2019 International Conference on Computer, Control, Electrical, and Electronics Engineering (ICCCEEE)

Optimal Placement of DG and Capacitor in Radial

Distribution Systems Considering Load Variation
Salah Kamel1, Amal Amin1, Ali Selim1, Mohammed Hassan Ahmed2
1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Aswan University, Aswan 81542, Egypt
2College of Engineering, University of Blue Nile

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract— This paper provides an effective analytical Many different algorithms have been implemented in
approach for identifying the optimum places and sizes of the latest years to discover the optimum allocation of DGs, SCs
distributed generation (DG) and shunt capacitor (SC) in radial [2-4], and DGs with SCs to decrease power losses and
distribution system (RDS) in order to minimize the power losses enhance voltage profiles. In [5] G best-guided Artificial Bee
and improve the voltages for all busses. First, using power loss Colony (GABC) , Multi objective particle swarm
sensitivity factor (PLSF) is suggested to use the most candidate optimization (MOPSO) [6], Teaching Learning Based
buses to install DGs, SCs and DGs with SCs. The proposed Optimization (TLBO) [7], Backtracking Search Optimization
analytical approach is then used to calculate the sizes of the algorithm(BSOA) [8], Bacterial Foraging Optimization
sources from the chosen buses. The buses give minimum power Algorithm (BFOA) [9], Direct Search algorithm (DSA) [10],
losses are the best locations for the sources compared with Hybrid ( analytical and PSO ) [11], An improved analytical
others. The numerical simulations are carried out using IEEE
(IA) [12], krill herd algorithm (KHA) [13], Flower
Pollination Algorithm (FPA) [14], Improved Harmony
33-bus and 69-bus RDS to verify the performance of the
Algorithm (IHA) [15].
proposed method, while the loads are changed from 50% to
In this paper, an effective analytical technique for
150%. The obtained results are compared with other techniques
allocating DGs and SCs in RDS is suggested to minimize
to verify the effectiveness of the proposed analytical approach.
total power losses and enhance the voltage profile.
The proposed analytical method is based on determining
Keywords—Placement, DG, shunt capacitor, Power loss the size of the proposed source in the candidate buses
reduction & voltage profile improvement specified by power loss sensitivity factor (PLSF), and then
the location obtaining the minimum active power losses is
I. INTRODUCTION
assigned as the best location for the first source. To specify
The distribution system has recently been undergoing a the next location, the first unit will be installed in the system,
broad variety of studies as it is the final link between the bulk and the same size and location selection procedure such as
power system and customers. Radial distribution system the first unit is repeated except the location of the first one.
(RDS) usually works at low voltage and high currents, After accepting the second source location and calculate its
resulting in high power loss and low voltage profile size, the power losses are estimated with the existence of
comparable with transmission network. It is estimated from both units. When the power loss calculation is completed, the
the research that the share of distribution losses in total first unit is removed from the system and the second unit is
produced energy is 13 % [1]. The growing demand for left. Again, the proper first unit's size and location will be
electricity on a daily basis leads to a further increase in estimated until the system power loss gets its minimum
power losses and voltage drop. Such huge power losses value. For the third unit, the proper size and location of the
restrict line ability and low voltage profile increases the third unit are specified according to the previous units. After
system's voltage instability. allocation of the third unit, one of the existing previous units
The issue is therefore not only about developing the is excluded. And with the two units stayed in system, optimal
technical elements but also about meeting the future demand location and size of removed unit will be calculated.
for electricity for the current distribution system by keeping The remain of this paper is outlined as follows: Section II
voltage stability and line ability. Installing distributed illustrates the problem formulation, Section III illustrate
generation (DG) and shunt capacitor (SC) in the load center power loss sensitivity factor (PLSF), Section IV discuss the
radial distribution system can enhance the voltage profile and analytical method and the main steps of the proposed
decrease the active power losses to the important impact as method, simulation results are given in Section V. The main
they control the power flows in the main distribution feeders. conclusion is presented in Section VI.
Since DGs and SCs can install active and reactive power,
distribution capacity can be reduced, which can be used to II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
increase future electricity demand. In this section, the proposed analytical method for the
optimal allocation of DGs and SCs in radial distribution

