2020 International Conference on Sustainable Energy Engineering and Application (ICSEEA)
Optimal Placement and Sizing of PV as DG for
Losses Minimization Using PSO Algorithm:
a Case in Purworejo Area
Muhammad Galih Sukma Wicaksana
Department of Electrical and Information Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Gadjah Mada University
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
muhammad.galih.s@mail.ugm.ac.id
Fikri Waskito
Department of Electrical and Information Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Gadjah Mada University
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
fikri@ugm.ac.id
Abstract—The Total distribution system losses of PT PLN
ULP Purworejo reach 10.467%as technical and non-technical
losses which were very high compare to the maximum limit
(5%). In this research, Photovoltaics (PV) Distributed
Generation (DG) was installed as an active power injection to
reduce the system’s losses. This research determined the hosting
capacity of PV including the location and capacity of the PV.
The problem was modeled into an optimization problem and
was simulated using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
algorithm in MATLAB environment. The simulation was
considered the voltage, power factor (pf), and branch current as
constraints. The simulation was conducted on the existing
system of Feeder 7 of PT PLN ULP Purworejo distribution
system. Backward Forward Sweep (BFS) method was used for
load flow analysis. As the load flow analysis result, the technical
losses on a feeder 7 reach 2.676% of feeder 7 supply. The
simulation results showed that by installing optimal distributed
PV, the technical losses in feeder 7 were reduced to 1.351%. The
overall losses of PT PLN ULP Purworejo become 10.045%.
Keywords— distributed generation, photovoltaics, particle
swarm optimization, distribution system losses
I. INTRODUCTION
In the distribution system, maintaining power quality
plays an important role to keep the electrical power system
remain stable. Many factors that affect poor power quality
like power factor reduction, voltage drop, and losses [1]. PT
PLN UP3 Magelang is a 20 kV radial distribution system that
experiences significant losses as a major problem with the
biggest contributoris the distribution system of The ULP
Purworejo section that reach 10.4673% as technical and non-
technical losses by the Jogja Losses Formula calculation [2].
The losses were very high compare to the maximum limit of
overall losses in the PT PLN Unit (5%) [3]. Non-technical
losses can be caused by theft, illegal connections, meter
tampering, or faulty meters, while the technical losses can be
caused by eddy currents, ohmic losses, unbalanced loading,
overloading, low voltage, and poor standard of equipment [4].
Jogja Losses Formula mechanisms is collec the assets,
production’s, and selling’s data according to the unit’s
978-1-7281-8849-2/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on August 26,2021 at 13:36:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Lesnanto Multa Putranto
Department of Electrical and Information Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Gadjah Mada University
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
lesnanto@ugm.ac.id
Muhammad Yasirroni
Department of Electrical and Information Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Gadjah Mada University
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
muhammad.yasirroni@mail.ugm.ac.id
condition, then losses calculation to get overall PLN unit
losses value [5].
To overcome the technical losses problem PT PLN ULP
Purworejo performed an network inspection using
thermovision to tag the hot-spot that has an operating
temperature above the permitted limit which will result in
losses. As the result there is 50 point of hot-spots,
maintenance was carried out but most of them still above the
permitted limit and located in feeder 7 [6]. Moreover, Feeder
7 is the longest feeder and has the biggest load at the edge of
the network [7], so its assumed feeder 7 has the highest
technical losses. Due to those reasons and to avoid the
complexity and heavy calculation in the software, the author
was only considered Feeder 7. Since the Jogja Losses
Formula only provide overall PT PLN unit losses and doesn’t
provide losses value for each feeder, the author conduct load
flow analysis to calculate the technical losses of Feeder 7.
The feeder and network data for load flow analysis was
obtained from measurement in the existing distribution
system [7].
In addition to maintenance, losses can also be minimized
bythe installation of distributed generation (DG), installation
of capacitors, and network reconfiguration [8]. DG is among
the most considerable endeavors of modern distribution
system [9]. Nevertheless, previous research shows that
