Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 1537–1545

Impact of distributed generation on distribution contingency analysis

Sujatha Kotamarty, Sarika Khushalani, Noel Schulz ∗
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Mississippi State University, United States
Received 8 June 2007; accepted 24 January 2008
Available online 25 March 2008

Abstract
Alternative energy sources are becoming more cost effective, and many utilities are now providing incentives for alternative power. Placing these
alternative energy sources, as well as other smaller traditional energy sources, on the distribution power system, allows the development of a new
paradigm related to distributed generation (DG). The size and site of the DG will have an effect on the voltages and operations of the distribution
power system in the future. This paper discusses a procedure for evaluating the impact of site and size on both the original distribution power
system as well as a reconfigured power system after a fault. Validation of this work is done using the IEEE 37 node distribution feeder and the
results and trends are presented.
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Distributed generation (DG); Unbalanced power flow; Contingency analysis

1. Introduction Although there are many advantages of employing a DG,

With the new deregulated market, today’s power systems
are growing to be very large and complex in scale. Economic
incentives have become a driving force for the growth of these
technologies. Power systems are now operating with the chal-
lenge of meeting the new reliability, efficiency, stability, and
security requirements during different stages of operation.
A study by Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) indicates
that by 2010, 25% of power generation will be through this new
technology. A study by the Natural Gas Foundation concluded
that this figure could be as high as 30% [1]. There are many
reasons for the increasingly widespread use of the distributed
generation (DG). Having the DG close to the loads reduces the
transmission and distribution costs, including delayed mainte-
nance and equipment upgrades as well as loss reduction. It also
reduces voltage sags and acts as an immediate backup during
sustained utility outages. The DG plants require shorter instal-
lation times, and the investment risk is also becoming more
reasonable [2–5].
∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering,
Mississippi State University, 216 Simrall Engr Building, Hardy Road, Box 9571,
MS 39762, United States . Tel.: +1 6623252020; fax: +1 6623252298.
E-mail address: schulz@ece.msstate.edu (N. Schulz).
a whole host of new problems arise with their inclusion, such
as protection issues, voltage and frequency issues, and oper-
ational issues. Distribution systems were designed to operate
under radial power flow conditions, but with the employment of
DG, the power flow is no longer radial.
Many studies attempt to find the optimal size and the place
for a DG with respect to various criteria. Reference [6] presents a
multi-objective algorithm for the siting and sizing of DG. Their
formulation is based on genetic algorithms and gives the flexi-
bility of deciding between the cost of network upgrading, power
losses, energy not supplied, and energy required by the cus-
tomers. In Ref. [7], the authors present a method for evaluating
the DG placement by observing the effect on the losses and
voltage profile of the distribution networks. The evaluation is
based on the power flow method with the generators as PV
buses and the reliability evaluation is based on the analytical
methods. The researchers in Ref. [8] developed a tabu search
algorithm for the optimal placement of a DG to minimize loss.
Researchers in Ref. [9] used genetic algorithms and decision
theory to determine the size and placement of DG with con-
straints on feeder capacity limits, feeder voltage profile, and
three-phase short circuit currents. A real distribution network
was used to validate this method. In Ref. [10], the optimal siting
and sizing of the DG is determined using sensitivity analysis
and security-constrained optimization. The authors of Ref. [11]
present analytical methods to determine the optimal location to

0378-7796/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2008.01.020
1538 S. Kotamarty et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 1537–1545

