This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2574200, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
1

Optimal Operation of Electric Railways with

Renewable Energy and Electric Storage Systems
J.A. Aguado, Member, IEEE, A.J. Sánchez-Racero and S. de la Torre, Member, IEEE

scenario sw [MW].
Abstract—This paper proposes a methodology for optimal Q!,!,!"
!"#$ Wind reactive power generated at node n at time t in
operation of railway electric energy systems considering scenario sw [MW].
renewable energy sources (PV panels and wind turbines), 𝑃! Maximum active power output [MW].
regenerative braking capabilities and hybrid electric energy
storage systems (ultracapacitors and batteries). The uncertainties
𝑄! Maximum reactive power output [MVAr].
associated to renewable energies are taken into account through 𝑆! Maximum power flow of line L [MVA].
a scenario tree approach. All these elements are integrated into a 𝑉!"# Maximum node voltage [V].
multi-period AC optimal power flow problem. This problem is 𝑉!"# Minimum node voltage [V].
then cast as a large-scale non-linear optimization problem. 𝑃!! , 𝑃!! Maximum charging/discharging battery rate power
The aim is to study the potential for energy and economic
[MW].
savings of the railway operation as well as energy storage systems
behavior. A real case study is analyzed for a Spanish high-speed 𝑃!! , 𝑃!! Maximum charging/discharging ultracapacitor rate
railway line. Results are reported for several cases comparing power [MW].
four different operation modes. ∈! , ∈! Battery/ultracapacitor self-discharge coefficient
[%/day].
Index Terms—Electric railway systems, renewable energy, η! , η! Charge/discharge efficiency coefficient for batteries
hybrid energy storage systems.
and ultracapacitors.
𝐶!"#$ Selling price of exceeding energy [€/MWh].
I. NOMENCLATURE
𝐶!" PV energy costs [€/MWh].
In this section we enumerate the sets, parameters, and
𝐶!"#$ Wind turbine energy costs [€/MWh].
variables used in the paper.
𝑝!" Weighting factor of renewable energy scenarios [%]
A. Sets ∆𝑡 ! Discretization time period at time t [h].
Ω! Set of indexes of period times. 𝐿𝑒! , 𝐿𝑒! Battery/ultracapacitor maximum energy storage
Ω! , Ω! Set of indexes of electrical nodes. capacity [MWh].
Ω! Set of indexes of trains. 𝑆, 𝑊 Solar and wind scenarios, respectively.
Ω! , Ω! Set of indexes of renewable solar, s, and wind, w, C. Variables
energy scenarios.
Ω!" Set of indexes of combined, wind and solar, 𝑃!!,!,!" Active power output at node n at time t in scenario
renewable scenarios. sw [MW].
𝑄!!,!,!" Reactive power output at node n at time t in scenario
B. Parameters sw [MVAr].
𝑃!! , 𝑄!! Active/reactive power demand of train T at time t !,!,!"
𝑃!! Ultracapacitor charging power at node n at time t in
[MW], [Mvar]. scenario sw [MW].
𝑃!!,! , 𝑄!!,! Active/reactive power demand at node n at time t !,!,!"
𝑃!! Ultracapacitor discharging power at node n at time t
[MW], [Mvar]. in scenario sw [MW].
!,!,!"
𝑃!" PV active power generated at node n at time t at !,!,!"
𝑃!! Battery charging power at node n at time t in
scenario sw [MW]. scenario sw [MW].
!,!,!"
𝑃!"#$ Wind active power generated at node n at time t in !,!,!"
𝑃!! Battery discharging power at node n at time t in
scenario sw [MW]. scenario sw [MW].
!,!,!"
𝑄!" PV reactive power generated at node n at time t in 𝑃!!,!,!" Excess power at node n at time t in scenario sw
[MW].
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from the
𝐿𝑒!!,!,!" Battery energy level at node n at time t in scenario
Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad through project ENE-2011-27495 sw [MWh].
and from the Junta de Andalucía through Proyecto de Excelencia ref. 2011- 𝐿𝑒!!,!,!" Ultracapacitor energy level at node n at time t in
TIC-7070.
J.A. Aguado, A. J. Sánchez-Racero and S. de la Torre are with the scenario sw [MWh].
EscuelaTécnica Superior de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad de Málaga. 𝑃!!,!,!,!" Active power flow from node n to node m at time t
Málaga, Spain (e-mails: jaguado@uma.es; sanracer@uma.es; storre@uma.es).

