2015 IEEE European Modelling Symposium
The Impact of Distributed Generation in the Distribution Networks Voltage Profile
and Energy Losses
Vasiliki Vita, Tareafa Alimardan,
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
City University London
London, United Kingdom
e-mails: vasiliki.vita.1@city.ac.uk , tareafa.alimardan.1@city.ac.uk , lambros.ekonomou.1@city.ac.uk
Abstract The worldwide increasing demand for electricity,
coupled with governmental policy changes for green energy
has led to significant interest in distributed generation (DG).
Integrating DG into an electricity network, especially close to
load centres, has many significant benefits but also brings with
it many drawbacks such as voltage drop, and power losses. In
this paper the impact of three different types of distributed
generation (diesel generator, wind turbine and photovoltaic
(PV)) on distribution networks voltage profile and power
losses is studied. NEPLAN software and the extended Newton-
Raphson method have been used in the analysis. The obtained
results show that different types of DG influence differently the
distribution network and that their precise location and size
are vital in reducing power losses and improving the voltage
stability.
Keywords distributed generation; distribution networks;
extended Newton-Raphson method; power losses; voltage profile.
I. INTRODUCTION
An important development since the privatisation of the
electricity industry has been a shift towards, and the
significant growth in distributed generation (DG) power
plants which are connected to the electricity system near load
centres. DG can be based on alternative energy sources,
preferably on renewable energy such as wind and solar
energy, however, non-renewable sources also are employed
such as diesel generators, natural gas generators, fuel cells,
etc. These are now larger in number than the traditional more
massive, conventional power stations that are typically
located closer to an energy source. As a result the
configuration of the traditional electrical supply system has
changed prominently over the last two decades when DG
was reintroduced into the construction of the electricity
network. The concept of DG, which can be traced back to the
early 1900s, is based on small scale power plants that are
connected to the electricity system close to customers.
Although centralised large power stations located far away
from load centres have several benefits in terms of
efficiency, e.g., they only require a small number of staff to
operate the station and the bulk of electricity can be
transferred over long distances with small losses, they also
have their drawbacks such as environmental concerns related
978-1-5090-0206-1/15 $31.00 2015 IEEE 260
DOI 10.1109/EMS.2015.46
Lambros Ekonomou
to emissions and the cost of expanding the electricity system
because of the increased demand and concerns about fuel
supply.
On the other hand DG has the potential to reduce
emissions and increase the dependence on alternative energy
sources, and hence participate in energy diversification. It
also helps to deliver backup power during times of increased
electricity demand, avoiding the investment in large power
plants and transmission lines, having also as a result the
reduction of the transmission and distribution power losses.
Furthermore DG improves voltage profiles and the load
factor, which minimizes the number of required voltage
regulators, capacitors and their ratings and maintenance
costs.
These benefits however are counterbalanced by impacts
on the distribution network since the integration of DG in it
is not straightforward. The integration of DG into the
distribution network may result in higher active and reactive
power losses because it is installed close to load centres. A
higher level of short circuits is observed and voltage
deviations appear since the penetration level of DG may
cause either overvoltages or undervoltages [1]. Furthermore,
some DG technologies, as in the case of photovoltaic (PV)
and wind power, change their output power over time,
having as a consequence, voltage fluctuations to occur which
can be directly linked to the quality of the power delivered to
the customers.
Different DG power plant types may have different
impacts on distribution networks. For example the power
injected into the distribution network from a photovoltaic
system might have a different impact to that of a wind
turbine. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyse the
impact of the placement and sizing of different types of DG
units in distribution networks with regard to power system
losses and voltage profile. Three different types of DG, wind
turbines, photovoltaics and diesel generators are installed on
a radial distribution network and analysis is conducted using
the NEPLAN (a software tool programmed to analyse, plan,
simulate and optimise electricity networks) and the extended
Newton-Raphson method. The obtained results show that
different types of DG influence differently the distribution
network and that their precise location and size are vital in
reducing power losses and improving the voltage stability.