improper setting and allocation of DG may lead to greater
system losses than without DG [10]. Photovoltaics (PV) is
one of the most commonly used DG due to its advantages
[11], studies have proven it like optimal placement and
capacity of PV will improve voltage prole and reduces
power losses, as presented in [12]. Reference [13] presents
the impact of PV inverter on grid losses and voltage
unbalance. Minimalization losses with optimal PVDG was
also presented in [14]. The optimal allocation and capacity of
PVDG using the PSO algorithm was already presented in [15]
but to solve IEEE 34 bus test system and there’s no power
factor consideration. The optimal siting and sizing of PVDG
presented in [16] have already solved the real existing
problem of Semanu Substation in Gunung Kidul but without
power factor consideration.
Therefore, in this paper, an optimal PV planning model is
proposed to reduce power losses in the existing problem of
feeder 7 of PT PLN ULP Purworejo with voltage and power
factor consideration for each bus. Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO) algorithm was used in the MATLAB
environment. The optimization was modeled to determine the
optimal placement and capacity of PV as DG. Backward
Forward Sweep (BFS) is considered as a power flow analysis
method.
II. POWER SYSTEM AND OPTIMIZATION MODEL
A. Power Flow Calculation
Fig. 1. Simple single line diagram as an example of matrix formation
The widely used load flow method is Newton Raphson
(NR), but NR still uses the Jacobian matrix which increases
the complexity that make longer computational time and has many advantages, like fast convergence, robust, and
memory compared to the Backward Forward Sweep (BFS) efficient. It’s proven from reference [24], the PSO algorithm
method [17]. The BFS uses only the basic law of the circuit is better in terms of solution quality (voltage profile and
i.e. Kirchhoff's Current Law (KCL) and Kirchhoff’s Voltage losses) and the number of iterations compared to the Genetic
Law (KVL) [18], thus making BFS more memory-efficient Algorithm (GA). In PSO, particle (š୧ ሻrepresent a position of
due to less computational and faster convergence. The BFS is each individual with N-dimensional search space which is
ideal for this research in which a radial distribution system defined as:
was used because the BFS can only be used in radial ‫ݔ‬௜ ൌ ሺ‫ݔ‬௜ଵ ǡ ‫ݔ‬௜ଶ ǡ ‫ݔ‬௜ଷ ǡ ‫ݔ‬௜ே ሻ (6)
distribution systems [1].
In this research, the installation of PV used 2-dimensional
The BFS requires formula modification that is the BIBC search space, referred to as capacity of PV ( ‫݌ܽܥ‬௜௝ ) and
(Bus Injection to Branch Current) matrix and The BCBV
position of PV (‫ܿ݋ܮ‬௜௝ ) which is defined as:
(Branch Current to Branch Voltage) matrix [19], [20], it can
be modeled in detail using the single line diagram in Fig. 1. ‫ݔ‬௜ ൌ ൫‫݌ܽܥ‬௜௝ ǡ ‫ܿ݋ܮ‬௜௝ ൯ (7)
From Fig. 1 the branch current equation can be modeled as 
j J (8)
follows:
ଵ
‫ې ۍ‬ ͳͳͳͳͳ ‫  ۍ‬ଶ ‫ې‬ Where i is the particle number and j is the number of installed
‫ۍ‬ ‫ ې‬ଷ PV. Each particle will store its own best position ever visited
‫ ێ‬ଶ‫ۑ‬
 ൌ  ‫ۑ  ێ ۑͳ ͳ ͳ ͳ Ͳ ێ‬ during the search, called particle best (‫݌‬௕௘௦௧௜ ሻ. While the best
‫ ێ‬ଷ‫ۑ‬ ‫ێ‬ Ͳ Ͳ ͳ ͳ Ͳ ‫ ێ ۑ‬ସ‫ۑ‬ (1)
‫ێ‬ସ ‫ۑ‬ ‫  ێ ۑͲ ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ ێ‬ହ ‫ۑ‬ position of the whole particle ever visited is called global best
‫ۏ‬ହ ‫ے‬ ‫ے  ۏ ےͳͲͲͲͲ ۏ‬ ሺ݃௕௘௦௧ ሻǤ Each particle moves to a new position particle
଺
ሺ௧ାଵሻ
The matrix in Equation (1) has a BIBC matrix component (‫ݔ‬௜ ሻby updating the speed with a new speed variable
ሺ௧ାଵሻ
which can be simplified as: (‫ݒ‬௜ ሻ as the following equation:
ሾ‫ܤ‬ሿ  ൌ  ሾ‫ܥܤܫܤ‬ሿሾ‫ܫ‬ሿ ሺ௧ାଵሻ ሺ௧ሻ ሺ௧ሻ ሺ௧ሻ ሺ௧ሻ ሺ௧ሻ
(2) ‫ݒ‬௜ ൌ ‫ݓ‬Ǥ ‫ݒ‬௜ ൅ ܿଵ ‫ݎ‬ଵ ൫‫݌‬௕௘௦௧௜ െ ‫ݔ‬௜ ൯ ൅ ܿଶ ‫ݎ‬ଶ ൫݃௕௘௦௧ െ ‫ݔ‬௜ ൯
The voltage drop equation can be modeled as follows: (9)
ሺ௧ାଵሻ ሺ௧ሻ ሺ௧ାଵሻ
ܸଵ െ ܸଶ ܼଵଶ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ ‫ܤ‬ଵ ‫ݔ‬௜ ൌ ‫ݔ‬௜ ൅ ‫ݒ‬௜ ( 10 )
‫ ܸۍ‬െ ܸ ‫ې‬ ‫ܼ ܼۍ‬ ‫ې ܤۍ ې‬
‫ ێ‬ଵ ଷ
‫ۑ‬ ‫ ێ‬ଵଶ ଶଷ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ ‫ ێ ۑ‬ଶ ‫ۑ‬ ܿଵ and ܿଶ are acceleration coefficients, while ‫ݎ‬ଵ and ‫ݎ‬ଶ are
‫ܸێ‬ଵ െ ܸସ ‫ ۑ‬ൌ  ‫ܼێ‬ଵଶ ܼଶଷ ܼଷସ Ͳ Ͳ ‫ܤێ ۑ‬ଷ ‫ۑ‬ (3)
randomly generated numbers in the range [0, 1]. ‫ݓ‬ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻis the
‫ܸێ‬ଵ െ ܸହ ‫ۑ‬ ‫ܼێ‬ଵଶ ܼଶଷ ܼଷସ ܼସହ Ͳ ‫ܤێ ۑ‬ସ ‫ۑ‬ inertia weight at iteration t. Inertia weight stands for the
‫ܸۏ‬ଵ െ ܸ଺ ‫ے‬ ‫ܼۏ‬ଵଶ ܼଶଷ Ͳ Ͳ ܼଷ଺ ‫ܤۏ ے‬ହ ‫ے‬
weighting of a branch with DG particle’s previous velocity,
The matrix in Equation (3) has a BCBV matrix component ‫ݓ‬ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻis formulated as: [23], [25]
which can be simplified as: ௪೘ೌೣ ି௪೘೔೙
ሾοܸሿ ൌ  ሾ‫ܸܤܥܤ‬ሿሾ‫ܤ‬ሿ (4) ‫ݓ‬ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൌ ‫ݓ‬௠௔௫ െ ቀ ቁǤ‫ݐ‬ ( 11 )
௠௔௫Ǥ௜௧௘௥Ǥ

