Application of Differential Evolution Algorithm to

Substation Expansion Planning of Tamil Nadu

Abstract – In general, power system expansion planning can be classified into three types such
as Generation Expansion Planning (GEP), Transmission Expansion Planning (TEP) and
Distribution system Expansion planning (DEP). Several researches have been carried out in the
topics of GEP and TEP. But, a huge research gap is still available in the topic of DEP. The DEP
can be classified into two optimization problems namely Substation Expansion Planning (SEP)
and optimal feeder routing. This paper attempts to solve real-time SEP problem for the power
sector of Tamil Nadu, a state in India. The large number of design variables and combination of
discrete and continuous variables makes the SEP problem as a challenging one. So, a promising
optimization algorithm is essential to solve this complicated problem. This paper proposes the
application of Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm for solving the real-time SEP problem. This
paper results with the sizes and sites of both the existing and proposed substations by satisfying
the subjected constraints. The minimization of the investment cost of SEP is considered as the
main objective and it is optimized using DE. The simulation results show that DE has the
potential to find the optimal results with quick convergence.
Keywords - Substation Expansion Planning, Differential Evolution, Tamil Nadu, Least cost
1. INTRODUCTION
With the increasing electric power consumption rate, new transmission system elements
are essential to overcome the possible lack of adequacy problems. In this context, Substation
Expansion Planning (SEP) is the problem that evaluates the sites and expansion capacities of
existing and candidate substations (SS) [1]. The SEP problem should be solved with the
objective of least cost by considering the constraints. Generally, consistent with the geographic
distribution of the consumers, service areas of a distribution system are divided into many small
uneven areas, namely electrical domains. Each domain consists of a load-point displaying the
power consumption of customers in that domain. Likewise, there are candidate places for
installing new SS along with the option for expanding the existing SS. The maximum allowable
voltage drop, capacity of feeders, capacity of SS equipment, and accessibility to upward and
downward networks and the sufficient space for possible future constructions can be considered
as the constraints during optimization [2]. The solution of SEP problem should leads to a least
expansion and operational costs by satisfying the constraints. Hitherto, various optimization
algorithms have been developed by the researchers for solving these types of problems. These
methods can be categorized in two types; numerical methods and heuristic methods.
Mixed integer linear programming (MILP) [3], nonlinear programming (NLP) [4],
dynamic programming (DP) [5], ordinal optimization (OO) [6] and direct solution [7] are the
numerical methods. Genetic Algorithm (GA) [8, 9], Tabu search (TS) [10], Particle swarm
optimization (PSO) [11, 12], Ant colony system (ACS) [13], Simulated annealing (SA) [14],
Artificial bee colony (ABC) [15], Bacterial foraging optimization (BFO) [16] and Differential
Evolution [17] are some successfully implemented heuristic methods. After reviewing these
literatures, the advantages of numerical methods such as good accuracy, moderate computational
time are identified. But these numerical methods have some disadvantages such as managing
power system equations into an optimization model; so as to insert a new constraint, the
optimization model need to be rearranged and new equations have to be added. Among the
available numerical methods, Mixed Integer Non Linear Programming (MINLP) method is more
efficient.
Heuristic methods are simple and they do not require converting of the power system
model into an optimization programming model. Moreover, heuristic optimization methods are
highly robust and offer optimal solutions for complex, large-scale problems. Among the
available heuristic methods, the most efficient is DE. DE has been applied to solve many power
system planning problems [18-21], particularly for Generation Expansion Planning (GEP)
problems. An application and comparison of nine different meta-heuristic techniques had been
presented [18]. The authors concluded that DE outperformed all other algorithms. Recently, the
modeling studies carried out to explain the impact of incorporating solar plants and with storage
facility into the existing power system as an alternative power plant [19, 20]. Least-cost GEP
with wind power plant incorporation of emission and reliability using DE algorithm was
presented [21]. Though, DE has provided proper results in the studies of power system planning,
it has not been applied to SEP problem yet. So, this paper is the first comprehensive attempt to
solve the SEP problem using DE. Moreover, the real time power distribution system of Tamil
Nadu, a state in India has been taken as test system. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2
provides the formulation of SEP problem. The detail about the test system is provided in section
3. Section 4 introduces the DE algorithm and its implementation to SEP problem. The results of
applying the proposed method are presented in section 5, and finally section 6 provides the
conclusion.
2. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION OF SEP
The objective of SEP is to estimate a set of decision variables containing substation’s
location, sizes and associated service areas with least expansion cost besides the technical
constraints [1]. The solution of SEP problem should define
1. The expansion capacity of any existing SS (provided feasible),
2. The location and the size of any proposed SS,
3. The investment costs.
In mathematical terms, the problem is formulated as
MinimizeC total =C inv +C opt (1)
where,
Cinv investment costs
Copt operational costs.
The investment cost is the cost of building a new substation, whereas the cost of
providing the losses is the operational cost. Numerous constraints should also be observed during
the optimization. For example, the capacity of a single SS should not violate a certain limit, or a
feeder loading should not violate its thermal capacity. A planner should follow the least cost plan.
The overall costs, Ctotal may be classified into three main terms
2.1 Cost associated with the HV substations
This cost term consists of three main terms
2.1.1 Land cost
This is the cost related with the land on which the substation is constructed. Generally,
the land cost near the load nodes is higher. In addition the land size and hence costs increases
with the increasing SS capacity and other design requirements such as allocating space for future
expansion.
2.1.2 Equipment cost
The cost on transformers, switchgears, etc. for each SS is involved in equipment cost. It
is proportional to the SS capacity.
2.1.3 Cost of losses
 While the previous two costs denote the investment costs, another cost to be considered is
the cost of substation losses, as an operational cost.
Overall the cost associated with the HV substation is
Substation Cost = MVA independent term (due to land) + MVA dependent term
(due to equipment) + Cost of losses (2)
2.2 Cost associated with the downward grid
This cost term mainly depends on the feeder cost itself, i.e., the cost per unit length.
2.3 Cost associated with the upward grid
It is similar to the cost of the downward grid. In these downward and upward grids costs,
another cost term of interest is there that is the operational cost. It is mainly due to the feeder
losses. Lengthier feeders with lower cross sectional area result in higher losses.
The calculations are even more complicated while considering the constraints such as,
1. Thermal capacity of a feeder should not be violated upon feeding a load node.
2. The voltage drop along a feeder should be less than the fixed value
3. The SS should be loaded not below a particular capacity, generally 15% of its capacity and
should have a reserve capacity of approximately 20% of its full load capacity. Moreover, the
SS should be of standard capacities.
2.4 Minimal cost objective
The minimal cost objective function consists of the following two terms:
C total =C down line +C stat (3)
where
Ctotal is the objective function to be minimized
Cdown-line is the downward grid cost
Cstat is the MV SS cost
Cstat, the distribution SS cost can be divided into
C stat =C stat fix +C stat var (4)
where
Cstat-fix is the fixed cost of the j th substation
Cstat-var is the variable cost of the j th substation
Cdown-line is the cost of the conductors coupling a substation j to a load i. It can be formulated as:
 Nl Ns

