10

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 28, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013

Optimal Conductor Size Selection

and Reconductoring in Radial Distribution
Systems Using a Mixed-Integer LP Approach
John F. Franco, Student Member, IEEE, Marcos J. Rider, Member, IEEE, Marina Lavorato, Member, IEEE, and
Rubn Romero, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractThis paper presents a mixed-integer linear programming model to solve the conductor size selection and reconductoring problem in radial distribution systems. In the proposed
model, the steady-state operation of the radial distribution system
is modeled through linear expressions. The use of a mixed-integer
linear model guarantees convergence to optimality using existing
optimization software. The proposed model and a heuristic are
used to obtain the Pareto front of the conductor size selection
and reconductoring problem considering two different objective
functions. The results of one test system and two real distribution
systems are presented in order to show the accuracy as well as the
efficiency of the proposed solution technique.

Maximum apparent power limit of substation at

node .
Nominal voltage magnitude.
Maximum current magnitude of
type.
Real power demand at node .
Reactive power demand at node .
Existent conductor type of branch
no conductor is in branch .

Index TermsDistribution system optimization, mixed-integer

linear programming, optimal conductor size selection.

NOTATION
The notation used throughout this paper is reproduced below
for quick reference.
Sets:

. If

Resistance of

conductor type per kilometer.

Reactance of

conductor type per kilometer.

Impedance of

conductor type per kilometer.

Number of blocks of the piecewise linearization.

Parameter used in the calculation of the current
flow magnitude of the circuits.

Sets of nodes.

Slope of the
block of deviation voltage
magnitude at node .

Sets of substation nodes.

Upper bound of the deviation voltage magnitude

blocks at node .

Sets of branches.
Sets of conductor type.

Slope of the
block of current flow magnitude
of conductor type.

Sets of load levels.

Constants:

Upper bound of the current flow magnitude

blocks of conductor type.

Reconductoring cost from conductor type to

conductor type
.
Peak power losses cost

Number of hours in a year for load level .

Variables:

Minimum voltage magnitude.

Circuit that can be added on branch

conductor type.

Maximum voltage magnitude.

Circuit length of branch

conductor

in kilometers.

Manuscript received February 10, 2011; revised April 27, 2011, July 11, 2011,
September 07, 2011, and November 28, 2011; accepted May 18, 2012. Date
of publication June 20, 2012; date of current version January 17, 2013. This
work was supported by the Brazilian institutions CNPq grant 306760/2010-0,
FAPESP and FEPISA. Paper no. TPWRS-00112-2011.
The authors are with the Faculdade de Engenharia de Ilha Solteira,
UNESPUniversidade Estadual Paulista, Departamento de Engenharia
Eltrica, Ilha SolteiraSP, Brazil (e-mail: johnfranco@dee.feis.unesp.br;
mjrider@dee.feis.unesp.br; marina@dee.feis.unesp.br; ruben@dee.feis.unesp.
br).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2012.2201263

of

Real power flow that leaves node toward node

of conductor type.
Reactive power flow that leaves node toward
node of conductor type.
Real power provided by substation at node .
Reactive power provided by substation at node .
Voltage magnitude at node .
Square of

0885-8950/$31.00 2012 IEEE

FRANCO et al.: OPTIMAL CONDUCTOR SIZE SELECTION AND RECONDUCTORING

Current flow magnitude that leaves node toward

node of conductor type.
Main component of

Secondary component of
Square of

Square of

Square of

Value of the
block of deviation voltage
magnitude at node .
Value of the

block of

Value of the

block of

I. INTRODUCTION

HE main objective of an electrical distribution system

(EDS) is to provide a reliable and cost-effective service
to consumers while ensuring that power quality is within standard ranges. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to properly
plan the EDS and thus evaluate several aspects: new equipment
installation cost, equipment utilization rate, quality of service,
reliability of the distribution system and loss minimization, considering an increase of system loads and newly installed loads
for the planning horizon [1].
In EDS planning, the conductor size selection (CSS) problem
works to select the conductor size (from an available set) in each
branch of the EDS, which minimizes the investment cost and the
energy losses subject to feasible operation constraints. Several
parameters are taken into account to model the CSS problem:
conductors economic life, discount rate, cable and installation
costs and type of circuit (overhead or underground) [2]. The reconductoring problem is considered part of the EDS planning
problem and functions to change the existing circuit conductors
to others conductor types. The main reasons to use the reconductoring problem are: 1) when there are excessive power losses in
the existing system, 2) when the maximum current capacity of
existing circuits is violated or 3) when the voltage magnitudes
in the EDS are lower than its minimum limit [3].
In the specialized literature the CSS problem is commonly
modeled as a mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP)
problem, and various approaches have been used to solve it.
Reference [4] is one of the first works to formulate the CSS
problem. The study presents models to represent feeder cost,
energy loss and voltage regulation as a function of a conductor
cross-section. The dynamic programming approach was then
used to solve the CSS problem. In [5], financial and engineering
criteria to choose the conductor size in a feeder were proposed;
the study found that a conductor is most economical when both
capital and operating costs are considered in the CSS problem.
A heuristic method to solve the CSS problem is presented
in [6]; this method uses a selection phase by means of economic criteria, followed by a technical selection using a sensitivity index that seeks to ensure a feasible operation of the EDS.
The heuristic methods are robust, easily applied and normally
converge to a local optimum solution. In [7] the CSS problem
is solved using systematic enumeration through logical rules.
In [8] and [9] the optimal CSS and capacitor placement are

