UPEC2010
31st Aug - 3rd Sept 2010
Multiobjective Optimal Reconfiguration of MV
Networks with Different Earthing Systems
Gaetano Zizzo, Eleonora Riva Sanseverino, Angelo Campoccia
DIEET - University of Palermo
zizzo@dieet.unipa.it
Abstract- The paper deals with the traditional problem of
multiobjective optimal reconfiguration applied to power
distribution systems considering the safety issue in the
formulation. The applications are devoted to the solution of the
posed problem in networks in which coexist energy sources with
unearthed neutral point and resonant earthed neutral point.
After a brief review of the most recent papers on optimal
reconfiguration, the paper outlines the safety problem and
provides a solution to the multiobjective problem using the Non
dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II aiming at: minimal
power losses operation, safety check at distribution substations
and load balancing among the HV/MV transformers. Finally test
results on a large MV distribution network are reported and
discussed and a comparison between the Non dominated Sorting
Genetic Algorithm II and a Fuzzy Evolution Strategy Algorithm
is presented.
Index Terms-- Genetic Algorithms, Multiobjective
Optimization, Electrical Safety, Earthing Systems,
reconfiguration.
I. INTRODUCTION
Medium Voltage (MV) electrical systems supply the
substations through which electrical energy is delivered to
final users. These networks are generally designed with a
slightly meshed topology, but are radially operated. This
structure is indeed favourable in normal working conditions
and allows a fast location of faults. The radial topology can
be attained opening a feasible set of tie-switches located in
some branches of the network. Thanks to the new automation
technologies, allowing the control of tie-switches as well as
of other apparatus, Distribution Companies are able to change
the layout of their MV networks through periodical
reconfigurations. These operations are carried out following
the load diagrams in order to obtain an higher distribution
efficiency, a better reliability of the networks and a better
loads distribution among the High Voltage/Medium Voltage
(HV/MV) transformers. However reconfiguration can lead
also to hazardous situations for persons, especially in those
countries where in distribution networks sources of energy
(HV/MV transformers) with different earthing systems
coexist.
The case of mixing the earthing schemes has recently a
large applicability in all those European countries where a
transformation of MV distribution networks from unearthed
neutral networks to resonant earthed neutral networks is
taking place, in order to improve the service continuity1.
Dangerous situations can take place when the two earthing
systems are not co-ordinated, i.e. when unearthed neutral
system and resonant earthed neutral system (earthed through
Petersen’s coils). are simultaneously present. Depending on
the state of the neutral of the MV network, the fault current IF
due to a single-line-to-earth fault and the intervention time tF
of the protective devices that open the line can be very
different (generally IF =400-600 A and tF <1 s in unearthed
neutral networks and IF=50 A and tF >>10 s in resonant
earthed neutral networks). Therefore the design parameters of
the earthing systems of the Medium Voltage/Low Voltage
(MV/LV) substations can be very different.
During the reconfiguration process of a MV network, it is
possible that some MV/LV substations are connected to a
different source having another earthing system. In these
cases, it may happen that the earthing system of the
substations is unable to protect people against electric shocks
consequent to a single-line-to-earth fault inside the
substations. Indeed the dangerous voltages that take place
during the fault are not eliminated in the admissible times
requested by [1]. Fig. 1 shows the situation above described.
In the figure, RE is the earth resistance of the earthing system
of the substation, UE is the earth potential rise after the fault
and UTp is the admissible touch voltage defined according to
[1]. In this case, the protective devices have an intervention
time which is adequate when the substation affected by the
fault is connected to the resonant earthed neutral network.
Fig. 1A shows the original situation which is safe when a
fault occurs, while Fig. 1B shows another situation in which
safety is not guaranteed.
Because of this problem Distribution Companies often
limit the implementation of optimal reconfiguration layouts.
They would indeed be unable to suitably evaluate the safety
issue in networks where different earthing systems are
simultaneously present. In this paper, the authors formulate
the optimal reconfiguration problem numerically evaluating
and taking into account the safety issue. The problem thus is
formulated as a multiobjective issue with the following
objectives: power losses minimization, load balancing among
HV/MV transformers and the maintenance of safety during
reconfiguration operations. Constraints concern the limitation
of the voltage drops and of the currents in branches.
 The solution approach is an evolutionary algorithm, the
NSGA-II (Non dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II) [2],
characterized by efficient diversification operators and elitism
in the search.
In the following sections, after a brief review of the most
recent papers on optimal reconfiguration (Section 2), the
formulation of the problem and the solution algorithm are
described in details (Sections 3 and 4). Finally, test results on
a large MV distribution network are reported and discussed
and a comparison between the Non Dominated sorting
Genetic Algorithm II and a Fuzzy Evolution Strategy
Algorithm is presented (Section 5).
A) Original configuration: Switch S1 Closed - Switch S2 Open
Artificial Intelligence (AI) paradigms (tree search, Genetic
Algorithms GAs, other evolutionary techniques, Simulated
Annealing SA, Tabu Search TS, Neural Networks NN, etc.).
Generally, the works in the field of optimal reconfiguration
are divided in two classes: works proposing novel
formulations of the problem and works proposing new
techniques for its solutions. Some of the basic literature on
the subject uses standard AI methodologies and proposes
efficient operators for iterative heuristic search algorithm. A
branch and bound technique is used in [3] to develop a
solution technique for the minimum losses reconfiguration;
starting from the meshed configuration, switches are opened
one at a time to restore the radial configuration.

