See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/252045427

Transmission and substation expansion planning using Mixed Integer

Programming

Conference Paper · August 2011

DOI: 10.1109/NAPS.2011.6024851

CITATIONS READS

9 323

4 authors, including:

Erkut Cebeci Osman Bülent Tör

EPRA Power Systems EPRA
36 PUBLICATIONS 117 CITATIONS 68 PUBLICATIONS 344 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ali Nezih Guven

Middle East Technical University
38 PUBLICATIONS 332 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Intelligent system for trading on wholesale electricity market (SMARTRADE) View project

Bu çalışma, Enerji Piyasası Düzenleme Kurumunca (EPDK) Elektrik ve Doğalgaz Dağıtım Sektöründe araştırma ve geliştirme faaliyetlerini desteklemek amacı ile
dağıtım faaliyetleri kapsamında verilen Ar-Ge bütçelerinin kullanılabilmesine ilişkin 28.04.2014 tarih ve 5036 sıra nolu Kurul Kararı ile belirlenen usule göre EPDK
tarafından desteklenen Temmuz 2015 dönemi “Yazlık bölgelerinde transformatörlerin boşta kayıplarını minimize etmek için AG ekspres fider uygulama teknik
ekonomik analiz projesi” kapsamında gerçekleştirilmiştir. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Nezih Guven on 26 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Transmission and Substation Expansion
Planning using Mixed Integer Programming
Mahmut Erkut Cebeci Sinan Eren Dr. Osman Bülent Tor Prof. Dr. Nezih Güven
Power System Department Power System Department Power System Department EE Dept. METU
TUBITAK – UZAY TUBITAK – UZAY TUBITAK – UZAY Ankara / TURKEY
Ankara / TURKEY Ankara / TURKEY Ankara / TURKEY guven@metu.edu.tr
erkut.cebeci@uzay.tubitak.gov.tr sinan.eren@uzay.tubitak.gov.tr osman.tor@uzay.tubitak.gov.tr

Abstract - This paper presents a novel planning approach
which optimizes size and location of new transmission substation
(TS) investments considering capacity expansion of the existing
TSs based on primary distribution network investment
requirements. Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) is utilized and
the problem is decomposed into investment and feasibility check
subproblems. The algorithm is formulated to minimize total
investment cost while supplying the spatial forecasted load
considering a set of system constraints. The results of two
numerical examples indicate that presented algorithm is
adequate for determining requirements of new transmission
substations and/or capacity expansions together with new
HV/MV lines, via appropriate selection of candidates.
Visualization of the planning algorithm results, in an iterative
manner, gives very important verification signals regarding the
necessity of the proposed investments.
I. NOMENCLATURE
CTotal Total investment cost (TL)

 Cost of the MV line (TL)

 Cost of the HV line (TL)

 Candidate substation total capacity (MVA)

 Candidate MV line list

 Candidate HV line list

 Candidate transmission substation (TS) or
existing capacity expansion list
d Node load in vector form (MVA)

Dummy variable, “1” for new TS candidates, “0”
for capacity expansion candidates.
f Power flow in vector form (MVA)
L TS total load (MVA)
p Power flow from rest of the grid (MVA)
r Load curtailment in vector form (MVA)
s Node-branch incidence matrix
Thermal capacity of transformers in TS (MVA)


 Thermal capacity of MV lines (MVA)

 Thermal capacity of HV lines (MVA)
 Fixed cost of a substation (TL)
 Variable cost of a substation (TL/MVA)
 Line susceptance in vector form
 Load angle

