Risk-based distributed generation placement

M.-R. Haghifam, H. Falaghi and O.P. Malik

Abstract: A strategy is presented for the placement of distributed generation (DG) units in the dis-
tribution networks in an uncertain environment. Uncertainties in the system are modelled using
fuzzy numbers. The proposed approach is based on a multi-objective model in which the objectives
are defined as minimisation of monetary cost index (including investment, operation cost of DG
units and cost of losses), technical risks (including risks of voltage and loading constraints violation
because of load uncertainty) and economic risk due to electricity market price uncertainty. The true
Pareto-optimal solutions are found with a multi-objective genetic algorithm and the final solution is
found using a max – min approach. An example is presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
proposed methodology.

1 Introduction Modelling of uncertainties is introduced in Section 2,

Distributed generation (DG) is defined as generating units
connected directly to the distribution network or to the cus-
tomer site [1]. With advances in technology and restructur-
ing in electric power systems, DGs are predicted to play an
important role in the future. DG sources can be placed in
distribution networks for grid reinforcement, reducing
power losses and on-peak operating costs, improving
voltage profiles and load factors and deferring or eliminat-
ing system upgrades.
In recent years, several studies have considered tech-
niques for locating DG units on distribution feeders [2–
17]. Methods and procedures of the DG placement are
varied according to objectives and solution techniques.
Some DG placement methods are introduced and compared
in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, load is considered as known and
specified in almost all methods, in spite of having a high
uncertainty. For economic and technical reasons, distri-
bution networks ,10% of the nodes are monitored, which
is far from sufficient to obtain a reliable and high-quality
estimation for the load in all network nodes. Thus, in prac-
tice, load obtained as a result of estimation and/or forecast-
ing always contains a certain amount of quantitative
uncertainty.
In this research, a new formulation for the DG placement
is proposed. The objects are the minimisation of technical
and economic risks and operation and planning costs. A
fuzzy approach is used for the modelling of load and elec-
tricity price uncertainties and related risks. To solve this
multi-objective problem, the concept of Pareto optimality,
based on a non-dominant sorting genetic algorithm
(NSGA-II) [18], is used.
# The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008
doi:10.1049/iet-gtd:20070046
Paper first received 27th January and in revised form 1st October 2007
M.-R. Haghifam and H. Falaghi are with the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, PO Box 14115-111,
Tehran, Iran
O.P. Malik is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada T2 N 1N4
E-mail: haghifam@modares.ac.ir
problem formulation is presented in Section 3, implemen-
tation of NSGA-II method is explained in Section 4 and a
case study is reported in Section 5.
2 Modelling of uncertainties
In this section, modelling of uncertainties in load, voltage
and loading constraints and market price are explained.
2.1 Fuzzy load modelling
One of the efficient ways to model load uncertainty in a dis-
tribution network is to describe it with fuzzy numbers.
Triangular fuzzy number (TFN) is often used for load rep-
resentation because it is the most suitable to handle while
providing a high-quality explanation of the load uncertain-
ties in networks [19 – 21]. Fig. 1a illustrates the load
presented as TFN P, ~ written as P~ ¼ (PL , PM , PR ). The
TFN explains the load possibilities into a triangular possi-
bility distribution in which the load is expected to be
around the mean value PM (no less than PL and no more
than PR).
2.2 Voltage and loading constraints modelling
A large amount of calculation burden in DG placement is
related to the load flow in the distribution network. With
respect to radial configuration and R/X ratio, conventional
load flow methods are inefficient for solving distribution
networks. So, the solution technique used in this paper is
based on forward and backward propagations with fuzzy
load [19]. Because of fuzzy modelling of loads, variables
are treated as TFNs with real and/or imaginary parameters;
mathematical operators apply in the fuzzy domain and load
flow results are obtained in the fuzzy domain [19]. In
Fig. 1b, voltage at node k is presented as TFN (V~ k )
whereas the upper and lower voltage limits in this node
are represented as the deterministic crisp values (Vmax and
Vmin , respectively).
In the fuzzy domain, voltage constraint is expressed as
~ V~ k

Vmin
~ Vmax (1)

252 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2008, 2, (2), pp. 252 –260
Table 1: DG placement methods