C down line =∑ ∑ α(i ) X (i, j ) D(i, j ) S L (i )

i =1 j =1

(5)
The SS fixed cost may be formulated as:
Ns

C stat fix =∑ β( j ) X s ( j ) (6)

j =1

The SS variable cost may be formulated as:

Ns Nl

C stat var =∑ γ( j ) ∑ X( i, j )S L( i ) C exis( j )

j =1 i=1

(7)
The formulateds may be summarized as
Nl Ns Ns Ns Nl

MinCtotal =∑ ∑ α(i ) X (i, j ) D(i, j ) S L (i) +∑ β( j ) X s ( j ) +∑ γ( j ) ∑ X( i, j )S L( i ) C exis( j )

i=1 j =1 j =1 j =1 i=1

(8)
where,
α(i) Cost of down-grid feeder per unit distance per MVA
X(i,j) Binary integer decision variable
D(i,j) Distance between the i th load and the j th substation
SL(i) Value of load in i th location
Β(j) Fixed cost of j th substation
Xs(j) Binary integer decision variable
γ(j) Variable cost of the j th substation
Cexis(j) Capacity of existing substation
Ns Number of substations
Nl Number of load nodes
2.5 Constraints
If a load is supplied through a SS far from the node the voltage drop should not be larger

than a maximum allowable drop. This can be formulated as shown in Eqn. (9), where is the

maximum distance, a load can be supplied through a SS.

