2004 IEEEPES Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition: Latin America

Optimization Model for Expansion Planning of

Distribution Systems
S. Hafher, Member IEEE, L. A. Pereira, L.F. A. Pereira, F. A. B. Lemos, Member IEEE
A. L. de Lima, C . A. Brkius and L. R. Giron

XR ~ Column vector of binary decision variables

~ummnly--This paper presents an optimization model for the associated with the alternatives of removing
branches from a preexisting network. .,"=I
problem of expansion planning of distribution electrical energy
system: more specifically, for defining the route of feeders. The means that branchj will be removed.
distribution system is represented by I graph in which the nodes xS
~ Column vector of binary decision variables
represent demands and sources of energy; the branches associated with the alternatives of substituting
represent the possible paths for supply. The model can be used to branches in a preexisting network. 3; = I
consider the insertion, removal and/or substitution of power lines means that power lines of branch R will be
of different gauge, with the objective of minimizing network substituted.
installation and maintenance costs, subject to the limits to Xr
- Column vector of binary decision variables
capacity of power lines and energy substations, and the associated with alternatives of removing
maximum and minimum voltage limits specified by the problem. branches of a pre-existing network, where
The validity and efficiency of the proposed model are removal and substitution is an option. x; = I
demonstrated by means of two examples of medium-voltage means that branch I will be removed.
distribution systems. ~ Column vector of binary decision variables
xs
associated with alternatives of substituting
\
Index Terms-power distrlbution; power distribution lines; power branches of a preexisting network, where
distribution planning; power distribution economics. removal and substitution is an option. x; = 1
means that power lines of branch 1 will be
I. LIST OF SYMBOLS substituted.
~ Set of fixed branches of a preexisting network. XA
- Column vector of binary decision variables
a F associated with alternatives of adding new
- Set of branches in a pre-existing network whose
aR removal will be evaluated.
branches. = I means that branch m will be

- Set of branches in a pre-existing network whose

added.
OS - Column vector of current flows in branches of
-
substitution will be evaluated.
Set of branches of a preexisting network whose
f F and 7
' the fixed network, and maximum current.
ars -E - Column vector of current flows in branches that
removal and substitution will be evaluated. f" and f ate candidates for removal, and maximum
QA
- Set of new branches whose addition will be current.
evaluated.
-S -S - Column vector of current flows in branches that
C R - Row vector of costs of removal of branches from f , f o fl are for and maximum
a pre-existing network.
currents before and after substitution.
- Row vector of costs of substituting branches in a
cS - Column vector of cument flows in branches that
preexisting network.
- Row vector of costs of removing branches from a
f' and 7' are candidates for removal and maximum
c r current, when removal and substitution is an
preexisting network, where their removal and
option.
substitution is an option. - Column vector of current flows in branches that
- Row vector of costs of substituting branches of a
cs pre-existing network, where their removal and f'
and ?s are candidates for substitution and maximum
current, when removal and substitution is an
substitution is an option.
- Row vector of costs of adding new branches. opnon.
CA --A - Column vector of current flows in branches that
f A and f might be added and maximum current.
ff - Row vector of costs of cutting load in each
branch.
_ _ _ _ ~
r - Column vector of fictitious current injections
~

This work was partially suppolted by CEEE, Companhia Estadual de (cutting load) at nodes.
Energia Elttrica, and by FAPERGS, Funda@o de Amparo i Pesquisa do
g - Column vector of current injections at nodes.
Estado do F h Grande do SUI. -
S.Haffner, L. A. Pereira. L. F. A. Pereira, F. A. B. Lemoe, A. L. de Lima, - Column vector o f minimum and maximum
-
g and g values for injections of current at nodes.
C. A. Brixius and L. R. Giron are members of GSEE, Electrical Energy
Systems Group of PUCRS, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do d - Column vector of demands for current at nodes
SUI. (e-mail: haffner@ieee.org, Ipereira@eepucrs.br, pereira@ee.pucrs.br, (Ioads).
lemos@ee.pucrs.br, schelos@ee.pucrs.br,brixius@ee.pucrs.br, Irgiron@pucrs.br). V - Column vector of voltage magnitudes at nodes.
L. F. A. Pereira is a member of GACS. Automation and Systems Control - Column vector o f minimum and maximum
Group of PUCRS, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do SUI.(e- y and
- voltages at nodes.
mail: pereira@ee.pucrs.br).