11

solved using two different approaches. Reference [8] presents

a heuristic method using a novel sensitivity index for the reactive power injections, whereas [9] uses a genetic algorithm.
Several studies have used evolutive techniques to solve the
CSS problem [10][12]. Although these techniques are easy and
simple methods that provide good results, they present various
problems such as high processing demand and their incapacity
to guarantee the optimum solution. In [13] and [14], the reconductoring problem of the existent circuits was modeled in
the EDS planning problem, considering also the conductor size
selection for the new circuits. This problem is modeled as a
MINLP problem and can be solved using a genetic algorithm
[13] or dynamic programming [14]. Therefore, the previously
mentioned techniques, as well as the use of solvers that directly
solve the MINLP problem also represent alternatives to solving
the CSS problem.
Some of the methods mentioned above use linear approximations in the calculation of power losses or voltage regulation.
Another approximation is to assume that the loads are modeled
as constant current [4] or apparent power [15]. If the linear approximations are not used, the mathematical model for the conductor size selection and reconductoring (CSSR) problem becomes nonlinear, complicating its solution. Therefore heuristic
methods and meta-heuristics are commonly used [6], [10][12].
The present study proposes a mixed integer linear model for
the problem of conductor selection size and reconductoring of
primary feeders in radial distribution systems. Linearizations
were made to adequately represent the steady-state operation
of an EDS considering the behavior of the constant power type
load. The proposed model was tested in systems of 50, 200, and
600 nodes. In order to validate the approximations performed,
the steady-state operation point was compared to that obtained
using the load flow sweep method. In contrast with other works
that use mixed integer linear models, the proposed model represents the constant power type load with added precision.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows:
1) A novel model for the steady-state operation of a radial
distribution system through the use of linear expressions.
2) A mixed integer linear programming (MILP) model for the
conductor size selection and reconductoring problem that
presents an efficient computational behavior with conventional MILP solvers.
3) A heuristic to obtain the Pareto front of the CSSR problem
considering two different objective functions (power
losses and investment costs).
II. OPTIMAL CONDUCTOR SIZE SELECTION
AND RECONDUCTORING PROBLEM
The conductor size selection problem involves determining
the optimal conductor configuration for a radial distribution
system, using a set of types of conductors. Each type of
conductor has the following characteristics: 1) resistance per
length, 2) reactance per length, 3) maximum current capacity
and 4) building cost per length. The reconductoring of existing
circuits is determined by the investment cost
, where the
investment cost depends on the initial conductor type
and
. Table I shows an example of
the final conductor type
for four types of conductor. If
(case without existing
circuit), then
represents the building cost of a new circuit
is big number greater than the other
for conductor type .

12

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 28, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013

TABLE I
RECONDUCTORING COST FROM
TYPE TO CONDUCTOR TYPE

Identifying the real and imaginary parts (4), we get

CONDUCTOR

(5)
(6)
Summing the squares of (5) and (6), we get
(7)
where the current flow magnitude

is shown in (8):
(8)

Fig. 1. Illustrative example.

costs and is used to indicate that the reconductoring is not

attractive because involves a conductor of less capacity.
A. Assumptions
In order to represent the steady-state operation of an EDS, the
following assumptions are made:
1) The load is represented as constant real and reactive power.
2) The flows of real power, reactive power and current on
branch are in the same direction, leaving node toward
node .
3) The real and reactive power losses on branch are concentrated in destination node .
and
The three considerations are shown in Fig. 1, where
are the phasors of the voltage at node and the current flow
on branch , respectively.
and
are the real and reactive power flow that leaves node toward node , respectively.
,
, and
are the resistance, reactance, and impedance
of branch , respectively.
and
are the real and
reactive power losses of branch , respectively.

In (7) the angular difference between voltages is eliminated; it

is possible to obtain the voltage magnitude of the final node
in terms of the voltage magnitude of the initial node
, the
real power flow
, the reactive power flow
, the current
and the electrical parameters of branch . The
magnitude
conventional equations of load balance are shown in (9) and
(10); see Fig. 1. Equations (7)(10) represent the steady-state
operation and are frequently used in the load flow sweep method
[16], [17] and optimal load flow [18] of a radial distribution
system:

(9)

(10)

C. MINLP Model of the CSSR Problem

The CSSR problem can be modeled like a mixed integer nonlinear programming problem as follows:

B. Steady-State Operation of a Radial Distribution System

In Fig. 1, the voltage drop in a circuit

is defined by (1):
(1)

where

can be calculated using (2):

(2)

Equation (2) is then replaced in (1) to obtain (3):

(3)
Considering that
,
and
,
where is the phase angle at node , (3) can be written as shown
in (4):

(4)

(11)

