Downloaded from http://iranpaper.

ir
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html

252
2012 Conference on Smart Electric Grids Technology (SEGT2012)
December 18-19, 2012, Tehran, Iran

Allocation and Sizing of a DG Unit Considering ZIP Load Model

M.Sadeghi*, M.Kalantar**
*Iran University of Science and Technology. Mahmood.sadeghi@gmail.com
** Iran University of Science and Technology, kalantar@iust.ac.ir

Index Terms—Distributed Generation, Dispersed Generation, DG, Allocation, Load Model, ZIP

Abstract— This paper proposes an algorithm to calculate
the optimal size and to locate the corresponding optimum
place for minimizing power loss of the power system with
considering load models for each bus. The method is tested
on 30 bus test system. The results is analyzed and compared
with that of comprehensive load flows and an approximate
loss formula based method. Results show that the proposed
approach to determine the load model and the suggested
algorithm lead to the best placement of the DG unit for loss
reduction. The DG that is considered in this paper is a
constant PQ generator unit, the “ZIP” load model is used in
this paper as well. The method by which the load models are
determined in this paper is least squares method.
A. Introduction
Distributed Generation (DG), which consists of
distributed resources, can be defined as electric power
generation within distribution networks or on the
customer side of the network [1]. Distributed
Generation (DG) is related with the use of small
generating units installed in strategic points of the
electric power system close to load centers [2]. The
technologies used in DG comprise as: micro turbines,
fuel cells, wind turbines, photovoltaic cells, gas
turbines, biomass fuelled gas turbines, etc. In order to
minimize line losses, improve the voltage profile and
all other positive effects, it is crucially important to
determine the size and location of local generation to
be placed. So, in recent years, several studies have
considered techniques for locating DG units on
distribution systems. Methods of different procedures
are summarized as below:
Ref [4], worked on optimal sitting and sizing
of Distributed Generations in radial and networked
systems. In addition they considered different load
models with voltage dependency. Ref [5], maximized
the integration of DG and energy export minimizing
losses and short circuit level with time varying load
model. The generator modeled with wind generation
and the optimization method is based on multi
objective optimization with NSGA. In[6], Soroudi and
Ehsan minimized the cost of active losses, investment
and operation cost of DG and emission cost. The load
is modeled with a multi load level and the generator is
modeled as negative PQ load with variable power
factor. The optimization solution is particle swarm
optimization method. Ref [7], has worked on sitting
and sizing of DG for optimal microgrid architecture
with simulated annealing optimization method. Ref [8],
describes a successive elimination algorithm to place
and size the DGs. Ref [9], describes a new heuristic
approach based on cost benefit analysis to optimally
determine the capacity and location of the DG from the
prospect of a distribution company. Ref [10], is about
optimal load flow with second order algorithm method.
Ref [11], is about genetic algorithm and herford ranch
algorithm which can find optimums.
As seen above, the problem of the placement
of the DG unit is considered in many papers and
studies but in approximately all the studies the load in
each bus is considered as constant load or it is
considered as special loads, such as increasingly loads,
uniformly distributed loads, centrally distributed loads
or etc[17]. The placement of DG unit with considering
of load models or nonlinear loads is not studied nearly
in the papers. Ref [12] is one of the papers that studies
about the allocation and sizing of the DG unit with

