IET Renewable Power Generation

Research Article

Optimal placement and sizing of distributed ISSN 1752-1416

Received on 30th August 2015
Revised 29th July 2016
generation-based wind energy considering Accepted on 8th September 2016
E-First on 22nd November 2016
optimal self VAR control doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2015.0391
www.ietdl.org

Tarek Medalel Masaud1 , Geethika Nannapaneni1, Rajab Challoo1

1Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, 700 University Blvd, Kingsville, TX 78363, USA
E-mail: tarek.masaud@tamuk.edu

Abstract: The impact of distributed generation (DG) units on the voltage stability has become a challenging issue especially
when squirrel cage induction generator (SCIG)-based wind DGs are utilised. Optimisation methods are tools which can be used
to place and size the DG units in the distribution system, so as to utilise these units optimally within certain constraints. This
study aims to optimally size and allocate advanced wind energy based DG technology with innovative reactive power capability,
reduced capital cost, and improved energy capture capability to improve voltage stability. Therefore, a new combination of SCIG
and doubly-fed induction generator (DFIG) based DG configuration is proposed. In this configuration, the reactive power
absorbed by SCIG is supplied by DFIG, and therefore, the combined system operates at unity power factor, which makes it
feasible to comply with the IEEE 1547 standard. A methodology is proposed to optimally size and allocate the DG system with
an objective function to improve the voltage profile considering numerous technical and economic constraints. The performance
of the proposed DG configuration is compared with DGs that utilise SCIG with a parallel reactive power compensation. IEEE 30-
bus test system is used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methodology.

1 Introduction capacitor connected to each phase winding of the stator is proposed

Integration of distributed generation (DG) in a distribution network
provides many benefits such as relief in transmission and
distribution capacity, as well as enhanced voltage stability, power
quality, and system reliability to both end users and energy
providers [1]. Integration of wind-driven squirrel cage induction
generator (SCIG)-based DGs are widely used because they afford
advantages such as robustness, mechanical simplicity, and low
capital cost. However, wind turbines employing SCIG tend to
absorb large amounts of reactive power from the grid, potentially
causing low voltage and maybe voltage stability problems for the
point of common coupling (PCC), especially when it is connected
to a weak power grid [2, 3]. A parallel capacitor bank is widely
used to provide the reactive power required for an SCIG-based DG.
Therefore, the SCIG and capacitor bank combination operates at
unity power factor and complies with the IEEE 1547 standard,
which states that the voltage regulation at the PCC should be
independent of the reactive power contribution of DG units [4]. It
is essential to investigate the optimal allocation and sizing of grid-
connected DG units to understand the impact of the DG on grid
voltage stability. The authors in [5, 6] have proposed new methods
to optimally allocate DG units to enhance the voltage profile at
candidate buses. In [5], candidate buses are determined by utilising
a voltage collapse index, and in [6], the outcome of [5] was used to
maximise the loadability conditions under normal and contingency
conditions. In [7], a method was introduced to place and size
renewable energy-based DG units considering the probabilistic
nature of renewable DGs. In [8], an optimisation methodology was
proposed to size and allocate renewable DGs in distribution feeders
to achieve the lowest annual cost considering varies technical
constrains.
All the literatures summarised above assume that DG units
operate at unity power factor and that their reactive power
contribution is independent of the interface bus voltage. Therefore,
most studies focused on modelling the DG units as PQ buses.
However, for DG units utilising SCIG, this assumption is not
accurate. The reactive power requirement of the induction
generators present in wind turbine generation systems should also
be considered to study the impact of DG on voltage stability. In [1],
a configuration of SCIG with star/delta switching adjustment with a
to reduce the reactive power absorbed from the grid and to support
the voltage at the PCC. In [9], a new technique for multiple DG
placement is proposed to achieve loss reduction considering the
DG optimal power factor. In [10], a method is proposed to control
the voltage stability issue caused by wind-based DG using a static
VAR compensator (SVC) and tap transformer. In [11], a general
three-phase unbalanced power flow algorithm that considers the
incorporation of PV or PQ bus models is introduced.
To address the reactive power requirements of SCIG-based DG,
this paper proposes a new configuration of a combined SCIG and
doubly-fed induction generator (DFIG) based DG. In this
configuration, the reactive power absorbed by SCIG is supplied by
DFIG which result in unity operating power factor. The paper also
develops an optimisation algorithm to optimally size and locate DG
units to achieve an improved voltage profile at a candidate bus
considering the lowest capital cost and wider range of operating
wind speed. The DG performance is compared with the widely
used technique of SCIG-based DG with parallel reactive power
compensation. The voltage index described in [7] is used in this
study to determine the candidate bus at which the DG unit is
placed. Furthermore, the probabilistic load flow that accounts for
load variation is considered.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2
illustrates the impact of SCIG-based DG on voltage stability. In
Section 3, the proposed DG configuration is introduced. Section 4
discusses the proposed algorithm for DG sizing and placement.
Finally, simulation results and conclusion are demonstrated in
Sections 5 and 6, respectively.
2 Impact of wind turbine generators on voltage
stability
2.1 SCIG-type wind turbine
A conventional SCIG is a constant wind speed generator. The
highest rotor operational speed of SCIG is very small about 1%
above the synchronous speed [12]. The SCIG output power varies
with the wind speed change. Therefore, the turbine speed has to be
kept within a very narrow range. The main advantages of this
turbine type are design simplicity, and the low capital cost.

