Analytical strategies for renewable distributed generation integration

considering energy loss minimization

Duong Quoc Hung, N. Mithulananthan, R.C. Bansal

School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane Qld 4072, Australia
h i g h l i g h t s
" A methodology for different renewable DG allocation for energy loss minimization.
" Three alternative analytical expressions for identifying the optimum size.
" An analytical expression for calculating the optimum power factor.
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 6 February 2012
Received in revised form 7 August 2012
Accepted 10 December 2012
Available online 21 January 2013
Keywords:
Analytical approach
Distributed generation (DG)
Distribution system
Energy loss
Renewable energy
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents three alternative analytical expressions, including two new expressions, to determine
the optimum sizes and operating strategy of distributed generation (DG) units considering power loss
minimization and a methodology to identify the best location. These expressions can be easily adapted
to consider the renewable DG units (i.e., biomass, wind and photovoltaic) for minimizing energy losses
by considering time-varying demand and possible operating conditions of DG units. The results obtained
on a 69-bus distribution test system demonstrate that the proposed approaches can be adequate to deter-
mine the location, size and power factor of DG unit for minimizing energy losses. The alternative expres-
sions can be utilized depending on availability of required data and these produce similar outcomes.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In recent years, environmental concerns, fuel cost uncertainties,
liberalization of electricity markets and advances in technology
have resulted in increasing DG units in distribution system. This
trend has offered great opportunities but created several chal-
lenges in planning and operations of distribution systems. The pri-
mary purpose of DG units is energy injection; however,
strategically placed and operated DG units can yield several other
benets to utilities. A typical example of such benet is the appli-
cation of DG units for loss reduction [13]. Voltage and loadability
enhancement, reliability improvement and network upgrade
deferral are other benets [4,5]. Moreover, under deregulation of
power industry, the provision of ancillary services using DG units
plays a vital role in the security of electricity markets. DG units
have been integrated in electricity markets for ancillary services
such as spinning reserve, reactive power support, loss compensa-
tion, frequency control and other fast response services. On the
other hand, poorly planned and improperly operated DG units
can lead to reverse power ows, excessive power losses and subse-
quent feeder overloads [6].
The DG placement for minimizing losses has attracted interest
of the large number of researchers in the recent past. Most of the
researchers have focused on developing methodologies for power
loss reduction with the assumption that rm DG sources were to
be allocated at the peak load. Such methodologies may not be able
to solve a practical case of variable demand and generation (non-
dispatchable DG units) as the optimal location and size of DG units
at the peak demand may not remain optimal at other loading levels
[7]. Hence, the energy loss minimization could not be optimal.
Analytical approaches [810], optimal power ow [11], mixed
integer programming [12], heuristic approach [13], and genetic
algorithm [14,15] are some examples of such researches. Only a
few studies on DG units allocation considering time-varying
demand and generation for minimizing energy losses have been re-
ported [6,7,16]. In addition, most of these approaches assumed that
DG unit operates at xed power factors. In these studies, only the
location and size were considered while the optimal power factor
of individual DG unit which would be a crucial part for minimizing
energy losses has been ignored. A few works on the optimal power
0306-2619/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.12.023

Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 33653394; fax: +61 7 33654999.

E-mail address: rcansal@ieee.org (R.C. Bansal).
Applied Energy 105 (2013) 7585
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Applied Energy
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ apener gy
factor for power loss reduction have been discussed [9,10]; how-
ever, the optimal power factor of individual DG unit for each loca-
tion has not been considered. Besides, the dispatchable power
factor for each period within a given range for minimizing energy
losses [7] and for minimizing reactive support from the transmis-
sion grid [17] have been proposed in smart grid schemes. This pa-
per overcomes some of the decits of existing methods. First it
develops three analytical approaches to determine the optimal size
and power factor of individual DG unit, simultaneously, at each
location for minimizing power losses and a methodology to iden-
tify the best location. The methods are then adapted to place
renewable DG units for minimizing energy losses by considering
the time-varying demand combined with the possible characteris-
tics of DG generation. The effectiveness of the proposed approaches
is validated by the exhaustive load ow (ELF) solution.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents
loss formulas. Section 3 describes the modeling of load and renew-
able DG units. Section 4 introduces three alternative analytical ap-
proaches to accommodate different renewable DG types for
minimizing power and energy losses. ELF solution is explained in
Section 5. Section 6 describes the 69-bus distribution test system
and presents numerical results and discussions. Finally, Section 7
summaries the contributions and conclusions of the work.
2. Power and energy losses
2.1. Elgerds loss formula
The total real power loss in a distribution system with N buses
as a function of active and reactive power injection at all buses can
be calculated using the following equation [18].
P
loss

X
N
i1
X
N
j1
a
ij
P
i
P
j
Q
i
Q
j
b
ij
Q
i
P
j
P
i
Q
j
1
where a
ij

r
ij
jV
i
jjV
j
j
cosd
i
d
j
; b
ij

r
ij
jV
i
jjV
j
j
sind
i
d
j
; jV
i
j\d
i
is com-
plex voltage at the bus ith; r
ij
+ jx
ij
= Z
ij
is the ijth element of [Z
bus
]
impedance matrix; P
i
and P
j
are active power injections at the ith
and jth buses, respectively; Q
i
and Q
j
are reactive power injections
at the ith and jth buses, respectively.
2.2. Branch current loss formula
Alternatively, the total real power loss in a distribution system
with n branches can be formulated as [19]:
P
loss

X
n
i1
I
2
i
R
i
2
where I
i
and R
i
are the current magnitude and resistance of branch i
respectively; this current has two components: active (I
a
) and reac-
tive (I
r
) which can be obtained from the load ow solution. Hence,
Eq. (2) can be rewritten as [19]:
P
loss

X
n
i1
I
2
ai
R
i

X
n
i1
I
2
ri
R
i
3
2.3. Branch power loss formula
From Eq. (3), the total real power loss in a distribution system
with n braches can be rewritten as [20]:
P
loss