Resonant Earthed
IF
Unearthed Neutral
Neutral Network Network Shirmohammadi et al. [4] propose an improvement to the
MV line MV line
method proposed in [3]. Cinvalar et al. [5] use a heuristic
UTp= 75V S1 S2 UTp= 330V technique to solve the problem. It is interesting to observe the
CLOSED OPEN
introduction of the ‘branch exchange’ operator allowing
changes in the configuration following a path of feasible
I F = 50A (radial) solutions. Baran and Wu [6] introduce two
MV/LV
transformer approximated formulas to improve the power flow
Earthing system calculations in heuristic search. Heuristic search strategies
R E = 1Ω have also been implemented by other authors [7]-[8]. More
UE = 50V<75V LV feeders recently, as far as solution methodologies are concerned,
intensive application of heuristic AI techniques can be found
B) After reconfiguration: Switch S1 Open - Switch S2 Closed in the literature. In [9] a hybrid algorithm between SA and TS
IF for optimal network reconfiguration is proposed and in [10] a
Resonant Earthed Unearthed Neutral
Neutral Network Parallel Tabu Search, PTS, approach is used for minimum
MV line MV line Network
losses reconfiguration. In [11] a multiobjective
UTp= 75V S1 S2 UTp= 330V reconfiguration technique using a fuzzy reasoning approach is
OPEN CLOSED presented. The work in [12] proposes a Fuzzy mutated
Genetic Algorithm which preserves the radial configuration
during the search process and uses fuzzy logic to control the
I F = 400A MV/LV mutation operator. Fuzzy logic is again used in [13] and [14]
transformer
Earthing system
to express the simultaneous fulfilment of different objectives
R E = 1Ω for iterative heuristic or evolutionary techniques. Some
UE = 400V >330V LV feeders interesting conclusions are drawn in [15] where the problem
of optimal hourly reconfiguration is coupled with the
Fig. 1. Hazardous situation due to the reconfiguration of the MV network. variability of demand issue. Results prove that a fixed
Before reconfiguration (A) the substation is supplied by a resonant earthed
neutral source network, after reconfiguration (B) the substation is supplied by configuration for average or maximum demand is more
an unearthed neutral source with different values of the earth fault current efficient. Finally, an ant colony approach has been proposed
and permissible touch voltage. in [16] for the traditional problem of minimum losses
reconfiguration and optimal compensation. The merits of the
II. STATE OF THE ART ant colony strategy are parallel search and optimization
capabilities. The ant colony strategy used in this paper uses
The technical literature has widely treated the problem of
artificial ants, which to some extent have memory and are not
reconfiguration in electrical distribution networks.
completely blind, thus can be applied to the feeder
Multiobjective formulations of this problem can combine the
reconfiguration and capacitor placement problems in which
different operational objectives in a single objective function
switches are discrete. As far as new formulations of the
formulation through weighting coefficients or other
reconfiguration problem are concerned, the maximization of
techniques. The problem is non linear and combinatorial,
loadability and the improvement of voltage stability have
since one of the objectives certainly is the power losses
been considered in [17], [18] and [19]. In [20] the authors
minimization and the control variables are the tie-switches
provide a phase balancing/loss minimization formulation for
statuses.
the network reconfiguration problem using Neural Networks.
Solution techniques have been deduced using different
The load balancing issue is considered in [20]. While in [21]
the load forecasting is the driving element to perform
reconfiguration. Distribution network reconfiguration is
carried out using a partheno-genetic algorithm (PGA).
Finally, in [22] the authors study the problem of
reconfiguration considering load nodes unavailability. None
of these papers deals with the problem of safe operation.
III. FORMULATION OF THE OPTIMAL RECONFIGURATION
PROBLEM
For a given loading level, the objectives of the
reconfiguration are: a) minimization of the power losses on
the network’s elements; b) minimization of the load
unbalance among the HV/MV transformers; c) minimization
of the risk for overvoltages in the earthing systems due to
possible faults; while keeping the radial topology.
Else than the objectives aiming at the optimization of the
power flows in the lines and transformers, (items a and b), the
proposed formulation introduces another objective, item c,
which is an indicator of the safety of the systems during
operation. The latter aspect is normally not considered into
the reconfiguration studies till now carried out for distribution
