192

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2002

Optimal Selection of Conductors for Distribution

Feeders
Sujit Mandal, Member, IEEE and Anil Pahwa, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractDesigning a distribution system requires many stages

of planning and rigorous calculations. Selection of conductors for
design and upgrade of distribution systems is an important part
of the planning process. An ideal conductor set should have the
most economic cost characteristics, sufficient thermal capacity in
the largest conductor to take care of situations with very high load
and it should provide proper voltage at the farthest end under peak
load conditions. In this paper, a method for selection of optimal set
of conductors is presented. Several financial and engineering factors are considered in the solution. The intent is to arrive at a solution, which will be the most economical when both capital and
operating costs are considered. Simulations have been performed
to obtain results based on different criteria and the results are compared.
Index TermsCosts, economics, planning, power distribution,
power distribution lines, power system planning.

I. INTRODUCTION

ELECTION of conductors for design and upgrade of distribution systems is an important part of the planning process.
After taking all the factors into consideration, utilities select four
or five conductors to meet their requirement [1]. This selection
is done mainly based on engineering judgment. Historical factors also play a role in the selection process, i.e., if a company
has been using a particular size of conductor, they would want
to continue to use that size unless there are compelling reasons
not to do so.
The available literature consists of work of only a few
researchers on finding the best set of conductors in designing
a distribution system. Funkhouser and Huber worked on a
method for determining economical aluminum conductor steel
reinforced (ACSR) conductor sizes for distribution systems [2]
in 1955. They showed that three conductors (2/0, 266 MCM,
397 MCM) could be standardized and used in combination
for the most economical circuit design for the loads to be
carried by a 13-kV distribution system. They also studied the
effect of voltage regulation on the conductor selection process.
The work done by Wall et al. [3] was published in 1979 in
which the authors considered a few small systems to determine
the best conductors for different feeder segments of these
systems. The study done by Ponnavaikko and Rao in 1982 [4]
Manuscript received November 15, 1999; revised August 6, 2001. This work
was supported by the National Science Foundation under Award EEC-9527345.
S. Mandal was with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506 USA. He is now with Technical
System Planning, Entergy Services, Inc., New Orleans, LA 70113 USA (e-mail:
smandal@entergy.com).
A. Pahwa is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506 USA (e-mail: pahwa@ksu.edu).
Publisher Item Identifier S 0885-8950(02)01068-4.

suggested a model to represent feeder cost, energy loss cost

and voltage regulation as a function of conductor cross-section.
The researchers proposed an objective function for optimizing
the conductor cross-section. Tram and Wall worked on similar
grounds in 1988 where again the authors took different examples of feeder systems and calculated the best conductor for
each feeder segment based on specific requirements of voltage
and losses [5]. Anders et al. published their work in 1993 [6]
where they analyzed the parameters that affect the economic
selection of cable sizes. The authors also did a sensitivity
analysis of the different parameters as to how they affect the
overall economics of the system. In 1995, Leppert and Allen
[7] suggested that conductor selection is not only based on
simple engineering considerations such as current capacity
and voltage drop but also on various other considerations,
e.g., load growth and wholesale power cost escalation. Willis
[1] gives a very broad idea about the line economics and the
various factors that affect the selection of conductors. In this
paper, we have presented a systematic approach for selection
of an optimal conductor set. Several financial and engineering
factors are considered in the solution. The intent is to arrive at a
solution, which will be the most economical when both capital
and operating costs are considered.
II. BASIC LINE ECONOMICS
Every conductor has a unique cost versus load characteristic.
So for proper choice and analysis of the conductors, it is
necessary to obtain these characteristics for all of them. Initial
installation, annual operation and maintenance and losses are
the three components of the total cost. Initial installation is
a one-time cost and it is incurred whenever the line is built.
This cost is different for different conductor sizes since heavier
hardware is needed for larger conductors and also handling
cost is higher for larger conductors. Annual operation and
maintenance cost is also higher for lines with larger conductors.
This is mainly due to the fact that utilities would spend more
money on maintenance of those lines that carry higher load
since failure of these lines would impact a larger number of
customers. This cost could have an annual escalation, but in
most planning studies such escalation is neglected [8], [9].
Thus, the present worth of fixed annual expense of $ /year
for operation and maintenance over a period of years at a
discount rate of can be determined by multiplying it by the
, where
present worth factor