// Initial investment status of MV (LL), HV (HL)
lines and TS (0 or 1).
// Final investment status of MV (LL), HV (HL)
lines and TS (0 or 1).
II. INTRODUCTION
T HE restructuring of electricity industry has led to dramatic
changes from monopoly to competitive markets in
generation and retailing sectors of power systems while
keeping transmission services as natural monopolies, in many
countries worldwide [1]. Transmission expansion planning
(TEP) process has become complicated in the restructured
electric utility industry because generation investment
decisions are now based on market forces rather than a
centralized decision process. In electricity markets, the
inherent uncertainty over the configuration of power systems
is among major issues which create new challenges for power
systems planners [2]–[4].
Before opening the Turkish electricity market to generation
segment in 2001, Turkish transmission and generation (T&G)
company (TEAS in Turkish capitals) was the unique
association, which was responsible from planning of T&G of
Turkey, taking the advantage of coordination of the T&G
investment needs. However, after opening the market, the
generation investments have been the decisions of private
companies (independent power producers, IPPs). This together
with the privatization of the state-owned electricity
distribution companies has essentially complicated the
transmission capacity expansion planning problem [1].
At the distribution segment, according to the legislations of
Turkish electricity market regulatory authority (EMRA), all
private (and to be privatized) Distribution Companies (DisCo)
are obliged to supply their 10 year master plan for their
distribution network. These plans should be based on spatial
load growth. That is, each DisCo has to perform spatial load
forecast and indicate their transmission substation (TS)
requirements, if any. Those requirements have to be analyzed
by the transmission company before making a final investment
decision which is subject to approval of the EMRA.
This paper, presents a planning solution for the transmission
company to determine optimum TS investments in order to
supply the forecasted demand of the primary distribution
networks. TS expansion planning problem is proposed to be
solved using an integer programming method. Literature
includes many studies on this programming technique. [7]
proposes a dynamic programming solution while [8] employs
utilization of branch-and-bound in dynamic programming. In
[9], a similar method is proposed as mixed-integer
programming. Another commonly used technique is linear
programming [10]-[11]. Others include application of genetic
algorithm (GA) and probabilistic model based on fuzzy set are utilized, but for TS which are increased capacity, only
[12]-[14]. variable cost is utilized. Hence, the total cost related to TS
In this paper, mixed-integer programming problem solved investments is given as,
by utilizing Bender’s Decomposition technique. Proposed
algorithm utilizes the existing HV and MV network, HV/MV
 $ ∑./0;< 56 7
'() 8  7
/ '()9 * +  ,: (4)
Transmission Substations (TS) and Distribution Centers (DC)
together with forecasted spatial load forecast (SLF) and
corresponding new DC requirements. The proposed planning
algorithm recommends investments with minimum investment
cost while ensuring both zero load curtailment at the DC level
and N-1 security at the transmission level.

III. PROBLEM FORMULATION

Receiving current transmission and distribution network
information and geographical demand forecast, the algorithm
first determines candidate HV/MV substations as given in
Section III-A. The algorithm also considers each DC as a
candidate for HV/MV substation and allows the user to add
further candidates for analysis (i.e., requests from DisCo, etc).
After receiving the data, the algorithm minimizes the objective
function described in Section III-B, considering the constraints
given in Section III-C. The utilized solution algorithm is given
in Section III-D. The experienced difficulties are described in
Section III-E.
A. Candidate Transmission Substations
Candidate selection algorithm only utilizes the geographical
data of TSs and DCs, existing TS capacities and forecasted
DC loads. The existing transmission or distribution lines are
ignored as explained in [12]. During candidate selection, the Figure 1. Candidate TS selection algorithm.
capacities of existing TSs are kept constant and the program is
C. Constrains and Assumptions
forced to connect each DC to a TS by creating new TSs as
described by the algorithm given in Figure 1. While minimizing the objective function, the algorithm
does not allow any circuit element to be overloaded. In case of
B. Objective Function an overload during the calculations, the algorithm curtails the
The main aim of the algorithm is to minimize the total load to relax the congestion, and searches for an investment to
investment cost, which can be divided into three main groups, overcome the congestion in the next iteration. Hence, the main
HV line costs, MV line costs and TS investment costs. aim of the sub-problem is to minimize the load curtailment.
The cost of HV and MV lines are considered to be constant The utilized assumptions are;
per unit length of line. The TS cost is divided into two groups • The voltage drop at MV level is not a concern for TSO,
as; Fixed cost and Variable cost. The Fixed cost represents the and can be avoided by selection of proper cables/lines
cost of confiscation, and equipment independent of and/or DC locations/load share. Hence, voltage drop in
transformer capacity, whereas, the Variable cost represents the MV level is considered to be sufficiently low in the
costs that are dependent on the capacity of the selected algorithm.
transformer. Finally, the total cost function is given as The utilized constraints are;
CTotal = CLow-Line + CHigh-Line + CTS (1) • Kirchoff’s first law — power node balance equations
where, =. ? 8 @ 8 A $ B (5)
CLow-Line: The total investment cost of new MV lines is
given as, • Kirchoff’s second law for existing HV and MV lines

