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.2018.2803215, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID 1

Optimal Partitioning of Smart Distribution Systems into

Supply-Sufficient Microgrids
Mostafa Barani, Student Member, IEEE, Jamshid Aghaei, Senior Member, IEEE, Mohammad Amin Akbari, Taher
Niknam, Member, IEEE, Hossein Farahmand, Member, IEEE, and Magnus Korpås, Member, IEEE,

Abstract—This paper presents a systematic procedure for partition- reduce the impacts of faults on their local loads by creating islands of
ing smart distribution systems into supply-sufficient microgrids. Firstly, supply to increase the reliability of service. Therefore, adequacy of
renewable distributed generations (DGs) are optimally allocated in supply for microgrids is an important factor in the optimal microgrid
the distribution system. A multiobjective performance index including
voltage profile and energy losses indices is utilized in this problem as construction (OMGC) which enhances the distribution system to be
the objective function. Two alternative control approaches of future a self-heal and robust system [7], [8].
smart grids including on load tap changer (OLTC) control and DERs play an important role in the construction of microgrids.
adaptive power factor control (PFc) are assessed to maximize potential The effects of these resources on the distribution system and
benefits and increase the penetration level of DGs. Then, optimal microgrids were examined in [3], [6]–[21]. The allocation of DG
allocation of protection devices and energy storage systems (ESSs)
for constructing supply-sufficient microgrids is presented for a feeder units in distribution systems has been investigated in the literature
equipped with capacity-constrained DGs. To this end, two different from different perspectives which primarily takes the technical and
optimization problems are formulated and proper indices are developed economic issues into account. The large number of works have
for minimizing power exchange between microgrids and minimizing focused on computational methods and approaches employed in the
generation-load imbalance within microgrids. Finally, test results of optimal DG allocation (ODGA) problem [3], [6]–[11]. They have
the proposed models on 33-bus IEEE radial distribution system are
presented and discussed. attempted to find optimal DGs sites and sizes to be set up for use
in the distribution networks with the objectives of minimizing total
Index Terms—Distributed generation, microgrid, supply adequacy, costs, losses minimization, voltage stability and installed capacity
smart grid, wind energy, energy storage systems.
maximization subject to the technical, DGs operation, and invest-
ment constraints. The benefits and risks issues of introducing DGs
I. I NTRODUCTION in the distribution systems have been explored in [12]–[15]. One
of the major challenges for DGs that is still remained in matching
I CREASING reliance on variable renewable energy sources is
driving changes in the conventional planning and operation of
distribution systems [1]–[3]. To mitigate the impacts of the inter-
the intermittent energy production with the dynamic power demand.
A recommended solution is to add ESSs into the intermittent
output power of DGs such as wind turbines and photovoltaic (PV)
connection of renewable generation, the concepts of smart grids are
modules. Cost and reliability effects of DGs and ESS have been
proposed widely. According to the IEEE Std 1547.4, large distri-
investigated in [15]–[17]. Numerous works have been done to assess
bution systems can be partitioned into a number of microgrids to
the reliability and economy of small autonomous power systems and
facilitate powerful control and operation infrastructure in the future
microgrids using both analytical and Monte Carlo simulation (MCS)
distribution systems [4]. In this regard, increasing controllability and
methods, when renewable DGs are operated in either islanded or
flexibility of the (variable) supply and demand is a key pathway
grid-connected modes [7], [8], [16]–[21].
toward a more robust systems [5].
Overall, few studies properly investigate the adequacy-based
Microgrids have been proposed as a novel distribution network
OMGC in distribution systems considering probabilistic nature of
architecture within the smart grids concept which is capable to
renewable generation and demand. Additionally, the potential ad-
exploit the full benefits from the integration of large numbers of
vantages of adopting real-time control and communication systems,
small scale distributed energy resources (DERs) into low-voltage
as the main parts of the future smart grids, for the optimal allocation
electricity distribution systems [6]–[8]. A microgrid can be operated
of DGs, ESSs and protective devices have been largely ignored.
in an islanded mode, in the event of an upstream fault, and a Based on IEEE Std 1547.4, the microgrids have been introduced
grid-connected mode. To be able to operate in the island mode, as the main components of active distribution networks. However,
DERs, i.e., both DGs and energy storage systems (ESSs), have the objectives of their construction have not been determined in this
to be able to serve the island load and therefore keep both the standard. This paper proposes an adequacy-based OMGC problem
voltage and frequency within allowable limits. Hence, they can consistent with the mentioned standard and enhances it by devel-
M. Barani, M. Akbari, and T. Niknam are with the Department of Electrical oping a systematic strategy for OMGC in the smart grids. The
and Electronics Engineering, Shiraz University of Technology, Shiraz, Iran (e-mail: goal of design is the construction of supply-sufficient microgrids by
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]). optimally implementing dispatchable and renewable DGs (consider-
J. Aghaei is with the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
Shiraz University of Technology, Shiraz, Iran and the Department of Electric Power ing their intermittency and uncertainty), ESSs as well as protective
Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, devices. The motivations toward the proposed partitioning technique
Norway (e-mail: [email protected]). can be summarized as follows:
Hossein Farahmand and Magnus Korpås are with the Department of Electric Power
Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, • To assist utility engineers and system planners in constructing
Norway (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]). supply-sufficient microgrids which can be a helpful step toward

1949-3053 (c) 2018 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.2018.2803215, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID 2

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 WP1 II. M ODEL D ESCRIPTION

WP2
In this paper, the period of the study is one year. This year is
divided into four seasons and each season is modeled through a
typical day with 24-hour time period. Therefore, the year under study
can be modeled with 96-hour time period.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Minimum imbalanced energy
within microgrid A. Probabilistic Modeling of DGs
Minimum energy flow The hourly historical data related to the wind speed and solar
between microgrids
19 20 21 22
irradiance during two whole years has been utilized to model
probabilistic generation of each DG unit. In order to characterize
Breaker Recloser Wind turbine Photovoltaic Biomass EES the random behavior of the renewable energy resources during each
season, a typical day with 24-hour time period is considered. For
Fig. 1. Conceptual design of RDS partitioning into a set of supply-sufficient each season, the data related to the same hours of the days in the
microgrids by strategically placement of DGs, ESS and reclosers; the corresponding
reliability zones (microgrids) defined by dashed lines. related season are utilized to obtain the hourly probability density
functions (PDFs). Since two years of historical data are available
and by assuming a month to be 30 days, there are 180 samples (2
the realization of more secure and robust smart distribution years×3 months×30 days) of wind speed and solar irradiance to
grids. generate the related hourly PDFs. Therefore, there are 180 samples
• To advance the progress of making powerful infrastructure to estimate each of the 96 PDFs related to each hourly time period.
for smart distribution systems operation and control, like self- In this study, the hourly wind speed and solar irradiance have been
healing control by improving, for example, the effectiveness of utilized to generate Rayleigh [3] and Beta [22] distribution functions
the automatic fault location detection methods employed in the for each time period as indicated in (1) and (2), respectively.
distribution networks.
• Since each microgrid is constructed with the maximum supply 
Γ(α + β) (α−1)
adequacy, it can improve the capability of self-healing control  s
· Γ(β)