0-7803-8775-9104/$20.00 02004 IEEE 457

 ~
S F - Node-branch incidence matrix of the fixed
network.
SR - Node-branch incidence matrix of the pre-existing
network associated with removal altematives.
Node-branch incidence matrix associated with
ss -
substitution alternatives in the pre-existing
network,
Node-branch incidence matrix associated with
S“ - An analysis of published work on the subject shows that
alternatives for removal or substitution in the
preexisting network.
SA - Node-branch incidence matrix associated with
altematives for addition to the preexisting
network.
Impedance matrix of branches of the fixed
ZF - supply, etc.).
network (diagonal matrix whose elements
correspond to the branch impedance magnitude).
ZR - Impedance matrix of branches that are candidates
for removal (diagonal matrix whose elements
correspond to the branch impedance magnitude).
Impedance matrix for branches that are
Z,” and Zf -
candidates for substitution. Diagonal matrices
whose elements correspond to the branch
impedance magnitude in the initial (pre-existing)
and final (substitution alternative) configurations.
Impedance matrix for branches that are
candidates for removal or substitution. Diagonal
matrices whose elements correspond to the
branch impedance magnitude in the initial (pre-
existing) and final (substitution alternative)
configurations.
M - Diagonal matrix whose elements are large
enough to keep restrictions always inactive.
- Total number of isolated (island) nodes in the
%land
initial network configuration.
11. INTRODUCTION
T HE PROBLEM of planning the expansion of a
distribution system consists of determining the size,
location and time of installation of new distribution
equipment, taking account of capacity constraints of lines,
drop in voltage and the degree of assurance with which
demands can be met [I]-[3]. Although the problem can
formally be clearly defined, it is very difficult to solve it for
real distribution systems because of the complexities arising
from the many possible combinations in the problem.
At present, no model exists that is capable of describing
exactly all the questions that arise in defining which
investments should be made in the distribution system, in such
a way that the planned network meets all the necessary
minimum quality requirements for supply with the best
cost/benefit ratio. In general, such problems have been
considerably simplified so as to yield a solution by analytical
methods which also incorporate the company’s professional
experience. In the present state of the Brazilian electricity
system, it has become essential to develop more sophisticated
methods so as to improve company profits and
competitiveness.
Over many decades, many algorithms have been proposed
for solving the general problem with some simplifications, by
considering a static planning model up to a given horizon-year
[4]-[7]. Recent research has tried to represent the long-term
planning problem more realistically, by taking a horizon
458
divided into various steps [8]-[lo]. Irrespective of the model
used to represent the problem and of the technique used to
solve it, a strong link is found between the model and the
method of solution. In some cases, additional simplifications
are introduced so as to adapt the model to the limitations
imposed by the method of solution.
very many models are used to help distribution companies in
the complex tasks of allocating equipment, satisfying a series
of constraints and seeking to minimize costs of expansion
(investment) and of operation (losses, penalties for failure of
For the optimization model to meet the desired needs, it is
necessary to take full account of the individual characteristics
of the particular distribution company involved, and also the
background in which this company operates. The company’s
characteristics define the standards adopted in its installations,
and determine the main technical characteristics of the
distribution network; the operational background defines a set
of service constraints (voltage drop, energy quality, reliability,
etc.) to be considered in the analysis. Thus the model to be
used must portray as faithfully as possible the distribution
network to be analyzed, in such a way that the results obtained
can be useful in practice. Unlike the planning of expansion of
transmission systems [l I], the planning of distribution
systems must consider radial networks, the possibility of
union or subdivision of feeders, and various alternative cables
for the same stretch. In many cases, it is also necessary to take
into account maximum and minimum limits for the network
voltage.
To evaluate the efficiency and validity of the proposed
optimization model, GAMS (“General Algebraic Modeling
System”) was used to represent the model in an integrated
development environment 1121. In this platform it is possible
to focus attention on the optimization model, without the need
to develop methods of solution, since many commercially-
available routines exist for optimization [I 31.
The article is divided into six sections. First we present the
modeling of the optimization problem, the purpose of which is
to define the routes of power lines in the distribution system
so as to minimize costs of installing new power lines and
altering those that exist. This is followed by a description of
the model of network and its load, where these are represented
respectively by fixed injections of current and by the modules
of cable impedances. The proposed model is applied to two
networks, one having 5 nodes and the other having 18 nodes,
to demonstrate its efficacy and validity. Finally, conclusions
are given.
111. MATHEMATICAL
MODELLING
The problem of defining feeder routes in the distribution
system was modeled by taking the following factors into
account:
~

