Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Low voltage user phase reconfiguration as a planning problem

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a mixed-integer quadratic approximation, using proxy imbalance metrics, is the practical way to perform static phase reconfiguration in low-voltage grids, outperforming an exact mixed-integer nonlinear program and a…

desk verdict Useful contribution on static phase reconfiguration, but the headline MIQP-vs-GA comparison is not yet controlled enough to support the 'outperforms' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05910 v1 pith:DH7EG2GD submitted 2025-07-08 eess.SY cs.SY

Sari Kerckhove , Marta Vanin , Reinhilde D'hulst , Dirk Van Hertem This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords lowvoltagedistributiongridsphasereconfigurationplanningimbalancereductionmetaheuristicmethodsmathematicaloptimizationMIQP
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper seeks to make phase reconfiguration in low-voltage distribution grids a practical planning action rather than a real-time switching operation: during routine maintenance, a grid operator reconnects single-phase households to different phases so that loads and generation stay balanced over weeks or months. It develops three static methods to choose the reconnections, an exact mixed-integer nonlinear program, a mixed-integer quadratic approximation built on a linearized power flow, and a genetic algorithm, and compares their balance improvements, speed, and variability on real feeder and load data. The central claim is that the quadratic approximation, although it has to replace the true nonlinear imbalance metrics with proxy metrics, is the strongest practical option: it reduces imbalance substantially, matches or beats the genetic algorithm even when the genetic algorithm uses the exact objectives, and scales to feeders of realistic European size. If correct, this gives grid operators a routine-maintenance tool to increase hosting capacity and reduce losses without costly remotely switched devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the MIQP formulation built on the LinDist3Flow linearized power flow, which expresses squared voltage magnitudes as affine functions of branch power flows and thereby keeps the optimization quadratic. Because standard imbalance metrics such as phase voltage unbalance rate and power unbalance contain ratios and maximum operations that cannot enter a mixed-integer quadratic program, the paper introduces two proxy metrics, PVUR* and P*_U, that replace voltage magnitude with squared voltage magnitude and power unbalance with a normalized quadratic sum. Binary variables encode each user's phase connection, with one constraint enforcing single-phase connectivity, another capping the number of switched users per maintenance action, and an optional constraint bounding the number of users per phase; the objective is the time-averaged imbalance at chosen balance points. These proxy metrics are what let the MIQP retain expressive, voltage- and power-based objectives while remaining tractable.