systems. In the present paper, safety is considered by
expressing it with a mathematical function, as it will be
shown in sub-section C.
The discrete nature of the control variables and the
adopted solution strategy suggest the use of a simplified
model for the system. On this basis, a constant current model
has been chosen for the loads representation while lines and
transformers are represented through lumped series
impedances.
The load flow algorithm is a backward/forward strategy
[23] and is implemented using a dynamic data structure
allowing fast changes and evaluations in the network.
A. Power Losses
The power losses are associated with the resistive elements
of lines and with HV/MV transformers. Indeed, losses at
MV/LV transformers and losses caused by insulation of cable
lines and capacitors are negligible compared to the line power
losses. Other losses terms not depending on current flows can
be neglected too. Under these hypotheses, the overall power
losses considering lines and HV/MV transformers are:
1 ⎡ B
N N SS
ΔP = ⎢∑ (
U N2 ⎢⎣ i =1
Ri Pi
2
+ Qi
2
) ∑ (
+ Rt ,i Pt 2,i + Qt2,i
i =1
where:
- UN is the rated voltage value;
Ri and Rt,i respectively are the resistance of the ith branch and
of the ith HV/MV transformer;
- Pi and Qi are the real and reactive power flows on the ith
branch;
- Pt,i and Qt,i are the real and reactive power flows injected in
the network through the ith HV/MV transformer;
- NSS is the number of HV/MV stations;
- NB is the number of branches of the MV network.
B. Load Balancing
The load balancing condition is expressed by an index that
in the following is indicated by LB. The formulation used
here was proposed by Roytelman et al. [24] within the
multiobjective formulation of the reconfiguration problem.
This index is the sum of the differences between the load
on the ith supply transformer in per unit and the average
loading of all supply transformers in per unit. Note that per
unit values are based on transformers ratings in MVA. The
Load Balancing index, is expressed by:
N SS
At ,i N SS N SS
1
LB =
N SS
∑ AtN,i
− ∑ At , j ∑ AtN, j (2)
i =1 j =1 j =1
where At,i is the module of the complex power injected in the
network by the ith transformer and AtN,i is the rated power of
the ith transformer.
C. Safety
As a consequence of an earth fault inside a MV/LV
substation, the earthing system and all the exposed
conductive parts connected to it assume a potential to earth
UE. The latter depends on the values of the earth resistance of
the earthing system and of the maximum grid current IE
(according to [25], the maximum design value of the earth
fault current that flows through the substation earth electrode
into the earth). According to all international standards
dealing with electrical safety ([1], [25] and [26]), the earthing
system of a MV/LV substation is safe if one of the following
condition is verified:
1) The earth potential rise at the fault location is not above the
permissible touch voltage UTp:
U E = RE ⋅ I E ≤ U Tp (t F ) (3)
2) The voltage at the center of the corner mesh Umx is not
above the permissible touch voltage UTp, and the maximum
step voltage USx is not above the permissible step voltage USp:
⎤
)⎥⎥ (1) U mx ≤ U Tp (t F ) ; U Sx ≤ U Sp (t F ) (4)
⎦
In (3) and (4) UTp and USp depend on the fault duration
time tF, and are given by [1]. Computer algorithms for
determining the earth resistance RE and the mesh and step
voltages have been developed by many authors. The works
from [27] to [28] provide some examples. In [25], instead,
approximate expressions that can be used without the
necessity of using a computer are provided.
Inequalities (3) and (4) define the formulation of the safety
issue. In particular inequality (3) express a sufficient but not
necessary condition. For this reason, in the search of the
optimal configuration, the condition (4) must be verified.
For every examined network configuration, a short-circuit
analysis is performed at every substations, supposing that an
earth fault occurs, and the new values of IF, IE, Umx and USx
are calculated for every fault condition. If the inequalities (4)
are true for all the earthing systems, the configuration is
acceptable, otherwise not.
Inequalities (4) can be used as constrains in the
optimization problem but the authors have observed that the
definition of a suitable objective function based on them is
able to improve the effectiveness of the optimization
algorithm by allowing a better exploration of the solution
space. A possible formulation of the objective function is the
following:
sx ≤ 0
⎧k1 ;
SF = ⎨ (5)
⎩k1 + k2 ⋅ (1 − sx ); sx > 0
where k1 and k2 are real coefficients chosen by the user and
sx is the maximum value of the safety index s calculated for
every substation for the given configuration and defined as it