  C + D ' +  ) $ 0 (6)

 !"# $ ∑./011 &
 '()* +  ,- (2)
• Kirchoff’s second law for candidate HV and MV lines
CHigh-Line: The total investment cost of New HV lines is
given as, |C + D ' +  )| G H 7 61 + /
 '()9 '(
, . K, L) (7)
 

23"# $ ∑./041 &
 '()* +  ,- (3)
where M is a large number
CTS: For new TS investments both Fixed and Variable costs
 • There will be no load curtailment from DCs at the
resulting network
∑.NO M $ 0
• Power flow of all higher and lower lines will be in the
range of their thermal capacity (for existing lines).
/ /
PC P Q  '(), ( . RK, LS .
/
• Power flow of all higher and lower lines will be in the
range of their thermal capacity (for candidate lines).
/ / 
TC T Q  '() 7 / '(), ( . RK, LS .
/ (10)
lines, resulting in very large number of constrains in sub-
problem. As a result, the computation time increases
dramatically.
(8) However, in practice the number of candidates can easily be
reduced by removing unlikely candidates manually, or
considering the physical limitations of DCs (i.e., if a DC is TS
candidate but the physical structure of the building or
available space is not enough for a TS). As the number of
(9)
candidates is reduced the algorithm works effectively as
shown in the Numerical Results section.

• Power flow of all TS will in the range of their thermal

capacity (for existing TS).

| | Q  '(), ( .
 (11)

• Power flow of all TS will in the range of their thermal

capacity (for existing lines).

| | Q  '() 7  '(), ( .
 (12)

• Each TS should be connected to other TSs via two HV

lines for N-1 security.

∑./0;< UVW*='(, : ), Y 2 7  (13)

D. Solution Algorithm
The solution algorithm is decomposes the problem into a
master problem, which focuses on the minimization of the
investment cost, and a sub-problem that represents feasibility
(no load curtailment). The master, which is a mixed integer
program (MIP), considers an investment plan for transmission
expansion based on the pre-determined candidates for TS and
candidate HV/MV lines which are connection combinations
between existing DCs together with existing and candidate
TSs.
Once an investment solution is determined by the master
Figure 2. Procedure of the Algorithm
problem, the feasibility sub-problem will check whether this
plan can meet system constraints which are defined in Section IV. NUMERICAL RESULTS
III-C. If the curtailment violations persist, the sub-problem
will form the corresponding Benders cut, which will be added A. Candidate Substations
to the master problem for solving the next iteration of the The candidate TS selection is the starting point of the
planning problem. The iterative solution will form one or algorithm. The candidates are considering only location and
more constraints for the next iteration of the feasibility sub- projected load of DCs together with location and available
problem by using dual multipliers. The iterative process will capacities of TSs as described in Section III-A. An example is
continue until a converged optimal solution is found as given in Figure 3.
described in Figure 2. As seen from Figure 3, the distribution network enlarges in
E. Expected Difficulties North-East and South-West directions. The existing TSs are
not able to supply this demand (Since candidate selection
The main difficulty is related to the size of optimization algorithm does not allow capacity expansion), so the algorithm
problem. As the number of DCs are increased or the capacity creates two candidate substations with the MV connections
expansion steps are reduced, the number of candidate TS given in Figure 4.
increases (since the algorithm considers every DC as a
potential TS). Furthermore, this increase in the number of
candidate TMs, increases the number of candidate HV/MV
 30

