IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution

Research Article

Microgrid planning considering the resilience ISSN 1751-8687

Received on 13th November 2018

against contingencies
Revised 11th May 2019
Accepted on 31st May 2019
E-First on 19th July 2019
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2018.6816
www.ietdl.org

Xiong Wu1 , Zhao Wang1, Tao Ding1, Xiuli Wang1, Zhiyi Li2, Furong Li3
1School of Electrical Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Shaanxi 710049, People's Republic of China
2Robert W. Galvin Centre for Electricity Innovation, Illinois Institute of Technology, 10 West 35th Street, Chicago, USA
3Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Bath, BA2 7AY, Bath, UK

E-mail: wuxiong@mail.xjtu.edu.cn

Abstract: Increasing the redundancy of distribution lines and increasing the penetration of distributed energy resources (DERs)
both help microgrids ride through contingencies. However, it remains a challenging problem for how to coordinate these two
measures for minimising the deployment cost while guaranteeing a pre-specified degree of resilience in case of contingencies.
Accordingly, this study proposes a novel microgrid planning model to site and size candidate sets of DERs and distribution lines
in close coordination, which is mathematically equivalent to a two-stage robust optimisation problem. In particular, the resilience
level of microgrid operations is quantified and maintained such that the load loss is constrained within a given bound under any
realisation of N–k contingencies. The proposed model also incorporates a practical strategy to maintain the radial topology of
islanding network sections in any N–k contingency. Finally, numerical experiments based on two microgrid test systems are
performed. The results show that the system resilience is adaptively enhanced through optimally placing DERs and distribution
lines compared with the conventional economics based model. Moreover, the employed robust method is at least ten times
faster than the reliability-based method in identifying the worst contingency.

Nomenclature Q reactive power (kVar)

ρ cost per unit ($/kWh)
Sets r interest rate
G set of distributed generators (DGs) E energy capacity of BSs (kWh)
ℬ set of battery storage systems (BSs) η efficiency
W set of renewable energy resources R line resistance (Ω)
N set of buses X line reactance (Ω)
N0 set of root buses M sufficiently big number
ℒ set of existing distribution lines S resilience level
ℒc set of candidate distribution lines
Decision variables
Indices x binary variable indicating the deployment state of candidate
b script for BSs DERs
g script for DGs z binary variable indicating the deployment state of candidate
w script for renewable energy resources distribution lines
d script for days α binary variable indicating the active state of existing
h script for hours distribution lines in a contingency
c script for candidate distribution lines β binary variable indicating the active state of backup
dl script for distribution lines distribution lines in a contingency
ld script for loads p variable associated with active power (kW)
lc script for curtailed loads q variable associated with reactive power (kVar)
gd script for the utility grid e stored energy of BSs (kWh)
in script for injection v voltage magnitude of buses (pu)
+, − script for export/import l power flow in the fictional network (pu)
( ⋅ ), ( ⋅ ) upper/lower bounds s power injection at source nodes in the fictional network (pu)
u binary variable indicating the active state of source nodes in
π( ⋅ ), σ( ⋅ ) parents/children of buses the fictional network
(⋅) variables in the resilience model
⋅ number of elements
1 Introduction
Parameters and constants Microgrids, as localised intelligent distribution systems, utilise on-
site distributed energy resources (DERs) to meet the load demand.
K present-worth coefficient Owing to their remarkable advantages of controllability and
I investment cost ($) flexibility, microgrids are gaining increasing popularity in power
IE energy-related investment cost of BSs ($/kWh) engineering practises. In addition to the common concern over the
IP power-related investment cost of BSs ($/kW) large budget of implementing microgrid projects, microgrids may
T life span of DERs (year) even suffer from prolonged outages when confronted with
P active power (kW) unexpected disruptions due to man-made faults or natural disasters.

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 3534-3548 3534
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
How to maintain the resilience of microgrids, as referred to as the
load restoration ability after an outage, is, therefore, a practical
issue to be addressed adequately at the planning stage. On the one
hand, the deployment of more DERs will contribute to the load
restoration ability of microgrids as they are able to restore loads
directly in case of contingencies. On the other hand, the
configuration of redundant distribution lines provides an additional
means to supply power to customers on the outage. Given that both
strategies have a distinct budget and operational requirements, it is
of practical significance to consider them in close coordination in
order to strike a trade-off between economics and resilience of
planning microgrids.
The optimal planning and expansion of microgrids have been
extensively studied in the existing work. Most of them construct
the DERs sizing and placement models in interconnected or
isolated microgrids following the economic or reliability criterion
[1–3]. For example, Lotfi and Khodaei [2] propose a microgrid
planning model, which aims at minimising the total investment and
operation cost, to determine the optimal size and mix of distributed
generation. Mitra et al. [3] determine the optimal size and location
of distributed generation in a microgrid according to the reliability
criterion. On the basis of the basic microgrid planning framework,
many factors are taken into account in the pertinent studies, e.g. the
uncertainties of loads, renewable energy generation, and electricity
prices [4, 5], the multiple energy integration [6, 7], and the
coordinated operation of multi-microgrids [8, 9].
Recently, the resilience of power grids has attracted the
attention of some researchers. With regards to microgrids, three
categories of resiliency enhancing strategies are studied in the
literature. (i) Preventative strategies to hedge against possible
natural disasters or man-made faults, investigating the microgrids
planning or formation to increase the system resiliency against
contingencies [10]. (ii) Resilient operation after blackouts caused
by extreme weather conditions or human errors, focusing on the
resilient operation to restore the systems either through
rescheduling the DERs or reconfiguring the network [11]. (iii)
Resilient control strategies for a system recovery of frequency and
voltage to maintain the security of supply [12]. This paper,
however, focuses on the resilient planning of microgrids
considering the contingencies, which belong to the scope of
preventative strategies against contingencies. Regarding
contingency analysis, N–k contingency is widely used in the power
system to analyse the system security and resilience. When
integrated into a system operation or expansion planning problem,
heuristic method [13], exhaustive method [14], and robust method
[15, 16] are usually employed to solve it. Comparatively speaking,
the robust method gains more attention in recent years for its
advantage in quickly and precisely identifying the worst
contingencies. For example, Wang et al.[15] develop an N–k
contingency-constrained unit commitment model and use a robust
method to analyse contingencies. Moreira et al. [16] adopt the
same method to address the contingency-constrained transmission
expansion planning problem. In this paper, we conduct the N–k
contingency analysis using the robust method.
In fact, most existing studies focus on the resilient operation of
microgrids but few of them model the microgrid resilience against
contingencies explicitly at the planning stage. Zhang et al. [17]
propose an optimal sizing and siting model for the battery storage
system (BS) and photovoltaic (PV) generation to improve the
system resilience. This paper mainly concerns the deployment of
DERs and ignores the role of distribution line in enhancing the
system resilience. Ma et al. [18] propose an optimal hardening
strategy with distribution lines to enhance the resilience of the
power distribution system against extreme weather events. Zare-
Bahramabadi et al. [19] present a resilience-based framework for
determining optimal switch placement in distribution systems.
However, Ma et al. [18] and Zare-Bahramabadi et al. [19]
contribute to the system resilience merely by installing new
distribution lines or switches without realising the value of DERs
in resilience enhancement. In contrast, some works [20, 21] use
both distribution line and DER to enhance the system resiliency.
Specifically, Ma et al. [20] develop a mixed integer model to
protect distribution grid against extreme weather events by
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 3534-3548
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
hardening existing distribution lines, deploying distributed
generators (DGs), and automatic switches. Nevertheless, the model
mainly aims at distribution system, and the islanded cases caused
by contingencies are not considered. Nazar and Heidari [21]
develop an optimal robust microgrid expansion planning model to
determine the deployment of distribution lines and DGs. The
resilience is indirectly reflected in the objective function in terms
of energy not supplied (ENS) cost, and the system resilience is not
adequately characterised. Madathil et al. [22] conducts an N−1
contingency analysis on off-grid microgrids. In fact, more
contingencies are needed to be considered from the perspective of
robust planning.
In summary, conventional microgrid planning models [1–9] are
mostly based on economic or reliability criterion. Additionally, the
planning objects are usually DERs, and the role of distribution line
expansion in enhancing the microgrid resilience has not been
adequately investigated. Recently, an increasing number of studies
[23–28] take the resilience criterion into account in the planning
model by deploying distribution lines and DGs. Nevertheless,
many works are not aimed at microgrids. Additionally, some
details such as islanded cases in a contingency and the explicit
description of resilience level are commonly ignored. Accordingly,
this paper proposes a microgrid planning model considering the
resilience against contingencies. To sum up, the main contributions
of this paper are:
(i) A tri-level two-stage robust microgrid planning model from the
perspectives of economics and resilience is proposed.
(ii) The resilience level of microgrids is quantified and maintained
such that the load loss is constrained within a given bound under
any realisation of N–k contingencies.
(iii) A practical strategy is developed to maintain the radial
topology of sub-systems of a microgrid in each N–k contingency.
The remainder of this paper is laid out as follows. Detailed
optimisation models are provided in Section 3. Algorithms
proposed for solving the models are presented in Section 4. Case
studies are illustrated in Section 5, and finally, conclusions are
given in Section 6.
2 Proposed microgrid planning model
In this section, the basic microgrid planning model is formulated
first taking into account the costs of both DERs and distribution
lines. Furthermore, we extend the model by exploring the
formulations for characterising the resilience of microgrids against
contingencies. The radial topology formation of microgrids in an
N–k contingency is also analysed and integrated into the model.
Finally, the model is formulated as a robust microgrid planning
model and written in a compact form.
2.1 Basic planning model
With respect to microgrid planning, the most common concern is
related to economics. The total cost of implementing a microgrid
includes the investment cost and operation cost of DERs and the
investment cost of distribution lines. Accordingly, the objective of
the microgrid planning problem, as formulated in (1), is to
minimise the overall investment and operation cost (including the
DER investment cost, the distribution line investment cost, and the
microgrid operation cost) throughout the life cycle. Since the life
cycle of a microgrid lasts for decades, the total cost is calculated in
terms of the present-worth value.
The first term in the objective is the investment cost of DGs
such as microturbines and fuel cells. The investment cost of DGs is
assumed to be proportional to their capacity with the consideration
of discounted costs. The second term represents the investment
cost of renewable energy resources such as wind turbines (WTs)
and PVs. The third term is the investment cost of BSs. Note that
the capital cost of BSs includes two parts. One is relevant to the
capacity, while the other one depends on the maximum discharging
power. The fourth term denotes the investment cost of distribution
lines. The remaining terms are the operation cost of the microgrid
3535
over the year. The generation costs of WTs and PVs are assumed to In addition, the power output of DERs is constrained by their
be zero as they consume no fuel. The fifth term is the fuel cost of availability, which means that only deployed DERs can generate
DGs. The sixth and seventh terms are related to the energy traded power as requested. The corresponding constraints are shown in
with the utility grid. The microgrid is assumed to either buy or sell the equations below:
power from or to the utility grid
g
0 ≤ pigjdh ≤ P¯ i xigj, ∀i ∈ G, ∀ j ∈ N (12)
min ∑ KigIigP¯ gi xig + ∑ KiwIiwP¯ wi xiw
i∈G i∈W g
0 ≤ qigjdh ≤ Q¯ i xigj, ∀i ∈ G, ∀ j ∈ N (13)
b b
+ ∑ Kib(IPibP¯ i + IEibE¯ i )xib + ∑ K dlIidlj zi j
i∈ℬ (i, j) ∈ ℒc (1) b
0 ≤ pibjdh
+
≤ P¯ i xibj, ∀i ∈ ℬ, ∀ j ∈ N (14)
365 24
g gd + gd −
+∑ ∑(∑ ρig pidh + ρgd + pdh − ρgd − pdh ) b
d =1h=1 i∈G 0 ≤ pibjdh
−
≤ P¯ i xibj, ∀i ∈ ℬ, ∀ j ∈ N (15)