978-1-4799-3040-1/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html

253

considering of nonlinear load models. This paper This paper ignored from the frequency
analyzes the issue of the sizing and sitting of the DG variations, so the discussed model is in equations (3),
unit with residential, commercial, constant, industrial (4) [14]:
and mixed load models. Another paper is written by
this author about the sizing and sitting of the DG unit ⎡ V V ⎤
with GA algorithm. This paper assumes load models P = P0 ⎢ Z p ( ) 2 + I p ( ) + Pp ⎥ (3)
for each bus in a power system and after this ⎣ V0 V0 ⎦
assumption the placing and sizing of the DG is
analyzed.
One of the important issues about simulating a ⎡ V V ⎤
power system with load models for each bus is that the
Q = Q 0 ⎢ Z q ( ) 2 + I q ( ) + Pq ⎥ (4)
⎣ V0 V0 ⎦
load models should be simulated in a way that they can
show the specifications of the loads well, but in these
papers the load models of the buses is not calculated
and are assumed.
Z p + I p + P p = 1 (5)
The aim of this paper is to compare the
behavior of the power system with and without load
models, so at the fist step the algorithm of finding the Z q + I q + Pq = 1 (6)
load models for each bus in a power system is shown.
At the second step the algorithm of finding the best
size and the best place for the DG unit in a power Z p : % Resistance
system with an approximate function is shown. At last
the best places for the DG unit in a power system are Z q : % Reactance
analyzed and a priority list of the best places is
provided. After finding the priority list for placement
I p : % Active Current
of the DG unit the loads replaced with the load models I q : % Reactive Current
for each bus and then the priority list for placement of
the DG unit is determined. Finally the results of the Pp : % Active Power
proposed method and the power loss formula based
methodology [16] will be compared and the superiority Pq : % Reactive Power
of the proposed algorithm will be clarified. P0 , Q0 ,V0 : Nominal Values
V : Voltage of the Buses
B. ZIP Load Model
The constant active & reactive power loads is
used in the general load flow programs, but it should be C. Calculation of Parameters
considered that current, voltage and impedance of the As mentioned before, ZIP load model consists
load in all the times are not constant and varied of three parameters, constant impedance (Z), constant
dependent on the load, so the results of constant power current (I) and constant power (P), so in this section
consumption based calculations can not be correct. these parameters must be calculated. ZIP parameters
The load model that is considered in this paper can be determined by some methods. The optimization
is “ZIP” load model [13]. This load model consists of method that is used in this paper is Least Squares
three parts: Constant impedance (Z), constant current solution.
(I) and constant power (P). The constant current, The objective function that should be
constant power and constant impedance model that is minimized is as equation (7):
known as “ZIP” model is one of the most important
and appropriate models. n
⎛V ⎞
2
⎛V ⎞ ⎛P ⎞
This model is formulated in different shapes λ = ∑ ( Z P ⎜⎜ i ⎟⎟ + I P ⎜⎜ i ⎟⎟ + PP − ⎜⎜ i ⎟⎟ ) 2 (7)
that are shown in equations (1), (2) [13]: i =1 ⎝ V0 ⎠ ⎝ V0 ⎠ ⎝ P0 ⎠

The Vi and Pi are the input values. These are

⎡ V V ⎤ (1) the voltage and the power consumption at the
P = P0 ⎢ Z p ( ) 2 + I p ( ) + Pp (1 + K p f ) ⎥
V0 V0 correspond voltage of a bus. To simplify the above
⎣ ⎦
relation, we assume that the Vi and Pi values are in pu
base. So the above equation (7) is simplified to the
P ⎡ V 2 V ⎤
= ⎢ P1 ( ) + P2 ( ) + P3 ⎥ (1 + L DP Δ f ) (2) equation (8):
P0 ⎣ V 0 V0 ⎦
n

∑ (Z )2
These models are other derivations of the λ = P .V i 2 + I P .V i + PP − Pi (8)
general model in the fifth and seventh equations. i =1
Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html

254

The procedure of solving the problem is to

rij (12)
β ij = sin( δ i − δ j )
derive from the above equation to each parameters (Zp , ViV j
Ip , Pp ). After derivation, each equation should be
equal to zero. At last there will be 3 equations in 3
variables that should be solved. Pi = PGi − PDi , Qi = QGi − QDi (13)
To simplify and to solve the problem in order
to achieve the ZIP parameters, the equations are written
in matrix format. The matrix equation (9) is resulted. PGi & QGi are injection powers of generators to the
So the matrix of variables is calculated from
the reverse of the matrix (3*3) multiplied in the matrix bus.
(3*1). Equation (10) shows the ZIP parameters that are PDi & Q Di are the loads.
achieved in matrix format. So there should be some
Pi & Qi are the active and reactive power of the
points for each node that is calculated from dispatching
of the power system. These points can be achieved buses.
from the measurement devices that are placed in each
node in some hours in a day or in some hours in a week E. Proposed Algorithm
too. After five measurements (for example) with the
The purpose of this paper is to compare the
measurement devices or dispatching the power system
result of allocation of DG unit in a power system with
for each bus, there are five points for each node to
the same power system when the loads in each bus are
calculate the ZIP parameters. Now a ZIP load model is
simulated with a “ZIP” load model. So, at the first step,
calculated for each bus.
the optimum size of the DG unit for each bus in order
to minimize the power loss of the system is calculated.
⎡n 4 n n
⎤ ⎡n 2⎤
⎢∑2Vi ∑2V ∑2V ⎢∑2Pi .Vi ⎥
3 2 The algorithm used in this section is based on the
i i⎥ complete enumeration. At the end of this section all of
⎢ i=1 i=1 i=1
⎥ ⎡ZP ⎤ ⎢ i=1 ⎥ (9)
⎢n 3 n n
⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢n ⎥ the buses are ranked in a priority list (the minimum
⎢∑2Vi ∑2V i
2
∑ 2Vi ⎥ × ⎢I P ⎥ = ⎢∑2Pi .Vi ⎥ power loss to the maximum one). At the second step,
⎢ i=1 i=1 i=1 ⎥ ⎢P ⎥ ⎢ i=1 ⎥ we assume that the active and reactive generation of
⎢n 2 n
⎥ ⎣ P⎦ ⎢ n ⎥
⎢∑2Vi ∑2V ⎢∑2Pi ⎥
2n ⎥ the DG unit for each bus is given (the values that are
i
⎣ i=1 i=1 ⎦ ⎣ i=1 ⎦ calculated in the last step for each bus). The loads of
each bus are modeled with “ZIP” load model. The DG
units place in the buses and the power loss of the
−1 system with the help of equation (11) is computed for
⎡n 4 n n
⎤ ⎡n ⎤
⎢∑2Vi ∑2Vi3 ∑ 2Vi 2 ⎥ ⎢∑2Pi .Vi 2 ⎥ each placement of the DG unit. At the end of this step,
a priority list from minimum power loss to the
⎡ZP ⎤ ⎢ n ⎥ ⎢ i=1 ⎥
i =1 i =1 i =1

