International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS)

Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024, pp. 431~441

ISSN: 2088-8694, DOI: 10.11591/ijpeds.v15.i1.pp431-441  431

Technical/economic/environmental optimal wind

generation allocation in power systems

Zeinb Abdelhay, Abdelfattah Eladl, Ibrahim I. Mansy

Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, El-Mansoura, Egypt

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: This paper proposes an optimization technique to find the optimal allocation
of wind farms (WFs) in a transmission network considering several
Received Feb 12, 2023 objectives associated with economic, losses, voltage profile, and
Revised Jun 5, 2023 environmental impact represented in the reduction of carbon emissions. The
Accepted Jun 25, 2023 problem is solved on the basis of maintaining three constraints which are
transmission line power limits, active/reactive power constrain, and bus
voltage limits. The particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm and
Keywords: Newton-Raphson method for load flow analysis are utilized to solve the
optimization problem as a whole. In this context, there are two wind turbines
Loss reduction added to the transmission network and a matrix laboratory (MATLAB) has
Optimal power flow been devised to evaluate their performance with varying capacities at
PSO different locations in the system. The proposed approach has been validated
Voltage stability on the modified IEEE 14-bus transmission system.
Wind power
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Zeinb Abdelhay
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University
El-Mansoura, Egypt
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
With the growing concerns about the need of reducing emissions of greenhouse gas and climate
change, wind power has emerged as a clean and renewable source of energy. Unlike fossil fuels, wind energy
does not produce any harmful emissions or pollutants, making it a much more environmentally friendly
option. Additionally, wind power is a domestic resource that can help countries reduce their dependence on
imported oil and gas [1]. Furthermore, the cost of wind energy is gradually becoming more competitive with
that of fossil fuels, rendering it a desirable choice for both consumers and utility companies. Wind power
integration has grown rapidly in recent decades as a result of continued attempts to reduce reliance on fossil
fuel resources. As of the end of 2021, the worldwide cumulative installed capacity of wind energy had
reached 837 GW [2]. Increased wind power penetration poses several obstacles to the energy grid's
functioning, spanning from stability to dependability of the system.
Some of the most important problems with grid functioning are directly associated with the growing
use of wind energy in distribution systems, especially radial distribution networks (RDNs). With the help of
competent policymaking and updated regulations, distributed energy resources (DERs) that have a maximum
capacity of 50 MW have acquired a lot of traction in power networks as replacements or complementary
options to traditional energy sources. The location and sizing of DERs in a distribution network are critical,
as failure to do so can result in significant voltage instability, power losses, reliability concerns, financial
losses, and increased harmonics [3]. Obtaining the desired interconnection of a WF in an RDNs frequently
necessitates a complex analysis that includes network data and WF operational capability, as well as other
relevant factors such as reverse power flow, frequency regulation, voltage regulation, islanding protection,

Journal homepage: http://ijpeds.iaescore.com

432  ISSN: 2088-8694

protection schemes, and harmonics [4]. DERs were only recognized as active power sources until recently,
and they were not required to participate in voltage regulation. As rapid growth and quick-power electronic
interfaces have emerged, the ability of DERs to provide voltage support has become an increasingly
important requirement. Transmission system operator (TSOs) have been continuously revising their grid
codes to prescribe the working features of DERs and make them conform with many functional and technical
standards related to the frequency and voltage regulation, in line with the rise of WFs in low-voltage
grids [5]. Most grid-integration challenges with wind farms (WFs) can be solved by applying optimal
location and sizing processes, strategic planning, imposing various operational, technical, and reliability
limitations, and fitting computational approaches to generate the best available solution.
Many authors have presented studies of the optimal allocation of distributed generators (DG). In
2012, Grillo et al. [6] presented a dynamic programming-based algorithm that is able to suggest the optimal
management strategies that combine wind power generation and storage. The system was created to tackle
the challenge of integrating renewable generation into the power grid. The model is used to utilized to
establish the profile of optimal generation for the entire power generation. This allows for more effective
utilization of wind power generation, which is naturally intermittent.
In 2013, a framework for planning with multiple objectives namely improved multi-objective
harmony search (IMOHS) was presented in [7] and it was able to estimate the impact of DG location for the
optimal planning in a distribution system. Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) was used
in this work, which was carried out on two distribution networks. Siano and Mokryaniin [8] focused on
finding the optimal allocation of WT and maximizing the net present value (NPV) associated with the
investment of WTs in the environment of the distribution market. This work used the hybrid optimization
method that is used for choosing the optimal size while a market-based optimal power flow (OPF) is used for
determining the optimal WTs number at each candidate bus and the PSO optimization method [9]. The
efficiency of the technique is illustrated using a radial distribution system with 84 buses and a
voltage of 11.4 kV. A probabilistic methodology was presented in [10] that allowed the evaluation of the
wind power`s amount that can be integrated into the power grid and the effect of wind power on the
reliability of the network. This methodology considered the uncertainties associated with the production of
wind power and load demand, and the results were obtained through Monte Carlo simulations (MCS). The
suggested methodology was applied to a 33 kV distribution network in the UK. Lee and Park [11] proposed a
method for determining the optimal location and size of DGs in a distribution system by using the Kalman
filter algorithm.
In 2014, Lamaina et al. [12] presented a probabilistic technique for wind-based DG which aims to
maximize NPV related to the investment of WTs developers, who participate in the market of electricity
distribution. This method combined MCS and market-based OPF. The effectiveness of the presented method
was demonstrated with a radial distribution system 84-bus 11.4 kV. Das et al. [13] introduced a
comprehensive model for generation expansion planning (GEP), which allows the central planning authority
(CPA) for creating the optimal incentive rates for renewable energy integration and targets of energy
conservation, while also taking into account the interests and limitations of investors. The model determines
the appropriate location, scale, time, and technology needed to meet the anticipated demand over the
planning period. MCS was used in this study, and the suggested model was implemented on an actual
scenario using data that is currently available for Ontario, Canada.
In 2015, Alnaser and Ochoa [14] developed a method to determine the minimum power and energy
storage capacities required at various locations in distribution networks for decreasing curtailment of DG,
specifically WFs, while controlling congestion and voltage levels. The framework utilized a two-stage
iterative process. A multi-period AC to OPF was used for obtaining the initial storage sizes using wind and
load patterns that change every hour as a basis for the entire studied planning horizon in the first stage.
Actual curtailment data was used to adjust the storage sizes obtained in the first stage, using a precise minute-
by-minute control strategy guided by a single-period, two-level AC OPF in the second stage. The planning
framework was tested on a real 33 kV electric network located in the North of England for one week.
In 2016, Santos et al. [15] introduced a model that involves multiple stages and incorporates
randomness and uncertainty to optimize the implementation of advanced power grid systems and
technologies that facilitate the incorporation of renewable energy sources on a significant scale. The model
incorporated various technologies such as energy storage systems (ESS), network switching, sources of
reactive power, reinforcement, and expansion. To solve the optimization problem, the authors utilized the
mixed integer linear programming (MILP) technique. This study focused on the IEEE 41-bus radial
distribution network systems (DNS) for testing the proposed model.
In 2017, a risk assessment tool was introduced by Al-Saadi et al. [16] to estimate the network
hosting capacity (HC) while taking into account the uncertainties associated with PV, WT, and loads. The
tool utilized the likelihood approximation approach and also suggested the use of a clearness index for the

