω)
Phw t , Phpv , Phd Generated (target) scenarios of wind genera- V ,V Lower and upper bus voltage limits (V)
tion, PV generation and load α Number of hours in one year
R Target correlation matrix of historical scenarios φl , φs Load factor and loss factor
Ril G Correlation matrix of generated scenarios φm
soc
ax
Upper limit on EV state-of-charge
Ril N T Target correlation matrix of historical scenarios θij,a Binary parameter for initial state of feeder at
Xi, Zi Independent column vectors of randomly gen- the beginning of the planning horizon
su b
erated scenarios and target scenarios θs,q Binary parameter for initial state of substation
X N h ×N u n-dimensional matrix of randomly generated at start of planning horizon
sq r sq r
scenarios Iij,a,u , Vi,u Square of branch current (A) and bus
Y N h ×N u n-dimensional matrix obtained via matrix voltage (V)
transformation PmD,u
G
Active power supplied by DG units, i.e., wind
Z N h ×N u n-dimensional matrix of normalized scenarios and photovoltaic generators (kW)
obtained via cubic transformation Pij,a,u ,h , Active (kW) and reactive (kvar) power flows
εc , εm Correlation error and moment error Qij,a,u ,h in the feeders
εc , εm Upper limits on correlation error and moment ss
Pi,u ss
,h , Qi,u ,h Active (kW) and reactive (kvar) power supplied
error by substation (kW)
ΩH Uncertainty matrix wt
Pi,u pv
,h , Pi,u ,h Active power supplied by wind and photo-
DSEP Problem Related Parameters and Variables voltaic generators (kW)
QD G
i,g ,u Reactive power supplied by DG unit, i.e., wind
a, b, c Index for conductor types
and photovoltaic generators (kvar)
e Index for charger types
Qcb Reactive power supplied by capacitor bank
g Index for DG units, i.e., wind and photovoltaic
(kvar)
i Index for buses 
Vj,u Estimated voltage at bus j (V)
ij, kj Index for feeders
φsoc EV state-of-charge at arrival
m Index for DG unit buses
nchi
p,e,u Integer variable for EVCS chargers
p Index for EVCS buses
ncbi
i,u Integer variable for capacitor units
q, t, r Index for substation alternatives
s Index for substation buses xcb
i,u Binary variable for the installation of capacitor
u, k Index for stages banks
v Index for EV types xcs
p,u Binary variable for installing EVCS chargers
ccij,a,b Cost of feeder using conductor type b, assum- xdg
m ,g ,u Binary variable for DG installation, i.e., wind
ing initial type a ($) and photovoltaic
ccb Installation cost of capacitor banks ($) xcir
ij,a,b,u Binary investment variable for feeder construc-
ccs , cce Installation cost of EVCS and chargers ($) tion/reinforcement using type b, assuming ini-
cdg Installation cost of DG units, i.e., wind and tial type a
g
photovoltaic ($) xsu b
s,q ,t,u Binary variable for substation construction/ re-
ce Cost of electricity supplied by substation ($) inforcement using substation type t, assuming
cedg Cost of electricity generated by DG units, i.e., initial type q
g cir
wind and photovoltaic ($) yij,a,u Binary variable for operation/connection status
c mod Cost per module of capacitor banks ($) of a feeder using conductor type a
su b
css,q ,t Cost of substation using substation type t, as- ys,q ,t,u Binary variable for substation operation using
suming initial type q ($) only one investment type in a stage
cvs Operational costs of substation ($)
Cp Upper limit on number of chargers I. INTRODUCTION
dwcs Operating time of chargers HE primary objective of distribution system expansion
Evr eq
Ia
Energy required by EV of type v
Upper limit on current in conductor type a
T planning (DSEP) is to provide enabling solutions that en-
sure the security, reliability and quality of electricity supply
K, τ Number of years in a stage and interest rate to customers at minimum cost [1]. One of the upcoming chal-
lij Conductor length (km) lenges faced by distribution systems is the unexpected uptake of
neve,v ,u Number of EVs assigned to charger type e electric vehicles (EVs), driven by advances in power electronics
NvE,uV Number of type v EVs that require charging and battery technologies. The rapid adoption of EVs provides
Pech Rated power of EVCS charger type e (kW) a promising solution for reducing greenhouse gas emissions,