FRANCO et al.: OPTIMAL CONDUCTOR SIZE SELECTION AND RECONDUCTORING

The objective function (11a) is the total investment and operation cost based on [13]. The first part represents the investment cost (construction/reconductoring of circuits); the second
part represents the cost of power losses in the planning horizon,
where is a factor to calculate the cost of the peak power losses;
it is a function of the energy cost, loss factor, interest rate, planning horizon and load growth ratio as shown in [4]. Equations
(11b)(11e) represent the steady-state operation and are a natural extension of (7)(10) considering different conductor types.
For the CSSR problem, the
and
values are the demands
at the moment of maximum loading of the feeder, which is the
worst case to evaluate the minimum voltage magnitude, maximum power losses and maximum current magnitude. The limit
of the flows of current in branch of conductor type is represented by (11f). Equation (11g) represents the constraints of
the voltage magnitude of the nodes, while (11h) represents the
maximum capacity of apparent power at substation . Equation
(11i) stipulates no superposition in the conductor type, so it is
possible to install only one conductor type per circuit.
Equation (11j) represents the binary nature of conductor type
that can be selected in branch . A conductor type is selected if the
corresponding value is equal to one and is not selected if it is equal
are the decision
to zero. The binary investment variables
variables (control variables), and a feasible operation solution for
the distribution system depends on their value. The remaining
variables represent the operating state of a feasible solution. For
a feasible investment proposal, defined through specified values
of
, several feasible operation states are possible.
Given that , and are positive values, the objective function (11a) is a convex quadratic function. Constraints (11g)(11i)
are linear, and constraints (11b)(11f) contain square terms. With
the aim of using a commercial solver, it is desirable to obtain a
linear equivalent for constraints (11.b)(11.f).
D. Linearization
Note that the quadratic terms
and
appears in
(11a)(11f). The objective of this subsection is to find linear
expressions for both terms using a piecewise linear modeling.
1) Square of the Voltage Magnitude: From (11g), the voltage
magnitude has a minimum value of and a maximum value
of . Let
be the variable that represents the square voltage
magnitude, as shown in (12):

13

Fig. 2. Modeling the piecewise linear

function.

Note that (13) is a set of linear expressions and

and
are constant parameters. Constraints (13a) are the linear approximations of square voltage magnitude at node . Constraints
(13b) state that the voltage magnitude at node is equal to the
minimum voltage magnitude plus the sum of the values in each
block of the discretization. Constraints (13c) set the upper and
lower limits of the contribution of each block of the difference
between the voltage magnitude and the minimum voltage magnitude at node .
2) Square of the Current Flow Magnitude: Note that the division of two operation variables appears in (11e). Therefore, this
equation cannot be used to linearize
. An alternative form
to calculate the square of the current flow magnitude is shown
in (14) based on (1):

(14)
Equation (14) can be separated into two terms as shown in
(15):

(12)
where
has a minimum value of 0 and a maximum
value of
. From (12), the quadratic term
is linearized
as described in [19] and shown in Fig. 2. Thus, the square of
voltage magnitude
is defined in (13):

where

(13)

(15)
In a radial distribution system it is possible to assume that the
angular difference
is small; thus, the second term (15) is negligible and is normally eliminated: see [4], [6], [20], and [21].
Therefore, the current flow magnitude would depend only on the
first term. However, it is possible to estimate the second term of
(15) considering an approximation of
using
and (6) for different types of conductors:

14

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 28, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013

The previous approximation for cosine function is used in

(15) to obtain (16):

(16)
Let
be the variable that represents the square current flow
magnitude in branch of conductor type, then (16) can be
substituted with (17)(19). The above separation can be done
because (11f) and (11i) guarantee that only one conductor type
is selected:
(17)
where

As in (13), note that (21) is a set of linear expressions and

and
are constant parameters. Constraint (21a) replace
constraint (17) and is the linear approximation of square current
flow magnitude on branch
of conductor type.
and
as
are non-negative auxiliary variables to obtain
is shown in (21b). Constraints (21c) and (21d) are the linear
approximations of
and
, respectively. Constraints
and
are equal to the sum
(21e) and (21f) state that
of the values in each block of the discretization, respectively.
Constraints (21g) and (21h) set the upper and lower limits of the
and
, respectively.
contribution of each block of
E. MILP Model for the CSSR Problem
The CSSR problem could be modeled like a mixed integer
linear programming problem, as follows:

(18)
(19)
has two components and, from the assumptions
Note that
shown in Section II-A,
is always positive and represents
the main component in the calculation of
. However,
can be positive or negative and has as its objective improving
the precision of the calculation of
. As the voltage magnitudes of the nodes of the EDS are limited, it is possible to obtain
a linear expression for (19), approximating
by a constant
parameter
for all circuits, as shown in (20). The term
is
calculated before solving the CSSR problem, using the solution
of a load flow problem, as shown in Section III. This consideration causes an error in the calculation of
, but, as will be
shown in Section IV, it is negligible:
(20)
In the same way, for the square of voltage magnitude shown
and the square of
in Section II-D1, the square of
from (17) are linearized as shown in (21):

where

(21)