The voltage in each bus can be determined using the
following formula [19], [21], [22].
A. Observation Variable
ሾܸ௜ ሿ  ൌ  ሾܸଵ ሿ െ  ሾοܸଵ௜ ሿ (5)
B. Particle Swarm Optimization
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is a stochastic
optimization algorithm, it is inspired by the social behavior
of animals in mutual communication between individuals
when searching for food and migration [23]. PSO algorithm
III. PROPOSED METHOD
The variables used in this research areas follows:
1. control variable: The location and capacity of PV.
2. parameters: Network parameters, PSO parameters,
and constraints.
3. dependent variable: Losses, voltage profiles, power
factors (pf), and branch currents before and after PV
installation.

103

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on August 26,2021 at 13:36:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE I. NETWORK AND DAYTIME PEAK LOAD DATA FEEDER 7 OF TABLE II. PSO PARAMETERS
PT PLN ULP PURWOREJO
No PSO Parameters
Load at to bus 1 Iteration number 300
Branch From To R 2 Population number 100
X ()
No bus bus () P (kW) Q (kVAR) 3 0.9
Maximum weight (‫ݓ‬௠௔௫ )
4 Minimumweight (‫ݓ‬௠௜௡ ) 0.4
1 1 2 0.03 0.03 203.70 80.50
5 Individual speed coefficients (ܿଵ ) 0.7
2 2 3 0.29 0.69 85.56 33.82
6 Group speed coefficients (ܿଶ ) 0.7
3 3 4 0.22 0.52 1031.00 407.60