What would settle it

Rerun the genetic algorithm on the same 55-consumer feeder with a substantially larger budget or properly tuned hyperparameters and compare average imbalance; if a tuned genetic algorithm matches or beats the MIQP's imbalance reduction at comparable wall-clock time, the claim that MIQP outperforms the genetic algorithm collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, static phase reconfiguration can be formulated as a multi-period planning problem in which binary variables decide each single-phase user's phase connection, and the objective is an imbalance metric averaged over the whole time horizon. The paper's central numerical claim is that a mixed-integer quadratic program built on the LinDist3Flow linearized power flow, using two newly proposed proxy imbalance metrics, delivers reliable imbalance reduction with computation times that fit into planning workflows. On a 55-consumer feeder with four January days of quarter-hourly load data, optimizing a voltage-imbalance proxy cut phase voltage unbalance by roughly 27%, and optimizing a power-imbalance proxy cut actual power unbalance by roughly 40%, while also reducing the other imbalance metrics and losses. The same reconfiguration kept imbalance lower than the original configuration for validation on unseen loads over the following year. The exact mixed-integer nonlinear program did not converge within 24 hours on the main test feeder, while the genetic algorithm, averaged over 20 runs, was slower and more variable, with the mixed-integer quadratic solution as good as or better than the best genetic-algorithm run for each objective.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes the genetic algorithm's hyperparameters and 6,000-call budget are a fair representation of a well-tuned metaheuristic, even though the paper reports that hyperparameter optimization was inconclusive because the genetic algorithm's solutions varied more than expected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Grid operators can treat phase balancing as a planned maintenance task: a one-time static reconfiguration reduces voltage unbalance by about 27% and power unbalance by about 40% on a 55-consumer feeder.
  • The MIQP's computation times, roughly 50 to 100 minutes for a realistic feeder with 10 parallel threads, make it usable in routine planning without real-time communication or remotely controlled switches.
  • Optimizing a proxy imbalance metric is enough: the MIQP with a proxy matches or beats a genetic algorithm optimized on the exact nonlinear objective.
  • Capping reconfiguration at 10% of consumers still captures roughly half of the total achievable imbalance reduction, giving operators a direct maintenance-cost versus performance trade-off.
  • Scalability tests show computation time grows roughly exponentially with time-horizon length, so the exact nonlinear method is impractical while the MIQP remains viable for typical feeder sizes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that lower phase imbalance could translate into increased hosting capacity for distributed energy resources; a direct hosting-capacity study would make that benefit quantitative.
  • The proxy metrics PVUR* and P*_U are generic quadratic relaxations of standard imbalance rates and could be reused in other convex distribution-network optimizations, such as inverter setpoint or storage dispatch, where the exact metrics are nonconvex.
  • The January-only training window suggests a testable seasonal extension: selecting training days that cover peak load and peak photovoltaic generation may prevent the outlier timesteps the paper observes in its year-long validation.
  • The finding that switching 10% of consumers yields about half the achievable reduction hints at a diminishing-returns curve that could be turned into a maintenance-budget rule, though the paper does not derive such a formula.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses static (planning-oriented) phase reconfiguration in low-voltage distribution networks, where consumer phase connections are changed once and must perform over a long horizon. Three solution approaches are formulated and compared: an exact MINLP, an MIQP built on the LinDist3Flow approximation with novel proxy imbalance metrics (PVUR* and P*_U), and a genetic algorithm (GA) that retains exact imbalance objectives. The methods are tested on ENWL feeders with NREL load profiles, with MIQP additionally validated on unseen loads over one year. The central claim is that the MIQP, despite using proxy objectives, efficiently reduces the considered imbalance types and outperforms both MINLP and GA in scalability and consistency.