 Γ(α)
actions by minimizing number of actions needed in the distri- 

(β−1)
bution systems. fb (s) = (1 − s) : 0 ≤ s ≤ 1 ; α, β ≥ 0 (1)

• In face of disturbances, a self-healing reconfiguration divides




the system into partitions that are designed to have minimum 
0 : otherwise.
interaction and therefore any disturbances in a particular par-
tition will not strongly propagate to the other partitions. This where fb (·) denotes the Beta distribution function. α and β are
can increase the performance and robustness of the distribution the parameters of the Beta function and for each time period, can
networks, as well as minimize total amount of load shedding be determined using the historical data.
in the islanded microgrids.
Accordingly, the main contributions of this work with respect to the 
2v
    
v 2
previous researches in the area are summarized as follows: fr (v) = exp − (2)
c2 c
1) A two-step computational framework is developed for opti-
mal partitioning of smart distribution system. The first step where fr (·) indicates Rayleigh distribution function and c is
determines optimal placement of renewable DGs to maximize Rayleigh scale index which is determined based on the historical
multiobjective performance index. In the second step, protective data for each time period.
devices and ESSs are simultaneously placed and sized for These continuous PDFs are sliced into several segments where
construction of supply-sufficient microgrids to improve self- each segment yields a mean value and a probability of occurrence.
healing control mechanisms in the smart distribution systems. Note that the probability of each segment during any specific hour
2) Proper adequacy-based metrics are introduced for evaluation can be expressed as follows:
of the supply-adequacy of the constructed microgrids within
distribution systems.
X
Zi+1
3) Linear formulations are developed for the OMGC problem. As
a result, the problem can be solved using mixed-integer linear probi = f (x) dx (3)
programming (MILP) through one of the high-performance Xi
commercially available solvers like CPLEX and OSL.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II describes where f (x) indicates PDFs. Xi and Xi+1 are the starting and
the modeling of the renewable DGs, load, network and generation- ending points of the interval i, respectively.
load. The problem formulation of ODGA is addressed in Section III. It should be noted that for the site under study two differ-
OMGC problem is introduced in Section IV. The results obtained ent wind profiles, i.e., WP1 and WP2, are considered in this
by applying the proposed models to a variety of case studies are paper. Algorithm 1 indicates the process of scenario generation
demonstrated in Section V. Finally, the conclusions are summarized for uncertain parameters. The uncertainties of the problem, i.e.,
in Section VI. wind speed of WP1, wind speed of WP2, and solar irradiance,

1949-3053 (c) 2018 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.2018.2803215, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID 3

scen1(WP) scen2(WP) scen1(PV) scen2(PV)

Algorithm 1 Probabilistic Model of Whole System. 1 t=1 t=2 t=3 t=4
2
Require: Historical data and parameters as follows:
2
• Data related to wind-based DG (historical data of hourly wind speed for WP1 1  

Generation (PU)
0.8  
and WP2, wind turbine performance curve).
1
• Data related to solar DG (Historical data of solar irradiance, PV module
characteristics). 0.6
• Number of scenarios in the initial scenario sets for the wind speed of WP1
(Nwp1 ), the wind speed of WP2 (Nwp2 ), and solar irradiance Ns and the
reduced sets (Nwp1r , N r , N r ). 0.4
wp2 s
1: Construct the hourly PDFs related to i) solar irradiance, ii) wind speed of WP1,
iii) wind speed of WP1. 0.2
2: Utilize the procedure discussed in [23] to generate the scenarios using the PDFs:
• Nwp1 scenarios for the wind speed of WP1;
• Nwp2 scenarios for the wind speed of WP2; 0
1 24 1 24 1 24 1 24
• Ns scenarios for the solar irradiance;
For instance, we use 96 hourly PDFs of wind speed of WP1 and generate h
Fig. 2. Sample scenarios.
Ns scenarios with their own probability. Note that each scenario include 4 ×
24 values of hourly solar irradiance represents a year and its probability of
occurrence.
1

Annual peak load factor

3: Based on the wind turbine performance curve and PV module characteristics,
the wind speed and solar irradiance of each state during each time period is
transformed into the output power of wind-based and solar DGs, respectively. 0.8
4: A fast forward scenario reduction method based on Kontorwish distance [24]
is employed to reduce the number of scenarios while provides a reasonable 0.6
approximation of random variable of the system.
0.4

0.2
r r
are characterized by generating Nwp1 , andNwp2 scenarios,Nsr
r 0
respectively. Nwp1 scenarios can represent WP1 where each scenario 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96
will include 96 generation values with its corresponding probability. Hour
Therefore, the s1th scenario of WP1 with a probability ρs1 wp1 is
Fig. 3. Typical seasonal pattern of demand as a percentage of the annual peak load.
s1 s1 s1
{(Pwp1 (1, 1), Pwp1 (1, 2), ..., Pwp1 (t, h)), ρs1
wp1 }. In a similar approach,
r r
WP2 and PV can be modeled as Nwp2 and Npv scenarios, re-
spectively, i.e., {(Pwp2 (1, 1), Pwp2 (1, 2), ..., Pwp2 (t, h)), ρs2
s2 s2 s2 sending end and node j is the receiving end bus. Let E denote
wp2 } : ∀s2
and {(Ppv s3 s3 s3
(t, h)), ρs3 the collection of all lines, and (i, j) ∈ E is abbreviated by i → j
(1, 1), Ppv (1, 2), ..., Ppv pv } : ∀s3. Consider-
ing the whole system, the total number of probable scenarios is for convenience. Note that, as G is directed, if (i, j) ∈ E then,
r
(Nwp1 × Nwp2r
× Npv r
). Each probable scenario {(s1, s2, s3) ∈ (j, i) ∈ / E. Let t denote the index of time period (t ∈ T ), h
indicate the index of hour (h ∈ H) and s denote the index of
(Nwp1 ×Nwp2 ×Npv )} has a probability of ρs1
r r r s2 s3
wp1 ×ρwp2 ×ρpv . By way
generation-load states, where, s ∈ S. For each bus i ∈ N , let
of illustration, suppose that there are one wind and solar irradiance
Vis (t, h) = Vre,i s s
(t, h) + iVim,i (t, h) denote its complex voltage and
profile and there are two probable scenarios for each one as indicated 2
in Fig. 2. Then, the entire system will include four (2 × 2) scenarios it is defined that υi (t, h) := |Vis (t, h)| . Specifically, υsub is the
s