 II. RELATED WORK calculation. In [10] the concept of evolutionary programming
As it has previously mentioned the integration of DG in in particle swarm optimization process was introduced for
the electricity system has proliferated notably as a result of obtaining the optimum size of DG in distribution networks.
privatisation of the electricity market, environmental The authors achieved with this approach to obtain the
alertness and technological advancement. During the last optimum values faster.
decade many researchers have focused on the challenges Safigianni et al. [11] explored the impact of integrating
resulting from the unplanned installation of DG in the different DG units on the system power flow, current,
distribution networks. Distribution networks have inherent voltage profile, and short-circuit level. They conducted their
problems such as voltage drop, power losses, fault current analysis on a real distribution system in order to accurately
levels associated to short circuits and problems resulting diagnose the technical issues that can arise. The systems
from the bidirectional power flow, in contrast to the behaviour was analysed using NEPLAN software. It was
unidirectional traditional power system flow from higher to found that losses fluctuated depending on the load factor
lower voltages. with the major impact observed on the voltage profile.
In [2] a genetic optimization algorithm has been used in Finally in [12] load flow and short circuit studies have been
order to find the optimal location and size of different DG conducted to analyse the impact of photovoltaics on
units in a radial distribution system. Three constraints distribution systems. DigSilent power factory software has
(voltage, active and reactive power losses and DG size) and been used for the analysis. The authors found that the higher
the Newton-Raphson method have been used in an effort to the penetration level the higher the positive impact of DG in
reduce the total power losses and improve the voltage terms of power losses and voltage profile.
profile. In [3] an interesting method has presented based on a
combined genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimisation III. SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
for the optimal location and sizing of DG on radial
distribution networks. The proposed method aimed at better A. The distribution network
voltage regulation and stabilisation and power loss reduction. The system under study is shown in Figure 1 and
Following two different approaches Parizad et al. [4] constitutes a part of a distribution network.
tried to find the optimum location and size of DG by
reducing losses and stabilising voltage. The first approach
targeted real power losses through the development of an
exact loss formula by finding the best location for the DG. In
the second approach, a voltage stability index was used to
site DG in the optimum place. Power flow has calculated by
applying the forward-backward sweep method. Injeti and
Kumar [5] have used fuzzy logic for finding the optimum
placement of a single DG unit and proposed a new analytical
expression for sizing the DG in radial networks. Their goal
was to improve the voltage profile and minimize real and
reactive power losses.
A relative simple analytical method for real power loss
reduction, voltage profile improvement and substation
capacity release based on voltage sensitivity index analysis
has introduced in [6], while another analytical technique to
calculate the optimum size and to allocate DG units in the
optimum place has presented in [7] in where the authors
found that minimum losses and a better voltage profile can
be achieved with integrating one DG unit of optimum size
and in an optimum location rather than integrating several
DG units.
Reddy [8] aimed to reduce the total power losses and to
improve the voltage profile of distribution systems with DG
using the particle swarm optimisation technique. The
Newton-Raphson method has been used in order to calculate
power losses and voltages across the network. Similarly
particle swarm optimisation has been used in [9] for the
placement of DG in radial distribution systems reducing the
active power losses and improving the voltage profile. In this
work Power System Analysis Toolbox (PSAT), an open
Figure 1. Single line diagram of distribution network under study.
