Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 669–678

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

An analytical approach for DG allocation in primary

distribution network
Naresh Acharya, Pukar Mahat, N. Mithulananthan *

Electric Power System Management, Energy Field of Study, Asian Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 4, Klong luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand

Received 22 March 2005; received in revised form 15 December 2005; accepted 24 February 2006

Abstract

This paper proposes an analytical expression to calculate the optimal size and an effective methodology to identify the corresponding
optimum location for DG placement for minimizing the total power losses in primary distribution systems. The analytical expression and
the methodology are based on the exact loss formula. The effect of size and location of DG with respect to loss in the network is also
examined in detail. The proposed methodology was tested and validated in three distribution test systems with varying size and complex-
ity. Results obtained from the proposed methodology are compared with that of the exhaustive load flows and loss sensitivity method.
Results show that the loss sensitivity factor based approach may not lead to the best placement for loss reduction.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Distributed generation; Exact loss formula; Optimum size; Optimum location; Sensitivity factors

1. Introduction
The share of distributed generators (DGs) in power sys-
tems has been slowly increasing in the last few years.
According to CIGRE report [1], the contribution of DG
in Denmark and the Netherlands has reached 37% and
40%, respectively, as a result of liberalization of power
market in Europe. Electric Power Research Institute’s
(EPRI) study forecasts that 25% of the new generation will
be distributed by 2010 and a similar study by the Natural
Gas Foundation believes that the share of DG in new gen-
eration will be 30% by the year 2010 [2]. The numbers may
vary as different agencies define DG in different way, how-
ever, with the Kyoto protocol put in place where there will
be a favorable market for DG that are coming from
‘‘Green Technologies,’’ the share of DG would increase
and there is no sign that it would decrease in near future.
Moreover, the policy initiatives to promote DG through-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +66 2 524 5405; fax: +66 2 524 5439.
E-mail address: mithulan@ieee.org (N. Mithulananthan).
out the world also indicate that the number will grow rap-
idly. As the penetration of DG in distribution system
increases, it is in the best interest of all players involved
to allocate DG in an optimal way such that it will reduce
system losses and hence improve voltage profile.
Studies have indicated that inappropriate selection of
location and size of DG, may lead to greater system losses
than the losses without DG [3,4]. Utilities already facing
the problem of high power loss and poor voltage profile,
especially, in the developing countries cannot tolerate any
increase in losses. By optimum allocation, utilities take
advantage of reduction in system losses; improve voltage
regulation and improvement in reliability of supply [3–5].
It will also relieve capacity from transmission and distribu-
tion system and hence, defer new investments, which have a
long lead-time.
DG could be considered as one of the viable options to
ease some of the problems (e.g. high loss, low reliability,
poor power quality, congestion in transmission system)
faced by the power systems, apart from meeting the
energy demand of ever growing loads. In addition, the

