You are on page 1of 10

Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epsr

Optimizing DG penetration in distribution networks concerning


protection schemes and technical impact
Hossam A. Abdel-Ghany a,∗ , Ahmed M. Azmy a , Nagy I. Elkalashy b , Essam M. Rashad a
a
Electrical Power and Machines Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
b
Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Minoufiya University, 32511 Shebin Elkom, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Distributed generators (DGs) provide many benefits for distribution networks, however they increase
Received 17 October 2014 the fault current level and cause miscoordination between the protective devices. This paper presents a
Received in revised form 11 June 2015 framework to determine the optimal locations and permissible capacity limits of inserting DGs in the dis-
Accepted 9 July 2015
tribution system using the genetic algorithm (GA). A multi-objective function is developed based on the
Available online 28 July 2015
overall maximum capacity of DGs, voltage enhancement, power loss reduction, and fault current level.
The optimization process considers the voltage level and protective-devices coordination as two main
Keywords:
constraints. The coordination constraint including fuse–recloser and recloser–relay schemes is added
Distributed generation
Distribution systems
to the multi-objective function in an augmented fitness function. Furthermore, the effects of modifying
Optimization techniques the setting of overcurrent relay on the DGs capacity are investigated. The proposed framework has been
Protection coordination implemented on a typical 11 kV overhead distribution feeder. The results show the possibility of integrat-
ing large DGs and achieving considerable loss reduction, voltage profile improvement and fault current
reduction without replacing the existing protection systems.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction losses, the suitable location of DGs within the system has to be
investigated [4,5]. On the other hand, high penetration of DGs in
Recently, the connection and exploitation of distributed genera- distribution systems has adverse impacts on the existing protec-
tors and their controlling technologies into distribution systems tion scheme. This is attributed to the variation of fault current
(DS) have become a necessity around the world. The advantages level and its direction, which causes coordination mismatch and
of utilizing DGs include economical, environmental and technical false tripping [5–8]. Typical electrical distribution systems have
benefits [1,2]. The economical aspects include their high efficiency radial structure with a single source, where the protection schemes
and the lower power losses. An example of the environmental depend on relay, reclosers, and fuses. In this structure, the main
benefits is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, the feeders are protected against temporary faults using reclosers,
technical advantages include voltage support and higher reliability. while fuses are located at the beginning of laterals and sub-laterals
The one-way energy nature of radial distribution systems results to protect against persistent faults [3–10].
in increasing voltage regulation. The voltage is regulated by insert- Recloser–fuse miscoordination problems may appear due to the
ing load tap-changing transformers at substations, line regulators current contribution of DGs. The recloser–fuse coordination is usu-
into distribution feeders and shunt capacitors into feeders or along ally performed based on fuse-saving principles [6]. In addition, the
the line [3]. The voltage profile along a certain feeder may be distribution-system short-circuit currents increase due to the con-
changed when the DGs are connected due to changing the direction tribution of DGs. This might cause a trip to healthy lines before
and magnitude of real and reactive power flows [1–3]. clearing the faulty lines. If the power flow in feeders remains uni-
The connection of DGs also affects the feeder losses, where DGs directional, classical protections can still be used [6].
supply local active and reactive powers. In order to reduce the In [5], operation of different protection schemes after connect-
ing DGs in distribution system is discussed. The effect of DGs on
protective device coordination is explored with different schemes
such as fuse–fuse, fuse–recloser and relay–relay arrangements.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +20 10 97 1000 43.
In addition, the impact of DGs’ on protection coordination and
E-mail addresses: hossam saleh2000@yahoo.com (H.A. Abdel-Ghany),
azmy@f-eng.tanta.edu.eg (A.M. Azmy), nagy.elkalashy@sh-eng.menofia.edu.eg operation of distribution network is analyzed in [7,8]. The study
(N.I. Elkalashy), emrashad@ieee.org (E.M. Rashad). included the increase of fault current level, malfunctioning of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2015.07.005
0378-7796/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
114 H.A. Abdel-Ghany et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122