Significance. If the comparative claims are substantiated, the paper provides a practically relevant planning tool: it shows that a tractable MIQP with proxy objectives can reduce voltage and power imbalance substantially on realistic feeders, and it demonstrates generalization of the chosen configuration to a full year of unseen load data. The use of two independent public datasets (ENWL, NREL), the analytical derivation of proxy objectives from standard imbalance metrics, and the explicit treatment of GA stochasticity are strengths. The main significance question is whether the claimed superiority of MIQP over GA and MINLP is an artifact of unequal computational budgets and solver settings rather than a property of the methods themselves, so the comparison needs to be made more controlled before the headline conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, §5.1, Tables 2–3] The MIQP-versus-GA comparison is not controlled. The authors report that hyperparameter optimization for the GA was "inconclusive, as the variability in GA solutions was greater than anticipated" (§4.2), and then fix the GA stopping criterion at f_max_calls = 6,000 fitness evaluations. With 55 reconfigurable users and a 3^55 search space, 6,000 calls is a very small sample, and no sensitivity analysis with respect to f_max_calls is provided. The GA's wall-clock time of about 110 minutes and the MIQP's 50–100 minutes are produced under different stopping rules (fixed fitness-call budget versus solver convergence), so the comparison conflates solver stopping criteria with method quality. The claim that MIQP "outperforms" GA is load-bearing for the paper's central conclusion and requires either a budget-controlled comparison (same wall-clock time or same number of fitness calls at several budget levels) or a demonstration that GA performance has plateaued.
  2. [§5.1, Tables 2–3] No MIP optimality gaps are reported for the MIQP solutions, although the paper describes them as "converged." Without the final optimality gap, the MIQP result may be a heuristic-quality incumbent, and "consistency" reduces to determinism rather than proven near-optimality. The authors should report the Gurobi MIP gap (or the solver's relative gap tolerance), the number of explored nodes, and the final incumbent objective bound for each TC1 run. This is needed to support both the quality and the consistency claims in the abstract and conclusion.
  3. [§5.5, Figure 7] The scalability claim in the abstract and conclusion is not supported by the reported evidence and is internally inconsistent. The text states that the GA shows a steeper slope than MIQP and then says this "implies that GA may scale better over longer time horizons," which is logically inverted: a steeper slope on a log-log plot of computation time versus horizon means faster growth in time. The same paragraph acknowledges that MIQP becomes slower than GA for some larger test cases, and the conclusion similarly concedes that MIQP "seemed to show worse scalability for the larger test cases." The paper should either qualify the scalability claim to match these observations or provide a clearer metric (e.g., crossover points in horizon and feeder size) and correct the slope interpretation.
  4. [§2.4, Eq. (22)] The proxy PVUR* is derived by replacing |u_i| with omega_i and setting <omega_i> = 1 p.u., but this normalization assumption is not justified. For typical LV voltage drops of several percent, omega_i = |u_i|^2 deviates from 1 by roughly twice the voltage deviation, so PVUR* is not simply a scaled version of PVUR; it mixes unbalance with overall voltage magnitude. The empirical results show that optimizing PVUR* also reduces PVUR, but the paper should state explicitly the conditions under which the approximation is valid and quantify the resulting distortion, for instance by reporting the range of omega_i values in the test feeders.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.5] The sentence "For a small feeder of four consumers... MINLP convergence required six hours" is confusing because TC3 is defined on feeders with 20, 55, 72, and 100 consumers; either the number is a typo or the feeder is not defined in TC3. Please clarify.
  2. [§5.4] "exponentional" should be "exponential," and the sentence "the imbalance decrease seems exponentional" should specify whether it is the decrease in the objective value or in the achievable reduction that follows an exponential trend.
  3. [§2.2] The text lists "voltage angle difference constraints" among the inequality constraints for the MIQP, but the LinDist3Flow variable space in Eq. (9)–(11) does not contain voltage angles. Please indicate how angle-difference constraints are expressed or remove them from the list for the MIQP.
  4. [§3.2, Eq. (30)] The fitness function definition is clear, but the penalty term M*I0 should be stated to be a constant per configuration; otherwise, the fitness scale and the choice M = 100 are hard to interpret. A brief note on why M = 100 is sufficient would be helpful.
  5. [§5.1] The reported percentage reductions (e.g., "27%, 27%, 50%, 30%, and 6%") are given as a list without a table reference in the text; adding explicit references to Tables 2 and 3 would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MIQP proxy objectives are derived analytically and evaluated on independent out-of-sample data.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation chain is self-contained. The proxy objectives in Eqs. (22)-(23) are derived from exact PVUR and PU metrics by replacing voltages with squared magnitudes and normalizing by constant downstream-demand; no parameters are fitted to optimization outcomes, and proxies are not defined in terms of solutions. MIQP, MINLP, GA share load and network data, but no target imbalance value is baked in; reductions are outputs, not constraints. Validation on unseen loads (Section 5.3) is genuine temporal holdout. Self-citations such as [38] and [43] support the LD3F approximation and single-phase user model; they are not uniqueness theorems or used to forbid alternatives. GA hyperparameter tuning and unequal computational budgets are comparability concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results depend on the chosen per-phase user bounds, switching limit, penalty weight, and GA hyperparameters. These are hand-picked values, but they are not fit to force the central comparison. The proxy objectives are functional forms, not fitted parameters.

