2014 IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems (PEDES)
Optimal DG Placement in Unbalanced Mesh
Distribution System for Loss Reduction and Voltage
Profile Improvement
B. Ravi Teja
Dept. of Electrical Engg.,
NIT Kurukshetra
Kurukshetra, India
bsvrteja@gmail.com
AbstractIntegration of renewable energy based Distributed
Generation (DG) units provides potential benefits to conventional
distribution system. In this paper, the analysis of unbalanced
mesh distribution system (UMDS) has been done with and
without DG placement in an optimal location. The location of DG
can be determined by using voltage index analysis and the size of
DG can be computed with the help of variational technique
algorithm. The impact of different power factors (unity and 0.9
lagging) on optimal placement of DG is analyzed.
Keywordsunbalanced mesh distribution system; Distributed
Generation; Optimal placement and sizing
I. INTRODUCTION
Presently, the justification for large central power plants is
weakening due to depleting conventional resources,
deregulation trends and increased transmission and
distribution costs etc. Distributed Generations (DG) are
offering solutions to many of these new challenges [1]. N
Acharya, et al [2] presented an analytical expression based on
real power loss sensitivity to calculate optimal DG size and
location of DG while minimizing power losses in a
distribution network. V.V.S.N.Murty, et al [3] presented
modified novel method for optimal placement of DG in
balanced radial distribution system based on minimization of
both real and reactive power losses. Mohab M. Elnashar, et al
[4] proposed new approach to optimally determine the size
and location of DG in large mesh connected system. SNRaju,
et al [5] proposed a method for optimal placement of DG in
unbalanced radial distribution systems. Optimal location is
identified by calculating Voltage index at each node and then
variational technique is used to find the DG size. While most
of the work have been done on DG placement in balanced
distribution systems and very little research has been done on
DG placement and sizing in UMDS. In this paper, the method
proposed in Ref. [5] is extended to analyze the UMDS with
optimal DG placement.
II. METHODOLOGY FOR DG PLACEMENT IN UMDS
For placement of DG, location and its size are two
important things. Inappropriate location and size of DG may
lead to increase in system losses. To find out the optimal
978-1-4799-6373-7/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE
Ashwani Kumar, member, IEEE
Dept. of Electrical Engg.,
NIT Kurukshetra
Kurukshetra, India
ashwa_ks@yahoo.co.in
location of DG, the voltage sensitive nodes are identified by
penetration DG with size 20% of the total feeder load at each
node (except at source node). Then the node with least voltage
sensitive index will be selected as best location for the DG
placement. After identifying the optimal location, variational
algorithm is used to find the optimal DG capacity.
The voltage index at each node can be calculated by using
Eqn. (1)
Vindex (m) =
(1 V )k
2
(1)
tn
Where Vk is the voltage at kth node.
m is the node at which DG is connected.
tn is the total number of nodes.
A. Algorithm for DG placement and sizing
Step 1: Run the base case load flow for UMDS.
Step 2: By penetrating the DG of size 20% of the total
feeder load at each node (except at source node); calculate the
voltage index at the respective node.
Step 3: Select the bus with lowest value of voltage index as
the optimal location for placing the DG.
Step 4: At optimal location, Vary the DG size in small
steps and calculate the total power losses at each step by
running UMDS load flow.
Step 5: Select the DG size at which the total real power
losses are minimum.
Step 6: Stop.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The load flow algorithm developed in Ref. [6] is used to
solve the load flow analysis of 25 bus UMDS. The entire
analysis has been carried out on 25 bus UMDS [7].
A. Analysis of UMDS under light loading condition
At light loading condition, total real and reactive power
losses for 25 bus UMDS at its base case are 31.6033 kW and
37.47598 kVAr respectively. The minimum voltage (in p.u) is
0.97104, 0.97144 and 0.97483 and the voltage unbalance (%)
The results for 25 bus UMDS at light loading condition
without and with DG are given in Table 1. The voltage profile
of 25 bus UMDS with and without DG are shown in Fig. 2.
30