X
n
i1
P
2
bi
Q
2
bi
jV
i
j
2
R
i
4
where P
bi
and Q
bi
are the active and reactive power ow through
branch i.
2.4. Energy loss
The above alternative expressions for calculating the total real
power loss can be utilized depending on the availability of required
data and the total annual energy loss in a distribution system with
a time duration (Dt) of 1 h can be expressed as:
E
loss
365
X
24
t1
P
t
loss
Dt 5
3. Load and renewable resources modeling
3.1. Denitions
The following denitions have been used in this work.
Nomenclature
A1, A2, A3 analytical approach 1, 2 and 3 respectively
a
ij
, b
ij
loss coefcients
CF capacity factor
DG distributed generation
ELF exhaustive load ow
E
loss
total annual system energy loss, MW h
LF load factor
n number of branches
N number of buses
OPF
DGi
optimal power factor of DG unit at bus i
P
DGi
, Q
DGi
real and reactive power of DG unit at bus i, respec-
tively
P
Di
, Q
Di
real and reactive power of load at bus i, respectively
PF
DGi
power factor of DG unit at bus i
P
bi
, Q
bi
active and reactive power ow through branch i respec-
tively
P
i
, Q
i
net real and reactive power injection at bus i respec-
tively
P
loss
total system real power loss without DG unit, MW
P
DG
loss
total system real power loss with DG unit, MW
p.u. demand(t) demand in p.u. at period t
p.u. DG ouput(t) DG output in p.u. at period t
I
ai
active current of branch i
I
ri
reactive current of branch i
I
i
current magnitude of branch i, I
i

I
2
ai
I
2
ri
q
I
ak
active current of DG unit at bus k
I
rk
reactive current of DG unit at bus k
r
ij
branch resistance between bus i and j
R
i
resistance of branch i
|V
i
|, d
i
voltage magnitude and angle at bus i respectively
x
ij
branch reactance between bus i and j
Z
ij
element of impedance matrix between bus i and j
DP
loss
system loss reduction due to DG injection, kW
Dt time duration, hour
76 D.Q. Hung et al. / Applied Energy 105 (2013) 7585
DG installed capacity or optimal DG size: The total maximum out-
put of each DG unit [21].
DG penetration: The ratio of the amount of DG energy injected
into a network to its total energy consumption.
3.2. Load modeling
The distribution system considered in this work has a 24-h load
prole (same as IEEE-RTS system) as depicted in Fig. 1 [22]. The
load factor (LF) or average load level of the system can be dened
as the ratio of the area under load curve in p.u. to total duration.
Hence, the LF in this case is 0.83.
LF
X
24
t1
p:u: demandt
24
6
3.3. Renewable resources modeling
Three typical renewable resources, namely biomass, wind and
solar photovoltaic (PV), are assumed to be utilizing technologies
that can operate at any desired power factor. Biomass DG unit is
modeled as a synchronous machine and wind DG unit uses dou-
bly-fed induction generators (DFIGs) or full converter synchronous
machines [23]. PV DG unit employs converters for integration.
Overall, the above technologies can be classied into two catego-
ries as far as their capability of energy delivery is concerned:
3.3.1. Dispatchable source
E.g. biomass DG output can be dispatched according to the load
curve as shown in Fig. 1. The capacity factor (CF) of biomass DG
unit is dened as the ratio of the area under the output curve in
p.u. to total duration [21]. Hence, the CF of biomass DG unit in this
case is 0.83.
CF
X
24
t1
p:u: DG outputt
24
7
3.3.2. Nondispatchable source
E.g. biomass DG output can also be assumed to be constant
(non-intermittent) at its rated power during 24 h a day. Its capacity
factor is one. On the other hand, the outputs of wind and PV follow
the average output curve as illustrated in Fig. 2 [24,25]. These
curves provide an hourly output as a percentage of the daily peak
outputs of individual DG units. Similar to biomass DG unit, from
Eq. (7), the CFs of wind and PV DG units are 0.5 and 0.33
respectively.
3.4. Scenarios
In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed ap-
proaches, based on typical biomass, wind and PV output curves,
the following scenarios are considered.
Scenario #1: Base case without DG unit;
Scenario #2: Dispatchable biomass DG unit;
Scenario #3: Nondispatchable biomass DG unit;
Scenario #4: Nondispatchable wind DG unit;
Scenario #5: Nondispatchable PV DG unit.
4. Alternative approaches
4.1. Approach A1
This analytical approach (A1) is developed based on Elgerds
loss formula as given in Eq. (1), to nd the optimal sizes and
power factors of DG units at various locations for minimizing
power losses. This is achieved by combining the analytical expres-
sions for sizing DG unit at various locations [9] and a new expres-
sion that is proposed in this paper for optimizing the power factor
of DG unit at various locations. Approach A1 is then used to accom-
modate different renewable DG sources for minimizing energy
losses by considering the combination of demand and generation
curves. The study in [9] was limited to DG placement for power
loss reduction without considering the optimal power factor of
individual DG unit (OPF
DG
) for each location and energy losses.
4.1.1. Sizing DG unit at various locations
The optimal size at each bus i for minimizing the power loss can
be expressed as [9]:
P
DGi

a
ii
P
Di
a
i
Q
Di
X
i
a
i
Y
i
a
ii
a
2
i
1
; Q
DGi
a
i
P
DGi
8
where X
i

P
N
j 1
j i
a
ij
P
j
b
ij
Q
j
, Y
i

P
N
j 1
j i
a
ij
Q
j
b
ij
P
j
;
a
i
sign tancos
1
PF
DGi
, sign = +1: DG unit injecting reactive
power, sign = 1: DG unit consuming reactive power. P
DGi
and Q
DGi
are respectively the real and reactive power injection from DG unit
at bus i; P
Di
and Q
Di
are respectively the real and reactive power of
load at bus i; PF
DG
is the operating power factor of DG unit.
The power factor of DG unit depends on the operating condi-
tions and adopted DG types. The optimal size of each DG type at
each bus i for minimizing the power loss can be determined from
Eq. (8) by setting the value of PF
DG
in the following different man-
ners. DG technologies such as synchronous machine-based bio-
mass DG unit, DFIG-based wind DG unit, and inverters-based
solar PV DG unit can fall under the following types depending on
their control strategy and real and reactive power capability.
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
L
o
a
d

d
e
m
a
n
d

(
p
.
u
.
)
Hour
Fig. 1. Daily load demand curve.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
O
u
t
p
u
t