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2574200, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
in scenario sw [MW].
𝑄!!,!,!,!" Reactive power flow from node n to node m at time
t in scenario sw [Mvar].
! !
𝑌!"# Admittance matrix at time t [S]. 𝑌!"# = 𝐺 ! + 𝑗𝐵 !
!,!,!
𝐺 (n,m) element of the conductance matrix 𝐺at time t
[S].
𝐵 !,!,! (n,m) element of the susceptance matrix 𝐵  at time t
[S].
𝑉 !,!,!" Voltage at node n at time t in scenario sw [V].
𝛿 !,!,!" Phase angle at node n at time t in scenario sw [rad].
II. INTRODUCTION
E lectric Railway Systems (ERSs) have been developed
amply since the beginning of the 20th century, including
sophisticated energy infrastructures for nowadays high-speed
trains and metro. Besides the increasing technical complexity
of ERSs over time, these systems have also increased the
existing mesh at current railway outlook; furthermore, they
tend to increase over time. On the other hand, and with the
aim of reducing the carbon footprint of present and future
ERSs, there exists a relentless trend at North American and
European railway operator entities [1], [2] to introduce
Renewable Energies (REs) – mainly wind and solar energies
[3]– into those infrastructures, taking also advantage of
regenerative braking capabilities and the existing possibility to
store the excess energy at Energy Storage Systems (ESS). This
new paradigm creates multiple operational scenarios adding
complexity to the development of suitable and appropriate
energy management solutions.
Energy analysis of train and metro systems with ESS
and/or regenerative braking has been previously addressed in
[4]-[9]. For instance, in [4], the authors present an analysis of
a sustainable urban mobility system integrating a metro and an
electric and hybrid vehicles transport system. ESSs have also
been proposed to save energy in urban mobility systems,
specifically in railway systems [5]. In an ERS context, the
main storage technologies are ultracapacitors, batteries and
flywheels whose aim is to capture the energy from
regenerative braking to reduce energy consumption. In [5], the
authors present a recent application of ESSs, including
batteries, flywheels and electric double layer capacitors
proposing several control strategies. In [6]-[8], the authors
analyze the use of stationary ultracapacitors as an ESS in
metropolitan railway systems, modeling its behavior. In [9],
three real demonstrations of different ESSs are reviewed and
discussed highlighting the potential on energy savings.
While the operation of REs and ESSs in a smartgrid is
widely studied [10]-[15], the integration of ad-hoc REs power
sources into ERSs has attracted less attention. The usual
approach for an electric and energy analysis evaluation
considers a static analysis based on power flow formulations –
sometimes under its probabilistic version– [16]-[18]. In the
presence of ESSs, charging and discharging decisions are
coupled from period to period and therefore static tools do not
capture all potential benefits, such as optimal energy
efficiency and operational cost.
1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
2
The main contribution of this paper consists in the
formulation of a multi-period optimal operation problem for
planning purposes including RE and hybrid (ultracapacitors
and batteries) ESSs integration and considering the
regenerative braking capabilities of trains, with the aim to
analyze the renewable generation impact, the behavior of
ESSs and energy and economic savings in ERSs, improving
the system efficiency. The proposed tool is intended for
operation planning. A real case study is presented for a
Spanish high-speed railway line.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section III
introduces the proposed methodology and the description for
all elements present in the model. In Section IV, the
mathematical model is formulated, defining the objective
function and all related restrictions. Then, in Section V, a case
study is discussed highlighting the advantages of ERS optimal
operation. Finally, in Section VI, conclusions are duly drawn.
III. ELEMENTS DESCRIPTION
For an electric and energy railway line analysis, one may
study each of its constituting sections individually, as the
different sections of the line are electrically decoupled. The
considered components of an ERS section are depicted in Fig.
1. They are: (i) Generation sources comprising high voltage
external network, PV panels and wind turbines, (ii) Trains
modeled through its operation (consumption and regenerative
braking) profile, (iii) Hybrid Energy Storage Systems (HESSs)
consisting of ultracapacitors and batteries, and (iv) the network
topology including substations, autotransformers (AT) and the
catenary configuration.
Fig 1. Section with all considered elements
A. Generation Sources: Wind Turbines, PV Panels and High
Voltage external Network
We assume that wind turbines and PV panels are integrated
in the ERS at substations. Given a wind speed, the wind
!,!,!"
generation output (𝑃!"#$ ), is calculated through a cubic
equation dependent on the characteristics of the installed wind
turbines as in [19]. This power is produced according to cut-in
and cut-out reference wind speed and nominal power
!,!,!"
generation of wind turbines. The solar power output, (𝑃!" ),
is computed according to the number of PV panels installed,
ambient and operating temperatures and the maximum and
average daily irradiances as in [20].
The wind and solar uncertainties are modeled through a
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2574200, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
3

