energies

Article
Application of the Gradient-Based Metaheuristic Optimizer
to Solve the Optimal Conductor Selection Problem
in Three-Phase Asymmetric Distribution Networks
Julián David Pradilla-Rozo , Julián Alejandro Vega-Forero and Oscar Danilo Montoya *

Grupo de Compatibilidad e Interferencia Electromagnética (GCEM), Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Distrital

Francisco José de Caldas, Bogotá 110231, Colombia; jdpradillar@correo.udistrital.edu.co (J.D.P.-R.);
jiavegaf@correo.udistrital.edu.co (J.A.V.-F.)
* Correspondence: odmontoyag@udistrital.edu.co

Abstract: This study addresses the problem of selecting the conductor sizes for medium-voltage
distribution networks with radial configurations. The optimization model that represents this problem
is part of the mixed-integer non-linear programming (MINLP) models, in which a power flow must
be solved for each possible combination of conductor sizes. The main objective of this optimization
problem is to find the best set of conductor sizes that minimize an economic objective function
composed of the total costs of conducting materials added with the expected annual costs of the
energy losses by proposing a new hybrid optimization methodology from the family of combinatorial
optimization methods. To solve the MINLP model, a master–slave optimization method based on
the modified version of the gradient-based metaheuristic optimizer (MGbMO) combined with the
successive approximation power flow method for unbalanced distribution networks is presented.
The MGbMO defines the set of conductor sizes assignable for each distribution line using an integer
codification. The slave stage (three-phase power flow) quantifies the total power losses and their
expected annual operating costs. Numerical results in the IEEE 8-, 27-, and 85-bus grids demonstrate
the effectiveness of the proposed master–slave optimizer when compared with multiple combinatorial
Citation: Pradilla-Rozo, J.D.;
optimization methods (vortex search algorithm, the Newton-metaheuristic optimizer, the traditional
Vega-Forero, J.A.; Montoya, O.D.
Application of the Gradient-Based
and Chu and Beasley genetic algorithms, and the tabu search approaches). Two scenarios regarding
Metaheuristic Optimizer to Solve the the demand behavior were analyzed for the IEEE 8- and 27-bus grids: a peak load operation was
Optimal Conductor Selection considered, and, for the IEEE 85-bus grid, the daily demand behavior, including the presence of
Problem in Three-Phase Asymmetric renewable generators, was considered. The 85-bus grid allowed showing that the most realistic
Distribution Networks. Energies 2023, operative scenario for selecting conductors is the case where a demand curve is implemented since
16, 888. https://doi.org/10.3390/ reductions over 40% in the annual investment and operating costs were found when compared to the
en16020888 peak load operating condition. All numerical validations were performed in MATLAB software.
Academic Editor: Jurgita
Raudeliuniene Keywords: combinatorial optimization methods; unbalanced distribution networks; optimal conductor
selection; investment and operating costs; three-phase power flow
Received: 28 November 2022
Revised: 10 January 2023
Accepted: 10 January 2023
Published: 12 January 2023
1. Introduction
Electric power systems are made up of different stages, which range from the gen-
eration of electric energy, transmission, and distribution to the final consumer. Each of
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. these stages is very important; thus, it is necessary to develop adequate planning, optimiza-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. tion, coordination of components, design protections, and fault detection, among other
This article is an open access article aspects [1,2]. Today, there is a growing demand for energy in the world. This increase is
distributed under the terms and mainly due to demographic growth, new technologies and services, improved social condi-
conditions of the Creative Commons tions, and expanding industry. As the population density is increasing daily, the electrical
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// system must adjust to the diminishing availability of land, and lowering its costs must also
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ be considered [3].
4.0/).

Energies 2023, 16, 888. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16020888 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2023, 16, 888 2 of 29

Most distribution networks are generally built with a radial topology to minimize
investment costs in conductors and protection schemes [4–6] and are responsible for sup-
plying electricity to all end users through interconnected networks in both rural and urban
areas [7,8]. In recent decades, several solutions have been proposed to make this type of
network increasingly efficient, significantly contributing to the reduction in greenhouse
gases [9], in addition to improving the reliability in the provision of the energy service,
with this being one of the main requirements for the network operator. The number of
resources in this type of network is limited, and the disconnection of any power supply
will prevent the correct supply of energy. Therefore, it is important to select the appropriate
types of conductors capable of transporting the energy required to supply the demand for
electrical energy in the short and medium term [10]. In radial systems, the load located
upstream of a feeder starts high and reduces as it moves downstream. In that sense, using
large-gauge conductors for the entire distribution network means the system is technically
and economically inefficient. Using different gauge types of conductors for the intermediate
sections will minimize the capital investment cost and the energy loss along the line. In the
same way, using a large number of high-gauge conductors will involve a higher investment
cost. In this sense, more studies are needed, and new intelligent and analytical methods for
their correct implementation must be devised [11].
Selecting the conductor gauge in the radial distribution network is essential to improv-
ing network performance. The optimal assignment of the conductor gauge leads to a lower
energy loss, improving the distribution system’s voltage profiles and reducing the system’s
annual operating cost [10]. This problem is part of a subfield of study corresponding to
the efficient expansion of electrical networks, and its research motivates this study, clearly
denoting that the main purpose of this study is to find the best set of conductor sizes
that minimize an economic objective function composed of the total costs of conducting
materials added with the expected annual costs of the energy losses by proposing a new
hybrid optimization methodology from the family of combinatorial optimization methods.
Thus, the optimal selection of conductors in electrical distribution networks represents a
complex problem as it is subject to different constraints, such as the limits of the voltage
profile in all buses, the current flow capacity of the feeders, the variation in the demand
profile that possibly maintains continuous growth [3]. For this reason, heuristic algorithms
have been an efficient tool to solve this type of problem, allowing cost reduction due to
their ability to analyze the solution space and correctly assign the conductors to be installed
in the electrical distribution system [12]. As it is essential to have efficient optimization
methodologies to deal with the problem of the optimal selection of conductor sizes in distri-
bution networks, a complete revision of the state of the art in this regard will be presented
in the next section since multiple approaches have been reported based on combinatorial
optimizers, which necessitate a profound review of the literature to identify the research
gap and propose a new alternative solution for the studied problem.
The rest of the article is organized as follows: Section 2 presents a complete review
of state-of-the-art for the problem of the optimal selection of conductors in three-phase
asymmetric distribution networks followed by the main contributions in this research.
Section 3 presents the mathematical formulation of the optimal selection of conductors
in three-phase distribution networks. Section 4 describes the proposed master–slave
methodology in the master stage based on the MGbMO metaheuristic algorithm integrated
with the slave stage based on the three-phase power flow of successive approximations.
Section 5 presents information on the test systems used and the different simulation cases.
Section 5 reveals the information related to the computational validation of the proposed
method. Section 6 discusses the numerical results obtained in the optimal selection of
conductors and the associated costs. Finally, Section 7 presents the main conclusions and
outlines future lines of research according to the findings.
Energies 2023, 16, 888 3 of 29

2. Literature Review and Contributions

Over the years, multiple optimization strategies have been presented, represented in
different algorithms, seeking to solve the problem of optimal conductor selection in distri-
bution networks, where it is necessary to minimize technical and non-technical losses [13].
Different methodologies have been devised to solve the radial networks’ optimal conductor
selection problem. These methodologies in the specialized literature can be classified into
two main categories: conventional approaches based on analytical analysis and metaheuris-
tics [10]. In this way, we will start focusing on methods based on conventional approaches.
The conventional methods turn out to be extended. As the conditions or the buses
of the system are increased, the calculation time increases exponentially since the total
number of calculations, and the number of iterations increases, as shown in [14,15], where
an algorithm was proposed to select the optimal size of the conductors of the supply
segments of the radial distribution networks. The load flow method applied to the radial
distribution network determines the optimal conductor size. This method calculates the
losses and the cost of each of the conductors in the different buses based on some proposed
examples and compares them with the conductors already installed in the network.
In Ref. [16], the authors proposed a methodology to select conductors in distribution
networks with the aim of increasing the loadability of the entire system by considering
different load models. The optimization model ensures that all the currents through the
conductors do not exceed their nominal rates using multiple power flow evaluations.
The total savings in the cost of material conduction and energy losses were maximized
by maintaining acceptable voltage levels in the radial distribution systems, which were
implemented in a radial network of 26 buses. In Ref. [17], formulated models to represent
the cost of the feeder, the cost of energy loss, and the voltage regulation as a function
of the cross-section of the conductor were proposed as a dynamic multi-stage decision-
programming problem, where the objective function was to optimize the conductor cross-
section while minimizing costs. In Ref. [18], the methodology for the selection of optimal
conductors in radial distribution systems was presented through the comparative study of
the results obtained by the conventional or analytical method and the genetic algorithm
(GA) method, yielding better results in the GA, both economically and in terms of the
solution time, which was much longer in the conventional method.
GAs are generalized search algorithms based on the mechanics of the natural evolution
of species. GAs maintain a population of individuals representing the possible solutions
to the given problem, and each individual is evaluated to give some measure of their
adequacy to the problem from the objective function. The GA combines the evaluation of
solutions with stochastic operators, namely selection, crossing, and mutation, to obtain
optimization as demonstrated by the authors in [19]. GAs are also used in combining the
selection of conductors with the placement of capacitors in radial distribution systems,
further improving the voltage profiles and reducing energy losses. In Ref. [20], a hybrid
optimization approach was presented to solve the optimal conductor size selection (CSS)
problem in a distribution network with a high penetration of distributed generation (DG).
An adaptive genetic algorithm (AGA) was the main optimization strategy to find the
optimal conductor sizes for the distribution networks. The proposed approach aimed to
minimize the sum of the life-cycle cost (LCC) of the selected conductor and the total cost
of energy acquisition during the expected operating periods; additionally, it sought to
maintain the voltage profiles and improve them with the DG.
In 2018, the authors of [21] proposed a novel approach to select the optimal conductors
of radial distribution networks using a metaheuristic algorithm known as the grasshopper
optimization (GO) algorithm. Their results revealed that the proposed conductors explored
a broader search space and found the optimal overall set of conductors satisfying the objec-
tive functions. The authors of [22] applied a heuristic evolutionary strategy (ES) to select the
optimal size of feeders in radial energy distribution systems. ES incorporates biologically
inspired structures and operators, such as recombination, mutation, and selection based
on fitness, obtaining better results than other iterative methods in most problems. The
Energies 2023, 16, 888 4 of 29