4 4 5 0.30 0.70 257.60 101.80 D. PSO Parameters

Table II shows that the number of iterations is 300, thus
5 5 6 0.55 1.29 944.00 373.10
due to almost all scenarios converge before the 300th iteration.
6 6 7 0.16 0.38 403.70 159.50 With a population of more than 100, the result of the
7 7 8 0.47 1.11 745.20 294.50
optimization remains, therefore 100 is the most optimal
number for memory efficiency. The decision variables in this
8 8 9 0.24 0.57 26.74 10.57 research stated as a particle (‫ݔ‬௜ ሻthat has 2-dimensional search
9 9 10 0.14 0.33 566.00 223.70 space ‫ݔ‬௜ ൌ ൫‫݌ܽܥ‬௜௝ ǡ ‫ܿ݋ܮ‬௜௝ ൯.‫݌ܽܥ‬௜௝ is the capacity of PV which
is randomly generated between 0 and 4 MW and the ‫ܿ݋ܮ‬௜௝ is
10 10 11 0.43 1.02 0.00 0.00
the position of PV at the certain bus which is randomly
11 11 12 0.03 0.08 200.81 79.37 generated between 2 and 21 at the first iteration and being
12 12 13 0.10 0.25 78.39 30.98 increase/decrease by ‫ݒ‬௜ for the next iteration.

13 11 14 0.72 1.69 99.87 39.47 E. Objective Functionand System Constraints

14 14 15 0.13 0.30 0.00 0.00
The objective function of this research is to minimize
active power losses in the distribution network using the
15 15 16 0.01 0.02 154.63 61.12 following main equation:
16 16 17 0.07 0.11 61.21 24.19 Min F= ܲ௅௢௦௦௉௏ ሺܸܲ ் ሻ (13 )
்
Where ܸܲ = Vector which indicates PV location and
17 17 18 0.05 0.08 113.83 44.99 capacity; PLoss PV = Total network losses after PV installation.
18 15 19 0.57 1.34 341.49 134.97 The pf assumption of PV is 1, so the PV only injects active
power to the system. Losses after PV installation are modeled
19 19 20 0.30 0.71 583.11 230.46
as follows:
20 20 21 0.51 1.19 459.61 181.65
Objective Function:
‫ܲ݊݅ܯ‬௅௢௦௦௉௏ ሺܸܲ ் ሻ ൌ  σே ே
௝ୀଵ σ௞ୀଵൣߙ௝௞ ൫ܲ௝ ܲ௞ ൅ ܳ௝ ܳ௞ ൯ ൅
B. Existing Radial Distribution System ߚ௝௞ ൫ܲ௝ ܲ௞ ൅ ܳ௝ ܳ௞ ൯൧ ( 14 )
This research uses the existing radial distribution system ܲ௝ ൌ ܲ௚௝ െ ܲ௉௏௝ ( 15 )
of Feeder 7 of PT PLN ULP Purworejo.The single line ܲ௞ ൌ  ܲ௚௞ െ ܲ௉௏௞ ( 16 )
diagram of this feeder is shown in Fig. 2. Single time loading ோೕೖ
was considered at daytime peak load (10.00 am WIB). ߙ௝௞ ൌ  …‘•ሺߜ௝ െ ߜ௞ ሻ ( 17 )
௏ೕ ௏ೖ
ோೕೖ
Network and load data Feeder 7 is shown in Table I. The ߚ௝௞ ൌ  •‹ሺߜ௝ െ ߜ௞ ሻ ( 18 )
௏ೕ ௏ೖ
total active and reactive load power in Feeder 7 is 6,356.476 Where ܸ௝ ‫ߜס‬௝ = the voltage magnitude and the angle at bus j;
kW and 2,512.287 kVAR respectively. The PT PLN ULP
ܴ௝௞ ൅ ܺ௝௞ =The element jk from the impedance matrix; ܲ௝ =
Purworejo has 7 feeders with the total active and reactive load
power is 20,541.255 kW and 8,003.015 kVAR respectively. Netactive power injection at bus j; ܳ௝ =Net reactive power
The rated substation voltage is considered at 1.0 p.u. injectionat busj; ܲ௚௝ = Active power injectionat bus j; ܲ௉௏௝ =
Active power injection from the PVat bus j; N= The number
C. Mathematical Models of PV Injection of buses.
PV is the most widely used DG due to its flexible
positioning and zero-emission [11]. Power distribution Optimization results will be accepted when satisfying the
companies purchase power from the power transmission following specified constraints:
companies, it will decrease after the PV installation. This is
modeled as:
ܲ௚௉௏ ൌ ܲௗ ൅ ܲ௅௢௦௦௉௏ െ σே ௝ୀଵ ܲ௉௏ሺ௝ሻ ( 12 )