Reference Objectives Load modelling Optimisation/solution method

Rau and Wan [2]
Kim et al. [3]
Nara et al. [4]
Griffin et al. [5]
Kim et al. [6]
Celli et al. [7]
Willis [8]
El-Khattam et al. [9]
Wang and Nehrir [10]
Harrison and Wallace [11]
Popoviv et al. [12]
Keane and O’Malley [13]
Carpinelli et al. [14]
Teng et al. [15]
Borges and Falcao [16]
Acharya et al. [17]
minimising of loss, line loading one load level gradient and second-order
and reactive power method
requirement in the network
minimising of loss multi-load level hybrid fuzzy nonlinear goal
programming and GA
minimising of loss uniformly distributed constant tabu search
current with unity power
factor
minimising of loss peak load level heuristic iterative method
minimising of loss one load level Hereford Ranch algorithm
minimising cost of network peak load with constant growth hybrid e -constraint-based
upgrading, power losses, rate multi-objective programming
energy not supplied and and GA
energy required by the
customers
loss minimisation uniformly distributed load analytical based on 2/3 rule
minimising cost of investment multi-load level heuristic iterative search
and operation of DGs, loss method
and energy required by the
customers
minimising of loss time-varying load analytical approach
maximising DG capacity minimum load level optimal power flow
maximising DG capacity multi-load level sensitivity analysis
maximising DG capacity one load level linear programming
minimising cost of losses and peak load with constant growth hybrid e -constraint-based
improvement in voltage rate multi-objective programming
quality and harmonic and GA
distortions
minimising losses and customer average load level GA
interruption costs
minimising of losses and one load level GA
guaranteeing acceptable
reliability level and voltage
profile
minimising of loss peak load level analytical approach

Expression (1), being fuzzy, does not have a simple ‘true’ line segment (or substation) is presented as the crisp value
or ‘false’ value. It is violated only with a certain degree of (Pmax). Same concept as that used for the voltage constraint
possibility, defined as can be used for the expression of loading constraint in the
fuzzy domain [20] with
Aol þ Aor
SVk ¼  100 (%) (2)
Ai þ Aol þ Aor
P~ k

~ Pmax (3)
where Ai is the area under the membership function between
the upper and lower voltage limits. Also, Aol and Aor are the Similar to the voltage constraint, possibility degree of viola-
areas under the membership function left of the Vmin and tion for the loading constraint can be defined as
right of the Vmax , respectively (Fig. 1b). Basically, this
fuzzy constraint means that voltage constraint will be vio- Ar
lated with the possibility SVk . Hence, by changing the par- S Pk ¼  100 (%) (4)
ameters of TFN V~ k , the ratio between areas Ai and Al þ Ar
(Aol þ Aor) also changes, affecting the possibility SVk as
well. where Al and Ar are the areas under the membership func-
By running the fuzzy load flow in a distribution network tion left and right of the loading limit Pmax , respectively
for a given condition, the result of power flow through the (Fig. 1c). In general, larger values of SVk and SPk mean
line segments and substations are also fuzzy numbers. In greater risk in violation of voltage constraint at node k
Fig. 1c, this power flow in the line segment (or substation) and loading constraints in the line segment (or substation)
k is shown as TFN (P~ k ), whereas the loading limit in this k, respectively.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 2, No. 2, March 2008 253
 Technical risk items due to uncertainties in load

† risk of overloading in substations;

† risk of overloading in line segments;
† risk of over/under voltage in nodes.

Economic risk

† This risk item is due to uncertainties in electricity market

price from the DisCo’s view point.

In this paper, the above-mentioned costs and risk items

are considered in DG placement as a multi-objective
model with the following objective functions.

3.1 Monetary objective function

The aggregation of the above-mentioned cost items in a single

function can be performed, since all of them represent monet-
ary expenses, only differing in which time the money is spent.
With discounted interest rates, any future cash flow can be
transferred to a ‘present value’, and therefore these different
time monetary expenses can be joined. Thus, monetary objec-
tive function of DG placement can be formulated as
X
NN
Min f~ M ¼ CDGi ICDG
i¼1