27 DC 3 TS 3
30MVA 100MVA

South-North Distance (km)

24
DC 6
21
TS 1 45MVA
DC 2
100MVA 35MVA
18
DC 5
15 DC 1 35MVA
40MVA
12
TS 2
9 DC 4 100MVA
55MVA
6

3 Generated Benders Cut:

40 * X(Line(TS1-DC1)) + 35 * (Line(TS1-DC2)) + 35 * X(Line(TS1-DC3)) < 100
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
West-East Distance (km)
Figure 5. Initial configuration of TS and DC with generated Benders Cut
Figure 3. Positions of example DCs and TSs
30

27 DC 3 TS 3
30MVA 100MVA

South-North Distance (km)

24
DC 6
TS 1
21 45MVA
100MVA DC 2
18 35MVA DC 5
35MVA
15 DC 1
40MVA
12
TS 2
9 100MVA
DC 4
6 55MVA
Generated Benders Cut:
3
40 * X(Line(TS2-DC1)) + 55 * (Line(TS2-DC4)) + 35 * X(Line(TS2-DC5)) < 100
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
West-East Distance (km)
Figure 6. First iteration of algorithm with generated Benders Cut

The algorithm searches for new supply points to distribute

Figure 4. Candidate selection algorithm output loads of DC1, DC2, and DC3 without overloading any other
As seen from Figure 4, the selected candidates are TS. After four iterations, the algorithm suggested DM3 to be
consistent with the enlargement of the distribution network. connected to TS3 as given in Figure 7.
The Upper and Lower bounds for solutions and Duality Gap is
B. General Planning Results given in Figure 8.
In practice, there are three possible results as the output of 30
the algorithm. Depending on the demand forecast, the 27
DC 3 TS 3
30MVA 100MVA
algorithm can propose;
South-North Distance (km)

24
DC 6
• only new MV connections to release the congestion in 21
TS 1
45MVA
100MVA DC 2
one TS by connecting a DC to another TS if the 18 35MVA DC 5
35MVA
capacity is available. 15 DC 1
40MVA
• a capacity increase, if the possibility of capacity 12
TS 2
increase is given as a candidate to the algorithm. 9
DC 4
100MVA

• a new TS, if no other solution satisfies the feasibility 6 55MVA

criteria. 3

The possible results are investigated in two different 0

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
West-East Distance (km)
scenarios to give further insight of the algorithm.
Figure 7. Result of algorithm
Load Transfer Example
Upper/Lower Bound

150

An example spatial demand forecast is given in Figure 5. As 100

seen in Figure, the total demand can be supplied by existing
50
TS capacity. Hence, the algorithm starts searching for new
MV connections that can release the overloading of TS1. 0

The algorithm generates Feasibility Cuts for the Master

2
problem in each iteration as shown in Figure 5. The main
Duality Gap

1.5
problem re-solves the problem with the constraint defined by
1
Feasibility Cut and creates the second iteration as shown in
0.5
Figure 6.
0
1 2 3 4
Iterations
Figure 8. Solution details
 New Substation Example V. CONCLUSION
Another example is generated to test the algorithm by de- In this paper, a new planning tool, which is developed to
activating the Complete Capacity Feasibility Cut, which ease transmission and substation expansion planning decisions
indicates the problem cannot be solved without a capacity of the monopoly transmission company, is presented. The
expansion or new substation (i.e., total load is larger than TS proposed algorithm determines the minimum investment cost
capacity). Hence, the algorithm is forced to try many TS-DC by utilizing spatial load forecast data, supplied by distribution
connection possibilities before deciding on capacity expansion companies, based on system constraints. Visualization of the
or new TS. The spatial demand forecast for second example is planning algorithm results in an iterative manner gives very
given in Figure 9. important verification signals regarding the necessity of the
proposed investments.
30
DC6
This algorithm will be used as a base algorithm and will be
27
TS1
45MVA TS3 improved by including additional network constraints. The
South-North Distance (km)

