Anda di halaman 1dari 8

Paper accepted for presentation at the 2011 IEEE Trondheim PowerTech

An Evolutionary Algorithm and Acceleration Approach for Topological Design of Distributed Resource Islands
J. Girldez, Student Member, IEEE, A. Jaiantilal, J. Walz, S. Suryanarayanan, Senior Member, IEEE, S. Sankaranarayanan, H. E. Brown, Member, IEEE, and E. Chang.
least one end-user facility, and being capable of operating in one of the following two modes grid islanded and grid interconnected [8,9]. As the SGI progresses toward implementation, it is imperative to study the design of the emerging distribution systems as an evolution of the legacy system specifically, from the radial topology to a partially meshed network system, seemingly resembling a transmission system so as to maximize the reliability of the distributed islanded resource [6], [10,11]. One of the issues facing this study of redesigning the distribution system topology is the intractability of the problem as the size of the system grows from small to more realistic sizes [11]. As a result, traditional optimization methods may be unable to produce a solution in a reasonable computation time. Hence, there exists justification for the use of evolutionary methods for seeking Pareto-optimal solutions for the multi-objective optimization problem, such as the one under consideration in this paper [12]. It is pertinent to note that this paper builds on the methods described in [11]; however, the following aspects of this paper differentiate the work: 1. Simultaneous location of DG and feeder intertie, as opposed to assumed locations of DGs; 2. Use of annual load duration curve for expressing the load in the distributed island resource as opposed to average loads alone; 3. A pre-conditioned search methodology to cut down the computation time and initial concepts for an acceleration technique for filtering potentially infeasible and/or suboptimal inputs, based on machine learning. In this paper, a Genetic Algorithm (GA) based methodology aims to redesign a given radial distribution system to improve the system reliability. The optimization problem addressed is the following: given a radial distribution system, to optimally collocate DG(s) and feeder intertie(s) between feeders at a feasible cost so to improve supply reliability, while satisfying power flow constraints in an islanded mode of operation of the distribution system. The procedure described in this paper is designed for islanded distribution systems and therefore could be used in the planning of utility-scale micro-grids. In the following section, a brief discussion regarding the specific problem addressed in this paper is presented, followed by the proposed methodology and formulation of the problem. Section 3 presents a filter based on machine learning technique to identify infeasible or sub-optimal solutions to the redesign problem. Finally, the methodology is applied to a test system in Section 4.

Abstract In response to the ongoing discussion on how electric power distribution systems should evolve under the Smart Grid Initiative, an optimization problem is defined to simultaneously determine optimal locations for Distributed Generation (DG) and feeder interties in a legacy radial distribution system to improve reliability in the islanded mode of operation. For that purpose, an evolutionary approach using the Multi Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA) is formulated. The choice of an evolutionary algorithmic approach is justified due to the intractability of the problem associated with optimal location of DGs and feeder interties for large distribution systems. Furthermore, we present a filtering technique using machine learning (ML) for improving performance by avoiding expensive simulations for potentially suboptimal inputs. The algorithm is applied to a test system in which two methods of expressing the load are explored. In both cases, similar satisfactory design solutions are obtained. Index TermsDistributed generation, distributed island resource, distribution system planning, genetic algorithm, machine learning, microgrids, multi-objective optimization, reliability, renewable energy sources, Smart Grid.

In the U.S., the Smart Grid Initiative (SGI) outlined in Title XIII of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA07) serves as the national policy for the modernization of the electricity delivery system [1]. Growing demand for higher reliability of supply and integration of more green technologies to the grid, and an aging transmission system has contributed to the promulgation of the SGI in the US [2]. In Europe, concomitant grid modernization efforts are underway with the following three guiding objectives: sustainable energy mix, security of power supply, and competitive energy market [3-5]. It is widely expected that most of the recommendations of the SGI are going to affect the distribution sector of the electricity delivery infrastructure, [6], by: making inroads into load relief of the transmission system; increasing the generation in the distribution system; and, enabling new ways of physical and virtual storage to balance consumption and production in order to improve supply reliability. One of the implementation topologies that caters to the SGI is the distributed islanded resource or microgrid [7]. This entity is defined as a self-contained autonomous subset of the area electric power system, operating at the primary distribution voltage or below and with access to micro-sources, distribution system assets, control and protection gears, and at