Authorized licensed use limited to: PUNJAB UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on July 13,2021 at 05:38:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
972
mitigating global warming issue [2], and utilizing renewable
distributed generation (DG); however, this is accompanied by
an uncertain electricity demand growth. Therefore, adequate
DSEP methodologies should be developed for the explicit char-
acterization of uncertainties related to conventional loads and
EV demands, and non-dispatchable wind and photovoltaic (PV)
generation.
In the existing literature, several research works have inves-
tigated a wide range of mathematical models and solution tech-
niques pertaining to the DSEP problem. The authors in [3]–[6]
have employed the evolution algorithms, along with the mixed-
integer linear programming (MILP) for the solution of DSEP
problem considering EV integration. In [3], the optimal place-
ment of the electric vehicle charging stations (EVCSs) is studied
for the minimization of costs associated with expansion. A mul-
tistage DSEP problem is examined in [4], which determines the
optimal siting and sizing of EVCSs. Similar methodologies are
presented in [5] and [6], which investigate the joint expansion
planning of distribution system and EVCSs. A multi-objective
planning model is presented in [5] for the distribution sys-
tem with EVCSs; however, the random behavior of EV drivers
and the various charging modes are not studied. Furthermore,
the yearly electricity demand growth, and the time-intervals
of normal-charging and fast-charging modes are disregarded.
In order to address these inadequacies, a stochastic multistage
planning model is presented in [6] for a distribution network
with EVCSs considering different charging modes and bat-
tery swapping; however, the proposed metaheuristic algorithm-
based solution cannot ensure the solution optimality. Moreover,
the studies in [3]–[6] have neglected the placement of DG units
and capacitor banks.
Although the siting and sizing of EVCSs is investigated ex-
tensively in the prevailing literature, such as [7]–[13], the joint
expansion planning of distribution systems and EVCSs is not
addressed considerably. The EVCS model proposed in [7], con-
siders the exchanges between the reserve market and energy
market, and DG operation, using a two-stage method; however,
the primary focus of this work is EVCS operation planning.
Another two-stage technique proposed in [8], addresses the op-
timal EVCS planning problem under the consideration of dif-
ferent charger types, environmental aspects and service area;
however, the operation of DG units and capacitor banks, and
the different EV types are not studied. Moreover, metaheuris-
tic algorithms, such as the genetic algorithms in [9], [10] and
the particle swarm optimization in [12], have been employed
for the solution of EVCS allocation problem; nevertheless, the
operation of DG units has not been considered.
In addition to the consideration of aforementioned aspects,
the uncertainties related to the growth of conventional loads and
EV demands must be explicitly examined to mitigate the risks,
prevent underinvestment, and avoid operational issues. The pre-
vious studies in [3], [7], [9], [13] have investigated the uncer-
tainty related to EV demands and the operational constraints of
distribution network, while only the EV demand uncertainty is
examined in [10]. In [3], the EV demand uncertainty is tackled
by means of a geometric Brownian motion method, whereas
a two-stage stochastic programming model combined with a
Authorized licensed use limited to: PUNJAB UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on July 13,2021 at 05:38:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 11, NO. 2, APRIL 2020
scenario generation method is proposed in [7] to deal with the
EV uncertainty. In [9], [10], the EV demand uncertainty is char-
acterized through probabilistic factors and probability distribu-
tion functions pertaining to the EV arrival and state-of-charge
(SoC) data. Furthermore, a non-Gaussian multivariate stochas-
tic model based on copula functions is examined in [13] to
approximate the hourly EV charging demand. However, the un-
certainties associated with the conventional loads, and the wind
and photovoltaic generation have not been investigated.
In the existing literature, several methodologies have been
proposed to deal with these uncertainties. In general, these
methods can be classified as stochastic optimization [14], ro-
bust optimization [15], Monte Carlo simulation [16], Latin Hy-
bercube Sampling technique [17], Taguchi’s orthogonal array
testing [15] and probability statistical methods [18]–[20]. How-
ever, it should be noted that these methods may not always
guarantee computational accuracy and efficiency; for example,
the Monte Carlo simulation in [16] produces unnecessary sce-
narios that results in computational intractability. Moreover, the
scenarios provided by Taguchi’s orthogonal array testing in [15]
exhibit inadequate occurrence probabilities, whereas the selec-
tion of a suitably-sized uncertainty set is problematic in robust
optimization [15]. Different from these techniques, the heuris-
tic moment matching (HMM) method [21] utilizes a signifi-
cantly reduced number of scenarios for the characterization of
uncertainties, providing an improved computational efficiency
[22]. The HMM method reduces the complications related to
the high-dimensional discrete variables, involved in the con-
ventional moment matching method [21]. The HMM method
has earlier been employed in [22] to consider the stochastic
wind generation in transmission network planning; however,
the uncertainties of PV generation and load demand have been
disregarded. The HMM method is also adopted in [23]–[25] to
address the uncertainties of wind and PV generation, and load
demand, whilst determining the optimal siting and sizing of DG
units. The DG planning method in [23] aims at the minimization
of power losses and voltage deviation in the distribution systems,
whereas the DG investment planning model in [24], maximizes
the distribution network operator’s profit. The investment plan-
ning model in [25], exploits the optimal DG integration and
storage arbitrage benefit to maximize the distribution network
operator’s profit. However, the allocation of EVCSs and EV
demand uncertainty, and the reinforcement of substations and
feeders is not investigated in these works. Although the op-
timal EVCS allocation is investigated within the DSEP prob-
lem in [26], the uncertainties of wind and PV generation are
disregarded.
Different from the aforementioned works, this work investi-
gates the optimal EVCS siting and sizing within DSEP problem,
whilst considering the uncertainties of wind and PV generation,
and conventional and EV demands. To this end, we propose a
scenario-based stochastic model for the multistage joint expan-
sion planning of distribution networks and EVCSs, aiming at the
minimization of investment and operational costs. The solution
provides the optimal construction/reinforcement of substations,
feeders and EVCSs, and optimal placement of DGs and capac-
itor banks.
EHSAN AND YANG: ACTIVE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REINFORCEMENT PLANNING WITH EV CHARGING STATIONS 973

Fig. 1. The framework of proposed scenario-based stochastic model for

multistage joint DSEP problem.