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 431-441
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  433

prediction of localized solar irradiance for PV. The study employed MCS and was conducted on two actual
distribution networks, an 11-bus network and a large feeder in South Australia. A planning framework was
recommended for the optimal size and placement of ESS in the distribution networks [17]. This framework
aimed for minimizing the total cost of energy supply while ensuring network reliability, using the MILP
model to optimize DGs placement and sizing. The suggested model was tested on a real 33 kV distribution
network in the UK. Similarly in [18], a planning framework was introduced for the optimal size and
placement of renewable DG in the distribution networks. The framework aimed for minimizing the total cost
of energy supply while ensuring network reliability, also utilizing the MILP model to optimize the placement
and sizing of renewable DGs. The study was conducted on a real 33 kV distribution network in the UK.
In 2018, Abad et al. [19] presented an optimization approach for the optimal location and sizing of
multiple DGs and ESS in the distribution networks. The approach used the MILP model to minimize the total
cost of energy supply while ensuring the reliability of the network. The suggested approach was implemented
for a real 33-kV distribution network in the UK. A stochastic optimization approach was proposed in [20] for
the optimal placement of multiple DGs in a radial distribution system. The approach was designed to
consider uncertainties in load demand and renewable energy generation, and it used the MCS method to
generate stochastic scenarios. The optimal placement and size of DGs were obtained through the MILP
model. The implemented method was applied in a 69-bus distribution system.
In 2020, Jafari et al. [21] proposed a method for determining the optimal size and placement of
switched capacitors which are using the hybrid optimization algorithm. The algorithm consisted of two inner
and one outer optimization layer. The outer layer was implemented by a genetic algorithm (GA), while the
inner layer was performed by either a GA, PSO, or exchange market algorithm (EMA). The study utilized
IEEE 33-bus and 69-bus networks. Jafari et al. [22], an approach was introduced for determining the optimal
capacity type and capacity of generation resources for microgrids (MGs) that incorporated renewable energy
sources (RESs) such as WTs and photovoltaics (PVs), as well as diesel generators at each bus of the MG.
The optimization problem was solved using EMA in MATLAB, with 200 iterations. The mean time for one
iteration was approximately 10 seconds, and the overall time averaged around 30 minutes over the course of
the study in 2020.
Overall, these studies demonstrate the growing interest in the optimal strategizing and operation of
DG and systems of energy in distribution networks. The studies use a variety of optimization techniques,
including PSO, MCS, evolutionary algorithms, and MILP. The results show that these approaches can help to
improve the reliability and efficiency of distribution networks while promoting the integration of renewable
energy sources. In Table 1 compares the mentioned methods according to the objectives and functions that
are taken into account.

Table 1. Comparative analysis of different methodologies related to optimal

location and sizing of wind turbine
Reference Economic issues EVI Voltage profile Losses
[6], [12], [13], [18], [21]    
[16], [19]    
[8], [10]    
Proposed method    

This paper managed to find the optimal allocation of a WF consisting of two WTs in a transmission
network taking into account several objectives associated with economic, losses, voltage profile, and
environmental impact represented in the reduction of carbon emissions and maintains four constraints which
are transmission line power limits, power flow equations, active power constrain, and bus voltage limits,
which to the author’s knowledge have not been combined all together on one optimization problem in the
literature before. To tackle the optimization problem in its entirety, the PSO algorithm and Newton Raphson
method for load flow analysis are employed. In this context, there are two WTs added to the transmission
network and a MATLAB was created to assess their performance under different capacities and locations
within the system. The validity of the proposed approach was confirmed using the IEEE 14-bus transmission
system. The paper is structured as follows: i) Section 2 outlines the problem being addressed; ii) Section 3
describes the methodology used; iii) Section 4 presents the results and discussions; and iv) Section 5
concludes the paper and suggests directions for future research.