In this objective, the investment cost is converted to the annual 0 ≤ piwjdh ≤ Piw xiwj , ∀i ∈ W, ∀ j ∈ N (16)
value at present by multiplying the present-worth coefficient as
follows: Equation (17) characterises the energy storage of BSs, where the
increased energy storage level is the difference between the
r(1 + r)T y, i charging and discharging powers after considering the pertinent
K y, i = , ∀y ∈ G, W, ℬ, ℒc (2)
(1 + r)T y, i − 1 efficiency. The energy storage level, the charging, and discharging
powers are restricted by their physical limits, as stated in (18)–(20),
where Ty,i is the life span of the ith device y. The operation cost is respectively. Equation (21) enforces the stored energy at the end of
daily based and then accumulated throughout the year. Considering the scheduling period to be equal to that at the beginning so as to
the temporal correlation, several typical days instead of all days are facilitate the scheduling in the next period
selected to simulate the daily operation of the microgrid to lessen
the computational complexity of the model.
b
eidh b
= eid b+ b+
, h − 1 − pidh /η
b− b−
+ pidh η , ∀i ∈ ℬ, ∀d, ∀h (17)
The numbers of DGs, BSs, and renewable energy resources are
subject to resource limits such as financial budgets, and they are b+
0 ≤ pidh ≤ P¯ i xib,
b
∀i ∈ ℬ, ∀d, ∀h (18)
bounded by their maximum values, as stated in the equations
below: b
b−
0 ≤ pidh ≤ P¯ i xib, ∀i ∈ ℬ, ∀d, ∀h (19)
0≤ ∑ xig ≤ G (3) b
i∈G E bi ≤ eidh
b
≤ E¯ i , ∀i ∈ ℬ, ∀d, ∀h (20)

0≤ ∑ xib ≤ ℬ (4)
b
eid b
, 24 = Eid , 0, ∀i ∈ ℬ, ∀d (21)
i∈ℬ

A typical daily generation profile is used to simulate the generation

0≤ ∑ xiw ≤ W (5) behaviours of renewable energy resources, and their generation
i∈W outputs are constrained by the corresponding profile as stated in the
equation below:
As each DER is connected to only one bus in the microgrid, the
aggregated sum of the location indicators should be equal to the w
0 ≤ pidh w w
≤ Pidh xi , ∀i ∈ W, ∀d, ∀h (22)
deployment state of the DER, as indicated in (6)–(8). If the DER is
installed, only one location indicator is active and equal to 1;
otherwise, all the location indicators are inactive and equal to 0 The model above involves various operation constraints. However,
the power flow equations of the network should also be taken into
account. The active (or reactive) power injection amount at each
xig = ∑ xigj, ∀i ∈ G (6) bus is equivalent to the difference between the cumulated power
j∈N
output of local DERs and the load, as shown in (23)–(26). Note
that the power injection of the utility grid (i.e. the imported/
xib = ∑ xibj, ∀i ∈ ℬ (7) exported power amount) is also considered at the root bus. Only
j∈N
DGs are assumed to generate reactive power, as shown in (25) and
(26)
xiw = ∑ xiwj , ∀i ∈ W (8)
j∈N
pin gd + gd −
jdh = pdh − pdh + ∑ pigjdh + ∑ (pibjdh − pibjdh)
+ −

i∈G i∈ℬ
To avoid placing two and more DERs at a single bus, constraint (9) (23)
should be met + ∑ piwjdh − Pld
jdh, ∀ j ∈ N0
i∈W

∑ xigj + ∑ xibj + ∑ xiwj ≤ 1, ∀j ∈ N (9)

i∈G i∈ℬ i∈W pin
jdh = ∑ pigjdh + ∑ (pibjdh − pibjdh)
+ −

i∈G i∈ℬ
The power exchange with the utility grid is constrained by the (24)
maximum limits as (10), while the power output of each DG is
+ ∑ piwjdh − Pld
jdh, ∀ j ∈ N∖N0
i∈W
constrained by its lower bound (LB) and upper bound (UBs) as
(11)
qin gd
jdh = qdh + ∑ qigjdh − Qldjdh, ∀ j ∈ N0 (25)
i∈G
gd
0≤ gd +
pdh , gd −
pdh ≤ P¯ , ∀d, ∀h (10)

g
qin
jdh = ∑ qigjdh − Qldjdh, ∀ j ∈ N∖N0 (26)
0≤ g
pidh ≤ P¯ xg,
i i ∀i ∈ G, ∀d, ∀h (11) i∈G

3536 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 3534-3548
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
The LinDistFlow model is employed to formulate power flow
constraints, which is extensively used in radial distribution systems Φ= α ∑ αi j = ℒ − k (37)
and microgrids [23–25], as expressed in (27)–(33): (27) and (28) (i, j) ∈ ℒ

address the balance of active and reactive powers at each bus.