X (i, j ) D(i, j ) ≤D ∀i =1,..., N l ∀j =1,..., N s

(9)
The second constraint need to be satisfied is the SS capacity as given below
 Nl

∑ X (i, j )S
i=1
L (i ) ≤S j ∀i =1,..., N s

(10)
Ns

∑ X (i, j ) =1.0
i =1
∀i =1,..., N l

(11)
Expressing the constraint of feeding a load node through only one SS:
Nl

∑ X (i, j ) ≤ X s ( j) N l ∀i =1,..., N s
i=1

(12)

Defining the value of to be either zero or one:

X(i,j), Xs(j): Binary integer (zero or 1) (13)

3. INTRODUCTION TO TAMIL NADU POWER SECTOR
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) is a power generation and distribution company
owned by Government of Tamil Nadu. TNEB was restructured on 1.11.2010 into TNEB Limited,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) and Tamil Nadu
Transmission Corporation Limited (TANTRANSCO). The investment on SEP, the maintenance
of the substations in Tamil Nadu are organized by TANTRANSCO. In Tamil Nadu, the power
distribution sector is divided into three load dispatch centers namely, Chennai, Madurai and
Erode. The SEP is performed for all the three regions separately with both 230 kV and 400 kV
commissioned substations. The load of each load node in all the three regions are provided in
terms of its magnitude (in MVA) as well as its geographical location (i.e., geographical X and Y)
with the help of Google Maps. The forecasting algorithms can be used to predict the load. It
should not exceed the thermal capacity of an available supplying feeder, otherwise, it may be
decomposed into two or more parts (equal or unequal), at the same geographical point so that
more than one feeder may be acceptable for its supplying. Initially the substations are selected as
feasible feeding points. So, it is easy to estimate D(i, j), can be easily calculated. The procedures
to assume the data for this research are adopted from [22] and all these data for Tamil Nadu SEP
are provided in tables 1 and 2. The constant and variable cost of construction are fixed as 84,436
₹/pu and 12,417 ₹/pu respectively. And the construction cost of sub-transmission network is set
as 397 ₹/km×pu. The maximum possible distance between load nodes and substations is
considered as 100 km. The SEP for Tamil Nadu has been performed for the year 2020.

Table 1 Details of 230 kV Sub Stations under execution in Tamil Nadu

Region Identity no. of SS Name of the SS Capacity (MVA)
Ambattur 3rd Main Road 2 ×100 + 1×25 +
1
230/110/33-11 kV SS 1×16
2 R.A.Puram (GIS) 230/110 kV SS 2×100
Chennai 3 Central(CMRL) (GIS) 230/110 kV SS 2×100
4 Purisai 230/110 kV SS 2×100
5 Kanchipuram 230/110/11 kV SS 2 ×100 + 1×16
6 Mambalam 230/33/11 kV SS 2×160
1 Kumbakkonam 230/110 kV SS 2×100
2 Kinnimangalam 230/110 KV SS 3×100
3 Poiyur 230/110 kV SS 2×100
4 Muthuramalingapuram 230 /110 kV SS 2×100
Madurai 5 Kurukkathi 230/110 kV SS 2×100
6 Valayapatty 230/110 KV SS 2×100
7 Jambunathapuram 230/110 kV SS 2×100
8 Savasapuram 230/110 kV SS 2×100
9 Mundipatti 230/110 kV SS 2×100
1 Shenbagapudur 230/110 kV SS 2×100
Erode
2 Tirupur 230/110 kV SS 2×100

Table 2 Details of 400 kV Sub Stations under execution in Tamil Nadu

Region Identity no. of SS Name of the SS Capacity (MVA)
1 Thervaikandigai 400/230 - 110 kV SS 2×315 + 1×200
Chennai 2 Sholinganallur 400/230 - 110 KV SS 2×315 + 1×200
3 Manali (GIS) 400/230 - 110 KV SS 2×315 + 2×200
1 Thappagundu 400/110 kV SS 3×200
Madurai 2 Kanarpatty 400/230 - 110 KV SS 2×500 + 4×200
3 Kamuthi 400/230 - 110 KV SS 3×315 + 3×200
1 Karamadai 400/230 kV SS 3×315
2 Anaikadavu 400/230 - 110 KV SS 3×315 + 2×200
Erode
3 Rasipalayam 400/230 - 110 KV SS 3×315 + 3×200
4 Dharmapuri 400/230 - 110 KV SS 3×315 + 2×200