978-1-4244-8417-1/11/$26.00 2011

II. GA ALGORITHM STRUCTURE A. DG location and network configuration problem The problem of collocating DG sources and networked connections in a given legacy distribution system to improve reliability at a feasible cost does not present the same characteristics as the individual consideration, i.e., DG location in distribution networks or adding networked connections in distribution systems with DGs while improving the desired objective(s). It is observed empirically that by individually handling the optimal location of DG first, and then trying to optimally locate feeder interties second, produces unsatisfactory objective function values than simultaneously collocating the DG units and feeder interties in a radial distribution system. On the one hand, the optimal DG allocation in a given distribution system is in radial feeders with the highest loads and particularly, at buses where the highest loads are connected. On the other hand, the optimal solution of adding networked connections to improve reliability at a feasible cost is the cheapest available connection between a feeder with DG to one that has no embedded generation. However, the optimal location of a DG in a highly loaded feeder is not necessarily the feeder from where adding a connection has the lowest cost. In addition, the feeders with higher loads might be close to each other and further away from low loaded feeders with no DG. If that is the case, adding networked connections from high load feeders with DGs to the feeders with lower loads and no DGs may not be cost effective. GAs work by optimizing a single entity, the fitness function, through the evaluation of potential solutions and allows to address the problem as a whole by representing a candidate solution as a networked topology and DG locations. Furthermore, it deals with a number of possible redesign solutions by moving through the solution space, guided by the ability of certain individuals that have adequate fitness. With enough generations, the GA has been shown to approximate the Pareto front fairly well in power system optimizations [13]. B. Multi-Objective GA (MOGA) The problem of locating DGs and adding networked connections in a given distribution system can be stated as a Multi-Objective (MO) planning problem, where the objective functions which contribute to define a good solution may conflict each other: lower investment cost versus higher reliability. GAs may be a viable solution to strategically perform a global search by means of many local searches. The basis of the GA methods is derived from the mechanisms of evolution and natural genetics [14]. GAs work by building a population of chromosomes, which are a set of possible solutions to the optimization problem. Each of the chromosomes in a generation must be evaluated for the selection process. This is accomplished by looking up the score given by the input fitness function of each gene in the chromosome, adding the scores up, and averaging the score for the chromosome. As part of the evaluation process, the elite chromosome of the generation is determined. Within a generation of a population, the chromosomes are randomly altered by means of

evolutionary operators in hopes of creating new chromosomes that have better evaluation scores. The next generation population of chromosomes is randomly selected from the current generation with selection probability based on the evaluation score of each chromosome. In this paper, chromosomes for the next generation are selected using the roulette wheel selection scheme to implement proportionate random selection [11], [15]. The multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) has been implemented using a Matlab toolbox, which is a group of related functions named Genetic Algorithms for Optimization Toolbox (GAOT) [16]. The basic call of the multi-objective GA function which runs the simulated evolution requires an evaluation function unique to the problem at hand. The fitness function is developed to determine the fitness of the individuals. For that, the constraints are part of the evaluation of the objective fitness function and used to penalize any topology and DG allocation that violated the constraints [11]. C. Objective function and constraints The objectives to minimize are: the cost function f1 and the Energy Not Supplied (ENS) of the given distribution system f2, which is the metric used to evaluate the reliability. Note that improving the reliability is equivalent to minimizing the ENS of a power system. The first objective function related to cost, f1, is defined in (1) as, (1) where CiC and LiC are respectively the cost and length of adding a connection i; CgDG is the capital cost of a DG unit at bus g and PgDG is the corresponding power rating of the unit; Xi and Xg are binary variables indicating whether connection i is made or a DG unit is located at bus g. If the binary variable Xi is true (i.e., equal to 1), then connection i is made; similarly, when the binary variable Xg is true, a DG is located at bus g. Next, the load related metric used here to evaluate the reliability of a power system is the ENS, which quantifies, in kWh, the unserved load over a time period, generally one year, and is shown in (2): (2) where Li is the average load connected at load point i and Ui is the annual outage time at load point i. The annual outage time at every load point of the system is a value that is not a commonly available data in distribution systems. However, the Average System Availability Index (ASAI) is usually provided, which is the time as a fraction of a year for which the system is available for customer service. The ASAI is then used to compute the annual outage time of the whole system by subtracting the ASAI from unity as shown in (3), which represents the time as a fraction of a year for which the system is not available [11]. In order to successfully operate a power system under normally balanced three-phase steady-state conditions, generation must equal the demand in the system at all times and this is met through the slack bus construct represented as a