X
T X
NN
þ 8760 mt PDGi OCDG
t¼1 i¼1

X
T
 8760 mt (P~ Loss0  P~ Loss )C~ T (5)
t¼1

Fig. 1 Fuzzy load modelling X 2 Ri,j

a Triangular membership function for power load
b Voltage constraint in fuzzy domain
c Thermal constraint in fuzzy domain
d Triangular membership function for electricity market price
2.3 Electricity price uncertainty modelling
In a competitive electricity market, the DisCo must pur-
chase power from the main grid. Electricity market prices
are not fixed and vary by market conditions. Uncertainty
in the electricity market price is modelled using TFN.
With respect to retail price, which is often regulated by
local authorities or the government and other criteria in dis-
tribution network management, an upper limit for the elec-
tricity market price can be defined as increasing of the
electricity market price more than which is an economic
risk for DisCo. In Fig. 1d, graphical representation of the
electricity market price as TFN (C~ T ) and the above-
mentioned limit (Cmax) as a crisp number are illustrated.
P~ Loss ¼ DV~ i,j 2
(6)
(i,j)[aN
Zi,j
1
m¼ (7)
1þd
where f~ M is the monetary objective function ($), NN the total
number of network nodes, CDGi the DG capacity in the ith
location (MV A), ICDG the DG investment cost ($/MV A),
T the horizon planning year (year), PDGi the power generated
from DG at the ith location (MW), OCDG the DG operation
cost ($/MW h), aN the set of doubles whose elements are
indices of nodes connected by line segments, DV~ i,j the
voltage drop across the line segment connecting nodes i and
j (V), Ri,j the line segment resistance from node i to j (V),
Zi,j the line segment impedance from nodes i to j (V), C~ T the
electricity market price ($/MW h), d the discount rate, P~ Loss0
the network power losses before DG placement (MW) and
P~ Loss the network power losses after DG placement (MW).

3.2 Technical risk objective function

3 Problem formulation
In this objective function, possibilities of occurrence of
Optimisation function is defined in two general groups: overload in the line segments and substations, as well as
costs and risks. In this section, the following terms are under/over-voltage in the load nodes, are minimised.
introduced. Technical risk objective function is mathematically
defined as
Cost items
Min fT ¼ max{SPSMAX , SPLMAX , SVDMAX } (8)
† cost of energy losses; SPSMAX ¼ max{SPSk jk [ NS} (9)
† investment cost of DG units;

SPLMAX ¼ max{S
k [ a }
PLk N (10)
† operation cost of DG units includes cost of fuel and
maintenance. SVDMAX ¼ max{SVDk jk [ NL} (11)