a The distribution network is divided into nodes, where B. Constmints

loads and sources are concentrated, and lines which The network constraints are divided into three large blocks
connect them, representing the power-line paths. Two arising from applying the Kirchhoffs Laws and from
variables are associated with each node: one representing imposing equipment operational limits.
the module of nodal voltage, and the other the injection of From the Kirchhoff 5 Current Law, we have:
current. Each line has associated with it a variable which
SFf + S Rf it -k ssf -k s+ + f')+ (2)
represents its respective current flow.
The injections and nodal voltages and the currents in the iSAfA+g+r=d
lines were determined by the two Kirchhoff s Laws. From the KirchhofFs Voltage Law, we have:
All possible alterations to the distribution network were
represented: removal of a stretch of power line
(sectioning); substitution of one conductor by another of
different gauge; addition of a line in a stretch where no
previous linkage existed.
The possible alterations to the distribution network to
allow for hture demand constitute a set of alternatives for
investment which are used to solve the problem of
expansion.
The execution or otherwise of each investment alternative
is determined by a binary variable x,, which has the value
one when the alternative is selected. The investment It should be noted that the existence of constraints (4) to
alternatives are grouped according to the type of (9) depends on the values taken by the decision variables x.
alteration: removal only ( x R ) , substitution only (x", When the constraint exists, and the associated decision
removal or substitution (xr ex') and addition (xA 1. variable is zero (X = 0), as in (4), (5) and (7), implementation
of this dependence is given by multiplying the respective
a The objective hnction corresponds to the minimization of constraint by the complement of this variable (1 - x ) ; in the
investment cost, plus a penalty component for failure to
case when the constraint exists and the associated decision
meet demand (shedding load) represented by introducing
variable is equal to one(x=1), as in (6), (8) and (9),
fictitious sources with high production cost at each
demand node. implementation of this dependence is given by multiplying the
respective constraint by the variable itself (x) . In both cases,
The load was represented by fixed injections of current,
which corresponds to a model intermediate between non-lineanties appear in the model, since the decision
considering it as constant power, and as constant variables x multiply the voltages V. To avoid this non-
impedance. linearity, a linear disjunctive model [ 1 I] can be used, with the
constraints (4) to (9) replaced by:
a Limits to the current capacity of power lines, and to the
capacity of substations, were respected.
Voltage drops in the distribution network were calculated
from the product of current and line impedances. As the
p +[zRr'[S.RPV>-MXR (4.2)

calculations took into account only the magnitude of the f + btr' p

[Ss .V I Mxs (5.1)
phase sizes involved (current, voltage and impedance), a
correction factor was applied to the impedance values, so f + [z: f' pv
[s.s . 2 - M X S (5.2)
as to make the voltage drops obtained compatible with the
solution of the load flow.
r1
f S + [z,s 6 s .v 5 M(1- 2) (6.1)

Thus the general problem of planning the expansion of a fJ'+[z~~'[ssp' 'v2-M(1-xS) (6.2)
distribution network- becomes a problem of mixed integer
f' + [z$[rP .v 5 M Y
programming, defined as follows.
,r+[2$[SrP .V2-MX'
A. Objective function
The obiective function is the minimization of the cost of fS +[z;.r'[sTp . Y 5 M(I - 2 )
installation and alteration to the distribution network, with a (8.2)
penalty for failure to meet demand (shedding load):
c ~ ~ x ~ + c ~ ~ +c' x ~ex'++cA*xA
c ~ + +xa .~r (1) JA +[Zq'[pP . v M ( l - x q (9.1)
(9.2)