follows:
U Tp (t F ) − U mx U Sp (t F ) − U Sx
s= ⋅ (6)
U Tp (t F ) U Sp (t F )
If sx≥0 it means that inequalities (4) are both true and that
so the earthing system is safe. In this work the proposed
formulation of SF (6) is used as an objective in the
multiobjective reconfiguration problem. Extensive
simulations have proved that (6) allows a wide exploration of
the search space.
IV. THE NSGA II ALGORITHM
The concept of non-dominance is one of the basic
concepts in multiobjective optimization. For a problem
having more than one objective function to minimize (say, fj,
j=1,…,m and m>1) any two multidimensional solutions x1
and x2 can have one or two possibilities: one dominates the
other or none dominates the other. A solution x1 is said to
dominate the other solution x2, if both the following
conditions are true:
a) The solution x1 is no worse than x2 in all objectives,
fj(x1)≤fj(x2), for all j=1….m.
b) The solution x1 is strictly better than x2 in at least one
objective, or fj*(x1)<fj*(x2) for at least one j*∈
{1…m}.
If any of the above conditions is violated, the solution x1
does not dominate solution x2. If x1 dominates the solution x2,
it is also customary to write x2 is dominated by x1, or x1 is not
dominated by x2, or, simply, among two solutions, x1 is the
non-dominated solution.
It is also important to observe that the concept of
optimality in multiobjective optimization is related to a set of
solutions, instead than to a single one. It is therefore possible
to define Pareto local and global optimality for sets of
solutions.
P is a locally optimal Pareto set, if for every member x in
P, there exist no solution y in a small neighbourhood, which
dominates every member in the set P.
P is a global Pareto-optimal set, if there exist no solution
in the search space, which dominates every member in the set
P.
From the above discussion, it is possible to point out that
there are primarily two goals that a multi-criterion
optimization algorithm must achieve:
1. guide the search towards the global Pareto-optimal
region;
2. maintain population diversity in the Pareto-optimal
front.
There are many multiobjective solution algorithms
allowing the attainment of these results, but the NSGA-II [2]
algorithm has proved to be quite efficient in many different
applications.
In the following section, an application showing the
relevance of the adopted formulation has been carried out.
V. CASE STUDY
The application has been carried out for a meshed
distribution MV network with 117 MV/LV load nodes, 96
controllable tie-switches and 126 branches, [22]. For this
network the search space is large 296. The network is showed
in Fig. 3 with all tie-switches in closed position. The HV/MV
stations indicated with B, D and F have the neutral point of
the transformers earthed through Petersen’s coil. For these
stations is UTp=75V. The other HV/MV stations contains
transformers with unearthed neutral points and for them is
UTp=144V. The application has been carried out considering
common values of earth resistances and assuming (for
simplicity) that IE=IF.
The NSGA-II has been implemented with a population
size of 50 elements and 1000 iterations. The mutation
probability was set to 0.7. Different runs have been carried
out considering and neglecting the third objective of safety
(c) and the results (in terms of optimum configurations) are
reported in Fig. 4. Simulations have shown that the
formulation with all the three objectives leads to a first non
dominated front with 6 solutions and that all of them are safe
whereas the formulation with only the first two objectives
leads to the first non dominated front with 39 solutions but
only three of them are safe. The concept of non domination
with three objectives leads to the definition of a non
dominated surface in the three dimensions space defined by
the three objectives Load Balancing, Power Losses and
Safety index.
 “F”. After the reconfiguration the same substation is supplied
B
C
4 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 3 13 12 11 10 9 8 2
A by station “A”. The configuration in Fig. 5 A) enables to
fulfil objectives “a” and “b” but not objective “c”. The
22 87
86 102 103 104 105 106
69 60 59
configuration in Fig. 5 A is unsafe since the fault current
61 58
23 70
57
inside the substation in the new configuration rises to 148A
85 62
24
111 110
71
101
88
56
because it depends on the sub-network size and
84 63
25 109
83
72
100
89
55 characteristics and the permissible touch voltage is equal to
26
112
108 107
82
73
99 64
93
90
54 144V.
27
113
81 74
98
65
94
91 53 In this condition, touch and step voltages exceeds the
95
28
114
117 116 115
80 75 66
92 52
admissible values and the earthing system is no more able to
29 79 76 67
96 51
protect persons against electric shock in the new
50