(22)
where (22a), (22b), (22c), (22d) and (22e) replace (11a), (11b),
(11c), (11d) and (11f), respectively. The limits of the flows of
real and reactive power in branch
of conductor type are
represented by (22f) and (22g), respectively, and are auxiliary
constraints used to make feasible the MILP model of the CSSR
problem. In the MINLP model (see Section II-C) if
( conductor type on branch is not selected), then the respective flows of current, real power and reactive power are equal
to zero. In the MILP model these conditions are guaranteed by
(18), (20)(21) and (22e)(22g), where
is the
maximum apparent power limit of conductor type and provides a sufficient degree of freedom to the flows of real and reactive power in branch of conductor type when
.
Note that (22) is a piecewise linear model and the number of operation variables has increased with the linearization, while the
number of investment variables does not change and, as will be
illustrated later in Section IV, this kind of optimization problem
can be solved with the help of standard commercial solvers, as
has been done in other work in this area (see [20] and [21]).
Note that (13), (18), (20)(21) and (22b)(22d) represent the
steady-state operation of the radial distribution system and are
linear expressions. Considering the assumptions in Section II-A,
these expressions can be used to analyze a EDS with distributed
generators or to model other optimization problems of the radial
distribution systems through the use of linear expressions and
solve it using classical optimization techniques.

FRANCO et al.: OPTIMAL CONDUCTOR SIZE SELECTION AND RECONDUCTORING

TABLE II
COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY

15

the operational variables of the proposed model and for the active and reactive power demand:

(23)

III. METHODOLOGY OF THE SOLUTION

F. Comments on the Use of MINLP and MILP Models

The MINLP model for the CSSR problem can be solved by
using heuristic methods, meta-heuristics, or solvers that directly
solve a MINLP problem. However, these techniques cannot
guarantee the optimal solution. On the other hand, if accurate
linear approximation of the quadratic terms
and
in
the MINLP model is used, a recast of the MINLP model into
a mixed-integer linear model is obtained. This MILP model
guarantees convergence to optimality while using existing
optimization software.
Table II summarizes the computational complexity for the
CSSR problem using both models. The following observations
can be made:
The number of binary variables for both models is the
same,
; which means that, for both models, the
search space is
solutions.
The number of variables of the MINLP model is proportional to the number of branches
and the number of
conductor types . In addition to that, the number of variables of the MILP model is also proportional to the number
of blocks of the piecewise linearization, . As
and
, the size of both models is essentially dependent on the size of the system.
Note that the magnitude order of the constraints for both
models is
; it is not dependent on .
Taking into account the above comments, we can conclude that
the linearization does not contribute to increasing the search
space or to the complexity order of the constraints of the CSSR
problem. If the size of the system increases, then the processing
time to achieve convergence may increase prohibitively. This
is a common drawback of using exact techniques to solve
MILP and MINLP problems. However, the results presented in
Section IV show that the computational time do not increase
exponentially with the system dimensions and that the methodology can be used to solve real systems.
G. Modeling Load Levels for the CSSR Problem
The CSSR problem usually has as an objective function the
minimization of the cost of peak power losses. However, due
of the varying yearly loss patterns, it is advisable the minimization of the energy losses cost considering the time variation of
the loads. The proposed model for the CSSR problem can be
extended in order to represent several load levels taking as objective function the minimization of the energy losses cost, as
presented in (23), and using the additional index
for all

This section will show an expression for the calculation of

and proposes constraint (24), which
the constant parameter
takes into account a minimum value for the current magnitude in
every circuit, with the aim of reducing the computational effort
needed to solve the CSSR problem.
Since the loads are modeled as constant power, it is possible
to demonstrate that the minimum values for the current magnitudes in the circuits appear when the voltage magnitude drops
are lowest. For the CSSR problem, the lowest voltage magnitude drops appear when all the circuits are built with the conductor type of lowest impedance
. Thus, we solve a load flow
problem assuming that the conductor type for all circuits is .
When solving this load flow problem, the obtained current magnitudes for every circuit give a lower bound
for the current
magnitudes in the CSSR problem. Using this lower bound, (24)
is defined, which is added to the proposed model:
(24)
Additionally, using the information obtained with the solution of the load flow problem aforementioned, a value for
can be estimated in accordance with (25), thereby taking a constant factor for the EDS. Equation (25) is designed to find a
value to reduce the error in the calculation of real power losses
associated with the
component
. It is
obtained by equating the real power losses calculated using
under (19) with the approximated real power losses calculated
using
according (20):

(25)

,
and
are the real and reactive power flow
where
of circuit and the voltage magnitude at node , respectively,
obtained with the solution of the load flow problem. The steps
of the proposed methodology to solve the CSSR problem are
presented in the flowchart in Fig. 3.
A. Approximation of the Pareto Front
The proposed model for the CSSR problem can be used to
solve a multiobjective problem considering the power losses
and the investment cost as two different objective functions.
Those objectives are two conflicting functions because to reduce the power losses it is necessary to build circuits with lower
resistance, which implies an increase in the investments; on the
other hand, if one wishes to reduce the investment cost, then a

16

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 28, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013

TABLE III
TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONDUCTOR TYPES

IV. TESTS AND RESULTS

Fig. 3. Flowchart of the proposed methodology.