0142-0615/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2006.02.013
670 N. Acharya et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 669–678
modular and small size of the DG will facilitate planner to
install it in a shorter time frame compare to the conven-
tional solution. It would be more beneficial to install
DG in the present utility setup, which is moving towards
a more decentralized environment, where there is a larger
uncertainty in demand and supply. However, given the
choices they need to be placed in appropriate locations
with suitable sizes. Therefore, tools are needed to be
developed to examine locations and sizing of such DG
installation.
The optimum DG allocation can be treated as optimum
active power compensation, like capacitor allocation for
reactive power compensation. DG allocation studies are
relatively new, unlike capacitor allocation. In Ref. [6,7],
power flow algorithm is presented to find the optimum
DG size at each load bus assuming every load bus can have
DG source. Such methods are, however, inefficient due to a
large number of loadflow computations. The genetic algo-
rithm (GA) based method to determine size and location is
used in [8–10]. GA is suitable for multi-objective problems
like DG allocation and can give near optimal results, but
they are being computationally demanding and slow in
convergence. In Ref. [11], analytical method to place DG
in radial as well as meshed systems to minimize power loss
of the system is presented. In this method separate expres-
sions for radial and network system are derived and a com-
plex procedure based on phasor current is proposed to
solve the location problem. However, this method only
optimizes location and considers size of DG as fixed.
In this paper, an analytical expression to calculate
optimum size and an effective methodology to identify
the optimum location for DG placement are proposed.
The methodology is computationally less demanding.
The DG is considered to be located in the primary distri-
bution system and the objective of DG placement is to
reduce the losses. The cost of DG and the other associ-
ated benefits have not been considered while solving the
location and sizing problem. The sizing and placement
of DG is based on single instantaneous demand at peak,
where the losses are maximum. The proposed methodol-
ogy is suitable for allocation of single DG in a given
distribution network.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2
gives a brief introduction to distributed generation, includ-
ing definition, characteristic and applications. Section 3
presents the importance of selection of proper location
and size of DG for minimizing distribution losses. A widely
used loss sensitivity factor method is presented in Section 4.
A novel and fast methodology for determining the opti-
mum size and location of DG in distribution network is
described in Section 5. Section 6 portrays the test distribu-
tion systems used in the paper. A brief summary of the
software tool used to obtain the result also included in this
section. Numerical results along with some observations
and discussions are presented in Section 7. Finally, the
major contributions and conclusions of the papers are sum-
marized in Section 8.
2. Distributed generation
Distributed generation is an electric power source con-
nected directly to the distribution network or customer side
of the meter [12]. It may be understood in simple term as
small-scale electricity generation. The definition of distrib-
uted generation takes different forms in different markets
and countries and is defined differently by different agencies.
International Energy Agency (IEA) defines Distributed gen-
eration as generating plant serving a customer on-site or pro-
viding support to a distribution network, connected to the
grid at distribution-level voltages [12]. CIGRE defines DG
as the generation, which has the following characteristics
[1]: It is not centrally planned; It is not centrally dispatched
at present; It is usually connected to the distribution net-
work; It is smaller than 50–100 MW. Other organization like
Electric Power Research Institute defines distributed gener-
ation as generation from a few kilowatts up to 50 MW [13].
In general, DG means small scale generation.
There are a number of DG technologies available in the
market today and few are still in research and development
stage. Some currently available technologies are reciprocat-
ing engines, micro turbines, combustion gas turbines, fuel
cells, photovoltaic, and wind turbines. Each one of these
technologies has its own benefits and characteristics.
Among all the DG, diesel or gas reciprocating engines
and gas turbines make up most of the capacity installed
so far. Simultaneously, new DG technology like micro tur-
bine is being introduced and an older technology like recip-
rocating engine is being improved [12]. Fuel cells are
technology of the future. However, there are some proto-
type demonstration projects. The costs of photovoltaic sys-
tems are expected to falling continuously over the next
decade. This all underlines the statement that the future
of power generation is DG.
Supplying peaking power to reduce the cost of electric-
ity, reduce environmental emissions through clean and
renewable technologies (Green Power), combined heat
and power (CHP), high level of reliability and quality of
supplied power and deferral of the transmission and distri-
