2020 2nd International Conference on Smart Power & Internet Energy Systems
Optimal Placement, Sizing and Operating Power
Factor of PV for Loss Minimization and Voltage
Improvement in Distribution Network via DigSilent
Mohamed Abdul Rasheed Renuga Verayiah
College Of Graduate Studies College Of Graduate Studies
Universiti Tenaga Nasional Universiti Tenaga Nasional
Selangor, Malaysia Selangor, Malaysia
SE22864@utn.edu.my Renuga@uniten.edu.my
Abstract— With the increase in concern of global warming,
most nations are pushing for a greener option to the current
fossil fuel-based generation schemes. Due to its versatile
opportunities, Photovoltaic (PV) installations are becoming
more widespread. Unlike the conventional generation systems
PV is located closer to the load centers. This gives possibility of
injecting PV at optimal locations to minimize system losses and
improve voltage profile. Appropriate location and size of PV is
vital for the stability of the system. This paper, considers
different voltage stability indices to determine precise PV
location, explores effects of PV sizing and impact of PV power
factor fluctuations. To validate the stability of the proposed
scheme, simulation is done for IEEE 33 bus system and IEEE 14
bus system with DigSilent. When system is optimized it showed
a great improvement to the voltage profile with considerable loss
reduction.
Keywords—Photovoltaic (PV); Power Factor (PF); Voltage
Stability Indices (VSI); Fast Voltage Stability Index (FVSI); Line
Stability Factor (LQP); Distributed Generation (DG)
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, with the increased concerns of global
warming the demand for greener options has amplified. As a
result, worldwide installation of large-scale solar has grown
exponentially. Research has revealed that at any instance the
surface of the earth receives approximately 1.8 ×1011MW of
power from solar radiation. This is more than enough to fulfil
the world power demand [1]. Solar energy can be harvested in
two forms namely thermal and photovoltaic. However,
Photovoltaics is the more feasible option [2].
In addition, with the changes in energy sector regulations,
many countries are expected to integrate large-scale
renewable generation into the existing grid. For example, in
year 2015, China’s total installed photovoltaic capacity is
43.18 TW. China is becoming world’s largest photovoltaic
generation capacity installed country in the world [3]. As of
March 2017, 12.2GW solar power capacity was installed by
India. The government of India has announced its mandate to
enhance solar energy production to 100 GW by 2022 [4].
Nevertheless, due to the uncontrollable nature of PV,
integration of PV to the existing grid will have several
negative impacts on the system if the integration is not done
properly. The most common concern is steady state over
voltage, effect on voltage profile, sudden fluctuations of
voltage and impact on system losses. Voltage profile and
system losses are most important areas companies focus as it
effects the system reliability, power blackouts, and financial
losses to the utility [5], [6].
Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Bold Grant 2019
978-1-7281-6611-7/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 126
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on August 26,2021 at 14:44:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Ba-swaimi Saleh
College Of Graduate Studies
Universiti Tenaga Nasional
Selangor, Malaysia
SE22866@utn.edu.my
Furthermore, with an increase in penetration would reduce
the inertia of the system as power supplied by the conventional
generators are decreased. The reduction of active power
supplied to the system will have impact on the transient
stability of the system [7].
Voltage stability is defined as the ability of a system to
maintain acceptable voltage across the system after a
disturbance [8]. For this paper, the stability limits have been
set at ±5% of the base value, whereby any violation or out of
range from this limit is considered system unstable. The ±5%
is chosen to represent the actual operating voltage limit by
most of the power utilities around the world.
When PV is integrated, the voltage stability limit of the
system is enhanced. As a result, the system’s capacity to
transfer more active power is increased. Hence, installed PV
size needs to be controlled. Otherwise the power generated by
the PV will exceed the system load resulting in reverse power
[9]. Furthermore, if the increase in penetration level of PV is
not controlled, the system will lose its stability and exceed the
boundaries set by the utilities.
Several studies have been carried out to achieve optimum
allocation of PV. Different methodologies have been used for
the process and it is based on analytical tools or optimizing
programming methods [10]. This paper will use analytical
tools in order to establish the optimum size and location of PV
for IEEE 33 bus system and IEEE 14 bus system.
The existing literatures on voltage fluctuations are
relatively rare as most of the studies are focused on safety
index constraints. A few have highlighted the importance of
voltage fluctuations when considering DG capacity [11], [12].
However, these studies still lack the analysis of relationship
between accessible PV capacity and power factor [13].
Besides the level of PV penetration and PV size allocation,
power factor of PV is another key aspect that has a direct
impact on the voltage profile and system losses. When PV is
integrated, Power factor (PF) of the system can reduce to
undesired levels of PF > 0.85. Some studies suggest that PV
should operate at more than 0.85 power factor
(leading/lagging) when PV output is more than 10% of the
system power [14].
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the optimal
location, sizing of PV installed to the IEEE 33 bus system and
IEEE 14 bus system. In addition, the appropriate power factor
for PV penetration is also inspected in this study. IEEE 33 bus
test system represents the distribution network while IEEE 14
bus system represents the transmission network. The
distribution system and transmission network were modeled
using DigSilent Power Factory simulation software. This
study considers bus voltages and active losses as the basis to Section 1: Procedure to find optimal location and size of
justify optimum size and power factor of PV while stability PV at unity power factor. The constrains for the process
indices are used to find the weak point for PV installation includes voltage level of ±5% p.u and PV penetration ratio is
location. The paper is summarized as follows: Section I considered between 20 – 80% of the load. The flowchart of
provides the research background and an introduction of the
the process is shown in Figure 2.
paper. Section II and III will describe the methodology and
Test systems. Section IV illustrates the results of the paper.
Section V summarizes the findings for the paper.
II. METHODOLOGY
In general, the present operation state of a power system
can be identified by its voltage stability indices. These indices
help to evaluate, predict future changes and long- run
development trend within predefined circumstances [15].
Voltage stability indices can be categorized into four types,
Jacobean matrix, bus, line and overall VSI’s. This paper will
focus on line voltage stability indices.
A. Line Voltage Stability Indices
Line voltage stability indices are designed based on a two-
bus system as shown in Figure 1. The theory behind most of
the line voltage stabilities are the same. The main difference
is the assumptions used [16] .

