4.7 Article

Strategic Assessment of Alternative Design Options for Multivoltage-Level Distribution Networks

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 1261-1269

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TPWRS.2013.2290103

关键词

Distribution losses; distribution planning; distribution system analysis; Life Cycle Cost (LCC); network design strategies; power distribution economics

资金

  1. U.K. Research Council (EPSRC)
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K036327/1, EP/K005316/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. EPSRC [EP/K036327/1, EP/K005316/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a methodology for assessing the performance of alternative design strategies for multivoltage-level distribution networks. The key feature of the proposed methodology is its ability to reproduce realistic network topologies and lengths, as calibrated against real distribution networks. Through year-round power flow analysis and optimization processes, the proposed approach allows comprehensive network studies to be carried out for the decision makers to investigate the sensitivity to different parameters and to draw more robust conclusions than those reached through a specific network study. The output metrics used for comparison of network performance are overall network cost, network losses, and reliability, which represent the three most crucial network performance indicators in network design. The validity of the developed models was demonstrated through the investigation of alternative distribution network design for a real medium voltage (MV) network in the U. K. This investigation includes quantitative performance evaluation and comparison between a four-voltage-levels design (e. g., 132 kV/33 kV/11 kV or 6.6 kV/0.4 kV) with three-voltage-levels network arrangements (e. g., 132 kV/11 kV/0.4 kV or 132 kV/20 kV/0.4 kV) and comparison between the peak demand-driven network design versus the optimal loss inclusive network design.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据