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 3, pp. 281-288 281
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016

Fig. 1  Proposed DG configuration
However, it requires a large amount of reactive power to excite the
machine, thus limiting its future use [3, 12]. When SCIG is
connected in a weak distribution grid, a voltage instability problem
might occur due to the additional reactive demand drawn from the
grid. Therefore, reactive power compensation must be employed.
2.2 DFIG-type wind turbine
A DFIG is a variable wind speed turbine generator in which the
stator is directly connected to the grid through a step up
transformer and the rotor is connected to the grid through a
bidirectional converter. The rotor circuit typically handles about
25–30% of the generator rated power. DFIG is one of the most
commonly employed generators for wind energy because of its
ability to operate at variable wind speed range of ±30% around
synchronous speed [13]. Therefore, it is capable to extract the
maximum power at different average wind speeds. In addition, it
has the ability to supply a reactive power. Hence, the optimal
utilisation and control of the DFIG reactive power capability can
provide voltage support at the PCC. It is also worth mentioning
that when the voltage control requirements are beyond the reactive
capability of the DFIG, the DFIG will not fulfil the voltage
stability requirements at the PCC.
3 Proposed DG configuration
In power flow studies, DG can be connected to a PV or PQ bus [7].
DG connected to a PV bus has a capability to supply reactive
power and regulate voltage based on the QV sensitivity theory.
This theory shows the sensitivity and variation of the bus voltages
(V) with respect to reactive power injections or absorptions (Q). On
the other hand, DG connected to a PQ bus operates at unity power
factor and does not exchange any reactive power with the grid, as
specified in the IEEE1547 standard. However, for constant and
variable speed wind units that utilise SCIG and DFIG, respectively,
the PQ model is not satisfied because the exchanged reactive
power of these two units with the grid depends on the voltage value
at the interface bus [7]. The proposed DG-based wind energy has a
self-reactive power capability that satisfies the PQ model
requirements as shown in Fig. 1.
The reactive power exchanged with the grid will be zero as
QSCIG = QDFIG (1)
As a result, the power factor of the proposed DG units is
PSCIG + PDFIG
PFDG = (2)
(PSCIG + PDFIG)2 + (QDFIG − QSCIG)2
where P and Q are the active and reactive power, respectively
282
N
PSCIG = ∑ PSCIG i
(3)
i=1
M
PDFIG = ∑ PDFIG j
(4)
j=1
N and M are the number of SCIG and DFIG units, respectively. It is
clear that the size of the proposed DG configuration depends on the
number of SCIG and DFIG units and their corresponding output
ratings. It should be sized in such a manner that the reactive power
absorbed by SCIG (QSCIG) is equal to that supplied by DFIG
(QDFIG), as shown in (1). Substituting (1) in (2) results in unity
power factor for the proposed DG configuration. The number of
SCIG and DFIG units used in sizing the DG depends on the
operating power factor of the SCIG and DFIG units. Therefore,
selecting the optimal power factor is a crucial step for determining
the optimal size of the DG. Both SCIG and DFIG have an
operational power factor between 0.95 leading and 0.95 lagging
[14, 15]. Lagging power factors of 0.98 and 0.9 are used most
commonly for SCIG to obtain a better voltage profile in SCIG and
DFIG, respectively [15]. The lower the lagging power factor of
SCIG, the higher is the reactive power requirement, indicating that
a higher number of DFIG units is required to meet this reactive
power demand. The number of SCIG and DFIG units can be
determined as
PSCIGtan θs = PDFIGtan θD (5)
PSCIG + PDFIG = PDG, injected (6)
Substituting (5) in (6) gives
(tan θs + tan θD)
PSCIG = PDG, injected (7)
tan θD
For leading power factor of 0.9 in DFIG units, (7) becomes
(tan θs + 0.484)
PSCIG = PDG, injected (8)
0.484
where θs and θD are the power factor angle of SCIG and DFIG
units, respectively. By selecting the DG size (PDG, injected) and
power factor angle of SCIG units (tan θs), the required number of
SCIG and DFIG units can be determined by employing (6) and (8).
In addition, DGs must have enough capacity to supply the required
active power to maintain the voltage within a certain voltage
stability constraint. All utilities agree that the steady-state voltage
must be maintained within 0.95 and 1.05 pu [7, 15].
4 DG placement methodology
This section proposes a method to size and allocate the proposed
DG configuration to achieve improved voltage stability at the PCC.
Herein, three scenarios are considered.
• Scenario #1: only SCIG-based DG units are installed at the
candidate bus.
• Scenario #2: only SCIG-based DG units with parallel
compensation are installed at the candidate bus.
• Scenario #3: only the proposed DG configuration is installed at
the candidate bus.
In demonstrating these scenarios, the following assumptions are
made.
• To simplify the analysis, it is assumed that all candidate buses in
the test system are subjected to the same wind speed.
• DFIG has reactive power control and capable to supply constant
reactive power at different wind speeds.
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 3, pp. 281-288
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016