rise in the power losses is to be expected. The multiobjective

CSSR problem can be stated as shown in (26):
(26)
where represents the investment cost, are the power losses,
and is a feasible solution for the conductors of the circuits.
The multi-objective optimization allows to obtain a set of Pareto
solutions, which is known as a Pareto front. A solution
is
Pareto if it is not dominated by another solution, that is, there
is no another solution that satisfies both
and
[22].
In order to obtain the Pareto front for the multiobjective
CSSR problem, a constraint limiting the investment cost, as
shown in (27), is included in the CSSR model. Each th solution of the Pareto front is found by establishing an appropriate
value for the maximum limit of investments
and solving
the resulting CSSR model. The first solution is found with
an arbitrarily high limit of investments. The next solution is
obtained by setting the limit of investments as the investment
cost of the previous solution; the process is repeated until the
problem becomes unfeasible:
(27)
Knowing the Pareto front brings flexibility to the decision
process and allows for better adaptation to the policies of each
electrical distribution company. Thus, a set of solutions is available that ranges between one that minimizes real power losses
and another one that minimizes investment costs to satisfy operational constraints. In order to support the decision process,
several multi-criteria decision analysis methods can be used, as
shown in [23].
We suggest a simple way to choose the best solution given
the Pareto Front. If the electrical distribution company wants
to reduce their real power losses under a goal value of
,
the best solution is given by
, which represents the solution with minimum investment cost that has a power losses lower than the specified goal.
A similar analysis can be done for the investment cost, if the
electrical distribution company has an investment cost limit of
, the best solution is given by
, which represents the solution with minimum
power losses that has a investment cost lower than the specified
limit.

A test system of 50 nodes and two real distribution systems

of 200 and 600 nodes were used to show the performance
and robustness of the proposed methodology. For all tests,
the maximum and minimum voltage magnitude was 1.00 pu
and 0.95 pu, respectively, the voltage magnitude of the substation was fixed to 1.00 pu, the peak power losses cost was
, the reconductoring costs are shown in
Table I and the technical characteristics of the four conductor
types are shown in Table III. The number of blocks of the
piecewise linearization is equal to 40. The CSSR model was
implemented in AMPL [24] and solved with CPLEX [25]
(called with default options, with a maximum gap of
as optimality criterion) using a workstation with an Intel XEON
W3520 processor.
A. 50-Node Distribution System
The 50-node distribution system is based on [26] and the
data are shown in Table IV. It is a 15.0-kV distribution system
supplying 56.54-MVA and feeds 50 load nodes. The 50-node
system had 15 existing circuits (2 circuits of conductor type 2
and 13 circuits of conductor type 1) and 35 circuits to be built.
The value for the parameter used to solve the CSSR problem,
obtained using (25), was 0.9859 pu. The number of binary variables of the CSSR problem was 200.
The solution of the CSSR problem was found evaluating 293
nodes of a branch and bound algorithm with a computational
time of 8 s and a total cost of
with an investment cost of
. The proposed model selected
11 circuits with conductor type 4, 1 circuit with conductor type
2 and 23 circuits with conductor type 1 and reconductored 5
circuits (4 circuit of initial conductor type 1 and 1 circuit of initial conductor type 2) to conductor type 4, as shown in the fifth
column of Table IV. In order to compare the results found by the
proposed methodology, an exhaustive enumeration was used to
solve the CSSR problem. The found solution by the exhaustive
enumeration is the same found by the proposed model. Thus, the
proposed methodology found the optimal solution of the CSSR
problem for this test system.
The operation point for the solution of the CSSR problem was
compared using the load flow sweep method. The results of the
real power losses and the voltage magnitude at node 10 (which
had the largest error) are shown in the two first rows of Table V.
Note that the errors are negligible, showing the accuracy of the
model.
In order to show the influence of the
component in the
CSSR problem, the model was solved without consideration
of this component, with a computational time of 9 s, and the
conductors configuration solution did not change. Additionally,
the operation point of the optimal solution can be seen in the
third row of Table V. Further, Table VI shows a comparison

FRANCO et al.: OPTIMAL CONDUCTOR SIZE SELECTION AND RECONDUCTORING

TABLE IV
DATA AND RESULTS FOR THE 50-NODE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

17

TABLE VI
COMPARISON OF CURRENT MAGNITUDES FOR THE 50-NODE SYSTEM [A]

Fig. 4. Pareto front for the 50-node system.