scenario tree approach; we define four solar scenarios and admissible acceleration/deceleration comfort profiles. Once all
sixteen wind scenarios, thus yielding sixty-four possible these parameters are considered, and with the use of the
scenarios modeling renewable energy outputs. adequate equations modeling the dynamics of the train, the
calculation of the power consumed or generated through
The wind scenarios are generated as follows: i) a day is
regenerative braking is straightforward [22].
divided into two periods: morning and afternoon; ii) for each
part of the day, any of four different levels of wind speed: low, The train demand is considered as a given active/reactive
medium-low, medium-high and high wind is chosen according power for each time t during a commercial day, usually 24
to a Weibull distribution [19]; iii) all possible combinations of hours. The time step for each interval must be small enough to
morning/afternoon wind scenarios are computed, thus capture energy train demand/generation quick variations and
obtaining sixteen possible wind scenarios; and, iv ) all wind its interaction with the HESS. A reference time period of t =
scenarios are fixed equally probable. The definition set is 30 seconds can be considered. However, this results in a large
shown in (1). set of time periods over a 24 hours time horizon. In order to
𝛺! = 1,2, … ,15,16  where  𝑤 = wind  scenarios   (1)   reduce the size of the set of time periods, we combine some of
these 30 seconds time periods with constant energy
Regarding solar generation, we need to take into account demand/generation to form longer time periods; for example,
the variable irradiation behavior throughout the year including if ten consecutive 30 seconds time periods are characterized
the possibility of cloudy days. A total of four solar scenarios, by a constant power consumption, then an equivalent 5 minute
with corresponding probabilities are proposed: summer/sunny time period is used. Note that with this technique, the duration
(37.5%), summer/cloudy (12.5%), winter/cloudy (25%) and of different time periods may differ from period to period; the
winter/sunny (25%). For each of these scenarios a duration of time period t is denoted by ∆𝑡 ! . It is also worth
representative full 24 hours irradiance profile is obtained from noticing that the train demand does not only vary with time,
a reliable source. The set definition of solar scenarios is shown but it also changes its location along the railway track, as the
in (2). train moves.
𝛺! = 1,2,3,4  where  𝑠 = solar  scenario   (2)  
Furthermore, both active and reactive train power demand
The scenario tree of the system is obtained with the (𝑃!! , 𝑄!! ) are considered where the power factor is set to 0.95
combination of every solar and every wind scenario; thus, the [23]. Since we are considering regenerative braking
tree contains a total of sixty-four possible combined scenarios. capabilities, positive and negative values for these variables
The probability of each combination is referred to as 𝑝!" . The could be obtained. However, for high-speed trains, it is known
final sets of solar (S) and wind (W) scenarios are shown in (3). that asynchronous motors for traction are used; thus, these
types of devices are reactive power consumers, even at
𝑆  𝑥  𝑊 = 𝑆! 𝑥𝑊! , 𝑆! 𝑥𝑊! , …  
∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"   (3)   braking, and the variable 𝑄!! only takes positive values
… , 𝑆!!! 𝑥𝑊!!! , 𝑆! 𝑥𝑊!!! , 𝑆! 𝑥𝑊!
C. Hybrid Energy Storage Systems: Ultracapacitors and
It is assumed that the given scenario tree is representative of Batteries
the uncertainties associated to renewable power outputs. This
The HESSs play a critical role in the railway system [24]; it
can be obtained after the application of a scenario reduction
is responsible for capturing the excess energy from the
technique as described in [21].
renewable sources and regenerative braking. The difference
The energy that is not supplied by renewable generation is between ultracapacitors and batteries appears more noticeably
provided by the external transmission network in terms of in their energy and power density. The use of hybrid storage
active and reactive energy (𝑃!!,!,!" , 𝑄!!,!,!" ). We have also devices allows for a more flexible system. The main
considered the option of selling any excess power (𝑃!!,!,!" ) advantages of ultracapacitors when compared with batteries is
available in the node, either from the renewable generation, that ultracapacitors present a higher cycle life, in the order of
regenerative braking or from the HESS to the network. hundreds of thousands of cycles; another relevant advantage is
their capacity to capture energy peaks due to their fast
B. Train Operation Energy Profile response. Therefore, the use of ultracapacitors is essential to
For determining power requirements, energy consumption capture high power density and high frequency operation
and running times (or position) of trains there are at least two associated to regenerative braking, while batteries are more
main methods that are worth mentioning here: i) The simplest, suited for high energy density periods and low frequency
but not usually available, is to obtain historic data from operation. If only batteries were to be used, it would most
measuring devices installed in the catenary and to use these likely entail an oversized system and/or battery lifetime would
data after some mathematical treatment; and ii) An alternative be very limited. On the other hand, the high price of ultra-
method is the one used for this paper: simulate all relevant capacitors makes a system based solely on ultracapacitors
parameters related to the dynamics of the train; this method extremely expensive. A hybrid solution is a reasonable
implies knowing plenty of data in advance, like train mass, balance for this problem.
mechanical rolling resistance including curve resistance, Equation (4) corresponds to the battery energy level
aerodynamic drag and track slopes. These parameters affect (𝐿𝑒!!,!,!" ) which considers the self-discharge coefficient (∈! ),
the train top speed and acceleration/deceleration capabilities. the charge/discharge efficiency (𝜂! , 𝜂! ) and positive and
The speed of the train is assumed known in advance given the !,!,!" !,!,!"
negative rate power of batteries 𝑃!! , 𝑃!! , respectively.

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2574200, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
4

In equation (5), the energy level of a battery at the end of the !

l as follows: 𝑍 !,!,! = · 𝑟 !,!,! + 𝑗 · 𝑥 !,!,! and 𝑍 !,!,! =
optimization time horizon is constrained to be greater than the !
!
value at the beginning of the time period. Note that the link 1 − · 𝑟 !,!,! + 𝑗 · 𝑥 !,!,!
 where L is the total length of the
!
between the current and the previous time period, t and t-1, is line. For sections that do not contain a train at a specific time
established in these equations. period, the admittance matrix will contain the 𝑍 !,!,! element.
!
𝐿𝑒!!,!,!" = 𝐿𝑒!!,!!!,!" −∈! · 𝐿𝑒!!,!!!,!" +   ∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺!  ,  ∀𝑛 ∈ 𝛺!   Then, the 𝑌!"# is calculated from the line impedance
(4)  
+∆𝑡 ! · 𝜂! · 𝑃!!!,!,!" !,!,!"
− 𝜂! · 𝑃!!   ∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"   parameters.
!,!! ,!" !,!! ,!" ∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺!  ,  ∀𝑛 ∈ 𝛺!  
𝐿𝑒! ≤ 𝐿𝑒!   (5)  
∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"  
!,!,!" !,!,!" ∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺!  ,  ∀𝑛 ∈ 𝛺!  
0 ≤ 𝑃!! ≤ 𝑃!! , 0 ≤ 𝑃!! ≤ 𝑃!!   (6)  
∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"  
∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺!  ,  ∀𝑛 ∈ 𝛺!  
0 ≤ 𝐿𝑒!!,!,!" ≤ 𝐿𝑒!   (7)  
∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"  
Analogous expressions for ultracapacitors are shown in
equations (8)-(11).
𝐿𝑒!!,!,!" = 𝐿𝑒!!,!!!,!" −∈! · 𝐿𝑒!!,!!!,!" +   ∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺!  ,  ∀𝑛 ∈ 𝛺!  
!,!,!" !,!,!" (8)  
+∆𝑡 ! · 𝜂! · 𝑃!! − 𝜂! · 𝑃!!   ∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"  
!,!! ,!" !,!! ,!" ∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺!  ,  ∀𝑛 ∈ 𝛺!  
𝐿𝑒! ≤ 𝐿𝑒!   (9)  
∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"  
!,!,!" !,!,!" ∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺!  ,  ∀𝑛 ∈ 𝛺!  
0 ≤ 𝑃!! ≤ 𝑃!! , 0 ≤ 𝑃!! ≤ 𝑃!!   (10)  
∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"  
∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺!  ,  ∀𝑛 ∈ 𝛺!  
0 ≤ 𝐿𝑒!!,!,!" ≤ 𝐿𝑒!   (11)  
∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"  
D. Catenary Configuration and Network Topology
High-speed trains are usually operated under an AC supply Fig 2. Impedances created for 2 train positions.
while the catenary configuration can be either 1x25 or 2x25
kV [25]-[27]. In this work, a bicatenary monovoltage IV. THE OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM
equivalent model of an AC 2x25 kV configuration is
considered. Positive conductor, feeder and autotransformers In this section, a formulation for the optimal management
along the track are assumed. ATs are uniformly distributed of ERSs with renewable energy and HESSs integration is
along the track (for instance, one AT every 20 kilometers is a proposed. Thus, a muti-period optimal power flow problem
common practice in the Spanish high speed ERS). The formulation has been developed; its objective function and
network consists of various lines between given nodes that constraints are shown below.
model substations, autotransformers or passenger stations. Minimize
Note that in the model presented, an autotransformer !" ! !
symbolizes an equipotential point, and therefore, a mesh
𝑝!" · 𝐶!! · 𝑃!!,!,!" + 𝐶!" · 𝑃!"
!,!,!"
+  
network is generated as is shown in Figure 2. This (13)  
!"!!"! !!! !!!!
simplification is considered, since the line that links both
!,!,!"
overhead contact lines, through the autotransformer, is +𝐶!"#$ · 𝑃!"#$  −𝐶!"#$ · 𝑃!!,!,!" · ∆𝑡 !  
negligible in comparison to the reactance line. Subject to:
As a consequence of the train movement along the track, 𝑃!!,!,!" + 𝑃!"#$
!,!,!" !,!,!"
+ 𝑃!" !,!,!"
+ 𝑃!! !,!,!"
+ 𝑃!! − 𝑃!! − 𝑃!!,!,!" −  
the train is assumed to demand/generate energy at a node T !