Fig. 1. Single line two bus network [17].

Where,
Vi = sending end bus voltage magnitude
Vj = receiving end bus voltage magnitude
Zij = line impedance
Rij = line resistance
Xij = line reactance
Pi = sending end active power
Qi = sending end reactive power
Pj = receiving end active power
Qj = receiving end reactive power
B. Fast Voltage Stability Index (FVSI)
FVSI [18] is developed based on voltage collapse
conditions. For stability operation FVSI should be less then
unity. The line with the highest FVSI is the most critical line
and may lead to system wide instability. This index is also
used to identify the weakest bus. The weakest bus corresponds
to the bus with smallest maximum permissible load [18].

(1)

C. Line Stability Factor (LQP)

LQP [19] is modelled in a single line network between
two nodes to generate the equation. For stable operation LQP
should be less the unity. The bus with the lowest LQP is the
most stable bus.
4 (2)

D. Proposed Approach and Method

The process of finding optimal location, size and power
factor of PV to minimize system losses while improving
voltage profile is divided into two sections
Fig. 2. Flowchart to find optimal location and size of PV installation.

127

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on August 26,2021 at 14:44:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1) Section 2: When PV placement and size of PV is
confirmed at unity power factor, the Power factor can be
optimized to minimize losses and improve voltage profile for
networks. The process will be bound by the same operating
constrains and 0.85 lagging power factor to 1.00 unity power
factor. Flowchart of the process is shown in Figure 3.
Fig. 3. Flowchart for optimal PV sizing and power factor.
III. TEST SYSTEMS
The test systems selected to simulate the proposed
methodology are IEEE 14 bus system and IEEE 33 bus system
which represents the transmission network and distribution
network respectively. IEEE 14 bus network consists of 5
generator buses, 11 load buses and 20 lines [20]. For
transmission network base voltage is 132 kV and base MVA
is 100MVA. Table I shows the generator bus voltages used for
the IEEE 14 bus system.
TABLE I. IEEE 14 BUS SYSTEM
Bus No. Bus Voltage Magnitude (p.u.)
1 1
2 0.986
3 0.953
6 1.009
8 1.028
The standard IEEE 33 bus radial distribution network
consists of 33 buses, 32 load branches and one synchronous
generator. Rated voltage for the system is 12.66 KV [21].
Single line diagram for IEEE 14 Bus system and IEEE 33 Bus
system are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 respectively.
128
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on August 26,2021 at 14:44:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 4. Single line diagram of IEEE 14 bus system [22].
Fig. 5. Single line diagram of IEEE 33 bus system [23].
IV. RESULTS
To carry out the proposed methodology, both networks are
developed in DigSilent. Adopting voltage stability indices
from equation (1) and equation (2) for optimum location, the
appropriate location of PV for both IEEE 14 bus and IEEE 33
bus systems are identified. The following sections present
further results obtained.
A. Section 1: Optimizing PV Size and Location
1) Base Case without PV: For base case scenario, load
flow of the network is carried out for both systems without