978-1-7281-1006-6/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE

networks is described and formulated mathematically. It is
intended to calculate the location and size of DGs and SCs to
improve the voltage and minimize active power loss to the
minimum value (୐ ) which given by:

୒୓ ୒୓

‹୐ ൌ ෍ ෍ Ƚଢ଼୞ ሺଢ଼ ୞ ൅  ଢ଼  ୞ ሻ ൅ Ⱦଢ଼୞ ሺ ଢ଼ ୞ െ ଢ଼  ୞ ሻ

ଢ଼ୀଵ ୞ୀଵ

(1)

III. POWER LOSS SENSITIVITY FACTOR (PLSF)

Power loss sensitivity factor (PLSF) is introduced to
obtain the locations of the installing sources in radial
Fig .2.Values of PLSF for each bus in IEEE 69 RDS.
distribution network, which can augur the locations that have
a more power loss reduction. Hence, these candidate
IV. OPTIMAL SIZES OF ANALYTICAL APPROACH
locations are the best locations for the compensating sources.
PLSF can be estimated for each bus based on load flow In this paper, an efficient analytical approach has been
suggested for DGs, SCs and DGs with SCs sizing while the
solution [16-18]. If we consider two buses n-1, n connecting
proper locations have been determined using PLSF index
with impedance ୬ ǡ Œš୬ which connected to the active and which specify the candidate buses in the system.
reactive power load ୐୬ǡୣ୤୤ ǡ  ୐୬ǡୣ୤୤ . If ୐୬ǡୣ୤୤  at bus n The total power losses are expressed by (1) and displayed
deliver active power beyond that bus, the PLSF can be below based on the active power loss in the system.
assume by:
୒୓ ୒୓
μ୪୭ୱୱǡ୬ ʹ ୐୬ǡୣ୤୤ ‫  כ‬୬
 ሺ െ ͳǡ ሻ ൌ  ൌ  (2) ୐ ൌ ෍ ෍ Ƚଢ଼୞ ሺଢ଼ ୞ ൅  ଢ଼  ୞ ሻ ൅ Ⱦଢ଼୞ ሺ ଢ଼ ୞ െ ଢ଼  ୞ ሻ (3)
μ୐୬ǡୣ୤୤ ୬ ଶ
ଢ଼ୀଵ ୞ୀଵ
PLSF can be determined using (2), the buses with high PLSF Where
 ଢ଼୞
values up to 50% of network buses can be known as a Ƚଢ଼୞ ൌ ‘•ሺȽଢ଼ െ Ƚ୞ ሻ (4)
ଢ଼ ୞
candidate buses for compensating sources. The candidate
buses 6, 8, 3, 28, 4, 5, 9, 24, 13, 10, 29, 31, 23, 20, 25, 30 and  ଢ଼୞
Ⱦଢ଼୞ ൌ •‹ሺȽଢ଼ െ Ƚ୞ ሻ (5)
2 for 33-bus RDS as shown in Fig. 1. And for 69 bus the ଢ଼ ୞
candidate buses are shown in Fig. 2. And they are:
57,58,6,61,6010,59,55,56,12,13,14,54,15,53,8,64,49,11,9,17, ଢ଼ ǡ ୞ Active power injection at buses,  respectively
65,16,5,48,21,19,41,63,68,34,20 and 62 .  ଢ଼ ǡ  ୞ Reactive power injection at buses,  respectively
ଢ଼ ǡ ୞ Voltage values at buses , respectively
ଢ଼୞ ൌ  ଢ଼୞ ൅ Œଢ଼୞ Bus impedance matrix

Let consider  total number of the DGs which locate at

ଵ ǡ ଶ ǡ ǥ ୅ , and their sizes are ሺୈୋሻైభ ǡ ሺୈୋሻైమ ǥ ሺୈୋሻై
ఽ

Therefore; the active power injected by the DG is:

ሾ୐భ ൌ ሺୈୋሻైభ െ ሺୈሻైభ ሿǡ ǥ ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ሾ୐ఽ ൌ ሺୈୋሻై െ ሺୈሻై ሿ
ఽ ఽ

Likewise; the number of SCs are  and placed at
ଵ ǡ ଶ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ୆ , their sizes are  ሺୗେሻ౉భ ǡ  ሺୗେሻ౉మ ǥ  ሺୗେሻ౉
ా

And the reactive power injected by the SCs can be: 
ሾ ୑భ ൌ  ሺୗେሻ౉భ െ  ሺୈሻ౉భ ሿǡ ǥ ǡ ሾ ୑ా ൌ  ሺୗେሻ౉ െ  ሺୈሻ౉ ሿ
Fig. 2.Values of PLSF for each bus in IEEE 33 RDS. ా ా

Minimum power loss can be accomplished if the active po

wer loss ୐ first deviates depending on the active power of
the DG ሺ୐ఽ ሻand reactive power of SC ሺ ୑ా ሻequal to
zero , which can be arranged in equations in the following
matrix :
 ୐ ǡ  ୐ Active and reactive power losses.
Ƚ୐ ୐ Ƚ୐భ୐మ ǥ െȾ୐భ୑భ െȾ୐భ୑మ ǥ െȾ୐భ୑ా ୐భ ୐ Description of the proposed analytical method for optimal
‫ ۍ‬భ భ ‫ۍې‬ ‫ې‬ ‫ ۍ‬భ‫ې‬
Ƚ ୐ ୐
‫ ێ‬మ భ Ƚ ୐ ୐ ǥ െȾ ୐ ୑ െȾ ୐ ୑ ǥ െȾ ୐ ୑
మ ా ‫ێۑ‬ ୐  allocation of DGs and SCs in RDS:
మ మ మ భ మ మ మ ‫ۑ‬ ‫୐ ێ‬మ ‫ۑ‬
‫ۑ ڭ ێ ۑ ڭڰڭڭڰڭڭ ێ‬ ‫ۑ ڭ ێ‬ Step 1: Run load flow program and calculate bus impedance
‫ێ‬Ƚ୐ఽ ୐భ Ƚ୐ఽ ୐మ ǥ െȾ୐ఽ ୑భ െȾ୐ఽ ୑మ ǥ െȾ୐ఽ ୑ా ‫ۑ ఽ୐ ێ ۑ‬ ‫ۑ ఽ୐  ێ‬ matrix for RDS
‫ ێ‬Ⱦ୑ ୐ Ⱦ୑ ୐ ǥ Ƚ୑ ୑ Ƚ୑ ୑ ǥ Ƚ୑ ୑ ‫୑ ێ ۑ‬భ ‫ ۑ‬ൌ െ ‫୑ ێ‬భ ‫ۑ‬ Step 2: Calculate alpha and beta using (4) and (5).
‫ێ‬ భ భ భ మ భ భ భ మ భ ా
‫ۑ ێ ۑ‬ ‫ۑ ێ‬
‫ێ‬ Ⱦ ୑ మ ୐భ
Ⱦ ୑ మ ୐ మ
ǥ Ƚ ୑ మ ୑ భ
Ƚ ୑ మ ୑ మ
ǥ Ƚ ୑ మ ୑ా ‫ێ ۑ‬
୑మ ‫ۑ‬ ‫୑ ێ‬మ ‫ۑ‬ Step 3: Calculate the candidate buses using PLSF.
‫ۑ ڭ ێ ۑ ڭڰڭڭڰڭڭ ێ‬ ‫ۑ ڭ ێ‬ Step 4: Calculate the size of the source at the buses specified
Ⱦ
‫୐ా୑ ۏ‬భ Ⱦ ୑ా୐మ ǥ Ƚ ୑ా ୑భ Ƚ ୑ా ୑మ ǥ Ƚ ୑ా ୑ా ‫ے‬ ‫ۏ‬ ୑ ా ‫ے‬ ‫ے ా୑ۏ‬ by PLSF.
(6) Step 5: Calculate the power losses after installing the source
at all the buses specified by PLSF.
Where Step 6: Put the source at the bus give minimum losses.
୒୓ Step 7: For another source, install the unit at the candidate
 ୐౟ ൌ ෍ ൫Ƚ୐౟ ୞ ୞ െ Ⱦ୐౟ ୞  ୞ ൯ ‹ ൌ ͳǡʹǡ͵ǡ ǥ ǥ ǥ  (7) buses except first location and estimate the power loss after
୞ୀଵ
updating the network data
୞ஷ୐భ ǡ୐మ ǡ୐ఽ Step 8: Also install the source at the bus give minimum