generator [11]. For a given load and generatio in a distributed on island power system under normal balan nced three-phase steady-state conditions and islanded mode of operation, the power not supplied (PNS) is given by the de emand not met by the generators in the distributed resource isla and. In the case of designing distributed resource islands, th authors have he resorted to modeling the grid-isolation us sing slack buses; wherein, the slack bus output Ps of slack bus s in kW, e represents the PNS of a radial feeder; so, the sum of the slack bus outputs is the PNS of an islanded r radial distribution system with one slack bus per radial feeder [1 11]. As a consequence of the two methods of m modeling the load in the candidate power system explained in section 4.2, there objective function, are two distinct computations of the second o i.e., the ENS. The first method models the an nnual average load as a fixed value of the demand throughou a year. When ut solving the power flow for fixed annual ave erage loads in the system, the slack bus power outputs are the P PNS. Multiplying this value by the 8760 hours of a year yields the ENS in MWh as shown in (4.a). The second method of modeling the load in the system uses a step-load duration curve, which represents the various load levels as a function of time during the period n of a year. In this case, the annual load given by (4.b) is time dependent and a power flow computation is performed for evel L occurs for each load level L in the system. Each load le T hours in the period of one year; so the slack bus power e mber of hours for outputs Ps have to be multiplied by the num which the particular load level, L , occurs i order to obtain in the associated ENS. (3) (4.a) (4.b)

are given in (7) and (8). (7) where Nbranch is the number of bran loading violations and nch bLk is the loading on branch k. The penalties for the voltage e violations are given in (8), where Nbus is the number of bus voltage violations and Vk is the per unit voltage at point k. The u overall penalty is the product of (7) and (8) and is applied to ) the ENS value f2.


In addition, the distribution system designer/planner can r decide to set a maximum cost of for the project f1max ($) and/or a desired value of improved reliabil so that ENS is at most lity f2max (MWh). Again, these constra aints are included in the fitness function to penalize any indiv vidual choice (a networked topology and set of DG locations) violating the constraints. o This is done by multiplying the objective function(s) by a factor of 103 to the one(s) violating the required planning ving such solutions or their design value; thus, effectively remov variants from being considered in the evolving generations. e D. Initial population s Each chromosome or individual is divided into two parts or components. The first part consist on Nc binary numbers ts equaling the total number of possi ible connections; and, the second part represents a bus loca ation to which a DG is connected, equaling Ng binary varia ables. Fig.1 illustrates the partition a candidate solution. xc ) X (binary) xg

where in (4.a) and (4.b) Ns is the number of slack buses in the he system with each Ps power output. In (4.b) th power output of a slack bus depends on the load level L of the system occurring for T hours, and there are N lo oading levels. The main difference between (4.a) and (4.b) is th in the former, hat the loading of the system is assumed to be the same re throughout a year, while in the latter, ther is an assumed resolution in the load level at a given bus fo a period of one or year. The latter requires a power flow evalua ation for each load level. e The mathematical formulation of the multi-objective optimization is to minimize f1 and f2 such t that the following constraints are satisfied, [11]: (5) (6) In order to include these constraints in the MOGA used, the constraints were moved into the evaluation of the objective n function and used to penalize any topology that violated the y constraints. The penalties, taken directly from [11] and explained in [17], modeled similarly to the penalty functions e

Possible Connections 0001001.....Nc

ssible location of DG Pos 010 01000Ng

Fig.1: Chromosome encoding for Nc possible connections to be added and Ng e possible locations of DG.

In the conventional GA, the initial population is generated randomly. Yet, selecting an initial population that integrates dressed can accelerate the characteristics of the problem add convergence to the Pareto front [11 [18]. Particularly based 1], on the knowledge on the proble addressed, an initial em population helping the convergence to the Pareto front can be f selected. It is known that at a feasible cost, the optimal solution is probably not going to add a large number of o connections. In addition, for a co onnection to improve the reliability of the system, DG units should be located in the nection is effected. After feeder from or to where the conn exploring several configurations, Fig.2 illustrates the one me requiring lesser computational tim for the algorithm to


Fig.2: Initial population with Nc possible connecti ions between distinct feeders, each combined with one possible location of a DG unit within the buses in the feeder from which the connection is made.