that changes its position at every time period t resulting in a −𝑃!!,! − !,!,!"
𝑃!! − !,!,!"
𝑃!! = 𝑃!!,!,!,!"   (14)  
!
varying 𝑌!"# = 𝐺 ! ± 𝑗𝐵 ! matrix. Note that as many !!!!
admittance matrices as time periods t throughout a day have to ∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺! , ∀𝑛, 𝑚 ∈ 𝛺!, 𝛺! , ∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"  
!
be generated. The set containing all the nodes, including node 𝑛,𝑡,𝑠𝑤 𝑛,𝑡,𝑠𝑤 𝑛,𝑡
is shown in (12). 𝑄!!,!,!,! + 𝑄𝑃𝑉 + 𝑄𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑 − 𝑄𝐷 − 𝑄!! = 𝑄!!,!,!,!,!  
(15)  
!!!!
𝛺! = 1 … 𝑛 , 𝑇   (12)   ∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺! , ∀𝑛, 𝑚 ∈ 𝛺!, 𝛺! , ∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"  
To further clarify this issue, details regarding the electric 𝑃!!,!,!" ≤ 𝑃𝐺
(16)  
diagrams for the calculation of the admittance matrix 𝑌!"# for
∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺! , ∀𝑛 ∈ 𝛺!, , ∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"
two different periods of time t and t+1 are shown in Fig. 2.
For a section inside of which the train is placed, the line 𝑄!!,!,!" ≤ 𝑄𝐺  
impedance parameters related to T node are computed, these (17)  
∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺! , ∀𝑛 ∈ 𝛺!, , ∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"  
terms are labeled as  𝑍 !,!,! and 𝑍 !,!,! . Note that these
impedances present a dependence with the position of the train

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2574200, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
5

! where 𝑔!!,!,!" (𝑥) and 𝑔!!,!,!" (𝑥) represent equations (4) to

𝑃!!,!,!,!" = 𝑉 !,!,!" · 𝑉 !,!,!" ·   (7) and (8) to (11), respectively.
!!!!
(18)   The objective function (13) corresponds to the
· 𝐺 !,!,!
· 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛿 !,!,!"
−𝛿 !,!,!"
+   minimization of the total system operation cost. Note that no
+𝐵 !,!,! · 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛿 !,!,!" − 𝛿 !,!,!"   investment decisions are considered within the scope of this
∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺! , ∀𝑛, 𝑚 ∈ 𝛺!, 𝛺! , ∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"   work. The first term in (13) refers to the generation cost from
the external network, the second and third terms correspond to
!
the costs associated to PV panels and wind turbines
𝑄!!,!,!,!" =𝑉 !,!,!"
· 𝑉 !,!,!" ·   generation, respectively; and finally, the fourth term represents
!!!!
(19)   the income obtained by the excess energy sold to the network.
!,!,! !,!,!" In addition, these terms are multiplied by the different
· 𝐵 · cos 𝛿 − 𝛿 !,!,!" −  
−𝐺 !,!,!
· sin 𝛿 !,!,!"
− 𝛿 !,!,!"   scenario probabilities (𝑝!" ). Each variable includes the
∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺! , ∀𝑛, 𝑚 ∈ 𝛺!, 𝛺! , ∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"   corresponding sw superscript that is associated with the
different scenarios.
𝑃!! + 𝑄!! ≤ 𝑆!
(20)  
∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺! , ∀𝑛, 𝑚 ∈ 𝛺!, 𝛺! , ∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"   Equations (14) to (22) are constraints of the problem; they
𝑉 !,!,!" ≤ 𝑉!"#  ,  𝑉 !,!,!" ≥ 𝑉!"#   are next described. Equation (14) states the active power
(21)   balance constraint for a node: the summation of all active
∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺! , ∀𝑛 ∈ 𝛺!, , ∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"  
𝑔!!,!,!" (𝑥) ≤ 0   power generation minus all active power demands must equal
(22)  
∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺! , ∀𝑛, 𝑚 ∈ 𝛺!, 𝛺! , ∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"  
!,!,!"
𝑔! (𝑥) ≤ 0  
(23)  
∀𝑡 ∈ 𝛺! , ∀𝑛, 𝑚 ∈ 𝛺!, 𝛺! , ∀𝑠𝑤 ∈ 𝛺!"  
10
Train 1 power demand
5
Power (MW)

-5

-10
10
Train 2 power demand
5
Power (MW)

-5

-10
06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00 03:00 06:00
Time (Hours)

Fig 3. Power demanded (or generated) by trains in the Section 4, during one full day.