place a DG in radial as well as networked systems with respect The objective is finding the optimal location in the distribu-
to the power losses. tion system for placing the DG that results in the least voltage
This research work, does not consider the various kinds of deviations; this objective was achieved by taking the required
DG. Additionally, the analysis is for steady-state operations. voltage at each node to be 1.0 p.u., for all the DG nodes mod-
A contingency analysis is done with the DG placed at various eled as PV. The analysis is performed for three different sizes of
locations on the feeder with different penetration levels and with DG, one-third, half, and two-thirds of total load capacity. Three
the contingencies at different locations. In this paper, the best different contingencies were considered with a DG placed at
location and size of the DG is determined by the comparison four different locations and modeled as a PV node and a PQ
of the voltage deviations at each node of the system based on node.
where the DG was placed.
3. Test case
2. Problem statement
The analysis presents the work done on the IEEE 37-node
Most distribution systems have been designed to operate distribution feeder [12]. The system consists of various types of
with the main source as the only supplier of the loads with loads including spot loads, single phase and three-phase loads,
the power flowing from the source to the end of the feeder, balanced and unbalanced loads, delta-connected loads, con-
that is, radial. However, DG involvement has changed the con- stant power, constant current, constant impedance, and KVAR
vention of the power flow being radial. Now the power flow type loads. It also has a substation transformer and an inline
can be reversed-with the DG sending power in either direction delta–delta transformer. Additionally, this test system incorpo-
from where it is placed. The power flow differs with a change rates both overhead and underground lines. The layout of the
in DG location and size and loading conditions. Knowing the feeder is shown in Fig. 1.
impact of size and placement of the DG’s on systems with a The locations of the DG placements and the contingencies
change in the loading conditions, due to the reconfigurations on the system are shown using the circles. The contingency
after the fault, is valuable. A study can be done to see the locations in this paper are selected randomly. It is selective pri-
impact of DG on criteria like voltage, losses, reliability, and oritization, as only three random locations are selected to look
economics. Focusing on the optimal placement and size of a at the impact of the size, location, and model of DG on the
DG in a distribution system to keep the system in an econom- intermediate state of the system after a fault, with the system
ical and secured state is paramount. With rapid penetration of reconfigured after the removal of the faulty section and before
DG into distribution systems, assessing power system impacts restoration of the system. The impact of the DG is observed
accurately is critical, so that these DG units can be applied in a with the change in the system load after the fault. The anal-
manner that avoids causing degradation of power quality, reli- ysis is done such that an estimate of the best location among
ability, and control of the utility system. On the other hand, the selected locations is obtained. It is a contingency analysis
DG has great potential to improve distribution system perfor- done looking at all the possible faults, which would give the
mance. Thus, studying the changes that a DG causes with a
change in its location, size, and the loading conditions is imper-
ative.
This work is done on the IEEE 37-node feeder, which is
unbalanced. The unbalanced power flow was run on the feeder
for different cases and situations. A technical evaluation is done
to look at the impacts of the DG with a change in the loca-
tion, size and the loading conditions due to the reconfigurations
caused by the faults on the voltage profile of the system. This
work deals only with changes in the voltage profile of the DG
before and after the reconfigurations caused by the faults and
does not consider the type of fault, as it assumes that the system
is reconfigured after the isolation of the fault.
This research work focuses on the impacts of the DG after the
reconfiguration of the system after a fault. It gives the analysis of
the impact of the DG location and size on the state of the system,
after a contingency, with a change in the system topology and
the loading conditions.
This work mainly focuses on the intermediate state of the sys-
tem between fault stabilization where a fault occurs and steady
state, and the faulty part of the system is isolated, and the system
is reconfigured to continue operation. It demonstrates how the
DG impacts the system voltage due to its size, placement, and a
change in the loading conditions due to a fault. Fig. 1. IEEE 37 node distribution test feeder.
 S. Kotamarty et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 1537–1545 1539

optimal location for the placement of the DG, but an analysis,

which gives the best placement of the DG at one of the selected
locations. Analysis of the DG size and placement on this feeder
is done using the unbalanced distribution power flow software
developed by Khushalani and Schulz [13]. This software han-
dles multiple sources and also, the DG can be modeled as PV
node or PQ node. This software allows for the simulation of mul-
tiple faults and variations in the penetration level of the DG’s.
Simulation of the fault, however, requires renumbering of the
nodes. The outputs from the software are three-phase line–line
voltages, for a delta system and positive sequence voltages, at
all the three-phase nodes. The output also includes currents at all
lines in the system, real and reactive power contributions from
the DG, and the total losses in the system. Fig. 2. Flowchart of the various scenarios for contingency analysis.