free parameters (8)
  • gamma_low = 20% of |U|
    Lower bound for number of users per phase (Eq. 18), chosen ad hoc in Section 4.2.
  • gamma_upp = 40% of |U|
    Upper bound for number of users per phase (Eq. 18), chosen ad hoc.
  • Delta_delta_max = 5
    Maximum number of switching actions, set in Section 4.2.
  • M = 100
    Large penalty in GA fitness function (Eq. 30), Section 3.2.
  • GA population size p = 100
    Hyperparameter in Section 4.2.
  • GA crossover probability Pc = 0.7
    Hyperparameter in Section 4.2.
  • GA mutation probability Pm = 1/|U|
    Hyperparameter in Section 4.2.
  • GA max fitness calls f_max = 6000
    Stopping criterion, Section 4.2.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Power flow equations (exact bus injection, LinDist3Flow, or current injection) accurately model unbalanced LV network behavior.
    Section 2.2; the MIQP relies on LD3F which ignores line losses.
  • domain assumption Randomly assigned NREL load profiles are representative for LV consumer demand.
    Section 4.1; the validation on the full year partly supports this.
  • ad hoc to paper Optimal phase assignments lead to approximately equal number of users per phase (20-40% bounds).
    Section 2.3, Eq. 18; the authors note this assumption may not hold in all scenarios.
  • ad hoc to paper The large penalty M=100 is sufficient to ensure feasible configurations are preferred.
    Section 3.2, Eq. 30.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low voltage user phase reconfiguration as a planning problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DH7EG2GD

@misc{pith2026250705910,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low voltage user phase reconfiguration as a planning problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DH7EG2GD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05910}
}
read the original abstract

Considerable levels of phase imbalance in low voltage (LV) distribution networks imply that grid assets are suboptimally utilized and can cause additional losses, equipment failure and degradation. With the ongoing energy transition, the installation of additional single-phase distributed energy resources may further increase the phase imbalance if no countermeasures are taken. Phase reconfiguration is a cost-effective solution to reduce imbalance. However, dynamic reconfiguration, through real-time phase swapping of loads using remotely controlled switches, is often impractical because these switches are too costly for widespread installation at LV users. Approaching phase reconfiguration as a planning problem, i.e. static reconfiguration, is an underaddressed but promising alternative. Effective static approaches that allow appropriate imbalance objectives are currently lacking. This paper presents reliable and expressive static phase reconfiguration methods that grid operators can easily integrate into routine maintenance for effective phase balancing. We present and compare three static methods, an exact mixed-integer nonlinear formulation (MINLP), a mixed-integer quadratic approximation (MIQP), and a genetic algorithm (GA), each supporting different imbalance objectives. The MIQP approach, despite using proxy objectives, efficiently mitigates the different types of imbalance considered, and outperforms both MINLP and GA in scalability and consistency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05910 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Model of a single-phase user (figure from [43]). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. GA’s general workflow These are all standard GA operators [44]. The steps are applied iteratively until the stopping criterion is reached, in this case a maximum number of fitness function calls (hyperparameter f max calls). Note that total number of generations (nrgen ) can be derived as ⌊f max calls/p⌋. The fittest configuration c ∗ is returned as the solution. In section 4.2, the choice of hyperparameters is disc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Convergence of GA with objective PU in function of the number of fitness function calls for each of the 20 runs. f max calls is determined to be 6 · 103 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of imbalance/fitness for each objective for 20 GA-results. The MIQP result is represented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of PVUR (left) and PU (right) imbalance per time step for the training load-data, i.e. the four days under optimization (t-4d), and validation load-data, namely the subsequent four days (v-4d), and the entire year (v-1y). The results for default configura…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Impact of the maximum allowed number of switching actions ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relation between the optimization horizon (number of time steps considered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nsga-ii phase balancing of primary distribution circuits by the reconnection of their circuit laterals and distribution transformers,

    I. P´ erez Abril, “Nsga-ii phase balancing of primary distribution circuits by the reconnection of their circuit laterals and distribution transformers,” Electr. Power Syst. Res. , vol. 109, pp. 1–7, 2014. 16

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    A pso algorithm for phase load balancing in low voltage distribution networks,

    N. Toma et al., “A pso algorithm for phase load balancing in low voltage distribution networks,” inInternational Conference and Exposition on Electrical And Power Engineering , 2018, pp. 0857–0862

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Phase load balancing in low voltage distribution networks using metaheuristic algorithms,