bution line investment through improved loadability are
the major applications of the DG [14]. Other than these
applications, the major application of DG in the deregu-
lated environment lies in the form of ancillary services.
These ancillary services include spinning and non-spinning
reserves, reactive power supply and voltage control etc.
[15]. DG also has several benefits like reducing energy costs
through combined heat and power generation, avoiding
electricity transmission costs and less exposure to price vol-
atility. Though the DG is considered as a viable solution to
most of the problems that today’s utility are facing, there
are many problems (e.g. DG integration into grid, pricing,
change in protection scheme, nuisance tripping etc.) that
need to be addressed. Furthermore, the type of DG tech-
nology adopted will have significant bearing on the solu-
tion approach. In this study, DGs capable of supplying
real power only are considered.
 N. Acharya et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 669–678
3. Location and sizing issues
Fig. 1 shows a 3D plot of typical power loss versus size
of DG at each bus in a distribution system. From the fig-
ure, it is obvious that for a particular bus, as the size of
DG is increased, the losses are reduced to a minimum value
and increased beyond a size of DG (i.e. the optimal DG
size) at that location. If the size of DG is further increased,
the losses starts to increase and it is likely that it may over-
shoot the losses of the base case. Also notice that location
of DG plays an important role in minimizing the losses.
The important conclusion that can be drawn from Fig. 1
is that, given the characteristics of the distribution system, it
is not advisable to construct sufficiently high DG in the net-
work. The size at most should be such that it is consumable
within the distribution substation boundary. Any attempt
to install high capacity DG with the purpose of exporting
power beyond the substation (reverse flow of power though
distribution substation), will lead to very high losses. So, the
size of distribution system in term of load (MW) will play
important role is selecting the size of DG. The reason for
higher losses and high capacity of DG can be explained
by the fact that the distribution system was initially
designed such that power flows from the sending end
(source substation) to the load and conductor sizes are
gradually decreased from the substation to consumer point.
Thus without reinforcement of the system, the use of high
capacity DG will lead to excessive power flow through
small-sized conductors and hence results in higher losses.
Based on this the DG allocation can be handled by resolv-
ing the sizing issue first followed by the location issue. How-
ever, existing technique such as loss sensitivity method finds
the location issue before and sizing issue. This may not result
Fig. 1. Effect of size and location of DG on system loss.
671
in the best choice. A brief description of loss sensitivity fac-
tor method and associated problems are presented below.
4. Loss sensitivity factor method
Sensitivity factor method is based on the principle of lin-
earization of original nonlinear equation around the initial
operating point, which helps to reduce the number of solu-
tion space. Loss sensitivity factor method has been widely
used to solve the capacitor allocation problem [16]. Its
application in DG allocation is new in the field and has
been reported in [4].
4.1. Loss sensitivity
The real power loss in a system is given by (1). This is
popularly referred to as ‘‘exact loss’’ formula [17].
N X
X N
PL ¼ ½aij ðP i P j þ Qi Qj Þ þ bij ðQi P j  P i Qj Þ ð1Þ
i¼1 j¼1
r r
where aij ¼ V iijV j cosðdi  dj Þ, bij ¼ V iijV j sinðdi  dj Þ and rij +
jxij = Zij are the ijth element of [Zbus] matrix with [Zbus] =
[Ybus]1.
The sensitivity factor of real power loss with respect to
real power injection from DG is given by
oP L XN
ai ¼ ¼2 ðaij P j  bij Qj Þ ð2Þ
oP i i¼1
Sensitivity factors are evaluated at each bus, firstly using
the values obtained from the base case power flow. The
buses are ranked in descending order of the values of their
sensitivity factors to form a priority list. The top-ranked
buses in the priority list are the first to be studied alterna-
tives location. This is generally done to take into account of
the effect of nonlinearities in the system. The first order sen-
sitivity factor are based on linearization of the original
nonlinear equation around the initial operating condition
and is biased towards function which has higher slope at
the initial condition, that might not identify the global opti-
mum solution. This condition is depicted in Fig. 2. There-
fore, priority list of candidate location is prerequisite to get
the optimum solution.
Fig. 2 shows a probable case, captured from the trend of
losses in Section 3. The curve with solid line has highest
sensitivity factor at the initial operating condition than dot-
ted curve, but does not give the lowest loss, as PL1 > PL2.
It shows why the sensitivity factor may not give the opti-
mum result if a number of alternative locations are not
taken into account.
4.2. Priority list
The sensitivity factor will reduce the solution space to
few buses, which constitute the top ranked buses in the
priority list. The effect of number of buses taken in priority
672 N. Acharya et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 669–678

