Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research

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

Optimizing DG penetration in distribution networks concerning

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

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

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

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2015.07.005
0378-7796/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
114 H.A. Abdel-Ghany et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122
protective devices and protection coordination. The performance of
directional recloser is evaluated for different faults using real-time
power system simulator [9]. IEEE standard 1457 recommended that
the DGs should be disconnected during system abnormality [11].
This is attributed to the fact that the conventional protection coor-
dination cannot clear the fault current supplied from DGs [11]. The
optimal size of DG has been calculated using Optimal Power Flow
(OPF), and considering recloser–fuse coordination in [12]. The max-
imum capacity of DG at each node of the distribution system has
been determined considering the protection coordination. In [13],
a single DG in the distribution system has been studied at the first
stage. At the second stage, two or more DGs in separate nodes
have been considered. However, the optimum DG capacities are
not generalized with concerning wide objectives simultaneously.
In this paper, a generic framework is developed to define the
optimal location and limits of DGs within distribution systems
to maintain a correction operation of the traditional protection
scheme. One more issue considered in this paper is to study the
effect of DGs penetration on technical impacts and fault current lev-
els. The genetic algorithm (GA) is used to perform the optimization
process due to its capability to handle economic dispatch prob-
lems, optimal sizing and setting problems and unit commitment
problems. Sequentially, the optimization approach is performed to
find the maximum optimal capacity limit of the inserted DG that
not affecting on the protection coordination to find this limit with
adding the voltage profile objectives, and then with adding either
the power losses or the fault current level. The last generalized
approach is developed considering all the above objectives.
2. Distribution feeder protective devices
Distribution feeders are commonly radial with the loads con-
sumed the power from upper voltage levels connected to the radial
feeders. The conventional distribution systems are protected by
a combination of simple protective devices as overcurrent relays,
reclosers, and fuses. The feeder protection scheme objectives are to
ensure the service continuity to the maximum number of users.
2.1. Functions and equations of protective devices
Before defining the DGs locations and penetration limits, fault
calculations and protection settings are carried out for the origi-
nal system. Since the highest fault current is caused usually from
a three-phase fault, it is used in defining the generation pene-
tration limits. This is to ensure that the installation of DGs with
this penetration limits will not cause miscoordination for the
other phase fault types. However, DG transformer connection is
used to prevent and open the zero sequence current contributed
by the DG. Accordingly the earth faults are not involved in the
study.
The protection coordination setting for relay and recloser is
performed based on (1), provided that no DG is connected. The
equation has very inverse characteristic according to IEC standard
[5]:
 
k
t = 13.5  
I/IPic-up − 1
where, t is the trip time in sec; K is the time multiplier; I is the
rms measured current and IPic-up is the setting current. For the
current-time characteristic of fuses, it has an inverse form that is
usually plotted as a log–log curve. For its accurate representation,
the following expression is suggested:
t = aeb×I + ced×I
where, t is the fuse operating time; I is the fault current seen by
the fuse and a, b, c, and d are the fuse constants. A fuse setting
means defining the constants a, b, c and d, which are calculated
using the curve fitting based on fuse characteristics. This proposed
formula is to facilitate the fuse characteristics implementation in
the optimization framework.
2.2. Modified recloser characteristics
The recloser has the priority to protect the distribution system
prior fuse operation with suitable coordination margin. After con-
necting DGs with high penetrations into the recloser–fuse section,
the selectivity of protection scheme between fuse and recloser is
not achieved. To handle this problem, it is proposed to shift the fast
curve characteristic of recloser to operate before the fuse melting.
Section 4 describes the effect of such modified recloser character-
istics on the permissible DG ratings.
3. Investigated overhead distribution system
An Egyptian overhead distribution system is used as a typical
case study that represents a rural system (Nediba feeder) supplied
from 66/11 kV (Khairy) substation. This system is used to study
the effect of DGs on the recloser–fuse coordination. Fig. 1 shows
the one-line diagram of the adopted system, which contains 47
buses, 45 overhead sections, and one underground cable. In this
distribution feeder, each lateral is protected by a fuse, however the
fuse of last lateral is only present in this figure and considered for
the optimization study, first. Then, the study is done considering
multi fusses protecting the laterals branched from the feeder. For
correct protection coordination, all fuses downstream the recloser
are to be coordinated with its fast and slow curves and the corre-
sponding DG capacity limit should be evaluated correspondingly.
The adopted distribution system is simulated using Matlab® code.
The total supplied current through Nediba feeder equals 196 A. The
feeder supplies loads through 16 km-Aluminum Conductor Steel
Reinforced (ACSR 70/12) overhead transmission line. The main
transformer in Khairy substation is of 25 MVA, 66/11 kV delta/star
and has an impedance of 10%. The feeder is considered with the
recloser located at 10.65 km and the fuse at 13.5 km, however, the
study is not limited to this fuse location. More details about this
system are found in [3]. A DG is connected at different locations
in the main feeder through an 11/0.4 kV delta/star earthed trans-
former with the same rating of the DG. This transformer connection
that its delta is on the utility side is considered to open the zero
sequence loop at the transformer point during earth fault (phase
to earth fault type) in the distribution feeder. The delta connec-
tion can be replaced by a star connection that not earthed. This
condition prevents the change of the distribution of earth fault
currents in the feeder due to the DG transformer interconnection.
In other words, the earth fault current distribution in the feeder is
the same whenever the DG is interconnected or not interconnected
that prevents the DG interconnection effects on the protection
coordination. The second benefit of opening zero-sequence loop at
(1) the DG transformer interconnection is to prevent DG contributing
current into earth faults in the feeder that will also solve com-
pletely the effect of DG on the protection coordination of earth
faults. Accordingly, the study is directed to evaluate the DG max-
imum capacity limit concerning protection coordination for only
phase fault types in practically the three-phase faults. The faults
are occurred behind the fuse, recloser and relay points with and
without different DGs penetrations. Also, the actual characteristics
(2) of the distribution system and different DGs ratings are taken into
consideration.
 H.A. Abdel-Ghany et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122 115