protective devices and protection coordination. The performance of where, t is the fuse operating time; I is the fault current seen by
directional recloser is evaluated for different faults using real-time the fuse and a, b, c, and d are the fuse constants. A fuse setting
power system simulator [9]. IEEE standard 1457 recommended that means defining the constants a, b, c and d, which are calculated
the DGs should be disconnected during system abnormality [11]. using the curve fitting based on fuse characteristics. This proposed
This is attributed to the fact that the conventional protection coor- formula is to facilitate the fuse characteristics implementation in
dination cannot clear the fault current supplied from DGs [11]. The the optimization framework.
optimal size of DG has been calculated using Optimal Power Flow
(OPF), and considering recloser–fuse coordination in [12]. The max-
imum capacity of DG at each node of the distribution system has 2.2. Modified recloser characteristics
been determined considering the protection coordination. In [13],
a single DG in the distribution system has been studied at the first The recloser has the priority to protect the distribution system
stage. At the second stage, two or more DGs in separate nodes prior fuse operation with suitable coordination margin. After con-
have been considered. However, the optimum DG capacities are necting DGs with high penetrations into the recloser–fuse section,
not generalized with concerning wide objectives simultaneously. the selectivity of protection scheme between fuse and recloser is
In this paper, a generic framework is developed to define the not achieved. To handle this problem, it is proposed to shift the fast
optimal location and limits of DGs within distribution systems curve characteristic of recloser to operate before the fuse melting.
to maintain a correction operation of the traditional protection Section 4 describes the effect of such modified recloser character-
scheme. One more issue considered in this paper is to study the istics on the permissible DG ratings.
effect of DGs penetration on technical impacts and fault current lev-
els. The genetic algorithm (GA) is used to perform the optimization
process due to its capability to handle economic dispatch prob- 3. Investigated overhead distribution system
lems, optimal sizing and setting problems and unit commitment
problems. Sequentially, the optimization approach is performed to An Egyptian overhead distribution system is used as a typical
find the maximum optimal capacity limit of the inserted DG that case study that represents a rural system (Nediba feeder) supplied
not affecting on the protection coordination to find this limit with from 66/11 kV (Khairy) substation. This system is used to study
adding the voltage profile objectives, and then with adding either the effect of DGs on the recloser–fuse coordination. Fig. 1 shows
the power losses or the fault current level. The last generalized the one-line diagram of the adopted system, which contains 47
approach is developed considering all the above objectives. buses, 45 overhead sections, and one underground cable. In this
distribution feeder, each lateral is protected by a fuse, however the
2. Distribution feeder protective devices fuse of last lateral is only present in this figure and considered for
the optimization study, first. Then, the study is done considering
Distribution feeders are commonly radial with the loads con- multi fusses protecting the laterals branched from the feeder. For
sumed the power from upper voltage levels connected to the radial correct protection coordination, all fuses downstream the recloser
feeders. The conventional distribution systems are protected by are to be coordinated with its fast and slow curves and the corre-
a combination of simple protective devices as overcurrent relays, sponding DG capacity limit should be evaluated correspondingly.
reclosers, and fuses. The feeder protection scheme objectives are to The adopted distribution system is simulated using Matlab® code.
ensure the service continuity to the maximum number of users. The total supplied current through Nediba feeder equals 196 A. The
feeder supplies loads through 16 km-Aluminum Conductor Steel
Reinforced (ACSR 70/12) overhead transmission line. The main
2.1. Functions and equations of protective devices
transformer in Khairy substation is of 25 MVA, 66/11 kV delta/star
and has an impedance of 10%. The feeder is considered with the
Before defining the DGs locations and penetration limits, fault
recloser located at 10.65 km and the fuse at 13.5 km, however, the
calculations and protection settings are carried out for the origi-
study is not limited to this fuse location. More details about this
nal system. Since the highest fault current is caused usually from
system are found in [3]. A DG is connected at different locations
a three-phase fault, it is used in defining the generation pene-
in the main feeder through an 11/0.4 kV delta/star earthed trans-
tration limits. This is to ensure that the installation of DGs with
former with the same rating of the DG. This transformer connection
this penetration limits will not cause miscoordination for the
that its delta is on the utility side is considered to open the zero
other phase fault types. However, DG transformer connection is
sequence loop at the transformer point during earth fault (phase
used to prevent and open the zero sequence current contributed
to earth fault type) in the distribution feeder. The delta connec-
by the DG. Accordingly the earth faults are not involved in the
tion can be replaced by a star connection that not earthed. This
study.
condition prevents the change of the distribution of earth fault
The protection coordination setting for relay and recloser is
currents in the feeder due to the DG transformer interconnection.
performed based on (1), provided that no DG is connected. The
In other words, the earth fault current distribution in the feeder is
equation has very inverse characteristic according to IEC standard
the same whenever the DG is interconnected or not interconnected
[5]:
that prevents the DG interconnection effects on the protection
 
coordination. The second benefit of opening zero-sequence loop at
k
t = 13.5   (1) the DG transformer interconnection is to prevent DG contributing
I/IPic-up − 1 current into earth faults in the feeder that will also solve com-
pletely the effect of DG on the protection coordination of earth
where, t is the trip time in sec; K is the time multiplier; I is the
faults. Accordingly, the study is directed to evaluate the DG max-
rms measured current and IPic-up is the setting current. For the
imum capacity limit concerning protection coordination for only
current-time characteristic of fuses, it has an inverse form that is
phase fault types in practically the three-phase faults. The faults
usually plotted as a log–log curve. For its accurate representation,
are occurred behind the fuse, recloser and relay points with and
the following expression is suggested:
without different DGs penetrations. Also, the actual characteristics
t = aeb×I + ced×I (2) of the distribution system and different DGs ratings are taken into
consideration.
H.A. Abdel-Ghany et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122 115

15+j8
31 kVA

0.7km
40+j12 600+j40 40+j10 70+j20 180+j20 190+j30 280+j50 50+j20

35/6
kVA kVA kVA 80+j20 kVA kVA kVA kVA kVA
32 kVA
35/6
250+j40 30 50+j10
kVA 150+j30 28 0.7km 40+j12 kVA 40+j20
25 kVA 29 80+j20 34 kVA 41 kVA
36 46 47
kVA

0.2km

0.6km
70/12

70/12

70/12
0.2km

0.4km
35/6

35/6
0.4km

1km

1.2km

0.6km
35/6

70/12

70/12

70/12
0.6km
66/11KV sum
25MVA 2 Relay 3 4 5 8 9 10 0.3km11 12 13 14 15 16 17 F4 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 Fuse 2.5km 24
1 1.7km 3.5km 0.5km 0.45km6 0.5km7 0.4km 0.1km 0.1km 0.3km 0.8km 0.4km 1km 0.3km 0.3km 0.2km 0.1km 0.5km 0.2km 1.2km 0.7km
3*240XLPE F3 150/25 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12 70/12
F2 Recloser F1
Main 680+j120
kVA

0.45km

0.5km
35/6

70/12
0.4km

0.9km
35/6
0.2km

0.5km
70/12

70/12
0.5km
70/12
Substaon

70/12

0.3km
70/12
20+j5 35 42
6+j1MVA 50+j20 80+j20 40+j10 33 40 150+j40 180+j20 80+j20
kVA kVA kVA 26 27 kVA 40+j20 kVA kVA kVA
40+j15 kVA
kVA 43 70+j20
50+j15 70+j20 37 110+j30 kVA

0.16km
kVA kVA 50+j10 50+j25 kVA

70/12
kVA

0.1km
70/12
kVA 70+j20
kVA
44
38
115+j20

0.1km
15+j8

70/12
0.8km
70/12
kVA kVA
30+j10
kVA 30+j8
39 45 kVA

Fig. 1. Single line diagram of Egyptian Nediba distribution system with its protection scheme (47 bus System).

4. Protection setting and fault calculation Table 1


Time-current characteristic settings of protective devices.