⎢I ⎥ = ⎢ 2V 3 ⎥ ⎢n ⎥ maximum one is formed. Now, the priority lists of the

n n

⎢ P ⎥ ⎢∑ ∑2V ∑ 2Vi ⎥ × ⎢∑2Pi .Vi ⎥ (10)

2
i i buses in the two steps, is compared.
⎢⎣PP ⎥⎦ ⎢ i=n1 i =1 i =1 ⎥ ⎢ i=1 ⎥ The algorithm of the computational procedure is
⎢ n ⎥ ⎢n ⎥
⎢∑2Vi ∑2V ⎥ ⎢∑2Pi ⎥
2
i 2n summarized as below. There are 3 steps in this
⎣ i=1 i =1 ⎦ ⎣ i=1 ⎦ algorithm, at the first step the optimum DG size for
each bus is computed and at the second step the
D. Loss equation priority list of the buses with the loads in each bus is
The purpose of this paper is to find the best found. At the last step the priority lists of the last 2
place for the DG unit to decrease the real power loss of steps will be compared.
the power system. Real power loss in a system is given 1. Sitting and sizing of the DG unit in the power
by (11) [16]. This equation is essential in finding the system.
best size and place of the DG unit, but it can not 1.1. Run the base case load flow.
receive the exact power loss of the power system. 1.2. Consider the active power limits of a DG
unit.
N N 1.3. Change active power from the minimum
PL = ∑∑[αij (Pi Pj +QiQj ) + βij (Qi Pj − PiQj )] (11) value to the maximum value with small steps.
i=1 j =1 1.4. In each of the real power steps, change the
reactive power from zero to eighty percent of
rij the real power on that step and then calculate
α ij = cos( δ i − δ j ) (12)
V iV j the loss from equation (11).
1.5. Store the reactive power that gives the
minimum loss for the related active power.
Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
1.6. Choose the real power with its reactive power
that gives the minimum loss for that bus.
1.7. Repeat these steps for all of the buses and
find the best size (active and reactive power)
of the DG units for each bus.
1.8. Compare the losses of each state and find the
minimum loss in the distribution system.
1.9. Store the bus that gives the minimum loss
with its DG sizes.
1.10. Run the base case load flow with DG.
1.11. Rank the buses in a priority list from the
minimum power loss to the maximum one.
2. Sitting of the DG unit in presence of the load models.
2.1. Run the base case load flow.
2.2. Place the DG unit with the given value in
each bus.
2.3. Calculate the power loss of the system with
the help of load flow program in each
placement of the DG unit.
2.4. Rank the buses in a priority list from the
minimum power loss to the maximum one.
3. Compare the priority lists of the 2 steps.
F. Simulations
The proposed algorithm is tested on 30 bus
test system [16]. There are some changes in the test
system that is used in this paper with the test system in
the ref [16]. The original 30 bus test system [16] has 1
generator, 32 lines and 27 constant PQ loads, but in
this paper an admittance is considered for some buses
as a constant impedance load, on the other hand the
loads of buses is modified in order to calculate an
appropriate ZIP load model for each bus. Fig.1 shows
the modified 30 bus test system.
Table 1 shows the real power loss of the
power system in 3 methods in presence of the optimum
size of the DG unit that is obtained in fig.2. The power
loss of the base system without the DG unit is shown in
table 1. The power loss calculated with equation (11) is
4.821 MW.
Fig.2 The Active & Reactive Generation of the DG Unit for each Bus
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html
255
The active power loss computed with load
flow program is 4.932 MW, and when the loads are
replaced with the load models the power loss will be
5.101 MW. As seen on the table, there are some
differences in the calculated loss in three methods.
A computer program has been written in
MATLAB7 to calculate the load model of each bus,
placement and sizing of the DG unit for the power
system. The PSAT software has been used for the
calculations related to load models in the power system
and load flows.
Fig.2 shows the optimum DG values obtained
for each bus.
Fig.1.Single Line Diagram of a 30 Bus Test System
Table 2 shows the load models computed for
each bus.
Table 3 shows the real power loss of the
power system in 3 methods with optimum size of the
DG unit obtained in fig.2. The power loss in the first
column that is based on the loss formula method [16],
is computed with equation (11). The third column
shows the losses are calculated with load flow program
that is the real power loss of the power system. The
fifth column shows the power loss of the test system is
computed with the proposed method.
Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html