Fig. 2  Flowchart of proposed method
Nowadays, utility-scale onshore wind turbine sizes are 1.5 5 MW
[16]. In this study, a 2 MW wind turbine size is adopted for both
SCIG and DFIG. The total size of the integrated wind turbine-
based DG can be calculated by multiplying the number of selected
ratings. Fig. 2 shows flowchart of the algorithm for the proposed
DG sizing and placement. The detailed descriptions of each step
are given below.
4.1 Step 1: selection of candidate bus
The candidate bus is selected using a voltage stability index that
tests the voltage sensitivity to active power variation. The active
power sensitivity index can be briefly derived based on the Newton
Raphson power flow as follows [9]:
ΔP J 1J 2 Δδ
= (9)
ΔQ J 3J 4 ΔV
where J 1 and J 2 are submatrices in the Jacobian matrix that
expresses the change in active power P with respect to power angle
δ and bus voltage V. J 3 and J 4 define the change in reactive power
with respect to the power angle and bus voltage, respectively. By
assuming that the reactive power variation at a certain load bus is
zero, the voltage profile only becomes proportional to the active
power variation. Therefore, it is acceptable to set J 1 and J 4 of the
Jacobian matrix to zero. The diagonal elements of J 2 indicate the
active power sensitivity of the ith bus. The bus corresponding to
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 3, pp. 281-288
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
the largest and smallest values of ∂Pi /∂V i is the strongest and
weakest bus, respectively.
4.2 Step.2: installation of DG-based SCIG at candidate bus
Based on the result of the voltage stability analysis, DG-based
SCIG units are installed at the candidate bus. As the reactive power
required for SCIG units is absorbed from the grid, the calculated
reactive demand is added to the reactive demand at the candidate
bus to which DG units are connected. As the penetration factor
(DG size) increases, the absorbed reactive power increases
accordingly. The penetration factor is defined as a ratio of the DG
active power injected to the total active power load of the network
PDG
PF = (10)
PSystem
where PF is the penetration factor, PDG is the DG size in MW, and
PSystem is the system total active demand in MW. A higher
penetration factor indicates a higher number of SCIG and DFIG
units, and a lower lagging power factor of SCIG leads to higher
number of DFIG units to satisfy the reactive power requirements.
Therefore, the operating power factor and penetration level
constraints should be specified.
4.3 Step.3: voltage stability objective function
The impact of DG installation on the voltage stability of the
candidate bus is evaluated using the voltage index from [7]. The
voltage index equation is modified by considering a probabilistic
load flow that only considers the load variation (load uncertainty).
The probable values of the bus loads are modelled as follows.
i. One year is divided into four seasons, and each season is
represented by any day within that season.
ii. As a result, there are four time segments in one year.
iii. For simplicity, the load for each season (segment) is assumed
based on the desired loading conditions and the mean and
standard deviation of the load are calculated. The voltage index
equation is given as
V candidate Bus, with DG
Vn = (11)
V candidate Bus, without DG
∑nN= 1 V nprn
V Index = (12)
4
where prn is the probability density function, and it is given by
1 −(((x − μ))/2σ2)2
prn = e (13)
σ 2π
μ and σ2 are the calculated mean and variance of the assumed
loads, respectively; N is the number of load scenarios; x is a
random variable that is substituted by the load bus because a
probabilistic load flow that accounts for the load uncertainty is
adopted in this study. The highest voltage index indicates the
most improved voltage profile. The impact of DG installation
can be evaluated based on the following three possible
scenarios:
i. V Index < 1, DG units will worsen the voltage profile.
ii. V Index = 1, DG units will have no impact on the voltage
profile.
iii. V Index > 1, DG units will improve the voltage profile.
The voltage stability index measures the ability of DG units, for
given uncertain load conditions, to maintain the voltage profile
stable within the target range.
283
4.4 Step.4: adding DFIG units to SCIG
In this step, DFIG units are added to the existing SCIG units when
the voltage index is <1.0. The combined DG units will operate at
unity power factor and supply pure active power to the candidate
bus to which it is connected. The number of installed DFIG units
depends on the reactive power requirements of SCIG. The reactive
power requirements of SCIG depend on its designated operating
power and penetration factors. The reactive power capability of
DFIG is limited by both its operating power factor and penetration
level. In this study, operational power factor of 0.9 is adopted for
the DFIG units. While various lagging power factors over a range
of 0.9 lagging and 0.98 lagging are tested for sizing the proposed
DG. The optimal size of the proposed DG is the smallest size that
gives a voltage index and candidate bus voltage higher than 1 and
0.95 pu, respectively. The flowchart in Fig. 2 shows how the sizing
algorithm tests a variety of SCIG and DFIG combinations to
determine the optimal DG size based on both technical and
economic considerations.
4.5 Step.5: conduct cost analysis
The total cost of the SCIG-based DG is evaluated by adding the
cost of the SCIG units and the parallel compensation cost. The