The framework of proposed approach is summarized in Fig. 1.

Firstly, the EV charging demand is characterized using a Marko-
vian model [27], since historical data of EV charging demand
is not readily available. Then, a scenario matrix is generated
using the HMM method [21], and historical data of wind and
photovoltaic generation, conventional loads and projected EV
demands. The scenario matrix contains representative scenarios
that account for the aforementioned uncertainties. The scenario
matrix is incorporated within the deterministic DSEP problem
to formulate the scenario-based stochastic DSEP problem. The
planning horizon is distributed over a number of stages to ac-
count for the growth of power demand. A MILP formulation
[28] is adapted; it should be noted that uncertainty modelling
and EVCS allocation have not been studied in [28]. The DSEP
problem is then implemented using YALMIP [29] and solved in
CPLEX [30].
The main technical contributions of this work are the
following: 1) a novel scenario matrix is proposed for joint
characterization of the uncertainties of wind and photovoltaic
generation, and conventional loads and EV demands; and 2) a
novel scenario-based stochastic joint expansion planning model
is formulated to determine the optimal solution for the construc-
Fig. 2. The temporal-SoC analysis of EV charging demand.
tion/reinforcement of substations, feeders and EVCSs, along
with the allocation of wind turbines, PV units and capacitor
banks over a multi-stage planning horizon, whilst minimizing
The EVs are classified into two categories. The first is the
the investment and operational costs.
commuting electric vehicle (CEV) that is primarily used for
The remainder of this work is organized as follows: Section II
travelling between home and workplace, i.e., two trips over a
presents the modelling of EV charging demand, followed by the
day. The second is the other-purpose electric vehicle (OEV),
scenario matrix-based uncertainty modeling; the mathematical
which may be used for several trips over a day; however, only
formulation of DSEP model is presented in Section III; finally,
the first departure trip and the last arrival trip is considered here
the conclusions are drawn in Section IV.
for the sake of simplicity [33]. The average energy demand per
kilometer (Ec ) of EV battery is 0.159 kWh/km. The maximum
II. UNCERTAINTY MODELING battery capacity (Cb ) follows the normal distribution N (μ, σ 2 ),
A. Determination of the EV Charging Demand as given in (1), where the mean, standard deviation, maximum
and minimum of the battery capacity is 28.5 kWh, 14.7 kWh,
EV charging demand estimation is the prerequisite of uncer- 72 kWh and 10 kWh, respectively, as suggested in [34].
tainty modeling, since historical EV charging demand data is
1 ( x −μ ) 2
not readily available. This problem has been studied in [27], f (x) = √ e− 2 σ 2 (1)
using the Markov-based temporal-SoC analysis of EV driving 2πσ
patterns and charging demand, which is summarized in Fig. 2. It is assumed that the EVs operate at one of the following
More details can be found in [27], [31], [32]. four states at a given time-period: normal charging (Sn ch ), fast