4. Approach to the problem

obtained value being the value obtained from the three-phase
unbalanced distribution power flow.
The investigation for finding the best size and placement of
the DG on each of test cases is done using the unbalanced power cumulative voltage deviation norm per node
flow software developed by Khushalani and Schulz [13]. The K
|Vn − 1.0|
analysis done using this software presents the trends for the opti- = n=1 without a fault (1)
mal size and site of a DG with respect to voltage profile. The K
inputs for the study of the best size and placement of a DG on the
IEEE 37 node distribution feeders are three different faults, three K−nr
n=1 |Vn − 1.0|
different sizes, and four DG locations with the DG modeled as = with a fault (2)
a PV node and a PQ node. The locations on the IEEE 37-node K − nr
feeder are nodes 742, 709, 734, and 741. All the selected DG where Vn = positive sequence voltage at the nth node, K = the
nodes are three-phase, since the program can handle three-phase number of nodes on each feeder (14 for 13 node and 37 for
modeling of a DG. The sizes considered are 1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 of 37 node), and nr = number of nodes that have been removed
the total load. The faults considered for the IEEE 37-node are due to a line contingency.
faults between 704 and 720, 703 and 727, and 734 and 710. Due The norm given in the first equation is used for the cases
to these combinations of inputs, like the different sizes, loca- without a fault, and the second equation is used for that with
tions, and the models of the DG with the different contingency a fault.
locations, a large amount of data was obtained from the power The voltage deviation norm shows clearly that the best
flow program. The power flow was run for each input combina- site for the DG placement is where the value of the deviation
tion and the results were obtained for each case. Thus, the power norm is the least. It indicates that at that site, the voltages
flow produced a large amount of data for each location on the are almost within their limits.
feeders with a change in the model, size of the DG, and location (3) To handle the multiple results obtained from various factors
of the fault. The approach was to consider all the possible com- and to arrive at the best size for the best location of the DG
binations of the inputs to arrive at the best location and size of on these feeders, the cumulative size norm is defined. This
the DG. The results were analyzed using the cumulative voltage norm is selected as the criterion for sizing of the DG.
deviation norm and the cumulative size norm, respectively for
the best location and the size of the DG on each of these feeders.
Fig. 2 gives the flowchart of the various scenarios. Table 1
Case Scenarios for DG placement, fault location and DG size
The following points outline the criteria and the approach
taken to investigate the best size and site of the DG on this Case Fault location between nodes DG size DG locations
feeder. 0 – 1/3 742, 709, 734, 741
1 – 1/2 742, 709, 734, 741
(1) The DG size in this paper denotes the penetration of the DG 2 – 2/3 742, 709, 734, 741
with respect to the total load. The sizes considered here are 3 704–720 1/3 742, 709, 734, 741
4 703–727 1/2 742, 709, 734, 741
1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 of the total load on the system, with the 5 734–710 2/3 742, 709, 734, 741
total being 2.457 MW. 6 704–720 1/3 742, 709, 734, 741
(2) The voltage deviation norm is selected as the criterion for 7 703–727 1/2 742, 709, 734, 741
the siting. The cumulative voltage deviation norm per node 8 734–710 2/3 742, 709, 734, 741
is defined as “the normalized sum of the deviations of the 9 704–720 1/3 742, 709, 734, 741
10 703–727 1/2 742, 709, 734, 741
obtained value from the desired value at every node on 11 734–710 2/3 742, 709, 734, 741
the feeder,” with the desired value being 1.0 p.u., and the
1540 S. Kotamarty et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 1537–1545

Table 2
Cumulative voltage deviations without contingencies
Contingency location No. of nodes Cumulative voltage deviations (p.u.) Cumulative voltage deviation per node (p.u.)