Total real power loss (kW)

is 2.35228, 2.29643 and 2.00027 in phases A, B and C 25
respectively. Total feeder capacity (in kVA) is 683.725, 20
690.143 and 687.765 in phases A, B and C respectively. 15
By penetrating the DG of size 20% of the total feeder load 10
at each node (except at source node); it is observed that the 5
voltage index is minimum at node 13 and is selected as 0
candidate node for optimal placement of DG. After identifying

100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
the optimal location, size of the DG can be obtained by
variational technique (Step 4). Variation of total real power DG size (kW for UPF / kVA for LPF)
loss with respect to DG size at bus 13 is shown in Fig. 1 for
unity power factor (UPF) and 0.9 lagging power factor (LPF).
From the Fig. 1, it is observed that the minimum real power with DG at UPF with DG at LPF
loss is obtained with DG of size 225 kW for UPF and 280
kVA for 0.9 LPF respectively. Fig. 1. Variation of total real power loss with respect to DG size for 25 bus
UMDS at light loading condition
At UPF; by placing the DG of size 225 kW at bus 13, the
total real and reactive power losses are reduced to 34.199 %
and 37.5383 % from its base case. The minimum voltage (p.u) 1.01
is increased to 0.9801, 0.98091 and 0.98205 and the voltage 1
unbalance (%) is reduced to 1.67744, 1.60537 and 1.46927 in
phases A, B and C respectively. With the DG placement in 0.99
Voltage (p.u)

UMDS, the total feeder capacity (in kVA) is reduced by

0.98
6.06876, 5.98244 and 5.02278 in phases A, B and C
respectively. 0.97

At 0.9 LPF; by placing the DG of size 252 + j122.049 0.96

kVA at bus 13, the total real and reactive power losses are
0.95
reduced by 51.06 % and 56.32 % from its base case. The
minimum voltage (p.u) is increased to 0.98391, 0.98463 and 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
0.98604 and the voltage unbalance (%) is reduced to 1.21285, Bus Number
1.1777 and 1.04395 in phases A, B and C respectively. With Va - without DG Vb - without DG
the DG placement in UMDS, the total feeder capacity (in Vc - without DG Va - with DG at UPF
Vb - with DG at UPF Vc - with DG at UPF
kVA) is reduced by 9.07197, 8.94208 and 7.53515 in phases Va - with DG at 0.9 LPF Vb - with DG at 0.9 LPF
A, B and C respectively. Vc - with DG at 0.9 LPF
Though the DG size at 0.9 lagging power factor is little
more, total reduction in real and reactive power losses are Fig. 2. Voltage profile for 25 bus UMDS with and without DG at light
more, voltage magnitudes are better and further reduction in loading condition
voltage unbalance when compared to DG at UPF.
TABLE I. RESULTS FOR 25 BUS UMDS AT LIGHT LOADING CONDITION
Without DG With DG at UPF With DG at 0.9 LPF
A-phase B-phase C-phase A-phase B-phase C-phase A-phase B-phase C-phase
DG rating 280 280 280
- - - 225 kW 225 kW 225 kW kVA kVA kVA
Location - 13 13
TPL (kW) 11.2096 11.7275 8.66616 7.32487 7.5952 5.87494 5.41517 5.56251 4.48828
Reduction in TPL (%) - - - 34.6556 35.2361 32.2083 51.6918 52.5687 48.2091
TQL (kVAr) 13.0596 11.8968 12.5195 8.11556 7.4287 7.86388 5.64927 5.20137 5.51842
Reduction in TQL (%) - - - 37.8576 37.5572 37.1872 56.7425 56.2793 55.9216
Vmin (p.u) 0.97104 0.97144 0.97483 0.9801 0.98091 0.98205 0.98391 0.98463 0.98604
Voltage unbalance (%) 2.35228 2.29643 2.00027 1.67744 1.60537 1.46927 1.21285 1.1777 1.04395
Total active power demand
(kW) 547.86 553.378 550.316 543.975 549.245 547.525 542.065 547.213 546.138
Total reactive power
demand (kW) 409.06 412.397 412.52 404.116 407.929 407.864 401.649 405.701 405.518
Total feeder capacity
(kVA) 683.725 690.143 687.765 677.656 684.161 682.742 674.653 681.201 680.23
 Total released feeder
capacity (kVA) - - - 6.06876 5.98244 5.02278 9.07197 8.94208 7.53515
B. Analysis of UMDS under normal loading condition 120
At normal loading condition, total real and reactive power
losses for 25 bus UMDS at its base case are 133.1156 kW and 100