developed algorithm compares the capital installation cost of the
proposed DG to the cost of SCIG with compensation. Thus, the
objective of minimising the cost of the DG can be formulated as
CostSCIG + DFIG = (PtotalksPF + PtotalkDPF )
S D
CostSCIG = (PtotalksPF + MQCap)
S The SCIG-based DG is installed at candidate bus 26. The active
where Ptotal is the total load of the system, ks is the capital cost of a
single SCIG unit in $/kW, kD is the capital cost of a single DFIG
unit in $/kW, PF is the penetration factor of SCIG units, PF is the
S D
penetration factor of DFIG units, QCap is the reactive power
injected by the parallel compensation in kVar, and M is the cost of
reactive power compensation in $/kVar. Minimising the capital cost
of the proposed DG is another objective function that must satisfy
the following condition:
CostSCIG + DFIG ≅ CostSCIG
The cost of the proposed DG can be minimised by sizing DG with
a minimum number of SCIG and DFIG units. The average capital
installation cost of a 2 MW scale wind turbines is roughly $3–$4
million. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimated the
capital installation cost of 1.5 MW unit in $/kW from $1400 to
$2900 [17]. In addition, the cost of DFIG is 10% higher than that
of SCIG [18]. In this study, the installation cost of a single SCIG-
based DG and DFIG is estimated using installation cost of 1500
and 1650 $/kW, respectively, as (see equation below)
4.6 Step.6: DG output power estimation
The performance of the wind turbine can be characterised by a
power curve. The power curve plays a vital role in predicting the
output power of a wind turbine for a given wind speed [19]. A DG
typically consists of multiple identical wind turbines that can be
modelled with an equivalent power curve. The developed
algorithm compares the output power of the proposed DG to that of
the SCIG-based DG at a given wind speed as follows:
PSCIG + DFIG > PSCIG
The DG output power is calculated as
2 MW SCIG − based DG unit = $1500 × 2000 kW = $3 million
2 MW DFIG − based DG unit = $1650 × 2000 kW = $3.3 million .
284
1
Pout = C ρAv3 (18)
2 P
where ρ is the air density (kg/m3), A is the rotor swept area (m2), v
is the wind speed (m/s), P is the turbine power in kW, and CP is the
power coefficient.
5 Results and discussion
A modified IEEE 30-bus system is used as a test system [20]. Bus
1 is a slack bus with constant voltage of 1.05 pu. Buses 2, 5, 8, 11,
and 13 are PV buses, generating total active power of 161 MW and
reactive power of 70.7 MVar. The rest of the system buses are load
buses (PQ buses). The system has total active load of 366 MW and,
total reactive load of 176.8 MVar, respectively. Fig. 3 shows the
single-line diagram of the IEEE 30-bus test system.
5.1 Selection of candidate bus for DG units installation
Voltage stability analysis using the ∂Pi /∂V i index is performed in a
MATLAB environment. Table 1 shows the voltage stability
analysis results. Bus 26 is the weakest bus and has the smallest
index value. The corresponding voltage magnitude at bus 4 is 0.93 
pu, which is below the voltage stability limit of 0.95 pu. Therefore,
DG units are installed at bus 26 to improve the voltage profile to
the desired limit. The most weak buses in the system are ranked in
a manner where the bus with the smallest ∂Pi /∂V i is ranked first.
(14)
5.2 Installation of SCIG-based DG
(15)
load demand at bus 26 is 8.5 MW, which is the highest MW
demand in the system. The corresponding bus voltage is 0.93 pu.
When the SCIG unit generates the maximum 8 MW (4 SCIG units 
× 2 MW) at a lagging power factor of 0.953 (2.2% penetration
factor), it requires 2.7 MVar from the grid. The bus 26 voltage
moves to 0.936 pu which is not within the permissible limits (0.95 
pu < V < 1.05 pu). The installed SCIGs at bus 26 absorb reactive
power and increase the reactive demand on bus 26 from 5 MVar to
8.2 MVar. The increase in the reactive demand deteriorates the
voltage stability at bus 26. Table 2 shows the impact of the SCIG-
based DG on bus 26 voltage.
(16) It is clear that, relatively low lagging power factor of SCIG
results in an increased value of the absorbed reactive power and
total reactive demand at the candidate bus. Consequently, the
voltage magnitude at the candidate bus decreases.
5.3 Installation of SCIG-based DG with parallel reactive
power compensation
A capacitor bank, SVC, or static synchronous compensator
(STATCOM) can be used to supply the reactive power
requirements of the SCIG and improve the DG power factor to
unity. Table 3 summarises the results for different DG sizes at
different lagging power factors and corresponding bus 26 voltages.
The reactive power requirement of the SCIG-based DG with sizes
of 4, 6, and 8 MW are listed in Table 3 for various operating power
factors.
The reactive power absorbed by the DG varies greatly with the
DG size and operating lagging power factor. A DG with lower
power factor and larger MW capacity draws more reactive power.
All the proposed sizes in Table 3 have enhanced bus 26 voltage to
the desired limit (> 0.95 pu). However, the capital cost plays a vital
role in selecting the optimal size. The capital cost increases with
(17) the DG size and the required parallel compensation. However, the
limited ability to efficiently extract power at variable wind speed is
a main drawback of the SCIG-based DG.
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 3, pp. 281-288
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
Fig. 3  Single-line diagram of IEEE 30-bus test system