254 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 2, No. 2, March 2008

where fT is the technical risk objective function, SPSk the
possibility degree of overloading occurrence in the kth sub-
station, SPLk the possibility degree of overloading occur-
rence in the kth line segment, SVDk the possibility degree
of over/under voltage occurrence in the kth load node,
NS the set of substations and NL the set of load nodes.
3.3 Economic risk objective function
Payment towards purchased power is proportional to the
multiple of the power and the electricity market price.
Thus, the economic risk due to the increase in the electricity
market price can be expressed as the possibility degree of
the following inequality
C~ E  C~ E0
X
NS X
NN
C~ E ¼ P~ Si C~ T þ PDGi OCDG
i¼1 j¼1
X
NS
C~ E0 ¼ P~ S0i CT max
i¼1
where P~ S0i and P~ Si are the powers purchased by the DisCo
from the main grid through the ith substation as TFN (in
MW) before and after DG placement, respectively. PDGj
is the power generated from the jth DG as crisp number
(in MW).
In (12), costs of meeting customer energy demand in two
cases with and without the presence of DGs in the distri-
bution network are compared. With respect to graphical rep-
resentation of C~ E and C~ E0 in Fig. 2, the possibility degree of
fuzzy inequality (12) is defined as
Br
SCE ¼  100 (%)
Br þ Bl
Thus, the economic risk objective function is
Min fE ¼ SCE
It is observed from the concept of this objective that DG
installation in a distribution network enables DisCo to
meet part of its customer energy demand by the operation
of DG units with crisp operation costs and purchase less
power from the main grid for a uncertain price. In this
way, DG installation and operation can reduce the economic
risk.
3.4 Multi-objective model of DG placement
In this paper, DG placement is modelled as a multi-
objective model with the three objective functions
Fig. 2 Graphical representation of C̃E and C̃E0
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 2, No. 2, March 2008
mentioned above. Mathematically
Min{fM , fT , fE } (17)
PDGi
s.t.
CDGi , i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , NN (18)
PFDG
CDGi
CDG maxi (19)
In this model, constraint on DG operation, in which the
power generated from DG must be less than the DG
capacity, is modelled by (18). In this equation, PFDG is
the power factor of generated power of DG. Also, (19)
shows the constraint on DG installation in candidate sites,
which is applicable in cases where, due to practical or geo-
graphical limitations, DG installation is not feasible for
more than a certain capacity.
(12) In a multi-objective minimisation problem, a feasible sol-
ution X is said to dominate another feasible solution Y, if
and only if (i) the solution X is not worse than Y over all
(13) objectives and (ii) the solution X is strictly better than Y
in at least one objective. A solution is said to be Pareto
optimal if it is not dominated by any other solution in the
(14) solution space. A Pareto-optimal solution cannot be
improved with respect to any objective without worsening
at least one other objective. The set of all feasible non-
dominated solutions is referred to as the Pareto-optimal set.
There are different algorithms for the solution of a multi-
objective problem. A multi-objective optimisation algor-
ithm must not only guide the search towards the global
Pareto-optimal solutions, but also maintain the population
diversity in the Pareto-optimal set. The problem considered
here is a combinatorial problem and the objective functions
are nonlinear with fuzzy numbers. Thus, classical optimis-
ation methods cannot be implemented easily in this case.
In this paper, the NSGA-II [18], which incorporates the
concept of Pareto optimality into its search algorithms and
can find optimal trade-offs among the multiple conflicting
objectives simultaneously, has been developed and
(15)
implemented.
4 Implementation of NSGA-II for DG placement
problem
(16)
4.1 Decision variables coding
In a DG placement problem, the decision variables are the
sizes and generated power of DG units at specified
locations. Because of the difficulties of binary coding,
when dealing with continuous search space with large
dimension, in the proposed approach the decision variables
are coded using real numbers as
X ¼ {PDG1 , PDG2 , PDG3 , . . . , PDGNN } (20)
The ith gene in this chromosome demonstrates the power
generated by DG at the ith candidate location within its
lower limit ai ¼ 0 and upper limit bi ¼ PFDG . CDG max i .
4.2 Computational procedure
The computational procedure of NSGA-II for DG place-
ment consists of the following steps.
Step 1: Initialisation. The algorithm begins with a popu-
lation of randomlyselected initial solutions in the search
space.
Step 2: Crossover. The crossover operator is used for the
generation reproduction. This operator starts by choosing
255
a number randomly from the following interval
x0i [ [xi  a(yi  xi ), yi þ a(yi  xi )],
(21)
i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , NN
where xi and yi are the ith gene values of the parent solutions
and xi , yi . In order to ensure the balance between exploita-
tion and exploration of the search space, a ¼ 0.5 is selected.
Step 3: Mutation. The non-uniform mutation is employed
in this paper. In this operator, the new value x0i of the
gene xi after mutation at generation g is given as
 belong to the different fronts, then the preference is given
xi þ D(g, bi  xi ), if t ¼ 0
x0i ¼ (22)
xi  D(g, xi  ai ), if t ¼ 1
and
 b
 3. Copy the better of the two individuals into the intermedi-
D(g, y) ¼ y 1  z(1g=gmax ) (23)
where t is a binary random number, z a random number
z [ [0, 1], gmax the maximum number of generations and
b a positive constant chosen arbitrarily. In this paper,
b ¼ 5 was selected. This operator gives a value
x0i [ [ai , bi ] such that the probability of returning a value
close to xi increases as the algorithm advances. This
makes a uniform search in the initial stages where t is
small and very locally at the later stages.
Step 4: Objective evaluation. In this step, the values of
objective functions for each member of current population
are evaluated.
Step 5: Non-dominated ranking. The members of popu-
lation are ranked based on non-domination with rank
identifier.
The monetary objective function value is a TFN and has
to be compared and ranked in this step. The comparison of
this fuzzy value is carried out using the defuzzified value.
Defuzzification methods are based on heuristic ideas. The
choice of an appropriate defuzzification method depends
on the application under consideration and can be based
on an axiomatic and/or an empirical justification [22, 23].
In this paper, the defuzzification of the monetary objective
function value is done using removal function R(~a) that for a
TFN, a~ ¼ (aL , aM , aR ) is shown as [23]
R(~a) ¼ (aL þ 2aM þ aR )=4 (24)
Step 6: Crowding distance computation. Since the individ-
uals are selected based on the rank identifier and crowding
distance, all the individuals in the population are assigned a
crowding distance. The crowding distance computation
requires sorting of the population according to each objec-
tive function value in their ascending order of magnitude.
Thereafter, for each objective function, the solutions are
assigned a distance value equal to the absolute difference
in the function values of two adjacent solutions in the
same front. This calculation is continued with other objec-
tive functions. The overall crowding distance value is calcu-
lated as the sum of individual distance value corresponding
to each objective function [18]. Crowding distance is
assigned front wise and comparing the crowding distance
between two individuals in different fronts is meaningless.
Mathematically