the summation of power flows through all the lines
connected to the node. This expression comprises the active
power generation that consists of active power output from the
!,!,!"
network (𝑃!!,!,!" ), renewable generation (𝑃!"#$ !,!,!"
 , 𝑃!"
ultracapacitor and battery discharge power (𝑃!! , 𝑃!!!,!,!" !,!,!"
The active power demand includes demand by the train (𝑃! )
which takes positive and negatives values, excess power
(𝑃!!,!,!" ), fixed demand at nodes (𝑃!!,! ) and ultracapacitor and
!,!,!" !,!,!"
battery charge power (𝑃!! , 𝑃!! ).
Analogously, the general expression for reactive power
balance is shown in (15); note that the value of PV and wind
!,!,!" !,!,!"
turbine reactive generation (𝑄!" , 𝑄!"#$ ), and the reactive
demand at node n (𝑄!!,! ) have been set to zero. In equations
(16) and (17) the upper bound of the active and reactive power
output are shown, respectively.
The expression of active and reactive power flow are
presented in equations (18) and (19), respectively. Note that,
in these equations the power balance at the mobile node, (T),
corresponding to the train, has been considered. In equation
(20) the upper bound of the power flow of the line is stated.
Furthermore, in these expressions, the terms of
conductance (𝐺 !,!,! ) and susceptance (𝐵 !,!,! ) appear
corresponding to the admittance matrix; note that the
) and superscripts n, m represent the position inside the matrix. In
). addition, the voltage (𝑉 !,!,!" ) and phase angle (𝛿 !,!,!" ) appear
! for node n. In equation (21), an upper and lower bound of the
node voltage is considered. Equations (22) and (23), present
constraints relating to the HESS; these expressions were
introduced in Subsection III.C.
The optimization problem described in this section,
comprising equations (13)-(23) is a non-linear programming
problem (NLP).
V. CASE STUDY: A SECTION OF THE SPANISH HIGH-SPEED
ERS
In this section, a description of an illustrative case study is
given. The high-speed railway track analyzed corresponds to a
real track in southern Spain with a total length of 169
kilometers and three supply substations. We focus in one of its
four sections, which corresponds to the generic one described
in Fig. 1. The specific section under study has a length of 64

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2574200, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
6

kilometers with two nodes (A and B); node A is a supply speed are shown in Table I [20]; and, in addition, the
substation and node B a passenger station; four interspersed probabilities of different scenarios are presented in section IV,
ATs are also considered, they are located every 20 km, subsection A.
approximately. TABLE I
WIND SPEED FOR EACH WIND SCENARIO
The train demand/generation energy profile used in the
Wind Scenario Wind Speed (m/s)
simulations is shown in Fig. 3. This profile represents the
Low wind
power demand/generation of the train during one commercial <3.0 m/s
day for 24 hours, taking into account trains driving in both Medium-Low wind 3.0-5.5 m/s
directions (this energy profile corresponds to a real one in the
considered illustrative case). Furthermore, we assume other Medium-High wind 5.5-8.0 m/s
elements are integrated in the railway system such as High wind >8.0 m/s
renewable energy sources (wind turbines and PV panels),
HESSs and the selling/buying energy option from the main Regarding solar irradiance, values from a reliable source
network. Note that a 24 hour day would yield 2880 thirty are obtained, taking the value of irradiance per hour in a one
second periods; however, many of these 30 s periods are square meter surface [20]. One scenario corresponding to a
identical to the previous or the next one, so in many cases we winter/sunny day is shown in Table II.
can combine similar consecutive time periods; for example, 10 On the other hand, and in order to keep the admittance
consecutive time periods can be combined into one single 5 matrix element values within reasonable limits, electrical
minute period. The application of this technique results in a nodes cannot be located too close to one another. If two trains
total of only 545 intervals. In this way, the computational are very close to each other, or if a train is right under a
burden is greatly reduced. The only drawback is that now, not catenary junction or substation of any kind, the admittances
all time periods are equal in duration, but this is easily might tend to infinity. This can be overcome by merging
overcome through careful programming, introducing a period- nodes if they come too electrically close to each other. The
duration parameter. considered per unit impedance is Z = 0.026+0.0547j Ohm
Wind speed and solar irradiance in the area of study are p.u./km. Taking into account the section maximum length and
provided, as well as power installed of wind turbines and PV the speed train profile, in our simulations, the smallest Z
panels. Wind speeds are chosen according a Weibull results in 0.00028+0.000604j Ohms p.u. During our computer
distribution with values of shape and scale factor equal to 2 simulations within GAMS, the authors did not experience any
and 6.5, respectively. The values of different levels of wind ill-condition problem.
10

5
Power (MW)

-5

-10
(a)
Train power demand 1 Train power demand 2

20
Power (MW)

10

-10
(b)
Power delivered/absorbed by the grid
0.5
Power (MW)

0.25

-­‐0.25

-­‐0.5
(c)
-3 Ultracapacitor Charge/Discharge Power Battery Charge/Discharge Power
x 10
Battery Energy (MWh)

6 0.06
0.05
Energy (MWh)
Ultracapacitor

4 0.04
0.03
2 0.02
0.01
0 0
20:30 20:33 20:36 20:39 20:42 20:45 20:48 20:51 20:54 20:57 21:00 21:03 21:06 21:09 21:12 21:15 21:18 21:21 21:24 21:27 21:30
(d) Time (Hours)
Ultracapacitor Energy Level Battery Energy Level

Fig 4. (a) Train power demand, (b) power delivered/absorbed by the grid (c) ultracapacitor and battery charge-discharge power and (d) energy level with
HESSs integrated

Hour Irradiation Hour Irradiation

TABLE II (Wh/m2) (Wh/m2)
SOLAR IRRADIANCE
8:00 152.5 13:00 581.6
Scenario: Winter/Sunny day

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2574200, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
7