differential evolution (DE) is another optimization algorithm, and it was implemented

in [23] to obtain the optimal location and classifications of the capacitors, in addition to the
optimal sizes of the conductors in the distribution systems for an unbalanced radial system,
complying with the voltage and temperature constraints for each branch. There are several
applications of these methods for the reduction in costs in the selection of conductors as
shown in [24], where an algorithm was applied in a radial network for agriculture in the
distribution network of the Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of Andhra Pradesh,
and in [25], where the application of an algorithm was performed in a network of the
Bangladesh power system.
To determine the losses of both active and reactive power, algorithms, such as the
backward/forward sweep, have been implemented, as evidenced in [26], which, in turn,
together with optimization techniques such as particle swarming, have sought to solve
problems such as the optimal conductor selection for single-wire earth return (SWER)
systems, whereby the objective function is established as a function of the costs associated
with conductor investment and power losses. In Ref. [27], a direct approximation load
flow is implemented in which the technical constraints associated with maximum current
capacity, load growth, and maximum permissible voltage drop are taken into account.
In Ref. [28], the authors compared how user losses improve before and after implement-
ing an optimization algorithm, and they sought the best optimal selection of conductors for
the distribution system under study, employing the aid of the optimization technique based
on the teaching–learning methodology. Furthermore, the implementation of a discrete
version of the metaheuristic vortex search method to perform the optimal selection of
conductors in three-phase distribution networks was presented in [29], where two 27- and
8-bus systems were analyzed under different demand scenarios. In Ref. [11], a method
based on the branch-wise minimization technique was implemented to present a model that
selects the optimal size of ACSR (aluminum-conductor steel-reinforced) conductors. In the
initial stage, the sizes of the conductors were selected according to their characteristics
and operating conditions. Subsequently, they were updated to optimal values through an
economic optimization technique. The systems under study by authors of [11] were two
systems of 85 and 69 buses. In addition to the above, factors such as the annual cost of
losses and the cost of depreciation of the conductor were taken into account.
To summarize, the main approaches used for solving the problem of the optimal
selection of conductors in electrical distribution networks are reported in Table 1. This table
presents the numerical method applied, the objective function under analysis, the year of
publication, and the corresponding citation.
As evidenced in the review of state of the art and the summary in Table 1, all method-
ologies and research have the following characteristics: (i) the minimization of the in-
vestment and operating costs regarding conductor sizes and energy losses by ensuring
that the technical parameters are within the permissible values according to territorial
regulations, thereby improving the quality of service to users and the economic benefits
for the companies providing the service, (ii) the usage of combinatorial methods based on
evolutionary algorithms to deal with the mixed-integer non-linear programming structure
of the optimization model to reach high-quality solutions (maybe local solutions) with
acceptable processing times, and (iii) the heart of the combinatorial optimization methods
is the power flow solution approach (as in the case of the heuristic approaches) since this is
the tool that allows verifying all the technical/operative constraints of the network (line
capacities, voltage regulation, and power loss calculation, etc.).
Considering the literature review presented in the previous section, this paper makes
the following contributions: (i) it applies an efficient combinatorial optimization method to
select conductors in three-phase asymmetric distribution networks. The selected optimizer
is the gradient-based metaheuristic optimizer which works with pseudo-derivatives for
solving optimization problems with discrete decision variables [13]. (ii) It adds an improve-
ment stage to the gradient-based metaheuristic optimizer based on the combination of its
evolution rules with the vortex search algorithm to obtain a new combinatorial optimizer
Energies 2023, 16, 888 5 of 29

named modified gradient-based optimizer (MGbMO). The main advantage of this pro-
posed method is the usage of Gaussian distributions and derivatives to explore and exploit
the solution space by guaranteeing high repeatability and low standard deviations.

Table 1. Summary of the literature approaches used in the optimal selection of conductors for
electrical distribution networks.

Sol. Methodology Objective Function Year Ref.

Saving in cost of conducting material and cost of energy
A heuristic approach based on power flow solutions 2002 [14]
losses
Minimizing investment and operating costs and improving
A recursive power flow solution methodology 2005 [15]
voltage profile
A constructive algorithm based on power flow solutions Saving in cost of conducting material and energy losses 2006, 2010 [16,24]
Evolutionary optimization strategies Minimizing investment and operating costs 2006 [22]
Saving in cost of conducting material and active and
Optimization with genetic algorithms 2011, 2013 [18,19]
minimizing reactive power loss
Differential evolution algorithm Saving in cost of conducting material and energy losses 2016 [23]
Minimizing the sum of the life-cycle cost in conductors and
Adaptive optimizer based on genetic algorithms 2019 [20]
the total energy procurement cost
Minimizing the annual cost of energy loss and investment
Grasshopper optimization algorithm 2018 [21]
cost of the conductors
Mixed-integer non-linear programming optimization
Minimizing investment and operating costs 2012 [5]
method
Crow search algorithm Minimizing investment and operating costs 2017 [10]
Sine cosine algorithm Minimizing investment and operating costs 2017 [30]
Vortex search algorithm Minimizing investment and operating costs 2021 [29]
Tabu search algorithm Minimizing investment and operating costs 2021 [31]
Newton-based metaheuristic algorithm Minimizing investment and operating costs 2022 [32]

The main advantages of the proposed MGbMO to deal with the problem in electri-
cal distribution networks are as follows: (i) its applicability to three-phase balanced and
unbalanced distribution networks with radial (or meshed) topologies since it works in
a master–slave connection with a general three-phase power flow solution based on the
successive approximation methods which are equivalent to the generalized matricial back-
ward/forward power flow [33], and (ii) its high-quality performance regarding objective
function calculation, repeatability, and easy computational implementation.
Note that this study’s scope only covers applying a new efficient optimization tech-
nique to select conductors in three-phase asymmetric networks with radial topologies.
In this study, uncertainties regarding demand behavior or penetration of renewable genera-
tion are not considered; however, a simulation scenario with daily demand and generation
curves is presented to validate the effectiveness of the proposed MGbMO. In future works
derived from this study, uncertainty in generation and demand curves can be studied since,
as evidenced in Table 1, the studied problem continues to be relevant and essential for
academics and distribution companies, implying that more research is required. Addi-
tionally, we present the effectiveness of the proposed MGbMO in the 8-bus grid with five
different combinatorial optimization methods. The best three approaches are selected for
comparison in the 27-bus grid. However, for the 85-bus grid, based on the results of the
27-bus grid, we only present numerical results with the proposed MGbMO because no
literature reports exist for the IEEE 85-bus grid in its three-phase version.

3. Mathematical Formulation
Optimal conductor selection problems in distributed systems can be mathematically
modeled through mixed-integer non-linear programming (MINLP) [34]. The integer vari-
ables are related to the selection of the conductor gauge per phase for each network section.
In contrast, the continuous variables appear in the formulation of the three-phase power
flow. The MINLP model for the problem studied is presented below.
Energies 2023, 16, 888 6 of 29

3.1. Objective Function

The main objective for the optimal selection of conductors in three-phase distribution
systems is to minimize the costs associated with the investment in conductor gauges and
annual energy losses. The value of the objective function is represented by Z, where Closs
represents the costs of energy losses for the evaluation period, and Cinv represents the cost
of the investment according to the selected conductor gauges. Equations (1)–(3) describe
the formulation of the objective function.
    
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
p q pq p q pq
Closs = C p T Vh,i Vh,j qYij λijc cos φh,i − φh,j − φh,ij λijc ∆h , (1)
h∈Ωh p∈Ω p q∈Ω p i ∈Ωb j∈Ωb

Cinv = ∑ ∑ c
Ckm Lkm λckm , (2)
c∈ΩC km∈Ω L


Z = min Closs + Cinv + C pen , (3)
where C p represents the average cost of energy, T is the value in hours of the evaluated
p p p
period, Vh,i and Vh,j represent the variables of the magnitudes of the voltages, and Φh,i
p
and Φh,j are the angles of the voltages at buses i and j of phase p, respectively. These are
non-linear functions of the binary variable λijc . This variable defines the c-type gauges
pq pq
for the conductor that joins buses i and j for the period h, and Yij and Φij represent the
magnitude and angle of the admittance formed between buses i and j of the phases p and
c is the cost of the conductor along a kilometer of length for a type
q, respectively. Ckm
of conductor (c), Lkm represents the network section in kilometers between the buses k
and m, and λckm is the binary decision variable that defines the installation of the type of
conductor (c) between buses k and m. C pen are the penalty costs due to violating distribution
system constraints.

3.2. Set of Constraints

The optimal selection of conductors in three-phase distribution networks encom-
passes multiple constraints linked to operational limitations present in the electrical
distribution system. The entire set of constraints that models the problem is defined
in Equations (4)–(11).