Equation (29) relates the active, reactive power flows of a branch Similar to those in the basic model, (38) and (39) specify the
to the voltage magnitude of its two terminal buses. Equations (30)– bounds of the active (reactive) power exchanged with the utility
(33) present the limits on the active power, reactive power and grid. Equations (40)–(44) limit the power outputs of DERs.
voltage, where V0 is the reference voltage magnitude. If the bus is Equation (45) denotes the curtailed load should be less than the
load at present. Similarly, (46)–(61) address the power flow
the root bus, then the voltage retains the reference voltage as
constraints of microgrids in an N–k contingency. Note that (52)–
shown in (32); otherwise, the bus voltage is allowed to vary in the
(59) are restricted by the states of both the existing distribution
determined interval as shown in (33)
lines and the backup ones. If a distribution line is damaged, the
restriction on the voltage is relaxed and does not take effect
pin
jdh = ∑ p jkdh − ∑ pi jdh, ∀j ∈ N (27) according to (52)–(55). Furthermore, the power flow in that
k ∈ σ( j) i ∈ π( j)
distribution line is also enforced to be zero, as indicated in (56)–
(59); otherwise, (52)–(59) will take effect and be incorporated into
qin
jdh = ∑ q jkdh − ∑ qi jdh, ∀j ∈ N (28) the power flow constraints. Equations (60) and (61) represent the
k ∈ σ( j) i ∈ π( j)
limits on the voltage magnitude
(pi jdhRi j + qi jdh Xi j)
vidh − v jdh = , ∀(i, j) ∈ ℒ (29) −P̄
gd
≤ p~gd ≤ P¯
gd
(38)
V0

−P̄i j ≤ pi jdh ≤ P¯ i j, ∀(i, j) ∈ ℒ (30) −Q̄

gd
≤ q~gd ≤ Q¯
gd
(39)

g
−Q̄i j ≤ qi jdh ≤ Q¯ i j, ∀(i, j) ∈ ℒ (31)
g
0 ≤ p~i j ≤ P¯ i xigj, ∀i ∈ G, ∀ j ∈ N (40)

vidh = V 0, ∀i ∈ N0 (32) g
0 ≤ q~i j ≤ Q¯ i xigj,
g
∀i ∈ G, ∀ j ∈ N (41)

V i ≤ vidh ≤ V¯ i, ∀i ∈ N∖N0 (33) b

(42)
0 ≤ p~bi j+ ≤ P¯ i xibj, ∀i ∈ ℬ, ∀ j ∈ N
It is worth noting that the basic model is conducted regardless of b
contingencies. To enhance the resilience of microgrids against 0 ≤ p~bi j− ≤ P¯ i xibj, ∀i ∈ ℬ, ∀ j ∈ N (43)
contingencies, specific constraints for characterising the resilience
of microgrids are to be developed. 0 ≤ p~w w w
i j ≤ Pi xi j , ∀i ∈ W, ∀ j ∈ N (44)

2.2 Resilience of microgrids against contingencies 0 ≤ p~lcj ≤ Pld

j , ∀j ∈ ℬ (45)
For a planning problem, the detailed operation of the resilience
measures and the transient operation of the system are commonly p~inj = p~gd + ∑ p~gi j + ∑ (p~bi j +
− p~bi j− )
ignored. What we care is whether the system has the ability to i∈G i∈ℬ
(46)
restore the loads in case of contingencies. In this regard, we first ~ld
+ ∑ p~w ~lc
ij − Pj + pj , ∀ j ∈ N0
characterise the resilience and then model the system recovery i∈W
ability in the worst scenario in the planning model.
 
Definition 3.1: The resilience level of microgrids S is defined as p~inj = ∑ p~gi j + ∑ (p~bi j +
− p~bi j− )
i∈G i∈ℬ
the inverse load loss rate in N–k contingencies, as indicated in (34), (47)
~ld
lc
where P¯ is the maximum allowable load loss in N–k contingencies + ∑ ~w
pi j − P j + p~lcj , ∀ j ∈ N∖N0
ld i∈W
and P is the maximum loads
¯

~
1 P¯
ld q~inj = q~gd + ∑ q~gi j − Qldj + q~lcj , ∀ j ∈ N0 (48)
S=
¯ lc ld
=
¯ lc
(34) i∈G
P /P̄ P
~
q~inj = ∑ q~gi j − Qldj + q~lcj , ∀ j ∈ N∖N0 (49)
Obviously, the resilience level increases as the maximum allowable i∈G
load loss decrease. Specifically, the resilience level becomes
positively infinite when the maximum allowable load loss is zero. p~inj = ∑ p~ jk − ∑ p~i j, ∀j ∈ N
This is also consistent with practises as the system is the most (50)
k ∈ σ( j) i ∈ π( j)
resilient when no load is lost in any N–k contingencies. According
to the definition, the domain of resilience level is [1, + ∞). q~inj = ∑ q~ jk − ∑ q~i j, ∀j ∈ N
The goal at this stage is to make the system resilience larger (51)
k ∈ σ( j) i ∈ π( j)
than a given resilience level, as indicated in (35). The model can be
reformulated as (36), where the curtailed load is less than a given v~i − v~ j − (p~i jRi j + q~i j Xi j) ≥ − M(1 − αi j), ∀(i, j) ∈ ℒ (52)
bound under the worst realisation of the N–k contingency. Φ is the
uncertainty set of N–k contingencies as indicated in (37) v~i − v~ j − (p~i jRi j + q~i j Xi j) ≤ M(1 − αi j), ∀(i, j) ∈ ℒ (53)
ld
P¯ v~i − v~ j − (p~i jRi j + q~i j Xi j) ≥ − M(1 − βi j), ∀(i, j) ∈ ℒc (54)
S≤ (35)
max min ∑ p~lcj
α∈Φ j∈ℬ v~i − v~ j − (p~i jRi j + q~i j Xi j) ≤ M(1 − βi j), ∀(i, j) ∈ ℒc (55)
lc ld
max min ∑ p~lcj ≤ P¯ = P¯ /S (36) −P̄i jαi j ≤ p~i j ≤ P¯ i jαi j, ∀i, j ∈ ℒ (56)
α∈Φ j∈ℬ

−Q̄i jαi j ≤ q~i j ≤ Q¯ i jαi j, ∀i, j ∈ ℒ (57)

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 3534-3548 3537
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 −P̄i j βi j ≤ p~i j ≤ P¯ i j βi j, ∀i, j ∈ ℒc (58) lines. Path line (i, j) is active when αi,j is equal to one and is
inactive when αi,j is equal to zero. According to the graph theory
−Q̄i j βi j ≤ q~i j ≤ Q¯ i j βi j, ∀i, j ∈ ℒc (59) [28], the number of lines is equal to the number of nodes minus
that of sub-graphs when a radial graph is partitioned into several
v~i = V 0, ∀i ∈ N0 (60) radial sub-graphs, as revealed in (68). Equations (64)–(67) ensure
the connectivity of the network, as there must be routeing from the
V i ≤ v~i ≤ V¯ i, ∀i ∈ N (61) source node to the load node according to energy balance. The
network is further enforced to be radial when (68) is added
It should be noted that the ‘Big-M’ method generally introduces a
computational burden. To reduce the computational burden, we ∑ l jk − ∑ li j = s j − 1, ∀ j ∈ N0 (64)
would estimate the LB of the ‘M’ to narrow the feasibility region k ∈ σ( j) i ∈ π( j)

in practises. For example, the ‘M’ in (52)–(55) is set to 0.2 as the

maximum voltage gap between two buses is 0.2. ∑ l jk − ∑ li j = − 1, ∀ j ∈ N∖N0 (65)
k ∈ σ( j) i ∈ π( j)