Xm



fj (Xiþ1 )  fj (Xi1 )

cd(Xi ) ¼

, i [ F r (25)
j¼1

fjmax  fjmin

where cd(Xi) is the overall crowding distance of solution Xi ,
256
fjmax and fjmin define the range of fj objective function
values, m the number of objective functions and F r shows
the front with identifier r.
Step 7: Selection. Once the individuals are ranked based on
non-domination and with the crowding distance assigned,
the selection is carried out based on binary tournament as
follows.
1. Choose two individuals from the population randomly.
2. Compare the selected individuals by using the crowded
distance cd and the front identifier r. If two individuals
to the solution with the lower rank. When both solutions
have the same front identifier r, preference is given to the
solution that is located in the lesser-crowded region, that
is, crowding distance is greater.
ate pool.
4. Repeat this procedure np times, where np represents the
population size.
This operator not only gives a greater chance of reprodu-
cing to the individuals who have lower rank, but also helps
to keep diversity in the population.
Step 8: Termination. Steps 2 – 7 are repeated until the
maximum number of generations gmax is reached.
4.3 Selection of final solution
To select the final multi-objective solution after analysing
the set of Pareto-optimal solutions, planners can select the
final DG placement solution, considering the most satisfac-
tory values of the three objectives and according to their
experience and professional point of view. In this paper, a
max – min approach is used to select the best (final) multi-
objective DG placement solution. Each solution in the set
of Pareto-optimal solutions has an associated vector of
values (f~ Mk , fTk , fEk ) that can be normalised using the fol-
lowing expressions
fM max  R( f~ Mk )
fMnk ¼ (26)
fM max  fM min
fT max  fTk
fTnk ¼ (27)
fT max  fT min
fE max  fEk
fEnk ¼ (28)
fT max  fT min
where fM max , fT max and fE max are the maximum values
obtained for the monetary objective function [defuzzified
value obtained using (24)], technical risk objective function
and the economic risk objective function, respectively, and
fM min , fT min and fE min the minimum values obtained. Note
that the result of this normalisation shows the level of con-
tentment for each objective function. Afterwards, a max –
min approach, shown in (29), is applied to select the best
(final) multi-objective DG placement solution, that is, the
most suitable solution using the above-mentioned approach
[21, 23]
 
max min{fMnk , fTnk , fEnk } (29)
k
5 Application study
The proposed methodology for DG placement has been
implemented in the MATLAB environment and tested on
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 2, No. 2, March 2008
 maximum allowable loading of substation is considered as
52.5 MV A.
Technical characteristics of conductors used in line seg-
ments and future load data are given in Tables 2 and 3,
respectively. All network nodes except substation node
are considered as candidate sites for DG placement.

Table 3: Cost data used in the study

Parameter Unit Value

electricity market price – C̃T(as $/MW h (25, 40, 90)

Fig. 3 Distribution network under study TFN)

upper limit for electricity market $/MW h 65
price, CT max
the modified primary distribution network studied in [24]. DG investment cost, ICDG $/MV A 400 000
This distribution network shown in Fig. 3 consists of one DG operation cost, OCDG $/MW h 45
132/33 kV substation of 75 MV A capacity to serve eight discount rate, d % 9.15
aggregated loads. With respect to operational limitations, horizon year, T year 30

Table 2: Technical characteristics of conductors and future load data of the distribution network