Total real power loss (kW)

157.7305 kVAr respectively. The minimum voltage (in p.u) is
80
0.94034, 0.94136 and 0.94843 and the voltage unbalance (%)
is 4.96742, 4.82819 and 4.18344 in phases A, B and C 60
respectively. Total feeder capacity (in kVA) is 1404.93,
1416.83 and 1407.14 in phases A, B and C respectively. 40
Under normal loading condition, the voltage index is 20
minimum at node 13 and is selected as candidate node for
optimal placement of DG. Variation of total real power loss 0
with respect to DG size at bus 13 is shown in Fig. 3 for UPF

200
230
260
290
320
350
380
410
440
470
500
530
560
590
620
650
680
710
740
and 0.9 LPF. From the Fig. 3, it is observed that the minimum
real power loss is obtained with DG of size 460 kW for UPF DGDG
with sizeat(kW
UPFfor UPF/kVA
with DGfor LPF)
at LPF
and 570 kVA for 0.9 LPF respectively.
Fig. 3. Variation of total real power loss with respect to DG size for 25 bus
At UPF; by placing the DG of size 460 kW at bus 13, the UMDS at normal loading condition
total real and reactive power losses are reduced to 34.9557 %
and 38.4341 % from its base case. The minimum voltage (p.u)
is increased to 0.95952, 0.96129 and 0.96359 and the voltage 1.02
unbalance (%) is reduced to 3.46921, 3.30577 and 3.02184 in 1
phases A, B and C respectively. With the DG placement in
UMDS, the total feeder capacity (in kVA) is reduced by 0.98
Voltage (p.u)

26.3567, 25.8469 and 21.4359 in phases A, B and C 0.96

respectively.
0.94
At 0.9 LPF; by placing the DG of size 513 + j248.457
kVA at bus 13, the total real and reactive power losses are 0.92
reduced by 52.22 % and 57.50 % from its base case. The
minimum voltage (p.u) is increased to 0.96743, 0.96897 and 0.9
0.97181 and the voltage unbalance (%) is reduced to 2.47433, 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
2.39485 and 2.11971 in phases A, B and C respectively. With Bus Number
Va - without DG Vb - without DG
the DG placement in UMDS, the total feeder capacity (in Vc - without DG Va - with DG at UPF
kVA) is reduced by 39.3165, 38.5164 and 32.2151 in phases Vb - with DG at UPF Vc - with DG at UPF
A, B and C respectively. Va - with DG at 0.9 LPF Vb - with DG at 0.9 LPF