Authorized licensed use limited to: PUNJAB UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on July 13,2021 at 05:38:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
974
charging (Sf ch ), driving state (Sd ) and parking state (Sp ). To
avoid unnecessary computational burden, each operational EV
state is kept uniform for a 30-minute period, so that a total of 48
time-periods are considered over a day. The charging power for
the normal and fast charging modes is 10 kW and 50 kW, respec-
tively [35]. It is also assumed that after reaching home, the EVs
are immediately plugged into the normal charging mode. The
initial SoC is simply assumed to be an average value (i.e., 50%)
to not only reduce computational burden, but also account for
the lower and higher values of initial SoCs. The SoC is limited
between 20% and 80% to protect the battery lifetime. The EV
driving patterns are assumed to follow that of the conventional
vehicles. Consequently, National Household Travel Survey [33]
is employed to describe the EV temporal driving patterns, such
as the departure and arrival times of the CEV in morning and
evening (tm d , tm a , ted and tea ), and the departure and arrival
times of the OEV (td and ta ).
1) Monte Carlo Simulation of EV Driving Patterns: The
Monte Carlo simulation is employed to determine the driving
purpose and battery capacity of each EV sample, using the prob-
ability distribution and the travel data, as shown in Fig. 2. When
compared to other sampling methods, such as Latin Hyber-
cube Sampling technique [17] and Taguchi’s orthogonal array
testing [15], Monte Carlo simulation provides acceptable com-
putational flexibility and efficiency.
The Monte Carlo simulation iterates until Nd valid random
driving time samples are obtained. Subsequently, the temporal-
SoC analysis investigates the existing simulation time-period
t to determine the initial temporal driving purpose of each EV
sample. The EV driving pattern is further examined based on the
existing SoC according to the EV category under consideration,
i.e., OEV or CEV. Once the driving pattern of each EV sample in
a time-period has been obtained, the initial SoC of the following
time-period SoC(t + 1) can be determined based on the existing
EV state (i.e., normal or fast charging, driving, parking) and the
generated EV parameters, as given in (2)–(5).
vEc
SoC(t + 1) = SoC(t) −
2Cb
Pf
SoC(t + 1) = SoC(t) +
2Cb
Pn
SoC(t + 1) = SoC(t) +
2Cb
SoC(t + 1) = SoC(t)
Once the simulation time approaches the end of a day, it is
updated to the beginning of the next day with the same SoC. This
suggests that as long as the initial SoC is determined for each
EV sample, the proposed modeling technique can continuously
simulate the EV driving patterns over the Nd days. Such a
process is iterated for each EV sample in the 48 time-periods
until the termination criteria is satisfied.
2) Probability Distribution of EV States: Given the EV state
distribution (Sn0 ch Sf0 ch Sd0 Sp0 ) at time-period t0 , the EV state
distribution in the following time-period (Sn1 ch Sf1 ch Sd1 Sp1 ) can
Authorized licensed use limited to: PUNJAB UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on July 13,2021 at 05:38:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 11, NO. 2, APRIL 2020
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the scenario matrix.
be determined using the Markov model, as given in (6).
(Sn1 ch , Sf1 ch , Sd1 , Sp1 ) = (Sn0 ch , Sf0 ch , Sd0 , Sp0 ) × P (6)
The EV states for the 48 time-periods over a day can be deter-
mined by repeating the above-mentioned process. Consequently,
the average probabilities of EV states in each time-period over
a day can be obtained. Given the total number of EVs (n) in the
geographical area under consideration, the total EV charging
demand (P ev ) at the time-period ti can be forecasted, as given
in (7).
P ev = Pn × n × Snt ich + Pf × n × Sft ich (7)
B. Modeling of the Scenario Matrix
The input variables of the multistage joint DSEP problem
under consideration, such as the wind and PV generation, con-
ventional loads and EV demands lead to uncertainties due to
their diurnal and seasonal deviations. A reduced number of rep-
resentative scenarios can be used to deal with these uncertain-
ties, since the consideration of massive historical data can result
in computational intractability [36]. In this study, the HMM
method [21] is adapted to model a scenario matrix (Fig. 3) com-
prising of a reduced number of representative scenarios that
(2) approximate the stochasticity of the historical scenarios. The
appropriate number of scenarios is usually adjusted according
to the optimization problem under consideration, and the trade-
(3)
off between computational efficiency and accuracy. More de-
tails can be found in Section II-B (4) of the second companion
(4)
paper.
The HMM method utilizes the matrix and cubic transforma-
(5)
tions to estimate the correlation and the stochastic moments,
respectively [22], among the historical scenarios of wind and
PV generation, conventional loads and EV demands. It should
be noted that the first four stochastic moments, i.e., expectation,
standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis are considered suf-
ficient for maintaining the stochastic features of the historical
scenarios, as suggested in [21]. The HMM method for the mod-
elling of scenario matrix is summarized in Fig. 4, and discussed
below:
1) The target moments and correlation matrix of the his-
torical hourly scenarios of the wind and PV generation,
and conventional and EV demands are evaluated and
EHSAN AND YANG: ACTIVE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REINFORCEMENT PLANNING WITH EV CHARGING STATIONS 975

given in (11).

Z i = ai + bi Y i + ci Y i 2 + di Y i 3 (10)
Mi,k (Z i ) = Mi,k T , i = 1, 2, 3; k = 1, 2, 3, 4 (11)

5) The moment errors (εm ) and the correlation error (εc ) are
calculated, as given in (12) and (13), respectively, and the
upper limits on these errors are set in (14).


Nh
G  4
G
εm = NT
Mi1 − Mi1 + NT
Mik − Mik /Mik NT

i=1 k =2
(12)

Nh 
   w  N N
2 w
 G 2
εR = Ril − Ril N T
i=1
Nu (Nu − 1) i=1 i=1
(13)
εm = 5%, εc = 5% (14)

6) Z N h ×N u is inverted to satisfy the target moments,

as given in (15), resulting in the scenario matrix,
pv
ΩH = [Pw t d ev
h , Ph , Ph , Ph ].

ΩH = Mi,2 T × Z i + Mi,3 NT (15)

