www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution
Received on 19th March 2010
Revised on 17th October 2010
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0199

ISSN 1751-8687

Effective method for optimal allocation of distributed

generation units in meshed electric power systems
M.F. Akorede H. Hizam I. Aris M.Z.A. Ab Kadir
Electrical & Electronic Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang,
Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: makorede@ieee.org

Abstract: Improper placement of distributed generation (DG) units in power systems would not only lead to an increased power
loss, but could also jeopardise the system operation. To avert these scenarios and tackle this optimisation problem, this study
proposes an effective method to guide electric utility distribution companies (DISCOs) in determining the optimal size and
best locations of DG sources on their power systems. The approach, taking into account the system constraints, maximises the
system loading margin as well as the profit of the DISCO over the planning period. These objective functions are fuzzified
into a single multi-objective function, and subsequently solved using genetic algorithm (GA). In the GA, a fuzzy controller is
used to dynamically adjust the crossover and mutation rates to maintain the proper population diversity (PD) during GA’s
operation. This effectively overcomes the premature convergence problem of the simple genetic algorithm (SGA). The results
obtained on IEEE 6-bus and 30-bus test systems with the proposed method are evaluated with the simulation results of the
classical grid search algorithm, which confirm its robustness and accuracy. This study also demonstrates DG’s economic
viability relative to upgrading substation and feeder facilities, when the incremental cost of serving additional load is considered.

Nomenclature P Gg power generated from g central generator

Cin
DG installation cost of DG, $/MW PG0 g power generated from g central generator at
Civ investment cost of DG, $/MW basecase loading
DG
CO&M&T DG operation and maintenance and tax cost, PjLm network power loss on line m at jth load level
DG
$/MWh PLmDGj network power loss on line m at jth load level after
Cpc purchase cost of DG, $/MW DG installation
DG
CE cost of energy, $/MWh Pm mutation rate
CF cost of fuel, $/MMBtu PR profit feasible region of solutions
dr discount rate S feasible region of solutions
fA average fitness Siy apparent power flow from node i to y
fB best fitness SR selection rate
fW worst fitness Td duration of load per day, h
Fk(z) overall objective function at node k Tp horizon planning period, years
i, k, y bus indices Vi voltage at bus i
kGg power increase factor for g central generator W weighting factor
LN number of load level zx∗ ideal objective vector
NB number of system buses znad
x nadir objective vector
NL number of load buses where DG can be placed mFx (z) normalised new objective function
NDG number of DG units gt present worth factor at year t
NG number of central generation units DPGg power generation increase from g central
generator
Np population size
DPDij power demand increase at i bus at jth load
Pc crossover rate level
P Di j active power demand at node i at load level j DPjLm change in system loss on line m at jth load
PDGkj DG active power injected at node k at load level j level

276 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 276 –287
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0199