Where ܲ௚௉௏ = Total power purchase from the transmission

companies after PV installation; ܲௗ = Load demand,
ܲ௅௢௦௦௉௏ = Total network loss after PV installation;
ܲ௉௏ሺ௝ሻ =Active power injection of PV that installed at bus j.
Fig. 2. Single line diagram Feeder 7 PT PLN ULP Purworejo

104

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on August 26,2021 at 13:36:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1) Voltage constraint
TABLE III. THE MOST OPTIMAL PV PLACEMENT AND CAPACITY
0ǡ ͻ ൑ ܸ௝ ൑ ͳǤͲͷ (19 )
Optimization Scenario
ܸ௝ is the voltage at bus j in p.u.[26]. Bus No
1 PV 2 PV 3 PV 4 PV All Bus
2) Power factor constraint (pf)
‫݂݌‬௝ ൒ ͲǤͺͷ ( 20 ) 1 0 0 0 0 0

‫݂݌‬௝ is the power factor at bus j. 2 0 0 0 0 17.2

3) PV capacity constraint 3 0 0 0 108.3 0

10 kW൑ ܲ௉௏௝ ൑ ͳͲ‫ܹܯ‬ (21 ) 4 0 0 0 0 332.8

ܲ௉௏௝ is the capacity of PV installation at bus j. The total 5 0 0 0 0 95.9

capacity of PV ( σ ܸܲ ் ) have to under the load 6 0 0 846.8 539.2 274.3
demand(ܲௗ ), with the constraint as follows:
7 0 331.3 128.3 0 119.1
σ ܸܲ ் ൏ ܲௗ ( 22 )
8 1191.5 0 0 437.9 263.4
4) Current constraint
‫ܫ‬௜ ൏ ‫ܫ‬௠௔௫ǡ௜ ( 23 ) 9 0 0 0 0 92.1
The ith branch current (‫ܫ‬௜ ) should not exceed the ith 10 0 934.9 0 0 179.3
branch’scurrent carrying capacity (‫ܫ‬௠௔௫ǡ௜ ) [3]. 11 0 0 0 682.1 0

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12 0 0 672.8 0 97.6

The simulations were carried out in 5 scenarios which 13 0 0 0 0 0

make different optimization result. In this research, 14 0 0 0 0 0
MATPOWER 7.0 was used to solve power flow [27].
15 0 0 0 0 151.4
A. PV Hosting Capacity for Each Optimization Scenario
16 0 0 0 0 0
Fig. 3 shows that the PV hosting capacity increases
gradually as the number of PV increased. The power injection 17 0 0 0 0 45.1
from PV is just active power, so the active and reactive power 18 0 0 0 0 66.4
experienced by each bus is more different, the pf is getting
worse which limits the hosting capacity. Installing PV more 19 0 0 0 0 0
distributed will overcome this due to hosting capacity 20 0 0 0 0 182.9
breaking.
21 0 0 0 0 137.5
B. PV Placement and Capacity Total 1191.5 1266.2 1647.9 1767.5 2055
As shown in Table III, it proves that hosting capacity is
getting bigger as the number of PV is increased. 10.045 %. The decrease in losses will be much higher if the
PV is installed throughout the 7 feeders, not in feeder 7 only.
C. Total Network Losses in Existing Conditions and After
PV Installation The losses are getting smaller as the number of PV is
increased. It occurs due to the PV installation is more
Fig. 4 shows that the losses in the existing condition of
distributed and the hosting capacity is more increased. This
feeder 7 are high, it reaches 174.796 kW (2.676% of feeder 7
will mitigate the active power needs from the substation.
total supply). After active power penetration from PV as a PQ
Hence the current flow in the network is decreased, which
bus, network losses drop significantly. The most significant
reduces the losses. Power loss is equal to the square of current
reduction occurs in all bus PV scenario which reaches 86.54
as the following formula:
kW or 49.51% losses reduction, hence the technical losses of
feeder 7 become 1.351% of feeder 7 total supply. The losses ܲ௅௢௦௦ ൌ  ‫ ܫ‬ଶ Ǥ ܴ ( 24 )
reduction reaches 0.421% of PT PLN Purworejo supply,
hence the overall losse sof PT PLN ULP Purworejo become
D. Voltage Profile in Existing Condition and After PV
2500
Installation
Hosting Capacity of PV