rresponds to: one An individual of the initial population cor possible connection issuing from a feeder a one DG unit and located at a bus within that same feeder. The initial population ows has the number of possible connections Nc ro and (Nc + Ng) columns, Ng being the number of possible bu locations of DG us units. To limit the total number of possible topologies, it is proposed that new lines must be added between existing he feeders and must not be longer than 3 km. Th total number of possible DG locations is the total number of buses in the r islanded distribution system, except the slack buses. k E. Evaluation by the fitness function ed Finally the algorithm structure is illustrate in Fig.3, which shows a flowchart of the fitness function used to evaluate each d individual or chromosome contained in the initial population and in the evolutionary ones, and gives the reader an s illustrative explanation of the methodology pr roposed [11]. The steps of computing the fitness functio of the MOGA on are the same for both load models, with the exception of the e ones designated with an asterisk in Fig.3. A p power flow is run and bus and branch information is extracted for the system. d Also, the constraints are verified for each loading level in the es system. By virtue of the number of choice in the solution space, this process may have unreasonably hi computational igh times. Hence, an acceleration technique, such as one based on h machine learning, is required for convergi ing to the Paerto front in a reasonable computational time horiz zon.

Fig.3: Flowchart of the fitness function pro oposed to evaluate the objective functions of the candidate solutions while satisfying the system and design s constraints [11].

The GA presented thus far requires the following s evaluations for each input: (a) if it satisfies a the constraints all in the problem, and (b) the values of the objec ctive functions.

In the setup of the problem presented here, evaluating (a) and (b) requires running a full-fledg power flow simulation ged for each input. In fact, the need to ru power-flow simulations un on each input is one of the larg bottlenecks that may ger threaten applicability, in practice. However, for a significant fraction of the inputs tested, it is n possible that the input from that frac ction is either infeasible or the values for the objective function are sub-optimal. It is in ns that regard that a filter based on ma achine learning techniques is proposed with the intent to ident features of inputs that tify will lead to infeasibility or sub-optim objective values. mal As a result, the said filter will pre edict for a given input if it is potentially infeasible or potentia suboptimal. Based on ally the output of the filter, it may be possible to choose a set of p inputs for exclusion from runni ing any computationally expensive simulations; this may be achieved by artificially ue introducing an extreme default valu that will cause the GA solver to reject the input. Fig.4 illust trates the basic schema. The overall algorithm for the ma achine learning consists of following three phases: s 1. Training phase: The goal of this phase is to collect data on various inputs provided to our evaluation function by the s GA solver, and the outcomes in terms of constraints violated (if any), and the objecti values. ive 2. Applying machine learning: In this study, machine ique based on logistic learning classification techni regression for predicting whe ether a given input can potentially be suboptimal or infe easible is applied. 3. Filtering phase: The filter appl the resulting classifier lies to decide if the input should be simulated. s

small amounts of time. Furthermor the classification of a re, given input can be performed compu utationally inexpensively. B. Penalizing Training Errors o In general, there are two types of classification errors to consider: o A. An input that is potentially optimal is labeled by the classifier as uninteresting. boptimal is labeled by the B. An input that is potentially sub classifier as interesting. p Clearly, errors of type (A) are potentially harmful to the optimization algorithm since an input that is potentially . optimal can be ruled out artificially. On the other hand, errors of type (B) are perhaps less harmful to the solution, since they ould have otherwise been result in a simulation run that co avoided. However, too many errors of type (B) can render the s machine-learning tool ineffective as a filter since the number of simulations avoided will be minim mal. The training of the classifier can be controlled by providing b penalty factors. Penalty factors bias the classifier towards b models that avoid type (A) errors at the cost of more type (B) t errors. The basis of the penalty fac ctors is as follows: during the training phase, we penalize error of type (A) with a higher rs penalty for error than errors of ty (B). For instance, a ype penalty factor of 3 implies that a sing type (A) error could be gle counted as equivalent to three type (B) errors. By adjusting e penalty factors for the two types of errors, it is possible to o adjust the accuracy relative to type (A and type (B) errors. A)

Fig.4: Filtering suboptimal inputs by training a classifie to predict if a given er input is acceptable or potentially suboptimal. The region shaded in red shows the suboptimal inputs whose objective are clearly suboptimal, whereas y the regions shaded in green are acceptable inputs whos objective values are se close to optimal. The goal of the classifier is to predict if an input belongs to the green potentially optimal region or the red suboptima region. al

