Increasing Distribution Grid Hosting Capacity through

Optimal Network Reconfiguration

Mansoor Alturki, Amin Khodaei
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Denver
Denver, USA
Mansoor.Alturki@du.edu, Amin.Khodaei@du.edu

Abstract—The increasing trend of distributed generation Qc,max Maximum reactive power exchange with
deployment in distribution grids requires constant upgrades in the upstream grid.
the existing infrastructure to increase grid hosting capacity. In QD Reactive load demand.
principle, it should be possible to increase the grid hosting QLmax Maximum reactive power flow capacity.
capacity by reconfiguring the network via changing the status of
tie and sectionalizing switches already installed in the ΔVmax Maximum change in voltage magnitude.
distribution grid. The reconfiguration is desirable as it takes ΔVmin Minimum change in voltage magnitude.
advantage of existing network architecture without the need for
Variables:
additional upgrades and investments in the network. This paper
presents a method for maximizing distribution grid hosting
PG Active power supplied by DG units.
capacity through such reconfiguration. Unlike classical iterative Pc Active power exchange with the upstream
and time-consuming methods, the proposed method is based on grid.
a linearized power flow model which is formulated as a mixed- PL Active power flow.
integer linear programming problem with appropriate radiality Qc Reactive power exchange with the
constraints. The result is a near-instantaneous and robust upstream grid.
computation of optimal reconfiguration for maximizing grid QG Reactive power supplied by DG units.
hosting capacity. The proposed method is tested and validated QL Reactive power flow.
on the IEEE 33-bus distribution test system.
V Voltage magnitude.
Index Terms—Hosting capacity, network reconfiguration, z Line status indicator.
distributed generation. θ Voltage angle.
ΔV Change in voltage magnitude.
NOMENCLATURE Δθ Change in voltage angle.
Indices: I. INTRODUCTION
c Index for points of interconnection.
m,n
∧
Index for buses.
Index for calculated variables.
I NCREASING deployment of distributed energy resources
(DERs) in distribution networks requires improved grid
planning and operation strategies to accommodate the new
Sets:
changing behavior of customers as well as two-way flow of
B Set of buses.
C Set of points of interconnection. electricity. DERs, such as wind generators, solar photovoltaic
L Set of lines. (PV) generators, energy storage systems, etc., are the
cornerstone of future distribution grids. This is because
Γ Set of Loops.
incorporating such technologies can reduce greenhouse gas
Parameters:
emissions, minimize energy costs, reduce dependence on
b Line susceptance. fossil fuels, increase distribution efficiency, and meet growing
g Line conductance. energy demands [1]. However, existing distribution networks
M Large positive number. were not designed with distributed generation (DG)
PD Active load demand. technology in mind. Incorporating more DGs into the grid will
Pc,max Maximum active power exchange with the change its operating conditions, with more DG leading to
upstream grid. larger deviations. There is however a limit to the amount of
PLmax Maximum active power flow capacity. additional DG which a distribution grid can accommodate
before the resulting deviations degrade the operational