source MATLAB software package for analysis and design
of electric power systems have been used for the power flow

261
 This system is built from 29 bus bars and 27 lines. The TABLE II. LOADS DATA OF DISTRIBUTION NETWORK UNDER STUDY
bus bars and lines data are presented in Table I. Location Capacity Capacity
Load cos (phi)
(bus bar) (MW) (Mvar)
TABLE I. LINES DATA OF DISTRIBUTION NETWORK UNDER STUDY L1 23 0.2 0.015 0.997
L2 24 0.01 0.02 0.447
Line impedance
Line From To Length L3 26 0.1 0.09 0.743
No. bus bus (km) Resistance Reactance L4 27 0.36 0.1 0.964
(ohm/km) (ohm/km) L5 29 0.02 0.015 0.8
1 2 3 9 0.0853 0.053 L6 3 0.3 0.04 0.991
2 2 14 3 0.344 0.1742 L7 4 0.25 0.18 0.812
3 2 23 4 0.8421 0.5421 L8 5 0.5 0.27 0.88
4 7 19 3 0.9101 0.6201 L9 6 0.01 0.02 0.447
5 4 25 6.2 1.6333 1.3411 L10 8 0.05 0.03 0.857
6 3 4 8.2 0.581 0.19 L11 9 0.015 0.02 0.6
7 4 5 6 0.9234 0.4514 L12 10 0.02 0.01 0.894
8 5 6 5 0.7544 0.3277 L13 11 0.2 0.14 0.819
9 6 7 3 0.9111 0.5233 L14 13 0.1 0.15 0.555
10 7 8 3.4 0.9111 0.5233 L15 14 0.34 0.24 0.817
11 8 9 5 1.3321 1.2222 L16 15 0.25 0.31 0.628
12 9 10 2 0.5411 0.2111 L17 16 0.8 0.5 0.848
13 10 11 4 0.4311 0.3992 L18 17 0.33 0.16 0.9
14 11 12 2.5 0.7413 0.3413 L19 18 0.2 0.1 0.894
15 12 13 6 0.9765 0.7325 L20 20 0.08 0.2 0.371
16 14 15 3.5 0.2911 0.2 L21 22 0.24 0.15 0.848
17 15 16 5.5 0.804 0.6265 Total load 4.375 2.76
18 16 17 3.5 0.1921 0.5455
19 17 18 5 0.1921 0.5455
20 19 20 4 0.4311 0.3992
Firstly, the simulation of the examined distribution
21 20 21 4 0.5421 0.2222 network is carried out without connecting any DG into the
22 21 22 5 0.9765 0.7325 network. For each bas bur the voltage profile and for each
23 23 24 3 0.7413 0.3413 line the active and reactive power losses are calculated.
24 25 26 4 0.9888 0.6211 Secondly several simulations are carried out connecting
25 26 27 7 0.1833 0.0432 each time a different type and size of DG at specific
26 27 28 8 1.6211 1.0922
27 28 29 5.5 0.58 0.52
locations recording each time for each bas bur the voltage
profile and for each line the active and reactive power losses.
It must be mentioned that for the load flow analysis, the
Bus bars are referred to as nodes (N), and N2 is the main
extended Newton-Raphson method has been used.
distribution substation. One central station is feeding the
system which consists of a network feeder (NETF)
connected to the 33kV N1 and rated 1500MVA, and a IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
synchronous generator of 50MVA, 44.5MW, 0.89 cos(phi).
One transformer is used to step down the voltage from 33kV A. Analysis of distribution network without DG
to 11kV with a capacity of (35MVA, 33/11kV). Load flow analysis has been performed in the examined
The minimum and maximum voltage levels are 9.9kV radial distribution network. As it was expected significant
and 12.1kV respectively for all nodes except N1. The system voltage drops exist on some bus bars especially the ones that
has been designed such that there are no overloaded lines. are located far away from the main substation. Voltage
The system is lightly loaded by (4.375MW) and (2.76Mvar) results presented as (U/kV) and lower voltage limits
connected to 21 nodes and of different power factors. The presented as percentage of the node voltage (u/%) for each
loads data of the network are presented in Table II. bus bar are listed in Table III. As it can be seen lower voltage
limits have been violated in 22 bus bars (values below
B. Simulation Process 9.9kV). The total active power losses (Ploss) is 2.5943MW
For the analysis of the examined distribution network and the total reactive power losses (Qloss) is 1.2712 Mvar and
under certain levels of DG penetration, NEPLAN software are presented in Table IV for each line.