as follows: rated secondary voltage magnitude of the substation transformer, tp

for s = 1: is the position of the OLTC and α is the change ratio per step.
s s
{((Pwp1 1
(1, 1), ...,Pwp (4, 24)), (Ppv 1 1
(1, 1), ...,Ppv (4, 24))), ρ1wp × ρ1pv }; Let SD,i (t, h) = PD,i (t, h) + iQsD,i (t, h) define the given apparent
for s = 2: power of the load connected to bus i ∈ N (zero whenever bus i is not
s s
{((Pwp1 1
(1, 1), ...,Pwp (4, 24)), (Ppv 2 2
(1, 1), ...,Ppv (4, 24))), ρ1wp × ρ2pv }; connected to any load) and SDG,i (t, h) = PDG,i (t, h)+iQsDG,i (t, h)
for s = 3: define the apparent power of the DG generator connected to bus
{((Pwp2 2
(1, 1), ...,Pwp (4, 24)), (Ppv 1 1
(1, 1), ...,Ppv (4, 24))), ρ2wp × ρ1pv }; i ∈ G. Let ssi (t, h) = psi (t, h) + iqis (t, h) denote the net power
s s
for s = 4: injection of bus i ( SDG,i (t, h) − SD,i (t, h)) where psi (t, h) and
s
{((Pwp2 2
(1, 1), ...,Pwp (4, 24)), (Ppv 2 2
(1, 1), ...,Ppv (4, 24))), ρ2wp × ρ2pv }. qi (t, h) denote the real and reactive power injections of bus i. For
each line (i, j) ∈ E, let zij = rij + ixij denotes its impedance.
s s s
Let Iij (t, h) = Ire,ij (t, h) + iIim,ij (t, h) denotes the complex current
B. Load Data s
 s 2
from bus i to bus j and it is defined that lij (t, h) := Iij (t, h) .
From the hourly load data for the system under study and the Let Sij s
(t, h) = Pijs (t, h) + iQsij (t, h) denote the sending-end power
IEEE-RTS system [25], the load profile is considered as a percentage flow from bus i to bus j where Pijs (t, h) and Qsij (t, h) denote the
of the annual peak load. Fig. 3 indicates the typical seasonal pattern real and reactive power flow, respectively. Given the network graph
of demand as a percentage of the annual peak load. (N , E), the impedance z, and the substation voltage υsub , then the
other decision variables satisfy the DistFlow equations [11]:
III. DistFlow E QUATIONS ∀ (i, j) ∈ E, ∀ j ∈ N , ∀ s ∈ S, ∀ t ∈ T and ∀ h ∈ H,
A radial distribution system (RDS) can be represented by the
graph G = (N , E) and the set of generator buses G ⊆ N .
Let N := {1, · · · , n} denote the collection of all nodes. Each
X
Pijs (t, h) − rij lij
s
(t, h) = −psj (t, h) + s
Pjk (t, h) (4)
line connects an ordered pair (i, j) of nodes where node i is the k:j→k

1949-3053 (c) 2018 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.2018.2803215, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID 4

X
Qsij (t, h) − xij lij
s
(t, h) = −qjs (t, h) + Qsjk (t, h) (5) 3) Multiobjective Index: The problem of ODGA tries to find min-
k:j→k imum energy loss index (9) and/or maximum voltage improvement
index (11). When DG is allocated for energy losses minimization, the
2 s penetration level may be limited to have maximum voltage profile,
υis (t, h)−υjs (t, h) = 2 rij Pijs (t, h) + xij Qsij (t, h) −|zij | lij
 
(t, h) and vice versa. To include the effects of the aforementioned indices
(6) in the ODGA problem, the following multiobjective index, MOI ,
2 2 can be used as the objective function which should be maximized:
s
Pijs (t, h) + Qsij (t, h)
lij (t, h) = , ∀ (i, j) ∈ E (7)
υis (t, h)
MOI = δ1 VI − δ2 LI (12)
υ1s (t, h) = υsub + α.tp(t, h). (8)
here, the weighting factors 0 ≤ (δ1 , δ2 ) ≤ 1, which δ1 + δ2 = 1,
IV. ODGA IN RDS indicate relative importance of each index for DGs’ allocation. The
In this section, ODGA problem is described and formulated, and choice of these factors mainly depends on the experiences and
the technical limits on the total DG capacity are introduced. concerns of planners or decision makers. An equal weights are
assumed for the proposed indices in this paper.
A. Objective Function Generally, the highest value of VI implies DGs allocation is the
most beneficial in terms of voltage profile maximization. Also, the
From the literature, two general indices have been used as the lowest value of LI implies the highest benefit in terms of energy
objective function of ODGA problem in distribution systems. By losses minimization. Furthermore, the highest MOI implies the
comparing and taking the ratio of a measure of an attribute with and maximum benefit of DGs integration in terms of both energy losses
without DG (with the same load pattern), an index can be derived reduction and voltage profile improvement.
for loss reduction and voltage profile improvement. The snapshot
indices have been proposed in [12] and improved and developed
in [11], [14]. The composite index of [11] is briefly defined and B. Technical Constraints
implemented here as the objective function of the ODGA problem
in distribution system. 1) Voltage Limits: The voltage magnitudes should be laid within
the pre-specified voltage lower bound, υmin,i , and upper bound,
1) Energy Loss Index: This index should be minimized over a υmax,i : ∀i ∈ N /{1}, ∀ s ∈ S, ∀ t ∈ T and ∀ h ∈ H,
considered time horizon. Since each time segment t represents 90-
day (30 days per month × 3 months per season), this index, LI,
can be formulated as follows: υmin,i ≤ υis (t, h) ≤ υmax,i (13)

EL and the voltage magnitude at the root node is as (8).