In practice, the phases can be iterated by tracking the g performance of the learner during the filtering phase. The idea of filtering inputs using machine learning wa inspired by the as statistical blockade technique for simulatin analog circuits ng [19]. However, to our knowledge, applying a filtering scheme to optimization (particularly multi-ob bjective genetic algorithms) is novel. A. Description of the Machine Learning A Algorithm The description of the machine learning tech hnique used in our implementation follows. There are two key requirements for d the machine learning technique, as applied to the problem presented in this paper: n 1. The classifier training and classification techniques must be fast enough to justify their use. hould be sufficient 2. The accuracy of the learned classifier sh so that inputs that are potentially optimal are not classified as suboptimal. e The approach in this paper uses the random forest classification technique as the basis for tr raining classifiers [20]. Random forests are a class of en nsemble learning techniques that can aggregate the results of different learning model for a given models into a potentially more accurate m problem [21]. y The random forest classifier is formed by an ensemble (a group) of decision trees. Each decision tree forms a partition efines a region of of the input space, wherein, each branch de the input space. The leaves of the tree a in turn other are classifiers such as Support Vector Machines (SVM) [22, 23]. s The classification of a single input is pe erformed by first classifying it using each decision tree in the forest. Subsequently, a majority vote is taken over the classification provided by all the trees in the forest to deci upon the final ide result. o Random forests are widely believed to be an accurate algorithm for a variety of applications i computational in biology, image processing and robotics. They can be a implemented efficiently to run on large data sets in relatively

Fig.5: Change in type (A) and type (B) error rates as penalty factor is varied. r X-axis shows the penalty factor and y-axis sh hows the error rates (%) for type (A) errors, type (B) error and overall accuracy y.

o Fig. 5 shows the overall error rate observed on data collected from 10,000 runs of the RBTS test system (described in t Section IV). As is common in mac chine learning techniques, roughly half the given data are ch hosen randomly to form a training set and the other half as the test set. The training set is used to train the classifier and the data from test set is used to

evaluate. Figure 5 shows the data from the test set (not tself yields much unexpectedly, the data from training set it lower error rates). We note that a penalty fa actor of 1 yields a 10% type (A) error rate and a 40% type (B) error rate. e However, when the penalty factor is incr reased to 10 and beyond, the there are no more type (A) err rors whereas type (B) error rate increases to nearly 80%. In th paper, the data his from test set used has a penalty factor of 1, i.e., the penalty timal solutions as does not play a role. Misclassifying subopt optimal and vice versa is equal.

ws increasing power levels, and so show the percent of time that demand equals or exceeds a given po ower level L , in p.u., over a year (note that T =8760 h). The demand at every load T point i is given by (10), where Li PLmax is the highest peak demand, in kW or MW, at load po i, and L ( T ) is the oint demand or loading of the system, in kWh or MWh, occurring n for T number of hours. (10) The procedure for computing th fitness function of the he MOGA is the same for both load models, with the exceptions m designed with an asterisk in Fig.1 which correspond to those w that have to be computed for each loading level in the system.


The optimization proposed above is applied to a distribution t circuit that is part of the Roy Billinton Test System (RBTS) [24], extended to the distribution-level in [25] ]. A. Description of RBTS us The 11 kV distribution circuits of the Bu 3 in RBTS are chosen as the candidate system for the purpose of testing the tribution circuits methodology proposed. The 11 kV dist comprise 30 MW peak load of the 85 MW peak load of Bus 3 because two 138 kV feeders were neglected. The total number of possible connections with lengths less than 3 km are ered buses 1-33 in Nc=164 on just the main feeder (buses numbe Fig.4), of which Ng=27 buses, excluding six slack buses are x possible DG unit locations. The RBTS system shown in Fig.4 m has normally open tie-switches between buse 1-7, 11-17, and es 23-29 [11]. The topographical information as well as the n sizing of the elements (lines and transforme of the RBTS ers) Bus 3 is taken directly from [11]. In lig of the space ght constraints for this paper, the authors dire the interested ect reader to [24] and [25] for detailed descriptions and illustrations of the RBTS test system. e Under emergency conditions, 20% of the total load of the Bus 3 distribution system is expected to be available for by curtailment [25] and it is taken into account b multiplying the power not supplied by 0.80 [11]. B. Modeling the demand The electric power distribution topology redesign problem the presented in this paper is meant to improve t reliability of a given radial system, measured/quantified a annually. For that purpose, the annual loads can be represented in two modes. king the values of First, the annual load is represented by tak the annual average load at every load poin throughout the nt system as shown in (9). This representation assumes a fixed n average value Li ALoad for every load point i and hour t of a year. (9) demand includes a In the second mode of representation, the d time dependency of the load. The time dep pendencies of the load are incorporated by finding the hourly peak demands of hem into a load the system over a year and converting th duration step-curve [26], [27]. This is shown in Fig.6, where n the hourly peak load, in p.u., is represented on the y-axis and ted the number of hours per annum is represent on the x-axis. The number of steps of the peak loads determines the s resolution of the hourly component load ding profiles. In summary, the load duration step-curve reorders demand by