4. IMPLEMENTATION OF DE ALGORITHM TO SEP PROBLEM

The steps processed to solve the GEP problem are given as follows:
Step 1: Read the input data like capacities of existing and proposed substations, constant and
variable cost of construction, geographical location of substations with their load center number,
construction cost of sub-transmission network etc.
Step 2: Set up all essential parameters such as population size (NP), mutation factor (F),
crossover probability (CR), convergence criterion (ε), number of problem variables (D), lower
and upper bounds of initial population (xjmin and xjmax) and maximum number of iterations or
generations (Gmax) for the optimization process;
Step 3: Fix the DE mutation strategy;
Step 4: Set iteration G = 0 for initialization step and initialize population P of individuals;
Step 5: Evaluate fitness values of initial individuals according to the problem fitness function
and check the constraints for each initial individual;
Step 6: Rank the initial individuals according to their fitness;
Step 7: Set iteration G = 1 for optimization;
Step 8: Implement mutation, crossover and selection operators to generate new individuals;
 By following mutation strategy as selected in step 3 mutant vectors (Vi(G)) are generated.
 Apply crossover operator to generate trial vectors (Ui(G));
 Apply selection operator by comparing the fitness of the trial vector (Ui(G)) and the
corresponding target vector (Xi(G)) and then select one that provides the best solution;
Step 9: Perform step 5 with new individual and rank them according to their fitness;
Step 10: Update the best fitness value of the current iteration and the best fitness value of the
previous iteration
Step 11: Check the termination criterion;
 If X ibest X i >ε and the current generation number is not surpassing the maximum number
of generations G<Gmax, then set G = G + 1 and return to step 8 to search the solution
continuously. Or else, to stop go to step 13;
Step 12: Stop the program after getting the results.
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The SEP has been performed for all the three regions (Chennai, Madurai and Erode)
separately for both 230 kV and 400 kV commissioned substations. Aimed at solving the problem
of SSEP by the proposed method, software is developed in MATLAB R2017a environment. In
this section, the results have been presented for 230 kV and 400 kV SS separately. So, the SEP
for Tamil Nadu has been performed in six different cases/systems such as i) SEP for 230 kV SS
in Chennai region, ii) SEP for 230 kV SS in Madurai region, iii) SEP for 230 kV SS in Erode
region, iv) SEP for 400 kV SS in Chennai region, v) SEP for 400 kV SS in Madurai region and
vi) SEP for 400 kV SS in Erode region.
5.1. Case 1: SEP for 230 kV SS in Chennai region
The location of selected candidate SS, the location of unselected candidate SS and the
location of load nodes for case 1 are illustrated in Figure 1. Also, the selected SS, load nodes and
downward lines are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Location of SS after solving SEP problems for case 1

The resultant cost details of SEP for case 1 has been provided in Table 4. The position
and optimal capacity of installed SS after expansion is given in Table 5. Also, the connected load
nodes to the SS are presented in Table 6.
Table 4 Resultant cost details of SEP for case 1
Cost parameters Value (₹)
SS variable cost (Cstat_var) 7,21,603.13
SS fixed cost (Cstat_fix) 21,80,845.00
Cost of the conductors coupling a SS
22,99,534.28
j to a load i (Cdown_line)
Total cost (Ctotal) 52,01,982.41
 Table 5 Position and optimal capacity of installed substations after expansion for case 1
Location of SS
SS no Optimal capacity (pu)
X Y
1 20 40 1.2
5 50 65 3.3

Table 6 Connected load nodes to the SS for case 1

Load Location Magnitude
SS No
node X Y (MVA)
1 2 40 0.3
2 20 40 0.3
1
3 2 28 0.3
4 5 21 0.3
5 20 28 0.3
6 10 50 0.3
7 25 10 0.3
8 30 24 0.3
9 40 61 0.3
5 10 37 55 0.3
11 52 45 0.3
12 74 35 0.3
13 81 72 0.3
14 90 85 0.3
15 44 90 0.3
The results imply that SS no 1 and 5 could be expanded at minimum cost by satisfying
the constraints considered. The name, location and the capacity of the SS can be accessed from
Table 1. The SS variable cost, SS fixed cost, down-line cost and the overall cost are estimated as
7,21,603.13 ₹, 21,80,845.00 ₹, 22,99,534.28 ₹ and 52,01,982.41 ₹ respectively.
5.2 Case 2: SEP for 230 kV SS in Madurai region
The sites of selected candidate SS, unselected candidate SS and load nodes for case 2 are
shown in Figure 2. Also, the selected SS, load nodes and downward lines are shown in Figure 2.
 Figure 2 Location of SS after solving SEP problems for case 2
The resultant cost details of SEP for case 2 has been provided in Table 7. The position
and optimal capacity of installed SS after expansion is given in Table 8. Also, the connected load
nodes to the SS are presented in Table 9.
Table 7 Resultant cost details of SEP for case 2
Cost parameters Value (₹)
SS variable cost (Cstat_var) 9,62,137.50
SS fixed cost (Cstat_fix) 21,80,845.00
Cost of the conductors coupling a SS
26,85,595.16
j to a load i (Cdown_line)
Total cost (Ctotal) 58,28,577.66