The results for 25 bus UMDS at medium loading condition Fig. 4. Voltage profile for 25 bus UMDS with and without DG at normal
without and with DG are given in Table 2. The voltage profile loading condition
of 25 bus UMDS with and without DG are shown in Fig. 4.
TABLE II. RESULTS FOR 25 BUS UMDS AT NORMAL LOADING CONDITION
Without DG With DG at UPF With DG at 0.9 LPF
A-phase B-phase C-phase A- B-phase C-phase A-phase B-phase C-phase
phase
DG rating 570 570 570
- - - 460 kW 460 kW 460 kW kVA kVA kVA
Location - 13 13
TPL (kW) 47.4217 49.3595 36.3343 30.5718 31.5614 24.4509 22.3059 22.8452 18.4528
Reduction in TPL (%) - - - 35.5321 36.0581 32.7058 52.9628 53.7167 49.2139
TQL (kVAr) 55.2314 50.1738 52.3253 33.7855 30.8204 32.5023 23.1922 21.3127 22.5301
Reduction in TQL (%) - - 38.8293 38.5728 37.884 58.009 57.5222 56.9421
Vmin (p.u) 0.94034 0.94136 0.94843 0.95952 0.96129 0.96359 0.96743 0.96897 0.97181
Voltage unbalance (%) 4.96742 4.82819 4.18344 3.46921 3.30577 3.02184 2.47433 2.39485 2.11971
Total active power
demand (kW) 1120.72 1132.66 1119.63 1103.87 1114.86 1107.75 1095.61 1106.15 1101.75
Total reactive power
demand (kW) 847.231 851.174 852.325 825.785 831.82 832.502 815.192 822.313 822.53
Total feeder capacity
(kVA) 1404.93 1416.83 1407.14 1378.57 1390.99 1385.7 1365.61 1378.32 1374.92
Total released feeder
capacity (kVA) - - - 26.3567 25.8469 21.4359 39.3165 38.5164 32.2151
C. Analysis of UMDS under high loading condition 200
At high loading condition, total real and reactive power

Total real power loss (kW)

losses for 25 bus UMDS at its base case are 232.5436 kW and
275.412 kVAr respectively. The minimum voltage (in p.u) is 150
0.92094, 0.92247 and 0.93193 and the voltage unbalance (%)
is 6.68799, 6.48075 and 5.59495 in phases A, B and C 100
respectively. Total feeder capacity (in kVA) is 1858.57, 1873
and 1855.93 in phases A, B and C respectively.
50
With the penetration of DG of size 20% of the total feeder
load at each node; Node 13 is selected as candidate node for
DG placement since the voltage index is minimum at that 0
location. Variation of total real power loss with respect to DG