256

As seen on the second and the fourth columns of table Table2. The Load Models Calculated for Each Bus.
3, the calculated power loss with the proposed method
is nearer to the real value calculated with load flow
program (calculated in the second column) for example Bus P(Active Power) Q(Reactive Power)
when the DG unit with size of 1.5 MW, 1.2 MVAr is No. Z% I% P% Z% I% P%
placed in bus 11, the power loss with the loss formula
based method [16] will be 4.666 MW, but the real 2 89.69 0 10.31 96.62 0 3.38
value of the active power loss is 4.087 MW, so there is 3 100 0 0 100 0 0
14.16% difference with the real value, but the proposed
method shows 4.121 MW active power loss that has 4 81.3 0 18.7 93.46 0 6.54
0.83% difference with the real value. In all of the 10.6
5 56.12 0 43.88 89.37 0
values the proposed method has the minimum 3
difference with the real value that is achieved with the 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
load flow program.
The reason of these differences is because of the 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
method of calculation. The values of the first column 8 76.98 0 23.02 96.49 0 3.51
are computed with equation (11) that is not an exact
formula and it gives an approximation of the real 9 0 0 100 0 0 100
power loss. With the help of this equation, consisting 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
of the priority list of DG allocation and finding the
optimum DG size, as seen in fig.2, can be possible, but 11 0 0 100 96.62 0 3.38
in order to calculate the exact power loss for checking 28.5
12 0 0 100 71.43 0
the accuracy of the priority list of the DG allocation 7
and analyzing the real power loss with load models 33.3
13 0 0 100 66.67 0
instead of the loads, the load flow program is run and 3
15.4
the results are shown. As seen on the table, the results 14 40.08 0 59.92 84.60 0
0
of the 3rd and the 5th columns have a little difference
that can be neglected. When the loads replaced with the 15 91.58 0 8.42 0 0 100
load models in the buses, and after that the DG unit is 16 72.99 0 27.01 97.01 0 2.99
placed in each bus, there will be a new topology from
19.7
software point of view, so there will be a little 17 17.45 0 82.55 80.21 0
9
difference in the results of these load flows that can be
18 0 0 100 0 0 100
neglected.
Table 4 shows the priority list of placement of 19 0 0 100 0 0 100
the DG unit is obtained from load flow program.
According to this table the buses 10, 11, 12, 24, 25, 26, 20 0 0 100 0 0 100
27 are the best buses for placement of the DG unit. 36.9
21 35.83 0 64.17 63.02 0
Table 5 shows the priority list of the DG 8
allocation that is obtained from loss formula based 22 0 0 100 0 0 100
method [16], equation (11) and table1. The buses are 62.6
ranked from minimum power loss to the maximum 23 31.88 0 68.12 37.36 0
4
one. According to the table4, buses 23, 24, 25, 26, are 24 89.69 0 10.31 0 0 100
the best locations for placement of the DG unit,
28.8
Because of the minimum power loss after placement of 25 37.49 0 62.51 71.12 0
8
the DG unit in the power systm. 45.7
26 13.57 0 86.43 54.26 0
4
Table1. The power loss of the base system 27 0 0 100 0 0 100