Fig.6: Step load duration curve for Bus 3 in the RBTS distribution system i computed from data published in [24].

C. Modeling Distributed Resources ng DER is modeled by representin the output power as a function of the capacity factor (C [11]. The distribution CF) system design parameters are shown in Table I. Based on the n generation mix identified by an in ndustry survey seeking a definition of a smart distribution sy ystem, [11], [28], the total system DER power output is given by b Pout = RE + DS + CD DG (15) where RE, DS, and CDG correspond to the contributions from d RE resources, distributed storage and conventional DG e, sources and are calculated using (16) )-(18). RE = RRE * CFRE DS = (1-CFRE) * 0.15 * Lg (16) (17)

(18) CDG = RCDG * CFCD DG where, the R represents the total rat ting of the source listed in the subscript: RE for RE resources and CDG for conventional a (or, non-renewable) DG sources. CF indicates the capacity C factor of the subscripted source. Lg represents the sum of the ere average installed loads at bus g, whe the RE resource backed by storage is installed. Independen of the method used to nt model the load in the system the DG units are sized in e proportion to the annual average ins stalled load. Equation (16) corresponds to the RE resource generation, while (17) sources that are supported describes the contribution of RE res by DS, whose output is 15% of the to annual average load at otal the installation point based on sur rvey responses [28]. The rating of the CDG resource is given by RCDG=R-RRE , which is he the rating of the RE resources in th system subtracted from the total DG rating of the system. The total DG rating is 80% T of the total average annual system load, as determined by the l survey responses described in [28]. In this paper, the Pout is .

aggregated to known points throughout the test system and it is not dependent on the method used to model the load in the system for calculating the ENS.
TABLE I: DESIGN PARAMETERS OF THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. DESIGN CF: wind, solar, conventional DG Total DG penetration RE penetration PARAMETERS 0.25, 0.3, 0.8 80% Total Average Annual Load 20% Total DG penetration

TABLE III: RESULTS OF THE MOGA WITHOUT FILTERING TECHNQIUE, MODELING A TIME-DEPENDENT LOAD IN THE SYSTEM. Solution MOGA: Time-dependent Load Sol. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Connections: from-to 11-17 11-17;23-29 11-17;23-29 11-17;23-29 1-7;11-17;23-29 1-7;8-14;11-17;23-29 DG location (Bus No.) 15 14;25 2;15;25 13;29 2;11;25 2;11;25 Cost (106x $) 17.97 18.03 18.18 18.20 18.32 18.52 ENS (MWh) 28.43 19.83 19.62 19.60 18.37 18.20

D. Observations First, the MOGA algorithm is applied to candidate Bus 3 in the RBTS without the filtering technique presented in Section III. The MOGA is run for 50 generations obtaining satisfying redesign configurations. When the MOGA is run for less than 50 generations, it is observed that the Pareto-optimal solutioni.e., the cheapest networked connections to add between radial feeders with DG- is not always obtained. The algorithm was run with the load modeled using the average load in the system using (9) and the ENS calculated as in (4.a.). The most relevant results are shown in Table II. The reader can observe that the solutions No. 1 through 5 identified by the algorithm vis--vis the networked connections to add in the system correspond to the normally open-tie switches at zero cost. Also in this set of solutions, DG units are located in distinct feeders that cannot be connected by closing a normally open-tie switch.
TABLE II: RESULTS OF THE MOGA WITHOUT FILTERING TECHNIQUE, MODELING THE LOAD AS THE ANNUAL AVERAGE LOAD IN THE SYSTEM. Solution MOGA: Average Load Sol. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Connections: from-to 11-17 1-7;11-17 1-7;11-17;23-29 11-17; 23-29 1-7;11-17;23-29 1-7;9-15;21-27;23-29 DG location (Bus No.) 15 4;15 4;15;25 13;29 7;13;23 11;13;23 Cost (106x $) 17.97 18.06 18.12 18.20 18.47 18.95 ENS (MWh) 31.4 21.96 21.88 21.62 21.36 21.31