978-1-5386-7138-2/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

performance of the grid. These can appear in, for example,
undesirable voltage deviations, increased line losses, and
unexpected thermal overloads. The distribution grid hosting
capacity is defined for such situations as the amount of new
production or consumption that can be added to the grid
without adversely impacting the reliability or voltage quality
for other customers [2].
Most of the existing distribution grids are designed as
passive networks with a radial or weakly meshed topology.
This design is preferred due to the ease and low cost of
operation and maintenance. However, the implementation of
DGs was not anticipated and transmission lines close to
consumers were not expected to handle high level generation
[3]. The hosting capacity is ultimately capped by the design
limits of generation units, load demands, and line capacities.
To maximize the potential of these grids in light of the trend
toward DG integration, this paper focuses on network
reconfiguration strategies for increasing the hosting capacity
of distribution grids. Reconfiguration is commonly performed
for emergency operation, reduction of power loss, system load
balancing, voltage profile improvements, reliability
improvements, and service restoration. These uses can be
imposed against technical problems arising from high
penetration of DGs into a network, such as reverse power flow
and voltage rise. However, assessment of the effect of system
reconfiguration on DG hosting capacity must be done to
determine the most beneficial system configuration. Such
assessment must also be fast and reliable to be incorporated
into smart grid technologies for distribution automation.
System reconfiguration can be realized by opening and
closing already installed switches. Physical infrastructure
changes are sometimes necessary to reconfigure a system, but
the timescales required to implement this reconfiguration
prevents its use in short timescale responses, i.e., the
fluctuations in power generation and local energy demands.
For this reason, this paper focuses in network reconfiguration
via switching. Network reconfiguration is defined as the
process of changing the status of the network switches to
obtain different configurations of a distribution grid without
changing the system’s infrastructure [4]. In distribution grids,
switches are classified into two types of sectionalizing
switches, which are normally closed, and tie switches, which
are normally open.
The problem of optimal DG injection is widely studied due
to the emerging necessity of planning and operation of
distribution grids with DGs [5]–[7]. The problem is usually
formulated as finding the optimum DG size and locations in a
given network such that the total amount of DG power
incorporated into the network is maximized while enforcing
operational constraints (e.g. voltage, thermal, and harmonic
limits). Several studies optimize the network configuration in
order to achieve a certain objective such as minimizing system
losses [8], [9] and improving voltage profiles [10]. Other
studies propose multi-objective optimizations where DG
placement in every potential configuration is maximized, and
then the configurations are optimized again for reducing
system losses. In [11], a simultaneous optimization of
reconfiguration and DG placement are performed to reduce
system losses and improve voltage profiles. This is
accomplished using a multi-objective optimization algorithm
called modified plant growth simulation algorithm. In [12], a
Harmony Search Algorithm is utilized to simultaneously
reconfigure and identify the optimal DG size and locations.
The study in [13] investigates the effect of PV incorporation
on optimal reconfigurations for reducing line losses. Radial
network configurations have also been performed which
maximize PV capacity. This was accomplished by converting
a mixed-integer nonconvex optimization into a convex
optimization by the second order cone programming method
[14]. In [15], a genetic algorithm method is introduced to
evaluate the optimal hosting capacity based on the optimal
network reconfiguration. However, the optimization problem
does not obtain the global optimal solution as the variation in
DG output cannot be considered. To enhance performance,
another genetic algorithm method was applied to optimize
network reconfiguration to maximize hosting capacity, this
time using a relaxed radiality constraint [16]. In [17], power
losses were reduced by reconfiguring the network and
optimizing DG size and location using a Tabu search
optimization, which however suffers from a long computation
time. Improved Tabu search algorithms were also developed
based on meta-heuristic methods to minimize energy losses
[18]. The study in [19] uses an improved rolling horizon
algorithm instead to optimize the mixed-integer nonlinear
programming problem more quickly with the objective of
minimizing DG curtailment. The study in [20] proposes the
use of a heuristic constructive algorithm to optimize
reconfiguration as well as size and locations of DGs.
Sensitivity analysis was used to compute the sensitivity factors
of candidate DG installation locations. In [21], a method was
developed to assess both static (infrastructure changes) and
dynamic (changing switches) grid reconfigurations for
optimization to maximize hosting capacity using mixed-
integer, nonlinear, multi-period optimal power flow. The study
in [22] proposes a multi-period network reconfiguration
method to minimize the number of switching operations
required to increase the hosting capacity.
This paper focuses on optimizing DG hosting capacity in a
radial distribution grid without exceeding operating limits
using a full linear AC power flow analysis. This paper
expands our previous work [2] by also optimizing network
reconfiguration to increase allowable grid hosting capacity.
Network reconfiguration is introduced into the optimization
by formulating it as a mixed-integer programming (MIP)
problem. The advantage of using a linearized method over
more conventional iterative methods is twofold. First,
computation time is dramatically reduced, especially when a
large search space is considered. Second, it makes the
optimization across all possible reconfiguration topologies and
DG deployment profiles possible to be considered. These
advantages combine to allow for a rapid and robust
computation of optimal reconfiguration since nonlinear
analysis is avoided.
 The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
describes the proposed method. Section III presents numerical
simulations to exhibit the effectiveness of the proposed
method. Section IV concludes the paper.
II. NETWORK RECONFIGURATION - MODEL OUTLINE AND
PROBLEM FORMULATION
A. Model outline
Our goal is to optimize the distribution grid topology using
the smart switches in order to maximize the grid hosting
capacity. This is done by finding the maximum amount of DG
which can be incorporated without exceeding operational
limits. To predict grid operational performance in response to
adding DGs, the effect of adding more DGs to an existing grid
must be simulated. Power flow in distribution grids is
fundamentally described using AC power flow equations.
However, these equations are nonlinear, leading to challenges
in finding optimal solutions. In this paper, a linearized power
flow model [2] for radial distribution grids is used to
simultaneously solve the hosting capacity and distribution
network reconfiguration problem.
where gmn and bmn are defined, respectively, as the
conductance and susceptance of the line connecting buses m
and n. ΔV with ∧ is considered as a calculated variable that
can be approximated by solving the model subject to a lossless
line condition.
C. Radiality constraint on network reconfiguration
The reconfiguration of a distribution grid is executed by
changing the state of switches in the grid. The purpose of the
distribution network reconfiguration is to obtain the
configuration which would maximize the grid hosting
capacity. Since we are optimizing radial networks,
reconfiguring the network should not affect its radiality
structure. The term “radial” here refers to a configuration
which connects all nodes but does not contain connected
loops. The radiality condition is enforced by verifying that in
all potential loops the number of closed lines is less than the
total number of lines comprising the loop. Therefore, there
should be at least one open line in each potential loop. The
radiality constraint can be defined as follows:
z
mn∈Γ
mn ≤ Lmn − 1 ∀mn ∈ L (7)