30 78 77 68
97
configuration. The intervention time of the protective devices
49

5
installed inside Station “E” is changed as a consequence of
D
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 6 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 7
F the modification of the value of the fault current but this fact
E does not influence the safety conditions at the earthing system
of substation “54” that has been designed on the basis of
Fig. 3. Test network with all the tie-switches in closed position. totally different parameters. On the contrary the
0.25
obj.: a, b, c
configuration in Fig. 5 B) enables to fulfil objectives “a”, “b”
obj.: a, b and “c” and is safe. Indeed, when the optimization algorithm
0.2
finds an unsafe configuration, it either reduces the total length
Load Balancing

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
200
Fig. 4. Comparison of the first front of results obtained using NSGA-II
algorithm with and without the objective of safety.
During the search of the Pareto front, according to
equation (6), the safety index contributes to the definition of
the non-domination ranks till when it indicates an unsafe
configuration. When the solution is ‘safe’ it gets a constant
value. In this way, it does not contribute anymore to the
definition of the non-domination rank. These results
demonstrate that not considering the safety issue in
reconfiguration can lead to the implementation of unsafe
configurations. On the contrary, a formulation of the
reconfiguration problem including also the safety issue allows
of the MV lines belonging to the portion of the MV network
supplying the unsafe node or connects the unsafe node to an
adjacent portion having a lower single-line-to-earth fault,
choosing a better solution according to the other objective of
the configurations (minimum losses operation and load
balancing requirements).
250 300 350 400
The “jump” of the substation from a portion of the MV
Power Losses [MW] network to another one highlights that the safety conditions of
the whole network cannot be evaluated on a local basis, since
it depends both on the values of the earth resistances and also
on general parameters like the level of the fault currents and
the fault duration times. For this problem, the performance of
the algorithm NSGA-II has been compared to that of a Fuzzy
Evolution Strategy (FES) [22]. FES is a population based
algorithm where the fuzzification of the objectives to be
optimized allows their efficient and simultaneous fulfilment.
The algorithm is characterised by the absence of any efficient
diversification operator.
A) B)
A A
11 10 9 8 2 10 9 8 2

to exclude all the unsafe configurations but drastically 60 59 IF = 123A 60 59 IF = 116A