15+j8
31 kVA

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

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

0.2km

0.6km
70/12

70/12

70/12
0.2km

0.4km
35/6

35/6
0.4km

1km

1.2km

0.6km
35/6

70/12

70/12

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

0.45km

0.5km
35/6

70/12
0.4km

0.9km
35/6
0.2km

0.5km
70/12

70/12
0.5km
70/12
Substaon

70/12

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

0.16km
kVA kVA 50+j10 50+j25 kVA

70/12
kVA

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

0.1km
15+j8

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

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

4. Protection setting and fault calculation Table 1

Time-current characteristic settings of protective devices.

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

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

Tim e (sec)

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

Fault current seen by Recloser

857.24A Fault current seen by Recloser
857.24A

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

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

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

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

NDG

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

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

5. Problem formulation
For the single-objective optimization problems, the optimal
solution is single. However, in multi-objective problem there is
rather a set of different optimal solutions, not a unique solution.
When all objectives are simultaneously considered, these solu-
tions are optimal in point of view of the decision-making. There
are no other solutions in the search space that are superior to
them, in which the decision maker has flexibility to expect the
optimality solution. The previous meaning is the definition of the
Pareto—front. The objective function of the problem understudy
incorporates terms of different nature, as to the maximize capacity
of DGs, the maximize voltage enhancement, the minimize power
loss and the minimize fault current level.
The proposed optimization problem can be described math-
ematically using a four-part objective function with three
constraints. The proposed four parts are the capacity limits (F1 )
of DGs, the voltage regulation (F2 ), the total fault current level (F3 )
and the power loss (F4 ) for the distribution system. The first part
has to be maximized, while the other three parts have to be min-
imized. The upper limit of DG capacity is the main objective to be
defined without affecting on the protection coordination point of
view. Thus, the upper limit in this study is not to decide for the
DG capacity, but to define the limits that have not to be violated.
Other technical factors such, as voltage drop, fault current level,
and power losses, are considered and the same optimal location is
obtained near the load location. Any other factors can be introduced
but the main concern here is to the coordination problem. Unfortu-
nately, the scope of this study does not include the costs of DG units.
However, this study is for estimating the optimal DG limit capacity
that enhances the protection coordination concerning DG intercon-
nection without any additional protection expense. Regarding the
DG interconnecting places, the DG optimal limit capacity is evalu-
ated at different allocations along with the feeder that covers the
availability of DG at specific points.
5.1. Multi-objective function
N  
  Vnom − Vj 
F2 = V  =
j=1
(6)
Vnom
where Vj is the jth bus voltage and N is the number of buses.
5.1.3. Fault current level
The fault current level of the network increases due to increasing
the DGs capacity. When a DG is placed in parallel with the network,
the calculated impedance from a fault point diminishes and the
fault current level increases. Therefore, the objective term related to
the fault current, which is equal to summation of the fault currents
from the substation (Ifs )and the DG (IfDG ) is defined as:

NDG
 
F3 = If = If DG + Ifs (7)
i=1
5.1.4. Power losses
Voltage profile is improved by controlling the production,
absorption and flow of reactive power throughout the network.
Reactive power flows can be minimized to reduce system losses.
Many researches are provided just to minimize loss due to the
reactive current. From these researches, it is well known that the
distribution losses can be calculated based on the natural properties
of components in the power system: resistance, reactance, capaci-
tance, voltage, current, and power, which are routinely calculated
by utility companies as a way to specify what components will be
added to the systems, in order to reduce losses and improve the
voltage levels. The centralized voltage reactive control is one such
control which can help not only to keep the system voltages within
specified limits, but also to preserve the reactive power balances
for enhanced security and to decrease the transmission losses for
the efficient system operation.
The losses due to the active and reactive current components
between ith and jth buses and the corresponding objective term
are defined as:

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

N
 
F4 = Plossi−j + Qlossi−j (9)
max F = max (W1 · F1 − W2 · F2 − W3 · F3 − W4 · F4 ) (4) j=0 i=1
 H.A. Abdel-Ghany et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122
In order to achieve the DGs limits and location in distribution
systems, the multi-objective function is given by:

NDG

N
 
F = W1 DGCi − W2 Vnom − Vj  /Vnom − W3
i=1 j=1
N  where W1 , W2 , . . . are weights of a positive constant. C2 , C3 and C4
 DG
  
N 
N
 
× If DG + Ifs − W4 Plossi−j + Qlossi−j
i=1 j=0 i=1
5.2. System constraints
The three constraints of the proposed optimization problem
include fuse–recloser coordination, relay–recloser coordination
and voltage limits constraints.
5.2.1. Fuse–recloser coordination constraints
tfuse − treclfast ≥ min CMfusereclfast
where tfuse is the fuse operating time in s; treclfast is the fast curve
operating time of recloser; min CMfusereclfast is the minimum margin
between recloser and fuse.
5.2.2. Relay–recloser coordination constraints
max CMrelayrecl ≥ trelay − treclslow ≥ min CMrelayrecl
where trelay is the relay operating time; treclslow is the slow curve
operating time of recloser; min CMrelayrecl and max CMrelayrecl are
minimum and maximum margins between recloser and relay.
5.2.3. Voltage limits constraint
The voltages at distribution buses depend on voltage regulation
limits and should be within specified limits [16,17].
Vmin ≤ Vi ≤ Vmax
where Vmin and Vmax are the minimum and maximum voltage lim-
its, respectively.
5.3. Solution of the optimization problem
GA is used to solve the formulated optimization problem where
it is a general-purpose stochastic and parallel search methods based
on the natural selection and natural genetics. Real-Coded Genetic
Algorithms (RCGA) is a highly parallel search method applied to
direct the population towards convergence at the global opti-
mum solution [14–19]. This algorithm requires four basic elements:
initial population, evaluation function, selection, and genetic oper-
ators (crossover and mutation).
The GA has high global searching ability, but the computation
efficiency is low and the optimization speed is slow, and it is hard
to be convergent, and the complexity of algorithm is higher. Par-
ticle Swarm Optimization (PSO) can be implemented simply, and
the convergence speed is quick without too many parameters, and
it has good global searching ability, because the information of par-
ticle is single-directional, each particle would remember the past
position, and the convergence is very quick. On the other hand, PSO
can easily fall into local optima (infeasible solution). GA is preferred
with highly-constrained problems such as the investigated one.
6. Fitness function formulation and proposed framework
The optimization problem can be formulated in terms of a
multi-objective function considering DGs penetration limits, volt-
age regulation, fault current limits and power losses. In addition,
protective devices coordination margin is considered as inequality
117
constraints (∅CM ). The formulation of the proposed fitness function
(∅f ) can be expressed as [17,18]:
∅f (x) = F = (W1 · F1 ) − W2 · (C2 · F2 ) − W3 · (C3 · F3 )
− W4 · (C4 · F4 ) (14)
(10) are scaling factors for maximization problem. The scaling factors
are assigned in terms of the objective function in order to obtain
the same effect on fitness function [20].
The constraint representing coordination margin between fuse
and recloser is formulated as:
 