has been used. NEPLAN software is programmed to analyse,
plan, optimise and simulate electricity systems [13]. It has a B. Analysis of distribution network with diesel generator
very friendly graphical user interface and it allows the user to DG
make modifications to the network elements according to Bus bars with low voltages have been chosen as
specific needs through its wide library. candidate locations to install diesel generators. Although
Three different types of DGs (diesel generator, wind there are many week points in the network, three locations
turbine and photovoltaic (PV)) and different sizes for each were chosen to install three different diesel generators. At
type have been connected on the examined distribution N10 was installed DG1-Diesel (0.2MW/0.2Mvar), at N13
network in order to study their impact on voltage profile and was installed DG2-Diesel (3MW/3Mvar) and at N22 was
power losses (active and reactive). installed DG3-Diesel (1MW/1Mvar).

262
TABLE III. LOADS DATA OF DISTRIBUTION NETWORK UNDER STUDY voltage limits have been violated in more than half bus bars
Bus bar Bus bar in all three cases.
U (kV) u (%) U (kV) u (%)
name name
N2 10.87 98.82 N16 9.445 85.87
N3 10.432 94.84 N17 9.354 85.04
N4 8.2 74.55 N18 9.304 84.58
N5 6.089 55.36 N19 3.924 35.68
N6 5.07 46.09 N20 3.665 33.32
N7 4.282 38.92 N21 3.506 31.88
N8 3.771 34.28 N22 3.089 28.08
N9 2.564 23.31 N23 10.797 98.16
N10 2.426 22.05 N24 10.794 98.12
N11 2.14 19.46 N25 7.26 66
N12 2.044 18.58 N26 6.917 62.88
N13 1.0663 15.12 N27 6.842 62.2
N14 10.596 96.33 N28 6.787 61.7
N15 10.35 94.09 N29 6.772 61.57
(a) DG1-diesel generator is installed.
TABLE IV. LOADS DATA OF DISTRIBUTION NETWORK UNDER STUDY
Element Ploss Qloss Element Ploss Qloss
name (MW) (MVar) name (MW) (MVar)
LINE1 0.1657 0.1001 LINE15 0.0134 0.0102
LINE2 0.0587 0.0287 LINE16 0.0404 0.0267
LINE3 0.0013 -0.0005 LINE17 0.1172 0.0898
LINE4 0.0288 0.0196 LINE18 0.0027 0.0067
LINE5 0.0549 0.044 LINE19 0.0006 0.0003
LINE6 0.9082 0.295 LINE20 0.0183 0.0169
LINE7 0.5834 0.2844 LINE21 0.0087 0.0035
LINE8 0.2113 0.0914 LINE22 0.0197 0.0148
LINE9 0.149 0.0855 LINE23 0 -0.001
LINE10 0.053 0.0304 LINE24 0.0215 0.0129
LINE11 0.0952 0.0873 LINE25 0.0041 0
LINE12 0.0136 0.0053 LINE26 0.0002 -0.0009 (b) DG2-diesel generator is installed.
LINE13 0.0203 0.0189 LINE27 0 -0.0007
LINE14 0.0041 0.0019

Each diesel generator was installed at a time and load

flow analysis was performed. The obtained voltage profiles
for all bus bars of the examined distribution network after the
installation of DG1-diesel, DG2-diesel and DG3-diesel are
presenting in Figure 2. In the same figure are also presented
the voltage profiles for all bus bars after the installation of all
three DG-diesel generators at the same time.
Active and reactive power losses have been calculated for
all lines for each one of the four different cases. The total
active and reactive power losses after the installation of
DG1-diesel were 0.8985MW and 0.446Mvar respectively, (c) DG3-diesel generator is installed.
while after the installation of DG2-diesel were 1.852MW
and 0.9049Mvar. The installation of DG3-diesel had as a
result the total active power losses to drop to 0.5689MW and
the total reactive power to 0.3065Mvar. Finally, with all the
diesel generators injecting power into the system, the total
active and reactive power losses for all the lines were
0.4005MW and 0.2183Mvar respectively.