1 Introduction
The term distributed generation (DG), otherwise known as
embedded generation (EG) or decentralised generation (DG)
in some quarters, is generally defined as any source of
electric energy of limited capacity that is directly connected
to the existing network on the customer site of the meter.
The existing network could be a distribution network or a
sub-transmission network. At present, there is no consensus
on what exactly the rating of DG as well as the voltage
level at the point of common coupling (PCC) to the grid
should be. The definitions of these two parameters
somewhat vary from country to country and from one
research group to another. For example, while Portugal pegs
the capacity limit of DG to 10 MW that can be connected at
any voltage level, Austria defines DG as an electric energy
source of up to 10 MW to be connected at the MV level. In
France, DG is defined in capacity as greater than 40 MW
and connected at 225 kV voltage level. Spain allows the
DG capacity to go up to 50% of the feeder capacity [1]. So
far, Australia has been able to practically install the largest
size of 130 MW DG at 132 kV on its power grid, while
Denmark allows the utility to decide the voltage level of
connection for DG units ranging from less than 2 MW to
greater than 50 MW. On the other hand, the working group
of CIGRE (International Council on Large Electric
Systems) defines DG as a source of electric energy of
maximum capacity of less than 50– 100 MW [2]. Although
the capacity limit is not clearly stated for Germany, UK and
The Netherlands, the voltage levels at PCC are defined as
up to 132 kV for UK, up to 110 kV for Germany and up to
150 kV for The Netherlands [1].
Based on these varying capacity limits, Ackermann et al.
[3] suggested various classifications of DG based on their
capacities as micro DG of 1 W to less than 5 kW, small DG
of 5 kW to less than 5 MW, medium DG of 5 MW to less
than 50 MW, and large DG of 50 MW to less than
300 MW. This classification is a welcome idea since it
encompasses all various definitions given by different
groups/countries.
Lots of factors are responsible for the recent renewed global
interest in DG. Prominent among these include deregulation of
energy market, the environmental concerns of reducing the
greenhouse gas emissions produced by the conventional
power plants and constraints on installing new or upgrading
existing transmission lines for long-distance power
transmission. Interestingly, recent research has shown that
installation of DG units in the utility’s distribution system of
a power network would lead to the attainment of numerous
potential benefits, categorised as economic, technical and
environmental [4]. To maximise these benefits, it is crucial to
find the optimal number or size of DG units and their
appropriate locations in power distribution systems.
Otherwise, higher system power loss would not only be
recorded when DG units are sited in improper locations, but
the overall system operation could also be put in jeopardy.
A number of approaches have been proposed by different
researchers in determining the optimal size and location of
DG in power networks. For instance, a ‘2/3 rule’ method
often used in siting shunt capacitors in distribution systems,
was adopted by Willis [5] to place a DG unit in a radial
distribution feeder. He proposed that 2/3 capacity of the
incoming generation be placed at approximately 2/3 of the
length of the feeder. However, apart from the fact that this
method cannot be applied to a meshed network, it also
cannot guarantee optimal size and best location, since DG
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 276– 287
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0199
www.ietdl.org
size is better determined relative to the system power
demand rather than system generation, as adopted in the
approach. Also, a DG whose size is equal to the capacity of
the total network load is proposed by Gozel et al. [6]. Our
concern is that this size seems to be too large as it could
result in voltage and line loading MVA limits violations on
the system. Acharya et al. [7] used the exact loss formula
that involves the calculation of the bus admittance from its
impedance to determine the optimal size and location of a
single DG unit. However, the large size and complexity of
distribution networks would render this approach to fall
short of robustness requirements.
In the same vein, Elnashar et al. [8] categorised the impacts
of DG on the distribution systems as positive, such as voltage
profile improvement and negative, such as increased system
loss and short-circuit level, and used these to formulate a
multi-objective function. Nevertheless, this problem
formulation is flawed, because DG would lead to increase
in loss only when it is sited in improper locations, and so
its impact cannot be considered negative in all cases.
Hedayati [9] used continuation power flow to determine the
most sensitive buses to voltage collapse and proposed DG
installation on three of the most sensitive buses. In [10] the
Tabu search approach was employed, and in [11 – 14] the
simple genetic algorithm (SGA) approach was adopted,
while Haghifam et al. [15] used the concept of Pareto
optimality based on the non-dominant sorting genetic
algorithm (NSGA-II) for the optimisation problem. Two
analytical approaches for meshed and radial networks were
proposed by Wang and Nehrir [16] to locate only one DG
unit, even though DG size was not optimised. Jabr and Pal
[17] proposed an ordinal optimisation approach to strike a
balance between loss minimisation and DG capacity
maximisation, while Celli et al. [18] combined the GA with
the 1-constrained technique for the multi-objective problem.
The selection of the optimal size and best locations for
installation of DG sources in large distribution systems is a
complex combinatorial optimisation problem. In tackling
this problem, it is crucial to consider the market value of
the services provided by the distribution companies
(DISCO) as well as the possibility of deployment of DG on
the existing network in the face of many constraints. This
paper proposes an effective method for determining optimal
allocation of DG in power systems. The objective functions
considered in this paper are maximisation of the system
loading margin, as well as profit for the DISCO. These
objective functions are first fuzzified to evaluate their
imprecise nature, and then transformed into a single multi-
objective function, before it is finally solved using the
genetic algorithm (GA). The main purpose of the fuzzy
expert systems introduced into the GA in this study is to
enable a better convergence than that obtainable in a simple
GA [11 –13]. The proposed method is tested on IEEE 6-bus
and 30-bus test systems. The numerical results obtained are
evaluated with the simulation results of the classical grid
search algorithm [19] using MATPOWER, which confirm
its robustness and accuracy. The method proposed in this
paper has a benefit over most of the earlier works cited in
this literature, in the sense that it takes the annual load
growth rate into account; this means that the algorithm
could be used in future years as the load growth increases.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2
presents formulation of the fuzzy multi-objective
optimisation problem, while Section 3 gives a brief
overview of the GA as an optimisation and search
technique. The implementation algorithm for optimal
277
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
placement of DG units is carried out in Section 4. To evaluate Breaking the first term of the RHS of (3) yields
the proposed method, two IEEE test systems are used to
obtain numerical results and are presented in Section 5, 
NG 
NL 
NG 
NG 
NL
while Section 6 discusses the results obtained in the PGj g + j
PDG k
= PG0 g + DPGj g + j
PDG k
(4)
preceding section. The conclusion to this paper is drawn in g=1 k=1 g=1 g=1 k=1
Section 7.
The total generation increase in the system, that is, the last two
terms of the RHS of (4), could be expressed in terms of
2 Problem formulation additional load demand and system total loss increase, as
presented in (5)
2.1 Objective functions

NG 
NL 
NB B −1
N
To determine the optimal size and location of DG in
DPGj g + j
PDG = DPDj i + j
DPLm (5)
distribution power systems, the basic objective functions k
g=1 k=1 i=1 m=1
considered in this study are maximisation of the network
loading margin (for operational efficiency) and the
However, the system total loss increase in terms of without
DISCO’s profit (by minimising investment). Each of these
and with DG connection is given in (6)
is treated next in the literature.
B −1
N B −1
N B −1
N
j j j
2.1.1 Loading margin maximisation: Loading margin, DPLm = PLm − PLm DG
(6)
one of the most popular voltage stability indices, could be m=1 m=1 m=1
defined as the amount of load increase necessary to bring a
power system operating at a particular operating point, to To maximise the loading margin of the system, (7) is derived
the verge of voltage collapse. Incidentally, economic and from (5) and (6)
environmental factors impose several restrictions on
network expansion in the electric power industry worldwide 
NB 
NG 
NG N
B −1 N
B −1

today, even as the demand for power increases. Under these max DPDj i = DPGj g + j
PDG k
− j
PLm + j
PLm DG
conditions, power systems are operated close to their i=1 g=1 m=1 m=1 m=1

voltage stability limits. However, DG is a viable option to (7)

avoid voltage collapse in the system by increasing the
voltage profile. This is achieved through additional power It should be noted that maximising a function f (x) is
supplied by DG to the system, which in turn improves the synonymous to minimising 2f (x), and hence (8) is
margin to voltage collapse. obtained from (7).
The expression for the network active power loss on line m Let
at zeroth year (basecase year) is presented in (1)  