58 58
reduces the number of possibilities. As it was expectable, the 62
61
57 62
61
57
solutions attained in using the formulation including the 63
88
56 63
88
56
89 89
safety index, cover a smaller part of the front, but what is 93 90
55
93 90
55

most important is the study of the solutions in the genotypic 65

64
94 91
54
65
64
94 91
54

space, namely the difference of the solutions produced in 95

92
95
92

terms of the safety objective. 96

R E= 3 O
96
R E= 3 O
97 97
Fig. 5 explains the mechanism implemented by any 148V > 144V 139V < 144V

optimization algorithm for the identification of safe solutions. Fig. 5. Optimal solution found using NSGA-II, optimizing: A) power losses
Fig. 5A shows the solution found neglecting the safety and load balancing (a+b); B) power losses, load balancing and safety
(a+b+c).
objective. Fig. 5B shows the solution found considering the
safety objective. Comparing the solutions found by first In Fig. 6 the last generation of the FES algorithm (run with
neglecting and then considering the safety objective, this 10000 iterations, 100 individuals and mutation probability
mechanism is evidenced. In Fig. 5 substation “54”, in the 0.3) is compared to the first non dominated front obtained
original configuration of the network is supplied by station with the NSGA-II (run with 1000 iterations).
 As Fig. 6 shows, not using a suitable sharing technique for
the FES algorithm does not lead to sufficiently differentiated
solutions and the solutions found using the NSGA-II
algorithm dominates the solutions found using the FES
algorithm.
0.18
FES
0.16
NSGA II
0.14
Load Balancing
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 [14]
200 220 240 260 280 300 320
Power Losses [MW]
Fig. 6. Comparison between NSGA-II and FES.
VI. CONCLUSION
The paper has shown that the problem of the optimal
reconfiguration of automated distribution networks in which
coexist sources of energy with different earthing of the
neutral points, can be dealt with as a multiobjective
optimization problem including the safety issue among the
objectives. The results obtained through the application here
carried out show the efficiency of the NSGA-II algorithm and
the relevance of the proposed formulation for the
reconfiguration problem. It is important to underline that the
introduction in reconfiguration strategies of an objective
expressing safety can cause a strong difference in the optimal
network layout and can substantially reduce the number of
solutions compatible with the classical objectives about
power losses and load balancing. Finally, the issue has today
practical relevance in all those countries where, because of
the in-progress passage from an unearthed neutral to a
resonant earthed neutral management of distribution
networks, the traditional reconfiguration approach can lead to
hazardous situations for persons in case of earth fault.
VII. REFERENCES
[1] CENELEC HD 637-S: Power Installation exceeding 1 kV ac, 1999.
[2] K. Deb, S. Agrawal, A. Pratap, T. A. Meyarivan, “Fast Elitist Non-
Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-Objective
Optimization: NSGA-II” in Proc. of Parallel Problem Solving from
Nature VI 2000, Paris, France 2000.
[3] A. Merlin, H. Back, “Search for a minimal loss operating spanning tree
configuration in an urban power distribution system” in Proc. 5th
Power System Computation Conference, Cambridge UK 1975, pp.1-18.
[4] D. Shirmohammadi, H.W. Hong, “Reconfiguration of electric
distribution networks for resistive line loss reduction”, IEEE Trans.
Power Delivery, vol.4, n.1, pp.1492-1498, Apr.1989.
[5] S. Cinvalar, J.J: Grainger, H. Yin, S. S. H. Lee,”Distribution feeder
reconfiguration for loss reduction”, IEEE Trans. Pow. Delivery vol.3,
n.3, pp.1217-1223, Jul.1988
[6] M. E. Baran, F.F. Wu, “>Network reconfiguration in distribution
systems for loss reduction and load balancing, IEEE Trans. Pow.
Systems vol.4, n.3, pp.1401-1407, Aug. 1989.
[7] T. Taylor, D. Lubkeman, “Implemetation of heuristic search strategies
for distribution feeder reconfiguration”, IEEE Trabs. Pow. Delivery,
vol.5, n.1, pp.239-246, Jan.1990.