B. Linearized power flow model

Here, Γ is the set of all possible loops, Lmn is the total number
In a radial distribution grid, there is only one bus that
of lines in each loop, and zmn is the binary variable that
connects the distribution grid with the upstream grid. This bus
represents the status of the line connecting buses m and n. zmn
is defined as the point of interconnection (POI). Its voltage
is 0 when the line switches are opened (line is switched out)
magnitude and phase angle are used as reference values in
and 1 when the switches are closed (line is switched in).
such a way that VPOI=1∠0° p.u. and all downstream voltage
magnitudes and angles are defined based on these values asD. Hosting capacity Optimization model
follows, respectively:
The objective of the proposed optimization method is to
Vm = 1 + ΔVm ∀m ∈ B (1) find the optimal configuration which simultaneously
maximizes the total DG capacity that can be deployed in the
θ m = 0 + Δθ m ∀m ∈ B (2) distribution grid (8).
where ΔVm and Δθm are the difference between the voltage
magnitude and phase angle at bus m and the POI. max  PmG (8)
m∈ B
Two assumptions are made to linearize the AC power flow
equations. The first is to assume the voltage phase difference This objective is subject to the operational constraints (9)-
between connected buses is small enough to justify small (18):
angle trigonometric approximations:
P m
c
+  PL mn + PmG = PmD ∀m ∈ B (9)
sin(θ m − θ n ) ≈ θ m − θ n = Δθ m − Δθ m ∀mn ∈ L (3) c∈C n∈ Lm

cos(θ m − θ n ) ≈ 1 ∀mn ∈ L (4) Q

c∈C
c
m +  QL
n∈ L m
mn + QmG = QmD ∀m ∈ B (10)

The second assumption is that the deviations of voltage z mn ≤ Lmn − 1 ∀mn ∈ L (11)
magnitude and phase angle from the POI are small enough mn∈Γ

that their products produce negligible terms. This is reasonable PLmn − ( g mn (1 + Δ Vˆm )( Δ Vm − Δ Vn )
since the voltage magnitude and angle deviations are defined ≤ M (1 − z mn ) (12)
relative to the POI, and their deviations from the POI are very − bmn ( Δ θ m − Δ θ n ))
small. Based on these two assumptions, the active and reactive ∀ mn ∈ L
power flow equation are approximated as follows:
QLmn − ( − bmn (1 + Δ Vˆm )( Δ Vm − Δ Vn )
≤ M (1 − z mn )
PLmn = g mn (1 + ΔVˆm )( ΔVm − ΔVn ) − g mn ( Δ θ m − Δ θ n )) (13)
(5)
− bmn ( Δθ m − Δθ n ) ∀mn ∈ L ∀ mn ∈ L
QLmn = −bmn (1 + ΔVˆm )( ΔVm − ΔVn ) −P c ,max
≤ Pm ≤ P c ,max
∀c ∈ C (14)
(6) m m