Line segment R, V X, V Loading limit, A Demand power at to node as TFN

(PL , PM , PR) in MV A
from to PL PM PR

1 2 1.390 2.255 210 6.876 7.640 8.404

2 3 2.780 4.510 210 7.848 8.720 9.592
1 4 2.085 3.383 210 6.876 7.640 8.404
4 5 2.780 4.510 210 3.600 4.000 4.400
1 6 1.738 2.819 210 4.122 4.580 5.038
6 7 2.085 3.383 210 6.543 7.270 7.997
1 8 2.259 3.664 210 5.499 6.110 6.721
8 9 2.433 3.946 210 4.626 5.140 5.654

Table 4: Sample of the Pareto-optimal solutions obtained by NSGA

k fMk , $ fTk , % fEk , % fMnk fTnk fEnk Max–min

8
6 1.077  10 0 0 0 1 1 0
7
20 3.209  10 93.72 10.6 0.7021 0.0628 0.3666 0.0628
31 4.854  107 2.58 7.5 0.5494 0.9742 0.5522 0.5494
53 8.650  107 0 1.42 0.1971 1 0.9149 0.1971
77 1.900  107 79.68 13.13 0.8237 0.2032 0.2155 0.2032
104 6.658  106 100 15.4 0.9382 0 0.0799 0
131 4.422  107 12.79 8.55 0.5895 0.8721 0.4893 0.4893
158 3.982  107 48.51 9.13 0.6303 0.5148 0.4545 0.4545
180 2.610  107 77.94 11.72 0.7578 0.2206 0.2997 0.2206
8
203 1.056  10 0 0.01 0.0197 1 0.9991 0.0197
227 1.524  107 95.25 13.78 0.8585 0.0475 0.177 0.0475
252 4.939  107 1.71 7.32 0.5416 0.9829 0.5626 0.5416
281 2.953  107 81.18 11.14 0.7259 0.1882 0.3347 0.1882
306 3.997  107 69.34 9.09 0.629 0.3066 0.4571 0.3066
337 9.908  106 100 14.77 0.908 0 0.1175 0
366 2.051  107 31.67 12.83 0.8096 0.6833 0.2336 0.2336
393 1.613  107 62.68 13.68 0.8503 0.3732 0.1827 0.1827
7
418 3.629  10 71.25 9.78 0.6631 0.2875 0.4157 0.2875
440 4.601  107 40.52 8.01 0.5729 0.5948 0.5217 0.5217
745 2.501  107 7.69 11.97 0.7678 0.9231 0.2848 0.2848

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 2, No. 2, March 2008 257

Fig. 4 Graphical representation of obtained Pareto-optimal solutions

Power factor for all loads is 0.95. The candidate DGs have
sizes of multiples of 1 MV A (maximum 4 MW) with power
generation at load factor of 0.9. Cost data are listed in
Table 4. In this table, electricity market price (C~ T ) is a
TFN. Allowable voltage deviation is considered as
DV ¼ +5%.
The proposed NSGA-II has been executed with the fol-
lowing parameters:

† population size ¼ 500;

† generation ¼ 300;
† crossover probability ¼ 0.9;
† mutation probability ¼ 0.125.

Application of the proposed NSGA-II determines the

Pareto-optimal solutions. Fig. 4 illustrates the obtained
Pareto-optimal solutions against the defuzzified value of
the DG placement cost index, the technical risk and econ-
omic risk. A sample of the Pareto-optimal solution is pre-
sented in Table 4. The symbol k denotes the number of
obtained Pareto-optimal solution.
After analysing the set of Pareto-optimal solutions, plan-
ners can select the best one, either by considering the most
satisfactory values of the three objectives, their experience,
or by selecting a solution based on the application of the
max – min approach. In order to select the best multi-
objective DG placement solution, the value of the three
objective functions given in Table 4 are normalised using
(26) – (28) and listed as ( fMnk , fTnk and fEnk). Then the
max – min approach is applied. The result of the application
of the ‘min’ operator is given in the column ‘max – min’ in
Table 4, and the result of the ‘max’ operator indicates that
the best solution obtained with the proposed multi-objective
model is solution number 31 in Table 4. This final solution
in the form of generated power and proposed capacity of
DGs in selected candidate nodes is shown in Fig. 5. It is
also compared with the initial condition of the network
without DG in Table 5. From the data listed in this table,
it is observed that the technical and economic risks are
reduced after the DG installation. With DG installation
and operation according to the final solution, fuzzy power
flow in the network changes in such a way that the risk of Fig. 5 Final solution of DG placement
overloading in the substation and voltage constraint viola- a Max – min approach
tion is eliminated. Also, the risk of overloading in the line b Solution with minimum economic risk
segments, which was 100% in the initial condition, is c Solution with maximum 12% economic risk

