Expansion Planning of Power Distribution Systems Considering Reliability: A Comprehensive Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the big concerns when planning the expansion of power distribution systems (PDS) is reliability. This is defined as the ability to continuously meet the load demand of consumers in terms of quantity and quality. In a scenario in which consumers increasingly demand high supply quality, including few interruptions and continuity, it becomes essential to consider reliability indices in models used to plan PDS. The inclusion of reliability in optimization models is a challenge, given the need to estimate failure rates for the network and devices. Such failure rates depend on the specific characteristics of a feeder. In this context, this paper discusses the main reliability indices, followed by a comprehensive survey of the methods and models used to solve the optimal expansion planning of PDS considering reliability criteria. Emphasis is also placed on comparing the main features and contributions of each article, aiming to provide a handy resource for researchers. The comparison includes the decision variables and reliability indices considered in each reviewed article, which can be used as a guide to applying the most suitable method according to the requisites of the system. In addition, each paper is classified according to the optimization method, objective type (single or multiobjective), and the number of stages. Finally, we discuss future research trends concerning the inclusion of reliability in PDS expansion planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".