[8] T. P. Wagner, A. T. Chikhani, R. Hackam, “Feeder reconfiguration for
loss reduction”, IEEE Trans. Pow. Delivery, vol., n.4, pp.1922-1933,
Oct.1991.
[9] Y. J. Jeon, J. C. Kim, ”Network reconfiguration in radial distribution
system using Simulated Annealing and Tabu Search“, IEEE PES
Winter Meeting, 2000, Vol.4 pp.2329-2333.
[10] H. Mori, Y. Ogita, “A Parallel Tabu Search based method for
reconfigurations of distribution systems”, IEEE PES Summer Meeting,
2000, Vol.1, pp.73-78.
[11] A. Ebrahimi, S. Mohseni, “Multipurpose reconfiguration of distribution
systems using fuzzy reasoning approach”Int. Conf. And Exhibit. On
Electricity distribution CIRED 2001, vol.4, Jul. 2001.
[12] K. Prasad, R. Ranjan, N.C. Sahoo, A. Chaturvedi, “Optimal
reconfiguration of radial distribution systems using a fuzzy mutated
Genetic algorithm”, IEEE Trans. Pow. Delivery, vol.20, n.2, apr. 2005,
pp.1211-1218.
[13] D. Das, “A fuzzy multiobjective approach for network reconfiguration
of distribution systems” IEEE Trans. Pow. Delivery, vol.21, n.1, 2005,
pp.202-209.
B. Venkatesh, R. Ranjan, “Optimal radial distribution system
reconfiguration using fuzzy adaptation of evolutionary programming”,
Electrical Power and Energy Systems vol.25, 2003 pp.775-780.
[15] E. Lopez, H. Opazo, L. Garcia, P. Bastard, “Online reconfiguration
considering variability demand: applications to real networks”, IEEE
Trans. Pow. Systems, vol.19, n.1, feb.2004, pp.549-553.
[16] C. Chang, “Reconfiguration and Capacitor Placement for Loss
Reduction of Distribution Systems by Ant Colony Search Algorithm”,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 23, n.4, nov. 2008, pp.
1747 – 1755.
[17] B. Venkatesh, R. Ranjan, H. B. Gooi, “Optimal reconfiguration of
radial distribution systems to maximize loadability”, IEEE Trans. Pow.
Systems, vol.19, n.1 feb. 2004, pp. 260-266.
[18] A. N. Marcos Guimaraes, J. F. C. Lorenzeti, C.A. Castro,
“Reconfiguration of distribution systems for voltage stability margin
enhancement using tabu search”, 2004 Intl. conf. on Power System
Technology, POWERCON 2004, Singapore, 21-24 nov. 2004.
pp.1556-1561.
[19] M.A. Kashem, V. Ganapathy, G.B. Jasmon, “Network reconfiguration
for enhancement of voltage stability in distribution networks”, IEE
Proc. Gen. Trnsm. Distr. Vol.147 Issue 3, May 2000 pp.171-175.
[20] M.W. Siti, D.V. Nicolae, A.A. Jimoh, A. Ukil, “Reconfiguration and
Load Balancing in the LV and MV Distribution Networks for Optimal
Performance”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 22, n. 4, oct.
2007, pp. 2534 – 2540.
[21] L. Huo, J. Yin, Y. Yu, L. Zhang, “Distribution Network
Reconfiguration Based on Load Forecasting”, International Conference
on Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation (ICICTA)
2008, vol. 1, 20-22 oct. 2008, pp.1039 – 1043.
[22] A. Augugliaro, L.Dusonchet, M.G. Ippolito, E. Riva Sanseverino, “A
New Formulation of the Optimal Compensation and Reconfiguration
Problem Including Minimum Load Nodes Unavailability for
Automated Distribution Networks”; International Journal COMPEL,
Emerald, vol. 23, n.1, 2004, pp.104-117.
[23] A. Augugliaro, L. Dusonchet, S. Favuzza, M.G. Ippolito, E. Riva
Sanseverino, “An analytical model for PQ sources in backward/forward
methods for distribution networks analysis”, Universities Power
Engineering Conference UPEC 2004, vol. 3, 6-8 sept. 2004, pp. 1214 -
1218 vol. 2.
[24] I. Roytelman, V.Melnik, S.S.H. Lee, R.L. Lugtu, “Multiobjective
feeder reconfiguration by distribution management system”, IEEE
Transactions on Power systems, vol. 5, n. 3, August 1990, pp. 805-812.
[25] ANSI/IEEE Standard 80-2000: IEEE Guide for Safety in AC
Substation Grounding, 2000.
[26] IEC Standard 60279-1:2005: Effects of current on human beings and
livestock - Part 1: General aspects, 2005.
[27] EPRI TR-100622: Substation grounding programs, vols. 1---5, May
1992.
[28] F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar, “Optimum design of substation grounding
in two-layer earth structure; Part I—Analytical study”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-94, n. 2, pp.
252-261, Mar./Apr. 1975.