III. PROBLEM FORMULATION

The proposed scenario-based stochastic formulation accounts
Fig. 4. Modeling of the scenario matrix based on the HMM method. for the uncertainties associated with wind and PV generation,
and conventional loads and EV charging demand, by incorpo-
rating the scenario matrix with deterministic decision variables,
as given in (16).
normalized [21], as given in (8).
pv
wt
Pi,h = Piw t × Phw t ; Pi,h = Pipv × Phpv
⎧
⎨ Mi,1 N T = 0, Mi,2 N T = 1 d
Pi,h = Pid × Phd ; ev
Pi,h = Piev × Phev (16)
M iT, 3 M iT, 4 (8)
⎩ Mi,3
NT
= √ T 3 , Mi,4 NT
= 4
( Mi,2 ) (M iT, 2 )
A. The Objective
The objective is to minimize the total costs of the expansion
2) The Nh scenarios of N u uncertainty factors, i.e., wind planning, including the investment costs, the electricity costs
generation (X1), PV generation, (X2), conventional load and the operational costs over the multi-stage planning horizon,
(X3) and EV demands (X4) are randomly generated as given in (17); where τ is the interest rate and K represents the
from normal distribution N (0, 1) to determine X N h ×N u number of years in each stage u.
[21].
3) The matrix transformation [21], as given in (9), transforms  IC + IS + ICB + IDG + ICS + EC + OS
min
X N h ×N u into Y N h ×N u to meet the target correlation ma- u (1 + τ )−(u −1)K
trix of historical scenarios R. (17)
 i The costs of investment in feeders (IC), substations (IS), DG
Y =L×X = j =1 Lij × X i units (IDG), capacitors banks (ICB) and EVCS (ICS) are eval-
(9)
R = LLT uated, as given in (18)–(22), respectively. These equations are
described in terms of binary variables that represent if an invest-
4) The cubic transformation [37], as given in (10), con- ment decision has been made or not.
verts Y N h ×N u into Z N h ×N u to meet the normalized tar- 
IC = ccij,a,b xcir
ij,a,b,u lij (18)
get moments of the historical scenarios. The coefficients
ij a b
ai , bi , ci , di in (10) are determined under the assumption 
that the moments of target scenarios (Mi,k (Z i )) are equal IS = css,h,t xsu b
s,q ,t,u (19)
to the target moments of historical scenarios (Mi,k T ), as s q t

Authorized licensed use limited to: PUNJAB UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on July 13,2021 at 05:38:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
976 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 11, NO. 2, APRIL 2020

   
IDG = cdg dg
g xm ,g ,u (20) Qk j,a,u ,h − sq r
Qij,a,u ,h + Xa lij Iij,a,u ,h
m g kj a ij a
 
ICB = ccb xcb
i,u +c mod
ncbi
i,u (21) + ncbi cb ss wt pv d
i,u ,h Q + Qi,u ,h + Qi,u ,h + Qi,u ,h = Qi,u ,h ∀u, h, i
i (27)
 
ICS = ccs xcs c chi
p,u + ce np,e,u (22) 2
Vj,u sq r
,h Iij,a,u ,h = f (Pij,a,u ,h , V I a , Γ)
p e
+ f (Qij,a,u ,h , V I a , Γ) ∀ij, a, u, h
The electricity costs (EC) and the substation operational
(28)
costs (OS) are determined by (23) and (24), respectively, where  
ζ(τ, K) evaluated the present value of annualized costs, as de-  2 (Ra Pij,a,u ,h + Xa Qij,a,u ,h ) lij
sq r sq r
fined in (25). The function f (ρ, ρ, Γ) provides the piecewise Vi,u ,h − Vj,u ,h −
a
2 sq r
+Za2 lij Iij,a,u ,h
linearization of the square value of a variable ρ, described in
 2  
terms of its maximum value (ρ) and number of discretization ≤ V −V2 1 − yij,a,u
cir
∀ij, u, h (29)
,h
intervals (Γ), as discussed in [28]. a


  V ≤
2 sq r
Vi,u ,h ≤V
2
∀u, h, i (30)
e S edg D G
EC = aϕl c Ps,u + cg Pm ,u ζ (τ, K)
sq r 2
s m g 0 ≤ Iij,a,u ,h ≤ I a yij,a,u ,h
cir
∀ij, a, u, h
(23) (31)
   
  f Ps,uS
, St , Γ
OS = αϕs cvs   ζ (τ, K) 2) Logical Constraints for the Substations: The set of con-
s t +f QSs,u , St , Γ straints (32)–(36) ensure the coordination of the investment and
(24) the operation of substations over the planning horizon. The in-
  vestment types represent the available apparent power capacities
ζ (τ, K) = 1 − (1 + τ )−K τ −1 (25) for the construction or reinforcement of the substations, where
the substation types are arranged according to the ascending
order of their power capacities and investment costs. The im-
B. The Constraints
plementation of more than one investment type in the same
The fundamental constraints of the distribution system, along stage is prevented by the constraint (32). The constraint (33)
with the logical constraints of the substations, the feeders and the ensures that a certain substation investment can be made only
EVCSs, based on [26], are modified to incorporate the scenario once over the planning horizon. The constraint (34) guarantees
matrix. Moreover, piecewise linearization is employed to repre- that the substation reinforcement using an initial type q can
sent the square of active and reactive powers in the constraints only be carried out if the type q has been employed for the sub-
that model the steady-state operation of distribution system, as station construction/reinforcement in the previous stages. The
discussed in [28]. The constraints for the operational limits of constraint (35) assures that the substation operation is allowed
the DG units and capacitor banks, and the radiality conditions only if the associated investment has been made. The constraint
are not discussed here due to limited space. A detailed descrip- (36) ensures that the substation operation is carried out using
tion of these constraints can be found in [28]. only one investment type in each stage.
1) Fundamental Constraints of the Distribution System: The 
s,q ,t,u ,h ≤ 1
xsu ∀s, u, h
b
set of constraints (26)–(29) represents the Kirchhoff’s laws and (32)
signifies the radial operation of distribution system. The ac- q t

tive and reactive power balance considering the power losses, 

s,q ,t,u ,h ≤ 1
xsu ∀s, q, t, h
b
(33)
as given in (26) and (27), respectively, ensure that the total
u
load demand is satisfied. The EV charging demand is shown on
u −1 

the right-hand side of (26), in terms of the rated active power
s,q ,t,u ,h ≤ θs,q +
xsu ∀s, q, t, u, h (34)
b su b
of each charger type and the number of chargers in the cor- xsu b
s,r,q ,k ,h
k =1 r
responding EVCS. The magnitude of current over a feeder is
determined by constraint (28), whereas the voltage drop in a u −1 