losses the rate of change of losses with respect to injected

power becomes zero.

oP L XN
¼2 ðaij P j  bij Qj Þ ¼ 0 ð3Þ
oP i j¼1

It follows that
X
N
aii P i  bii Qi þ ðaij P j  bij Qj Þ ¼ 0
j¼1;j6¼i
" # ð4Þ
1 X
N
Pi ¼ b Q þ ðaij P j  bij Qj Þ
aii ii i j¼1;j6¼i

where, Pi is the real power injection at node i, which is the

difference between real power generation and the real
Fig. 2. Nonlinearity in loss curve.
power demand at that node:
P i ¼ ðP DGi  P Di Þ ð5Þ
where, PDGi is the real power injection from DG placed at
will have effect the optimum solution obtained for some
node i, and PDi is the load demand at node i. By combining
system. For each bus in the priority list, the DG is placed
(4) and (5) one can get (6).
and the size is varied from minimum (0 MW) to a higher " #
value until the minimum system losses is found with the 1 XN

DG size. In this study, 30% of the total number of buses
is considered in preparing the priority list for each case.
The process is computationally demanding as one needs a
large number of load flow solution.
4.3. Computational procedure
Step 1: Run the base case load flow.
Step 2: Find the sensitivity factor using Eq. (2) and rank
the sensitivity in descending order to form priority
list.
Step 3: Select the bus with the highest priority and place
DG at that bus.
Step 4: Change the size of DG in ‘‘small’’ step and calcu-
late loss for each by running load flow.
Step 5: Store the size of DG that gives the minimum loss.
Step 6: Compare the loss with the previous solution. If loss
is less than previous solution, store this new solu-
tion and discard previous solution.
Step 7: Repeat Step 4 to Step 6 for all buses in the priority
list.
5. Proposed methodology
In this section, a new methodology is proposed to find
the optimum size and location of DG in the distribution
system. This methodology requires load flow to be carried
out only two times, one for the base case and another at the
end with DG included to obtain the final solution.
5.1. Sizing at various locations
According to Section 3, the total power loss against
injected power is a parabolic function and at minimum
P DGi ¼ P Di þ b Q  ðaij P j  bij Qj Þ ð6Þ
aii ii i j¼1;j6¼i
The above equation gives the optimum size of DG for
each bus i, for the loss to be minimum. Any size of DG
other than PDGi placed at bus i, will lead to higher loss.
This loss, however, is a function of loss coefficient a and
b. When DG is installed in the system, the values of loss
coefficients will change, as it depends on the state variable
voltage and angle. Updating values of a and b again
requires another load flow calculation. But numerical result
shows that the accuracy gained in the size of DG by updat-
ing a and b is small and is negligible. With this assumption,
the optimum size of DG for each bus, given by relation (6)
can be calculated from the base case load flow (i.e. without
GD case).
5.2. Location to minimize losses
The next step is to find the optimum DG location, which
will give the lowest possible total losses. Calculation of loss
with DG one at a time at each bus again requires several
load flow solutions, as many as number of buses in the sys-
tem. Therefore a new methodology is proposed to quickly
calculate approximate loss, which would be used for the
purpose of identifying the best location. Numerical result
shows that approximate loss follows the same pattern as
that calculated by accurate load flow. It means that, if
accurate loss calculation from load flow gives minimum
for a particular bus then, loss calculated by approximate
loss method will also be minimum at that bus. This is ver-
ified by the simulation results shown in Figs. 9–11. What
differs is the amount of losses, which is not a concern for
identifying location. With this methodology one can avoid
exhaustive computation and save time.
 N. Acharya et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 669–678 673