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
The location of WTs in the electrical grid is a critical and important aspect that should be taken into
consideration during the setup of any WF. There are many problems faced the integration of wind energy in
Technical/economic/environmental optimal wind generation … (Zeinb Abdelhay)
434  ISSN: 2088-8694

the grid when wind turbines are not optimally allocated such as reduced energy production, increased costs,
environmental impacts, and community opposition. The annual wind speed variation is represented using the
Weibull distribution [23]. The probability density function 𝑓𝑣 (𝑣) and the cumulative distribution function
𝐹𝑣 (𝑣) of the Weibull distribution are defined as (1) and (2).

𝑣 𝑏
)
𝑓𝑣 (𝑣) = 𝑏𝑎 −𝑏 𝑣 𝑏−1 𝑒 −(𝑎 (1)

𝑣 𝑏
)
𝐹𝑣 (𝑣) = 1 − 𝑒 −(𝑎 (2)

In the formula, where 𝑎 represents the scale parameter, 𝑏 represents the shape parameter, and
𝑣 represents the Weibull random variable (wind speed) [23]. Characteristics of wind speed vary depending
on wind direction, according to measurements. These equations explain how the probabilistic wind speed
model integrates the correlation between the speed and direction of the wind. Annual wind data (typically
collected hourly) at a single location is divided into 𝑁𝑑 intervals according to ongoing direction. Afterward, a
Weibull distribution is applied to represent the values of wind speed grouped for each interval, along with a
frequency measure that indicates the proportion of the ten wind directions in this interval concerning all
intervals [24], [25]. Consequently, the model defines the probability density function of the speed of wind for
a specific location as (3).
𝑁
𝑑
𝑓𝑣 (𝑣) = ∑𝑖=1 𝑓𝑉𝑖 (𝑣) 𝑊𝑖 (3)

Where 𝑁𝑑 is the overall number of direction intervals, and 𝑊𝑖 is the frequency of 𝑖 𝑡ℎ interval.
There are various factors, including wind speed, rotor blade size and shape, and generator efficiency,
that affect the amount of energy that can be harnessed by a WT and converted into electrical energy. Usually,
the amount of energy that a WT can capture increases as wind speed increases, but there is a limit to how
much energy a WT can capture based on the maximum output of the generator and the rotor blades design. If
the wind speed is too low, the WT may not generate enough energy to be economically feasible, while if the
wind speed is too high, the WT may need to be shut down to prevent damage to the equipment. Thus, WT
operators continuously monitor wind speed and alter the rotor blades direction to optimize energy generation
while maintaining safe operating conditions. The energy available in the wind is transformed into a practical
type of energy by WTs. The power output of a WT based on wind speed is given as (4).

0 0 ≤ 𝑣 ≤ 𝑣𝑐𝑖
𝑣−𝑣𝑐𝑖
𝑃𝑤𝑟 ∗ 𝑣𝑐𝑖 ≤ 𝑣 ≤ 𝑣𝑟
𝑃𝑤 (𝑣) = 𝑣𝑟 −𝑣𝑐𝑖 (4)
𝑃𝑤𝑟 𝑣𝑟 ≤ 𝑣 ≤ 𝑣𝑐𝑜
{ 0 𝑣𝑐𝑜 ≤ 𝑣

The formula includes the parameters 𝑃𝑤 , 𝑃𝑤𝑟 , and 𝑣𝑟 which represent the output power, rated power,
and rated speed of the wind turbine, respectively. To initiate power generation, the wind velocity must
exceed the critical cut-in speed 𝑣𝑐𝑖 , and the turbine will discontinue its operation at wind speeds that exceed
the cut-off speed 𝑣𝑐𝑜 to avoid damage and stop power production [25]. The probability of zero output power
can be evaluated as the total probability of wind speeds being either below the cut-in speed or above the cut-
off speed [26]. Where 𝜀 is a small positive number.

𝐹𝑃 (0) = 𝐹𝑉 (𝑣𝑐𝑖 − 𝜀) + 1 − 𝐹𝑉 (𝑣𝑐𝑜 + 𝜀) (5)

3. METHOD
This study primarily aims to find the optimal location and size of WF consisting of two WTs in a
power system, considering several technical objectives. The objectives that this work takes into account are
operation cost, power losses, voltage profile, and environmental impact. Newton Raphson method is used for
load flow analysis and PSO is used for solving optimization problems. The PSO algorithm [9] is a method of
population-based optimization that utilizes a group of particles to find the optimal solution. Each particle
represents an individual and the clusters of particles are known as a swarm. One of the advantages of PSO is
that it is easy to implement and does not require knowledge of gradients. The problem’s solution space is
transformed into a search space in PSO, with each point in the search space representing a potential solution.