Without fault 37 1.0737 0.0290

With fault between 704 and 720 31 0.8144 0.0263
With fault between 703 and 727 33 0.8717 0.0264
With fault between 734 and 710 34 0.8846 0.0268

Fig. 3. Comparison of voltage deviations before and after the fault without DG.

The cumulative size norm is defined as “the total cumu-
lative voltage deviation obtained by adding the cumulative
voltage deviations of all the equal sized DG’s at the location
selected to be the best for the placement of the DG.”
Equal sized DG’s are placed in one group, and their cumu-
lative voltage deviation is obtained. The cumulative voltage
deviations for DG penetrations of 1/3, 1/2 and 2/3 of the
total load are obtained.
The definition of cumulative size norm shows that the best
size for a DG would be that value where the value of the sum
of the cumulative voltage deviations of all the equal sized
DG’s is the least. It indicates that at that size the voltage
profile has the least deviations considering the presence of
the DG.
(4) The DG was sited at four different nodes (742, 709, 734 and
741) on the feeder. The voltage deviation norm is calculated
for one site and one size with and without contingencies.
The contingencies are line contingencies for lines 704–720,
703–727, and 734–710. It is assumed that the nodes affected
by the line contingency are not available. For example, for
line contingency 704–720, nodes 720, 707, 724, 722, 706,
and 725 are not available. The above analysis was done for
other sites and sizes with the two different DG models (PQ
and PV). Table 1 contains the case scenarios considered in
this analysis.
(5) The node with the least voltage deviation norm was con-
sidered to be the best location of the DG according to the
cumulative voltage deviation norm.
(6) Using the cumulative size norm, the best size of the DG was
obtained.
5. Results
5.1. Test case 1: effect of a fault on system voltage
Whenever a fault occurs, the voltages at all the nodes change
due to the change in the loading conditions as a result of contin-
gency. This section discusses the effects of the faults at various
locations on the voltage deviations in the system without a DG.
Table 2 presents the values of the cumulative voltage
deviations for the different contingencies. Fig. 3 shows the com-
parison between the cases with and without the contingencies at
different places. The voltage deviation decreases for all the con-
sidered contingencies. The voltage deviations have decreased
from the base case irrespective of the location of the fault. How-
ever, the change in the voltage deviation is different for different

Table 3
Cumulative voltage deviations without contingencies
DG type DG size Cumulative voltage deviations (p.u.) Cumulative voltage deviations per node (p.u.)

DG at 742 DG at 709 DG at 734 DG at 741 DG at 742 DG at 709 DG at 734 DG at 741

PQ 1/3 0.8251 0.6810 0.6025 0.5603 0.0589 0.0486 0.0430 0.0400

PQ 1/2 0.7038 0.4859 0.3682 0.3717 0.0503 0.0347 0.0263 0.0266
PQ 2/3 0.5992 0.2885 0.2692 0.3538 0.0428 0.0206 0.0192 0.0253
PV 1/3 0.7461 0.5582 0.4620 0.4997 0.0533 0.0399 0.0330 0.0357
PV 1/2 0.7922 0.3097 0.3919 0.4740 0.0566 0.0221 0.0280 0.0339
PV 2/3 0.7048 0.3448 0.3374 0.5068 0.0503 0.0246 0.0241 0.0362
 S. Kotamarty et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 1537–1545 1541

Fig. 4. Voltage profiles with and without DG.