− g mn ( Δθ m − Δθ n ) ∀mn ∈ L
− Qmc ,max ≤ Qm ≤ Qmc ,max ∀c ∈ C (15) Case 2: Optimal hosting capacity and network
reconfiguration when DG injection is allowed at
− z mn PLmax max
mn ≤ PLmn ≤ z mn PLmn ∀ mn ∈ L (16)
end buses only (buses 18, 22, 25 and 33).
max max
− z mn QL mn ≤ QLmn ≤ z mn QL mn ∀ mn ∈ L (17) Case 3: Comparison with other existing methods.
min max
ΔV m ≤ Δ Vm ≤ Δ V m ∀m ∈ B (18) Case 0 calculates the grid hosting capacity without
network reconfiguration (i.e., without using any tie lines). The
The active power balance equation (9) and reactive power results of this case will be used to calculate the increase in
balance equation (10) must be satisfied for each bus m. It is optimal hosting capacity through network reconfiguration.
added as a constraint to ensure that the total active and Case 1 calculates the maximum hosting capacity when
reactive power supplied from the upstream grid and installed optimizing the grid’s configuration. This displays the
DG matches the load at the associated bus. Constraint (11) fundamental feature of our method: the ability to maximize
enforces the radiality of the optimal configuration. Constraints hosting capacity through reconfiguration. Case 2 repeats the
(12) and (13) are the linearized active and reactive AC power same analysis but when DG placement is considered to be at
flow equations discussed in the preceding section. The active end buses only. This demonstrates the flexibility of the
and reactive power exchanged with the upstream grid is proposed method which can easily be applied to a scenario in
limited by (14) and (15). Constraints (16) and (17) impose the which only a subset of buses is chosen to accommodate DGs.
active and reactive power flow limits in the distribution lines. Case 3 compares the results of the proposed method to the
Constraint (18) imposes voltage deviation constraints relative other existing methods. This evaluates the accuracy of the
to the POI voltage. In (12), (13), (16), and (17), zmn is a binary proposed method and justifies assumptions used to linearize
variable used to define the status of the line connecting buses the AC power flow equations.
m and n. If zmn is zero, the line connecting buses m and n is
open. Mathematically, setting zmn=0 in (16) and (17) will force 23 24 25
37
Sectionalizing switches
Tie switches
both PLmn and QLmn to be zero ensuring no power flow. Also, 23 24
Load
an open line should not enforce the power flow equation 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

through the line connecting buses m and n. To completely 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

22
relax the power flow equations, the constant M is set to a large Loop 3
34
Loop 2
positive number. If, on the other hand, the line is closed and 25
Loop 1 36

zmn= 1, then the power flow limits (16) and (17) are allowed to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Substation

be nonzero and the power flow equations (12) and (13) would 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

be enforced in the optimization problem. Connectivity is

further guaranteed in the optimal solution as a consequence of 18
Loop 4
19 20 21 22
33
Loop 5
35