any PV connection. For IEEE 14 bus system, the bus voltages
mentioned in Table I is implemented. Furthermore, voltage
profile, network losses and power flow are computed for both
systems.
2) PV Allocation: Optimal location for PV placement is
determined by considering the two voltage stability indices
selected. From the base case results voltage stability index of
each node for both systems are calculated using FVSI and
LQP index.
For IEEE 14 bus system, both indices indicate line 4-9 as
the weakest line. For IEEE 33 bus system, both indices
indicate line 5-6 as the weakest line. Upon this, the next step
is to integrate PV into the system. The indices only indicate
the weakest line between two buses. The weakest bus needs
to be identified. PV of fixed size at unity power factor is
integrated to bus at the sending end of line. An average value
of FVSI and LQP is calculated for the whole system. For both TABLE IV. POWER LOSSES REDUCTION FOR IEEE 33 BUS SYSTEM
systems this process is repeated at the receiving end of the PV size Losses MW
line. The average voltage stability index computed is shown Base Case 0.2025128
in Table II. 20 % 0.1527752
70% 0.1039505
TABLE II. VOLTAGE STABILITY INDEX COMPUTATION FOR 71% 0.1039921
WEAKEST LINE 80% 0.1060541

Network PV Size
Weakest FVSI LQP The voltage for base case and different penetration
line percentage is shown in Figure 7.
Bus 4
0.0606 0.2496
IEEE 14 Bus (Sending)
100 MW
System Bus 9
0.0605 0.1256
(Receiving)
Bus 5
0.0175 0.0057
IEEE 33 Bus (Sending)
2 MW
System Bus 6
0.0173 0.0056
(Receiving)

3) IEEE 14 Bus System: After integration of PV at bus 9,

percentage of penetration is increased according to the
methodology. The system losses are minimized and voltage
profile is improved while maintaining the constrains of the
system. The system losses were decreased by 53.1 % while
voltage profile was improved on average by 0.009 p.u. The
system losses for different percentages of PV penetration is
shown is Table III. Beyond 52% (134.68MW) of PV Fig. 7. Voltage profile of IEEE 33 bus system IEEE 33 bus system for
penetration, the losses start to increase. different PV penetration level.

TABLE III. POWER LOSSES REDUCTION FOR IEEE 14 BUS SYSTEM B. Section 2: Optimizing Power Factor
PV size Losses MW After optimizing PV size and location for both systems to
Base Case 12.770 minimize losses and improve voltage profile, the PV could be
20 % 8.511 optimized further.
50% 5.997
51% 5.989 Power factor should be fluctuated between 0.85
52% 5.986 lagging/leading [14]. Hence the methodology is built to
53% 5.987 deliver the optimum power factor for the PV connected to the
60% 6.132 system.
The voltage profile for system at different penetration
percentage is shown in Figure 6. 1) Power Factor Optimization: For IEEE 33 bus system,
optimization of power factor of the PV has minimized the
system losses from 48.7% to 68.9% when power factor was
minimized to 0.88. Beyond that point penetration ratio
constraint for the system is breached.
For IEEE 14 bus system, optimization of power factor of
PV minimized the system losses from 53.1 % to 54.3% when
power factor was minimized to 0.96. Beyond that point
voltage constrain for the system is breached. Table V shows
how system losses are minimized for both systems with
power factor optimization.