faults, as the loss of load in each case is different. This increase
in the voltage can be accounted for by the decrease in the load,
due to the fault.
5.2. Test case 2: effect of the DG placement on the voltage
profile without a contingency
This section addresses the impact of the type, size, and place-
ment of the DG units at different locations on the feeder without
a contingency.
Table 3 shows the changes in the cumulative voltage devia-
tions for the different types, sizes, and locations of the DG on
the system. The cumulative voltage deviation without the DG is
observed to be 1.0737 p.u. or 0.0767 p.u. per node.
Fig. 4 shows the effect the DG has on the improvement of
the voltages regardless of the size, type or location of the DG.
It shows the comparison between cases with different DG sizes,
models, and locations and without a DG. The presence of the
DG in the system improves the voltage profile, compared to a
system without a DG, independent of other factors. However,
the DG modeled as a PV node gives less voltage deviations than
those with the DG modeled as PQ.
5.3. Test case 3: effect of the placement of the DG on the
voltage profile in the presence of a fault
This section discusses the effect of the DG and the contin-
gency on the system. In this paper, the system is considered
reconfigured after the isolation of the fault. Three different loca-
tions for the contingencies are examined.
A decrease in the voltage deviation occurs for all the con-
sidered contingencies with the inclusion of DG. The voltage
deviations have decreased from the base case irrespective of the
location of the fault. However, the change in the voltage devi-
ation is different for different faults as the loss of load in each
case is different. As shown in Table 1, 11 case scenarios are
investigated.
5.3.1. DG as PQ node
Table 4 presents the results obtained for the cumulative
voltage deviations with the DG modeled as a PQ node at dif-
ferent DG locations and sizes for the case scenarios described
in Table 1. Table 4 shows clearly that the voltage deviations
are the least at node 741 with the DG modeled as a PQ
node.

Table 4
Cumulative voltage deviations with the DG (PQ) placed at different nodes
Case Dg size Fault location No. of nodes Cumulative voltage deviations (p.u.) Cumulative voltage deviations per node (p.u.)
between nodes
DG at 742 DG at 709 DG at 734 DG at 741 DG at 742 DG at 709 DG at 734 DG at 741

0 1/3 – 37 0.8251 0.6810 0.6025 0.5603 0.0223 0.0184 0.0163 0.0151

1 1/2 – 37 0.7037 0.4859 0.3682 0.3716 0.0190 0.0131 0.0100 0.0100
2 2/3 – 37 0.5992 0.2884 0.2692 0.3538 0.0162 0.0078 0.0073 0.0096
3 1/3 704–720 31 0.8144 0.4606 0.3820 0.3398 0.0263 0.0149 0.0123 0.0110
4 1/2 704–720 31 0.5768 0.6636 0.3914 0.1742 0.0186 0.0214 0.0126 0.0056
5 2/3 704–720 31 0.4351 0.1264 0.1751 0.2602 0.0140 0.0041 0.0056 0.0084
6 1/3 703–727 33 0.6488 0.5200 0.4414 0.3991 0.0197 0.0158 0.0134 0.0121
7 1/2 703–727 33 0.5448 0.3451 0.2289 0.2684 0.0165 0.0105 0.0069 0.0081
8 2/3 703–727 33 0.4624 0.1952 0.2570 0.3418 0.0140 0.0059 0.0078 0.0104
9 1/3 734–710 34 0.6552 0.5382 0.4843 0.4413 0.0193 0.0158 0.0142 0.0130
10 1/2 734–710 34 0.7074 0.6090 0.5524 0.5068 0.0208 0.0179 0.0162 0.0149
11 2/3 734–710 34 0.4559 0.2107 0.2580 0.3446 0.0134 0.0062 0.0076 0.0101

Total cumulative voltage deviations (p.u.) 7.4288 5.1241 4.4104 4.3619 0.2201 0.1517 0.1303 0.1283
1542 S. Kotamarty et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 1537–1545

Fig. 5. Cumulative voltage deviation comparison using a PQ model based on location of the DG and different case scenarios.