(
p
.
u
.
)
Wind
PV
Fig. 2. Daily wind and PV output curves.
D.Q. Hung et al. / Applied Energy 105 (2013) 7585 77
Type 1 DG unit (PF
DG
= 1) is capable of injecting active power (P)
only;
Type 2 DG unit (PF
DG
= 0) is capable of injecting reactive power
(Q) only;
Type 3 DG unit (0 < PF
DG
< 1 and sign = +1) is capable of inject-
ing both P and Q;
Type 4 DG unit (0 < PF
DG
< 1 and sign = 1) is capable of inject-
ing P and absorbing Q.
The optimal real and reactive power sizes of DG unit at bus i can
be obtained from Eq. (8) by setting PF
DGi
= 1 or a
i
= 0 and PF
DGi
= 0
or a
i
= 1 respectively [9].
P
DGi
P
Di

1
a
ii
X
N
j 1
j i
a
ij
P
j
b
ij
Q
j

Q
DGi
Q
Di

1
a
ii
X
N
j 1
j i
a
ij
Q
j
b
ij
P
j

8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
9
Depending on the characteristic of loads, the load power factor
of a distribution system without reactive power compensation is
normally in the range from 0.7 to 0.95 lagging (inductive load);
hence, the optimal power factor of DG unit could be lagging [9].
It is assumed that the load power factor of the system considered
in this work is lagging. Eq. (9) represents the optimum real power
of Type 1 DG unit (P
DGi
) and the optimal reactive power of Type 2
DG unit (Q
DGi
). The combination of both P
DGi
and Q
DGi
injected at
the same bus i can produce the optimal size of Type 3 DG,
S
DGi

P
2
DGi
Q
2
DGi
q
with lagging power factor, i.e., DG unit capable
of delivering both real and reactive power, at that bus where the
total system loss is the lowest.
4.1.2. OPF
DG
at various locations
For a N-bus distribution, the optimal size of Type 3 DG unit at
bus i for minimizing the system loss as mentioned earlier can be
calculated as S
DGi

P
2
DGi
Q
2
DGi
q
by combining the optimal sizes
of Types 1 and 2 DG unit (P
DGi
and Q
DGi
) given in Eq. (9). Hence,
the optimal power factor of Type 3 DGunit at bus i (i = 2 to N) in this
case can be lagging and calculated using the following equation:
OPF
DGi

P
DGi

P
2
DGi
Q
2
DGi
q 10
4.2. Approach A2
This analytical approach (A2) is developed based on the branch
current loss formula as given in Eq. (2) to nd the optimal sizes
and power factors of DG units at various locations for minimizing
power losses. Similar to approach A1, approach A2 is then em-
ployed to accommodate different renewable DG sources for mini-
mizing energy losses by considering the combination of demand
and generation curves. The application of this loss formula has
been presented for capacitor allocation in [19], and DG placement
in [26]. The study in [26] was limited to unity power factor DG
placement for power loss reduction at the peak demand without
considering the variability of both generation and demand, and
the OPF
DG
for each location.
4.2.1. Sizing DG unit at various locations
When DG unit is injected both active current (I
ak
) and reactive
current (I
rk
) at bus k, Eq. (3) can be rewritten as:
P
loss

X
k
i1
I
ai
I
ak

2
R
i

X
n
ik1
I
2
ai
R
i

X
k
i1
I
ri
I
rk

2
R
i

X
n
ik1
I
2
ri
R
i
11
The system loss reduction, which is obtained by subtracting Eq.
(11) from Eq. (3) (i.e. with and without DG unit, respectively), can
be expressed as follows:
DP
loss
2I
ak
X
k
i1
I
ai
R
i
I
2
ak
X
k
i1
R
i
2I
rk
X
k
i1
I
ri
R
i
I
2
rk
X
k
i1
R
i
12
Let a
k
signtancos
1
PF
DGk
, where sign = +1: DG unit
injecting reactive power; sign = 1: DG unit consuming reactive
power. The relationship between I
rk
and I
ak
at bus k can be ex-
pressed as follows:
I
rk
a
k
I
ak
13
Substituting from Eq. (13) into Eq. (12), we obtain:
DP
loss
2I
ak
X
k
i1
I
ai
R
i
I
2
ak
X
k
i1
R
i
2a
k
I
ak
X
k
i1
I
ri
R
i
a
2
k
I
2
ak
X
k
i1
R
i
14
The system loss reduction is maximum if the partial derivative
of Eq. (14) with respect to the active current injection from DG unit
at bus k is zero.
@DP
loss
@I
ak
2
X
k
i1
I
ai
R
i
2a
k
X
k
i1
I
ri
R
i
2I
ak
X
k
i1
R
i
2a
2
k
I
ak
X
k
i1
R
i
0 15
From Eq. (15), the active current of DG unit at bus k for maxi-
mizing loss reduction can be expressed as follows:
I
ak

P
k
i1
I
ai
R
i
a
k
P
k
i1
I
ri
R
i
1 a
2
k

P
k
i1
R
i
16
It is assumed that there is no signicant change in the bus volt-
age after DG insertion. From (15) and (16) with P
DGk
= |V
k
|I
ak
and
Q
DGk
= a
k
P
DGk
, where |V
k
| is the voltage magnitude of DG unit at
bus k, the optimal size of DG unit at bus k and its corresponding
maximum loss reduction can be calculated as follows:
P
DGk
jV
k
j
P
k
i1
I
ai
R
i
a
k
P
k
i1
I
ri
R
i
1 a
2
k

P
k
i1
R
i
; Q
DGk
a
k
P
DGk
17
DP
loss

P
k
i1
I
ai
R
i
a
k
P
k
i1
I
ri
R
i

2
1 a
2
k
P
k
i1
R
i
18
Eq. (17) can be used to calculate the optimal active and reactive
power sizes of DG unit at various power factors in the range of 01
(leading/lagging). When the values of PF
DG
are set at unity and
zero, the optimal active and reactive power sizes of DG unit,
respectively can be obtained from Eq. (17) as follows:
P
DGk
jV
k
j
P
k
i1
I
ai
R
i
P
k
i1
R
i
; Q
DGk
jV
k
j
P
k
i1
I
ri
R
i
P
k
i1
R
i
19
4.2.2. OPF
DG
at various locations
From Eq. (19), OPF
DG
at each bus for minimizing power losses
can be found using Eq. (10).
4.2.3. Minimum power loss
When the value of PF
DG
is set at unity in Eq. (18), the maximum
loss reduction due to active power of DG unit injected at bus k can
be specied. Similarly, when the value of PF
DG
is set at zero in Eq.
(18), the maximum loss reduction due to reactive power of DG unit
injected at bus k can also be determined. Hence, the total
78 D.Q. Hung et al. / Applied Energy 105 (2013) 7585
maximum loss reduction due to both active and reactive power
sizes of DG unit injected at bus k can be calculated as follows:
DP
loss