୞ஷ୑భ ǡ୑మ ǡ୑ా
power losses
୒୓
Step 9: Restore the power losses for the two sources installed
then remove the first location.
୑౟ ൌ ෍ ൫Ⱦ୑౟ ୞ ୞ ൅ Ƚ୑౟ ୞  ୞ ൯‹ (8) Step 10: Try to calculate the size of the source at the
୞ୀଵ remaining buses with presence of the second unit and restore
୞ஷ୐భ ǡ୐మ ǡ୐ఽ
୞ஷ୑భ ǡ୑మ ǡ୑ా the losses estimated for each case
ൌ ͳǡʹǡ͵ǡ ǥ ǥ ǥ  Step 11: Arrange the power losses in ascending order with
corresponding buses.
Step 12: Choose the bus which give first value of the power
Let suppose matrix (6) equal matrix (9), ‹– ƒ„‡™”‹––‡ƒ•ǣ losses with the second location.
 Step 13: In case of more than two sources, the previous
ሾ ሿ ሾଵଶ ሿ୅ൈ୆ procedure will be repeated with considering one of the
൤ ଵଵ ୅ൈ୅ ൨
ሾଶଵ ሿ୆ൈ୅ ሾଶଶ ሿ୆ൈ୆ (9) existing previous sources is excluded and so on. Until
achieving minimum power losses.
Which can be rewritten asǣ Step 14: Updating the system information and calculate
 the power losses and note that , use matrix ሾܱଵଵ ሿ஺ൈ஺ to
calculate the of DGs only , for SC only using matrix ሾܱଶଶ ሿ஻ൈ஻
ሾ ሿ ሾଵଶ ሿ୅ൈ୆ ൣ୐౟ ൧୅ൈଵ ൣ ୐౟ ൧
൤ ଵଵ ୅ൈ୅ ൨൥ ൩ൌ൥ ୅ൈଵ
൩ (10) while for DGs with SCs using full matrix
ሾଶଵ ሿ୆ൈ୅ ሾଶଶ ሿ୆ൈ୆ ൣ ୑ ൧ ൣ ୑౟ ൧
౟ ୆ൈଵ ୆ൈଵ
V. SIMULATION RESULTS.
Next To verify the good performance of the proposed analytical
ൣ୐౟ ൧ ሾԢଵଵ ሿ ሾԢଵଶ ሿ ൣ ୐౟ ൧୅ൈଵ approach, it is applied on IEEE 33-bus and 69-bus RDS. The
୅ൈଵ
൥ ൩ൌ ൥ ൩ (11) single line diagram of 33-bus is shown in Fig. 3. Which has
ൣ ୑౟ ൧ ሾԢଶଵ ሿ ሾԢଶଶ ሿ ൣ୑ ൧
୆ൈଵ ౟ ୆ൈଵ 33 buses and 32 branches, the active loads are 3.715MW
and the reactive loads are 2.3MVAR. And the single line
ൣ୐౟ ൧ ൌ ሾԢଵଵ ሿ୅ൈ୅ ൣ ୐౟ ൧ ൅ ሾԢଵଶ ሿ୅ൈ୆ ൣ୑౟ ൧ (12)
diagram of 69-bus system is shown in Fig. 4. Which have
୅ൈଵ ୅ൈଵ ୆ൈଵ
69 buses and 68 branches the active load are 3.801.MW and
ൣ ୑౟ ൧ ൌ ሾԢଶଵ ሿ୆ൈ୅ ൣ ୐౟ ൧ ൅ ሾԢଶଶ ሿ୆ൈ୆ ൣ୑౟ ൧ (13) the reactive load s are 2.694 MVAR. The base voltage and
୆ൈଵ ୅ൈଵ ୆ൈଵ
 
apparent power for both systems are 12.66 kV, 100 MVA
Finally; the active power injected from the DG at bus L can respectively.
be determined from:

ቂሺୈୋሻై ቃ ൌ ൣ୐౟ ൧ ൅ ൣܲୈ౟ ൧ (14)

౟ ୅ൈଵ ୅ൈଵ
 
And the reactive power injected from the SC at bus M can be
determined from:

ቂ ሺୗେሻ౉ ቃ ൌ ൣ ୑౟ ൧ ൅ ൣܳୈ౟ ൧ (15)

౟ ୆ൈଵ ୆ൈଵ
Where ሺୈሻ ǡ  ሺୈሻ Active and reactive power loads
Fig.3. Single line diagram of IEEE 33 bus in RDS
 Also the proposed method specify buses 11, 21 and 61 as
best locations for incorporating three shunt capacitors with
sizes 0.368, 0.231 and 1.196 MVAR respectively. The power
losses obtained after installed three SCs are 145.21 kW
which best than 145.3 kW in heuristic approach [19], 145.24
kW in hybrid [8], 145.9 kW in GSA [20] and 147 kW in
DSA [10] . Also the minimum voltage improved to 0.9307
p.u at bus 65 as shown in Fig. 6.
3) Incorporating DGs with SCs
Similar to 33 RDS, the power losses have been obtained in
this case reached to lowest value as three DGs with three SCs
Fig.4. Single line diagram of IEEE 69bus in RDS installed in the system. The power losses reduce to 4.2632
kW which best than two previous cases and also slightly best
A. IEEE 33 BUS RDS than 4.27 kW in Hybrid [11] and best than 5.15 in PSO [11].
Table 1 illustrates the simulation results for three scenarios in And the minimum voltage improved to 0.9943 p.u at bus 50
order to check the effect of the proposed method in achieving as shown in Fig.6.
minimum power loss and voltage profile improvement. C. LOADING RATIO
1) Incorporating only DGs Also, in order to show the efficiency of the proposed
The proposed method specify buses 13,24 and 30 as method in achieving our objective functions (power loss
optimal locations for three DGs , which give active power reduction and voltage profile improvement) the optimum
losses 72.89 kW, which best than 75.54 kW in TLBO [7], locations and sizes of three DGs with three SCs in three
81.05 kW in IA [12] , 98.3 kW in BFOA [9] , 89.05kW in different loads variations are determined and shown in tables
BSOA [9] and it similar to hybrid [11] with simple difference 3-4. For 33 bus and 69 bus respectively. And it has been
in the sizes of the DGs. Also the minimum voltage has been obsereved from the results that the sizes of the sources
improved to 0.9670 pu at bus 33 which best than 0.9040 at increased with load increasing while the locations remain
bus 18 in base case as shown in Fig. 5. constant for three cases.
2) Incorporating only SCs
Also the proposed method specify buses 13, 24 and 30 as
optimal locations for incorporating three shunt capacitors
with sizes 0.359, 0.52 and 1.016 MVAR respectively. The