For setting the reclosers, it is assumed that they are equipped Protective devices Time-current characteristic setting
with relays having very inverse characteristics. The recloser pickup Fuse (100 A) a = 45.68, b = 0.006984, c = 1.681, and
current is [11]: d = −0.00145
Recloser (fast curve) Current setting = 140 A, Kf = 0.05, very
IPic-up = OLF × Inom (3) inverse
Recloser (slow curve) Current setting = 250 A, Kr = 0.15, very
where OLF is an overload factor that depends on the protected inverse
equipment; Inom is the recloser and relay currents obtained from Feeder-relay Current setting = 390 A, K = 0.14, very
the load-flow results. inverse
Modified-recloser (fast curve) Current setting = 250 A, time
The recloser on the main line has to be coordinated with the
setting = 0.05 s, instantaneous
fuse for all faults taking place in the fuse section, where currents
of the fuse and recloser are close to each other. The operating time
related to the fault currents of the fuse and recloser are shown in Table 2 shows the fault currents seen by relay, recloser, and fuse
Fig. 2. Both devices must be coordinated for the whole range of fault in three different cases. In case 1 with a DG located in recloser–fuse
currents on the fuse section. region and a fault occurs at F1, fault current seen by the fuse is
The coordination procedure is considered depending on fast and greater than the fault current seen by the recloser. Therefore, mis-
slow recloser curves. The time-current characteristics of feeder- coordination between fuse and recloser may occur since the fuse
relay, fuse and recloser fast and slow curves are shown in Table 1. operates before the fast mode operation of recloser. In case 2 with
The minimum margin between recloser and fuse is 0.1 sec. It is a DG inserted in relay–recloser region and a fault occurs at F1, the
required to study the range (limits) of DGs penetration without fuse operates since the fault current flowing from DG is much less
affecting the protective-devices coordination with different fault than that from substation. In this case, miscoordination between
locations. The adopted DG is a synchronous generator connected to fuse and recloser may occur for large DGs capacity. Under the
the medium voltage of the distribution system through a delta/star same conditions but with a fault at F4, fault current seen by the
transformer and 0.1 km length cable. recloser is greater than that seen by the relay. Therefore, miscoor-
Regarding the microprocessor based reclosers, there are multi- dination between the fuse and recloser may occur since the relay
functions that allow the change of the recloser characteristics in may operate before the slaw mode operation of recloser. In case
a wide range of operating times and selected suitable currents. 3 with a DG inserted along feeder and a fault occurs at F1, fault
As shown in Fig. 3, it is suggested to modify the fast curve of currents seen by both fuse and recloser are increased due to the
the recloser from very inverse to instantaneous characteristics as presence of DGs. In this case, miscoordination may occur when the
shown in Table 1. fuse operates before the fast operation mode of recloser, due to

10 Fuse 100A TC
Fault current seen by Fuse
848.7A
Fuse 100A MM 10 Fault current see n by Fuse Fuse100A MM
5 Fast Recloser Curve 848.7A Rec slaw
5
Slow Recloser Curve Relay
Feeder Relay Fuse100A
Rec fast
1 1
Time (s)

Tim e (sec)

Coordination Margin
C.M Coordination Margin
C.M
0.1 0.1

Fault current seen by Recloser


857.24A Fault current seen by Recloser
857.24A

0.01
0.01 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Current (A) Current (A)

Fig. 2. Relay, recloser and fuse characteristics. Fig. 3. Relay, modified-recloser and fuse characteristics.
116 H.A. Abdel-Ghany et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122

Table 2 where W1 , W2 , . . . are positive constant weights. When it is not


Description of fault currents seen by recloser and fuse for downstream fault.
required to consider a certain term in the objective function, except
Case DGs location Fault location Description for the first term, the corresponding weighting factor, i.e. W2 , W3
1 Recloser–fuse region F1 Irecloser = Isubstation and and/or W4 , is set to zero.
Ifuse = Isubstation + IDG
2 Relay–recloser F1 Irecloser = Isubstation + IDG
region and Ifuse = Isubstation + IDG 5.1.1. Total capacity of DGs
F4 Irecloser = Isubstation + IDG The main objective of this paper is to maximize the capacity and
and Irelay = Isubstation number of DGs. To achieve this purpose, F1 is defined as:
3 Along F1 Irecloser = Isubstation + IDGr recl
feeder
F4
and Ifuse = Isubstation + IDG
Irecloser = Isubstation + IDG

NDG

F1 = DGCi (5)
and Irelay = Isubstation
i=1

where DGCi is the capacity of the installed DGs at the ith generation
the increased DG capacity. If the short circuit capacity of DG unit in MW and NDG is the number of DGs.
increases, the probability of miscoordination is also increased. The
DG capacity inserted in relay–recloser region is adjusted to a suit-
able value. This value is given from case 2 to satisfy the coordination 5.1.2. Voltage level
between relay and recloser when fault occurs at F4. The DG impacts The voltage level improvement (F2 ) is one of the goals of setting
on protective-device coordination are investigated based on the  sizing
and  of DGs. It is required to reduce the voltage deviations
(V ) from the nominal value (Vnom ). The value of the voltage
three cases summarized in Table 2.  
deviations V  can be defined as:

5. Problem formulation N  
  Vnom − Vj 
F2 = V  =
j=1
(6)
For the single-objective optimization problems, the optimal Vnom
solution is single. However, in multi-objective problem there is
where Vj is the jth bus voltage and N is the number of buses.
rather a set of different optimal solutions, not a unique solution.
When all objectives are simultaneously considered, these solu-
tions are optimal in point of view of the decision-making. There 5.1.3. Fault current level
are no other solutions in the search space that are superior to The fault current level of the network increases due to increasing
them, in which the decision maker has flexibility to expect the the DGs capacity. When a DG is placed in parallel with the network,
optimality solution. The previous meaning is the definition of the the calculated impedance from a fault point diminishes and the
Pareto—front. The objective function of the problem understudy fault current level increases. Therefore, the objective term related to
incorporates terms of different nature, as to the maximize capacity the fault current, which is equal to summation of the fault currents
of DGs, the maximize voltage enhancement, the minimize power from the substation (Ifs )and the DG (IfDG ) is defined as:
loss and the minimize fault current level.
The proposed optimization problem can be described math- 
NDG
 
ematically using a four-part objective function with three F3 = If = If DG + Ifs (7)
constraints. The proposed four parts are the capacity limits (F1 ) i=1
of DGs, the voltage regulation (F2 ), the total fault current level (F3 )
and the power loss (F4 ) for the distribution system. The first part 5.1.4. Power losses
has to be maximized, while the other three parts have to be min- Voltage profile is improved by controlling the production,
imized. The upper limit of DG capacity is the main objective to be absorption and flow of reactive power throughout the network.
defined without affecting on the protection coordination point of Reactive power flows can be minimized to reduce system losses.
view. Thus, the upper limit in this study is not to decide for the Many researches are provided just to minimize loss due to the
DG capacity, but to define the limits that have not to be violated. reactive current. From these researches, it is well known that the
Other technical factors such, as voltage drop, fault current level, distribution losses can be calculated based on the natural properties
and power losses, are considered and the same optimal location is of components in the power system: resistance, reactance, capaci-
obtained near the load location. Any other factors can be introduced tance, voltage, current, and power, which are routinely calculated
but the main concern here is to the coordination problem. Unfortu- by utility companies as a way to specify what components will be
nately, the scope of this study does not include the costs of DG units. added to the systems, in order to reduce losses and improve the
However, this study is for estimating the optimal DG limit capacity voltage levels. The centralized voltage reactive control is one such
that enhances the protection coordination concerning DG intercon- control which can help not only to keep the system voltages within
nection without any additional protection expense. Regarding the specified limits, but also to preserve the reactive power balances
DG interconnecting places, the DG optimal limit capacity is evalu- for enhanced security and to decrease the transmission losses for
ated at different allocations along with the feeder that covers the the efficient system operation.
availability of DG at specific points. The losses due to the active and reactive current components
between ith and jth buses and the corresponding objective term
5.1. Multi-objective function are defined as:

The general multi-objective function can be given in the fol- Plossi−j + jQlossi−j = Si−j + Sj−i (8)
lowing form with the different terms described in the following
sections: 
N

N
 
F4 = Plossi−j + Qlossi−j (9)
max F = max (W1 · F1 − W2 · F2 − W3 · F3 − W4 · F4 ) (4) j=0 i=1
H.A. Abdel-Ghany et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122 117

In order to achieve the DGs limits and location in distribution constraints (∅CM ). The formulation of the proposed fitness function
systems, the multi-objective function is given by: (∅f ) can be expressed as [17,18]:


NDG

N
  ∅f (x) = F = (W1 · F1 ) − W2 · (C2 · F2 ) − W3 · (C3 · F3 )
F = W1 DGCi − W2 Vnom − Vj  /Vnom − W3
− W4 · (C4 · F4 ) (14)
i=1 j=1
N  where W1 , W2 , . . . are weights of a positive constant. C2 , C3 and C4
 DG
  
N 
N
 
× If DG + Ifs − W4 Plossi−j + Qlossi−j (10) are scaling factors for maximization problem. The scaling factors
are assigned in terms of the objective function in order to obtain
i=1 j=0 i=1
the same effect on fitness function [20].
The constraint representing coordination margin between fuse
and recloser is formulated as:
5.2. System constraints
 

∅CM1 (x) = min 0, tfuse − treclfast − min CMfusereclfast (15)


The three constraints of the proposed optimization problem
include fuse–recloser coordination, relay–recloser coordination The constraint representing the coordination margin between
and voltage limits constraints. recloser and relay is formulated as:
 

5.2.1. Fuse–recloser coordination constraints ∅CM2 (x) = min 0, trelay − treclslow − min CMrelayrecl
tfuse − treclfast ≥ min CMfusereclfast (11)  

+ min 0, max CMnrelayrecl − trelay − treclslow (16)


where tfuse is the fuse operating time in s; treclfast is the fast curve
operating time of recloser; min CMfusereclfast is the minimum margin
between recloser and fuse. From (14) and (15), the fitness function for evaluating every indi-
vidual in the population of GA including the coordination margin
5.2.2. Relay–recloser coordination constraints between fuse and recloser is defined as:
max CMrelayrecl ≥ trelay − treclslow ≥ min CMrelayrecl (12) fitness = ∅f (x) − W5 ∅CM1 (x) (17)
where trelay is the relay operating time; treclslow is the slow curve
From (14) and (16), the fitness function for evaluating every indi-
operating time of recloser; min CMrelayrecl and max CMrelayrecl are
vidual in the population of GA including the coordination margin
minimum and maximum margins between recloser and relay.
between recloser and relay is defined as:

5.2.3. Voltage limits constraint fitness = ∅f (x) − W5 ∅CM2 (x) (18)


The voltages at distribution buses depend on voltage regulation
limits and should be within specified limits [16,17]. where W5 takes a nonzero value if a violation to protection con-
straint occurs.
Vmin ≤ Vi ≤ Vmax (13) The main outlines of the proposed framework are highlighted
where Vmin and Vmax are the minimum and maximum voltage lim- using the flowchart shown in Fig. 4. The genetic operator jobs
its, respectively. are to create new individuals, and to obtain the final solution of
the genetic model. The algorithm involves the cycle is shown in
5.3. Solution of the optimization problem Fig. 4. The first stage is the random initialization of a population
of chromosomes. Next, the fitness of all the individuals (chro-
GA is used to solve the formulated optimization problem where mosomes) in the population is evaluated. The selection is based
it is a general-purpose stochastic and parallel search methods based on individual GA search algorithm and the conjecture of natural
on the natural selection and natural genetics. Real-Coded Genetic selection and genetics. Chromosomes are then selected as gen-
Algorithms (RCGA) is a highly parallel search method applied to itors for reproduction. Finally, the Genetic Operators (Crossover
direct the population towards convergence at the global opti- and Mutation) manipulate the selected individuals, modifying and
mum solution [14–19]. This algorithm requires four basic elements: combining their genetic code. This cycle defines one generation,
initial population, evaluation function, selection, and genetic oper- which will be repeated until the stop criterion is reached.
ators (crossover and mutation). The step of the random initialization is presented based on the
The GA has high global searching ability, but the computation following process:
efficiency is low and the optimization speed is slow, and it is hard
to be convergent, and the complexity of algorithm is higher. Par- • Read system data.
ticle Swarm Optimization (PSO) can be implemented simply, and • Perform load flow, short circuit and protection devices setting
the convergence speed is quick without too many parameters, and calculations.
it has good global searching ability, because the information of par- • Calculate the coordination margin (CM) between the protection
ticle is single-directional, each particle would remember the past devices.
position, and the convergence is very quick. On the other hand, PSO • Insert DG buses and initialize chromosome population randomly.
can easily fall into local optima (infeasible solution). GA is preferred • The step of evaluated of population depends on process as fol-
with highly-constrained problems such as the investigated one. lows.
• Perform Load flow to calculate the voltage profile, power losses,
6. Fitness function formulation and proposed framework and per fault voltage (to perform short circuit program).
• Perform short circuit to calculate the coordination margin, and
The optimization problem can be formulated in terms of a total fault current.
multi-objective function considering DGs penetration limits, volt- • Calculate the coordination margin (CM) between the protection
age regulation, fault current limits and power losses. In addition, devices with DG.
protective devices coordination margin is considered as inequality • Evaluate fitness function (Eq. (16) or (17)).
118 H.A. Abdel-Ghany et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122