∀i ∈ Ωb
 
    
p p
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
p q pq p q pq
Pgi,h − Pd = Vh,i Vh,j Υij λijc cos φh,i − φh,j − φh,ij λijc ,  ∀ h ∈ Ω h , (4)
i,h
p∈Ωh q∈Ω p i ∈Ωb j∈Ωb ∀p ∈ Ωp

∀i ∈ Ωb
 
    
p p
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
p q pq p q pq
Q gi,h − Qd = Vh,i Vh,j Υij λijc sen φh,i − φh,j − φh,ij λijc ,  ∀ h ∈ Ω h , (5)
i,h
p∈Ωh q∈Ω p i ∈Ωb j∈Ωb ∀p ∈ Ωp

∀{k m} ∈ Ω L
 
 
p p p p p
Ikm,h = f Vh,k , Vh,m , φh,k , φh,m , λckm , Rckm , Xkm
c
,  ∀ h ∈ Ω h , (6)
∀p ∈ Ωp
∀{k m} ∈ Ω L
 
h i
Ikm,h ≤ ∑ λckm Icmax ,  ∀h ∈ Ωh ,
p
(7)
C ∈Ω ∀p ∈ Ωp
∀i ∈ Ωb
 
p
Vimin ≤ Vi,h ≤ Vimax ,  ∀h ∈ Ωh , (8)
∀p ∈ Ωp

∑ λckm = 1[∀{km} ∈ Ω L ], (9)

c∈Ωc

∑ ∑ λckm = n − 1, (10)
km∈Ω L c∈Ωc
Energies 2023, 16, 888 7 of 29

λckm ∈ {0, 1} [∀ {km} ∈ Ω L , ∀c ∈ Ωc ], (11)

Equation (4) defines the active power balance for each bus, phase, and period, where
p p p
Pgi,h and Pd symbolize the active power generated and demanded, respectively, Vh,i
i,h
pq
is the magnitude of the voltage at bus i for the period h, Yij defines the magnitude of
p
the admittance matrix connecting buses i and j, Φh,i is the phase angle i for the period
pq
h, and Φh,ij is the angle of the admittance matrix that connects buses i and j. In (5),
p
the reactive power balance is represented for each bus, phase, and period, where Q gi,h
p
and Qd represent the reactive power generated and demanded, respectively. In (6),
i,h
the feasibility of the current capacity of the conductors is verified, where the current
that flows in the network section between the buses k and m, of phase p, in a period h
p
represented by Ikm,h is calculated. In contrast, Rckm and Xkm
c are the resistance and reactance

of the conductor in the network section between buses k and m, respectively. In (7), it is
ensured that the current flow in the network section does not exceed the thermal limit of
the selected gauge, where Imax
c is the maximum current for the selected conductor. In (8), it
is established that the voltage is within its limits, where Vimin and Vimax are the minimum
and maximum voltages, respectively. Equation (9) ensures that only one type of gauge
c is selected for the conductor in the network section between buses k and m. In (10),
the maximum number of conductors to be installed is defined, guaranteeing the radial
topology. Finally, Equation (11) defines the binary nature of the decision variables.
In the previous equations, Ω L is the set that contains the network sections of the
distribution system, Ωb contains all the buses of the system, the set Ωh contains the periods
of load duration, and Ω p contains the phases of the system.
There can be multiple solutions for this mathematical model defined in (1)–(11), which
is of type MINLP, and the main complexity of MINPL is its non-convex continuous equal-
ity constraints with binary variables. Knowing the difficulties that the model develops,
a solution strategy is presented with a master–slave optimization approach, using the
metaheuristic optimization algorithm based on the modified MGbMO gradient for the
master part and the three-phase successive approximation method for the slave part.

3.3. Solution Space Analysis

One of the main complications in the problem of the optimal selection of conductors
for three-phase unbalanced systems is the large size of the solution space since it includes
binary and continuous variables. In the case of binary variables, for a system with l
distribution lines and c options for calibers, the number of possible solutions is cl [35].
Additionally, for each possible combination of the conductor sizes, multiple variables
are associated with the power flow problem in three-phase networks. Table 2 shows the
number of variables involved in the power flow solution (note that n is the number of
nodes and d is the number of dispersed sources).

Table 2. Number of variables for the power flow problem in three-phase networks.

Variable Name Number of Variables Variable Name Number of Variables

Voltages 3n Angles 3n
Currents 3l Dis. Gen. Powers 3d
Objective func. 1 Slack powers 3

Table 2 reveals that for each combination of conductors in a three-phase network, there
is 6n + 3(l + d) + 4. Additionally, if h periods are considered in the operation horizon,
the total dimension of the solution space will be (6n + 3(l + d) + 4)hcl .
Note that for the problem of the optimal selection of conductors for three-phase
distribution networks, the probability of finding the optimal global solution is low due
to the enormous dimension of the solution space, implying that medium- and large-scale
Energies 2023, 16, 888 8 of 29

distribution networks in the proposed MGbMO, as well as other combinatorial optimization

methodologies only, can ensure optimal local solution or one that is maximally near the
optimal global solution [36].

4. Solution Methodology
This article proposes a master–slave optimization methodology to solve the problem
of optimal selection of conductors in three-phase distribution networks with balanced and
unbalanced loads, seeking to minimize the operation and investment costs, representing
the objective function. In the master part, the metaheuristic algorithm MGbMO is used [13],
and the method of successive approximations is used for the slave part. In the proposed
methodology, the master stage is responsible for the optimal selection of gauges in each
distribution line. In contrast, the slave stage is responsible for evaluating the set of con-
straints associated with the power flow to determine the value of the objective function.
Equation (12) presents the coding that represents the problem studied:

Xit = [8, 2, c, . . . , Ncava ], (12)

where Xit represents the configuration of each individual i in the set of candidate solutions
in iteration t, and its size is given by 1×(y), where y represents the number of branches in
the distribution system, while c is a random integer that symbolizes the type of conductor to
be installed in the network section of the system. Ncava is a value between 1 and the number
of sizes of conductors available for the installation Note that for the studied systems Ncava
is assigned as 8. In the following subsections, the most important aspects of the master and
slave stages are described.

4.1. Slave Stage: Three-Phase Power Flow

In the slave stage belonging to the metaheuristic part of the master–slave optimization
process, a method that explores and exploits the solution space in each iteration is employed.
For the calculation of the objective function, the evaluation of the power flow is required
for each iteration, which allows the calculation of the costs of losses and verifying that
all constraints are satisfied. In this research, successive approximations are used to solve
the power flow recursively in each iteration and for each individual, which presents some
complication due to the constraints that are highly non-linear and non-convex, making it
necessary to use numerical methods in their solution. The general formula of power flow
for the method of successive approximations is presented in Equation (13), [13].
−1
Vdt+1 = −Ydd (diag−1 (Vdt,∗ )Sd∗ + Ydg Vs ), (13)

where Vd is the vector that contains all the voltage variables in the complex domain in all the
demand buses, t represents the iterative counter, Yds and Ydd represent the sub-components
of the general nodal admittance matrix that connect the demand buses with the slack bus
and the demand buses with each other, respectively, Sd is the complex demand vector that
contains the active and reactive power consumption in the demand buses, Vs is a vector
with the complex voltage in the buses of the slack sources, diag−1 ( x ) is a matrix formed
with the elements of the diagonal of x, and, finally, x ∗ is the conjugate operator of the
vector x.
The recursive evaluation of the power flow in Equation (13) stops when there is a
convergence with the application of Banach’s fixed point theorem [33]. For convergence,
the difference in the two magnitudes of voltage between two consecutive iterations is taken
as shown in (14).
Vdt+1 − Vd ≤ e, (14)

where e is the maximum acceptable error value, which, in this case, is taken from 1 × 10−10 .
Once the power flow is found, the three-phase power losses are determined using Equation (15).
Energies 2023, 16, 888 9 of 29

t +1 T t +1 ∗
Ploss3φ = Re(sum( Er3φ ) ( Jr3φ ) ), (15)
t +1
where Er3φ is a vector that contains all the voltage drops for the different network sections
t +1
in the electrical distribution systems, and Jt3φ is a vector that contains all the currents asso-
ciated with each network section. In this way, the three-phase successive approximation
method is shown in Figure 1.

Start: Three-phase SA power flow

Compute test feeder

characteristics

Calculate Y and ex-

tract Ydd and Ydg

Initialize phase voltages

 
1∠0°
Vs3φ = 1∠120°
1∠240°

t
Calculate Id3φ according to the
load connection, i.e, Y or ∆

t +1
Get Vd3φ = t t +1
−1
Assign Vd3φ = Vd3φ
−Ydd3φ ( Id3φ + Ydg3φ Vs3φ )

Meets
t +1
|Vd3φ t | ≤ ξ
− Vd3φ make t = t + 1
NO

YES

Calculate Ploss3φ

End: Proceed with

the analysis of results

Figure 1. Flowchart for the SA method.

Energies 2023, 16, 888 10 of 29

Note 1. With the equation presented in (15), it is possible to calculate the value of the objective
function associated with the energy loss costs, as shown in (1), as shown in (16).

Closs = C p TPloss3φ ∆h (16)

4.2. Master Stage: MGbMO Metaheuristic Algorithm

The MGbMO algorithm is a metaheuristic method recently developed by Montoya O. [13].
This method uses the GbMO method developed by Ahmadianfar [37] and adds a new im-
provement in the exploration and exploitation through the use of hyperellipses with a variable
radius around the best current solution, which is used in the vortex search algorithm [13].
The gradient-based metaheuristic algorithm (GbMO) is inspired by the gradient-based
Newton method, where the initial terms of the Taylor series are used from an initial point,
and it uses two main operators: the gradient search rule (GSR) and the local escape operator
(LEO) and a set of vectors to explore the search space. In the algorithm proposed in [37],
each member of the population is a vector generated randomly, as shown in (17).

Xn = Xmin + rand(0, 1)( Xmax − Xmin ), (17)

where Xmin and Xmax are the lower and upper limits, respectively, of the decision variable
X, and rand(0, 1) is a random number between 0 and 1. The general evolution rule of the
GbMO part is defined in Equation (18), where we already have the application of the Taylor
series and the use of the slave part mentioned above. These steps are explained in [13,37].

αit
Xit+1 = Xit − rand(0, 1) ( f ( Xit+1 ) − f ( Xit )), (18)
Xit − Xit−1

where Xit+1 and Xit are the new individual and the current individual, respectively, αit is
the adaptive step of the gradient search algorithm in the ith iteration t, and f( Xit ) represents
the gradient of the function f evaluated in the individual Xit .
Taking into account that all the exploration qualities of Equation (18) are local, no infor-
mation is being obtained on which is the best current solution; therefore, the authors in [13]
propose an adaptive evolution as shown in (19), based on the recommendations of [38],
t
where Xbest is the best current solution.