Table 5
Cumulative voltage deviations with the DG (PV) placed at different nodes
Case Dg size Fault location No. of nodes Cumulative voltage deviations (p.u.) Cumulative voltage deviations per node (p.u.)
between nodes
DG at 742 DG at 709 DG at 734 DG at 741 DG at 742 DG at 709 DG at 734 DG at 741

0 1/3 – 37 0.7461 0.5582 0.4620 0.4997 0.0202 0.0151 0.0125 0.0135

1 1/2 – 37 0.7921 0.3096 0.3918 0.4740 0.0214 0.0084 0.0106 0.0128
2 2/3 – 37 0.7048 0.3447 0.3373 0.5068 0.0190 0.0093 0.0091 0.0137
3 1/3 704–720 31 0.5929 0.3516 0.2560 0.3216 0.0191 0.0113 0.0083 0.0104
4 1/2 704–720 31 0.5768 0.6775 0.2246 0.3025 0.0186 0.0219 0.0072 0.0098
5 2/3 704–720 31 0.5729 0.2032 0.1509 0.3236 0.0185 0.0066 0.0049 0.0104
6 1/3 703–727 33 0.6289 0.4117 0.3163 0.4221 0.0191 0.0125 0.0096 0.0128
7 1/2 703–727 33 0.6188 0.3154 0.2925 0.3679 0.0188 0.0096 0.0089 0.0111
8 2/3 703–727 33 0.6069 0.3297 0.2183 0.3916 0.0184 0.0100 0.0066 0.0119
9 1/3 734–710 34 0.6220 0.4298 0.3642 0.4681 0.0183 0.0126 0.0107 0.0138
10 1/2 734–710 34 0.6245 0.3239 0.3535 0.4211 0.0184 0.0095 0.0104 0.0124
11 2/3 734–710 34 0.5986 0.2856 0.2767 0.4540 0.0176 0.0084 0.0081 0.0134
Total cumulative voltage deviations (p.u.) 7.6853 4.5409 3.6441 4.9530 0.2273 0.1351 0.1069 0.1459

Fig. 5 shows the graphical representation of Table 4. Fig. 6 shows the graphical representation of Table 5.

5.3.2. DG as PV node: 5.4. Comparison of the DG models and the DG location

Table 5 presents the results obtained for the voltage deviations
with the DG modeled as a PV node at different locations and Table 6 gives a snapshot of the best location to place the
sizes. The voltage deviations are the least at node 734 with the DG according to the DG model and the size with respect to the
DG modeled as a PV node. voltage deviations. The best location to place the DG to reduce

Fig. 6. Cumulative voltage deviation comparison using a PV model based on location of the DG and different case scenarios.
 S. Kotamarty et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 1537–1545 1543

Table 6
Best locations for different DG models
Fault location DG size Best location with DG as a PQ node Best location with DG as a PV node

Without fault 1/3 741 734

1/2 734 709
2/3 734 734
704–720 1/3 741 734
1/2 741 741
2/3 734 734
703–727 1/3 741 734
1/2 734 734
2/3 709 734
734–710 1/3 741 734
1/2 741 709
2/3 709 734

Table 7
Best size of the DG at node 734
Contingency cases Cumulative voltage deviations (p.u.) Cumulative voltage deviations per node (p.u.)

1/3 1/2 2/3 1/3 1/2 2/3

Without fault 0.4620 0.3918 0.3373 0.0125 0.0106 0.0091

704–720 0.2560 0.2246 0.1509 0.0083 0.0072 0.0049
703–727 0.3163 0.2925 0.2183 0.0096 0.0089 0.0066
734–710 0.3642 0.3535 0.2767 0.0107 0.0104 0.0081
Total cumulative voltage deviation (p.u.) 1.3985 1.2624 0.9832 0.0411 0.0371 0.0287

Fig. 7. Comparison of the total cumulative voltage deviation based on DG size for the selection best location using the PV model.

