4.6 Article

Optimal Sizing and Placement Method for Dynamic Voltage Restorers With Mitigation Expectation Index

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 3561-3569

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3045022

关键词

Power quality; Investment; Encoding; Optimization; Voltage fluctuations; Mathematical model; Indexes; Power quality; voltage sag; dynamic voltage restorer; optimal placement

资金

  1. China Southern Power Grid [GZHKJXM20170141]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates a comprehensive optimization method for determining the size and location of dynamic voltage restorers in distribution network to minimize investment costs and meet customers' demands efficiently. By introducing the MEI index and combining genetic algorithm, optimal results were achieved.
This paper investigates a comprehensive optimization method of determining the size and location of dynamic voltage restorers (DVRs) in distribution network considering customers' demand for sag mitigation. The objective is to minimize the investment of DVRs subject to customers' satisfaction. In the objective function, the unit price per kVA of DVR was described by a continuous function of the capacity to calculate the investment. In the constraints, a mitigation expectation index (MEI) was proposed to assess the customers' demand for mitigation. The MEI indicates the proportion among all sag events affecting customers, which were expected to be mitigated by the customers. It is represented by the cumulative probability of residual voltage of sag events. To improve the computational efficiency, the binary encoding for the locations and real encoding for the output voltage of DVRs are combined as chromosomes in multiple population Genetic Algorithm (MPGA). The proposed method was testified with the IEEE 33 bus distribution system with different sensitive loads. Optimal results were obtained to satisfy different customers' demand for sag mitigation efficiently.

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

4.6
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