∅CM1 (x) = min 0, tfuse − treclfast − min CMfusereclfast (15)
The constraint representing the coordination margin between
recloser and relay is formulated as:
 
∅CM2 (x) = min 0, trelay − treclslow − min CMrelayrecl
(11)  
+ min 0, max CMnrelayrecl − trelay − treclslow (16)
From (14) and (15), the fitness function for evaluating every indi-
vidual in the population of GA including the coordination margin
between fuse and recloser is defined as:
(12) fitness = ∅f (x) − W5 ∅CM1 (x) (17)
From (14) and (16), the fitness function for evaluating every indi-
vidual in the population of GA including the coordination margin
between recloser and relay is defined as:
fitness = ∅f (x) − W5 ∅CM2 (x) (18)
where W5 takes a nonzero value if a violation to protection con-
straint occurs.
(13) The main outlines of the proposed framework are highlighted
using the flowchart shown in Fig. 4. The genetic operator jobs
are to create new individuals, and to obtain the final solution of
the genetic model. The algorithm involves the cycle is shown in
Fig. 4. The first stage is the random initialization of a population
of chromosomes. Next, the fitness of all the individuals (chro-
mosomes) in the population is evaluated. The selection is based
on individual GA search algorithm and the conjecture of natural
selection and genetics. Chromosomes are then selected as gen-
itors for reproduction. Finally, the Genetic Operators (Crossover
and Mutation) manipulate the selected individuals, modifying and
combining their genetic code. This cycle defines one generation,
which will be repeated until the stop criterion is reached.
The step of the random initialization is presented based on the
following process:
• Read system data.
• Perform load flow, short circuit and protection devices setting
calculations.
• Calculate the coordination margin (CM) between the protection
devices.
• Insert DG buses and initialize chromosome population randomly.
• The step of evaluated of population depends on process as fol-
lows.
• Perform Load flow to calculate the voltage profile, power losses,
and per fault voltage (to perform short circuit program).
• Perform short circuit to calculate the coordination margin, and
total fault current.
• Calculate the coordination margin (CM) between the protection
devices with DG.
• Evaluate fitness function (Eq. (16) or (17)).
118 H.A. Abdel-Ghany et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122

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

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

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

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

4.59

6 5.014 4.267
4.11

3.71

3.57

tive function in order to normalize their values within a suitable

2.87

2.55

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

10 Fuse 100A TC

0.25

0.75

0.91
0.53
0.34
0.27
0.27
0.28

0.16
98.23
0.04
Fuse 100A MM

3.6
5 Fast Recloser Curve

0
0

1371
S low Recloser Curve

15
Feeder Relay

0.75

0.25
1.44

1.33

0.17
4.07
0.06

98.06

Time (s)
1.3
0
0

0
0
0
0

1344
14

Recloser-Fuse
C.M 0.0242 s
0.1

0.13

0.22

4.42

0.22
97.93
4.07

0.06
0.8

0.2
0
0

0
0
0
0

13411
13

Fault current see n by Recloser

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

4.11

0.18
0.06

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

0
0
0
0

12465
Current (A)
12

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

fault at F1.
0.25
0.75

4.56

4.56

0.25
97.48
0.06
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

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

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

4.56

4.56

0.25
97.48
0.06

different capacities and locations of DG.

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

1336
10

Table 5 shows the DG rating limits for different locations in

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

4.69

4.69

0.24
0.06

97.4
1336.9

bination of DG units keeping coordination margin between recloser

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

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

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

function as shown in Table 6.
4.69

4.69

0.24
0.06

In most cases, the DG power generation improves the voltage

0.8
0.2

97.4
1336.9
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

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

8

regulated synchronous generators may raise the system voltages.

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

3.67

0.16
1.08

0.06

98.05
0.5

0.5

1339.7
0
0

0
0

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

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

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

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

4.59

4.59

0.25
97.48
0.06
0.5
0.5

1339.8

and App5 compared to other scenarios due to including the power

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

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

6

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

0.43
0.48

3.64

0.16
98.22
1.04

0.04
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2

1358.2

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

age profile and fault current level under best situation considering
5

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

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

0.15
97.97
0.06
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3

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

with different degrees according to the weight factors.