2.3 Radial formation of microgrids s j ≥ 1, ∀ j ∈ N0 (66)

Sub-systems may be formed in the microgrid in case a contingency
occurs. On the one hand, to keep a regular operation, all the sub- −Mαi j ≤ li j ≤ Mαi j, ∀(i, j) ∈ ℒ (67)
systems are required to maintain a radial structure. On the other
hand, to recover the power supply of loads as much as possible, ∑ αi j = N − N0
one can either use local DERs to generate power if they are at hand (68)
(i, j) ∈ ℒ
or reconnect the isolated sub-system to the active one through
backup distribution lines if they are available. We can use at most k A simple case (shown in Fig. 1) is used to illustrate this idea.
backup distribution lines to link the sub-systems to form a few Assume node 1 is a source node, and the other nodes are all load
larger systems or leave the sub-systems alone in an N–k nodes [as shown in (1)). To ensure the energy balances at nodes 2–
contingency, as shown in (62). β represents the active state of 4, paths from the source node 1 to all load nodes 2–4 have to be
backup distribution lines in a contingency, whereas z represents the formed [as shown in (2)], and an interconnected radial network is
deployment state of candidate distribution lines. Backup formed.
distribution line is available only if it is deployed, as stated in (63). The model above is incapable of dealing with islanded cases as
It should be noted that the active state of existing distribution lines the source nodes have to be predetermined. To overcome this
in a contingency α does not rely on z but is associated with the drawback, a modified single commodity flow method is proposed.
specific contingency In a similar manner, the proposed method assumes that each sub-
system is dominated by one source node. Each node of the network
∑ βi j ≤ k (62) is referred to as a virtual source node, and a power injection is
(i, j) ∈ ℒc assigned. Whether the virtual source node is a real source node
depends on the source node indicator. If the source node indicator
βi j ≤ zi j, ∀(i, j) ∈ ℒc (63) is active, the virtual source node turns out to be a real source node
and the power injection amount is non-zero; otherwise, the virtual
However, constraint (62) is not a sufficient condition to ensure a source node is a load node and the power injection amount is zero.
radial structure of sub-systems. To guarantee the radiality of a Specifically, the constraints are shown in (69)–(73). Equation (69)
distribution network, some effective models have been developed represents the energy balance of the virtual source nodes, where s′j
in existing works [25–27]. Those models partition the distribution is the actual power injection related to the virtual power injection
network into several sub-systems, each of which is dominated by a and source node indicator. The bilinear terms sjuj can be easily
source node. However, islanded areas without source nodes may be handled by the ‘Big-M’ method mentioned later. Equations (70)–
formed in an N–k contingency. Accordingly, some improvements (72) share the same meanings with those in the model with
should be made to handle this new situation. In the following predetermined source nodes. As each sub-system is supplied by
section, we would first introduce the single commodity flow only one real source node, the sum of source node indicators is
method [25], which suffices to ensure the radiality of a distribution equal to the number of sub-systems, as indicated in (73)
network with predetermined source nodes. After that, we modify
the model to make it capable of handling islanded cases. ∑ l jk − ∑ li j = s ju j − 1 = s′j − 1, ∀j ∈ N
The main idea of the method is as follows: a fictitious graph (69)
k ∈ σ( j) i ∈ π( j)
that has the same topology with the distribution system is
constructed. Assume each sub-system is dominated by one source s j ≥ 1, ∀j ∈ N (70)
node (e.g. nodes corresponding to the utility grid or the location of
DGs), and each source node is assigned a power injection. The −Mαi j ≤ li j ≤ Mαi j, ∀(i, j) ∈ ℒ (71)
other nodes are set to be sink (load) nodes, and each is assigned a
one unit load. Equations (64)–(68) constitute the complete
constraints for maintaining the radiality of a distribution network. ∑ αi, j = N − ∑ uj (72)
(i, j) ∈ ℒ j∈N
Equations (64) and (65) address the energy balance at the source
nodes and the load nodes, respectively. The power injection
amount at the source nodes should be larger than one unit, as ∑ uj = k (73)
indicated in (66). Equation (67) specifies the availability of path j∈N

To clarify the method, a simple case (shown in Fig. 2) same as

Fig. 1 is analysed. As shown in (1), all the nodes are set to be
virtual source nodes. If k = 1, one radial system is formed and one
virtual source node (e.g. node 1) will adaptively become a real
source node limited by (73), while the other nodes all become load
nodes naturally. Similarly, if k = 2, two radial sub-systems are
formed and two virtual source nodes (e.g. node 1 and node 3)
adaptively become real source nodes.
Fig. 1 Radial formation of a network with predetermined source nodes In this way, the sub-systems formed in an N–k contingency can
always be radial. In particular, the constraints are shown in (74)–

3538 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 3534-3548
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
(80) when the developed method is applied to the planning
problem

∑ l jk − ∑ li j = s′j − 1, ∀j ∈ N (74)
k ∈ σ( j) i ∈ π( j)

s j ≥ 1, ∀j ∈ N (75)

−Mαi j ≤ li j ≤ Mαi j, ∀(i, j) ∈ ℒ (76)

−Mβi j ≤ li j ≤ Mβi j, ∀(i, j) ∈ ℒc (77)

∑ αi, j + ∑ βi, j = N − ∑ uj (78)

(i, j) ∈ ℒ (i, j) ∈ ℒc j∈N
Fig. 2 Radial formation of a network with virtual source nodes
∑ uj ≤ k + 1 (79)
j∈N

0 ≤ s′j ≤ Mu j, s j − M(1 − u j) ≤ s′j ≤ s j, ∀j ∈ N (80)

It should be noted that the microgrid is interconnected with the

main grid. The root bus is always considered as a source node.
Therefore, at most k + 1 sub-systems (including the main grid) are
formed in an N–k contingency, as indicated in (79). The actual
number of sub-systems is to be optimised in the procedure.
Equation (80) accounts for the linearisation of bilinear terms using
the ‘Big-M’ method. Similarly, the UBs of lij and s’j are both |N|.
Consequently, M can be |N| in (76), (77), and (80).
 
Remark: The model above is a mixed integer linear
programming (MILP) problem, thus the constraints are easily
constructed for their relatively low computational cost. The
advantage of the model is that it overcomes the drawback of
conventional approaches [25–27] incapable of dealing with
islanded cases. In addition, it introduces fewer binary variables
than the conventional spanning tree approach [27], where each
branch introduces two binary variables.

2.4 Compact model of the planning problem

To better grasp the structure of the model and further explore the
solution to this problem, the model is rewritten in a compact form.
An equation can be written in the form of two inequalities, and all
equations are expressed as inequalities. Therefore, the proposed
model can be written in a compact form as shown in the equations
below:
min aT x + bT y0
x, y0
s . t . A x + B y0 ≤ d
ld
max min cT y ≤ P¯ /S
α∈Φ β, y
s . t . Dx + Eα + Fβ + Gy ≤ e
Equation (81) corresponds to the basic planning model as shown in
(1)–(33), whereas (82) corresponds to the resilience model as
displayed in (36)–(63) and (74)–(80). x is the investment-related
binary decision vector; y0 is the operation-related continuous
decision vector in the basic planning model; y is the operation-
related continuous decision vector in the resilience model; α and
are binary decision vectors representing the states of existing
distribution lines and backup distribution lines, respectively; and a,
b, c, d, and e are corresponding constant vectors, whereas A, B, D,
E, F, and G are corresponding constant matrices.
Remark: The advantage of the model above is that it is able to
characterise the resilience of the microgrid by the resilience level.
Thus, the decision makers can adjust the system resilience by
choosing a proper value, which is more straightforward than some
methods [20] which consider the load loss in the objective
function.
Fig. 3 Overall algorithm
3 Proposed algorithms
3.1 Overall algorithm
The proposed model is a tri-level two-stage robust optimisation
problem; the column-and-constraint generation (C&CG) procedure
[29] is suitable to solve it. The key idea of this procedure is to find
(81) the worst-case event and then add the event-related constraints into
the original problem to tighten the feasible region until the
algorithm converges. Specifically, the proposed model is
decomposed into a master problem and a sub-problem. The master
(82) problem is a relaxation of the original problem, whereas the sub-
problem is used to identify extreme event scenarios. The obtained
extreme event is taken as the worst-case event and corresponding
constraints are added to the master problem. The master problem
and the sub-problem will be solved iteratively until the objective of
the sub-problem is less than a given load loss level. The explicit
algorithm using this procedure is as follows (Fig. 3).
The master problem is an MILP problem, which could be
solved directly by off-the-shelf solvers such as CPLEX. The sub-
problem is, however, a bi-level programme. An existing algorithm
[30] is adopted to solve it.
3.2 Algorithm to solve the sub-problem
The innermost minimisation problem of the sub-problem contains
both binary and continuous variables, which cannot be directly
converted to a linear program by using duality theory [31, 32].
Observe that the sub-problem is equivalent to the tri-level problem
by separating binary variables from continuous variables expressed
as the equation below:

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 3534-3548 3539
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 f (x^ ) = max min min cT y
α∈Φ β y
(86)
s . t . Gy ≤ e − Dx^ − Eα − Fβ: λ

Specifically, by dualising the innermost minimisation problem, the

sub-problem can be further written as the tri-level problem as
shown in the equation below:

f (x^ ) = max min max (e − Dx^ − Eα − Fβ)T λ

α∈Φ β λ
T (87)
s.t. G λ = c
λ≤0

By enumerating all possible assignments of , the monolithic

equivalent form of the sub-problem can be acquired, as shown in
the equation below:

f (x^ ) = max θ
^k
s . t . θ ≤ (e − Dx^ − Eα − Fβ )T λk 1≤k≤m
(88)
T k
G λ = c, 1 ≤ k ≤ m;
α ∈ Φ, λk ≤ 0, 1≤k≤m

Obviously, a C&CG procedure can be used again to solve the tri-

level formulation. The explicit algorithm to solve the sub-problem
is given in Fig. 4. Fig. 4 Explicit algorithm to solve the sub-problem
The first constraints in (89) contain bilinear terms αTλ, which
can be reformulated as an MILP problem using the ‘Big-M’
method by introducing auxiliary variable vector

−Mα ≤ γ ≤ 0, λ ≤ γ ≤ λ + M(1 − α) (92)

Finally, the sup-problem can also be efficiently solved by off-the-

shelf solvers such as CPLEX.

4 Case study
To verify the effectiveness of the proposed model, two microgrid
cases are studied based on the IEEE 33-bus distribution system
[23] and IEEE 123-bus distribution system [33]. Numerical
experiments are implemented in MATLAB/YALMIP on a desktop
with an Intel Pentium 3.6 GHz processor and 8 GB memory. All
the optimisation problems are solved by invoking CPLEX. Fig. 5 Structure of the IEEE 33-bus distribution system-based microgrid

4.1 Case study I: IEEE 33-bus distribution system

The configuration of the tested microgrid is shown in Fig. 5. The
peak load of the microgrid is about 3 MW. The candidate DERs
include four DGs, two WTs, two PVs, and two BSs, while five
candidate distribution lines are displayed in Fig. 5. The parameters
of DERs, the costs of distribution lines, the daily electricity prices,
and the candidate buses for DER integration are given in Figs. 6
and 7 and Tables 1–5, whose data are mainly adapted from [34–
36]. Both the charging and discharging efficiencies of BSs are
assumed to be 0.9. The initial stored energy in BSs is assumed to
be half of their capacity. The selling price is assumed to be 0.8
times the buying price. Four typical days are selected to represent
four seasons of a year. Typical generation profiles of WTs and PVs
and the typical load profile are also given in Figs. 6 and 7 and
Tables 1–5.
Since several line outages seldom happen simultaneously in
distribution systems, the maximum number of contingencies is set Fig. 6 Typical generation profiles of WTs and PVs in four seasons
to three. Eight cases are analysed and compared in Table 6. Cases
I-1–I-4 plan both DERs and distribution lines considering different (i) Economic analysis of Case I-1: The resilience level of Case
resilience levels in N–1 contingencies. Note that the resilience I-1 is set to be relatively low such that the backup distribution lines
levels are calculated according to (34), e.g. S = 6 derives from S =  are unnecessary. The smart deployment of DERs is adequate to
3000/500, which also means that the maximum allowable load loss satisfy an appropriate power supply in N−1 contingencies. The
is 500 kW. Cases I-5–I-6 study the cases at two resilience levels in optimisation result finds the optimal number and placement of
N−2 contingencies, whereas Cases I-7–I-8 conduct the cases in N– DERs in the microgrid. The annual cost and power generation of
3 contingencies. DERs are shown in Table 7.
According to the optimisation, DERs including three DGs, two
BSs, four WTs, and two PVs are installed in the microgrid. These
3540 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 3534-3548
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Fig. 7 Typical load profile in four seasons

Table 1 Technical Parameters of DERs

Type Rated power, kW Investment, $/kW Lifespan, year Fuel cost, $/kWh Number limit
DG 400 300 10 0.16 6
WT 200 1200 20 0 5
PV 250 1600 20 0 6

Table 2 Technical parameters of BSs

Type Pmax (kW) Emax (kWh) Power cost, $/kW Energy cost, $/kWh Lifespan, year Number limit
BS 200 500 270 150 15 4

Table 3 Investment costs of distribution lines

Type Investment, $/m Lifespan, year
Distribution line 20 30

Table 4 Electricity prices

Time of use Off-peak 1 (23–07) Off-peak 2 (07–10, 15–18, 21–23) Peak 1 (10–11, 13–15, 18–21) Peak 2 (11–13)
Electricity price ($/kWh) 0.057 0.126 0.198 0.216

Table 5 Candidate buses for DER integration

DER type Candidate buses
DG 5 6 7 15 19 23 25 29 31
BS 2 3 4 11 13 17 30
WT 9 8 10 18 20 22 24 27
PV 12 14 16 21 26 28 32 33

Table 6 Case illustration for a 33-bus microgrid

Case Resilience level k Case Resilience level k
I-1 6 1 I-5 6 2
I-2 10 1 I-6 10 2
I-3 15 1 I-7 6 3
I-4 +∞ 1 I-8 10 3

Table 7 Annual cost and generation of DERs in the microgrid

DER Investment cost, 103$ Operation cost, 103$ Generation amount, MWh Average cost, $/kWh
DG1 23.4 200.3 1241 0.181
DG2 23.4 217.6 1349 0.178
DG3 23.4 198.6 1231 0.180
BS1 32.0 - 1174 -
BS2 32.0 - 1174 -
WT1–WT4 39.4 0 668 0.059
PV1–PV2 43.8 0 441 0.099