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 431-441
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  435

The particles work together to locate the best position (optimal solution) within the search space (solution
space). Each particle’s movement is determined by its velocity [27].
PSO is an optimization algorithm, that differs from MFO, GWO, and WOA even enough all of them
are metaheuristic optimization methods [28]–[33]. PSO uses a velocity-based search strategy, where each
particle's velocity is updated based on its own position and the swarm's best position. PSO uses a set of
empirically determined equations to update the particle velocities and positions. The PSO algorithm can have
a variable number of iterations depending on the problem being solved, the size of the search space, and the
convergence criteria. In general, PSO iterations continue until a stopping criterion is met, such as a maximum
number of iterations being reached, a minimum error threshold being achieved, or the fitness value no longer
improving. A typical number of iterations for PSO can range from a few hundred to several thousand.
However, the optimal number of iterations for a given problem can be determined through experimentation
and tuning until we get to the best values of hyperparameters [34]. The PSO parameters used in training our
model were as follows: a maximum number of iterations = 1000, population size (swarm size) = 100, inertia
weight W = 0.8, inertia weight damping ratio (wdamp) = 0.9, personal learning coefficient c1 = 1.5, global
learning coefficient c2 = 2, number of WFs = 2, WFs _max. Size = [300, 250], and WFs _min. Size = [10, 40].

3.1. The objectives

In general, objectives refer to specific goals or targets that an individual, organization, or project
aims to achieve. Objectives provide a clear and measurable direction for action and help to focus efforts
toward a desired outcome. The objectives that this paper takes into account are mentioned below.

3.1.1. Operation costs

The operation cost of generators is a critical objective that must be taken into account. The
generation cost of thermal generators is expressed as in (6).
𝑁𝑔
𝐺𝐶 = ∑𝑇𝑡=1 ∑𝑖=1(𝑎𝑖 𝑃𝑔2 + 𝑏𝑖 𝑃𝑔 + 𝑐𝑖 ) (6)

Where: 𝑎𝑖 , 𝑏𝑖 , and 𝑐𝑖 are the thermal generation cost coefficient. The used generation cost coefficients of five
generators are illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2. Generation cost coefficients of five generators

Unit N 𝑃𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑃𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑎𝑖 𝑏𝑖 𝑐𝑖
1 50 500 0.007 7 240
2 20 200 0.0095 10 200
3 20 300 0.009 8.5 220
4 20 150 0.009 11 200
5 20 200 0.008 10.5 220

Due to the variability of available RES at any given point in time, the model should account for
factors that may cause overestimation or underestimation of their availability. The reason for the
overestimation factor is straightforward: if the model assumes a particular amount of renewable energy
power will be available at a specific time, but it is not, alternative sources of power must be utilized or the
demand for power must be reduced. In the case of an underestimation penalty, if more renewable energy
power is available than expected, the surplus energy may go to waste, and the system operator may charge
the RES power product for the loss of capacity. Typically, excess renewable energy is sold to neighboring
utilities or quickly redistributed. If neither of these options is feasible, load resistors may be connected to
"consume" the excess power. A clearly, a straightforward minimization penalty cost function may be used to
model these activities as shown in [23]:

𝐶𝑊 (𝑃𝑊 ) = 𝑑𝑊 ƒ𝑊 (𝑃𝑊𝑎𝑣 )𝑃𝑊 + 𝑐𝑝.𝑊 (𝑃𝑊𝑎𝑣 − 𝑃𝑊 ) + 𝑐𝑟.𝑊 (𝑃𝑊 − 𝑃𝑊𝑎𝑣 ) (7)

where 𝐶𝑊 is the total cost of WF generators ($), 𝑑𝑊 is the cost coefficient of WF generators ($/MW), ƒ𝑊 (𝑃𝑊 )
𝑖𝑠 the Weibull 𝑝𝑑𝑓 of WF generator, 𝑐𝑝.𝑊 is the cost coefficient of WF generators because of over-generation
($/MW), 𝑃𝑊 is the scheduled output of WT generators, and 𝑐𝑟.𝑊 is the cost coefficient of WF generators
because of under-generation ($/MW). The cost coefficients of WF are calculated as (8) and (9) [23]:
𝑃
𝑐𝑝.𝑊 (𝑃𝑊𝑎𝑣 − 𝑃𝑊 ) = 𝑐𝑝.𝑊 ∫𝑃 𝑊𝑟 (𝑃𝑊𝑎𝑣 − 𝑃𝑊 ) ƒ𝑊 (𝑃𝑊𝑎𝑣 )𝑑𝑃𝑊 (8)
𝑊

Technical/economic/environmental optimal wind generation … (Zeinb Abdelhay)

436  ISSN: 2088-8694

𝑃
𝑐𝑟.𝑊 (𝑃𝑊 − 𝑃𝑊𝑎𝑣 ) = 𝑐𝑟.𝑊 ∫0 𝑊 (𝑃𝑊 − 𝑃𝑊𝑎𝑣 ) ƒ𝑊 (𝑃𝑊𝑎𝑣 )𝑑𝑃𝑊 (9)

3.1.2. Maximizing annual WT generation

The relation in (10) presents an optimization problem aimed at identifying the optimal solution for
the WF allocation issue. The goal is to maximize the total annual power generation expected from the chosen
locations while complying with the regulations set by the transmission system operator. As a result, the
objective function 𝑓(𝑆𝑘 ) to be maximized is defined as (10) [35].
𝑆
𝑓(𝑆𝑘 ) = ∑𝑁 𝑘
𝑘=1 ∫0 (1 − 𝐹𝑛 (𝑛))𝑑𝑝 × 8760 (10)

In the context of the optimization problem, 𝑓(𝑆𝑘 ) denotes the total annual power generation from the WFs,
while N represents the total number of possible WF locations that meet the established criteria. 𝐹𝑛 (𝑛) is the
cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the power output for the WF at the 𝐾 𝑡ℎ site, and 𝑆𝑘 represents the
capacity of the WF at the 𝐾 𝑡ℎ site.