08858950/02$17.00 2002 IEEE

(1)

MANDAL AND PAHWA: OPTIMAL SELECTION OF CONDUCTORS FOR DISTRIBUTION FEEDERS

193

The losses in the lines, which are a function of the peak load,
contribute to the variable part of the cost. If there were any load
growth, this cost would increase every year. Thus, if the peak
load in the first year of operation of the line is MW, losses due
to this load can be computed by first determining the current,
which is
(2)
is the power
where is the line-to-line voltage in kV and
factor. Hence, for an annual loss factor (ratio of average loss to
loss at peak load) , the total energy losses in the first year for
one mile of a three-phase line with a resistance of ohms per
mile are
kWh/mile

Losses

(3)

Multiplying (3) by (cost of energy in $/kWh) gives the cost

of losses in $/mile for the first year. Now, if we consider that
peak load grows at a rate per year, the losses will grow at the
2 since losses are proportional to
rate , which is equal to
the square of the peak load. We have assumed that all the other
terms in (3) remain fixed. The present worth of a quantity that
escalates with a rate is obtained by multiplying the value in
[9], where
the first year by a present worth factor
(4)
To obtain the total present worth cost of a line with a specific
size of conductor, we add the installation cost, the present worth
of operation and maintenance and the present worth of losses
and obtain the following expression of total present worth cost.
mile

(5)

Fig. 1.

Economic characteristics of a set of four conductors.

thermal loading limit (maximum allowed current) while maintaining the voltage within the specified limits. Similarly, the economic load reach of a conductor is defined as the distance up to
which the conductor is capable of carrying power equal to that
determined by the upper limit in the economical loading range
without violating the voltage drop limits.
Reach of a line with a specific conductor size can be determined by first finding the voltage drop in that line. The percent
voltage drop per mile for a distribution feeder is approximated
by [11]
(6)

mile

is the
where is the current carried by the conductor,
power factor and is the inductive reactance of the line in /mi.
, the reach of the conductor
If the allowed voltage drop is
is given by

where
Reach
Cost

miles

(7)

Cost
and

initial installation cost in $/mi. Cost

operaCost
tion and maintenance cost in $/yr/mi.
Thus, the total present worth as a function of peak load turns
out to be a quadratic function [1], [10]. We can similarly find
present worth cost of lines of different conductor sizes and when
the total present worth cost versus peak load characteristics of
different conductors are plotted on the same graph, we get a
graph of the type shown in Fig. 1. An important thing to note
is that the plots of different conductors intersect with each other
and thus for every value of peak load there is a conductor with
the least cost.
III. LOADING AND LOAD REACH
Reach of a conductor is defined as the distance up to which a
certain load can be delivered over the line without violating the
voltage drop limits [1]. Thus thermal reach of conductor would
be the distance up to which the conductor can move power at its

, this reach is termed as thermal reach and

When
, this reach is called economic reach where
when
is the current carried by the conductor at the point of intersection of its curve with that of the next higher conductor.
This point gives the economic loading limit of the conductor,
i.e., that particular conductor is not economical to use beyond
its economic loading limit. Thus, every conductor in a set has a
loading range within which it can transmit power most economically compared to other conductors. This range is called the
economic loading range for that particular conductor. If a reach
higher than the economic reach is desired from a conductor then
that conductor is derated or the loading limit is reduced to keep
voltage drop within the limits. In distribution system design it
is a common practice to keep the reach of all the conductors in
a selected set to be the same. Therefore, some or all of the conductors might require derating based on the desired reach. Fig. 2
shows the same set of conductors as shown in Fig. 1 when all
the conductors have a common reach of 4.7 mi. Adjustments in
scale are made in the axes of Fig. 2 compared to Fig. 1 to accommodate the important features of the curves. Note that the