power losses obtained after installed three SCs are 138.37kW
which best than 138.65 kW in heuristic approach [19] and
144.04 kW in BFOA [9]. Also the minimum voltage
improved to 0.9303 p.u at bus 18 as shown in Fig. 5.
3) Incorporating DGs with SCs
Min power losses have been obtained in this case as three
DGs with three SCs installed in the system which decrease
the maximum flow of current in the lines. The power losses
reduce to 11.766 kW which best than two previous cases and
also best than 93.72 kW in GABC [5], 80.80 kW in MOPSO Fig .5.Voltage improvement of three scenarios in IEEE 33 bus RDS
[6] and 41.41kW in BFOA [9]. And the minimum voltage
improved to 0.9915 p.u at bus 8 as shown in Fig.5.
B. IEEE 69 BUS RDS
Similarly; Table 2 presents simulation results of 3 scenarios
for IEEE 69 bus as illustrated follow:
1) Incorporating only DGs
In this case three DGs installed at buses 11.17 and 61 and
the power losses reduce to 69.5467 kW from base case
224.999 kW which best than 72.4 kW in TLBO [7], 71.62
kW in QOTLBO [7], 69.6 kW in hybrid (analytical and PSO )
[12] and 69.7 kW in heuristic approach [19]. And also the
minimum voltage improved to 0.9770 p.u at bus 65 from base
case 0.9091 p.u at bus 65 as shown in Fig.6.
Fig.6.Voltage improvement of three scenarios in IEEE 69 bus RDS
2) Incorporating only SCs
 TABLE 1 PROPOSED METHOD RESULTS FOR THREE SCENARIOS COMPARABLE WITH OTHER TECHNIQUES IN STANDARD IEEE 33- BUS
Case Technique Bus Size Power loss V. min (bus) Reduction %
Base case - - - 210.97 0.9040 (18) 0
Proposed 13/24/30 0.79/1.07/1.012 72.89 0.9670 (33) 65.45
TLBO [7] 10/24/31 0.825/1.031/0.886 75.54 NA NA
IA [12] 6/12/31 0.900/0.900/0.720 81.05 NA NA
Only DGs
Hybrid [11] 13/24/30 0.790/1.070/1.010 72.89 NA NA
BFOA [9] 7/18/33 0.633/0.090/0.947 98.3 0.9645 53.41
BSOA[8] 13/28/31 0.632/0.487/0.550 89.05 0.9554 NA
Proposed 13/24/30 0.359/0.52/1.016 138.37 0.9303(18 ) 34.42
Heuristic approach [19] 13/25/30 0.383/0.386/1.001 138.65 NA NA
Only SCs
Hybrid [11] 13/24/30 0.360/0.510/1.020 138.37 NA NA
BFOA [9] 18/30/33 0.35/0.820/ 0.277 144.04 0.9361 31.72
13/24/30 0.788/1.071/1.007 (MW)
Proposed 11.766 0.9915(8) 94.42
13/24/30 0.365/0.516/1.007(MVAR)
28/29/30 1.098/0.132/0.609(MW)
GABC [5] 93.72 0.9629 55.58
16/17/18 0.300/0.150/0.150(MVAR)
DGs& SCs
9/23/30 0.911/ 0.669/ 1.423(MW)
MOPSO [6] 80.80 NA 61.70
10/21 1.05/ 1.20(MVAR)
17/18/33 0.542/ 0.160/0.895(MW)
BFOA [9] 41.41 0.9783 80.37
18/30/33 0.163/ 0.541/0.338(MVAR)