αit
Xit+1 = Xit − rand(0, 1) ( f ( Xit+1 ) − f ( Xit )) + rand(0, 1)( Xbest
t
− Xit ). (19)
Xit − Xit−1

To improve the exploration and exploitation stages of the original GbMO, it was
proposed in [13] to modify this algorithm based on an evolution strategy used by the vortex
search algorithm (VSA) [39]. This algorithm allows exploring and exploiting the solution
space through non-concentric hyperellipses of variable radius generated with a Gaus-
sian distribution, generating candidate solutions around the center of the solution space,
which would be the best solution [29]. In this way, the initial center of the hyperellipse is
defined in (20).
t
µt = Xbest , (20)
where µt is a vector with dimension d × 1 (d = y) that represents the center of the hyper-
ellipse for each iteration t. The best current solutions around the center are generated as
shown in the following Gaussian distribution (21).
 
1 1 τ −1
X t +1 = p ( x | µ t , Σ ) = q exp − ( x − µt ) Σ ( x − µt ) , (21)
2
2π d |Σ|
Energies 2023, 16, 888 11 of 29

where x is a vector with dimension d × 1 of a random variable, and Σ is the covariance

matrix. This matrix has identical values in its diagonal and zeros outside it. The covariance
matrix is defined as shown in (22).
Σ = σ0 I, (22)
where σ0 is the standard deviation of the Gaussian distribution, and I is the identity matrix
with the appropriate dimensions. For exploration and initial exploitation, σ0 is calculated
as follows (23):
max { x max } − min x min

σ0 = , (23)
2
where σ0 can also be considered the initial radius (i.e., r0 ), taking into account that r0 is
chosen to be a large value and that as the number of iterations progresses, it decreases [39].
x max and x min are the upper and lower admissible limits for the vector decision variables
Xit , respectively, as shown in (12). The rate of decrease is shown in Equation (24).

t
rt = 1 − , (24)
tmax

where rt is the radius in iteration t, and tmax is the total number of iterations. Each time
the individuals of the population are created X t+1 , these individuals should be adjusted
if necessary to maintain them within their limits as presented in (12) and rounded so that
they present a discrete character.

4.3. Implementation of the MGbMO

The implementation of the MGbMO algorithm for the optimal selection of conductors
in asymmetric three-phase distribution networks is presented in Algorithm 1.

Algorithm 1: Implementation of the MGbMO algorithm

Data: Select the AC electrical network under study;
Obtain the equivalent in values per unit of the distribution system;
Define the maximum number of iterations (tmax );
Define the size of the initial population (Ni );
Generate the initial population X t and make t = 0;
Define the solution space’s initial center (µ0 );
for t ≤ tmax do
Obtain the value of the objective function for each of the individuals of the initial population
Xit with the help of the slave stage;
Find the best current solution Xbestt ;

Generate a random number between 0 and 1 for e;

if e < 21 then
for i = 1 : Ni do
Apply the evolution rule of Equation (19);
Verify and adjust the values of Xit so that it is within its limits;
Evaluate Xit in the slave stage to find the value of the objective function;
end
t +1
Update Xbest to the current best;
else
Calculate the radius rt as expressed in (24);
Generate the descendant population Xit using Equation (21);
Verify and adjust the values of Xit so that it is within its limits;
for i = 1 : Ni do
Evaluate Xit in the slave stage to find the value of the objective function;
end
t +1
Update Xbest to the current best;
end
end
tmax
Show the best solution Xbest ;
Energies 2023, 16, 888 12 of 29

5. Characteristics of the Test Systems

In this section, the data and main characteristics of two different radial test systems of
8 and 27 buses are presented and used to validate the master-slave methodology to solve
the optimal selection of conductors problem. The test systems will be studied according to
their configuration, and the two test systems manage Star connections for all their loads.

5.1. General Parameters

Eight different types of conductors are assigned for the test systems discussed be-
low. The data of gauge, resistance, impedance, maximum thermal currents, and cost per
kilometer for each one are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Set of conductors for the test systems.

Gauge (c) r (Ω/km) x (Ω/km) Ic,max (A) Cc (USD/km)

1 0.8763 0.4133 180 1986
2 0.6960 0.4133 200 2790
3 0.5518 0.4077 230 3815
4 0.4387 0.3983 270 5090
5 0.3480 0.3899 300 8067
6 0.2765 0.3610 340 12,673
7 0.0966 0.1201 600 23,419
8 0.0853 0.0950 720 30,070

Table 4 shows the general simulation parameters for both test systems.

Table 4. General simulation parameters.

Parameter Value Unit

Energy cost 0.1390 (USD/kWh)
Iterations 1000 -
Population size 30 -
Tolerance 1 × 10−10 -

5.2. 8-Bus Test System

The three-phase test system has a radial topology and has 7 lines and 8 buses that
operate with a nominal voltage of 13.8 kV between phase and neutral with a unity power
factor. The slack bus is located on bus 1 [29]. Figure 2 shows the single-line diagram of this
test system.

Figure 2. Single-line diagram of the 8-bus test system.

The data of how the lines are connected to the different buses and their length are
shown in Table 5, as well as the data for the balanced case of the 8-bus system, where the
levels of both active and reactive load present in each bus are indicated.
Energies 2023, 16, 888 13 of 29

Table 5. Connection of lines and load levels of the system for the balanced case in the 8-bus test system.

Line Bus i Bus j Lij (km) PD

j,h (kW) QD
j,h (kvar)

1 1 2 1.00 1054.2 0
2 2 3 1.00 806.5 0
3 1 4 1.00 2632.5 0
4 1 5 1.00 609 0
5 5 6 1.00 2034.5 0
6 3 7 1.00 932.8 0
7 3 8 1.00 1731.4 0

The data for the unbalanced case of the 8-bus system are presented in Table 6, where
both the active and reactive load levels present in each bus are indicated.

Table 6. Load for each phase in the 8-bus test system for the unbalanced case.

Bus j PD
j,a (kW) QD
j,a (kvar) PD
j,b (kW) QD
j,b (kvar) PD
j,c (kW) QD
j,c (kvar)

2 3162.6 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 2419.5 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 7897.5 0
5 913.5 0 913.5 0 0 0
6 0 0 3051.6 0 3051.6 0
7 2798.4 0 0 0 0 0
8 1298.55 0 2597.1 0 1298.55 0

5.3. 27-Bus Test System

The three-phase test system has a radial topology and 26 lines and 27 buses that
operate with a nominal voltage of 13.8 kV between phase and neutral with a unity power
factor. The slack bus is located on bus 1 [29]. Figure 3 shows the single-line diagram of this
test system.

Figure 3. Single-line diagram for the 27-bus test system.

The data on how the lines are connected to the different buses and their length are
shown in Table 7, as well as the data for the balanced case of the 27-bus system, where the
levels of both active and reactive load present in each bus are indicated.
Energies 2023, 16, 888 14 of 29

Table 7. Connection of lines and load levels of the system for the balanced case in the 27-bus
test system.

Line Bus i Bus j Lij (km) PD

j,h (kW) QD
j,h (kvar)

1 1 2 0.55 0 0
2 2 3 1.50 0 0
3 3 4 0.45 297.5 184.4
4 4 5 0.63 0 0
5 5 6 0.70 255 158
6 6 7 0.55 0 0
7 7 8 1.00 212.5 131.7
8 8 9 1.25 0 0
9 9 10 1.00 266.1 164.9
10 2 11 1.00 85 52.7
11 11 12 1.23 340 210.7
12 12 13 0.75 297.5 184.4
13 13 14 0.56 191.3 118.5
14 14 15 1.00 106.3 65.8
15 15 16 1.00 255 158
16 3 17 1.00 255 158
17 17 18 0.60 127.5 79
18 18 19 0.90 297.5 184.4
19 19 20 0.95 340 210.7
20 20 21 1.00 85 52.7
21 4 22 1.00 106.3 65.8
22 5 23 1.00 55.3 34.2
23 6 24 0.40 69.7 43.2
24 8 25 0.60 255 158
25 8 26 0.60 63.8 39.5
26 26 27 0.80 170 105.4

The data for the unbalanced case of the 27-bus system are presented in Table 8, where
the levels of both active and reactive load present in each bus are indicated.

Table 8. Load for each phase in the 27-bus test system for the unbalanced case.

Bus j PD
j,a (kW) QD
j,a (kvar) PD
j,b (kW) QD
j,b (kvar) PD
j,c (kW) QD
j,c (kvar)

2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 892.5 553.2 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 765 474 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 637.5 395.1
9 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 798.3 494.7
11 0 0 255 158.1 0 0
12 1020 632.1 0 0 0 0
13 446.25 276.6 446.25 276.6 0 0
14 0 0 286.95 177.75 286.95 177.75
15 159.45 98.7 0 0 159.45 98.7
16 0 0 382.5 237 382.5 237
17 1 0 765 474 0 0
18 382.5 237 0 0 0 0
19 446.25 276.6 446.25 276.6 0 0
20 0 0 510 316.05 510 316.05
21 127.5 79.05 0 0 127.5 79.05
22 0 0 159.75 98.7 159.75 98.7
23 165.9 102.6 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 209.1 129.6
25 255 158 255 158 255 158
26 63.8 39.5 63.8 39.5 63.8 39.5
27 170 105.4 170 105.4 170 105.4
Energies 2023, 16, 888 15 of 29

6. Results and Discussion

The proposed optimization methodology is implemented on a personal computer
using MATLAB® R2021a software. The computer has an Intel (R) Core (TM) i7-8565U CPU
@1.80 GHz 1.99 GHz, 8 Gb RAM (Intel, Santa Clara, CA, USA), and Windows 11 Home
operating system of ×64 bits. The results are analyzed with the help of Microsoft Power BI
Desktop® Version 2.109.642.0 ×64 bits (Redmond, WA, USA).
To demonstrate the effectiveness of the MGbMO algorithm, this section presents the
numerical validation of the solution of the optimal conductor selection problem for the
IEEE 8- and 27-bus test systems compared with two other techniques used for solving the
optimal conductor selection problem: Newton’s metaheuristic algorithm (NMA)[32] and
the vortex search algorithm (VSA) [29]. For the comparison, it is considered that all the
algorithms would work with 30 individuals and 1000 iterations; additionally, an operating
scenario in peak demand for the entire year is taken into account, i.e., T = 8760 h and with
the demand of 100% at every instant of time. The convergence presented by the MGbMO
algorithm for all study systems is analyzed.
In the case of the three-phase unbalanced version of the IEEE 85-bus grid, a daily
operation scenario considering a typical demand curve and the presence of two renewable
generators is also considered to verify the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed
MGbMO under demand and generation of varying profiles.
It is noteworthy that in this research, the boundaries of the solution space regarding
the possible conductor types are between 1 and 8 (maximum conductor size included);
regarding current flows, their limits are restricted by the nominal rates associated with each
selected conductor, and the voltage profile as set as ±10% of the nominal voltage value of
the distribution network under analysis.