NB
j
F1 (z) = min (−1) max DPDi
B −1
N
i=1
0
PLm = Gm (Vi2 + Vy2 − 2Vi Vy cos (di − dy )) (1)
m=1 B −1
N B −1
N 
NG 
NL
j j
= PLm − PLm DG
− DPGj g − j
PDGk
(8)
where Gm is the conductance of line m series impedance, m=1 m=1 g=1 k=1
which connects bus i to bus y, Vi is the bus i voltage
magnitude and di is the voltage angle at bus i. With an
annual load growth rate a, and a loss rate constant b, the 2.1.2 Profit maximisation: Similarly, maximising the
total power loss at tth year in the system is given by (2) DISCO’s profit is represented by (9), where the first term in
the expression represents the expected revenue of the
DISCO when PDG is penetrated at bus k in the system,
t
PLm = PLm
0
(1 + a)bt ∀t [ {0, 1, 2, 3, . . . , Tp } (2) assuming the entire net energy generated by DG is
consumed by the customers. The second term is the energy
When DG is connected, the total generation of the system, as loss cost, while the third term depicts the investment cost of
given in (3), is the sum of generation of all the central DG
generators plus that of DG units, to serve additional load
and the system loss at jth load level 
Tp

LN 
NL
j
max PR = CE gt Td PDG k
t=1 j=1 k=1

NG 
NL 
NG
PGj g + j
PDG k
= PG0 g (1 + kGg ) j

Tp

LN N
B −1 
LN 
NL
j j
g=1 k=1 g=1 − CE gt Td PLm DG
− CDG
iv
PDG k
t=0 j=1 m=1 j=1 k=1

NL
j
+ PDG k
for j = 1 to LN (3) (9)
k=1
where gt is the present worth factor (PWF) at tth future year,
where kGg is the generation direction, defined as the portion and is computed from (10). dr is the annual discount rate.
of generation increase in each participating central generator
and PG0 g is the basecase power generated from g central 1
gt = (10)
generator. (1 + dr)t

278 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 276 –287
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0199
 www.ietdl.org
The investment cost of DG comprises of the cost of purchase, presented in (15)
installation, operation and maintenance and tax cost and the
cost of fuel for the planning period. The expression for this (F1 (z) − z∗1 )
is presented in (11) mF1 (z) = ∗
for z∗1 ≤ F1 (z) ≤ znad
1 (15)
1 − z1 )
(znad


Tp

Tp
iv
CDG pc
= CDG + CDG
in
+ O&M&T
gt Td CDG + gt CF (11) 2.2.2 Fuzzification of the second objective
t=0 t=0
function – profit maximisation: The second objective
is to maximise the profit for the DISCO as expressed in
Equation (12) is obtained from (9). (12). If mF2(z) is the satisfaction parameter of the second
Let objective function, then the expression in (16) holds

 
LN N
B −1
(F2 (z) − z∗2 )
for z∗2 ≤ F2 (z) ≤ znad
Tp
j mF2 (z) = ∗ 2 (16)
F2 (z) = min(−PR ) = CE gt Td PLm DG 2 − z2 )
(znad
t=0 j=1 m=1
The overall fuzzy multi-objective function at node k of the

LN 
NL
j

Tp

LN 
NL
j case-study system can therefore be expressed as
+ iv
CDG PDGk
− CE gt Td PDGk
j=1 k=1 t=0 j=1 k=1
min Fk (z) = W1 mF1 (z) + W2 mF2 (z) (17)
(12) z[S

Equations (8) and (12) are subject to (13) For the sake of simplicity, the two objective functions are
assumed to be equally weighted in this study, that is, W1 ¼
N
B −1 N
B −1
W2 ¼ 0.5. It is, however, worth mentioning that these two
j j
0≤ PLm DG
≤ PLm , weighting factors can be varied in accordance with the
m=1 m=1 preference of the decision maker – the operator in charge.
Since DG is not centrally dispatched, unit commitment

NL
j

NB
schedules are not considered in the formulation of (17)
0≤ PDG k
≤ 0.4 PDj i for j = 1 to LN (13) because they are out of the control of the system operator.
k=1 i=1
Maintaining schedules for lines and units, forced outages
have been taken into account during the off-time of 65 days
The DG considered in this study is a natural gas-driven
per year of the DG operation.
combustion turbine. It is assumed to be operated for 300
The following system-bound constraints are considered in
days per year. This is equivalent to 7200 h per year, for a
this study:
horizon planning period of 20 years. It is also pertinent to
add that the overall DG capacity limit considered in this
Bus voltage constraint
study is 40% of the system peak load demand, to avoid
some power quality and protection issues, which might
arise as the DG penetration level increases. The balance of Vimin ≤ Vi ≤ Vimax ∀i [ {1, 2, 3, . . . , NB } (18)
60% is provided by the central generators.
Feeder power flow constraint
2.2 Membership function for the objective
functions Siy ≤ Siymax , and Syi ≤ Syimax ∀i, y [ {1, 2, 3, . . . , NB }
(19)
Since power loading is measured in MW and the DISCO’s
profit in USD, (14) is presented to separately normalise the
objective functions so that their objective values will be
approximately of the same magnitude. 3 Brief overview of GA
The GA is a general-purpose optimisation and search
(F (z) − z∗x )
mFx (z) = xnad for z∗x ≤ Fx (z) ≤ znad (14) technique that is based on principles inspired by the genetic
(zx − z∗x ) x
evolutionary mechanism observed in the populations of
natural systems and living organisms [21]. Generally, GAs
where zx∗ , called the ideal objective vector, is start with an initial set of random solutions that lie in the
obtained by minimising each objective function feasible solution region, otherwise known as population.
individually, and znad
x , known as the nadir objective vector, Each solution in the population, called a chromosome,
is the upper bounds of the Pareto-optimal set that can be represents a possible solution to the optimisation problem.
estimated from a pay-off table [20]. Now the value for each If the chromosome has N variables given by V1 , V2 ,
new objective function ranges between 0 and 1. In other V3 , . . . , VN , it is written as an N element vector [V1 , V2 ,
words, mFx(z) ¼0 when Fx(z) ¼ zx∗ , and mFx(z) ¼ 1 when V3 , . . . , VN]. A position or set of positions in a
Fx(z) ¼ znad
x . chromosome, which is part of the solution, is called a gene.
The number of variables of the optimisation problem is
2.2.1 Fuzzification of the first objective function – always equal to the number of genes. Each iteration in a
loading margin maximisation: The first objective GA is called a generation. The flowchart shown in Fig. 1
function formulated in (7) is fuzzified. Defining mF1(z) as summarises the general procedure involved in the SGA.
the satisfaction parameter of power loading margin This generational process is repeated until a stopping
maximisation, the membership function for this objective is condition has been reached.