4

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

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

0.44
0.47

3.65

0.16
0.98
1.06

0.04
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2

1358.4

ferent approaches for a fault at F1 after modifying recloser fast

0

curve. The recloser setting modification causes an improvement

3

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

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

0.35

0.19
3.05

0.07
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.1

1348.4

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

0
0

0
4

98

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

2

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

0.57
0.48
0.54

3.67

0.16
1.08

0.06

98.05

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

1339.7
1

0
0

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

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

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

Loss-MW
Bus 17
Bus 18
Bus 19

Bus 21
Bus 22
Bus 23
Bus 20
Table 4

Case

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

If

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

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

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

Location of DG

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

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

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

No DG App1 App2 App3 App4 App5

Loss-MW 0.4441 0.0589 0.0589 0.0621 0.0589 0.0621

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

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

Location of DG

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

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

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

No DG App1 App2 App3 App4 App5

Loss-MW 0.4441 0.0589 0.061 0.0563 0.0602 0.0558

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

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

Location of DG

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

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

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

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

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

1.40

1.32

1.26

1.23

1.15

1.14

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

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

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

No DG App1 App2 App3 App4 App5

Loss-MW 0.4441 0.2973 0.2908 0.2908 0.2908 0.2908

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

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

Fault location DG position

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

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

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

Fault location DG position

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

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

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

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

Table 13 shows the active and reactive power loss, total fault Loss-MW 0.4441 0.0595 0.0594
current and voltage values with different DG positions along the Loss-MVAR 1.0457 0.1413 0.1464
feeder and fault locations at F1 and F4 according to case 3. In addi- Min voltage% 83.3972 98.0902 98.1128
tion, the simulation results of the system with and without DG units If1 877.68 1404.6 1668.3
If4 1254.4 2059.6 2805
are summarized in Table 13.
122 H.A. Abdel-Ghany et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 128 (2015) 113–122
Table 14
DG penetration limits with different DG positions at all buses and multi fuse with modified recloser fast curve.
Fault location DG position
Bus 4 to 15 Bus 16 Bus 17 Bus 18
P (MW) 0 1.14 0.44 0.26
Min V (%) 98.08 Ploss
*
Fuse location.
location of these units with maximizing capacity to increase the
benefits. The methodology deals only with this problem, while the
operation is another problem that can be handled by the operator
of an independent system operator (ISO) of the system.
8. Conclusion
A proposed multi-objective function is developed to define
the setting and sizing of DGs in the distribution system keeping
the classical protection scheme unchanged. The coordination con-
straint, including fuse–recloser and recloser–relay schemes, has
been added to the multi-objective function in an augmented fit-
ness function. The modified fast curve-based recloser setting has
been used with the DG in order to increase the sizing of DG. The
possibility of minimizing the network power losses, improving
voltage profile and reducing fault current level without replacing
the existing protection system have been emphasized in the results
considering single and multi DG units.
In practice, the choice of the best location may not be always
possible owing to many constraints. However, the analysis recom-
mends that the maximum levels of DGs can be achieved when