6.1. Results in the 8-Bus Test System

6.1.1. Balanced Case for the 8-Bus Test System
Table 9 shows the numerical results obtained by the different comparison algorithms,
such as the traditional genetic algorithm (TGA), the Chu and Beasley genetic algorithm
(CBGA), the exact solution in GAMS of the PNLEM model, the tabu search algorithm (TSA),
the vortex search algorithm (VSA), and Newton’s metaheuristic algorithm (NMA). These
data were obtained from the article [32] and the results of the MGbMO algorithm.

Table 9. Numerical results for the IEEE 8-bus system (balanced).

Investment in
Annual Costs
Method Gauges Conductors Losses (USD)
(USD)
(USD)
TGA {6, 5, 3, 4, 4, 1, 4} 125,433 406,222.461 531,655.461
CBGA {6, 6, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4} 143,076 373,155.965 516,231.965
GAMS {6, 4, 4, 5, 4, 1, 2} 122,358 416,681.580 539,039.580
TSA {6, 5, 4, 4, 4, 1, 3} 125,433 397,754.442 523,187.442
VSA {6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 2, 4} 163,350 345,007.959 508,357.959
NMA {6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 2, 4} 163,350 345,007.959 508,357.959
MGbMO {7, 7, 5, 5, 4, 2, 4} 227,826 228,143.791 455,969.791

The results presented in Table 9 demonstrate the following:

• The MGbMO algorithm obtained the best numerical result for the balanced 8-bus
system, yielding annual costs of USD 455,969,791, with USD 227,826 in the investment
of the conductors and USD 228,143,791 in the costs associated with the losses.
• The result obtained by the MGbMO algorithm improved by 10.3% compared to
the VSA and NMA algorithms, which obtained the second-best solutions with USD
508,357.959 for annual costs, which represents a reduction of USD 52,388.2 for the
study case.
Energies 2023, 16, 888 16 of 29

• The cost of the investment of the conductors, according to the set of gauges selected
by the MGbMO algorithm, presents the highest cost compared to the rest of the algo-
rithms; however, the cost of annual losses is lower, which thus ends up compensating
for the high costs in the investment of the conductors.
To determine the behavior of the radial distribution system for this case study,
Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate the behavior of the peak currents flowing in the different
branches and the voltage profiles in the buses, respectively.

Figure 4. Behavior of the current in the branches for the IEEE system of 8 buses (balanced).

In Figure 4, it can be observed that the maximum current levels in each of the branches
are well away from their established limits according to the conductor gauges, which allows
energy losses to be low, thus decreasing their costs, as shown in Table 9.

Figure 5. Voltage profiles in the buses for the IEEE 8-bus system (balanced).

Figure 5 shows that the voltage levels remain close to 1 pu, the lowest occurring at
bus 6 with a value of 0.9904 pu. It is important to mention that only one behavior is shown
for the three phases because the system is balanced.

6.1.2. Unbalanced Case for the 8-Bus Test System

Table 10 shows the numerical results obtained by the different comparison algorithms,
such as the vortex search algorithm (VSA) and the Newton metaheuristic algorithm (NMA).
These data were obtained from article [32] and the results of the MGbMO algorithm.
Energies 2023, 16, 888 17 of 29

Table 10. Numerical results for the IEEE 8-bus system (unbalanced).

Investment in
Annual Costs
Method Gauges Conductors Losses (USD)
(USD)
(USD)
VSA {7, 7, 7, 5, 5, 4, 4} 289,713 269,045.394 558,758.394
NMA {7, 7, 7, 5, 5, 4, 4} 289,713 269,045.394 558,758.394
MGbMO {7, 7, 7, 5, 5, 4, 4} 289,713 269,045.394 558,758.394

The results presented in Table 10 demonstrate the following:

• The MGbMO algorithm equaled the results of the VSA and NMA algorithms for the
unbalanced 8-bus system, yielding annual costs of USD 558,758,394, with USD 289,713
in the investment of the conductors and USD 269,045,394 in the costs associated with
the losses.
To determine the behavior of the radial distribution system for this case study,
Figures 6 and 7 show the behavior of the peak currents flowing in the different branches
and the voltage profiles in the buses, respectively.

Figure 6. Behavior of the current in the branches for the IEEE system of 8 buses (unbalanced).

In Figure 6, the maximum current levels in each of the branches are well away from
their established limits according to the conductor gauges, which allows energy losses to
be low, thus decreasing their costs, as shown in Table 10. The highest current level is seen
in branch 3, which is close to 35% of the conductor limit.

Figure 7. Node voltage profiles for the 8-bus IEEE system (unbalanced).
Energies 2023, 16, 888 18 of 29

In Figure 7, the voltage levels remain close to 1 pu, the lowest being the one presented
in bus 6 in phase B with a value of 0.9869 pu. It is important to mention that for this
scenario, the voltage profiles for each phase are shown because the system is unbalanced.

6.2. Results in the 27-Bus Test System

6.2.1. Balanced Case for the 27-Bus Test System
Table 11 shows the numerical results obtained by the different comparison algorithms,
such as the vortex search algorithm (VSA) and the Newton metaheuristic algorithm (NMA).
These data were obtained from the article [32] and the results of the MGbMO algorithm.

Table 11. Numerical results for the IEEE 27-bus system (balanced).

Investment in
Method Gauges Losses (USD) Annual Costs (USD)
Conductors (USD)
{7, 7, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 1, 1, 4,
VSA 4, 2, 3, 2, 1, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 344,352.150 217,672.327 562,024.477
1, 2, 2, 1, 1}
{7, 7, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 1, 1, 4,
NMA 4, 3, 3, 1, 2, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 337,744.800 219,950.455 557,695.255
1, 2, 2, 1, 1}
{7, 7, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 1, 1, 4,
MGbMO 4, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 319,768.08 230,115.492 549,883.572
1, 1, 1, 1, 1}

The results presented in Table 11 demonstrate the following:

• The MGbMO algorithm obtained the best numerical result for the balanced 27-bus sys-
tem, yielding annual costs of USD 549,883.572, with USD 319,768.08 in the investment
of the conductors and USD 230,115.492 in the costs associated with losses.
• The result obtained by the MGbMO algorithm improved by 1.4% compared to the
NMA algorithm, which obtained the second-best solution with USD 557,695.255 for
annual costs, representing a reduction of USD 7811.68 for the case study.
• The cost of the investment of the conductors, according to the set of gauges selected by
the MGbMO algorithm, presents the lowest cost compared to the rest of the algorithms,
thus increasing the costs of annual losses slightly. In the end, the costs are compensated,
as shown in the annual costs, allowing a lower value in the objective function.
To determine the behavior of the radial distribution system for this case study,
Figures 8 and 9 show the behavior of the peak currents flowing in the different branches
and the voltage profiles in the buses, respectively.

Figure 8. Behavior of the current in the branches for the IEEE 27-bus system (balanced).
Energies 2023, 16, 888 19 of 29

In Figure 8, it can be observed that the maximum current levels in each of the branches
are well away from their established limits according to the conductor gauges, which allows
energy losses to be low, thus decreasing their costs as shown in Table 11.

Figure 9. Voltage profiles in the buses for the IEEE system of 27 buses (balanced).

Figure 9 demonstrates that the voltage levels remain close to 1 pu, the lowest voltage
with a value of 0.9771 pu. It is important to mention that only one behavior is shown for
the three phases because the system is balanced.

6.2.2. Unbalanced Case for the 27-Bus Test System

Table 12 presents the numerical results obtained by the different comparison algorithms,
such as the vortex search algorithm (VSA) and the Newton metaheuristic algorithm (NMA).
These data were obtained from the article [32] and the results of the MGbMO algorithm.

Table 12. Numerical results for the IEEE 27-bus system (unbalanced).

Investment in
Method Gauges Losses (USD) Annual Costs (USD)
Conductors (USD)
{7, 7, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 4,
VSA 4, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 350,392.95 257,999.185 608,392.135
1, 2, 2, 4, 1}
{7, 7, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 1, 4,
NMA 4, 4, 2, 1, 1, 4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 344,954.40 252,624.608 597,579.008
1, 2, 2, 2, 1}
{7, 7, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 4,
MGbMO 4, 3, 1, 1, 1, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 331,828.08 257,190.720 589,018.800
1, 1, 1, 1, 1}

The results presented in Table 12 demonstrate the following:

• The MGbMO algorithm obtained the best numerical result for the unbalanced 27-bus
system, yielding annual costs of USD 589,018.8, with USD 331,828.08 in the investment
of the conductors and USD 257,190.72 in the costs associated with the losses.
• The result obtained by the MGbMO algorithm improved by 1.432% compared to the
NMA algorithm, which obtained the second-best solution with USD 597,579.008 for
annual costs, thus representing a reduction of USD 8560.21 for the case study.
• The cost of the investment of the conductors, according to the set of gauges selected by
the MGbMO algorithm, presents the lowest cost compared to the rest of the algorithms,
thus increasing the costs of annual losses slightly but without exceeding the costs
presented by the VSA version. These costs are compensated in the end, as shown in
the annual costs, allowing a lower value in the objective function.
Energies 2023, 16, 888 20 of 29

To determine the behavior of the radial distribution system for this case study,
Figures 10 and 11 show the behavior of the peak currents flowing in the different
branches and the voltage profiles in the buses, respectively.

Figure 10. Behavior of the current in the branches for the IEEE system of 27 buses (unbalanced).