Table 8 Position and optimal capacity of installed substations after expansion for case 2
Location of SS
SS no Optimal capacity (pu)
X Y
1 20 40 1.8
9 60 50 4.2

Table 9 Connected load nodes to the SS for case 2

Location
SS No Load node Magnitude (MVA)
X Y
 1 7 45 0.3
3 7 33 0.3
4 10 26 0.3
1
5 25 33 0.3
18 23 32 0.3
20 10 45 0.3
2 25 45 0.3
6 15 55 0.3
7 30 15 0.3
8 35 29 0.3
9 45 66 0.3
10 42 60 0.3
11 57 50 0.3
9
12 79 40 0.3
13 86 77 0.3
14 95 90 0.3
15 49 95 0.3
16 90 24 0.3
17 51 51 0.3
19 58 87 0.3

5.3 Case 3: SEP for 230 kV SS in Erode region

The location of selected candidate SS, the location of unselected candidate SS and the
location of load nodes for case 3 are shown in Figure 3. Also, the selected SS, load nodes and
downward lines are shown in Figure 3.
 Figure 3 Location of SS after solving SEP problems for case 3
The resultant cost details of SEP for case 3 has been provided in Table 10. The position
and optimal capacity of installed SS after expansion is given in Table 11. Also, the connected
load nodes to the SS are presented in Table 12. The results imply that SS no 1 and 3 could be
expanded at minimum cost by satisfying the constraints considered. The name, location and the
capacity of the SS can be accessed from Table 1. The SS variable cost, SS fixed cost, down-line
cost and the overall cost are estimated as 3,84,855.00 ₹, 21,80,845.00 ₹, 10,30,468.51 ₹ and
35,96,168.51 ₹ respectively.

Table 10 Resultant cost details of SEP for case 3

Cost parameters Value (₹)
SS variable cost (Cstat_var) 3,84,855.00
SS fixed cost (Cstat_fix) 21,80,845.00
Cost of the conductors coupling a SS
10,30,468.51
j to a load i (Cdown_line)
Total cost (Ctotal) 35,96,168.51

Table 11 Position and optimal capacity of installed substations after expansion for case 3
SS no Location of SS Optimal capacity (pu)
 X Y
1 10 40 1.2
3 80 70 1.2

Table 12 Connected load nodes to the SS for case 3

Location
SS No Load node Magnitude (MVA)
X Y
1 7 45 0.3
2 25 65 0.3
1
3 34 33 0.3
8 40 29 0.3
4 60 80 0.3
5 85 50 0.3
9
6 90 70 0.3
7 70 15 0.3

5.4 Case 4: SEP for 400 kV SS in Chennai region

The location of selected candidate SS, the location of unselected candidate SS and the
location of load nodes for case 4 are shown in Figure 4. Also, the selected SS, load nodes and
downward lines are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Location of SS after solving SEP problems for case 4

 The resultant cost details of SEP for case 4 has been provided in Table 13. The position
and optimal capacity of installed SS after expansion is given in Table 14. Also, the connected
load nodes to the SS are presented in Table 15.
Table 13 Resultant cost details of SEP for case 4
Cost parameters Value (₹)
SS variable cost (Cstat_var) 9,62,137.50
SS fixed cost (Cstat_fix) 10,90,422.50
Cost of the conductors coupling a SS
15,58,053.40
j to a load i (Cdown_line)
Total cost (Ctotal) 36,10,613.40

Table 14 Position and optimal capacity of installed substations after expansion for case 4
Location of SS
SS no Optimal capacity (pu)
X Y
2 40 55 6.0

Table 15 Connected load nodes to the SS for case 4

Location
SS No Load node Magnitude (MVA)
X Y
1 45 40 0.5
2 20 80 0.5
3 2 28 0.5
4 75 54 0.5
1
5 20 15 1.0
6 65 24 1.0
7 90 10 1.0
8 30 75 1.0