,h ≤ θs,t + ∀s, t, u, h
su b su b
feeder is evaluated by the constraint (29). The voltage and cur- ys,t,u xsu b
s,q ,t,k ,h (35)
rent limits in the distribution system, are given in (30) and (31), k =1 q

respectively.
,h ≤ 1 ∀s, u, h
su b
ys,t,u (36)
   sq r
 t
Pk j,a,u ,h − Pij,a,u ,h + Ra lij Iij,a,u ss
,h + Pi,u ,h
kj a ij a 3) Logical Constraints for the Feeders: The set of con-
straints (37)–(41) ensure the coordination of the investment and
pv
wt
+ Pi,u d chi ch
,h + Pi,u ,h = Pi,u ,h + ni,e,u ,h Pe ∀u, h, i operation of the feeders over the planning horizon, following the
(26) same logical structure as that of the substation constraints given

Authorized licensed use limited to: PUNJAB UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on July 13,2021 at 05:38:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
EHSAN AND YANG: ACTIVE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REINFORCEMENT PLANNING WITH EV CHARGING STATIONS 977

in (32)–(36). Here, the investment types represent the conductor scenario-based stochastic model for the multistage joint expan-
capacities available for the construction or reinforcement of the sion planning of the distribution systems and the electric vehicle
feeders. charging stations. The EV charging demand was firstly deter-
 mined using the Markov-based temporal SoC analysis of the EV
ij,a,b,u ,h ≤ 1
xcir ∀ij, u, h
driving patterns and charging demand. Then, the scenario ma-
a b
(37) trix was obtained using the heuristic moment matching method,
 which guaranteed the explicit representation of the stochastic
xcir
ij,a,b,u ,h ≤1 ∀ij, a, b, h features and the correlation among the historical wind and pho-
u
tovoltaic generation, and conventional loads and EV demands.
(38)
The scenario matrix was employed to develop the stochastic ex-
u −1 
 pansion planning formulation, aiming at the minimization of the
ij,a,b,u ,h ≤ θi,j,a +
xcir ij,c,a,k ,h ∀ij, a, b, u, h
cir
xcir
investment and operational costs. The optimal expansion plan-
k =1 c
(39) ning solution determined the construction/reinforcement of sub-
u −1  stations, EVCSs and feeders, along with the placement of dis-

tributed generators and capacitor banks over the planning hori-
,h ≤ θij,b + ij,a,b,u ,h ∀ij, b, u, h
cir su b
yij,b,u xcir
k =1 a zon. Numerical results and detailed discussions are presented
(40) in the Part II of this two-paper series. The 18-bus distribution
 system is used to test the developed model and its scalability is
cir
yij,b,u ,h ≤1 ∀ij, u, h
further assessed in the IEEE 123-bus distribution system.
b
(41) Further work will explore the prospects and challenges
brought by the integration of energy storage systems and traf-
4) Logical Constraints for the EVCSs: The set of constraints fic constraints in distribution systems. Research will also be
(42)–(46) represent the modeling of the EVCSs. The constraint carried out to investigate various distributed energy resource
(42) ensures that an EVCS can be placed only once at a bus over technologies, such as the combined-heat-and-power units and
the planning horizon, whereas the constraint (43) permits the gas boilers, to provide enabling solutions towards the realization
installation of chargers only if the associated EVCS has previ- of low-cost and low-carbon multi-energy distribution systems.
ously been placed. The constraint (44) ensures that the number
of chargers operating in each stage cannot surpass the number of
previously installed chargers. The constraint (45) represents the REFERENCES
relationship between the number of EVs of type v that require [1] S. Ganguly, N. C. Sahoo, and D. Das, “Recent advances on power distri-
charging and the number of EVs allotted to different charger bution system planning: A state-of-the-art survey,” Energy Syst., vol. 4,
no. 2, pp. 165–193, Jun. 2013.
types. The constraint (46) ensures that the power supplied by [2] S. Wang, Z. Y. Dong, F. Luo, K. Meng, and Y. Zhang, “Stochastic collabo-
the chargers over their operating time can meet the EV charging rative planning of electric vehicle charging stations and power distribution
demand. system,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 321–331, Jan. 2018.
 [3] Y. Zheng, Z. Y. Dong, Y. Xu, K. Meng, J. H. Zhao, and J. Qiu, “Electric
p,u ,h ≤ 1
xcs ∀p, h (42) vehicle battery charging/swap stations in distribution systems: Compari-
u son study and optimal planning,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 29, no. 1,
pp. 221–229, Jan. 2014.