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 276– 287 279
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0199 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
Fig. 1 Simple genetic algorithm flowchar
Common terminating conditions are the following:
† A solution that satisfies minimum criteria is found.
† A fixed number of generations is reached.
† Computation time limit is reached.
† No improvement in the objective function during an
interval of time in seconds equal to stall time limit.
† Combinations of the above.
The simplest form of a GA involves three types of
operators: selection, crossover and mutation. The selection
operator selects chromosomes in the population for
reproduction. The fitter the chromosome is, the more times
it is likely to be selected to reproduce; otherwise, it is
eliminated from the population. The crossover operator is
used for recombination of individuals within the generation.
It selects two individuals in the current generation and
performs swapping at a random or fixed site in the
individual string. The objective of the crossover process is
to synthesise bits of knowledge from the parent
chromosomes that will exhibit improved performance in the
offspring. The common types of crossover are single-point,
two-point, uniform and arithmetic crossovers. Single-point
crossover, in which one crossover point is selected, then the
binary string from the beginning of the chromosome to the
crossover point, is copied from one parent, and the rest
from the second parent, is adopted in this study. The
mutation operator is used to randomly flip some bits in a
chromosome to explore the solution space. It introduces
diversity into the population. If diversity is lost, the search
convergences rapidly and some important information
would be missing. After mutation, the new generation is
complete and the procedure begins again with fitness
evaluation of the population. The types of mutation are flip
bit, boundary, non-uniform, uniform and Gaussian mutations.
280
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
Fundamental to the GA structure is the encoding
mechanism for representing the variables of the
optimisation problem. A common method of encoding GAs
is binary encoding; other types include permutation, value
and tree encodings. In binary encoding, every chromosome
is a string of bits, 0 or 1. An example of a binary-encoded
chromosome that has N variables, each encoded with 9 bits
is presented as follows.
111110101 011001010 · · · 001011001
chromosome =   
gene1 gene2 geneN
The population has Np chromosomes and is an Np × Nbits
matrix filled with random ones and zeros in binary
encoding. The function to be optimised, called the objective
function, provides the mechanism to evaluate each string.
However, its range of values varies from problem to
problem. Some advantages of using the GA include
resistance to become trapped in local optima, wide variety
of applications to optimisation problems and so on.
Similar to other optimisation techniques, GAs have certain
control parameters that must be selected with maximum
caution, since the performance of the GA depends largely
on the values used. These parameters include population
size, crossover rate and mutation rate. The choice of the
control parameters, often left to the GA user, itself can be a
complex non-linear optimisation problem [22].
Even though the choice of optimal parameters remains an
open issue to a large extent, several researchers have
proposed control parameter sets that guarantee good
performance on carefully chosen testbeds of objective
functions. Two distinct parameter sets are proposed [22]:
1. Small population size, but relatively large crossover and
mutation probabilities. Typical values include a population
size of 30, a crossover rate of 0.9, and a mutation rate of 0.01.
2. Larger population size, but much smaller crossover and
mutation probabilities. A typical example of this includes a
population size of 100, a crossover rate of 0.6 and a
mutation rate of 0.001.
In real-life scenarios, the static configurations of the control
parameters and encodings in GAs have some drawbacks, such
as premature convergence, which usually results from rapid
descending of the population diversity (PD), and its
inability to handle fuzziness found in the fitness function.
PD is the average distance between individuals in the
population. A too high or too low PD would make the GA
not perform well [23]. To effectively overcome this
problem, non-traditional techniques such as dynamic and
adaptive strategies are employed. This would mitigate the
problem by controlling the PD to maintain the proper value
[24], thereby improving the performance of the GA.
In this study, a fuzzy genetic algorithm (FGA) is developed
by systematically integrating fuzzy expert systems into the
GA, to dynamically control the GA parameters during
operation, with a goal of achieving high performance of the
algorithm. Experiments show that the FGA can search
faster and more effectively than the simple GA in solving
optimisation problems [25]. In achieving this goal, three
input variables – ( fA)/( fB), ( fW)/( fA) and D and three
output variables – variations in the current Pc , Pm and
Np – are used in the fuzzy controller. ( fA)/( fB) is a
measure of the current PD’s usefulness. If the value is close
to 1 (i.e. high), then convergence has been reached, but the
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 276 –287
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0199