2000 Fig. 5 shows that the voltage profile in existing conditions

is within the standard (> 0.9 p.u.). Bus 21 as the worst voltage
1500
profile reach 0.935 pu while in voltage profile reach 0.947
(kW)

1000 pu. The voltage profile improves as the number of PV

500 increases. Voltage drop (ܸௗ௥௢௣ ) decreases due to the current
0 flow in the network decreased. ܸௗ௥௢௣ can be formulated as:
1 PV 2 PVs 3 PVs 4 PVs All Bus ܸௗ௥௢௣ ൌ ‫ܫ‬Ǥ ܴ ( 25 )
Optimization Scenario of PV
The voltage profile in all buses is improved as an increased
Fig. 3. PV hosting capacity in different optimization scenario
number of PVs as shown in Fig. 6.

105

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on August 26,2021 at 13:36:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 200 E. Branch Losses in Existing Conditionsand After PV
Installation
150
Losses (kW)

100 Fig. 7 shows that the losses in certain branches are getting
small as the number of PV increased. However, it doesn’t
50
work on several branches. It can be observed in the 8th branch,
0 the most significant decrease of branch losses occurred in the
Without 1 PV 2 PVs 3 PVs 4 PVs All Bus
PV 2 PVs scenario. The 11th branch losses are decreased only in
Optimization Scenario of PV 3 PVs scenario and all bus PV scenario. In the 14th and 19th
branches, losses reduction only occurred in the all bus PV
Fig. 4. Total losses inexistingconditions and after PV installation scenario; those conditions are due to the limited scope of PV
power injection on certain busses. A PV installation on
0.99 certain busses will not satisfy the load demand on other long-
distance busses; this load demand is still fulfilled by the
Voltage Profile (p.u.)

0.98
0.97 substation so the current flow remains constant, hence there
0.96
0.95 is no losses reduction.
0.94
0.93 F. Power Factors in Existing Conditions and After PV
0.92 Installation
0.91
5 9 12 18 19 20 21 Fig. 8 shows that pf is varying in each scenario. All pf is
Bus Number
still within the standard (0.85). The pf variation is due to the
PV placement, busses which are connected to PV will be
Without PV 1 PV 2 PVs 3 PVs 4 PVs All Bus injected active power from PV significantly, thus worsening
Fig. 5. Voltage profile at certain busses in the existing condition and after pf since PV doesn’t inject reactive power. Bus 2 has the
PV installation smallest pf in the existing condition which reaches 0.91, in all
1.05 Without PV
bus PV scenario it decreases to 0.85 as the worst pf among
1 PV the other scenarios, this due to in this scenario the bus 2
Voltage Profile (p.u.)

2 PVs becomes the point of PV installation. This scenario also has

3 PVs
1 4 PVs the biggest hosting capacity among the other scenarios that
All Bus influence a lot in pf reduction. Hence the active power flow
experienced by bus 2 from the substation will drop
0.95
significantly. As a result, the pf is highly decreased, it reaches
the constraint limits of 0.85. This value can be calculated
0.9 using the following formula:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ௉ೕ ௉ೕ
‫݂݌‬௝ ൌ  ൌ ( 26 )
ௌೕ ට௉ೕమ ାொೕమ
Bus Number
According to (26) the pf at bus 2 can be calculated as follows:
Fig. 6. Voltage profile at all busses in the existing condition and after PV ܲଶ ͶǤ͵ͺ͸͵ʹ
installation ‫݂݌‬ଶ ൌ  ൌ ൌ ͲǤͺͷ
ଶ ଶ ξͶǤ͵ͺ͸͵ʹଶ ൅ ʹǤ͹ͳͺ͵ͻ͸ͻଶ
ඥܲଶ ൅ ܳଶ
0.04
In bus 2 also can be observed that smaller number of PV
Branch Losses (kW)