u 
u
[4] Z. Hu and Y. Song, “Distribution network expansion planning with optimal
nchi
p,e,k ,h ≤C p xcs
p,k ,h ∀p, u, h (43) siting and sizing of electric vehicle charging stations,” in Proc. 47th Int.
e k =1 k =1 Univ. Power Eng. Conf., 2012, pp. 1–6.

u [5] W. Yao et al., “A multi-objective collaborative planning strategy for in-
tegrated power distribution and electric vehicle charging systems,” IEEE
p,e,u ,h ≤
nchi nchi
p,e,k ,h ∀p, e, u, h (44) Trans. Power Syst., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1811–1821, Jul. 2014.
k =1 [6] S. Wang, K. Meng, F. Luo, Z. Xu, and Y. Zheng, “Stochastic collaborative
 planning method for electric vehicle charging stations,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
nev EV
e,v ,u ,h = Nv ,u ,h ∀v, u, h (45) Conf. Smart Grid Commun., 2016, pp. 503–508.
e [7] N. Neyestani, M. Y. Damavandi, M. Shafie-Khah, J. Contreras, and J. P.
  S. Catalao, “Allocation of plug-in vehicles’ parking lots in distribution
Pech ncho
p,e,u ,h dw
cs
≥ nev r eq
e,v ,u ,h Ev soc − φsoc )
(φm ax
systems considering network-constrained objectives,” IEEE Trans. Power
p v Syst., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 2643–2656, Sep. 2015.
[8] Z. Liu, F. Wen, and G. Ledwich, “Optimal planning of electric-vehicle
∀e, u , h (46) charging stations in distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 102–110, Jan. 2013.
IV. CONCLUSION [9] F. Fazelpour, M. Vafaeipour, O. Rahbari, and M. A. Rosen, “Intelligent
optimization to integrate a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle smart parking
The rapid uptake of electric vehicles and the renewable dis- lot with renewable energy resources and enhance grid characteristics,”
tributed generation is considered a major challenge pertaining Energy Convers. Manage., vol. 77, pp. 250–261, Jan. 2014.
[10] M. H. Amini and A. Islam, “Allocation of electric vehicles’ parking lots
to the operation and planning of modern distribution systems. in distribution network,” in Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Innov. Smart
In particular, the uncertainties associated with the EV demands Grid Technol. Conf., 2014, pp. 1–5.
and the non-dispatchable renewable generators have not been [11] I. Frade, A. Ribeiro, G. Gonçalves, and A. Antunes, “Optimal location
of charging stations for electric vehicles in a neighborhood in Lisbon,
fully tackled yet in the context of distribution system expan- Portugal,” Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board, vol. 2252, pp. 91–98,
sion planning. The first part of this two-paper series proposed a 2011.