459
 ~

From the operational limits, we have: Although the results obtained with this simplified model
are not the same as those given by the solution of non-linear
load flow, only small differences were found in tests
undertaken in radial distribution networks with three types of
load (constant power, constant impedance, and a mixture of
50% of each) and a typical power factor of 0.85. Moreover,
such differences showed a definite trend, with errors of up to
(13) 2% in the value of nodal voltage. Considering that the
permitted values for voltage drops are in a range fiom 5 to
lo%, this error is unacceptable, but it is possible to reduce it
considerably by introducing a correction factor K to the
branch impedance values, of the following form:
f'=O, vx;=l,lE1;Zrs zEmced= K .zbn (26)
The factor K must be determined for each type of
If+?", vx;=1, Z€R" conductor, and can be obtained using the values of voltage
J" =o, vx; =o, [Enrs drop calculated from the simplified linearized model ( A V ~ )
(18)
and from values obtained in solving a non-linear load flow
problem (AV;'):
fA=O, vx:=o, m€QA (20)
-vrvsv (21)
I

In the distribution networks analyzed, the mean errors in

-g l g l g (22) the values of nodal voltage magnitudes obtained with this
Olrld (231 approximate model, using the correction factor K, were
To ensure that final configuration obtained is radial, it is always adequate for the purposes of the work. In addition,
necessary to add additional constraints giving specific they were such that the magnitudes of nodal voltages were
information on the topology of the network being analyzed. linearly related to the current flows. Therefore, the complexity
Considering the diversity of situations involved, this task can of the optimization model is not increased by including
be relatively complex. The work reported here used a simple constraints on voltage drop.
but effective strategy consisting of limiting the number of new vm
i
vt fh
branches added to be less than or equal to the sum of the
number of isolated nodes in the initial configuration, plus the
@-
total number of branches removed: that is: zh = +jxbl

Fig. 1 Network reach connecting two nodes.

~

1v. REPRESENTATION OF LOAD AND NETWORK

The load and network model used in this paper corresponds
to an adaptation of the linearized network model [l 11, widely
used in planning transmission networks for electrical power.
The conventional linearized model uses constant injections of
power, phase angles of nodal voltages, and branch reactances;
in the formulation used here, instead of these quantities we
use constant injections of current, magnitudes of nodal
voltages, and the modulus of branch impedances. In this way,
the voltage drop in a given feeder line is given by the product
of the modulus of line impedances ( z h ) by the current flow
Q,). For the reach illustrated in Fig. 1, the Kirchhoffs
Current and Voltage Laws give the following expressions:
f+m = d m +fmn +fmp (25)
AVh=Vk-Vm=zhfh (26)
The constraint (2) is obtained from (25); the constraints (3)
to (9) are obtained from (26).
v. RESULTS OBTAINED
The proposed model was implemented in the GAMS
language, taking two distribution networks as examples: one
with 5 nodes and 6 lines and the other with 18 nodes and 24
lines. To make the solution process more reliable, the linear
disjunctive model was adopted instead of the original
restrictions (4) to (9).
A. Network of 5 nodes
The 5-node network, originally given in [ 6 ] ,has 2 lines in
its initial configuration and 4 candidates, as shown in Fig. 2.
The rectangle represents a sub-station and the circles the
nodes of interest, at which the demands are concentrated. The
continuous lines represent the feeder lines present in the initial
configuration; dotted lines show candidate paths. The decision
variables associated with the segments to which they refer are
also shown (for example, against the branch 0-2 two decision