24 100MVA
21
100MVA current version of the algorithm proposes investments for the
18 DC7
final network conditions and necessary investments along the
15 DC1
45MVA planning horizon, lacking the execution sequence of the
80MVA
12 DC2 investments. Hence, future studies may include dynamic
40MVA TS2
9 100MVA
aspects of the planning problem.
6
DC3 DC4
3
40MVA 80MVA
REFERENCES
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
West-East Distance (km) [1] O. B. Tor, A. N. Guven, and M. Shahidehpour, “Congestion-driven
transmission planning considering the impact of generator expansion,”
Figure 9. Initial configuration of TSs and DCs
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 781–789, May 2008.
Since the algorithm is forced to search trough many [2] R. Baldick and E. Kahn, “Transmission planning issues in a competitive
economic environment,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 8, no. 4, pp.
infeasible possibilities, the solution is reached after 32 1497–1503, Nov. 1993.
iterations and the resulting network is given in Figure 10. [3] A. K. David and F.Wen, “Transmission planning and investment under
30
competitive electricitymarket environment,” in Proc. IEEE Power Eng.
Soc. Summer Meeting, Jul. 2001, vol. 3, pp. 1725–1730.
27 DC6
45MVA TS3 [4] R. J. Thomas, J. T. Whitehead, H. Outhred, and T. D. Mount,
TS1
South-North Distance (km)

24 100MVA “Transmission system planning—The old world meets the new,” Proc.
100MVA
21 IEEE, vol. 93, no. 11, pp. 2026–2034, Nov. 2005.
18 DC7 [5] G. Latorre, R. D. Cruz, J. M. Areiza, and A. Villegas, “Classifications of
45MVA publications and models on transmission expansion planning,” IEEE
15 DC1
80MVA Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 938–945, May 2003.
12
TS4 TS2 [6] U. G.W. Knight, “The logical design of electrical networks using linear
9 100MVA 100MVA programming methods,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. A, vol. 107, pp. 306–
6 316,1960.
DC4
3
DC3
80MVA
[7] J. V. Old-eld and M. A. Lang, “Dynamic programming network flow
40MVA
0
procedure for distribution system planning,” in Proc. Power Industry
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 Computer Applications Conf., 1965.
West-East Distance (km)
[8] R. N. Adams and M. A. Laughton, “Optimal planning of power net-
Figure 10. Final configuration of TSs and DCs
works using mixed integer programming,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 121, no.
The Upper and Lower bounds for solutions and Duality Gap 2,pp. 139–147, Feb. 1974.
[9] T. Gönen and B. L. Foote, “Distribution system planning using mixed-
is given in Figure 11. integer programming,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 128, no. 2, pp. 70–
2500 79,Mar. 1981.
Upper/Lower Bound

2000
[10] M. J. Carson and G. Corn-eld, “Design of low-voltage distribution net-
works,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 120, no. 5, pp. 585–593, May 1973.
1500
[11] “Computer aided design of low-voltage distribution networks,” inProc.
1000
IEE Computer Aided Design Conf., vol. 86, 1972, pp. 121–124.
500
[12] Sepasian, M.S. Seifi, H. Foroud, A.A. Hosseini, S.H. Kabir, E.M.
0 “A New Approach for Substation Expansion Planning” in Power
0.2 System, IEEE Transactions, May 2006 Vol.21, pp997.
[13] K. Yahav and G. Oron, “Optimal location of electrical substation in re-
Duality Gap

0.15
gional energy supply systems,” in Proc. IEEE EEIS, Jerusalem,
0.1
Israel,Nov. 5–6, 1996, pp. 307–310.
0.05 [14] I. J. Ramírez-Rosado and J. Antonio Domínguez-Navarro, “Possibilistic
0 model based on fuzzy sets for the multi objective optimal planning of
5 10 15 20 25 30
Iterations electric power distribution networks,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18,
no. 4, pp. 1801–1810, Nov. 2003.
Figure 11. Solution details

The same problem without de-activation of the Complete

Capacity Feasibility Cut, the algorithm reaches the same result
in 2 iterations.

View publication stats