population shows a high level of diversity if the value is low,
that is, close to 0. D represents the change in the best fitness
since the last control action. The input and output quantities
are defined as follows: ( fA)/( fB) [ [0, 1], ( fW)/( fA) [
[0, 1], D [ [0, 14], Pc [ [0.6, 0.9], Pm [ [0.01, 0.015] and
Np [ [30, 45] in this study. The linguistic value sets of the
inputs and outputs are all {low, medium, high} with respect
to the lower- and upper-limit values, respectively. The
fuzzy IF – THEN rules in [26] are adopted to combine fuzzy
sets in this paper as presented in Table 6 in the Appendix.
4 Proposed algorithm for DG placement
To solve the fuzzy multi-objective optimisation problem
formulated in (17), the FGA is used. The goal of the
proposed algorithm is to find the optimal size and site for
DG placement in the network, while keeping the voltage
and line power flow within permissible limits. The
algorithm is presented in steps as follows:
Step 1: Input the network data and maximum DG size.
Step 2: Set the load level j.
www.ietdl.org
Step 4: Enter the maximum number of iterations m.
Step 5: Randomly create binary strings (chromosomes) equal
to the population size, Np¼ 30. Each chromosome is a
concatenation of two genes, DG size and bus location of
eight binary bits each (i.e. p0 ¼ [PsDGBk]), where s ¼ 0 to
Pmax
DG (maximum DG size), and k ¼ 1 to NL . In other
words, p0 has 16 × 30 ¼ 480 bits initially.
Step 6: iter ¼ 1.
Step 7: Apply each chromosome of p0 on the network to
calculate Fk(z). If no voltage and MVA line limits, accept
the chromosome for the next generation, else reject the
size – location pair.
Step 8: Create next-generation population:
For pS ¼ 1 to Np × SR ( pS is the population of the members
that survive for the next generation at 50% selection rate).
1. Select a pair of best-fitted chromosomes, using the roulette
wheel approach to form P1 .
2. Apply crossover rate to breed population P2 .
3. Apply the fuzzy controller using the rules in Table 6, by
adapting Pc to stabilise optimal populations.
4. Mutate chromosomes in P2 to form P3 .
5. Apply the fuzzy controller using the rules in Table 6 to
Step 3: Without DG, run a power flow to determine the total maintain the PD, by adapting Pm .
NB
power demand i=1 PDj i of the network. 6. Evaluate the individual fitnesses of P3 using (17).

Table 1 Market data used in the study

DG Substation and feeder expansion

Cost Rate Cost Rate

purchase M$0.45/MW [27, 28] substation $10/MWh [29]

expansion
installation M$0.985/MW [28] feeder $1/MWh [29]
expansion
O&M&T $5/MWh [28] O&M&T $3/MWh [30]
energy cost $109/MWh [28] grid energy $120/MWh [28]
fuel $4.44/MMBtu [31]
fuel heat 12MMBtu/MWh [30]
fuel quantity 10 368 000 MMBtu/yr

Fig. 2 IEEE 30-bus test system

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 276– 287 281
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0199 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
Fig. 3 Objective function values and power loss on a 6-bus system
7. Generate a new population p0 ¼ p0+1 (a combination of
best-fitted springs and best fitted offspring).
Step 9: While iter , m, perform Steps 7 to 9.
Step 10: Display the size – location pair where the objective
function Fk(z) is least, as the optimal size and bus,
respectively.
Step 11: Place DG size permanently at bus k, then determine
another DG size – location pair.
Fig. 4 Objective function plot of IEEE 30-bus test system (basecase loading)
Fig. 5 Active and reactive power losses with a 40 MW DG at basecase loading
282
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
Step 12: While total DG size in the network,
NB
T
PDG , 0.4 i=1 PDj i repeat Steps 5 – 12.
Step 13: Stop and end the programme.
5 Application to test systems
To evaluate the proposed algorithm described in Section 4,
IEEE 6-bus and 30-bus test systems are employed. To
present a real-life scenario, it is assumed in this study that
DG units can be installed on load buses only. In other
words, generator buses are not considered as candidate
locations for DG. Even though the proposed algorithm is
suitable for optimal allocation of any type of non-site-
specific DG units, the type assumed in this work is natural
gas-fired combustion turbine generator sets. The cost data
used in the study are given in Table 1. DG can be connected
to the grid in two ways: parallel operation mode and roll-
over operation mode. In the parallel operation mode, both the
DG unit and the grid are connected together for simultaneous
supply of power to the load, whereas in the roll-over
operation mode, the two sources are electrically interlocked,
such that only one is connected to the load at a time. An
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 276 –287
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0199