28 0 0 100 0 0 100
17.9
Load Flow 29 33.48 0 66.52 82.03 0
7
Eq.(11) With With Load 30 0 0 100 90.91 0 9.09
Loads Model
4.821 MW 4.932 MW 5.101 MW
Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html

257

Table 3. Power loss of the test system after DG allocation

%Increment of power loss %Increment of power loss Power Loss

Bus Power Loss Power Loss
with Eq.(11) to the power with load model to the with Load
No. with Eq.(11) with Load Flow
loss with load flow power loss with load flow Model
6 4.809 2.56 4.689 2.60 4.811
7 4.752 7.95 4.402 1.72 4.478
8 4.696 14.1 4.116 1.02 4.158
9 4.687 14.12 4.107 0.92 4.145
10 4.677 14.13 4.098 0.88 4.134
11 4.666 14.16 4.087 0.83 4.121
12 4.687 14.46 4.095 0.81 4.128
15 4.813 0.90 4.770 2.83 4.905
16 4.803 2.78 4.673 2.59 4.794
17 4.787 5.26 4.548 2.07 4.642
18 4.766 6.76 4.464 1.66 4.538
19 4.739 8.10 4.384 1.28 4.440
20 4.715 9.75 4.296 0.91 4.811
21 4.692 9.65 4.279 0.75 4.478
22 4.667 11.07 4.202 0.43 4.158
23 4.643 12.89 4.113 0.19 4.145
24 4.618 14.48 4.034 0.02 4.134
25 4.631 14.51 4.044 0.27 4.121
26 4.646 14.26 4.066 0.22 4.128
27 4.662 14.49 4.072 0.56 4.905
28 4.753 7.15 4.403 1.7 4.794
29 4.753 8.00 4.401 1.7 4.642
30 4.753 8.05 4.399 1.7 4.538

Table 4. priority list of placement of the DG unit with load flow results

Rank Losses between Bus No.

1 4.0 MW – 4.1 MW 10, 11, 12, 24 , 25 , 26 , 27
2 4.1 MW – 4.2 MW 8 , 9, 23
3 4.2 MW – 4.3 MW 20, 21, 22
4 4.3 MW – 4.4 MW 7, 19, 28, 29, 30
5 4.4 MW – 4.5 MW 18
6 4.5 MW – 4.6 MW 1718
7 4.6 MW – 4.7 MW 6,16
8 4.7 MW – 4.8 MW 15

Table5. Priority list of placement of the DG unit with loss formula based

Rank Losses between Bus No.

1 4.6 MW- 4.65 MW 23 , 24 , 25 , 26
2 4.65 MW- 4.70 MW 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 21 , 22 , 27
3 4.70 MW – 4.75 MW 19 , 20
4 4.75 MW- 4.80 MW 6 , 7 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 28 , 29 , 30
5 4.80 MW – 4.85 MW 15