TABLE V
POWER LOSSES AND MINIMUM VOLTAGE
MAGNITUDE FOR THE 50-NODE SYSTEM

of the calculation for the five greatest current magnitudes, with

their relative errors indicated in parentheses. The above results
show that, when the
component is disregarded, the voltage
magnitudes are overestimated with an error of
, the
real power losses are underestimated with an error of
,
and the current magnitudes are underestimated with a maximum
error of
. These errors are considered acceptable in the
solution of distribution planning problems, and for this reason
the sole use of the component is common in studies of EDS
planning [20], [21] and conductor size selection [4], [6].
Using the heuristic presented in Section III-A, the Pareto front
for the 50-node system was found as seen in Fig. 4. The point
to the right is the solution found for the base case, without an
investment limit, which has the minimum total cost. The point
to the left is the solution that presents the largest real power
losses (1231.49 kW), but with the minimum investment neces-

sary
for the system to operate while satisfying the operational constraints.
The Pareto front allows selecting a solution according to the
needs and policies of the electrical distribution company. For
example, if the limit for investments is
, with the
help of Fig. 4 can be determined that the best solution that satisfies that limit and also the operational constraints has a real
power losses of 1140 kW. On the other hand, if the electrical
distribution company wants to reduce their real power losses
under a goal value of 1100 kW, the Pareto front provides a solution with an investment cost of
.
A test considering load levels was carried out with the
50-node distribution system. For this test three load levels
were considered, which were obtained by multiplication of the
nominal loads by the factors 1.0 (heavy loading), 0.4 (medium
loading) and 0.3 (light loading), with respective durations of
1000, 6760 and 1000 h. The solution of the CSSR problem
was found with a computational time of 25 s and a total cost of
with an investment cost of
,
which has the same selection for conductors that the case
considering maximum loading. The obtained solution was the
same because the constant was calculated using a loss factor
of 0.25, which represents adequately the energy losses for the
load levels in terms of the maximum power losses; also the
selection of conductors considering load levels must to accomplish the minimum voltage magnitude, where the worst case is
actually the heavy loading. The power losses at each load level
calculated using the load flow sweep method and the values
obtained from the proposed model are shown in Table VII.
B. 200-Node Real Distribution System
The 200-node distribution system data are based on the
system in [13]. It is a 11.5-kV distribution system supplying

18

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 28, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013

TABLE VII
POWER LOSSES FOR THE 50-NODE SYSTEM WITH LOAD LEVELS

TABLE IX
COMPARISON OF CURRENT MAGNITUDES FOR THE 200-NODE SYSTEM [A]

TABLE VIII
POWER LOSSES AND MINIMUM VOLTAGE
MAGNITUDE FOR THE 200-NODE SYSTEM

18.63-MVA and feeds 200 load nodes. The 200-node system

had 40 existing circuits (20 of conductor type 1 and 20 of
conductor type 2) and 160 circuits to be built. The data for the
this test system can be obtained upon request. The value for the
parameter used to solve the CSSR problem was 0.9833 pu.
The number of binary variables of the CSSR problem was 800.
The solution of the CSSR problem was found by evaluating
978 nodes of a branch and bound algorithm with a computational time of 484 s and a total cost of
with
an investment cost of
. The proposed model
selected 9 circuits with conductor type 4, 7 circuits with conductor type 2 and 144 circuits with conductor type 1 and reconductored 13 circuits (6 circuits of initial conductor type 1 and
7 circuits of initial conductor type 2) to conductor type 4. The
operation point for the solution of the CSSR problem was evaluated using the load flow sweep method. The results of the real
power losses and the voltage magnitude at node 74 (which had
the largest error) are shown in the two first rows of Table VIII.
As in the previous test, the errors are negligible, demonstrating
the accuracy of the model. In order to compare the results found
by the proposed methodology, the model for the CSSR problem
presented in [15] was solved, and it found a solution with a total
cost of
. The obtained results show that the
proposed methodology found a better solution than the one in
[15] for the CSSR problem.
Also, for this test system, the CSSR problem was solved
without the component, and the conductors configuration solution did not change. The solution was found with a computational time of 215 s. The operation point of the optimal solution
can be seen in the third row of Table VIII. Furthermore, Table IX
shows a comparison of the calculation for the five greatest currents magnitudes, with their relative errors indicated in parentheses. As in the previous test, the above results show that, when
only the component is used, the voltage magnitudes are overestimated with an error of
, the real power losses are
, and the current magunderestimated with an error of
nitudes are underestimated with a maximum error of
.
Using the heuristic presented in Section III-A, the Pareto front
for the 200-node system was found as is seen in Fig. 5. As in the
previous test, the point to the right is the solution found for the
base case, without an investment limit, which has the minimum
total cost. The point to the left is the solution that presents the
largest real power losses (579.33 kW), but with the minimum
investment
necessary in order for the system
to operate while satisfying its operational constraints.

Fig. 5. Pareto front for the 200-node system.

Similarly, as in the previous test, if the electrical distribution

company wants to reduce their real power losses under a goal
is necvalue of 540 kW, an investment cost of
essary, as shown in Fig. 5. On the other hand, if the limit for
investments is
, with the Pareto front can be determined that the best solution has a real power losses of 535
kW.
C. 600-Node Real Distribution System
The 600-node distribution system data are based on the
system in [13]. It is a 11.5-kV distribution system supplying
18.72-MVA and feeds 600 load nodes. The 600-node system
has 74 existing circuits (36 of conductor type 1 and 38 of
conductor type 2) and 526 circuits to be built. The value for
the
parameter used to solve the CSSR problem was 0.9825
pu. The number of binary variables of the CSSR problem was
2400.
The solution of the CSSR problem was found with a computational time of 2375 seconds and a total cost of
with an investment cost of
. The proposed
model selected 2 circuits with conductor type 4, 7 circuits with
conductor type 2 and 517 circuits with conductor type 1 and reconductored 13 circuits (5 circuits of initial conductor type 1
and 8 circuits of initial conductor type 2) to conductor type 4.
The operation point for the solution of the CSSR problem was
evaluated using the load flow sweep method. The results of the
real power losses and the voltage magnitude at node 74 (which
had the largest error) are shown in the two first rows of Table X.
As in the previous test, the errors are negligible, demonstrating
the accuracy of the model.
In order to compare the results found by the proposed
methodology, the model for the CSSR problem presented in
[15] was solved, and it found a solution with a total cost of
. The obtained results show that the proposed