C. Analysis of distribution network with photovoltaic DG
A PV system of three different sizes (1.2MVA/1Mvar,
3.5MVA/3Mvar and 4MVA/4.2Mvar) has connected at N5
in order to examine its impact on the distribution network. A
load flow analysis has performed for each case. The obtained
voltage profiles for all bus bars of the examined distribution (d) All three DG-diesel generators are installed.
network after the installation of DG1-PV, DG2-PV and Figure 2. Voltage profiles of the examined distribution network with DG-
DG3-PV are presenting in Figure 3. It is clear that the lower diesel generators installed.

263

(a) DG1-PV is installed.
(b) DG2-PV is installed.
(c) DG3-PV is installed.
Figure 3. Voltage profiles of the examined distribution network with DG-
PV installed.
Active and reactive power losses have been calculated for all
lines for each one of the three different cases. The total
losses after the installation of DG1-PV were 1.2596MW and
0.6005Mvar respectively, after the installation of DG2-PV
were 3.6813MW and 1.6411Mvar and after the installation
of DG3-PV the total active and reactive power losses were
9.3136MW and 4.0626Mvar respectively.
D. Analysis of distribution network with wind turbine DG
Three wind turbines were connected in the examined
distribution network in order to examine their impact on it.
DG1-wind (1.8MW/1.895Mvar) has connected at N7, DG2-
wind (2.54MW/2.674Mvar) has connected at N13 and DG3-
wind (6MW/6.316Mvar) has connected at N15 and load flow
analysis has performed for each case. The obtained voltage
264
profiles for all bus bars of the examined distribution network
after the installation of DG1-wind, DG2-wind and DG3-
wind are presenting in Figure 4. In the same figure are also
presented the voltage profiles for all bus bars after the
installation of all three DG-wind generators at the same time.
It is clear that the lower voltage limits have been violated in
more than half bus bars in all cases.
Active and reactive power losses have been calculated
for all lines for each one of the four different cases. The total
active and reactive power losses after the installation of
DG1-wind were 0.9629MW and 0.4509Mvar respectively,
after the installation of DG2-wind were 0.7614MW and
0.3384Mvar, after the installation of DG3-wind were
1.6135MW and 0.8014Mvar, while with all the wind
turbines injecting power into the system, the total active and
reactive power losses for all the lines were 0.6196MW and
0.3145Mvar respectively.
V. DISCUSSION
Installing DG1-diesel at N10, the number of violated
lower voltage limits remained unchanged but voltage levels
have been improved notably. Adding DG2-diesel at N13
resulted in voltage degradation which was a slightly better
case than this without DG installed. Installation of DG3-
diesel at N22 resulted in clear voltage support for all bus
bars. A significant improvement in voltage levels was
observed when all three DGs were installed in the system. At
the same time the number of violated lower voltage limits
was reduced by half. With regard to power losses, there was
a significant reduction in total active and reactive losses after
DG1-diesel was added, while there was an increase after
DG2-diesel installation. It has also noted that the total power
losses that resulted from installing DG3-diesel and all the
generators at the same time were similar.
The installation of DG1-PV in the distribution network
had as a result the improvement of voltage levels and the
violation of lower voltage limits in 13 bus bars. Active and
reactive power losses have decreased comparing to these
obtained without the installation of DGs. The installation of
DG2-PV had as a result the violation of lower voltage limits
in 14 nodes, although voltage levels have improved
significantly. Power losses increased comparing to these
obtained without the installation of DGs, while lines 1, 6 and
7 became overloaded. By installing DG3-PV voltage levels
degraded, in 15 bus bars lower voltage limits have been
violated, total power losses have increased significantly
while lines 1, 6, and 7 were overload.
The installation of each one of the three DG-wind
generators in the distribution network had as a result the
violation of lower voltage limits in 19 bus bars. As a final
attempt to improve the voltage levels of the system, all three
wind turbines were connected at the same time. On running a
load flow analysis this resulted in a notable voltage support.