The computation time for the MOGA for the second case is doubled, based on the fact that modeling a time dependent load over a year requires running a power flow simulation and extracting the necessary information for every load level modeled in the system in order to evaluate the objective function as in (4.b) and the constraints. The choice of the type of load modeled may be influenced by the comparison of accuracy versus the computational time for obtaining the Pareto front. In this paper, a preference of one type of modeling the load over the other is not made. Secondly, the MOGA is applied to Bus 3 RBTS system with filtering technique proposed in Section III and average loads in the system. The classifier used in this simulation has a penalty factor of 1. The algorithm is run for 50 generations to compare the solution space and computational times of the MOGA with and without filtering technique. The Pareto front obtained with and without the classifier is shown in Fig. 7 and results of the MOGA with the filtering technique are presented in Table IV.

It is pertinent to note that locating DG at buses where the higher rated loads are connected increases the reliability of the system; however, this may occur at a higher cost to the project. Solution No. 6 corresponds to: closing open-tie switches connecting feeders 1-2 and 5-6; adding feeder interties between feeders 2-3 and 4-5; and adding DG units in feeders 2 and 4 located at high loaded buses. This solution increases the reliability to an annual ENS of 21.31 MWh. Table III shows the results of using the load modeled with a step-load duration method as in (10) and the ENS given by (4.b) in the same study. The solutions proposed are similar to those in Table II and previously discussed with the exception of the evaluation of the second objective function corresponding to the reliability index Energy Not Served (ENS) which is lower than in Table II. It is observed that modeling the demand in the system with annual average loads may potentially overestimate the ENS with respect to the value using a step-load duration curve representation. This is not an issue for the redesign when the more accurate value is actually lower.

Fig.7: Pareto front of the MOGA with filtering technique (data 1) and without filtering technique (data 2).

The difference in computational time between the applications of the MOGA for the topological redesign problem in RBTS, using the average load model, with filtering and without filtering is significant. On a dedicated Intel Core 2 CPU 4300 1.8 GHz machine, the 50 generations of MOGA with filtering takes approximately 138 minutes, versus the MOGA without filtering which runs for 444 minutes.

8 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), "Draft Guide for Design, Operation, and Integration of Distributed Resource Island Systems with Electric Power Systems,," in IEEE Draft Standard 1547.4,, 2008. [10] H. Brown, D.A Haughton, G.T Heydt, S. Suryanarayanan, "Some elements of design and operation of a smart distribution system," Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, 2010 IEEE PES , vol., no., pp.1-8, 19-22 April 2010. [11] H. E. Brown, "Implications of the Smart Grid Initiative on Distribution System engineering: Improving Reliability on Islanded Distribution Systems with Distributed Generation Sources," M.S. , Division of Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden. CO, May 2010. [12] C. A. C. Coello, et al., Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multiobjective Problems, 2nd ed. New York: Springer, 2007. [13] V. Miranda, D. Srinivasan, L.M. Proenca, Evolutionary computation in power systems, Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 20, n.2, pp. 8998, Feb. 1998. [14] C.R Houck, J.A Joines and M.G Kay, A genetic algorithm for function optimization: a Matlab implementation, NSCU-IE Technical Report 95-09, North Carolina State Univerisity, 1995. [15] M. Srinivas and Lalit M. Patnaik. Genetic algorithms: A survey. IEEE Computer, 27(6):1726, June 1994. [16] (2009, January 18). Matlab - The Language of Technical Computing. [Online.]Available: [17] V. Calderaro, A. Piccolo, and P. Siano, "Maximizing DG penetration in distribution networks by means of GA based reconfiguration," presented at International Conference on Future Power Systems, 2005, Amsterdam, Netherlands. [18] M. A. N. Guimaraes, C. A. Castro, and R. Romero, "Reconfiguration of distribution systems by a modified genetic algorithm," presented at IEEE Power Tech, 2007, Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 401-406. [19] A. Singhee and R. A. Rutenbar, Statistical Blockade: a novel method for very fast Monte Carlo simulation of rare circuit events, and its application, Design, Automation and Test in Europe: The Most Influential Papers of 10 Years, Springer, 2006. [20] L. Breiman, Random Forests, in Machine Learning, vol.45, n.1, pp. 5-32, 2001. [21] T. Mitchell, Machine Learning, McGraw Hill Publishers, 1997. [22] V. Vapnik, The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory, SpringerVerlag Publishers, 1995. [23] N. Christiani, Tutorial on Support Vector Machines, Presented at Intl. Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2001. [Online.] Available: [24] R. Billinton, et al., "A Reliability Test System for Educational Purposes - Basic Data," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 4, pp. 1238-1244, August 1989. [25] R. Billinton and S. Jonnavithula, "A test system for teaching overall power system reliability assessment," IEEE Trans. on Power Syst., vol. 11, pp. 1670-1676, Nov. 1996. [26] C. Farmer, P. Hines, J. Dowds and S. Blumsack, Modeling the Impact of Increasing PHEV Loads on the Distribution Infrastructure, in System Sciences (HICSS), 43rd Hawaii International Conference, January 2010. [27] S.W. Hadley, A. Tsvetkova, Potential Impacts of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles on Regional Power Generation, ORNL/TM2007/150, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2008. [28] H. E. Brown, S. Suryanarayanan, G. T. Heydt, Some characteristics of emerging distribution systems under the Smart Grid Initiative, Elsevier The Electricity Journal, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 64-75, Jun 2010. [9]