P
k
i1
I
ai
R
i

2
P
k
i1
R
i

P
k
i1
I
ri
R
i

2
P
k
i1
R
i
20
Hence, the total real power loss with DG unit injected at bus k
can be calculated by subtracting Eq. (20) from Eq. (3) as:
P
DG
loss
P
loss
DP
loss
21
4.3. Approach A3
This novel analytical method 3 (A3) is developed based on the
branch power ow loss formula as given in Eq. (4) to nd the
optimal sizes and power factors of DG units at various locations
for minimization of power losses. Similar to approaches A1 and
A2, approach A3 is then utilized to accommodate different renew-
able DG sources for minimizing energy losses by considering the
combination of demand and generation curves.
4.3.1. Sizing DG at various locations
When DG unit is injected both active power (P
DGk
) and reactive
power (Q
DGk
) at bus k, Eq. (4) can be rewritten as follows:
P
loss

X
k
i1
P
bi
P
DGk

2
jV
i
j
2
R
i

X
n
ik1
P
2
bi
jV
i
j
2
R
i

X
k
i1
Q
bi
Q
DGk

2
jV
i
j
2
R
i

X
n
ik1
Q
2
bi
jV
i
j
2
R
i
22
The system loss reduction, which is obtained from subtracting
Eq. (22) from Eq. (4), can be expressed as:
DP
loss
2P
DGk
X
k
i1
R
i
P
bi
jV
i
j
2
P
2
DGk
X
k
i1
R
i
jV
i
j
2
2Q
DGk
X
k
i1
R
i
Q
bi
jV
i
j
2
Q
2
DGk
X
k
i1
R
i
jV
i
j
2
23
Let a
k
= (sign) tan (cos
1
(PF
DGk
)), the relationship between the
active and reactive power sizes of DG unit at bus k can be ex-
pressed as:
Q
DGk
a
k
P
DGk
24
Substituting from Eq. (24) into Eq. (23), we obtain:
DP
loss
2P
DGk
X
k
i1
R
i
P
bi
jV
i
j
2
P
2
DGk
X
k
i1
R
i
jV
i
j
2
2a
k
P
DGk
X
k
i1
R
i
Q
bi
jV
i
j
2
a
2
k
P
2
DGk
X
k
i1
R
i
jV
i
j
2
25
The system loss reduction is maximum if the partial derivative
of Eq. (25) with respect to the active power injection from DG unit
at bus k is zero.
@DP
loss
@P
DGk
2
X
k
i1
R
i
P
bi
jV
i
j
2
2P
DGk
X
k
i1
R
i
jV
i
j
2
2a
k
X
k
i1
R
i
Q
bi
jV
i
j
2
2a
2
k
P
DGk
X
k
i1
R
i
jV
i
j
2
0 26
It is assumed that there is no signicant change in the bus volt-
age after DG insertion. From Eq. (26), the active and reactive power
sizes of DG unit at bus k for maximizing loss reduction can be given
in Eq. (27) and its corresponding maximum loss reduction can be
found in Eq. (28).
P
DGk

P
k
i1
R
i
P
bi
jV
i
j
2
a
k
P
k
i1
R
i
Q
bi
jV
i
j
2
1 a
2
k

P
k
i1
R
i
jV
i
j
2
; Q
DGk
a
k
P
DGk
27
DP
loss

P
k
i1
R
i
P
bi
jV
i
j
2
a
k
P
k
i1
R
i
Q
bi
jV
i
j
2

2
1 a
2
k
P
k
i1
R
i
jV
i
j
2
28
Eq. (27) can be used to calculate the optimal active and reac-
tive power sizes of DG unit at various power factors in the range
of 01 (leading/lagging). Similar to approach A2, when the values
of PF
DG
are set at 1 and 0, the optimal active and reactive power
sizes of DG unit, respectively can be obtained from Eq. (27) as
follows:
P
DGk

P
k
i1
R
i
P
bi
jV
i
j
2
P
k
i1
R
i
jV
i
j
2
; Q
DGk

P
k
i1
R
i
Q
bi
jV
i
j
2
P
k
i1
R
i
jV
i
j
2
29
4.3.2. OPF
DG
at various locations
From Eq. (29), OPF
DG
at each bus for minimizing power losses
can be found using Eq. (10).
4.3.3. Minimum power loss
Similar to approach A2, the total maximum loss reduction due
to both active and reactive power sizes of DG unit injected at bus
k can be rewritten as:
DP
loss