3.1.3. Reducing total losses

Either the load flow software running on the system or using the B-coefficient method can be used
to calculate the transmission losses. The first one is used in this study based on the following expression of
transmission losses as (11) [23].
𝑁
𝑙
𝑃𝐿𝑖 = ∑𝑗=1 𝐺𝑖𝑗 (𝑉𝑖2 + 𝑉𝑗2 − 2𝑉𝑖 𝑉𝑗 cos 𝜃𝑖𝑗 ) (11)

Where 𝐺𝑖𝑗 is the conductance of the transmission line that connects bus i and bus j. 𝑉𝑖 , 𝑉𝑗 are the voltage
levels of bus i and bus j, respectively 𝜃𝑖𝑗 is the difference in voltage phase angle between bus i and bus j.

3.1.4. Improving voltage profile

The voltage constraints will be as follows: In order to achieve the desired voltage level at a
particular bus in the network, automatic voltage regulation is employed, which involves controlling multiple
components in the system, such as the reactive power generation in synchronous generators. This control is
achieved through the use of complementary constraints that generate a discrete function as described in [36].
To obtain a continuous approximation of this behaviour, a sigmoid function is used, which has been fine-
tuned for this purpose.

0.95 ≤ 𝑉 ≤ 1.1 (12)

2 𝜋
𝛤(𝑉) = arctan { 𝜌(𝑉 − 𝑉𝑠𝑝 )} (13)
𝜋 2

Where 𝑉𝑠𝑝 and 𝜌 are the voltage set point and a tuning parameter that determines the sensitivity of the control
function, are both used in the process ]37[. Also mentions the use of the sigmoid function for voltage
regulation. The following are the required limitations for generator voltage control:

𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 +𝑄𝑚𝑖𝑛 −2𝑄

𝛽1 ≤ 𝛤(𝑉) (14)
𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝑄𝑚𝑖𝑛

𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 +𝑄𝑚𝑖𝑛 −2𝑄

𝛽2 ≥ 𝛤(𝑉) (15)
𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝑄𝑚𝑖𝑛

where 𝛽1 and 𝛽2 are two auxiliary variables with the continuous interval [0 1] as their bounds. Given that the
generator's reactive power output is restricted by 𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 and 𝑄𝑚𝑖𝑛 , the reactive power produced by the
generator will be constrained and eventually reach one of the following states.

𝑄 = 𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑉 ≤ 𝑉𝑠𝑝
𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑥
voltage control {𝑄 ≤𝑄≤𝑄 𝑉 = 𝑉𝑠𝑝 (16)
𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑄=𝑄 𝑉 ≥ 𝑉𝑠𝑝

3.1.5. Maximization of the environmental index (EVI)

Evi is a parameter that measures environmental considerations proposed in [38] and expressed as (17).

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 431-441
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  437

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟

𝐸𝑉𝐼 = 0.93 × (17)
𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑚 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔

It is assumed that producing 1 MWh of energy from fossil fuels releases around 0.93 metric tons of
greenhouse gases.

3.2. Solution space constraints

3.2.1. Transmission line power limits
According to (18), where |𝑃𝑖𝑗𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 | and 𝑃𝑖𝑗,𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒
are the absolute and maximum power transmitted
through the distribution line connecting nodes 𝑖 and 𝑗, respectively. It`s one of the primary factors that limit
transmission line power is the maximum current that the line can handle. The amount of current that can flow
through a given transmission line is limited by the line's physical characteristics, as well as the surrounding
environment, including temperature, humidity, and wind speed.

|𝑃𝑖𝑗𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 | < 𝑃𝑖𝑗,𝑚𝑎𝑥

𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒
(18)

3.2.2. Power flow equations

According to (19) and (20), where 𝑃𝑖 and 𝑄𝑖 represented the active and reactive powers that are injected,
𝑉𝑖 and 𝛿𝑖 are the voltage magnitude and phase angle at 𝑖 𝑡ℎ bus. Also, 𝑌𝑖𝑗 and 𝜃𝑖𝑗 are the magnitude and phase angle
of the branch admittance connecting 𝑖 𝑡ℎ and 𝑗𝑡ℎ buses. Power flow analysis is essential for power system planning
and operation. By analyzing the power flow in a network, potential problems can be identified, such as overloaded
transmission lines or voltage instability, and take corrective actions to ensure that the power system remains stable
and reliable.
𝑁
𝑏𝑢𝑠
𝑃𝑖 = ∑𝑖=1 𝑉𝑖 𝑉𝑗 𝑌𝑖𝑗 cos(𝜃𝑖𝑗 − 𝛿𝑖 + 𝛿𝑗 ) (19)

𝑁
𝑏𝑢𝑠
𝑄𝑖 = ∑𝑖=1 𝑉𝑖 𝑉𝑗 𝑌𝑖𝑗 sin(𝜃𝑖𝑗 − 𝛿𝑖 + 𝛿𝑗 ) (20)

3.2.3. Active power constraints of the WPG

According to (21), where 𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑤,𝑖 and 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑤,𝑖 are the minimum and maximum permissible power of
the 𝑖 𝑡ℎ WTG. Active power constraints are typically implemented to ensure that the power system remains
stable and reliable. When the amount of active power being generated or consumed exceeds the system’s
capacity, it can lead to voltage instability, frequency fluctuations, and even power outages.

𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑤,𝑖 ≤ 𝑃𝑤,𝑖 ≤ 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑤,𝑖 (21)

3.2.4. Bus voltage limits

According to (22), where 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 are the minimum and maximum allowable magnitudes for
the bus voltage. Bus voltage limits are important because excessive voltage can damage equipment, while
low voltage can cause equipment to malfunction or even fail. In addition, voltage levels that are too high or
too low can lead to instability in the power system, which can cause power outages and other problems.

𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝑉𝑖 ≤ 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 (22)

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The proposed method has been tested on the modified IEEE 14-bus transmission system [38]. The
data for a system based on 100 MVA. The range of acceptable voltage magnitude and phase angle is between
0.95 p.u. and 1.05 p.u. The discussion can be made in several sub-sections. The wind speed is unstable and
changes throughout the day, Figure 1 shows minimum, maximum, and mean speed all day long.

4.1. Cost
After optimization, the optimal costs of five generators are 630.14, 472.33, 393.6, 423.6, and
748,236$. So it can be said the total cost of generators improved from 13,300$ to 2,668$. Figure 2 shows the
improvement that occurred in the cost of generators after optimization.

4.2. Power losses

By using Newton Raphson load flow analysis, without optimization real and reactive losses
respectively are 7.6011 MW and 29.5488 MW and total losses are 30.75125 MW. After running 50 iterations
Technical/economic/environmental optimal wind generation … (Zeinb Abdelhay)
438  ISSN: 2088-8694

and optimization by PSO real and reactive losses respectively become 6.0005 MW, 23.4639 MW, and total
losses are 24.390863 MW. In summary, optimization has minimized total losses, and the minimum
achievable loss is 24.390863 MW. This occurs when the optimal location and size of the two WTs at bus 3
and bus 14 and the optimal size are 300 MW and 250 MW respectively. Figure 3 shows the total losses of the
system before and after optimization, and Figure 4 shows the active power of the turbine during the day.

Figure 1. Minimum, maximum, and mean speed Figure 2. Cost of generators in the system before and
during the day after optimization

Figure 3. Total losses of the system before and after Figure 4. The active power of the turbine
optimization all day long

4.3. Voltage profile

The voltage profile improved in the system after PSO optimization generally and especially at bus 3
from 1.01 to 1.03 p.u. and bus 14 from 1.017 to 1.05 p.u. Bus 3 and bus 14 have been identified as the
optimal locations based on the voltage profile analysis. Figure 5 shows the improvement of the voltage
profile and active power.

4.4. EVI
Figure 6 shows that EVI without PSO optimization is 531.7 and after optimization 639.4. So, it can
be said that EVI is improved and the optimal EVI is 639.4. Although the model is active, it has also
limitations. It may be inefficient to find the global optima if the search space gets enamors or is very
complicated that is why we choose to optimize a selected number of objectives and we applied the complete

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 431-441
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  439

iteration for each objective separately. Also, the PSO algorithm suffers from a major limitation regarding
finding the global optimum solution, it is known that PSO like other population-based optimization
techniques, is susceptible to premature convergence, which can result in suboptimal solutions and to
overcome this limitation we were careful to initialize the PSO hyperparameters with values that were proven
to perform ideally in previous work [34]. Also, the model was very consuming regarding computational
resources and memory requirements. And we do not believe that the model could be scalable to larger
populations. Table 3 presents the improvement achieved in each objective before and after optimization.

Table 3. Comparison of objectives before and after optimization

Objective Optimal location Before optimization After optimization percentage of improvement
Generation cost of generators Bus 3, bus 14 13300$ 2668$ 79.94%
Reducing total losses Bus 3, bus 14 30.75125 MW 24.390863 MW 20.68%
Improving voltage profile Bus 3, bus 14 1.01 p.u. 1.03 p.u. 2%
1.017 1.05 p.u. 3.2%
EVI Bus 3, bus 14 531.7 639.4 20.26%

Figure 5. Voltage profile of the system before and Figure 6. Environmental index before and after
after optimization optimization

5. CONCLUSION
An innovative multi-objective planning methodology for identifying the optimal location and size of
a WF consisting of two WTs in a transmission system based on operation cost, losses, voltage profile, and the
environmental index has been proposed in this work. The used optimization method is PSO and Newton
Raphson method for load flow analysis. The total cost improved from 13300$ to 2668$, so the percentage of
improvement is 79.94%. Total losses improved from 30.75125 MW to 24.390863 MW, and the percentage of
improvement is 20.68%. The voltage profile improved at bus 3 from 1.01 to 1.03 p.u., and at bus 14 from
1.017 to 1.05 p.u. EVI is improved from 531.7 to 639.4, and the percentage of the environment is 20.26%. So
it can be said that the optimal allocation of two WTs is at bus 3 and bus 14 where optimization of all
objectives occurs on it. These results are shown in Table 3. Future research should consider extending this
study to various WTs. Additionally, it might be explored whether adding energy storage would have any
effects on the dependability and financial aspects.