5.4 Installation of proposed DG (SCIG+DFIG)

The combined SCIG and DFIG DG is installed at bus 26. To
Table 1 ∂Pi /∂V i values of load buses determine the number of SCIG and DFIG units in the proposed
Load bus number ∂Pi /∂V i DG, a constant leading power factor of 0.9 was adopted for the
DFIG units and different lagging power factors were assumed for
26 1.8171 the 2 MW SCIG units. Based on (6) and (8), different sizing
30 3.0173 scenarios are presented in Table 4.
29 3.6044 All the sizing scenarios listed in Table 4 are sufficient to
14 5.2019 improve the voltage profile at bus 26 to the permissible limit (>
0.95). For 8 MW DG size with SCIG power factor of 0.987, the
reactive power required is 0.97 MVar; one DFIG unit × 2 MW at
Table 2 SCIG-based DG placement at bus 26 leading power factor of 0.9 is required to provide this reactive
Injected, SCIG pf MVar Bus 26 Bus 26 demand. While for 6 MW DG size with SCIG power factor of
MW (lag) absorbed by Q_load +  voltage, pu 0.971, 0.984 MVar is absorbed by SCIG; 2 DFIG units × 2 MW is
SCIG Q_SCIG, required to meet this MVar demand. SCIG units with lower power
MVar factor draw higher MVar, resulting in a greater number of DFIG
4 0.793 3.2 8.2 0.9167
units to meet the reactive demand. The DG units enhance the
voltage profile by injecting a sufficient amount of MW. Therefore,
6 0.898 3.0 8.0 0.9236
the penetration level has a significant effect on the voltage profile
8 0.953 2.7 7.7 0.9369 improvement.
Fig. 4 shows a comparison of the impact of the penetration
factor (DG size) on the voltage profile for SCIG-based DG without
Table 3 SCIG-based DG with parallel compensation compensation and the proposed DG.
placement at bus 26 Fig. 4 is generated by monitoring the voltage profile at the
Injected, MW Q_SCIG =  SCIG pf Bus 26 voltage, candidate bus (bus 26) at different penetration factors of the DG
Q_Comp, MVar (lag) pu (different MW capacities). The installed DG unit is assumed to
4 1.937 0.900 0.9526 generate a constant power (penetration factor × total MW system
4 1.451 0.951 0.9526 load). The penetration factor is considered as a ratio of the DG
6 2.905 0.900 0.9599
injected power in MW to the total system active load of 366 MW.
The maximum penetration factor considered in this study is 2.2%
6 0.984 0.971 0.9599
(8 MW DG capacity).
8 3.874 0.900 0.9671 In the case of SCIG-based DG, it can be concluded that, at a
8 1.302 0.987 0.9671 lower penetration factor (<2% in Fig. 2), the voltage magnitude
improvement is proportional to the penetration factor increase.
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 3, pp. 281-288 285
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
 requirements (QSCIG = QDFIG). The selection of the optimal size of
the proposed DG configuration also depends on the installation
capital cost and maximum power that can be extracted over a wide
range of wind speeds.

