Optimal Distributed Generation Location and

Sizing using Genetic Algorithms

I. Pisic, C. Bulac, Member, IEEE, and M. Eremia, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract--The paper proposes a comparison between

nonlinear optimization and genetic algorithms for optimal
location and sizing of distributed generation in a distribution
network. The objective function consists of both power losses and
investment costs and the methods are tested on the IEEE 69-bus
system. The study covers a comparison between the proposed
approaches and shows the importance of installing the right
amount of DG in the best suited location. Studies show that if the
DG units are connected at non-optimal locations or have nonoptimal sizes, the system losses may increase.
Index Terms--distributed generation
algorithms, nonlinear optimization

allocation,

genetic

I. INTRODUCTION

ISTRIBUTED power generation (DG) refers to small

generating units installed near load centers, avoiding the
need to expand the network in order to cover new load areas
or to uphold the increased energy transfers that would be
necessary for satisfying the consumers demand.
There is no universally accepted definition, each
organization giving a different definition of DG, which, in
essence, express the same concept. International Energy
Agency defines DG as a generating plant serving a customer
on-site or providing support to a distribution network,
connected to the grid at distribution-level voltage [1]. CIGRE
defines DG as the generation that has the following
characteristics [2]: it is not centrally planned; it is not centrally
dispatched at present; it is usually connected to the distribution
network; it is smaller than 50-100MW.
At first glance, DG might be considered the answer to many
of the problems in todays distribution grids. Looking into
more detail, however, there are several issues to be settled: the
operational assimilation into the grid and into electricity
market mechanisms, network and protection scheme
adaptation etc. Moreover, the type of DG technology adopted
imposes new constraints and limitations.
This paper addresses the problem of DG location and
sizing. The object of this study is to assess the performances
of two computational methods for solving the DG allocation
problem, global optimization and genetic algorithms as well as
to study the importance of optimal DG allocation. The
remaining of the paper is structured as follows: section II
I. Pisic is with the Department of Power Systems, University Politehnica
of Bucharest, Romania (e-mail:ioanapisica@gmail.com).
C. Bulac is with the Department of Power Systems, University Politehnica
of Bucharest, Romania (e-mail: cbulac@yahoo.com)
M. Eremia is with the Department of Power Systems, University
Politehnica of Bucharest, Romania (e-mail: eremia1@yahoo.com).

focuses on issues emerging from DG location and sizing,

suggesting a literature review on the subject; section III
presents the mathematical formulation of the DG allocation
problem; the case study is presented in section IV, with
computational results from both methods and a comparison
between them, detailing the problems that may arise when
applying each method. An analysis regarding the optimal
location and sizing of DG is also made; conclusions are drawn
in section V.
II. DG LOCATION AND SIZING ISSUES
The operating conditions of a power system after
connecting DG sources can change drastically as compared to
the base case. The planning of DG installations should,
therefore, consider several factors: what would be the best
technology to be used, how many units of DG and of what
capacities, where should they be installed, what connection
type should be used etc.
The problem of DG allocation and sizing should be
approached with caution. If DG units are connected at nonoptimal locations, the system losses may increase, thus
resulting in increased costs. Studies have indicated that
inappropriate locations or sizes of DG may lead to greater
system losses than the ones in the existing network [4].
Numerous papers have been published on this subject,
referring to either optimal capacity allocation, DG
placement or even capacity evaluation [5].
Although the literature suggests a wide variety of objectives
and constraints, two main approaches emerge: finding optimal
locations for a defined DG capacity and finding optimal
capacity at defined locations.
Of all benefits and objectives of DG implementation, the
idea of implementing DG for loss reduction needs special
attention.
III. PROBLEM FORMULATION
The function that has to be minimized consists of two
objectives, one technical and one economical:
Minimize the active power losses:
O1 =

( Pi Pj ) =
i, j k
n n Rij cos(i j )
= (
( Pi P j + QiQ j ) +
ViV j
i =1 j =1
Rij sin(i j )
+
(Qi P j PiQ j )
ViV j

978-1-4244-5098-5/09/$26.00 2009 IEEE

(1)

where n is the number of buses, Rij is the resistance of line

between buses i" and j, Pi , Qi are net real and reactive
power injections in bus i" and Vi , i are the voltage
magnitude and angle at bus i".
Minimize the investment costs:

The testing methodology adopted in order to compare the

two solution methods proposed, nonlinear optimization and
genetic algorithms, was to start from one DG unit to be
allocated and to increase the number of DG units until one of
the methods failed, as the increased problem dimensionality
overpowered the solution method.