In Figure 10, the maximum current levels in each of the branches are well away from
their established limits according to the conductor gauges, which allows energy losses to
be low, reducing their costs as shown in Table 12. The highest level is presented in branch
1, which is close to 28% of the conductor’s limit.

Figure 11. Voltage profiles in the buses for the IEEE 27-bus system (unbalanced).

In Figure 11, it can be observed that the voltage levels remain close to 1 pu, and the
lowest values occurred in buses 10, 25, 26, and 27 of phase C, the lowest being that of bus 10
with a value of 0.96 pu. It is essential to mention that for this scenario, the voltage profiles
for each phase are shown because the system is unbalanced.

6.3. Performance of the Algorithm

To illustrate the MGbMO algorithm’s performance and determine its convergence
behavior, Figure 12 shows this proposed methodology’s behavior in each case study.
It should be noted that the algorithm seeks to optimize the objective function throughout
the 1000 iterations.
Energies 2023, 16, 888 21 of 29

Figure 12. Convergence of the objective function for each test system (note that the objective function
was normalized by using a dividing factor of 1000).

Figure 12 showcases that for 8-bus systems, both balanced and unbalanced, the value
of the objective function converges in a few iterations. In particular, the fastest case of
convergence is around the tenth iteration. Conversely, for 27-bus systems, the number of
iterations is more significant, reaching close to 500, thus making this study scenario the
slowest compared to the 8-bus system.

6.4. A Daily Operation Scenario

To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed optimization methodology in deal-
ing with large-scale distribution networks considering daily demand variations and the
penetration of renewable generation, this section presents some numerical validations for
the three-phase asymmetric version of the IEEE 85-bus grid. The single-line diagram for
the 85-bus grid is depicted in Figure 13.

55
47
53 54
42 46 52
43
41 45
37 38 39 48 49 50 51
40 44
25
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 56
slack 17 24
1 2 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
3 4 7 8
16 78 85
18
23 19
58 59 81 82
20 57 80
21
61 62 77 83 84
22 60 75

64 65 66
63 73 74

68 69 70 71
67

79 76
72

Figure 13. Single-line diagram for the IEEE 85-bus grid.

Energies 2023, 16, 888 22 of 29

The line connections and their lengths are listed in Table 13.

Table 13. Line connections and their lengths for the IEEE 85-bus grid.

Line Bus i Bus j Lij (km) Line Bus i Bus j Lij (km)
1 1 2 0.468 43 34 44 0.985
2 2 3 0.449 44 44 45 0.441
3 3 4 0.323 45 45 46 0.225
4 4 5 0.870 46 46 47 0.184
5 5 6 0.883 47 35 48 0.698
6 6 7 0.343 48 48 49 0.875
7 7 8 0.953 49 49 50 0.768
8 8 9 0.309 50 50 51 0.261
9 9 10 0.931 51 48 52 0.985
10 10 11 0.161 52 52 53 0.448
11 11 12 0.952 53 53 54 0.344
12 12 13 0.878 54 52 55 0.673
13 13 14 0.507 55 49 56 0.564
14 14 15 0.018 56 9 57 0.545
15 2 16 0.778 7 57 58 0.564
16 3 17 0.359 58 58 59 0.650
17 5 18 0.848 59 58 60 0.237
18 18 19 0.433 60 60 61 0.626
19 19 20 0.605 61 61 62 0.530
20 20 21 0.377 62 60 63 0.514
21 21 22 0.721 63 63 64 0.701
22 19 23 0.316 64 64 65 0.373
23 7 4 0.949 65 65 66 0.614
24 8 5 0.849 66 64 67 0.307
25 25 26 0.775 67 67 68 0.322
26 26 27 0.299 68 68 69 0.662
27 27 28 0.872 69 69 70 0.150
28 28 29 0.375 70 70 71 0.384
29 29 30 0.798 71 67 72 0.320
30 30 31 0.816 72 68 73 0.291
31 31 32 0.999 73 73 74 0.213
32 32 33 0.045 74 73 75 0.721
33 33 34 0.236 75 70 76 0.705
34 34 35 0.430 76 65 77 0.715
35 35 36 0.847 77 10 78 0.361
36 26 37 0.386 78 67 79 0.546
37 27 38 0.122 79 12 80 0.357
38 29 39 0.915 80 80 81 0.940
39 32 40 0.182 81 81 82 0.444
40 40 41 0.590 82 81 83 0.110
41 41 42 0.812 83 83 84 0.865
42 41 43 0.261 84 13 85 0.300

The information regarding power consumption per node in the three-phase version of
the 85-bus grid is listed in Table 14.
To evaluate the effect of the daily variation in the demand profile and the presence
of two renewable generators, the information presented in Table 15 is considered. Note
that the PV generator will be located at node 34 with a nominal generation capacity per
phase of about 750 kW. Regarding the wind turbine, it will be sited at node 60 with a total
generation capability of 600 kW per phase.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed MGbMO in solving the problem of the
optimal selection of conductors in three-phase unbalanced distribution networks, three
numerical validations are carried out as defined below.
• Case 1: The evaluation of the optimization methodology during the peak load condi-
tion, i.e., under the same simulation conditions used for the 8- and 27-bus grids.
• Case 2: The selection of the conductors only considers the daily load variations without
penetration of renewable generation.
• Case 3: The evaluation of the optimization methodology considering the daily demand
and generation curves.
Energies 2023, 16, 888 23 of 29

Table 14. Load for each phase in the 85-bus test system.

Bus j PD
j,a (kW) QD
j,a (kvar) PD
j,b (kW) QD
j,b (kvar) PD
j,c (kW) QD
j,c (kvar)

2 14.50 20.00 10.00 28.50 20.50 31.00

3 12.50 29.50 0.000 0.000 17.50 48.50
4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.50 43.00
5 39.00 43.50 32.50 48.50 0.000 0.000
6 28.00 22.00 22.50 24.50 0.000 0.000
7 14.00 10.50 0.000 0.000 24.50 42.50
8 41.50 29.50 23.50 12.00 10.50 27.00
9 0.000 0.000 30.00 40.50 17.00 50.00
10 0.000 0.000 14.00 45.00 0.000 0.000
11 0.000 0.000 26.50 14.00 27.50 35.50
12 35.50 49.00 45.50 47.50 0.000 0.000
13 17.00 43.00 15.00 47.50 48.00 37.50
14 25.00 45.00 22.00 44.00 0.000 0.000
15 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.50 20.00
16 19.00 39.00 47.50 32.00 35.50 18.50
17 18.50 44.50 49.00 26.00 32.50 26.50
18 0.000 0.000 11.00 44.00 48.50 34.50
19 38.00 31.00 35.00 39.00 42.50 25.50
20 46.00 46.00 0.000 0.000 26.50 32.50
21 39.00 25.00 37.00 11.00 41.50 23.50
22 22.50 50.00 21.00 30.00 18.50 25.50
23 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 24.00 23.50
24 44.50 12.50 33.00 27.00 37.00 18.00
25 40.50 14.00 40.50 36.00 33.50 39.50
26 15.50 22.50 0.000 0.000 25.50 47.00
27 16.00 38.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
28 13.50 15.00 35.00 38.00 15.50 22.50
29 18.50 39.50 10.50 36.00 39.00 42.00
30 21.00 36.50 0.000 0.000 43.00 13.00
31 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20.50 20.50
32 41.50 35.50 46.50 50.00 0.000 0.000
33 29.00 12.50 47.00 37.50 27.50 24.50
34 16.00 28.00 0.000 0.000 25.00 12.00
35 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
36 48.50 34.00 0.000 0.000 10.50 18.00
37 41.00 45.00 44.00 47.50 12.00 45.50
38 42.00 22.00 45.00 15.50 0.000 0.000
39 0.000 0.000 37.00 47.50 27.50 18.50
40 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.00 13.50
41 17.50 27.50 36.00 40.00 43.00 20.00
42 44.50 17.00 38.50 19.00 0.000 0.000
43 49.50 45.50 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
44 39.00 28.50 32.50 26.50 30.00 30.50
45 30.50 27.00 39.00 36.50 13.50 42.50
46 25.00 22.50 30.50 21.00 11.00 15.50
47 30.50 48.00 48.00 22.00 14.00 34.00
48 34.00 42.00 50.00 13.50 0.000 0.000
49 42.50 34.50 36.00 45.50 45.00 46.50
50 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.50 13.50
51 22.00 18.50 24.50 23.00 10.00 13.50
52 49.00 40.50 47.00 48.00 20.00 28.00
53 13.50 41.50 15.00 48.00 0.000 0.000
54 39.50 19.50 19.00 43.00 45.50 40.50
55 0.000 0.000 19.50 26.50 19.50 45.00
56 36.50 20.00 34.00 49.00 14.50 17.00
57 13.50 40.50 16.50 33.50 16.00 34.00
58 29.50 18.00 22.00 18.00 0.000 0.000
59 24.00 36.50 32.00 15.50 29.00 27.50
60 0.000 0.000 38.00 12.00 25.00 24.50
61 38.00 42.00 28.00 17.50 45.50 27.00
62 30.00 32.00 42.00 26.50 36.00 47.50
63 42.00 25.50 46.50 26.00 26.00 17.00
64 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 19.00 47.50
65 37.00 29.00 0.000 0.000 28.00 26.50
66 47.50 49.00 25.00 36.50 47.50 17.50
67 14.00 22.50 0.000 0.000 22.50 41.00
68 35.50 39.00 36.50 23.50 41.50 37.00
69 22.00 22.50 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Energies 2023, 16, 888 24 of 29

Table 14. Cont.