REFERENCES
[1] F. Senani, A. Rahab, and H. Benalla, “A Complete Modeling and Control for Wind Turbine Based of a Doubly Fed Induction
Generator using Direct Power Control,” Int. J. Power Electron. Drive Syst., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1954–1962, Dec. 2017, doi:
10.11591/ijpeds.v8.i4.pp1954-1962.
[2] GWEC, “Global Wind Report 2021,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/GWEC-Global-
Wind-Report-2021.pdf
[3] W. El-Khattam and M. M. . Salama, “Distributed generation technologies, definitions and benefits,” Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol.
71, no. 2, pp. 119–128, Oct. 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.epsr.2004.01.006.
[4] R. Viral and D. K. Khatod, “Optimal planning of distributed generation systems in distribution system: A review,” Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 5146–5165, Sep. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.020.

Technical/economic/environmental optimal wind generation … (Zeinb Abdelhay)

440  ISSN: 2088-8694

[5] J. Shi, L. Ma, C. Li, N. Liu, and J. Zhang, “A comprehensive review of standards for distributed energy resource grid-integration
and microgrid,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 170, p. 112957, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112957.
[6] S. Grillo, M. Marinelli, S. Massucco, and F. Silvestro, “Optimal Management Strategy of a Battery-Based Storage System to
Improve Renewable Energy Integration in Distribution Networks,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 950–958, Jun. 2012,
doi: 10.1109/TSG.2012.2189984.
[7] K. Nekooei, M. M. Farsangi, H. Nezamabadi-Pour, and K. Y. Lee, “An Improved Multi-Objective Harmony Search for Optimal
Placement of DGs in Distribution Systems,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 557–567, Mar. 2013, doi:
10.1109/TSG.2012.2237420.
[8] P. Siano and G. Mokryani, “Assessing Wind Turbines Placement in a Distribution Market Environment by Using Particle Swarm
Optimization,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 3852–3864, Nov. 2013, doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2013.2273567.
[9] J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, “Particle swarm optimization,” in Proceedings of ICNN’95 - International Conference on Neural
Networks, IEEE, 1995, pp. 1942–1948. doi: 10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968.
[10] P. Siano and G. Mokryani, “Probabilistic Assessment of the Impact of Wind Energy Integration Into Distribution Networks,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 4209–4217, Nov. 2013, doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2013.2270378.
[11] S. H. Lee and J.-W. Park, “Optimal Placement and Sizing of Multiple DGs in a Practical Distribution System by Considering
Power Loss,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 2262–2270, Sep. 2013, doi: 10.1109/TIA.2013.2260117.
[12] P. Lamaina, D. Sarno, P. Siano, A. Zakariazadeh, and R. Romano, “A Model for Wind Turbines Placement Within a Distribution
Network Acquisition Market,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 210–219, Feb. 2015, doi:
10.1109/TII.2014.2346993.
[13] I. Das, K. Bhattacharya, and C. Cañizares, “Optimal Incentive Design for Targeted Penetration of Renewable Energy Sources,”
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1213–1225, Oct. 2014, doi: 10.1109/TSTE.2014.2339172.
[14] S. W. Alnaser and L. F. Ochoa, “Optimal Sizing and Control of Energy Storage in Wind Power-Rich Distribution Networks,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 2004–2013, May 2016, doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2015.2465181.
[15] S. F. Santos, D. Z. Fitiwi, M. Shafie-Khah, A. W. Bizuayehu, C. M. P. Cabrita, and J. P. S. Catalão, “New Multistage and
Stochastic Mathematical Model for Maximizing RES Hosting Capacity—Part I: Problem Formulation,” IEEE Trans. Sustain.
Energy, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 304–319, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1109/TSTE.2016.2598400.
[16] H. Al-Saadi, R. Zivanovic, and S. F. Al-Sarawi, “Probabilistic Hosting Capacity for Active Distribution Networks,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Informatics, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 2519–2532, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.1109/TII.2017.2698505.
[17] T. M. Masaud, R. D. Mistry, and P. K. Sen, “Placement of large‐scale utility‐owned wind distributed generation based on
probabilistic forecasting of line congestion,” IET Renew. Power Gener., vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 979–986, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1049/iet-
rpg.2016.0944.
[18] A. Rabiee and S. M. Mohseni-Bonab, “Maximizing hosting capacity of renewable energy sources in distribution networks: A
multi-objective and scenario-based approach,” Energy, vol. 120, pp. 417–430, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.095.
[19] M. S. S. Abad, J. Ma, D. Zhang, A. S. Ahmadyar, and H. Marzooghi, “Probabilistic Assessment of Hosting Capacity in Radial
Distribution Systems,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1935–1947, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TSTE.2018.2819201.
[20] S. Paul, H. Karbouj, and Z. H. Rather, “Optimal Placement of Wind Power Plant in a Radial Distribution Network Considering
Plant Reliability,” in 2018 International Conference on Power System Technology (POWERCON), IEEE, Nov. 2018, pp. 2021–
2026. doi: 10.1109/POWERCON.2018.8601946.
[21] A. Jafari, H. G. Ganjehlou, T. Khalili, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, A. Bidram, and P. Siano, “A Two-Loop Hybrid Method for
Optimal Placement and Scheduling of Switched Capacitors in Distribution Networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 38892–38906,
2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2975714.
[22] A. Jafari, T. Khalili, H. G. Ganjehlou, and A. Bidram, “Optimal integration of renewable energy sources, diesel generators, and
demand response program from pollution, financial, and reliability viewpoints: A multi-objective approach,” J. Clean. Prod., vol.
247, p. 119100, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119100.
[23] H. Cetinay, F. A. Kuipers, and A. N. Guven, “Optimal siting and sizing of wind farms,” Renew. Energy, vol. 101, pp. 51–58, Feb.
2017, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2016.08.008.
[24] S. Maity, S. Paul, H. Karbouj, and Z. H. Rather, “Optimal Sizing and Placement of Wind Farm in a Radial Distribution Network
Considering Reliability, Operational, Economic and Environmental Factors,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 3043–
3054, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3032370.
[25] S. Paul and Z. H. Rather, “A Pragmatic Approach for Selecting a Suitable Wind Turbine for a Wind Farm Considering Different
Metrics,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1648–1658, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TSTE.2018.2805262.
[26] T. Ackermann, Wind Power in Power Systems. Wiley, 2005. doi: 10.1002/0470012684.
[27] S. Lalwani, H. Sharma, S. C. Satapathy, K. Deep, and J. C. Bansal, “A Survey on Parallel Particle Swarm Optimization
Algorithms,” Arab. J. Sci. Eng., vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 2899–2923, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s13369-018-03713-6.
[28] M. S. Shaikh, S. Raj, R. Babu, S. Kumar, and K. Sagrolikar, “A hybrid moth–flame algorithm with particle swarm optimization
with application in power transmission and distribution,” Decis. Anal. J., vol. 6, no. 4, p. 100182, Mar. 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100182.
[29] M. S. Shaikh, S. Raj, M. Ikram, and W. Khan, “Parameters estimation of AC transmission line by an improved moth flame
optimization method,” J. Electr. Syst. Inf. Technol., vol. 9, no. 1, p. 25, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1186/s43067-022-00066-x.
[30] M. S. Shaikh, C. Hua, M. A. Jatoi, M. M. Ansari, and A. A. Qader, “Application of grey wolf optimisation algorithm in parameter
calculation of overhead transmission line system,” IET Sci. Meas. Technol., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 218–231, Mar. 2021, doi:
10.1049/smt2.12023.
[31] M. Suhail Shaikh et al., “Optimal parameter estimation of 1-phase and 3-phase transmission line for various bundle conductor’s
using modified whale optimization algorithm,” Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol. 138, p. 107893, Jun. 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.107893.
[32] M. S. Shaikh, C. Hua, M. Hassan, S. Raj, M. A. Jatoi, and M. M. Ansari, “Optimal parameter estimation of overhead transmission
line considering different bundle conductors with the uncertainty of load modeling,” Optim. Control Appl. Methods, vol. 43, no. 3,
pp. 652–666, May 2021, doi: 10.1002/oca.2772.
[33] M. S. Shaikh, C. Hua, M. A. Jatoi, M. M. Ansari, and A. A. Qader, “Parameter Estimation of AC Transmission Line Considering
Different Bundle Conductors Using Flux Linkage Technique,” IEEE Can. J. Electr. Comput. Eng., vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 313–320,
2021, doi: 10.1109/ICJECE.2021.3069143.
[34] Y. Shi and R. C. Eberhart, “Parameter selection in particle swarm optimization,” 1998, pp. 591–600. doi: 10.1007/BFb0040810.
[35] S. Pattanariyankool and L. B. Lave, “Optimizing transmission from distant wind farms,” Energy Policy, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 2806–
2815, Jun. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.012.