194

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2002

Fig. 2. Economic cost characteristics of a set of four conductors with a

common reach of 4.7 mi.

economic loading range of 477 MCM conductor is 3.8 MW to

7.8 MW in Fig. 1, but after derating to obtain a common reach
of 4.7 mi its economic loading range became 3.7 MW to 4.8
MW. In other words for a peak load between 4.8 MW and 7.8
MW, 477 MCM has the least cost but we have to use the higher
size (795 MCM) since the voltage drop for the desired reach is
higher.
IV. CRITERIA TO SELECT CONDUCTOR SETS
Selection of a good conductor set is very important for proper
planning of distribution systems. An ideal conductor set should
have roughly equal economic loading range for each conductor,
sufficient thermal capacity in the largest conductor to take care
of situations with very high load and should be the most optimal in terms of cost. Generally, it is very difficult to select
a conductor set which will meet all the criteria of an ideal set
and a systematic procedure is not available for selection of a
good conductor set. Most utilities choose conductors for their
system based on experience and historical applications. Usually,
the number of conductors in a set is limited to four or five for
proper management of inventory.
In our approach to solve the problem, we have fixed the
smallest and the largest sizes of the conductors initially. Generally the smallest conductor is not selected based only on loading
considerations, but also reliability is taken into consideration.
Very small conductors have more tendencies to break under
windy and stormy conditions. The biggest conductor, on the
other hand, is selected based on the maximum loading and
desired reach. It may turn out that even the biggest conductor
may not provide the desired reach at the maximum loading. In
that case either the loading or reach must be decreased. Once
we know the smallest and the largest conductor sizes, the curves
corresponding to these conductors are drawn. Now the task is
to select two or three more conductors in between (depending
upon whether we are looking for four or five conductors) such
that the total cost of the conductor set is optimal.
To obtain optimal cost we could minimize the aggregate area
under the plots of different conductors between the minimum

and the maximum load. For example, in Fig. 1 we would integrate from 0 to 18 MW with the lowest cost characteristics considered for different load ranges. The conductor set with minimum value for this area would have an average minimum cost
over the whole range of loading. Another approach is to draw a
straight line that is tangent to the first and the last conductor as
shown in Fig. 2 and then compute the area enclosed by the conductor curves and this line between the two points where the tangent touches the curves (or between the point where the tangent
touches the first conductors characteristics and the maximum
load for the selected reach as in Fig. 2). During our study we
found that none of the conductors had plots that would go below
this straight line. Hence, minimizing the total area under the
curves is equivalent to minimizing the area between the curves
and the straight line. However, instead of using this area for selection of optimal conductor set, a better approach is to give
different weights to areas in different loading ranges since in
most distribution systems a large percentage of feeders carry
very small load and a few feeders carry large load. For example,
in a system discussed in [1], out of 24 800 miles of primary
voltage line close to 56% of the total length of feeder sections
carry power less than 0.5 MW. Around 11% of the total length
of feeders carries power between 0.5 MW and 1 MW. Similar
information is given for every increment of 0.5 MW. These numbers are typical numbers and would be somewhat different for
different systems. A utility could very easily obtain such information from their existing system. Data obtained from [1]
was modified slightly to get Table I which shows the fraction of
total feeder length with the given peak load in a typical distribution system. The modification included adjusting factors for
each range to make the sum of the fractions equal to 1. Thus, the
number associated with each loading range gives the weight for
that range. Hence, we performed integration in steps of 0.5 MW
and then multiplied the resulting area by the respective weight
to yield the weighted area for selection of conductors.
Once the conductors are selected, they must be derated so
that all of them have the same specified reach. Derating the
conductors in this manner could result in a sub-optimal set of
conductors. Another approach is to derate all the conductors
for a specified reach before computing the weighted area for
their selection. Any small amount of potential savings that might
have been missed by fixing reaches after selecting the conductors would come to focus by reversing the process, i.e., fixing
reaches first and then selecting the conductors. The first approach is called Method A and the second approach is called
Method B in the rest of the paper.
V. EXAMPLES AND RESULTS
In the examples considered in this paper, 17 conductors spanning from conductor # 1 to 795 MCM are included. Numerous
simulations were tried to test the concept [12] and results of two
cases are presented in this paper. In one of the cases, four conductors were selected while in the other five conductors were selected based on enumeration of all feasible combination of conductors. For each case results are obtained using both Method A
as well as Method B. The distribution system consists of 12.47
kV line-to-line voltage. For the base case, the discount rate is