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 3534-3548 3541
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Fig. 8 Generation schedule of DERs in the microgrid in the typical days
DERs coordinate to satisfy the load in the microgrid. Surplus
power generated by DERs is sold to the utility grid.
Table 7 records the detailed cost and power generation of
DERs. It can be observed that the average cost of DGs is higher
than that of other DERs, while the average cost of renewable
energy resources is relatively low. Three out of four candidate DGs
are installed, even though the generation of DGs is not cheap.
However, there are some periods (e.g. Peak 1 and Peak 2 h) during
which the local generation of DGs is more economic. With regards
to renewable energy resources, all the candidates WTs and PVs are
placed in the microgrid as their generation is cheap. Note that the
average cost of WTs is less than that of PVs. On the one hand, the
unit investment of WTs is less than that of PVs. On the other hand,
the annual energy generation amount (668 MWh) of WTs is more
than that (441 MWh) of PVs. All the candidate BSs are deployed,
which is because volatile electricity prices put BSs in such a
favourable position that BSs can take full advantage of the
electricity price gap to diminish the cost.
Fig. 8 gives the generation schedule of DERs in the microgrid
in the typical days of four seasons. Since the electricity price is
cheap most of the time, the majority of the power supply is derived
from the utility grid. During certain high-price periods, the power
generated from local DERs is even sold to the utility grid to
increase the microgrid revenue. We find that DGs which are off
most of the time is started up to satisfy the load only during peak
hours when the electricity price is high. The generation of
renewable energy resources is relatively cheap. Therefore, WTs
and PVs are adequately utilised to generate power. The BSs take
advantage of the electricity price gap to make a profit during the
day. As can be seen in Fig. 8, they charge during off-peak 1/off-
peak 2 h while discharge during peak 1/peak 2 h. Obviously, the
results verify the economics of the operation.
(ii) Influence of the resilience level: Cases I-1–I-4 at different
resilience levels are compared to investigate the influence of the
resilience level to the planning results. The placement of DERs and
distribution lines in the four cases are displayed in Fig. 9, while the
detailed annual investment and operation costs, as well as numbers
of DERs and distribution lines in the four cases, are presented in
Tables 8 and 9, respectively.
Fig. 9 displays the placement of DERs and distribution lines in
the four cases. As can be seen in Fig. 9, only DERs are deployed in
Case I-1. The DERs seem to be distributed randomly in the
network. A careful look at Case I-1 of Fig. 9 reveals that DGs are
distributed in three feeders. It should be noted that DGs have a
large capacity and they are assumed to generate reactive power
only among the DERs, and therefore their placement greatly
influences the system resilience. Once an upstream line outage
occurs in a feeder, the local DGs can at least support a part of loads
in that feeder. Therefore, the deployment of DERs actually
enhances the resilience of the microgrid. Conversely, assume all
the DGs are located in one feeder. Majority of the loads are lost
once an upstream line outage occurs in that feeder. Therefore, the
placement of DERs also plays an important role in influencing the
system resilience. DERs together with backup distribution lines are
3542
deployed in Cases I-2–I-4 as the resilience level increases. Take
Case I-2, for example. Compared to Case I-1, the size and site of
DERs are nearly the same; however, one more distribution line is
deployed. In case an outage occurs in the first feeder, the backup
distribution line (8, 21) can reconnect isolated loads to active
networks, thereby reducing load loss in a contingency and
increasing the system resilience. It is as expected to find that the
number of backup distribution lines increases as the resilience level
rises. Specifically, all the candidate DERs and three candidate
distribution lines are deployed to defend against possible line
outages since load loss is entirely intolerable in any N−1
contingencies in Case I-4. Obviously, the results are compatible
with practise, which verify the effectiveness of the proposed
model.
From Table 8, the investment and operation costs of DERs in
Cases I-1–I-3 are identical. As we know, the total loads in the
microgrid are the same in the three cases. From the perspective of
energy balance, the capacities of the installed DERs in Case I-2 and
Case I-3 should be at the same level as that in Case I-1. However,
this does not mean that they have no influence on resilience. Their
placement, which may influence the system resilience, makes
difference, as explained in the paragraph above. In contrast to Case
I-1, additional investment cost of distribution lines is imposed on
Case I-2 and Case I-3 to defend against N–1 contingencies, even
though the investment and operation costs in three cases are the
same. Since the resilience requirement to Case I-3 is severer, more
investment cost of distribution lines is demanded.
The total cost in Case I-4 is the most among the four cases as
load loss is completely intolerable in this case. Accordingly, more
backup DERs and distribution lines are desired for Case I-4. As
can be seen in Table 8, the DER investment cost and distribution
line investment cost in Case I-4 are higher than those in other
cases. Nevertheless, the operation cost in Case I-4 is less than that
in other cases. This can be explained by the fact that one more DG
can improve the flexibility of the microgrid and better decrease the
operation cost. We can find that the system would prefer to
establish new distribution lines rather than install more DERs to
defend against contingencies. This is because the investment cost
of distribution lines is much lower than that of DERs in terms of
maintaining a resilience level. From the analysis above, we can
conclude that the planning problem is essentially to make a proper
trade-off between the investment and resilience of the microgrid.
Table 9 shows the detailed numbers of DERs and distribution lines
in the four cases. Obviously, the result is in accordance with that of
Table 8, which is not analysed here for simplicity.
(iii) Influence of the number of contingencies: To investigate the
impact of the number of contingencies on the planning results,
Cases I-5 and I-7, Cases I-6 and I-8, which are at the same
resilience level but with a different number of contingencies are
compared. Cases I-6 and I-8, however, are infeasible as their load
loss fails to meet the required resilience level. Hence, only the
results of Cases I-5 and I-7 are displayed in Fig. 10. The detailed
annual investment and operation costs, as well as numbers of DERs
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 3534-3548
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Fig. 9 Placement of DERs and backup distribution lines in the four cases

Table 8 Detailed annual investment and operation costs in the four cases
Case DERs Investment, 103$ DERs operation, 103$ AC lines, 103$ Total cost, 103$
I-1 379.5 1331.6 0 1711.2
I-2 379.5 1331.6 8.8 1719.9
I-3 379.5 1331.6 10.9 1722.1
I-4 402.9 1320.4 13.1 1736.5

Table 9 Numbers of DERs and backup distribution lines in the four cases
Case DGs BSs WTs PVs Distribution lines
I-1 3 2 4 2 0
I-2 3 2 4 2 1
I-3 3 2 4 2 2
I-4 4 2 4 2 3

and distribution lines in the four cases, are presented in Tables 10
and 11, respectively. The results of Cases I-6 and I-8 are empty.
As can be seen in Fig. 10, more and more backup distribution
lines are established as the number of contingencies grows.
Specifically, in Case I-5, two more distribution lines are reserved
compared with that in Case I-1 at the same resilience level but in
N–1 contingencies. This is easy to understand as it may incur more
serious outages (e.g. isolated areas) as the number of contingencies
grows. To restore the lost load in serious contingencies, backup
distribution lines are indispensable to be established.
In some extreme cases such as Case I-7, where three
contingencies happen simultaneously, not only all the candidate
distribution lines are deployed but also all the candidate DERs are
installed to defend against contingencies, as shown in Fig. 10 (2).
Tables 10 and 11 record the detailed costs and numbers of
deployed DERs and distribution lines in the four cases. Since Cases
I-6 and I-8 are infeasible, they have no records. Similar to the
analysis above, more and more costs are invested in increasing the
number of DERs and backup distribution lines as the number of
contingencies grow. However, backup distribution lines are given
priority with respect to defending against contingencies as their
cost is relatively low.
(iv) Size and computational time of the cases: The size of the
studied cases in terms of the number of variables and constraints
are given in Table 12. It should be noted that the size of the cases
corresponds to that of the master problem at the last iteration here.
The computational time of the studied cases is also displayed in
this table.
If the number of contingencies is fixed, e.g. Cases I-1–I-4, the
size of the optimisation problem increases with the rise of the
resilience level. This is because more iterations are needed to
satisfy a higher resilience level, which also requires more
computational time. As can be seen in Table 12, Case I-4, which
has the highest resilience level, costs the most among the first four
cases. On the other hand, if the resilience level is fixed, e.g. Cases
I-1, I-5, and I-7, the size and computational time of the
optimisation problem grow with the increase of the number of
contingencies. This is easy to understand as more contingencies

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 3534-3548 3543
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Fig. 10 Placement of DERs and backup distribution lines in Cases I-5 and I-7

Table 10 Detailed annual investment and operation costs in the four cases
Case DERs Investment, 103$ DERs operation, 103$ AC lines, 103$ Total cost, 103$
I-5 379.5 1331.6 4.4 1715.5
I-6 — — — —
I-7 402.9 1320.4 30.6 1754.0
I-8 — — — —

Table 11 Numbers of DERs and backup distribution lines in the four cases
Case DGs BSs WTs PVs Distribution lines
I-5 3 2 4 2 2
I-6 — — — — —
I-7 4 2 4 2 5
I-8 — — — — —