    O. Ivanov et al. , “Phase load balancing in low voltage distribution networks using metaheuristic algorithms,” in International Conference on Electromechanical and Energy Systems , 2019, pp. 1–6

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Phase reassignment for load balance in low-voltage distribution networks,

    V. A. Jimenez, A. L. Will, and D. F. Lizondo, “Phase reassignment for load balance in low-voltage distribution networks,” Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. , vol. 137, p. 107691, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Optimal Connection Phase Selection of Residential Distributed Energy Resources and its Impact on Aggregated Demand

    A. Benzerga, A. Bahmanyar, and D. Ernst, “Optimal connection phase selection of residential distributed energy resources and its impact on aggregated demand,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05059 , 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Optimal connection phase selection for single-phase electrical vehicle chargers,

    A. Benzerga et al. , “Optimal connection phase selection for single-phase electrical vehicle chargers,” in IET Conference Proceedings CP798, vol. 2022, no. 3. IET, 2022, pp. 508–512

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    An analytical approach for phase balancing considering customer load profile,

    P. Gangwar, S. N. Singh, and S. Chakrabarti, “An analytical approach for phase balancing considering customer load profile,” in IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Tech. Europe , 2019, pp. 1–5

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Impact of phase selection on accuracy and scalability in calculating distributed energy resources hosting capacity,

    T. Anti´ c, A. Keane, and T. Capuder, “Impact of phase selection on accuracy and scalability in calculating distributed energy resources hosting capacity,” Sustain. Energy Grids Netw. , vol. 39, p. 101473, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Phase reconfiguration for power distribution networks with high ders penetration,

    M. Vassallo et al. , “Phase reconfiguration for power distribution networks with high ders penetration,” 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Phase balancing algorithms,

    K. Wang, S. Skiena, and T. G. Robertazzi, “Phase balancing algorithms,” Electr. Power Syst. Res. , vol. 96, pp. 218–224, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Load balancing in low-voltage distribution networks via optimizing residential phase connec- tions,

    B. Liu et al. , “Load balancing in low-voltage distribution networks via optimizing residential phase connec- tions,” in IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Tech. Asia , 2021, pp. 1–5

    2021

  4. [12]

    Stochastic multiobjective distribution systems phase balancing considering distributed energy resources,

    S. Soltani, M. Rashidinejad, and A. Abdollahi, “Stochastic multiobjective distribution systems phase balancing considering distributed energy resources,” IEEE Syst. J. , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 2866–2877, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Integration of centralized and distributed methods to mitigate voltage unbalance using solar inverters,

    K. Girigoudar et al. , “Integration of centralized and distributed methods to mitigate voltage unbalance using solar inverters,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 2034–2046, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    A system optimization method for mitigating three-phase imbalance in distribution network,

    X. Zeng et al., “A system optimization method for mitigating three-phase imbalance in distribution network,” Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. , vol. 113, pp. 618–633, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Unbalance mitigation via phase-switching device and static var compensator in low-voltage distribution network,

    B. Liu et al. , “Unbalance mitigation via phase-switching device and static var compensator in low-voltage distribution network,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 4856–4869, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Phase switching and phase balancing to cope with a massive photovoltaic penetration,

    S. Weckx et al. , “Phase switching and phase balancing to cope with a massive photovoltaic penetration,” in International Conference and Exhibition on Electricity Distribution . IET, 2013, pp. 1–4

    2013

  9. [17]

    On the impact of different voltage unbalance metrics in distribution system optimization,

    K. Girigoudar and L. A. Roald, “On the impact of different voltage unbalance metrics in distribution system optimization,” Electr. Power Syst. Res. , vol. 189, p. 106656, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Coordinated optimisation of pev charging with the support of reactive discharging and phase switching in unbalanced active distribution networks,

    Y. Fu et al. , “Coordinated optimisation of pev charging with the support of reactive discharging and phase switching in unbalanced active distribution networks,” IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 14, no. 21, pp. 4703– 4710, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    A game theoretic approach to phase balancing by plug-in electric vehicles in the smart grid,