(2)
O2 = PDG .
where PDG is the DG installed active power, in kW and
represents the investment cost. The tests in this study were
performed with a value for of 950 UDS/kW [2].
Optimality is achieved when the solution represents a
compromise between network benefits and capital
investments, and therefore the objective function is constituted
by two contradictory objectives. In order be able to
mathematically aggregate the two objectives of different
natures, the first one is also transformed into an economical
factor:

A. Nonlinear Optimization Algorithm

Table I presents the solutions obtained with the nonlinear
optimization algorithm for one and two DG units. For three
DG units, the algorithm fails to provide a solution. As it
results, bus number 61 is the most suited for DG installation,
with a size of 1794 kW in each case. The losses are higher in
the case of two DG units, leading to the idea that the algorithm
performs poorly once the number of variables increases. A
more detailed solution analysis is given in section C. The
algorithm is detailed in [7].

f (bus, size) = O1 ppkWh + O2

(3)
where is the time length taken into consideration and ppkWh
is the cost per kWh.
The objective function in (3) is subject to operational
constraints:

TABLE I
COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS WITH THE NONLINEAR OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM

Pi = PDG, i PDi =
n
= U i [U k [Gik cos(i k ) + Bik sin(i k )]]
k =1
Qi = QDi =

(4)

(5)
(6)
(7)

IV. CASE STUDY

In order to assess the performances of the proposed
algorithms in solving the DG allocation and sizing problem,
the IEEE 69-bus distribution test system has been considered
(Fig. 1). The system has 68 sections with a total load of 3800
kW and 2690 kVAr. The network data can be found in [6].
The base case (without DG) active power losses are of 225kW
and total reactive power losses are of 102.2 kVAr.

Fig. 1. IEEE 69-bus distribution network

Losses
[kW]

Comp. time
[s]

Solution (bus, size [kW])

83.4252

260.3594

61

1794

84.233

797.1875

62

1794

n
= U i [U k [Gik sin(i k ) Bik cos(i k )]]
k =1

Si Simax
U imin U inom U imax .
PDG PDGmax .

No. of
DG
units

B. Genetic Algorithm
Before using any of the GA models, the problem must be
represented in a suitable format that allows the application of
genetic operators. GAs work by optimizing a single entity, the
fitness function. Hence, the objective function and the
constraints of the problem at hand must be transformed into
some measure of fitness.
Encodings. The first feature that should be defined is the
type of representation to be used, so that an individual
represents one and only one of the candidate solutions. A
candidate solution (or chromosome) designed in this paper for
the problem of finding the optimal location and size of one
DG unit is a two-component vector (Fig. 2,a).
Position(node number)

Size (max. 2 MW)

a.

Unit 1
Position (node
number)

Unit 1
Size (max. 2
MW)

Unit 2
Unit 2
Position (node
Size (max. 2
number)
MW)
b.
Fig. 2. Chromosome encoding for one DG unit (a) and two DG units (b) to be
allocated

The first component represents the location, the node in

which the DG should be connected, and can take values from
1 to the number of buses in the network. The second
component represents the DG size and can take values from 0
to 2000 kW. For two DG units to be allocated, a new pair of
genes is added to the chromosome, like in Figure 2,b. A
population of possible solutions will be evolved from one
generation to another, in order to obtain an optimum setup, i.e.
a very well fitted individual.
Fitness Function. This function is responsible for

measuring the quality of chromosomes and it is closely related

to the objective function. The objective function for this paper
is computed using equation (3). The constraints of this
particular problem do not explicitly contain the variables (the
genes in this case) and therefore the effect of the constraints
must be included in the value of the fitness function. The
constraints are checked separately and the violations are
handled using a penalty function approach. The overall fitness
function designed during this study is:
f ( x) = O1 ppkWh + O2 +
nr
n
n
+ bali + thermalk + voltagek
i =1
k =1
k =1