9:00 325.4 14:00 475.8 Ultrac. Energy

- 0.41 - 2.74
10:00 475.8 15:00 325.4 Storage(MWh)
11:00 581.6 16:00 152.5 Excess Energy
6.19 5.04 9.61 7.82
12:00 619.7 (MWh)
Solar Power
- - 1.91 1.91
Two 200 kW wind turbines are assumed; one is located at Generation (MWh)
substation node A, and the other at passenger station B. PV Wind Power
- - 2.99 2.99
panels are distributed between substation node A and Generation (MWh)
Cost Savings (%) - 16.37 9.00 33.22
passenger station B, with 160 kW and 140 kW of installed Energy savings (%) - 3.37 4.61 9.63
power, respectively. A HESS is considered at passenger
station B with 500 kW and 350 kW of installed power for 1) Case 1 Results: Base case
ultracapacitors and batteries, and maximum storable energies This base case is used to compare different case results.
of 4.20 kWh and 100 kWh, respectively; moreover, a 50% The total cost is 766.68 €; the total energy generation is 32.09
maximum depth of discharge is assumed for the batteries. The MWh and the excess energy in the system is 6.19 MWh. All
self-discharge coefficients for ultracapacitors and batteries of these values are for a full day.
(∈! , ∈! ) are set to 20%/day and 0.1%/day, respectively; in
addition, the charge/discharge efficiencies (𝜂! , 𝜂! ) for both 2) Case 2 Results: HESSs integration
ultracapacitors and batteries are set to 0.92 and 0.98, Regarding HESSs integration, the global energy and
respectively. Finally, regarding the energy exchange from the economic improvements due to ultracapacitor and battery
network, Table III shows the energy price at the connection systems are illustrated. Note from Table IV that costs and
node for each hour of the day; note that we assume that prices energy savings of 16.37 % and 3.37 %, respectively are
are constant for each three-hour period. The prices are taken obtained.
from [28].
TABLE III In this case, in order to show detailed information, and to
HOURLY ENERGY COST FROM MAIN NETWORK analyze different behaviors, and moreover, to be an assistance
Time Price (€/MWh) Time Price (€/MWh) for the readers to observe the effect of different installed
0:00 – 3:00 102.24 12:00 – 15:00 118.37 elements, a sector inside the section is chosen. A zoom in Fig.
3:00 – 6:00 108.03 15:00 – 18:00 114.63
4 shows the sector chosen that represents 1 hour (between
6:00 – 9:00 110.12 18:00 – 21:00 112.14
20:30 and 21:30).
9:00 – 12:00 124.60 21:00 – 00:00 115.88
Note that from now on, results described are focused on
Different cases are considered to compare the impact of all
Fig. 4. This figure comprises four plots, all of which show
the elements.
details for one hour of operation; in particular, the values
A. Simulation Description presented are, train power demand, power exchange
(delivered/absorbed) by the grid, ultracapacitor and battery
Four different cases are proposed for the analysis. In Case charge-discharge power and energy level. Different behaviors
1, the regular operation of the system is presented. This can be appreciated in this case with the HESS integration,
operation does not consider renewable generation, HESSs nor such as ultracapacitor or battery charge-discharge power to the
the exchange of excess energy to the external network. Only network, or energy exchange between both. Furthermore, note
regenerative braking of the trains is considered. The energy that the HESS self-discharge and efficiency is implied in the
from the regenerative braking is assumed to be consumed by whole energy balance, although it cannot be seen in Fig. 4.
trains moving simultaneously along the same section. Case 2
is similar to the base case, but with the inclusion of a HESS. In Note that during the first 25 minutes of the hour, both trains
Case 3, the base case with renewable energy is simulated. consume energy. However, in the last half of the hour, only
Finally, in Case 4, both HESSs and renewable energy are Train 1 is consuming. Regarding the operation of the HESS,
considered. note that in most cases both ultracapacitors and batteries
charge and discharge simultaneously; however, in other cases
B. Test Results
this behavior is different; in the following paragraphs this
The results obtained from the multi-period optimal power different cases are analyzed.
flow include total energy output, total costs, energy storage
In the first situation, at 20:36, only train 2 is running and
and battery and ultracapacitor energy levels, excess energy the energy battery level is decreasing, thus, a fraction of the
from the regenerative braking and renewable energy, wind and power consumption of the train is supplied by the batteries.
photovoltaic energy generated, and savings related to costs Hence, in this situation, it is shown that the energy flowing
and energy. Numerical results appear in Table IV, and they are from the batteries to the train provides an energetic and
further discussed below. economic saving.

TABLE IV. RESULTS

At 20:42, another special situation appears, train 1 is
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 braking and train 2 is accelerating. In this case the energy
Total Generation from the regenerative braking (train 1) is directly consumed by
32.09 31.01 30.61 29.06
(MWh) the other train (train 2). In addition, the exceeding energy from
Total Costs(€) 766.68 641.17 691.52 512.00 the regenerative braking in the balance is stored in the battery,
Battery Energy
Storage (MWh)
- 0.81 - 1.41 and the power delivered by the grid equals zero. Therefore, the

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2574200, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
8

possibility of instantly using the regenerative braking energy
by other train and the exceeding energy storage is illustrated.
Another interesting situation takes place at 20:55:30, when,
simultaneously, the train is braking, batteries are charging and
ultracapacitors are discharging. Performing an energy balance
at that point, the situation can be understood as an energy
transfer from ultracapacitors to batteries, while at the same
time the battery is storing the energy from the regenerative
braking. This behavior proves the possibility of energy
exchange between ultracapacitors and batteries simultaneously
with the regenerative braking. (Note that the vertical axes in
Fig. 4 have different scales)
In the fourth situation, between 20:56 and 21:08:30, there
energy savings is obtained, achieving values of 33.22% and
9.63%, respectively. Regarding the energy level of batteries
and ultracapacitors, the comparison between this case and case
2 is particularly interesting. Fig. 6 shows the resulting values
of battery and ultracapacitor energy levels for cases 2 and 4.
Note that, with renewable energy integration, batteries
perform a greater number of cycles, taking advantage of a high
amount of energy available from the renewable energy sources
and thus, increasing the profit in the system. On the other
hand, in this situation battery life decreases drastically due to
the high number of cycles performed. Conversely, in case 2,
the number of cycles performed in the battery is low, and thus,
the expected battery life is greater.