the voltage deviations differs with the change in the DG type and
size. Node 741 gives better results for the DG modeled as a PQ
node, whereas node 734 gives better results for DG modeled as a
PV node. DG modeled as PV node would lessen the cumulative
voltage deviation norm, as compared to modeling the DG as a PQ
node as is evident from the tables above. The voltage deviations
at node 734 with DG as PV are smaller than the deviations at
node 741 with DG as PQ.
5.5. DG size
The best size of the DG will be the size having the least
cumulative voltage deviation. As the DG as a PV node at 734
gives better results with respect to voltage deviation, the best
size for this location will be selected. The three faults with the
three different DG sizes and the DG placed at node 734 were
analyzed for the optimal size at this location using the cumulative
size norm. Equal-sized DG’s are placed in one group, and their
cumulative voltage deviation is obtained. The voltage deviations
of cases 0, 3, 6, and 9 from Table 1 are added to get the cumulative
voltage deviation with a DG penetration of 1/3 of the total load.
Similarly, the cumulative voltage deviations for DG penetrations
of 1/2 and 2/3 of the total load are obtained. Table 7 shows results
for the DG size.
Fig. 7 gives a graphical representation of the above table. A
DG penetration of 2/3 of the total load placed at node 734 would
give the least total cumulative voltage deviations.
6. Conclusions
The majority of the previous work focuses on looking at the
impact of the DG size and location on the system voltage with-
1544 S. Kotamarty et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 1537–1545
out a fault or after the system is restored from the fault. This
paper focuses on looking at the system voltages in the presence
of a DG with the system configured after the removal of the
faulty part of the system and before the restoration of the sys-
tem. The work done in this paper focuses on the assessment of
the size and the location impact of the DG with a change in the
loading conditions due to a contingency on unbalanced distri-
bution systems. The optimal location and the size of the DG are
selected from the results obtained from the unbalanced distribu-
tion power flow. A contingency analysis was done taking three
contingencies, three different sizes and four different locations
for the DG on each of the feeders with the power flow run taking
both types of models for the DG, PQ, and PV, into considera-
tion; the results were analyzed for the best location and size of
the DG.
Previous work has normally modeled DG as a PQ node only.
Typically, DG is modeled as a PQ node with negative injections
into the network for simplicity. However, in this research, the
DG was modeled also as a PV node, and a comparison of the
models is also done to see the effect of the DG model on the
system before and after the fault. However, this kind of work
is not feasible on large systems, as it is difficult to handle the
different cases and the different inputs. The results presented
lead to these conclusions:
(1) The system voltages increased for a system with a fault,
as compared to the system without a fault. As the
faulty part is removed from the system, the load on
the system reduces, increasing the voltages at all the
nodes.
(2) The voltage deviations on the system reduced considerably
with the presence of the DG in the system irrespective of
the type of the DG. However a comparison of the voltage
deviations shows that modeling the DG as a PV node reduces
the deviations further.
(3) The results also showed that placing the DG at the
junction nodes or at the downstream nodes reduced the
deviations considerably more than with the DG placed
at upstream nodes on the feeder, as the DG placed fur-
ther away from the source helped in providing voltage
support to the downstream nodes. Even with the recon-
figured system, a DG placed further away from the
source helped increase the voltage at all the downstream
nodes.
(4) DG modeled as a PV node gave lesser deviations at all the
nodes as compared to the DG modeled as a PQ, as the DG
modeled as a PV was able to control the voltages at the
nodes reducing the voltage deviations as compared to the
DG modeled as a PQ. Also, according to the way the PQ
and PV nodes are defined, the PV model has some voltage
control to keep the voltages within the limits whereas in the
PQ model there is no control for the voltage. Thus, for large
DG’s, the PV model is better than the PQ model to reduce
the voltage deviations.
(5) The best location of the DG may be size dependent and