TABLE V. POWER LOSSES REDUCTION WITH POWER FACTOR

OPTIMIZATION
Fig. 6. Voltage profile of IEEE 14 bus system. Losses MW
IEEE 33 Bus system IEEE 14 Bus System
4) IEEE 33 Bus System: After integration of PV at bus 6, Base Case 0.2025128 12.770
percentage of penetration is increased according to the With PV but without
0.1039505 5.985543
Optimized PF
methodology. The system losses are minimized and voltage With PV and with
profile is improved while maintaining the constrains of the 0.06304329 5.831285
optimized PF
system. The system losses were decreased by 48.7 % while
Figure 8 and Figure 9 shows the voltage profile
voltage profile was improved on average by 0.0266 PU. The
improvement when PF is optimized for IEEE 14 Bus system
system losses for different percentage of PV penetration is and IEEE 33 bus system respectively.
shown is Table IV. Beyond 70% (2.597MW) of PV
penetration, the losses start to increase.

129

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on August 26,2021 at 14:44:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Fig. 8. Voltage profile of IEEE 14 bus system after power factor
optimization of PV.
Fig. 9. Voltage profile of IEEE 33 bus system after power factor
optimization of PV.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a static stability model with PV is presented
for both IEEE 33 and IEEE 14 bus system. The methodology
presented in this paper has been carried out to find optimum
size and location for PV using line stability indices. Both
systems are improved further by optimizing the power factor
of PV. It is observed that the active power losses for both
IEEE 33 bus system and IEEE 14 bus system is decreased by
68.9% and 54.3 % respectively. This resulted in considerable
voltage profile improvement for both networks while
maintaining the constrains proposed in this paper. In
conclusion, this paper has successfully presented that optimal
location and optimal size of PV together with appropriate
power factor for PV penetration can significantly reduce the
power losses of the system while improving the system
voltage profile.
As the study is based on analytical methods, additional
simulations work is currently being conducted by integrating
and implementing optimization algorithms such as Genetic
Algorithm and Particle Swarm Optimization in MATLAB
environment. An improved and further optimized PV sizing
value is expected to be obtained.
130
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on August 26,2021 at 14:44:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper was sponsored by Universiti Tenaga Nasional
internal grant, Bold 2019. The authors appreciatively
acknowledge the institute’s support.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Shah, N. Mithulananthan, R. C. Bansal, and V. K.
Ramachandaramurthy, “A review of key power system stability
challenges for large-scale PV integration,” Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev., vol. 41, pp. 1423–1436, 2015.
[2] A. J. Sangster, “Solar Photovoltaics,” Green Energy Technol., vol.
194, no. 4/5, pp. 145–172, 2014.
[3] Y. He, Y. Pang, X. Li, and M. Zhang, “Dynamic subsidy model of
photovoltaic distributed generation in China,” Renew. Energy, vol.
118, pp. 555–564, 2018.
[4] A. Kadam, M. R. Manjunath, and S. K. Bilgundi, “Optimal
allocation of solar photovoltaic sources in 11kV system for loss
reduction using stress test method,” Int. Conf. Electr. Electron.
Commun. Comput. Technol. Optim. Tech. ICEECCOT 2017, vol.
2018-Janua, pp. 180–185, 2018.
[5] M. M. Haque and P. Wolfs, “A review of high PV penetrations in
LV distribution networks: Present status, impacts and mitigation
measures,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 62.
Elsevier Ltd, pp. 1195–1208, 01-Sep-2016.
[6] G. Guerra and J. A. Martinez, “A Monte Carlo method for
optimum placement of photovoltaic generation using a multicore
computing environment,” IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meet.,
vol. 2014-Octob, no. October, pp. 1–5, 2014.