Fig. 6 Variation of power loss with DG size at 10 bus (basecase)
example of the latter application is when DG is used as a
backup. The former mode is adopted in this study.
The 6-bus test system is a 25 kV feeder, considered as a
primary distribution system. The system is obtained from
[16], and so the system topology and data could be
obtained from the reference. The active and reactive powers
Fig. 7 Objective function plot of an IEEE 30-bus system for first DG (peak loading)
Fig. 8 System voltage profiles without and with DG installation
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 276– 287
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0199
www.ietdl.org
of the test system are 21.25 MW and 5.75 MVars,
respectively. On the other hand, the IEEE 30-bus test
system shown in Fig. 2 is considered as a sub-transmission
system. It consists of 30 buses at 135 kV, 6 generators and
41 lines, and its basecase active and reactive powers are
given as 189.20 MW and 107.20 MVar, respectively. The
line data of this system are provided in Table 5 in the
Appendix.
6 Results and discussion
6.1 Case I – 6-bus test system
The proposed approach, when applied on a 6-bus test system,
gives 8.45 MW but approximated to 8.5 MW as the optimal
DG size to be located at bus 3, where the objective function
is the least. The total power loss recorded when the DG
size is installed at bus 3 of the system is 0.112 MW,
whereas 0.455 MW is recorded in the system prior to DG
installation. The active power loss as well as the objective
function values is plotted as shown in Fig. 3. In terms of
location, the result obtained here is in agreement with that
obtained in [14, 16] but differs in capacity. Although this is
expected since DG size was not optimised in [16] and DG
283
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
capacity limit, with respect to the total load demand, was not
considered in [14]. It is worth mentioning here that higher
penetrations of DG may provoke some power quality and
protection issues in the system.
6.2 Case II – 30-bus test system
Similarly, applying the proposed method on the 30-bus test
system, 40 and 35 MW of DG units are obtained as the
optimal sizes and are, respectively, located at buses 10 and
6 for the basecase loading. Placing a 40 MW DG alone at
different load buses, the objective function values using
(17) are plotted and presented in Fig. 4. From the figure,
the minimum objective function value of 0.317 is obtained
at bus 10, and hence declared the first optimal site. This bus
could be confirmed as the best site from Fig. 5, plotted with
the results of power flow studies carried out when the DG
size is placed at different load buses. It is found that the
least total real power loss is obtained at bus 10. This
process is repeated for the second DG unit, whose size and
location are, respectively, found to be 35 MW and bus 6.
To verify the optimality of DG capacity obtained, several
power flow simulations are carried out in MATPOWER
[32] with different DG sizes from 0 to 70 MW, located at
bus 10. Zero megawatt of DG simply means without DG
connection to the system. The obtained results are plotted
as shown in Fig. 6. The minimum power loss is obtained
with the first DG capacity of 40 MW, which actually
corroborates the results obtained with the proposed
algorithm. Any attempt to increase the DG capacity beyond
40 MW at that location would result in an increased system
total loss, as portrayed in the figure.
Assuming a power demand growth rate of about 2.5% per
year at a constant power factor, the total load demand of the
system under consideration would have grown by 62% in
the horizon planning period of 20 years. The proposed
method is applied to this system, having 302.72 MW and
171.52 MVars as the load active and reactive powers,
respectively. DG units 80 MW and of 40.4 MW rounded to
40 MW are obtained as the optimal sizes, and are located at
buses 8 and 19, respectively, this time around. A plot of the
objective function values for the first DG placed on all load
buses is illustrated in Fig. 7.
Considering Fig. 5, the vitality of the best location for DG
units in power systems is apparent. It is noted in the figure that
with the optimal DG size located at buses 26, 29 and 30 in
each case, higher total system loss is recorded separately in
each of these locations. It could be observed that each of

Table 2 Annual energy loss cost calculation

Load level

80% (light) 100% (normal) 162% (peak)

Duration per year (h) 1700 4200 1300

Wt DG No DG Wt DG No DG Wt DG No DG

power loss, MW 1.224 1.445 1.625 2.444 2.832 11.573

energy loss per year, MWh 2080.80 2456.50 6825.00 10 264.80 3681.60 15 044.90
energy loss cost per year, $ 226 807.20 294 780.00 743 925.00 1 231 776.00 401 294.40 1 805 388.00
total energy loss cost per year, $ with DG 1 372 026.60
without DG 3 331 944.00

Table 3 Twenty-year cost evaluation for two DG units

Year Purchase and Operation and maintenance Fuel cost, $ Energy Annual PWF Annual discounted
installation cost, $ and tax cost, $ loss cost, $ cost, $ cost, $

0 172 200 000.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 223 925 946.60 1.000 223 925 946.60
1 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.916 47 389 781.58
2 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.839 43 417 115.52
3 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.769 39 777 476.42
4 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.705 36 442 946.79
5 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.645 33 387 949.42
6 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.591 30 589 051.23
7 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.542 28 024 783.54
8 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.496 25 675 477.36
9 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.455 23 523 112.56
10 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.417 21 551 179.62
11 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.382 19 744 553.02
12 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.350 18 089 375.19
13 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.320 16 572 950.25
14 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.294 15 183 646.58
15 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.269 13 910 807.68
16 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.246 12 744 670.34
17 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.226 11 676 289.82
18 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.207 10 697 471.21
19 0.00 4 320 000.00 46 033 920.00 1 372 026.60 51 725 946.60 0.189 9 800 706.56
total 1 206 718 932.00 682 125 291.31

284 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 276 –287
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0199
 www.ietdl.org
Table 4 Twenty-year cost evaluation of substation and feeder expansion

Year Substation and Operation and Additional energy Energy Annual PWF Annual
feeder expansion maintenance and purchase cost, $ loss cost, $ cost, $ discounted
cost, $ tax cost, $ cost, $

0 190 080 000.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 299 683 944.00 1.000 299 683 944.00
1 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.916 100 415 890.06
2 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.839 91 998 066.93
3 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.769 84 285 906.49
4 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.705 77 220 253.31
5 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.645 70 746 910.96
6 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.591 64 816 226.26
7 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.542 59 382 708.44
8 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.496 54 404 680.20
9 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.455 49 843 958.04
10 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.417 45 665 559.36
11 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.382 41 837 434.13
12 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.350 38 330 219.09
13 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.320 35 117 012.45
14 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.294 32 173 167.61
15 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.269 29 476 104.09
16 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.246 27 005 134.30
17 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.226 24 741 304.90
18 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.207 22 667 251.40
19 0.00 2 592 000.00 103 680 000.00 3 331 944.00 109 603 944.00 0.189 20 767 064.95
total 2 382 158 880.00 1 270 578 796.96