460
 ~

variables are shown, indicating the possibility of installing for solving linear mixed integer problems (BDMLP, CPLEX,
two different kinds of cable). CPLEXPAR, OSL, OSL2, XA, XAPAR, XPRESS, ZOOM).
x; x;
I
B. 16node network
The 18-node network has I I branches in the initial
3@- / \ '\ '. 1 x6" configuration (2 can be substituted by a line of different
? gauge; 9 removed or substituted by lines of different gauge)
'.'\
1
and I3 new candidate branches (4 of them having two gauge
options), as shown in Fig. 3. The nominal network voltage is
13.8 kV, operation between 13.11 kV and 14.49 kV being
permitted. At each of the network nodes numbered from 1 to
16 a demand of 50 A exists; the capacities of the sub-stations
are 500 A. The line data are shown in Table 111, using the
following costs: 40 for removal; 20 for substitution (cable 4/0
d2 by cable 336.4); -20 for substitution after removal (in this
Fig. 2. S-nodenetwork.
case the total cost is 20, since there would be a cost of 40 for
removal plus -20 for substitution after removal); 100 for an
Table 1 gives the data for the nodes, namely: demand,
addition (cable 4/0); 120 for an addition (cable 336.4);
generation limits, and voltage limits.
additions of 200 for sub-station output modules to each new
TABLEI line (cables 410 or 336.4). The impedance of the reaches
NODE DATAFOR THE 5-NODE NETWORK. corresponds to a distance of 2 km in a structure with
geometric mean spacing of 1.322 m (typical for a standard
structure). Taking all the possible alterations into account, the
number of possible combinations is about 18 million.

Table I1 shows the data for the lines, namely: the initial and j x;'
final node, the impedance (initial and final, in the case of a
substitution), maximum current (initial and final, in the case of
a substitution) and cost, preceded by the associated decision
variables. As the proposed model is more general than that
described in [ 6 ] , some options for alteration and additional
expansion were also added (only the lines corresponding to
the decision variablesx: , x;", x,", e X: form part of the
original problem; the others were introduced with unattractive
costs so as not to alter the solution to the problem), thus
increasing the number of possible combinations from 8 to 384.

TABLEI1 Fig. 3. Initial configuration ofthe IS-node1 network.

x From To 7 [AI The correction factors K to be applied to the impedances in

Table I11 were calculated using (27), being 0.88 for a 410 cable
(zh = 1,0873 a)and 0.83 for a 336.4 cable(zh = 0,8457 a).
I I I I I

s," I I I 3 I 0.05 250 1 1OD The solution obtained, shown in Fig. 4, has a cost of 560
for the following alterations: substitution of the initial reaches
I . ! I I I I I
of feeder lines already installed ($ =x: = I), removal and
substitution of the reach 12-16 (x; = I > e addition of 5
x i 1 2 1 4 I 0.0113 100 8.7 17"
new reaches (x; =I,"= = x t =x: = 1). As the cost of
substitution is considerably less than the cost of installing a
new feeder, increasing the capacity of the feeders was the
option selected, with the load equally divided amongst them,
The solution found is given in [6], with.$ = X: = I and the since the nominal capacity of each is 400 A. Because the
remainder zero, after using all the solvers available on the maximum voltage drop allowed, the conductors in the reach
GAMS platform (Version 2.0.13.0) [13] that are appropriate 12-1 6 were changed. in addition, least-cost cables were

46 1
 6

always selected for making connections to nodes that were Table IV shows a comparison between magnitudes of
previously isolated. nodal voltages obtained using the simplified model and using
the load flow solution, considering three types of load
TABLE111
LINE DATAFOR THE 18-NODENETWORK (constant power, constant impedance, and 50% of each). The
x From To
I

results were obtained by simulating with ETAP [14].

TABLE IV
COMPARISONBETWEEN NODALVOLTAGES OBTAINEDUSING THE SIMPLIFED

I I
It is seen that the greatest differences occur when the load
$ 9 10 1.0873 250 100 is modeled by an injection of constant power (third column of
4 9 13 1 .U873 250 100 Table IV), but that all values less than 0.5%. Obviously, if the
x& 9 17 1.0873 250 300 loads were represented by injections of constant current the
I -- ! I
0.8457
differences would be smaller still.
I .oan
VI. CONCLUSIONS
3 1.0873 250 100
The optimization model presented here for planning the
1.0873 250 300
expansion of distribution systems has been shown to be
0.8457 400 320
I ~- ! I flexible and considerably general in application, allowing for
x i 13 17 1.0873 250 300 the various kinds of possible alterations: removal of a reach
x; 13 17 0.8457 400 320 (sectioning the feeder), change in conductor gauge (re-
capacitation), and the option of gauge changes. The possibility
of representing these different kinds of alteration results in
final costs being obtained which are less than those found
using simpler models, in which only some of these
alternatives can be contemplated.