(8)
a.

where the first two terms are the ones in the objective function
and the following are penalty functions. The last three sums in
this fitness function are a measure of unfeasibility for each
candidate solution x. The penalty factors used in this study
were set to 10000.
The constraint expressed in (7) is satisfied each run, as the
limits for each individual are set within the main GA routine.
Details on genetic algorithms implementations can be
found in [8].
The results presented in Table II were obtained for roulette
wheel selection, a crossover rate of 0.7 and the population size
set to 50.
TABLE II
COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS WITH THE GENETIC ALGORITHM APPROACH
No. of
DG
units

Losses
[kW]

Solution (bus, size [kW])

Comp.
time [s]

88.21 262.12

61

1500

83.91 864.83

62

861

61

886

73.76 1543.36

62

736

18

519

61

809

C. Solution Analysis
As it results from Tables I and II, the nonlinear
optimization algorithm cannot face the high complexity
problem of allocating more than 2 DG units, in comparison
with genetic algorithms. Even though the losses in the case of
GAs for one DG unit are slightly higher than the ones resulted
with the nonlinear optimization algorithm, the superiority of
GAs is proven when the problem complexity increases and the
nonlinear optimization algorithm fails to provide a solution.
For a better insight of the solutions supplied by the two
methods, a voltage level analysis is made in Figure 3, showing
the voltage levels in the network for one (Fig. 3,a) and two
(Fig. 3,b) DG units the two cases that were solved by both
methods.
The solution provided by the nonlinear optimization
method for placing and sizing one DG unit results in a better
voltage profile than the one in the case of genetic algorithms,
both having all buses with voltages within the admissible strip
(Fig. 3,a).
For two DG units, the genetic algorithm leads to slightly
better voltage levels (Fig. 3, b), proving that genetic
algorithms perform better than nonlinear optimization when
the number of variables increases.

b.
Fig. 3 Voltage levels for solutions given by nonlinear optimization and genetic
algorithms for one DG unit (a) and two DG units (b)

From the computational time point of view, the

nonlinear optimization algorithm is faster than the genetic
algorithm. However, the results for two and even three DG
units indicate genetic algorithms to be more suited as solution
method for the DG location and sizing problem. Even though
genetic algorithms require thorough analyses for optimally
tuning the parameters involved in the process, their superiority
in relation to the proposed nonlinear optimization algorithm is
obvious when the dimensionality of the problem increases.
Therefore, the GAs will be considered in the following as the
appropriate solution method for the DG placing and sizing
problem. Their results are analyzed from the distributed
generation allocation point of view, looking into outcomes for
one DG unit. The optimal solution is thus considered to be bus
61 and a DG size of 1500.
Figure 4 presents the voltage levels and voltages deviations
for the following three cases: the network without DG, 1500
kW installed in bus 61 and 878 kW installed in bus 61,
representing the base case, the best case and the worst case
respectively (resulted after 50 runs of the genetic algorithm).
The base case is far the worst as regarding the voltage
profile, the minimum voltage in the system being reached at
bus 65, rating 0.9092 p.u. The worst case scenario regarding
DG improves the voltage level through the network, the most
significant increase being registered at bus 65, reaching a
voltage value of 0.9433. This value is far better than the base
case scenario, but it is not sufficient, as it still remains out of
the admissible limits.

The best case scenario, which will be adopted in the

following as optimum and therefore the DG allocation
problem solution, proves an admissible value for the voltage at
bus 65, of 0.9659 p.u. This case, as it can be seen in Figure 4,
allows all voltages to be within the admissible limits (voltage
deviations less than 0.05 p.u.).

optimal, successive power flows and system losses are

computed for connected DG units of different sizes. For
example, losses are computed with DG installed at bus 61 with
sizes starting from 500 kW to 3000 kW, with an increment of
50 kW. The results are presented in Figure 6.
350
300

losses [kW]

250
200
150
100
50
0
1

7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67
bus

Fig. 5. Variation of losses with the bus where a DG unit of optimal size is
connected.