Ultracapacitor Energy (MWh)

are no trains on tracks, batteries are slowly charging and 0.012
Ultracapacitor Energy Level Battery Energy Level
0.144

Battery Energy (MWh)

0.01 0.12
ultracapacitors are discharging. In this case, energy from
0.008 0.096
ultracapacitors supplies both battery charge and the fixed 0.006 0.072
demand at node. The energy stored by ultracapacitors during 0.004 0.048
the regenerative braking (remember that ultracapacitors 0.002 0.024
present a very fast response and are able to store energy 0 0
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00
quickly), is now transferred to the batteries, in order to free the (a) Time (Hours)
ultracapacitors for future braking operations.
Ultracapacitor Energy (MWh)
0.012 0.144
Ultracapacitor Energy Level Battery Energy Level

Battery Energy (MWh)

0.01 0.12
Finally, at 21:18, there is only one train on track and it is
0.008 0.096
braking, batteries are charging and ultracapacitors are
0.006 0.072
discharging. In this moment, the energy from regenerative
0.004 0.048
braking is enough to charge the batteries; thus, the
0.002 0.024
optimization problem takes the decision to empty the
0 0
ultracapacitors in order to capture energy from braking in 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00
(b) Time (Hours)
22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

subsequent time periods. Fig 6. Ultracapacitor and Battery Energy Level (a) without renewable
energy integration and (b) with renewable energy integration.
3) Case 3 Results: Renewable energy integration
All the cases presented in this section are solved using
The present analysis considers the base case with integrated
CONOPT [29] running under a GAMS environment [30]. The
renewable generation, but without the HESS. Regarding
problems described in the case study section comprise around
global results, an improvement in costs and energy savings are
265000 variables and 235000 constraints taking between 30
obtained, achieving values of 9.00% and 4.61%, respectively.
and 50 minutes to solve in a computer clocking at 3.30 GHz
The amount of renewable energy generation (solar and and 3.20 GB of RAM.
wind generation) throughout a day is shown in Fig. 5.
0.16 VI. CONCLUSIONS
Wind Turbine Power Substation A
0.14
Wind Turbine Power Passenger Station B
PV Power Substation A
We have proposed a model for operation planning purposes
0.12
PV Power Passenger Station B in ERS including RE and hybrid (ultracapacitors and batteries)
0.1
Power (MW)

0.08
ESSs integration. At the same time, we have considered
0.06
regenerative braking capabilities of trains, with the aim to
0.04
analyze the renewable generation impact, the behavior of
0.02 HESSs and energy and economic savings in ERSs.
0
06.00 08.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 00.00 02.00 04.00 06.00
Time (Hours)
Results from a realistic case study of a high speed ERS in
Fig 5. Renewable energy generation
Spain show that the integration of RES along with HESS can
Note that, the excess power in the system has increased up achieve an improvement in costs and energy savings of
to 55.25% due to the extra renewable generation. Of course, 33.22% and 9.63%, respectively. It has also been shown that
this result shows that the operation of renewable energy the HESS properly complement and can be beneficial for both
sources is profitable from the perspective of the ERS and also train regenerative braking and complement the intermittent
that with the inclusion of RES, the installation of HESSs is production from renewable sources.
even more justified, as the following case shows.
4) Case 4 Results: HESSs and renewable energy VII. REFERENCES
integration [1] E. Hotchkiss and C. Larney, “The Use of Renewable Energy to Provide
Power to California Railway,”California High Speed Railway Authority,
This case includes a HESS and renewable energy Dec. 2011. Online available at http://www.hsr.ca.gov/
integration. With this setting, an improvement in costs and