a-0 xq =1
The main constraints of the real-world problem were
considered: namely, the capacity of conductors, the limit in
voltage drop and maintenance of network radiality. The

%
simplification used in representing Kirchhoff s Voltage Law
was found to be very effective, as the results obtained are very
close to those for non-linear load flow, so that an optimization
12 ='
@ xi=1 model is derived for which all constraints are linear, by means
of the linear disjunctive model.
The efficiency of the model was tested using a 5-node
network whose solution is already known, and another with
18 nodes whose solution can be easily interpreted and
Fig. 4 . Result for the 18-node network. evaluated. Given some adaptation, the model can be further

462

extended to consider various stages, so that long-term
planning horizons can be allowed, and benefits obtained
thorough economies of scale that result from anticipating
important future investments.
VII. REFERENCES
H. K. Temrar, V. H. Quintana, “Distribution System Expansion
Planning Models: An Overview”, Elecfric Power Sysrems Reseurch,
Vol. 26, pp. 61-70, 1993.
S. K. Khawr, L. C. Leung, “Power Distribution Planning: A Review of
Models and Issues”, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.
1151-1159, August 1997.
E. Lakervi, E. J. Holmes, Elecfriciry disfributfoion network design, 2nd
ed., IEE Power Series 21, London, Peter Peregrinus Ltd., 1995, p. 325.
D. I. Sun, D. R. Farris, P. J. Cote, R. R. Shoults, M. S. Chen, “Optimal
Distribution Substation and Primary Feeder Planning Via the Fixed
Charge Network Formulation”, IEEE Trans. Power Appurafw and
System, Vol. PAS-101, No. 3, pp. 602-609, March 1982.
M. A. El-Kady, “Computer-Aided Planning of Distribution Substation
and Primary Feeders”, IEEE Trans. Power Apparum and Systems, Vol.
PAS-103, No. 6,pp. 1183-1189, June 1984.
463
7
[6] K. Aoki, K. Nara, T. Satoh, M. Kitagawa, K. Yamaoaka, “New
Approximate Optimization Method for Distribution System Planning”,
IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 5. No. 1 , pp. 126132, February
1990.
/7] K. Nara, T. Satoh, H. Kuwabara, K. Aoki, M. Kitagawa, T. Ishiham,
“Distribution Systems Expansion Planning by Multi-Stage Branch
Exchange”, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 7 , No. 1, pp. 208-214,
February 1992.
[SI K. “a, T. Satoh, K. Aoki, M. Kitagawa, “Multi-Year Expansion
Planning for Distribution System”, IEEE Trans. Power System, Vol. 6,
NO. 3, pp. 952-958, August 1991.
[9] I. J. Ramirez-Rosado, T. Gonen, “Pseudodynamic Planning for
Expansion of Power Distribution System”, IEEE Tram. Power Systems,
Vol. 6, No. I, pp. 245-254, February 1991.
[lo] H. Kuwabara, K. Nara, “Multi-Year and Multi-State Discrjbutiod
Systems Expansion Planning by Multi-Stage Branch Exchange”, IEEE
Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 12, No. I , pp. 457463. January 1997.
[ll] R. Romro, A. Monticelti, A. Garcia, S. Hafier, “Test Systems and
Mathematical Models for Transmission Network Expansion Planning”.
IEEProc-Gener. Trunsm Distrib., Vol. 1491, No. I , pp. 27-36, January
2002.
[12] D. Chattopadhyay “Application of General Algebraic Modeling System
to Power System Optimization”. IEEE Truns. Power Sysrems, Vol. 14,
No. 1, February 1999.
1131 A. Brooke, D. Kendrick, A. Meeraus, R. Rsman, “GAMS A User’s
Guide’’, GAMS Development Corporation, 1998, Washington, USA.
[14] ETAP PowerStation Version 4.7 OE,Operation Technology, Inc.(OTI),
USA, http://www.etap.cod.