5.3. Computational procedure
Step 1: Run the base case load flow.
Step 2: Find the optimum size of DG for each bus using
Eq. (6).
Step 3: Compute approximate loss using Eq. (1) for each
bus by placing DG of optimum size obtained in
step 2 for that bus. Add the injection from DG
for that bus and use base case values for state
variables.
Step 4: Locate the bus at which the loss is minimum after
DG placement. This is the optimum location for
DG.
Step 5: Run load flow with DG to get the final result.
single line diagram of the test system is shown in Fig. 3.
The second test system as depicted on Fig. 4 contains 33
buses and 32 branches. It is a radial system with the total
load of 3.72 MW and 2.3 MVAR [18]. The third test system
shown in Fig. 5 is the widely used 69 bus-68 branches radial
system with the total load demand of 3.80 MW and
2.69 MVAR [19].
A computer program has been written in MATLAB 7 to
calculate the optimum sizes of DG at various buses and
approximate total losses with DG at different locations to
identify the best location. A Newton–Raphson algorithm
based load flow program is used to solve the load flow
problem.
7. Simulation results

6. Test system and analytical tools 7.1. Sizes allocation

The proposed methodology is tested on three different
test systems, of different sizes to show that it can be imple-
mented in distribution systems of various configuration
and size. The first system is a 30 bus-32 branches loop sys-
tem with the total load of 4.43 MW and 2.72 MVAR [3]. A
Based on the proposed analytical expression, optimum
sizes of DGs are calculated at various nodes for the three
test systems. Figs. 6–8 show optimum sizes of DG at various
nodes for 30, 33 and 69 bus distribution test systems, respec-
tively. As far as one location is concerned, in a distribution

Fig. 3. Single line diagram of 30 bus distribution test system.

Fig. 4. Single line diagram of 33 bus distribution test system.

674 N. Acharya et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 669–678

Fig. 5. Single line diagram of 69 bus distribution test system.

4
Optimum DG Size (MW)

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 25 26 27 28 29 30
Bus No.

Fig. 6. Optimum size of DG at various nodes for 30 bus distribution test system.

test system, corresponding figure would give the value of
DG size to have a ‘‘possible minimum’’ total loss. Any reg-
ulatory body can use this as a lookup table for restricting
the sizes of DG for minimizing the total power losses in
the system.
In 30 bus distribution test system, the optimum sizes
ranging from 2.5 to 4.75 MW as shown in Fig. 6. The rang
of DG sizes for the other two test systems at various loca-
tions are 0.3–4.0 MW and 0.1–4 MW, respectively. How-
ever, it is important to identify the location in which the
total power loss is minimum. This can be identified with
the help of the approximate method described in subsec-
tion 5.2.
7.2. Location selection
Figs. 9–11 show the approximate total power losses for
30, 33 and 69 bus distribution systems, respectively, with
optimum DG sizes obtained at various nodes of respective
systems. The figures also show the accurate loss. As can be
from these figures the trend of the losses is captured with
the help of approximate solution which is good enough
 N. Acharya et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 669–678 675

4
Optimum DG Size (MW)

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 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Bus No.

Fig. 7. Optimum size of DG at various locations for 33 bus distribution system.

Fig. 8. Optimum size of DG at various locations for 69 bus distribution system.

to identify the location that would lead to the least total
power losses. Notice that approximated losses pattern of
the system with optimum sizes of DG at various nodes fol-
lows the accurate losses in all the cases.
In 30 bus distribution test system the best (optimum)
location of DG is bus 12, where the total power losses
reduced to 0.154 MW, as depicted in Fig. 9. The second
best location is bus 27, where the total power losses is
0.156 MW, little higher than the first location.
In 33 bus distribution test system, the best location is bus 6
with a total power loss of 0.111 MW and the second best loca-
tion is bus 7 with slightly higher total power losses as shown in
Fig. 10. In 69 bus distribution test system the optimum loca-
tion is obvious as shown in Fig. 10. The best location for DG
installation is bus 61, in one of the lateral feeders, with a total
power loss of 0.081 MW. The second best location in this test
system is bus 62 with a total power loss of 0.083 MW. All
these results are summarized in the next section.
676 N. Acharya et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 669–678

0.4

Approximate Loss
Accurate Loss
0.35
Total Power Losses (MW)

0.3

0.25

0.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
DG Location

Fig. 9. Approximate and accurate losses of 30 bus distribution test system.