400
430
460
490
520
550
580
610
640
670
700
730
760
790
820
850
880
size at bus 13 is shown in Fig. 5 for UPF and 0.9 LPF. From
the Fig. 5, it is observed that the minimum real power loss is DG size (kW for UPF/kVA for LPF)
obtained with DG of size 600 kW for UPF and 750 kVA for with DG at UPF with DG at LPF
0.9 LPF respectively.
Fig. 5. Variation of total real power loss with respect to DG size for 25 bus
At UPF; by placing the DG of size 600 kW at bus 13, the UMDS at high loading condition
total real and reactive power losses are reduced to 35.446 %
and 38.8797 % from its base case. The minimum voltage (p.u) 1.02
is increased to 0.94661, 0.94904 and 0.9521 and the voltage 1
unbalance (%) is reduced to 4.62673, 4.39713 and 4.01313 in
phases A, B and C respectively. With the DG placement in 0.98
UMDS, the total feeder capacity (in kVA) is reduced by Voltage (p.u) 0.96
46.8706, 45.7969 and 37.7017 in phases A, B and C 0.94
respectively.
0.92
At 0.9 LPF; by placing the DG of size 675 + j326.917 0.9
kVA at bus 13, the total real and reactive power losses are
reduced by 52.979 % and 58.284 % from its base case. The 0.88
minimum voltage (p.u) is increased to 0.95736, 0.95944 and 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
0.96316 and the voltage unbalance (%) is reduced to 3.2528, Bus Number
3.14169 and 2.77821 in phases A, B and C respectively. With Va - without DG
the DG placement in UMDS, the total feeder capacity (in Vb - without DG
Vc - without DG
kVA) is reduced by 69.9812, 68.2654 and 56.8007 in phases Va - with DG at UPF
A, B and C respectively. Vb - with DG at UPF
The results for 25 bus UMDS at high loading condition Fig. 6. Voltage profile for 25 bus UMDS with and without DG at high
without and with DG are given in Table 3. The voltage profile loading condition
of 25 bus UMDS with and without DG are shown in Fig. 6.
TABLE III. RESULTS FOR 25 BUS UMDS AT HIGH LOADING CONDITION
Without DG With DG at UPF With DG at 0.9 LPF
A-phase B-phase C-phase A-phase B-phase C-phase A-phase B-phase C-phase
DG rating (kVAr) - - - 600 kW 600 kW 600 kW 750 kVA 750 kVA 750 kVA
Location - 13 13
TPL (kW) 83.0929 86.1814 63.2692 53.1046 54.6726 42.338 38.385 39.2375 31.7218
Reduction in TPL (%) 36.0901 36.561 33.0827 53.8047 54.471 49.8622
TQL (kVAr) 96.7567 87.7227 90.9322 58.7109 53.4235 56.1981 39.8103 36.54 38.5405
Reduction in TQL (%) 39.3211 39.0995 38.1979 58.8552 58.3461 57.6162
Vmin (p.u) 0.92094 0.92247 0.93193 0.94661 0.94904 0.9521 0.95736 0.95944 0.96316
Voltage unbalance (%) 6.68799 6.48075 5.59495 4.62673 4.39713 4.01313 3.2528 3.14169 2.77821
Total active power
demand (kW) 1478.38 1494.47 1471.56 1448.39 1462.96 1450.63 1433.67 1447.53 1440.01
Total reactive power
demand (kW) 1126.36 1129.02 1130.93 1088.31 1094.72 1096.2 1069.41 1077.84 1078.54
Total feeder capacity
(kVA) 1858.57 1873 1855.93 1811.7 1827.21 1818.23 1788.59 1804.74 1799.13
Total released feeder
capacity (kVA) - - - 46.8706 45.7969 37.7017 69.9812 68.2654 56.8007
 IV. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, an unbalanced meshed distribution system
has been analyzed with and without DG placement at optimal
location. Results have been obtained on 25 bus UMDS. The
effect of different loading conditions (low loading, normal
loading and high loading) on DG placement, voltage profile,
total power losses and percentage of voltage unbalance are
analyzed. From the results it can be concluded that, (i) the
percentage of real and reactive power loss reduction is more
with 0.9 LPF than UPF, (ii) voltage profile is better in case of
DG with 0.9 LPF than UPF.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This is a part of the work that has been carried out under
the project sponsored by the Department of Science and
Technology, DST, New Delhi under the project grant:
SR/S3/EECE/0035/2012, SERB, New Delhi. The authors
acknowledge DST, New Delhi for the grant of the project.
REFERENCES
[1] Satish Kansal, B. B. R. Sai, Barjeev Tyagi and Vishal Kumar, Optimal
placement of distributed generation in distribution networks
International Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology, Vol. 3,
No. 3, pp. 47-55, 2011.
[2] N. Acharya, P. Mahat, and N. Mithulananthan, An analytical approach
for DG allocation in primary distribution network, Electrical Power
Energy Systems, Vol. 28, Issue 10, pp. 669-678, 2006.
[3] V.V.S.N.Murthy and Ashwani Kumar, Comparison of Optimal DG
Allocation Methods in Radial Distribution systems based on Sensitivity
Approaches, Elect. Power and Ener. Syst., Vol. 53, pp. 450467, 2013.
[4] M. M. Elnashar, R. El Shatshat and M.M.A. Salama, Optimum siting
and sizing of a large distributed generator in a mesh connected system,
Electric Power Systems Research, Vol. 80, pp. 690-697, 2010.
[5] T. Ramana, V. Ganesh and S. Sivanagaraju, Distributed generator
placement and sizing in unbalanced radial distribution system
Cogeneration & Distributed Generation Journal, Vol. 25, Issue 1, pp. 52-
71, 2010.
[6] J.H. Teng, A direct approach for distribution system load flow
solutions IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.
882-887, 2003.
[7] G.K.Viswanadha Raju and P. R. Bijwe, Efficient reconfiguration of
balanced and unbalanced distribution systems for loss minimization,
IET Generation, Transmission and Distrbution, Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 7-12,
2008.