the power balance equations. 19 20 21

III. NUMERICAL SIMULATION

The proposed network reconfiguration method is applied
to the IEEE 33-bus distribution test system to demonstrate the
performance of the developed method. A schematic of this
system is shown in Fig. 1. The system consists of 33 buses, 32
sectionalizing switches, and 5 tie switches [23]. Closing any
one of the five tie switches causes a corresponding loop to
form (as depicted in Table I). Base load values are used in
each bus. The total base load is 3.715+j2.3 MVA. The
maximum power exchanged with the main grid is set to 4.6
MW. The voltage at the POI (bus 1 in this system) is set to
1∠0° p.u. and all other buses are defined based on this value.
The objective is to increase the allowable hosting capacity
through network reconfiguration while enforcing operational
performance and radiality constraints. The problem is
formulated as a MIP problem and developed in GAMS using
CPLEX solver on a personal computer with an Intel Core E7-
4870 2.30 GHz CPU and 96 GB of RAM. The following cases
are studied.
Case 0: Optimal hosting capacity without considering
network reconfiguration.
Case 1: Optimal hosting capacity with network
reconfiguration when all buses are considered.
Fig. 1: IEEE 33 bus distribution test system.
TABLE I. ALL POSSIBLE LOOPS GENERATED BY CLOSING TIE LINES
Loop # Lines making the loop
1 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 34
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25, 26, 27, 28,
2
29, 30, 31, 32, 36
3 3, 4, 5, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 37
4 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, 20, 33
5 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 35
Case 0: The hosting capacity of the distribution test system is
optimized without network reconfiguration. Two different DG
placement scenarios are evaluated: DG placement is allowed
at any bus in the network and DG placement is allowed at end
buses only. The results of this case will be used to compare
against similar cases which include network reconfiguration in
the optimization. Table II summarizes the results for the
optimal DG size and locations in both scenarios. When
allowing DG to be injected into all buses, the optimization
results in a total hosting capacity of 8.484 MW with 7624 kW,
90 kW, and 770 kW of DG capacity placed in buses 2, 19, and
20. When only end buses are allowed to incorporate DGs, a
total of 1.470 MW of DG capacity is placed with 190 kW, 200
kW, 920 kW, and 160 kW in buses 18, 22, 25, and 33,
respectively. Comparing these two results, we can see that capacity is 1470 kW. However, the optimal hosting capacity
restricting DGs to end buses decreases the optimal hosting with the optimal network reconfiguration is 3160 kW, nearly
capacity by 82%. The decrease of the hosting capacity because double the other scenario. In this case, the optimal
of restriction to end buses is of practical concern since similar configuration is obtained by closing lines 33, 35, 37 and at the
restrictions are often the situation during normal operation. same time opening lines 20, 21 and 24. This configuration
However, it is possible to improve some of this drop in the maximizes the benefits provided by DGs and consequently
optimal hosting capacity if the network is allowed to be maximizes the hosting capacity. In other words, this optimal
reconfigured to spread the generation of DG over different configuration aimed to minimize the power flow distance
lines in the grid. between end buses and the substation by using the largest
available line capacities. Fig. 2 compares the voltage profiles
TABLE II. OPTIMAL HOSTING CAPACITY WITHOUT NETWORK for optimal solutions with and without considering network
RECONFIGURATION
reconfiguration. Voltage profiles show significant
DG allowed to be DG allowed to be improvements in all buses when considering network
Bus # installed at all buses installed at end buses reconfiguration.
(kW) (kW)
2 7624 -
TABLE III. OPTIMAL HOSTING CAPACITY WITH AND WITHOUT
18 - 190 NETWORK RECONFIGURATION
19 90 -
Optimal hosting capacity
20 770 - Case
Without network With network
#
22 - 200 reconfiguration reconfiguration
25 - 920 Total DG (kW) 8484 8539
Line opened 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 14, 20, 21, 24, 32
33 - 160 Case
Min. Voltage
Total DG (kW) 8484 1470 1
magnitude 0.919 0.939
(p.u.)
Case 1: In this case, the hosting capacity for the test Total DG (kW) 1470 3160
distribution system is maximized by reconfiguration. All buses Line opened 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 20, 21, 24, 34, 36
are considered as potential sites for DG injection. Table III Case
2 Min. Voltage
summarizes the results, allowing direct comparison between magnitude 0.9377 0.976
the optimal hosting capacities with and without network (p.u.)
reconfiguration. The optimal hosting capacity without network
reconfiguration (in Case 0) is 8.484 MW. The DG profile was
1.01
optimal when injecting 7634 kW, 90 kW, and 770 kW into 1
Base configuration Based on optimal network reconfiguration
buses 2, 19, and 20, respectively. When allowing network 0.99
Voltage magnitude (p.u.)