5.5 Case 5: SEP for 400 kV SS in Madurai region

The location of selected candidate SS, the location of unselected candidate SS and the
location of load nodes for case 5 are shown in Figure 5. Also, the selected SS, load nodes and
downward lines are shown in Figure 5.
 Figure 5 Location of SS after solving SEP problems for case 5
The resultant cost details of SEP for case 5 has been provided in Table 16. The position
and optimal capacity of installed SS after expansion is given in Table 17. Also, the connected
load nodes to the SS are presented in Table 18. The results imply that SS no 2 could be expanded
at minimum cost by satisfying the constraints considered. The name, location and the capacity of
the SS no 2 can be accessed from Table 1. The SS variable cost, SS fixed cost, down-line cost
and the overall cost are estimated as 9,62,137.50 ₹, 10,90,422.50 ₹, 13,14,882.76 ₹ and
33,67,442.76 ₹ respectively.
Table 16 Resultant cost details of SEP for case 5
Cost parameters Value (₹)
SS variable cost (Cstat_var) 9,62,137.50
SS fixed cost (Cstat_fix) 10,90,422.50
Cost of the conductors coupling a SS
13,14,882.76
j to a load i (Cdown_line)
Total cost (Ctotal) 33,67,442.76

Table 17 Position and optimal capacity of installed substations after expansion for case 5
Location of SS
SS no Optimal capacity (pu)
X Y
2 50 65 6.0
 Table 18 Connected load nodes to the SS for case 5
Location
SS No Load node Magnitude (MVA)
X Y
1 14 52 0.5
2 30 90 0.5
3 50 38 0.5
4 74 85 0.5
2
5 80 38 1.0
6 62 60 1.0
7 90 20 1.0
8 40 75 1.0

5.6 Case 6: SEP for 400 kV SS in Erode region

The location of selected candidate SS, the location of unselected candidate SS and the
location of load nodes for case 6 are shown in Figure 6. Also, the selected SS, load nodes and
downward lines are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Location of SS after solving SEP problems for case 6

The resultant cost details of SEP for case 6 has been provided in Table 19. The position
and optimal capacity of installed SS after expansion is given in Table 20. Also, the connected
load nodes to the SS are presented in Table 21. The results implies that SS no 2 could be
expanded at minimum cost by satisfying the constraints considered. The name, location and the
capacity of the SS no 2 can be accessed from Table 1. The SS variable cost, SS fixed cost, down-
line cost and the overall cost are estimated as 11,22,493.75 ₹, 10,90,422.50 ₹, 15,21,267.67 ₹
and 37,34,183.92 ₹ respectively.
Table 19 Resultant cost details of SEP for case 6
Cost parameters Value (₹)
SS variable cost (Cstat_var) 11,22,493.75
SS fixed cost (Cstat_fix) 10,90,422.50
Cost of the conductors coupling a SS 15,21,267.67
j to a load i (Cdown_line)
Total cost (Ctotal) 37,34,183.92

Table 20 Position and optimal capacity of installed substations after expansion for case 6
Location of SS
SS no Optimal capacity (pu)
X Y
2 43 55 7.0

Table 21 Connected load nodes to the SS for case 6

Location
SS No Load node Magnitude (MVA)
X Y
1 6 49 0.5
2 22 87 0.5
3 42 35 0.5
4 66 82 0.5
2 5 72 35 1.0
6 54 57 1.0
7 82 17 1.0
8 32 72 1.0
9 46 11 1.0