these values is much higher than that obtained when no DG is 7 Conclusion

installed on the system. These buses are therefore regarded as
critical buses and no attempt should be made to site DG units
on any of them. The results of several power flow studies
revealed that a DG of 120 MW capacity at bus 8 would
record the least system power loss at critical loading of the
system. However, the proposed algorithm gives the optimal
DG size that can be installed there without bus voltage and
line loading limits violations as 80 MW. Without DG
installation, and with DG greater than 80 MW sited at bus 8
only, there was a line loading limit violation at lines 6 – 8.
The voltage profiles of the system given in various
scenarios are presented in Fig. 8. From this figure, though
expectedly, it is clear that there is a great improvement on
the voltage profiles with DG installation on the system
under study. At basecase and 80% basecase, no bus records
any voltage limits violation. However, the voltage levels of
some buses exceed the minimum allowable voltage with
162% loading at the horizon year. Nevertheless, the
improvement on the voltage profile of these buses can be
seen in the graph with DG installation on the system. This
is one of the potential benefits of DG adoption in electric
power systems. The annual energy loss cost is calculated
using three load levels as shown in Table 2. The values in
the table are obtained with the aid of the appropriate market
data provided in Table 1.
In the same vein, Tables 3 and 4 are presented to
demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of adopting DG rather
than expanding substation and feeder facilities to meet the
ever-increasing customers’ demands. With an annual
discount rate of 9.15%, it is revealed in the study that a net
discounted savings of more than 588 million USD would
be made by the DISCO in the horizon period by installing
120 MW of DG on the system under consideration, rather
than expanding the substations and feeders 6– 8, to enable it
withstand the additional power demand. Annual discounted
cost is obtained when the (PWF) is applied to the future years.
This paper has presented an effective approach for
determining the optimal capacity and location of DG units
in meshed power systems. The objective functions
considered in the study were maximisation of the system
loading margin as well as the DISCO’s profit. The results
obtained with the proposed approach when applied on IEEE
6-bus and 30-bus test systems were compared with the
simulation results of the classical grid search algorithm
using MATPOWER, which were found to be very accurate.
It was evident in the study that appropriate size and
location of DG sources are highly crucial, to maximise the
benefits, and operate the system safely in order to forestall
voltage and/or line power flow MVA limits violations. It
was also observed in the study that placing DG units where
the peak loading condition is evaluated may not produce
the best locations to minimise loss at basecase loading.
Finally, the results obtained in this study demonstrated that
DG is a viable economic alternative, relative to upgrading
substations and feeder facilities, when the incremental cost
of serving additional load is considered.
8 Acknowledgments
The power flow studies in this study were carried out using
MATPOWER package. The technical advice given by
Prof. J. O. Ojo of the Tennessee Technological University,
USA, in this study is gratefully acknowledged. Akorede
also acknowledges with gratitude the financial support, in
the form of Graduate Research Fellowship, offered by the
Universiti Putra Malaysia.
9 References
1 CIRED: Dispersed generation; preliminary report of CIRED. Int. Conf.
Electricity Distribution, Working Group WG04, Brussels, Belgium, 1999