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 431-441
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  441

[36] R. J. Avalos, C. A. Canizares, F. Milano, and A. J. Conejo, “Equivalency of Continuation and Optimization Methods to
Determine Saddle-Node and Limit-Induced Bifurcations in Power Systems,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I Regul. Pap., vol. 56, no.
1, pp. 210–223, Jan. 2009, doi: 10.1109/TCSI.2008.925941.
[37] P. N. Vovos, A. E. Kiprakis, A. R. Wallace, and G. P. Harrison, “Centralized and Distributed Voltage Control: Impact on
Distributed Generation Penetration,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 476–483, Feb. 2007, doi:
10.1109/TPWRS.2006.888982.
[38] O. A. Zongo and A. Oonsivilai, “Optimal placement of distributed generator for power loss minimization and voltage stability
improvement,” Energy Procedia, vol. 138, pp. 134–139, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.080.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Zeinb Abdelhay was born in Mansoura, Egypt, in 1992. She received a B.Sc.
degree from Mansoura University in 2014. She has been a demonstrator at the Communication
Engineering Department at Mansoura University since 2017. Her research interests include
renewable energy, wind energy, and optimization systems. She can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Abdelfattah Eladl received B.Sc., M.Sc., and Ph.D. in 2002, 2007, and 2015,
respectively, from Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura
University, Egypt. Currently, he is an assistant professor at the Electrical Engineering
Department at Mansoura University, Egypt. In 2016, he receives the best Ph.D. thesis award
from Mansoura University. His fields of interest include power system economics, planning,
power quality, and energy hubs. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Ibrahim I. Mansy received a bachelor's degree with distinction with honors in

1975 and a master's degree in 1979 in electrical power and machines from Egypt. He received
his Ph.D. in 1985 in the field of electrical power in Russia. He has been an emeritus professor
since 2012. His field of interest includes power system economics, planning, power quality,
and renewable energy. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Technical/economic/environmental optimal wind generation … (Zeinb Abdelhay)