P
k
i1
R
i
P
bi
jV
i
j
2

2
P
k
i1
R
i
jV
i
j
2

P
k
i1
R
i
Q
bi
jV
i
j
2

2
P
k
i1
R
i
jV
i
j
2
30
Hence, the total real power loss with DG unit injected at bus k
can be calculated by subtracting Eq. (30) from Eq. (4) as:
P
DG
loss
P
loss
DP
loss
31
4.4. Computational procedure
The computational procedure for approaches A1, A2 and A3 to
accommodate different types of renewable DG units for minimiza-
tion of energy losses by considering the varying demand combined
with the possible operating conditions of DG units are proposed
below. In this computational procedure, the power loss is mini-
mized rst at peak and average demands for dispatchable and non-
dispatchable DG units, respectively to nd out the size, location
and power factor. The output of dispatchable DG unit is then ad-
justed based on the load curve so that the energy loss is minimum.
For nondispatchable DG units, after nding the size at average de-
mand, the maximum size or optimal size is found out using the DG
output curve. The energy loss is subsequently calculated based on
the DG output curve.
Scenario 1: Run load ow for each period of the day and calcu-
late the total annual energy loss using Eq. (5). In order to nd
power losses, Eqs. (1), (2), (4) (one of the alternative expressions)
could be used depending on availability of required data.
Scenario 2: Fig. 3 shows the ow chart of dispatchable DG place-
ment. Its detailed computational procedure are explained as
follows:
Step 1: Run base case load ow at the peak demand and calcu-
late the total power loss using Eqs. (1), (2), and (4) for
approaches A1, A2 and A3 respectively.
Step 2: Identify the optimal location, size and power factor of
DG unit at the peak demand level only.
D.Q. Hung et al. / Applied Energy 105 (2013) 7585 79
(a) Find the optimal size for each bus (S
peak
DGi
) using Eqs. (9), (19),
and (29) for approaches A1, A2 and A3 respectively and cal-
culate the optimal power factor for each bus i using Eq. (10).
(b) Place DG unit obtained earlier at each bus, one at a time and
calculate the approximate power loss for each case using Eq.
(1) for approach A1. For approaches A2 and A3, calculate the
approximate power loss using Eqs. (21) and (31)
respectively.
(c) Locate the optimal bus at which the approximate power loss
is minimum with the corresponding optimal size of DG unit
or its maximum output (S
max
DG
) at that bus.
Step 3: Find the optimal output of DG unit at the optimal loca-
tion only for period t as follows, where p.u. demand(t) is the load
demand in p.u. at period t.
S
t
DG
p:u: demandtS
max
DG
32
Step 4: Run load ow with each DG output obtained in step 3 for
each period and calculate the total annual energy loss using Eq.
(5).
Scenarios 35: Fig. 4 presents the ow chart of nondispatchable
DG placement. Its detailed computational procedure are explained
as follows:
Step 1: Run load ow for the system without DG unit at the
average load level or at the system load factor (LF) using Eq.
(6) and calculate the total power loss using Eqs. (1), (2), and
(4) for approaches A1, A2 and A3 respectively.
Step 2: Specify the optimal location, size and power factor of DG
unit at the average load level only.
(a) Find the optimal size for each bus (S
avg
DGi
) using Eqs. (9), (19),
and (29) for approaches A1, A2 and A3 respectively and cal-
culate the optimal power factor for bus i using Eq. (10).
(b) Place DG unit obtained earlier at each bus, one at a time and
calculate the approximate power loss for each case using Eq.
(1) for approach A1. For approaches A2 and A3, calculate the
approximate power loss using Eqs. (21) and (31)
respectively.
(c) Locate the optimal bus at which the approximate power loss
is minimum with the corresponding optimal size of DG unit
at the average load level (S
avg
DG
) at that bus.
Step 3: Find the capacity factor of DG unit (CF) based on its daily
output curve using Eq. (7).
Step 4: Find the optimal size of DG unit or its maximum output
(S
max
DG
) at the optimal location only as follows
S
max
DG

S
avg
DG
CF
33
Step 5: Find the optimal DG output at the optimal location for
period t as follows:
S
t
DG
p:u: DG outputtS
max
DG
34
Step 6: Run load ow with each DG output obtained in step 5 for
each period and calculate the total annual energy loss using Eq.
(5).
The above computational procedures are developed to place dif-
ferent types of renewable DG unit considering the optimal power
factor. These procedures can be modied to allocate DG unit with
a pre-specied power factor. When the power factor of DG unit is
pre-specied, the computational procedure is similar to the above
with exception that in step 2.a in scenarios 25, the optimal DG
size for each bus is determined using Eq. (8) rather than Eq. (9)
for approach A1, using Eq. (17) rather than Eq. (19) for A2, and
using Eq. (27) rather than Eq. (29) for A3.
5. ELF solution
To validate the effectiveness of approaches A1, A2 and A3, the
ELF solution [27] is employed. For each load level, DG unit is placed
at each bus. Its size is changed from 0% to 100% of the total system
load demand plus loss in a step of 0.25%. The power factor of DG
unit is also varied for each case from 0 to unity (lagging) in a step
of 0.001. The total system power loss is computed for each case by
load ow analyses. The total energy loss is calculated as the sum of
the power losses of all load levels over 24 h a day times 365 days a
year using Eq. (5). The best location, size and power factor is
Fig. 3. Flow chart of dispatchable DG placement.
Fig. 4. Flow chart of nondispatchable DG placement.
80 D.Q. Hung et al. / Applied Energy 105 (2013) 7585
obtained in the case where the total energy loss is the lowest with-
out any violations of the voltages.
6. Case study
6.1. Test systems
The case study considered is a 69-bus radial distribution system
with the peak demand of 3.80 MW and 2.69 MV Ar, and the base
case loss of 224.93 kW [28]. The proposed methods have been
developed and simulated in MATLAB environment.
The lower and upper voltage thresholds are set at 0.94 p.u. and
1.06 p.u. respectively [29]. The system load power factor is as-
sumed to remain unchanged for each load level (period). Biomass
DG unit can be allocated at all buses in the system. The location
of PV and wind sources may be identied by resource and geo-
graphic factors. As their sites are unspecied in the test system,
these sources are assumed to be placed at all buses. However,
when the location is pre-specied, the optimal size and power fac-
tor corresponding to the lowest power loss can be quickly deter-
mined based on the proposed approaches.
6.2. Numerical results
Scenario 1: Fig. 5a illustrates the 24-h load curve in MVA for the
system without DG unit. This curve was developed based on the
24-h load curve in p.u. as given in Fig. 1. Fig. 5b shows its corre-
sponding 24-h power loss curve. In this case, the total annual en-
ergy loss is 1381.53 MW h which can be calculated tracing the
area under Fig. 5b times 365 days as dened in Eq. (5).
Scenario 2: Fig. 6a and b shows the optimal output of dispatch-
able biomass DG unit and its corresponding minimum power loss,
respectively for each hour of the day at optimal bus 61. It is inter-
esting to note that the DG output patterns which are determined
by A1 and ELF are almost the same and follow the load pattern
as illustrated in Fig. 5a. The daily power loss pattern with DG unit
also follows that of the base case as shown in Fig. 5b. Hence, ap-
proach A1 based on the peak load solution combined with the load
demand curve in p. u. could be sufcient to specify the 24-h
optimal DG output curve in MVA; whereas as multiple-load level
solution, ELF repeats the same computation for each load level.
Similar results have been obtained using proposed approaches A2
and A3 as shown in Fig. 6a and b.
Table 1 summaries the results obtained by all approaches. The
outcomes achieved using the three proposed approaches (A1, A2
and A3) are in close agreement with ELF. The optimal location is
found at bus 61. The difference in the optimal size and power fac-
tor is negligible. More importantly, the computational time by the
proposed approaches is signicantly shorter than ELF. Hence, the
proposed approaches could be feasible for application in large-
scale systems.
Scenario 3: Fig. 7a and b present the optimal output of nondis-
patchable biomass DG unit and its corresponding minimum power
loss, respectively for each hour of the day at optimal bus 61. The
DG output pattern by A1 is just under that by ELF; hence, the
trends of the hourly power losses by both methods are almost
the same. The difference is that the DG size by A1 is 1.844 MV A
which is 0.024 MV A slightly smaller than ELF, as shown in Table 2.
Consequently, the total annual energy losses with DG unit by A1
and ELF are almost the same at 184.68 MW h and 184.45 MW h
respectively, with a negligible difference of 0.12%. Notice that only
one solution at the average load (LF) combined with the biomass
output curve in p.u. was considered by A1. Similar results have
been found using proposed methods A2 and A3, as shown in
Fig. 7 and Table 2.
Scenario 4: Fig. 8a and b illustrate the nondispatchable wind
output curve following the wind output curve in Fig. 2 for every
hour of the day and its corresponding power loss at optimal bus
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
L
o
a
d