FRANCO et al.: OPTIMAL CONDUCTOR SIZE SELECTION AND RECONDUCTORING

19

TABLE X
POWER LOSSES AND MINIMUM VOLTAGE
MAGNITUDE FOR THE 600-NODE SYSTEM

TABLE XI
COMPARISON OF CURRENT MAGNITUDES FOR THE 600-NODE SYSTEM [A]

Fig. 6. Pareto front for the 600-node system.

methodology found a better solution than the one in [15] for

the CSSR problem.
Also, for this test system, the CSSR problem was solved
without the component, and the conductors configuration solution found had a total cost of
with a computational time of 618 s, which was different from the solution
for the complete model in 5 circuits.
With the aim to show the accuracy of the proposed model, the
operation point of the optimal solution for the complete model
was calculated using the equations of the model without considering
(as can be seen in the third row of Table X). Furthermore, Table XI shows a comparison of the calculation for
the five greatest currents magnitudes, with their relative errors
indicated in parentheses. As in the previous test, the above results show that, when only the component is used, the voltage
magnitudes are overestimated with an error of
, the
real power losses are underestimated with an error of
,
and the current magnitudes are underestimated with a maximum
error of
.
Using the heuristic presented in Section III-A, the Pareto front
for the 600-node system was found as is seen in Fig. 6. As in the
previous test, the point to the right is the solution found for the
base case, without an investment limit, which has the minimum
total cost. The point to the left is the solution that presents the
largest real power losses (604.93 kW), but with the minimum
investment
necessary in order for the system
to operate while satisfying its operational constraints.
Similarly, as in the previous test, if the electrical distribution
company wants to reduce their real power losses under a goal
value of 580 kW, an investment cost of
is necessary, as shown in Fig. 6. On the other hand, if the limit for
investments is
, with the Pareto front can be determined that the best solution has a real power losses of 604
kW.
V. CONCLUSIONS
A mixed-integer linear programming model to solve the
CSSR problem in radial distribution systems was presented.
The use of a MILP model guarantees convergence to optimality
using conventional MILP solvers.
In the proposed MILP model, the steady-state operation of
the radial distribution system is modeled through the use of

linear expressions. The results show that the power losses,

voltage magnitude, and current flow magnitudes are calculated
with great precision in comparison with the load flow sweep
method. This fact, combined with the use of a branch and
bound algorithm, provides a high degree of accuracy for the
proposed methodology in order to solve the CSSR problem, as
shown in Section IV.
One test system and two real distribution systems were used
to test the proposed model. For the test system, the solution
found by the proposed model is the same as the one found by
the exhaustive enumeration; whereas, for the two real distribution systems, the proposed methodology found a better solution
when compared to the methodology shown in [15].
The Pareto front for the conductor size selection and reconductoring problem considering two different objective functions
is easily found using a heuristic, making it possible to obtain the
set of non-dominated solutions according to power losses and
investment costs.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Gnen, Electric Power Distribution Systems Engineering. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1986.
[2] G. J. Anders, M. Vainberg, D. J. Horrocks, S. M. Foty, J. Motlis, and
J. Jarnicki, Parameters affecting economic selection of cable sizes,
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 16611667, Oct. 1993.
[3] H. Lee, Power Distribution Planning Reference Book. New York:
Basel: M. Dekker, 1997.
[4] M. Ponnavaikko and K. S. Prakasa, An approach to optimal distribution system planning through conductor gradation, IEEE Trans.
Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-101, no. 6, pp. 17351742, Jun. 1982.
[5] S. Mandal and A. Pahwa, Optimal selection of conductors for distribution feeders, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 192197,
Feb. 2002.
[6] Z. Wang, H. L. Yu, X. Wang, and H. Song, A practical approach to the
conductor size selection in planning radial distribution systems, IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 350354, Jan. 2000.
[7] D. Kaur and J. Sharma, Optimal conductor sizing in radial distribution
system planning, Int. J. Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 30, no. 4, pp.
261271, May 2008.
[8] H. Zhao, Z. Wang, D. C. Yu, L. Zhou, and X. Chen, Integrated methodology of reactive planning and conductor sizing in radial distribution,
in Proc. 2005 Power Engineering Society General Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Jun. 1216, 2005, pp. 280285.
[9] M. Vahid, N. Manouchehr, S. D. Hossein, and A. Jamaleddin, Combination of optimal conductor selection and capacitor placement in radial
distribution systems for maximum loss reduction, in Proc. 2009 IEEE
Int. Conf. Industrial Technology, Gippsland, Australia, Feb. 1013,
2009, pp. 0105.