MANDAL AND PAHWA: OPTIMAL SELECTION OF CONDUCTORS FOR DISTRIBUTION FEEDERS

TABLE I
WEIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT LOADING RANGES

195

TABLE II
RESULTS FOR COMMON REACH OF 4.7 MILES BASED ON METHOD A

TABLE III
RESULTS FOR COMMON REACH OF 4.7 MILES BASED ON METHOD B

chosen to be 8% and the load growth rate is chosen to be 0.5%.

Also, the loss factor is 0.46, power factor is 0.9, the cost of energy is 3 cents/kWh and the planning horizon is 30 years.
For each of the cases, ten simulations were done with different values of cost of energy, discount rate, planning duration,
loss factor, load growth, power factor, installation cost and operation and maintenance cost to study sensitivity of the results
to these parameters. Only one parameter was changed in eight
simulations while all the parameters were changed simultaneously in two simulations. Changing these parameters did not
have a very significant effect on the best set of conductors. In
this paper, results associated with the base case only are presented. A summary of these results is given in Tables II and III.
It can be seen that as expected different results are obtained from
Method A and Method B.
Now, we are left with a crucial questionis Method A better
or Method B better? Therefore, further analysis was done to
resolve this question. Firstly, a scenario with four conductors
in the set was studied and two common reaches of 4.7 mi and
3.6 mi were used in the study.
Since the optimal conductor set is selected first and then
common reach is fixed in Method A, the conductor set is
independent of the reach used. However, in Method B since
conductor loadings are adjusted before selecting the optimal
conductors, different sets of conductors were selected based on
the chosen reach. For a common reach of 4.7 mi conductors 2/0
and 300 MCM and for a common reach of 3.6 mi conductors
266 MCM and 477 MCM turned out to be the best conductors
in addition to # 1 and 795 MCM. The details of the conductor
sets for a reach of 4.7 mi are provided in Tables IV and V. To
compare these two sets, the weighted average deviation of the
cost of a conductor set from the tangent line is determined,
which is given by
Total Weighted Area
Loading range Adjusted Weight

(8)

Since the total weighted area was calculated between the

point where the tangent touches the first conductors characteristics and the maximum load for the selected reach, the sum