d
e
m
a
n
d

(
M
V
A
)
(a)
50
100
150
200
250
P
o
w
e
r

l
o
s
s

(
K
W
)
(b)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
Fig. 5. Daily curves for: (a) demand and (b) system power losses without DG unit.
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
D
G

s
i
z
e

(
M
V
A
)
A1
A2
A3
ELF
(a)
5
10
15
20
25
P
o
w
e
r

l
o
s
s

(
k
W
)
A1
A2
A3
ELF
(b)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
Fig. 6. Daily curves at bus 61: (a) dispatchable biomass DG output and (b) system
power losses with dispatchable biomass DG unit.
Table 1
Dispatchable biomass DG placement.
Approach A1 A2 A3 ELF
Optimal power factor (lagging) 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.82
Optimal bus 61 61 61 61
Optimal size (MV A) 2.222 2.222 2.298 2.241
Annual loss (MW h) 144.35 144.68 144.56 144.27
CPU time (s) 0.77 0.10 0.10 >1625.67
D.Q. Hung et al. / Applied Energy 105 (2013) 7585 81
61. Similar to scenario 3, the wind DG output patterns specied by
both A1 and ELF are nearly the same. The optimal sizes are found to
be 3.684 MV A by A1 and 3.316 MV A by ELF. Hence, the annual to-
tal energy loss with DG unit by A1 is 307.52 MW h, whereas this
value by ELF is 294.24 MW h, as shown in Table 3. Notice that
one solution at the average load (LF) associated with the wind out-
put curve in Fig. 2 was considered by A1. Similar results have been
identied using proposed approaches A2 and A3 as illustrated in
Fig. 8 and Table 3.
Scenario 5: Fig. 9a and b portray the result of PV DG unit at opti-
mal bus 61 by A1 and ELF on the assumption that its output follows
the nondispatchable PV output curve as depicted in Fig. 2. The out-
put patterns achieved by both approaches are the same. However,
the optimal size is 3.618 MV A by A1 and is 2.985 MV A by ELF,
with a difference of 0.63 MV A, as shown in Table 4. Hence, the to-
tal annual energy loss by A1 is 648.06 MW h, which is 6.06% higher
than ELF. Similar to scenario 4, single solution at the average load
(LF) combined with the PV output curve in Fig. 2 was considered by
A1. Similar results have been specied using proposed approaches
A2 and A3 as depicted in Fig. 9 and Table 4.
6.3. Summary
Fig. 10 shows the comparisons of the maximum and actual pen-
etration of DG units for scenarios 25, based on approach A1. The
actual penetration is calculated as the maximum DG penetration
times its capacity factor (CF). It can be observed that the maximum
penetrations of PV and wind DG units in scenarios 4 and 5 respec-
tively are considerably higher than biomass DG units in scenarios 2
and 3; however, their actual penetrations are signicantly lower
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
D
G

s
i
z
e

(
M
V
A
)
A1
A2
A3
ELF
(a)
10
15
20
25
30
P
o
w
e
r

l
o
s
s

(
k
W
)
A1
A2
A3
ELF
(b)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
Fig. 7. Daily curves at bus 61: (a) nondispatchable biomass DG output and (b)
system power losses with nondispatchable biomass DG unit.
Table 2
Nondispatchable biomass DG placement.
Approach A1 A2 A3 ELF
Optimal power factor (lagging) 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.82
Optimal bus 61 61 61 61
Optimal size (MV A) 1.844 1.844 1.891 1.868
Annual loss (MW h) 184.68 184.99 185.26 184.45
CPU time (s) 0.77 0.10 0.10 >1625.67
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
D
G

s
i
z
e

(
M
V
A
)
A1
A2
A3
ELF
(a)
0
25
50
75
100
P
o
w
e
r

l
o
s
s

(
k
W
)
A1
A2
A3
ELF
(b)
Fig. 8. Daily curves at bus 61: (a) wind DG output and (b) system power losses with
wind DG unit.
Table 3
Nondispatchable wind DG placement.
Approach A1 A2 A3 ELF
Optimal power factor (lagging) 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.82
Optimal bus 61 61 61 61
Optimal size (MV A) 3.684 3.684 3.777 3.316
Annual loss (MW h) 307.52 305.00 309.24 294.24
CPU time (s) 0.77 0.10 0.10 >1625.67
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
D
G

s
i
z
e

(
M
V
A
)
A1
A2
A3
ELF
(a)
10
60
110
160
210
P
o
w
e
r

l
o
s
s

(
k
W
)
A1
A2
A3
ELF
(b)
Fig. 9. Daily curves at bus 61: (a) PV DG output and (b) system power losses with
PV DG unit.
82 D.Q. Hung et al. / Applied Energy 105 (2013) 7585
than biomass DG unit. Particularly, over one-third of the day, the
PV output is nearly zero. During this period, the system operates
as the base case system without getting any energy output from
DG unit. The wind DG case is also somewhat similar. In contrast,
the biomass DG unit in scenario 2 can dispatch its output following
the load demand variation; even when its output is constant and
nondispatchable, biomass DG unit in scenario 3 has the capability
to operate at its continuous rated output for every hour of the day.
Consequently, the energy loss reductions in the biomass scenarios
are signicantly higher than the wind and PV scenarios, as
illustrated in Fig. 11. The maximum energy loss reduction is deter-
mined in scenario 2; whereas the minimum value occurs in sce-
nario 5. Overall, dispatchable DG unit can produce a higher
energy loss reduction than nondispatchable DG unit.
Table 4
Nondispatchable PV DG placement.
Approach A1 A2 A3 ELF
Optimal power factor (lagging) 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.82
Optimal bus 61 61 61 61
Optimal size (MV A) 3.618 3.618 3.719 2.985
Annual loss (MW h) 648.06 657.72 668.14 608.81
CPU time (s) 0.77 0.10 0.10 >1625.67
57.51
47.74
95.36 93.65
47.69 47.74
43.57
30.93
0
25
50
75
100
2 3 4 5
Scenario No.
P
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
Max penetration
Actual penetration
Fig. 10. Maximum and actual penetration for scenarios 25.
89.55
86.63
77.74
53.09
0
25
50
75
100
2 3 4 5
Scenario No.
E
n
e
r
g
y