170
150

110
90

11
00
12
50
14
00
15
50
17
00
18
50
20
00
21
50
23
00
24
50
26
00
27
50
29
00

80
0

95
0

70
65
0

It has been stated in Section II that the problem of

allocating DG units involves two variables: location and size.
These are not independent. If DG is placed at the optimal
location, but with a different capacity, system losses will
increase. Moreover, if the size of DG is optimal, but it is
connected to a bus different from the optimal one, losses also
increase. This is why the solution method for DG allocation is
very important and it has to provide simultaneously both
values of the variables.
In order to validate the genetic algorithm as solution
method, the following studies are carried out:
- Assume the optimal size, as resulted from the GA, of
1500 kW. This capacity is allocated successively at each of the
69 buses in the system and a distribution power flow routine
will compute the active power losses. The graphical
representation in Figure 5 is obtained by putting together the
69 power losses values. The horizontal line represents the
power losses in the original system, without DG.
- As it can be observed, the minimum power losses are
obtained when DG is placed near bus 61, this being the global
optimum. There is another optimal location, near bus 10, but
this is clearly a suboptimal solution, representing only a local
optimum. Figure 5 not only proves the performances of the
proposed solution method and its implementation, but also
highlights a very important issue in DG planning: there are
buses (the most representative being here bus number 35)
where DG connection results in power losses increasing to
values that are higher than the power losses before installing
DG. This is an effect exactly opposite to the one sought after
in the DG optimal allocation.
A similar proof is constructed starting from the optimal
bus. Assume the optimal bus resulted from the GA, number
61. In order to test whether the resulted capacity is also

130

50
0

Fig. 4 Voltage profiles for the three cases.

Fig. 6. Variation of losses with the size, for a DG unit connected to bus 61.

The plot in Figure 6 can be divided into three areas: the

first one, for DG sizes of 500 kW to 1300 kW presents a steep
decreasing trend; the second one, from 1350 kW to 2250 kW,
is relatively smooth, suggesting that increases or decreases of
DG sizes within this interval do not lead to significant power
losses reductions; the last area, from 2300 kW to 3000 kW is
more steep, power losses increasing progressively for DG
sizes beyond 2300-2400 kW.
This proves that even though the location is optimal, the
size of DG influences the power losses. The values in the
central area of the plot suggest that minimum power losses
(83.242 kW) are obtained when 1850 kW are connected to bus
61. However, the power losses differences are very small
when connecting DG units of any size from this central area of
the graph. The optimization procedure proposed in this paper
also takes into account the investment costs, and therefore the
GA has chosen a smaller size, as the power losses
improvements when upgrading to larger sizes are
insignificant. The voltage levels resulted when connecting the
DG unit of optimal size to the buses that lead to losses higher
than the ones in the base case (buses with losses above the
horizontal line in Figure 5) are represented graphically in
Figure 7. The dashed line represents the voltage levels when
the DG unit is connected at the optimal bus. All cases, except
the optimal setup, result in inadmissible voltage levels,
reaching as low as 0.91 p.u. This proves that not only power
losses increase when the DG unit is not properly installed, but

also the voltage levels are negatively affected.

Fig. 7 Voltage deviations when DG unit is installed in buses that lead to losses
higher than the base case

As it results, the DG allocation implies simultaneously

searching for both optimal location and size, and the GA
approach is suited for solving this problem. Furthermore, if
DG is placed in multiple locations, the voltage profile and
power losses can be additionally improved.
Figure 8 shows the voltage profiles resulted after installing
one, two and three DG units of locations and sizes from table
2, which also highlights that power losses decrease when the
number of DG units increases.
1.01

voltage [p.u.]