Start Table 3
Weight values for the five approaches.
Read system data
Approach W1 W2 W3 W4
Perform Load flow, short circuit and protection App1 1 0 0 0
devices sitting calculations App2 0.5 0.5 0 0
App3 0.333 0.333 0 0.333
Calculate the coordination margin (CM) between App4 0.333 0.333 0.333 0
the protection devices without DG App5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

Insert DG buses.
Initialize chromosome population randomly voltage drop to the DG capacity, and so on. W2, W3 and W4 are
Perform Load flow, short circuit, coordination margin, voltage positive constant factors for maximization problem. The weight
profile, power losses, and total fault current calculations values for the five approaches are summarized in Table 3. These
approaches are studied to evaluate the effect of fitness function
Evaluate fitness function (Eqn. (16) or (17)) weights on the limits and locations of DGs.
Table 4 shows the optimization results of DG at different loca-
tions in recloser–fuse region for App5 with different weights. This
Select Parent from the population
table just shows a sample of results. When it is required to consider
Creation of offspring chromosomes via a certain term in the objective function, except for the first term,
crossover & mutation the corresponding weighting factor, i.e. W2, W3 and/or W4, is set
to zero. However, it is required to consider all terms in the objective
Perform Load flow, short circuit, coordination margin, voltage
function, the corresponding weighting factors, i.e. W2, W3 and W4,
profile, power losses, and total fault current calculations
are set to 0.25. Weights are selected considering the four terms of
the multi-objective function as the same, while the operator has
Evaluate fitness function (Equ. (16) or (17))
Extract offspring
the freedom of choice to determine the weights. The selection of
population's the coordination margin constraint weight (W5 = 1000) is based
Yes fitness statistics
Termination criteria on merging the constraint with the objective function so that the
satisfied? & perform fitness function equals the resulting value of objective function. In
No crossover and
mutation addition, the product of coordination margin and its weight is equal
Print unit output power and power flow results to zero.

Stop
7.1. Case 1: DGs located in recloser–fuse region
Fig. 4. Flowchart of GA evaluation process for the proposed framework.
For a fault at F1, the fuse operating time decreases with the
increase of the DGs rating. On the other hand, the recloser operating
Optimal Power Flow (OPF) is developed to calculate the volt- time is not affected because the fault occurred at the DGs terminals.
age profile, power losses, and per fault voltage for each individual. At the same time, the network fault current decreases due to the
This step depends on update the system data while DG unit insert- increase of the terminal voltage of recloser. Thus, the operating
ing through cable and transformer. The previous processes are times of recloser and feeder-relay decrease maintaining their coor-
repeated while changing the DG location and penetration level in dination for a wide range of DG ratings. On the other hand, the fault
order to recloser modified. currents through recloser and feeder-relay are still the same com-
pared to the case without DGs since DG is located at fuse terminals
7. Results and discussions only.
The maximum capacity of DG that can be installed in the
The proposed fitness function, including the multi-objective recloser–fuse zone is 2.55 MW at bus 23 alone. Alternatively, the
function and system constraints, which refer to the problem formu- maximum capacity of DG unit at bus 17 alone is 4.69 MW. This
lation is implemented on the adopted distribution system shown capacity satisfies the coordination between the recloser and fuse
in Fig. 1. The optimization process considers the coordination for traditional protection scheme. Fig. 5 shows the maximum lim-
between the protective devices with and without modifying the its of a single DG unit at different locations with a fault at F1 for
recloser fast curve. The fitness function is investigated based on five conventional and modified recloser characteristics. In addition, all
approaches. The first approach (App1) considers only the capac- values shown in this figure are obtained according to App 1.
ity limits in the objective function. The second approach (App2) is To verify the validity of the various cases shown in Fig. 5, the
when voltage regulation is also considered in the objective function. fault currents of the fuse and recloser are investigated for a fault
The third approach (App3) is when the power losses is added in the
objective function. The fourth approach (App4) considers the volt-
12 11.348 10.852 Convenonal
age regulation and total fault current level but not the power losses.
Modified recloser
DG Capacity (MW)

Finally, the fifth approach (App5) is when all terms are incorporated 10 8.858
7.436
in the objective function. 8 6.975
Different scaling factors are used for different terms in the objec-
4.69

4.59

6 5.014 4.267
4.11

3.71

3.57

tive function in order to normalize their values within a suitable


2.87

2.55

4
range. From experience, the proposed normalization values are set
as: voltage profile (C2 = 100), total system fault current (C3 = 0.001) 2
and power losses (C4 = 10). The selection of these normalization 0
factors is based on normalization of the different terms of the objec- Bus 17 Bus 18 Bus 19 Bus 20 Bus 21 Bus 22 Bus 23
DG locaon
tive function so the resulting value of the objective function is
still meaningful. The corresponding scaling factors are refers to the Fig. 5. Max limits of a single DG at different location with a fault at F1 for conven-
reference value (DG capacity), C2 is the relation between the pu tional and modified recloser.
H.A. Abdel-Ghany et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122 119

10 Fuse 100A TC

0.25

0.75

0.91
0.53
0.34
0.27
0.27
0.28

0.16
98.23
0.04
Fuse 100A MM

3.6
5 Fast Recloser Curve

0
0

1371
S low Recloser Curve

15
Feeder Relay

0.75

0.25
1.44

1.33

0.17
4.07
0.06

98.06

Time (s)
1.3
0
0

0
0
0
0

1344
14

Recloser-Fuse
C.M 0.0242 s
0.1

0.13

0.22

4.42

0.22
97.93
4.07

0.06
0.8

0.2
0
0

0
0
0
0

13411
13

Fault current see n by Recloser


Fault current see n by Fuse
858.91A
1330.86A
0.01
0.43
2.47
1.21

4.11

0.18
0.06

98.05
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
0.2
0.8
0
0

0
0
0
0

12465
Current (A)
12

Fig. 6. Recloser–fuse coordination margin for a 2.55 MW DG unit at bus 23 with a


fault at F1.
0.25
0.75

4.56

4.56

0.25
97.48
0.06
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

1336
at F1 after inserting a 2.55 MW DG unit at bus 23as an example.
11

The calculated fault currents are shown in Fig. 6. It is clear that the
coordination margin is satisfied. Similar results are obtained for
0.33
0.67

4.56

4.56

0.25
97.48
0.06

different capacities and locations of DG.