l
o
s
s

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
Fig. 11. Annual energy loss reduction for scenarios 25.
0.90
0.94
0.98
1.02
1.06
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69
Bus
V
o
l
t
a
g
e

(
p
.
u
.
)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Scenario 5
Fig. 12. Voltage proles at extreme periods for scenarios 15. (For interpretation of
the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)
1.76
3.00
3.63 3.68
20.77
54.33
75.93
77.74
1
2
3
4
5
6
4 1 3 3
Type of DG
O
p
t
i
m
a
l

D
G

s
i
z
e

(
M
V
A
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
O
p
t
i
m
a
l

D
G

s
i
z
e

(
M
V
A
)
0
.
9

l
e
a
d

U
n
i
t
y
0
.
9

l
a
g
0
.
8
2

l
a
g
(
o
p
t
i
m
a
l
)
DG power factor
DG size
Loss
Scenario 4
1.73
2.94
3.57 3.62
13.54
35.50
48.54
53.09
4 1 3 3
Type of DG
0
15
30
45
60
75
0
.
9

l
e
a
d

U
n
i
t
y
0
.
9

l
a
g
0
.
8
2

l
a
g
(
o
p
t
i
m
a
l
)
DG power factor
DG size
Loss
Scenario 5
1.06
1.81
2.19 2.22
23.78
62.45
87.38 89.55
0
1
2
3
4
5
4 1 3 3
Type of DG
O
p
t
i
m
a
l

D
G

s
i
z
e

(
M
V
A
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
O
p
t
i
m
a
l

D
G

s
i
z
e

(
M
V
A
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
.
9

l
e
a
d

U
n
i
t
y
0
.
9

l
a
g
0
.
8
2

l
a
g
(
o
p
t
i
m
a
l
)
DG power factor
E
n
e
r
g
y

l
o
s
s

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
E
n
e
r
g
y

l
o
s
s

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
E
n
e
r
g
y

l
o
s
s

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
E
n
e
r
g
y

l
o
s
s

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
DG size
Loss
Scenario 2
0.88
1.50
1.82 1.84
22.91
60.34
84.54 86.63
4 1 3 3
Type of DG
0
.
9