20

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 28, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2013

[10] F. Mendoza, D. Requena, J. L. Bernal-Agustin, and J. A. DominguezNavarro, Optimal conductor size selection in radial power distribution systems using evolutionary strategies, in Proc. IEEE/PES Tranmission & Distribution 2006 Latin Amrica, Venezuela, Aug. 1518,
2006, pp. 0105.
[11] R. Ranjan, A. Chaturvedi, P. S. Solanki, and D. Das, Optimal conductor selection of radial distribution feeders using evolutionary programming, in Proc. 2003 IEEE Region 10 Conf. Convergent Technologies for the Asia-Pacific (TENCON 2003), Bangalore, India, Oct.
1517, 2003, vol. 1, pp. 456459.
[12] R. S. Rao, Optimal conductor selection for loss reduction in radial
distribution systems using differential evolution, Int. J. Eng. Sci.
Technol., vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 28292838, Jul. 2010.
[13] I. J. Ramrez-Rosado and J. L. Bernal-Augustn, Genetic algorithms
applied to the design of large power distribution systems, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 696703, May 1998.
[14] E. Daz-Dorado and J. C. Pidre, Optimal planning of unbalanced networks using dynamic programming optimization, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 20772085, Nov. 2004.
[15] H. N. Tram and D. L. Wall, Optimal conductor selection in planning
radial distribution systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3, no. 1, pp.
200206, Feb. 1988.
[16] M. E. Baran and F. F. Wu, Network reconfiguration in distribution
systems for loss reduction and load balancing, IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 14011407, Apr. 1989.
[17] M. E. Baran and F. F. Wu, Optimal capacitor placement on radial distribution systems, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 725734,
Jan. 1989.
[18] S. Segura, R. Romero, and M. J. Rider, Efficient heuristic algorithm
used for optimal capacitor placement in distribution systems, J. Elect.
Power Energy Syst., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 7178, Jan. 2010.
[19] N. Alguacil, A. L. Motto, and A. J. Conejo, Transmission expansion
planning: A mixed-integer LP approach, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 10701077, Aug. 2003.
[20] S. Haffner, L. F. A. Pereira, L. A. Pereira, and L. S. Barreto, Multistage model for distribution expansion planning with distributed generationPart I: Problem formulation, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol.
23, no. 2, pp. 915923, Apr. 2008.
[21] P. C. Paiva, H. M. Khodr, J. A. Dominguez-Navarro, J. M. Yusta, and
A. J. Urdaneta, Integral planning of primary-secondary distribution
systems using mixed integer linear programming, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 11341143, May 2005.
[22] E. Zitzler and L. Thiele, Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A
comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach, IEEE Trans.
Evol. Comput., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 257271, Nov. 1999.
[23] E. Triantaphyllou, Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study, 1st ed. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2000.
[24] R. Fourer, D. M. Gay, and B. W. Kernighan, AMPL: A Modeling Language for Mathematical Programming, 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning, 2003.

[25] CPLEX Optimization Subroutine Library Guide and Reference, Version 11.0. Incline Village, NV, CPLEX Division, ILOG Inc., 2008.
[26] V. Miranda, J. V. Ranito, and L. M. Proenca, Genetic algorithms in
optimal multistage distribution network planning, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 19271933, Nov. 1994.

John F. Franco (S11) received the B.Sc and M.Sc degrees in 2004 and
2006, respectively, from the Universidad Tecnolgica de Pereira, Colombia.
Currently, he is pursuing the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering at the
Universidade Estadual Paulista, Ilha Solteira, Brazil.
His areas of research are the development of methodologies for the optimization and planning of distribution systems.

Marcos J. Rider (S97M06) received the B.Sc. (Hons.) and P.E. degrees
in 1999 and 2000, respectively, from the National University of Engineering,
Lima, Per; the M.Sc. degree in 2002 from the Federal University of Maranho,
Maranho, Brazil; and the Ph.D. degree in 2006 from the University of Campinas, Brazil, all in electrical engineering.
Currently he is a Professor in the Electrical Engineering Department at the
Universidade Estadual Paulista, Ilha Solteira, Brazil. His areas of research are
the development of methodologies for the optimization, planning and control
of electrical power systems, and applications of artificial intelligence in power
systems.

Marina Lavorato (S07M11) received the B.Sc and M.Sc degrees in 2002
and 2004, respectively, from the Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil, and
the Ph.D. degree in 2010 from the University of Campinas, Brazil, all in electrical engineering.
Currently she is carrying out postdoctorate research at the Universidade Estadual Paulista, Ilha Solteira, Brazil. Her areas of research are the development
of methodologies for the optimization, planning and control of electrical power
systems.

Rubn Romero (M93SM08) received the B.Sc. and P.E. degrees in 1978
and 1984, respectively, from the National University of Engineering, in Lima,
Per, and the M.Sc and Ph.D degrees from the University of Campinas, Brazil,
in 1990 and 1993, respectively.
Currently he is a Professor in the Electrical Engineering Department at the
Universidade Estadual Paulista, Ilha Solteira, Brazil. His general research interests are in the area of electrical power systems planning.