TABLE IV: RESULTS OF THE MOGA WITH FILTERING TECHNIQUE, MODELING ANNUAL AVERAGE LOAD IN THE SYSTEM. Solution MOGA: Average Load Sol. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Connections: from-to 11-17 11-17 11-17 5-9; 11-17 5-9;11-17;15-26 7-18;11-17;17-23 DG location (Bus No.) 15 4;15 4;15;25 9;13 5;13;20 11;13;17 Cost (106x $) 17.97 18.06 18.12 18.50 18.98 19.07 ENS (MWh) 31.4 26.69 23.35 21.64 21.61 21.38

The solutions in the Pareto front of the MOGA with filtering technique are not as optimized as the ones without the filtering technique. Solutions No. 1-3 in Table IV have the same cost of redesign but higher values of ENS when compared to Solutions No. 1-3 in Table II. Solutions No. 4-6 in Table IV have similar values of ENS than the same solution number in Table II but at a higher cost. V. CONCLUSIONS A Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm is used as a distribution planning tool to collocate DG and add networked connections between radial feeders, in which two methods of modeling the load in the system are explored. The choice of the load modeling method leads to similar and satisfactory design solutions but introduces significant differences in the computational time required. Consequently, an accelerator based on a machine-learning filter is explored to alleviate the burden of extended computation times. Initial studies point to the usefulness of such an approach; however, to obtain the Pareto-front with greater confidence, the optimum value of the penalty factor for handling the type (A) and type (B) errors in the filter is deemed imperative. The authors conclude that a preliminary setup for this type of study is explored in this paper and more studies need to be conducted to warrant confidence in the use of such an accelerator. REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] 110th Congress of the United States, "Title XIII (Smart Grid)," in Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Washington, DC: Dec. 2007, pp. 292 - 303. US Department of Energy, "The Smart Grid: An Introduction," September 2008. "GREEN PAPER: A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy." Comission of the European Communities (COTEC), Brussels (Belgium), Aug. 2006. Vision and Strategy for Europes Electricity Networks of the Future, European Commission, 2006. S. Suryanarayanan and E. Kyriakides, "Cyber-enabled smart electric distribution systems," presented at NSF NIST NITRD NSA Joint National Workshop on New Research Directions for Future CyberPhysical Energy Systems, Baltimore, MD, 2009. R. E. Brown, "Impact of smart grid on distribution system design," presented at IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, 2008. M. Smith. (September 2009). Overview of the U.S. Department of Energys Research & Development Activities on Microgrid Technologies. Available: S. Suryanarayanan, et al., "Achieving the Smart Grid through customer-driven microgrids supported by energy storage," in IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, Via del Mar, Chile, 2010.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was funded in part by the Power Systems Engineering Research Center (PSERC) grant T-41, and by the Innovative research grant by the Joint Institute of Strategic Energy Analysis (JISEA), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

[6] [7] [8]