Bus j PD
j,a (kW) QD
j,a (kvar) PD
j,b (kW) QD
j,b (kvar) PD
j,c (kW) QD
j,c (kvar)

70 43.50 24.50 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

71 11.00 50.00 0.000 0.000 11.50 28.50
72 31.00 20.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
73 43.00 23.00 49.50 48.00 50.00 35.00
74 28.00 22.00 21.00 19.50 0.000 0.000
75 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
76 0.000 0.000 46.50 45.00 19.50 47.50
77 28.00 12.50 25.00 24.00 41.00 49.00
78 27.50 45.00 48.50 31.00 29.50 38.50
79 32.50 35.00 48.50 18.50 0.000 0.000
80 28.50 46.50 11.50 21.00 18.50 37.00
81 18.00 49.50 36.00 13.50 23.00 13.50
82 46.00 37.00 28.50 32.00 17.50 14.50
83 24.50 13.00 34.00 30.00 0.000 0.000
84 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.50 48.50
85 0.000 0.000 36.50 12.00 0.000 0.000

Table 15. Daily demand and generation variation for the 85-bus grid.

Time (h) Demand (pu) Photovoltaic (pu) Wind (pu)

1 0.684511335492475 0 0.633118295
2 0.644122690036197 0 0.607259323
3 0.613069156029720 0 0.605557422
4 0.599733282530006 0 0.684246423
5 0.588874071251667 0 0.783719339
6 0.598018670222900 0 0.790557706
7 0.626786054486569 0 0.744958950
8 0.651743189178891 0.0391233650 0.769603567
9 0.706039245570585 0.0655871790 0.826492212
10 0.787007048961707 0.2368707960 0.876523598
11 0.839016955610593 0.4550178180 0.931213527
12 0.852733854067441 0.7264402650 0.965504834
13 0.870642027052772 0.9244863260 0.972218577
14 0.834254143646409 0.9820411530 0.981135531
15 0.816536483139646 0.8294070790 0.991393173
16 0.819394170318156 0.7330632950 1
17 0.874071251666984 0.5011338490 0.987258076
18 1 0.1771175180 0.929542167
19 0.983615926843208 0 0.791155379
20 0.936368832158506 0 0.708839248
21 0.887597637645266 0 0.712881960
22 0.809297008954087 0 0.719897641
23 0.745856353591160 0 0.703007456
24 0.733473042484283 0 0.687238555

It is noteworthy that no comparison with the previous literature reports is made in

this simulation scenario since this is the first time that the IEEE 85-bus grid is adapted to a
three-phase unbalanced version to study the problem of the optimal selection of conductors.
Ultimately, this implies that the results reported here will become a reference for future
developments in this research area.
Table 16 presents the list of calibers assigned for each operative scenario. The main
characteristic of the conductors selected for each operative scenario is that these solutions
fulfill the telescopic operating condition typically implemented by distribution companies
to reduce investment costs in conducting material.
Energies 2023, 16, 888 25 of 29

Table 16. Conductors selected for the IEEE 85-bus grid at each operative scenario.

Line Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Line Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

1 7 5 4 43 3 1 1
2 7 5 4 44 3 1 1
3 5 5 4 45 2 1 1
4 4 5 4 46 2 1 1
5 4 4 3 47 3 1 1
6 4 4 3 48 3 1 1
7 4 4 3 49 3 1 1
8 4 1 1 50 3 1 1
9 4 1 1 51 3 1 1
10 4 1 1 52 3 1 1
11 4 1 1 53 3 1 1
12 4 1 1 54 2 1 1
13 3 1 1 55 3 1 1
14 1 1 1 56 3 1 1
15 1 1 1 7 3 1 1
16 2 1 1 58 1 1 1
17 3 1 1 59 3 1 1
18 3 1 1 60 3 1 1
19 3 1 1 61 1 1 1
20 3 1 1 62 3 1 1
21 2 1 1 63 3 1 1
22 2 1 1 64 3 1 1
23 2 1 1 65 3 1 1
24 3 1 1 66 3 1 1
25 3 1 1 67 3 1 1
26 3 1 1 68 3 1 1
27 3 1 1 69 3 1 1
28 3 1 1 70 3 1 1
29 3 1 1 71 3 1 1
30 3 1 1 72 2 1 1
31 3 1 1 73 2 1 1
32 3 1 1 74 2 1 1
33 3 1 1 75 1 1 1
34 3 1 1 76 3 1 1
35 1 1 1 77 2 1 1
36 3 1 1 78 2 1 1
37 3 1 1 79 3 1 1
38 2 1 1 80 3 1 1
39 3 1 1 81 1 1 1
40 2 1 1 82 3 1 1
41 2 1 1 83 1 1 1
42 2 1 1 84 2 1 1

Table 17 presents the investment, operating, and total costs for the IEEE 85-bus grid.
Note that C pen is zero for all the solutions listed in Table 16 since each final solution is
100% feasible.

Table 17. Investment and operating costs found with the application of the MGbMO to the three-
phase version of the IEEE 85-bus grid for each operative scenario.

Case Cinv (USD) Closs (USD) Z (USD)

1 550,998.7080 403,917.6916 954,916.3996
2 330,218.1420 312,264.9263 642,483.0683
3 303,039.0570 249,526.0165 552,565.0735

The numerical results presented in Table 17 reveal the following:

i. Case 1 is an operation scenario that invests more in conducting material to minimize
the effect of the energy loss costs in the objective function as soon as possible. This is
accomplished by increasing the conductor sizes in some strategic distribution lines,
which reduces the energy loss since these are proportional to the resistive parameter
and the square value of the current. Additionally, the expected energy loss costs for
Energies 2023, 16, 888 26 of 29

this scenario can be far from the real operative scenario for a distribution grid where
all the demands vary along the day.
ii. Case 2 demonstrates a more realistic operative scenario for medium-voltage distribu-
tion networks, where the energy consumption varies along the day, considering a typi-
cal demand curve. In this case, the expected energy losses are about USD 312,264.9263
per year of operation, which implies a reduction of about USD 91,652.7653 concern-
ing the peak load operation scenario. This implies that it is highly probable for a
distribution company that the energy loss costs will be near the daily demand vari-
ation scenario compared to the peak load condition. However, the most important
result in simulation Case 2 is the reduction in the investment costs concerning the
peak load scenario of about 40.0691%. This implies that when the energy calculation
is more realistic, the algorithm finds conductors with small sizes (see Cases 1 and
2 in Table 16), which can be considered a more convenient design scenario for the
distribution company.
iii. Case 3 presents the well-known benefits of the usage of renewable generation in
distribution networks since these allow important reductions in the expected energy
loss costs. This scenario showcases that the energy loss costs are reduced by about
USD 62,738.9098 with respect to Case 2. Additionally, the inclusion of renewables
has reduced the investment costs in conducting material by about USD 27,179.0850
through the reduction in the conductor sizes in some strategy lines (lines near to the
substation bus as can be seen for Cases 2 and 3 in Table 16).
Finally, when Cases 2 and 3 are compared with the typical peak load scenario in
Case 1, the total reductions regarding the final objective function value are 32.7184% and
42.1347%, respectively. These reduction values confirm that for the solution of the best set
of conductors in three-phase unbalanced networks, expected daily demand curves and also
the presence of renewables must be considered before making the final investment decision
by the utility company.

7. Conclusions and Future Work

This article presents the problem of the optimal conductor selection in radial electrical
distribution systems. Its objective function is the minimization of the total annual operating
costs, broken down into the costs associated with conductor investment and the energy
losses over one year of operation. The problem is addressed by adopting a master–slave
solution methodology, using the MGbMO algorithm in the master part, which is responsible
for selecting the optimal set of gauges to be used by the conductors in each branch of the
system. Conversely, in the slave stage, the AS method is employed to calculate the power
flow. The methodology is applied to balanced and unbalanced IEEE 8- and 27-bus test
systems, yielding promising results and demonstrating its applicability and efficiency
compared to other algorithms reported in the specialized literature, including the NMA
and the VSA. The main conclusions of this study are as follows:
i. The MGbMO algorithm implemented yields the best current solutions for three of the
four systems studied, where for the balanced 8-bus system, an objective function of
USD 455,969.791 is obtained, achieving a reduction of 10.3% over the value obtained
with NMA, which has the second-best result; regarding the unbalanced case, the results
of the other algorithms are matched with a value of USD 558,758.394, and it can, thus,
be inferred that the optimal global solution is found (this affirmation is based on the
small dimension of the solution space for the 8-bus grid, i.e., cl = 87 = 2,097,152, which
can be easily explored with any combinatorial optimization method or exhaustive
search). In the balanced 27-bus system, a value of USD 549,883.572 is obtained as total
annual costs, achieving an improvement of 1.4% compared to the NMA, while in the
unbalanced case, a value of USD 589,018.800 is obtained, which is 1.432% more than
in the case of the NMA.
ii. For the four case studies, the findings ascertain that since the current levels that pass
through the branches are far from their limits established by each gauge (less than
Energies 2023, 16, 888 27 of 29