The least cost results have been obtained for all the six cases/systems using DE. The
execution time for solving SEP problem for Tamil Nadu using DE is almost 30 seconds for all
the cases. The convergence graph of DE for solving SEP problem of Tamil Nadu for Case 1 is
illustrated in Figure 7. The graph depicts that the DE algorithm is converged after about 150
iterations.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Substation expansion planning (SEP) is one of the important parts of the power system
expansion planning studies. The diversity of decision variables in the SEP problem has made the
solution process more difficult. This paper introduced a new method for solving the SEP as an
optimization problem. Optimization method was based on Differential Evolution algorithm. The
real-time power system of Tamil Nadu is considered and the results of SEP by the use of DE are
obtained. The results showed that DE is more efficient in finding the optimal solutions. The
results of applying BFOA on the real network showed the functional capabilities of the presented
method. The loads have been observed to be adequately supplied. From a set of selected possible
candidate locations chosen as potential sites for substation location in a large area, optimal
locations such that with the least costs, various operational constraints are met have been
successfully obtained together with the optimal substation capacities in these locations.
REFERENCES
1. M. S. S. Hosseini Seifi, Electric Power System Planning, Heidelberg: Springer, 2011.
2. P.S. Georgilakis and N.D. Hatziargyriou “A review of power distribution planning in the
modern power systems era: Models, methods and future research,” Electric Power Systems
Research, vol. 121, pp. 89-100, 2015.
3. J. Shu, L. Wu, Z. Li, M. Shahidehpour, L. Zhang and B. Han “A new method for spatial
power network planning in complicated environments,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems , vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 381–389, 2012.
4. S. Wong, K. Bhattacharya and J.D. Fuller “Electric power distribution system design and
planning in a deregulated environment,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol.
3, no. 12, pp. 1061–1078, 2009.
5. S. Ganguly, N.C. Sahoo and D. Das “Multi-objective planning of electrical distribution
systems using dynamic programming,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy
Systems, vol. 46, pp. 65–78, 2013.
6. X. Lin, J. Sun, S. Ai, X. Xiong, Y. Wan and D. Yang “Distribution network planning
integrating charging stations of electric vehicle with V2G,” International Journal of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems, vol. 63, pp. 507–512, 2014.
7. A. Samui, S.R. Samantaray and G. Panda “Distribution system planning considering reliable
feeder routing,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 503–514,
2012.
8. T.H. Chen, E.H. Lin, N.C. Yang and T.Y. Hsieh “Multiobjective optimization for upgrading
primary feeders with distributed generators from normally closed loop to mesh arrangement,”
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 413–419,
2013.
9. J.E. Mendoza, M.E. López, S.C. Fingerhuth, H.E. Pena and C.A. Salinas “Low voltage
distribution planning considering micro distributed generation,” Electric Power Systems
Research, vol. 103, pp. 233–240, 2013.
10. N.C. Koutsoukis, P.S. Georgilakis and N.D. Hatziargyriou “A Tabu search method for
distribution network planning considering distributed generation and uncertainties,”
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to
Power Systems, pp. 1-6, 2014.
11. I. Ziari, G. Ledwich, A. Ghosh and G. Platt “Optimal distribution network reinforcement
considering load growth, line loss, and reliability,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 587–597, 2013.
12. M. Sedghi, M. Aliakbar-Golkar and M.R. Haghifam “Distribution network expansion
considering distributed generation and storage units using modified PSO algorithm,”
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 52, pp. 221–230, 2013.
13. S. Favuzza, G. Graditi, M.G. Ippolito and E.R. Sanseverino “Optimal electrical distribution
systems reinforcement planning using gas micro turbines by dynamic ant colony search
algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 580–587, 2007.
14. Z.N. Popovi´c, V.D. Kerleta and D.S. Popovi´c “Hybrid simulated annealing and mixed
integer linear programming algorithm for optimal planning of radial distribution networks
with distributed generation,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 108, pp. 211–222, 2014.
15. A.M. El-Zonkoly “Multistage expansion planning for distribution networks including unit
commitment,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 766–778,
2013.
16. S. Singh, T. Ghose and S.K. Goswami “Optimal feeder routing based on the bacterial
foraging technique,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 70–78, 2012.
17. Storn, R & Kenneth Price 1997, ‘Differential Evolution-A Simple and Efficient Heuristic for
Global Optimization over Continuous Spaces’, Journal of Global Optimization, vol. 11, pp.
341-359.
18. Kannan, S, Slochanal, SMR & Padhy, NP 2005, ‘Application and comparison of
metaheuristic techniques to generation expansion planning problem’, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 466-475.
19. Rajesh K, Bhuvanesh, A, Kannan, S & Thangaraj, C 2016a, ‘Least cost generation expansion
planning with solar power plant using Differential Evolution algorithm’, Renewable Energy,
vol. 85, pp. 677-686.
20. Rajesh, K, Kannan, S, Thangaraj, C 2016c, ‘Least cost generation expansion planning with
wind power plant incorporating emission using Differential Evolution algorithm’, Electrical
Power and Energy Systems, vol. 80, pp. 275–286.
21. Rajesh, K, Karthikeyan, K, Kannan, S & Thangaraj, C 2016b, ‘Generation expansion
planning based on solar plants with storage’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
vol. 57, pp. 953-964.