0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

1336
10

Table 5 shows the DG rating limits for different locations in


recloser–fuse region and different fitness functions for a fault at
F1. The best location and maximum sizing of the DGs are the com-
0.75
0.25

4.69

4.69

0.24
0.06

97.4
1336.9

bination of DG units keeping coordination margin between recloser


0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

and fuse. It can be concluded that App5 results in the highest pen-
9

etration level of DG and all terms are incorporated in the objective


function as shown in Table 6.
4.69

4.69

0.24
0.06

In most cases, the DG power generation improves the voltage


0.8
0.2

97.4
1336.9
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

profile in the system. Due to their ability to produce reactive power,


8

regulated synchronous generators may raise the system voltages.


Both active and reactive power losses are reduced in the feeder
with the increase of DG penetration. The power losses decrease
0.57
0.48
0.54

3.67

0.16
1.08

0.06

98.05
0.5

0.5

1339.7
0
0

0
0

due to the lower amount of power flows in the system. However,


fault current level is increased in the feeder with the increase of DG
7

penetration.
Optimization results of DG at different location in recloser–fuse region for App5 with different weights.

In Table 6, the lowest value of power losses occurs with App3


4.59

4.59

0.25
97.48
0.06
0.5
0.5

1339.8

and App5 compared to other scenarios due to including the power


0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

losses in the objective function. In App3, DG units are inserted


6

beside the loads near fuse zone. The minimum value of Nediba
feeder voltage profiles from substation to fuse location and total
0.95
0.74

0.43
0.48

3.64

0.16
98.22
1.04

0.04
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2

1358.2

fault current at fault bus are given in this table. Similarly, the volt-
0

age profile and fault current level under best situation considering
5

the multi-objective function are shown in this table. In summary,


App5 comprises all objective functions at the same time. In the
0.99
0.69
0.57
0.25
0.23
0.43
0.19
3.35

0.15
97.97
0.06
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3

other words, all objective terms are enhanced at the same time
1500

with different degrees according to the weight factors.


4

Following the same procedures, Table 7 shows the limits of DG


ratings with different locations in recloser–fuse region and dif-
0.96
0.72

0.44
0.47

3.65

0.16
0.98
1.06

0.04
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2

1358.4

ferent approaches for a fault at F1 after modifying recloser fast


0

curve. The recloser setting modification causes an improvement


3

for the case of F1. The maximum limits of DG rating increased


from 4.69 MW to 11.35 MW without and with a recloser setting
0.24
0.36

0.35

0.19
3.05

0.07
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.1

1348.4

modification, respectively. From Table 7, the best location of the


0
0

0
4

98

distributed generation is a DG unit located in recloser–fuse section


2

near recloser.
Table 8 shows the results when a fault occurs at F1 with modified
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25

0.57
0.48
0.54

3.67

0.16
1.08

0.06

98.05

recloser fast curve. Generally, Table 8 shows that App5 comprises


1339.7
1

0
0

all objective functions at the same time. The total fault current
1

becomes the same for all approaches due to the high DG pene-
tration.
Min voltage%
Loss-MVAR
Max. limit

7.2. Case 2: DG located in relay–recloser region


Loss-MW
Bus 17
Bus 18
Bus 19

Bus 21
Bus 22
Bus 23
Bus 20
Table 4

Case

When the fault occurs at F1, the fuse and recloser operat-
W1
W2
W3
W4

If

ing times decrease with the increase of the DG rating located in


120 H.A. Abdel-Ghany et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122

Table 5
DG penetration limits with different DG locations in recloser–fuse region with a fault at F1.

Location of DG

App. Bus 17 Bus 18 Bus 19 Bus 20 Bus 21 Bus 22 Bus 23 Max. limits

At one bus 4.69 4.59 4.11 3.71 3.57 2.87 2.55 4.69
App1 4.69 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.69
App2 0 4.59 0 0 0 0 0 4.59
App3 1.08 1 0.57 0.48 0.54 0 0 3.67
App4 4.69 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.69
App5 1.08 1 0.57 0.48 0.54 0 0 3.67

Table 6
Optimal system variables with different approaches for DG located in recloser–fuse region with a fault at F1.

No DG App1 App2 App3 App4 App5

Loss-MW 0.4441 0.0589 0.0589 0.0621 0.0589 0.0621


Loss-MVAR 1.0457 0.244 0.244 0.1583 0.244 0.1583
Min voltage% 83.3972 97.40 97.40 98.052 97.40 98.052
If 877.68 1337 1337 1339.7 1337 1339.7

Table 7
DG penetration limits with different DG locations in recloser–fuse region with a fault at F1 with modified recloser fast curve.

Location of DG

App Bus 17 Bus 18 Bus 19 Bus 20 Bus 21 Bus 22 Bus 23 Max. limits

At one bus 11.35 10.85 8.86 7.44 6.98 5.01 4.27 11.35
App1 11.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.35
App2 10.08 0 0 0 0.38 0 0 10.46
App3 5.28 0.78 0.61 0.35 0.05 0.37 0.35 7.79
App4 8.07 0 1.63 0 0 0 0 9.7
App5 5.43 0.76 0.47 0.33 0.22 0.28 0.36 7.85

Table 8
Optimal system variables with different approaches for DG located in recloser–fuse region with a fault at F1with modified recloser fast curve.

No DG App1 App2 App3 App4 App5

Loss-MW 0.4441 0.0589 0.061 0.0563 0.0602 0.0558


Loss-MVAR 1.0457 0.244 0.2211 0.1528 0.1905 0.1532
Min voltage% 83.3972 97.402 98.175 98.0622 98.0335 98.0686
If 877.68 1668.3 1668.4 1668.4 1668.4 1668.4

Table 9
DG penetration limits with different DG positions in relay–recloser region with a fault at F4.