Table 12 Size and computational time of the cases in case study I

Case Number of variables Number of constraints Number of iterations Computational time, s
I-1 83,831 178,439 7 54
I-2 85,717 182,691 9 133
I-3 86,660 184,817 10 191
I-4 88,546 189,069 12 208
I-5 86,660 184,817 10 205
I-6 — — — —
I-7 117,779 254,975 43 7830
I-8 - — — —

particular, it takes Case I-7 43 iterations and 7830 s to find the

Fig. 11 Planning result of the conventional model in case study I
correspond to more possible combinations of faults, which also
requires more iterations and more time to search for the solution. In
solution.
(v) Comparison with the conventional model: To further
validate the proposed model, a conventional model in [4] assuming
the uncertainty is ignored is used for comparison. The planning
result is displayed in Fig. 11.
It is easily found that only DERs are placed in the microgrid.
The number and size of DERs are completely the same as that in
Case I-1. However, the placement of DERs makes a difference.
Three DGs are distributed in two feeders. As analysed before, the
resilience of this design is lower than that in Case I-1, where three
DGs are distributed in three feeders. Therefore, it proves that the
proposed model has fully considered the resilience and validates
the proposed model.
(vi) Comparison with the reliability-based method: A recent
publication such as Nazar and Heidari [21] identify the worst
contingencies by using the reliability-based method. The cases
whose ENS is more than a predefined threshold are considered as
the worst-case planning scenarios. This paper, however, uses a
robust optimisation method to identify the worst scenarios. The
advantage of the robust optimisation method is that it can fast and
precisely identify the worst contingency. The reliability-based

3544 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 3534-3548
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
method, which is commonly based on the Monte Carlo simulation 4.2 Case study II: IEEE 123-bus distribution system
(MCS), needs a lot of simulations and may cost more time. The
proposed method is compared with the MCS method in identifying To explore the generality of the proposed model, the IEEE 123-bus
the worst contingencies. The final deployment of Case I-1 as distribution system (whose configuration is shown in Fig. 11) is
shown in Fig. 9 (1) is used as the test system. Assume the failure also studied. The candidate DERs include ten DGs, six WTs, four
probability of the distribution lines is 0.001. About 10,000 samples PVs, and four BSs, while eight candidate distribution lines are
are simulated in the MCS. Subsequently, the worst-case shown in Fig. 12. The parameters of candidate DERs and the
contingencies identified by the robust method with k = 1, 2, and 3, candidate buses for DER integration are presented in Tables 14–16.
and three contingencies with the largest ENSs from the MCS The other parameters such as the electricity price and loading level
method are shown in Table 13. The numbers in braces denote the are identical to those in case study I.
damaged lines in the contingency. As can be seen, the worst three Cases that have the same settings as those in case study I are
cases from MCS are all N–1 contingencies. The N–2 or N–3 studied. It is found that the procedure fails to find an optimal
contingencies are hardly sampled for their low ENSs. In solution within a given time when the number of contingencies
comparison, the proposed method is more robust as it can consider exceeds three, as too many binary variables are introduced in the
worst cases by adjusting k. In addition, with regards to N–1 iterations. Therefore, only the cases in N−1 and N−2 contingencies
contingencies, the proposed method identifies the worst are studied. Specifically, the placement of DERs and distribution
contingency the same as that from the MCS completely. However, lines in Cases II-1, II-2, II-3, and II-5 are shown in Fig. 13. Take
the computational time only takes 1.8 s, whereas the MCS method Case II-3, for example. According to the optimisation, four DGs,
takes 24.8 s. four BSs, six WTs, and four PVs are installed in the microgrid. The
placement of DERs is as expected. All the candidate renewable
energy resources are installed for their cheap generation. Since the
variation of the time of use electricity price is relatively large, all
the BSs are deployed to make profits by taking advantage of the
Table 13 Worst contingencies of robust and MCS methods price gap. Several candidate DGs are placed to cooperate with
in case study I other DERs for satisfying loads. Moreover, three backup
Methods Robust method MCS distribution lines are established to defend against possible line
k=1 k=2 k=3 outages in contingencies. By observing the planning results in the
worst contingencies 1 {22} {1,14} {1,14,30} {22} four cases, we can draw the same conclusions as those in case
2 — — — {18} study I: more backup distribution lines tend to be deployed as the
resilience level increases and more contingencies are considered.
3 — — — {2}
The annual costs and the specific numbers of deployed DERs
time, s 1.8 1.8 1.9 24.8 and distribution lines are given in Tables 17 and 18, respectively.
Note that Case II-4 is infeasible as load loss is inevitable in this
case, and hence its results are empty here.
As can be seen in Table 17, the investment and operation costs
of DERs in N–1 contingency cases are all the same. The
investment cost of distribution lines also increases as the resilience
level rises. Furthermore, more and more backup distribution lines
are established as the number of contingencies grows. This is also
in accordance with the results in Table 18. Similar to case study I,
establishing new distribution lines instead of installing more DERs
is the main measure to deal with contingencies for its relatively low
cost. The investment cost of distribution lines is much lower than
that in case study I, and hence the investors would prefer to
establish new distribution lines to maintain the resilience level
against contingencies.
The size and computational time of the cases are demonstrated
in Table 19. Generally, the size and computational time increase
with the rise of resilience level and the inclusion of more
Fig. 12 Structure of the IEEE 123-bus distribution system-based contingencies. Note that the sizes of Case II-1 and Case II-2 are the
microgrid same. This is because the resilience levels of Cases II-1 and II-2

Table 14 Technical parameters of DERs

Type Rated power, kW Investment, $/kW Lifespan, year Fuel cost, $/kWh Number limit
DG 200 300 10 0.16 10
WT 150 1200 20 0 8
PV 250 1600 20 0 6

Table 15 Technical parameters of BSs

Type Pmax, kW Emax, kWh Power cost, $/kW Energy cost, $/kWh Lifespan, year Number limit
BS 200 500 270 150 15 6

Table 16 Candidate buses for DER integration

DER type Candidate buses
DG 123 13 18 35 47 51 115 101 57 60 67 76 86 89
BS 25 26 121 38 108 109 112 61 100 70 74 82 90 91 53
WT 3 7 120 58 65 38 46 50 108 107 97 71 75 79 82 95 56
PV 122 33 37 39 52 97 117 118 73 85 90 94 66

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 3534-3548 3545
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
are relatively low, and they are easily satisfied after several
iterations. However, to further increase the resilience level, much
more iterations are needed, as can be seen in Case II-3.
The planning result of the conventional model is also given in
Fig. 14. It is found that one less DG is installed in the microgrid
compared with Case II-1. Since the conventional model is
completely based on an economic criterion, one less DG is a better
option for saving investment. However, as mentioned before,
increasing the number of DGs enhances system resilience.
Therefore, Case II-1 which considers the resilience enhancement
actually is more resilient than that of the conventional model
without considering the resilience. Therefore, this case further
validates the proposed model.
The comparison between the robust method and MCS method
in identifying the worst contingencies is studied in case study II as
well. Case II-1 is used as the test system. The results are given in
Table 20. Similarly, the worst cases from MCS are still N−1
contingencies. In addition, the computational cost is far more than
that with a robust method.
Overall, we can conclude that the proposed model can always
effectively plan the DERs and distribution lines while maintaining
a certain degree of resilience at least cost. Both two case studies
verify the effectiveness of the proposed model.

Fig. 13 Placement of DERs and backup distribution lines in case study II

Table 17 Detailed annual investment and operation costs in case study II

Case DERs investment, 103$ DERs operation, 103$ AC lines, 103$ Total cost, 103$
II-1 432.4 1273.1 0 1705.5
II-2 432.4 1273.1 0.2 1705.7
II-3 432.4 1273.1 0.7 1706.2
II-4 — — — —
II-5 432.4 1273.1 0.4 1705.9
II-6 — — — —

Table 18 Numbers of DERs and backup distribution lines in case study II

Case DGs BSs WTs PVs Distribution Lines
II-1 4 4 6 4 0
II-2 4 4 6 4 1
II-3 4 4 6 4 3
II-4 — — — — —
II-5 4 4 6 4 2
II-6 — — — — —

3546 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 3534-3548
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Table 19 Size and computational time of the cases in case study II
Case Number of variables Number of constraints Number of iterations Computational time, s
II-1 549,540 174,187 5 39
II-2 549,540 174,187 5 45
II-3 591,085 189,069 12 289
II-4 — — — —
II-5 686,045 223,085 28 11,701
II-6 — — — —