5.5 Voltage stability index implementation

Fig. 4  Impact of penetration factor of DG on voltage profile of candidate
bus (bus 26)
Fig. 5  Variation of voltage index when DGs are installed at load buses at
6 m/s wind speed
Fig. 6  Variation of voltage index when DGs are installed at load buses at
wind speed 12 m/s
However, beyond a particular penetration factor (> 2%), the
voltage improvement rate is lower due to the increase in the
reactive power demand of SCIG. In the case of the proposed DG,
the DG operates at unity power factor. Therefore, it improves the
candidate bus voltage profile constantly as the penetration factor
increases. The reactive power requirement of SCIG-based DG
depends on the operating lagging power factor. Therefore, the
selection of the optimal power factor is a key factor in improving
the voltage stability at the candidate bus. Similarly, selecting the
optimal operating power factors of both DFIG units and SCIG in
the proposed DG configuration has a significant impact on the
number of DG units (total MW) and the self-reactive power
A probabilistic load flow that accounts for load variation is carried
out by implementing (11) and (12) to calculate the voltage index.
The proposed method involves a technical selection of few
candidate buses to implement the probability distribution function
of load variation to calculate the voltage index within the system so
as to significantly reduce the computation time of the probabilistic
load flow. The assumed active load variation for the four seasons is
shown in Table 5. The active load variation is considered only for
the weakest four buses (buses 14, 26, 29, and 30). The load is
maintained constant at all other system load buses.
The voltage index is calculated only for the weakest four load
buses (buses 14, 26, 29, and 30) that are suitable places to locate
the DG. Based on the assumed load data shown in Table 5, the
probability density function of each load in the four seasons is
calculated using (13). The voltage index is calculated under two
different wind velocities: (i) low (6 m/s) and (ii) high (12 m/s). It is
considered that each single SCIG unit produces the rated 2 MW of
power only at the rated wind speed of 12 m/s and less output power
at the lower speed of 6 m/s. While DFIG units are capable to
produce the rated power of 2 MW at wind speeds of both 6 and 12 
m/s.
The analysis is performed and the corresponding voltage index
is calculated and plotted for better understanding. Fig. 5 shows the
voltage index values at wind speed of 6 m/s. The SCIG-based DG
without compensation gives the lowest voltage index value due the
impact of its reactive power demand on the bus voltage.
In the case of SCIG with compensation, the voltage index is
higher than 1.0 indicating that DG improves the voltage profile.
The highest voltage index value is obtained when the proposed DG
is installed which gives the best voltage improvement case. This is
due to the capability of the DFIG units to extract more active
power at the lower wind speed (6 m/s). It is also found that bus 26
is the best location (candidate bus) to install DG units because the
highest value of the voltage index is obtained at bus 26, which
confirms the result obtained in Section 5.1. All the three sizes of 4,
6, and 8 MW improve the voltage to the desired limit of V > 0.95 
pu (voltage index > 1). However, 4 MW is the optimal size due to
its low capital cost.
The voltage index values of the load buses at the high wind
velocity of 12 m/s are shown in Fig. 6. It should be noted that at the
rated wind speed, the performance of the proposed DG and SCIG
with compensation is the same. This result is expected because
both DG configurations operate at unity power factor and inject the
rated power at the rated speed.
Fig. 7 shows the aggregated power curves for both the proposed
DG and SCIG with compensation. The power curves are generated
for DG size of 8 MW. Fig. 7 shows that the preferable DG
configuration for better performance is the proposed DG
configuration due to its ability to inject more MW at lower wind

Table 4 Proposed DG placement at bus 26

DG, MW SCIG pf Q_SCIG = Q_DFIG, MVar SCIG, MW DFIG, MW Bus 26 voltage, pu
4 0.900 0.977 2 (1 unit) 2 (1 unit) 0.9526
6 0.971 0.984 4 (2 units) 2 (1 unit) 0.9599
8 0.987 0.97 6 (3 units) 2 (1 unit) 0.9671

Table 5 Adopted MW load data for four seasons speeds.