0.22

Approximate Loss

Accurate Loss
0.2

0.18
Total Power Losses (MW)

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
DG Location

Fig. 10. Approximate and accurate losses of 33 bus distribution test system.
 N. Acharya et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 669–678 677

0.22

0.2

0.18
Total Power Losses (MW)

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1 Approximate Loss

Accurate Loss

0.08
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
DG Location

Fig. 11. Approximate and accurate losses of 69 bus distribution test system.

7.3. Summary sequent results apart from power quality and reliability
improvement.
Table 1 shows the summary of results, optimum loca-
tion, corresponding optimum size of DG and total power
loss with and without DG, of all the test systems. The 7.4. Comparison of results
reduction in real power loss for the three cases is 59.6%,
47.3% and 62.8%, respectively. As can be seen from results In this section, the traditional sensitivity approach for
of various systems the location and size of DG play an DG location selection is compared with the proposed
important role in loss reduction of primary distribution approach and repeated load flow.
systems. Table 2 shows the best locations obtained from the loss
From the results obtained for the three systems one can sensitivity factor, proposed approach are repeated load
conclude that by placing DG of optimum size at optimum flow or ‘‘exhaustive’’ approach. For the first two test sys-
location, significant reduction in loss can be achieved. Volt- tems the loss sensitivity approach is not able to identify
age profile improvement, reduction in thermal capacity of the best locations, instead it picked up the second best loca-
the main feeder and better voltage regulation are some con- tion as its first choice in the 30 bus distribution test system
and ninth optimum location as its first choice in the 33 bus
distribution test system. This happens due to the lineariza-
Table 1
tion and approximation as explained Section 4. Table 2
Summary of the simulation results
also shows the optimum sizes of DG. The optimum sizes
Test systems Optimum Optimum DG Power loss (kW)
for locations bus 27 of 30 bus distribution system and
location size (MW) Without DG With DG bus 10 of 33 bus system can be verified from Figs. 6 and
30 bus Bus 12 3.3 383.61 154.87 7, respectively.
33 bus Bus 6 2.49 211.20 111.24 In calculating the optimum sizes of DG at various loca-
69 bus Bus 61 1.81 219.28 81.44
tions, using Eq. (6), it was assumed that the values of