reconfiguration, the optimal hosting capacity increases by 55 0.98

kW to 8.539 MW. In this case, DGs are deployed at 8597 kW,
10 kW, and 20 kW at buses 2, 8, and 16, respectively. The
optimal configuration is obtained by closing all tie switches
(lines 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37) and at the same time opening
lines 14, 20, 21, 24 and 32. This configuration minimizes the
power flow distance between all buses and maximizes the
available line capacities that allow for increasing grid hosting
capacity without exceeding operational limits or requiring
additional upgrades. Moreover, the voltage profile is improved
in all buses when allowing reconfiguration, with the minimum
voltage magnitude being 0.939 p.u. compared to 0.919 p.u.
without network reconfiguration. Overall, this case
demonstrates that reconfiguration will increase the optimal
hosting capacity while also affecting the optimal DG
locations.
Case 2: Similar to Case 1, the hosting capacity is maximized
in this case through network reconfiguration. The difference,
however, is that DGs installation is restricted to end buses, i.e.
buses 18, 22, 25, and 33. The purpose of this case is to
demonstrate the ability to selectively inject DG and to show
the influence of the network reconfiguration when just
considering locations that have smaller capacities compared to
other buses. Table III compares the results of the analyses.
Without network reconfiguration (Case 0), the optimal hosting
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.91
0.9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Bus number
Fig. 2: Comparison of the voltage profile with and without network
reconfiguration.
Case 3: Multiple methods are examined in order to compare
the performance of the proposed method with other existing
methods. The objective of these methods is to increase the
grid hosting capacity via network reconfiguration in selected
locations. Table IV summarizes results from these methods,
including the modified plant growth simulation algorithm
(MPGSA) [11], the Harmony Search Algorithm (HSA) [12],
and the genetic algorithm (GA) [12]. Note that the objective
function of the GA method is to determine the optimal
configuration first, and then to optimize DG capacity. The
proposed method achieves similar, if not better, solutions
compared with the other methods. While the choice of open
lines in the proposed method differs from other methods, the
optimal hosting capacity results are almost similar. This
indicates that the choice of which lines to open can in certain
situations be flexible and can produce comparable results in a the Robust Optimal Operation of OLTC and SVC,” IEEE Trans.
Sustain. Energy, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1111–1123, Jul. 2016.
few similar configurations. Additionally, the proposed method
[7] K. Mahmoud, N. Yorino, and A. Ahmed, “Optimal Distributed
has a significantly reduced computation time compared to the Generation Allocation in Distribution Systems for Loss
other methods which required more computation time. Minimization,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 960–
969, Mar. 2016.
[8] B. Radha, R. T. King, and H. C. Rughooputh, “A modified genetic
TABLE IV. COMPARISONS OF DIFFERENT METHODS algorithm for optimal electrical distribution network
reconfiguration,” in Evolutionary Computation, 2003. CEC’03. The
Min. 2003 Congress on, 2003, vol. 2, pp. 1472–1479.
Total
% of loss voltage Line Time [9] M. Ashari and R. Syahputra, “Power loss reduction strategy of
Method DG
reduction magnitude opened (s) distribution network with distributed generator integration,” in
(MW)
(p.u) Information Technology, Computer and Electrical Engineering
MPGSA 7,10, 14, (ICITACEE), 2014 1st International Conference on, 2014, pp. 404–
1.786 64.36 0.9724 0.7 408.
[11] 28, 31
[10] H. Ahmadi and J. R. Marti, “Distribution System Optimization
7, 10, 14, Based on a Linear Power-Flow Formulation,” IEEE Trans. Power
HAS [12] 1.668 63.95 0.9701 -
28, 32 Deliv., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 25–33, Feb. 2015.
[11] R. Rajaram, K. Sathish Kumar, and N. Rajasekar, “Power system
7, 9, 12, reconfiguration in a radial distribution network for reducing losses
GA [12] 1.448 51.5 0.9691 -
27, 32 and to improve voltage profile using modified plant growth
simulation algorithm with Distributed Generation (DG),” Energy
10, 21,
Proposed Rep., vol. 1, pp. 116–122, Nov. 2015.
1.986 66.24 0.9710 24, 33, 0.2
method [12] R. S. Rao, K. Ravindra, K. Satish, and S. V. L. Narasimham,
36
“Power Loss Minimization in Distribution System Using Network
Reconfiguration in the Presence of Distributed Generation,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 317–325, Feb. 2013.
IV. CONCLUSION [13] A. S. Bouhouras, T. A. Papadopoulos, G. C. Christoforidis, G. K.