    S. Chen et al. , “A game theoretic approach to phase balancing by plug-in electric vehicles in the smart grid,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 2232–2244, 2020. 17

    2020

  12. [20]

    Incentive-based demand response program with phase unbalance mitigation: A bilevel approach,

    A. Tiwari, B. K. Jha, and N. M. Pindoriya, “Incentive-based demand response program with phase unbalance mitigation: A bilevel approach,” Sustain. Energy Grids Netw. , p. 101671, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Reconfiguration and load balancing in the lv and mv distribution networks for optimal performance,

    M. W. Siti et al. , “Reconfiguration and load balancing in the lv and mv distribution networks for optimal performance,” IEEE Trans. Power Del. , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2534–2540, 2007

    2007

  14. [22]

    Load balancing in low-voltage distribution network via phase reconfiguration: An efficient sensitivity-based approach,

    B. Liu et al. , “Load balancing in low-voltage distribution network via phase reconfiguration: An efficient sensitivity-based approach,” IEEE Trans. Power Del. , vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 2174–2185, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Robust look-ahead three-phase balancing of uncertain distribution loads,

    X. Geng, S. Gupta, and L. Xie, “Robust look-ahead three-phase balancing of uncertain distribution loads,” arXiv:1810.00425v1 [math.OC] , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A two-level coordination strategy for distribution network balancing,

    X. Cui et al., “A two-level coordination strategy for distribution network balancing,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 529–544, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    On per-phase topology control and switching in emerging distribution systems,

    F. Ding and M. J. Mousavi, “On per-phase topology control and switching in emerging distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del. , vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 2373–2383, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Economic assessment of phase reconfiguration to mitigate the unbalance due to plug-in electric vehicles charging,

    M. K. Gray and W. G. Morsi, “Economic assessment of phase reconfiguration to mitigate the unbalance due to plug-in electric vehicles charging,” Electr. Power Syst. Res. , vol. 140, pp. 329–336, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Voltage unbalance reduction in low voltage feeders by dynamic switching of residential customers among three phases,

    F. Shahnia, P. J. Wolfs, and A. Ghosh, “Voltage unbalance reduction in low voltage feeders by dynamic switching of residential customers among three phases,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1318–1327, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Dynamic phase balancing in the smart distribution networks,

    S. Soltani, M. Rashidinejad, and A. Abdollahi, “Dynamic phase balancing in the smart distribution networks,” Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. , vol. 93, pp. 374–383, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Smart meter-based re-phasing for voltage imbalance enhancement through topology reconstruction,

    R. Cleenwerck et al. , “Smart meter-based re-phasing for voltage imbalance enhancement through topology reconstruction,” in IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Tech. Europe , 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  22. [30]

    Mitigation of voltage unbalance in distribution feeders using phase switching devices: A decentralized control approach based on local measurements,

    A. Kharrazi and V. Sreeram, “Mitigation of voltage unbalance in distribution feeders using phase switching devices: A decentralized control approach based on local measurements,” IEEE Trans. Power Del. , vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 2875–2885, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Jemena DER hosting capacity project interim knowledge sharing report,

    Jemena Electricity Pty. Ltd., “Jemena DER hosting capacity project interim knowledge sharing report,” 2020, [Online; accessed 19-April-2022]

    2020

  24. [32]

    Fuzzy optimal phase balancing of radial and meshed distribution networks using bf-pso algorithm,

    R. A. Hooshmand and S. Soltani, “Fuzzy optimal phase balancing of radial and meshed distribution networks using bf-pso algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 47–57, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    Metaheuristics approaches to solve combinatorial opti- mization problems in distribution power systems. an application to phase balancing in low voltage three-phase networks,

    G. Schweickardt, J. M. G. Alvarez, and C. Casanova, “Metaheuristics approaches to solve combinatorial opti- mization problems in distribution power systems. an application to phase balancing in low voltage three-phase networks,” Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. , vol. 76, pp...