Load Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4
bus no. load, MW load,MW load, MW load, MW 5.6 Cost analysis
14 11.2 11.4 10.8 12
The cost calculation equations are explained earlier in step 5.
26 8.5 8.2 7.9 8.1 Table 6 presents the results of the capital cost for SCIG-based DG
29 8.4 8.0 8.6 7.9 with compensation. The parallel compensation costs from capacitor
30 11.6 11.0 12.0 11.4 bank, SVC, and STATCOM are considered as 20, 50, and 70 $/
kVar, respectively [19].
286 IET Renew. Power Gener., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 3, pp. 281-288
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
 sizes, the capital cost of the proposed DG becomes more
competitive with SCIG due to the increase in the compensation
cost of SCIG.

6 Conclusion
This paper presented a method to optimally size and allocate
advanced wind energy based DG technology with innovative
reactive power capability to improve voltage stability. A new DG
configuration based wind energy is proposed. The proposed DG
configuration combines both SCIG and DFIG units. The reactive
power absorbed by SCIG is supplied by DFIG (self VAR control),
Fig. 7  Aggregated power curves of SCIG-based DG with compensation and therefore, the combined system operates at unity power factor,
and the proposed DG configuration which makes it feasible to comply with the IEEE 1547 standard.
The sizing and allocation method has been extensively simulated
Table 6 Capital installation cost of SCIG-based DG with for an IEEE 30 bus test system. Simulation results indicate that the
compensation proposed optimisation method can provide a framework for the
DG, Power SCIG SCIG SCIG sizing and allocation of the introduced DG in the electrical
MW factor of +capacitor, $ +SVC, $ +STATCOM, $ distribution system to achieve the target of improving the voltage
SCIG millions millions millions stability.
Based on a probabilistic load flow that accounts for load
4 0.900 6.030 6.074 6.104
variations, a voltage index is used to analyse the impact of the DG
4 0.951 6.025 6.065 6.092 on the voltage profile. The impact of integrating SCIG, SCIG with
6 0.900 9.057 9.120 9.195 compensation, and the proposed DG on the voltage stability has
6 0.971 9.051 9.100 9.183 been investigated using the developed voltage index. The voltage
8 0.900 12.056 12.143 12.186 index is calculated for low and high wind speeds of 6 and 12 m/s,
8 0.987 12.025 12.063 12.088 respectively. Simulation results show that the highest voltage index
value is obtained when the proposed DG is installed which gives
the best voltage improvement case. This is due to a substantial
Table 7 Capital installation cost of proposed DG saving in reactive power and the capability of the proposed DG to
extract more active power lower wind speeds. It was also
DG, No. of SCIG No. of DFIG SCIG +  SCIG concluded that at higher DG sizes, the capital cost of the proposed
MW units units DFIG, $ units pf DG becomes more competitive with SCIG due to the increase in
millions the compensation cost of SCIG. Furthermore, this study indicated
4 1 unit (2 MW) 1 unit (2 MW) 6.3 0.900 that the proposed DG configuration incorporates the attractive
6 2 units (4 MW) 1 unit (2 MW) 9.3 0.971 advantages of both variable and fixed speed wind systems. This
8 3 units (6 MW) 1 unit (2 MW) 12.3 0.987 work will be specifically useful to electric power utilities to strive
towards increased penetration of wind power generation.