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 276– 287 285
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0199 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
2 CIGRE WG 37-23: ‘Impact of increasing contribution of dispersed 29 Dondi, P., Bayoumi, D., Haederli, C., Julian, D., Suter, M.: ‘Network
generation on the power system’. Final Report, 1998 integration of distributed power generation’, J. Power Sources, 2002,
3 Ackermann, T., Andersson, G., Söder, L.: ‘Distributed generation: 106, (1– 2), pp. 1– 9
a definition’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2001, 57, (3), pp. 195– 204 30 Willis, H., Scott, W.: ‘Distributed power generation: planning and
4 Chiradeja, P., Ramakumar, R.: ‘An approach to quantify the technical evaluation’ (CRC, 2000)
benefits of distributed generation’, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 19, 31 U.S. Energy Information Administration: ‘Natural Gas Weekly Update’,
(4), pp. 764– 773 15 March 2010, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngw/ngupdate.asp
5 Willis, H.L., Inc, A., Raleigh, N.C.: ‘Analytical methods and rules of 32 Zimmerman, R., Gan, D.: ‘Matpower’ (Power Systems Engineering
thumb for modeling DG-distribution interaction’. IEEE Power Research Center, School of Electrical Engineering, Cornell University,
Engineering Society Summer Meeting, 2000, pp. 1643–1644 Ithaca, NY, 1997)
6 Gozel, T., Hocaoglu, M.H., Eminoglu, U., Balikci, A.: ‘Optimal placement
and sizing of distributed generation on radial feeder with different static
load models’. Future Power Systems, Int. Conf., 2005, pp. 1–6 10 Appendix
7 Acharya, N., Mahat, P., Mithulananthan, N.: ‘An analytical approach for
DG allocation in primary distribution network’, Int. J. Electr. Power IEEE 30 bus test system line data and fuzzy control rules are
Energy Syst., 2006, 28, (10), pp. 669– 678
8 Elnashar, M.M., El Shatshat, R., Salama, M.M.A.: ‘Optimum siting and
given below.
sizing of a large distributed generator in a mesh connected system’,
Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2010, 80, (6), pp. 690–697
9 Hedayati, H., Nabaviniaki, S.A., Akbarimajd, A.: ‘A method for
placement of DG units in distribution networks’, IEEE Trans. Power Table 5 IEEE 30-bus test system line data
Delivery, 2008, 23, (3), pp. 1620–1628
10 Golshan, M.E.H., Arefifar, S.A.: ‘Optimal allocation of distributed Branch From To R, X, B, MVA
generation and reactive sources considering tap positions of voltage no bus bus pu pu pu limit
regulators as control variables’, Eur. Trans. Electr. Power, 2007, 17,
(3), pp. 219– 239 1 1 2 0.02 0.06 0.03 130
11 Kumar, V., Kumar, H.C.R., Gupta, I., Gupta, H.O.: ‘DG integrated 2 1 3 0.05 0.19 0.02 130
approach for service restoration under cold load pickup’, IEEE Trans. 3 2 4 0.06 0.17 0.02 65
Power Deliv., 2010, 25, (1), pp. 398 –406 4 2 5 0.05 0.20 0.02 130
12 Singh, R.K., Goswami, S.K.: ‘Optimum allocation of distributed
5 2 6 0.06 0.18 0.02 65
generations based on nodal pricing for profit, loss reduction, and
voltage improvement including voltage rise issue’, Int. J. Electr. 6 3 4 0.01 0.04 0.00 130
Power Energy Syst., 2010, 32, (6), pp. 637– 644 7 4 6 0.01 0.04 0.00 90
13 El-ela, A., Allam, S., Shatla, M.: ‘Maximal optimal benefits of 8 4 12 0.00 0.26 0.00 65
distributed generation using genetic algorithms’, Electr. Power Syst. 9 5 7 0.05 0.12 0.01 70
Res., 2010, 80, (7), pp. 869– 877
14 Singh, R.K., Goswami, S.K.: ‘Optimum siting and sizing of distributed 10 6 7 0.03 0.08 0.01 130
generations in radial and networked systems’, Electr. Power Compon. 11 6 8 0.01 0.04 0.00 32
Syst., 2009, 37, (2), pp. 127– 145 12 6 9 0.00 0.21 0.00 65
15 Haghifam, M.R., Falaghi, H., Malik, O.P.: ‘Risk-based distributed 13 6 10 0.00 0.56 0.00 32
generation placement’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2008, 2, (2),
14 6 28 0.02 0.06 0.01 32
pp. 252–260
16 Wang, C., Nehrir, M.H.: ‘Analytical approaches for optimal placement 15 8 28 0.06 0.20 0.02 32
of distributed generation sources in power systems’, IEEE Trans. 16 9 10 0.00 0.11 0.00 65
Power Syst., 2004, 19, (4), pp. 2068–2076 17 9 11 0.00 0.21 0.00 65
17 Jabr, R.A., Pal, B.C.: ‘Ordinal optimisation approach for locating and 18 10 17 0.03 0.08 0.00 32
sizing of distributed generation’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib, 2009, 3,
(8), pp. 713– 723 19 10 20 0.09 0.21 0.00 32
18 Celli, G., Ghiani, E., Mocci, S., Pilo, F.: ‘A multiobjective evolutionary 20 10 21 0.03 0.07 0.00 32
algorithm for the sizing and siting of distributed generation’, IEEE 21 10 22 0.07 0.15 0.00 32
Trans. Power Syst., 2005, 20, (2), pp. 750– 757 22 12 13 0.00 0.14 0.00 65
19 Gözel, T., Hocaoglu, M.H.: ‘An analytical method for the sizing and
23 12 14 0.12 0.26 0.00 32
siting of distributed generators in radial systems’, Electr. Power Syst.
Res., 2009, 79, (6), pp. 912– 918 24 12 15 0.07 0.13 0.00 32
20 Miettinen, K.: ‘Nonlinear multiobjective optimization’ (Springer, 1999) 25 12 16 0.09 0.20 0.00 32
21 Momoh, J.A.: ‘Electric power system applications of optimization’ 26 14 15 0.22 0.20 0.00 16
(Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 2001) 27 15 18 0.11 0.22 0.00 16
22 Srinivas, M., Patnaik, L.M.: ‘Genetic algorithms: a survey’, Computer,
1994, 27, (6), pp. 17–27 28 15 23 0.10 0.20 0.00 16
23 Haupt, R., Haupt, S.: ‘Practical genetic algorithms’ (Wiley-Interscience, 29 16 17 0.08 0.19 0.00 16
2004) 30 18 19 0.06 0.13 0.00 16
24 Wang, K.: ‘A new fuzzy genetic algorithm based on population 31 19 20 0.03 0.07 0.00 32
diversity’, Proc. 2001 IEEE Int. Symp. on Computational Intelligence
32 21 22 0.01 0.02 0.00 32
in Robotics and Automation, 2001, pp. 108 –112
25 Xu, H., Vukovich, G.: ‘A fuzzy genetic algorithm with effective search 33 22 24 0.12 0.18 0.00 16
and optimization’. Int. Joint Conf. on Neural Networks, 1993, 34 23 24 0.13 0.27 0.00 16
pp. 2967– 2970 35 24 25 0.19 0.33 0.00 16
26 Lee, M.A., Takagi, H.: ‘Dynamic control of genetic algorithms using 36 25 26 0.25 0.38 0.00 16
fuzzy logic techniques’. Fifth Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms,
Urbana-Champaign, IL, 1993, pp. 76–83 37 25 27 0.11 0.21 0.00 16
27 El-khattam, W., Bhattacharya, K., Hegazy, Y., Salama, M.M.A.: 38 27 29 0.22 0.42 0.00 16
‘Optimal investment planning for distributed generation in a 39 27 30 0.32 0.60 0.00 16
competitive electricity market’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2004, 19, 40 28 27 0.00 0.40 0.00 65
(3), pp. 1674– 1684
41 29 30 0.24 0.45 0.00 16
28 California Energy Commission: ‘California Distributed Energy
Resources Guide’, 15 March 2010, www.energy.ca.gov/distgen/

286 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 276 –287
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0199
 www.ietdl.org
Table 6 Fuzzy control rules

Input Output

fA/fB fW/fA D Pc Pm Np

low low high low medium high

low medium medium high medium low
low high low medium medium low
low medium medium/high high high high
medium low low medium medium low
medium medium/high low low medium low
medium low medium medium high medium
medium medium low/ medium high medium medium
medium low medium/high medium medium low
medium medium/high low low high low
high low low/medium low low medium
high low high high high low
high medium high low high high
high medium/high high medium low high

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 276– 287 287
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0199 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011