35%), the energy losses are low, and the loss costs are thus reduced as well, ensuring
good operation and adapting to future new load connections.
iii. The voltage profiles are adequate for all test systems. In this regard, the lowest and
most distant one is evident in the 27-bus system for the balanced case, where a shift of
4.61% is presented in phase C, which is very low and positive for the system.
iv. The MGbMO algorithm only needs a single evaluation in each test system to obtain
the best numerical results, which are previously reported in this research, due to the
exploration and exploitation characteristics of the solution space, which shortened
simulation times, making this method one of the most efficient methods reported in
the specialized literature.
v. The numerical results obtained with the MGbMO in the three-phase version of the
IEEE 85-bus grid indicate that the peak demand scenario is a simulation case where
the energy losses costs are overestimated, which leads the optimization algorithm
to increase the conductor sizes to find an adequate equilibrium between investment
and operating costs. However, when daily demand curves and renewable generation
are considered, the expected annual costs of the energy losses reduce significantly,
allowing the MGbMO to find conductor sizes with lower costs in comparison to the
peak scenario of operation. These results imply that considering daily demand curves
is the most realistic scenario for the studied problem. Ultimately, this simulation case
must be considered the benchmark case for any new study in this research area.
For future studies, the problem presented in this article can be addressed by employing
new metaheuristic methods with high numerical yields, implementing static compensators
or renewable sources, such as photovoltaic or wind generation, and including uncertainties
in demand and power-generation profiles to improve the voltage profiles and further
reduce losses. Further research can validate existing distribution networks with a higher
number of nodes as in the case of Brazilian and Taiwan distribution systems.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, software, and writing (review and editing):
O.D.M., J.D.P.-R. and J.A.V.-F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing does
not apply to this article.
Acknowledgments: To God, our families, and the teachers who were part of our professional training
process. This work is derived from the undergraduate project Aplicación del método de optimización
basado en el gradiente modificado para la selección óptima de conductores en sistemas de distribución
trifásicos desbalanceadas, submitted by Julián David Pradilla Rozo to the Electrical Engineering
Program of the Department of Engineering of Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas as a
partial requirement for obtaining a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Kazmi, S.A.A.; Shahzad, M.K.; Khan, A.Z.; Shin, D.R. Smart Distribution Networks: A Review of Modern Distribution Concepts
from a Planning Perspective. Energies 2017, 10, 501. [CrossRef]
2. Jin, T.; Zhuo, F.; Mohamed, M.A. A Novel Approach Based on CEEMDAN to Select the Faulty Feeder in Neutral Resonant
Grounded Distribution Systems. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2020, 69, 4712–4721. [CrossRef]
3. Acosta, J.S.; Tavares, M.C. Optimal selection and positioning of conductors in multi-circuit overhead transmission lines using
evolutionary computing. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2020, 180, 106174. [CrossRef]
4. Nahman, J.; Peric, D. Optimal Planning of Radial Distribution Networks by Simulated Annealing Technique. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 2008, 23, 790–795. [CrossRef]
5. Lavorato, M.; Franco, J.F.; Rider, M.J.; Romero, R. Imposing Radiality Constraints in Distribution System Optimization Problems.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2012, 27, 172–180. [CrossRef]
6. Macedo, L.H.; Franco, J.F.; Mahdavi, M.; Romero, R. A Contribution to the Optimization of the Reconfiguration Problem in
Radial Distribution Systems. J. Control. Autom. Electr. Syst. 2018, 29, 756–768. [CrossRef]
7. Lavorato, M.; Rider, M.J.; Garcia, A.V.; Romero, R. A Constructive Heuristic Algorithm for Distribution System Planning.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2010, 25, 1734–1742. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 888 28 of 29

8. Girbau-Llistuella, F.; Díaz-González, F.; Sumper, A.; Gallart-Fernández, R.; Heredero-Peris, D. Smart Grid Architecture for Rural
Distribution Networks: Application to a Spanish Pilot Network. Energies 2018, 11, 844. [CrossRef]
9. Escobar-Yonoff, R.; Maestre-Cambronel, D.; Charry, S.; Rincón-Montenegro, A.; Portnoy, I. Performance assessment and economic
perspectives of integrated PEM fuel cell and PEM electrolyzer for electric power generation. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06506. [CrossRef]
10. Abdelaziz, A.Y.; Fathy, A. A novel approach based on crow search algorithm for optimal selection of conductor size in radial
distribution networks. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2017, 20, 391–402. [CrossRef]
11. Abul’Wafa, A.R. Multi-conductor feeder design for radial distribution networks. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2016, 140, 184–192.
[CrossRef]
12. Islam, S.; Ghani, M. Economical optimization of conductor selection in planning radial distribution networks. In Proceedings
of the 1999 IEEE Transmission and Distribution Conference (Cat. No. 99CH36333), New Orleans, LA, USA, 11–16 April 1999;
Volume 2, pp. 858–863. [CrossRef]
13. Montoya, O.D.; Grisales-Noreña, L.F.; Giral-Ramírez, D.A. Optimal Placement and Sizing of PV Sources in Distribution Grids
Using a Modified Gradient-Based Metaheuristic Optimizer. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3318. [CrossRef]
14. Sivanagaraju, S.; Sreenivasulu, N.; Vijayakumar, M.; Ramana, T. Optimal conductor selection for radial distribution systems.
Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2002, 63, 95–103. [CrossRef]
15. Falaghi, H.; Ramezani, M.; Haghifam, M.R.; Milani, K. Optimal selection of conductors in radial distribution systems with time
varying load. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference and Exhibition on Electricity Distribution (CIRED 2005),
Turin, Italy, 6–9 June 2005. .:20051351. [CrossRef]
16. Satyanarayana, S.; Ramana, T.; Rao, G.K.; Sivanagaraju, S. Improving the Maximum Loading by Optimal Conductor Selection of
Radial Distribution Systems. Electr. Power Components Syst. 2006, 34, 747–757. [CrossRef]
17. Ponnavaikko, M.; Rao, K. An Approach to Optimal Distribution System Planning Through Conductor Gradation. IEEE Trans.
Power Appar. Syst. 1982, PAS-101, 1735–1742. [CrossRef]
18. Thenepalle, M. A Comparative Study on Optimal Conductor Selection for Radial Distribution Network using Conventional and
Genetic Algorithm Approach. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2011, 17, 6–13. [CrossRef]
19. Legha, M.M.; Javaheri, H.; Legha, M.M. Optimal Conductor Selection in Radial Distribution Systems for Productivity Improve-
ment Using Genetic Algorithm. Iraqi J. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2013, 9, 29–35. [CrossRef]
20. Zhao, Z.; Mutale, J. Optimal Conductor Size Selection in Distribution Networks with High Penetration of Distributed Generation
Using Adaptive Genetic Algorithm. Energies 2019, 12, 2065. [CrossRef]
21. Ismael, S.M.; Aleem, S.H.A.; Abdelaziz, A.Y.; Zobaa, A.F. Optimal Conductor Selection of Radial Distribution Feeders: An
Overview and New Application Using Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm. In Classical and Recent Aspects of Power System
Optimization; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 185–217. [CrossRef]
22. Mendoza, F.; Requena, D.; Bemal-Agustin, J.; Dominguez-Navarro, J. Optimal Conductor Size Selection in Radial Power
Distribution Systems Using Evolutionary Strategies. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution
Conference and Exposition: Latin America, Caracas, Venezuela, 15–18 August 2006. [CrossRef]
23. Samal, P.; Mohanty, S.; Ganguly, S. Simultaneous capacitor allocation and conductor sizing in unbalanced radial distribution
systems using differential evolution algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2016 National Power Systems Conference (NPSC),
Bhubaneswar, India, 19–21 December 2016. [CrossRef]
24. Raju, M.R.; Murthy, K.V.S.R.; Ravindra, K.; Rao, R.S. Optimal conductor selection for agricultural distribution system—A
case study. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Intelligent and Advanced Systems, Manila, Philippines,
15–17 June 2010. [CrossRef]
25. Osman, I.; Rahman, M.A.; Mahbub, A.R.; Haque, A. Benefits of optimal size conductor in transmission system. In Proceedings of
the 2014 International Conference on Advances in Electrical Engineering (ICAEE), Vellore, India, 9–11 January 2014. [CrossRef]
26. Momoh, I.; Jibril, Y.; Jimoh, B.; Abubakar, A.S.; Ajayi, O.; Abubakar, A.; Sulaiman, S.; Yusuf, S. Effect of an Optimal Conductor
Size Selection Scheme for Single Wire Earth Return Power Distribution Networks For Rural Electrification. J. Sci. Technol. Educ.
2019, 7, 286–295.
27. Kalesar, B.M. Conductor selection optimization in radial distribution system considering load growth using MDE algorithm.
World J. Model. D Simul. 2014, 10, 175–184.
28. Ramana, T.; Nararaju, K.; Ganesh, V.; Sivanagaraju, S. Customer Loss Allocation Reduction Using Optimal Conductor Selec-
tion in Electrical Distribution System. In Emerging Trends in Electrical, Communications, and Information Technologies; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 369–379.
29. Martínez-Gil, J.F.; Moyano-García, N.A.; Montoya, O.D.; Alarcon-Villamil, J.A. Optimal Selection of Conductors in Three-Phase
Distribution Networks Using a Discrete Version of the Vortex Search Algorithm. Computation 2021, 9, 80. .
computation9070080. [CrossRef]
30. Ismael, S.M.; Aleem, S.H.E.A.; Abdelaziz, A.Y. Optimal selection of conductors in Egyptian radial distribution systems using
sine-cosine optimization algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2017 Nineteenth International Middle East Power Systems Conference
(MEPCON), Cairo, Egypt, 19–21 December 2017. [CrossRef]
31. Montoya, O.D.; Serra, F.M.; Angelo, C.H.D.; Chamorro, H.R.; Alvarado-Barrios, L. Heuristic Methodology for Planning AC Rural
Medium-Voltage Distribution Grids. Energies 2021, 14, 5141. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 888 29 of 29

32. Nivia Torres, D.J.; Salazar Alarcón, G.A.; Montoya Giraldo, O.D. Selección óptima de conductores en redes de distribución
trifásicas utilizando el algoritmo metaheurístico de Newton. Ingeniería 2022, 27, e19303. [CrossRef]
33. Shen, T.; Li, Y.; Xiang, J. A Graph-Based Power Flow Method for Balanced Distribution Systems. Energies 2018, 11, 511. [CrossRef]
34. Ramírez Castaño, S. Redes de Distribución de Energía. Diseño y Construcción y en la Operación del Sistema de Distribución; Universidad
Nacional de Colombia: Manizales, Colombia, 2009.
35. Montoya, O.D. Notes on the Dimension of the Solution Space in Typical Electrical Engineering Optimization Problems. Ingeniería
2022, 27, e19310. [CrossRef]
36. Jaddi, N.S.; Abdullah, S. Global search in single-solution-based metaheuristics. Data Technol. Appl. 2020, 54, 275–296. [CrossRef]
37. Ahmadianfar, I.; Bozorg-Haddad, O.; Chu, X. Gradient-based optimizer: A new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Inf. Sci.
2020, 540, 131–159. [CrossRef]
38. Gholizadeh, S.; Danesh, M.; Gheyratmand, C. A new Newton metaheuristic algorithm for discrete performance-based design
optimization of steel moment frames. Comput. Struct. 2020, 234, 106250. . [CrossRef]
39. Doğan, B.; Ölmez, T. A new metaheuristic for numerical function optimization: Vortex Search algorithm. Inf. Sci. 2015,
293, 125–145. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.