LI = (9)
EL0 2) Feeder Capacity Limits: Thermal limit of a line is generally
assumed stiff and no overloading is permitted. The power flow of
where
each line should be limited to its maximum thermal capacity of line
i → j, lmax,ij : ∀ s ∈ S, ∀ t ∈ T and ∀ h ∈ H,
X X XX
s
EL = ρs rij × lij (t, h) × 90 (10)
s∈S (i,j)∈E t∈T h∈H
s
here, ρs is the probability of state s. ELsij (t, h) and EL0 denote the lij (t, h) ≤ lmax,ij . (14)
energy-loss after and before DG addition in the system, respectively.
2) Voltage Profile Index: This index can be defined as follows:
3) Tap Position Constraint of OLTC: The OLTC model follows
standard OPF practice applied in power flow and in the OLTC OPF
υis (t, h)
 
1 X XXX
VI = ρs γi (t, h) (11) model [10]. This differs from the model that permits the “best” tap
T ×H υi0 (t, h) setting to be chosen which have been used in [11]. ∀ t ∈ T and
s∈S i∈N t∈T h∈H
∀ h ∈ H,
υi0 (t, h) is the square of the magnitude of complex voltage at bus i at
time t at hour h in the base case (without DG). T is the total number
of time periods during the planning time horizon and H is the total tpmin ≤ tp(t, h) ≤ tpmax , tp(t, h) ∈ int (15)
number of hours in a day. γi (t, h) is the importance factor of load
buses which can be chosen based on the importance and criticality where, tpmin and tpmax are the lower and upper limits on tap
of the loads [11], [14]. For the sake of simplicity, all the load buses position of OLTC. In practice, OLTCs usually possess specified
are equally weighted in this paper, i.e., γi (t, h) = N1 ; ∀i ∈ N , ∀t ∈ taps; one at center “rated” tap (denoting υsub ) and tpmax = −tpmin
T , ∀h ∈ H; here N is the total number of load buses in the system. to increase and decrease the turn ratio. In this paper, tp ∈
It should be noted that the technical indices LI and VI illustrate {−tpmax , ..., −1, 0, 1, ..., tpmax } has been allowed for ±5% variation
that employment of DG is beneficial or not. If the introduction of (each step provides α = (1.05−1)/tpmax variation) from the nominal
DG is beneficial, LI will be less than unity and VI will be greater rating of a transformer, υsub , which, in turn, allows for stepwise
than unity. voltage regulation of the output.

1949-3053 (c) 2018 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.2018.2803215, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID 5

4) Power Factor Regulation for a DG’s Site: Many DG tech- V. OMGC IN RDS
nologies can operate at a range of power factors. The operating
power factor of a DG’s site may need to be regulated as considering The second optimization problem is OMGC. In this problem,
corresponding standards as follows [11]: ∀i ∈ G, ∀ s ∈ S, ∀ t ∈ T the total capacity of ESSs is assumed to be predetermined based
and ∀ h ∈ H, on economic studies; therefore, the only goal is to minimize the
power exchange between microgrids or power imbalance within
s
PDG,i (t, h) the microgrids by proper allocation of reclosers and ESSs. This
pf − ≤ q ≤1 (16)
s 2 2 scenario applies to distribution systems with an existing fuel mix
PDG,i (t, h) + QsDG,i (t, h)
of renewable and dispatchable DG units obtained from previous
where, pf − is the specified lower limit of the operating power factor optimization problem. Two problems are defined here to deal with
of a DG’s site. the problem of the supply-sufficient OMGC in a DG-installed RDS.
5) Maximum Size of DG Units: Some distribution system com-
panies may have limitations on the percentage of allowed DGs in
their systems. So, DG units connected at bus i are constrained to be A. Problem I: Minimum Power Exchange Between Microgrids
in a pre-defined discrete sizes: The objective function of this problem is to minimize the annual
∀ i ∈ G, power exchange between microgrids subject to the power flow
equations, ESS constraints and number of protective devices. The
n1,ωi ≤ n1max,ω , n1max,ωi ∈ int, ∀ω∈W (17) protection devices placed on the feeder effectively divide the feeder
into so-called microgrids in this paper. In order to minimize the
n2,xi ≤ n2max,x , n2,xi ∈ int, ∀x∈X (18)
power exchange between microgrids and consider the probabilistic
n3,bi ≤ n3max,b , n3,bi ∈ int, ∀b∈B (19) nature of the renewable generations, a new probabilistic index is
X
r defined and presented in the objective function. This index represents
PW ,i = n1,ωi × P1,ω (20)
the probabilistic real and reactive power of the virtual cut set lines
ω∈W
X (lines including recloser) connecting the microgrids together. The
r
Ppv,i = n2,xi × P2,x (21) adequacy index below is defined for day t, hour h and ∀ (i, j) ∈ E,
x∈X
X
r
PB,i = n3,bi × P3,b (22) X
ρs . a × Pijs (t, h) + b × Qsij (t, h) . (28)
   

SI ij (t, h) =
b∈B
s∈S
Equations (17)-(22) show discrete sizes of the wind turbine, PV and
biomass DG units, respectively, which can be installed on each bus in Averaging (28) over the days of the year gives the expected value
the system. n1max,ω , n2max,x and n3max,b are the maximum numbers of SI ij (t, h) for each virtual cut set line, ASI ij , as follows:
of WT of type ω, PV module of type x and biomass DG of type b,
r
respectively. P1,ω r
, P2,x r
and P3,b are the available nameplate ratings 1 XX
ASI ij = SI ij (t, h). (29)
of the wind turbine of type ω, PV of type x and biomass DG of T ×H
t∈T h∈H
type b, respectively. Aggregation of installed DG capacities at the
buses inside the wind zone WP1 and WP2 is given in (23) and (24), The supply security index, SSI, for problem I can be calculated as
respectively: follows:

s s s 1 X
PDG,i (t, h) = Pwp1 (t, h) PW ,i + Ppv (t, h) Ppv,i + PB,i (23) SSI = βij ASI ij (30)
s s s M
PDG,i (t, h) = Pwp2 (t, h) PW ,i + Ppv (t, h) Ppv,i + PB,i (24) (i,j)∈R

6) Maximum DG Penetration Limits: The sum of installed ratings βij indicates the location of a recloser, that is equal to 1 if line ij
of DGs on each bus is limited by the maximum allowable penetration is selected to locate a recloser and zero, otherwise. M indicates
on each bus, Pbus,i : ∀i ∈ G, the number of reclosers to be located in the system which is
be determined based on the capital investment fund on protective
PW ,i + Ppv,i + PB,i ≤ Pbus,i (25) device installation. In a radial feeder, placement of M devices will
result in the formation of M + 1 microgrids. R denotes the set
Overall, the following ODGA problem summarizes the proposed of candidate locations of reclosers placement in the system. The
OPF formulation for the radial networks, where the power flows are following constraint defines that the number of reclosers in the
expressed in the Distflow model: system

ODGA: maximize MOI (ψ) (26) X

βij = M. (31)
ψ∈Ψ
(i,j)∈R
Subject to:
(4) − (11), (13) − (25) (27)
For this optimization problem, in addition to the above mentioned
where, Ψ is the set of decision variables. items additional constraints are specified bellow.