Papagiannis, and D. P. Labridis, “Loss reduction via network
This paper proposed a network reconfiguration method reconfigurations in Distribution Networks with Photovoltaic Units
which can effectively increase the DG hosting capacity. The Installed,” in European Energy Market (EEM), 2013 10th
proposed method utilized a linear power flow model for International Conference on the, 2013, pp. 1–8.
[14] Y. Lin, T. Ding, Z. Bie, and G. Li, “A new method to evaluate
network optimization which provides several benefits
maximum capacity of photovoltaic integration considering network
including reduced problem complexity, increased accuracy, topology reconfiguration,” in Power and Energy Society General
and decreased computation time. Technical complications Meeting (PESGM), 2016, 2016, pp. 1–5.
arising from imposing radiality constraints were addressed by [15] V. Calderaro, A. Piccolo, and P. Siano, “Maximizing DG
penetration in distribution networks by means of GA based
utilizing results from graph theory and network optimization.
reconfiguration,” in Future Power Systems, 2005 International
The ability of the proposed method to simultaneously optimize Conference on, 2005, p. 6–pp.
DG placement and select the topology that would allow for [16] M. Davoudi, V. Cecchi, and J. R. Agüero, “Network reconfiguration
maximum hosting capacity was demonstrated in numerical with relaxed radiality constraint for increased hosting capacity of
distribution systems,” in Power and Energy Society General
studies. Comparisons with other methods demonstrated the
Meeting (PESGM), 2016, 2016, pp. 1–5.
validity of results obtained while emphasizing runtime [17] R. Khorshidi, T. Niknam and M. Nayeripour, “Distribution Feeder
improvements. The advantages offered by this method would Reconfiguration Considering Distributed Generators,” Proceedings
be ideal for use in network management tasks which seek to of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol.
36, 2008.
maximize the accommodation of DGs within existing radial
[18] A. Y. Abdelaziz, F. M. Mohamed, S. F. Mekhamer, and M. A. L.
distribution grids. Badr, “Distribution system reconfiguration using a modified Tabu
Search algorithm,” Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 80, no. 8, pp. 943–
953, Aug. 2010.
REFERENCES [19] F. Capitanescu, “A relax and reduce sequential decomposition
[1] A. Majzoobi and A. Khodaei, “Application of Microgrids in rolling horizon algorithm to value dynamic network reconfiguration
Supporting Distribution Grid Flexibility,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., in smart distribution grid,” in Innovative Smart Grid Technologies
vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 3660–3669, Sep. 2017. Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe), 2017 IEEE PES, 2017, pp. 1–6.
[2] M. Alturki, A. Khodaei, A. Paaso, and S. Bahramirad, [20] G. J. S. Rosseti, E. J. de Oliveira, L. W. de Oliveira, I. C. Silva, and
“Optimization-based distribution grid hosting capacity W. Peres, “Optimal allocation of distributed generation with
calculations,” Appl. Energy, vol. 219, pp. 350–360, Jun. 2018. reconfiguration in electric distribution systems,” Electr. Power Syst.
[3] N. G. Paterakis et al., “Multi-Objective Reconfiguration of Radial Res., vol. 103, pp. 178–183, Oct. 2013.
Distribution Systems Using Reliability Indices,” IEEE Trans. Power [21] F. Capitanescu, L. F. Ochoa, H. Margossian, and N. D.
Syst., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 1048–1062, Mar. 2016. Hatziargyriou, “Assessing the Potential of Network Reconfiguration
[4] M. E. Baran and F. F. Wu, “Network reconfiguration in distribution to Improve Distributed Generation Hosting Capacity in Active
systems for loss reduction and load balancing,” IEEE Trans. Power Distribution Systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 30, no. 1, pp.
Deliv., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1401–1407, 1989. 346–356, Jan. 2015.
[5] P. Larscheid et al., “Increasing the hosting capacity of RES in [22] Y.-Y. Fu and H.-D. Chiang, “Toward Optimal Multi-Period
distribution grids by active power control,” in International ETG Network Reconfiguration for Increasing the Hosting Capacity of
Congress 2015; Die Energiewende-Blueprints for the new energy Distribution Networks,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., pp. 1–1, 2018.
age; Proceedings of, 2015, pp. 1–7. [23] B. Venkatesh, R. Ranjan, and H. B. Gooi, “Optimal Reconfiguration
[6] S. Wang, S. Chen, L. Ge, and L. Wu, “Distributed Generation of Radial Distribution Systems to Maximize Loadability,” IEEE
Hosting Capacity Evaluation for Distribution Systems Considering Trans. Power Syst., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 260–266, Feb. 2004.