258 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 2, No. 2, March 2008

Table 5: Comparison of final max –min solution and initial condition
Symbol
ohmic power losses (as TFN) P̃Loss
substation loading (as TFN) P̃S
risk of overloading in substation SPS -MAX
risk of overloading in line SPL-MAX
segments
risk of over/under voltage in SVD-MAX
load nodes
monetary objective function f̃M
(removal value)
technical risk objective function fT
economical risk objective fE
function
reduced to 2.58%. Economic risk, as defined in Section 3.3,
changed from 16.74% in the initial condition to 7.50% after
DG installation.
Also, it should be noted that in the proposed multi-
objective risk-based DG placement, the Pareto-optimal
solutions obtained give the information about the existing
trade-off among the three objectives. Each solution of this
set is useful and shows a strategy for DG placement. If the
planners prefer a DG placement strategy with lowest
economic risk, they will select the solution marked in
Fig. 4 as ‘solution with minimum economic risk’, in
which the economic risk is eliminated. This solution is
shown in Fig. 5b. If the planner want to have a
maximum 12% for economic risk with the minimum
cost, they will select the solution marked in Fig. 4 as ‘sol-
ution with maximum 12% economic risk’, which is rep-
resented in Fig. 5c. In this solution, the technical risk is
7.7%.
There are many other DG placement strategies in the
Pareto-optimal set, which can be selected by the planners
taking into consideration their experience or the requisites
of the distribution networks.
6 Conclusions
A new strategy for DG placement problem is presented in
this paper. The model considers a fuzzy explicit represen-
tation of the uncertainties associated with the future load,
as well as a fuzzy representation of the uncertainties
associated with the power flow in the feeders and substa-
tions, the network node voltages and the electricity market
prices. This model provides a simultaneous minimisation
of the economic cost and technical and economic risks.
A specialised NSGA-II has been proposed as a solution
algorithm. The algorithm determines the set of
Pareto-optimal multi-objective DG placement solutions.
Planners can select the most satisfactory Pareto-optimal
solution on the basis of their experience and professional
point of view. This feature illustrates the possibilities for
practical application and the flexibility of the proposed
methodology. In this paper, a max – min approach has
been proposed to select the best Pareto-optimal DG place-
ment solution. The new DG placement algorithm has been
tested in a typical distribution network. The obtained
results show that the suggested DG placement model is
a powerful decision-making tool for risk management in
distribution networks with DG installation and operation.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 2, No. 2, March 2008
Unit Value before DG installation Value after DG installation
MW (1.314, 1.516, 1.735) (0.562, 0.684, 0.823)
MV A (46.699, 51.920, 57.151) (33.326, 38.492, 43.669)
% 39.57 0
% 100 2.58
% 100 0
$ 0 4.854 107
% 100 2.58
% 16.74 7.50
Also the application of proposed method for DG place-
ment with stochastic generation is under study.
7 References
1 Ackermann, T., Andersson, G., and Soder, L.: ‘Distributed
generation: a definition’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2001, 57, (3),
pp. 195–204
2 Rau, N.S., and Wan, Y.-H.: ‘Optimum location of resources in
distributed planning’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1994, 9, (4),
pp. 2014–2020
3 Kim, K.-H., Lee, Y.-J., Rhee, S.-B. et al.: ‘Dispersed generator
placement using fuzzy-GA in distribution systems’. Proc. IEEE
Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, Chicago, USA,
21–25 July 2002, pp. 1148– 1153
4 Nara, K., Hayashi, Y., Ikeda, K. et al.: ‘Application of tabu search to
optimal placement of distributed generators’. Proc. IEEE Power
Engineering Society Winter Meeting, Columbus, USA, 28 January–
1 February 2001, pp. 918– 923