1949-3053 (c) 2018 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.2018.2803215, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID 6

1) Power Flow Equations: The power flow equations should be B. Problem II: Minimum Generation-Load Imbalance in Microgrids
modified in order to consider the real power which ESS delivers to For optimum construction of self-sufficient microgrids, two major
s
(receives from) the grid , PE,i (t, h), and reactive power generated by points should be considered which are neglected in the problem
the reactive power compensation equipment such as shunt capacitors I: (a) each constructed microgrid includes several interconnected
and static VAr compensators, QsR,j (t, h). In the OPF formulation, the electricity consumers, distributed generators and storage units. As
s
ESS power, PE,i (t, h), is positive when the storage is discharging, it will be shown in the results, it may be observed a situation in
negative when it is charging, and zero when ESS is in the idle mode. which a constructed microgrid has not any DG or ESS in it which
X contradicts the definition of the microgrid; (b) in the islanded mode
Pijs (t, h) − rij lij
s
(t, h) = −psj (t, h) − PE,j
s
(t, h) + s
Pjk (t, h) operation, each microgrid should have sufficient power to supply
k:j→k critical loads. These two conditions should be added as important
(32) constraints of the optimum microgrid construction problem. For this
X purpose, the necessary condition for a microgrid to be successful in
Qsij (t, h) − xij lij
s
(t, h) = −qjs (t, h) + QsR,j (t, h) + Qsjk (t, h) terms of supply adequacy is that the generation should be greater
k:j→k than or equal to the sum of the critical loads and losses in the
(33) islanded mode operation of microgrid m or equivalently:
2) ESS Constraints: The ESS is modeled by (34)-(42). The ESS
m m
has three operation modes of charging, discharging and idle [16]. PD + Ploss − PGm ≤ 0 (45)
For each ESS i ∈ B let Cis (t, h), Pch,i
s s
(t, h) and Pdch,i (t, h) denote
the amount of energy storage, the power input to the ESS and the where PGm and PD m
are the generated power of DGs plus ESS
m
power output of ESS connected at bus i at day t ∈ T at hour h ∈ H and load demands connected to the microgrid m, respectively; Ploss
in scenario s ∈ S, respectively. The amount of storage for ESS is its power loss which assumed to be 5% of the current load
is modeled to follow the first-order difference equation: ∀i ∈ B, [20]. Since β is a decision variable, the set of nodes belonging to
∀t ∈ T and ∀s ∈ S, each microgrid m is not specified. For this reason, it is difficult to
calculate (45) in a direct procedure. To address this problem, new
Cis (t, h) = Cis (t, h−1)−∆t Pdch,i
s s


(t, h)/ηd − Pch,i (t, h)ηc (34) variables are introduced which are calculated using the forward-
s
PE,i s
(t, h) = Pdch,i s
(t, h) − Pch,i (t, h) (35) backward searches. In this concept, for each (i, j) ∈ E forward
search gives:
where ∆t denotes the time interval [h − 1, h]. ηd and ηc are the
discharge and charge efficiencies of ESS, respectively. The rate
of charge/discharge for each ESS connected to bus i ∈ B, are dsij (t, h) = 1.05κj PD,j
s s
(t, h) − PG,j s
(t, h) − PE,j (t, h)
X
s
respectively bounded as follows: + (1 − βjk )djk (t, h) (46)
k:j→k
| {z }
s
(t, h) ≤ xsi (t, h)Pch,i
max s (t,h)
ψjk
0 ≤ Pch,i (36)
s
0 ≤ Pdch,i (t, h) ≤ (1 − xsi (t, h))Pdch,i
max
(37) and backward search gives: ∀ (i, j) ∈ E,
where binary variable xsi (t, h) denotes the charge/discharge state
of ESS. If ESS is charging, xsi (t, h) = 1 and the state of charge will dsji (t, h) = 1.05κi PD,i
s s
(t, h) − PG,i s
(t, h) − PE,i (t, h)
increase. If ESS is discharging, xsi (t, h) = 0 and the state of charge X
+ (1 − βik )dsik (t, h) (47)
will decrease. The ESS state of charge at the start and end of each | {z }
k∈Ωi s (t,h)
day is obtained by (38) and (39), and limited by (40): ∀i ∈ B, k6=j ψik

Cis (t, h) = Ciend , and h = H (38) where Ωi includes the sum of two subsets; the first is the subset of
nodes k ∈ N so that (k, i) ∈ E. If node i is connected to greater than
Cis (t, h) = Ci0 , and h = 1. (39) two nodes, the subset of nodes k ∈ N so that (i, k) ∈ E is added
0 ≤ Cis (t, h) ≤ Cimax (40) to the set Ωi , too. κi is the percentage of sensitive loads connected
to the node i. Note that the following constraint should be satisfied
Finally, total size of ESSs is limited by (41) and (42).
X ∀ (i, j) ∈ E,
max
PE,i ≤ P max (41)
i∈B
X βij = βji . (48)
Cimax ≤ E max (42)
i∈B Note that, the product of binary variable (1 − βik ) and bounded
Hence, the OMGC problem which summarizes the Problem I can continuous variable dsij (t, h) ∈ [dmin , dmax ] in equations (46) and
0
be written as bellow: (47) is nonlinear. Let E denote the collection of all lines. Note
0 0
s
OMGC-P1: minimize SSI (ϕ) (43) that, if (i, j) ∈ E then, (j, i) ∈ E . Let ψij (t, h) denote this
ϕ∈Φ product, thus, it can be expressed as the following equivalent linear
0
Subject to: inequalities:∀ (i, j) ∈ E ,
(6) − (8), (13) − (16), (32) − (42) (44)
s
where Φ is the set of decision variables. (1 − βij )dmin ≤ ψij (t, h) ≤ (1 − βij )dmax (49)

1949-3053 (c) 2018 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.2018.2803215, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID 7

dsij (t, h) − βij dmax ≤ ψij

s
(t, h) ≤ dsij (t, h) − βij dmin . (50) It can be observed that if βij equals zero, πij must vanish due
s to (55) while the bounds in (56) are inactive. Otherwise, when
By inspection, it can be observed that if βij equals one, ψij (t, h)
βij equals one, from (56), πij must be equal to σ̄ij . Hence, by
must vanish due to (49) while the bounds in (50) are inactive.
s substituting πij in (54), average value of IGP over constructed
Otherwise, when βij equals zero, from (50), ψij (t, h) must be equal
s microgrids can be calculated as the following linearized form:
to dij (t, h).
Now, to perform the equivalent constraint of (45) while ensuring  
the mentioned two conditions (a) and (b), the following equation is 1  X
defined: ∀ (i, j) ∈ R and for (i, j) = (1, 2), IGP = IGP 12 + IGP ij  . (57)
M +1
(i,j)∈R