Location of DG

App Bus 4 Bus 7 Bus 10 Bus 12 Bus 13 Bus 15 Bus 16 Max. limit

At one bus 1.68 1.4 1.32 1.26 1.23 1.15 1.14 1.68
App1 1.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.68
App2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.14 1.14
App3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.14 1.14
App4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.14 1.14
App5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.14 1.14

relay–recloser region. The operating times of protective devices 35 33.10 33.10 33.10 33.10 33.10
F1 F4
decrease when DG units are located near the relay, and it is higher in
30
case when DG units are located near the recloser. This is attributed
DG Capacity (MW)

to the lower fault current contribution from DG since the fault 25


path is larger. The maximum limit of DG rating that satisfies the 20
coordination between the recloser (fast curve) and fuse is 33.1 MW. 15 12.45
10.78
For any fault at F4, the fault current through feeder-relay will
10
not change from the value without DG located near recloser but
1.68

1.40

1.32

1.26

1.23

1.15

1.14

the recloser fault current will increase. The maximum limit of DG 5


rating that satisfies the coordination between the relay and recloser 0
(slow curve) is 1.68 MW. Bus 4 Bus 7 Bus 10 Bus 12 Bus 13 Bus 15 Bus 16
Fig. 7 shows the limits of the DG rating with different positions DG location
in relay–recloser region for a fault at F1 and F4 after modifying
Fig. 7. DG penetration limits with different DG positions at one bus and fault loca-
recloser fast curve. The maximum limit of DG rating is reduced
tions at F1 or F4.
from 33.1 to 1.68 MW to achieve all margins of coordination with a
H.A. Abdel-Ghany et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122 121

Table 10
Active and reactive power loss, total fault current and minimum value of voltage profile with different DG positions in relay–recloser region and a fault at F1 and F4.

No DG App1 App2 App3 App4 App5

Loss-MW 0.4441 0.2973 0.2908 0.2908 0.2908 0.2908


Loss-MVAR 1.0457 0.6337 0.723 0.723 0.723 0.723
Min voltage% 83.3972 89.6635 95.8824 95.8824 95.8824 95.8824
If1 877.68 959.2322 1.0585 1.0585 1.0585 1.0585
If4 1254.4 1386.9 1.5526 1.5526 1.5526 1.5526

Table 11
DG penetration limits with different DG positions along feeder.

Fault location DG position

Bus 4 to 15 Bus 16 Bus 17 Bus 18 Bus 19 Bus 20 Bus 21 Bus 22 Bus 23 Max. limit

F1 33.1 10.78 4.69 4.59 4.11 3.71 3.57 2.87 2.55 33.1
F1 & F4 0 1.14 0.73 0.60 0.30 0.19 0.16 0.32 0.47 3.91

Table 12
DG penetration limits with different DG positions at all buses and fault locations at F1 with modified recloser fast curve.

Fault location DG position

Bus 4 to 15 Bus 16 Bus 17 Bus 18 Bus 19 Bus 20 Bus 21 Bus 22 Bus 23 Max. limit

F1 33.1 10.78 11.35 10.85 8.86 7.44 6.98 5.01 4.27 33.1
F1 & F4 0 1.14 5.99 0.55 0.33 0.22 0.01 0.37 0.01 8.62

modified recloser setting. From the figure, the best location of the Following the same procedure, Table 14 shows the limits of DG
distributed generation is a DG unit located in relay–recloser section ratings with their different locations in recloser–fuse region and
and close to the relay. different approaches for a multi fuse after modifying recloser fast
Table 9 shows the DG penetration limits with different DG pos- curve. The results summarized in this table are attained consid-
itions in relay–recloser region for a fault at F4. The best location ering all terms in the objective function (as in App5). The best
and maximum sizing of the DGs are the combination of DG units alternatives to distribute units at different buses keep coordination
keeping a suitable coordination margin between recloser and relay. margin between recloser and multi fuses with the recloser. Thus,
Omitting the voltage profile, total fault current and power losses it is logic to obtain reduced value compared to 2.605 MW when
and considering only the DG capacity in the objective function considering the coordination between recloser–fuse as shown in
results in placing the DG near the relay. On the other hand, consid- Table 14.
ering the voltage profile, total fault current and/or power losses in The results of the network with DG units include the cases of
the objective function, results in locating the DG near the recloser. conventional protection scheme and modified recloser fast curve.
Thus similar results are obtained for App2, App3, App4, and App5 The voltage profile and power losses are improved in case 3 as com-
as shown in the table. Table 10 shows the active and reactive power pared to case 1 and case 2. On the other hand the fault current level
loss, total fault current and minimum value of voltage profile with is increased as shown in Table 13. This is due to the insertion of DG
different DG positions in relay–recloser region and a fault at F1 and units with high capacity beside the loads (along the feeder).
F4. The optimization problem is formulated considering the four
commonly-used factors affecting the selection of DG units. When
7.3. Case 3: DG located along feeder it is not required to consider a certain term in the objective function,
except for the first term, the corresponding weighting factor is set to
DG rating limits for different DG positions along feeder for a zero. In addition, any other factor, such as total harmonic distortion
fault at F1 considering all terms in the objective function (App5) (THD) and number of control actions, can be added without any
are shown in Table 11. The best alternative is to distribute units at modification of the methodology. For example a term describing
different buses keeping coordination margin between recloser and the summation of total harmonic distortion can be added to the
fuse. objective function using a suitable weighting factor. However, THD-
From Table 11, the maximum penetration of DG is reached when based objective function can be ignored as the THD of inverter-
seven units are connected at different buses in the recloser–fuse based distributed generation can be generally improved either by
region. On the other hand, the maximum capacity of DG units when involving harmonic filters or using suitable control.
located in relay–recloser region is found to be 1.14 MW. This value The algorithm is used in the planning stage to define the maxi-
is obtained from a single unit located at bus 16. This value takes mum limits of DG units that can be inserted in the network without
into account the coordination for the entire feeder. Thus, it is logic affecting the coordination problem. In addition, it defines the best
to obtain reduced value compared to 4.36 MW when considering
the coordination between recloser–fuse as shown in Table 10. In a Table 13
similar way, the DG penetration limits with different DG positions Active and reactive power loss, total fault current and minimum value of voltage
at all buses and different fault locations with modified recloser fast with different DG positions along feeder fault locations at F1 and F4.

curve are calculated as shows in Table 12. No DG Conventional Modified Recloser


Table 13 shows the active and reactive power loss, total fault Loss-MW 0.4441 0.0595 0.0594
current and voltage values with different DG positions along the Loss-MVAR 1.0457 0.1413 0.1464
feeder and fault locations at F1 and F4 according to case 3. In addi- Min voltage% 83.3972 98.0902 98.1128
tion, the simulation results of the system with and without DG units If1 877.68 1404.6 1668.3
If4 1254.4 2059.6 2805
are summarized in Table 13.
122 H.A. Abdel-Ghany et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122

Table 14
DG penetration limits with different DG positions at all buses and multi fuse with modified recloser fast curve.