TABLE IV
BEST FOUR CONDUCTORS OBTAINED FOR A COMMON REACH
MILES USING METHOD A

OF

4.7

TABLE V
BEST FOUR CONDUCTORS OBTAINED FOR A COMMON REACH
MILES USING METHOD B

OF

4.7

of the weights for the load ranges included in this calculation

would not be equal to 1. Hence, the values of these weights
were adjusted proportionally such that they add to 1 and thus the
resulting weighted average deviation gave the real dollar value
in terms of $/mi. The adjusted average weighted deviations
of the two conductor sets from the linear cost characteristics
are $17 049/mi and $15 160/mi, respectively. Thus the latter
conductor set offers an average saving of $1 889/mi for a reach
of 4.7 mi. Although the cost is lower for the second conductor
set, we found that the loading of conductors is more uniform
for the first set. It is particularly true for conductor 2/0, which
has a small loading range that goes from 1.38 MW to 1.90 MW
in the second set.
When the common reach was changed to 3.6 mi, the same
conductor set # 1, 266 MCM, 477 MCM and 795 MCM was
found to be the best whether Method A was used or Method B
was used. Details of the results are shown in Table VI. This is a
very interesting result, which can be explained as follows. We already know that to increase the reach of a conductor higher than
its economic reach, the conductors need to be derated to carry
maximum load lower than its economic loading limit. Thus,
when the common reach is fixed at 4.7 mi after selecting the conductors, the conductors get derated significantly. This is because
of the fact that the economic reaches of these conductors vary

196

TABLE VI
BEST FOUR CONDUCTORS OBTAINED FOR A COMMON REACH OF 3.6 MILES
USING BOTH METHOD A AND METHOD B

from 3.1 mi to 4.7 mi. So when the reaches of all the conductors
are adjusted to be 4.7 mi, all except one of them (266 MCM,
which has the economic reach of 4.7 mi) get derated by a huge
margin. But when the reach is fixed at 3.6 mi the conductors are
not derated by a big margin, which implies a smaller deviation
from already selected characteristics. Hence, for smaller reach
the results are the same whether Method A is used or Method B
is used. Note that average weighted deviation from the straight
line is lower for a reach of 3.6 mi in comparison to a reach of
4.7 mi. This can again be explained by the fact that for a lower
reach the derating of the conductors is lower than that for higher
reach.
These results show that as the common reach of the conductors is lowered, the total load range served by these conductors increases. This is a very obvious result since the losses and
voltage drop in the line increase with increase in load on the line.
Hence, when the conductors carry higher magnitude of power,
they can transmit power only over smaller distance before violating the voltage drop criterion.
Results of a similar analysis based on Method A and Method
B for a set of five conductors and common reach of 4.7 mi are
shown in Tables VII and VIII. Again, we found that the results
are better with Method B for a common reach of 4.7 mi. However, only one conductor is different in the two sets. The conductor set obtained with Methods B yields a saving of $780/mi
over that found with Method A. Note that the savings are higher
for the similar cases with four conductors as shown earlier. Also,
unlike the previous scenario where we were selecting four conductors, here the loading ranges of the conductors are more uniform in the conductor set obtained with Method B. On the other
hand, in the set obtained with Method A, conductor 1/0 has a
very small loading range of 1.38 MW to 1.61 MW.
When the reach was changed to 3.6 mi, the optimal conductor
set was found to be the same using both Method A and Method
B. The results are given in Table IX. Since a similar thing happened while selecting four conductors, explanation provided
earlier is true for this case too.
The above-mentioned results show that Method B is better
than Method A. However, another question that needs to be answered is whether it is better to select five conductors or four
conductors. Comparing the results of Tables V and VIII where
the conductor sets have a common reach of 4.7 mi, it can be
seen that the set of five conductors offers a saving of $2,468/mi.
Similarly comparing the results of Tables VI and IX where the
common reach is 3.6 mi, it can be seen that five conductors offer
a saving of $1,316/mi compared to the set of four conductors.
These savings are very significant since distribution systems
are very extensive and cover large areas. Moreover, the loading