[7] M. Zainuddin, Sarjiya, T. P. Handayani, W. Sunanda, and F. E. P.
Surusa, “Transient Stability Assessment of Large Scale Grid-
Connected Photovoltaic on Transmission System,” Proc. - 2018
2nd Int. Conf. Green Energy Appl. ICGEA 2018, pp. 113–118,
2018.
[8] N. R. Bujal, A. E. Hasan, and M. Sulaiman, “Analysis of voltage
stability problems in power system,” 2014 4th Int. Conf. Eng.
Technol. Technopreneuship, ICE2T 2014, vol. 2014-Augus, no.
August, pp. 278–283, 2015.
[9] M. J. E. Alam, K. M. Muttaqi, and D. Sutanto, “A comprehensive
assessment tool for solar PV impacts on low voltage three phase
distribution networks,” Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Dev. Renew. Energy
Technol. ICDRET 2012, pp. 221–225, 2012.
[10] H. Sadeghian, M. H. Athari, and Z. Wang, “Optimized solar
photovoltaic generation in a real local distribution network,” 2017
IEEE Power Energy Soc. Innov. Smart Grid Technol. Conf. ISGT
2017, 2017.
[11] S. Liu, T. Bi, and Y. Liu, “Theoretical analysis on the short-circuit
current of inverter-interfaced renewable energy generators with
fault-ride-through capability,” Sustain., vol. 10, no. 1, 2017.
[12] T. Aziz and N. Ketjoy, “PV Penetration Limits in Low Voltage
Networks and Voltage Variations,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp.
16784–16792, 2017.
[13] Q. Alsafasfeh, O. A. Saraereh, I. Khan, and S. Kim, “Solar PV grid
power flow analysis,” Sustain., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1–25, 2019.
[14] IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 21 on Fuel Cells
Photovoltaics Dispersed Generation and Energy Storage, IEEE
 Recommended Practice for Utility Interface of Photovoltaic ( PV )
Systems, vol. 2000. New York: IEEE / Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers Incorporated, 2000.
[15] M. S. S. Danish, T. Senjyu, S. M. S. Danish, N. R. Sabory, K.
Narayanan, and P. Mandal, “A recap of voltage stability indices in
the past three decades,” Energies, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1–18, 2019.
[16] J. Modarresi, E. Gholipour, and A. Khodabakhshian, “A
comprehensive review of the voltage stability indices,” Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 63. Elsevier, pp. 1–12, 2016.
[17] M. Jalboub, A. Ihbal, H. Rajamtani, R. A. Abd-Alhameed, and A.
Ihbal, “Determination of static voltage stability-margin of the
power system prior to voltage collapse,” 2011, pp. 1–6.
[18] I. Musirin and T. K. Abdul Rahman, “Novel fast voltage stability
index (FVSI) for voltage stability analysis in power transmission
system,” in 2002 Student Conference on Research and
Development: Globalizing Research and Development in
Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SCOReD 2002 -
Proceedings, 2002, no. February, pp. 265–268.
[19] A. Mohamed, G. B. Jasmon, and S. Yusof, “A Static Voltage
Collapse Indicator,” J. Ind. Technol., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 73–85, 1998.
[20] S. Yadav, R. K. Mandal, and G. K. Choudhary, “Determination of
appropriate location of superconducting fault current limiter in the
smart grid,” 2014 Int. Conf. Smart Electr. Grid, ISEG 2014, pp. 1–
9, 2015.
[21] V. Vita, “Development of a decision-making algorithm for the
optimum size and placement of distributed generation units in
distribution networks,” Energies, vol. 10, no. 9, p. 1433, Sep.
2017.
[22] E. N. Azadani, S. H. Hosseinian, P. H. Divshali, and B. Vahidi,
“Stability constrained optimal power flow in deregulated power
systems,” Electr. Power Components Syst., vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 713–
732, 2011.
[23] R. Rajaram, K. Sathish Kumar, and N. Rajasekar, “Power system
reconfiguration in a radial distribution network for reducing losses
and to improve voltage profile using modified plant growth
simulation algorithm with Distributed Generation (DG),” Energy
Reports, vol. 1, pp. 116–122, 2015.

131

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on August 26,2021 at 14:44:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.