Authorized licensed use limited to: PUNJAB UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on July 13,2021 at 05:38:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
978
[12] Z. F. Liu, W. Zhang, X. Ji, and K. Li, “Optimal planning of charging
station for electric vehicle based on particle swarm optimization,” in Proc.
IEEE Innov. Smart Grid Technol.—Asia, 2012, pp. 1–5.
[13] E. Pashajavid and M. A. Golkar, “Optimal placement and sizing of plug in
electric vehicles charging stations within distribution networks with high
penetration of photovoltaic panels,” J. Renewable Sustain. Energy, vol. 5,
no. 5, Sep. 2013, Art. no. 053126.
[14] S. F. Santos et al., “Novel multi-stage stochastic DG investment planning
with recourse,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 164–178,
Jan. 2017.
[15] Y. Xiang, J. Liu, and Y. Liu, “Robust energy management of microgrid
with uncertain renewable generation and load,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1034–1043, Mar. 2016.
[16] Y. Li, B. Feng, G. Li, J. Qi, D. Zhao, and Y. Mu, “Optimal distributed
generation planning in active distribution networks considering integration
of energy storage,” Appl. Energy, vol. 210, pp. 1073–1081, Jan. 2018.
[17] T. Wu, Q. Yang, Z. Bao, and W. Yan, “Coordinated energy dispatching
in microgrid with wind power generation and plug-in electric vehicles,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1453–1463, Sep. 2013.
[18] M. Qin, K. W. Chan, C. Y. Chung, X. Luo, and T. Wu, “Optimal planning
and operation of energy storage systems in radial networks for wind power
integration with reserve support,” IET Gener. Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 10,
no. 8, pp. 2019–2025, May 2016.
[19] Y. Zheng, D. J. Hill, and Z. Y. Dong, “Multi-agent optimal allocation
of energy storage systems in distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Sustain.
Energy, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1715–1725, Oct. 2017.
[20] H. Xing, H. Cheng, Y. Zhang, and P. Zeng, “Active distribution network
expansion planning integrating dispersed energy storage systems,” IET
Gener. Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 638–644, 2016.
[21] K. Høyland, M. Kaut, and S. W. Wallace, “A heuristic for moment-
matching scenario generation,” Comput. Optim. Appl., vol. 24, no. 2/3,
pp. 169–185, 2003.
[22] J. Li, L. Ye, Y. Zeng, and H. Wei, “A scenario-based robust transmission
network expansion planning method for consideration of wind power
uncertainties,” CSEE J. Power Energy Syst., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 11–18, 2016.
[23] A. Ehsan and Q. Yang, “Robust distribution system planning consider-
ing the uncertainties of renewable distributed generation and electricity
demand,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Energy Internet Energy Syst. Integration,
Beijing, China, Nov. 2017, pp. 1–6.
[24] A. Ehsan, Q. Yang, and M. Cheng, “A scenario-based robust invest-
ment planning model for multi-type distributed generation under uncer-
tainties,” IET Gener. Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 12, pp. 4426–4434, 2018,
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2018.5602.
[25] A. Ehsan and Q. Yang, “Coordinated investment planning of dis-
tributed multi-type stochastic generation and battery storage in active
distribution networks,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, to be published,
doi: 10.1109/tste.2018.2873370.
[26] N. Banol Arias, A. Tabares, J. F. Franco, M. Lavorato, and R. Romero,
“Robust joint expansion planning of electrical distribution systems and
EV charging stations,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 9, no. 2,
pp. 884–894, Apr. 2018.
[27] S. Sun, Q. Yang, and W. Yan, “A novel Markov-based temporal-SoC anal-
ysis for characterizing PEV charging demand,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform.,
vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 156–166, Jan. 2018.
[28] A. Tabares, J. F. Franco, M. Lavorato, and M. J. Rider, “Multistage
long-term expansion planning of electrical distribution systems consid-
ering multiple alternatives,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 31, no. 3,
pp. 1900–1914, May 2016.
[29] J. Lofberg, “YALMIP: A toolbox for modeling and optimization in MAT-
LAB,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Aided Control Syst. Des., 2004,
pp. 284–289.
[30] IBM ILOG CPLEX, “CPLEX optimizer,” 2012. [Online]. Available:
https://www.ibm.com/analytics/cplex-optimizer. Accessed on: Oct. 15,
2018.
Authorized licensed use limited to: PUNJAB UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on July 13,2021 at 05:38:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 11, NO. 2, APRIL 2020
[31] Q. Yang, S. Sun, S. Deng, Q. Zhao, and M. Zhou, “Optimal sizing of PEV
fast charging stations with Markovian demand characterization,” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, to be published, doi: 10.1109/TSG.2018.2860783.
[32] S. Sun, Q. Yang, and W. Yan, “Hierarchical optimal planning approach
for plug-in electric vehicle fast charging stations based on temporal-
SoC charging demand characterisation,” IET Gener. Transmiss. Distrib.,
vol. 12, pp. 4388–4395, Nov. 2018.
[33] Department of Transport National Statistics, “Transport statistics bulletin
vehicle licensing statistics: 2010,” Apr. 9, 2011. [Online]. Available:
http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/vehicles/lice
nsing/latest/vls2010.pdf. Accessed on: Oct. 15, 2018.
[34] Transport Research and Innovation Portal, “Mobile energy resources
in grids of electricity,” Feb. 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.
transport-research.info/sites/default/files/project/documents/20140203_
154622_76425_Deliverable_2.1_Modelling_Electric_Storage_devices_
for_Electric_Vehicles.pdf. Accessed on: Oct. 15, 2018.
[35] G. Li and X.-P. Zhang, “Modeling of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charg-
ing demand in probabilistic power flow calculations,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 492–499, Mar. 2012.
[36] M. Nick, R. Cherkaoui, and M. Paolone, “Optimal allocation of dispersed
energy storage systems in active distribution networks for energy balance
and grid support,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 2300–2310,
Sep. 2014.
[37] H. Wei, H. Sasaki, J. Kubokawa, and R. Yokoyama, “Large scale hy-
drothermal optimal power flow problems based on interior point nonlin-
ear programming,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 396–403,
Feb. 2000.
Ali Ehsan received the B.Sc. degree in electrical en-
gineering from the University of Engineering and
Technology Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan, in 2010, the
M.Sc. degree in renewable energy engineering from
Kingston University London, London, U.K., in 2012,
and the Ph.D. degree from the College of Electrical
Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China,
in 2019. From 2013 to 2015, he was a Lecturer with
the Department of Electrical Engineering, COM-
SATS University Islamabad, Sahiwal, Pakistan. He
is currently a Research Associate with The Univer-
sity of Manchester, Manchester, U.K. His research interests include renewable
distributed generation, multi-energy microgrids, and planning and optimization
techniques.
Qiang Yang (M’03–SM’18) received the Ph.D. de-
gree in electronic engineering and computer science
from the Queen Mary University of London, London,
U.K., in 2007. From 2007 to 2010, he was with the
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
Imperial College London, London, U.K. He visited
the University of British Columbia and the University
of Victoria Canada as a Visiting Scholar in 2015 and
2016. He is currently a Full Professor with the Col-
lege of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou, China. He has authored/coauthored more
than 170 technical papers, three books, 10 book chapters and applied for 50
national patents. His research interests over the years include smart energy sys-
tems, intelligent control systems, and large-scale complex network modeling,
control, and optimization. He is the Senior Member of IET and China Computer
Federation.