TABLE 2 PROPOSED METHOD RESULTS FOR THREE SCENARIOS COMPARABLE WITH OTHER TECHNIQUES IN STANDARD IEEE 69- BUS

Case Technique Bus Size Power loss V. min (bus) Reduction%

Base case - - - 224.999 0.9091 (65) 0
Proposed 11/17/61 0.499/0.377/1.668 69.5467 0.9770(65) 69.09
TLBO [7] 15/61/63 0.591/0.819/0.900 72.4 NA NA
Only DGs QOTLBO [7] 18/61/63 0.533/1.199/0.567 71.62 NA NA
Hybrid [11] 61/17/11 1.670/0.380/0.510 69.6 NA NA
Heuristic [19] 61/21/11 1.689/0/312/0.471 69.7 NA NA
Proposed 11/21/61 0.368/0.231/1.196 145.21 0.9307(65) 35.46
Heuristic[19] 61/21/12 1.210/0.226/0.320 145.3 NA NA
Only SCs Hybrid [11] 61/18/11 1.190/0.250/0.330 145.24 NA NA
GSA[20] 26/13//15 0.150/.150/1.050 145.9 NA 35.16
DSA [10] 61/15/60 0.900/0/450/0/450 147 NA 34.64
11/17/61 0.504/0.376/1.667(MW)
Proposed 4.2632 0.9943(50) 98.11
11/20/61 0.367/0.237/1.193(MVAR)
11/20/61 0.518/0.356/1.670(MW)
DGs & SCs Hybrid [11] 4.27 NA 98.1
11/20/61 0.375/0.230/1.194(MVAR)
11/21/61 0.633/0.321/1.647(MW)
PSO [11] 5.15 NA 97.7
18/53/61 0.326/0.206/1.192)(MVAR)
 TABLE 3. OPTIMAL ALLOCATION OF DGS AND SCS WITH THREE LOADING [3] A. A. Mohamed, S. Kamel, and M. M. Aly, “A simple analytical
RATIOS IN IEEE 33 BUS RDS technique for optimal capacitor placement in radial distribution systems,
Variable loads Fixed loads Variable loads ”in Power Systems Conference (MEPCON), 2017 Nineteenth
50% 100% 150% International Middle East: IEEE, pp. 928-933, 2017.
Loading ratio Loading ratio Loading ratio [4] S. Kamel, M. Mohamed, A. Selim, L. S. Nasrat, and F. Jurado, “Power
Bus Size Bus Size Bus Size System Voltage Stability Based on Optimal Size and Location of Shunt
Optimal DGs size 11 0.249 11 0.504 11 0.767 Capacitor Using Analytical Technique,” 2019 10th International
(MW) and 17 0. 188 17 0.376 17 0. 563 Renewable Energy Congress (IREC), Sousse, Tunisia, pp. 1-5, 2019.
locations 61 0. 835 61 1.667 61 2. 495 [5] M. Dixit, P. Kundu, and H. R. Jariwala, “Incorporation of distributed
Optimal SCs size 11 0.184 11 0.367 11 0.551 generation and shunt capacitor in radial distribution system for techno-
(MVAR) and 20 0.119 20 0.237 20 0.356 economic benefits. Engineering Science and Technology,” an
locations 61 0.597 61 1.193 61 1.790 International Journal, 20(2), 482-493, 2017.
Base losses 51.6060 224.999 560.5258 [6] A. Zeinalzadeh, Y. Mohammadi, and M.H. Moradi,“Optimal multi
P-loss (kW) after objective placement and sizing of multiple DGs and shunt capacitor
1.063 4.2632 9.6366 banks simultaneously considering load uncertainty via MOPSO
installation
approach,” Int. J.Electr. Power Energy Syst. 67, 336–349, 2015.
Min voltage 0.9567(65) 0.9091(65) 0.8560(65)
[7] S. Sultana, and P. K. Roy, “Multi-objective quasi-oppositional teaching
Min V after
0.9971 (50) 0.9943(50) 0.9914 (50) learning based optimization for optimal location of distributed generator
compensation
in radial distribution systems,” International Journal of Electrical Power
& Energy Systems, 63, 534-545, 2014.
TABLE 4. OPTIMAL ALLOCATION OF DGS AND SCS WITH THREE LOADING [8] El-Fergany, Attia, “Optimal allocation of multi-type distributed
RATIOS IN IEEE 69 BUS RDS generators using backtracking search optimization algorithm,”
Variable loads Fixed loads Variable loads International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 64, 1197-
50% 100% 150% 1205, 2015.
Loading ratio Loading ratio Loading ratio [9] M. I. A. M. Kowsalya, “Optimal Distributed Generation and capacitor
Bu placement in power distribution networks for power loss minimization,”
Bus Size Size Bus Size
s In 2014 International Conference on Advances in Electrical Engineering
Optimal DGs size
13 0.394 13 0.7881 13 1.182 (ICAEE), IEEE, pp. 1-6, January 2014.
(MW) and
24 0.534 24 1.071 24 1.611 [10] M. R. Raju, K. R. Murthy, and K. Ravindra, “ Direct search algorithm
locations
30 0.508 30 1.007 30 1.498 for capacitive compensation in radial distribution systems,” International