l
e
a
d

U
n
i
t
y
0
.
9

l
a
g
0
.
8
2

l
a
g
(
o
p
t
i
m
a
l
)
DG power factor
DG size
Loss
Scenario 3
Fig. 13. DG placement with different power factors for scenarios 25.
D.Q. Hung et al. / Applied Energy 105 (2013) 7585 83
Fig. 12 shows the voltage proles for scenarios 15 at the ex-
treme periods where the voltage proles are the worst. In the ab-
sence of DG unit, the extreme period is specied at peak period 12
at which the voltages at buses 5766 are under the lower limit of
0.94 p.u. In the presence of DG unit, by considering the combina-
tion of the demand and DG output curves, the extreme periods
are determined as follows: period 12 for scenarios 23, period 16
for scenario 4 and period 13 for scenario 5. It can be observed from
the gure that after DG insertion, the voltage proles at the ex-
treme periods improve signicantly within the acceptable limit
as expected. It is interesting to note that the voltage proles in dis-
patchable DG scenario 2 are better than those in nondispatchable
DG scenarios 35.
It is worth noting that optimal sizes and locations obtained for
power loss minimization using the above analytical expressions
are in close agreement with the results reported in [13,30] using
heuristic and articial bee colony (ABC) algorithms, respectively.
6.4. Impact of power factor on energy losses
It is worth mentioning that the power factor of DG unit as well
as DG types adopted can play a signicant role in minimizing en-
ergy losses. Particularly, based on approach A1, Fig. 13 depicts
the trends of energy loss reduction, at various DG power factors
that represent different DG types at bus 61 for scenarios 25. The
energy loss reduction commences to increase when the power fac-
tor is varied in order of leading, unity and lagging values and until
it reaches the maximum value when DG unit operates at 0.82 opti-
mal lagging power factor. It is observed that Type 3 DG unit has the
most positive impact on energy loss reduction, while the lowest
impact is determined in Type 4 DG unit. However, as reported in
[31], the grid codes of many countries require that grid-connected
wind DG units should provide the capabilities of reactive power
control or power factor control in a specic range. For instance,
in the Ireland, the power factor of wind turbines is required to be
from 0.835 leading to 0.835 lagging. It should be from 0.95 leading
to 0.95 lagging in Italy and the United Kingdom. Hence, to assess
the impact of power factor on energy losses, in this study it is con-
sidered that the power factor is limited in the range of 0.9 leading
to 0.9 lagging. In this case, as illustrated in Fig. 13, the best power
factor of DG unit for all scenarios to achieve the highest energy loss
reduction is determined at 0.9 lagging. The optimal location for all
scenarios is at bus 61. The optimal size of each DG unit and its cor-
responding annual energy loss reduction for each scenario are
shown in Fig. 13. It is revealed that imposing power factor limit
has a negative impact on the system energy loss reduction at a
maximum difference of nearly 3.91%, in scenario 5, compared to
the case without considering the power factor limit. However, this
may depend on the characteristics of the system and DG output.
Similar results can be found using approaches A2 and A3.
7. Conclusions
This paper has presented three analytical approaches using
three different power loss expressions to identify the optimal sizes
and power factors of DG units at various locations for minimizing
power losses and a methodology to identify the best location.
These methods can be easily adapted to accommodate different
renewable DG types for minimizing energy losses by considering
the combination of time-varying demand and different DG output
curves. The results demonstrate that the proposed approaches can
be adequate to identify the location, size and power factor of DG
unit for minimizing energy losses. The three approaches can be uti-
lized depending on availability of required data and produce sim-
ilar outcomes. They can lead to an optimal or near-optimal result
as veried by ELF solution and other methods found in the litera-
ture. It is worth mentioning that dispatchable DG unit has a more
positive impact on energy loss minimization and voltage prole
enhancement than nondispatchable DG unit. The strategically opti-
mized power factor of DG unit based on the proposed expression
can make a signicant contribution to energy loss reduction.
Imposing power factor limit can lead to an increase in energy
losses from the optimal value.
References
[1] Niknam T, Taheri SI, Aghaei J, Tabatabaei S, Nayeripour M. A modied honey
bee mating optimization algorithm for multiobjective placement of renewable
energy resources. Appl Energy 2011;88(12):481730.
[2] Taher N. A new HBMO algorithm for multiobjective daily Volt/Var control in
distribution systems considering distributed generators. Appl Energy
2011;88(3):77888.
[3] Martinez-Rojas M, Sumper A, Gomis-Bellmunt O, Sudri-Andreu A. Reactive
power dispatch in wind farms using particle swarm optimization technique
and feasible solutions search. Appl Energy 2011;88(12):467886.
[4] Manfren M, Caputo P, Costa G. Paradigm shift in urban energy systems through
distributed generation: Methods and models. Appl Energy
2011;88(4):103248.
[5] Bakos GC. Distributed power generation: a case study of small scale PV power
plant in Greece. Appl Energy 2009;86(9):175766.
[6] Atwa YM, El-Saadany EF, Salama MMA, Seethapathy R. Optimal renewable
resources mix for distribution system energy loss minimization. IEEE Trans
Power Syst 2010;86(1):36070.
[7] Ochoa LF, Harrison GP. Minimizing energy losses: optimal accommodation and
smart operation of renewable distributed generation. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2011;26(1):198205.
[8] Acharya N, Mahat P, Mithulananthan N. An analytical approach for DG
allocation in primary distribution network. Int J Elect Power Energy Syst
2006;28(10):66978.
[9] Hung DQ, Mithulananthan N, Bansal RC. Analytical expressions for DG
allocation in primary distribution networks. IEEE Trans Energy Convers
2010;25(3):81420.
[10] Hung DQ, Mithulananthan N. Multiple distributed generators placement in
primary distribution networks for loss reduction. IEEE Trans Ind Electron
2013;60(4):17008.
[11] Vovos PN, Kiprakis AE, Wallace AR, Harrison GP. Centralized and distributed
voltage control: Impact on distributed generation penetration. IEEE Trans
Power Syst 2007;22(1):47683.
[12] Chang RW, Mithulananthan N, Saha TK. Novel mixed-integer method to
optimize distributed generation mix in primary distribution systems. In: 21st
AUPEC. Brisbane, Australia; 2528 September, 2011.
[13] Abu-Mouti FS, El-Hawary ME. Heuristic curve-tted technique for distributed
generation optimisation in radial distribution feeder systems. IET Gener
Transm Distrib 2011;5(2):17280.
[14] Singh D, Verma KS. Multiobjective optimization for DG planning with load
models. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2009;24(1):42736.
[15] Mithulananthan N, Oo T, Phu LV. Distributed generator placement in power
distribution system using genetic algorithm to reduce losses. TIJSAT
2004;9(3):5562.
[16] Atwa YM, El-Saadany EF. Probabilistic approach for optimal allocation of wind-
based distributed generation in distribution systems. IET Renew Power Gener
2011;5(1):7988.
[17] Ochoa LF, Keane A, Harrison GP. Minimizing the reactive support for
distributed generation: enhanced passive operation and smart distribution
networks. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2011;26(4):213442.
[18] Elgerd IO. Electric energy system theory: an introduction. New York: McGraw-
Hill Inc.; 1971.
[19] Mekhamer SF, El-Hawary ME, Soliman SA, Moustafa MA, Mansour MM. New
heuristic strategies for reactive power compensation of radial distribution
feeders. IEEE Trans Power Del 2002;17(6):112835.
[20] Chung-Fu C. Reconguration and capacitor placement for loss reduction of
distribution systems by ant colony search algorithm. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2008;23(4):174755.
[21] Quezada VHM, Abbad JR, Roman TGS. Assessment of energy distribution losses
for increasing penetration of distributed generation. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2006;21(2):53340.
[22] Pinheiro JMS, Dornellas CRR, Schilling MT, Melo ACG, Mello JCO. Probing the
new IEEE Reliability Test System (RTS-96): HL-II assessment. IEEE Trans Power
Syst 1998;13(1):1716.
[23] Keane A, Ochoa LF, Vittal E, Dent CJ, Harrison GP. Enhanced utilization of
voltage control resources with distributed generation. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2011;26(1):25260.
[24] Wang C, Nehrir MH. Analytical approaches for optimal placement of
distributed generation sources in power systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2004;19(4):206876.
[25] Dept. trade and industry. System integration of additional microgeneration;
November 2006.
84 D.Q. Hung et al. / Applied Energy 105 (2013) 7585
[26] Nagarajua SK, Sivanagarajub S, Ramanac T, Satyanarayanac S, Prasadd PV. A
novel method for optimal distributed generator placement in radial
distribution systems. Distrib Gener Alter Energy J 2011;26(1):719.
[27] Hung DQ, Mithulananthan N. Handbook of renewable energy technology. DG
allocation in primary distribution systems considering loss reduction. In:
Zobaa AF, Bansal RC, editors. Singapore: World Scientic Publishing Co.;
January 2011 [chapter 23].
[28] Baran ME, Wu FF. Optimal capacitor placement on radial distribution systems.
IEEE Trans Power Delivery 1989;4(1):72534.
[29] Siano P, Ochoa LF, Harrison GP, Piccolo A. Assessing the strategic benets of
distributed generation ownership for DNOs. IET Gener Transm Distrib
2009;3(3):22536.
[30] Abu-Mouti FS, El-Hawary ME. Optimal distributed generation allocation and
sizing in distribution systems via articial bee colony algorithm. IEEE Trans
Power Del 2011;26(4):2090101.
[31] Tsili M, Papathanassiou S. A review of grid code technical requirements for
wind farms. IET Renew Power Gener 2009;3(3):30832.
D.Q. Hung et al. / Applied Energy 105 (2013) 7585 85