1
0.99
0.98

to be allocated. The first test was run for one DG unit, and
both methods provided similar results in similar periods of
time, the nonlinear solver having a small advantage regarding
the power losses and computational time. Next, the number of
DG units was increased to two, and the GA proved to provide
better results than the nonlinear solver, in a slightly higher
computational time. After increasing the number of units to
three, the GA outperformed the nonlinear optimization
algorithm, which failed to land a solution.
The network used for tests is the IEEE 69-bus distribution
system, for which the GA results in a DG size of 1500 kW,
installed at bus 61. Connecting this amount of DG at the
optimal bus leads to a power loss reduction from approx. 225
kW to about 88 kW. The voltage profile is substantially
improved as well.
The tight connection between the optimal location and size
is proved by allocating the optimal size at different buses in
the network and by allocating different DG capacities at the
optimal bus resulted from the GA.
Both studies show that system losses increase drastically.
In some cases they become even larger than the ones in the
base case. Furthermore, the voltage profiles are also degraded
if the optimal solution is not implemented.
Even though GAs are very dependent on their parameters,
they provide results when other methods fail. Firstly, the
algorithm is a multi path that searches many peaks in
parallel, and hence reduces the possibility of local minimum
trapping. Secondly, GA works with a coding of parameters
instead of the parameters themselves. Thirdly, GA evaluates
the fitness of each string to guide its search instead of the
optimization function. Hence, there is no need for computation
of derivatives or other auxiliary functions.
In future studies, several improvements should be taken
into consideration: the use of load profiles and assessing the
benefits accordingly to the DG type.

0.97

VI. REFERENCES

0.96

[1]

0.95
0.94
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67

[2]

bus
1 DG unit

2 DG units

3 DG units

[3]
[4]

Fig. 8 Voltage levels for multiple DG units

V. CONCLUSIONS
The paper addresses the problem of optimal DG location
and sizing in a distribution network. Two solution methods are
proposed, one based on a nonlinear optimization algorithm
and one based on genetic algorithms. The objective function
comprises of both power losses and investment costs. The
studies are performed on multiple levels: a comparison
between the proposed approaches and the importance of
installing the right amount of DG in the best suited location.
In order to compare the solution methods, tests were
performed successively for an increasing number of DG units

[5]
[6]
[7]

[8]

D. Hammond, J. Kendrew, The real value of avoided transmission

costs, Conference of Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Authority/New Zeeland Wind Energy Association, New Zeeland, 1997.
R.H. Lasseter, Control of distributed resources, in Proc. Bulk Power
System Dynamics and Control IV, Greece, 1998.
T. Ackermann, G. Andersson, L. Soder, Distributed generation: a
definition, Electric Power Systems Research 57, Elsevier, 2000.
T. Griffin, K. Tomsovic, D. Secrest, A. Law, Placement of dispersed
generations systems for reduced losses, in Proc. 33rd Hawaii
international conference of sciences, 2000.
A. Keane, M. OMalley, Optimal allocation of embedded generation
on distribution networks, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, Vol. 20.
M.E. Baran ME., F.F. Wu, Optimum sizing of capacitor placed on
radial distributions systems, IEEE Trans. PWRD 1989.
M. Bjrkman, K. Holmstrm, Global Optimization Using the DIRECT
Algorithm in Matlab, The Electronic International Journal Advanced
Modeling and Optimization Vol. 1, No. 2, ICI Publishing House,
Bucharest, Romania, 1999.
I. Pisic, C. Bulac, L. Toma, M. Eremia, Optimal SVC placement in
electric power systems using a genetic algorithms based method, IEEE
Bucharest Power Tech Conference, Romania 2009.

VII. BIOGRAPHIES
Ioana Pisic received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from the
University Politehnica of Bucharest in 2007; she is currently a PhD student
and teaching assistant in the Electric Power Engineering Department in the
same University. Her research interests are related to power systems stability,
FACTS devices and artificial intelligence applications in power systems.
Constantin Bulac (M02) graduated at the Polytechnic Institute of Bucharest
in 1982 and has received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the
University Politehnica of Bucharest in 1998; currently he is Professor in
the Electric Power Engineering Department in the same University. His
research interests are related to power systems stability, FACTS devices and
artificial intelligence applications in power systems.
Mircea Eremia (M98, SM02) received the B.S. and Ph.D. degree in
electrical engineering from the Polytechnic Institute of Bucharest in 1968 and
1977 respectively. He is currently Professor at the Electric Power Engineering
Department from University Politehnica of Bucharest. His area of research
includes planning and operation of transmission and distribution networks,
power system stability and applications of FACTS devices and artificial
intelligence applications in power systems.