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2574200, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
[2] P. Capros, A. De Vita, N. Tasios, D. Papadopoulos, P. Sikos, E.
Apostolaki, M. Zampara, L. Paroussos, K. Fragiadakis and N.
Kouvaritakis,“EU Energy, Transport and GHG EmissionsTrendsto 2050.
Reference Scenario 2013,” European Comission, Dec. 2013. Online
available at http://ec.europa.eu/energy/
[3] R. Faranda and S. Leva, “Energetic sustainable development of railway
stations”. IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, pp. 1-6,
Jun. 2007.
[4] M.C. Falvo and F. Foiadelli,, “Preliminary analysis for the design of an
energy-efficient and environmental sustainable integrated mobility
system,”IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, pp. 1-7, Jul.
2010.
[5] T. Ratniyomchai, S. Hillmansen and P. Tricoli, “Recent developments
and applications of energy storage devices in electrified railways,” IET
Electrical Systems in Transportation, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 9-20, Jan. 2014.
[6] A. Killer, A. Armstorfer, A.E. Diez and H. Biechl, “Ultracapacitor
assisted regenerative braking in metropolitan railway systems,” 2012
IEEE Colombian Intelligen Transportation Systems Symposium (CITSS),
pp. 1-6, Aug. 2012.
[7] R. Tymourfar, G. Farivar, H. Iman-Eini and B. Asaei, “Optimal stationary
super-capacitor energy storage system in a metro line,” 2011 2nd
International conference on electric power and energy conversion
systems (EPECS), pp. 1-5, Nov. 2011.
[8] S. D’Avanzo, D. Iannuzzi, F. Murolo, R. Rizzo and P. Tricoli, “A sample
application of supercapacitor storage systems for suburban transit,” 2010
Electrical systems for aircraft, railway and ship propulsion (ESARS), pp.
1-7, Oct. 2010.
[9] P. Radcliffe, J.S. Wallace and L.H. Shu, “Stationary applications of
energy storage technologies for transit systems,” 2010 IEEE Electric
power and energy conference (EPEC), pp. 1-7, Aug. 2010.
[10] A. Gabash and Pu Li, “Active-reactive optimal power flow in distribution
networks with embedded generation and battery storage,” IEEE
Trans.Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 2026-2035, Nov. 2012.
[11] T. Erseghe and S. Tomasin, “Power flow optimization for smart
microgrids by SDP relaxation on linear networks,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 751-762, Jun. 2013.
[12] Y. Levron, J.M. Guerrero and Y. Beck, “Optimal power flow in
microgrids with energy storage,” IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 28, no.
3, pp. 3226-3234, Aug. 2013.
[13] E. Dall’Anese, Hao Zhu and G.B. Giannakis, “Distributed optimal power
flow for smart microgrids,”IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,vol. 4, no. 3, pp.
1464-1475, Sep. 2013.
[14] R.A. Jabr, “Adjustable robust OPF with renewable energy sources,” IEEE
Trans. Power Systems, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 4742-7451, Nov. 2013.
[15] Dong Zhang, Shuhui Li, PengZeng and ChuanzhiZang, “Optimal
microgrid control and power-flow study with different bidding policies by
using PowerWorld simulator,” IEEE Trans. Sustainable Energy, vol. 5,
no. 1, pp. 282-292, Jan. 2014.
[16] T.K. Ho, Y.L. Chi, J. Wang and K.K. Leung, “Load flow in electrified
railway,” Second International Conference on Power Electronics,
Machines and Drives (PEMD 2004), vol. 2, no. 498, pp. 498-503, Mar-
Apr. 2004.
[17] T.K. Ho, Y.L. Chi, J. Wang, K.K. Leung, L.K. Siu and C.T. Tse,
“Probabilistic load flow in AC electrified railways,” IEE Proceedings-
Electric Power Applications, vol. 152, no. 4, pp. 1003-1013, Jul. 2005.
[18] S.V. Raygani, A. Tahavorgar, S.S. Fazel and B. Moaveni, “Load flow
analysis and future development study for an AC electric railway,” IET
Electrical Systems in Transportation,vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 139-147, Sep.
2012.
[19] R. Belfkira, L. Zhang and G. Barakat, “Optimal sizing study of hybrid
wind/PV/diesel power generation unit,” Solar Energy,vol. 85, no. 1, pp.
100-110,Jan 2011.
[20] Solar Radiation, “Andalusian Energy Agency”, AEE 2013.Online
available at http://www.agenciaandaluzadelaenergia.es
[21] L. Wu, M. Shahidehpour and T. Li, "Stochastic Security-Constrained Unit
Commitment," in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 22, no. 2,
pp. 800-811, May 2007.
[22] M. T. Söylemez and S. Açikbas, “The effects of traction effort
characteristics of vehicles on the performance and energy efficiency of dc
supplied metro lines,” in Railway Traction Systems (RTS 2010), IET
Conference on, pp. 1–5, Apr. 2010.
[23] A. López, R. Rodríguez, E. Pilo, A.P. Cucala and A. Fernández-Cardador,
“Analysis of energy-saving strategies in railway power supply systems,”
2011 9th World Congress on Railway Research (WCRR) Technological
research institute (IIT), Madrid, May 2008.
1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
9
[24] S. de la Torre, A.J. Sánchez-Racero, J.A. Aguado, M. Reyes and O.
Martianez, “Optimal sizing of energy storage for regenerative braking in
electric railway systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. PP,
nº 99, pp. 1-9, Aug 2014.
[25] E. Pilo, L. Rouco, A. Fernández and l. Abrahamsson, “A monovoltage
equivalent model of bi-voltage autotransformer-based electrical systems
in railways,” IEEE Trans.Power Delivery, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 699-708,
Apr. 2012.
[26] E. Pilo, L. Rouco, A. Fernández, “A multi-criteria approach to the
analysis of modified 2x25kV bi-voltage systems using higher negative
voltages,” 8th World congress on railway research. Technological
research institute (IIT), Madrid, May. 2008.
[27] E. Pilo, R. Rouco, A. Fernández and A. Hernández-Velilla, “A simulation
tool for the design of the electrical supply system of high-speed railway
lines,” IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, vol. 2, pp.
1053-1058, Jul. 2000.
[28] OMEL Mercados. Online available at
http://www.omie.es/files/flash/ResultadosMercado.swf
[29] CONOPT. User Manual Online available at
http://www.gams.com/dd/docs/solvers/conopt/
[30] GAMS Development Corporation. GAMS Base Module 23.9.4 (LEX
35892.35906 LEG x86 64/Linux). 1217 Potomac Street, NW,
Washington, DC 2007, USA, 4 July 2012.
VIII. BIOGRAPHIES
José Antonio Aguado (M’01) received the Electrical
Engineer and PhD degrees from the University of Málaga,
Málaga, Spain, in 1997 and 2001, respectively. Currently,
he is an Associate Professor and Head of the Department of
Electrical Engineering at the University of Málaga. His
research interests include operation, planning, electricity
and numerical optimization techniques.
Antonio José Sánchez Racero received the Technical
Electrical Engineer and Industrial Engineer degrees from
the Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain, in 2010 and
2013, respectively. He was a research assistant at the
Universidad de Málaga, Electrical Engineering
Department, working on issues related to power systems,
especially at electrical railway systems. In addition, he has
experience as Design Engineer of Traction Substations and
Traction simulations at Inabensa, S.A. Currently, he is
working in a I+D project to develop a Traction Simulation
tool at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid in
cooperation with Inabensa, S.A. and the Universidad de
Málaga.
Sebastián de la Torre (M’04) was born in Málaga, Spain.
He received the Ingeniero Industrial degree from the
Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain, in 1999; he
obtained his Ph.D. degree on power systems operations
planning at the Universidad de Castilla – La Mancha in
2003. His research interests include operations and
economics of electrical energy systems, restructuring of
electric systems and development of new electricity
markets. He is currently Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical
Engineering at the Universidad de Málaga.