located in recloser–fuse region, especially near recloser location
without considering other factors. On the other hand, if the tech-
nical constraints are taken into account, the optimal location of
the DG units will be close to the fuse location. As a result, the
maximum capacity of the DG units will be reduced by 21% com-
pared with its value when the technical constraints were not taken
into account. In brief, the optimal setting and sizing of DG depends
on the optimization strategy of the operator according to the con-
cerned priorities and status of power system.
References
[1] P. Trichakis1, P.C. Taylor, P.F. Lyons, R. Hair, Predicting the technical impacts of
high levels of small-scale embedded generators on low-voltage networks, IET
Renew. Power Gener. 2 (4) (2008) 249–262.
[2] H. Zayandehroodi, A. Mohamed, H. Shareef, M. Mohammad Jafari, M. Farhood-
nea, A novel protection coordination strategy using back tracking algorithm for
distribution systems with high penetration of DG, in: 2012 IEEE International,
Power Engineering and Optimization Conference (PEDCO), Melaka, Malaysia,
2012, pp. 187–192.
[3] N.I. Elkalashy, N.F. Sherbilla, A.I. Taalab, T.A. Kawady, Distributed generation
with fault current limiter impacts on recloser–fuse protection for distribution
* * * *
Bus 19 Bus 20 Bus 21 Bus 22 Bus 23 Max. limit
0.04 0 0.158 0.042 0.524 2.605
0.061 Qloss 0.1417
feeder, in: Proceedings of the 15th International Middle East Power Systems
Conference (MEPCON’12), December, 2012, Alexandria University, Egypt, 2012,
pp. 23–25.
[4] P.P. Barker, R.W. Mello, Determining the impact of distributed generation on
power systems: Part 1—Radial distribution systems, Power Eng. Soc. 3 (2000)
1645–1656 (Summer Meeting, 2000. IEEE).
[5] S.A.M. Javadian, M.-R. Haghifam, S.M.T. Bathaee, M. Fotuhi Firoozabad, Adap-
tive centralized protection scheme for distribution systems with DG using risk
analysis for protective devices placement, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 44
(1) (2013) 337–345.
[6] A. Kamel, M.A. Alaam, A.M. Azmy, A.Y. Abdelaziz, Protection coordination for
distribution systems in presence of distributed generators, Electr. Power Com-
pon. Syst. 41 (15) (2013) 1555–1566.
[7] S. Kwon, C. Shin, W. Jung, Evaluation of protection coordination with distributed
generation in distributed networks, in: Proceedings of the 10th IET Interna-
tional Conference on Developments in Power System Protection (DPSP 2010),
January 2010, pp. 74–78.
[8] V. Calderaro, V. Galdi, A. Piccolo, P. Siano, A Petri net based protection monitor-
ing system for distribution networks with distributed generation, Elect. Power
Syst. Res. 79 (9) (2009) 1300–1307.
[9] A.F. Naiem, Y. Hegazy, A.Y. Abdelaziz, M.A. Elsharkawy, A classification tech-
nique for recloser–fuse coordination in distribution systems with distributed
generation, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery 27 (1) (2012) 176–185.
[10] J.C. Hernandez, J. De la Cruz, B. Ogayar, Electrical protection for the grid-
interconnection of photovoltaic-distributed generation, Elect. Power Syst. Res.
89 (2012) 85–99.
[11] IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 21 (IEEE SCC21), IEEE Standard for
Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems, IEEE Std.,
2003, pp. 1–28, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2003.94285
[12] S. Chaitusaney, A. Yokoyama, An appropriate distributed generation sizing
considering recloser–fuse coordination, in: Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Trans-
mission and Distribution Conf. Exhibit., 2005, pp. 1–6.
[13] J. Sadeh, M. Bashir, E. Kamyab, Effect of Distributed Generation Capacity on the
Coordination of Protection System of Distribution Network, Transmission and
Distribution Conf. and Exp., IEEE Press, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2010, pp.
110–115.
[14] M. Thakur, S.S. Meghwani, H. Jalota, A modified real coded genetic algorithm
for constrained optimization, Elect. Power Syst. Res. 235 (4) (2014) 292–317.
[15] J.O. Kim, D.J. Shin, J.N. Park, C. Singh, Atavistic genetic algorithm for economic
dispatch with valve point effect, Elect. Power Syst. Res. 62 (3) (2002) 201–207.
[16] L. Sun, Y. Zhang, C. Jiang, A matrix real-coded genetic algorithm to the unit
commitment problem, Elect. Power Syst. Res. 76 (9–10) (2005) 716–728.
[17] D. He, F. Wang, Z. Mao, Hybrid genetic algorithm for economic dispatch with
valve-point effect, Elect. Power Syst. Res. 78 (4) (2008) 626–633.
[18] S. Porkar, P. Poure, A. Abbaspour Tehrani-fard, S. Saadate, Optimal allocation
of distributed generation using a two-stage multi-objective mixed-integer-
nonlinear programming, Eur. Trans. Electr. Power 21 (2010) 1072–1087.
[19] S.A. Hossini, S.S.K. Madahi, F. Razavi, M. Karami, A.A. Ghadimi, Optimal sizing
and siting distributed generation resources using a multi objective algorithm,
Turk. J. Electr. Eng. Comp. Sci. 21 (2013) 825–850.
[20] M.A. Abido, A novel multiobjective evolutionary algorithm for environmen-
tal/economic power dispatch, Elect. Power Syst. Res. 65 (1) (2003) 71–81.