5 Griffin, T., Tomsovic, K., Secrest, D. et al.: ‘Placement of dispersed
generation systems for reduced losses’. Proc. 33rd Int. Conf. System
Sciences, Hawaii, 4– 7 January 2000, pp. 1446–1454
6 Kim, J.O., Nam, S.W., Park, S.K. et al.: ‘Dispersed generation
planning using improved Hereford Ranch algorithm’, Electr. Power
Syst. Res., 1998, 47, (1), pp. 47–55
7 Celli, G., Ghaiani, E., Mocci, S. et al.: ‘A multiobjective evolutionary
algorithm for the sizing and sitting of distributed generation’, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., 2005, 20, (2), pp. 750–757
8 Willis, H.L.: ‘Analytical methods and rules of thumb for modeling
DG-distribution interaction’. Proc. IEEE Power Engineering
Society Summer Meeting, Seattle, USA, 16–20 July 2000,
pp. 1643–1644
9 El-Khattam, W., Bhattacharya, K., Hegazy, Y. et al.: ‘Optimal
investment planning for distributed generation in a competitive
electricity market’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2004, 19, (3),
pp. 1674–1684
10 Wang, C., and Nehrir, M.H.: ‘Analytical approaches for optimal
placement of distributed generation sources in power systems’,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2004, 19, (4), pp. 2068– 2076
11 Harrison, G., and Wallace, A.: ‘Optimal power flow evaluation of
distribution network capacity for the connection of distributed
generation’, IEE Proc., Gener. Trans. Distrib., 2005, 152, (1), pp. 115–122
12 Popovic, D.H., Greatbanks, J.A., Begovic, M. et al.: ‘Placement of
distributed generators and reclosers for distribution network security
and reliability’, Int. J. Power Energy Syst., 2005, 27, (5–6), pp. 398–408
13 Keane, A., and O’Malley, M.: ‘Optimal allocation of embedded
generation on distribution networks’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
2005, 20, (3), pp. 1640–1646
14 Carpinelli, G., Celli, G., Mocci, S. et al.: ‘Optimisation of embedded
generation sizing and sitting by using a double trade-off method’, IEE
Proc., Gener. Trans. Distrib., 2005, 152, (4), pp. 503–513
15 Teng, J.-H., Luor, T.-S., and Liu, Y.-H.: ‘Strategic distributed
generator placements for service reliability improvement’. Proc.
IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, Chicago, USA,
21–25 July 2002, pp. 719–724
259
16 Borges, C.L.T., and Falcao, D.M.: ‘Optimal distributed generation
allocation for reliability, losses, and voltage improvement’,
Int. J. Power Energy Syst., 2006, 28, (6), pp. 413– 420
17 Acharya, N., Mahat, P., and Mithulananthan, N.: ‘An analytical
approach for DG allocation in primary distribution network’, Int. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2006, 28, (10), pp. 669–746
18 Deb, K., Agrawal, S., and Pratap, A.: ‘A fast elitist non-dominated
sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II’,
Technical Report. 200 001(Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur,
India, 2000)
19 Haghifam, M.-R., and Malik, O.P.: ‘Genetic algorithm-based
approach for fixed and switchable capacitors placement in
distribution systems with uncertainty and time varying loads’, IET
Proc., Gener. Trans. Distrib., 2007, 1, (2), pp. 244– 252
260
20 Popovic, D.S., and Popovic, Z.N.: ‘A risk management procedure for
supply restoration in distribution networks’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
2004, 19, (1), pp. 221 –228
21 Ramirez-Rosado, J., and Domigez-Navaro, J.A.: ‘Possibilistic model
based on fuzzy sets for the multiobjective optimal planning of
electric power distribution networks’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
2004, 19, (4), pp. 1801–1810
22 Zimmermann, H.J.: ‘Fuzzy set theory and its application’ (Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1996, 3rd rev. edn.)
23 Lai, Y.L., and Hwang, C.L.: ‘Fuzzy mathematical programming’
(Springer-Verlag, 1992)
24 Quintana, H., Temraz, H.K., and Hipel, K.W.: ‘Two-stage power
system distribution planning algorithm’, IEE Proc., Gener. Trans.
Distrib., 1993, 140, pp. 17– 29
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 2, No. 2, March 2008