topology dependent. More studies need to be done to provide
a definite trend here.
(6) The best size of the DG at the best location for the given
test system was shown to be a DG penetration of 2/3 of the
total load.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the United States Office of Naval
Research under Grants N00014-02-1-0623 and N00014-03-1-
0744.
References
[1] T. Ackerman, G. Anderson, L. Soder, Distributed generation: a definition,
Electr. Power Syst. Res. (2000) 195–204.
[2] CIGRE WG 37-23: Impact of increasing contribution of dispersed gener-
ation on the power system, Final report. Electra, September 1998.
[3] CIRED WG04: Dispersed generation-preliminary report, CIRED ’99 Nizza
(Fr), and 2–5 Giugno 1999.
[4] H.L. Willis, W.G. Scott, Distributed Power Generation, Marcel Dekker,
New York, 2000.
[5] P.P. Barker, R.W. de Mello, Determining the impact of distributed genera-
tion on power systems. Part 1. Radial distribution systems, in: Proceedings
of IEEE PES Summer Meeting, vol. 3, Seattle (USA) July 16–20, 2000,
pp. 1645–1656.
[6] G. Celli, E. Ghiani, S. Mocci, F. Pilo, A multiobjective evolutionary algo-
rithm for the sizing and the siting of distributed generation, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 20 (2) (2005).
[7] C.L.T. Borges, D.M. Falco, Impact of distributed generation allocation
and sizing on reliability, losses and voltage profile, in: Proceedings of
2003 IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference, Bologna, Italy, June 23–26,
2003.
[8] K. Nara, Y. Hayashi, K. Ikeda, T. Ashizawa, Application of Tabu search
to optimal placement of distributed generators, in: Proceedings of IEEE
PES Winter Meeting, vol. 2, Columbus (USA), February 28–2, 2001, pp.
918–923.
[9] G. Carpinelli, G. Celli, F. Pilo, A. Russo, Distributed generation siting and
sizing under uncertainty, in: Proceedings of 2001 IEEE Porto Power Tech
Conference, 10–13 September, Porto, Portugal, 2001.
[10] J.A. Greatbanks, D.H. Popovic, M. Begovic, A. Pregelj, T.C. Green, On
optimization for security and reliability of power systems with distributed
generation, in: Proceedings of 2003 IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference,
Bologna, Italy, June 23–26, 2003.
[11] C. Wang, M.H. Nehrir, Analytical approaches for optimal placement of
distributed generation sources in power systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
19 (4) (2004).
[12] Radial Distribution Test Feeders, http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/
dsacom/testfeeders.html.
[13] S. Khushalani, N. Schulz, Development of three-phase unbalanced power
flow using PV and PQ models for distributed generation and study of the
impact of DG models, IEEE Trans, Power Syst. 22 (3) (2007) 1019–1025.
Sujatha Kotamarty received her Master’s Degree from the Electrical and Com-
puter Engineering Department from Mississippi State University in May of 2006.
She received her B.Tech. degree from J.N.T.U, Andhra Pradesh, India, in 2003.
Her research interests are power system analysis and the economics of power
systems. She is now working for Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Taylor,
TX.
Sarika Khushalani finished her Ph.D. degree in Electrical and Computer Engi-
neering Department from Mississippi State University in the fall of 2006. She
received her B.E. degree from Nagpur University and M.E. degree from Mumbai
University, India, in 1998 and 2000, respectively. She was involved in research
activities at IIT Bombay, India. Her research interests are in computer applica-
tions in power system analysis and power system control. She was also a Honda
Fellowship Award recipient at MSU. She is now working for Open Systems
International in Minneapolis, MN.
 S. Kotamarty et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2008) 1537–1545 1545

Noel N. Schulz received her B.S.E.E. and M.S.E.E. degrees from Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1988 and 1990, respectively.
She received her Ph.D. in EE from the University of Minnesota in 1995.
She is the recipient of the TVA Endowed Professorship in Power Systems
Engineering. She has been an Associate Professor in the ECE Department at
Mississippi State University since July 2001. Her research interests are in com-
puter applications in power system operations including artificial intelligence
techniques. She is a NSF CAREER award recipient. She has been active in the
IEEE Power Engineering Society and is serving as Secretary for 2004–2007.
She was the 2002 recipient of the IEEE/PES Walter Fee Outstanding Young
Power Engineer Award. Dr. Schulz is a member of Eta Kappa Nu and Tau
Beta Pi.