Fault location DG position


* * * *
Bus 4 to 15 Bus 16 Bus 17 Bus 18 Bus 19 Bus 20 Bus 21 Bus 22 Bus 23 Max. limit

P (MW) 0 1.14 0.44 0.26 0.04 0 0.158 0.042 0.524 2.605


Min V (%) 98.08 Ploss 0.061 Qloss 0.1417
*
Fuse location.

location of these units with maximizing capacity to increase the feeder, in: Proceedings of the 15th International Middle East Power Systems
benefits. The methodology deals only with this problem, while the Conference (MEPCON’12), December, 2012, Alexandria University, Egypt, 2012,
pp. 23–25.
operation is another problem that can be handled by the operator [4] P.P. Barker, R.W. Mello, Determining the impact of distributed generation on
of an independent system operator (ISO) of the system. power systems: Part 1—Radial distribution systems, Power Eng. Soc. 3 (2000)
1645–1656 (Summer Meeting, 2000. IEEE).
[5] S.A.M. Javadian, M.-R. Haghifam, S.M.T. Bathaee, M. Fotuhi Firoozabad, Adap-
8. Conclusion tive centralized protection scheme for distribution systems with DG using risk
analysis for protective devices placement, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 44
A proposed multi-objective function is developed to define (1) (2013) 337–345.
[6] A. Kamel, M.A. Alaam, A.M. Azmy, A.Y. Abdelaziz, Protection coordination for
the setting and sizing of DGs in the distribution system keeping distribution systems in presence of distributed generators, Electr. Power Com-
the classical protection scheme unchanged. The coordination con- pon. Syst. 41 (15) (2013) 1555–1566.
straint, including fuse–recloser and recloser–relay schemes, has [7] S. Kwon, C. Shin, W. Jung, Evaluation of protection coordination with distributed
generation in distributed networks, in: Proceedings of the 10th IET Interna-
been added to the multi-objective function in an augmented fit-
tional Conference on Developments in Power System Protection (DPSP 2010),
ness function. The modified fast curve-based recloser setting has January 2010, pp. 74–78.
been used with the DG in order to increase the sizing of DG. The [8] V. Calderaro, V. Galdi, A. Piccolo, P. Siano, A Petri net based protection monitor-
ing system for distribution networks with distributed generation, Elect. Power
possibility of minimizing the network power losses, improving
Syst. Res. 79 (9) (2009) 1300–1307.
voltage profile and reducing fault current level without replacing [9] A.F. Naiem, Y. Hegazy, A.Y. Abdelaziz, M.A. Elsharkawy, A classification tech-
the existing protection system have been emphasized in the results nique for recloser–fuse coordination in distribution systems with distributed
considering single and multi DG units. generation, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery 27 (1) (2012) 176–185.
[10] J.C. Hernandez, J. De la Cruz, B. Ogayar, Electrical protection for the grid-
In practice, the choice of the best location may not be always interconnection of photovoltaic-distributed generation, Elect. Power Syst. Res.
possible owing to many constraints. However, the analysis recom- 89 (2012) 85–99.
mends that the maximum levels of DGs can be achieved when [11] IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 21 (IEEE SCC21), IEEE Standard for
Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems, IEEE Std.,
located in recloser–fuse region, especially near recloser location 2003, pp. 1–28, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2003.94285
without considering other factors. On the other hand, if the tech- [12] S. Chaitusaney, A. Yokoyama, An appropriate distributed generation sizing
nical constraints are taken into account, the optimal location of considering recloser–fuse coordination, in: Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Trans-
mission and Distribution Conf. Exhibit., 2005, pp. 1–6.
the DG units will be close to the fuse location. As a result, the [13] J. Sadeh, M. Bashir, E. Kamyab, Effect of Distributed Generation Capacity on the
maximum capacity of the DG units will be reduced by 21% com- Coordination of Protection System of Distribution Network, Transmission and
pared with its value when the technical constraints were not taken Distribution Conf. and Exp., IEEE Press, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2010, pp.
110–115.
into account. In brief, the optimal setting and sizing of DG depends
[14] M. Thakur, S.S. Meghwani, H. Jalota, A modified real coded genetic algorithm
on the optimization strategy of the operator according to the con- for constrained optimization, Elect. Power Syst. Res. 235 (4) (2014) 292–317.
cerned priorities and status of power system. [15] J.O. Kim, D.J. Shin, J.N. Park, C. Singh, Atavistic genetic algorithm for economic
dispatch with valve point effect, Elect. Power Syst. Res. 62 (3) (2002) 201–207.
[16] L. Sun, Y. Zhang, C. Jiang, A matrix real-coded genetic algorithm to the unit
References commitment problem, Elect. Power Syst. Res. 76 (9–10) (2005) 716–728.
[17] D. He, F. Wang, Z. Mao, Hybrid genetic algorithm for economic dispatch with
[1] P. Trichakis1, P.C. Taylor, P.F. Lyons, R. Hair, Predicting the technical impacts of valve-point effect, Elect. Power Syst. Res. 78 (4) (2008) 626–633.
high levels of small-scale embedded generators on low-voltage networks, IET [18] S. Porkar, P. Poure, A. Abbaspour Tehrani-fard, S. Saadate, Optimal allocation
Renew. Power Gener. 2 (4) (2008) 249–262. of distributed generation using a two-stage multi-objective mixed-integer-
[2] H. Zayandehroodi, A. Mohamed, H. Shareef, M. Mohammad Jafari, M. Farhood- nonlinear programming, Eur. Trans. Electr. Power 21 (2010) 1072–1087.
nea, A novel protection coordination strategy using back tracking algorithm for [19] S.A. Hossini, S.S.K. Madahi, F. Razavi, M. Karami, A.A. Ghadimi, Optimal sizing
distribution systems with high penetration of DG, in: 2012 IEEE International, and siting distributed generation resources using a multi objective algorithm,
Power Engineering and Optimization Conference (PEDCO), Melaka, Malaysia, Turk. J. Electr. Eng. Comp. Sci. 21 (2013) 825–850.
2012, pp. 187–192. [20] M.A. Abido, A novel multiobjective evolutionary algorithm for environmen-
[3] N.I. Elkalashy, N.F. Sherbilla, A.I. Taalab, T.A. Kawady, Distributed generation tal/economic power dispatch, Elect. Power Syst. Res. 65 (1) (2003) 71–81.
with fault current limiter impacts on recloser–fuse protection for distribution