As far concerning the power losses in the lines, it is clear that
with the installation of wind turbines at the selected
locations, losses were much less than compared to no wind
penetration. The lowest active and reactive power losses
were observed when all three wind turbines were installed at
once.
 VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper the impact of DG on a distribution network
has analysed. Different penetration levels of one non-
renewable and two renewable types DG have examined and
their impact on voltage profiles and power losses has studied.
For the analysis NEPLAN software and the extended
Newton-Raphson method have been used. The obtained
results have shown that different types of DG influence
differently the distribution network and that their precise
location and size are vital in reducing power losses and
improving the voltage stability.
REFERENCES
(a) DG1-wind generator is installed.
[1] R. Viral, and D. Khatod, Optimal planning of distributed generation
systems in distribution system: A review, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 16, 2012, pp. 5146-5165.
[2] M. F. Kotb, K. M .Shebl, M. El Khazendar, and A. El Husseiny,
"Genetic algorithm for optimum siting and sizing of distributed
generation," Proc. 14th International Middle East Power Systems
Conference, Cairo University, Egypt, Dec. 2010, pp. 433-440.
[3] M. Moradi, and M. Abedini, "A combination of genetic algorithm and
particle swarm optimization for optimal DG location and sizing in
distribution systems," Electrical Power and Energy Systems, vol. 34,
2011, pp. 66-74.
[4] A. Parizad, A. Khazali, and M. Kalantar, "Optimal placement of
distributed generation with sensitivity factors considering voltage
stability and losses indices," Proc. 18th Iranian Conference on
Electrical Engineering (ICEE), Isfahan, Iran, May 2010, pp. 848-855.
(b) DG2-wind generator is installed.
[5] S. K. Injeti, and N. P. Kumar, "Optimal planning of distributed
generation for improved voltage stability and loss reduction,"
International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 15, no.1, 2011,
pp. 40-46.
[6] G. S. Naik, D. K. Khatod, and M. P. Sharma, "Optimal allocation of
distributed generation in distribution system for loss reduction," Proc.
IACSIT Coimbatore Conference, Singapore, vol. 28, 2012, pp. 42-46.
[7] M. Shaaban, and J. O. Petinrin, "Sizing and sitting of distributed
generation in distribution systems for voltage improvement and loss
reduction," International Journal of Smart Grid and Clean Energy,
vol. 2, no. 3, 2013, pp. 350-356.
[8] S. C. Reddy, "Optimal number and location of DGs to improve power
quality of distribution system using particle swarm optimization,"
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, vol.
2, no. 3, 2012, pp.3077-3082.
(c) DG3-wind generator is installed. [9] D. Pandey, and J. S. Bhadoriya, "Optimal placement and sizing of
distributed generation (DG) to minimize active power loss using
particle swarm optimization (PSO)," International Journal of
Scientific & Technology Research, vol. 3, no. 7, 2014, pp. 246-254.
[10] J. J. Jamian, M. W. Mustafa, H. Mokhlis, and M. N. Abdullah,
"Comparative study on distributed generator sizing using three types
of particle swarm optimisation," Proc. 2012 Third International
Conference on Intelligent Systems Modelling and Simulation (ISMS),
Kota Kinabalu, Feb. 2012, pp. 131-136.
[11] A. S. Safigianni, G. N. Koutroumpezis, and V. C. Poulios, "Mixed
distributed generation technologies in a medium voltage network,"
Electrical Power Systems Research, vol. 96, 2013, pp. 75-80.
[12] K. Balamurugan, D. Srinivasana, and T. Reindlb, "Impact of
distributed generation on power distribution systems," PV Asia
Pacific Conference, Energy Procedia, vol. 25, 2012, pp. 93-100.
[13] NEPLAN AG, http://www.neplan.ch/
(d) All three DG-wind generators are installed.
Figure 4. Voltage profiles of the examined distribution network with DG-
wind generators installed.

265