0.03 will result in better pf value, this due to almost on all

0.02 scenarios the PV was installed on other buses rather than bus
1 and bus 2, therefore the pf on the bus 2 is only affected by
0.01 the hosting capacity.
0
2 3 8 11 14 19
In bus 12, 3 PVs scenario and all bus PV scenario have
the worst pf of 0.852 and 0.851 respectively, while on the
Branch Number other scenarios reach ± 0.929. Thus due to there is no PV
Without PV 1 PV 2 PVs 3 PVs 4 PVs All Bus installed on bus 12 and after on the other scenarios as shown
Fig. 7. Losses in certain branches in existing condition and after PV in table III, consequently there is no active power injection
installation from PV as a minus load that changes the pf on the bus 12.
V. CONCLUSION
0.95
The simulation results show that the installation of PV in
Power Factor

0.9 the distribution system of Feeder 7 of PT PLN Purworejo has

0.85 a significant effect on power losses minimization. The highest
losses reduction reached 49.5% of feeder 7 losses. The overall
0.8 losses of PT PLN ULP Purworejo become 10.045%. The
2 4 5 8 12 21
decrease of losses will be much higher if the PV is installed
Bus Number throughout 7 feeders. The PSO algorithm has been proven
effective in solving DG optimization. When PV injects real
Without PV 1 PV 2 PVs 3 PVs 4 PVs All Bus
power only, bigger hosting capacity will result in smaller
Fig. 8. pf at certain busses in existing conditions and after PV installation network losses and better voltage profiles, but pf will be