Optimal SCs size 13 0.183 13 0.365 13 0.545 Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 42(1), 24-30, 2012.
(MVAR) and 24 0.258 24 0.516 24 0.776 [11] S. Kansal, V.Kumar, and B. Tyagi, “Hybrid approach for optimal
locations 30 0.503 30 1.007 30 1.512 placement of multiple DGs of multiple types in distribution
Base losses 48.7896 210.97 519.8142 networks,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy
Systems, 75, 226-235, 2016.
P-loss (kW) after
2.9217 11.766 26.6864 [12] D. Q. Hung, and N. Mithulananthan, “Multiple distributed generator
installation
placement in primary distribution networks for loss reduction, ” IEEE
Min voltage 0.9540 (18) 0.9040(18) 0.8480 (18)
Transactions on industrial electronics, 60(4), 1700-1708, 2011.
Min V after
0.9962 (18) 0.9915(18) 0.9876 (18) [13] S. Sultana, and P.K. Roy, “Krill herd algorithm for optimal location of
compensation
distributed generator in radial distribution system,” Applied Soft
Computing, vol.40, pp.391-404, Mar. 2016.
VI. CONCLUSION [14] A.Y. Abdelaziz , E.S. Ali , and S.M. Abd Elazim, “Flower Pollination
In this paper an effective analytical method has been Algorithm and Loss Sensitivity Factors for optimal sizing and placement
of capacitors in radial distribution systems,” Electrical Power and
successfully implemented with PLSF for placement DGs and Energy Systems 78, 207–214, 2016.
SCs in RDS to minimize total active power losses. Using [15] E. S. Ali, S. M. Abd Elazim, and A. Y. Abdelaziz, “Improved harmony
different test systems such as IEEE 33 bus and 69 bus RDS, algorithm and power loss index for optimal locations and sizing of
the efficacy of the suggested method is explained. The results capacitors in radial distribution systems,” Int. J. Electric. Power Energy
Syst., vol. 80, pp. 252–263, 2016.
were compared using other algorithms with those acquired. [16] A. Kumar, P. V. Babu, and V. Murty, “Distributed Generators
The comparison shows that the suggested method delivers Allocation in Radial Distribution Systems with Load Growth using Loss
remarkable efficiency in terms of minimizing total losses and Sensitivity Approach,” Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India):
keeping the voltages with constraints as shown in tables and Series B, vol. 98, pp. 275-287, 2017.
[17] A. Selim, M. Abdel-Akher, M. M. Aly, S. Kamel, and T. Senjyu, “Fast
figures. quasi-static time-series analysis and reactive power control of
unbalanced distribution systems,” International Transactions on
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Electrical Energy Systems, 29(1), e2673, 2019.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the [18] A. Selim., M. Abdel-Akher, S. Kamel, and M. M. Aly, “A Developed
Approach Based on Lagrange Linear Prediction for Time-series Power-
NSFC (China)-ASRT (Egypt) Joint Research Fund, Project No. flow Simulation,” Electric Power Components and Systems, 46(11-12),
51861145406 for providing partial research funding to the 1312-1320, 2018.
work reported in this research. [19] A. Bayata, and A. Bagherib, “Optimal active and reactive power
allocation in distribution networks using a novel heuristic approach”
REFERENCES Applied Energy, 233–234, 71–85, 2019.
[20] Y. M. Shuaib, M. S. Kalavathi, and C. C. A . Rajan, “ Optimal capacitor
[1] H. N. Ng, M. M. A. Salama, and A. Y. Chikhani, “Classification of placement in radial distribution system using gravitational search
capacitor allocation techniques”, IEEE Transactions on power algorithm, ” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy
delivery, 15(1), 387-392, 2000. Systems, 64, 384-397, 2015.
[2] A. Selim, S. Kamel, and F. Jurado, “Power losses and Energy Cost
Minimization Using Shunt Capacitors Installation in Distribution
Systems,” International Renewable Energy Congress (IREC), Sousse,
Tunisia, pp. 1-6, 2019 10th.