    2016

  26. [34]

    Phase balancing in power distribution systems: A heuristic approach based on group-theory,

    M. A. Rios et al., “Phase balancing in power distribution systems: A heuristic approach based on group-theory,” in 2019 IEEE Milan PowerTech , 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  27. [35]

    Comparisons of energy loss reduction by phase balancing in unbalance distribution networks via metaheuristic algorithms,

    W.-C. Lin et al., “Comparisons of energy loss reduction by phase balancing in unbalance distribution networks via metaheuristic algorithms,” in International Conference on Pervasive Artificial Intelligence , 2020, pp. 229– 233. 18

    2020

  28. [36]

    Planning of optimal phase balancing for an unbalanced distribution system: A case study of cambodia,

    S. Kay et al. , “Planning of optimal phase balancing for an unbalanced distribution system: A case study of cambodia,” in International Conference on Power Science and Engineering , 2022, pp. 108–111

    2022

  29. [37]

    Phase rebalancing of distribution circuits dominated by single- phase loads,

    O. Pereira, J. Quir´ os-Tort´ os, and G. Valverde, “Phase rebalancing of distribution circuits dominated by single- phase loads,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 5333–5344, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Comparison of linear and conic power flow formulations for unbalanced low voltage network optimization,

    M. Vanin et al. , “Comparison of linear and conic power flow formulations for unbalanced low voltage network optimization,” Electr. Power Syst. Res. , vol. 189, p. 106699, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Real-value power-voltage formulations of, and bounds for, three-wire unbalanced optimal power flow,

    F. Geth and H. Ergun, “Real-value power-voltage formulations of, and bounds for, three-wire unbalanced optimal power flow,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.06186 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A linearized power flow model for optimization in unbalanced distribution systems,

    M. Sankur et al. , “A linearized power flow model for optimization in unbalanced distribution systems,” in [math.OC], 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Powermodelsdistribution.jl: An open-source framework for exploring distribution power flow formulations,

    D. M. Fobes et al. , “Powermodelsdistribution.jl: An open-source framework for exploring distribution power flow formulations,” Electr. Power Syst. Res. , vol. 189, p. 106664, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    On the implementation of the fixed point iteration current injection method to solve four-wire unbalanced power flow in powermodelsdistribution.jl,

    F. Geth, S. Claeys, and R. Heidari, “On the implementation of the fixed point iteration current injection method to solve four-wire unbalanced power flow in powermodelsdistribution.jl,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04405 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Phase identification of distribution system users through a milp extension of state estimation,

    M. Vanin et al., “Phase identification of distribution system users through a milp extension of state estimation,” Electr. Power Syst. Res. , vol. 229, p. 110107, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Genetic algorithm essentials. volume 679 of studies in computational intelligence,

    O. Kramer, “Genetic algorithm essentials. volume 679 of studies in computational intelligence,” 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    Low voltage networks models and low carbon technology profiles,

    A. N. Espinosa and L. Ochoa, “Low voltage networks models and low carbon technology profiles,” ENWL L V Network Solutions Dissemination Document , 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    End-use load profiles for the us building stock: Methodology and results of model calibra- tion, validation, and uncertainty quantification,

    E. J. Wilson et al., “End-use load profiles for the us building stock: Methodology and results of model calibra- tion, validation, and uncertainty quantification,” NREL, Tech. Rep., 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Juniper: An open-source nonlinear branch-and-bound solver in julia,

    O. Kr¨ ogeret al. , “Juniper: An open-source nonlinear branch-and-bound solver in julia,” in Integration of Constraint Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Operations Research. Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 377–386

    2018

  40. [48]

    On the implementation of an interior-point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming,

    A. W¨ achter and L. T. Biegler, “On the implementation of an interior-point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming,” Mathematical programming, vol. 106, pp. 25–57, 2006

    2006

  41. [49]

    Metaheuristics: A julia package for single- and multi-objective optimization,

    J.-A. M. de Dios and E. Mezura-Montes, “Metaheuristics: A julia package for single- and multi-objective optimization,” Journal of Open Source Software , vol. 7, no. 78, p. 4723, 2022. 19

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.