Table 2
Comparison of the results of different approaches
Test systems Loss sensitivity Proposed approach Repeated load flow
Optimum Optimum DG Real power Optimum Optimum DG Real power Optimum Optimum DG Real power
location size (MW) loss (kW) location size (MW) loss (kW) location size (MW) loss (kW)
30 bus Bus 27 3.2 156.28 Bus 12 3.3 154.87 Bus 12 3.5 154.5
33 bus Bus 10 1.4 123.82 Bus 6 2.49 111.24 Bus 6 2.6 111.1
69 bus Bus 61 1.9 81.33 Bus 61 1.81 81.44 Bus 61 1.9 81.33
678 N. Acharya et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 669–678
variable remain unchanged. This is the reason why there is a
small difference between the optimum size obtained from
the proposed approach and repeated load flow. However,
in reality, one would go for the closest size available in
the market and these differences are within margin of error.
8. Conclusion
Size and location of DG are crucial factors in the appli-
cation of DG for loss minimization. This paper presents an
algorithm to calculate the optimum size of DG at various
buses and proposes a fast methodology to identify the best
location corresponding to the optimum size for reducing
total power losses in primary distribution network. The
benefit of the proposed algorithm for size calculation is
that a look up table can be created with only one power
flow calculation and the table can be used to restrict the
size of DG at different buses, with the view of minimizing
total losses. However, if a DG is installed in the system,
the look up table needs to be updated with new calculation.
The proposed methodology for location selection correctly
identifies the best location for single DG placement in
order to minimize the total power losses.
In practice, the choice of the best site may not be always
possible due to many constraints. However, the analysis
here suggests that the losses arising from different place-
ment varies greatly and hence this factor must be taken
into consideration while determining appropriate location.
The paper also shows that the loss sensitivity factor
approach for location selection may not lead to the best
choice.
References
[1] CIGRE. Impact of increasing contribution of dispersed generation on
the power system. Working Group 37.23, 1999.
[2] CIGRE. CIGRE technical brochure on modeling new forms of
generation and storage, November 2000. Available from: http://
microgrids.power.ece.ntua.gr/documents/CIRE-TF-380110.pdf.
[3] Mithulananthan N, Oo Than, Van Phu Le. Distributed generator
placement in power distribution system using genetic algorithm to
reduce losses. TIJSAT 2004;9(3):55–62.
[4] Griffin T, Tomosovic K, Secrest D, Law A. Placement of dispersed
generations systems for reduced losses. In: Proceedings of the 33rd
Hawaii international conference on sciences, Hawaii, 2000.
[5] Borges CLT, Falcao DM. Impact of distributed generation allocation
and sizing on reliability, losses and voltage profile. In: Proceedings of
IEEE Bolonga power technology conference, 2003.
[6] Row NS, Wan Y-H. Optimum location of resources in distributed
planning. IEEE Trans PWRS 1994;9(4):2014–20.
[7] Kim JO, Nam SW, Park SK, Singh C. Dispersed generation planning
using improved Hereford ranch algorithm. Electric Power Syst Res
1998; 47(1):47–55.
[8] Kim K-H, Lee Y-J, Rhee S-B, Lee S-K, You S-K. Dispersed
generator placement using fuzzy-GA in distribution systems. In:
Proceedings of 2002 IEEE power engineering society summer
meeting, Chicago, IL, July 2002;3:1148–53.
[9] Silvestri A, Berizzi A, Buonanno S. Distributed generation plan-
ning using genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of international
conference on electric power engineering, Power Tech Budapest,
1999. p. 99.
[10] Carpinelli G, Celli G, Russo A. Distributed generation siting and
sizing under uncertainty. In: Proceedings IEEE Porto power tech-
nology, 2001.
[11] Wang C, Nehrir MH. Analytical approaches for optimal placement
of distributed generation sources in power systems. IEEE Trans
PWRS 2004;19(4):2068–76.
[12] IEA Publication. Distributed generation in liberalized electricity
market, 2002. Available from: http://www.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/text-
base/nppdf/free/2000/distributed2002.pdf.
[13] Thomas Ackermann, Goran Anderson, Lennart Soder. Distributed
generation: a definition. Electric Power Syst Res 2001;57:195–204.
[14] Francesco Gulli. Distributed generation versus centralized supply: a
social cost–benefit analysis. Institute di Economia e Politica dell’Ener-
gia e dell’Ambiente (Iefe), Università Bocconi, Milano, July 2003.
Available from: http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/dae/repec/cam/pdf/
cwpe0336.pdf.
[15] Resource Dynamics Corporation. Assessment of distributed genera-
tion technology applications. February 2001. Available from: http://
www.distributed-generation.com/Library/Maine.pdf.
[16] Bala JL, Kuntz PA, Pebles MN. Optimum capacitor allocation using
a distribution-analyzer-recorder. IEEE Trans PWRD 1997;12(1):
464–9.
[17] Elgerd IO. Electric energy system theory: an introduction. McGraw-
Hill; 1971.
[18] Kashem MA, Ganapathy V, Jasmon GB, Buhari MI. A novel method
for loss minimization in distribution networks. In: Proceedings of
international conference on electric utility deregulation and restruc-
turing and power technologies, 2000. p. 251–5.
[19] Baran ME, Wu FF. Optimum sizing of capacitor placed on radial
distribution systems. IEEE Trans PWRD 1989;4:735–43.