s
gij (t, h) = dsij (t, h) + ψik
s
(t, h). (51) IGP can not measure the amount of insufficient generation in each
s
constructed microgrid, thus, the expected insufficient generation,
gij (t, h) represents the left-hand side of (45). The positive values EIG, is introduced as another supply-adequacy metric as follows:
s
of gij (t, h) denote the amount of insufficient generation or load not
served. Equation (52) finds the times and scenarios in which the X XX
s s
generation is insufficient in each microgrid. In the case of insufficient EIG = ρs ζij σ12 (t, h)g12 (t, h) × 90
s
generation σij (t, h) would be equal to 1 and zero, otherwise. The s∈S t∈T h∈H
X XX X
s s
(58)
equivalent linear formulation of this indicator is as follows: + βij ρs ζij σij (t, h)gij (t, h) × 90.
(i,j)∈R s∈S t∈T h∈H
s s s
gij (t, h) ≤ σij (t, h) ≤ 1 + gij (t, h) (52) This metric is nonlinear due to the product of binary variables
s s
βij and σij (t, h), and continuous variable gij (t, h) ∈ [gmin , gmax ].
To explain this, consider the state where there is an insufficient s s s
Let ξij (t, h) = σij (t, h)gij (t, h) which can be linearized using the
s s
generation, that is gij (t, h) > 0. Since |gij (t, h)| ≤ 1 (as is a per same procedure in (55) and (56). Now, suppose that
unit value and MVA base value is considered large enough), the
lower bound of (52) is strictly greater than zero and less than 1, XX X
s s
while the upper bound is greater than 1. Since σij (t, h) is a binary ḡi,j = ρs ζij ξij (t, h) × 90 (59)
variable, then under insufficient generation, it must be equal to 1. s∈S t∈T h∈H
A similar argument applies when there is sufficient generation in
s and let ϕij = βij ḡi,j and φs12 (t, h) = σ12
s s
(t, h)g12 (t, h). These
which σij (t, h) = 0.
nonlinear products can be also linearized with the same manner in
The first supply-adequacy metric for the constructed microgrids
(55) and (56). Therefore, the linearized form of (58) can be written
is defined as follows:
as follows:

1 XX X s
IGP 12 = ρs ζ12 σ12 (t, h) (53) X XX X
T ×H EIG = ρs ζ12 φs12 (t, h) × 90 + ϕij . (60)
s∈S t∈T h∈H
s∈S t∈T h∈H (i,j)∈R
σ̄ij

1 X zX X X }| { To adequately measure the degree of supply-adequacy for the

s
IGP ij = βij ρs ζij σij (t, h) (54) constructed microgrids throughout a year, the proposed probabilistic-
T ×H
(i,j)∈R s∈S t∈T h∈H based indices, i.e., IGP and EIG should be minimized. The follow-
This metric is defined as the product of the probability of ing MILP-based OMGC problem summarizes the Problem II:
the island to be created and the probability of the insufficient
generation during microgrid islanded mode. ζij is the probability OMGC-P2: minimize IGP (γ) (61)
of island to be created for a microgrid connected to node j. An γ∈Γ
analytical model based on segmentation concept can be implemented Subject to:
to calculate this probability for each microgrid [20]. Using this
curtailment indicator, the probability of curtailment scenarios over (46) − (52), (55), (56) (62)
all constructed microgrids, IGP , can be calculated. In this paper, it
is assumed that the second node always falls into the first constructed where Γ is the set of decision variables.
microgrid (see (53)), and other microgrids take into account by
implementing βij in the equation (54). It should be noted that, VI. N UMERICAL S IMULATION
(54) is nonlinear because of the product of binary variable βij A. Test System Data
and continuous variable σ̄ij ∈ [ymin , ymax ]. Let πij denote this The proposed problem of the optimal placement and smart op-
product, now it can be linearized using the following equivalent eration of WGs has been applied to the IEEE 33-bus radial test
linear inequalities:∀(i, j) ∈ R, distribution system. This system has a peak demand of 3.715 MW
and 2.300 MVAr [26]. While in annual energy terms, the aggregated
βij ymin ≤ πij ≤ βij ymax (55) demand profile implies an annual consumption of 610 MWh and 406
MVArh. Base values of this system are 12.66 kV and 100 MVA. The
σ̄ij − (1 − βij )ymax ≤ πij ≤ σ̄ij − (1 − βij )ymin . (56) substation voltage magnitude is assumed at nominal value in the base

1949-3053 (c) 2018 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.2018.2803215, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID 8

TABLE I TABLE III

CANDIDATE BUSES FOR DG INTEGRATION ODGA IN PASSIVE AND ACTIVE OPERATION CONDITIONS

Candidate buses Passive Active

DG type Index operation operation
Wind 3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27,30,33
MOI 0.19 0.23
PV 2,4,8,10,14,16,20,22,26,28,32
LI 0.60 0.56
Biomass 5,7,11,13,17,19,23,25,29,31
VI 1.02 1.06
min V 0.97 0.99
TABLE II
O PTIMUM LOCATION ( SIZE - K W) OF DG S OBTAINED BY ODGA PROBLEM
TABLE IV
LOCATIONS OF PROTECTION DEVICES AND RELATED ISLAND CREATION
DG type Passive operation Active operation PROBABILITIES
Wind 12(50),15(100),30(100),33(100) 12(50),15(100),30(100),33(100)
PV 10(25),14(50),16(50),32(50) 10(25),14(50),16(50),32(50) Line 5-6 6-26 7-8 11-12 15-16 16-17 17-18 29-30
7(25),13(125),17(125),29(75), ζij 0.023 0.025 0.024 0.076 0.088 0.090 0.110 0.073
Biomass 13(150),17(125),29(75),31(200)
31(200)