Table 6 is the priority of the placement of the Table 7 summarizes these results. As seen on
DG unit achieved from the proposed methodology. The the table, the results of the proposed method are
buses 24, 25, 26, 27 are the best places for placement approximately the same as the real results.
the DG units.
Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
Table6. Priority list of placement of the DG unit with load model results
Rank Losses between
1 4.0 MW – 4.1 MW
2 4.1 MW – 4.2 MW
3 4.2 MW – 4.3 MW
4 4.3 MW – 4.4 MW
5 4.4 MW – 4.5 MW
6 4.5 MW – 4.6 MW
7 4.6 MW – 4.7 MW
8 4.7 MW – 4.8 MW
9 4.8 MW – 4.9 MW
10 4.9 MW – 5.0 MW
Table7. Comparison of the results of different approaches
Power Loss (MW)
Optimum Locations
With Load Flow
24 4.034
25 4.044
26 4.066
27 4.072
G. CONCLUSION
This paper modeled the loads of a power
system with ZIP load model with least squares
optimization method and analyzes the effect of load
models on placement of DG unit and compare it with
the state that there are loads on the buses instead of the
load models (there is only the loads connected to the
buses). The results show that the load model can
simplify the placement of the DG unit and gives the
correct location for placement of the DG unit.
The most important specification of this paper
is to simulate the loads of a power system with a load
model that can show the behavior of the power system
well. After modeling the loads with ZIP load model
allocation of the DG unit is done. The results in
compare with the state that there are only the loads (the
loads are not modeled) showed that this load model can
apply to the system and will show the specification of
the power system well. This method is applied on a 30
bus test system and the results of the simulation show
the applicability of the method.
H. References
T.Ackermann, G.Anderson, L.Soder, “Distributed Generation: A
Definition”, Electric Power System Research 57, 2001, pp.195-
204.
Carmen L.T.Borges, Djalma M.Falcao,”Optimal Distributed
Generation Allocation for Reliability, Losses and Voltage
Profile Improvement”, Electric Power and Energy Systems,
28(2006), pp.413-420.
S.W/Illerhaus, J.S.Versteg,”Optimal Operation of Industrial CHP
Based Power Systems in Liberalized Energy Markets”, IEEE
Industry Applications Conference, 2000, vol..2, pp.901-908.
R.K.Singh,S.K.Goswamj,”Optimal Sitting and Sizing of Distributed
Generations in Radial and Networked Systems Considering
Different Voltage Dependent Static Load Models”, 2nd IEEE
International Conference on Power and Energy (PECON),
December 1-3, 2008, Johor Baharu, Malaysia, pp.1535-1540.
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html
258
Bus No.
24 , 25 , 26 , 27
8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 23
22
20 , 21
7 , 19 , 28 , 29 , 30
18
17
16
6
15
With Eq.(11) With Load Model
4.618 4.035
4.631 4.055
4.646 4.075
4.662
Ochoa,L.F., Padiha-Feltrin, et 4.095
al.,”Time Series Based Maximization
of Distributed Wind Generation Integration”, IEEE Trans.
Energy Conversion, vol.3, no.3, pp.968-974.
Soroudi A,”Multi Objective Distributed Generation Planning in
Liberalized Electricity Market”, in Proc. 2008, pp.1-7.
Maaikarjuna R.Vallem, Joydeep Mitra,”Sitting and Sizing of
Distributed Generation for Optimal Microgrid Architecture”,
Power Symposium, 2005. Proceedings of the 37th Annual
North American, pp. 611-616.
R.E.Brown,” Sitting Distributed Generation to Defer T&D
Expansion”, IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution
Conference and Exposition, 2001, vol.2, pp.622-627.
W.El-khattam, K.Bhattacharya, Y.Hegazy, M.M.A.Salma, “Optimal
Investment Planning for Distributed Generation in a
Competetive Electricity Market”, IEEE Trans. On Power
Systems, vol.19, no.3, aug 2004.
S.Rau and Y.H.Wan,”Optimum Location of Resources in Distributed
Planning”, IEEE Trans. Power System, vol.9, no.7, 1994,
pp.2014-2020.
K.H.Kim, Y.J.Lee, S.B.Rhee, S.K.Lee, S.Ok.You, “Dispersed
Generator Placement Using FUZZY-GA in Distribution
Systems”, IEEE Summer Meeting, vol.3,july 2002, pp.1148-
1153.
Devender Singh, R.K.Misra, Deependra Singh,” Effect of Load
Models in Distributed Generation Planning”, IEEE Trans.
Power Systems, vol.22, no.4, Nov.2007,pp.2204-2212.
IEEE Task Force,”Standard Load Models for Power Flow and
Dynamic Performance Simulations”, IEEE Trans. Power
Systems, vol.10,no.3,aug 1999.
M.Haghifam, K.E.Jome, B.Khaki, “Analyzing the Effect of Different
Load Models on Load Flow of the Distribution Power
Systems”, the Ninth Students Electrical and Electronic Eng.
Conference 1385, Tehran, Iran.
Ines Romero Navarro, “Dynamic Load Models for Power Systems,”
Licentiate Thesis, Lund University, Department of Industrial
Electrical Engineering and Automation, 2002.
Naresh Acharya, Pukar Mahat, N.Mithulananthan, “An Analytical
Approach for DG Allocation in Primary Distribution Network”,
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28, Science Direct,
pp.559-678, 2006.
Caisheng Wang , M.Hashem Nehrir , "Analytical Approaches for
Optimal of Distributed Generation Sources in Power Systems "
, IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, Vol. 19, No.4, November
2004
Amany M.El-Zonkoly, "Optimal Placement of Multi DG Units
Including Different Load Models Using PSO", Scientific
Research, Smart Grid Renewable Energy,2010,1,160-171