106

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on August 26,2021 at 13:36:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
getting worse.The pf can be compensated by installing PV
more distributed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The actual data in this research was obtained from PT.
PLN ULP Purworejo during the apprenticeship process, so we
wish to acknowledge the data and help provided by the staff
in PT PLN ULP Purworejo. We would also like to thank all
members of The Electrical Power Engineering Laboratory
Gadjah Mada University, who have provided good support for
this research.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Ouali and A. Cherkaoui, “An Improved Backward/Forward Sweep
Power Flow Method Based on a New Network Information
Organization for Radial Distribution Systems,” J. Electr. Comput.
Eng., vol. 2020, no. 17, p. 11.
[2] S. Dudy, N. Ferdyansyah, and F. Bachtiar, “PT PLN ULP Purworejo
Annual Losses Report,” State Electricity Company (PT PLN),
Purworejo, Central Java, Indonesia, Rep FJ.S/04/2/2018, Dec. 2018.
[3] Distribution Construction Working Group of Indonesian State
Electricity Company, “SPLN 72: 1987 Design specifications for
Medium Voltage Network and Low Voltage Network,” Attach. pln
board Dir. decree, vol. 060/DIR/87, no. Departement of Mining and
Energy State Electricity Company, p. 22, 1987.
[4] E. Suryani, R. A. Hendrawan, U. Salama, and L. P. Dewi, “Model
simulation to reduce technical and non-technical losses of electricity
distribution system,” IET Conf. Publ., vol. 2014, no. CP649, 2014.
[5] A. Rohmah and I. E. Ervianto, “Losses Management of PT. PLN
(Persero) ULP Siak by Using Jogja Losses Formula Calculation
Method,” 2019 Int. Conf. Technol. Policies Electr. Power Energy,
TPEPE 2019, no. IEEE, p. 5, 2019.
[6] N. Ferdyansyah and S. Dudy, “PT PLN ULP Purworejo Thermovision
Routine Inspection Report,” State Electricity Company (PT PLN),
Purworejo, Central Java, Indonesia, Rep KL/07/13/2019, Feb. 2019.
[7] Priyanto, A. Chotimul, and S. R. Sumaryo, “PT PLN ULP Purworejo
Per-Section Load Measurement of Medium Voltage Network,” State
Electricity Company (PT PLN), Purworejo, Central Java, Indonesia,
Rep LM/01/13/2018, June. 2018. 2018.
[8] T. Ackermann and G. Andersson, “Electricity Market Regulations and
their Impact on Distributed Generation,” in International Conference
on Electric Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and Power
Technologies, 2000, no. 3–5, pp. 4–7.
[9] A. F. Zobaa and C. Cecati, “A Comprehensive Review on Distributed
Power Generation,” in International Symposium on Power
Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion, 2006, no.
514–518, pp. 40–44.
[10] S. Joseph et al., “PSO Based Controller Algorithm For Optimal
Allocation & Setting of Fuel Cell In A Wind - PV Integrated Power
System for Maximizing Loadability,” 2014 Int. Conf. Adv. Green
Energy, no. 317221, pp. 1–6, 2010.
[11] “Multiple Distributed Generator Allocation by Harmony Search
Algorithm for Loss Reduction,” in International Conference on
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on August 26,2021 at 13:36:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Emerging Trends in Electrical Engineering and Energy Management,
pp. 59–64.
[12] M. D. Hraiz, J. A. M. Garcia, R. Jimenez Castaneda, and H. Muhsen,
“Optimal PV Size and Location to Reduce Active Power Losses
While Achieving Very High Penetration Level With Improvement in
Voltage Profile Using Modified Jaya Algorithm,” IEEE J.
Photovoltaics, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1166–1174, 2020.
[13] S. Weckx, C. Gonzalez, and J. Driesen, “Reducing grid losses and
voltage unbalance with PV inverters,” IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen.
Meet., vol. 2014-Octob, no. October, 2014.
[14] A. Al-Sabounchi, J. Gow, M. Al-Akaidi, and H. Al-Thani,
“Minimizing line energy loss of radial distribution feeder with a PV
Distributed Generation unit avoiding reverse power flow,” 2011 2nd
Int. Conf. Electr. Power Energy Convers. Syst. EPECS 2011, no. 1,
2011.
[15] I. J. Hasan, M. R. A. Ghani, and C. K. Gan, “Optimum Distributed
Generation allocation using PSO in order to reduce losses and voltage
improvement,” IET Semin. Dig., vol. 2014, no. CP659, pp. 1–6, 2014.
[16] T. Prasetyo, Sarjiya, and L. M. Putranto, “Optimal sizing and siting of
PV-based distributed generation for losses minimization of
distribution using flower pollination algorithm,” 2019 Int. Conf. Inf.
Commun. Technol. ICOIACT 2019, pp. 779–783, 2019.
[17] J. Coto, “Direct Backward / Forward Sweep Algorithm for Solving
Load Power Flows in AC Droop-regulated,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. 7, no. 2208–2217, pp. 1–10, 2015.
[18] D. Microgrids, “Direct Backward / Forward Sweep Algorithm for
Solving Load Power Flows in AC,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 7,
no. 2208–2217, pp. 1–10, 2015.
[19] R. W. Novialifiah, A. Soeprijanto, and R. S. Wibowo, “Algoritma
Aliran Daya untuk Sistem Distribusi Radial dengan Beban Sensitif
Tegangan - PDF.pdf.” Jurnal Teknik Pomits, Surabaya, p. 5, 2014.
[20] C. S. M. anoj Gupta, “Review of Forward & Backward Sweep
Method for Load Flow Analysis of Radial Distribution System,” Int.
J. Adv. Res. Electr. Electron. Instrum. Eng., vol. 04, no. 06, pp. 5595–
5599, 2015.
[21] A. D. R. J. B. Darji and M. Pandya, “Backward / Forward Sweep Load
Flow Algorithm for Radial Distribution System,” vol. 2, no. 01, pp.
398–400.
[22] J. A. M. Rupa and S. Ganesh, “Power Flow Analysis for Radial
Distribution System Using Backward / Forward Sweep Method,” vol.
8, no. 10, pp. 1621–1625, 2014.
[23] M. R. Alrashidi and M. F. Alhajri, “Optimal planning of multiple
distributed generation sources in distribution networks: A new
approach,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 3301–3308.
[24] Y. Alinejad-Beromi, M. Sedighizadeh, and M. Sadighi, “A particle
swarm optimization for sitting and sizing of distributed generation in
distribution network to improve voltage profile and reduce THD and
losses,” in Proceedings of the Universities Power Engineering
Conference, 2008, pp. 1–5.
[25] M. M. Aman, G. B. Jasmon, A. H. A. Bakar, and H. Mokhlis, “A new
approach for optimum DG placement and sizing based on voltage
stability maximization and minimization of power losses,” Energy
Convers. Manag., vol. 70, pp. 202–210, 2013.
[26] R. D. Zimmerman and C. E. Murillo-s, “Matpower User’s Manual
Version 7.0,” pp. 0–250, 2019.
107