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2002

TABLE VII
BEST FIVE CONDUCTORS OBTAINED FOR A COMMON REACH
MILES USING METHOD A

OF

4.7

TABLE VIII
BEST FIVE CONDUCTORS OBTAINED FOR A COMMON REACH
MILES USING METHOD B

OF

4.7

TABLE IX
BEST FIVE CONDUCTORS OBTAINED FOR A COMMON REACH OF 3.6 MILES
USING BOTH METHOD A AND METHOD B

ranges of all the conductors are significant and none of them

can be considered redundant. It is interesting to note that savings for five conductors versus four conductors are higher than
those obtained by using Method B versus using Method A.
VI. CONCLUSION
It is very challenging to select an optimal set of conductors
for designing a distribution system. In this paper, a systematic
procedure has been suggested to achieve this goal. Minimizing
the weighted area between the cost characteristics of the conductors and a linear load versus cost representation provides a
suitable approach to solve this problem. Analyses showed that
fixing a common reach for the conductors before selecting them
(Method B) leads to potential savings that would not be available if common reaches are fixed after selecting the conductors
(Method A). It was also found that a set of five conductors provides better economy than a four conductor set. The techniques
presented in this paper are very practical and can be very easily
implemented by any utility.
REFERENCES
[1] H. L. Willis, Power Distribution Planning Reference Book. New York:
Marcel Dekker, 1997, pp. 239283.
[2] A. W. Funkhouser and R. P. Huber, A method for determining economical ACSR conductor sizes for distribution systems, AIEE Trans. Power
Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-74, pp. 479484, June 1955.

MANDAL AND PAHWA: OPTIMAL SELECTION OF CONDUCTORS FOR DISTRIBUTION FEEDERS

[3] D. L. Wall, G. L. Thompson, and J. E. D. Northcote-Green, An optimization model for planning radial distribution networks, IEEE Trans.
Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-98, pp. 10611065, May/June 1979.
[4] M. Ponnavaikko and K. S. P. Rao, An approach to optimal distribution
system planning through conductor gradation, IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-101, pp. 17351741, June 1982.
[5] H. N. Tram and D. L. Wall, Optimal conductor selection in planning radial distribution systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3, pp. 200206,
Feb. 1988.
[6] G. J. Anders et al., Parameters affecting economic selection of cable
sizes, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 8, pp. 16611667, Oct. 1993.
[7] S. M. Leppert and A. D. Allen, Conductor life cycle cost analysis, in
Proc. Rural Electric Power Conf., 1995, pp. C2-1C2-8.
[8] H. Khatib, Financial and Economic Evaluation of Projects in the Electricity Supply Industry. London, U.K.: IEE, 1997.
[9] R. M. Sigley Jr., Engineering economic analysis overview, in Tutorial on Engineering Economic Analysis: Overview and Current Applications. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 1991.
[10] M. V. Engel, E. R. Green, and H. L. Willis, Tutorial on Power
Distribution Planning, M. V. Engel, E. R. Green, and H. L. Willis,
Eds. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 1992.
[11] T. Gonen, Electric Power Distribution Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1986.
[12] S. Mandal, Optimal selection of conductors for designing distribution
system, M.S. thesis, Kansas State Univ., Dept. Elect. Comput. Eng.,
Manhattan, KS, 1999.

197

Sujit Mandal (S97M99) received the B.Tech. degree in electrical engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kanpur, India and the
M.S. degree in electrical engineering from Kansas State University, Manhattan,
KS in 1997 and 1999, respectively.
He worked as a Consultant at Power Technologies, Inc., Schenectady, NY,
from 1999 to 2000. Presently, he is with Technical System Planning, Entergy
Services, Inc., New Orleans, LA.

Anil Pahwa (S82M83SM91) received the B.E. (honors) degree in electrical engineering from Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, India,
the M.S. degree in electrical engineering from the University of Maine, Orono,
and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from Texas A&M University, College Station, in 1975, 1979, and 1983, respectively.
Since 1983, he has been with Kansas State University (KSU), Manhattan,
where he is presently Professor and Graduate Program Coordinator in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department. From August 1999 to August
2000, he worked at ABB-ETI, Raleigh, NC, while on sabbatical from KSU. His
research interests include distribution automation, distribution system planning
and analysis and intelligent computational methods for power systems analysis.
Dr. Pahwa is a member of Eta Kappa Nu and Tau Beta Pi.