without exceeding voltage or thermal limits. Take a brief look, it

case (no DG). The constraint of operating voltages is assumed ±5% can be observed that MOI in the active operation of network will be
of nominal value. The OLTC target voltage is assumed to be 1.05. greater than its value when passive operation is adopted. The value
Detailed load and branch data of this test system can be obtained of multiobjective index, MOI , is 0.19 under the passive operation
from [26]. The maximum thermal limits of lines are set to 6.6 of system whereas, incorporating smart grid control strategies will
MVA (which corresponds to a current of 300 A). The hourly wind increase this value by more than 21%. However, as can be observed
speed and solar irradiance data for the site under study have been from Table III, compared to the base case (without DG), considerable
utilized to generate a Rayleigh and Beta PDFs for each time segment, benefits are achieved by optimally allocation of DGs in the system.
respectively. From the hourly load data for the system under study Assuming passive management of the network, unity power factor
and the IEEE-RTS system [25], the load profile is assumed as a operation of the DG units sees energy losses reduced by 40% from
percentage of the annual peak load. the original (no DG) configuration. If smart grid control schemes
The obtained MINLP optimization models (i.e., ODGA and are incorporated, then energy losses are cut by more than 44%.
OMGC-P1) and MILP optimization model (i.e., OMGC-P2) were
coded in the GAMS optimization modeling environment [27] and C. Optimal Microgrid Construction in Distribution System
solved using DICOPT and CPLEX solvers, respectively on a com-
The previously designed system is considered as the base system
puter with Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU @ 2 GHz and 4 GB of RAM.
for distribution system partitioning. In this step, optimum microgrid
construction is performed to optimally select the location of reclosers
and ESS sizing in the system. The validity of the proposed method
B. Optimal DG Allocation: passive vs active operation of network is demonstrated by comparing with the method recently reported
With the consideration of the capital investment fund and land in [8]. For this purpose, the base system is partitioned into the
space limits on DG installation, the total rated capacity installation self-sufficient microgrids without and with considering ESSs. The
limits of DGs (with discrete size of 25 kW) at each candidate bus are formulation of this reference was extended and developed in this
assumed to be 100 kW, 50 kW and 200 kW, respectively for wind paper to solve the problem of optimum microgrid construction
turbine, PV and biomass DG units. Potential sites for the installation considering SSI as the objective function. On the other hand, the
of DG units are given in Table I. proposed optimization problem, i.e., OMGC-P2, uses the objective
For the obtained probabilistic model of generation and load of minimizing insufficient generation probability of the constructed
demand, and for a given candidate location of DGs, the proposed microgrids, i.e., IGP . The proposed adequacy-based metrics are
stochastic OPF problems are performed over a horizon of one year used to compare the results of OMGC problem.
for the passive operation of system and two smart grid control Candidate locations of protection devices and related island
schemes. It can be seen that the active management of the network creation probabilities, ζij , are given in Table IV. Also, ζ12 is
improves its performance in terms of energy losses and voltage assumed equal to 0.02 and the percent of critical loads in each
profile. This is primarily due to the ability of the coordinated voltage load bus, κi , is assumed to be 50%. Tables V and VI show the
control (CVC) scheme to alleviate voltage rise problems. Also, the results and optimum locations of the reclosers to construct the
PFc strategy allows DGs to inject reactive power during peak periods supply-sufficient microgrids (with M equal to 4) by utilizing the
and absorb reactive power during off peak periods. Optimal size and optimization problems OMGC-P1 and OMGC-P2, respectively. The
location of DGs are recorded for these operation scenarios, see Table results of these problems are given in Table V, Table VI, Table VIII,
II. As can be seen, the adoption of smart grid control strategies Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. As one would expect, index SSI is not a good
compared to the passive operation, allows a further energy loss objective function for OMGC problem. Therfore, OMGC-P1 cannot
reduction and voltage profile improvement by optimally integrating guarantee the above-mentioned conditions (a) and (b) because node
biomass DG capacities in the more locations of the system. Table 18 (i.e., microgrid m4) is selected as the virtual microgrid with no
III presents the optimum values of MOI , LI , VI and minimum DGs connected to it (see Table V and Fig. 4). It can be observed
voltage magnitude, i.e., min V, under various operation strategies that constructed microgrid m4 is the most unreliable microgrid with

1949-3053 (c) 2018 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.2018.2803215, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID 9

TABLE V TABLE VII

O PTIMUM CONSTRUCTED MICROGRIDS BY OMGC-P1 WITHOUT ESS O PTIMAL RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTED MICROGRIDS WITH ESS S OBTAINED BY
OMGC-P1 AND OMGC-P2
Constructed EIG
Nodes in each microgrid IGP
microgrid (MWh) OMGC-P1 OMGC-P2
m1 1 to 10,19 to 21,23 to 25,26 to 29 0.02 108.8 constructed microgrid IGP EIG IGP EIG
m2 12 to 15 0.00 0.000 m1 0.02 108.8 0.02 118.02
m3 16,17 0.00 0.000 m2 0.00 0.000 0.003 7.401
m4 18 0.11 190.8 m3 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
m5 30 to 33 0.002 0.038 m4 0.11 187.4 0.00 0.000
m5 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
Average 0.0264 60
Average 0.0264 59.24 0.0046 25.084

TABLE VI
O PTIMUM CONSTRUCTED MICROGRIDS BY OMGC-P2 WITHOUT ESS TABLE VIII
OPTIMUM SIZE ( LOCATION ) OF ESS BY DIFFERENT OPTIMIZATION MODELS
Constructed EIG
Nodes in each microgrid IGP max (kW) (node)
microgrid (MWh) Model PE
m1 1 to 5,19 to 21,23 to 25 0.02 87.07 OMGC-P1 47(12),23(14),53(16),100(32)
m2 6 to 16 0.023 37.65 OMGC-P2 90(10),100(12),100(14),21(16),43(32)
m3 17,18 0.00 0.000
m4 26 to 29 0.00 0.000
m5 30 to 33 0.002 0.038 losses reduction and voltage improvement impact indices in it. The
Average 0.009 24.95 optimization problem has demonstrated that adopting smart grid-
based control schemes such as CVC and PFc can harvest significant
benefits in terms of loss reduction and voltage improvement. Next,
and without EES with a IGP of 0.11 and EIG of 190.8 MWh. the obtained DG-enhanced system is clustered into microgrids
In overall, the constructed microgrids using OMGC-P1 are more by optimally placement of reclosers and ESSs in the system for
unreliable than that of OMGC-P1 with IGP of 0.0264 and EIG of maximizing supply adequacy of the constructed microgrids. To
60 MWh. It can be seen from Table VI that the proposed OMGC-P2 solve this problem, two different optimization problems have been
problem is reduced these metrics to 0.009 and 25 MWh, respectively. developed. New metrics to evaluate supply-adequacy of microgrids
In the next step we optimally allocate reclosers and ESS using are developed and formulated in linear forms in OMGC-P2 problem.
both OMGC-P1 and OMGC-P2 to construct optimum self-sufficient The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed opti-
microgrids. The aggregated energy capacity and power rating of all mization problem OMGC-P2 for optimal partitioning of smart distri-
ESSs on all buses are set as 400 kW and 3.5 MWh, respectively. It bution systems into self-sufficient microgrids. Finally, it is noted that
is assumed that the battery efficiency is 100%, i.e., ηd = ηch = 1. the proposed mathematical formulation is generic, accordingly, the
The candidate locations for allocation of ESSs are assumed in set objective function can be expanded to augment additional terms such
B = {10, 12, 14, 16, 32}. as reliability, economic and environmental concerns of DGs, ESSs
The results of the optimal placement of reclosers as well as ESSs and reclosers allocations for optimal construction of microgrids. The
allocation in the 33-bus RDS are shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Table VII future works of this study is to investigate the robustness of optimal
and Table VIII. ESSs are introduced to the system to reduce the results under the future load growth and taking into account the
negative impact of the intermittent renewable energy resources. It uncertainty of probabilistic DG penetration on distribution systems
can be seen that the OMGC-P1 has a limited ability in the optimal in the construction of optimum microgrids.
partitioning of the system by implementing ESSs. The results show
no change in the location of reclosers in this problem with respect R EFERENCES
to before adding ESSs. By using this model, with and without ESS [1] G. Boyle, Renewable energy. OXFORD university press, 2004.
consideration, no improvement can be seen on the supply adequacy [2] H. L. Willis, Distributed power generation: planning and evaluation. CRC
of the constructed microgrids. On the contrary, by considering EESs, Press, 2000.
[3] T. Niknam, M. Zare, and J. Aghaei, “Scenario-based multiobjective volt/var
OMGC-P2 can improve the adequacy of constructed microgrids by control in distribution networks including renewable energy sources,” IEEE
reducing the value of IGP by 50%. The reason is that, in comparison Trans. Power Del., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 2004–2019, Oct. 2012.
to the OMGC-P1, OMGC-P2 permits more ESSs capacity to be [4] “Impact of increased penetration of photovoltaic generation on power systems,”
IEEE Guide for Design, Operation, and Integration of Distributed Resource
installed (i.e., 131 kW greater capacity). Thus, the number of states Island Systems With Electric Power Systems, Jul. 20 2011,IEEE Std 1547.4-
representing insufficient generation are reduced. 2011.
[5] Y. Seyedi, H. Karimi, and S. Grijalva, “Distributed generation monitoring for
hierarchical control applications in smart microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
VII. C ONCLUSION vol. 32, pp. 2305–2314, May 2017.
In this paper, a new methodology is proposed for optimal construc- [6] T. Niknam, “An efficient algorithm for volt/var control at distribution systems
including der,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 20, pp. 119–132, Aug. 2009.
tion of microgrids by optimally allocating DGs, ESSs and reclosers [7] S. A. Arefifar, Y. A.-R. I. Mohamed, and T. H. M. EL-Fouly, “Optimum
in RDS. Firstly, a probabilistic OPF technique is developed and microgrid design for enhancing reliability and supply-security,” IEEE Trans.
utilized for optimal allocation of wind-based, PV and biomass DG Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1567–1575, Sep. 2013.
[8] S. A. Arefifar, Y. A.-R. I. Mohamed, and T. H. M. EL-Fouly, “Supply-adequacy-
units in the smart distribution systems to maximize the multiob- based optimal construction of microgrids in smart distribution systems,” IEEE
jective performance index by properly assign and aggregate energy Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1491–1502, Sep. 2012.