Fig. 14 Planning result of the conventional model in case study II
Table 20 Worst contingencies of robust and MCS methods
in case study II
Methods Robust Method MCS
k=1 k=2 k=3
worst contingencies 1 {13} {73,115} {73,115,122} {13}
2 — — — {61}
3 — — — {62}
time, s 6 7 13 561
5 Conclusions
Planning the microgrid considering the resilience enhancement is
challenging in characterising the resilience and determining the
optimal site and size of DERs and distribution lines. In this paper, a
two-stage robust microgrid planning model is proposed for
addressing this issue, which takes full consideration of the
resilience modelling and radial formation of islanding network in
case of contingencies. The proposed model is solved by a double-
level C&CG algorithm. Specifically, the resilience of the microgrid
is characterised and integrated into the constraints. This design
suffices the decision makers to adjust the system resilience by
choosing a proper value. In addition, the radial formation model of
the network in contingencies is developed, which overcomes the
drawback of conventional approaches incapable of dealing with
islanded cases. As illustrated by case studies, the proposed model
can not only prioritise and deploy candidate DERs and distribution
lines in an optimal manner but also demonstrate a robust
performance against possible contingencies.
This paper assumes the generation of renewable energy sources
such as WTs and PVs is deterministic. However, the generation of
renewable energy sources demonstrates great volatility and
uncertainty, which may influence the planning results. Therefore,
the uncertainty of renewable energy sources will be considered in
our future work.
6 Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (51807149) and the China Postdoctoral
Science Foundation (2016M600791).
7 References
[1] Arriaga, M., Caizares, C. A., Kazerani, M.: ‘Long-term renewable energy
planning model for remote communities’, IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, 2016,
7, pp. 221–231
[2] Lotfi, H., Khodaei, A.: ‘AC versus DC microgrid planning’, IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, 2017, 8, pp. 296–304
[3] Mitra, J., Vallem, M.R., Singh, C.: ‘Optimal deployment of distributed
generation using a reliability criterion’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 2016, 52, pp.
1989–1997
[4] Khodaei, A., Bahramirad, S., Shahidehpour, M.: ‘Microgrid planning under
uncertainty’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2015, 30, pp. 2417–2425
[5] Guo, L., Liu, W., Jiao, B., et al.: ‘Multi-objective stochastic optimal planning
method for stand-alone microgrid system’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014,
8, pp. 1263–1273
[6] Basu, A.K., Chowdhury, S., Chowdhury, S.P.: ‘Impact of strategic deployment
of CHP-based DERs on microgrid reliability’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv.,
2010, 25, pp. 1697–1705
[7] Hakimi, S.M., Moghaddas-Tafreshi, S.M.: ‘Optimal planning of a smart
microgrid including demand response and intermittent renewable energy
resources’, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 2014, 5, pp. 2889–2900
[8] Wang, H., Huang, J.: ‘Cooperative planning of renewable generations for
interconnected microgrids’, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 2016, 7, pp. 2486–2496
[9] Che, L., Zhang, X., Shahidehpour, M., et al.: ‘Optimal interconnection
planning of community microgrids with renewable energy sources’, IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, 2017, 8, pp. 1054–1063
[10] Gazijahani, F.S., Salehi, J.: ‘Optimal bilevel model for stochastic risk-based
planning of microgrids under uncertainty’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf., 2018, 14,
pp. 3054–3064
[11] Manshadi, S.D., Khodayar, M.E.: ‘Resilient operation of multiple energy
carrier microgrids’, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 2015, 6, pp. 2283–2292
[12] Xiong, L., Zhuo, F., Wang, F., et al.: ‘Static synchronous generator model: a
new perspective to investigate dynamic characteristics and stability issues of
grid-tied PWM inverter’, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2016, 31, pp. 6264–
6280
[13] Majidi-Qadikolai, M., Baldick, R.: ‘Integration of N−1 contingency analysis
with systematic transmission capacity expansion planning: ERCOT case
study’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2016, 31, pp. 2234–2245
[14] Correa, C.A., Bolanos, R., Garces, A.: ‘Enhanced multiobjective algorithm
for transmission expansion planning considering N − 1 security criterion’, Int.
Trans. Electr. Energy Syst., 2015, 25, pp. 2225–2246
[15] Wang, Q., Watson, J.-P., Guan, Y.: ‘Two-stage robust optimization for N−k
contingency-constrained unit commitment’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2013,
28, pp. 2366–2375
[16] Moreira, A., Street, A., Arroyo, J.M.: ‘An adjustable robust optimization
approach for contingency-constrained transmission expansion planning’,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2015, 30, pp. 2013–2022
[17] Zhang, B., Dehghanian, P., Kezunovic, M.: ‘Optimal allocation of PV
generation and battery storage for enhanced resilience’, IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, 2019, 10, pp. 535–545
[18] Ma, S., Chen, B., Wang, Z.: ‘Resilience enhancement strategy for distribution
systems under extreme weather events’, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 2018, 9, pp.
1442–1451
[19] Zare-Bahramabadi, M., Abbaspour, A., Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M., et al.:
‘Resilience-based framework for switch placement problem in power
distribution systems’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2018, 12, pp. 1223–1230
[20] Ma, S., Su, L., Wang, Z., et al.: ‘Resilience enhancement of distribution grids
against extreme weather events’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2018, 33, pp.
4842–4853
[21] Nazar, M.S., Heidari, A.: ‘Optimal robust microgrid expansion planning
considering intermittent power generation and contingency uncertainties’, in
Shahnia, F., Arefi, A., Ledwich, G. (Eds.): ‘Robust optimal planning and
operation of electrical energy systems’ (Springer, Singapore, 2019), pp. 177–
198
[22] Madathil, S.C., Yamangil, E., Nagarajan, H., et al.: ‘Resilient off-grid
microgrids: capacity planning and N−1 security’, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
2018, 9, pp. 6511–6521
[23] Baran, M. E., Wu, F.F.: ‘Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for
loss reduction and load balancing’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 1989, 4, pp.
1401–1407
[24] Wang, Z., Chen, B., Wang, J., et al.: ‘Robust optimization based optimal DG
placement in microgrids’, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 2014, 5, pp. 2173–2182
[25] Ding, T., Lin, Y., Li, G., et al.: ‘A new model for resilient distribution systems
by microgrids formation’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2017, 32, pp. 4145–4147
[26] Lavorato, M., Franco, J.F., Rider, M.J., et al.: ‘Imposing radiality constraints
in distribution system optimization problems’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
2013, 28, p. 568

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 3534-3548 3547
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
[27] Jabr, R.A., Singh, R., Pal, B.C.: ‘Minimum loss network reconfiguration
using mixed-integer convex programming’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2012,
27, pp. 1106–1115
[28] Balakrishnan, R., Ranganathan, K.: ‘A textbook of graph theory’, in Axler, S.,
Capasso, V., Casacuberta, C., et al. (Eds.): ‘Mathematical gazette’, vol 84
(Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2000)
[29] Zeng, B., Zhao, L.: ‘Solving two-stage robust optimization problems using a
column-and- constraint generation method’, Oper. Res. Lett., 2013, 41, pp.
457–461
[30] Zhao, L., Zeng, B.: ‘An exact algorithm for two-stage robust optimization
with mixed integer recourse problems’, University of South Florida, 2012
[31] Boyd, S., Vandenberghe, L.: ‘Convex optimization’ (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004)
[32] Balinski, M., Tucker, A.: ‘Duality theory of linear programs: a constructive
approach with applications’, SIAM Rev., 1969, 11, pp. 347–377
[33] Kersting, W.H.: ‘Radial distribution test feeders’, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, 2001, 6, pp. 975–985
[34] Zou, K., Agalgaonkar, A.P., Muttaqi, K.M., et al.: ‘Distribution system
planning with incorporating DG reactive capability and system uncertainties’,
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, 2012, 3, pp. 112–123
[35] Zhang, J., Cheng, H., Wang, C.: ‘Technical and economic impacts of active
management on distribution network’, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.,
2009, 31, pp. 130–138
[36] Cao, X., Wang, J., Zeng, B.: ‘A chance constrained information-gap decision
model for multi-period microgrid planning’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2018,
33, pp. 2684–2695

3548 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 3534-3548
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019