Fig. 8  Cost variation for SCIG-based DG with compensation and
proposed DG configuration
It is clear that as the DG size increases (higher penetration
factor), the capital cost increases accordingly. In addition, the cost
is higher when SCIG units operate at lower lagging power factor
due to the increase in their MVar requirements. This is because of
the fact that the reactive power compensation cost mainly depends
on the amount of reactive power supplied at a connected bus ($/
kVar) [21]. At lower power factor, the reactive power amount is
higher resulting in an increase in the total VAR compensation cost.
Table 7 presents the capital cost results of the proposed DG. The
results show the cost for various DG sizes and lagging power
factors of SCIG units, and the power factor of DFIG units is kept
constant at 0.9 leading. As the of DG size increases, the capital cost
increases accordingly. Furthermore, the cost is proportional to the
number of DFIG units which depends on the VAR demand of
SCIG units.
Fig. 8 shows the variation of the capital installation cost with
changes in the DG size. It can be concluded that at higher DG
7 References
[1] Raja, P., Selvan, M.P., Kumaresan, N.: ‘Enhancement of voltage stability
margin in radial distribution system with squirrel cage induction generator
based distributed generators’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2013, 7, (8), pp.
898–906
[2] Hrishikesan, V.M., Venkatraman, K., Selvan, M.P.: ‘Performance of custom
power devices in SCIG based wind farms during abnormal grid conditions’.
2014 Annual IEEE India Conf. (INDICON), Yashada, India, 11–13 December
2014, pp. 1–5
[3] Dahraie, M.V., Najafi, H.R., Ebadian, M.: ‘Analytical investigation of the
effect of wind farm equipped with SCIG on voltage stability’. Second Iranian
Conf. on Renewable Energy and Distributed Generation (ICREDG), Tehran,
Iran, 6–8 March 2012, pp. 121–126
[4] IEEE standard for distributed resources interconnected with electric power
systems, IEEE P1547 Std, 2002
[5] Hedayati, H., Nabaviniaki, S.A., Akbarimajd, A.: ‘A method for placement of
DG units in distribution networks’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2008, 23, pp.
1620–1628
[6] Alonso, M., Amaris, H.: ‘Voltage stability in distribution networks with DG’.
Proc. of IEEE PowerTech, Bucharest, Romania, 2009, pp. 1–6
[7] Al Abri, R.S., El-Saadany, E.F., Atwa, Y.M.: ‘Optimal placement and sizing
method to improve the voltage stability margin in a distribution system using
distributed generation’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2013, 28, (1), pp. 326–334
[8] Kroposki, B., Sen, P.K., Malmedal, K.: ‘Optimum sizing and placement of
distributed and renewable energy sources in electric power distribution
systems’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 2013, 49, (6), pp. 2741–2752
[9] Hung, D.Q., Mithulananthan, N.: ‘Multiple distributed generator placement in
primary distribution networks for loss reduction’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
2013, 60, (4), pp. 1700–1708
[10] Hong, Y.-Y., Luo, Y.-F.: ‘Optimal VAR control considering wind farms using
probabilistic load flow and gray-based genetic algorithm’, IEEE Trans. Power
Deliv., 2009, 24, (3), pp. 1441–1449
[11] Khushalani, S., Solanki, J.M., Schulz, N.N.: ‘Development of three-phase
unbalanced power flow using PV and PQ models for distributed generation
and study of the impact of DG models’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2007, 22,
(3), pp. 1019–1025
[12] Li, H., Chen, Z.: ‘Overview of different wind generator systems and their
comparisons’, IET Renew. Power Gener., 2008, 2, (2), pp. 123–138
[13] Muljadi, E., Singh, M., Gevorgian, V.: ‘Doubly fed induction generator in an
offshore wind power plant operated at rated V/Hz’. Energy Conversion
Congress and Exposition (ECCE), Raleigh, NC, USA, 15–20 September
2012, pp. 779–786

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 3, pp. 281-288 287
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
[14] Guerrero, R.: ‘Grid code interrelation, wind generation evaluation and
reactive compensation. Special topics inside a grid code’. Integration of
Renewables into the Distribution Grid, (CIRED Workshop), Lisbon, Portugal,
29–30 May 2012, pp. 1–4
[15] Glover, J.D., Sarma, M.S., Overbye, T.J.: ‘Power system analysis and design’
(Cengage Learning, Stamford, CT, USA, 2011, 5th edn.)
[16] Muljadi, E., Pasupulati, S., Ellis, A., et al.: ‘Method of equivalencing for a
large wind power plant with multiple turbine representation’. IEEE PES
General Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 20–24 July 2008, pp. 1–9
[17] Tegen, S., Lantz, E., Hand, M., et al.: ‘2011 cost of wind energy review’.
NREL Technical Report, NREL/TP-5000-56266, 2013
[18] Aydin, E.: ‘Determination of best drive train technology for future onshore
wind turbines as a function of the output power’. MSc thesis, Department of
288
Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Barcelona,
Spain, 2013
[19] Wan, Y.H., Ela, E., Orwig, K.: ‘Development of an equivalent wind plant
power curve’. NREL Technical Report, NREL/CP-550-48146, 2010
[20] Abuella, M.A.: ‘Study of particle swarm for optimal power flow in IEEE
Benchmark systems including wind power generators’. MS thesis,
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Southern Illinois
University Carbondale, Carbondale, IL, USA, 2012
[21] Li, F.F., Kueck, J., Rizy, T., et al.: ‘A preliminary analysis of the economics of
using distributed energy as a source of reactive power supply’. First Quarterly
Report, The U.S. Department of Energy, 2006
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 3, pp. 281-288
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016