1949-3053 (c) 2018 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.2018.2803215, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID 10

23 26 DG during different modes of operation,” IEEE Trans. on Power Syst., vol. 26,
33 m5 pp. 1945–1952, Nov 2011.
25 [21] A. Safdarian, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, and F. Aminifar, “Compromising wind and
solar energies from the power system adequacy viewpoint,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 27, pp. 2368–2376, Nov 2012.
[22] Z. Salameh, B. Borowy, and A. Amin, “Photovoltaic module-site matching
18 based on the capacity factors,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 10, no. 2,
1 2 3 4 6 7
pp. 326–332, Jun. 1995.
[23] N. Amjady, J. Aghaei, and H. A. Shayanfar, “Stochastic multiobjective market
clearing of joint energy and reserves auctions ensuring power system security,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 1841–1854, Nov. 2009.
19 22 m1 m2 m3 m4 [24] N. Growe-Kuska, H. Heitsch, and W. Romisch, “Scenario reduction and scenario
tree construction for power management problems,” in Power Tech Conference
Proceedings, vol. 3, IEEE, 2003.
[25] J. M. S. Pinheiro, C. R. R. Dornellas, M. T. Schilling, A. C. G. Melo, and
Fig. 4. Optimal constructed microgrids with ESS obtained by OMGC-P1 J. C. O. Mello, “Probing the new IEEE reliability test system (RTS-96): HL-II
assessment,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, pp. 171–176, Feb 1998.
[26] M. E. Baran and F. F. Wu, “Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for
m3 loss reduction and load balancing,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 4, pp. 1401–
26 1407, Apr. Apr. 1989.
33 m5 [27] B. A. McCarl, A. Meeraus, P. van der Eijk, M. Bussieck, S. Dirkse,
23 25 P. Steacy, and F. Nelissen, “Mccarl gams user guide,” 2014. [Available
online]:http://www.gams.com.

18
1 2 3 4 6 7

19 22 m1 m2 m4

Fig. 5. Optimal constructed microgrids with ESS obtained by OMGC-P2

[9] M. H. Moradi, M. Abedini, and S. M. Hosseinian, “A combination of evolution-

ary algorithm and game theory for optimal location and operation of DG from
DG owner standpoints,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 608–616,
Mar. 2016.
[10] S. Wang, S. Chen, L. Ge, and L. Wu, “Distributed generation hosting capacity
evaluation for distribution systems considering the robust optimal operation of
OLTC and SVC,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1111–1123,
Jul. 2016.
[11] M.-A. Akbari, J. Aghaei, and M. Barani, “Convex probabilistic allocation of
wind generation in smart distribution networks,” IET Renew. Power Gener.,
May 2017.
[12] P. Chiradeja and R. Ramakumar, “An approach to quantify the technical benefits
of distributed generation,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 764–
773, Dec. 2004.
[13] R. Shayani and M. de Oliveira, “Photovoltaic generation penetration limits in
radial distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1625–
1631, Aug. 2011.
[14] M. A. Akbari, J. Aghaei, M. Barani, M. Savaghebi, M. Shafie-khah, J. M.
Guerrero, and J. P. S. Catalao, “New metrics for evaluating technical benefits
and risks of DGs increasing penetration,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. PP,
no. 9, pp. 1 – 1, 2017.
[15] S. Wang, Z. Li, L. Wu, M. Shahidehpour, and Z. Li, “New metrics for assessing
the reliability and economics of microgrids in distribution system,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 2852–2861, Aug. 2013.
[16] S. Bahramirad, W. Reder, and A. Khodaei, “Reliability-constrained optimal
sizing of energy storage system in a microgrid,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3,
no. 4, pp. 2056–2062, 2012.
[17] A. Kavousi-Fard, M. A. Rostami, and T. Niknam, “Reliability-oriented recon-
figuration of vehicle-to-grid networks,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 11,
pp. 682–691, June 2015.
[18] R. Karki and R. Billinton, “Reliability/cost implications of pv and wind energy
utilization in small isolated power systems,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 368–373, 2001.
[19] A. Pregelj, M. Begovic, and A. Rohatgi, “Recloser allocation for improved
reliability of DG-enhanced distribution networks,” IEEE Trans. on Power Syst.,
vol. 21, pp. 1442–1449, Aug 2006.
[20] Y. M. Atwa, E. F. El-Saadany, M. M. A. Salama, R. Seethapathy, M. Assam,
and S. Conti, “Adequacy evaluation of distribution system including wind/solar

1949-3053 (c) 2018 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.